Nearly all of the best writers and investigators are in agreement that no plane was a hoax -- and a number of good analysts who formerly believed this now realize it was not true.

It would be an oversimplification to judge "9/11 truth" advocates for or against this theory by their support for other claims regarding 9/11. But looking at other issues, good and bad, surrounding 9/11 truth activism does reveal patterns.

If you look at those who don't buy the "no plane" claims, it is generally those who are personally familiar with the geography of the DC area, understand Peak Oil was a motivation, focus on the war games, and have shown an ability to engage in critical thinking to differentiate real research from crap research. There are some sincere people who talk about war games and still believe "no plane," but those folks are generally not familiar with the geography of Arlington, and they absolutely do not talk about the 90 foot wide impact hole (caused by the engines and the bulky parts of the wings), the fact that hundreds of people saw the plane, or the motivation to keep the 9/11 skeptics divided and discredited.

Those most familiar with the geography of Arlington County can see through the nonsense that the eyewitnesses should be ignored (even as most of those who make this claim simultaneously argue that we should consider alleged eyewitness testimonies that the Twin Towers were supposedly demolished). It's those unfamiliar with the geography who are still pushing this claim the hardest.

If you look at who is peddling the "no plane" hoax the hardest, it is generally those who are also pushing the most absurd claims -- missiles hit the WTC, the Moon Landings were faked, and Holocaust denial.

Who does and does not support "no plane" is not proof of what happened in Arlington County on 9/11, but it does show an interesting pattern -- those who stress the most credible evidence tend to shy away from the "no plane" claim...