The Fatal Flaw in the No Plane Theory
When people who push the theory that no planes hit the Twin Towers are asked WHY fake video would be used instead of real planes, they reply that "something could have gone wrong with real planes". However, there is a fatal flaw in their argument.
There were real military aircraft in the air on 9/11 conducting "live-fly" hijack drills. These aircraft were available, in the air, and ready to be used. See The War Games of September 11th. These aircraft could easily have been remote controlled into their targets. See Where's the Remote Control?.
On the other hand, it would have been very difficult to fake the sounds of large planes striking the Twin Towers. See No Planes Theory: R.I.P..
So why would the perpetrators of 9/11 have gone to all of the trouble of faking video imagery and moving audio sounds? Wouldn't it have been alot easier -- and less subject to discovery -- to simply have piloted a military aircraft used in the war games by remote control into the Twin Towers? More importantly, the no-planers claim that the entire mainstream media was in on the 9/11 attacks. That's a little hard to believe, isn't it? A whole different type and class of co-conspirators (see Burden of Proof)?
Isn't it more likely that the mainstream media filmed either real hijacked Boeing 767's or military aircraft pulled off of war game exercises? Since remote control technology sufficient to fly either civilian or military aircraft existed in 2001, wouldn't it have been easier to have 1 or 2 people pilot the planes by remote control than recruit the entire mainstream media to the plot?
By the way, as I have previously said, I am wholly agnostic about whether or not remote control technology was in fact used on 9/11. But it makes a heck of alot more sense to me than the whole no plane theory.
There were real military aircraft in the air on 9/11 conducting "live-fly" hijack drills. These aircraft were available, in the air, and ready to be used. See The War Games of September 11th. These aircraft could easily have been remote controlled into their targets. See Where's the Remote Control?.
On the other hand, it would have been very difficult to fake the sounds of large planes striking the Twin Towers. See No Planes Theory: R.I.P..
So why would the perpetrators of 9/11 have gone to all of the trouble of faking video imagery and moving audio sounds? Wouldn't it have been alot easier -- and less subject to discovery -- to simply have piloted a military aircraft used in the war games by remote control into the Twin Towers? More importantly, the no-planers claim that the entire mainstream media was in on the 9/11 attacks. That's a little hard to believe, isn't it? A whole different type and class of co-conspirators (see Burden of Proof)?
Isn't it more likely that the mainstream media filmed either real hijacked Boeing 767's or military aircraft pulled off of war game exercises? Since remote control technology sufficient to fly either civilian or military aircraft existed in 2001, wouldn't it have been easier to have 1 or 2 people pilot the planes by remote control than recruit the entire mainstream media to the plot?
By the way, as I have previously said, I am wholly agnostic about whether or not remote control technology was in fact used on 9/11. But it makes a heck of alot more sense to me than the whole no plane theory.
1 Comments:
What you fail to recognize though is that NPT (no plane theory) has already been proven, while proof of any planes colliding with the WTC Towers on 911 has not been established. And that my friend is the defining logic of what really happened on 911 and the reason to conclude that the mainstream media was in on the crime from day one.
Reserve your opinions until you read Morgan Reynolds astute observations and watch the September Clues video series.
Post a Comment
<< Home