Print Contact Articles by Subject 9-11 Archive 2011 Lawson Video on "No Planes" Theory

Lawson Video on "No Planes" Theory

Updated August 5, 2011

Anthony Lawson has made another excellent new video entitled "The Absurdity of the No Planes in New York Theory" in which he challenges the "No Planes" theory promoted by James Fetzer and others.  Lawson also wrote an article, titled "9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New York Theory" that supports his video.

There is one point in the latest Lawson video where I am not in complete agreement.  After exchanging emails with Mr. Lawson, I have decided to clarify my position on this point. 

The photographs and videos clearly show two very fast moving objects flying out of the South Tower ahead of the explosion.  Lawson identifies one of these as the engine that was found on Murray Street.  I agree with him on that, but I do not think this engine is from the aircraft, but is rather part of a depleted uranium missile that was fired into the tower just before the plane made impact.  I think both objects seen flying out of the South Tower are parts of this missile.  The object that is burning white hot is probably the remaining depleted uranium warhead leaving a dark trail of uranium oxides.  The gap between the extremely hot burning uranium warhead and the visible oxides could be due to the fact that the oxides need to cool before they are visible. 

The two fast-moving objects that came out of the South Tower had incredible momentum.

The right engine of the aircraft (about 9 feet in diameter) would have broken through at least three 14-inch exterior box columns on entry, which would have robbed it of most of its forward momentum.  The aircraft engine would not have had enough momentum to pass through the building, break through more box columns on the far side of the tower, and carry on for a few hundred meters down the street.  This is as far-fetched as Arlen Specter's "Magic Bullet" of the JFK assassination.

This NIST diagram shows the right engine hitting the spandrel of the 82nd floor, which means that the engine that is thought to have flown through the tower would have first broken through the spandrel and three 14-inch box columns, the 4-inch concrete floor, its steel pan, and dense trusswork - edgewise.  It is simply impossible for the right engine to have passed through all these solid obstacles, broken through the box columns on the far side, and carried on for several hundred meters further down the street.  This engine would not have passed through the tower.  Source: NIST Report on the World Trade Center

I have written an analysis of these two objects in an article from April 2011 entitled "The 'Huge Bullet Hole' in the South Tower and Analysis of Missile Evidence".  The object that is burning white hot has the characteristics of a burning depleted uranium warhead.  While one of these two objects is probably the engine that landed on Murray Street, I do not think it is the one that is burning white hot.  The engine that landed on the street has not been identified and is probably part of the missile that carried the depleted uranium warhead. 

Two objects came out of the South Tower ahead of the explosions.  Note the gap between the burning object and the dark oxides it produces.

The FEMA report says that one is an engine and the other is "landing gear".  Landing gear would not burn white hot.  If this landing gear landed on the Burlington Coat Factory, why was it not shown in any photographs?

This engine, "the bullet from the smoking gun" that killed hundreds of people on 9/11, was never identified and was treated as garbage.  Judging by the sign and the square placed on top of it, this part of the engine is only about two feet (60 cm) wide.  Why was this engine not identified by its time-tracked parts if it truly came from the airliner that is said to have hit the South Tower?  My opinion is that this is part of the missile that penetrated the tower immediately before the aircraft made impact.

Anthony Lawson's new video can be viewed here: 

Video Link -

Sources and Recommended Reading:

Bollyn, Christopher, "The 'Huge Bullet Hole' in the South Tower and Analysis of Missile Evidence", April 2011

Lawson, Anthony, "9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New York Theory", 1 August 2011, 

©2021 Christopher Bollyn | Sitemap | christopher at bollyn dot com