>I reserve judgement on the "no planes" theory but will not discount it. Normies cannot do this.
It's the only one that really makes sense.
Why rig the buildings with explosives or whatever when you are using real ones?
There are experts regarding controlled demolitions.
Are there experts that fly planes into buildings?
What happens if something goes wrong?
Can a plane fly at such high speeds at such a low altitude?
What happens to a plane when it can not handle the speed?
Who would fly the planes? Even glowniggers aren't stupid enough to do a suicide mission.
Remote control? What happens if anything goes wrong?
9/11 had to happen on exactly that day.
Secret societies.
"He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high — a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping"
What's the risk of such an operation vs. the risk of the fake news simply faking it?
Why were there actors at the ground of 9/11?
Mark Walsh spoiling the plot.
And finally when you watch the live footage, you see that there were quite a few people there that said "no planes, bombs". That explains the reason for the actors.
That's also why most truther movements (controlled) reject no planes, calling it crazy. Because it's the one where the fake news is destroyed forever, with no coming back. It's game over.
Of course the problem is that the common public will not believe it, and that's what also makes no planes credible. The best protection is when your actual plan sounds completely ridiculous to the average person, plus you can lock people in and call them crazy when they say so.