2 votes

9/11 - My Thoughts On The "No Planes" Theory

(I'm re-posting a comment I made on another thread. I thought it was worthy of its own post)

I have to admit that I have a very hard time believing that there were no planes though I am 100% willing to listen to counter-points (and I encourage them!)

My reasoning is this:
New York City has way too many people. If there were explosions but no planes, wouldn't there be an enormous number of people who witnessed the events of that day saying that they didn't see a plane? Also, think about how many people's attention was focused on the towers after the first plane hit. If there were simply an explosion (with no plane) in the other tower, wouldn't it have *ensured* that large numbers of people would say "explosion but no plane"? Basically it seems to me like it would be an insanely risky chance to take by the plotters (assuming it was a false flag operation).

For what it's worth, I could see having no planes by the Pentagon since (from what I can see on the videos) it seems like it's a much less populated area.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No airplanes theory is interesting,

but I think it is a distraction from the real important issues of 9/11. Very little investigation just march off to war with Iraq, and Afghanistan. The American people were duped by a war monger President GW Bush. He wanted a war with Iraq and the Elites set it up for him, by killing thousands!

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

Planes are part of the basis for the perpetual WoT

Distraction from the real important issues 911? Without commercial plane crashes, there couldn't be any foreign hijackers, and hence, no attack. There wouldn't be any basis for the perpetual War on Terror then.

Like to talk about the puppets instead? Puppet Bush is gone. He is protected by the new puppet. They have the same puppet masters. Who are these puppet masters and how do they get their puppets in there all the time? Could it be that they also control the news networks? Is there a club somewhere that we cannot read about in the newspapers?

So you agree with me, assuming planes did hit the WTC.

I would like to see them re-open the investigation, on why the debris was just hauled away. I want answers for the fire fighters saying bombs were going off while the building was coming down. There were lots of reports of left over bombs in the streets.

Then lets move on to the hijackers training in this country under the watch of the Feds. Why was a federal agent fired trying to expose the truth on a would-be hijacker in Minneapolis. They could have stopped the whole thing before it happened.

Also you will never get to the bottom of this unless you talk about the real criminals that were in the white house at the time. If you think Bush was just a puppet you better do some research on the Bush family. The Bushes are right there with the Rockefeller's and Rothschild

These are just a few of the questions I have!

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

Hi beeman,

I agree with you that is was reported that planes hit the WTC, on all TV channels, on all radio stations and in every newspaper, over and over and over again. Would it have been possible with any more reporting?

No, not interested in an i investigation into why the rubble was just hauled away. I don't believe that this operation involved a conspiracy to murder, and all the other crimes have now expired (I guess). If you demolish your own buildings without permit, you will only be fined anyway. We know why the rubble was removed so quickly. It would have reviled that the buildings were demolished. So if it is reported that firefighters heard bombs, well, I guess the demolition created some noise, like bombs, so not interested.

Again, it was reported that an agent was fired. They need to keep the story alive, and have to create reports all the time so that we don't forget that there is a terrorist under every rock. Fortunately the Government will protect us.

Bush may have been the Chairman for this operation, but he will be dead before we can get to him, and we would have had several other puppets in the meantime. New puppet will protect the old one, and the policy really never changes. The puppet masters have longer service time than the puppets usually.

Wish we could talk about these dubious commercial plane crashes 911, and other important stuff. Don't like these discussions inside the virtual reality they have created for us. You still have a TV BTW?

They do own the news networks

They do own the news networks - GE owns all of the NBCs. They were all sharing the same feeds that dayand visibly altered the feed to make it look like a different feed.

I thought the no-planes

I thought the no-planes theory was a disinfo campaign for years. But then about 4 years ago now I really looked into it and believe no planes were used that day. As an aerodynamicist it is particularly evident due to the lack of the tip-vortices. I'm absolutely convinced of the no-plane theory.

Welcome in the club

Also took me a while before I checked out this guy that they called a kook. Labels can be misleading. Could be a good rule and check what they say themselves before concluding.

I infer from your post that you must understand that the most crucial moment in the live 911 news broadcast must be faked? Who could have done this? The News networks management must have been involved.

What about the passengers in these made up flights? They are listed in CNN 911 memorial: http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/

Some of the management could

Some of the management could have been involved at least to a minimal extent. I would imagine that the people who fake the videos are the people who claimed to have taken them.

Are you asking whether the passengers were the ones who made the videos? Many of those passengers are proven fakes - they created them with computer software - I'm not saying everyone was faked.

Plane crash was shown on "live news"

This is "live" footage from Chopper5/Fox5 where a plane is shown crashing into a building in "real time": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQdpTzqh8Ag#t=931s

If you don't believe in any commercial plane crashes 911, this "live" report must be faked somehow. The guy in the chopper is Kai Simonsen - he faked it? And who could have authorized this?

This is from the most bizarre and awkwardly absurd and the clumsiest live news broadcast that day. The 2h video covers the most crucial period of the operation, and seams "censored" from the TV Archive. That is understandable, because it is unbelievable how they can get away with it. Recommend that the whole video is watched, and especially the first 20 min.

