WTC Planehugger Therapy -Top 30 FAQ

By Nico Haupt
April 7, 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planehugger
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/planehuggers/message/4536

Definition of a planehugger
Definition of Planehuggers as submitted to the Planehuggers Yahoo Group (as was at least twice deleted by Wikipedia) provided by Ray Antoky

Planehuggers is a recent political neologism that has been used on the World Wide Web frequently in newsgroups [1] and blogs.The term refers to those people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, also known as truthlings, who believe that real, full size commercial passenger jets or planes were used in the 9/11 event. There have been many serious researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 in the Truth Movement such as Morgan Reynolds, who feel they have proven that a real, commercial jet was not used at the Pentagon explosions, nor were real passenger jets used at the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. They make what they believe to be a credible case of inserted animation video (Computer-generated imagery)[2][..] and therefore refer to those in the 9/11 Truth Movement who cling to the original 'official story' as huggers of planes or planehuggers since they embrace the aspect of the original story as delivered by the mass media of commercial jets being used to create the damage to the Pentagon and the Twin Towers and refuse to alter their thinking regardless of new analysis of evidence which proves that the original story was intentional disinformation![3]. The term is used somewhat derisively and sometimes linked to the concept of these 'planehuggers' being disinformation agents. While some like to refer to these research people as espousers of 9/11 conspiracy theories, these researchers are merely presenting alternative hypotheses [4] to the official government story[5]which is in itself by definition a conspiracy theory . For additional information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alternative_theories_of_September_11%2C_2001_attacks.

Therapy Group for "Planehuggers": Planehuggers_anonymous

WTC Planehugger Therapy -FAQ:

1.What happened with the passengers?

There are many 9/11 researchers, who looked into this question already years ago, including myself.
A good starter is "an interview with Gerard Holmgren", which explains that the authenticity and credibility of the passenger list has to be questioned as well.
Fact is: Official records of passengers boarding the flight have never been released.
Fact is also: The official "list", not linked to any records, was scrubbed immediately from the internet within days after Sep11th and then only mirrored by CNN.
It also didn't contain any Arabic names.
Fact is therefore, that the media published fake lists and passed them off as official.
It is also factual that the official accounts also contradict one another, even in regard to so called 'official' accounts where everyone allegedly died.:
Dying twice on 9/11: Meet Titus Davidson

At Team8+ we also released:
UA vs. AA -the 9/11 Timeline 'screw-up', an analysis which shows conflicting passenger numbers.

Also recommended:
Media Published Fake Passenger Lists (by Gerard Holmgren)
This research also later inspired 9/11 researcher Vincent Sammartino to look more into the Social Security Death Index and found other disturbing details.

2. Are you telling me, that all these passengers never existed?

That would be too extreme and illogical a conclusion.
The logical conclusion must be that these passengers never 'boarded' the official flights "AA 11" and most probably not "UA 175" either.
If they entered any 'plane', then it must have been aircraft related to and controlled by the real 9/11 perpetrators, but these aircrafts never arrived in NYC.

3. So what happened with the planes?

We have to distinguish between so called "stand-in" aircraft and "substitute" aircraft.
A "stand-in" aircraft could have been anything. It could have been a cargo plane or a room disguised as an airplane…or possibly most passengers never entered any commercial aircraft at all
but rather got picked up by trucks (etc..) and then killed somewhere else.
However for logistical reasons and simplification of the issue, let's assume they entered a plane.
The majority most obviously even participated in a live "on the fly" terror exercise and therefore didn't feel any suspicion as exercises were being conducted that day.
A deep research into the profile of the majority of these passengers suggests a close association with military, intelligence and high tech projects, and also Hollywood associations.
In this case they also could have entered one of the substitute aircrafts which had been tracked by FAA and military radar.
All other passengers might have been briefed "aboard" as "volunteers".
However these substitutes never arrived in NYC on time, as proven by FAA audio transcripts and military radar.
This is also documented at team8plus.org:

3a. So what happened with Flight 11?

