Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth
"The Important Thing is, Not to Stop Questioning" – Albert Einstein
Welcome to MUJCA-NET
I decided to post this because my favorite 9/11 site, http://911blogger.com, just banned discussion of video-fakery issues in their comments section--and at exactly the same moment, I got an email asking for my personal opinion on these very issues. So as a free-speech fanatic, I'm going to speak my mind once, before returning to more important issues of practical activism strategies. Like 911blogger, I am not going to waste time with back-and-forths on this issue.
I have friends and colleagues I respect on both sides of several controversial evidentiary questions about 9/11. Sometimes the people on one side of a particular debate attack me for being too friendly with people on the other side. Perfectly nice, rational people often let their inner fanatical-fundamentalist get the better of them: "What?! You refuse to endorse MY view of this question? And you have a friendly relationship with evil psy-opper Dr. X, who has the gall to disagree with me on this?!"
As William Burroughs once wrote, the sign of a true asshole is that he ALWAYS HAS TO BE RIGHT.
9/11 researchers have the right to be wrong. As activists trying to build a movement, we need to make common cause with a very broad range of people, with whom we will have all sorts of serious disagreements on all sorts of issues. The people promoting factionalism on the basis of different "what might have happened" theories are misguided.
Below is my answer to an emailer asking my opinion about "no planes" theories. Since I am not a scientist, and do not have the time or the training to evaluate technical arguments about video images, I am applying common sense, along with evaluations of evidence that I am qualified to understand, to this issue.
On Aug 29, 2007, at 2:58 AM, Investigate 9/11 wrote:
If you have time I would very much like to hear your personal view on the No Plane Theory. I'm participating in a debate on a swedish blog and many different views are being shared.
I'm agnostic on the question of how the illusion of suicide hijackings was created. The obvious technique would be remote-control planes. But it is not inconceivable that the no-planers could turn out to be right. It would be to the perps' advantage to use extremely non-obvious means—an outrageous conspiracy would make it easy to discredit anyone who figured it out as an "outrageous conspiracy theorist." That seems to have been the case with the attack on the Pentagon. The easy, obvious thing would have been to hit it with an actual passenger jetliner under remote control. Yet the evidence strongly suggests that a plane substitution was arranged. The perps' ability to control perceptions, memories and video, by staging an extremely fast-moving event that was unlikely to be caught on amateur video and happened too fast to be clearly remembered, was evident in the Pentagon attack.
The unlikelihood of amateur video capturing planes during the 9/11 attacks is demonstrated by the case of the E-4B that was circling the White House around 9:30 a.m. on 9/11/01: http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm. A jet circling over the White House is mind-bogglingly unprecedented—this is off-limits air space! And during a national emergency! Yet the E-4B was not caught on amateur videos. Our only proof it was there is one still photo and a few seconds of one video of unknown provenance shown on a Discovery Channel 9/11 special. If a jet can circle lazily over the White House and not be on hundreds of amateur videos, fast-moving attack planes, such as whatever hit the Pentagon, are almost certain not to be captured...and if by some fluke they are, the FBI will probably seize them, or the corporate media will buy them, or both, as happened to the Zapruder film. (Remember, there was no YouTube in 2001--it didn't exist till 2005--and back then there were only a tiny fraction of the amateur video cameras that now exist---and those cameras were big and clunky and expensive compared to today's cameras.) So questions about the videos of the WTC hits may be less absurd than they appear. The Naudet brothers' miraculous placing and even more miraculous pan, and the amazing zoom by the Fox 5 helicopter cameraperson, strike me as suspicious. Remember, the psy-oppers would almost certainly have made sure that the first WTC hit would be captured by a "lucky amateur" and that powerful footage of the second hit would be broadcast "live." After all, the whole point of 9/11 was to get precisely this footage! They would have done whatever was necessary in order to have absolute, total control over this footage, the production of which was THE purpose of this multi-billion dollar psy-op.
Regarding the WTC no-planes and video-fakery controversies, I haven't seen enough evidence to be sure, nor do I think it matters very much. We do know beyond a reasonable doubt that there were no suicide hijackings. The impossibility of claimed cell phone calls, the extreme improbability that guys with box-cutters could overwhelm military-trained pilots even once (much less four times), and above all the fact that buildings were rigged with explosives and HAD to be "hit" would dictate that no human kamikaze pilots were trusted to get the job done. DEMOLITIONS PROVES NO SUICIDE HIJACKINGS. This is way beyond obvious, and yet there are a few 9/11 truth activists who still refer to "hijackings," thereby participating, however unwittingly, in the racist psy-op. (My introductory analysis of the psy op is at http://mujca.com/apocalypse.htm).
Those who belive in it states that "failure was not an option" for those who planned the attack, and using actual planes whould/could include human error, i.e. one or both of the planes could have missed their target.
A good argument I admit. But why use planes at all in the first place? Why not have the towers explode and then blame Usama for planting the explosives? Or some agents "believed-to-be-linked-to-Al-Qaida". That would have been much easier.
The illusion of suicide hijackings was crucial for two reasons, psychological and logistical.
Psychological: The psy-op depended on playing on already-existing deep-seated fears, and linking those fears to "Arab-Muslims." Fear of flying, at a conscious or unconscious level, is universal. We all imagine what would happen if the plane we are on fails to stay aloft. The images of "terror in the skies" -- kamikaze Arab-Muslims cutting throats and crashing planes -- were necessary to manipulate the American public into murdering more than 1,000,000 people in Iraq because they are perceived as Arab-Muslim...and maybe millions or even billions more in the not too distant future, God forbid, in this “war that will not end in our lifetime.” (The key to military history and strategy is overcoming the innate aversion to killing members of our species, as Dave Grossman's book On Killing demonstrates...and the 9/11 psy-op's purpose was to demonize Arab-Muslims and legitimize their mass murder.) It was this "terror in the skies" emotional image that mesmerized the American people, linked the act to Arab-Muslims who have already been slandered as "suicidal terrorists" in the media, and provided a gripping narrative that overwhelmed "what we saw with our own eyes" - the obvious controlled demolition of the three buildings.
Logistical: There was no way to take the WTC buildings straight down except ultra-sophisticated controlled demolition. Conceivably a big enough "terrorist bomb" in the parking garage, like the 1993 bomb, could topple one of the buildings -- but there goes a whole swathe of New York! Since there was no way to set up a scenario featuring terrorist patsies clever enough to rig up the three most challenging and sophisticated controlled demolitions in history, claiming that terrorist-placed bombs somehow created straight-down controlled demolitions was a non-starter. Besides, how are terrorists going to get access, especially to the ultra-high-security WTC-7? If it were done with bombs alone, there would be no gripping narrative of "terror in the skies" to overwhelm common sense and point ineluctably to those evil brown-skinned Arab-Muslims, who everyone knows are the only kind of people capable of slashing stewardesses' throats and ramming planes into buildings.
And why why haven't I seen any "amateur" video showing the south tower suddenly explode without any plane approaching? Or have they all been silenced?
I cannot completely eliminate the possibility that the absence of such video could be explained by something other than the complete authenticity of the extant videos--see my first paragraphs above. Still, this is a good question. This question, along with the fact that it doesn't really matter HOW the illusion of suicide hijackings was created, is why I don't take the no-plane theories seriously enough to spend a lot of time on them. I don't understand why such an ultimately unimportant issue has become so divisive, unless maybe the psy-oppers are stoking the conflict. If they are, they are probably doing it from both sides, not just one.
Dr. Kevin Barrett
Coordinator, MUJCA-NET: http://mujca.com
Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth
Please look at