|
|
|
For PayPal payments, use frontiersman@pharos.pricelesshost.net.
|
Forever
Gone
Sam Aurelius Milam III In my article Abuses and Usurpations (February, pages 2 and 3), I demonstrated that American Airlines Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. One has to wonder where it went. If it had crashed anywhere on land, then the crash would eventually have been discovered. After five years, no such crash has been discovered. Thus, it didn't crash on land. The only other possibilities are that it crashed into the ocean or that it landed somewhere. Muslim hijackers wouldn't have done either of those two things. They would have tried to hit a target on land. So, the airplane wasn't hijacked by Muslims. It was hijacked by other parties for other reasons. Those hijackers either crashed it into the ocean or landed it somewhere. If Flight 77 was falsely reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, then that calls into question the reported circumstances of American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. There are various eye-witness accounts and video clips that contradict the official reports. For example, a Fox Television reporter was a block away from the subway in Brooklyn shortly before the South Tower was hit. He saw the airplane that was reportedly Flight 175 just seconds before it hit the South Tower. He described it as having a circular blue logo on the front of the plane and no windows. He said that it didn't look like a commercial airliner. He said that the airplane was very low when he saw it. In fact, Boeing manufactured a tanker/transport version of the 767, with no windows, for the air force. That could well have been what the Fox reporter saw. There are various video clips of that airplane just prior to its impact on the South Tower. Some of them show a large object on the underside of the airplane. Flight 175 lacked any such large object attached to it's underside. Indeed, it would have been impossible for Flight 175 to have taken off from Boston Logan International Airport without such an object being noticed. Some video footage shows a flash immediately prior to the impact of the airplane on the South Tower. The only available video footage of the impact on the North Tower, filmed by French film makers Jules and Gedeon Naudet, shows a similar flash. There isn't any obvious explanation as to why passenger airliners would produce such a flash prior to impact. It seems more likely that the towers were hit by airplanes that had been equipped with explosives and proximity detonators. At least one eye witness to the impact on the North Tower declared vehemently that it wasn't an American Airlines airplane that she had seen. Such eye-witness accounts and video evidence suggest that neither American Airlines Flight 11 nor United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center Towers. Instead, they appear to have been either landed somewhere else or crashed into the ocean. I believe that the airliners were hijacked by members of an unnamed agency within the U.S. government. The deeds were done to promote two agendas. One agenda was to foment hatred of people and governments in the Middle For PayPal payments, use frontiersman@pharos.pricelesshost.net.
|
East, greasing the skids for hostilities in that
part of the world. Another agenda was to incite jingoism in this
country, paving the way for additional draconian legislation and intrusive
administrative polices, such as the so-called Patriot Act. It's likely
that the airliners were hijacked remotely, exposing the agents to the minimum
amount of risk. In my article Remote
Possibility (April, pages 2 and 3), I demonstrated the feasibility
of such remote hijacking.
It's unlikely that the agents crashed the airplanes into the ocean. There's too much risk that the crashes would be observed or that floating debris would be discovered. It's more likely that the airplanes were landed somewhere. After all, airplanes were being landed like there was no tomorrow anywhere that a place could be found to land them. Nobody would have thought it unusual to see passenger airliners being landed at any airfield capable of receiving them. Also, one airliner looks pretty much like any other from a distance. The hijacked airliners would have been landed at carefully selected and carefully prepared locations. Most of the passengers were probably still alive at that time. What happened to them? From the point of view of the unnamed agency, it would be intolerable for any of those people to ever be seen again, either alive or dead. So, 221 witnesses to the activities of the unnamed agency have disappeared and must remain missing forever. In my article Leonard Lake and Charles Ng: Disposal Camp, I claimed that Leonard Lake and Charles Ng had been operating a disposal camp for an unnamed agency of the U.S. government. Their job was to dispose of people for that agency. I believe that their camp wasn't the only one in existence. I believe that some of those other camps were very busy for the next few days after September 11, 2001. The hijacked airliners were landed, the people were transferred onto buses or into vans, driven to disposal camps, and executed. Their bodies were processed for disposal. The lucky ones were the 44 people who died when United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Letter to the Editor
— Don C.
I don't know when the police began digging at the Wilseyville site, how long the investigation took, which officers were involved, which officers testified, or when the FBI became involved. Those kinds of things aren't relevant to my theory. In most cases, the authorities haven't determined either the identities or the number of the victims. They don't know which missing persons were victims and which ones are missing for other reasons. So far as I'm aware, the murders weren't cultish. Ritualistic? I don't know. — editor
For PayPal payments, use frontiersman@pharos.pricelesshost.net.
|
Scratch Tape:
Disney's War Years
Reviewed by Sam Aurelius Milam III While watching a recording from a collection of old videocassettes back in June of this year, I came across a documentary about Walt Disney's wartime cartoons. The copy that I viewed might be incomplete, since it lacks both opening and closing credits. It's presented in two parts, Disney's War Years and An Officer and a Duck. It's a short documentary, only about 50 minutes long, and consists mostly of lovely old Donald Duck wartime cartoons.1 I saw again some things that I remember fondly from my childhood. There was the time that Donald Duck painted a large cannon with invisible paint. There was the time that he mistakenly believed himself to have been cut in half. I enjoyed watching the old cartoons again. Of course, they aren't of much current political significance. Why, then, am I doing this review? The reason for this review is a short statement by Jack Hannah that was presented during the first 70 seconds of the documentary. Jack Hannah was an animator, storyman,2 and director for Walt Disney at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Here's the statement.
Why would Walt Disney have been interested, prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, in making training films for the army and navy? He had plenty of work with Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, The Wind in the Willows, Donald Duck cartoons, and a host of other animated characters. Was it simple patriotism? Then why weren't his people aware of it? He should have been brainstorming his ideas with his staff. Here's another consideration. The war was controversial. Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, there was a healthy anti-war movement in the country. The smart business position would have been to avoid the controversy and, instead, stick to making the cartoons that people wanted to see. Surely such business alternatives would have been discussed with members of the staff. I can only speculate but I'd expect that a competent businessman would do the safe thing and stick to the cartoons. However, there's another possibility. There's long been a suspicion in this country that people both in and out of the government had advance knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The statement by Jack Hannah suggests that Walt Disney was one of those people. Such advance knowledge provides a reason why he would have already been planning the training films, prior to the attack. He would have known that wartime restrictions might limit his business. He would have expected the wartime draft to deplete his work force, which it did. Major animation projects were suspended for the duration of the war. Training films and propaganda kept his business afloat. Granted, the statement by Jack Hannah doesn't prove that Walt Disney knew in advance about the attack. It doesn't even prove that anybody at all knew in advance about the attack. However, the statement does add to the body of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence in favor of such a belief. Old Timers' Lore
For PayPal payments, use frontiersman@pharos.pricelesshost.net.
|
Acknowledgments My thanks to the following: Sir James the Bold; SantaClara Bob; Lady Jan the Voluptuous; and Lord Jeffrey the Studious. — editor
— Sanctified Faithful
Dear Sanctified Faithful No. I just eat a lot of prunes and don't worry about it. Lines to Make You Smile
Frontiersman Cancellations — If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You can also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me. Back Issues — Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request. Reprint Policy — Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material. Submissions — I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise. Payment — This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I prefer cash or U.S. postage stamps. For checks or money orders, please inquire. For PayPal payments, use frontiersman@pharos.pricelesshost.net. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. — Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor
For PayPal payments, use frontiersman@pharos.pricelesshost.net.
|
|
|