Arguing "No-Planes"
I know this theory is unpopular with most 9/11 "truthers" and 9/11 activists, and lord knows that I sometimes wonder why I am spending so much time on an apparently ridiculous theory that "no one" believes. Certainly "no sane person would believe that no plane hit the WTC, ESPECIALLY the South tower because EVERYONE saw that, there were THOUSANDS of witnesses".
I know many in the 9/11 "truth movement" just wish the no-planers would go away, as we give a bad, crazy association to "real" 9/11 truth. And even more, many in the 9/11 "truth movement" believe the no-planers are active disinfo artists, paid government shills, meant to disrupt true 9/11 activists.
In fact, I am a private citizen who just wants to know the truth about 9/11. I want to know exactly what happened that day, and specifically I want to know: if 9/11 was an inside job-- how was it set up? It simply is not enough for me to say, "oh, they used patsies for the hijackers, remote control planes and distracted the air defenses with war games". I have been down that road. If you read my archives from when I started this blog, you can see it for yourself. Early on, I bought into the whole "let's ignore all 9/11 physical evidence" meme-- big time. I even wrote a couple of posts early on saying how 9/11 activists shouldn't talk about no-plane hitting the Pentagon, because that makes us look bad.
But you know what? I started looking at the physical evidence. The towers looked like they were blown up. And the Pentagon hit started looking very strange. Then I started looking at the flight 93 crash site-- and that was even stranger. And then it looked to me like no planes crashed at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, though someone tried to make it look like planes did crash. But they could only fake so much. Then the question arose: if there were no planes at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, is it possible they didn't use planes for the WTC either? Then I started looking at the footage of "UA175" melting into the south tower, and it really didn't seem quite right to me.
Finally, I also began to wonder why so many 9/11 "truth" people were telling me NOT to look at the physical evidence when it was so compelling and clearly bizarre!
So-- my nagging feeling is that there is something VERY important about the no-plane theory that deserves attention. I don't want to force it down anyone's throat, but I think it also should be looked at by all 9/11 activists with an open mind.
The evidence for there being no planes is a cumulative argument, without any one 100% infallible piece of evidence. This is much like the whole idea of 9/11 being an "inside job"-- it doesn't rest on one rock-solid piece of evidence, but rather it rests on many official parts of the 9/11 story being improbable, and that these add up to a highly unbelievable official story. 9/11 being an "inside job" is a bit of a gestalt, really. If one can handle the 9/11 "inside job" gestalt, than handling the no-plane theory should not be a big problem.
In any case, it is worth periodically going over the reasons for the no-plane theory, if nothing else than for my own sanity.
9/11 facts that support the no-plane theory*:
1) the one "live" shot of "UA175" flying to the South tower, shown from the same feed by three different networks (ABC, CNN, Fox), was discontinuous with the explosion. Moreover, the south tower was not even seen directly as it was blocked by the north tower. All in all, very suspicious footage
2) the second shot of the south tower hit shown by CNN showed only an explosion, no plane. The area on the screen where the plane should have been was blocked by the CNN news "crawl". Also very suspicious footage.
3) several eye-witnesses saw the south tower explode, and were in a location where they could have seen the plane, but didn't see a plane.
4) several eye-witnesses spoke of missiles or a missile hitting the south tower instead of a plane.
5) the plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers (and in Shanksville and to a lesser degree the Pentagon) are not physically plausible for real plane crashes-- the holes look as though the perpetrators were simply trying to make it APPEAR as though planes crashed in the buildings and on the ground.
6) several videos of the south tower hit show the plane sliding into the tower without slowing, without exploding upon contact, without any part breaking off-- with even the freaking wingtips gliding through thick steel columns!
7) there are many video anomalies in the videos of the second hit-- the plane is deformed, there are obvious "pods", there are conflicting plane paths between videos, the videos have anomalous, often dark, coloration, etc. This all casts doubt on a real plane being in the videos.
8) evidence for planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville is weak; people initially at both scenes said there was no evidence of a plane crash, etc.
9) flight 11 and flight 77 officially did not take off according to the BTS database.
10) no black boxes were found at ground zero (officially).
11) almost no plane parts were found in the WTC rubble that was SIFTED for human remains.
9/11 concepts that are consistent with the no-plane theory:
1) the lack of air defense is best explained by a lack of any real planes to intercept-- this would have been the best way to insure no awkward air force interception of a hijacked plane.
2) the big lie that no planes were used would be a very effective tool for insuring the truth never came out, as it would sound too crazy.
3) if 9/11 was an inside set-up, not using planes is technically easier, in terms of not having to deal with moving large aircraft around and piloting them precisely and not having to deal with live hijacking situations-- they only needed to plant the plane meme and plant some parts.
4) some plane parts laying in the street or on the ground seem implausible and appear to be planted-- but parts would not need to be planted if real planes were used, would they?
5) there appear to be TOO many videos of the second hit. I have counted 30 of them and there may be more. This is of a highly transient event that could only be seen from certain angles and was completely UNEXPECTED (in principle that is!).
6) videos of the second hit were played over and over and over on TV, as if they were trying to reinforce the plane meme.
7) it is unlikely amateur pilot terrorists could have piloted planes so effectively, but remote control does not make sense for how UA175 behaved in the videos, with the last minute turn right before hitting.
8) the origin of most 2nd hit videos is very obscure-- but in some cases, they came from known computer animators.
*I am not going to list links but they are available upon request
I know many in the 9/11 "truth movement" just wish the no-planers would go away, as we give a bad, crazy association to "real" 9/11 truth. And even more, many in the 9/11 "truth movement" believe the no-planers are active disinfo artists, paid government shills, meant to disrupt true 9/11 activists.
In fact, I am a private citizen who just wants to know the truth about 9/11. I want to know exactly what happened that day, and specifically I want to know: if 9/11 was an inside job-- how was it set up? It simply is not enough for me to say, "oh, they used patsies for the hijackers, remote control planes and distracted the air defenses with war games". I have been down that road. If you read my archives from when I started this blog, you can see it for yourself. Early on, I bought into the whole "let's ignore all 9/11 physical evidence" meme-- big time. I even wrote a couple of posts early on saying how 9/11 activists shouldn't talk about no-plane hitting the Pentagon, because that makes us look bad.
But you know what? I started looking at the physical evidence. The towers looked like they were blown up. And the Pentagon hit started looking very strange. Then I started looking at the flight 93 crash site-- and that was even stranger. And then it looked to me like no planes crashed at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, though someone tried to make it look like planes did crash. But they could only fake so much. Then the question arose: if there were no planes at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, is it possible they didn't use planes for the WTC either? Then I started looking at the footage of "UA175" melting into the south tower, and it really didn't seem quite right to me.
Finally, I also began to wonder why so many 9/11 "truth" people were telling me NOT to look at the physical evidence when it was so compelling and clearly bizarre!
So-- my nagging feeling is that there is something VERY important about the no-plane theory that deserves attention. I don't want to force it down anyone's throat, but I think it also should be looked at by all 9/11 activists with an open mind.
The evidence for there being no planes is a cumulative argument, without any one 100% infallible piece of evidence. This is much like the whole idea of 9/11 being an "inside job"-- it doesn't rest on one rock-solid piece of evidence, but rather it rests on many official parts of the 9/11 story being improbable, and that these add up to a highly unbelievable official story. 9/11 being an "inside job" is a bit of a gestalt, really. If one can handle the 9/11 "inside job" gestalt, than handling the no-plane theory should not be a big problem.
In any case, it is worth periodically going over the reasons for the no-plane theory, if nothing else than for my own sanity.
9/11 facts that support the no-plane theory*:
1) the one "live" shot of "UA175" flying to the South tower, shown from the same feed by three different networks (ABC, CNN, Fox), was discontinuous with the explosion. Moreover, the south tower was not even seen directly as it was blocked by the north tower. All in all, very suspicious footage
2) the second shot of the south tower hit shown by CNN showed only an explosion, no plane. The area on the screen where the plane should have been was blocked by the CNN news "crawl". Also very suspicious footage.
3) several eye-witnesses saw the south tower explode, and were in a location where they could have seen the plane, but didn't see a plane.
4) several eye-witnesses spoke of missiles or a missile hitting the south tower instead of a plane.
5) the plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers (and in Shanksville and to a lesser degree the Pentagon) are not physically plausible for real plane crashes-- the holes look as though the perpetrators were simply trying to make it APPEAR as though planes crashed in the buildings and on the ground.
6) several videos of the south tower hit show the plane sliding into the tower without slowing, without exploding upon contact, without any part breaking off-- with even the freaking wingtips gliding through thick steel columns!
