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 Equinox on September 15th, 2011, 8:12 am

simonshack wrote:
To use novel and untested technology to bring down the WTC complex would have been a definite no-no: an absolutely foolish and unnecessary extra risk - the kind of which no military-managed operation will ever go with.




for sure, the satellite could have gone down, I'm sure it was just basic demo explosives they sequenced, for a ground up explosion.. I wonder why anyone even bothers with how the towers were brought down. the collapse footage is cgi... no real footage exists. none of us were there. The place was evacuated.

WHO KNOWS WHAT WAS USED??? probably only the perps...

as far as we know it could have been a deathstar job....
Image
Image
:P :lol:
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Heiwa on September 15th, 2011, 10:09 am

simonshack wrote: To use novel and untested technology to bring down the WTC complex would have been a definite no-no: an absolutely foolish and unnecessary extra risk - the kind of which no military-managed operation will ever go with.

In fact, both Judy Wood and Dimitri Khalezov are nothing but last-ditch attempts to 'salvage' whatever credibility is left of the totally unrealistic 9/11 imagery.


The alleged hi-jackings are very Hollywood as they include innocent by-standers/passengers, etc, etc., that can call their mothers and wifes and kiss them goodbye, etc, etc. Real suicide terrorists evidently charter the planes quietly (no passengers will interfer!) and load them with explosives on ground (at remote airport) and then fly them into the targets!! However, if the target is a skyscraper do not go for the lightweight, weak top as only way to destroy a skyscraper is from strong bottom up, i.e. you have to hit low.
Hi-jacking planes, going through airport security, threatening/killing pilots and crews – no real terrorist is stupid enough to do THAT. It only happens in Hollywood.

This poor clown KSM that has told CIA at Guantanamo, after due treatment!, that he, KSM, invented and carried out the 911 plot (on behalf of UBL/AQ), i.e. KSM recruted and trained and payed 19 arabs, etc, etc, is thus just that - a poor clown. I am amazed that clever CIA people cannot understand that.
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Dcopymope on September 15th, 2011, 11:16 am

fred wrote:
simonshack wrote:To use novel and untested technology to bring down the WTC complex would have been a definite no-no: an absolutely foolish and unnecessary extra risk - the kind of which no military-managed operation will ever go with.


Simon, I agree with everything in your reply to Kentrailer, especially your assessments of using the shills to boost the credibility of the fake imagery.

However I think Kentrailer does has a valid point, and so I have a minor quibble with you: Why do you assume or believe that Directed Energy Weapons are novel or untested? They've been working on this stuff for a lot longer than you or I have been on this planet. Tesla is quoted in many articles from 1935 saying he could bring down the Empire State Building with a small portable device. [And the ESB actually survived a real military plane crash, unlike the flimsy made-for-TV WTC complex.]

Your DVD player uses a laser and your kitchen oven probably contains a microwave. Do you honestly believe that there are no destructive military applications for this very useful technology that somehow found its way into your cheap consumer devices like CD players decades ago? This stuff would have been novel and untested 100 years ago. Now it's in kitchen appliances.

Raytheon and Boeing have only had maybe the last 70 years before 9/11 to figure out how to blow something up with it. Then there are the non-consumer technologies which weapons scientists and engineers have been working on for generations. Most of Tesla's notebooks are still classified today. The USA imported a bunch of Nazi scientists from Germany after WWII. The Israeli's are known to have a pretty good grasp of weapons technology. Have you been attending every secret weapons test for the last 100 years to conclude that they're still stuck with technology invented by Alfred Nobel? This stuff has been around a lot longer than we have. I think somebody has figured out how to make it work by 2001.

c.f.

Image


New York World-Telegram
11 July 1935

NIKOLA TESLA, AT 79, USES EARTH TO TRANSMIT SIGNALS: EXPECTS TO HAVE $100,000,000 WITHIN TWO YEARS

Could Destroy Empire State Building with Five Pounds of Air Pressure, He Says


by

Earl Sparling

1. He had discovered the so-called cosmic ray in 1896, at least five years before any other scientist took it up and twenty years before it became popular among scientists, and he is now convinced that many of the cosmic particles travel fifty times faster than light, some of them 500 times faster.

Needs No Commutator

2. He has found a way to produce a direct electric current by induction and without the use of a commutator, which is something the experts in electricity have considered impossible for the past hundred years.

