The “No-Planes” Position
(Or: Here is what you are laughing at)
(Author's Note: Even though Veronica Chapman (B.Tech), is as qualified to hold a Hustler Magazine-awarded Ph.D as Scholar's for 9/11 Truth's Gordon Ross (B.Sc), she has no interest in protecting those letters after her name. This gives her the freedom to call bulls**t bullshit)
There are two major aspects: circumstantial evidence and forensic evidence. Both are discussed in this essay. The No-planes Position relies entirely on the forensics, which prove TV Fakery and the usage of unconventional weaponry. The circumstantial aspect is merely supportive.
The forensic evidence can be sub-divided into three major parts:
(1) Fakery which is proved by very close inspection of all available video footage, and
(2) Application of the known and immutable Laws of Physics to the resulting plane-shaped holes and subsequent demise of the buildings, and
(3) Critical analysis of eye-witness reports indicating impossibilities, and therefore discounts them as either fantasy, or incorrect interpretation of events (confusion in many cases, based on the 'officially-planted bullshit') and “plants,” “shills” and actors beginning with Sean Murtaugh of CNN who were hired to lie.
This essay only proposes to touch on the aforementioned, because each is a wide subject in its own right. That is why this essay is entitled "The No-Planes Position", not "The No-Planes Theory". The theory is something that requires study in depth. And, furthermore, this is ongoing as more and more is discovered.
Because in-depth study and very critical thought are demanded, "No-Planes" is easily dismissed by those who cannot - or will not - take the time to undertake that work, leading them to dive for the 'safety' (but irrationality) of 'hugging planes'.
Irrationality? Yes. Since it is well-known that so much of the Official Fantasy is bullshit, there is absolutely no reason why it can't all be bullshit. The only essential truth being that the World Trade Centre Complex was 'erased from the face of the earth', taking almost 3,000 lives with it. Under everyone's noses, and before our very eyes. How that happened is another matter.
I've said elsewhere that 9/11 was a Psy-Op. I've already said the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" was pre-planned, and the various "Truth Heroes" were pre-ordained as a part of the planning.
I've said that for the simple reason it is obvious. If you want to create The Perfect Crime, then you cannot afford to leave clues. But you will always leave clues, because The Perfect Crime does not, and cannot, exist. So it is absolutely essential to have a means of directing every critical thinker away from the real clues, by substituting pseudo-clues. The pseudo-clues are what so-called "Truthers" follow, and hold dear to their hearts.
Consequently all the various prominent "Truth Heroes" are actually "UNTruth Heroes", promulgating (in unison) the pre-ordained pseudo-clues. The so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" is, in actuality, a "9/11 UNTruth Movement".
What is also pretty obvious is that "No-Planes", the real truth (being very, very deep) was not planned for. It was not expected that this depth of research would be undertaken. It was expected that the plausibility of the "UNTruth Heroes" would be sufficient to quell any fluttering hearts.
And, to a large extent, the perpetrators were correct in their assumptions. The position of these "UNTruth Heroes" is readily dismissible by the media in all its various forms (articles, videos, etc). Let alone any court of law.
In practice, a "Truther" can see that "something is wrong with 9/11". So they look around on the Internet. And find some information, which will, generally, lead them right into the arms of .... Alex Jones! Who will gently guide them right into the box that was waiting to capture, entrance, and beguile their mind. And make sure they never, ever, start thinking for themselves. Worry no more! Alex knows! He's on your side! Fighting the InfoWar. From "deep behind the enemy lines!".
Yea. Have you ever listened to his show? Of course you have. You can say anything you like on his show, if you call in (as long as isn't profane - according to him!). And as long as it supports, or defers, to him. Any critique, however mild, will get the caller talked (ranted) over, cut off, and left holding a phone with a dial tone. Meanwhile Alex will "Thank him/her for the call. Much appreciate it". This is the Alex Jones version of "freedom of speech".