7) there are many video anomalies in the videos of the second hit-- the plane is deformed, there are obvious "pods", there are conflicting plane paths between videos, the videos have anomalous, often dark, coloration, etc. This all casts doubt on a real plane being in the videos.
8) evidence for planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville is weak; people initially at both scenes said there was no evidence of a plane crash, etc.
9) flight 11 and flight 77 officially did not take off according to the BTS database.
10) no black boxes were found at ground zero (officially).
11) almost no plane parts were found in the WTC rubble that was SIFTED for human remains.
9/11 concepts that are consistent with the no-plane theory:
1) the lack of air defense is best explained by a lack of any real planes to intercept-- this would have been the best way to insure no awkward air force interception of a hijacked plane.
2) the big lie that no planes were used would be a very effective tool for insuring the truth never came out, as it would sound too crazy.
3) if 9/11 was an inside set-up, not using planes is technically easier, in terms of not having to deal with moving large aircraft around and piloting them precisely and not having to deal with live hijacking situations-- they only needed to plant the plane meme and plant some parts.
4) some plane parts laying in the street or on the ground seem implausible and appear to be planted-- but parts would not need to be planted if real planes were used, would they?
5) there appear to be TOO many videos of the second hit. I have counted 30 of them and there may be more. This is of a highly transient event that could only be seen from certain angles and was completely UNEXPECTED (in principle that is!).
6) videos of the second hit were played over and over and over on TV, as if they were trying to reinforce the plane meme.
7) it is unlikely amateur pilot terrorists could have piloted planes so effectively, but remote control does not make sense for how UA175 behaved in the videos, with the last minute turn right before hitting.
8) the origin of most 2nd hit videos is very obscure-- but in some cases, they came from known computer animators.
*I am not going to list links but they are available upon request
posted by spooked at 11:07 PM
5 Comments:
i suppose you have a masters degree in aluminum hat technology, right? ha. hang in there.
Finally, I also began to wonder why so many 9/11 "truth" people were telling me NOT to look at the physical evidence when it was so compelling!
ya! the best excuse i got was "oh it's not important what hit the towers! stick to what can be proven!" ha. the entire 911 fairytale is based on the images we all saw of yosemitesam175 heading right for poor old delicate wtc2, so all 911 truthers unite! (in ignoring 175)
ghostplane/vanishment
You're not alone Spooked.
Yes how can aluminium honeycomb wing structures slice through the steel columns of the wtc?
Turn it the other way around: take a large steel section and swing it at an stationary airplane wing like a giant baseball bat - would the 'bat' fold around an intact wing - or - would it smash the wing to pieces, leaving the steel section more or less intact? I think the latter.
Keep up the good work!
regards from former building professional
Thanks for the support. It really helps.
Thank you for having the courage to stand up and admit you made mistakes in your quest for truth! Too many "truthers" are blind as bats and are following a preprogammed routine.. we all have to start somewhere though!
What NPT demonstrates better than any other event in history, is how utterly hypnotized we have become, and how we are at the total mercy of information warfare..
We've become too stupid and lack the courage to see through such simple deceptions!
You're not alone. Numbers are growing :-)
Gentlemen I think the Naudet Brothers and CNN their conspirator partners have provided proof. My thinking is missiles. I think I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that explosives were planted. I can't believe everyone that has looked at the so-called jet hasn't even noticed that the engines are not set straight but at odd angles to each other this by itself shows a plane could not fly not to mention the disappearing wing behind the building. Just for a moment look at the object and mentally take the wings off. Does this look like a missile. My thought is the flash was the inside explosion opening a hole for the missile, then the other placed explosions were for the phony wing slicing through steel. This would of course make people think since the wings went inside no proof it was a plane as they did not fall to the ground below. If it was a so-called jet why is the re-bar and steel blown outwards instead of inward, doesn't penetrate mean enter? Shouldn't the steel be bending in towards the inner building. If the so-called jet shown exploding on the other side of the building how did it get there? The video clearly shows the woman waving holding on to the hot 2500 degree molten steel like superwoman. As we look behind her the inner column is still standing? Then how did the plane fly through the inner core leaving it standing and explode completely on the opposite side of the building? Is it possible the missile only punched the first wall and the planted explosives blew out the other side of the building. The so-called plane could not have done both could it? Guys there were no planes. I can show irrefutable proof. Explosions were planted by our government leaders for their Coup d'éta.
Post a Comment
<< Home