posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:30 PM
I hadn't heard the "no-plane theory" for WTC. I'd heard it about the Pentagon, of course.
So what these NPT people are saying, basically, is that there were no airplanes that crashed into the towers, it was all an inside job of some sort?
Explosives planted to damage, then take down both towers? And they somehow managed to convince crowds of people that they saw airplanes that weren't
there? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Many people saw the first plane hit the tower. I suppose it might have been a hologram, except those require some sort of medium to be displayed on -
smoke, dust, clouds, etc. Didn't see any of that in the films. Far more people saw the second plane, because everyone was watching the towers by
then. I saw clear videos of the second plane, from several different angles. Sure, it could have been faked. Movie special effects are common and
But the explosions themselves had direction. They moved along the direction of travel of the "imaginary" planes. That is, they blew out the
opposite sides of the buildings from where these nonexistent planes struck. Sure, special effects again, maybe.
In the meantime, you've got four airplanes that disappear somewhere, along with the passengers. What did they do with the planes and the people on
them? Take over by remote control, and crash them into the ocean? If they could do that much, they might as well have crashed them into the
buildings using remote control, to make it more realistic.
The NPT requires a whole lot of bizarre events to happen, in order to concoct an unconvincing story. Mass hallucination or special effects; sinister
plots to take down the WTC; and getting rid of four big jets.
I don't know who committed the 9/11 atrocity. Maybe it was Saudis; maybe the CIA or other government agency. Maybe even the Post Office. But I
can't see that there is any reason to doubt that planes were involved in the attacks. It's a wholly unnecessary complication that has little to