Is this a helpful stub? Considering the amount of video of plane like objects that hit the twin towers, the 'no planes' theory seems unlikely.
I have yet to see any convincing evidence of planes hitting the pentagon, so that seems to me to be a different matter - ditto Shanksville.
Lumping such disparate ideas together in a small blanket headline seems to inspire incredulity - the kind of thing I'd expect from wikipedia. Maybe split this stub (and forgive me if I ignore the 'no planes were involved in WTC 1/2' bits). User:Robin 15:50 19 May 2011
- Thanks for the observations. Agreed Shanksville and The Pentagon are very different to any Twin Towers 'no-planes' hypothesis. No doubt 'incredulity' is the response of the vast majority too. Problem is I have neither the time nor inclination to taylor site content to a mass audience with an editorial policy that asks 'How credible will this appear to the Sheeple'. Dissemination of information not available in the MSM is the sole criteria - with due care to TRY to filter out the inevitable Cass Sunstein type disinformation. There is in fact some intriguing information out there on the Twin Towers damage being caused by something other than the two commercial airliners of the official narrative. It's just that I never seem to get the time to collate and wikify it in a manner than does it justice and adds to the existing sources in a worthwhile fashion --Peter P 18:21, 19 May 2011 (IST)
- There may be important matters about 911 that we don't know and the powers that be don't want us to know. For instance, Israelis may have been tracking the individual hijackers and have some idea of what was going to happen. Bush may have known far more than he's told us. Maybe the towers weren't built as strongly as they were supposed to be - or not as well as the architects had designed them to be.
- However, all the business about controlled demolition, missile strikes etc is utterly ridiculous. Toolbox 20:50, 19 May 2011 (IST)