A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories

Are people still arguing about this?


With the amount of attention that the Pentagon no-plane theories have received, it shouldn't be surprising that some would also make the bizarre claim that no 767s hit the World Trade Center, despite voluminous video and photographic evidence to the contrary. My previous articles dealt with the core of these theories at length. These articles were lengthy, so the purpose of this summary is to provide a somewhat condensed and updated summary for those new to the subject or lacking in the time to delve into the details of the image analysis.

There are 2 versions of the no-plane arguments: The first, that small planes or missiles hit the towers and these were covered over in the videos and photos of the impact by synthetic 3D graphic images of 767s (including real-time superimposition of these images on all live TV footage as it was broadcast). I will refer to this as the "media overlay" argument. The other argument made is that the planes (at least the second plane) was in fact a hologram generated by classified technology. The proponents argue that visual "anomalies" indicate the fraudulent nature of the holographic or computer 767-in the case of the second hit-and show that the plane in the Naudet video of the first hit was not the size or shape of a 767.


ARG News Brief: Here's the

This looks as if it was

This looks as if it was written by blimpy himself.

Salter's analysis of the

Salter's analysis of the alleged pod is fairly convincing but the flashes are given short shrift. In the Naudet bros. footage a flash is clearly seen prior to impact.

In the Naudet bros. footage

In the Naudet bros. footage a flash is clearly seen prior to impact.

don't forget the flashes that can be seen from every angle in the second crash as well.

Yeah, hard to believe this

Yeah, hard to believe this is even being talked about -- so bizarre: holographs etc. Talk about disinfo to give conspiracy theories a bad name...

There's a discussion of this over at The Rigorous Intuition Board: http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1695...

I haven't been reading the discussion though -- just seems so ridiculous that this is even being talked about....

I reject the premise.

I reject the premise. Talking about "no-plane theories" is a government scam to keep us focused (and fighting over) our supposed theories instead of the government's bogus theory of 9/11. That's misdirection, a form of disinformation.

I'm not enough of a fool to accept the disinformationists' notion that refusing to accept the government's "plane theory" means that I must have some kind of "no-plane theory".

Similarly, when an logical person notes that holograms could and might have been somehow utilized, the 911 disinformationists deride that person for having a "hologram theory".

That's unacceptable behavior, contrary to pursuing the full truth of 9/11.

We already know that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

We already know that no amount of "suicidal Muslim hijackers" or an impact between a regular civilian 767 and a WTC tower can account for the phenomenally brief bright Naudet video "flash frame".

What kind of "toddler world view" permits the filthy 9/11 LIHOPers to keep from acknowledging the existence of all contrary evidence?

If anyone's interested, I'll pay $500 to the first person who can prove that no holograms were employed in the 9/11 false-flag attacks. How about it, kw? Could you use $500? Can you even type "hologram"? Can you say, "we don't know for sure"? Must you ridicule that which you do not understand?


Hey Blimp, before you start

Hey Blimp, before you start attacking others, please feel free to prove holograms were used on 9/11. If you've got irrefutable proof, I wanna see it, and so does everyone else.

Don't ask someone to prove something "didn't" happen, thats counter productive as well as impossible. Can you prove aliens "weren't" involved in 9/11?

Instead, please prove that something "did" happen, do some activism for a change, write some articles, produce some evidence, try doing something positive instead of always being negative.

SBG... you're talkin' crazy

SBG... you're talkin' crazy talk. :)

I'm kind of surprised to see

I'm kind of surprised to see that the blimp captain espouses the hologram theory - I like the 911blimp.net site.
anyway, here's a link to an article showing that flight175 was a 737, not a 767:


it's titled "The 911 Street Engine Story"

ok, about holograms - the technology does exist to mask flying objects (such as missiles) with projections, but why would they hologram the flash (which can clearly be seen at both towers), and why the devil would they include the pod (which can also be clearly seen) in the hologram?

my theory is that flights 11 and 175 (if they were even real flights),were
substituted with remote controlled planes (Dov Zakheim & S.P.C.), because no drunken arabs with magic boxcutters could have pulled the manuevers that were required to impact the WTC.

Destruction Of The

Destruction Of The WTC
photos menu on the left

Hey Jon, You've got it

Hey Jon,

You've got it backasswards: Stop asking me to prove. I'm only 'attacking' those who attck those who are being good investigators and consider all the possibilities. We need such people. Attacking them is counter-productive.

Put your money from where your verbal effluent eminates, as I have:

I'll pay $500 to anyone who can prove that holograms were not used on 9/11. Then, and only then, can we be sure that it is wrong to consider their possible use. (BTW, oh backassward ones: considering the use of holograms does NOT mean that one has a [dreaded] "hologram theory": it only takes one contrary example to disprove a theory, it does not take a superior theory to disprove an impossible one! And now that I've explained that, yet again, you can take your stupid contrary misdirecting disinformation elsewhere. It is the government's theory that is being attacked, and we don't need ANY "theories" to do so.)

And if (SINCE!) the possible use of holograms on 9/11 cannot be disproven, kindly stop being a useful idiot (or worse?) for the government by trying to gatekeep certain thoughts and ideas and evidence on behalf of our government. Focusing on holograms does not make sense to me. But attacking fellow 911truthers who even consider or mention their POSSIBLE use is totally illogical and non-sensical.

I don't have to prove that holograms were used in order to consider the possibility, no matter how many idiots seem to think that that is how logic works!