You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

The no-plane theory for 9/11-- why it may not be as crazy as you think [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-01-06 05:53 PM
Original message
The no-plane theory for 9/11-- why it may not be as crazy as you think
Advertisements [?]

1) flight 11 never took off, and the flight that was labelled flight 11 by air traffic control was 10 miles from manhattan at 8:46am (see

2) the footage of "flight 175" hitting the south tower is clearly fake (planes shouldn't slide into a steel wall without exploding on contact; the explosion takes place too far from where the plane impacted; there are videos that show contradicting flight paths; all the videos have a flat cartoonish character; the plane never has any significant detail; other camera oddities (see

3) in the footage of the first and second hits on the towers, the "planes" slide into the towers without slowing-- this is impossible according to laws of physics (unless the planes completely disintegrated upon impact-- but then they wouldn't have left plane-shaped holes)

4) No black boxes were found at ground zero (officially). It's not that boxes were found where the data was destroyed-- NO BOXES WERE FOUND AT ALL. These devices are meant to withstand incredibly extreme conditions. (the rumor that black boxes were found and kept secret is likely a psy-op meant to prop up the planes story)

5) plane wings shouldn't slice through the steel beams of the WTC and leave a perfect imprint (certainly if plane wings could easily cut through steel columns and floor slabs, it is not clear why the planes didn't pass all the way through the towers)

6) almost no plane parts were found in the WTC rubble-- when the rubble was SIFTED for human remains (see the book "9.11 Revealed")

7) witnesses exist who saw the south tower explode but never saw a plane

8) plane parts, such as the too small engine found in the streets of lower Manhattan, look planted. Why would they need to plant plane parts if real planes were used?

9) a very good case for no planes can be made at the Pentagon or Shanksville-- very little to no clear plane debris, suspicious (too small) holes

10) unlikely the terrorists could have piloted planes the way they did according to the official story

Logistically, for a false-flag operation:

1) using missiles/pre-planted bombs easier to control than real commercial planes and managing a real hijacking situation

2) having no planes avoids problems with air traffic controllers seeing something they shouldn't see (for instance if there was a plane-swap)

3) having no planes is the easiest way to avoid military interception, and much easier than a stand-down that would involve thousands of military personnel

4) psy-ops effect of the attacks is stronger if it defies a certain logic (the bizarre plane crashes)

5) having the media distribute a set of fake videos of the south tower hit is sufficient to plant the meme

6) having the media complicit in the operation helps ensure that they won't question the event

7) "big lies" (such that there were no planes) are often more effective than smaller lies (i.e. planes were used but they were controlled by remote control)

8) the paradigm shift required for people to question whether real planes were used in the attack helps keep the actual nature of the event hidden and the perpetrators safe

Evidence that planes were used:

1) the gov't told us there were planes; the news media repeated this as fact

2) a plane was shown hitting the South WTC tower on TV, many times, from many angles

3) the Naudet movie of first hit appears to show a plane hitting the North tower

4) witnesses claim to have seen planes

5) a small number of plane parts were found at each crash locale

Counter arguments to "evidence that planes were used":

1) gov't and media often work togehter and lie together

2) yes, this was how they planted the meme that planes were used

3) the footage is blurry and what hits the tower is not clear

4) some witnesses were planted as part of the operation; other witnesses may have seen a missile flying in the air; eyewitnesses may hvae seen a plane that happpened to fly by at the same time as the event occurred; possibly some sort of high-techhologram-cloaked missile were used instead of planes; in any case, eyewitnesses are of course notoriously unreliable

5) some plane parts were planted to support the idea that planes were used


The idea that no planes were used in 9/11-- that the crashes were faked with bombs and missiles-- is clearly counter-intuitive. However, logistically, avoiding the use of planes has many benefits if you presume that 9/11 was a false-flag attack. Moreover, there are many pieces of evidence to point to some sort of fakery with regard to the idea that real planes were used.

Note-- real planes may have been used as part of the operation as "fly-bys" -- these would give eye-witnesses something to "grab onto" that they saw a plane that was involved in the event.

Major problem with the no-plane theory-- requires a complicit media and more people involved in the plot. But clearly 9/11 was a huge operation and conceivably many people were willing to lie in service of some operation of which they didn't know the extent. After 9/11, speaking out would mean death.

What this theory DOES explain is the complete inability of the mainstream media to question the official 9/11 story in any way-- because they were in on it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC