A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

by **proldic** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 5:09 pm

by Eric Salter <a href="http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html">www.questionsquestions.ne...eview.html</a>

by **Qutb** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:26 pm

Thanks. And I agree: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>If so, there are many reasons why it has progressed to this point. The phrase "Fools Rush In" has never been so appropriate than in describing the rougher edges of the 9/11 truth movement, in which we've seen all sorts of instant experts talking about technical subjects far removed from their expertise. Some researchers who are quite good at tracking down information have proven themselves completely incompetent at making a sound technical analysis. It's a completely different skill set. I suppose part of the problem is that so far I'm the only one with a background in visual media that has taken a critical look at these theories and that I've refused to spend too much time or energy on them. But the fact that the no-plane advocates have not sought out a second opinion on their amateurish analyses from another experienced professional speaks volumes. The no-plane ideas are a manifestation of an epidemic of "smoking gun fever," the rush to see promising evidence in any and every perceived anomaly. One could chalk this up to technical incompetence, reckless enthusiasm, or a desperate desire for ammunition to use against a terrifying conspiracy, but the problem in fact is deeper. Is often driven by an ideological imperative to pursue a more radical case. And by radical I don't mean "leftist" but more divergent from the official story. If you look at the rhetoric of a no-plane supporter, such as Nico Haupt, you see an attempt to make accepting no-plane claims synonymous with pursuing the "real truth." Likewise, the "Gatekeepers" research of Bob Feldman, for which I helped build the flowchart graphic, has been hijacked and transformed from a complex analysis of elite control of lefty media into a simplistic ideological litmus test: "If you don't support my spurious physical evidence claims you're a 'gatekeeper.'" (...) Discussion of physical evidence should be egoless and non-ideological, characterized by stark realism. First the evidence has to be demonstrated simply to be reliable. Then it must be decided whether there is enough evidence to make a convincing case (...) It should go without saying that an investigation of a conspiracy like 9/11 will always a two-front war against disinformation. On one side are the gatekeepers pursuing a limited hangout. On the other side are crackpots and disinfo agents pushing bogus, discrediting evidence. Weeding out bogus claims is neither gatekeeping nor censorship but an absolutely critical activity. <hr></blockquote> Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **robertdreed** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:33 pm

Bravo, Eric Salter. Too bad the analysis had to be necessary in the first place. "Discussion of physical evidence should be egoless and non-ideological, characterized by stark realism." "Fully", as we used to say in the '90s. When considering such questions, if you aren't feeling calm and dispassionate in the course of making or refuting the relevant points, you're doing it wrong. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/26/05 5:34 pm

by **slimmouse** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:48 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Too bad the analysis had to be necessary in the first place.<hr></blockquote> Indeed. If only we all had the patience to wait for Sept 2101, the whole thing would be completely unneccesary. Real cute trick throwing the holograph stuff with the pentagon plane though.Kudos to this article for that. I suppose I could throw in the Hedge funds or the put options or the able danger stuff with the 4000 persons who never turned up for work that day if I wanted to throw a baby out with the bathwater too. Hey, and look at the "hologram" author - its an Icke. Next news, it will be 'that same Icke guy' that talks about lizards now talking about holograms ! I wonder if Marcus Icke changed his name for this hologram stuff ? BTW, I read somewhere today, that science has recently "shapeshifted" a salamander into a toad or somethin similar. But no doubt that was just a rumour <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> Im writing to my MP today BTW. Stop wasting money on DU tipped missiles. Use ordinary carbon fibre with "heavy sausage meat". I guess that works like "heavy water" ?? It does exactly the same job. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Im just wondering which is more likely in the meantime ? The likelihood that a guy could fly a plane across US airspace for 45 minutes unchallenged, or a pilot could "miss" the pentagon the first time - See the "official" flight path - and then produce an unparalelled feat of avianautics. Or both, or neither ? I guess we just need to get the popcorn and Cryogenic life extension kits together and wait for the footage. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=slimmouse@rigorousintuition>slimmouse</A> at: 10/26/05 7:29 pm

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:13 pm

This is an excellent piece deserving circulation at least as wide as the fables and disinfo it dismantles. I particularly liked this: The treatment of the pod issue by Popular Mechanics should be a warning. The pod theory was never supported by any more than a small minority of 9/11 researchers. But as a result of Von Kleist's error-ridden "In Plane Site" dvd and forwarding of pod articles by naive individuals who thought they were encouraging dialogue, enough noise was built up around the issue to give PM the justification to portray the "pod" as a widely held view. And their treatment of it was a master stroke. They gave it marquee position at the beginning of the article-a first impression-tainting all the other stronger evidence to follow. And then their debunking was weak, simply a one-liner from an "expert" claiming it was an illusion, allowing the pod advocates to declare victory and continue to push their theory. Overall, a "lose-lose" scenario for 9/11 truth. On has to wonder, with the no-plane theories gaining the support of bigshot Morgan Reynolds, if a redux of the pod debacle is in the cards.

by **robertdreed** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:44 pm

F=MA That scientific law plays out in some weird ways. Consider that the 150mph winds of a tornado can drive a straw into a tree. That "sounds" implausible to those of us more accustomed to dealing with the physical properties of straws and trees under less stressful conditions. But, there it is. As for the spiraling 270 degree descent to ground level in order to target the one side of the Pentagon under construction and vacated by the employees- I find that suspicious, myself. But not because I think something other than Flight 77 hit the building. As for FAA ground control losing the jetliner- that I find understandable. It was on the screen, but the GC people didn't know what to make of it. The flight transponder identifiying it as Flight 77 had been switched off. That doesn't explain the seeming inability of NORAD to identify it or track it from the point at which it did a very abrupt turnaround. But it certainly doesn't follow that another aerial vehicle got substituted for Flight 77 during the 55 minutes that it deviated from its flight plan. In an earlier post, I mentioned people "straining at gnats, and swallowing camels." Here's what I mean by that- the same people who seize on every perceived discrepancy surrounding the offical story of Flight 77 don't offer to explain the holes in their own pet theories- for instance: Where did Flight 77 go, if it didn't hit the Pentagon? What secret airfield did it land at? How many witnesses on the ground had to have been in on the plot, at minimum? The flight track of 77 was available on the screen, as an unidentified "bogey"- at what point did another aircraft or UAV shadow the airliner, and substitute for it? Where is the radar track for it, preceding that point? What happened to the airliner, if it didn't hit the Pentagon? Admittedly, there are discrepancies in a few of the reports of firsthand witnesses with their eyes on the sky in the vicinity of the Pentagon in the minutes preceding the impact and explosion- but how is it that not one witness has mentioned seeing a cruise missile? If it wasn't a cruise missile, but a small commuter-size jet or private plane, how did it do so much damage? If it was a different make of jetliner from a 757, where did it take off from? Did it just come out of nowhere? How is it that the first proponent of the "no-plane" theory, Thierry-Meyssan, approved the use of a misleading photo of the aleged impact hole for the front cover of his book, as well as the mislabelling of the photo on websites advocating the "no-plane" theory? It's been pointed out by researchers that the alleged "entrance hole" depicted in those photos was actually drilled by the rescue/reconstruction services in order to deal with the damage. Why haven't any of the people who mislabeled those pictures from the outset offered a retraction and apology? Why are the same few photos offered as documentation, instead of a comprehensive series of photos depicting a full representative spectrum of perspective? Why do none of the photos provide anything resembling an accurate indication of scale? The Pentagon is the largest office building in the world. Unlike most of the people viewing the same four or five photos that claim the hole in the wall is too small to account for a jetliner, I've actually been in the parking lot of the Pentagon. The bastard is HUGE. And another thing- why believe the person who first made the "no-plane" claim- who incidentally was perhaps the first author to have a book out in print on the subject of the 9-11-2001 terrorist attacks? (I think it was published and circulating before the year 2001 closed out.) Who is this guy Thierry-Maso- I mean, Meyssan? Why does he deserve credence- because he's French, and "everybody knows" "the French" "hate Bush"? Because he claims to have formerly been with the French intelligence service? Why does that make a difference- and to the extent that it does, why is that fact seen as helping his credibility rather than hurting it? Who ever heard of the guy before 9-11? Where is Thierry-Meyssan now? Is he on a book tour? Those are only a few of the questions that need to be addressed by adherents of the "no-plane" hypothesis...and I haven't seen anything resembling a comprehensive alternate narrative that seeks to explain them. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/26/05 7:48 pm

by **slimmouse** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:16 pm

I have a few problems with the no plane theory myself in the form of unanswerable questions. But I need to stick with the obvious as I see it. Rightly or wrongly. Proldic speaks of a video being released when "they" are ready. Im sure youre aware that "they" obviously arent ready yet, since a concerted effort has so far been refused any mileage whatsoever from what I can gather by a number of people attempting to view the footage from the gas station or the Marriot hotel, or the Washington Highway agency, under the FOIA. Like I said earlier, (And I will be the first to apologise profusely if Im proved wrong,) I doubt very much if I personally will ever see it, since I cant afford, nor do I trust any Cryogenic kit that might be neccesary to get me to the enforced release date - assuming even if I did/ could, that the goalposts arent moved again of course. I assume you mean "exit hole" when you speak of entrance hole ? You can obviously see my problems with the official stories, Particularly when they are compounded with any amount of "official" lies in the form of "official" documentaries and accompanying stonewalling. Perhaps I should ignore the stonewalling since that is some kind of double bluff ? Well maybe. I can see how that might well work - especially given the shameful official video explainations. One would have really thought that even US intel and its associates (ASCE, National Geographic) wouldnt be stupid enough to truly expect anyone to believe that garbage. If you want to see piss poor disinformation at work, I suggest you take a look at those vids ! But hey, perhaps if thats all youve really got to work with..... I can also see your point with regards to knats and camels and all. In all truth, It really doesnt matter to me either way whether a plane hit the pentagon or not, since I can ask as many unanswerable questions about the event either way. That should hopefully tell you that Im speaking from the heart when I say that I dont for one minute believe it was a plane, or pehaps a plane alone. But with regards to the double bluff theory surrounding stonewalling. In that case I might as well ignore the enigma that is Sibel Edmonds given that its only extensive stonewalling that makes me suspicious of the PTB in that regard also ?

by **robertdreed** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 10:19 pm

"Real cute trick throwing the holograph stuff with the pentagon plane though.Kudos to this article for that." slimmouse, that article on "alternative WTC plane crash theories" in Questionquestions didn't pretend to be about the Pentagon crash. It only mentioned it in passing, as an aside placed within a single clause of one sentence. The article did supply a link to a site addressing the "no-Flight 77 hit the Pentagon" allegations. Here <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html">911research.wtc7.net/essa...ntrap.html</a> Should I print it out in full, or would you prefer to excerpt quotes from the unabridged text and formulate your replies to them? Either way is okay with me.

by **AnnaLivia** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 11:44 pm

Peter Dale Scott blurb on the back jacket of "The War On Freedom, How and Why America was Attacked September 11, 2001" by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed quote "The material Ahmed has collected is immensely important and useful. He looks at the right subjects." the index entires under heading Pentagon: actions after hijacking notification attack on attack warnings briefing, October 2001 defense sources distance from Air Force bases emergency notification failure to notify public failure to scramble jets handling of FAA emergencies hijack monitoring hijacked flights, ignoring hijackings related to investigative panel lag time before defending leaked document monitoring of Payne Stewart flight officials cancelling trips planned attack against pre-emptive strike upon pre-identified hijackers retaliation for attack role in attacks strategies surveillance of attack suspects time of attack war games guys, i gotta ask. who are you trying to convince, and what are you trying to convince them of? Mr. Ahmed used thorough documentation and went no where near a no-plane argument, and i tell you true that at the end of chapter 5 of this book, i was screaming and crying and running out to the yard to try to tell the kids' dad "THEY KNEW! Bushco KNEW!" i could barely get the words out. i was hysterical with shock and grief. it was june of 2002. the book had just come out. i'm one of the people who at that time never in a million years would have believed that the president of the united states would be capable of even thinking of doing this thing to his own citizens. and i already despised the guy, but still couldn't think it. a good lawyer trying to convince a jury never asks a question he doesn't know the answer to... i know it's by talking to each other we work out the details amongst ourselves here, but when you're carrying this wake-up message to the voting public, you simply don't need a no-plane argument and you will definitely shoot yrself in the foot with that out here in Joe-can't-believe-it land. i even ask people their permission to tell them something truly awful, first. (it makes them curious to hear it, too.)