That is the "nose-out" shot.

That is the "nose-out" shot. There is a lot of discussion on whether or not he was in on it. One of the guys, maybe "Genghis" called him or tried to call him about it. I forget how it turned out.

Right, someone basically got that footage and made the composite image with the aircraft in it. The helicopter drifted too far to the left and thus the "plane" went out the other side and someone reacted by cutting the feed for a second (either that or it occured because the tower with the communications link exploded).

When they showed this footage later in the dy around the world, they put a banner over the impact point so people couldn't see the plane come out the other side of the buidling.

I also think FOX removed this video from the archives. I saw it before they removed it.

Hi Zachnap Ω™ ,

I guess it was this Hill that called him.

Fox probably got this live news broadcast removed from the TV Archive, and that is understandable. It is by far the most horribly bad "live" news broadcast from that day. Here is some nonsense that was discovered at 57:30 - The Dancing Pentagon Smoke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okMXOgrVb7I

As a (Fmr.) New Yorker

Let me say there were in fact planes used in NYC (Doubtful for the pentagon, but definitely in New York.)

Very consistent

So they faked 1 plane crash, but the other 3 were real? You can fake 1, but not 4? What happened to the passengers in this faked Pentagon crash? Also faked? Should the official list of victims 911 be updated? What official list is that? There isn't even any official list. Give me a break.

As crazy as it seems I think the no plane thing could be true

or at least the claim that the videos of the planes hitting the buildings were faked for whatever reason. Because some of the videos have the same video footage but differing audio. The supposed amateur footage. In the one video the guy goes "Oh my god. A plane just hit the building, I cannot believe it" (and sounds super fake by the way) and in the other video the same guy who supposedly shot the footage just simply says "Oh my god". To the same footage. How can that be? How can you explain that other than the video had to be a production and therefore not genuine. I'm sure someone will try to explain it away but to me it doesn't make sense.

Of course I could be wrong. It's kind of lame that so many people who are even aware that 9/11 was a conspiracy call you an agent and what not and try to shut you down for having a differing opinion.

*Michael Hezarkhani is the dude's name. Google that, this stuff is fishy*

  

I think you are quite brilliant Unkut, and on the right track.

Here is the most crucial frame from that animation: http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/impact.jpg

The wing between the engine and the fuselage has penetrated the wall and is inside the building without making a hole.

You can read more on this extremely important frame here: http://tinyurl.com/adxb24l

I notice that the disinfo agents like it too (or hate it, I should say).

Inconsistent (and fake) audio tracks is one of the trademarks of this operation.

Here is a quite amusing video on How NOT to Fake Plane Crash Videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmjjK2MYKDg

Focus on this question, please:

What happened on 9-11 is hard to say because of what happened on 9-12. A FELONY began to lay out on national TV. To destroy the scene of a crime is a crime, WHO ORDERED THAT CRIME?
Either start at the top with the President who did not prevent the crime, or start at the bottom with any guy running a piece of equipment and ask him who paid him, but starting questioning the perpetrators of THAT crime. We have several million witnesses, as they streamed it live for weeks.
I have not been called "crazy" one time since changing my focus.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Please Explain

I'm interested to know more of this.

Happy to explain.

Arson is a felony.
"(3) Property crime 1,610,088 (includes burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.)"
Murder is a felony.
"(8) Violent crime 597,447 (including murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault."
http://felonyguide.com/List-of-felony-crimes.php

On 9-11, an arson was perpetrated that resulted in the murder of many people. On that much, I think everyone can agree.

On 9-12, the crime scene began being dismantled. THAT WAS A CRIME since the investigation did not start for over a year, with Bush fighting it tooth and nail and refusing to testify until he got to testify with Cheney.

Here, let a fireman tell you about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rov_A5bSsug

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

curious

who are you people? Where do you come from? What's your background? I'm genuinely curious.

Fortune Favors the Bold

Who are we?

We're from the SANE asylum. Capable of critical thinking. So far, free to do so.

Mikoni

Real planes would have added risk to the operation

Real planes would have been a nightmare for the 911 operation management. What if one or some of the planes didn't arrive? It was shot down or malfunctioned some way, or the passenger overmanned the hijackers? What if the plane didn't penetrate the facade (solid reinforced concrete slab supported steel beams) but just fell straight down on the pavement? Or if only one of the wings hit the facade? Wouldn't be so easy to explain that the buildings fell then. What if a plane crashed in Central Park instead? What if all the planes hit exactly at the right spot, penetrated the facade, but the fireball was really dull - like a small poof? Wouldn't look so good on TV. What if someone was killed? Then the 911 operation management would become involved in a conspiracy to murder. Lots of uncertain variables here.

