The Case for No Planes

(The bulk of this was written early last year and before, in bits and pieces on discussion boards and as an unpublished draft, and is combined here into a single post. I didn’t particularly want to write on this subject at the moment, but because the post was largely already written and is still relevant, I thought it should be shared) (note: this still needs editing and the addition of links, which will come over the next week or so, but is readable as is)

The events of September 11th happened more than 15 years ago, yet continue to frequent the topics of conversation on any conspiracy-related forum, e.g. podcasts, blogs, discussion boards, from the most fringe to the least. This isn’t because the hosts and guests are still trying to determine whether the attacks were a conspiracy, it’s generally because they know that maintaining public dialogue on the subject will draw new listeners to the same conclusion, and provide them a new perspective from which to analyze the many similar operations that have happened and will continue to happen. To most ‘9/11 Truthers,’ the debate has long been over, and it’s just a matter of spreading the word of the results. Many in the movement discuss 9/11 as a form of protest, with the goal to ‘never forget’ that the entire geopolitical context the national security state operates in, at least in the Middle East, is a web of deception fabricated by the West which has the 9/11 lie at its core. Rather than appealing to the government to release information, admit that the event was at least a partially ‘inside job,’ and investigate and indict its highest-level membership, which the government in its current form will obviously never do, the most important objective of ‘9/11 Truth’ at this stage should be to promote the aforementioned paradigm shift – to the media-intel-banking complex aka the shadow government as ruthless, self-interested predator, not benefactor or protector – in a large enough percentage of the population so that similar operations (such as a fake extraterrestrial encounter or disaster I believe has long been in the planning) meant to move the public in some social or political direction will be compromised by a lack of common worldview, and the narrative promoted by the establishment will be unable to garner sufficient momentum or ‘sticking power’ needed to accomplish its short- or long-term aims. While things like citizens’ arrests, protests at political forums, and lawsuits are valuable to the movement from a PR standpoint, the chief focus in my opinion should be on individual, psychological progress so that operations like 9/11 simply stop working on a critical mass of the population, which may be as low as 3 or 5 or 10%. Sure, the power structure could still fake or stage events and pass laws, but without sufficient cognitive unity and morale the economic engine they depend on will lose steam, and the special-interest-controlled tax ‘pie’ that that engine creates (above all, the $1 trillion/yr military-industrial slush fund) will shrink, eliminating the payoff of these machinations.

Most of the dozens of books that have been authored on 9/11 have focused on the destruction of the buildings and the official investigations thereon, and have treated all of the props in and around the operation as having referents in physical reality like the tower destruction itself, when significant parts of the operation did not (the relative few commentators who haven’t done that have in many cases misidentified the primary, core culprits – typically as being mostly Israeli, when the evidence shows that Israeli participants were a non-core (albeit certainly notable) minority, tasked with managing the crime scene rather than the demolition of the buildings, the attack on the Pentagon, or the faking of the planes – and undermined their work as having a potential anti-Semitic or -Jewish motivation (which is not always the case, since the many Israeli fingerprints on the operation, e.g. those of Sivan Kurzberg and his cohorts, coupled with past Israeli misdeeds against Americans like the USS Liberty incident, can lead one to misjudge the wider picture and assign disproportionate blame to the Israeli among the perpetrators, that being the intended outcome of their apparently otherwise unnecessary involvement, i.e. to muddy the waters), or they have been disinformation agents who have discredited their own material in a variety of ways, e.g. by bizarre antics or personal appearance, or by interspersing forged evidence among the real evidence for the theory). Thus, what is needed is a balanced, minimally prejudiced, objective look at the ‘simulatory’ elements of 9/11, i.e. to determine which had a physical basis, and which had a basis in imaginative story-telling, live audio-visual effects, or digital imagery. Though it is beyond the pale to some, this kind of no-holds-barred approach must be a part of the study of all historical events, no matter how ancient or seemingly well established. If ‘history is a set of lies agreed upon,’ one must always ask: did this (event, or aspect of an event) really happen as reported? Is there anyone who disagrees that it happened, and what is their evidence? Absent these fundamental questions the analysis of historical events risks becoming more akin to a fictional book or movie synopsis or review than an inquiry into the world’s true workings.

To cut to the thesis referred to in the title: while it is possible that some object, e.g. a military drone craft or winged, modified cruise missile, did hit the Twin Towers on 9/11 (though as will be amply explained below, most likely nothing at all did, at least with respect to the first explosion at the North Tower), the passenger planes we were told about and shown on TV were not physically real. They were computer-generated images (CGI) superimposed onto footage of internal explosives in the buildings that were arranged in the shape of a plane (or alternatively, a jetliner motion graphic image overlaid onto a real cruise missile or high-speed drone craft, in order to cover it up). The purported ‘thousands’ of allegedly amateur videos, upon thorough examination, turn out to be around 40, all doctored, and the ‘millions’ who some would suppose to have seen actual planes, and not just explosions they associated with planes, turn out to be approximately 60; the reasons they would be so few in such a densely populated area will be enumerated below. Since the planes were faked, everything related to them was also fake: the fictional hijackers and mostly fictional passengers, save the small handful of verifiably real passengers who faked their own deaths and continued living under a second identity, or died in other ways, the only high-profile person among them David Angell, who foreshadowed the event (1) (2) multiple times in his TV series. Aside from a few other mock victims (see p. 8-11) in the towers who were used in high-profile press features, the rest of the event was sadly real: the buildings were demolished, and the tower occupants, firefighters, and first responders died. Since this post will concentrate on the events in New York, those at the Pentagon and Shanksville will only get a passing comment: neither involved planes or hijackers; at the Pentagon, a missile, likely a cruise missile, was fired into the building, and at Shanksville, a missile or some kind of drone aircraft was fired or crashed into the ground.

These assertions may be new to some readers, but were long ago made by a number of 9/11 researchers. Some made the claim as early as 2002, but the concept gained little traction until 2007 and 2008. Personally, it took me until about 2011 to be fully certain of it, and several more years to come across all of the evidence that has been compiled here. Four or five years prior to that I and many others had been attacking the theory as outlandish and detrimental to the investigation. Part of the reason researchers may have been turned away from accepting the fact that there were no planes or hijackers is that the sector was and continues to be heavily infiltrated with and commandeered by questionable characters who I believe to be paid disinformation agents, for example the likely fake-named ‘Simon Shack’ (the creator of the most well known no-planes documentary, ‘September Clues,’ which cannot be recommended since it as I only recently learned contains fabricated evidence interspersed among real evidence, seemingly as a way to discredit the real) and ‘Ace Baker’ (whose film ‘9/11: The Great American Psy-Opera‘ [relevant parts 1:28:50- 2:40:24] I would recommend much more if not for its strange music video segments – cut out in the linked version – and Baker’s antics, such as his fake on-air suicide). In the case of Shack, it seemed something wasn’t quite right with the evidence presented, or that it was ‘too easy,’ and that was in fact the case due to his insertion of phony evidence among real evidence. There were other planned take-downs of the theory, such as Howard Stern’s 2008 interview with New Age stooge Paula Gloria. The point being made is that I don’t expect most readers to instantly accept the contentions made here, given their profound strangeness and association with strange personalities; the truth on this matter is so outrageous that it will take time for anyone to digest. The chief aim of this post is to present the evidence in the most complete and rational way possible, and free of disinformation, so that readers can use the post as a guide to examine and re-examine the primary sources themselves at a later time; otherwise it may be difficult to keep all of them in memory. Since we are dealing with a visual deception, video is an indispensable medium to present the evidence, but a written framework of it that can be kept as a reference can also be of considerable use.

The direct evidence that the 9/11 planes were computer images can be summarized as follows: many instances of provably manipulated audio and video footage, a total absence of plane deceleration and normal crash physics in video footage of alleged plane impacts, the lack of wake vortices at any of the crash sites, the total impossibility of 650mph Boeing 767 speed at sea level, let alone precision handling at that speed; the several indications of evidence-planting of plane parts around the towers, the extreme preponderance of filmmakers and CGI specialists among ‘amateur’ camcorder videographers, the extreme preponderance of media employees, particularly high-level personnel, among the first witnesses to planes in New York, the non-listing and apparent non-existence of the WTC flights in flight record databases, and, perhaps above all, the abstractly and concretely verifiable impossibility that a 2mm thick aluminum fuselage shell, not unlike an oversized beer can (1) could cleanly punch through much stronger outer and inner steel columns that were respectively 19x and 60x thicker than it, in a tower 4000x more massive, not to mention its subsequent vaporization by that same steel and concrete material. After a detailed discussion on or alongside each of these points, large amounts of circumstantial evidence will be presented. Also addressed will be the motivations for or ‘the why’ of faking the planes, where it will be explained why they had no choice but to use CGI passenger planes, as well as common questions around the thesis, such as ‘what happened to the [alleged] flights?’ While it is not essential to answer these questions in order to conclude there were no hijackers or Boeing 767 jetliners involved, doing so may increase one’s comfort with that position.

