Seemingly right on cue, just in time for the 9/11 anniversary, former Bush administration member and fellow Texan Morgan Reynolds discusses the "no planes theory" on Fox News:
http://www.total911.info/2006/09/dr-rey ... ry-on.html
And now ... I'm going to veer off into what some may possibly deem as "kook-ville" and say - I think he may be onto something.
(Heavy emphasis on MAY)
He does not allege no planes in the interview but instead NO BOEINGS and also emphasizes that the most revealing videos of the second impact are all non-live RECORDINGS.
Some of these recordings do seem a bit odd (planes with missing wings as seen in "9/11 Eyewitness")
In addition to Mark Birnbach of Fox claiming that UA 175 had no windows, I have in my possession a recording of one other on the scene NYC government employee describing a military style plane hitting WTC 2, (don't worry, I'll reveal it soon enough) as well as having seen another recently released recording of an eyewitness located 500 yards from the WTC who also describes UA 175 as a "military plane".
3 witnesses to date who describe a military or non passenger aircraft.
It is a fact that NONE of the aircraft debris from 9/11 has EVER been formally identified via serial number identification per NTSB methods.
It is also a know fact that the alleged hijacker pilots on 9/11 simply could not fly even basic aircraft.
And finally, Operation Northwoods cited the utilization of remotely controlled drone aircraft in a project that is nearly 50 years old.
One can't rule out that the small handful of recordings of the impact WTC 2 may either have been altered after the fact or provided "pre-doctored" by individuals part of a larger ... ahem - "conspiracy"
(I hate that word)
"No planes" is one thing.
But "no Boeings" is something I have always deemed a compelling possibility.
Time will tell.
In my mind, I'm 100% sure they were Boeings. I'm convinced that Boeing was in on it, and helped set up the drones.
They may have been non-commercial (maybe that's what you mean?) but they were definitely Boeing. Why use another manufacturer when Boeing is by far the most logical choice and has deep ties with the military?