If it isn't Alex Jones, then it might be some more 'up market' organization, such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth or Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. However the result is always the same: You become entrapped in an alternative morass of (now "Inside Job") bullshit.
This makes you a Truther? No, this makes you a beguiled UNTruther.
And lastly. For crying out loud, wake up! Cointelpro promotes "beguiling plausibility". That's their job.
What is beguilingly plausible about The No-Planes Position?
Wake up to reality! "No-Planes" is the deep truth that 'they' did not expect to be revealed, and therefore wasn't fore-planned.
"Beguiling" it certainly is not. Jim Fetzer's reaction was (and I quote) "Even if it were the truth, I wouldn't speak it". How's that for "beguiling"?
The idea of "letting the chips fall where they may" seems to be to then re-arrange them nicely, so as not to seriously offend anyone, or seriously rock any boat. And that goes for Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Kyle Hence, David Ray Griffin, Steven Earl Jones, and all the other so-called "Truth Heroes" (and Heroines). All those who promote "beguiling plausibility", in fact.
[Author's Note: It seems, at the time of writing (July, 2008) Jim Fetzer has - to some extent - changed his mind, after actually looking at the No-planes evidence. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth website now contains 5 fundamental points appertaining to TV Fakery on 9/11. I'm not sure why this is. During my few months on his Scholars Steering Committee in 2006, both Rick Siegel & I pushed this information under his nose at every opportunity, eventually resigning in disgust. The remainder of those mentioned above seem - as far as I have been able to determine - to still be parroting the same old pseudo-clue disinformation]
"Truthers" stick to the truth. "Truthlings" stick to beguiling plausibility. (Which is why they are called that)
In essence, in reality, this is all "politics", isn't it? Someone once said "Politics may not the the oldest profession, but the results are the same".
From the No-Planes Position there are five aspects. Each of the four 'planes', and the destruction of the World Trade Centre Complex (actually as a whole). You see, the No-Planers don't ignore Buildings 3 through 6, like everyone else does. No-planers look at all the data. Also including Hurricane Erin. So there is an immediate difference between them, and the UNTruthers..
By the end of the day, 11th September, 2001, there were no World Trade Centre Complex buildings standing. Seven very large steel-framed buildings were reduced to (the minimum of - an almost negligible amount of) rubble. Yet all the surrounding buildings, including the World Trade Centre Financial Complex were still standing. Damaged in some cases, but not beyond repair.
No-planers find that curious. (UNTruthers obviously don't. Perhaps it's too much trouble? Or is it just far easier to endlessly the discuss the melting point of steel?)
The So-Called Planes
Well, there were four of them, we are told. Here are the established facts about them (based on what we have been told):
AA11, Tail Number N334AA, no entries in the BTS Database for 11th September 2001, de-registered 14th January 2002
AA77, Tail Number N644AA, no entries in the BTS Database for 11th September 2001, de-registered 14th January 2002
UA175, Tail Number N612UA, does have entries in the BTS Database for 11th September 2001, de-registered 28th September, 2005
UA93, Tail Number N591UA, does have entries in the BTS Database for 11th September 2001, de-registered 28th September, 2005
What is immediately curious about this is:
a) The lack of entries, in the BTS Database, for the American Airlines flights is indicative that they did not actually exist. Therefore, before proving that AA11 hit the North Tower, and that AA77 hit the Pentagon, their very existence needs to be proved. And no such proof has ever been forthcoming. But that doesn't worry the UNTruthers. However it does worry the No-planers.
b) The fact that American Airlines decided to de-register both of their craft on the same day is indicative of a 'sudden realisation' that 'maybe they ought to do that'. After all, they should have done it by midday on the 12th September, 2001 (by law). (If the 'planes' were real, that is). Or could it be that N334AA & N644AA carried on in service, were old, and were, indeed, de-commissioned in January 2002 in case some 'plane-spotting Anorak' noticed?
