2009.10.30 No Planes

The floccinaucinihilipilification of no planes theory (that no planes crashed on 9/11) has proven to be not only -- how can I say it -- floccinaucinihilipilificatious, but wrong. This applies to the WTC as well as to Shanksville and the Pentagon. There are two reasons for this conclusion.

1. The argument that any theories beyond controlled demolition (of the Towers) would compromise the theory of controlled demolition is false because that theory has now become as much of a fact as it is ever likely to become, thanks to the Jones Boys (stj911.org), and there is no evidence that it has made any impact at all. I know of no one who changed his mind about the question after reading the "definitive" thermite paper by Jones et al. They either believed it before they read it (e.g., after seeing the videos, since as Dan Rather said on air at the time they look exactly like the all the other controlled demolitions that we have seen videos of), or they don't believe it now any more than they did before and never will until Big Brother says it's ok.

2. Despite repeated efforts by Aidan Monaghan and others to get the government to give us some proof that ANY of the remains (including passengers and hijackers) of the airliners that supposedly crashed on 9/11 have been verified, all we have to date is Big Brother's word. Yes, they tell us, four planes crashed, and these are the planes, and these are the passengers, and these are the hijackers. They do not give us, however, a scintilla of physical evidence for any of it.

Oh yes, they have it all, locked up somewhere, but it is "exempt from public exposure." All we have are videos and eyewitnesses, and there is plenty of controversy about both. The videos, it should be noted, do not include the 80-odd government-held videos of the alleged Pentagon crash, except the one they did release, which only shows a puff of smoke and nothing remotely resembling an airplane.

Even without considering the evidence for video fakery and the contradictions in the eyewitness testimony, one thing is certain: This is the first time in the history of aviation that a commercial airliner has (supposedly) crashed, on land (vs., say, in the Bermuda Triangle), where there has been any doubt at all about whether or not it actually happened, and where the physical evidence proving that it happened has been deliberately secreted away and withheld from public or independent scrutiny. And this unique event happened not once but four times on 9/11!

So why floccinaucinihilipilificate about those who question whether these plane crashes took place? There was a crime -- four crimes, in fact -- so haven't the "leading" truth dogs been barking up the wrong dogs? Shouldn't we all have been barking at Big Bro, and Big Bro only, from the get-go? The problem is that in this story, mutatis mutandis, which is also an expression I've always wanted to use, the dog is barking because he did NOT see anything, and the other dogs are barking to get him to shut up.

Woof, woof, says one (or two or three), ain't no bodies here that I can see, no knife, no rope, no candlestick, no nothing. All I have are videos, and lots of people saying they saw different things. I have some lists of people who seem to be missing (except for some of the hijackers, who have long since reported in alive and healthy), and some photos of one or two of the ca. six million time-stamped and uniquely traceable parts that composed the four airplanes and then "vaporized" on impact (also an aviation first), but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these people or these parts had anything to do with the planes that supposedly crashed on 9/11. All I have is Big Bro's word that this is so, and woof woof, we all know how much that is worth.

Woof woof woof woof woof, say a hundred others. Shut up about that. You'll make us look bad. In good time, we will present our carefully considered, peer-reviewed woof -- which, it is true, is completely irrelevant to what you are woofing about (since buildings can be and usually are controllably demolished without planes hitting them, as in the case of WTC 7) -- but we feel your woofing and ours are discordant. Your woofing detracts from our woofing, which is more important because when they hear us they will all come running. They will not be able to ignore us any longer.

Well, that time has come and gone. Has anybody heard the clackety-clack of righteous soldiers, congresswimps, or media hacks rushing to the cause of the Truth of Controlled Demolition? Has there even been a pitter-patter? In fact, haven't we just heard the sound of jackboots clomping madly in the opposite direction, with the summary rejection of the will of 80,000 New Yorkers to have a new investigation (NYCCAN)?

It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that nanothermite was used (perhaps along with other things) to bring down the Towers. Now it is time for something else. It is time to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there were any plane crashes on 9/11. Not time to prove that they DIDN'T happen, which is I'm afraid what the Jones Boys want (see here.) Time to prove that it DID happen. And that is not up to us. It is up to Big Bro.

Show us the time-stamped parts, the black boxes with the serial numbers on them, and the records of the DNA examinations and the chain of custody, all of which is standard procedure in the investigation of such matters -- except in the case of 9/11. Show us the credit card records of the passengers who bought tickets, or did they all pay cash (another first in aviation history)? Surely some passengers used or ordered rental cars in addition to the hijackers -- the story of which is as full of holes as all the rest of what Big Bro has told us.

Yeah, it happened, says BB. Didn't you see it on TV? Case closed.

Woof, woof, woof.