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, 11:56 pm


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.


The number one question...



"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?"

Image


Here is why they didn't use real planes to crash into the WTC and used TV fakery instead:



GUARANTEED PENETRATION




Why do most of Americans still think planes brought down the Twin Towers? Because to them, the official story of why the Towers collapsed was believable. Large aircraft loaded with lots of fuel crashed into the Towers at high speeds and penetrated inside before exploding thereby causing extensive internal damage. Then the resulting fire weakened the steel causing the top sections to collapse down thereby pulverizing the rest of the buildings. Then debris from the falling North Tower pelted the WTC 7 causing massive structural damage and causing it to catch fire and eventually collapse.

Image

A Boeing 767 allegedly crashing and causing this massive explosion in the South Tower.

Image
North Tower collapsing partially on the WTC 7.

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.
Image

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 quite simple actually.


'Penetration' is the Key

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:

Image

Flight 11 supposedly crashing and penetrating all the way into the North Tower before exploding.

Image

Flight 175 supposedly crashing and penetrating all the way into the South Tower before exploding. (Top video: Naudet Brothers. Middle: Evan Fairbanks. Bottom: Jennifer Spell


Flight 175 supposedly crashing and penetrating all the way into the South Tower before exploding. (Top video: Naudet Brothers. Middle: Evan Fairbanks. Bottom: Jennifer Spell. See all WTC crash videos here.)


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 the videos showed the world that these planes had penetrated all the way into the buildings before their fuel tanks exploded.


With the following questions, you'll understand why the perps could not 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 and the perps had to use a method that would guarantee penetration into the towers.


*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.


* How could the perps be absolutely certain that Boeing 767's would not miss their targets and that their relatively delicate fuel tanks in the wings would be able to fully penetrate the steel facades and concrete encased floor slabs before exploding? Do you think the perps would trust that 767's would be able to penetrate through two buildings without doing a real world test run to see if they would be able to penetrate? Or do you think the perps actually built replicas of portions of the Twin Towers' facade and crashed 767's into them to see if they would actual penetrate inside before blowing up?


Only using computer generated imagery (CGI) of planes instead of real planes would guarantee penetration into the Twin Towers and since this operation would be done on a computer, the perps could rehearse their plan over and over and over again and the CGI plane would always penetrate through the WTC because you can make pixels do anything.

Image

However, imagine the cost, time, complexity, and secrecy the perps would had to undertake from simulating real planes flown via remote control crashing into some kind of "WTC replica" over and over again until they could guarantee the planes would penetrate (if they ever could).

Image

source-- http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/wh ... t-wtc.html
Last edited by Equinox on November 17th, 2011, 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Jonathan on September 16th, 2011, 12:25 am

The power of the pictures.
Accompanied by the words.
Over and over.
Creating belief.
A belief is strong, though it is just a thought you keep thinking.
It is kept by repeating those pictures and the accompanying words.

Knowledge - as a balance to that - may have been there.
But it was not strong for many and next to non-existant for most.
It still is.

Those towers could NOT have come down the way we see it supposedly happened - not from a little hole - or even a gaping hole - anywhere in the structure.

Thanks Equinox!

Again: add to that, that the setup to destroy the towers in a controlled fashion would surely have suffered from real planes hitting and exploding.
Which would have made the whole thing fail miserably.
Jonathan
Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: July 26th, 2011, 9:17 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby fbenario on September 16th, 2011, 1:12 am

Heiwa wrote:I am amazed that clever CIA people cannot understand that.

Well of course they understand it. They know exactly what lies they are feeding to the world. There are NO mistakes or misunderstandings or accidents in government.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Brutal Metal on September 16th, 2011, 7:22 am

But Equinox hardly any witnesses (if you can believe them) said the plane was a large commerical airliner? I'll say J missiles were remote flown into the towers by the Ghost Plane also known as "Command Central" :lol:
Brutal Metal
Member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Equinox on September 16th, 2011, 1:16 pm

Brutal Metal wrote:But Equinox hardly any witnesses (if you can believe them) said the plane was a large commerical airliner? I'll say J missiles were remote flown into the towers by the Ghost Plane also known as "Command Central" :lol:


:lol: :lol: :lol: Classic, yes...

Well correct Brutal, as can see in September Clues, The majority of people to say they saw a large airliner were in fact people that had affiliations to the main stream media.

