Mimicking Plane Crashes

One point that I think is worth noting about the 9/11 no-plane theory* is that THE PERPETRATORS obviously went out of their way to make it LOOK like large planes crashed at the various 9/11 locations. So OF COURSE, the WTC towers, the Pentagon and Shanksville will each have SOME SIGNS of a plane crash: a large hole, fire, some plane debris. In the case of the second hit, there are a large number of videos showing a plane crash.

The KEY POINT is that each of these crashes will have subtle, or even not so subtle, signs that this was not a true plane crash.

The minimal evidence will be enough to fool most people, but on closer inspection (like much of 9/11), the story will fall apart: videos will contradict, wings will be able to cut through steel, horizontal stabilizers will pass like magic through steel, there will be little to no sign of human remains, plane parts will have an obvious look of being planted, et cetera.

The point is that THE 9/11 STRIKES WILL CLEARLY LOOK LIKE PLANE CRASHES ON A SUPERFICIAL LEVEL. This will be enough to fool most people, and to keep many people in denial.

But on a deeper and more subtle level, the idea that four planes crashed on 9/11 will NOT be so clear.

Capiche?

*The idea behind the no-plane theory for 9/11 is that for operational (and possibly psychological) reasons, it was easier for them to fake plane crashes and to use missiles than to use real planes. What they WOULDN'T have done, because it would have been silly, was to just plant a few bombs and simply PRETEND planes crashed. For the operation to work, they had to supplement the bombs with planted plane parts, videos and planted eye-witnesses, etc.