No planes were used on 9/11

Pro continues to claim that the you tube links are undeniable proof. He insists on debating with videos. For every video he finds supporting the "no-planes" theory I can find one that debunks it. http://www.youtube.com... 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. There have been two no-plane hypotheses put forward: 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). The no-planers have labeled this scenario "TV Fakery." The second argument holds that the planes (at least the second plane) was in fact a hologram generated by classified technology. This hypothesis has since been abandoned. The proponents argue that anomalies in the visual record indicate the fraudulent nature of the computer generated second plane and show that the plane in the Naudet video of the first hit was not the size or shape of a 767. The over-arching weakness of the TV fakery argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one unmodified image posted to the web would have exposed the operation. New York is a media capital of the world, with national networks, local network affiliates and independent TV stations, international media bureaus, and many independent video companies like the kinds I've worked for, and professional photographers. Professionals would have been rushing out to document whatever they could, through professional pride or the hope for making a buck off it. Evan Fairbanks and war photographer James Nachtway are some examples. And then there are also cameras in the possession of ordinary citizens and the thousands of New York's ever-present tourists. In addition, one should consider the possibility of foreign intelligence assets acquiring their own images of the attack (which so many knew was coming) which could be used for blackmail. What we have of images of flight 175 from 9/11 is exactly what we would expect: a great variety of still and moving images from a variety of angles from near and far and from mainstream media down to amateurs. There are absolutely no images of missiles or small planes. So, were these photographers and videographers all agents? There has been no research into their backgrounds. If they weren't, then what was the chain of custody of the tape before being aired? Was the allegedly modified footage the original or a duplicate of the original (as one would expect) supplied by the videographer? Who now has the original? If the photographer has the original, then are we to believe he or she does not care that their image showed something different than was on TV? None of these questions are answered. The default explanation, and the only answer possible, is the bug-eyed assertion that somehow the perps of 9/11 controlled all the cameras in NY on 9/11. In reality, the perpetrators would have found out about each image that they didn't control only after the image appeared on the web or in the media. And then it would have been too late to alter the image. The TV fakery hypothesis, therefore, is utterly absurd. Do Anomalies Constitute Proof of No-767 Hypotheses? The possibility that anomalies that defy easy explanation might exist in the visual record must be considered when analyzing the no-plane hypothesis. It may very well be that the explanation of some alleged anomalies might require a level of technical capacity far beyond any researchers in the 9/11 movement now dealing with this issue. For example, a professional 3D modeling of the plane's approach to the WTC with photo-realistic lighting combined with simulation of physics properties such as momentum or aerodynamics and using research into the exact location and lens type of the camera in question might be needed. But even if a confirmed anomaly in the visual record were someday found, it would not constitute proof that no 767s hit the towers: It would prove only that that particular video was faked, and the perpetrators of 9/11 could have distributed faked videos to encourage the no-plane hypothesis. Given that the perps couldn't have controlled all the cameras in New York on 9/11, and that absolutely no images showing something other than 767 impacts have surfaced, it is arguable that anomalous videos shouldn't even be considered compelling evidence, let alone proof, of no-767 claims. Conclusion: There are many solid pieces of visual evidence"video recordings and photos"that show 767's impacting the World Trade Center towers. If only one of these images is authentic, the entire no-plane hypothesis is invalidated. There are absolutely no images of anything else hitting the towers despite the attention the burning WTC1 tower was receiving from a city of millions. The attempts by the no-planers to create credibility for their hypothesis by citing purported anomalies in the visual record have been characterized by a high degree of technical incompetence and illogical thinking. Because an authentic visual anomaly would only prove that that particular image was faked, and would not prove that something besides 767s hit the towers, it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis