Why they didn't use planes

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby hoi.polloi on November 23rd, 2011, 5:45 am

lux wrote:Trouble is anyone who has watched TV has "seen a plane," including those who were there. Television has been shown to provide false memories.

Questionnaires would have to be carefully worded (I worked in market research).

I would also add a question asking if at any time it seemed that the news footage or photographs they saw did not match what they actually saw that day and, if so, ask for details.


Maybe you could help us word one. Here is how I might start it:

Intro: I want to compare TV's opinion of the events of 9/11 with actual witness testimony ...

1. Can I ask you where you were on 9/11? (not "how you found out" because that could turn into a long boring story about running to find a television.)

or maybe like "Where were you when 9/11 happened?"

2. Were you able to see anything with your own eyes that corroborated the television pictures?

3. If yes: did you see something with your own eyes BEFORE you began to hear official television reports - or AFTER?

4. If yes part II: close your eyes and go back in time. Compare your memory of events and the first questions you had. How was what you asked informed? What was the first question you got answered and how did it get answered?

5. Go through all the questions in your mind if you can remember them and try to remember how those questions were answered and by whom.

etc.

I have to be careful, though, because I can already see where people will run off with their rehearsed story of 9/11 that they've already told their family and friends a million times. The trick is to get people to revisit it and rethink it. The news will tell people "remember your 9/11 story" but that doesn't necessarily hurt our chances of getting people to open up about the questions they have.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Heiwa on November 23rd, 2011, 2:05 pm

One reason why they (the perps) didn't use planes is that a plane colliding with a top of a skyscraper will never completely destroy the said skyscraper. It is very easy to explain. Say that the skyscraper consists of a top C and four parts from bottom A4, A3, A2 and A1 as shown left in figure below:
Image
Source: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ABWTC.jpg
A4 carries A3, A2, A1 and C, so A4 is quite strong. A3 carries A2, A1 and C, A2 carries A1 and C and A1 carries C. C carries the mast.
The perps suggest that a plane damages interface C and A1 and that, later, due fire in that interface, top C drops down and crushes A1 into rubble B by gravity, as shown in second row above. That is the first POUFF! After that C and rubble B crush A2 into more rubble B by gravity, second POUFF, and that rubble B and top C crush A3 into more rubble B, third POUFF, and finally A4 is crushed into rubble B, fourth POUFF. Bottom parts A1, A2, A3 and A4 has become rubble B but it is not over yet. Finally the rubble B crushes up top C into rubble B, fifth POUFF, and there is only rubble B (+ mast) left on GROUND ZERO!
Evidently the above POUFFs cannot ever happen in reality to any skyscraper, tower or structure but the perps were clever (or thought they were). They convinced a professor Z Bazant of Northwestern University, Evanstown, Chicago, to publish next day a scientific paper in ASCE:s Journal of Engineering Mechanics explaining that any skyscraper or structure always collapses from top down due fire/failure up top. ASCE is the American Society of Civil Engineers and evidently the perps had asked them for advice how to carry out the 911 show. And the answer was: Let ASCE member Bazant publish a scientific paper next day and that will shut up everybody. And due that you do not need planes! Just CGI + ‘live on TV show’.
The above shows how powerful the perps were and are! They convinced ASCE to assist in and support the terrorists of the show and ASCE did as ordered, i.e. convinced member professor Z Bazant to support terrorism. Who is this Bazant. An ex-nazi, or mafioso or similar hiding at Chicago? I asked FBI and they didn't have a clue! :(
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby hoi.polloi on November 23rd, 2011, 5:22 pm

Bazant looks like he was purposely blurred and compressed poorly.

Image
http://www.iti.northwestern.edu/about/p ... azant.html

Image
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/

Image
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/peopl ... azant.html

Image
http://www.ctbuh.org/Events/Calendar/20 ... 002_KahnBažant/tabid/1153/language/en-GB/Default.aspx
2010 Khan Lecture Series at Lehigh University

Wasn't Khan a name that comes up in a list of lawyers going to collect "compensation" at New York courthouses in lieu of any actual (non-existent) victims families going to claim? Just wondering if there is a connection somehow. It's a pretty common last name, though.

Image
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/news/ ... ntACI.html

Image
http://hl.mccormick.northwestern.edu/ne ... 9news.html

In this picture, Bazant appears the most fake of the four. If he's not fake, why is this happening to his pictures?