3. He has invented an "absolutely impossible" machine which will impart vibrations to the earth which, with proper receiving apparatus can be picked up anywhere on the earth's surface, and that this mysterious machine will allow scientists to explore the deep interior of the earth, will enable practical geologists to discover gold, coal and petroleum, and at the same time will give ships the means of navigating without compass or sextant.

Dr. Tesla has 600 to 700 patents to his name. He invented the rotary field motor, and is admittedly the seer and father of all modern electrical development. As has been his custom for five years now, he arranged his own birthday party, drank only hot milk as his part of the celebration, and made his announcements with the superb certainty of a man who knew what he was talking about, even if none of his guests did.

Tells of "Quake"

He said, among other things, that he expects to have $100,000,000 within two years, and he revealed that an earthquake which drew police and ambulances to the region of his laboratory at 48 E. Houston St. in 188.7 or 1888 was the result of a little machine he was experimenting with at that time which "you could put in your overcoat pocket."

The bewildered newspapermen pounced upon this as at least one thing they could understand and "the father of modern electricity" told what had happened as follows: -

"I was experimenting with vibrations. I had one of my machines going and I wanted to see if I could get it in tune with the vibration of the building. I put it up notch after notch. There was a peculiar cracking sound.

"I asked my assistants where did the sound come from. They did not know. I put the machine up a few more notches. There was a louder cracking sound. I knew I was approaching the vibration of the steel building. I pushed the machine a little higher.

"Suddenly all the heavy machinery in the place was flying around. I grabbed a hammer and broke the machine. The building would have been down about our ears in another few minutes. Outside in the street there was pandemonium. The police and ambulances arrived. I told my assistants to say nothing. We told the police it must have been an earthquake. That's all they ever knew about it."

Watch Out, Mr. Smith

Some shrewd reporter asked Dr. Tesla at this point what he would need to destroy the Empire State Building and the doctor replied: - "Five pounds of air pressure. If I attached the proper oscillating machine on a girder that is all the force I would need, five pounds. Vibration will do anything.- It would only be necessary to step up the vibrations of the machine to fit the natural vibration of the building and the building would come crashing down. That's why soldiers always break step crossing a bridge."

His early experiments in vibration, he explained, led to his invention of his "earth vibrating" machine. Tall and thin and ascetic face, his eyes sunken but … humorous under protruding brows, he was cagey about describing what his new machine is, although he believes it will be "the chief thing of my many inventions posterity will thank me for." …

----

New York Times ( 11 July 1935, p. 23, c. 8 )

His Greatest Achievement

one of the subjects, which he hoped, he said, will come to be recognized as his "greatest achievement in the field of engineering," was, he said, the perfection by him of "an apparatus by which mechanical energy can be transmitted to any part of the terrestrial globe."

This apparatus, he said, will have at least four practical possibilities. It will give the world a new means of unfailing communication; it will provide a new and by far the safest means for guiding ships at sea and into port; it will furnish a certain divining rod for locating ore deposits of any kind under the surface of the earth; and finally, it will furnish scientists with a means for laying bare the physical conditions of the earth, and will enable them to determine all of the earth's physical constants.
He called this discovery "tele-geodynamics," motion of earth-forces at a distance. It is of this, he said, that it would "appear almost preposterous." The apparatus, he added, is "ideally simple," consisting of a stationary part and a cylinder of fine steel "floating" in air.

He has found means, he said, of "impressing upon the floating part powerful impulses which react on the stationary part, and through the latter to transmit energy through the earth." To do this he has "found a new amplifier for a known type of energy," and the "purpose is to produce impulses through the earth and then pick them up whenever needed."

----

Novel and Untested since 1917?

Image


We already had this debate before about Nikola Tesla and his inventions in the thread about the Japanese Earthquake. You won't get a satisfying answer, if any answer at all out of those who seemingly still think we are living in the 1950's or something. It’s easy to be a skeptic on something that you can easily claim plausible deniability for, that's why most of the real military tech is secret.
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby simonshack on September 15th, 2011, 1:02 pm

fred wrote:
Simon, I agree with everything in your reply to Kentrailer, especially your assessments of using the shills to boost the credibility of the fake imagery.

However I think Kentrailer does has a valid point, and so I have a minor quibble with you: Why do you assume or believe that Directed Energy Weapons are novel or untested?


Dear fred,

Please excuse me for answering to this question in a way that may sound curt and offish - but I hope it will, for what it's worth to anyone, help clarify my personal stance in relation to this particular issue:

If I'd be asked to make a list of questions that 9/11 raises - in order of relevance &importance - I would personally place the question of "what sort of destructive forces brought down the WTC complex?" at the very bottom of that list.

Of course, it is in the nature of curious/inquiring people like us to strive towards providing answers to each and every possible piece of the Great Puzzle. However, I fail to see why we should even debate exactly how the WTC was demolished: with no visual or forensic evidence whatsoever available to us (other than some 'nanothermite traces' advertised by highly dubious sources) this discussion is nothing but a circular, intellectual exercise of marginal relevance to our investigation. Supposing that we should, miraculously, bump into some solid proof that DEW was employed - would that even be of any probatory relevance? Would it help reinforce our case (and the vast body of evidence already put together) in one way or the other?

*************************

As for Dandy's weird idea that real planes were used, I will only say that I find it quite distressing that anyone familiar with this longstanding research should still nurture such a senseless belief.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby brianv on September 15th, 2011, 2:14 pm

It makes complete sense to me that that the towers were gutted, the outer walls, being load bearing, could stand on their own without internal suppoprt. I doubt if anyone can disprove that a bunch of guys with oxy-acetylene torches and a few cranes brought down the remaining exo-skeleton. And not meaning to takes sides, I'm also of the opinion that it's of little or no importance as to 'how' [what was left of] the towers were brought down.

Now if the towers were intact, it would certainly take some destructive force to pulverise them both to dust, ACME Demolition would not be the first number dialled. Even the wizards of Holy Wood have a 20 mile wide alien spacecraft doing this task on film. Whether or not it's even possible with any available technology to turn 2 upright steel and concrete cities to dust, is an open debate! DEW plays into the hands of the perps IMO. The Death Ray is a bit too Emperor Ming for me and I tend to avoid such debates!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby fred on September 15th, 2011, 4:40 pm

I agree with Simon and BrianV that the topic is kind of a "poison pill" in the sense that we don't have solid evidence to work from and that the answer doesn't really matter all that much. Obviously looking at fake images and video isn't going to tell us what was actually used, and we don't have access to the physical evidence from the scene, etc.

So without a lot of evidence, we're not going to find out exactly what they used. I agree. Which I think is Equinox's point also.

My point is simply that it defies common sense to suggest that the Military doesn't have something a little bit more sophisticated than the first company in the phone book listed under "Construction and Demolition".

If you go to the Air Force guys in 2001 and say, "Hey, I need to bring down seven skyscrapers in a single day, preferably minutes apart, and I don't want to use a lot of people, what are my options?" I doubt they're going to say, "Well, Boss, you could use World War One technology, or World War Two technology, and we have some leftover Vietnam technology that we could give you as well." Right? That's not what they're going to say. "You know all those billions that you've poured into DARPA for the last 60 years? Useless! Just pick up the phone and call a controlled demolition company, like the one that blew up that hotel in Las Vegas."

Now, it's certainly possible, that they would decide that despite being an elite military unit with the benefit of thousands of weapons scientists and engineers, and billions of dollars of funding, they don't have anything over the mom and pop firms that typically do demolition and that they decide to go with stuff that you could buy off of eBay, like thermite and gunpowder. That's possible. But I think the Boss is going to be pretty disappointed.

"That's it? That's the best you've got? A big firecracker in 2001?"

"Yes Sir, despite having the largest military budget in the history of the human race, we're going to do it the same way we did it when we built the railroads. We'll have a horse-drawn cart full of nitroglycerin and TNT and we'll use Chinese laborers..."


*face palm*

So yes, I agree with Simon 100% that they're not going to use something novel and untested, but to suggest that the best thing going is stuff that you or I can order up from the Telephone Book would be rather surprising to me.

I'm not saying that Directed Energy Weapons were what they used for sure, I'm just saying that they have a lot of stuff that is neither novel or untested TO THEM, that they can use, including some stuff that we're probably not familiar with. I would put many Directed Energy Weapons in the "neither novel nor untested" category.

As I say, it's a minor quibble, and I wholeheartedly endorse what BrianV and SimonShack are saying above. We don't have to "go there" with respect to exotic weapons, but I think it's a mistake to rule it out. That's the gist of my point. And as the poster Dcopymope above correctly notes, it's not a 1950's operation. If Death Rays are a little too Flash Gordon there's a long list of other technology that would probably work as well. You don't have to believe in Death Rays from NASA to keep an open mind about "how they brought down the towers", which is the first question a lot of people want answered right after "What happened to all those people on the planes?" Hoi's got a good answer to that question.

