The "No-Planes" Theory of 9/11
A major proponent of this theory is Scott Loughrey (Gerard Holmgren and "Webfairy" are also supposed to promote this idea as well), and it holds that no hijacked planes hit the WTC towers or the Pentagon. Moreover, it holds that the famous TV footage showing "flight 175" hitting the south tower is a massive hoax perpetrated by a few network insiders who carefully spliced in fake footage of an airplane in the the South tower explosion. The same for the Naudet brothers and the Hlavel footage of the North tower hit-- but that needed much less manipulation as those came to light much later on and had poor quality images. The idea is that missiles were fired at the WTC towers to cause the explosions and the government waged a psy-ops campaign through the corrupt media (notably CNN) to make it seem like hijacked planes really were the cause of the damage.
While this theory is risible on its face, there are some aspects that cannot be dismissed easily. Moreover, in some ways, this theory is an attractive explanation for the events of 9/11.
I do have many problems with Scott Loughrey's site-- in that many of his essays or examples suffer from fatal flaws in logic. In fact, it is amazing that someone who can set up a web-site like this, with so many videos and pictures can be so (for lack of a better word) idiotic.
Nonetheless, I can't help but think that Mr. Loughrey is onto something.
Thus, here are the reasons that the "no plane" theory has some creedence and/or attractiveness:
1) If you go to the Memory Hole, they have police reports from the day of 9/11 (these are really very striking to read, if never have looked at them). But the point is that in the police reports, there were in fact eye-witness reports of missile being fired from the Woolworth building into the south tower. This is direct eye-witness testimony that is hard to refute.
2) No planes hitting the WTC towers or the Pentagon means you don't have to worry about how knife-armed hijackers took over four planes and navigated three of them perfectly to their targets. There is no need to posit planes being flown by remote control either.
3) If you look at videos of the WTC north and south tower hits-- particularly when the plane first enters-- they have a certain strange, almost fake quality, the way the planes sort of "melt" into the exterior walls.
4) The huge fireballs that erupted out of the sides of the WTC towers when they were hit-- was that simply due to exploding jet fuel or could it have been more likely caused by explosives?
5) The no-plane theory helps explain the strangeness of the Pentagon hit. In fact the Pentagon hit may have been an elaborate show done with shaped explosive charges.
6) Gerard Holmgren has found that there is reason to think that flight 11 and flight 77 never really existed-- in a normal sense anyway.
7) The news networks have in fact been inflitrated by the CIA, and are certainly capable of putting out disinformation. They have clearly put out some disinfo regarding 9/11 as well as the Wellstone assassination. Of course the technology exists to manufacture these images.
7) There is a kind of appealing counter-intuitiveness to the idea that no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and a certain irresistible and hugely sinister "big lie" quality to this idea. The idea is so preposterous that people naturally won't believe it, which is why it can be an effective psy-ops.
Overall, I don't completely buy this theory-- but on the other hand, I think it is not so easy to dismiss as one might think initially. And it does have some explanatory powers.
If this is what happened on 9/11-- the images of planes hitting the WTC towers were faked-- we of course have to assume that there were fake hijackings carried out on some planes. But I already assume this is what occurred anyway-- as discussed in several previous posts.
In any case, let me know what you think. I appreciate any arguments either way.
While this theory is risible on its face, there are some aspects that cannot be dismissed easily. Moreover, in some ways, this theory is an attractive explanation for the events of 9/11.
I do have many problems with Scott Loughrey's site-- in that many of his essays or examples suffer from fatal flaws in logic. In fact, it is amazing that someone who can set up a web-site like this, with so many videos and pictures can be so (for lack of a better word) idiotic.
Nonetheless, I can't help but think that Mr. Loughrey is onto something.
Thus, here are the reasons that the "no plane" theory has some creedence and/or attractiveness:
1) If you go to the Memory Hole, they have police reports from the day of 9/11 (these are really very striking to read, if never have looked at them). But the point is that in the police reports, there were in fact eye-witness reports of missile being fired from the Woolworth building into the south tower. This is direct eye-witness testimony that is hard to refute.
2) No planes hitting the WTC towers or the Pentagon means you don't have to worry about how knife-armed hijackers took over four planes and navigated three of them perfectly to their targets. There is no need to posit planes being flown by remote control either.
3) If you look at videos of the WTC north and south tower hits-- particularly when the plane first enters-- they have a certain strange, almost fake quality, the way the planes sort of "melt" into the exterior walls.
4) The huge fireballs that erupted out of the sides of the WTC towers when they were hit-- was that simply due to exploding jet fuel or could it have been more likely caused by explosives?
5) The no-plane theory helps explain the strangeness of the Pentagon hit. In fact the Pentagon hit may have been an elaborate show done with shaped explosive charges.
6) Gerard Holmgren has found that there is reason to think that flight 11 and flight 77 never really existed-- in a normal sense anyway.
7) The news networks have in fact been inflitrated by the CIA, and are certainly capable of putting out disinformation. They have clearly put out some disinfo regarding 9/11 as well as the Wellstone assassination. Of course the technology exists to manufacture these images.
7) There is a kind of appealing counter-intuitiveness to the idea that no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and a certain irresistible and hugely sinister "big lie" quality to this idea. The idea is so preposterous that people naturally won't believe it, which is why it can be an effective psy-ops.
Overall, I don't completely buy this theory-- but on the other hand, I think it is not so easy to dismiss as one might think initially. And it does have some explanatory powers.
If this is what happened on 9/11-- the images of planes hitting the WTC towers were faked-- we of course have to assume that there were fake hijackings carried out on some planes. But I already assume this is what occurred anyway-- as discussed in several previous posts.
In any case, let me know what you think. I appreciate any arguments either way.
posted by spooked at 9:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home