911 and 77 (21)
First of all getting to be a 'no planer' for me was not immediate in fact it took a while. January 2007 was my wake up to 9/11 being an 'inside job' but it was some time afterwards that I realized that there hadn't been any planes at least not the two planes that supposedly hit the twin towers.
Mind you I wasn't sure how it was done.
You piece together the facts bit by bit over time - it's the same for all of us. It took me more than six years because, despite the glaring inconsistencies, I just assumed the story I was hearing from the media was basically a true one. Without the internet I would still be totally in the dark, that's for absolute sure.
So I am a no planer.
No planes hit the two towers (and, for me, no plane hit the Pentagon).
You see it isn't possible that any kind of plane could have done anything like what we saw it do; maybe it would have looked like that if the towers had walls of jelly (jello) but even then I think it would still have looked false.
So this is essentially a battle of "What we all saw" vs "What we know to be impossible"
In any such internal battle what we all know to be impossible usually loses the contest because that's a reason-based case while what we all saw is an emotion-based case and that wins because we PREFER that version, we like it better and we don't want the reasonable version to be true despite how much more sense it makes, despite how unreasonable the false version is. Not convinced?
Take the problem of kids who smoke. Smoking vs non smoking. Who wins? The kids KNOWING it will do bad things to them or the EMOTION that tells them it's COOL? In the UK for decades it's been the emotion that tells them it's cool. Meanwhile us adults continue to blast away as if KNOWING (telling the kids) the detrimental facts will do the trick (make the kids not want to smoke or give it up if they already have tried it). This phenomenon by the way is what is known (to me) as pristine stupidity - not on the kids part but these intelligent adults (who so stubbornly refuse to learn even the simplest stuff). Whilst dwelling on this aside just think how the kids who smoke would react if we informed them why they smoke is due to their overwhleming emotion (overwhelming their reason) and that people who are overwhelmed by their emotions are more usually identified with the feminine whereas of course kids who like to smoke are trying to impress the other kids just how masculine they really are.
So we wrestle with emotion that tells us to believe that planes slid into the towers like a hot knife slices through warm butter instead of a piece of paper hitting a block of frozen butter.
When you've sorted that out (in your minds after a furious battle with your emotions) then we can only conclude this:
There could not have been any planes (simply because the physical reality of the two, the building 'walls' and how and what aeroplanes are made of, could not possibly have 'allowed' it). This does not need experts testimony; it is very very simple and a bright ten year old child would easily see through it. (I have written a bit more on this in an article I titled: "Thin Aluminium Can't Slice Through Thick Steel")
Reason alone will tell you that and the only thing stopping it (this realization) is emotion. This is why when confronted with 'no planers' the genuine* rejectionists will throw up unreasoned objections. It is emotion that blocks the reasoned conclusion and this is why, usually, argument doesn't achieve anything useful.
I suspect that the original plan was to use planes but there was a fundamental problem.
What if a plane missed or hit the wrong spot?
The buildings had to come down, (actually that's not quite right since almost nothing landed, perhaps 3% rubble and 97% blown away as dust). So they were going to come 'down' regardless of the rest of the plan. That would look a bit odd if a plane missed. And how could you guarantee a hit? You don't need me to explain this problem. It must have vexed them because apart from that the plan looked foolproof. I think what happened next was that the plan stayed in that phase a long time - plenty of time for a lot of people in the know to hear it but then someone and I imagine a kind of spiritual opposite of Dylan Avery, announced to the assembled group of plane planners "I've got it! Why use planes at all? Hear me out..."
In case you are puzzled let's just recap. The buildings had to come down. Short of saying "The magic tower block fairy did it" we need a plausible cause. Planes. This is just slightly less absurd than blaming the magic fairy. The idea being just as you probably believe. Planes hijacked by terrorists hit the towers and caused a sudden catastrophic collapse and everyone is so shocked that they don't question what they have seen including that no plane could do that (slide gracefully through robust steel framed mesh), no building could fall at freefall speed without sophisticated engineering, no building collapses with almost no trace, and other blatant chunks of give-away evidence. Maybe if they hadn't bothered to pretend planes did it and just said "The Magic Skyscraper Fairy - that only ever vapourises buildings taller than 99 stories - did it" most of us would have accepted that since it is such a rare thing to have a building taller than 99 stories disappear in such a wierd way, so "I guess" anything could happen. Emotional "logic" finds it's own story - it's not meant to make sense, it's just meant to serve as a momentary prop as if just saying the absurd makes it true.
Since there were no planes there also were no witnesses to there being any planes. How could that work. Clearly it has worked. Planes coming in like they supposedly did would have produced hundreds of eye witnesses and the fact that the very few that we do have are dubious matches the reasoning that there were no planes.
I am sure it was all video fakery and "nose out" - this and other video analysis - shows or proves it if there were still reason to doubt it. So what we all saw on television was compilation of crafted video trickery (and it shows).
There being no witness to say there was a plane just wasn't a problem and hasn't been since.
People don't want to be reasoned with, they want to be emotioned with and that's exactly what they are getting.
There is talk of holograms. Maybe. I dare say holograms of planes can be convincing (I've no personal idea) but why bother? If you look at the famous video shot of the plane sliding gracefully into the building, knowing how tough that steel framework was then you know it was impossible which means it was video fakery or something similar and it doesn't much matter what except that it was a trick.
In writing this I wanted to check out a couple of things first and one of these is a video, the video, showing the plane sliding gracefully into the steel framework without any resistance and this time I noted the shortwave radio.
That radio is probably a professional item and not something that the average person buys or could buy. If it is available to the public then it should be identifiable. I would say that it is a shortwave receiver and a professional model at that. Even if it belongs to a shortwave enthusiast quite innocently one has to ask how it is that this piece of equipment just happens to be close to where the cameraman is. For me it is all dead give away evidence.
If you're wondering what the point might be of someone 'in the know' using a shortwave radio you may like to be reminded that cell phone communications was knocked out during the atrocity so the perpetrators would have needed to communicate using a separate and reliable system. This would also explain the presence of the man in the same video frames who is most likely linked to the use of that radio.
But these supplementary observations don't matter much and can distract and detract from the main point, that there were no planes and for that reason alone the whole 9/11 atrocity must have been a huge trick. Other evidence is of course important for the time, if it ever comes, when there is a court of justice to prosecute the planners and the other perpetrators but for the casual observer, like myself, they are just interesting observations.
If you have not yet accepted that 9/11 was an inside job then trying to deal with the 'no planes' idea is a step too far, I totally agree, so watch "Loose Change" for example, first, and go from there.
*
Genuine rejectionists are those who reject the 'no plane' idea perfectly honestly; it's what they genuinely believe, that there were planes. For me, going to '9/11 was an inside job' involved a six year delay but once I grasped that idea and had cleared all my doubts then going from there to 'no planes', directed energy beam, 7/7 (another inside job, connected to 9/11) was quick. Others, I notice, saw through 9/11 just about immediatedly or even predicted it as Alex Jones did, but then stop and see the more bizzarre aspects as dis-info designed to make the '9/11 truthers' look like crazy people. I believe this IS partly a valid concern. For myself however I don't concern myself with the fact that the more strange (bizzare, wierd) the information is then the less likely it is to be accepted as true; I want to know, and work out, the truth regardless of how strange, incredible and unbelievable it is.
By Paul E. Coughlin
SaneThinking.com
1 July 2008
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