Image
http://mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/archives/300

Largest images are LARGE: http://www.pnas.org/content/101/37/13397/F1.large.jpg
3 light sources in right eye, 2 light sources in left; bizarre connection of nose/glasses/bridge; generally awful light ... ?
Image

A most elaborately "aged" looking one: http://www.pnas.org/content/101/37/13397/F2.large.jpg
Image

They have the metadata inside: Handmade Software, Inc. Image Alchemy v1.12
Alchemy was used for processing the images for the Sony Playstation version of X-Files as well as being used by the New York Times, as boasted on their own small site (last updated 2005), which also boasts the following clients:
AT&T
Autodesk
Boeing
Borland
Canon
Compaq
Digital
DOW
Kodak
Exxon
Federal Bureau of Investigation
General Electric
Grolier
Hewlett Packard
Hitachi
IBM
Intel
Lawrence Livermore Naltional Lab
Lockheed
M.I.T.
Microsoft
Mobil
Monsanto
Motorola
NCR
Novell
Philips
Ricoh
S.A.I.C.
Sandia National Laboratories
Sega
Shell Oil
Siemens Nixdorf
Smithsonian Institution
Texas A&M University
Texaco, Inc.
TRW
U.S. Army
Unocal Corp.
U.S. Geological Survey
Wang Labs
Westinghouse
Xerox Corp.

And of course with all these clients, they are still a humble little operation.

This page with a small portrait of him includes a bunch of vicsim-looking characters. Look carefully at their details, their most cartoonish features, and their expressions.
http://www.matsci.northwestern.edu/faculty.html

Heiwa, you sound like the most qualified to e-mail him (politely) and request more information about the circumstances of his WTC paper.

TECH 2145 Sheridan Rd #A135, +1 847 491 4025, z-bazant@northwestern.edu

Shall we see what they reply with?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby lux on November 23rd, 2011, 6:15 pm

Image

More inconsistent and phony-looking flash shadows. :rolleyes:
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby hoi.polloi on November 23rd, 2011, 6:27 pm

Bažant also means "pheasant" or "rookie" ... :P
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Heiwa on November 23rd, 2011, 6:42 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Heiwa, you sound like the most qualified to e-mail him (politely) and request more information about the circumstances of his WTC paper.


I tried for many years but he never replied, so I managed to get a Discussion paper published in JEM http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm . :rolleyes:
Publishing was delayed for many months as Bazant refused to comment in a Closure but finally he did: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgbclose.htm . :huh:
As you can see I consider the closure ... stupid! :P
What else can one do?
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby simonshack on November 23rd, 2011, 8:45 pm

*

If you ask me, I have never seen (in my entire lifetime - for what that's worth...) bright yellow/orange shadows in any other (alleged) photographs but the following - all connected to 9/11:

Image

Image

...and then now, in this image of Mr. Bazant and friends:
Image

I would welcome anyone else familiar/experienced with photographic lighting issues to debate this (I'll be happy to listen and learn) - as I have not been able to find any discussion about this particular phenomena - nor any sample of such an occurence - anywhere.

Oh, well - I found this cat - but it's hardly a photograph, is it? :P
Image
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6512
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby whatsgoingon on November 23rd, 2011, 10:57 pm

,
Last edited by whatsgoingon on May 24th, 2013, 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 577
Joined: October 13th, 2011, 8:56 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby nonhocapito on November 23rd, 2011, 11:28 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Maybe you could help us word one. Here is how I might start it:

Intro: I want to compare TV's opinion of the events of 9/11 with actual witness testimony ...

1. Can I ask you where you were on 9/11? (not "how you found out" because that could turn into a long boring story about running to find a television.)

or maybe like "Where were you when 9/11 happened?"

2. Were you able to see anything with your own eyes that corroborated the television pictures?

3. If yes: did you see something with your own eyes BEFORE you began to hear official television reports - or AFTER?

4. If yes part II: close your eyes and go back in time. Compare your memory of events and the first questions you had. How was what you asked informed? What was the first question you got answered and how did it get answered?

5. Go through all the questions in your mind if you can remember them and try to remember how those questions were answered and by whom.


A questionnaire should also be "fun" for the person responding to it. Otherwise why should they respond in the first place? I would reduce the questionnaire to one question: which is the oddest thing you remember about that day? Is there one thing about that day that still today seems strange to you?

I bet this way we would collect a few jewels mixed with a lot of crap... :P
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby lux on November 24th, 2011, 1:48 am

hoi.polloi wrote:
lux wrote:Trouble is anyone who has watched TV has "seen a plane," including those who were there. Television has been shown to provide false memories.

Questionnaires would have to be carefully worded (I worked in market research).

I would also add a question asking if at any time it seemed that the news footage or photographs they saw did not match what they actually saw that day and, if so, ask for details.


Maybe you could help us word one. Here is how I might start it:

Intro: I want to compare TV's opinion of the events of 9/11 with actual witness testimony ...

1. Can I ask you where you were on 9/11? (not "how you found out" because that could turn into a long boring story about running to find a television.)

or maybe like "Where were you when 9/11 happened?"

2. Were you able to see anything with your own eyes that corroborated the television pictures?

3. If yes: did you see something with your own eyes BEFORE you began to hear official television reports - or AFTER?

4. If yes part II: close your eyes and go back in time. Compare your memory of events and the first questions you had. How was what you asked informed? What was the first question you got answered and how did it get answered?

5. Go through all the questions in your mind if you can remember them and try to remember how those questions were answered and by whom.

etc.

I have to be careful, though, because I can already see where people will run off with their rehearsed story of 9/11 that they've already told their family and friends a million times. The trick is to get people to revisit it and rethink it. The news will tell people "remember your 9/11 story" but that doesn't necessarily hurt our chances of getting people to open up about the questions they have.



