Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

On top of that, why didn’t the media report Reynolds’ or Wood’s court cases, represented by Attorney Jerry Leaphart?

Because Reynolds and Woods are lunatics maybe? Fine, the media broadcasted "cartoons" that day...explain the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who were in New York and watched it live?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


The 'hundreds of eyewitnesses' story is a myth.

"The Original No Planers"

By Morgan Reynolds

nomoregames.net...

The people saying they saw planes on the news were media perps such as Sean Murtagh (CNN VP) and Mark Obenhaus (Senior ABC Producer).



[edit on 14-3-2008 by LordCarpainter]

[edit on 14-3-2008 by LordCarpainter]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Wow - these people come out of the woodwork like a trail of ants!

reply to post by LordCarpainter


Thanks, I just put that page in my more 911 web pages.

If web pages were an inditement, the whole episode would be over by now.

Believe the net, all else is wet.

The Illuminati are out in the net spending millions on de bunkers.
Some one ask me how I knew so much about the Illuminati, I think she was one.

Off the net we got helpful talent like 'Kristen'.
I spent two days on the net to id this creep and came up with nothing.
Today on TV, THEY have her web page... so much for Google being
Illuminati but TV networks sure are.


[edit on 3/14/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn


Kudos to you.

I'm a believer in real airplanes, maybe hijacked by Muslim terrorists, maybe not, maybe with the knowledge of US officials...maybe with their help?

Despite my opposition to your theory, I must say you have presented the best anecdotal evidence to support a succesful "misdirection" or "false flag" operation.

Wells did pull it off. He played on the common fear of the populace at the time, Not too dissimilar from 9/11/01.

Well done!

Starting from one outcome, you can remove the facets of the
power struggle, on the Arab side who knows what happened,
I don't think there is any Arabic documentation to be brought up
at the trial.

Assume the main 911 purpose was to demolish the WTC.
Just for instance.

The planes could be Arab pilots or any group so intense on the operation
to carry it out. MK-ULTRA stuff and all that.

There could be fake airline schedules and news videos.
But not the case if all was real.
Now a plane crash doesn't bring down buildings.
So explosives were needed.


1) No Arabs.. not likely to do the job.
2) No MK-ULTRA.. too complicated.
3) fake airlines, fake news and explosives, perhaps.

Who command Cheney to be President for a day and stall
NORAD and air traffic.

Do the tower people have that much money bags more than
the Bin Ladens who had to 'escape being killed' like the
Czar who was trapped in his own country.

Was any one after the BinLadins or was that just another
part of a false flag operation that was more than a mere tower
destruction.

Perhaps some sort of plane due to Cheney and NORAD to
mix things up. This hides any abduction as well as crash planes.

Is the person posting the broadcast video footage claiming he/she recorded the material themselves on Septe 11, 2001?

There are serious problems with anything we're told is actual real-time footage presented by people claiming disparities with what was widely reported and witnesses. Unscrupulous money and agenda driven individuals have been known to tamper with primary source visuals.

Here's an excerpt from Rick Siegel who had his personally shot recordings used by a DVD producer he is now suing.


" Since I had first seen this DVD I found it disturbing ...

... The real problem is in what this AKA Monica Smallstorm, AKA Sophia; whose real name is Sofia Shafquat along with Brad Waddell, have done to my 911 Eyewitness footage. The woman has seriously altered and mutilated my original footage and she inappropriately placed parts, edited and mutilated within her disinfo piece without asking permission, paying a royalty or using her normal paperwork she used for rights with other creators. I had no control and she took advantage creating this travesty. "


check

www.911researchers.com...

www.911researchers.com...




Mike F

This business about the no plane theory is facinating only because there are people discussing it. Surfice to say, if you spend the time to look at the evidence and think about the logistics then there is no possible way you can believe in the yes plane fairy tale. Here is a quick review:

1) All three sites are missing wreckage... like huge intact sections of plane, luggage, bodies, jets turbines and cabin parts. In NYC, you would expect the majority of this stuff down in the street.
2) Those jets don't fly that fast at sea level.
3) If the planes did fly that fast, an expert pilot could not fly it accurately into a tower.
4) There is evidence out the yang that what they were showing us on 911 was a bad CGI graphics program. Plane in, plane out... woops! Moving bridges.
5) The airlines are now admitting they aren't missing any planes.
6) Hit a beer can with a steel hammer and then check the hammer for damage. The reason the lie worked is because we are not in the habit of seeing the plane versus the steel building match up. However, we are all familiar with aluminum can versus steel hammer... which is not much different. If that were a real plane/building encounter, most of the plane would be in the street below and not inside the building.
7) The media was covering up mistakes as they happened (plane in, plane out). That is, the media was aware of the limitations of the CGI deception.
8) Witnesses to the planes on 911 were plants. Most of these witnesses were upper management media executives. At least one reported in as different people.