To begin with, Flight 11 did not exist.
It wasn't listed in the BTS database.
More on this at Why they didn't use planes

4. What happened with Flight 175?

We looked thoroughly into this at Team 8+ as well.
Though UA 175 WAS listed in the BTS, there are conflicting records about the wheels-off-times, almost a 20 minute difference, in contradiction to the official story.
Team8plus suggested different scenarios, including additional swaps:
In one case, the potential substitute was grounded in Cleveland, Ohio or Kentucky, possibly also at Reagan Airport, DC or nearby Indian Lake airports in the general area of Pennsylvania.
Also plausible are landings in Albany, NY.
In one 'wildcard’ scenario another empty aircraft ("fly-by plane") was additionally chartered and parked over night in Newark Hanger, which had a fire incident on Sep 10th.
This 'plane' could have flown to NYC, flying very low above 5th Avenue, continuing to fly and leaving the Manhattan area again, maybe also grounded or crashed into Fresh Kills.
This scenario isn't linked to any passengers who were officially reported killed on or about Sep11th.

5. What about the cell phone talks?

It was impossible during 2001 that these cell calls could have been placed from high altitudes.
Here is a helpful analysis by Professor Michel Chossudovsky from the Centre for Research on Globalisation.
At Team8+ we also analyzed conflicting timeline reports of these alleged cell phone talks and the background of these passengers.

6. What about all these witnesses?

I refer to this counter entity against the video research at 16 CGIs which fooled the world, and also in a radioshow with 9/11 scholar member Webster Tarpley.

‘Eye-witness’ and ‘911-emergency call' reports are contradictory, therefore useless and not strong enough at all.

Many "remote-control planehuggers" also do occasionally mention ex-FOX reporter Mark Burnback and a woman in the Camera Planet footage, who reported both about either a "plane without windows" or "not an american airline_".
However it is obvious that the woman from the Camera Planet footage is 'talking back to the radio she is carrying'.
Also, what did Burnback really see?
And did he ever confirm that this object hit the South Tower?
See also "9/11 NY Aircraft 'Witnesses'" (04/07/06) at http://911closeup.com/nico/witness_contradictions.html

7. Is this website and research not discrespectful against all 9/11 family members?

The 9/11 research has irritated and hurt the feelings of many 9/11 family members since day 1.
9/11 Researchers are in too many conflicts of interests to decide from day to day what particular research might 'hurt' or not.
They must instead follow the general ethical principal of absolute truth and honor to the victims.

8. Why i am not able to find your stuff at 911truth.org?

911truth.org was debunked as a Cointelpro asset many months ago.
Particularly '9/11 truthlings’ are not yet willing to accept that this organization is infiltrated and also operating as a cult rather than an activist group and serious research think tank.
More here: BOYCOTT 911truth.org...

9. What about 'this pod'?

The 'pod research' was once of secondary importance, even in past years (for example at the time of the publications of In Plane Site -- 2004).
It is meanwhile a distractive and misleading avenue of research, which basically analyzed a feature of the computer generated imagery (so to speak a cartoon), instead of declaring the 'cartoon' for what it is, a digital fakery containing hand designed and uploaded computer graphic imagery, but no real aircraft.

During 2006 this 'pod research' was still supported by Phil Jayhan from ‘911letsroll’ (who is banning or censoring all the called "no-planers"), but also Jim Fetzer from the 911Scholars.
This video research suggests that a remote controlled, militarized Boeing jet hit the Towers by ignoring numerous violations of all known laws of physics.

10. What about the flash?

Same answer as above. It is either a secondary element of TV fakery linked to the digital aircraft, or alternatively could have been puffs from internal explosives.
Since this research is strongly linked with the 'pod research', there seems to be no possibility anymore of deriving any productive conclusions and therefore we can only conclude that the 'flash' is, at best, secondary to other evidence.

11. What do the 9/11 scholars have to say about your findings?

Jim Fetzer, co-founder of the 911Scholars disagrees or ignores the findings so far.
However many 911Scholars are more open minded and have even released public statements supportive of this research.
It has yet to be determined if this tolerance can be widened during the next few months.
When confronted with the findings Professor Jim Fetzer first didn't want to talk about this, then changed his opinion into "inconclusive", then finally switched into a 'pod supporter' with remote controlled aircraft.

