No Plane Hit The WTC?
1) flight 11 never took off, and the flight that was labelled flight 11 by air traffic control was 10 miles from manhattan at 8:46am (see Team8plus.org)
2) the footage of "flight 175" hitting the south tower is clearly fake (planes shouldn't slide into a steel wall without exploding on contact; the explosion takes place too far from where the plane impacted; there are videos that show contradicting flight paths; all the videos have a flat cartoonish character; the plane never has any significant detail; other camera oddities (see 911hoax.com))
3) in the footage of the first and second hits on the towers, the "planes" slide into the towers without slowing-- this is impossible according to laws of physics (unless the planes completely disintegrated upon impact)
4) No black boxes were found at ground zero (officially). It's not that boxes were found where the data was destroyed-- NO BOXES WERE FOUND AT ALL. These devices are meant to withstand incredibly extreme conditions. (the rumor that black boxes were found and kept secret is likely a psy-op meant to prop up the planes story)
5) plane wings shouldn't slice through the steel beams of the WTC and leave a perfect imprint (certainly if plane wings could easily cut through steel columns and floor slabs, it is not clear why the planes didn't pass all the way through the towers)
6) almost no plane parts were found in the WTC rubble-- when the rubble was SIFTED for human remains (see the book "9.11 Revealed")
7) witnesses exist who saw the south tower explode but never saw a plane
8) plane parts, such as the too small engine found in the streets of lower Manhattan, look planted. Why would they need to plant plane parts if real planes were used?
9) a very good case for no planes can be made at the Pentagon or Shanksville-- very little to no clear plane debris, suspicious (too small) holes
10) unlikely the terrorists could have piloted planes the way they did according to the official story
Logistically, for a false-flag operation:
1) using missiles/pre-planted bombs easier to control than real commercial planes and managing a real hijacking situation
2) having no planes avoids problems with air traffic controllers seeing something they shouldn't see (for instance if there was a plane-swap)
3) having no planes is the easiest way to avoid military interception, and much easier than a stand-down that would involve thousands of military personnel
4) psy-ops effect of the attacks is stronger if it defies a certain logic (the bizarre plane crashes)
5) having the media distribute a set of fake videos of the south tower hit is sufficient to plant the meme
6) having the media complicit in the operation helps ensure that they won't question the event
7) "big lies" (such that there were no planes) are often more effective than smaller lies (i.e. planes were used but they were controlled by remote control)
8) the paradigm shift required for people to question whether real planes were used in the attack helps keep the actual nature of the event hidden and the perpetrators safe
Evidence that planes were used:
1) the gov't told us there were planes; the news media repeated this as fact
2) a plane was shown hitting the South WTC tower on TV, many times, from many angles
3) the Naudet movie of first hit appears to show a plane hitting the North tower
4) witnesses claim to have seen planes
5) a small number of plane parts were found at each crash locale
Counter arguments to "evidence that planes were used":
1) gov't and media often work togehter and lie together
2) yes, this was how they planted the meme that planes were used
3) the footage is blurry and what hits the tower is not clear
4) some witnesses were planted as part of the operation; other witnesses may have seen a missile flying in the air; eyewitnesses may hvae seen a plane that happpened to fly by at the same time as the event occurred; possibly some sort of high-techhologram-cloaked missile were used instead of planes; in any case, eyewitnesses are of course notoriously unreliable
5) some plane parts were planted to support the idea that planes were used
The idea that no planes were used in 9/11-- that the crashes were faked with bombs and missiles-- is clearly counter-intuitive. However, logistically, avoiding the use of planes has many benefits if you presume that 9/11 was a false-flag attack. Moreover, there are many pieces of evidence to point to some sort of fakery with regard to the idea that real planes were used.
Note-- real planes may have been used as part of the operation as "fly-bys" -- these would give eye-witnesses something to "grab onto" that they saw a plane that was involved in the event.
Major problem with the no-plane theory-- requires a complicit media and more people involved in the plot. But clearly 9/11 was a huge operation and conceivably many people were willing to lie in service of some operation of which they didn't know the extent. After 9/11, speaking out would mean death.
What this theory DOES explain is the complete inability of the mainstream media to question the official 9/11 story in any way-- because they were in on it!
No Plane Hit Pentagon?
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”
Astronomer Carl Sagan was fond of saying this when talking about the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also used the expression in his own portrayal of intelligent life on this planet, in reference to his inability to find Saddam Hussein’s WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) that didn’t exist.
It’s a basically useful mindset that has both useful and useless applications, as in Rumsfeld’s using it to mean, apparently, something like: “we don’t need no stinking evidence, we know his WMDs used to exist, we believe they still exist, and that’s good enough – trust us.”
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” applies as well to the events of September 11, 2001, and it’s still not clear which usage applies best to which argument from any perspective. The assumption here is that, at a minimum, the official 9/11 story is false in some of its essentials. The official 9/11 storyhas too many elements to assume they’re all false, or even that they’re mostly false. On the contrary, whether one assumes official honesty or an official cover-up, the motive is the same: to get as much right as possible and/or necessary. The best lies are embedded in truth.