September Clues makes an excellent case for "What Didn't Happen", a.ka. "The Official Story as Told on TV (tm)". We all agree that they didn't destroy the WTC complex with Airplane Tickets, Box Cutters, Red Bandanas, and Suicidal Arabs, as the official story mouth-breathers in the MSM and web trolls laughably insist. The perps are a little more high-tech than that. How much more high-tech? I don't know.

My point is simply that it's a mistake to think that technology that is unfamiliar, "novel and untested" to you is novel and untested to people who work on secret projects to blow up buildings and start wars. I'm not saying that anybody has to believe in Death Rays or Space Stations or Laser Beams or Microwaves, but I do think it's a mistake to correctly point to something fake, and then dismiss everything else out of hand.

"NASA faked the moon landings, therefore the Military doesn't have any space-age technology at all, and nothing that could have been useful on 9/11." is a straw-man I cannot endorse even though I agree that yes, they faked the moon landings and they tell lies about their technical capabilities all the time as a matter of policy. We don't know exactly how they blew up the WTC, therefore we can't say with certainty that they didn't use some exotic weapons. That's my minor quibble. Sorry to be so long-winded.

--

And to the question above about using the Frey Effect "artificial telepathy" on 9/11, it certainly wouldn't surprise me one bit but I haven't heard of anyone who experienced it on 9/11. My guess is that if you did try walking down to the towers, you'd get yelled at by cops with loudspeakers who told you turn around and GTFO rather than have that message beamed through your thick skull via microwaves. Certainly the technology exists to use voice-to-skull communication. I'm not sure why they need it on 9/11.

--

Simon's a believer in HERF and EMP weapons (I think)... personally I believe that a lot of the Directed Energy technologies work the way they're supposed to but I don't have personal experience with these things in military applications so who am I to say for sure.
fred
Member
 
Posts: 592
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 1:43 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby fred on September 15th, 2011, 6:08 pm

I haven't seen it discussed much, but with a long enough lead time you could replace all of the key structural components of the towers with things that were designed to fail on command (such as explosive bolts in steel girders, things like that.) This assumes, of course, that the towers weren't already purpose-built structures designed to be blown up around the Millennium, with all of those handy EZ-Demolition features built-in from the very beginning.

Supposedly everybody's favorite three letter Agency had a station in WTC 7: it's not entirely implausible to suggest that those guys would design something to "self-destruct on command" rather than allowing file cabinets full of sensitive documents to be scattered by the wind and fall into the hands of construction workers, passers-by, and Iranian exchange students.

Maybe all of the heavy lifting was already done in the late 1960's. Who was behind the WTC project? Rockefeller? If we believe the Operation Northwoods documents, the "fake plane crash and fake terrorist attack" idea was already being discussed back then.

The buildings themselves were kind of ugly and boxy, and without a lot of beautiful facades that you see on other high-profile office towers. Maybe the original plan was to throw up a couple of cheap, crappy skyscrapers, and rent them out until the NWO idea was ready for prime time. Just a thought. If these buildings were designed to come down, then you don't need planes, and you don't need high-tech weapons, and you don't even need conventional demolition or a demolition team either.

Where's the architect who designed the building and said that a plane crashing into it is like pushing a pencil through a screen door. He's supposed to be dead, right?

To my mind it's plausible that someone building the World's Tallest Buildings would have interaction with the National Security people and would let them install whatever they wanted. Black boxes on every support column? You got it.
fred
Member
 
Posts: 592
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 1:43 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Dcopymope on September 15th, 2011, 9:03 pm

fred wrote:And to the question above about using the Frey Effect "artificial telepathy" on 9/11, it certainly wouldn't surprise me one bit but I haven't heard of anyone who experienced it on 9/11. My guess is that if you did try walking down to the towers, you'd get yelled at by cops with loudspeakers who told you turn around and GTFO rather than have that message beamed through your thick skull via microwaves. Certainly the technology exists to use voice-to-skull communication. I'm not sure why they need it on 9/11.