12. What about the forensic evidence?

Again, many 9/11 researchers pointed out that this is yet another pseudo 'counter entity'.
There is no physical evidence that any plane hit the Towers.
As a matter of fact, the physical evidence speaks clearly AGAINST commercial aircraft and points out too many violations of scientific laws.
The counter physical 'evidence' is therefore "pseudo forensic science" and the real "junk science".
Basically one does not need any physical evidence to prove that the footage allegedly containing aircraft has been 'faked'.

13. Isn't this 'TV fakery' too complicated?

To determine what is complicated or not is a single-sided assumption, based on one’s own experience, amount of knowledge and imagination.
Basically it was just "one mouse click".
Also, you only need one video to prove that it contradicts with at least another video.
See also links at 911closeup, W-ABC Camera Type Identification and 16 CGIs which fooled the world (04/01/06).

14. Does this not damage the 'movement'?

The meme, that particular research could hurt the movement, has existed since "Day 1" (=the commencement of the 9/11 research movement).
This weak kneed excuse was once used to to sabotage research regarding the alleged attack on the Pentagon, then to the controlled demolition, then to cell phone analysis, then to the video research in general.
Actually during 2002, this meme was planted by Kyle Hence (9/11 Citizen's Watch), a former sailor** closely associated to Jonathan and George Soros.
Hence also coined his most famous quote:
"America isn't ready for the truth yet."

14a. Is this research not dividing the movement?

The divisions in this movement had been predictable from Day 1, including their gatekeepers.
9/11 was designed to do so.
As a matter of fact, this research reduces the division and makes it clearer:
"planehuggers" vs. "no-planers" (a label, which was created by critics and saboteurs)

15. I believe this is all disinfo. Is it?

There is misinfo and there is disinfo.
'Disinfo' is intentionally placed and contains lies; misinfo is unintentionally placed and might contain mistakes in some details.

If proven, I will remove, disclaim or address any particular 'misinfo'.
This article does not contain any intentional or misleading information. It is based on well documented sources and can be double checked.

16. I believe you work for U.S. Government or other governments. Do you?

Assuming I would lie NOW, it should be proven immediately to make your point.

But would it matter? What about all other ex- and current government members, who are 'supporting' this 'movement'? Some of them lie, some don't and some have their own agenda, which has not yet been clearly identified.
I can only 'declare' that I am not on any government payroll, neither was I brainwashed into being a helpful asset or unpaid shill.

I am also as 'patriotic' or 'constitutional' as everyone else and try to reflect this view as often as possible.
My great-grandfather immigrated into the U.S. in early 1900, my grandfather was born here, and my other American relatives are still alive, happy and well and possibly wouldn't necessarily enjoy all my articles.

In my opinion as a journalist for decades and from a philosophical point of view, one should not draw conclusions from the background or ethics of any particular researcher, activist or human being in general, but should stay focused on the real content to either debunk or improve it.

Isn't that what we call democracy?
My 9/11 media and research biography is available here.

There have been many attempts since late 2001, to either discredit or belittle my research, activism, attitude, human behavior and language.
There was never any major mistake debunked in any of my articles, neither was there proven that ANY disinfo was planted into my articles.
That doesn't mean I didn't make the one or another personal mistake.
But since I'm in contact with an endless number of correspondents, they all look more carefully into my writings than my biggest critics.

In other attempts, my research was also discredited via character assassinations, occasionally successful, to manipulate the so called '9/11 truthlings'.

During 2002, German DER SPIEGEL described me as a "conspiracy theorist".
In the following years I was described as "erratic" (Mike Ruppert), who instead plagiarized my ‘war game-and-terror-drill’ research and turned the original spin into a "limited hangout", by ignoring all other facts.
Then this label followed with the more accommodating "mad genius" (former popular NY 9/11 activist, musician, and talented researcher Michael Kane, who was later turned around by Mike Ruppert).
Breakfornews.com accused me of being a "CIA fake", Karl Schwarz confused me as an "alcoholic" with 9/11 Truth Action founder Jolly Roger, a very talented poet and confessed alcoholic.

