Monday, January 01, 2007

Ronald Bleier: No Planes on 911 -- Exposing the Illusion

Ronald Bleier’s article (8450 words): “No Planes on 9/11 – Exposing the Illusion” is available at: http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html


The article summarizes evidence presented by Gerard Holmgren and Morgan Reynolds, which persuasively expose the illusion that planes were used in the 9/11 terror attacks. If there were no planes, there were no hijackers, Arab or otherwise, and thus the bogus “war on terror” is more starkly revealed for what it is: war on peace in the world.



(excerpts)

No Planes on 9/11 – Exposing the Illusion


By Ronald Bleier


December 2006

Like most people, on September 11th 2001, I believed the official story about the terror attacks. It took me almost three years to become a skeptic. The major issue that led me finally to question the official accounts was the manner of the collapse of the Twin Towers. After watching a one-hour critical video in the summer of 2004 (see below) I decided to look into the question of whether the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by pre-planned demolition charges. In due course, as I researched the issue in books, video and the Internet, I become convinced that the terrible events of that day were planned and executed by the Bush administration. I saw no way out of Jim Hoffman’s theory that if the WTC Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, then Osama Bin Laden couldn’t have been responsible.1

Finally, to complete my conversion, about a year later, I read an article by Australian researcher Gerard Holmgren, called "Manufactured Terrorism,"2 which propounded what seemed an incredible theory: that no large passenger jets were used in any of the 9/11 attacks, including New York City. Later I read yet another key article supporting the same No Planes Theory (NPT), this one by Morgan Reynolds3, former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002. I soon became an advocate of the NPT, a tiny subset of the 9/11-truth movement.

****
On the day of 9/11 I experienced a heavy dose of the intended shock and awe when I watched in real time the collapses of the Twin Towers. Shortly after 9:03 a.m. I heard on the radio that there was video of a big passenger plane hitting the South Tower and I was glued to the TV for the next couple of hours.

Later I was relieved to learn that the government had quickly identified the perpetrators -– the story was that they were Islamic extremists4. It wasn’t much of a stretch for me to imagine that the motive for the attacks was revenge mainly for U.S./Israeli policies in the Middle East. The thought that my government, specifically the Bush-Cheney administration, might be the ones who planned and executed the attacks didn’t enter my mind, nor would such an outrageous unthinkable idea seem to me for many months within the realm of possibility.

As I watched the World Trade Center towers collapse, I couldn’t help thinking how surprising and fortunate it was that they came straight down in their own footprint instead of falling horizontally into the densely built up neighborhood of lower Manhattan when the destruction in lives and property would have been vastly magnified.

Years later, I realized that that was a very vulnerable moment. All that it might have required for me to become an instant 9/11 skeptic was learn that high rise steel framed buildings never come down at the speed of gravity and in their own footprints except during an earthquake or when previous arrangements have been made for them to collapse through controlled demolition. Dan Rather, CBS TV’s venerable news anchor as he watched the collapse of WTC Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. said it was "reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before when a building was destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."5 But I didn’t happen to be watching television at that hour and in course of the day’s traumatic events, I don’t recall paying much attention to Building 7. I’m not sure that I even knew that Building 7 collapsed until I began my research in 2004.

The strange collapse of the Twin Towers

There can’t simultaneously be both high resistance—causing grinding of the concrete into dust—and negligible resistance allowing a fall at the same speed as through air. Only the input of extra energy—an orchestrated demolition, explains the simultaneous presence of both factors.

– Gerard Holmgren (emphasis added)



***

Occam’s Razor
As an independent researcher with little at stake in any particular theory, it has been relatively easy for me to follow the NPT evidence where it leads. I have joined the No Planes group because it seems to me most in conformity with Occam’s Razor, the least complex theory that accounts for the available data.

Over and above scores of non-passenger plane related 9/11 anomalies, the NPT seems to provide a common sense explanation for many of the unanswered questions and inconsistencies. For example, the NPT explains:

a) why government BTS records show that two of the four planes never took off that day and two others were not decommissioned until four years later.

b) why the government has refused (or been unable) to present “a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration,” and why there is no confirmed debris of any of the alleged four planes, so that all of them have disappeared without a trace;

c) why the passenger lists are phony; why no Arabic names are on any of the passenger lists; and why there are remarkably few alleged plane victims’ families requesting compensation

d) why several of the purported hijackers have turned up alive and why the government apparently felt it necessary to produce such unpersuasive evidence as hijacker passports, training manuals, etc.

e) why in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the government claimed that there were terror cells operating in at least 40 states but hasn’t produced even one untainted terror cell in the last five years.

f) why there is no reliable video of the Pentagon and the NYC Twin Tower attacks. In the case of the Pentagon video released by the government first as photo stills and then as video, no plane is in evidence; nor would it be possible for a big passenger jet to come in at ground level at high speed.

g) why there was no air cover in NYC or in Washington, D.C. until after the Pentagon attack at 9:37. If there were no hijacked planes there would have been no need for interceptions.

h) why there are no credible witnesses to ANY of the alleged four planes.

i) why the authorities destroyed the tapes of the flight controllers’ recollections of the events of that day. Those tapes might contain evidence that flights 11 and 77 did not take off that day and that 175 and 93 did not crash.

j) why ALL the cell phone calls were fabricated including the iconic “Let’s Roll,” call as well as the Ted Olson-Barbara Olson exchange. [6]
***

Read more:

http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html

NOTES
1 Full disclosure: I’ve been a lifelong Democrat and a critic of the Bush administration from the moment they were selected by the Supreme Court in 2000.

2 Gerard Holmgren, "Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11," (2004, revised 2006). http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html


3 Morgan Reynolds, "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories," (March 2006). http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

4 According to Peter Dale Scott, the alleged hijackers were identified as early as 10 a.m. "JFK and 911," (December 2006). http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SCO20061220&articleId=4207

5 Quoted in David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), [NPH] p. 177.

[6] See NPH, pp. 27-28. See also for example, “Those Fabricated Cellphone Calls,” http://www.serendipity.li/wtc4.htm#cellphone_calls; and, among others, “The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93,” http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm.

***

http://desip.igc.org

1 comment:

Ringwind said...

Google Search: "Arrest Bush 41"