'No Planes' and the natural role of the 9/11 truth movement

[Pete J]

For a while I've been watching folk's reaction (sometimes bordering on the histerical) to proposals that no planes were used at all in the 9/11 attacks. The motive seems to be that these avenues of speculation are somehow 'diluting' the truth movement's ability to effectively articulate a unified version of an alternative scenario.

This to me seems a bit of a suicidal objective for the movement since it's strength and longevity has always been drawn from it's ability to be diverse, open minded and (in many cases) thorough in it's quest to embrace new avenues of research. For example, the scenario described here http://www.911closeup.com is at least as plausible to me as many of the more commonly held ones in the movement.

Forget the 'mainstream media' I say. They are not interested for the most part and it's a hugely fruitless excercise to try to get them to draw any conclusion from all of the alternative reasearch that goes on.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that they can't play a complementary role in all of this. The MSM does quite happily report on day-to-day events as long as it means they're not actually seen to be 'setting the agenda' themselves. I think the direction the truth movement should take therefore is to play to it's strengths and continue to explore ALL new lines of investigation and speculation while consolidating the ones where there appears be a naturally be emerging consensus (such as the controlled demolition theories). In this way, 9/11 research will start to play more of a part in day-to-day current affairs and will get reported on anyway (as happened so effectively on the Gloria Hunniford programme).

'No planers' should not be being censored by the rest of us, and neither should they be censoring themselves. If people (such a David Shayler) have genuinely held views about it then they should be getting them out there, 'warts and all' to be taken apart, scrutinised and debated and finally accepted (or rejected) if they merit doing so.

It's surely a bit delussional for people to be trying to 'avoid ridicule' at this stage. The movement will pick up as least as many supporters from maintining it's transparency as it loses from not being 'respectable and square'. I also can't help thinking that, for many, their opposition to certain theories runs no deeper than a case of 'oh no - I just had my nice tidy scenario all sewn up & now you've gone and blown it off the table'. Well, I'm sorry, but since this is a 'popular' movement in the true sense of the word the process just described is exactly the one that's carried it this far. I'm sure that most of you will recognise that fact once you look back at some of the stuff that is now being taken seriously which once was a minority view.

[Eckyboy]

Great post Pete J. I personally do not believe the no planes theory but that does not mean I dismiss it out of hand either. I like yourself believe that we should check all angles and try to exhaust every possibility if we are ever to find out what happened that day.

[scar]

Around the 5th Anniversary this forum was awash with debate about no planes as were other forums during the build up to the 5th. Since then it appears to be mentioned far less frequently. I was annoyed at how much the no planes debate dominated things here at such a crucial time (thanks to 3 or 4 people) and the media certainly used it to discredit various people.
Im not against any debate on no planes here but it is a little odd how it rose to the fore at such a crucial time only to slip away again within weeks with potentially thousands of new visitors around that date. It was unnecessary for no planes to be at the fore at that time imo. If that makes me 'a bit delussional for' 'trying to 'avoid ridicule' at this stage' then so be it. I was certainly far from alone. Even David Icke said 'Dont go there' around the 5th anniversary and he knows about ridicule i think.
Many other prominent researchers said similar.
I would argue that ignoring the importance of the 5th anniversary was far more delusional...

I am totally unconvinced with the vast majority of the arguments for no planes (at the wtc - holograms/media overlay) but even if i believed them i would never use them out on the street with newbies to all this and neither do those who believe them being far too busy with their 'research'... Critical Mass anyone?

[TimmyG]

the key word here is 'should'

yes.. in the utopia you present pete, people should consider everyone else around them and being open minded enough to listen and debate rationally, regardless of their own opinions and beliefs. Unfortunately, this is the real world.

Yes people should think as independently as possible... but people don't! The majority of people are programmed by society to lean towards a mainstream passage of thought. People thinking outside of the box are often ridiculed and made to feel like they've done something wrong etc..
This is part of our culture, like or not, and to an extent you can't blame people for responding unreasonably to our ideas, for most people day to day survival takes up most of their time. If you've not been privy to a decent education you have to work harder to survive and probably only have time and energy to glance at a newspaper/tv for your news.

WE, IN THIS MOVEMENT, SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE CLIMATE OF THOUGHT IN OUR ENVIRONMENT! we have to be if we want to escape the underground cult image we are often viewed with by the msm and joe bloggs.

The way I see it.. we've got a problem here. And there are several issues to consider.


1. No planers... Personally I have considered the evidence of no planes.. I have done this largely because I claim to be an open minded person who thinks independently, my instincts tell me its a load of rubbish, but to avoid being a hypocrite i do.. After doing so i remain of the opinion that real planes hit the towers.
I can't help but feel that the very existance of no planes theories, is largely a product of over imaginative minds.. in areas like this, the movement has become a metaphorical out-of-control freight-train . Anyone seriously researching 9/11 undoubtably develops a perceptual wall between the msm/establishment 'truth' and there own version of reality. Abandon the msm 'reality' completley and anything is possible in the mind of the truthseeker.. The idea people need to keep in their heads when deciding what's real and what's not, is that to truly be thinking critically and independently, we can't allow our awareness of extreme deception in the mainstream media to provoke equally extreme counter theories. Just because the establishment finds it acceptable to base their conclusions on weak evidence, it isn't ok for us to do the same.

2. movement democracy and open mindedness
'You can't ban no-planes! this is an open minded campaign! we have to consider everything!'
fair enough. consider it. But also consider that if its completely unproveable, and completely incomprehendable to the majority of the population, and based on arguably, very weak evidence, do we really have anything to gain by continuously discussing it?
Whats more this arguement is often used as a counter arguement when debating the specifics of no-planes and similar theories, which just makes us all look stupid to the outside onlooker.