Occasionally I also get labeled as either mentally disabled ("LARED", daisy committee on democraticunderground.com), "Nazi" (sitbot) but also "Jew" or "Neocon".

Finally during an increased promotion of my latest video findings, I was labeled "entrepreneur" or "enfant terrible" (Webster Tarpley),
but also "avant-garde researcher" with "multiple piercings" (Mike Ruppert), though I don't even have any visible scars on my body :)
Associated co-researchers also have been occasionally placed 'into jail' or a 'mental institution'.
Additionally all my web site projects have been hacked dozens of times, presumably not just by right-wing script kiddies.

17. Isn't all other 9/11 research good enough?

Yes, it is. But why then did all other 9/11 'activists' not succeed yet?
Isn't the mainstream media our biggest problem, maybe even more than the 'government', which doesn't really exist anymore, but replaced by private military-and-intelligence contractors, among them strong links with biopharmacy, energy, oil and media?

If we want to stop with fake realities, 'reality TV' and other virtual hoaxes, we have to start with the biggest lie:
Media Manipulations on and since 9/11,otherwise the whole world will turn into a cartoon and produce too many multiple and competing realities at the same time, also often called "augmented reality."

It is also possible, that all other 9/11 research, including the physical evidence on other items, can still be confronted with counter spin, even in the example of controlled demolition.

However counter-spin against the TV fakery is very hard to script, instead it will break apart the official 'plot line' completely.

18. Was the feed, factual or fictional, or a combination thereof?

The very first and only live available feed from W-ABC (filmed with the military WESCAM system), was a combination of factual (explosion and parts of the fireballs, background landscape), while the flying object was a fictional computer insert, which also shows some mistakes and contradicts with many of the other available clips (and their re-edits) of the second 'hit’ in shape, speed, behavior, flight path, flight direction and second-by-second videoframe analysis.

19. Why did the "Loose Change" team not include your findings yet?

They might include it in Loose Change III although they have no yet publicly commited to do so..
The Loose Change team already changed the main message from Loose Change I to Loose Change II.
I personally recommended to Dylan Avery and his intelligent team to look into our findings and they're still open minded though not conclusive yet on their opinion of "importance".

20. Does this all not counteract Charlie Sheen's latest support?

Actually Charlie Sheen might be one of the most prominent supporters of this research.
In one of his first public statements he pointed out:
http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/charlie-sheen/charlie-sheen-talks-911-conspiracy-161961.php
"...There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life..."

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2006/3/emw362500.htm&cid=1105351482
"....I saw the south tower hit live, that famous wide shot where it disappears behind the building and then we see the tremendous fireball."

21. So are you saying, that no planes hit the Towers?

This is not the main focus of this web site. The hypothesis is that all video footage which contains alleged commercial aircraft does not show real aircraft, but digital objects.
The main focus is therefore to figure out who faked it, how did they fake it, and why did they find it necessary to fake it.

The only clear conclusion is that no commercial aircraft, including "AA 11" and "UA 175”, hit any of the Towers.
It is also clear that no remote controlled Boeing hit any of the Towers and it is totally irrelevant what kind of military equipment remote controlled Boeings might have attached to their belly.

22. What hit the North Tower (the first 'attack')?

I will refer here to 911foreknowlegde.com by Ray Ubinger and the original article of Leslie Raphael: Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged

Their research proves that the producers who filmed the first 'hit' had prior knowledge of it and therefore knew exactly how and where to film the flying object which targeted the North Tower.
They also used actors to dramatize their "documentary".

Rosalee Grable believes, that the object (no CGI insert, but a real object) in the documentary, what she named a 'whatzit' in the early days of the investigation
are actually "multiple miniature UAVs flying in close formation to look as substantial as possible.
From the control room, it would be indistinguishable from a video game."

23. What hit the South Tower?

The case of the South Tower is different, because there are too many conflicting eye-witness reports.