by **Homeless Halo** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:15 am

I wish I knew what it was like to be one of those people who turned into a "conspiracy theorist" AFTER 9/11. Do have any idea how many people thought I was Crazy on Sept 11's Afternoon when I told them this was big Psy-Op Spectacle to create a Gestapo and few medium sized wars? Well, there were a lot of them. Course, a few of them turned to my side in the next few days as we made plans to create a Gestapo and launch and unending small scale war (much better than a few medium scale wars). I'll avoid the CD thing, because that is argued about a lot, even though some of us think it is obvious and thought it from the beginning. And the "no-plane" theory has more holes in it than the BushCO conspiracy theory all the sheeple bought at discount price. Of course, there are sever issues with the story of the Pentagon attacks. Take a bus tour of DC sometime, and they'll spend 40 minutes reciting the list of security measures places like the Pentagon have to you. Automated SAM batteries. How did they not fire? If they're "automatic", wouldn't someone with high clearance have to flip the switch off? Where were the Helicopter Gunships that usually patrol ALL of DC Metro? Y'know, the ones for shooting down incoming ATTACK JETS (way faster and agile than a freaking 757)? "The hole" isn't as much of an issue. The pentagon is a super-reinforced mega-fortress with compact/compartmentalized shell structures. It is made to take heavy impact with minimal damage, from things far more dangerous than a 757. I shouldn't expect a 757 to do that much damage. How the hell did the little Saudi guy with twelve hours of flight time pull of such a damned fantastic flight manuever? How did they know who was on the planes so fast? That is, I'm implying that if they had enough time to figure out who it was by noon or so and give the first list of "attackers" then why weren't they efficient enough to have noticed these guys at airport security? Razor blades? What the hell happened to the plane in Penns? Insofar as the Pentagon goes, I plan on living to the release date just to collect my bet, plus interest, that it was a damned remote controlled strap-on, and nothing else.

by **AnnaLivia** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:23 am

funny, HH...i wish i knew what it was like to be one of those people who knew it all along. but better awake late, than never. 'course, then it took awhile adjusting to carrying the burden of knowing...

by **Homeless Halo** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:27 am

scary isn't it? Its okay, though. Imagine how scared "they" must be, trying to keep something so big a secret.

by **AnnaLivia** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:37 am

Let 'em sweat, the dirty rotten scoundrels. i've got some irish blood in me, and i am so digging that Paddy Fitz is the guy making them sweat! if he exposes the fact they're proven liars about those 16 words, it gets easier for us all to spread the 9/11 truth.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:45 am

you expended an awful lot of verbiage in order to say little or nothing that's worthwhile on the Pentagon crash. Why drag an offhanded aside from another RI poster into this? Proldic was simply offering up a cynical wisecrack in response to a previous speculation by yourself. Other than that, he doesn't enter into the arguments of those who endorse the allegation that "it wasn't Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon." You didn't directly respond to most of the questions I posed in my earlier message. I suggest you re-read my post, maybe your eyes were fatigued and you didn't notice them all. You aren't doing your case any good by your seeming ignorance of what I'm referring to when I speak of the misleadingly inaccurate mislabeling of one of the photos of the damaged section of the Pentagon by Thierry-Meyssan and other advocates of the no-plane webiste. At the very least, it indicates that you haven't looked at the websites that address the questions posed by the "no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon" allegants. For the record, this is what I'm talking about- <a href="http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html#jokes">www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html#jokes</a> Take a good, long look at the photos on that page, and then tell me that Thierry-Meyssan is dealing for real. Other than that, slimmouse, it appears that you've shifted the weight of what you're passing off as your argument in favor of the "no-plane" theory toward complaining about the lack of conclusive video evidence that would settle the question beyond the shadow on even an unreasonable doubt. And you surely do find an awful lot of ways to repeat yourself about that. Why, you reitierate to the point of redundancy, and beyond... The most obvious problem with putting all your chips on that complaint is that you're attempting to excuse yourself from responding to any of the points brought up by those who challenge your position, as if those questions could only be addressed by visual evidence that isn't currently available to either side of the argument. Another problem with that argument is that you're assuming that the Pentagon has that video evidence and is withholding it ("until 2101", is your guess), because it would conclusively prove the allegations that something else other than Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. I'll grant the possibility- the likelihood, even- that video evidence of the attack on the Pentagon is being withheld from the public on orders of someone in authority in the Federal government. You're assuming that 1) the evidence exists, and that 2) it's being withheld because it supports your position. Even if I grant your premise 1 for the sake of argument, premise 2 doesn't follow. If such video evidence is being suppressed, it's also possible that it's being kept secret BECAUSE it simply shows Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon- that if such conclusive video footage does exist, the people ordering its withholding are doing so because they much prefer to encourage silly, unproductive food fights within the population of 9-11 skeptics. That's all the time I need to spend on indulging that hypothesis, for the time being. I don't even know if such suppressed evidence is extant. If the Feds did locate and confiscate all of the video evidence except for that blurry, distant clip from the gas station, who knows if it's any better quality. Maybe the lens cap was on. Maybe the camera wiring was faulty. And that leads us back to considering the evidence that IS available- which in turn puts the burden of proof back where it belongs, on those making the extraordinary claim that on Sept. 11, 2001, Flight 77 mysteriously disappeared, never to be seen again- replaced at some point between 8:55am and 9:43am by an entirely different Flying Object that crashed into the Pentagon and exploded. A UFO, technically speaking, in light of the fact that none of the people making that claim have ever positively identified what it was that that DID hit the Pentagon, if it wasn't Flight 77. slimmouse- have you formulated replies to any of my questions yet? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/26/05 11:04 pm

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:11 am

Where did Flight 77 go, if it didn't hit the Pentagon? What secret airfield did it land at? How many witnesses on the ground had to have been in on the plot, at minimum? The flight track of 77 was available on the screen, as an unidentified "bogey"- at what point did another aircraft or UAV shadow the airliner, and substitute for it? Where is the radar track for it, preceding that point? What happened to the airliner, if it didn't hit the Pentagon? Admittedly, there are discrepancies in a few of the reports of firsthand witnesses with their eyes on the sky in the vicinity of the Pentagon in the minutes preceding the impact and explosion- but how is it that not one witness has mentioned seeing a cruise missile? If it wasn't a cruise missile, but a small commuter-size jet or private plane, how did it do so much damage? If it was a different make of jetliner from a 757, where did it take off from? Did it just come out of nowhere? How is it that the first proponent of the "no-plane" theory, Thierry-Meyssan, approved the use of a misleading photo of the aleged impact hole for the front cover of his book, as well as the mislabelling of the photo on websites advocating the "no-plane" theory? It's been pointed out by researchers that the alleged "entrance hole" depicted in those photos was actually drilled by the rescue/reconstruction services in order to deal with the damage. Why haven't any of the people who mislabeled those pictures from the outset offered a retraction and apology? Why are the same few photos offered as documentation, instead of a comprehensive series of photos depicting a full representative spectrum of perspective? Why do none of the photos provide anything resembling an accurate indication of scale? The Pentagon is the largest office building in the world. Unlike most of the people viewing the same four or five photos that claim the hole in the wall is too small to account for a jetliner, I've actually been in the parking lot of the Pentagon. The bastard is HUGE. And another thing- why believe the person who first made the "no-plane" claim- who incidentally was perhaps the first author to have a book out in print on the subject of the 9-11-2001 terrorist attacks? (I think it was published and circulating before the year 2001 closed out.) Who is this guy Thierry-Maso- I mean, Meyssan? Why does he deserve credence- because he's French, and "everybody knows" "the French" "hate Bush"? Because he claims to have formerly been with the French intelligence service? Why does that make a difference- and to the extent that it does, why is that fact seen as helping his credibility rather than hurting it? Who ever heard of the guy before 9-11? Where is Thierry-Meyssan now? Is he on a book tour? Those are only a few of the questions that need to be addressed by adherents of the "no-plane" hypothesis...and I haven't seen anything resembling a comprehensive alternate narrative that seeks to explain them.

A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

Re: A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

Re: A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

Re: A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

Re: A Critical Review of WTC 'No-Plane' Theories

slimmouse

Re: Robert.

WTC crash theories/Pentagon crash theories

Re: WTC crash theories/Pentagon crash theories

AL:

Re: AL:

well

Re: well

slimmouse...

slimmouse...you know, THESE questions:

Who is online