Arabesque: 9/11 Truth: The 9/11 Plane Theories and the “Conspiracy Theory Method”

The 9/11 Plane Theories and the “Conspiracy Theory Method”

By Arabesque

Theories about the planes on 9/11 are among the most popular, divisive, and contested within the 9/11 Truth movement.

Some are more controversial than others, and it is notable that some of the theorists who promote them are frequently forced to rely on what I call the “conspiracy theory method”.

Conspiracy Theory Method:

· Predetermined Conclusion. Start with a conclusion and “research” the “anomalies”.

· Misinformation/Disinformation replaces legitimate evidence.[1]

· Eyewitness Testimony: doesn’t count by default. The government controls all witnesses to the point of preventing a single one from coming forward with the truth.

· Special Pleading: ignore contradictory evidence or explanations no matter how compelling or reasonable.

· Ignore Motive: Invent convoluted theories so complicated that there would be no motive to attempt it in broad daylight in full view of witnesses and any potential photos or recordings.

· Assume all other evidence is faked. All contradictory evidence, no matter how overwhelming or compelling is dismissed as fake without corroborating proof of its fabrication. “Smoking gun” anomalies (in reality, misinformation/disinformation) disprove all other evidence.

· When all else fails rely on the tried and trusted ad-hominems along with accusations of being an “agent” for daring to question the theory—even if it is widely disagreed upon within the movement.

The Conspiracy Theory Method often results in disinformation. The subject of disinformation is complex and controversial, but works like this:

1. X, Y, Z are evidence for the ‘A’ Theory

2. X, Y, Z are (misleading explanations, misinterpretations, or omissions of) evidence for the ‘A’ Theory

3. Therefore, the ‘A’ Theory is “true”.

So for example, if I say: “no planes hit the twin towers because there are no photographs of it” I am promoting disinformation since the conclusion (no planes hit the towers) is supported by a false argument (there are no photographs of the planes). Disinformation can be much more subtle than this and fool even mostly reasonable people. A conclusion is not disinformation unless it is supported with false evidence.[2]

The conspiracy method uses a kind of circular logic where:

1. The conclusion is true

2. All evidence that contradicts it is “false”/”fake”/”disinformation” because the conclusion (relying exclusively on disinformation) is true.

My theory is that a conclusion is disinformation ONLY when the evidence supporting it is disinformation—not the other way around. In other words, if you always assume a conclusion is true, and that any evidence that contradicts it is “disinformation”, you are engaging in circular logic!

Those who use the conspiracy method are frustrating to deal with because their views are essentially non-falsifiable. What does that mean? It means that their theory can’t be proven false to their satisfaction because they refuse to reasonably consider contradictory evidence. Anything that contradicts the sacred theory is labeled by default as “fake”. Of the most ardent of these theorists, no evidence can ever be offered to convince them that they are wrong.

Never mind the absurdly poor record of the government in faking evidence! Remember, we are talking about the same government that couldn’t even fake a list of hijackers properly, with several turning up alive and complaining about stolen passports.[3] One of the central points of the 9/11 official story is the story about the hijackers; one would assume that the government would take the necessary time to fake this properly—if anything; and yet this is not a rare example of how bad the government is at faking evidence. The main strategy of the 9/11 commission report was to simply ignore all evidence that contradicted their predetermined narrative; one of the most common and effective disinformation techniques. Anyone who has read Paul Thompson’s Complete 9/11 Timeline can see that the media has frequently reported devastating facts that the government can only ignore to keep their myth alive.[4]

“The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.”[5] Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst

Clearly, evaluating evidence is critical to understanding what really happened on 9/11:

· Evidence that is corroborated by a large number and variety of sources is the most credible.

· Evidence that is weakly supported, not supported at all, or only speculation is not credible.

· Physical Evidence is only worth something if it is being interpreted correctly. Disinformation and misinformation does not constitute legitimate evidence to support a theory.[6] Arguments only count when they are true.

· Sources are only to be trusted when each and every fact they offer is corroborated by other credible evidence

One of the most controversial 9/11 “theories” is that there were no planes at the World Trade Center, and that the footage was faked. I find it hard to believe that people actually “believe” this “theory”, and Eric Salter provides a pretty good reason why:

“The over-arching weakness of the TV fakery argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one unmodified image posted to the web would have exposed the operation. New York is a media capital of the world, with national networks, local network affiliates and independent TV stations, international media bureaus, and many independent video companies like the kinds I've worked for, and professional photographers. Professionals would have been rushing out to document whatever they could, through professional pride or the hope for making a buck off it. Evan Fairbanks and war photographer James Nachtway are some examples. And then there are also cameras in the possession of ordinary citizens and the thousands of New York's ever-present tourists. In addition, one should consider the possibility of foreign intelligence assets acquiring their own images of the attack (which so many knew was coming) which could be used for blackmail.”[7]

Clearly, this shows just how little merit the TV fakery arguments have. There are many photos, videos, and eyewitness statements of the planes approaching and impacting the World Trade Center[8]—not to mention the gaping impact holes that closely correspond to the size of the aircraft alleged to have been used.[9] Arguments that rely on plane deceleration are based on misunderstandings of the laws of physics as a pre-9/11 crash test shows for comparison.[10] The argument that planes can’t penetrate buildings is also similarly without merit as this crash in 2005 showed:[11]

It is often claimed that eyewitness statements are “unreliable”, or “can’t be trusted since the government controls witnesses”.

Jim Fetzer, who supports no-plane theories at the Pentagon and the TV fakery theories at the WTC says:

“I suspect many witnesses had to sign a non-disclosure document/military witnesses gave fake testimonies"[12]

Morgan Reynolds, who supports no-planes used on 9/11 says:

“…people lie… the perps probably hired actors, readily available in Manhattan, along with the script delivered to complicit media moguls).”[13]

What do you think the mainstream media focuses on when 9/11 skeptics are interviewed? The no plane theories! It’s an old trick—guilt by association. Discrediting, dividing, and distracting movements are part of historical FBI CoIntelPro operations.[14]

Did you notice the “conspiracy theory method” in action here? Reynolds and Fetzer are among the least credible 9/11 researchers around,[15] and yet their view that all eyewitness testimony can be controlled and manipulated is widely believed by plane theorists.

If the government could “control” witnesses, why is it that many witnesses contradict the 9/11 official story? Witnesses have often contradicted the government:

· explosions in the basements of the WTC[16]

· witnesses hurt by these explosions on the basements[17]

· multiple explosions on other floors separate from the plane impacts[18]

· explosions just before the WTC towers began to collapse and demolition like features[19]

· explosions in the WTC 7 lobby before the WTC towers collapsed[20]

· explosions during the WTC 7 collapse[21]

· statements of molten metal at ground zero for more than a month which is impossible to create with jet fuel fires and suggests the use of explosives[22]

· explosive devices seen being taken out of the Oklahoma City Building, as well as multiple explosions heard after it was attacked by a “single truck bomb” by a “terrorist” in 1993[23]

If the government could control witnesses, what the heck is going on here? These literally hundreds of statements destroy the argument that the government can control eyewitnesses. What makes these statements credible is not merely that witnesses report them; it is that they are corroborated by other eyewitness statements and corroborating evidence.

Why can theorists pick and choose when to ignore an entire body of eyewitness statements? Answer: the “conspiracy theory method”.

Others argue plane substitution in the attacks. But then, what to make of these reports of DNA identification at the WTC?[24]

“DNA extractions were done on every one of the 19,906 remains, and 4,735 of those have been identified. As many as 200 remains have been linked to a single person. Of the 1,401 people identified include 45 of those aboard the hijacked planes - 33 from Flight 11, which struck the north tower, and 12 from Flight 175, which hit the south tower.”

Although about half of the victims at the WTC have not been accounted for,[25] reports continue to surface to this day in which passengers from the flights that hit the World Trade Center Towers are identified:

March 19, 2002:

“A hand found in the rubble at ground zero was matched through DNA testing to Trentini, a 65-year-old retired schoolteacher from Everett, Mass., it was reported. Trentini and his wife, Mary, 67, were flying to Los Angeles Sept. 11 on Flight 11 to visit their grandchildren. It is the first time DNA has been able to verify the identity of any victims aboard the two planes that were flown into the World Trade Center, according to the report. The fingerprints matched Trentini’s, and his college ring, believed to be his Wofford ring, was still on his finger.”[26]

November 2, 2006:

“DNA tests have identified the remains of three more people who died in the attacks on World Trade Center on 11 September 2001. They were American Airlines Flight 11 stewardess Karen Ann Martin, passenger Douglas Joel Stone, and a man whose relatives have requested anonymity.”

April 11, 2007:

“For the 6th time in a week, the city has identified another victim from the 9/11 attacks. DNA analysis identified 66-year old Alberto Dominguez, from Australia. He was visiting family in the US and was onboard American Airlines flight 11, which hijackers crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center. His remains were discovered during the original recovery effort. A spokeswoman for the medical examiner's office says remains found at that time are being re-tested.”[27]

Are these reports faked too?