What is clear is that everything that you saw on TV ‘hitting’ the tower did NOT hit the tower, because because none of these 'flying objects' were real physical objects.
I repeat: The flying objects on the TV Broadcast were not real objects. That doesn't mean, however, that no real object at all hit the South Tower.

It is possible, rather than the South Tower being hit by an aircraft of conventional missile, that no aircraft or conventional missile at all hit the South Tower, another unknown and silent missile formation, similar to the idea above, was already pre-positioned in height of the specific South Tower floors, behaving like a steady 'helicopter' and then entered immediately via a particular signal and triggered the explosion and impact.

Here are all possibilities for the south tower hit:

1) nothing flying, purely pre-planted charges
2) cluster of visible UAVs (i.e. entomopters* -*read addendum, already tested during 1998), or any other micro weaponry).
3) cluster of cloaked (invisible) UAVs (or UUAVs/UMAVs = unidentified unmanned aerial vehicles/micro aerial vehicles), including possibility of pre-planted charges of any kind.
4) cloaked (invisible) missile
5) visible large missile (one or two)
6) CGI(s) (overpainted) projecting missile (showing a Boeing jet)
7) "UA175"
8) some other large Boeing, possibly modified

Since we can already quickly rule out 7) and 8),
let's follow the analysis of "spooked911", aka covertoperations.blogspot.com associated with another 911scholar member

"...Because pictures of the south tower "entry" hole show columns knocked inward, I tend to favor possibilities where some flying object hits the tower.

Because videos show conflicting plane paths, this suggests to me the flying object was invisible or only weakly visible (a blur, perhaps only seen from certain angles).

This basically leaves possibilities 3 and 4-- cluster of cloaked (invisible) UAVs or a cloaked (invisible) missile.
The problem with missiles is how did they create the wing-scars?
This leaves the cloaked UAV idea as the strongest possibility...."

I would agree with covertoperations, and also leaning between 1) or 3) combined with pre-planted charges, which forced almost the exact and very same impact shape as at the North Tower.

However this is still another ongoing research, blocked by many different interest groups.

Note also, that if a weaponized entomopter* or any other soundless micro UAV-weaponry formation was used,
this would explain why many different sources (and footage) did not include or prove ANY incoming sound (noise from either missile or commercial aircraft).
In this case, a suggestion for an incoming conventional missile can now be considered OUTDATED.

24. If true, who did all this?

One has to ask why WTC 7 was linked to Blackstone/TRW and the attacked WTC floors with Raytheon.
The whole military operation of 9/11 had to do with private military contractors and globalist fascists, as described in my article series, "the lost terror drill" (2004)

25.Who else is believing in this "hillarious nonsense"?

Possibly a lot more people than you think, including the latest prominent, more open minded supporters like Jimmy Walter, Rick Siegel, Morgan Reynolds, Charlie Sheen and many new 9/11 forums and blogs.

But most others are too scared, confused or manipulated to speak out.
They are also struggling too much with these questions above and might think about some other fake realities in their lives which they might have to give up.

Then on some others, who are too confused but supportive of these findings, Gerard Holmgren analysed:

"…it may be merely a teething problem as people struggle to find a new balance.

Previously, they basically believed that any news video they saw was real.
Now they've been bitten so badly on that, that they are starting to wonder whether any of it is real.
Without having developed the specific skills to analyze individual videos, they are now without a reference point for ‘real’ and ‘fake’, and they're floundering around wildly as they try to find one..."

Or others attack, in an attempt to protect their own masquerade, those who found the first evidence of the September 11th fakery, among them Holmgren, Grable, Haupt, Roughley, Ubinger and many other talented 9/11 researchers whose findings deserve even more attention, but got ignored so far.
Instead everyone who is getting more open minded is immediately labeled as part of the so called "well-known" or "controversial" 'webfairy gang'.

26. Why didn't i hear before about all this?

I don't know. You should ask the alleged 9/11 'activists' and authors, who sabotaged, opposed, ignored or discredited this research, since it was first reported.
I personally believed in a TV manipulation already on Day 1, maybe because I worked 10-12 years for TV but couldn't find anyone to talk to about it and put it on hold for at least one year.