If those that were in the immediate area claim they heard a plane fly directly over their heads yet they didn't see anything because they were evacuated along with the highly possible deployment of a smoke screen, then what better way to make them think that they at least heard a fast moving low flying commercial airliner than beaming sound of one directly into their minds. The question of whether or not they experienced the use of this technology is irrelevant because as far as they know it was real sound coming from a real plane.
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby brianv on September 15th, 2011, 9:09 pm

Dcopymope wrote:
fred wrote: then what better way to make them think that they at least heard a fast moving low flying commercial airliner than beaming sound of one directly into their minds...


How about a fly-by?
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Dcopymope on September 15th, 2011, 9:27 pm

brianv wrote:
Dcopymope wrote:
fred wrote: then what better way to make them think that they at least heard a fast moving low flying commercial airliner than beaming sound of one directly into their minds...


How about a fly-by?


I think one of the central conclusions we made a while ago of all this seemingly endless research about 9/11 was that the perps wanted to carry out the operation with as little risk as possible, I wouldn't be using any planes if I didn't have to. If I'm going to be using real planes just to do a flyby than I might as well crash it into the towers as well, so there is no logic in this hypothesis to me knowing the vast arsenal of exotic weaponry they have at their disposal. This hypothesis of a flyby would carry more weight behind it if this was the 1950’s.
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby brianv on September 15th, 2011, 9:31 pm

"If I'm going to be using real planes just to do a flyby than I might as well crash it into the towers as well,"

Really? And kill the pilots? And people on the ground possibly, or have it bounce off and land in an upmarket kindergarden? Nah!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Dcopymope on September 15th, 2011, 9:39 pm

brianv wrote:"If I'm going to be using real planes just to do a flyby than I might as well crash it into the towers as well,"

Really? And kill the pilots? And people on the ground possibly, or have it bounce off and land in an upmarket kindergarden? Nah!


What makes you think there would be pilots, or that it would "bounce off"? What kind of plane are we talking about, a real commercial airliner or a drone rigged with explosives painted to look like one? This was actually proposed in Operation Northwoods, but we aren't living in the 60's.
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby brianv on September 15th, 2011, 10:11 pm

Dcopymope wrote:
brianv wrote:"If I'm going to be using real planes just to do a flyby than I might as well crash it into the towers as well,"

Really? And kill the pilots? And people on the ground possibly, or have it bounce off and land in an upmarket kindergarden? Nah!


What makes you think there would be pilots, or that it would "bounce off"? What kind of plane are we talking about, a real commercial airliner or a drone rigged with explosives painted to look like one? This was actually proposed in Operation Northwoods, but we aren't living in the 60's.


I'm sorry but this does not compute? What are your trying to say? That they would have to use a remote controlled "drone" and rig it with explosives to look like a commercial plane, to what end?? To make an Airplane sound in the sky? A fucking Cessna being flown by 14 year old would do the job!

And as for bounce off - take one of your kids toys and throw it at a stout tree! Please report back your findings to me!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Dcopymope on September 15th, 2011, 10:32 pm

brianv wrote:
Dcopymope wrote:
brianv wrote:"If I'm going to be using real planes just to do a flyby than I might as well crash it into the towers as well,"

Really? And kill the pilots? And people on the ground possibly, or have it bounce off and land in an upmarket kindergarden? Nah!


What makes you think there would be pilots, or that it would "bounce off"? What kind of plane are we talking about, a real commercial airliner or a drone rigged with explosives painted to look like one? This was actually proposed in Operation Northwoods, but we aren't living in the 60's.


I'm sorry but this does not compute? What are your trying to say? That they would have to use a remote controlled "drone" and rig it with explosives to look like a commercial plane, to what end?? To make an Airplane sound in the sky? A fucking Cessna being flown by 14 year old would do the job!

And as for bounce off - take one of your kids toys and throw it at a stout tree! Please report back your findings to me!


The people that carried out 9/11 are not stupid, you're talking about using real planes, and I’m talking about how I would carry it out if I were them. Beyond every hypothesis that has ever been proposed anywhere, the flyby hypothesis is the most nonsensical of all; it goes against the basic research compiled on here. Why use EMP weaponry when you're going to use real planes anyway? Why even use a smoke screen if you obviously want everyone to see a plane flyby? If I were to use anything at all to simulate something hitting the towers, then I might as well use a hologram and avoid the greater risk of using missiles, planes, drones, etc. I could go on with this, but it would be a waste of time.
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby brianv on September 15th, 2011, 11:11 pm

The SOUND of an aircraft!! FFS!!!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

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 1 guest