c) Similarly (b) applies to United Airlines, except that their own
'realisation' took more than three more years. Or could it be that 4 more years
of service were squeezed out of N612UA & N591UA, before someone decided that
'some plane-spotting Anorak' might just notice? (Actually one did, and pasted up
a photo of N591UA taken during 2003. But that disappeared very quickly)
The Bureau of Transport Statistics' entries are automatically computer-collected. Adding false entries is readily possible of course. Deleting entries is much more problematic, because all references and linkages to it have to be accurately removed, in order to coincide. How often have you clicked a link in a Webpage and been returned "Error 404. URL not found"? Here the target has been deleted, but the link (the reference) still remains, which indicates its prior existence. That's the problem with deletion. Other linkages indicate a 'prior existence'. In the case of AA11 & AA77 'other linkages' cannot be found. Either the deletion was unbelievably thorough, or there never existed anything to delete.
And then, of course, the Official Fantasy would be supported by entries for them, not by the omission of the relevant entries.
Alternatively if some Official Fantasy mileage is gained by the omissions, then why weren't the corresponding entries for UA93 & UA175 also deleted?
The No-Planes Position is that flights AA11 & AA77 are not even proved, whereas it is accepted that flights UA93 & UA175 existed, and took off. No-planers do not, necessarily agree that both of these flights contained any passengers. On balance they accept that UA93 most probably contained passengers. And, in all probability, all of them.
This essay now continues by discussing the 'easy stuff' first (in order to clear the decks ready for the 'hard stuff').
No-planers fully agree with Thierry Meyssan, and general "Truthage". Flight 77 did not even exist (see above), and certainly did not hit the Pentagon.
No-planers do not, therefore, see themselves as heretics in the Pentagon context.
The eye-witness reports have been thoroughly and critically examined, and found to be either 'flights of fancy', obvious 'attention-seeking' or just plain 'confused thinking'. If you wish to counter those statements then you will need to investigate all available reports yourself, and come to your own conclusions. But what you do not have the right to do is to criticize (or dismiss) the research that has been done by the No-planers, until you have done your own.
While, on the one hand No-planers accept that UA93 existed, and took off, they do not agree that it crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. A critical analysis of the "Shanksville hole" completely refutes any contention of a commercial airliner crashing there.
As for Flight 93, the information in Loose Change, 2nd Edition is considered likely to be correct. In other words that UA93 landed in Cleveland Ohio, reporting "a bomb on board". It is likely that any passengers were taken to the disused NASA Hanger and 'never seen again' (until their DNA was examined. This explains how there was actually some DNA available for pathological examination).
So No-planers do not, therefore, see themselves as heretics in the Shanksville context.
The North Tower hit
The North Tower was probably hit by 'something'. Some 'flying object'. But this was certainly not a commercial airliner.
What one has to go on are a couple of videos of the 'event', an indistinct audio, but a whole lot of aftermath video forensics.
One of the videos (the Czech one) is so indistinct (having been taken by accident so far away from the crime scene) it is really quite impossible to make out very much in any detail. Even if this video is not faked, it still indicates a 'flying object', as opposed to a commercial airliner.
The audio track (of a phone call made at the time) does not indicate the sound (deafening scream) of a commercial airliner, travelling at some 450mph in close proximity to one of the callers.
The major piece of impact evidence comes, of course, from the Fireman's Video taken by the Naudet brothers. This has been very carefully assessed.
What does it show? Fundamentally it shows three 'triangular blobs' impacting the North Tower. Extrapolating these 'triangular blobs' into a full-blown commercial airliner requires feats of imagination that No-planers simply cannot attain.
But there is a lot more. If this video is slowed down to frame-by-frame it is possible to identify 'missing frames'. This indicates that some kind of 'editing' has been performed. Consequently suspicions rise.
But then it gets worse. Close inspection shows the 'object' entering the building, and then - after that - external damage appearing to create the 'commercial airliner shape'.
It is submitted that, if the Cause was the impact of a commercial airliner, then the Effect (the plane-shaped hole) would appear as the plane was entering the building, and not afterwards. How can a plane enter a building without creating a hole as it does so?
For more information you will need to check out Rosalee Grable's Website (MissileGate)
And there is even more. A researcher by the name of Leslie Raphael produced a seminal work, in the form of a critique of the Naudet Video. In this essay he establishes at least 65 reasons why the circumstances surrounding it are questionable. For example, Mr. Raphael wonders how it was possible to obtain the actual shot of the hit - bearing in mind all the circumstances (tall buildings surrounding) - how the cameraman managed to direct the camera, fix the zoom control, and hold the camera at the correct position, at the correct angle, etc. etc. all by 'happenstance'.
And all this without the strange part. That "Naudet" is a close anagram of "Duane St". And the fact that - years later - who has heard anything of these once-famous "Naudets"?
The No-planer's heresy is to say that the North Tower was hit by "Blobs11", not AA11.
The South Tower 'hit'
Unlike the case of the North Tower, the word 'hit' is here in quotes.
This was the one everyone saw on television, so it must have been a plane.
No. What you 'saw' on television was a 'cartoon'. A Computer-Generated Image. Known as a CGI for short. Its called "Cartoon175" in No-plane-speak.
The data for this is massive, and undeniable. I devised an Experiment that could be run by anyone. More details are available by watching the September Clues series of videos, produced by socialservice.
Even the trailer and lead-in to Alex Jones' video Road To Tyranny should give you a massive clue. And that was one of the original 9/11 videos.
What happened to Flight 175? Who knows? However there was - what looked like to be - a commercial airliner that circled around, high in the sky, for a short while. This can be seen on at least one of the available videos. Maybe this ("Elephant Plane") was UA175? Maybe this was 'the plane' that eye-witnesses saw, and added 1 + 1 = 3 to say it hit the South Tower?
I don't propose to go into any more detail here. Sufficient research has been done by others in order to prove the point, and other supportive research is still ongoing. However much one tries to 'prove a plane hit the South Tower', one will never succeed. Simply because there wasn't one.
The Demise of the World Trade Centre Complex
This has prominently been laid at the feet of a substance called 'thermate'. Originally this substance started life as 'thermite' but - when it was pointed out that thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive, thermate was hastily called in, so as to bolster the otherwise failing hypothesis.
Unfortunately the bolstered hypothesis still fails quite miserably. Simply because it does not explain more than a small fraction of the data that has been uncovered over the last few years.
It has also been pointed out (by Drs. Reynolds & Wood) that 'thermate' is unknown in the Demolitions Industry (they use substances called RDX and RDEX).
The question is often raised, against the No-planers, in the form of "Where did the massive amount of necessary energy come from, then?". This omits to ask the question "Where did the massive amount of necessary thermate energy come from, then?". The answer to both of these questions is the same "Is the WTC Complex still standing? No? In that case the necessary energy came from somewhere". And the rider "To consider that it all came from (highly accurate and precisely controlled) thermate is utterly preposterous".
There is little doubt that all the buildings were pre-wired for their eventual Demolition Day when they were built. In other words the wiring, and cutting charge sequence was undoubtedly known from day one. But the laying of the detonators, and actual explosive charges, would still have been a massive task, particularly in view of the fact that the core was protected by asbestos. It is hard to imagine that demolition would not have involved the removal of these coatings as a pre-requisite.
While, on the one hand, there is undoubtedly probably quite lot of truth in this Blogger's point of view, she omits to point out that charges have to be measured out, sized, and placed very accurately, and that ain't no 5-minute job. Hey! No problem! According to one of Steven Earl Jones' audios "thermate can be painted on" (and then "touched off" by some radio-controlled mechanism . The Great Professor does not explain whether you use a brush, or a roller, for the paint job - and is a bit 'light' on details of any 'radio control" mechanism to trigger off this 'toshing'. The point is this: It has to work. It has to work exactly, no 'messing' It has to work accurately, otherwise the building will topple. We should all be very grateful that former Professor Jones does not actually work in the Controlled Demolitions industry - and merely confines himself to making absurd statements about it)
Shutting down the buildings on weekends prior to 9/11 does not begin to address the massive amount of work involved in placing the cutting charges.