Then, in early 2002, I co-founded with Jeff "Plaguepuppy" King, the veteran of "controlled demolition" research, the invite only "9/11 science and Justice Alliance" online group, whose content later also inspired WING TV, the Jimmy Walter/Eric Hufschmid tandem, Senator Candidate Craig Hill, 911physics.net, David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds, Prof. Stephen Jones and last but not least, the 9/11 Scholars for Truth.

I also wasn't even confused by the very first footage on September 11th, which I didn't really notice, but by an unidentified "amateur camera team’s" clip from CNN, whose identity was never revealed.
This clip, which I watched 'live' (as an "exclusive"), at least some hours after the second attack (not between 8:45 and 10:45 AM), was never shown again on TV and contains the most mistakes of all known second attack footage, which can't be explained away.

27. So you're telling me a hologram hit the towers?

You didn't read carefully enough. Start from above again.
We're talking about vector-keyed CGIs (Computer generated Imagery), which aren't 'airborne', but born on computers ('capsules'), 3D programs ('animations') and video editor software ('clips').
There are still attempts to confuse these findings of digital manipulation by performing a "holography dance".

There were singular and wrong conclusions during 2002/03, while the TV fakery research was already ongoing at the same time as well, though with less intensity or as a 'competition'.

However, all the newest conclusions have been repeatedly confused by saboteurs or 'strugglers' from outside to muddy down the waters.

Holography however does exist as well and was recently successfully used at the Grammies and Superbowl.
Another research angle, which looks into the possibility of whether additional holographic fragments had been used or just dumped on that morning, is meanwhile supported by some new researchers not connected with this site.
Fairness should allow us to look into that matter, although too many details speak for a very thin evidence of significant cross over use of both CGI and Hologram technology at the same time...

New findings do not contradict the CGI findings at all therefore there is no competing discrepancy either way.
Generally spoken, another main objection to the "Hologram only"-thesis should be, that it still lets the media off the hook, taken in by the projection instead of mass media as prime motivator of a carefully constructed fiction plot.

28. I saw one or both of these planes hitting the Towers. Do you think i am a liar?

No I don't think you are necessarily a "liar".
The question is, “What did you really see?”
It is also often a result of guilt complex (or more extreme: "Stockholm Syndrome") to participate in a tragic event or just the imagination of combining two events to one and the same.

Remember, in the very first footage, the alleged aircraft doesn't hit any of these towers.
It is instead vanishing behind the first tower and then is followed by an explosion.
This is the result of combining two visual events to one logical conclusion based on the result of individual experience and understanding of how things might work generally.
But it is not the only logical explanation. There are many others, see above.

29. What do we have to do about this?

You tell me. I can only provide information.
Maybe it's time that we have to ask many questions back, among many would be:

Why is that many of the pioneer researchers and supporters of the controlled demolition scenario, who got turned away from infiltrated activism, are getting attacked for finding the last final details, while the U.S. Government is still in place and manipulating a world war between U.S., China and Russia?

Instead everyone is just fine with yet another 'breakthrough' which still doesn't change any outcome of this system and the lies of the cover-up.

30. Why are we asking so many questions? Where are the answers on all of this?

Good one.

(NOTE: See all other articles at 911closeup.com/nico

Thanks for additional help for this article to Ray Antoky.
Props also for additional input to Gerard Holmgren, Rosalee Grable, covertoperations.blogspot.com, Prof. David Gabbard, Rick Rajter (both 911Scholars), "Thomas Potter", seatnineb (team8plus, for all additional witness sources), all members from "9/11Inside Jobbers Yahoogroup", Rob Cash (ny911meetup), all other mentioned 9/11 researchers and 9/11-'activists' in this article, perpetualinquisite, Gordon McDowell, 911chronology.com, "Boogie", killtown, m., Angie d'Urso, Dan "Rabbi Philo" Halper, John Doe II (team8plus.org), Brad M. (team8plus) and all other team8+ members, 911blogger.com, Webster Tarpley, "plectic", "AllieG", IanMcFerran, my favourite deli owner and many others.

Very special and personal alltime props also to "Dulce Decorum" :)

Please check out other related articles at