Commentary
When I told friends who were open to 9/11 skepticism that I was working on some articles critical of these no-plane theories, they looked at me askance, as if to say "why are you even wasting your time on that?" Overall their reaction was appropriate. Frankly, I've been embarrassed to admit to ordinary folks that I've been working on these articles and have begrudged every moment of time I spend on it. These theories never were and never will be broadly accepted among the 9/11 skeptic community, let alone the broader public, even with the attention of high profile figures like Morgan Reynolds or Jimmy Walter. But that doesn't mean that they are not a threat, especially to a particular minority segment of the 9/11 skeptics community.

The treatment of the pod issue by Popular Mechanics should be a warning.

The pod theory was never supported by any more than a small minority of 9/11 researchers. But as a result of Von Kleist's error-ridden "In Plane Site" DVD and forwarding of pod articles by naive individuals who thought they were encouraging dialogue, enough noise was built up around the issue to give PM the justification to portray the "pod" as a widely-held view. And their treatment of it was a master stroke. They gave it marquee position at the beginning of the article: a first impression tainting all the other stronger evidence to follow. And then their debunking was weak, simply a one-liner from an expert claiming it was an illusion, allowing the pod advocates to declare victory and continue to push their theory. Overall, a lose-lose scenario for 9/11 truth.

One has to wonder, with the no-plane theories gaining the support of big shots Morgan Reynolds and Jimmy Walter, if a repeat of the pod debacle is in the cards. If so, there are many reasons why it has progressed to this point. The phrase "Fools Rush In" has never been so appropriate than in describing the rougher edges of the 9/11 truth movement, in which we've seen all sorts of instant experts talking about technical subjects far removed from their expertise. Some researchers who are quite good at tracking down information have proven themselves completely incompetent at making a sound technical analysis. It's a completely different skill set.

The no-plane ideas are a manifestation of an epidemic of "smoking gun fever," the rush to see promising evidence in any and every perceived anomaly. One could chalk this up to technical incompetence, reckless enthusiasm, or a desperate desire for ammunition to use against a terrifying conspiracy, but the problem is deeper. It is often driven by a partisan imperative to pursue a more radical case. And by radical I don't mean "leftist" but simply more divergent from the official story. If you look at the rhetoric of a no-plane supporter, such as Nico Haupt, you see an attempt to make accepting no-plane claims synonymous with pursuing the "real truth." Likewise, the "Gatekeepers" research of Bob Feldman (for which I helped build the flowchart graphic) has been hijacked and transformed from a complex analysis of elite control of lefty media into a simplistic ideological litmus test: "If you don't support my spurious physical evidence claims you're a 'gatekeeper.'"

The discussion of physical evidence has been politicized, subject to the old and tiresome radical moderate dialectic. I worry that the 9/11 truth movement is devolving towards a predictable, manufactured divide: moderates who treat physical evidence responsibly but who advocate limited-hangout analyses of both 9/11 and world politics, and radicals who pursue a deeper and more accurate overall analysis but who lunge after spurious and sensational physical evidence claims in the name of exposing a deeper truth. For example, you can find Haupt questioning the "peak oil" theory one minute and posting the windshield UFO garbage the next. That behavior discredits those who are pursuing more radical analyses.

Discussion of physical evidence should be egoless and non-ideological, characterized by stark realism. First the evidence has to be demonstrated simply to be reliable. Then it must be decided whether there is enough evidence to make a convincing case. The no-plane theories don't even make it past the first test.

Every day prosecutors drop charges in criminal cases because they don't have enough evidence to go to trial, and they may do this even though they know the suspect is guilty as sin. Why? You pick your battles carefully, pick those you can win. In the end, the physical evidence may only support a limited hangout. If that is the case the answer is not to give up and go home but to augment the physical evidence with research about the past history of elite manipulation. Despite some forays into questionable evidence,

Webster Tarpley has done exactly this in his book "9/11 Synthetic Terror."

On the other hand, massaging the evidence to fit a more radical analysis is exactly what the perps of 9/11 want: It leads to straw man arguments that the debunkers can knock down.

It should go without saying that an investigation of a conspiracy like 9/11 will always be a two-front war against disinformation: On one side are the gatekeepers pursuing a limited hangout. On the other side are crackpots and disinfo agents pushing bogus, discrediting evidence. . Weeding out bogus claims is neither gatekeeping nor censorship but an absolutely critical activity. In defending no-planers and pod people, some who don't even support the theories have cited "freedom of speech" in defending those theories' place at the table, evidently feeling that if there is any tendency to reject any lines of inquiry, then there will not be an atmosphere conducive to uncovering the full truth. This attitude simply ignores one front of the two-front war we're involved with. The treatment of the "pod" issue by PM is a perfect example of how this "freedom of speech" argument can backfire. It's clear the advocates of certain theories have shown themselves to be completely egotistically and ideologically attached to those theories. They'll never change. So if this breaks through and embarrasses us like the pod issue did, the real responsibility will be with those who kept forwarding or tolerating the no-plane material in the interest of "dialogue" or "exploration" or "askin' questions" and who failed to use their powers of discernment to see through a baseless argument.

In between the two fronts of this information war there is a lot of grey area, with quite a bit of room for principled disagreement about both evidence and tactics. Of course, principled disagreement is exactly the opposite of the obnoxious behavior of the no-planers, some of which I've documented in my articles, and which has included aggressive bluffing, bald-faced denials of obvious mistakes and personal attacks upon critics of the theories. This behavior creates an acrimonious and divisive atmosphere in a movement that prevents productive work, and is usually the MO of deep cover agents. But I'm not suggesting noplane advocates are agents. In fact I believe that most are deluded "useful idiots," as the terminology goes. As such, their offerings are misinformation, not disinformation. But that doesn't mean that the spooks wouldn't flood lists and forums with vociferous multiple-pseudonym supporters of these theories, in a tactic similar to the astroturfing of mainstream politics. If I were in charge of the cover up I would let the authentic fools emerge and then use mind control to encourage egomaniacal, narcissistic, and aggressive tendencies. But while general comments on what theories constitute disinfo are reasonable, it's useless to let fly specific accusations of disinfo activity regarding individuals. There is never any evidence. Charges going back and forth is what the cover-up crew wants: Divide and conquer. And given the historical record of COINTELPRO, the ones making the accusations are most likely to actually be the agents.

Of course, the no-planers have been constantly accusing other activists of being agents, always without proof and based on the most tenuous of reasoning. Simply working at a university that received government funding is cause for suspicion in their eyes. Imagine what they would say if a 9-11 activist used to work for the Bush administration itself. They would go ape, slandering that activist incessantly, accusing them of posing as a defector to be able to encourage the most unproductive areas of 9-11 research. But wait, I forgot: Morgan Reynolds IS from the Bush administration. But, of course, for the noplaners he's completely above suspicion because he supports their arguments. Just goes to show the incredibly biased thinking going on in those quarters.

If this is a disinfo operation we can expect that more "defectors" from high places will come forward to support it. The ongoing strategy will not be to win over the entire 9/11 truth movement, but simply to establish the legitimacy of investigating it so that people like Morgan Reynolds or Jimmy Walter will have just enough political support to give the impression to the general public that this is a key issue to 9/11 research. Therefore, the action for 9/11 activists to take now is not just to oppose the no-plane garbage but to shun the figures who promote it. After all, the success of the Loose Change DVD showed us (despite its flaws) that you don't need to be famous or rich to have a profound influence. We don't need standard bearers who push discrediting ideas, no matter how fortuitous their support seems.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I think it is essential to blow the cover off this issue in as public and decisive a way as possible. Ultimately it ends up being yet one more arrow in our quiver if we can demonstrate - demonstrably - that this movement is being targeted.

The media has a lot they need to bury:

On August 4th, 2006, 9/11 family members Lorie Van Auken, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg, and Monica Gabrielle released a statement that questioned the "entire veracity" of the 9/11 Commission's report.

On September 5th, 2006, a documentary endorsed by the families that fought for the creation of the 9/11 Commission was released entitled, "9/11: Press For Truth."

On September 11th, 2006, at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., family members Donna Marsh O'Connor, Michelle Little, and Christina Kminek asked for, "a new investigation into the events of September 11th, and this time, a truly bipartisan, global, with families invested from the beginning, middle, and throughout the end."

On October 14th, 2006, Monica Gabrielle, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza released a petition that calls for, "the immediate declassification and release of all transcripts and documents relating to the July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice" as well as "the declassification and release of both the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (JICI) and the CIA Inspector General’s report, "CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks." In the span of three days, they managed to get 2041 signatures.

so - we will take this new challenge on. whether it is intentional or unintelntional - disinformation or misinformation - cointelpro or simply stupid people - we will use it to create the necessary contrast between truth and fiction.

[i]prove that something besides 767s hit the towers[/i]

LOL. The burden is on Mr. Salter to prove his *positive* thesis of a 767 crash, not to make wild, unsupported, proclamations and bait others to prove the negative. This is all highly illogical and anti-scientific. Is this truly indicatice of the direction taken by the "Journal of 9/11 Studies"? Who "peer-reviewed" this tripe?

for slamming into buildings?

They have posted so many links on this site about TV Fakery that 911Blogger.com shows up before http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com/ in a google search for "TV Fakery."

And they don't even have 911Blogger.com listed in their links section.

__________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

"This build up of people in very very coordinated efforts trying to take this movement apart. We, who are still dying from 9/11, who went into the towers, and into that pile, now live with those buildings in our lungs, our digestive systems, and our blood, and if you allow these scumbags to strip you and this movement of our legitimacy, you condemn first responders to death."
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."