by Jim Fetzer
Perhaps
no question within the scope of 9/11 research generates as much heat
and as little light as questions that have arisen over the role of the
aircraft on 9/11, which has come to be known by the name of “planes/no
planes” and of “video fakery”. While I had long since concluded that no
plane had crashed in Shanksville and that, while a Boeing 757 appears to have flown toward and then over the Pentagon,
I was personally unable to bring myself to take the idea that no real
airplanes had hit the North or the South Tower seriously until nearly
two years of being verbally assailed by Morgan Reynolds, who understood
these issues far better than I, where his studies can be found on his
web site, nomoregames.net, especially a response to criticism he has received for raising the issue during a FOX News appearance.
Morgan has also authored excellent critiques of alternative theories of how the Twin Towers were destroyed.
It was the dawning realization that video fakery and real planes were
logically consistent, since video fakery could have been used to conceal
features of the planes or of their entry into the buildings, that
enabled me to take a serious look to sort out what was going on here.
Even I initially thought the very idea was quite bizarre.
During the research I have done on this question, some of the most
important reasons to question the use of planes on 9/11 are (1) that
Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day and, (2) that,
according to FAA Registration records I have in hand, the planes
corresponding to Flights 93 and 175 were not deregistered until 28
September 2005, which raises the questions, “How can planes that were
not in the air have crashed on 9/11?” and “How can planes that crashed
on 9/11 have still been in the air four years later?” We have studies
(3) by Elias Davidsson
demonstrating that the government has never been able to prove that any
of the alleged “hijackers” were aboard any of those planes and research
(4) by A.K. Dewdney and by David Ray Griffin
demonstrating that the purported phone calls from those planes were
faked. And (5), as Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) has observed,
although there are millions of uniquely identifiable components of those
four planes, the government has yet to produce even one. My purpose
here is not to persuade anyone to believe the 9/11 planes were phantom
flights on 9/11, but simply to lay out some of the evidence that
supports that conclusion, even though I myself was initially unwilling
to take it seriously.
Flights 11 and 77: The BTS Tables
The first to notice that American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 were not
even scheduled to fly on 9/11 was the brilliant Australian blues
musician, Gerard Holmgren, who was interviewed by David West on 27 June 2005. Others, such as Nick Kollerstrom, “9 Keys to 9/11″,
have also reported the same difficulty with the government’s official
account. If AA Flight 11 did not even take off from Boston’s Logan
Airport on the morning of 9/11, then it cannot possibly have hit the
North Tower around the 96th floor at 0846 hours and thereby brought
about the death of its 92 passengers. And if AA Flight 77 did not take
off from Dulles International on the morning of 9/11, then it, also,
cannot have crashed into the Pentagon at 0940 hours and thereby brought
about the death of its 64 passengers. Yet that is what the data that
Holmgren discovered in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows to
have been the case. In his new book, 9/11: ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC
(2011), Edward Hendrie has published the data tables for both of these
alleged flights, where it turns out that the BTS subsequently revised
their tables with partial data in order to cover up their absence. For
Flight 77, for example:
The tables for AA Flight 77 can be found in Hendrie’s book on pages 9
and 11, while similar tables for AA Flight 11 can be found on pages 8
and 10. The case against the use of planes becomes even more powerful
when we realized that, as David Ray Griffin, THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS
(2005), explains, Waleed al-Shehri, whom the government claims was
aboard AA Flight 11, was interviewed after 9/11 by a London-based
newspaper and spoke with the US Embassy in Morocco on 22 September,
which would have been remarkable for someone who had died when the plane
he allegedly helped to hijacked hit the North Tower. And the same is
true of Ahmed al-Nami and Saeed al-Ghamdi, both alleged to have been
aboard Flight 93 and were interviewed by multiple sources, while the
Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C., reported that three other alleged
hijackers, Mohand al-Shehri, Salem al-Hazmi, and Abdulzaiz al-Omairi,
were all alive and well and living in Saudia Arabia (page 19). Salem
al-Hazmi was supposed to have been aboard AA Flight 77 and al-Nami to
have piloted AA Flight 11 (page 20), which reinforces the BTS data.
Flight 11: On-Site Evidence
If AA Flight 11 was not even in the air on 9/11, then we should
expect to find indications of one or another kind of video fakery in
the evidence. As the term should be properly understood, “video fakery”
encompasses any use of video to convey a false impression to mislead a
target audience. Although Hollywood specializes in the presentation of
impossible events, its films do not generally qualify as “video fakery”,
insofar as they are not intended to mislead their audience. The
situation on 9/11, however, appears to qualify. Remarkably enough, Jules
Naudet, a French filmmaker, just happened to be in the vicinity doing a
modest documentary about New York Firemen out looking for a “gas leak”.
Indeed, as Leslie Raphael has explained and Jerry Mazza has confirmed, that a cameraman should have been in precisely the right position to film this event depended upon a rather large number of conditions—either as a matter of coincidence, as the government would have us believe, or by design. If this occurred by chance, its improbability is astonishingly small. An odd flash occurs just as the flying object makes contact with the building, which may have been the trigger for a prearranged explosion to create a pattern of damage to the side of the building, which turns out to have anomalies of its own.
Both AA Flight 11 and United Flight 175, which is alleged to have hit the South Tower, were Boeing 767s, while AA Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were both Boeing 757s. While individual images are too blurry and indistinct even to be identifiable as a commercial carrier, much less as a Boeing 767, a time-sequence of the image in motion as it approaches the tower—which was prepared by Rosalee Grable—reveals that it does not bear even a faint resemblance. She has speculated that it might be an arrangement of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
And when you compare the pattern at the time of impact with what we see subsequently, there does not seem to be lot of room for doubt that they do not appear to be the same. How can four impact points–which suggest that it may be four UAVs–that constitute an extended “Z” have been turned into an impression in the side of the building that has now become an elongated “V”? That video fakery was involved here appears to be difficult to deny.
Flight 77: On-Site Evidence
Indeed, as Leslie Raphael has explained and Jerry Mazza has confirmed, that a cameraman should have been in precisely the right position to film this event depended upon a rather large number of conditions—either as a matter of coincidence, as the government would have us believe, or by design. If this occurred by chance, its improbability is astonishingly small. An odd flash occurs just as the flying object makes contact with the building, which may have been the trigger for a prearranged explosion to create a pattern of damage to the side of the building, which turns out to have anomalies of its own.
Both AA Flight 11 and United Flight 175, which is alleged to have hit the South Tower, were Boeing 767s, while AA Flight 77 and United Flight 93 were both Boeing 757s. While individual images are too blurry and indistinct even to be identifiable as a commercial carrier, much less as a Boeing 767, a time-sequence of the image in motion as it approaches the tower—which was prepared by Rosalee Grable—reveals that it does not bear even a faint resemblance. She has speculated that it might be an arrangement of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
And when you compare the pattern at the time of impact with what we see subsequently, there does not seem to be lot of room for doubt that they do not appear to be the same. How can four impact points–which suggest that it may be four UAVs–that constitute an extended “Z” have been turned into an impression in the side of the building that has now become an elongated “V”? That video fakery was involved here appears to be difficult to deny.
Flight 77: On-Site Evidence
There appear to be more than a half-dozen arguments against the
official account that a 757 hit the Pentagon, which appears to be a
fantasy. This “hit point” was too small to accommodate a 100-ton
airliner with a 125′ wingspan and a tail that stands 44′ above the
ground. The debris is wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no
seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines, which are
made of titanium and steel, were recovered.
According to the official account, AA Flight 77 approached the
Pentagon on an acute north-east trajectory, barely skimming the ground
at over 500 mph and taking out multiple lampposts, which would have
ripped the wing off and caused the plane to burst into flame. The
aerodynamics of flight, including “ground effect”, moreover, would have
made the official trajectory–flying at high speed barely above ground
level–physically impossible, because a Boeing 757 flying over 500 mph
could not have come closer than 60 or more feet to the ground, which
means that the official account is neither physically nor
aerodynamically possible. And the only image that the Pentagon has ever
produced of an aircraft approaching the building cannot possibly be a
757:
The plane (in the red box) is too small to be a Boeing 757, which
Jack White has sized for comparison. Russ Wittenburg in the DVD “Zero“,
an experienced pilot who flew the planes alleged to have been used on
9/11, states that the Boeing 757 can’t go 500 mph hour at sea level
because the air is too dense. Robin Hordon, an air traffic controller,
in the same film, explains that the Boeing 757 cannot do the maneuvers
attributed to it. The official story thus appears to entail violations
of laws of physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics, insofar as the
damage to the building, the absence of debris, the clear, smooth,
unblemished lawn and now its alleged performance are incompatible with a
Boeing 757.
Moreover, if a Boeing 757 could have traveled at 500 mph at ground
level, it would have caused enormous damage to the grass and the ground,
including producing substantial furrows from the low hanging engines.
At this point, it appears to be “pilling on” to observe that data from a
flight recorder provided to Pilots for 9/11 Truth by the National
Transportation Safety Board corresponds to a plane with a different
approach and higher altitude, which would have precluded its hitting
lampposts or even the building itself, which means that, if the NTSB’s
own data corresponds to the Boeing 757 that is alleged to have been
flown toward the building, it would have flown over the Pentagon rather
than hit it. For more, see “Pandora’s Black Box” and “Pentacon“, which offer additional substantiation.
What about Flights 93 and 175?
As Greg Szymanski observed, “Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight 93 and 175, Were Only Just Recently Taken Off The FAA ‘Active’ List”
(26 November 2005), both of the United airplanes that were supposed to
have crashed on 9/11 were only ‘deregistered’ in September “after
snoopy 9/11 researchers questioned FAA officials a month earlier”. And,
indeed, Szymanski had it right. FAA Registration data shows that they
were not officially reported to have been taken out of service until 28
September 2005, which is more than four years after they had “official”
crashing in Shanksville (United Flight 93) and crashed into the South
Tower (United Flight 175):
Notice the “Reason for Cancellation” in each case is simply
“Cancelled”. No pretense that they might have been destroyed in crashes
four years earlier. Just as we discovered in the case of the BTS data
for American Flights 11 and 77, where replacement records were created
to add those flights to the data based where they were previously
missing, that form of documentary fakery was also perpetrated in the
case of the FAA Registration records, where both of the planes that were
associated with those flights also appear, but with deregistration
dates of 14 January 2002 and the purported “Reason for Cancellation” in
their case of “Destroyed”:
As we found in the case of AA Flight 11 at the North Tower and AA
Flight 77 at the Pentagon, the on-site evidence does not confirm that
United Flight 93 actually crashed in Shanksville or that United Flight
175 hit the South Tower, which, as we are going to discover, is far and
way the most interesting of the forms of fakery surrounding the planes
that are supposed to have been “hijacked” on 9/11.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth Corroboration
Indeed, the evidence that United Flight 93 did not crash in
Shanksville and that United Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower has
been considerably strengthened by new discoveries from Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
By means of meticulous research on electronic communications between
those aircraft and air traffic controllers, they have been able to
establish that United Flight 93 was in the air in the vicinity of Fort
Wayne, IN, and Champaign, IL, at the time of the alleged Shanksville
crash. Since no aircraft can be in two places at one time, it is
difficult to imagine more conclusive proof that the Shanksville crash of
Flight 93 was another fabricated event:
Even more surprisingly, however, Pilots has also determined that
United Flight 175 was in the air in the vicinity of Harrisburg and
Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was purportedly crashing into the South
Tower in New York City. This may come as quite a shock to those who
watched as it entered the South Tower on television. Indeed, when an
FBI official was asked why the NTSB, for the first time in its history,
had not investigated any of these four crashes, he replied that it
wasn’t necessary “because we saw them on television”. Well, we didn’t
see the Shanksville crash or the Pentagon crash on TV, which leaves us
wondering what we did see on television on 9/11.