But it does provide the cover for one of the mechanisms suggested by Dr. Judy Wood. Which is that "the shutdown enabled something to be installed, which was utilised to facilitate the destruction that occurred. Possibly a gas that could be pumped throughout each building via the air-conditioning system. This providing the target for Directed Energy (derived from Nikola Tesla's work), and causing the pluming that emanated from each Tower ...even though the fires themselves were, to all intents and purposes, out. Yet the buildings continued to project massive plumes into the sky. Possibly this was not fire-smoke, but something else?"
This is only a suggestion. Research is ongoing.
(For example: One's attention here needs to be drawn to the fact the Building 7 was emanating fumes from one whole side (prior to it's demise). That is one whole side, top-to-bottom, and front-to-back. Either every single window in this side was broken (and it was fire-smoke), or it was the building itself disintegrating. The fumes completely obscure the actual 'source')
(Another example: Is that the groundshakes caused by Buildings 1 & 2 were 2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter Scale, respectively. This is equivalent to "a large hand grenade". The groundshake due to Building 7 measured 0.6 on the Richter Scale. This is equivalent to a Pneumatic Drill i.e. a Jackhammer. How could this be? Answer: Most of the material went UP, not down)
The 'lack of any evidence for commercial airliners" was detailed by Dr. Morgan Reynolds in his article We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories (2006), including major reasons why 'commercial airliners could not possibly have dunnit'. Dr. Reynolds has also done a number of presentations which can be found on the Internet (YouTube being a good place to look).
In-depth analysis of the video forensics was initiated by Rosalee, The Webfairy (largely by posting frame stills initially), and has been taken to new heights of dynamic analysis by socialservice, via the September Clues series of videos. Furthermore Rosalee, herself, is still very active in this respect.
In-depth analysis of the demise of the entire WTC Complex is ongoing via Dr. Judy Wood. At the time of writing Judy is attempting to establish all the data, and as many curious aspects of the destruction of the Complex as are possible. Her conclusion, or assessment, of how it was done has not yet been reached. However the 'thermate hypothesis' was thoroughly ruled out, based on the initial data that was available.
What? Why are No-planers called "No-planers", when they are prepared to admit the existence of UA93 & UA175? Those were planes, weren't they? Exactly. No-planers are simply pointing out the TV Fakery. The "No-Planers" tag is the invention of the UNTruthers, and assigned by the them, in complete ignorance - because they never bother to "Make sure brain engaged before putting mouth into gear". And cause themselves to be called Truth Goblins, Truthlings, and Planehuggers, etc., in retaliation).
No-planers do not dispute the existence of two of the commercial airliners. The only dispute is whether or not they took an active part in the impacts. No-planers assert that, by carefully analysing all the data, it can be proved these airliners did not take any active part in the impacts.
9/11 was, to a very large part, a TV Fakery hoax. That much is clear. Therefore mainstream media complicity is clear, and the efforts (against all odds) to debunk "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" - even from within to so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" - is also clear.
How the WTC Complex was actually destroyed is not clear at this time. But it is beginning to look as though some kind of "molecular disassociation" technique was used in order to destroy it (pulverise everything, and toast the vehicles, etc.).
And that includes Building 7, as well as 3, 4, 5 & 6.