First you need to define who you want to interview. If you only want to talk to real eye witnesses of the actual events of 9/11 then that would be your first question. That's called a screener because it screens out the people you don't want to interview. Something like "Were you an eye witness to the actual events of 9/11?" might be your first screener Q. Otherwise you will waste time in talking to people who can't help you. Most will likely answer "no" to that first Q so you can end off right there and move on.

For those who say "yes" you might still need to screen out the ones who only imagined they were eye witnesses. For example, you might then ask for their location and what they were doing at that time. If they say something like, "I was in my apartment watching it on the TV news" then you would handle as above and end off as you know they are not really eye witnesses to anything.

Unless, of course, you do want to talk to imaginary eye witnesses. The above is only an example based on a target group of "true eye witnesses." It would all depend and start with your definition of your target group and you would design your screener Qs to eliminate anyone who wasn't in that target group.

Here is a pretty good summary of how to go about designing questionnaires:
http://www.surveysystem.com/sdesign.htm
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby hoi.polloi on November 24th, 2011, 5:58 am

Cool, thanks lux.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4988
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Heiwa on November 24th, 2011, 10:08 am

Image
Source: http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1ABC.jpg
Another illustration of 'progressive global collapse' from top to bottom of a tower structure according prof. Bazant and NIST and US terrorists in general is shown above. :rolleyes:
Top C of a skyscraper gets loose by, e.g. fake (CGI) plane causing local failures and fire just below it and weak top C then crushes down much stronger bottom A into rubble B and rubble B then crushes up top C into more rubble B. It cannot happen in reality and therefore any video or still photo of such event with smoke and debris added is as fake as a $3-bill. :P
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby SmokingGunII on November 24th, 2011, 10:35 am

Reel Deal. Why would a missile have been used? You say witnesses had to have seen something hit the 2nd tower to believe in the plane crashing, yet it would be almost impossible in my opinion to see a 14' (4.7m) long JASSM 158 missile travelling at 500+ mph, whether it was there or not, especially from across the water, either side of the tip of Manhattan.

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE - BOEING 767 V JASSM MISSILE

Image


The JASSM is the tiny spec under the Boeing. Would ANYONE truly see this travelling at 500mph+? No way. If people couldn't see a missile, what would be the point of using one?

No planes. No missiles. Explosions & plane shapes all controlled from inside the towers. No chance of fouling up.
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby nonhocapito on November 24th, 2011, 11:24 am

It is possible that a missile was used. But I think that an explosion is enough to create the illusion. There probably was a lot of explosive in the buildings synced with the TV program (which explains why the program had to be live). A few people saw the explosion, and later assumed they had missed the plane. If there is someone out there that keep saying his friends: "I haven't seen any plane. But I should have", everyone will assume that he just missed it and can't get over it.

But frankly I cannot imagine anyone that could be in that position of certainty enough to say: "I should have seen a plane".

The second tower to be hit was the southernmost. The plane had not to travel above Manhattan to reach it. Considering that lower Manhattan was already evacuated and thus without witnesses of sorts, the chances to be in a position where the plane had to be spotted were greatly reduced. From far away, like Jersey, it doesn't count, because people cannot be 100% sure they should have seen a plane from all the way over there.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby reel.deal on November 24th, 2011, 11:58 am

smoke, you're probably right, dead on. no plane/no misssile/no anything... i just have a hard time perceiving
no-one thought anything of it. i would think at least 1 'boy who shouted The Emporer wears No Clothes!'
would have made it onto local radio or public access NY cableTV live chat, to say 'NO PLANE; but no; nothing.
or at least, if anyone did, it never got recorded & uploaded to youtube, or anywhere, far as i know.
yes i know, that doesnt mean anything, & media pull the plug instant on any OCT dissent, but still...

what you say makes sense, but visibility 10 miles you would still see 'something', even at '500 mph',
in the clear blue cloudless sky, even just a brief glint off the sun, if a plane, or missile,
was there - 'something' ! we all are assuming a small JASSM, because of the similar silhouette,
but there could have been a much larger version, for the 2nd hit event, & maybe no payload.

or perhaps there was another '2nd hit' 'fly-by', 'Pentagon-style', to create enough confusion...
i dont know, i'm just trying to envisage how it could be pulled off. Movies recreate spectacular
SFX disasters all day long, so no-one that witnessed the '2nd hit' - 'for real' expects to see -
'anything' ?!? & think nothing of it ? oh, i must have missed it ? even though they all staring
right at the smoking towers already & our periphery vision is almost 180 ?!? and... 'nothing' ?

i would like to think you have the answer, but something with no missile/no nothing still just
dont feel right, to me. even if you right, i'm still not convinced. theres gotta be other
possibilities & scenarios no-one yet covered, so maybe something a bit more 'out the box'?

They really relied, risked & expected taking the entire watching NYC area for 100% blind fools ?
:huh:
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

PreviousNext

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests