(Updated/Expanded 3/15/06)(Updated/Expanded 3/20/06)
OF COURSE, at first blush, the idea that no real planes were used in 9/11 seems
absurd.
But when ALL the evidence is taken into account, it is the only reasonable conclusion.
So let's go through it piece by piece---
BY ITSELF, videos that show
conflicting plane paths for the second hit do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used on 9/11. Perhaps a network created footage because they were too cheap to buy footage, or wanted more dramatic footage than what was available. But clearly these videos show the south tower exploding. If planes were added in-- what happened to THE REAL PLANE in the video?
BY ITSELF,
the fact that videos of the second hit have different timings for when the plane goes in and the fireball comes out doesn't mean that no plane was used on 9/11. But if there was a real plane going into the building, why would the timing differ for different shots?
BY ITSELF,
that the explosions that occur in the south tower right after the plane enter don't always line up the same as where the plane went in doesn't mean that no plane was used on 9/11. But, as above, if there was a real plane going into the building, why would this alignment differ for different videos?
BY ITSELF,
weird anomalies in photos and videos of the second hit do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps there was something strange in the air that day that made the plane look strange. But is this really a convincing explanation?
BY ITSELF, the fact that the second plane completely melted into the south tower,
without slowing, or distorting or breaking or exploding upon impact does not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps that is just the way a fast large bodied jetliner impacts a steel frame building-- even though it defies physics and examples of other plane crashes.
BY ITSELF, the fact that CNN footage of the second hit shows
signs of editing and signs of
sloppy bluescreen
technology do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Perhaps CNN had good reason to alter the video, though it is not at all clear what these reasons might be.
BY ITSELF, the fact that
the airplane wings and tail cut through large steel columns on the WTC wall do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. But it sure is strange that the fuel carried in the wings was never ignited by the impact of the wings on these large columns. And it sure is strange the huge tail section, which breaks off quite easily in other plane crashes, slid into the building without a hitch.
BY ITSELF, the fact that the
south tower fireball came out all on one side of the building, even though
the plane hit straight on and just slightly off-center, does not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. But it sure is strange, particularly in comparison to the North tower hit, where explosions came out all sides of the building. Moreover, the port wing of the second plane should clearly have broken open on the core columns and sprayed fuel all out the west side of the tower, in an analogous fashion to what the starboard wing apparently did (giving rise to the huge famous fireball)-- yet the port wing simply in the building disappeared without any clear explosion. What happened to it?
BY ITSELF, the fact that very few airplane parts were found at any
9/11 crash site do not conclusively tell us that no plane was used. Sure, perhaps these were incredibly violent plane crashes that tore up the plane much more than in "normal" crashes-- but it still does make one wonder, since typically plane crashes are quite violent but still leave plenty of parts on the ground.
BY ITSELF, the fact that the few airplane parts were found at any
9/11 crash site were not verified to make sure they matched the plane that officially crashed at that site does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. After all, why does the government need to prove anything to anyone?
BY ITSELF, the fact that officially, no black boxes were found in the rubble at the WTC, does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Even though these boxes are incredibly sturdy and meant to survive the worst plane crashes, the fact that FOUR of these boxes (two per plane)
vanished at Ground Zero only shows how destructive the unusual collapses of the two towers was.*
BY ITSELF, the fact that the official
flight path of the Pentagon crash is impossible does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it does make one wonder what really happened.
BY ITSELF, the fact that the
official story of the crash of UA93 makes absolutely no sense does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it makes you wonder what the hell the government is lying about.
BY ITSELF,
the fact that flights 11 and 77 were not scheduled to fly on 9/11 does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it sure tends to support that flights 11 and 77 were not involved in the attacks.
BY ITSELF, the fact the passenger lists for the four 9/11 planes are
highly suspect, does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. But it makes you wonder why we can't have the truth.
BY ITSELF, the fact that it is highly doubtful terrorists training on small prop planes and flight simulators could have piloted the planes so effectively on 9/11 does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps they got REALLY lucky.
BY ITSELF, the fact that terrorists armed at most with knives, boxcutters and fake bombs took over four large jets with not one of eight pilots notifying air traffic control of a hijacking by any standard means does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps they got REALLY REALLY lucky. But how much luck can we reasonably expect for the terrorists on that day?
BY ITSELF, the fact that officially, forty minutes after two hijacked jets attacked New York City, a third hijacked plane flew hundreds of miles before penetrating Washington DC airspace to attack the Pentagon WITHOUT AIR FORCE INTERCEPTION-- this does not prove no plane was used in 9/11. Perhaps NORAD just had a REALLY REALLY BAD DAY. But when can we simply laugh at the absurdity of the official story?
BY ITSELF, the fact that the media lies about what the government does all the time, and covers for the government all the time, does not prove no plane was used on 9/11. But certainly the media is capable of covering up and disseminating such a huge lie.
BY ITSELF, the fact that 9/11 has all the features of a highly sophisticated covert operation that was years in the works and was an operation that clearly aided geopolitical goals of the US does not prove no plane was used on 9/11. But it would support the idea that the 9/11 planners would know how difficult and therefore risky it would be to control real hijackings and real aircraft.
So, indeed-- all these things BY THEMSELVES do not
prove that 9/11 was carried out without real planes.
But together, all the evidence presented here points to the idea that--
NO REAL PLANES WERE USED IN 9/11.What WAS used for the 9/11 attacks?
My current hypothesis is pre-planted bombs and missiles (possibly cloaked missiles). However, the whole POINT is that the whole operation rested on the idea of making it LOOK as though planes were used. Thus, a few plane parts were planted, videos were faked, "witnesses" were coached, hijacked plane paths were faked, hijackings were faked, cockpit radio transmissions were faked, plane passenger lists were created with fake IDs and passenger/crew phone calls were faked. Possibly a real Boeing jet flew near each 9/11 crash site to act as a decoy.** Some real passengers were likely killed on 9/11 or given new identities.
Doesn't the scale of this operation make it seem highly implausible?
Clearly 9/11 was a very large complicated operation, with many interconnecting parts. I think the whole thing could have been done with perhaps 50-100 key operatives who knew much of the plot. These people would be subject assassination if they spoke out. Some of them may have been killed on 9/11 itself. Other people would be involved but not know the whole story and might even think what they were doing was innocuous (FBI agents for instance).
Is my theory hard to believe?
Yes. Of course!
But what is
even harder to believe is the official 9/11 story--
particularly in light of the evidence presented above.*My theory is that the planes attacking the WTC meme was planted so effectively by TV imagery that there was no attempt to plant boxes at the WTC. Whereas at the Pentagon and Shanksville, there were more immediate doubts about whether a plane had crashed there, and so the black box story was fabricated for these two sites. Later, when some in the 9/11 skeptic movement started to doubt if normal planes hit the WTC, stories were planted in the underground media that black boxes WERE found but that their existence was kept secret by the FBI.
**Interestingly, the timing of the attacks were such that in theory ONE JET could have flown by the WTC north tower to mimic flight 11, then overflown Manhattan and turned around and came back to mimic flight 175, then this same jet could have hightailed it to Washington DC to fly over the Pentagon, then would still have had time to get to the Shanksville area to mimic flgiht 93. Researcher Woody Box has found that a Boeing 767 was "stolen" on 9/11, which could have been used for this purpose-- as well as to send radio transmissions from the "hijacked jets". Finally, this idea is supported by the fact that, as documented in the 9/11 commission report, air traffic controllers initially thought flight 11 continued flying after flying by Manhattan.