A rough list I made up, anyone can feel free to add to it here. http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=727

Eyewitness to a flying object on 9/11.... Total so far...


Mainstream Media Eye witness ---13

SEAN MURTAGH --- CNN Vice President of finance,
OWEN MOOGAN--- Producer of “Fox Report”
MARK OBENHAUS--- Senior ABC producer.
DR JAY ADLERSBERG--- Medical reporter for ABC eyewitness news.
MARK D. BIRNBACH--- Fox TV Employee
ERIC SHAWN--- Fox TV expert and war correspondent.
WINSTON MITCHELL--- Onsite CNN producer.
VINCE CELLINI--- CNN Sports Commentator.
DON DAHLER--- ABC Reporter and war correspondent (Iraq a + afghan) --- There was a large sound which I could only describe as a “MISSILE”
JIM FRIEDL-- - Normal Eyewitness,--
DICK OLIVER--- FOX Reporter. Quote “they saw a missile”
JANE DERENOWISKI--- MSNBC Producer.
ELLIOT WALKER --- NBC Producer.

Emergency Workers Eyewitness---291

Here are the official oral histories from the emergency workers.....
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/h ... ll_01.html

"The words “plane jet airplane aircraft” were found in 426 accounts, 1770 times. The final account Sample Size was used for the “Witnesses to a plane” study was 291."
Source-- http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60

List from warrior hun...

Various Filmers and people associated with media and production--- 29

Naudet Brothers
Kevin Segalla
Kim Abramson
Mi-Kyung Heller
Jim Huibregtse
Pilots Walsh & Hayes
Mohammed Award
Angelo Martin
Park Foreman
Scott Myers
Evan Fairbanks
Michael Kovalenko
Ronald S Pordy
Michael Toole
Lesli Klainberg
Luigi Cazzaniga
Bruno Levy
Devin Clark
Steve Spak
Etienne Sauret
Stewart Nurick
Theresa Renaud
Mary Cozza
Sid Bedingfield
Christian Martin
Shachar Bar-Un
Jeanne Yurman -
Frederick Schneider
Gary welz

Average person on the street.---20

The Harley shirt guy (Mark "Psycho" Walsh - former FOX news employee)
The well orientated eyewitness
The Drama guy
The over actor
The Msnbc Anonymous witness
Tony Arrigo
Roy Chelson
Anthony Bartolomey
Karim Arraki
Barry Jennings
Mary Cozza
Sid Bedingfield
Steven Mosiello
Mr. Tractsonburg
Brian O’Flaherty
Mi Kyung Heller
Peter Fallucca
James Murphy
Patricia Ondrovic
Stewart Nurick

Only 20---- are accredited to people on the street.

Ok so far we have the total of witness to a flying object on 9/11 ----- 353

* The Majority of these accounts do not state a commercial airliner by any means in fact they insist on something smaller possibly even a missile...


And Simonshacks and SimonJCP Pentagon list is here.

FLIGHT 77 WITNESSES (PENTAGON)
(compiled by Lord Tsukasa – aka SimonJCP)



MEDIA PEOPLE*********************************

Mike Walter (Reporter for USA Today)

Joel Sucherman (Multimedia editor of USA Today)

Fred Gaskins (National Editor of the USA Today)

Richard Benedetto (Reporter for USA Today)

Vin Narayanan (Reporter for USA Today)

Bob Dubill (Executive Editor of USA Today)

Steve Anderson (Director of Communications for USA Today)

Bobby Eberle (CEO of Endeavor Media Group, LLC, of GOPUSA)

Dave Winslow (Radio reporter for the Associated Press)

Mitch Mitchell (CBS' Military Consultant)

Greta van Susteren (CNN/FOX Legal Analyst)

Christopher Munsey (Reporter for the Navy Times)

Eugenio Hernandez (Video journalist for the Associated Press)

Barbara" (Wife of a friend of CNN correspondent David Endsor)

Mary Ann Owens (Newsroom Assistant at Gannett News Service)

John O'Keefe (Managing editor of "Influence" magazine)


MILITARY PEOPLE************************************************

Stuart Artman (Army Reserve pilot)

Lincoln Liebner (Army Captain)

Bruce Elliott ('Former' Army Commander)

Dewey Snavely (Army Engineer Platoon Leader)

Frank Probst ('Former' Army Officer, DOD Contractor)

James S Robbins (National Security Analyst, National Review contributor)

Maurice L. Bease (Seargent for the US Military)

Albert Hemphill (Staff member of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization)

Kim Dent (Administrative Assistant to the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization)

Dennis Clem (Deputy Director of Directorate for Information Systems
and Services for the Defense Intelligence Agency)

Zinovy Pak (Director of the Russian Munitions Agency)

Spec. Mike Ryan (Works for the military out of Fort Myers)

Philip Sheuerman (Associate General Counsel for the U.S. Air Force)

Clyde A. Vaughn (Deputy Director of Military Support to Civil Authorities)

Phillip Thompson ('Ex'-Military)

G. T. Stanley (Military captain, Part of the Defense Protective Service)

Noel Sepulveda (High-ranking military officer)

Shari Taylor (Finance Manager for the Defense Intelligence Agency)

Levi Stephens (Courier for the Armed Forces Information Service)

Mike Dobbs (Marine- Navy) Corps Policy Planner Commander and senior
fellow with the Lexington Institute

Lesley Kelly ('Former' US Navy Commander)

Michael James (Navy information technician)

James Ryan (Former US Navy)

Donald R. Bouchoux (Former US Navy commander, Part of the US Naval Institute)

Darb Ryan (Chief of Naval Personnel)

Oscar Martinez (US Marine)

Dennis Smith ('Former' US Marine)

Chris Stuart (US Marine)

Terry Morin ('Former' aviator for the US Marines)

Alan Wallace ('Ex'-Military)

Stephen McGraw ('Former' DOJ, Opus Dei priest)

Qawiy Sabre (Pentagon employee)

"K.M." (Pentagon employee)


GOVERNMENT PEOPLE*******************************************

Gary Bauer (High-ranking PNAC member, former Presidential Candidate)

Patty Murray (US Senator)

Fred Hey (Congressional Staff attorney)

Elaine Mc Cusker (Associate Director of the Office of Federal
Relations, Co-Chair of the Coalition for National Security Research)

Penny Elgas (Member of the board of the FDIC Advisory Committee on
Banking Policy, alongside Jean Baker, George H.W Bush's chief of
staff)

Donald Timmerman (Relative of Neo Con Kenneth Timmerman)

Jeffrey Taylor (DC Lobbyist)

Rick Renzi (Corrupt congressman)

Ken Ford (State Department employee)

'M.J.' (US Treasury official)

Steven Gerard (Employee of the Department of Justice)

Michael Tinyk (Lawyer for the US Trademark Office)

Ian Wyatt (Federal Employee)

Mike Gerson (Bush speechwriter)



NONE OF THE ABOVE categories******************************

Rodney Washington (Systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor)

Elizabeth Smiley (Intelligence Operations Specialist for the FAA)

Dan Creed (Oracle Corporation employee)

Jose Velasquez (Runs a gas station open only to DOD personnel)

Lloyd England (Taxi driver – and husband of an FBI agent)

***************************************************************************************************************************************************
simon shack
I believe this list tells us more than a million words. All credit to SimonJCP (btw, whatever happened to him? Give us a shout, Simon!)

IMPORTANT NOTE: To fully appreciate the significance of these lists of "eyewitnesses" (both at the WTC and the Pentagon), it is essential for the casual reader of this research to understand that a lot of efforts have gone into actually finding out the precise identities of most of the characters listed. It's not like the media provided this information automatically for all of these individuals - on a silver plate. For instance - and anecdotally - let me tell you how the infamous Theresa Renaud's identity was patiently revealed. Back in 2007, I think, the great and brilliant 9/11 researcher (and now cluesforum member) Still Diggin was musing about who this CBS "witness" was, a caller on the CBS Early Morning Show hosted by anchorman Bryant Gumble. The spelling of her name wasn't obvious at the time, since CBS never showed it on TV. So Still Diggin, assuming it was "Renault" (like the French car maker) was puzzled as to who she actually might be - being unable to find a plausible "Theresa Renault". As it was found out (almost contemporarily by Joe Craine and myself) that her surname was actually spelled "Renaud", it was instant BINGO! She was none other than the wife of Bryant Gumble's own boss, Jack Renaud - producer of the CBS morning show! That's team-work for you, folks !
911 LOGIC BLOGSPOT - by Still Diggin: http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/91 ... ds_05.ht



A ghost missile Jassm, hit the wtc?

(two frames extracted from September Clues / missile-shapes inserted by Simon Shack for demonstrative purposes)
Image
Image

Well it does make sense to fire something into the wtc. For shock 'n Awe - and the jassm definitely had the accuracy and the look to may be able to pull it of.

The alleged speeds for 175. Were 550miles witch is also the cruising speed of the jassm.
At those speeds, twice as fast as what you see ground level at the airport. I doubt one could distinguish one from the other that well.

Image

Image
Profile of a real jassm compared to “Park Foreman's”, 9/11 CGI image.

The missile research is just essentially just some trivia to me though. Just My outtake on it is this.
The main proof of what happened that day lies in the imagery. And that is all that mattered. I honestly don’t know what really happened that day. I wasn’t there to see with my own eyes. Plane, no plane, missile, holograms, d-duck on a blimp…Who knows (or cares) what really what happened.

All I have got to say is how come the 9/11 imagery is so computer generated?

I really like this picture here….

Image

(-----------1-------------------------------2-----------------------------------3---------
(NOTE: Now, if the discrepancy between 1 and 2 (355ft versus 279) could be explained away with video aspect-ratio issues or/and vantage point perspectives, the discrepancy between 1 and 3 (355ft versus 520ft) is only explainable as a monstrous cock up on the part of the 9/11 goons.)
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Brutal Metal on September 17th, 2011, 5:30 am

20 witnesses in the street claimed to see an airliner? I Rest my case! What about the 1000's you see in the CGI SimCity vids? What did they see? oops that's right those people don't have souls,a brain or body :lol:
Brutal Metal
Member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby RoyBean on September 17th, 2011, 6:55 am

Dcopymope wrote: What is your viewpoint on the possible use of voice to skull technology on 9/11?
Patent For Microwave
Voice-To-Skull Technology: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... 7,027[
brianv wrote:The SOUND of an aircraft!! FFS!!!


...And in keeping with the low-risk method of operation/strategy it's more likely they'd use a
less 'exotic'/potentially harmful weapon. Maybe something like "Hypersonic Sound Technology" instead of VTS technology...?

http://www.internationalrobotics.com/iaapapres.html
What is the Sound Beam? The Hypersonic Sound Beam Technology is simply the most revolutionary sound reproduction system of this century, which allows you to remotely, and magically place sound "wherever you want it" up to 300' away by simply "sending" the sound waves through space!

The sound only becomes apparent to the listener when the traveling sound waves have made impact with a surface, be it material, organic, or human. For example, if the Sound Beam is used in a large exhibit space, and aimed in one particular direction (let's say: a product, display, painting, etc., the visitors standing in that immediate area will notice the sound emanating from the surfaces within that targeted area, while others located elsewhere in the space will not be impacted by the otherwise fully radiating sound of a traditional loudspeaker. More to the point, and unlike a parabolic sound focusing device, the Sound Beam is a flat transducer system, which can easily and unobtrusively be mounted on ceilings, walls, or floors, aimed to secretly impact the surfaces where the sound is desirable.

How does it work?
The basic operating principal of the Sound Beam uses a property of air known as "non-linearity". A normal sound wave (like someone talking) is a small pressure wave that travels through the air. As the pressure goes up and down, the "non-linear" nature of the air itself causes the sound wave to be changed slightly. If you change a sound wave, new sounds (frequencies) are formed within the wave. Therefore, if we know how the air affects the sound waves, we can predict exactly what new frequencies (sounds) will be added into the sound wave by the air itself. An ultrasonic (beyond the range of human hearing) sound wave can be sent into the air with sufficient volume to cause the air to create these new frequencies. Since we cannot hear the ultrasonic sound, we only hear the new sounds that are formed by the non-linear action of the air.

Some ideas for Sound Beam applications:
Automobiles -In-dash Sound Beam for private hands-free Cell Phone conversations. Audio/Video Conferencing - Project the audio from a conference in different languages, from a single central device, without headphones. Paging Systems - Direct announcements to specific areas. Retail Sales - Aim targeted advertising directly at the point of purchase. Drive Through Ordering - Direct communications with a motorist without disrupting others nearby. Safety Officials - Portable "bull horn" type device for communicating with a specific person or group. Military Applications - Ship-to-ship communications, ship-board announcements. Toys - Hand-held toy for kids to secretly communicate across the street from each other. Public Announcements - Highly focused announcements in noisy environments such as subways, airports, amusement parks, train stations, traffic intersections. Museums - Step on a floor spot labeled for a specific type of information or language, then magically hear the needed information without noticing the apparent source. A painting, sculpture or artifact describing themselves. Sports - Focus sound into a crowd of people on a football field and talk only to a selected few. Emergency Rescues - Rescuers communicate with endangered people far from reach.


Woody Norris: Inventing the next amazing thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9G9M0cR0E#t=10m14s

So, again, this idea of being able to put sound anywhere you want to is really starting to catch on. It also works for transmitting and communicating data. It also works five times better underwater.

We've got the military -- have just deployed some of these into Iraq, where you can put fake troop movements quarter of a mile away on a hillside. (Laughter) Or you can whisper in the ear of a supposed terrorist some Biblical verse. (Laughter) I'm serious. And they have these infrared devices that can look at their countenance, and see a fraction of a degree kelvin in temperature shift from 100 yards away when they play this thing. And so, another way of hopefully determining who's friendly and who isn't. We make a version with this which puts out 155 decibels. Pain is 120. So it allows you to go nearly a mile away and communicate with people, and there can be a public beach just off to the side, and they don't even know it's turned on. We sell those to the military presently for about 70,000 dollars, and they're buying them as fast as we can make them. We put it on a turret with a camera, so that when they shoot at you, you're over there, and it's there.
RoyBean
Member
 
Posts: 141
Joined: January 8th, 2011, 6:08 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Equinox on September 17th, 2011, 7:15 am

Brutal Metal wrote:20 witnesses in the street claimed to see an airliner? I Rest my case! What about the 1000's you see in the CGI SimCity vids? What did they see? oops that's right those people don't have suls,a brain or body :lol:


The 20 That is have counted On the Mainstream all I have counted on the Lame stream networks.
and half of them are plants... There maybe more. I can add the if need be.

In regards to the sims 100's. No they didn't see a plane. A true Sim never looks directly towards the direction they are going. Little yet of a renegade "plane".

Image

Image

Image

please go to http://septemberclues.info/synthetic_crowds.htm for more examples of simulated crowds/sceneries
Equinox
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: October 14th, 2010, 9:45 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Heiwa on September 17th, 2011, 7:28 am

Let's face it. Any film/photo showing WTC1/2 coming down from top to bottom by gravity with a big, getting bigger smoke cloud around the top is 100% fake (i.e. just CGI). So any film showing 'people' walking/watching around and WTC 1/2 coming down with its smoke cloud in the background is also 100% fake.
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: About the movie "S1m0ne"

Postby I_am_onlive on November 14th, 2011, 7:23 pm

Simon, I found another video by Tinacart http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VNbgSzr3cA. Roughly at around 0:15 pay attention towards the top right edge of the 3rd building located on the left side of the 2nd tower, something emerges from the top, travels like a missile and hits the tower. I assume this is the missile that you were talking about. Let me know what you think of it.
I_am_onlive
Newbie
 
Posts: 5
Joined: November 14th, 2011, 11:31 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby hoi.polloi on November 14th, 2011, 10:41 pm

This post from I_am_onlive was inappropriately placed in the Simone thread. I moved it here, despite the fact that I think it is a bit naive of them to think the video is real and really "captured" a missile.

I_am_onlive, please introduce yourself in the Introductions thread.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4867
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: About the movie "S1m0ne"

Postby Dcopymope on November 15th, 2011, 12:37 am

I_am_onlive wrote:Simon, I found another video by Tinacart http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VNbgSzr3cA. Roughly at around 0:15 pay attention towards the top right edge of the 3rd building located on the left side of the 2nd tower, something emerges from the top, travels like a missile and hits the tower. I assume this is the missile that you were talking about. Let me know what you think of it.


To believe that this video is real we would have to conclude that the perps really are idiots and that EMP weaponry was used only in lower Manhattan and most importantly, that no smoke screen was used. At first I bought into the missile hypothesis, but the more I compare this idea to the basic Sep Clues research the more I suspect that the missile theory was put out there by the perps as another false clue. The one theory that I have yet to see put forward anywhere but here is the idea that "Hypersonic Sound Beam Technology" was used, as RoyBean pointed out. The lesser the risk the greater the chance of success, modern technology makes this possible.
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Postby simonshack on November 15th, 2011, 2:30 am

I_am_onlive wrote:Simon, I found another video by Tinacart http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VNbgSzr3cA. Roughly at around 0:15 pay attention towards the top right edge of the 3rd building located on the left side of the 2nd tower, something emerges from the top, travels like a missile and hits the tower. I assume this is the missile that you were talking about. Let me know what you think of it.


Ok - let me state this once again:

1: There is NO real video from the 9/11. ALL of the available videos/photos of the morning of 9/11 are digital concoctions.

2: In reality, a smokescreen was raised around the WTC COMPLEX very early on (perhaps already before 8:46AM - the reported time of the "FLIGHT 11 STRIKE"). No one could, from the ground (or even from distant Hoboken or Jerseyside) make out what was going on.

3: To believe that "hundreds of videocameras must have been pointing at the towers after the first strike - and that 45 of them clearly captured FLIGHT 175" is simply stupid. On an average September morning, you just won't have hundreds of videographers strolling around in Lower Manhattan with a video camera. Even if that were the case, the odds of having an unobstructed view of the Twin Towers AND a wide piece of skyline (in order to film its approach) are ridiculously remote.

4: The very silly assumption that "since the 1st tower was hit at 8:46, EVERYONE would have by then been armed with cameras aiming at the WTC" - simply defies common sense: as only 17 minutes separated the first alleged airplane from the second alleged airplane, the odds of someone running back home to grab his camera - and return to any sort of useful filming location - are ridiculously low.

5: It makes perfect sense that if a given technology exists to jam video cameras - IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED ON 9/11. The undeniable fact is that jamming technology exists - even at a consumer level - and anyone can buy. for instance, the below jamming devices for $790 on the internet. Now, these devices have a range of only 70 metres: but what sort of video jamming technology do you honestly think the Pentagon might have?

Image

This is a professional high powered video camera jammer. It produces a powerful 4 watts of jamming power to disable just about all video cameras up to a distance of 70 metres and covers all frequencies between 900Mhz - 2.5Ghz. This device will jam the signal for any wireless video camera, wireless lans and bluetooth. http://www.spymodex.com/video.htm


ps: I am more and more skeptical of my own speculation that a missile hit the WTC2. Today, I don't think ANYTHING hit either WTC1 or WTC2. I am now more prone to believe that ALL the 'eyewitness testimonies' (of LARGE or small planes, Cessnas, missiles, etc,etc) were nothng but a a confusing set of phony reports offered to us 'conspiracy theorists' to make us argue with each other 'ad infinitum'(forever).
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Brutal Metal on November 15th, 2011, 3:41 am

question about your post script Simon, the street reporters conveying their visions to the network anchors of the gaping holes at the top of both towers? were these done by explosives inside? I just don't see how Everybody on location is gonna say this if the buildings were actually pristine?
Brutal Metal
Member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 4:58 am

Postby Dcopymope on November 15th, 2011, 4:03 am

simonshack wrote:ps: I am more and more skeptical of my own speculation that a missile hit the WTC2. Today, I don't think ANYTHING hit either WTC1 or WTC2. I am now more prone to believe that ALL the 'eyewitness testimonies' (of LARGE or small planes, Cessnas, missiles, etc,etc) were nothng but a a confusing set of phony reports offered to us 'conspiracy theorists' to make us argue with each other 'ad infinitum'(forever).


Exactly what I've been saying, these guys are too clever to make mistakes like missile "slip ups", it was all apart of the script. The psychological review boards worked out every possible reaction from every kind of individual and group they would get long before they carried out 9/11. They knew we would grab onto the false missile clue and run with it. However, if we are to use the missile or drone hypothesis anywhere it would be for the Pentagon attack for the simple reason that I can't think of any other weapon that we know of they could have possibly used. If some kind of missile was used for the Pentagon attack, then that would be the motive for the FBI removing the hundreds of cameras surrounding the Pentagon that surely would have caught it on tape.
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 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 2 guests