Flight 93: On-Site Evidence
Just as America Airlines planes were supposed to be Boeing 767s, both
of these United planes were supposed to be Boeing 757s. A Boeing 757
weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125′ and a tail that
stands 44′ above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger
than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the
crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites
to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved. “This is
the most eerie thing”, the coroner observed at the scene. “I have not,
to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop.”
The reporter for FOX News had similar observations, which I have also verified from the taped interview:
FOX News reporter: It looks like there’s nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.
Photographer Chris Konicki: Ah, basically that’s
right. The only thing you can see from where we were, ah, was a big
gouge in the earth and some broken trees. We could see some people
working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see it,
there wasn’t much left.
Reporter: Any large pieces of debris at all?
Konicki: Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.
Reporter: Smoke? Fire?
Konicki: Nothing. It was absolutely quite. It
was, uh, actually very quiet. Um, nothing going on down there. No smoke.
No fire. Just a couple of people walking around. They looked like part
of the NTSB crew walking around, looking at the pieces…” – FOX (09/11/01)
An alleged eyewitness, Val McClatchey, who resides less than two
miles from the purported crash site, claims to have taken a photo
showing a plume of smoke from the crash site. There are good reasons to
suspect that her photo was faked, however, and that Ms. McClatchey has
to have had reasons of her own for taking such a deceptive public
stance. The plume in her photo (left) resembles those from detonation explosions (center)
more than it does fires from crash sites (right), for example, and
estimates of the location of the plume from where the photo was
allegedly taken place it over a pond, which suggests that this is yet
another fake photograph in the 9/11 inventory. Indeed, there are many
good reasons to suspect that 9/11 was staged with Hollywood-style
special effects.
The virtually complete absence of any debris from the Shanksville
“crash site” was explained on the basis of the claim that the ground had
been used for mining in the past and was therefore “very soft”, where the plane completely disappeared into the ground.
Some accounts even have it that the plane disappeared into an abandoned
mine shaft. But we know what to do with miners trapped in mine shafts:
we bring out the heavy equipment and the bright lights and dig 24/7 in
the hope that, by some miracle, someone might have survived. But that
was not done in Shanksville, where no effort was made to save anyone or
even recover the bodies–and for good reason. There were none.
Flight 175: On-Site Evidence
The footage of the South Tower hit exemplifies several anomalies,
including a Boeing 767 flying at an impossible speed, an impossible
entry into the building (in violation of Newton’s laws), and even
passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it
passes through its own length in air—which is impossible, unless this
500,000 ton, steel and concrete building posed no more resistance to its
trajectory in flight than air. Some have claimed that this was a
“special plane” that could fly faster than a standard Boeing 767, but no
real plane could violate Newton’s laws. The structure of the building,
moreover, meant that it actually intersected with eight different
floors as follows:
Each of those floors consisted of steel trusses connected at one end
to the core columns and at the other to the steel support columns. They
were filled with 4-8” of concrete (deeper in the v-shaped grooves) and
posed enormous horizontal resistance. (Imagine what would happen to a
plane encountering one of them suspended in space!) The windows were 18”
wide and the support columns one meter apart, while there were no
windows between floors, which means far less than 50% if the plane
should have entered via them. But as Jack White has shown here, that is
not what the videos display:
Notice that the plane completely enters the building before its jet
fuel explodes, when one would have thought that, insofar as most of its
fuel is stored in its wings, they should have exploded on entry—which is
comparable to the failure of the 757 at the Pentagon to have its fuel
explode when its wings hit those lampposts. And while some have sought
to support the claim that this was a real 767 based upon the engine
found at Church & Murray, those who were fabricating evidence in
this case did not get it right: the engine component did not come from a
767 and, if this FOX News footage is authentic, appears to be a plant,
as another of Jack’s studies reveals:
Indeed,
as John Lear, perhaps our nation’s most distinguished pilot, has
observed, the plane in these videos does not even have strobe lights,
which are required of every commercial carrier. Even more strikingly, as
Ben Collet noticed, this “plane” appears to cast no shadows. How can a
Boeing 767 possibly travel at an impossible speed (as Pilots for 9/11
Truth has confirmed),
enter a steel and concrete building in violation of Newton’s laws, pass
through its own length into the building in the same number of frames
that it passes through its own length in air, and not have its fuel
explode as it makes contact with that massive edifice? Even the frames
from the Pentagon show a huge fireball upon impact. If that was true of
the 757 there, why is it not also true of the 767 here? It looks as
though, in this respect, the fabrication of Flight 77 fakery was just a
bit better than the fabrication of Flight 175 fakery.
The Use of Video Fakery
Since we all saw United Flight 175 hit the South Tower on
television–and many also claim to have watched it happen with their own
eyes–what was actually going on in New York City? What did we see on
television or, assuming we take the witnesses at face value, with their
own eyes? There are three alternative theories, which involve the use of
computer generated images (CGIs), the use of video compositing (VC), or
the use of a sophisticated hologram, respectively. That third
alternative may sound “far out” until you realize that many witnesses claim to have seen a plane hit the South Tower with their own eyes,
which would have been impossible if VC or CGIs had been the method that
was used. Since we are dealing with visual phenomena, here are some
videos that illustrate what I have been talking about in relation to
“video fakery”:
“Totally fake! But you would still believe it!”
“9/11 Fake: Media Make Believe”
The serious question that has to arise at this point, of course, is “Why?” Would it not have been far simpler just to fly a real plane into the North Tower and another into the South?
Where the answer turns out to be, “No”. Pilots for 9/11 Truth
discovered that it is extremely difficult to hit an edifice 208′ across
at more than 500 mph. After 20 or more tried it repeatedly, only one was
able to hit it once. In addition, a real plane could not enter all the way into the building before it would explode.
But that was a requirement of the mission, since otherwise there would
have been no pseudo-explanation for the subsequent “collapse” of the
buildings due to fire. And equally important, the explosions that were
planned for the subbasements to drain the towers’ sprinkler systems of
water so they could not extinguish the relatively modest fires
that would remain after the pre-positioned jet fuel was consumed in
those spectacular fireballs. The plan was to explain them away as
residual effects of jet fuel falling through the elevator shafts–a
flawed theory, but good enough for a gullible public.
YouTube - Veterans Today -
“The Theory of a Ghostplane”
“Proof Plane that Hit was Hologram”
The mission required something that looked like a real plane but
could perform feats that no real plane could perform by entering the
building before it would explode, which would have been impossible with a
real plane. And that had to be timed to coincide with explosions in the
subbasements that, even with the most meticulous planning, would
inadvertently take place 14 and 17 seconds before the planes appeared to hit the buildings.
It was an audacious plan, brilliant in design, and nearly perfect in
execution. But those who were working this out did not realize that
they were also creating the image of a plane that would turn out to be
traveling faster than a Boeing 767, violating Newton’s laws, and passing
through its own length into the building in the same number of frames
it passed through its own length it air. As in the case of the
Pentagon, they thereby violated laws of aerodynamics and of physics that
gave their game away. And those blemishes, subtle as they may have
been, have provided the opportunity to expose a fantastic fraud, which
has been used to justify wars of aggression and constraints upon civil
rights that our nation continues to endure to this day.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is
the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and McKnight Professor Emeritus
at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
No comments:
Post a Comment