Establishing that there were no passenger planes or hijackers on 9/11 is of such great importance because it directly implicates the ‘major’ news media (i.e. the small handful of companies that own almost all print and television news) in the crime, and not just a few personalities in them, but the entire institution. That’s not to say there aren’t many well intentioned, compartmentalized reporters within those networks and newspapers, surely the large majority at the lower levels, but at their highest levels the companies are totally compromised. Coming to terms with the no planes reality means acutely understanding that the media is not a fifth estate that checks government power (nor is there any identifiable period in American history when they were), but is in every sense part of the shadow government that rules our civil government and much of life in this country (and that they exist primarily to protect and enhance that shadow government’s power – i.e. their own power since they are actually the real government, its public relations arm – and only secondarily to make money, the income of largely bank-owned media companies representing a tiny drop in the bucket of centralized corporate income, yet being integral to that bucket’s continued existence; their funding mechanism is mostly a closed circuit anyway, since the very network of banks and financial institutions that own them provide much of their advertiser income, both directly as banking advertisements and through that network’s subsidiary, non-banking interests, as well as its non-bank-owned, corporate establishment affiliates, the point being that the corporate sphere can fund the FCC-entrenched television and newspaper companies to whatever extent is needed, even if that funding does not always directly relate to successfully marketing a product or service to the public, though it generally does given that most of these companies actually produce at least somewhat useful products that the public needs. See this article for what is meant by ‘bank-owned;’ also here. I add this aside since it is a common misconception that the media’s primary aim is to make money. If that were true then why would they back the bailouts in lockstep when 95% of the public opposed them, or come out in support of every unpopular drive for war?). It means understanding that we as Americans (and to a slightly lesser extent, Westerners at large) are under a 24-hour propaganda offensive that is every bit as calculated and forceful as that of Soviet Russia or some other infamous example, just in a different form. The ‘free internet,’ i.e. the areas of it not under the direct control of Facebook, Google, YouTube, other social media and news websites and telecom giants, thankfully act as something of a pressure valve or escape hatch from this continual attack, which is why it’s under constant fire by the establishment in the name of cybersecurity, copyright protection, or whatever other excuse.

Much of what follows was written for relatively ‘advanced’ researchers who are already 100% certain the event was a conspiracy not carried out by Muslim terrorists, but have not been able to fully come to terms with the fact that no passenger planes were used. Short of total persuasion, the goal here with respect to the uninitiated reader is to normalize the idea that the media-intelligence complex that runs this country did work together to fake the planes and hijackers, and is not above wholly faking other things (events of all kinds, identities and their deaths, etc.) that are presented to us as real, and to move these kinds of notions away from the absurd. For a ‘crash course’ on this subject that requires less time and attention than the information here, I recommend starting out with the tightly censored film 911 Taboo, and continuing on with this post as time allows.

(Below is only some of the direct evidence. At a certain point I just had to stop adding more because it was taking too long to organize and cite it all. Mainly omitted are detailed technical points concerning flight maneuvers and information regarding air traffic control and aircraft registration records.)


What the Evidence Does and Doesn’t Tell Us

Before going into the evidence, it’s important is to lay out what this post does and does not claim to prove. So much of 9/11 research has been about asking questions, or pointing to the thousands of coincidences around the event that, while overwhelmingly indicative of a conspiracy, to the point of incalculably high, million- or billions-to-one odds, do not technically prove one, and are unwieldy for the layman (i.e., someone who cannot and/or doesn’t wish to spend a lot of time studying 9/11) to examine and ‘process’ all at once. This post, on the other hand, presents scientific evidence and audio and visual comparisons that by themselves make certain things about 9/11 clear beyond any reasonable doubt, to take the reader from A to B, eliminating A from all possibility instead of just obliquely undermining it.

We can firmly conclude the following from the evidence that will be presented:

1) The Twin Towers (WTC 1 & 2) and WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were destroyed (yes, seven buildings were totally demolished) on 9/11 and many first responders and building occupants did die in the event. There was an explosion in part of the Pentagon and some of its employees probably died. A small pit with tiny pieces of metal debris in it was found in Shanksville PA farm field after nearby reports of strange noises and a small, low-flying aircraft.
2) No passenger jetliners hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon in the manner depicted, likely not at all, therefore no passengers or hijackers died there in the way that was alleged. Further, the passengers and hijackers who we were told were on Flight 93 also did not die in the manner alleged, if at all, and the ‘Let’s Roll’ storyline was a fiction.
3) It was known before 9/11 that some of the supposed passenger victims of Flight 93 would be said to have died in the attacks. Further, some of the supposed passengers from all four planes made phone calls that were impossible to make from cruise altitude, and lied to (alleged) family members that they were being hijacked in the air (probably with the knowledge of said ‘family,’ who in some cases may have just been props to aid in the credible fabrication of an identity). A large majority of the alleged victims do not appear in public records or the Social Security Death Index. If a large number of the passenger identities and/or deaths were provably faked, it is very likely that all of the deaths were faked and only have yet to be proven as such.
4) Most of the plane impact videos we were shown on and after 9/11, including the most widely circulated news footage and amateur videos, are demonstrably fake, i.e. they were altered and a CGI plane was inserted into the footage, therefore all videos of plane impact are probably fake, even when doctoring cannot be proven in a specific piece of footage (e.g. due to the area of impact not being viewable).
5) People who had access to miniature nuclear weapons or other unknown weaponry (such as directed energy technology in a larger scale than is known to exist) destroyed the towers, and people with close ties to the media deceived the public (likely intelligence operatives a la Operation Mockingbird, perhaps working in a private, ‘rogue’ capacity; see summary at bottom), both facts of which eliminate ragtag Muslim terrorists from consideration. Narrowing the pool of suspects down further requires examining available evidence and applying the principles of means, motive, and opportunity. The group that one ends up with is varied and includes participants from several nations, including the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, whether acting in a rogue way or officially, though the vast majority of culprits who were responsible for the core elements of the operation – faking the planes and destroying the towers and Pentagon – appear to be Americans. The foreign nationals were used in isolated capacities, such as ‘ground support’ on the day of the event (e.g. gathering footage to be later manipulated, spreading rumors of a plane, perhaps planting plane parts and other evidence) in the case of the Israelis, and fabrication of the hijacker identities and backgrounds in the cases of the Saudi and Pakistani suspects.
6) At least a few dozen people inside the Associated Press and all the major news networks, probably including some or all of their leadership, knew that a deception was being carried out and variously either allowed it to happen or actively perpetrated it themselves.
7) Some extremely high-level members of the federal government knew what was happening and helped prevent the operation from being thwarted, the true perpetrators from being investigated, and the truth from coming out.

The evidence does not explain:

1) What, if anything, hit the towers and Pentagon and exactly what methods of deception were used on the ground to fool bystanders into thinking they saw something they didn’t, such as planting agents on the ground to spread rumors of a passenger plane and falsely testify as to having seen one, or make phone calls into news networks to say they had seen a plane, to tactics that we do know were used. Additional techniques may have included live sound effects and even holographic technology (see below), though I believe the effects were likely limited to sound, and diversionary strategies and on-the-ground supervision were employed to minimize outsider eyewitnesses. Consider also that all ISPs, video uploading websites, and print and TV media outlets are owned by the same network of people who were complicit in the event.
2) While it is not in the scope of this article, what exactly destroyed the towers, whether mini-nukes or a more advanced method like a directed energy weapon, or both, as well as a third failsafe, conventional explosives combined with nanothermite; an event that was planned at least 25 years in advance would surely have at least one backup method of destruction in case of a failure, and it’s my belief that all three were used. No single demolition cause thesis can explain all of the phenomena observed and incontrovertible evidence exists for three distinct methods of demolition being used.
3) Which and how many people were involved in the destruction of the buildings and faking of the videos, where ample probable cause exists to investigate certain identified suspects.
4) What happened to the [non-] hijackers, meaning the handful of Saudis who are known to have gone to flight school and lived in Florida briefly, as well as any of the others who may exist (as actual hijackers i.e. intelligence agents pretending to be such, and not just random identities or photos plucked from the general Saudi population).
5) What happened to the planes, pilots, and passengers of flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 (i.e. those that we know did exist, e.g. David Angell, as opposed to the large majority whose identities were fabricated altogether via validation from intelligence-linked ‘grieving family members’ or ‘co-workers.’ If an alleged family member or co-worker goes on record to say an identity was real, most would accept that as sufficient evidence)
6) Whether the supposed plane in Shanksville did not exist at all, was a drone or missile, was a different, unhijacked plane that was shot down, or was real and disposed of in some other way, with a small number of real passengers on the severely underbooked flight having died and alleged passengers such as Daniel Lewin created so that the flight could play the needed part in the operation’s narrative, with the evidence strongly pointing towards a drone or missile being fired into the ground.

