Why the 9/11 hijackings were fake

[spooked911]

1) there was no air defense-- because an air force interceptor can't find a plane that isn't there!

2) the radio transmissions from the plane by the supposed hijackers are more easily explained that someone was creating the impression of a hijacking rather than that a hijacker doesn't know what is the right button for the intercom

3) flights 11 and 77 never took off on 9/11

4) extremely unlikely four planes could be taken over by men armed with boxcutters/small knives-- without even one pilot signaling a hijack was occurring

5) the maneuvers of the putative hijacked planes to get to the targets at high speed were too professional for amateur pilots

6) air force hijacking exercises and ground-based terror drills involving hijackings were run prior to 9/11

7) there was a NORAD hijacking drill being run on 9/11

8) if an evil government cabal wanted to manufacture an air attack, it is easier to fake hijackings and use drones/missiles for the attacks than it is to try to control a real live hijacking situation

9) there was a severe dearth of plane parts at every 9/11 plane crash site, suggesting the crashes were faked

10) the nineteen hijackers were patsies

11) the official 9/11 plane passengers were a mix of real people, fake passengers and spooks with aliases, the real people were killed at an unknown location

12) real planes don't melt into buildings the way "flight 175" glided into the south WTC tower; a real plane did not crash into the south tower

[MrSammo1]

1. You're getting really close to the truth Spooked

;o)

[leftofthedial]

2. yeah, but

but, but, but . . .

[adolfo]

3. Two words

Operation Northwoods

[rman]

6. That's what i think, but it does not support the no plane theory

I might accept "no (large) plane" for the north tower. (And i'm sure there was no large plane at the pentagon).
But the second WTC crash does very much look like a plane crashing into the tower. Given the high velocity of the plane i don't find it hard to imagine it 'disappeared' into the tower. Most likely it was not a normal passenger plane.
At any rate, if there was no plane at all then it was not Northwoods revisited.

I'd think that if one is going to do a false flag op, that it's easier to use a remote controlled real (large) airplane then to fake the presence of a large plane where there was none.

[SittingBull]

13. plus

scenario 12 d

[mirandapriestly]

4. I just don't know if I'm ready to accept the "no plane" theory.

Although, when I watch the way the plane melts into the wtc, it certainly looks fake. Also, the way the "planes" pierced the building I have read is the way a missile pierces.

[Old and In the Way]

12. Thing is, I don't think we ever had a visual image of a 757 crashing

into a building like that before. The whole thing looked surreal.

There were multiple video captures of the event from a variety of angles. No question to me that was a 757. I think to even argue it was something else is counter-productive. There's a lot of wierdness with what happened on that day, but that event was not one of them, IMHO.

Wierder still (to me).....I was on 175 from BOS to LA 4 weeks earlier.

[dailykoff]

5. More likely than not.

It's hard to believe that ANY part of the official explanation actually occurred. None of the facts check out. Basically the whole thing looks like an elaborately staged scam.

[rman]

7. One "fact" that appears to check out

is that a large airplane did crash into the south tower.
Another is that the towers did 'collapse'.
Of course what kind of airplane it was and why the towers collapsed is another matter.

[MercutioATC]

8. What crashed into the south tower if it wasn't a "real plane"?

Just curious...

[spooked911]

9. some sort of missile

there were actually witnesses who reported to the police that missiles were being fired at the tower

[LARED]

10. So

all the video of the plane flying into the tower is faked?

All the eyewitnesses that saw the plane were fooled somehow?

If your going with a missile theory you need to explain away the 99.99 percent of evidence that tells us if was not a missile.

[MercutioATC]

11. And how was the damage to the outer wall of the south tower consistent

with a missile?

How was a missile consistent with witnesses who clearly saw a plane (are we talking about holograms here)?