The problems I have with the "no plane" theory have to do with complexity. You've got a bunch of people who claim they saw airplanes slam into the buildings. You've got films of at least one plan slamming into a building. You've got four missing planes with a few hundred passengers.

The "no plane" theory says that somehow the planes that people saw hitting the building weren't really there - holograms, or whatever. However, *something* brought those buildings down. So OK, it was a plan hologram and high explosives inside the buildings that brought them down. Fine. And something else happened with the Pentagon - again, no plane, but something that made a big hole in the building. Some say it was a missile. OK, fine, why not?

But then you've got plane #4, which didn't do much of anything except crash. Why? Why even bother with it, if it didn't hit something interesting?

Where did these four planes and hundreds of passengers go? And who go to all that trouble, when you could just load up some planes with fuel and fly them into the buildings and get a pretty horrible result doing that?

I'm thinking Occam's Razor here, the simplest explanation is to be preferred. I don't see any good evidence that planes weren't used, but they still disappeared. Too much complication, too many chances for there to be a glaring error that they wouldn't be able to hide. It looks to me like someone decided it would be a good idea to fly some planes into buildings - maybe terrorists, maybe our own government, who knows? But I just can't see a convoluted conspiracy to pretend that planes flew into buildings, and to demolish those buildings with explosives, and then have to get rid of the real planes and people on them.

Originally posted by Pockets
dumb

and

Originally posted by videoworldwide
DUMBER

Don't you realise that all this sniping and name calling is obfuscating the issue and is exactly what TPTB want us to do; to be distracted by name-calling and petty insults rather than investigating the issue at hand.

Not acceptable, really. If I can turn over a new leaf and leave my insults at the door (so to speak) then I think it is possible for everyone else to.

My mind is still not made up. I err towards the planes, but that may be just because of the 'programming'. Certainly because there are still questions and there are still uncertainties I think it appropriate to investigate further what may, at first glance, seem to be 'ridiculous' theories.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by aorAki]

I am open to the possibility that the airlines were "empty" and were "remote controlled." And I think the evidence sort of supports this theory to a degree.

However, the "no planes" or "hologram planes" theory seems really far fetched, simply because of logistics.

1) Remote controlling planes into buildings = Easy to plan - undertake.

2) Making hologram planes that fool everyone, is a extremely difficult task however and would require intense testing and practice. This seems like too large of a logistical operation for such a simple act as just blowing up some buildings.

So my conclusion.

There is a 95% + chance that there were really planes on 911. Real planes are actually cheaper than super ultra advanced hologram devices.

So occam's razor says there were planes on 911, and very possibly remote controlled *autopilot*.

i Think it is just a way to ridicule the 911 truth.

"911 was an inside job, and the planes was just holographic bla bla"

How does that look in your/msm eyes?

The thing is, there is no reason no logical explanation to why they would not use real planes. The masterplan includes real planes crashing into the towers. Real hijacked planes or other ones, still real planes.

Originally posted by chiron613
The problems I have with the "no plane" theory have to do with complexity. You've got a bunch of people who claim they saw airplanes slam into the buildings. You've got films of at least one plan slamming into a building. You've got four missing planes with a few hundred passengers.

Where did these four planes and hundreds of passengers go?

I'm thinking Occam's Razor here, the simplest explanation is to be preferred.

It was all a hologram to cover up the alien ship that scooped up all those people and took them to the mother ship for anal probing, artificial insemination creating hybrids and disection. That's all it was.

Now ignore the man behind the curtain and return to your 'reality' tv show.

Originally posted by videoworldwide

First off, I have to apologize to the few who this applies to. I do not believe ANYONE, including YOU.

I do not believe the people who claim they saw planes on 911. The reason for this is because I have not interviewed them personally ...

Have you personally interviewed John Lear?

[edit on 12 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]

For all we know it could have just been a missile wrapped in a hologram.

DARPA works on some pretty crazy stuff you know..

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
For all we know it could have just been a missile wrapped in a hologram.

DARPA works on some pretty crazy stuff you know..

In one cannot contemplate this possibility, since it is not out of the realm of possibility, one cannot really say they have searched for the truth completely.

This is a possibility, I have not ruled out yet.

It's a very good point!

No, I have not. Why?

Originally posted by Alexander the Great
I'm sorry but, it's a wild goose chase in my opinion.
You cannot say every single person who took video of it is a conspirator!
My uncle wouldn't lie to me about something like that, since a family member died in the attacks.

Inside job or not, there were planes.

I thought John Lear's theory was that the planes were holograms...
Not saying I buy that at all, but the only retort I've seen is that the planes are on film and were witnessed...
A hologram can be on film and be witnessed.
Just sayin'.