The Direct Evidence

(links to be added)


1) Most non-anonymous ‘amateur’ video footage came from people who work in the media, filmmaking, or CGI fields. On 9/11, there were six professionally recorded videos that were broadcast that alleged to show plane impact. Over the decade that followed, an additional 45 videos were released, most of them broadcast by news networks. Of the 45 amateur videos, 29 came from non-anonymous sources. The others were uploaded onto hosting websites under anonymous internet handles. Of the 29 named ‘amateur’ sources, 19 of them (66%) were film industry, photography, or video graphics professionals. Most or all of these people would have had the ability to insert the crude CGI plane images into footage captured that day and released long after the event. Of the ten remaining, several have displayed inculpatory behavior (e.g. they came into significant money following the event, or refuse to discuss the circumstances of the recording) and/or their footage is provably doctored. Here is a listing of ‘amateur’ videographers with connections to the film industry (links to footage will be added later):

Devin Clark (motion graphics animator for MTV and Comedy Central)
Scott Myers (3D effects specialists, video software engineer for ABC)
Luc Courchesne (professor of interactive media, video artist, author of paper ‘Art-Making as Forging Evidence’)
Clifton Cloud (director of International Display Technology Inc.; specialist in live audio and video)
Naka Nathaniel (CGI specialist, media editor for New York Times)
Jennifer Spell (cinematographer at NBC Sports, Director of Spellbound Pictures)
Holly Bine (professor of film at Pratt Institute)
Evan Fairbanks (owner of Fairbanks=Film Inc., professional videographer)
Caroline Dries (producer at CW network)
Gédéon and Jules Naudet (professional independent filmmakers)
Wolfgang Staehle (professional video artist, described as ‘ pioneer’)
Howard Shickler (owner of Exulto Media Inc., ‘media developer and publisher of digital media’)
Chris Hopewell (independent filmmaker and owner of Eyefull Inc., reported to have received a ‘five-figure sum’ for his video and been ‘handsomely rewarded for stills that appeared on the cover of Newsweek’)
Boris Miller (professional photographer)
Ronald Pordy (professional photographer)
Robert Clark (professional photographer)
Fred Hadley (self-described filmmaker, film projectionist)
Jim Kosior (otherwise an amatuer, but charges $35 for the DVD ‘Tuesday Morning in September’)
‘Peter Strid’ (probable alias for call-in witness Jim Friedl; video released under ‘Strid House Films’)

Of the ten remaining, there is Michael Hezarkhani, who won’t reveal where his footage was taken and told enquirers to ‘speak to [his] lawyer,’ Park Foreman, whose video can be unequivocally shown to be a manipulated version of CNN internal footage that had already aired (and whose vantage point is identical to that of Naka Nathaniel), and Pavel Hlava, an immigrant who retired to the Czech Republic and opened a restaurant there shortly after his video of the first non-plane (only one of two known to exist) was aired. Of the remaining videographers – alleged to be Brian Gately, Manos Megagiannis, Susan Cook, William Gibson, Antonio Rosario, Luis Alonso, and Robert Cervantes – none have been interviewed or discussed their footage, and the last five of those seven whose names are very common cannot be investigated or even certainly identified.

2) Most of the witnesses who first reported seeing a plane were employees of major news media companies, usually in high-level positions, or are family members of those people. Of non-media witnesses, about as many said they saw an explosion and specifically noted not seeing a plane than said they saw a plane. Others reported seeing a missile and smaller aircraft. The number of TV-aired witnesses to planes and witnesses mentioned in newspapers is in the low dozens (<30) and includes the following:

Mark Walsh aka ‘Harley Guy‘ – ‘Freelancer’ for Fox News (note the man behind Harley Guy, and the odd reply of the man at 2:23-2:40)
Sean Murtagh – CNN Vice President of Finance
Mark Obenhaus – ABC Senior Producer
Owen Moogan – FOX Senior Producer
Sid Bedingfield – CNN Executive Vice President
Richard Davis – CNN Executive Vice President
Rose Arce – CNN producer
Jean Yurman – CNN reporter
Jennifer Oberstein – NBC producer
Marc Birnbach- Fox News ‘freelancer’
Stewart Nurick – CBS audience coordinator
Winston Mitchell – ABC/CNN producer
Eric Shawn – FOX TV Senior Correspondent
Jane Derenowski – MSNBC producer
Dr. Jay Adlersberg – ABC medical reporter
Elliot Walker – NBC NEWS producer
Theresa Renaud -Wife of CBS producer Jack Renaud (The Early Show)
Mike Walter – USA Today reporter
Joel Sucherman – USA editor
Steve Anderson – USA Today, Director of Communications
Fred Gaskins – USA Today National Editor

The majority of the early witnesses (>60%) who said they saw a plane were employees of news networks, most of them senior, high-level employees, an impossibly unlikely scenario. Once the TV networks manufactured the plane consensus via their own employees and phony call-in witnesses like this, the public regurgitated the message nationwide.

3) Each tower was certified to withstand multiple impacts from 767-sized aircraft. Plane impact has never caused the collapse of a skyscraper. People involved in the construction have stated that they believed any realistic number of plane impacts should have had no effect on the integrity of the structure. The towers were certified for a fully loaded 707 at top speed, which weighed more than the 40% full 767 that supposedly hit each.

4) Many features of the video footage prove it was doctored, for example:
A) In the amateur video by Michael Hezarkhani, probably the most well known video, a columns ‘self-heal‘ (1) and reconstitute themselves after the plane image passes through them. The same occurs in the Spiegel TV ‘amateur’ footage, perhaps the worst quality of all the doctored videos.
C) In the Hezarkhani video aired on CNN, there is no audio in the clip other than an explosion and screaming, while in the documentary ‘CNN Tribute: America Remembers,’ a man’s voice is heard in the otherwise identical audio, prominent over all other sounds, saying ‘Oh my God, a plane just crashed into the building. I cannot believe it.’
D) In the amateur video of ‘Peter Strid,’ a witness (who may be the same person as Jim Friedl a call-in witness for WNYW Fox News broadcast) be heard saying ‘as far as I could tell, that was a United, I swear that was a United airplane,’ but no plane was visible since the crash occurred on the opposite side of the towers and at least 500 yards away from the camera.
E) On one of the six live newscasts and several amateur videos, the hollow, plastic nose cone of the plane penetrates through both sides of the building intact and undamaged (1). A bird strike (1) (2) can cave in a plane’s nose cone.
F) The same raw footage (or identical vantage point) was used to make three different videos (1) on two separate occasions, thus was credited to six different people, for the first example, by both Naka Nathaniel on the day of the event and later in slightly altered (zoomed in, different key) form by ‘amateur’ videographer Park Foreman, and a third on CNN as ‘CNN exclusive’. The second example is the ‘Tinacart1‘ so-called amateur footage, the Wolfgang Staehle footage, one of three videos of the first explosion and alleged plane (Naudet and Hlava being the others), and the photo sequence released by Robert Clark, all three of which were taken from 475 Kent Ave in Brooklyn, where Clark’s business was registered and which can also be independently determined based on the identical pitch, relative size, and position of foreground objects. Consider that, assuming passenger plane fakery, a complicit media, and an uncritical public, recycling footage makes sense, since it reduces the required number of event participants and simplifies logistics; the two cases that would otherwise be astronomically improbable in a 45-item set (the number of ‘amateur’ videos) become under this thesis not just explainable, but looked for, expected, even probable.
G) In the audio of the Devin Clark footage (1), we hear a new station report the impact of the second plane at the same moment his camera shows it. However, the news report of the plane was on a live-delay and broadcast 17 seconds after actual impact, provable by a comparison of live footage broadcast times with publicly available seismic data that showed the moment impact, so it could not have been heard on Clark’s amateur, truly live tape had it been genuine.
H) In the Luc Courchesne footage, the plane’s wing of the plane image disappears completely.
J) Different backgrounds are shown for the same place. In some shots the Hudson River and NJ can be seen, in others, filmed from a nearly identical point, only sky is shown. In some newscasts, the sky is bright blue and mostly cloudless, the actual conditions on 9/11. In others taken at the same moment, the sky is gray or white and overcast. Using only solid color backgrounds makes it much easier to insert a plane graphic into the footage in near-real time. All of the amateur videos, which were released long after the event, allowing ample time for production, show a blue sky. Buildings and bridges appear in different places in different videos, suggesting video compositing and layering.
K) Separate explosions in the shape of a plane wing can be observed, detonating 7 seconds after the plane was said to hit one of the towers.
L) The speed of the second (CGI) plane in the news network and amateur videos varies from 591mph to over 650mph (1)
M) Except for the ‘nose-out’ shot (see below), all live (i.e. 17-second-delayed) video footage allegedly displaying the planes was shot from the same side of the tower, on the same axis, and in a steady frame, with no tilting or moving of the camera, hiding the supposed point of impact and allowing for easier background manipulation and insertion of the plane image.
N) In the wide angle portion of the Fox News Simonson helicopter shot, a plane should be visible on the right side of the screen for over 5 seconds based on the impossibly high speed stated in the official report (and a slower plane speed would result in even longer viewable time in the frame), yet no plane appears in the footage. Realizing his error, Simonson zooms in very close to the towers just a few seconds before plane impact.

The 9/11 commission official time (9:03:11) was 17 seconds later than spikes in seismic activity (09:02:54). Live broadcasts typically have a 15 second delay. Distinct audio cues in the form of a beep, a snap, and an audio glitch were could be heard on all live footage of the second impact exactly 17 seconds before impact, along with another cue at the moment of impact but before explosion, such as a scream or gasp. ABC and NBC newscasts played the same ‘shutting film canister’ sound at the impact moment. A 17-second delay would provide enough time to insert a pre-designed, low-quality plane graphic into the footage and track its motion to the point of detonation. In all of the ‘live’ videos, the plane image disappeared behind the edge of the tower and impact was not shown, making it much easier to doctor the video quickly.

To elaborate on item E above, one of the biggest smoking guns pointed to by no plane theorists is the appearance of an intact nose 767 on the other side of the building, suggesting either that A) the plane was a computer graphic, or B) that the plastic nose cone of the plane had sliced through a network of dozens of steel columns undamaged. Since a bird can easily cave in a nose cone, choice A is the only possibility.

The shot was credited to Fox helicopter cameraman Kai Simonson and is one of only four images of the planes from the day of the event. The ‘nose out’ shot appears to be the result of a green screen masking line shifting out of place due to the drift of Simonson’s helicopter. ABC news anchor Peter Jennings commented live by saying ‘Watch how the airplane penetrates the building, completely in one side and out the other,’ and Jim Ryan of WNYC, ‘to be sure, there it is. There it is. The plane went through the other tower of the World Trade Center.’

News networks and ‘amateur’ videographers seem to have tried to cover up the error. The moment the nose appeared, the Fox newscast cut to black and moved the camera upward. The 4-second ‘amateur’ Naudet video shift, the camera does not go to black but shifts away from the towers, 30 frames are removed, and the video shows four edit cuts. Naudet’s video is the only video that would have given a clear view of plane debris or any other debris falling to the ground. In the CNN newscast, the intact nose is covered by a news ticker banner and the screen is blacked out. Replays on both networks also blacked out the nose-out moment. In the WABC footage, which was also taken from a helicopter and may have shown a similar error as Simonsen’s footage, the screen blacks out on impact. Fox later removed the clip from its archives. (No plane in wide shot).

Simonson advertised himself in early 2001 as a specialist in live, helicopter-based ‘green-screen video compositing,’ ‘real-time alpha keying,’ and Avid software, used for real-time insertion of motion graphics. Simonson explained the error the following way: ‘It’s obviously possible because it happened. I mean, how many times have you seen an airplane hit the side of a building?’ Simonson and 9/11 ‘debunkers’ have alleged that the nose-out image is not actually the plane nose, but the images superimpose upon one another perfectly and there is a plausible explanation for how the image appeared on the other side of the building. The pilot of Simonsen’s helicopter, Paul Smith, was run over by a car and killed in New York in 2007, right at the time Simonson’s footage had begun to be called loudly into question. The cameraman of the other live helicopter shot, John Del Giorno, has never spoken to the press and refused multiple request to talk about what he saw.

The ‘nose out’ phenomenon was heavily featured in several 9/11-related films. It was explained away as an optical illusion that was not a plane but just an unusual cylindrical explosion. In all subsequent amateur videos that showed the same perspective at a close distance, three in total, the ‘nose out’ feature is seen, possibly as a way to ‘debunk’ accusations of fakery.

The two best known 9/11 ‘amateur plane videos were allegedly filmed by Michael Hezarkhani and Evan Fairbanks. As noted above, both clips contain multiple features that prove they were altered and that the planes are fake. In the Hezarkhani video, two large dust puffs, the first sign of the explosion inside the tower, clearly occur above the wings of the plane, but in the Evan Fairbanks tape, they appear below the wings. The CGI artists who made the videos needed to track the plane graphic images into the real explosions at the same point. Even a slight error would expose the video fakery, and that is what happened.

The Fairbanks tape has other oddities, including that there is no audio for most it. When asked about it, he first said that the audio in his video had been removed by the FBI, who he claimed took him to a ‘secure area, a command center’ after observing him filming, kept his original tape, and edited out all of the audio from the copy they gave him. In a later explanation he made no mention of the FBI and claimed he had accidentally turned the microphone off. In an interview, Fairbanks said that it was ‘as though a floor had been hollowed out and it is a hangar it is landing in. We have seen these images in movies and we know it’s artificial, and Hollywood makes it, and it’s hard to put together that it’s real this time.’ He himself described the plane image as ‘like a bad special effect.’ (see Revelation of the Method).

In Hezarkhani’s clip aired on CNN and multiple other places, there is audio in the clip, consisting of explosions and screaming voices. In the documentary ‘CNN Tribute: America Remember’s’ a robotic, very prominent voice, not Hezarkhani’s, has been inserted into the track, saying ‘Oh my God, a plane just crashed into the building. I cannot believe it.’

Hezarkhani has been attempted to be contacted for multiple 9/11-related phone interviews; when he was reached and realizes the call is regarding the details of his video, he says that the video is owned by CNN and he is not allowed to discuss anything about it, including things as simple as where he was standing when it was filmed, and promptly hangs up the call.

Many more anomalies regarding TV and amateur video footage have been observed but won’t be included in the interest of time and brevity.

5) Jetliners cannot reach speeds of 586mph at low elevation, let alone be precisely controlled at that speed, due to increasing air density at low altitude. Air is three times more dense at 1,000 feet than it is at cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, and drag, or air resistance, is proportional to air density, which is the reason why passenger liners do not exceed 150mph near the end of descent (under 5,000 feet). Even in ascent, they do not exceed 200mph until about 4,000 feet, and in descent at about 6,000. Going faster than the maximum sea-level operating speed of 414 mph would cause air to jam the engine as fan blades cavitated and spit air back out the engine mouths, causing the plane to brake from air resistance and disturbing its flight path. Even the plane images in the videos do not appear to be going anywhere near 586mph. The VFC of a 767, the maximum speed at which it can maintain stability, is 533 mph at cruising altitude. Near sea level airliners normally travel at around 150mph. Drag doubles at that altitude and the power needed to maintain speed triples. This puts the same strain on the engines as flying at 500mph at 35,000 feet, or about normal cruising speed. The maximum sea-level speed for maneuverability (VA), unsafe but possible, is 360mph. At higher speeds the plane can lose control or even shed parts. Typically pilots travel at less than half the VA near sea level. At 414 mph, the maximum operating velocity (VMO) the plane can fall apart completely. When a pilot is near the VMO, loud alarms sound in the plane. According to the official report, flight 77 not only exceeded the VMO by almost 180 mph, which is impossible, but the pilot maintained precise control for several minutes even though he had no large plane experience. The official report says that flight 175 ((530mph). The 9/11 plane stories, taken together, are the equivalent of someone without a drivers license making a series of hairpin turns in narrow city alleys at 200mph, in a school bus. It is not just impossible, but ridiculous.

If this not enough, take the word of experts and industry professionals. Air traffic controller Danielle O’Brien stated, ‘the speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don’t fly a 757 in that manner, it’s unsafe.’ Commander Ralph Kolstad, a Navy officer who has 27 years of experience and 6,000 hours in Boeing 767s, together with hundreds of other pilots in the group Pilots for 9/11 Truth, has attested that he could not fly the flight path of the alleged Pentagon plane. Commander Ted Muga of the Navy has said ‘I just can’t imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.’ Captain Russ Wittenberg, Air Force, who flew commercial jets for 35 years, has said ‘For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible. There is not one chance in a thousand. To expect the alleged airplane to run those maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous. I couldn’t do it, and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.’ The reason the producers of the 9/11 operation ‘maxed out’ the non-plane’s speed is that A) a high speed would make the pancake collapse storyline more believable and, B) knowing that the operation would turn out be so incredible (in the literal sense), having the planes and towers defy the laws of physics and aerodynamics might be more effective than trying to maintain consistency, and increasing the suspension of disbelief and maximizing ‘belief flexibility’ would enhance the event’s psy-op value.

6) There are no wake vortices in the smoke or fireball where alleged impacts took place. Wake vortex is a forceful, cyclonic air wake that is normally invisible unless large amounts of smoke are present, as was the case on 9/11. Wake vortex can last for several minutes and is the reason why airports must space out landings on runways. See this video of a compilation of some of the alleged impact videos with the CGI plane images removed, demonstrating the total absence of wake vortex.

7) None of the alleged plane impacts displayed normal crash physics. In most videos, the planes displayed little to no deceleration upon impact, despite colliding with structures many times harder and thicker and more than 4000 times their mass. While graphics software can easily decelerate the speed of an object at the end of its motion path, the planes had to show deep penetration of the towers in order to make the collapse theory believable (see below). Even if the plane impossibly managed to perfectly sever all of the outer box columns and its edge cut through six concrete floors and steel floor trusses, it would have had 99 feet of at least momentarily bucking or wagging tail-length protruding from the building upon impact with the massive steel core columns. The official story holds that the first plane damaged six core columns, and the second plane, ten. Even accounting for this, there would still be over 75 feet of tail protrusion. We do not see a decelerated, protruding tail for even a moment. Rather, the entire plane disappears inside the building, and on several videos even emerges from the other side, with virtually no deceleration occurring. This is in violation of Newton’s 1st law of motion, which dictates that moving objects will remain at a constant velocity unless acted on by an external force, such as friction, gravity, in this case an obstacle of much stronger material and 4000x greater mass.

Airplanes are designed to be as light as possible and have little destructive power (especially large planes: new 787s are made of plastic) and consist of a very thin aluminum fuselage shell and even thinner wings, so thin that a man cannot stand on them without breaking them. Birds can severely damage an airplane. Strongmen can pull planes by themselves. Aluminum is 3x softer, 3x less stiff, 2.5x less dense, and 3x lighter than steel. Newton’s Third Law dictates that aluminum projectiles, even if they contain some non-pressurized liquid (analagous to fuel), cannot penetrate thicker steel objects at any speed. The fuselage of a 767 is only 2 mm (1/13th inch) thick, while the steel outer box columns of the towers were 38 mm, the same as the front plate of a tank, set only three feet apart, and crossed behind by spandrel plates at every floor, adding more thickness. The 47 core columns were each 140 mm thick. As stated above, the mass of a 767 is more than 4,000 times less than the mass of one tower, analogous to a three-quarter ounce field mouse or baby sparrow and a 225-lb man. It is also 100 times less than the floors of the tower where impact occurred. At the Pentagon, the same 2mm aluminum tube is supposed to have punched a circle cleanly through a three-foot steel-reinforced concrete wall, through 40 feet of building, and out the other side. An analogy for the crashes would be to shoot a beer can at a wrought iron fence. Regardless of the can’s speed, it will not penetrate the fence, but rather crumple and/or shatter, and fall to the ground. Another analogy would be a copper-jacketed bullet. A bullet fired from a handgun travels about 6x faster than the top speed of a 767 plane and cannot penetrate a steel target plate over any number of rounds. (The oft cited tale of a piece of straw penetrating wood that is circulated by 9/11 ‘debunkers’ is misunderstood; in these cases the wood grain momentarily splits in high wind, allowing straw to enter, then bends back, trapping the straw.)

Additionally, no debris whatsoever fell to the ground at the point of impact. Rather, the buildings ‘ate’ the entire planes, leaving a plane-shaped hole in Looney Tunes fashion. Newton’s Third Law dictates equal and opposite reactions. If a steel twin tower was travelling at 540mph and hit a stationary airplane that was 4000x lighter than it and made of much weaker, 2mm-thick aluminum, would the airplane punch a plane-shaped hole in the tower and go through the other side, or would it shatter and penetrate the tower very little if at all? Clearly the second. Or imagine if the tower fell onto the plane, which would be at less than half that speed. Would the plane be squashed beyond recognition and do little damage to the tower, or would the building be carved out in the full shape of the airplane? Further, if the plane penetrated the tower, the interior of the tower could not then shatter the plane, let alone shatter it so finely that the metal, as the official NIST report absurdly suggests, could ‘sand’ almost all the fireproof coating off the interior steel in each tower, without the effect of which the steel would not have weakened enough to collapse according to the report. To again use an analogy, if a car drove through your house’s wooden front wall and remained intact enough to punch a perfect car-shaped hole through it, it could be halted from penetrating further if there were heavier wood construction inside the house, but it could never be torn to tiny shreds by that internal framing. If a man is is able to run completely through one thin, sheet rock wall, he cannot be molecularly disintegrated by attempting to run through a second wall also made of sheet rock, though he could be stopped if the second wall were thick enough. For yet another analogy, a bullet shot into water or ballistics gelIf the aluminum plane somehow had enough power and structural integrity to cleanly punch through the outer steel columns, that same material could not have also been shredded to millions of sand-grain-like pieces by interior material of the same kind (steel) as the outer columns. Neither can a kerosene explosion tear a plane apart, just as a gas explosion cannot tear a car apart. The air velocity of a kerosene blast is hundreds of times lower than a real explosive like TNT, and its force is usually non-lethal (not accounting for burn wounds) to a man at point blank range, unlike the powerful detonations we see after the plane images enter the towers. The film 911 Taboo is recommended for more on the topic of crash physics.

8) No debris was visible in the gashes at the Twin Towers or Pentagon and little debris was ever recovered. Fuel would have splashed all over the front of the building on impact since the wings, one the weakests parts of the plane aside from the engines, were the first to make contact and contain almost all of a plane’s fuel. When a B25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945, large pieces of debris were visible in the gashes, much fuel spilled on the building face, and large number of plane parts fell directly below impact zone. When Yankees pitcher Corey Lidle crashed a plane into a New York apartment building, the plane spilled fuel on building face and left large amounts of debris below impact zone. Aside from one engine part found four blocks away from the towers, none of the plane four engines we would expect to find were found. The engine of a 767 is 9,000 lbs of titanium and steel and would easily survive the fires, since they operate in the airplane at 1,200 degrees F, above or equal to the temperature of the fires for most of the event.

9) Flights 77 (Pentagon) and 11 (WTC North Tower) were never in Bureau of Transporation Statistics directory and officially never happened, and flights 175 and 93 were said to have arrived at their destinations. Many copies of BTS records show that no such planes were scheduled to fly on 9/11. The BTS amended its daily flight records in 2005 to show the planes, and soon after closed searches of these records to the public. However, the BTS gave no tail number for either aircraft and listed a takeoff time of 00:00, which has always meant that the plane did not take off. Data for flights 93 and 175 shows a takeoff time of 8:28AM EST and 8:23AM but also arrival times of 11:16AM in San Francisco (SFO) and 11:14AM in LAX, respectively. The tail numbers of the WTC and Pentagon and Shanksville planes were not deregistered until 2002 and 2005 respectively, against regulations ordering destroyed planes be deregistered within 24 hours. Radar data for the planes was not released by the NTSB until 2006. The flight manifests were also not released until many years after the event.

10) The flight data from flight 77 shows that the cockpit door was never opened. The flight data recorder or black box would have shown over 1,300 checks on the door status in the 90 minutes since takeoff, and was never reported as open. A malfunction can be ruled out, since a plane cannot take off unless flight data recorder is working properly. Since the crashes and apparently the planes were faked altogether, it would seem the NTSB or rogue elements within either hacked or doctored their own data and forgot to account for cockpit door sensors. One the one black box that was recovered, the voice data recorder was damaged beyond repair, the first time in aviation history, including in crashes similarly destructive to aircraft, e.g. crashing into the side of a mountain.

11) In the well-known crash simulation by a Purdue University scientist, 2mm sheets of fuselage are shown to slice through multiple steel columns, and large steel beams are shown to be cut, but then are completely reconstituted after allowing the aluminum through. The creator has not released the data for the simulation despite multiple requests from investigative filmmakers. This among many other items of evidence proves that the cover-up is extensive and has penetrated academia and all of the print media. Even questioning 9/11 as an academic has prompted ostracization and firings in multiple cases.

12) There were no human remains or aircraft debris at Shanksville or the Pentagon. The coroner at Shanksville reported that he ‘stopped being coroner after 5 minutes’ because he could not find any indications of passengers: not a single bone fragment, hair, or drop of blood: ‘I have not to this day seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.’ Rather than being preserved as evidence, the small amount of hand-portable plane debris recovered was purportedly taken to a landfill in New York immediately after the event. Only a few supposed parts such as a window and small piece of fuselage have been presented to the public. McIntyre Pentagon: only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. Of the passengers and crew of Flight 11, 77, 175 & 93, only 22%, 22%, 28%, 13% respectively are in the Social Security Death Index. I have searched for dead relatives and had a 100% success rate. The SSDI. Out of a total of 92 people on Flight 11, only 65 accepted (71%), of 65 on Flight 175, only 46 accepted (71%), of 64 on Flight 77, only 33 accepted (52%), of 45 on Flight 93, only 25 accepted (56%).

Why fake the planes?
(credit to the late Gerard Holmgren for some of the points in this and the following three sections, as well as some points about the witnesses)

1) Much less chance of error. Finding many suicide terrorists willing to agree to participate and follow through, successfully executing the hijackings, precisely maneuvering planes at impossibly high speeds, and penetrating the most heavily protected airspace in the world are each heavily fraught with risk of failure. See below for more.
2) Far fewer people involved, and dramatically simplified logistics. Essentially, an explosives team, a handful of video specialists to produce fake videos, and a few dozen people to plant mostly hand-portable evidence at the scenes, spread rumors of a plane, and provide phony witness testimony. After the event, a handful of people could produce the 45 ‘amateur,’ highly flawed video images of plane impact, which were not released until months and years after the event. Any other video evidence, such as the dozens of videos of the Pentagon explosion, have been seized or otherwise made unavailable to the public to present time.

Why not just work with real hijackers (and demolish the buildings after plane impact)?

1) Suicide terrorists are extremely hard to recruit outside of the home countries of their causes. While there are plenty of staged examples of suicide terrorism on and since 9/11, there are almost no real examples of suicide or any other kind of terrorism being perpetrated outside the country where the political cause of the terrorist lies: take Ireland and Israel as examples.
2) Suicide terrorists are usually desperate, unstable people, often mentally ill, are unlikely to follow through with their plans, and cannot be counted on to carry out extremely complex, long-running operations such as the 9/11 attacks. A single case of defection or loose lips among the 19 participants or their organizers would ruin a plot so expensive in time and resources.
3) The hijacking itself would be extremely high-risk. In each plane 3 to 5 not-especially-formidable men carrying knives with easily breakable, half-inch to 1-inch blades, often sold by the dozen because they are so flimsy, were meant to overpower a group 10 to 20 times larger. Has anyone seen a disposable boxcutter (1) lately, the kind reported to have been used? At the risk of sounding morbid, it would be difficult if not impossible and very time-consuming to kill a resisting victim with one. Their blades are about an inch long and have almost no puncturing ability. Even one or two above-average opponents on board, or a single air marshal, let alone detection of the metal boxcutter blades at airport security, would mean total failure of the operation. I routinely have had small scissors detected at 2001-level metal detector stations (e.g. in low tech airports). There is no chance that 19 people in a row would get knives through. Additionally, the hijackers would have had no idea that all four planes only had 40 to 60 passengers rather than the 181 passenger full capacity.
4) Above all, the men we were told were the hijackers had abysmal records at their flight schools, were barely able to take off in small, single-engine aircraft. They were not able to fly without the help of an instructor, and ‘had a poor understanding of basic aviation principles,’ according to the school, and none had any experience whatsoever in large jetliners. Assuming the buildings were wired with bombs and hijackings of real planes were performed in order to be blamed for the demolition, a horizontal or vertical miss of even 10 yards would ruin the plot since the impact point would not be aligned with the plane-shaped detonation point. Several highly distinguished pilots, including John Lear, the most decorated living in the airman in the US, have provided affidavits that the maneuvering at the South Tower and especially the Pentagon would have been impossible for even the most expert of pilots to perform, including achieving impossible low-altitude speeds of 540 mph, maintaining control in 10,000 foot per minute descents, and executing 270-degree precision, hairpin turns while in a near-nosedive, and would also have exceeded the mechanical limits of the plane itself.

Why not electronically hijack real flights?

1) If the planes were electronically hijacked, the pilots would notify ground control via radio. If the radios and on-board telephones were disabled, the incident would be recorded on the planes’ black boxes. On top of this, a single cell phone call from a passenger or crew member at low altitude might reveal the electronic hijacking.
2) If the pilots and passengers were killed or rendered unconscious by some substance, silence on the black boxes would document it.
3) If pilots and passengers were killed on board or rendered unconscious, autopsies on bodies that fell to the ground in a realistic crash might also reveal this act.
4) If empty planes were electronically piloted, no bodies would be found among the wreckage at the base of the buildings. A partial or full miss of the buildings, not unlikely in a clumsy jetliner, would expose the plot.
5)The maneuvers required to pull off the three supposed crashes would be impossible for a drone-controlled aircraft. As noted above, Boeing 767 planes do not have the ability to fly in a controlled manner. A drone operator would not be able to account for wind and weather conditions and would be even more likely to miss the buildings than a pilot. A miss of even 10 yards in any direction would expose a drone-hijacking plot of a nature far too complex for cave-dwelling terrorists.
6) Perhaps the greatest risk of either conventionally or electronically hijacked real planes would be military interception, if only by a rogue squadron who disobeyed orders in the case of an intentional stand-down. Were there real planes, interception at all four sites would have been easily within the capabilities of NORAD. Moreover, coordinating a stand-down would require many more participants, people whose conscience and/or genuine loyalties to the country would likely have gotten in the way.

To make the official story believable, the planes had to defy laws of physics and melt into the buildings

1) The time and difficulty of creating a realistic crumpling, shattering, and falling of the plane is far greater than of having the plane disappear or ‘melt’ into the building. The first four images needed to be inserted in near real time. ‘Amateur videos’ released after the video, likely produced by a dozen or far fewer videographers needed to match the effect seen live.
2) All videos needed to match each other. In a ‘melt’ simulation, all videos can easily match each other to a sufficient degree; although they didn’t and inserted obviously different-looking plane images of different colors and shapes, flying at different speeds. In a shatter simulation, even more obvious differences between the videos would be able to be observed.
3) All the parts needed to match each other. In a shatter-and-fall crash, bodies and thousands of serialized aircraft parts would fall to the ground near the base of the buildings. In the melt scenario, all debris could be said to have been buried inside the buildings and lost in the collapse. No bodies, and little more than a literal handful of aircraft parts were recovered.
4) Above all, the planes had to melt into the buildings to make the official story that the planes penetrated and damaged the core of the building more credible. If the planes did only superficial, local damage to some outer columns, a collapse would seem even more unrealistic than it already was.

What about the hijackers?

The story of the hijackers is based mostly around four props that surfaced in the days after the event. Alleged ringleader Mohamed Atta’s luggage, which supposedly missed his flight’s connection from Portland Maine to Boston, held a handheld electronic flight computer, a simulator manual for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft, two videotapes relating to ‘air tours’ of the Boeing 757 and 747 aircraft, a slide-rule flight calculator, his own passport, his will, his international driver’s license, a religious cassette tape, airline uniforms, a letter of recommendation, a note to other hijackers on how to mentally prepare for the hijacking, and of course, a Koran. That Atta would bring all these things with him and not even take them in a carry-on or backpack defies credulity many times over. He couldn’t have known the bag would miss its connection, and what use would a will, passport, and everything else be in a suicide attack where it would all be destroyed? A car allegedly belonging to a hijacker that was found at Boston Logan airport contained a laughable laundry list of items: a copy of Atta’s letter to the other hijackers, a cashier’s check made out to a flight school in Phoenix, four drawings of the cockpit of a 757 jet, a box cutter knife, maps of Washington and New York, and a page with notes and phone numbers. A duffel bag left in a hotel room used by the supposed hijackers just before the flight was stuffed with another laughable laundry list: a Boeing 757 flight manual, an illustrated martial arts manual, an airplane fuel tester, flight manuals in Arabic, an 8 inch stack of east coast flight maps, and yes, a Koran. Then of the course there is the ‘magic passport,’ now a hallmark of false flag events, that was found on the street near the towers, having escaped the plane fuselage and massive, long-lasting fireball outside the building, and drifted to the street unsinged and mostly undamaged. The above constitutes virtually all the evidence against the hijackers, other than the flight school records. FBI chief Robert Mueller stated they left no paper or digital trail at all: not a single phone call, letter, email, hard drive, or computer was found.

Only a handful of supposed hijackers appear to have made any preparation for the attacks, in the form of flight school training, where they all had an abysmal record and were unable to even take off in small, single-engine Cessna-150, one of the easiest planes to fly. ‘He was unfit to fly solo. The man could not fly…at all’ according to instructors. Instructor Ben Conner said, ‘Hani Hanjour [the Pentagon pilot] was not someone cut out to be a pilot. He had no motivation, a poor understanding of the basic principles of aviation, and poor judgment, combined with poor technical skills.’ Hanjour had shown his instructors his pilot’s license in order to begin the course, but the school reported him to the FAA, suspecting his license was not genuine. Trainers at the flight school in Los Angeles that was attended by Nawaf al Hamzi and others said, ‘It was like they had hardly ever driven a car . . . in the plane, they were dumb and dumber.’ The instructors advised them to quit after two lessons and eventually asked them to leave the school. At the Jones Aviation Flying Service school in Venice Florida, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al Shehhi, the supposed pilots of Flights 11 and 175, said neither man was able to pass a basic, Stage I Track & Intercept course. The school suggested the two quit: ‘We didn’t kick them out, but they didn’t live up to our standards.’

These men were not devout Muslims, but regular drug and alcohol users who did not attend mosques, dressed in Western clothes, and frequented strip clubs. For a time they lived and trained at US military bases and were roommates with an FBI informant. One neighbor said he had never seen them attend the local mosque, but had seen them playing soccer a few times. It appears the men were not aspiring terrorists at all, but low-level, perhaps freelance, spies who likely relied on occasional paydays for informant work, possibly for a foreign intelligence agency. It appears they did not even live in the areas they were purported to and made sporadic appearances to maintain a paper trail and create the impression that they were residents. Neighbors reported that there was no furniture in their apartment and they were seen in local restaurants only occasionally.

Some of the hijackers seem to be randomly selected names and faces of Saudi nationals, some matching, others not. As brazen and reckless as this may seem, it is common practice in staged events, as setting up real patsies can be too time-consuming and risky and hold up the operation. It works only because the media will never focus on the ruse long enough to expose it. At least seven of the 19 hijackers turned up alive after 9/11 and said they had nothing to do with the operation. Some had never even been to the US or traveled internationally.

None of the flight school attendees were born in or had deep ties to the US and could have easily left the country under a different identity, whether their assumed or real names, if they knowingly took part in the conspiracy. If they were training at flight schools for some other reason and were unwittingly framed, they were likely either killed or allowed to assume new identities elsewhere.

One unauthenticated, edited video clip without a time stamp that was shot on a continuous recording camera, and not released in 2005, purports to show four hijackers pass through security at Dulles airport. The subjects’ faces are not visible, except for a close-up image of one person that appears be altered. In 2001, most airport security cameras were not continuous recording, like consumer camcorders of the time, but time lapse, only showing one frame per second, and they always included at least one time stamp. The footage could be four tan-skinned passengers at any airport in the world on any date(s). If the footage is of the hijackers,it could be of ‘cross-country surveillance flights’ taken by several hijackers in summer 2001. The 9/11 Commission report made the dubious claim that the security checkpoints at both Boston and Newark did not have security cameras, but a Los Angeles Times article from September 13, 2001, FBI assistant director Louis Schiliro reported that ‘agents examined footage from dozens of cameras at the three airports.’ The FBI never charged Osama bin Laden or any associates of the hijackers for the destruction of the buildings. Other than the above clip, and a still image purporting to show Mohamed Atta entering security at Portland Maine airport, but not at Boston, there are no images of any hijackers arriving or moving through any areas of any of the airports. A team led by David Brent, who worked for Bosch, the company that installed the cameras at Dulles airport, examined ‘every frame from over 300 cameras with 30 days of retention time. The task two three weeks of 15-hour days,’ yet not a single image was produced.

There are no recordings of the hijackers’ voices or goings on in the planes on any of the eight black boxes aka voice recorders, two on each plane, which were not recovered at all in New York (Flights 11 & 175, not usable at the Pentagon (77), and found but not released in Shanksville (93). The black boxes, one of two of which was located in the tail of each aircraft, which generally suffers the least damage in crashes, were rated above the temperatures and impact conditions at all four crash sites. Neither of the two black box serial numbers was included in the NTSB crash report of Flights 77 or 93, yet are included in virtually every other crash report in aviation history since the advent of the black box. Freedom of Information Act requests for the information that have been made to the NTSB, FAA, and FBI were denied. In New York, after removing the steel and aircraft parts to a landfill within days, cleanup workers sifted through all dust of the towers to look for bone fragments and any other evidence, but never found any of the four bright orange black boxes or even fragments thereof. The only alleged audio records of the hijackers are two unverifiable radio messages of the hijackers talking to the passengers, supposedly from Flights 11 and 93, but which could have originated from any radio source. Both messages were said to be caused by the hijackers pressing the wrong button and calling the airport instead of using the plane intercom system, and both messages were identical, telling the passengers that they were going back to the airport and to remain seated.