The passengers on flights 11[28] and 175[29] included fairly well known people such as:

David Angell, and his wife, American television producer of the TV series Frasier[30]
Berry Berenson, American actress and photographer
Carolyn Beug, music video producer
Charles Edward Jones, a military astronaut
Daniel Lewin, co-founder and CTO of Akamai
Garnet Edward "Ace" Bailey, director of pro scouting for the Los Angeles Kings NHL hockey team and former player
Mark Bavis, 31, of West Newton, Massachusetts, was entering his second season as an amateur scout for the Los Angeles Kings.
Klaus Bothe, 31, of Germany was on a business trip with BCT Technology AG's chief executive officer and another executive. Bothe joined the company in 1994 and was its director of development.
Heinrich Kimmig, 43, chairman and chief executive officer of BCT Technology Ag, of Germany was on a business trip involving contract negotiations with U.S. partners along with two other BCT execs, the company said in a statement. Kimmig studied mechanical engineering in college.

Seth MacFarlane, creator of the animated TV series Family Guy apparently was booked for flight 11 on 9/11, but missed it.[31] Actor Mark Wahlberg also claims that he had a reservation for one of the 9/11 flights that crashed into the WTC, but changed his plans and missed the flight.[32]

Did these well known people from diverse backgrounds all decide to fake their deaths in a plot pre-arranged with the government? If so, why were government officials like John Ashcraft, Willie Brown and others “warned” not to fly?[33]

One of the worst pieces of misinformation floating around as gospel is that there were no hijacker names on the flight manifests.[34] Unfortunately, even David Ray Griffin has made this unsubstantiated claim, and it is widely believed within the 9/11 truth movement.[35] Even I believed it until I decided to look more carefully. The news reports commonly cited have the title “list of victims” (read: not perpetrators):[36]

· cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

· cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html

· cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

· cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html

Even the website address has the word “victims” in it. As Jim Hoffman noted, another page explained that “those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included.”[37]

The official flight manifests finally released during the Moussaoui trial do have the alleged terrorist names on them:[38]

Flight 11,[39] See here for confirmation of these names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11#Hijackers

· 1. “Alshehri, Wail”

· 2. “Alshehri, Walee”[40] [see note]

· 13. “Atta, Moham”[41]

· 14. “Alomari, Abdul”

· 20. “Al Suqami, Satam”

Flight 175,[42] See here for confirmation of these names: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175#Hijackers

· 1. “Ahmed”

· 2. “Alghamdi”

· 3. “Alghamdi”

· 4. “Alshehhi”

· 5. “Alshehri”

The other flights similarly have hijacker names on them.[43]

Even if you believe that there were no hijackings on 9/11, or that some of the hijackers are still alive,[44] or that the hijackers were poor pilots who have never even flown the actual planes before, [45] and that even professional pilots would have had difficulty hitting the buildings on 9/11,[46] the claim that the names of these alleged hijackers do not show up on the flight manifests is false. As seen with the no-plane theories, false claims spread as “gospel” truth are discrediting to the 9/11 truth movement. I have not carefully researched the passengers on the flights, but the official flight manifests released in this trial should be used to confirm who was and was not on them. If there is a discrepancy there, the government would have to explain it.

The Northwoods document is offered as evidence for this sort of a plan to switch planes.[47] While this document is clear evidence that the US government would kill American citizens to justify wars, the motive for switching planes in this document is clear; the people on these planes were going to be agents, and switching the planes would save their lives. Given the noteworthy people on the planes in question, what reason would the government be motivated to save the lives of those who were not agents? Why would there be motive to switch planes and kill the passengers elsewhere? Why would warnings not to fly be sent out to government officials if there was no danger of boarding one of these doomed flights as Seth McFarlane and Mark Wahlberg nearly did?[48] Granted these are speculative questions, but worth asking since motive is not an irrelevant consideration.

As you can see, there is a lot of fakery involved in the “TV Fakery” theory—and a lot of it has nothing to do with “TV fakery”. A more appropriate name for it would be the “9/11 total fakery theory”. The other theories remain extremely controversial, and will remain so until another investigation can answer the unanswerable questions. We can only prove what happened on 9/11 with the available evidence, and speculation without evidence will never help force a new investigation.

[1] http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-disinformation-and-misinformation.html

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

[4] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

[5] http://www.911pressfortruth.com/ watch the movie here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5589099104255077250 see 30:00 mark for quote by McGovern.

[6] http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-disinformation-and-misinformation.html

[7] http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf

[8] http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/world-trade-center-eyewitness-testimony.html

[9] http://images.indymedia.org/imc/brisbaneimc/wtc_hole.jpg

[10] Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity

[11] http://www.pentagonresearch.com/029.html

[12] http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/no_757_supporters.htm