Differing Theories On 9/11 Planes

Okay, I wanted to get into this subject, on which I’m receptive but careful to comment too much, and that is the so-called “No Planes” theory of 9/11. Now there five levels to this theory, and there people who subscribe to one, some or all aspects of it. I have put them in order from most to least credible based on my own opinions of the matter.

Now before I get into that, I want to make the point that it doesn’t matter how many or what kind of planes actually crashed on 9/11. This doesn’t change the fact that the government is clearly covering up their own involvement. That being said, I wanted to tell you where I stand on the different “Plane/No-Plane” theories.

Now, the first level on my list, and in my opinion the most believable and credible claim, which I am in total agreement with at this point, is the idea that no plane actually struck the pentagon. I think this is the one most backed up by the physical evidence. Upon viewing all the photos (or lack there-of) and going through the official version of events as given, I have to conclude that a plane did not make that dent in the building, and I would agree that it was most likely some sort of missile. I won’t get into the complete reasoning here. For a fuller description, see the films In Plane Site or Loose Change on GoogleVideo .

The second level, which I also believe, is a little (well, honestly a lot) harder for most people to swallow. This is the idea that no plane actually crashed in Shanksville, PA. This runs counter to the Hollywood version of events depicted in the film United Flight 93, which I think even non-9/11-truthers would agree is mostly a fairytale. The physical evidence on the ground speaks for itself. No wreckage, no bodies, no skid-marks. Nothing but a crater in the ground which looks like it was made by a bunker-buster bomb dropped from an aircraft. This crater also just so happens to fall right into the middle of a pre-existing ditch-like crevice (google the topographical maps from 1994 and see for yourself) which just so happens to give the appearance of wings to an otherwise un-noteworthy hole in the ground. There is also some news evidence from the day of 9/11 that flight 93 was diverted to Cleveland, Ohio, the passengers unloaded into the empty NASA research facility, and to put it simply, they didn’t come back out. At least not alive. As horrible as that picture of events looks, I lean towards believing it. The 2nd Edition of Loose Change has some great information about this, and it is also widely discussed on the internet, so just google it.

Point three is where it starts to get a little hazy. Although I tend to lean very strongly towards this position, I have yet to see enough physical evidence to convince me completely. This is the idea that the planes which were flown into the towers were not, in fact, commercial aircraft, but military drones which were switched for the real aircraft and flown into the towers by remote control. There is very strong circumstantial evidence in favor of this idea, not the least of which, the Operation Northwoods memo, in which the joint chiefs of staff suggested that then President Kennedy pull just such a stunt, blowing up a drone switched for a real plane over Cuban waters as a pretext to invade. There are also several strange photos showing protrusions on the planes which look like they belong on specific models of military craft which are similar in size and shape to the Boeings supposedly used. Again, In Plane Site is the best source for a more complete picture of this information.

Now we come to the fourth part, and this is where I feel things get a little off track. This is the theory that no planes actually hit the towers. This idea states that the news footage on the day was somehow faked to show aircraft where there were none. What actually hit (or exploded) is open to question. Theories range from missiles to giant bombs in the buildings to simple digital fakery. While I have to admit that some of the footage I have seen come out after the fact, particularly the CNN Michael Hezarkhani footage (the one showing the “9/11 Demon), looks odd to me, and may show evidence of some digital “airbrushing” of sorts, I still believe that something, which at the very least looked like a plane, actually hit the buildings. Whether this was a military drone or simply a hollow frame filled with explosives, I can’t say. But the idea that you could get the entire city of Manhattan, all of whom were looking skyward after the first plane hit, to “imagine” they saw a plane when they didn’t is a little far fetched.

Which brings us to the last point, the idea that some incredibly advanced form of projectable hologram was used. As cool as this sounds, I simply don‘t think the technology for something like this is possible at the present time. I won’t deny the fact that our government has some really cool high-tech stuff that they are not telling us about, projected microwave weapons being the classic example, as they were both denied for a long time and are now openly admitted. But to pull this sort of thing off for the cameras and the people watching just seems like much too big a risk. Why project holograms when you can simply get the CIA or whomever to fly real planes into the buildings? That would indeed be hard for 19 Arabs who were on terror watch-lists to pull off, but not at all for the government who controls NORAD and the fighter jets which were not scrambled.

So in closing, I think it is important to make the distinction in the different “No Plane” theories, because, although I applaud the absolutists no-planers and their quest for the truth, the mainstream media is using this idea of holograms and computer graphics to completely dismiss and drown out the far more provable facts surrounding the lack of planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville. That said, any person out there who is honestly searching for the truth can disagree with me all he wants. Only God and the Angels (and the Devils) know exactly what happened on that day. Keep on searchin’ and I’ll keep on reading your stuff whether I agree 100% with you or not. We need as many warm bodies getting the word out as we can get.