At least seven of the 19 hijackers are still alive, and five others have been reported to be alive in multiple sources.
1) Ahmed al Nami, currently living in Riyadh Saudi Arabaia, was an adminstrative supervisor for Saudi Arabian Airlines at the time of the attacks. His name and photo were posted on 9/11 as a hijacker and never retracted or corrected by the media.
2) Salem al Hazmi works at a petrochemical complex in Yanou Saudi Arabia. He had never been outside of Saudi Arabia and had never been to the US.
3) Saeed al Ghamdi, a Saudi student pilot who was working in Tunisia during the attacks , was interviewed by London-based Asharq Al Aswat newspaper shortly afterwards. His name and birthdate were used, but not his photo. His father reported, ‘It is not him. It has no resemblance to him at all.’
4) Abdulaziz al Omari, an engineer with Saudi Telecoms in Riyadh, had his name, photo, and date of birth used for a fake hijacker identity. His passport was lost while studying in Denver.
5) Waleed al Shehri, a pilot working in Morocco, protested his innocence to a Moroccan journalists after his name, birthdate, and photo were used by the media. He attended a flight school in Daytona Beach Florida but had otherwise never traveled to the US.
6) Wail al Sherhi, also a pilot and the brother of Waleed, had both name, birthdate, and face co-opted by the media.
7) Satam al Suqami, the owner of the ‘magic passport’ found on the street in New York, was living in United Arab Emirates at the time of the attacks. He had lost his passport in the US in 1995.
8) The father of Mohamed Atta claimed to have spoken to his son multiple times just after the attacks, but not thereafter. He believed that he had gone into permanent hiding for fear of assassination by US or Israeli intelligence who framed him, or been killed by them. Later he said, ‘My son is gone. He is now with God. The Mossad killed him.’
9) There were news reports that Khalid al Mindhar also was alive. The FBI issued a notice to US banks on September 19 that he might still be alive.
10) Ziad Jerrah’s family insist he was in Beirut at a time a landlord had rented ‘him’ an apartment in Brooklyn in 1996. Two days before the hijacking, his uncle reported that Jarrah called and told the family he’d be coming home for a cousin’s wedding in mid-September and had bought a new suit for it.
12) Mohand al Shehri. Shortly after the attacks the Saudi Arabian embassy confirmed to the Orlando Sentinel that al Shehri was ‘not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington.’

Other falsely accused hijackers:
13) Abdulrahman al Omari, another pilot with Saudi Airlines, visited the US consulate in Jeddah on the day of the attacks demanding an explanation. He has four children and lives in Saudi Arabia. The media described him as a father of four.
14) Ameer and 15) Adnan Bukhari were named by CNN as hijackers of Flight 175. Ameer had died in a small plane crash the year before 9/11, and Adnan was alive in Florida and passed a polygraph test to prove he was not involved.
16) Khalid al Mihammadi, a Saudi who lives in Mecca and works as a computer programmer, was shocked to see his picture displayed for Khalid al Mihdhar. He said that the FBI might have gotten his picture from a US federal office that issues ID cards from the time he was in the US studying English. ‘I want to think all this is a mistake,’ he said.
17) Amer Kamfar, a Saudi Airlines pilot living in California, was first reported as a hijacker, then accused by the FBI of being involved in the plot, with a nationwide be-on-lookout report that he was to be considered armed and dangerous. Kamfar was found to have nothing to do with the attacks.

The response from ‘debunking’ websites is that the people who were alive merely had the same name as the hijackers, which in most cases are common Arabic names. This theory does not hold water for the simple fact that the birth dates of the accused were used, even when the photo did not match. The match of both name and birthday is the reason why the living hijackers were located and interviewed. The FBI, while not directly confronting the living-hijacker reports in any official documents, has given statements to the press that their identities might have been stolen by the ‘real’ hijackers. FBI chief Robert Mueller said the FBI was only ‘fairly confident’ in the identity of the hijackers. He also said, ‘There is no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.’ A bureau spokesmen said, ‘The identification process has been complicated by the fact that many Arabic family names are similar. It is also possible that the hijackers used false identities.’ ‘The BBC reported, ‘The FBI believes some of the hijackers used false identities, possibly even names of people who are still alive, which could significantly complicate the manhunt.’ However, in the case of Ahmed al-Nami and others, their passport or identity documents had never been stolen, and in some cases never used. Someone who had wide access to Saudi and UAE corporate or government databases had to have gotten the information. The Saudi foreign minister said, ‘It was proved that five of the [Saudi] names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened.’

Neither the 9/11 Commission official report or the NIST report make any mention of many hijackers being alive or the prospect of stolen identities, and the FBI has not revised or corrected the list of hijackers it published on September 28th, the day after most of the revelations of living hijackers occurred. There was surely not enough time to clear up these discrepancies, so it appears the FBI doubled down and stuck with its original list rather than opening up in a new can of worms. When the living hijackers again denied their involvement in 2006, the FBI responded with the statement, ‘the FBI is confident it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers . . . and no reviews have ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers,’ ignoring the evidence and multiple admissions of doubt from its own bureau chief in 2001, apparently in hopes of putting the issue to bed.

If the hijackers were from an ultra-radical jihadist background, a population subsect that is for the most part a fiction created by Western intelligence, and committing suicide terrorism, they would not want to use fake identities and deprive their families of honor. If they did not exist or were being played by conspirators, fake identities would need to be created.

As noted above, the hijackers who actually went to the flight schools and have not turned up alive were not born in the US and had no deep roots there. If they were framed for the crime, they were likely either killed, or if not framed, allowed to live under an assumed or original identity in the US or elsewhere.

Eight out of nineteen 9/11 hijackers were found alive after the event. This suggests that the 19 may have been randomly selected faces and names, with perhaps a few insiders in the bunch allowing their faces or aliases to be used for the event. Concerning the passengers, the most likely scenario is that they simply never existed, with the impossible in-plane phone calls and the handful of victim family interviews being faked in order to ‘fluff up’ and add credibility to their alleged existence. A future post will talk in more detail about how identities can be and have been fabricated in major media events, mainly by assembling ‘props’ around the identity such as a spouse, friend, or co-worker. The flight numbers appear to have been assigned to other aircraft on the day of the event, possibly with the complicity of an insider at the airlines. Blackboxes for the plane were never recovered for any of the four planes.

What about the radar and air traffic control records, and NORAD interception?

The first and most important concept to realize it that the air traffic controllers and radar cannot identify which planes are in the air or what kind of aircraft or other missile they are. All they are able to see is blips on the screen. Were the air traffic systems to be hacked. The background of the well documented NORAD standdown carried out by Dick Cheney is too much for the scope of this post.


What about ‘all the witnesses’? Thousands’ saw it, didn’t they?

Of the 501 first responder witness interviews regarding the attacks in New York, the only official public record of witness reports, only 23 report the witness having seen a plane approach and hit (by this I mean not just looking up, seeing an explosion, and assuming it was a plane after seeing it on TV and hearing that from others who saw it on TV) the South Tower, the second tower, and 16 of whom state having heard a second plane. The bulk of witness interviews were not conducted until weeks after the event, when the idea of jetliners hitting the buildings had already been widely accepted based on news broadcasts. Of the 16 who heard a plane, ten of them are among the 23 who said they saw a second plane. Six other witnesses report having seen a first plane. The overwhelming majority of witnesses of both planes claim to have seen only an explosion after it occurred and been told by someone else (who was told by someone else, or by the media) it was a plane.

The City of New York was in possession of the witness transcripts, and Mayors Rudy Giuliani and later Michael Bloomberg refused to release them in response to a FOIA lawsuit in 2001 and 2002, and they were not released until losing a second lawsuit filed by a group of the victims’ families in 2005. The City also refused NIST and the 9/11 Commission access to the records before relenting under threat of legal action.

Of the 117 of the 501 witnesses who were within six blocks of the WTC at the time of the second supposed impact, only 20 people, or 17%, 8 of whom are not unique from the above 23 witnesses, report having heard a roar that they believed was a plane, which would have been 140db, a volume that would have seemed more than twice as loud as the loudest verified rock concert ever (129.5 db), based on the rule that every increase of 10 decibels is perceived by the listener as a doubling of volume. Sound travels at 767 mph, much faster than planes, so bystanders near the towers should have had several seconds warning before impact. Live sound effects may have have been used to reinforce . 16 witnesses reported hearing the first plane, four of whom are not unique from the above mentioned six. There were over three times more witnesses whose interviews (approximately one hundred, or 20% of 501 statements) were heavily redacted than who reported seeing a plane (23 + 6), including ten pages of redactions from Rene Davila’s interview and four pages from Ronald Coyne’s.

In 2001, there were few cell phones, no digital video cameras, and the odds of people walking around the Financial District of NYC with camcorders aimed at the not-expected-to-be-hit South Tower at 9am on a Tuesday are very low, and it is possible that the few, if any, other videos observed taken were seized in New York as they were at the Pentagon. There was no Youtube, no Facebook, and almost no video sharing. The news networks had much more complete control over information than they do today. Additionally cell phones blacked out in New York at the time of impact and would not turn on, the official cause of which network overload. Many clocks were reported by fireman to have stopped before supposed plane impact.

The most important reason for the low number of witnesses is the diversionary strategy that used. The first explosion and alleged plane, which almost no one even claims to have witnessed, occurred on the north face of the North Tower. By the time the second explosion occurred, on the south face of the South Tower, an area not visible to the overwhelming majority of Manhattan residents, any bystanders would have either left the area or gone to witness the fire at from a safe area to the north of the North Tower, over 1,000 feet away from and well out of view of the site of the second explosion. Additionally, both explosions occurred on two building faces, which would cause bystanders who had not seen a plane to be unsure if they had been on the correct side to have seen a plane, with any who may have remained insistent on their non-plane testimony drowned out by the nationwide plane consensus that was manufactured by the media and planted witnesses within minutes of the first explosion.

The most common objection is the empty assumption that ‘somebody would have talked.’ The answer is that people did talk. On the day of the event, there were more witnesses who insisted they saw no plane than non-media plane witnesses. There are the twenty heavily redacted witness statements (and who knows if there are others that were never published). As for other outsiders, who would they go to if the media itself was in on the plot? Alerting the media would alert the conspirators themselves, and probably result in a quick end to the witness and/or any evidence he may have had. As for the insiders, murder, blackmail, example-making, and payoffs can go a long way, and again, if the top leadership of the media, intelligence, and investigatory communities were teeming with the conspirators themselves, who would listen to or publish their protests? No one. How could a lone non-plane witness stand up to an entire nation who ‘saw’ the plane themselves (on a TV screen)? They would simply be dismissed as having faulty vision or imprecise memory due to the traumatic nature of the event, and again, many such people did actually exist, and all were in fact either dismissed in that exact fashion or censored by redaction.


The possibility of missiles, decoy planes, or other flying objects…even holograms

The no plane theory is usually understood to mean that no 767 passenger airliners crashed on 9/11. This leaves the door open for other flying objects like winged cruise missiles (such as a Global Hawk), perhaps painted and even heavily modified to look like planes, or smaller, faster, drone-controlled military aircraft that flew near or into the towers. The use of winged cruise missiles in New York, which could be fired from another aircraft, would account for descriptions of missiles and small planes, and would explain why the background image was changed in nearly all the videos. There is also the possibility of a decoy plane. Several witnesses reported seeing a plane fly near but not into the towers, and many witnesses at the Pentagon reported seeing a low flying plane near the Pentagon but none reported seeing it make impact, rather they assumed it had when they heard about the explosion there.

At the expense of sounding crazy to many, I will suggest that there is even the possibility, even likelihood of holograms and live sound effects being used, including a hologram of a passenger airliner being projected around a cruise missile or small drone aircraft. The technology for a crude, large-scale hologram was developed and theoretically usable, and known to the public as early as 1994. Considering that layering was employed in many to all of the videos, it would even have been possible to mask the real-world deception, be it via a modified missile, decoy plane, and/or hologram, and superimpose a separate video deception- CGI planes- on it for TV viewer consumption. Whatever effect was used, it would only really have to have been done once, since very few people saw the first tower’s detonation. My personal belief is that cruise missiles modified to look like planes hit both towers and were washed out of the live footage and replaced with passenger planes using chromakey, but I also leave open the possibility that nothing at all hit the towers or that there was some kind of non-plane visual effect only for the second explosion.

The no-plane theory eliminates the physical possibility that there were large, hijacked passenger planes, and proves that the plane images in the videos were not real planes. The exact method of deception is a secondary consideration and may not ever be known.

A summary of what I believe occurred on 9/11 and who did it:

The event was planned at least 25 years in advance, since the 1970s or earlier, by members of what might be called the Illuminati, or, whatever its name, some private institution or other manner of association that is linked to occultism and whose associates and sympathizers staff and control most or all of the highest-level positions of Western banks, corporations, popular culture, and governments, including the US [to elaborate on the so-called Illuminati: it seems to be built around a religion of sorts that has been referred to as Luciferianism or ‘Mystery Babylon,’ and has parallels to, crossover with, or a large degree of self-sameness with Thelema, Satanism, and other belief systems. There are thousands upon thousands of cases, even after discarding half of them as coincidence, where symbology related to these cults has been planted in corporate-sponsored arts (including music, film, TV), government agency seals, corporate logos, and other spaces. For anyone willing to review them, it cannot be denied that something is there, whether it’s ‘all for show’ and is used as a framework for mutual identification, recruiting, and blackmail, or whether it also has some metaphysical, ‘dark’ basis; the latter would seem to be the case.] The operation consisted of the following steps or components :

Tower destruction and Pentagon missile attack:
1) Firing of cruise missile by rogue DoD elements or their private sector affiliates, possibly from the aircraft that was seen flying over the Pentagon (e.g.); by the same parties, the crashing of drone aircraft in Shanksville
2) Planting of miniature nuclear weapons aka suitcase nukes in the Twin Towers by private sector actors or by rogue US intel elements
3) Planting of conventional explosives and application of nanothermitic paint onto outer box columns (which contained hollow chambers where charges could be placed) and inner columns during fireproofing treatments by contractor linked to defense-lab-grade nanothermite products, as well as planting of conventional explosives in Building 7.
4) Use of classified, experimental technology, perhaps a ‘Star Wars’ Strategic Defense Initiative-linked space beam or large-scale directed energy weapon to destroy the towers, in part as a test run for the secret weapons, potentially to be later cast as alien weaponry in a fake ET encounter (which has been planned to usher in global government; see ‘fake aliens’ post), with this and the above two each being capable of destroying the towers, and being used in concert in case of any failures. None failed, which resulted in the total pulverization of the towers.
Plane and hijacker deception:
5) Placement of explosives in a plane-shaped cut-out in the box columns of about five floors of each tower, and weakening of floor trusses where they connect with those columns, perhaps accomplished during said fireproofing treatments
6) Spreading of rumors of planes on the ground (‘did you see that plane?’), and planting of plane witnesses to speak to the media on camera and in call-in interviews
7) Gathering of 45 samples of video footage of the first and second explosions to be doctored later
8) Monitoring of the public around the towers for video footage captured, and confiscation of such video, or the trailing and neutralization of witnesses and/or their testimony
9) Planting of the 4-5 hand-portable plane parts found around the towers
10) Real-time insertion of a plane image on live TV (with 17-second delay) in the six videos that were aired
11) The use of a live sound effects, e.g. of roaring jet engine, (and possibly crude holograms) to make people who only saw explosions associate them with a plane
12) Electronic manipulation of air traffic control systems to insert plane ‘blips’ onto radar screens (a hardly impossible feat, but too much for this post)
13) Fabrication of most of the hijacker identities by combining real ID photos with fake names and dates of birth, and in some cases selecting random people with matching photo and identifying information from the Saudi public, many of whom were later found alive and thus obviously had nothing to do with the event
14) Fabrication of the passenger identities, probably with the cooperation of intel-linked ‘family members’ who would vouch for the characters’ existence
15) Wiring money to the few real hijacker identities, having them take flight lessons and create a memorable presence, and plant evidence-filled vehicles at airports, though not actually participate in any hijackings
16) Initiation of a cover-up by the FBI, 9/11 Commission, and NIST
17) All of the other ‘subconspiracies’ that occurred in the background: the demolition of WTC 6 and destruction of Enron and SEC records, the largest-ever gold heist from the WTC 1 and 2 basement vaults, and many others

Who do I believe actually did it?
A) Day-of-event ‘ground support,’ i.e. on-the-ground plane rumors, staged witness call-in interviews, footage-gathering, plane parts planting, heavy monitoring of scene for outside witnesses and videographers and the trailing and neutralizing of said witnesses: Rogue elements or unknown, clandestine branches of CIA, Secret Service, or other agencies; Mossad (Israeli intelligence) agents (rogue, perhaps working for the CIA; dozens were arrested following the attacks), and assorted non-state ‘Illuminati’ associates.
B) Destruction of the towers and attack on the Pentagon: Demolition enabled by World Trade Center security, top leadership in the DoD, and demolition carried out by rogue US intel or rogue elements in defense industry
C) The plane and hijacker deception: Top leadership in news media networks and news agencies, as well as intel-linked media personalities, multiple airlines (top leadership + ticketing agencies), ‘ground support’ group for the gathering and doctoring of so-called amateur footage, Saudi elements (likely working for CIA) to import hijacker characters and provide documents and photographs for the fabricated hijackers’ IDs; passenger identities were fabricated by alleged family members of victims who vouched for the victims’ existence, and in the handful of verifiably real victims (David Angell being the only truly high-profile victim), deaths were faked or real but cause misattributed to the event

9/11 was planned in a way to maximize infighting among researchers and deflect and diffuse blame so that no party could ever be blamed, and that the truth would be maximally delayed from emerging and the waters the muddiest possible. Three is the key number. There were three methods of destruction: mini-nukes, directed energy or classified weapon, and nanothermite with conventional charges. There were three main groups of culprits in terms of nationality (not to say any official operation necessarily existed): Americans, Israelis, and Saudis. Each intentionally left their fingerprints on the operation to protect the others.

If the Afghan-Taliban story went down, which has already happened, researchers would fight for the ’28 pages’ and look to (only) the Saudis, or blame only Israel and the Mossad, or blame only Bush, Cheney, and the CIA. The movement has fractured accordingly, with researchers clinging to their pet theory of demo methods, or simplistic understanding of the culprits, when it was always a multi-faceted, complex operation, and only a complex explanation for it can suffice. The second-most significant covert operation against the American people, the JFK assassination, was designed similarly: there were at least four parties involved, who each contributed at least one shooter in a kind of ‘blood pact’ (the Mafia, the CIA or other clandestine intel agency, anti-Castro Cubans, and an LBJ-contributed hitman, possibly Mac Wallace). The difficulty for the American citizen to tolerate high levels of cognitive dissonance and come to terms with such a bizarre reality [of a multitude of culprits and demolition methods], and the large amount of time needed to do it, have been the conspiracies’ greatest assets, more even than secrecy and competence.

What happened comes before (exactly) how it happened, and why

If the official story is disproven by scientific, physical evidence, the question of how or why it could have happened or been kept secret are secondary and must not necessarily be answered. There are dozens of major conspiracies involving large numbers of people that were kept secret for decades and still have not been fully exposed or understood. A crime can be proven to have been committed without a criminal being arrested or the crime fully solved (to be clear, there is indictment-level evidence for many conspirators, unfortunately mostly lower-level participants; not that I expect indictments anytime soon), though some have the infantile, extremely dangerous, and fairly common mentality that ‘someone has to pay’ regardless of guilt. But it’s time to grow up and learn to live with uncertainty. Whole truth can never be known, but we must always cease to believe and act on proven lies.

One thought on “The Case for No Planes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *