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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Thats more fair

an agent or a nut, first you're crazy, then they attack you , then maybe find out you're not full of shit. Kinda reminds me of people who can't understand the Liberty movement.


I'm no disinfo agent

But it certainly understandable to be skeptical of everything in this day and age. And it points out how difficult everything is and is going to continue to be going forward. Lack of trust (though w good reason) in everyone.

Reinforced concrete wins

against aluminum. In one video the 'plane' is seen going through the tower, exiting the other side (BUT the tower was designed to handle such an accident - the design was to cause the point of impact to flex with no penetration).

It can not go through the tower...a bunker buster or similar missile could go through the tower...not an aluminum-clad airplane.

Here is some interesting technology:

Massive Ordnance Penetrator

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Didn't Forrest Gump

-drink too much Dr Pepper, and tell JFK he had to pee?...Did he REALLY show LBJ his butt?....Okay, I concede he probably WAS on the Dick Cavett Show and inspired John Lennon's Imagine (rolls eyes), but WHO annonomously called Watergate Security?

They've been 'Jerkin' Your Gherkin' since Marconi (or Tesla, for you science 'purists')...Get it?....(dumbasses)....

Most people are LED to believe whatever the media/cameras tell them, and are not going to ever be wise to it, much less question it...Suckers!

The planes are part of the basis for the War on Terror

Without commercial planes (with foreign hijackers) crashing into buildings (as reported), there wouldn't be a basis for the War on Terror and all this other nonsense we have to cope with. So it is CRUSIAL for the 911 operation management to maintain the perception of this. If you don't like WoT, etc, I suggest you hear what the opposition to this perception have to say themselves. Don't fall for the old trick that they all are kooks and worse (but some are pure disinfo agents).

Can recommend this piece:

Fabled Airplanes, The Role of the Corporate Media in Creating and Perpetuating the Mass Hypnosis of the American Public, by Christopher P. Holmes, Ph.D. (Psych): http://www.zeropoint.ca/FabledAirplanes.html

And also his interesting and relevant conversation with Fetzer - 96min MP3: http://tinyurl.com/cgybc63

Have in mind that the 911 operation management really don't like that this perception of planes into WTC is disputed. They haven't retired so they have engaged lots and lots of agents to protect this perception. Expect fierce resistance.

Here philosopher Jeffrey Grupp explains why the PLANES vs. NO PLANES on 911 distinction is SO IMPORTANT!


fireant's picture

Why I believe Phillip Marshall

Marshall is a 20 year airline pilot with captain ratings on 727, 737, 747, 757, and 767. He also has experience flying for Barry Seal. He studied the flight recorders and radar tracks, and re-created each of the 4 planes' paths. I spoke with him and asked point blank if plane swaps or remote control were possible. He stated emphatically no, it was not possible.
I believe him in part due to his background, but also because he is a flaming Bush, Cheney, Rice hater. He would not miss a chance to nail them, which he does in his book, "The Big Bamboozle", but not over remote controlled planes or missiles.
In my opinion, this issue is settled. There is overwhelming evidence of planes, not missiles, bombs, or intercepted remote controlled planes.

Undo what Wilson did

Psyops are easy

....Thank you for playing.

guy's been here twice as long as you

you conspiracists are hilarious

I remember watching a video...

that was taken from a bridge just as the second plane struck the tower. As the people around the photographer were screaming, a woman next to him could be heard plainly saying something to the effect, "that was not a commercial plane!".
To the OP, there really isn't any question whether planes struck Towers 1 & 2, the question is WHAT planes were they? It is pretty apparent that no large aircraft were involved in Shanksville or the Pentagon.
So, the $100,000 question is: If none of the 4 planes that disappeared that day were actually involved in the 4 crash sites, what happened to the REAL planes and the REAL passengers on those flights? By definition, this is a conspiracy.

Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

This guy seemed pretty certain there wasn't a second plane.


I'm not taking a firm stance of plane/no plane/missile/bomb. But it did strike me as odd and even suspicious the way this reporter wanted to blow this guy off asap instead of getting his eyewitness account.

The reporters response when the witness asked who told him it was a second plane was also curious.

"That's what we're told. A second plane. We saw it on television."

Not "all the other witnesses saw a second plane", but "that's what we're told... We saw it on television."

Very curious response and mannerism indeed for a reporter out there interviewing eyewitnesses.

