WHat do people think the planes taht hit the wtc were... i personally think they were taken over remotley and people were really in the planes.... (I'm talking about thge planes that hit the towers, thus the reason it's in this section)

I think they were most likely drones... I'm not completely discounting the possibility that they were the actual flights, but at the moment there are too many anomalies observed on these planes (such as pointed out on these boards by Arrowhead and by others elsewhere) that can't be explained if the planes really were the planes we're told they were. Due to the apparently limited flight skills of the supposed pilots, if the planes weren't drones, I think remote control is more likely than the 'terrorists' flying them. And the no-plane theory? Not dignifying that with a response!

The planes were video faked. Even looking at only some it can be seen easily.

See your doctor and let him know that the drugs don't work.

Well the planes may have been switched. But could it be possible that our government paid the pilots to wreck the planes, that is what they do in there own land. The pilots family would get major money for suicide missions. I am not saying this is the answer, just another side of the coin. The remote control is possible. But at those speeds trying to control a large plane by remote would take some doing. Even harder than being in the pilots seat. They remote operator could not get the feel of the plane, maybe try to hard and break something.

I don't think so. But while watching LC 2nd ed. We paused the video right when it showed the 2nd plane hitting the tower. I have to admit, it looks odd. Im no expert on video special effects - not by a long shot. But, we paused it again when the plane was about halfway into the tower......there's no debri from any part of the plane at that point. It just looks weird, sort of unatural. Im sure its just the way it comes out looking on video.
I belive real planes hit the towers. Im leaning towards them being taken over by remote control once the got within a certain range of the towers.

take the shot/frame of that vid (not just the LC version) as the TV footage, at the time is live, and place it into a Graphical Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) and you will see that the planes/aircraft are real but have no windows/port holes along the body of the plane/aircraft ...

I'd say drones. Some of the people thought they saw a missle, and there was a lot of people who said it didn't look like a normal plane.

It seems like every poll on here has every answer except the one I want to vote for.

How about, the planes were hijacked by real people-- who were not the Arabs of the official story, but agents masquerading as Arabs, to frame Arabs...... who then rigged the cockpit for remote control.

Who says hijackers and remote control are mutually exclusive? Why not both?

A-Train, There are no real answers yet. Only what we know so far, ideas and concepts of what happened, might have happened and last but definately not least, what DIDN'T happen.
I your thoughts are very plausible. And who knows...it might be what really happened.
I would like to think that LC is the worlds biggest brainstorm with facts, ideas, thoughts, concepts, research and investigation all coming together here from around the world to be put together by some very smart people. This is one big ugly puzzle that MUST be put together and finished. Otherwise, these kinds of abominations will happen again.

How about gps way pointing. You can hard wire into most auto pilots a altitiude and GPS co-ordinant. Acturate to roughly 20ft. WTC was a big object

Taken remotly here

Personally, I think they were remote-controlled drones. But this question does not have to be addressed (let alone answered) to prove that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by non-Arabs. Can you all drop this? It's a waste of time to even think about it.

We have:

1) controlled demolitions of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

2) massive NORAD standdown orders

3) anti-aircraft/missile defense at the Pentagon turned off

4) different/multiple stories given by gov't insiders

5) omissions and distortions in the commission's report

Again, it's not necessary to talk about what kind of planes did or didn't hit the WTC. IT DOESN'T MATTER.

I think drones... for the following reasons;
- The hole in the pentagon is not big enough for a 737 (sorry if ive said the wrong plane)
- The planes which crashed into the twin towers were said to have NO windows.. and the logo's on the planes have not been seen before.
- The plane which crashed made a crater in the ground and very little pieces were left..& everything was spread out ( shot down?? )

Do airplanes really glide through steel/concrete buildings like they glide through the air?

See here for the commonsense solution:

http://www.911researchers.com/node/98

Doesn't matter CB...all that needs to get discussed is what DIDN'T happen: the official story. Bye!

...but the planes DIDN'T glide through the buildings like they would through air. In fact, they exploded quite dramatically, and did not appear gliding out the other side...

I think they were military planes. Alot of eye witnesses said the airplanes had army logos on them and no windows and were black. Thats the description of a military plane :ph43r:

I've tried that, it doesn't help.

i think remote control is a good option. Because for a real pilot it would just be
to much G. even for a Professional.

But on the other side a Professional or a Remote controled plain wouldn't have
made such a curve like the secound plain. A professional would have flew directly into the towers and focused it better.

Well, they don't leave holes in the air, nor spontaneously explode.

I like the bird vs. cessna pic, that is quite a bit of damage. Reminds me of the joke about testing a jet engine to make sure it handle a bird by firing chickens at it : "but you told me a chicken, how would I know it shouldn't be frozen?" Perhaps we have a new theory - an errant flock of gigantic genetically-engineered Canadian geese (GGECG), raised from a young age to follow a lightweight plane, all carrying little bombs and flying in formation to match the shape of a jetliner...

I'm think the problem with the NPP or NBB or GGECG or whatever it is, is that you get into the same problem as the "pancake" theory or the "debris" or the "diesel fuel tank" or "trusses", i.e. rather than providing a neat solution, you are providing an even more far fetched solution, with it's own set of even more complicated questions, i.e. if the images were faked (according to your site) what caused the oscillation or swaying of the building - then you need some MIT expert to propose some amazing theory, or point to definitive studies like the 911 commission as your source.

So, while not to say there are some interesting points, I'll agree with Jim Hoffman that these are dead-end theories, and, whether intentional or not (Reynolds seems earnest enough, despite being an ex-Bush administration economist), these are red herrings.