So, it's blatantly obvious there weren't any planes... anywhere. What is curious is that there are so few "truth sites" that support it. In fact, sites that otherwise seem to have good, reliable information will not support the NPT. Not any of them! Why? I do understand why the main stream media would apply pressure to suppress the NPT for fear of being hung (and as they should, note to media: we will eventually stretch your necks for this) but that still does not account for all the so-called independent researchers who still do not/will not embrace the NPT. I've even emailed these truth reporters about their NPT denial and I have yet to have one reply. Why? If anyone has some good insight on this, I would really like to hear it.

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
if you spend the time to look at the evidence and think about the logistics then there is no possible way you can believe in the yes plane fairy tale.

Then if you look at the counter-evidence, i.e. the real evidence, the no-plane "theories" hold no water at all. Let's take a look:

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
1) All three sites are missing wreckage... like huge intact sections of plane, luggage, bodies, jets turbines and cabin parts. In NYC, you would expect the majority of this stuff down in the street.

I'm not sure why the above poster would "assume" that the majority of the planes would be down in the street since they planes never came out of the other side of the buildings. Suffice it to say, that while the lack of aircraft debris at the Pentagon and Shanksville makes one wonder, there was debris at the WTC, while the physical damage to the WTC, the dozens of videos, and countless thousands of witnesses, all guarantee that planes hit the towers, period.

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
2) Those jets don't fly that fast at sea level.

This is one of the ways that disinfo artists twist the real facts around. No, jetliners cannot take off and reach 500mph at sea level. A jetliner cannot come down from a higher altitude to sea level and maintain a speed of 500mph either. However, a jet can come down from a higher altitude and be going circa 500mph for many seconds until the speed bleeds off. That is what happened on 9/11:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d7357be7bdab.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42d92959bf9d.gif[/atsimg]

As we can see in the above images, the plane was coming down from a higher altitude and only leveled out in the last couple seconds before impact. A couple seconds is not enough time to bleed off 500mph down to 300mph.

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
3) If the planes did fly that fast, an expert pilot could not fly it accurately into a tower.

Actually, the feat would have required either an expert pilot, or remote control (by an expert pilot).

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
4) There is evidence out the yang that what they were showing us on 911 was a bad CGI graphics program. Plane in, plane out... woops! Moving bridges.

Yet not a single no-planer has provided any of this evidence. Let alone, obtain a video to have it professionally analyzed for fakery. No professional analyzation = no fakery.

Then there's the nose-in/out disinfo:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a1c87a82e29.jpg[/atsimg]

The noses are not the same shape nor size. Not to mention, the disinfo artist that made the "nose-in/nose-out" disinfo, actually manipulated the video to falsely make the noses match. You can see a 3-minute debunking of the "Great nose-in/nose-out Hoax" here:

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
5) The airlines are now admitting they aren't missing any planes.

You provide no evidence for your claims.

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
6) If that were a real plane/building encounter, most of the plane would be in the street below and not inside the building.

More disinfo based on lack of understanding of physics, and the way that the WTC was constructed.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2174b3241f94.jpg[/atsimg]

The above image is a hole made by a B-25 bomber into the Empire State building. Note the same "cookie-cutter" cutout just like the WTC? That plane was only doing about 175mph and made it a little more than half way into the building. Imagine if the plane had been doing 500mph as reported on 9/11.

The towers were constructed in pieces. The outer columns were connected in sets. A set of outer columns was 3 columns wide by 3 storeys high and they were assembled in a staggered formation:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e157541a8ac2.jpg[/atsimg]

The floors were made out of very light-weight trusses with 4-inches of a light concrete mix on top for the office floors. A 300,000 pound jetliner travelling circa 500mph will not stop on a dime against a building. The outer column sets and the light floor trusses were no match for such a fast-travelling, heavy object. The outer columns failed at the connectors. The columns themselves never failed.

Take a fishing pole as an example. Many fishing poles are quite sturdy and you can reel in some heavy fish without the pole breaking. Now take that same pole and cut it into 3 pieces. Then superglue and tape the pieces back together again. Do you think you'll be able to lift the same weight with a pole connected in 2 places as you would with a continuous pole? Absolutely not. That pole that was cut into pieces and connected back together will quickly fail under very small stresses compared to the continuous pole that is very strong.

Had the outer columns been continuous from top to bottom without any breaks, the plane might have mostly slammed into the building and fell to the ground. But the connectors connecting the columns broke and easily allowed the planes to enter with little resistance.

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
7) The media was covering up mistakes as they happened (plane in, plane out). That is, the media was aware of the limitations of the CGI deception.

More claims with no evidence. The nose-in/nose-out has been debunked above, so this point is pretty much moot.

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
8) Witnesses to the planes on 911 were plants. Most of these witnesses were upper management media executives. At least one reported in as different people.

Yet another claim with no proof provided.

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
So, it's blatantly obvious there weren't any planes

Actually, it's blatantly obvious that the no-plane "theories" are just opinions and disinfo. I don't know how you expect to come on a forum, type some words, and expect people to believe the no-plane disinfo. You didn't provide a single source or a single piece of evidence for anyone to be able to verify your claims.

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
What is curious is that there are so few "truth sites" that support it.

It's not curious. We looked at it years ago, found there was no truth or evidence to support NPT, deemed it disinfo, and moved on. Most 9/11 research sites of went even further by making public statements, or just flat-out banning the discussion of NPT on their forums. The 9/11 truth community wants nothing to do with NPT.

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
In fact, sites that otherwise seem to have good, reliable information will not support the NPT.

That's because NPT has been deemed disinfo and nobody in the truth movement wants anything to do with NPT.

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
but that still does not account for all the so-called independent researchers who still do not/will not embrace the NPT.

Because we thoroughly researched NPT, found there was zero evidence to support it, and most of the "theories' turned out to be disinfo, period.

Originally posted by Smokestoomuch
If anyone has some good insight on this, I would really like to hear it.

You just got it.

reply to post by Smokestoomuch


Wow so much stupid in so little space....

1) Wreckage

At 500 mph much of the aircraft and contents will be smashed into
fragments - even then was plenty of wreckage scattered on the street

Jet engine



Recovered aircraft parts



Aircraft parts on roof of WTC 5



Landing gear wheel



Aircraft part embedded in parked car



More photos can be found here

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

2) Speed of 767

Boeing 767 has very high power-weight ratio, can takeoff on one engine
and is certified to fly Atlantic on single engine

Aircraft dont normally fly this fast at low altitude do to added stress on airframe which cause metal fatigue. Also makes for rough ride...

Here are excerpt from test of B767 to establish top speed at sea level

Originally thinking I was going to have to do a dive to attain the speeds of AA11 and UA175 due to the engines possibly struggling to make enough thrust, I thought it would be good to see what speed we could achieve in a shallow dive. We took the aircraft to 10,000ft and I commenced a 5 degree dive to 2,000ft and found that the aircraft attained and maintained a speed of .89 Mach (approaching 700mph) and was reasonably easy to control for a non-pilot. We did these tests a couple more times to be sure and then at about 3:45am I left the simulator. Daniel was happy for me to record his name.

After doing this test I then spent a few days on the flight line checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could achieve .86 Mach at sea level considering what I found in the sim. Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do just that. I also asked the older pilots that flew in the Pratt and Whitney (JT9-7R4) powered 767-200 series aircraft if those aircraft were similar to fly to the 767-300 General Electric (CF6) powered aircraft they now fly (current simulator configuration). They said they were very similar, having a little less power but being a little shorter and lighter, thus giving them nearly exactly the same power to weight ratio. Once again this was no surprise to me as this is what the manufacturer does--matches the airframe to the power plant to meet the performance specifications which are basically the same for 200 and the 300 series Boeing 767.

Conclusion: Is it probable that the 767-200 can make 560mph at sea level?

It is highly probable that AA11 and UA175 could easily make the airspeeds quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video footage. Here is a summation of the facts;

1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact.
2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 Mach.

Able to obtain speed of 700 mph in dive and easy to control - and this guy
is NOT A PILOT!

Here is full article

www.911blogger.com...

Others have weighed in on the wrongness of your post...

reply to post by CB_Brooklyn



Honestly.. Do we even need to debunk this???

Fringe theories... And This is WHY I support skeptics and debunkers!!
THE only reason I support them..

I'm happy to see anyone take this fringe theory apart!!!

To me honestly The whole NO planes theory does MORE HARM than good!!!

Its honestly taken the whole truth movement, and tried to cram it down the drain!!!

There are MUCH more important deals with 911 than trying to prove NO planes.. OR yes Planes!!!!

There ARE real men and women suffering RIGHT NOW!!!
And its a GOD damn shame people are more willing to talk about this thread than something like what I put my heart and soul into!!!
Honestly... It does nothing BUT PISS ME OFF!!!!

Sorry.. I tend to get a little emotional about this... And I risk 911 maddness or risk getting a warning for going over the top here..

But these DAMN fringe theories are really HURTING the movement!!!

Thats why I thank all debunkers.. and all skeptics who stand and tear this theory apart!!!

I just wont get into it here.. There are more important things about 911...
Honestly!!!!!!!!!!!


Edit-- Look I understand the mindcontrol and hologram Tech that is out here.
I have spoke in GREAT detail with John Lear personally..
And if he can not convince me.. NO ONE WILL!
I have 100% respect for Mr. Lear.. But this is one theory that just is not true!!!
Now lets for the sake of this thread.. Lets SAY okay.. NO planes...
Alright no planes.. What about the flesh and bone that are suffering right now!!! '
What about the people? What about the first Responders!!!
What about them!!!! Why are we talking holograms when there are real people to worry about right now!!!

GET your ducks in a row before you go about these fringe theories..
Lets get some proof out here.. before we start going off the deep end here.

This is FAR TO much for the average person to even begin to handle!!!
I'm sorry.. But its how I feel.. and its my personal truth!!!

I ran myself into the ground trying to prove no planes to myself.. And yes it did cross my mind.. But its hurting the movement.. Its doing more damage than good..
AM I totally wrong for thinking this?
Do I stand alone in my feelings?

[edit on 30-7-2009 by zysin5]

Originally posted by zysin5
AM I totally wrong for thinking this?
Do I stand alone in my feelings?

No Zysin5, you're not wrong and you're not alone!

What's happening in the here and now is what's important and that seems to get forgotten with all these endless back and forth arguements that go round in circles as individual elements of what happened on that day get disected.

At the end of the day, the truth will come out eventually. Maybe in years gone by people may have gotten away with these kinds of operations when the public only had the media to rely on for information, but whichever group of people were behind this one made a serious mistake by underestimating the power of the Internet.

Mark

*sigh*

Thank you, CB, for reminding me why I, and many others, have decided to abandon the truth movement with all its ridiculous lunacy and garbage theories.

It's because idiot beliefs like this which have basically ensured 9/11 will never be examined again by any commision, and that any who have major questions about that day will be forever associated with unstable kool-aid drinking lunatics.

The COINTELLIPRO guys of today must bwe laughing their socks off: their did their jobs too well, it seems.

Personally, I don't mind entertaining any theory that one can have an intelligent discussion about. Strange theories are not enough to make me abandon the truth movement. Furthermore, I don't think discussing them in threads like this has even a fraction of an iota of an effect on what goes on in the movement as a whole.

There is a lot of very good discussion and many well reasoned truther presentations on ATS. I worry more that these get lost down the memory hole than I do about the no planers.

If one looks around one can see that 9/11 was just the opening bell of a struggle that has gone on for over eight years now. Some people reckon that over a million people have been killed overseas by the criminals that brought us 9/11.

Imagine if there were a Reichstag Fire Truth Movement and three years into WW2 with millions dead around the world, a world engulfed by war, someone tried to rally you to go for prosecution of the Reichstag Fire perps. You'd think they were nuts.

Unfortunately, that's where we are now. The whole 9/11 truth movement, notwithstanding the merits of it's claims, and they are many, is beginning to appear to some people as the no planes theory appears to its detractors, i.e., a relatively insignificant destraction from monumental problems at home and abroad.

I like discussing 9/11. I think the case for an inside job is proven, though many of the details of how the operation was carried out are obscure.

However, out in the real world of war and financial chicanery, 9/11, the inside job, serves only as a litmus test of honesty/intelligence for American citizens and their elected representatives.

Al Capone wasn't jailed for the murders that he commited. He went to jail for tax evasion.

If the 9/11 perps are ever brought down it will be by going down prosaic avenues that are tangential to 9/11; financial wrong doing, election fraud, influence peddling, the sort of things that are caught by an electorate that is actually interested in its government representatives, that actually monitors and is willing to do what it takes to bring them to heel.

The idea that "planes or no planes" even figures in any of this is misguided. We are way beyond that. The question is whether the American people can summon the strength to get the shysters out of the machinery of government before the whole house of cards comes crashing down.

Remember Waco? Your closet full of assault rifles is not going to help you if the powers that be/perps still control the armed forces when they decide that they've had enough of Alex Jones and the truthers and the anti-war movement, such as it is.

In the meantime, I don't object to discussing any theory. At this point in history, 8 years on, over a million dead, trillions and trillions stolen and every sign that Obama is Bush's reliever, 9/11 theories are interesting but largely academic.