There absolutely were

There absolutely were aircraft that hit the buildings.

Whether these aircraft were manned or unmanned drones is the next logical question.

I suggest the planes that hit the twin towers were drones flown remotely. Drone technology is used virtually everyday in the Middle East now, but how much talk of this technology was their pre-911?

There is a video available on youtube of the flight recordings of flight 93. It is shown that flight 93 had contact with Cleveland International Airport, and the plane made an "emergency landing" there on the morning of 911. The whole airport was evacuated and it took them hours to evacuate all of flight 93's passengers to "check for explosives."

If this flight was diverted, it is possible the others were as well and were replaced by drone aircraft.

Upon analyzing flight patterns of the planes, pilots have shown the planes to be flying hundreds of miles to the West and then looping back to the East.

For what reason were the planes diverted from the east coast? This is where I suggest the drones come into play.

As for the pentagon, it is pretty obvious that it was a cruise missile that hit it, as the pentagon is "the most secure airspace in the world", supposedly.

Thanks for the posting kevink

Nearly everyone initially was convinced that there were

no planes.

It would be important to keep an open mind, because a majority of people are convinced that there were no planes hitting the Pentagon or in Shanksville. So, could it be the same for the WTC?

Consider the following:

* the only 'evidence' for planes is a grouping of videos put on TV by the powerful ones who run this country
* in every other plane crash in history, there has always been wreckage (see www.nodisinfo.com), including crashes against buildings. There is no wreckage from 767s found anywhere in NYC on September 11
* the number of witnesses for planes in a big city like NYC is few to virtually none; hundreds more insist it was bombs but no planes
* Stanley Pramaith, the virtual sole witness, has been discredited recently for giving false information
* David Handschuh, photographer for New York Daily News, was right under WTC-2, and said there was an explosion, which he photographed, but no plane.

We are victims of mind-control and even brainwashing. Just take a careful, slow look at the video 'images' of planes; click every-so-slowly; you will see anomalies.

John Lear of the LearJet fame says there were no planes. These were, after all, basically flying aluminum shells; how could any such planes penetrate a reinforced steel building with 12-inch thick beams? In one 'image' known as nose-out, the image actually shows the nose cone (actually the image thereof) penetrating all the way through the building: an absolute physical impossibility. Add this to the fact that there was strewn (fabricated) wreckage placed under awnings on sidewalks and you have plenty of evidence of a scheme. See also September Clues. Regards in the search for truth.

What never made sense to me was...

what one would expect in the following scenario...

Say a giant, a really big dude, where to grab the WTC at it's base and rip it out of the ground. Then he, being a baseball fan, set the steel structure on his shoulder like Mickey Mantle at the plate, and took a batters stance. Then his friend, another giant were to take an aluminum can the size of an airliner, filled with soda to give it mass, wind up like Randy Johnson and let it fly at the "batter" with the steel bat...would we expect to see the can sail out over the Atlantic...or put a hole in the steel bat? (the can would have a more centralized mass...and no flimsy wings)

Hows, about an aluminum bat swung my Mark McGuire in full roid rage, smacking a steel ball bearing with the meeting of the bat and ball-bearing at 500 mph? (even though the boeing couldn't do 500 mph at sea level without breaking up).

Weird huh?

I'll tell ya, I don't know about NY but I think those guys at Pentaconned did one hell-uv-a job at proving that story was a complete fabrication. Now the question is....why?

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

If the giant can glides thru the wall as if it's butter...

...does that count as a strike?

I know...right?

Sorry (teenager started saying this recently).

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Interesting Points

I'm open-minded to the idea that what hit the towers were not commercial airliners but I still would have to think that *some* flying object hit the towers. It's interesting that the initial reports were that a Cessna hit the first tower.

One other point I should bring up is the sound that low flying planes make. Isn't it really loud when a plane flies by right over you at a low altitude? Wouldn't large numbers of people have noticed (and reported) that as well?

Yes, it is very loud when an airliner is flying over you low.

I live in a flight path and can recall a couple times when a plane sounded way too low. It was so loud and scary my neighbors and I actually ran outside on our porches and we looked at each other wondering if the plane was going to make it or not it was so creepy.


Should be a million missing ear witnesses from Bronx to Battery Park then I guess.

The initial reports are extremely important

If you would understand anything, observe its beginning and its development. Have a look at the Weapon of Mass Deception at full throttle here:


Jason Bermas Debunks September Clues

El Buggo - What do you think of this video? I don't mean to be contentious by the way. I'm just legitimately asking. Even if there were planes, it certainly doesn't (in the least) preclude the possibility it was an "inside job".

Also, can anyone verify what Jason Bermas said at the very end of this video that reports of JFK being killed by Lee Harvey Oswald were in foreign papers hours before it happened?


thanks for your questions

Some, or many people says that JB is a pos, but I think that is much too polite. Have listened to the JB video twice now, and it isn't much substance there I can comment on. It goes like kook, racist newsletters, kook, racist newsletters, etc.

The video link I gave attempts to answer how the plane myth was born. The main point is that almost all the first - and very crucial - eyewitnesses were senior media people. You can check this yourself in the TV Archive here: http://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive/

It was important to get the story on the right track as early as possible, or create the wanted perception of the reality. Their weapon is their reporting. They wanted and needed planes with foreign hijackers and victims to launch the perpetual WoT.

Here are all crash videos listed - so people have looked into this:

Again, I highly recommend that Holmes interview: http://tinyurl.com/cgybc63

I don't like the term inside job so much. OK, it was an inside job, and whats next? Yes, inside job, and? I'll let some real sheep illustrate this position: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pysET6UvN60

Don't know about JFK.

Here is a really nice recap of my views on this operation - really nice - No planes at the World Trade Center and why the movement will always hide this fact at all costs. By James Sloan:

1 million witnesses are missing

I'm still looking for all these missing witnesses that should have heard Flight 11 at full throttle all along Manhattan a few hundred feet above the roof tops. I have newer ran into one of those.

Examples: Planes Over Hong Kong (1998)


A perfect illustration...

Thanks. This is the same scenario that I have questioned for years. Not one report...and then ask yourself how fast those planes are cruising and understand how fast 500mph actually is...much less consider that no Boeing can come close to such speeds at sea level.

Much to question...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

The "flown by remote control" theory makes more sense

If there were bombs planted in both towers, I can't imagine the plotters would've risked one plane hitting one tower while the "hijackers" of the other plane were over-powered (or something like that). Because that would've put at-risk the possibility that one tower would be left standing with a bunch of explosives planted inside. It would seem pretty hard to cover that up. I mean, it's possible a team of compromised government agents could've removed the explosives but it seems like it would've been very risky.

Have the black boxes ever been released to the public? To my knowledge they haven't been. If not, then it's possible the pilots were complaining that they were unable to control the aircraft and it was simply steered into the towers despite everyone on that plane seeing what was about to happen. I hear your argument about the planes possibly being diverted but then what in the world happened to those passengers? (I shudder to think of that assuming your theory is correct).

The black boxes were

The black boxes were "destroyed in the explosion" according to the dogmatic official reports.

I too have thought about the possibility that the steering system was hacked into. It certainly is a possibility.

The reason my inclination is to believe they were drones is because of their appearance. Eyewitnesses described black/grey colored, unmarked, military-type aircraft. I agree with these observations.

Either scenario involves the death of all passengers, unfortunately. I don't think the folks at Cleveland were kind enough to "send them on their way."

Have black boxes ever been destroyed before?

Or was this yet another "first" on that day?

The black boxes were destroyed but...

...the passport of one of the hijackers was pretty much unscathed.

The more I look at this whole thing...

There is a logical reason for this

The hijackers were in the front of the plane and the black boxes are stored in the tail section. The forward momentum of the plane and the explosion of it that starts in the wings/engines would have ejected numerous things from the front of the plane mostly unscathed from the shock wave. The theory regarding whether the black boxes were destroyed lies in the rapid deceleration which could have destroyed the components; or the excessive exposure to heat.

Now I am not saying what I wrote above is fact, but I am saying that the whole passports vs black box line is one not worth pursuing as a method of getting to the truth. There are other avenues that are far more convincing that point to something conspiratorial.

With liberty and justice for all...who can afford it.

The whole thing is such a

The whole thing is such a joke isn't it?
And not even a funny one.

It's insulting to the intelligence of adults that they think in the modern world we cannot differentiate between fact and fiction regarding events like 911.

There is so much information available on 911 and the coverup/planning that you could write a book on it...and people have!

And yes black boxes are pretty much built to be indestructible. There's no way a passport of all things would survive if the black boxes didn't.