The 9/11 Museum is full of contradictions, acknowledged and ignored
The National September 11 Memorial Museum (cost $700 million) opened ceremonially in New York City on May 15, 2014. The Museum (operating budget $60 million a year) opened publicly six days later (admission $24). The openings were characterized by both reverence (President Obama called the museum a ”sacred place of healing and hope”) and controversy (over the gift shop, and especially its Darkness Hoodie ($39) and its United-States-shaped cheese platter with hearts marking 9/11 death sites (price unavailable), as well as serious censorship (no charge) and the CEO’s salary ($378,000)).
A “Museum Review” in the New York Times pondered the museum’s “trifurcated identity:”
Was it going to be primarily a historical document, a monument to the dead or a theme-park-style tourist attraction? How many historical museums are built around an active repository of human remains, still being added to? How many cemeteries have a $24 entrance fee and sell souvenir T-shirts? How many theme parks bring you, repeatedly, to tears?
Because that’s what the museum does. The first thing to say about it, and maybe the last, is that it’s emotionally overwhelming….
Despite that overwhelming ad hominem character, emphasizing the emotional impact of the lives of the living and dead, the Museum defines itselfwith a contradictory pose of academic detachment: “The National September 11 Memorial Museum serves as the country’s principal institution concerned with exploring the implications of the events of 9/11, documenting the impact of those events and exploring 9/11’s continuing significance.” More credibly, the Museum defines its mission as bearing witness to the World Trade Center attacks of 1993 and 2001. Most compellingly, the 9/11 Museum seems to be a guardian of the official 9/11 story.
Omission can also be a form of bearing witness
Among the 9/11 Museum artifacts on display (its collection numbers more than 10,000 items, mostly small and personal), there are parts of the Boeing 767 airliners that hit the twin towers. The larger artifacts include a charred piece of fuselage with a missing window and the “World Trade Center Cross” (that a federal judge has ruled an “artifact,” not a violation of the First Amendment separation of church and state). The Museum also has a collection of unidentified or unclaimed human body parts, some 14,000 of them, stored in an underground repository not open to the public.
Without apparently intending to do so, the 9/11 Museum’s body of evidence that tends to reinforce the official 9/11 story in New York, also tends to reinforce longstanding questions about the official 9/11 story at the Pentagon. That story is that the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757 carrying 58 passengers and 6 crew) flew into the Pentagon at almost ground level, killing all aboard as well as 125 in the building (all but five of whom were, eventually, officially identified).
From the beginning, the official 9/11 Pentagon story caused cognitive dissonance, since the visual evidence suggests that nothing as big as a 757 have hit the outside wall of the Pentagon and disappeared even more completely than the planes that hit the World Trade Center, where they burned until the WTC collapsed around them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The alternative stories posit a missile or specially rigged small plane hitting the Pentagon. There is no known physical evidence to support such stories. According to Snopes.com (as of April 2008), these stories are false. Much of the evidence collected by government investigators remains secret. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Even a determined debunker of 9/11 skeptics, while laying out a coherent argument that the official 9/11 Pentagon story is true (and conflating physical evidence with photography), ends up concluding:
In this essay I asked what conclusions about the Pentagon attack were supported by physical evidence — primarily post-crash photographs of the site. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.
The 9/11 Museum, for all its claims to being the principal institution for exploring the events of 9/11, has next to nothing to say about the Pentagon or about the other 757 that crashed in Pennsylvania. New York has shown more respect for the dead than the Pentagon, where higher officials overruled subordinates and dumped human remains in a landfill.
The first step in learning the truth is choosing to look for it
At best, the events of 9/11 represent the catastrophic failure of numerous American agencies, including airport security, air traffic controllers, national air defense command, and the U.S. Air Force. That reality alone is enough to raise suspicions of a cover-up, if only to avoid accountability for lethal incompetence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
At worst, the events of 9/11 were the result of an almost unimaginable criminal conspiracy designed to produce the “new Pearl Harbor” that would enable fans of the New American Century (many of them members of the Bush administration) to take the United States in new, warlike, world-dominating directions (maybe something like a Global War on Terror).
In any event, the Bush administration fought long and hard to prevent any investigation of 9/11 and continued to work to undermine the 9/11 Commission until it produced its flawed report in August 2004. That final report omits any mention, much less explanation, of what Vice President Dick Cheney knew and when he knew it regarding the attack on the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission knew full well – and chose not to confront – the serious implications of the testimony to the commission by Transportation SecretaryNorman Pinetta (May 23, 2003):
During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??”
Conspiracies are by their nature hard to discover and hard to prove. All the same, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Even now, still in the shadows of 9/11, it might be instructive to hear President Bush and members of his administration vigorously questioned, under oath, as to why they decided to pay no attention – none at all (Bush is said to have told a CIA officer “you’ve covered your ass,” which sounds in retrospect almost like foreknowledge) – to the CIA briefing paper with the title: “Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US.” Long after the facts of 9/11, the Bush people defended their absolute inattention and inaction based on the absence of evidence.