ON THE PAGE DESCRIPTION CHANGE

Updated 2/9/07

In mid-January I noticed that the previous description for this page "the Hijacking of the 9/11 Truth Movement by the No-Plane-at-the-Pentagon Theory" is not the correct one for what I'm doing here. As one miffed message board poster I ran across characteristically put it: "don't lump me in with the "no planers." I believe a plane hit the pentagon, just not flight 77 or any kind of 757." People with such beliefs are certainly not no-planers, many of them in fact pushing the plane of the year (2004-Global Hawk.. 2005-A3 Sky Warrior. Etc.). True no-planers are rare any more; regarding hte Pentagon, the fraud has become more adaptive, and can now account for a small, selectively-screened portion of the plane wreckage found. They narrow their denial down - "okay, we can allow a plane, just not a 757."

So they aren't old-school 2002 no-planers, but they are also wrong and are pushing the Frustrating Fraud, so this page is for them too. Therefore a new sub-title description: ""the Hijacking of the 9/11 Truth Movement by the No-757-at-the-Pentagon Theory" Okay, it's really more of an anti-theory, but I'm not changing it again.

On Oil Empire’s Link to This Site
Apologies to Mark Robinowitz: I had wanted to e-mail him about it but couldn’t find an address on the site, so what the heck, I’ll just do a quick post on it. He initially posted a description with the link to my site under his 9/11 front page, under the "Best 9/11 Websites" section, which I was greatly honored by.

He later modifiedthe description, in part noting the description change: “This site has been pressured by "no-planers" and has been renamed part of the title from "No Plane" to "No 757" in deference to those who pretend there is any evidence (there isn't) for an alleged crash of a smaller-than-757 plane.” Well it's not really fair to say there's no evidence. They've been pointing at evidence for years and some of it's even fairly good. But taken as a whole, of course, as some Texan might say, "that dog don't bark" or whatever.

And second, my bad for ambiguous wording, there was no pressure from no-planers, other than when Phil Jayhan in a big gray car ran me off the road into a culvert. Just kidding. The “angry message board poster called a no-planer” was just the one I ran across somewhere else that made me stop and go “oh yeah, I’m investigating the bunk A3 Sky Warriror plane theory.” There’s been no personal pressure on me yet (except a little by Bill Giltner but he stopped early). I like to think they know not to waste our time.

For Those Who’ve Hunted The Boeing and Still Can’t See It:
It's not that I'm 100% certain a 757 did hit, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim - as so many have - that the evidence "clearly" precludes such a scenario. I have looked at a large cross-section of the available arguments and evidence and find the no-757 claims based on circular repetition of initially flawed claims, while the now-demonized and off-limits official story matches the physical evidence and most eyewitness accounts, while all other lines of inquiry have been eclipsed and maybe atrophied in the process. Despite their psyop of information withholding, the powers that be seem to believe their official story there will hold up once all the (physical) evidence is released. Regarding the Pentagon at least, I suspect the story will continue to parallel facts on the ground, so long as the question remains whether a 757 was or was not responsible. Yet despite this striking vulnerability, those suckered by the fraud remain confident enough of their case that few if any are keeping an eye out for such evidence - they insist on ignoring the barreling freight train of evidence that's picked up a lot of steam since 2002.

So for the record, I am saying - my best guess - it was NOT a truck bomb, NOT an energy weapon, NOT a Cruise missile, NOT a fighter jet, NOT a Global Hawk, NOT an A3 Skywarrior. It was a Boeing 757, possibly piloted by remote control, possibly even piloted by the Muslim terrorist Hani Hanjour. I would not use the word "drone" to describe the former possibility, as the word implies unmanned and empty. I believe the reported passengers were most likely aboard the plane. Whether or not they were in control, the pilots were probably in the cockpit and the rest of the crew was in place. The hijackers may or may not have been present, the phone calls, as upsetting to some as it is to point out, may have been real or fake. No matter how precisely they were carried out, I believe air defenses/intel/immigration/law enforcement/whoever else was really relevant were purposefully scuttled to allow the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon. I see no reason why the two succesful legs of the attack would have been done significantly differently, and that the physical evidence at the Pentagon, after all the tooth-gnashing is done, will ultimately corroborate the physical end of the official story. Sound crazy? Read on...

REYNOLDS AND ROBERTS, REVISIONIST REPUBLICANS

THE PALEOCON REBEL ALLIANCE HERE TO SAVE THE DAY
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frutrating Fraud
December 29 2006

Interestingly enough, among the throngs of those willing to publicly question the official 9/11 story and offer a MIHOP alternative, some are former Republican Party functionaries, or people with suspicious links to same. All have credentials and the ability to cite their GOP affiliations to dodge charges of obvious partisan politics, although at least two fall into the decreasingly subtle rift between the Bush administration “neocons” and disgruntled traditional conservatives. One who shares this view and the most direct Bush-9/11 Truth link is Morgan Reynolds, who had been the chief economist for the Department of Labor in George W’s first term, 2001-02. He explained in an interview and follow-up e-mail with the LibertyForum website:

“I had no idea what the Bush bunch was really like when I went to Washington in 2001. I didn't know then what I know now: neocons, O-I-L, etc. It was one part personal, one part ideological and one part adventure when I showed up for work at DOL on Sept. 4, 2001, exactly one week before 9/11." [1]

"No planes" Reynolds back in his days with team Bush

The circumstances surrounding the end of his tenure at DoL in 2002 is unclear. He later admitted a delayed realization of what was happening; "I must admit that I was slow to catch on to the emerging fascist state.” Reynolds has written for the Lew Rockwell website since late 2003, opposed to the Cheney-led neoconservatives. It wasn't until 2005 that he came out explicitly about his inside job suspicions. In June he published a piece stating that “if demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11,” which he believes to be the case, “then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling.” He also cited the difficulty in getting the science straight, since “explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.” [2]

Reynolds buys the Frustrating fraud whole-heartedly, noting the “absence or near-absence of conventional airplane wreckage” at the Pentagon crash site. Actually he said “at each crash site,” incredibly pointing to evidence that there were no big planes at all involved in the attacks. How we all saw what didn’t actually happen is left unexplained – perhaps holographic illusions or simply computer graphics on the tee-vee and the power of myth retroactively convincing the eyewitnesses. In March 2006 he declared triumphantly “the WTC demolitions are proven and the official 9/11 airliner tales are proven hogwash.” [3]

Countering the accounts of those who saw an American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon, he reminded us that “physical facts trump witnesses’ contradictory testimony every time.” This is true, but as I see it, the physical evidence here both trumps and verifies the eyewitness stories, which are really not very contradictory. Yet Reynolds comfortably stakes his reputation on the summation that “what we are left with is an overwhelming case against the Flight 77 theory.”

Soon on Reynolds’ heels came another “paleoconservative” former Republican economist: Paul Craig Roberts, who served as Assistant Treasury Secretary under president Reagan in 1981-82, a noted architect of "Reaganomics," a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and author of "The New Color Line" (1995) and “The Tyranny of Good Intentions” (2000). A crusader against judicial activism, in the 2000 election he called for the arrest of the Florida Supreme Court that tried to overturn Bush’s “victory” there. [4]

P.C. Roberts: Crusader for stolen elections and 9/11 Truth

But at about this same time Roberts also started writing a daily syndicated column on conservative/libertarian lines that within short order was churning out hundreds of articles flaying the Bush agenda. He said he hasn’t changed his political ideology but “just can’t respect a party leadership who doesn’t respect the truth.” The ruling “Jacobin” neocons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al), their disastrous Iraq policy and their possible role in 9/11 were the basis for his repeated calls for the impeachment of President “Darth Dubyous.” Roberts took a more solid line with 9/11 than Reynolds had, getting less involved overall in the mechanics. But he did at least write in June 2005 “I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility.” [5]

Roberts and Reynolds supported Bush in 2000 and worked for him in 2001, respectively. Both later came to blame the people around Bush for not just allowing but carrying out the 9/11 attacks (or at least, apparently, the demolitions that capped them off). Both came to oppose Bush from the Republican right, and neither came out strongly about their 9/11 suspicions before his narrow 2004 election, waiting until after his second inauguration to drop their bombshells. For what it's worth, both broke their stories within two weeks of each other and both via kooky 9/11 conspiratainment reporter Greg Szymanski (see sources below), possibly a sign of some co-ordination.

I can't say all this proves anything, but it is well worth noting, particularly in Reynolds' case. Some take his bold stand in denying not only the official story but even the very planes we saw as a sign that he truly believes his stance and is willing to put it all on the line. Thus he lends credibility to a theory of dubious factual legitimacy. In fact it's possible that back there in the shadows a deal was made, and he feels so free to make incorrect statements becuase he's beeen granted advance immunity - and probably even some reward - so long as he pushes the stupid cases and not the dangerous ones. The possibility can be neither proved nor ignored.

Sources:
[1] Reynolds, Morgan. Interview conducted June 30, 2005. Liberty Forum.
[2] Greg Szymanski. “9/11 INSIDE JOB: Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D” American Patriot Friends Network. Jun 12, 2005.
[3] Reynolds, Morgan, PhD. "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories:: Part II of a reply to Jim Hoffman."
March 5 2006
[4] Roberts, Paul Craig. “Enabling Act for the Judiciary?”LewRockwell.com. November 27, 2000
[5] Szymanski, Greg. “Former Asst. Sec. Of Treasury Under Reagan Doubts Official 9/11 Story: Claims Neo Con Agenda Is As 'Insane As Hitler And Nazi Party When They Invaded Russia In Dead Of Winter.'” Prison Planet. June 24 2005.

PHASE ONE: FLIGHT OF THE BUMBLE-THEORIES

One of the earliest explanations for the attack to surface was presented by Carol A. Valentine, the Seattle-based operator of Public Action, Inc. and curator of the “Waco Holocaust Museum.” There are at least hints of anti-Semitism in her “historical revisionist” Public Action website, which warns of “the American Coup d’Etat And the War for Jewish Supremacy” and the machinations of the “Imperium Judaicum.” [1] After 9/11, Valentine also became a Truther who specialized in remote control theories; on October 6, less than a month afterwards, she issued a piece called “Operation 9/11: No Suicide Pilots.” In March 2002 she expanded the thesis, passing on the “Flight of the Bumble Planes” theory. Perhaps the most intricate explanation yet, this was laid out to her by a mysterious expert code-named “Snake Plissken.” Snake urged Valentine and her readers to:

“Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just one bee. You can't do it. You get confused. Think of the 9-11 jets as bumblebees. […] I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead.” [2]

This introduction sounds intriguing, and it was compellingly tied in with the reports of as many as thirteen possible hijackings, cluttered radar screens, "phantom" flights, and other apparently incidental confusion that helped mask the attack and cripple the defense. but Plissken cited among the clues leading to his/her conclusion such questionable claims as “no Boeing 757 debris at Pentagon crash site,” explaining that “the aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped off and left outside the building,” just laying there intact with their fuel pouring peacefully out. Of course there have been photos of debris, including metal scraps bearing portions of an American Airlines paint job found on the lawn, and of various discs and turbines from the engines, and even matching landing gear found inside, though people still debate whether these were really from a 757.

In the end analysis, this theory allows for no Arab suicide pilots, obviously, and only one 767-sized remote control drone. This was the “pseudo-Flight 175,” the one so widely seen hitting the South Tower. The unseen “Flight 77” was actually “a remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives - a cruise missile if you like.” Incredibly, even the first attack plane, Flight 11 that hit the North Tower in numerous public photos and videos aired as early as the evening of 9/11, was also “a small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives - a cruise missile, if you like.” This point in particular is a remarkable charge to be making any later than September 12 2001, but one Valentine has maintained through several updates of the Bumble Planes piece up through 2004 at least. [2]

In this construct, the original planes with their passengers were landed under terror threat, swapping radar tracks with drone replacements on the way in (the telltale transponders having been switched off for “security” reasons). The only non-remote controlled plane, of course, was Flight 93, onto which the passengers from the other three flights were crammed. She adds “if you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course,” which is important since 66 of the total passengers, not to mention three of the four missing flight crews, would have to be left behind to fit the rest on board that single 757. Once well filled and airborne, the plane was then of course “shot down or bombed - makes no difference which,” Valentine summed up. “Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions,” yet another holocaust in which “no mass graves will ever be discovered.” [2]

If we’re going to bother pondering such convoluted and unsubstantiated nonsense, we may as well speculate further that the “cruise missile if you like” headed to the Pentagon was then radar-swapped with an actual cruise missile, while the explosives-laden plane it replaced was used to blow up Flight 93, which was filled with nobody, all the original passengers having been flown to Area 51 and vaporized in a secret underground nuclear “test” carried out a month later. The F-15 originally sent to shoot down 93 was then sent back in time via a government-designed wormhole, and became the plane that hit tower one at 8:46, all a sinister plot of the Jewish Empire to be blamed on the Arabs.

Despite its profound weaknesses, the Bumble Planes construct has woven its way into the many revisionist accounts in one form or another, though it’s gradually taken on a generic quality seldom cited back to Valentine. The basic concept is in fact a cornerstone of the most prominent conspiracy theories, figuring in the final cut of Loose Change for one, with Flight 11 now admitted as another drone like 175, and with the Flight 93 passenger transfer done at Cleveland International Airport.

The main point of interest in Valentine’s work to me is that the cartoonishly complex Bumble Planes theory is just one among many, a field of possibilities itself akin to a swarming hive. The methods Snake cited for hiding the truth – especially “add nonsense” - are in fact evident in the theory itself as well as in the wider field. Many have tried locating the truth in that swarm, but few want to admit that our radar screens are simply jammed with too many fake possibilities to zero in on the real mechanics with any certainty.

Sources:
[1] Public Action, Inc. A News and News Analysis Service operated by Carol A. Valentine
http://www.public-action.com/
[2] “Flight Of The Bumble Planes.” By Snake Plissken, as told to Carol A. Valentine. March 2002.
http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html