FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Why they wouldn't fly planes into the World Trade Center
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:15 pm    Post subject: Why they wouldn't fly planes into the World Trade Center Reply with quote

Quote:
Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC

For those who say:

"Why would the government fake crashing planes into the WTC towers and thereby also having to fake all the crash videos when it would be much easier for them to crash real planes into them?"



Here is why they didn't use real planes to crash into the WTC:



BELIEVABILITY



Most people who believe 9/11 was an inside job probably believe that the WTC 1, 2, and 7 were pulled (i.e. brought down by some kind of controlled demolition method) and therefore should also agree that the collapse of all three of these buildings was arguably the most important goal of the perps that day.


All seven buildings of the WTC lie in ruins.


The official reason why the Twin Towers collapsed and thereby causing the WTC 7 to collapse was that large aircraft (specifically Boeing 767's) loaded with lots of fuel crashed into the towers at high speeds and exploded causing extensive internal damage and then the resulting fire weakened the steel causing the top sections to collapse down thereby smashing the rest of the buildings to pieces and then debris from the falling North Tower pelted the WTC 7 causing massive structural damage and causing it to catch fire and collapse. Most people bought the official story obviously, so the official reason as to why the Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed was to most people believable.

A 767 allegedly crashing and causing this massive explosion in the South Tower.
North Tower collapsing partially on the WTC 7.


For 9/11 conspiracists who believe planes hit the towers, I would say that almost all of them believe these planes were flown by some kind of remote control or on-board computer guidance system and they either believe it was Flight 175 with all the passengers that was electronically hijacked similar to the Lone Gunmen 'Pilot' episode, or it was some kind of empty Boeing 767 drone painted in United Airlines colors.


So if crashing large aircraft loaded with fuel into the WTC was enough to make most people believe that planes crashing and fire caused the Twin Towers to collapse, what logic is there to argue no planes crashed there? It's actually quite simple.


Look at some of the WTC crash videos. Observe not just that we see a plane crashing into the Twin Towers, but how these planes crashed into the towers:


Supposedly Flight 11 crashing and penetrating all the way into the North Tower.

See all WTC crash videos here.


Supposedly Flight 175 crashing and penetrating all the way into the South Tower.

See all WTC crash videos here. Click pic to activate gif.


The videos show that these planes that hit the towers supposedly at 470mph (Flight 11/North Tower) and 590mph (Flight 175/South Tower) penetrated all the way into the buildings which gave the perception that these planes were able to cause enough internal damage to cause both towers to collapse because they penetrated all the way into the buildings and exploded.


With the following questions, you'll understand why the perps couldn't have used real planes to make the official collapse theory believable:


* What if any of the planes missed hitting the towers? Do you think the perps would have pulled both towers? What if the plane aiming for the North Tower missed, you think the perps would still have pulled the WTC 7?


* What if the planes hit, but they mostly blew up on the outside? Would most reasonable people believe that planes mostly blowing up on the outside would be able to cause the towers to collapse? Just think of how many people at first questioned how the towers could have collapsed even though they saw the planes in the videos crash and penetrate all the way into the buildings. Imagine if the planes didn't penetrate enough of the way through? As one person accurately puts it, it is this penetration that the official story rests on.


* What if the perps used two drone 767's and any of them missed their targets or didn't completely penetrate all the way through the towers and pieces of it landed outside on the ground thereby exposing it as a drone? Game over for the perps.


http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-they-didnt-use-planes-to-hit-wtc.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe that many of the videos appear to be fake due to anomalies in the footage. I believe that smaller aircraft were used. This is because the majority of initial eyewitnesses to the North Tower hit report a smaller aircraft. Eyewitnesses also report a smaller aircraft hitting the South Tower. Some said that it was not a commercial airplane. The eyewitnesses who reported a large plane are media people such as Sean Murtagh and former military people such as George Sleigh.

I know that many people don't think there is anything to NPT, and Fintan once questioned why they would fake a plane crash when they could just do it. Killtown's theory that they faked it to make it appear as if planes melted into the Towers completely is plausible, because it makes it seem more likely that the WTC would collapse.

Anyone have a comment on KT's take?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stallion4



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 692

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Anyone have a comment on KT's take?


Yeah, I do.

"KT's take" is pretty good...




























































































































































FOR ME TO POOP ON!!

_________________
"Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets." ~Travis Bickle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The distinction he makes (and I've worked with KT on the Flight 93 issue) is that the danger of "missing the towers" was too much of a gamble.

But indeed, the more difficult of the event that day - IMO - was the implosion of the towers. Planes had been flown into targets before, many times. But no one had EVER imploded two 100+ story buildings before. They couldn't possibly have known if the collapses would be at all believable visually, or if they would even commence and complete.

So... to argue that the risk of hitting the targets with planes was too great is a non-starter, when the tower implosions were even more unpredictable. If risk assessment is a key factor, then they wouldn't have attempted the whole op. IMO, the only approach that was totally avoided due to risk was the 'real hijacking' scenario - the LIHOP concept of "allowing" 4 simultaneous hijackings to go off without a hitch, the (mostly ex-military) pilots obeying and not fighting back, etc. There's a non-starter of the highest order, and what thereby eliminates the central pillar of the govt's official story. (This is also another purpose of the Flight 93 concoted melodrama - if given enough time and information, there would be a revolt and struggle.)

But planes into buildings? Not a problem. In fact, since we're sure the plane damage could not have been sufficient to initiate collapse, then the only danger would have been a complete miss of the structures. Even a glancing blow to the tower could have been sold as enough to bring them down, as did the glancing blow to Building 7, which is still being touted universally by the coincidence theorists as an easily believable 'fact'.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2459
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:23 pm    Post subject: Practice makes perfect Reply with quote

Not to forget their already practiced ability (the same old Bush-league) to control the site, control the info, control the speculation and control the "official" report ...... Dallas all over again.
_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
The distinction he makes (and I've worked with KT on the Flight 93 issue) is that the danger of "missing the towers" was too much of a gamble.

But indeed, the more difficult of the event that day - IMO - was the implosion of the towers. Planes had been flown into targets before, many times. But no one had EVER imploded two 100+ story buildings before. They couldn't possibly have known if the collapses would be at all believable visually, or if they would even commence and complete.

So... to argue that the risk of hitting the targets with planes was too great is a non-starter, when the tower implosions were even more unpredictable. If risk assessment is a key factor, then they wouldn't have attempted the whole op. IMO, the only approach that was totally avoided due to risk was the 'real hijacking' scenario - the LIHOP concept of "allowing" 4 simultaneous hijackings to go off without a hitch, the (mostly ex-military) pilots obeying and not fighting back, etc. There's a non-starter of the highest order, and what thereby eliminates the central pillar of the govt's official story. (This is also another purpose of the Flight 93 concoted melodrama - if given enough time and information, there would be a revolt and struggle.)

But planes into buildings? Not a problem. In fact, since we're sure the plane damage could not have been sufficient to initiate collapse, then the only danger would have been a complete miss of the structures. Even a glancing blow to the tower could have been sold as enough to bring them down, as did the glancing blow to Building 7, which is still being touted universally by the coincidence theorists as an easily believable 'fact'.


We have all figured out that a Boeing 767 crashing into one of the Towers would not have been enough to bring it down, and thus the cause of destruction must be something else, whether conventional or unconventional. Many of us say that we found it strange how the Towers collapsed after they had been hit on the upper floors.

Imagine how many people would have found it strange if it had not completely pierced through the steel building like a ghost? What if the wings or tail broke off, or the engines ignited upon impact, causing it to explode outside? To help make the collapses more believable, they could make it appear as if planes pierced through the walls of the World Trade Center, and even exited the other side in shape, followed with a massive display of pyrotechnics.

Now, it has been theorized here, by Fintan and some others, that Flight 175 was actually a drone, possibly rigged with explosive charges to act as matches to ignite the massive fuel explosion. What if parts broke off upon impact, and it crashed with resistance, as it should based on Newton's laws of motion? If parts fell to the ground, the plane could be exposed as a drone and the whole operation would be blown.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Manatee



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 77
Location: In Context

PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't believe what I just read in the original post.

It would be impossible, I think, to have the intelligence to get online and still believe that crap.

Not worth any more comment.

_________________
What shall we watch tonight?
Propaganda, social engineering, role modeling, conditioning, adrenalin markers, or desensitization?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Manatee



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 77
Location: In Context

PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hugh Manatee wrote:
I can't believe what I just read in the original post.

It would be impossible, I think, to have the intelligence to get online and still believe that crap.

Not worth any more comment.


My apologies. I see that I can't edit out a rude comment I shouldn't have made.

Correction: The original post article makes no sense.

When staging a coup to write history, the A-team of technology would be used today.

It was easy to guarantee that the jets would hit the Twin Towers (over 200 feet wide) using probably a combination of software-guidance, remote or otherwise, PLUS homing beacons in the Twin Towers.

Military GPS tech has a pretty high resolution, higher than commercial GPS.

Boeing specializes in just this technology and so do other MIC Pentagon contractors.

_________________
What shall we watch tonight?
Propaganda, social engineering, role modeling, conditioning, adrenalin markers, or desensitization?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Killtown



Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 65
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hugh Manatee wrote:
1. When staging a coup to write history, the A-team of technology would be used today.

2. It was easy to guarantee that the jets would hit the Twin Towers (over 200 feet wide) using probably a combination of software-guidance, remote or otherwise, PLUS homing beacons in the Twin Towers.

1. Yes and the latest technique in the military's arsenal was TV fakery.

2. The length of a 767's wings is 156 ft. Not a lot a room for error. And they had to do more than just guarantee both hit, but both also penetrated. How do you think they guaranteed that?

_________________
Homepage - 9/11 Index - killtown.blogspot.com - Flight 93 Photo Fraud
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Hugh Manatee



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 77
Location: In Context

PostPosted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Killtown wrote:
Hugh Manatee wrote:
1. When staging a coup to write history, the A-team of technology would be used today.

2. It was easy to guarantee that the jets would hit the Twin Towers (over 200 feet wide) using probably a combination of software-guidance, remote or otherwise, PLUS homing beacons in the Twin Towers.

1. Yes and the latest technique in the military's arsenal was TV fakery.


By the time the second plane hit, thousands of people on the ground were looking and saw it plus many filmed it. Impossible to fake that.

Many were firemen and other first-responders who said so in their oral histories I posted. Guess you didn't read that.

However, the 'Forrest Gump meets JFK' digital video fakery has been used for those so-called bin Laden messages where "he" is spouting liberal Democrat or anti-imperialist progressive talking points.
Quote:

2. The length of a 767's wings is 156 ft. Not a lot a room for error.


The body of a 767 is only about 15 feet wide. Tower = over 200 feet wide.
Plenty of room for error and one plane hit dead center while the other hit a corner.

Quote:
And they had to do more than just guarantee both hit, but both also penetrated. How do you think they guaranteed that?

By flying the planes at over 400 mph penetration was guaranteed.
Mass x Velocity = one helluva lotta energy.

The fuel was guaranteed to burn.
And it burned out fast, too.
And it was impossible with the fuel and time available to get temperatures that would create those huge pools of molten metal under WTC 1, 2, and 7.

_________________
What shall we watch tonight?
Propaganda, social engineering, role modeling, conditioning, adrenalin markers, or desensitization?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bottomline



Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's difficult to believe that some people would have the ability to comment on other's intelligence, and yet fail to see the possibility of their own blindness.

Hugh Manatee wrote:


By the time the second plane hit, thousands of people on the ground were looking and saw it plus many filmed it. Impossible to fake that.




How did you know what "these thousands" saw ? Did you personally interview these thousands, or did you just read about that in the news ?

"Many filmed it ". How many ? and why can't they be fake . Many would gladly sell you quality fake films & photos for wealth and fame.

There are just as many clues why something other than planes were used. You just don't want to look, perhaps too scared of the possibility of being wrong ?

Enough said.

Neutral
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hugh Manatee



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 77
Location: In Context

PostPosted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:10 pm    Post subject: Ask the firemen. Reply with quote

bottomline wrote:

......
How did you know what "these thousands" saw ? Did you personally interview these thousands, or did you just read about that in the news ?

Use logic. If thousands of people were watching the first tower burn and the second one just blew up, doncha think that lots would be saying "what second plane?"

When hundreds saw TWA800 shot down by a missile, the FBI tried to chill and suppress them but the word got out anyway.

Have you read the firemen's 507 oral histories yet? Many saw the second plane.

Quote:
"Many filmed it ". How many ? and why can't they be fake . Many would gladly sell you quality fake films & photos for wealth and fame.

There are just as many clues why something other than planes were used. You just don't want to look, perhaps too scared of the possibility of being wrong ?


I could look to see if purple people eaters from Mars did it, too.
But there is overwhelming witness testimony plus archival and physical evidence of planes.

There are over 8 million people in NYCity.
Thousands on the street watching after the first plane hit.
Atleast hundreds taking photos and making videos.
Scores of them have been online for ages.

>Witnesses, thousands.
>Video, scores atleast.
>Perfectly plane proportional crash holes in the buildings.
>Plane parts in the street.

"So you just assume there is a place called New York!
Many would gladly sell you quality fake films & photos for wealth and fame!"

NEXT!

Quote:
Enough said.


I'll say.

There is certainly use of faked visuals and the animatronic bin Laden tapes are a good example of 'Forrest Gump'-ism.
But note that is ONE video, not scores that all corroborate each other etc.

The controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings is proven by laws of physics, physical evidence, and witnesses again.

So the real question is:
What was guiding those planes? Humans? Or software? Onboard or remote?

Because since the buildings were rigged to blow for the grand history-changing finale, it was absolutely necessary to guarantee that the planes would hit the Twin Towers and provide the cover story.

So the only thing that would guarantee those planes hitting those towers is tech, not human control.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth have declared that it would be extremely difficult to manually steer into those towers at those speeds plus so many things happened in all four planes that ranged from extremely unlikely-to-impossible...that "hijackings" don't seem statistically possible and there must've been a tech over-ride of human control.

Which is entirely possible.

That's what I want to know. How the planes were controlled, not if they were there.

_________________
What shall we watch tonight?
Propaganda, social engineering, role modeling, conditioning, adrenalin markers, or desensitization?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps General Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 1 of 20

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.