Monday, March 13, 2006

Bleier: Intro to Morgan Reynolds on No planes on 911

9/11: Plane huggers vs. no planers:
An introductory note to an article by Morgan Reynolds
by Ronald Bleier
March 2006

For those still grappling with which of the three main versions of what really happened on 9/11, the U.S. government’s official version, or the LIHOP or MIHOP versions,(1) you may be better advised to file this post in the appropriate place unless and until you become convinced that the U.S. government planned and executed the terror attacks of that day (MIHOP).

Advocates of MIHOP may feel that Morgan Reynolds’s (2)article on the subject serves as an excellent introduction to evidence suggesting that no civilian jetliners were involved in the 9/11 terror attacks.

I suspect that many will be put off by the counterintuitive nature of the no planes theory, since “we all saw” a plane going into the South Tower on TV in real time.(3) Yes, I know, the no planes thesis may at first be hard to accept. However, once one begins looking at some of the evidence as presented by Morgan Reynolds, and before him, Gerard Holmgren (4) and Rosalee Grable (5)and others, I think many will agree that the evidence doesn’t support the use of planes.

Because the no planes theory is so counterintuitive, few established 9/11 researchers are eager to take up the inquiry despite its plausibility. As an independent researcher with little at stake, it is relatively easy for me to follow the no planes evidence where it leads, especially as it begins to seem the most persuasive and the one most in conformity with Occam’s Razor.

It’s disturbing but not surprising that MIHOP plane huggers, like Jim Hoffman, use their often well-deserved reputations to attack advocates of the no planes thesis with harsh and sometimes ad hominem attacks. Some make no bones about suggesting that their motives are to disassociate themselves from theories that they consider likely to put off potential converts to 9/11 inquiry.

The irony is that many 9/11 researchers have in the past decried the unwillingness of proponents of the official theory to look calmly and carefully at the evidence that has already been uncovered. And yet, when it comes to the no planes theory some “establishment” researchers are similarly loath to directly address the evidence.

If you’re like me, and you look forward to finding out the truth about 9/11 for its own sake and for what it tells us about the Bush administration, about the U.S. government and the media, about the world’s intelligence services and security agencies, about the history of the 20th and 21st century, you’ll be delighted with this brilliant article by Morgan Reynolds.
It’s not my purpose here to summarize Morgan Reynolds’s key arguments, but I can’t resist highlighting one of his smoking guns that should be easy for many to visualize.

Reynolds asks the simple question: What happened to the wreckage of the two jetliners that supposedly crashed into the North and South WTC towers? There’s no independent evidence on video or in still photographs, much less in evidence presented by the government, of wreckage consistent with Boeing 767s. If the jetliners flew into the Towers they should have struck some of their 47 core columns. In that case the tails and parts of their fuselages should have remained stuck outside of the buildings or fallen to the ground for all to see and photograph. Needless to say, no such evidence has ever been presented.

Under the circumstances, the government’s production of Mohammed Atta’s undamaged passport is ludicrous, and is as damaging to their case as is anything else.

Here is a link to Morgan Reynolds’s important article.
(An alternate title for his article might be: The case against the use of jetliners in the 9/11 attacks)

Morgan Reynolds: We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories

1. LIHOP = Let it Happen On Purpose; MIHOP = Made it Happen on Purpose
2. Reynolds is a member of the National Center for Policy Analysis. See his bio on:
3. Even as one writes such a phrase – “we all saw the plane crashing into the South Tower in real time,” we recognize that it raises questions. For example: how did it happen that camera crews were ready to film the second plane coming into the Tower when all eyes were on the North Tower which had been struck less than 20 minutes earlier.
4. (
5. (