The American people, especially the American media missed the boat on 9/12 and opted for a ride on the crazy train instead.

reply to post by ipsedixit


One can have an intelligent conversation about the no plane theory nonsense? Really? That's news to me.

The no plane crap has taken over alot of the truth movement, a movement which is derailing itself into the annals of lunatic fringe-dom. Any chance there ever was of awakening real public interest and demand for closer investigation has been shot, so yeah. I have no real desire to follow the antics and lunacy of such.

So I return to square one: doubting many parts of the official story but knowing in the end, the official story has won.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
So I return to square one: doubting many parts of the official story but knowing in the end, the official story has won.

I don't really see it that way. I don't think the official story has won but I do think that it's proponents and accomplices are prevailing in the arena of politics.

We are in a period of rapid developments on the political front. Examining 9/11 has been lost in the shuffle of the evolving scene.

I'm wondering if public confidence in both political parties has dropped as a result of 9/11. It's difficult for me as an outsider to really gauge the mood of Americans.

If it has won, has the official story won anything worth winning? Have the American people lost anything as a result?

[edit on 31-7-2009 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 31-7-2009 by ipsedixit]

Check this out. It is a pretty interesting logical breakdown and deduction of the No Plane Theory of 9/11.

www.911closeup.com...

Why they didn't use planes

Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.

So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.

Now to the other problem.

Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.

Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.

The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

Remote control.

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.

Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.

In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.

Check out what a Boeing rep said about the maximum speed of a plane at 700 ft. It starts at 8:00.

www.youtube.com...

Here Ace Baker shows you how easy it is to duplicate the CNN footage of the 2nd plane hitting the WTC, with Apple Motion. Watch him duplicate the footage step by step exactly.

www.youtube.com...

Chilling and disturbing isn't it? Too bad most people are afraid to consider the implications of this.

Here is what John Lear, one of the most experienced pilots in the world who holds every FAA certificate that exists, has to say about the planes on 9/11. It's very interesting.

www.youtube.com...

Check out this FAQ about the No Plane Theory:

No-Plane Theory FAQ

Q. What about all the (hundreds, thousands, millions) of eyewitnesses?

A. If a real plane flew into the South Tower, there would indeed be thousands, if not 10's of thousands of eyewitnesses. But there are astonishingly few people who actually claimed to have seen and heard a plane. The extreme LACK of eyewitnesses speaks in favor of no planes.

There are a number of eyewitnesses, like David Handschuh, who were looking at the tower, and swear they didn't see a plane.

The few eyewitnesses that do exist are either (a) lying or (b) mistaken. The govern-media has trillions of dollars, and a hundred thousand secret agents. Manufacturing "eyewitnesses" is no problem. And let's not discount false memory. Many studies have conclusively shown that fake video alters eyewitness accounts.

Q. What happened to the passengers and airplanes?

A. The real planes took off as advertised, and were hijacked by special ops. The planes were landed at Stewart Air Force Base, and replaced on radar by false blips. The passengers and crew were executed, blood and body samples taken. These samples were then planted at the "crash" locations, "found", and then legitimate DNA testing was done.

Q. But I saw an airplane crashing into the tower on live TV!

A. No you didn't. On live TV, you were shown "Chopper 5" and "Chopper 7". Both of these video show a plane passing behind the edge of the tower, not hitting it. The video that show the plane penetrating the building came later, after there was plenty of time to edit them. They look fake, because they are fake.

Q. What about the airplane parts that were found on the street?

A. No parts were found BELOW the "impact" area, or in the gashes. The few parts that were found, were located BEYOND the tower, as if they made it all the way through and out the other side. I believe they shot an airplane part out of a cannon on the 80th floor of WTC2. That's what it looks like on the video. This would explain why the molten metal was seen pouring out of that location before the demolition. They had to melt down the cannon, lest it be blown clear during the demolition.

Q. What about the phone calls?

A. What phone calls? The only recording of any phone call is Betty Ong, early in AA11. That probably was a real phone call, after the real hijackers had taken over the plane, and before they landed it at Stewart AFB. As to the rest of the alleged phone calls, they don't exist. A "transcript" means nothing. What phone calls?

Such a long post. I couldn’t be bothered to read the entire thing. But answer this one question.

If there were no planes where did all the plane parts in the photos come from?

If you beleive what you see on the TV you deserve it! it has been proved enough times that

+ planes cannot travel at the speed the planes were supposed to be travelling at
+ the footage from the helicopters is obviously faked
+ only government shills saw the 'crashes' of the planes
+ the ptb are willing to do this and worse besides