Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Two articles by Ronald Bleier on No Planes on 911




I've written two articles on No Planes on 911.



The second one  explains,  among other things, how those cell phone calls were made since they couldn't have been made from cruising airplanes. The plane(s) were taken to an unknown location -- identified by one researcher as somewhere in upstate NY if memory serves -- gassed to death, with a few passengers culled to make the cell phone calls before they too were dispatched. Another section summarizes John Lear's affidavit explaining why even the most experienced pilot like himself would need a dozen or more practice runs before he could accurately strike a skyscraper with a passenger or other type of jet.





If you're going to read only one ten page article, try Gerard Holmgren's  "Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11.  That's all it took for me to become a no planer.

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/holmgren/manufactured.html



If you're only going to read one book, David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor is as good as it gets although he doesn't subscribe to the no planes theory.


3 comments:

Ronald said...

Mark Gaffney wrote:

Hi Ronald,

The no planes scenario makes no sense. We have the radar data for all four allegedly hijacked planes. At the time I researched and wrote my first 9/11 book, one of my colleagues FOIA’d the 9/11 radar data. It was released in 2007 — by an honest bureaucrat who had no idea how important the data was. The colleague shared the radar data with me. Please check out my book The 9/11 Mystery Plane (2008). At the time I was more concerned with the E-4Bs circling over Washington, but we had all of the radar data for all 4 allegedly hijacked aircraft.

Ronald responded:
Hi Mark:
Thanks so much for responding.
FOIA? Hmmm.
Here are some questions.
Do you believe that a plane crashed in Shankesville, PA?
I suppose you go along with the official account that the planes brought down WTC 1 and 2. What about Building 7?
I gather you reject controlled demolition as bringing down all three.
And you reject some sort of missile and not a passenger plane at the Pentagon.
Are you aware of any independently verified plane wreckage at any of the "crash" sites?
Ditto for any evidence of hijackers, or any explanation for the cell phone calls from cruising airliners.
I gather your reference to who was controlling the planes takes care of the issue of the lack of pilot experience of the "hijackers."

More anomalies upon request.
Best,
Ronald Bleier

I regard the no planes idea as a dead end — a way of muddying the water and diverting attention from the real questions, such as who was controlling the planes?

Best,
Mark H Gaffney

Ronald said...

Mark responded:

Ronald,

A plane did go down at Shanksville. I went there and interviewed local residents who saw it. They were very willing to talk. But what EXACTLY happened there we still do not know. I do not believe the official conspiracy theory about that day. I devoted a chapter in Black 9/11 to my research on United Flight 93.

Two planes did crash into the twin towers but the crashes had nothing to do with the collapses. Both were controlled demolitions. My first 9/11 paper was a critique of the 2005 NIST report. That paper is still on line and became the basis for two chapters in my book The 9/11 Mystery Plane.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18999.htm

WTC-7 was another controlled demolition. Two weeks ago I was in Fairbanks AK and had a chance to speak with Dr Leroy Hulsey, dean of the civil engineering dept. there, who has been leading a two-year study of the WTC-7 collapse. Early on, his team ruled out fire as a cause of the collapse. His report is now done - -and is undergoing peer review. Then, it will be made public.

We have Flight 77 on radar the entire flight path from Dulles IAP to the Pentagon. No question it hit the building. (See the photo below. You will note that the impact zone is much larger than we at first thought. Unfortunately, these photos taken before the wall collapsed never got wide circulation on the Internet. I’m not sure why.)

The real issue is who was controlling AA 77 — and the same goes for the planes that hit the WTC — because the alleged hijkackers could never have flown those planes at that high speed into the towers or Pentagon. Hani Hanjour could not even fly a Cessna. In my Black 9/11 I offer two separate lines of evidence about remote control.

As for the verified wreckage — a former NASA scientist presented a paper at a 9/11 conference in Washington in 2013 that AA 77 liquified when it hit the west wall of the Pentagon which would explain why only hard parts, i.e. engines and landing gear— survived the impact. The west wall was no ordinary wall. It was a blast wall — built to with stand an explosive impact — made of reinforced steel and kevlar.

We still have no proof the alleged hijackers were on the planes. My guess is they were — and were themselves jacked when the remote control kicked in. Many issues remain unresolved — including the cell phone calls. I encourage you to keep an open mind.

You might find these answers surprising — but they are based on researching two 9/11 books over a period of about 13 years.

Best, Mark
***

Ronald said...

Ronald responded:
Mark:
Nice that we have more in common than I might have thought.
I like what Alex Cockburn, a believer in the official theory, said: If you have controlled demolition you don't need planes.
I gather you don't think it was fanatical Muslims who set the explosives for controlled demolitions.
Perhaps we agree that it was an inside job, meaning , Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, etc.were the perps, and people like Rudy Giuliani and Larry Silverstein were in on it -- and scores if not hundreds more.
Did you also go to the Shanksville site? . I saw maybe half dozen documentaries showing the improbable scar on the earth that was risibly claimed to the be the crash site -- and no wreckage. I remain convinced there was no plane crash there.
The Pentagon blast. I've seen commentary that there's no way a plane could fly at ground level in a way to cause the damage since the air pressure below the wings would make such a thing impossible.
Nor do I think it's credible that a plane's wreckage could disappear or liquify into thin air despite what a former NASA scientist claimed.
I've also seen video of perhaps dozens of civilians sweeping the area after the strike for debris, consistent with making sure no outside investigators could find evidence of a missile not a plane.
Also the particular area that was hit was where Pentagon accountants were looking into the $3? trillion that disappeared as per Rumsfeld's announcement on Sept 10. Rumsfeld, a notorious sociopath, lacking empathy.
Cell phones. I'll take the liberty of appending a few paragraphs from my paper. Yes, the cell phone calls were made -- but from the ground!
Meanwhile, kudos to you for writing two books on the subject. I've also spent a fair amount of time and all I managed was a few articles.
Best,
Ronald
***
Mark responded:
Cockburn was an idiot. His protege, Jeff St Clair, now carries on in the Cockburn mode of denial. This means blocking any real debate on the 9/11 issue. I was banned from Counterpunch for pushing the envelope - - in short — for doing what any writer worth his salt ought to be doing.

I already told you I visited Shanksville. It looks to me like UAL 93 exploded — I mean disintegrated — just BEFORE it hit the ground. I suspect the small crater was caused by a missile that arrived late. There were probably multiple attempts to take down the aircraft. One may even have been a satellite weapon.

The point of impact at the Pentagon was no coincidence. In addition to the accounting office, there was the Office of Naval Research — which had to go away.

Ronald responded:
Cockburn was far from an idiot. He was one of the great lights of US progressive journalism. Of course his blind spot on conspiracy theory -- any theory the MSM doesn't like -- was huge. Too bad about this blind spot on Counterpunch.
He's not the only one with blind spots.
Thanks again for your responses and your work.
Ronald
***
Mark responded:
It amounts to the same thing.
***
I wanted to leave Mark with the last word so I didn't respond. But I had in mind to say that there are two reasons 911 skeptics hold onto planes.
They can't abide the fact that there were no Muslims involved in 911; nor can they deal with the widespread acceptance of planes crashing into buildings.