It was about 8 years ago when I started seriously looking into the idea of no-planes on 9/11 even at the WTC and video fakery. I resisted this idea early on, in part because so many "credible 9/11 researchers" rejected it.
But as I've wrote about here over the years (see links on side), there are some compelling reasons to buy the idea of no-planes even at the WTC.
Some of the best reasons for WHY the PTB would not use real planes and instead use video fakery on 9/11 are:
1) don't have to worry about poorly trained hijacker pilots flying the planes into the proper targets; don't have to worry about precision targeting of planes by remote control either
2) not having real planes at the crash sites makes it easier to control the scene
3) by using fake videos of WTC2, the PTB can control the narrative better, and can create a better psy-op and cognitive dissonance effect
Some of the more compelling evidence for no planes at the WTC and video fakery are:
1) general dearth of plane debris at crash sites, no tail sections in particular
2) impossible to near impossible maneuvers and speeds of large Boeing jets to hit targets near ground level
3) inability of hijacker pilots to carry out said maneuvers
4) various video anomalies of the WTC2 videos and the sequence of the live shots
5) the fake-looking entry of UA175 into WTC2
6) the clear lack of a plane crash at the Shanksville site, and the question of why would they not use a plane there but use one at the WTC?
I listed all the reasons I could think of, for no-planes here
Still-- the whole idea of no planes at the WTC seems wild and crazy to most people; a radical degree of conspiracy is required, and most people just don't want to accept it.
And to be honest, SOME of the research I did on video fakery at this site was a bit crude and flawed, mainly due to my naivete and lack of video expertise. So it's important to point out mistakes and that one can get misled. That being said, the no plane theory does not rest only on video analysis, and the logic of no-planes still holds.
Nonetheless it's good to look at the no-planes explanation with some more perspective, after the passage of time.
Probably the best place to start is some of the WTC2 hit imagery, since it is so striking.
These two video stills show the "plane" just about half way into the tower.
Now, immediately, that straight line of the wing cutting into the tower screams fakery
, doesn't it? That wing should be exploding upon contact and debris should be flying outwards. How is that straight line of entry at all possible? Note, the strongest part of the wing is between the fuselage and the engines, not the tip. Note, the fuselage has also entered halfway without any significant explosion, even though the plane is supposed to be disintegrating as it goes in. And the biggest debris explosion in the whole scene is coming from the engines-- which are supposed to be the heaviest parts of the plane, that penetrate the tower most easily. So yeah, that makes sense.
But the straight line of the wing going in, is pretty FUCKING DAMNING.
So, we have two different videos showing an impossible event. Case closed for video fakery, and why have video fakery if there was a real plane?
This is also pretty fucking damning too: