No planes at the World Trade Center and why the movement will always hide this fact at all costs. By James Sloan

No planes at the World Trade Center, why the movement will always hide this fact at all costs
 
                    Whilst the idea of no planes at the World Trade Center was floated as early as 2001 by Nico Haupt and  others, the hypothesis wasn't taken "seriously"  until around late 2004, 2005 and early 2006. Right around a year before September Clues was released.  Of course, there had been many challenges to the very official idea that passenger jets collided with the World Trade Centre, usually  taking the form of Plane Switch theories, Pods and Flashes, the idea the planes were real but Modified fuel tankers and suchlike. With  hindsight, it is very easy to lump all these 
theories together, but out of respect, they were due diligently researched at the time by many  dedicated researchers, and infact almost all had their own followers, they weren't all postulated by the same groups of researchers. The Pod theory  came from Lets Roll Forums for example, 
and was in regards to the second impact. In Plane Site, released in 2004, borrowed heavily from LRF  research, however went one step further and suggested Flight 11 also had a Pod, but this was debated at LRF. Many sub sets believed things  ranging from a Missile hitting the North Tower, 
a modified DC 10, and other ideas. It must be born in mind it was much easier to suggest that a plane didn't hit the North Tower at the time, because as only one clear video of that event existed, and the plane was hardly very clear in the shot, the  postulators were hardly suggesting media fakery was involved, so long as of course they suggested a missile impact or some other technology. Something  physical of course. This has always been the LRF angle. Something physical as oppose to video manipulation. Of course, much good research had been  done there and in other places about the idea the Naudet film was a set up, and of course watching what could only be described as a perfect swing  of the camera by Jules Naudet, as well as many other perfect zoom in and zoom outs on all crash shots, and tower demolition shots, it was always  presumed the cameramen or women had foreknowledge of what was about to happen. However, the idea the images were real was never challenged. That is what  has been, and as I will go into further detail, what will always be, protected, at all costs. You can believe the Naudet story was a scam, you  can believe there were 300 or more camera men or women out in the street who all captured the event perfectly and knew what was going to happen. As  long as you didn't challenge the validity of the 
footage that was fine. That is as far as it was ever taken on LRF, probably the most liberal truth forum  up until that point. As long as there was a camera person in the street who filmed what happened, it really did not matter if you suggested it was  a passenger jet, an orb, a blimp, a hot air 
balloon, or even a baseball. Just as long as the film was authentic. Protect the media at all costs. 
 
                      Whilst it is very hard to argue anyone in 2012 who believes any planes were used at all is a serious  top flight researcher, this was not always the case. Many people (myself included) were at the most 50-50 on the issue for a very long time,  because we never knew any better, and there were so many rabbit trails to go down. It must be said though, people were not totally ignorant of all the  issues with "planes". People understood the physics of the crashes were in the very least suspicious, the idea an aluminum plane could penetrate  the aluminum cladding, steel curtain wall, 
thick safety glass, and with a wingspan of at least 7 floors, many layers of 4 inch thick concrete,  steel decking, webs of trusses, and office furniture, going all the way from one side of the tower to the other, AND THEN, the engines having enough energy  to penetrate through the safety glass, steel curtain wall and aluminum cladding (all without leaving a hole in the other side of the tower), well, the  idea was far fetched in the least. So enter the Pod theory, where a bulge on the underside of the craft fired a missile at or just before impact, which I  guess cleared the path for the plane. Quite bizarre in itself really given the videos showed none of this, except a small flash at impact. But this idea  was taken seriously by many. LRF even went as far as to produce merchandise including but not limited to t-shirts to promote this theory. This idea was  also sometimes coupled with other ideas, such as the plane was packed to the brim with explosives, and or the impact floors of the building were blown out  with their own explosives, at or just prior to impact. 
The last two ideas are actually more plausible than the Pod idea itself, in theory anyway. But once  again, all photos and videos were authentic. 
 
                     Enter early 2006. A new influx of "researchers" started appearing on 9/11 forums, promoting a new  idea, that (at least) the second impact was fraudulent, no 
plane hit WTC 2. It was either a missile, or a bomb, or nothing. Subsequently, for the first time, the  images were being challenged. Many of these posters were 
probably legit and clung on to the new refreshing idea, but many were also obvious plants designed  to stir up emotions and essentially ruin the idea. LRF was  notorious for banning this research or limiting it, the Admin Phil Jayhan banning MANY posters for  promoting the idea no plane hit WTC 2. This was in obvious conflict with their precious Pod theory, and he was having none of it. The research was eventually  allowed, however often relegated to sub sections of forums such as "No plane, No brain" sections, mocking the idea and making it clear it was a fringe theory,  not to be discussed seriously.Laughable really given Jayhan himself is now a No Planer, his previous Pod theory now totally incompatible with his new empty  towers stance. If Jayhan had even a modicum of respectability in the glory years of LRF, it is not totally gone. Which is ironic and deliberate given  his latest stance is as close to the truth as his website has ever been in the past. His website is almost dead now with very few new threads. During my  tenure there I witnessed a great many legitimate posters be banned and harassed for posting no plane research, even at the  point wherehe agreed with them in theory. It was pathetic to watch and I no longer wanted any part of it. 
 
                     So of course, by the time September Clues came out in 2007, the idea was already viewed as hogwash by  many. Every 9/11 guy out there told you not to look at 
it, Alex Jones made a comparison to Mental Illness, and guys like Ace Baker, Nico Haupt and others deliberately made themselves look crazy whilst promoting 
the "fringe idea". A real shame too that Clues was not narrated, and had an amateurish feel to it, as  previously slick productions like Loose Change Second Edition trumped it in many peoples eyes. So much of the 9/11 audience simply refuse to take the idea  seriously, but as I will layout, there is more motivation to protect this idea than EVEN the idea the official story is untrue. Even websites like WTC7.net started  putting disclaimers on their site as early as 2007 saying "we do not promote no jetliner theories, or incivility." Molding the two together, assuming no  planers are there to start trouble and infighting, as many of the plant posters in 2006 did. They ruined the idea before it got to the mainstream. But on  with the show; 
 
                      For starters, no plane insults are asinine. Most 9/11 truthers have always been no planers for 2 out  of 4 of the crashes that day. Including all on LRF, who practically invented the no plane no brain chant. Though there are some figureheads such as Jim  Hoffman, Steven Jones etc who have not challenged the idea that four civilian planes crashed on 9/11, the vast bulk of the truth movement do not believe that  Flights 11, 77, 175 and 93 took off that day and crashed 
where stated. So it's okay to be a no planer, as long as its for 2/4 of the events? Right. So I guess  the only difference between flight 77 and 175 and 11 is that it was shown on film. After All, there are witnesses to all four crashes, so how is it  witnesses in Shanksville and Washington can be discounted, but witnesses in NYC must be taken at face value, despite all reporting vastly different types of  aircraft. So I guess the only thing left is the films, which have demonstrably proven as fake. From the fact that commercial jets cannot do 550mph at sea level, to  the fact no black boxes were found, to the fact that the videos are all fake and show vastly different trajectories, to the fact a jet engine cannot fly  500 meters and land on a street corner with no witnesses, 
to countless other facts, the evidence is clear that no planes crashed in NYC. If you cannot see that,  the scope of this blog is beyond you. I am not here to insult you, but direct you to other research on The Real News Online and other sites. The scope of this blog is to demonstrate WHY the movement will always protect the idea. 
 
                      The idea they would use any real planes it outrageous. They have to be in control of every variable,  and the only way to ensure that is to fake the videos. Nothing can go wrong. They have total control of the stage. There is no proof of any planes. For the  first time in aviation history, black boxes are missing, four of them. A continuous looping tape on flight 93 managed to lose the last 3 minutes of its audio,  this is impossible. Don't people think that if planes 
really took off that day they would just release the security tapes of people boarding the flights?  Nothing to lose. The news footage shows a 50-60 story fireball, a 50 story orange fireball. The soot part even higher. This is outrageous. The orange flame  part of a fireball from a 767 crash would never be much higher than 3 or 4 stories at the most. Many videos of 767's crashing exist. The schematics of the crash are totally  wrong. That is like a jet crashing into the street and the 
fireball going higher than the tallest skyscrapers. Never would happen. The plane hits floor 78 and  the orange part of the fireball goes at least 10 stories beyond the roof line, the soot even higher before it molds into the existing smoke. This is laughable to  believe that could ever happen, much less with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. 
 
                       The reason that the movement protect this idea is two-fold. Firstly, they have to have the figure of 3000 people dying. Once you know that over 250 people did not die in plane crashes, you do tend to question the final death toll more, however the alleged  flights 77 and 93 were sparsely occupied, so the finality of the toll would not be affected much. 
 
                       The second is that once you take the planes out of the equation, many parts of the rest of the story  start to crumble. Firstly, how can the news footage of the towers burning for an hour be true if no plane hit the tower? What is creating and sustaining  those fires? How could you then have people up there starting fires if the building was fully occupied? And how would they get out? If no plane it the  tower, why are all those people jumping out? Even if they blew a hole in the side of the tower, this wouldn't start a massive fire or make people jump out. How would they get a perfect sized gash in the tower? If people were up there starting fires, how can the jumpers be real? How did the fires become black just like jet fuel would? Who would put themselves in that 
kind of danger to light those fires? If no plane hit, then why would people be trapped at all? It's not like all that plane debris would be blocking the stair cases. If the tower is full, you can't have any of this. There would be so many witnesses to  these phantom guys starting fires in the building. Jayhan tries to explain this with his "smoke machines", but you can't have smoke without fire Phil, so what  is causing the fires? 
 
                      Jim Fetzer and others have tried to explain no planes with a hologram theory, but again this doesn't  advance the idea much nor explain any of the above pitfalls. 
Fetzer has even advanced the idea a cloaked plane 1400 feet to the right projected this hologram over  NYC and into the building. The schematics of the hologram theory are outside the scope of this blog, but needless to say, it still preserves the idea  of a full occupied building. How did the 25,000 people in the tower or the thousands on the street (assuming that is the case which it wasn't), not see this  plane offshore? What a ridiculous risk to go to when you can just fake the videos. Fetzer promotes Richard Halls 9/11 study, however after much review and  critique, I find it no more scientific than the NIST report, he draws line of data that don't even exist, much like NIST don't focus on the events after  "initiation of collapse" and assume everything is automatic.Real scientists assume NOTHING and I am truly surprised a scholar like Fetzer would consider Halls study in  any way scientific. Any theory as long as the buildings are full, the streets are full of witnesses, and the cameras are rolling and capturing the actual  event, they don't care what advanced truthers believe. Grilled Cheese Sandwich hit the WTC? No problem, as long as they keep the media complicity out of it.  Jim Fetzer was quoted on Dose of Reality with Brian S
Staveley and Justin Cooke, when confronted about the absurd trajectory on the dive bomber shot and  others, "Oh well, what they probably did was throw in a few tampered videos to confuse the situation". Well first off Jim, those videos were broadcast on CBS  on the DAY of 9/11. Secondly, once you admit even one of the network shots might not be legit, you call into question the entire Richard Hall study, which  is based solely off network and home videos. 
 
                      The hologram theory still has all the same pitfalls listed earlier. How do you get the fires? How do  you get the Jet Engine and landing gear in the street? Must have been 
planted, and if so, how did they do that with thousands of people on the street? If you are forced to  admit those shots are doctored too it further damages the hologram theory. The hologram theory is designed once again to keep the media out of it, to  protect the idea of empty towers and floors not being complete. What of the jumpers? If they are not inhaling the toxic fumes of jet fuel than why on earth are they  jumping? And obviously, if you continue to deny the media 
fakery than you must also account for jumpers being 50 feet out from the towers, Photoshop and so on.  Good luck denying all the irrefutable evidence posted on these Photoshops at The Real News Online, Clues forum and LRF about this subject. LRF has excellent research about fake  jumpers, they just reach sometimes different conclusions about how that effect was achieved, though recently they seem to have backed away from the dummies out the windows theory, to their credit. Lets Roll Forums has arguably one of the most vast and proficient research teams ever seen in the movement, it's just a shame their admin and several of their mods clearly 
possess an agenda to hide the final 25% of the truth being exposed at Cluesforum, The Real News Online and other outlets, as well as attack vehemently those who attempt to preach this to the public, like Brian S Staveley and Simon Shack. 
 
                          The only explanation for all of the above is media fakery. It is the only way for the perps to be in  total control. It is provable beyond all shadow of a doubt to those who will only look. The idea they would use real planes is too risky. Also hologram  technology is largely untested, and what of the risks of the image at that height reflecting off other buildings, or shadowing in as it hit the tower and  reflecting off the glass of the building. The extreme risk of the shaped charges not creating the correct looking holes in the towers, the key to remember  is they only had one shot at all of this. The towers do not look even remotely real in any of the moving video. The correct look was glassy and silvery, with a tinge of black. Below are two excellent scenes shot in 1991, starting at 6.47 that show the correct look of the  towers. 
 

Compare this to the washed out, cardboard box looking, windowless boxes in the 9/11 footage and the  result is stark. 

                Regular cameras in 1991 show the correct look, and yet in 2001 this is the best they can manage.  Notice the definition of windows in the foreground buildings and the lack thereof in the WTC. It is worth noting that around 1996 they changed the Friends intro  for example, and many movies and TV shows stopped showing the correct WTC coloring, a definite and disgraceful attempt at pre programming. 
 
                        Hopefully over the course of the last two years it has become very obvious why the 9/11 figureheads  avoid no planes at the WTC at all costs. And a few who don't ignore it such as Phil Jayhan and Jim Fetzer, attempt to do all they can to muddy the waters and promote outrageous sub theories to distract the dedicated minority who see through the bullshit of Alex Jones, Dylan Avery and the big players in 9/11 truth. They do so because the agenda number one has 
always been to protect the media. Though I am sure their preference is you believe the official story, they really could care less if you think Martians from planet Zhog attacked the WTC on 9/11. Just as long as you are unaware that the MEDIA attacked the WTC  on 9/11. Now, just to clarify, obviously anyone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, does not trust the media per say. They know (hopefully) they are controlled, a propaganda machine, and they lie and deceive the public. However they still assume that as current affairs people are journalists, they  will at least provide us with coverage of events, and that their news footage and videos can more or less be trusted. If they cover a war, terrorist attack or  court case, whilst knowing that the motives and perps behind those events are probably not as we are told, the COVERAGE of the event is truthful and the images are real. It is this, and only this, at the bottom line, that the powers that be wish more than anything else to protect from the world. 
 
                         It is the WORLD media. It is far too easy to blame the 9/11 attacks on the "American Government". It  is also grossly unfair on the American public. The same forces that control things behind the scenes control all our countries spare 4 or 5 in the world. No one is safe from their oppression and nobody is safe from their persecution. We at The Real News Online.Com have contributors from all over the planet and it would be naive of any of us to think we are any safer than each other from their persecution and their torment. They want you to think it's the US Government doing these things. That changes every four or 8 years. By the time their "crimes" are fully exposed that regime is often out and a new one is in. Maybe even the next one after that., but the  media never really changes, nor the people behind the 
scenes pulling the strings, carrying out these hoaxes. 
 
                         Suppression of the no plane evidence definitely serves to carry out this agenda. By keeping the focus off the media, and on god knows who. We have had many callers into our radio show over the last year, all trying to argue planes hit the WTC, Pentagon etc.  They always end up in the same rhetoric "We need to get Bush, Cheney and their masters, those homosexual bastards" and on and on it goes, and on and on it  goes. Those guys will all be dead before too long, then what? You will have nothing more to say, and the next false flag hoax media attack will already be underway. And so the cycle repeats. 
 
James Sloan - The Real News Online.Com
www.TheRealNewsOnline.com