Lower risk without planes: Prevent as many people as possible from entering the area. Report that a plane has crashed and have some witnesses with scripts ready so that the myth can be born: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuB4jLAuVLk Launch those huge smoke generators so that it is harder to see whats going on. Evacuate more people from the area and the best vantage points. Have an pre recorded animation ready and press play on the VCR. Make sure that there is a plane in this animation, and that the plane hits the optimal point. Very important, create a huge and spectacular fireball as magnificent as in the best action movies. Important that there are wonderful scenes that can be replayed hundreds of times and that people really can see this huge and terrifying explosion. Should be some really spectacular stuff. Then, evacuate the buildings so that no one is killed, and blow them up. The owner can give necessary access to relevant parts of the buildings for wiring the explosives, and no one will see it. Have the Mayor sign this demolition permit just in case so that the whole operation is not illegal. First Amendment is wonderful. No planes, everything evacuated, full control. No conspiracy to murder. This would be a lot more predictable with much less risk. Reporting and animation is everything.

But will people believe a silly LQ animation that even kids should be able to tell is fake? Yes.

What about this million ear witnesses between Bronx and Battery Park? Don't bother, no one or few will notice that they are missing.

A wonderful video of New York on a beautiful day in 1999. No problem with the color balance here of course. Obviously no descent camera has any problems with that. Compare it to the animations that was broadcasted live 911. If you cant see this, its because you don't want to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFqmzqIn2_Y

You could make the same argument in reverse

Managing "fake" plane crashes and eyewitnesses is much more of a nightmare, in my opinion. Remote control technology has been around for decades, so your argument that the planes might "miss" is not even in the realm of possibility.

There might even be a third option that it was a military plane with explosives, a warhead, etc... Much easier to do as well. And "smoke generators"? That is too over the top even for me.

I don't know about the force of the plane versus building. While the building was made to withstand an airline crash (which it did)the sides of the building was not a solid mass to do calculations with. Given the gaps between beams and that there were spaces we call "windows", the idea of a plane sliding down the side or bouncing off seems cartoonish. What could go through a window would go through a window.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Any Hollywood producer could have done it - watch their movies

Simply report: "A plane has crashed". Pay some actors and hand them a script. Tell them to read the script while recording. Smoke generators are cheap stuff that could easily be acquired. People would flock to the TV anyway to get some updates. Then, broadcast the pre recorded animation, press Play on the VCR. Everyone watching TV and will see it "live". Hard to argue with a live news broadcast. Real plane crashes are dangerous. Someone could be killed and turned the whole and purely free speech media operation into a conspiracy to murder.

Thanks Disinfo Agent

No - the only people that discuss the "No Planes Theory" are people trying to discredit the real Truth movement. Most likely government psyops. The same people say moronic things in the media like "the government did it" so the real truth seekers loose all credibility with the masses because that is an amazingly stupid thing to say.

Why would you bring it up? Hmm.....

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Right......the Real Truth Movement

If you really seek the truth you would be open to others in they're quest for truth. I suppose any theory other than controlled demolition is not possible? I have learned credibility, to those who haven't looked past the official story, doesn't mean much. They think anyone who does not believe the official fairy tale is a kook. I think the opposite is true. The planes issue is incidental to the false flag mechanics. There is evidence of many things on 9/11 that have nothing to do with the pulverizing of buildings; and can't be explained by thermate. There was magnetometer data showing shift in magnetic declination coinciding with WTC destruction. Barometric, wind , data that has also co-incidence with the timeline. Hurricane Erin ,not reported category 3 hurricane just outside of NYC and its mysterious track on the timeline. Call me a kook, now; but some elements in the 9/11 truth movement are also a psyop. Look at all possibilities, first we need to know what happened. It cannot be the Govt. Story.

Mikoni

Not true

Being scientific and open to ideas does not in any way mean you "have to" accept every idea. I do not have to be "open to others" when their perspective is clearly clouded by a government intelligence operation in direct opposition to the 9/11 Truth Movement. That is like saying I have to be open to the crazy stuff being posted here on DP like the "giants" thread today. Every photo and/or skeleton has been proven to be a fake. I don't have to be open to a preposterous idea with no evidence.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I didn't mean you have to accept

any theory others have. I do wonder why some of the Truth Movement is at odds. Don't we all want to know what happened. We also know it couldn't be what the 9/11 commission said. I'm just saying even the key players, ( Steven E. Jones, Dr. Judy Wood especially)., each says the other is a psyop also. If you want to look at evidence. Her book
"Where did the towers Go", deals with a lot more than analysis of building collapse and presence of thermate. Maybe there both right.
I would like to know to be included in the "Truth Movement" , you have to agree on the controlled demo. Theory?

Mikoni

Ahh....

With the name-calling, I just give more credence to scientific-based theories as opposed to trick photography and mass halucinations. If I had to choose which one was a distraction from the truth, I have to go with the "no planes, no non-government cameras filmed the event" side. But, I guess you are right that most of both groups are probably on the up and up.

As to your last question - I think you have to, without a doubt, reject the NIST report that the planes and fires caused the collapse. Whether it was a mini-nuclear device, thermate, etc... I think is part of the investigation as a whole. But, they all agree that the physics don't add up. I think that is the one common denominator. As for the plane v. missile stuff at the Pentagon, I think that is secondary to the large event.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

"Everyone that disagrees with me is an agent!"

They can't just be incorrect right?