It should be noted that Ground Zero has not yet fully recovered, even at the date of writing this article (mid-2008). Whatever technology was utilised caused some kind of 'chain-reaction' which still continues, and will not stop. 'Nukes' can probably be discounted because of the lack of heat thrown from the buildings. There were even reports that, within the dust clouds, temperatures actually reduced from the ambient temperature at the time. Subsequent to the passage of these 'dust clouds', vehicles were 'toasted' - but people were not. There are no reports of 'toasted people'. Subsequent cancers may very well be due to the massive amount of asbestos thrown into the air, and the general toxicity anyway.
Appendix 1 - Researchers
The names of the initial No-planes Researchers has already been documented in my essay on the
real 9/11 Truth
Jared Israel (inadvertently, by virtue of detecting "Inside Job")
Illarion Bykov (inadvertently, by virtue of detecting "Inside Job")
J. McMichael (inadvertently, by virtue of detecting "Inside Job")
Gary North (inadvertently, by virtue of detecting "Inside Job")
Thierry Meyssan (Pentagate)
Scott Loughrey (by virtue of detecting/supporting "Controlled Demolitions")
Jeff King (PlaguePuppy) (by virtue of detecting/supporting "Controlled Demolitions")
Jeff Strahl (by virtue of detecting/supporting "Unconventional Controlled Demolitions")
Gerard Holmgren (by virtue of detecting/supporting "Unconventional Controlled Demolitions", and eventually "TV Fakery")
Rosalee Grable (Webfairy) (The initial TV Fakery detector)
Nico Haupt (Support, and too much research to document, including the Steven Earl Jones-Los Alamos connection )
Leslie Raphael (definitely inadvertently, he was very surprised when I told him)
Rick Siegel (by virtue of videotaping what happened, and maintaining the authenticity of it against all the odds)
My thanks to them all.
Appendix 2- NIST
The National Institute of Standards & Technology Report, NCSTAR1, is a double-edged sword.
(At the time of writing the second report, regarding WTC7, has yet to be issued. However what NIST did, in order to create the first report, can be taken as a basis for what they will produce as a second report)
As all researchers know, the NCSTAR1 Report is a fraud. They were tasked with explaining the demise of the Twin Towers and they conspicuously failed to do that - even by their own admission, in point of fact. The procedure they employed was to take a chosen set of 'imponderables', and create computer models. By this very process they were able to completely ignore much of the obvious, and essential, data. They then pushed sufficient variances through their chosen algorithms as were necessary to create a situation where they could say "... and then the buildings would fall down". Full stop. End of report.
In short, they only took the situation from "jet-fueled fires" to "point of collapse". By this method they were able to completely ignore how (in what manner) the buildings were destroyed, and the lack of rubble that resulted. They were able to ignore, not take into consideration, the dust clouds, toasted cars, unburned paper, and everything else.
Indeed their report includes a disclaimer to the effect that "This report does not constitute any proposal that could be used in a court of law"
However, there is another edge. With a thoroughness funded by the US taxpayer, NIST did collect up as much information as they could lay their hands on. Still pictures, videos, eye-witness reports ... the whole gamut. And this forms a part of the report. And furthermore, as far as was possible, NIST verified the authenticity of this forensic source material.
And it therefore constitutes a massive amount of forensic evidence upon which genuine researchers (such as Dr. Judy Wood) have been able to capitalise. And for that collection we must be grateful. For within it is provided the means to expose the conclusions of the report as utterly fraudulent.
Significant steps in this direction have already been taken by Dr. Morgan Reynolds and Dr. Judy Wood, in using the Data Quality Act, together with a Class Action suit known as Qui Tam.
In short, legal steps have been instigated by Drs. Reynolds & Wood.
A Qui Tam is a claim that the United States has been defrauded. Qui Tam cases generally fail on the basis of the lack of proven source material.
Here what has happened is that the Data Quality Act has been employed to request corrections to the NCSTAR1 report. NIST's responses, which dismiss these corrective requests, thereby constitute proven source material for the subsequent Qui Tam Class Actions.
Unlike the Truthlings, the No-planers have initiated legal proceedings. That's how serious they are.