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

Why they didn't use planes

Postby Dcopymope on November 1st, 2010, 7:17 am

Why they didn't use planes by Gerard Holmgren http://www.911closeup.com/

Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.

So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.

Now to the other problem.

Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.

Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.

The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

Remote control.

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.

Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.

In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.



A very relevant article on this matter - Fake video dramatically alters eyewitness accounts http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents ... amatically

Closing paragraph of the article:
Dr Wade said: “Over the previous decade we have seen rapid advances in digital-manipulation technology. As a result, almost anyone can create convincing, yet fake, images or video footage. Our research shows that if fake footage is extremely compelling, it can induce people to testify about something they never witnessed.”
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Postby bostonterrierowner on July 13th, 2011, 2:02 pm

nonhocapito wrote:Yet you gotta wonder why they shouldn't be able to simply alter the SSDI records for their needs. Maybe because it causes a cascade of ulterior clerical problems with all sorts of governmental offices and records? After all Kafka proved it first, that it is wishful thinking, hoping to bend bureaucracy to our needs. I guess this is still largely true in the digital age. :lol:


These are my conclusions too , the same goes for BTS data base . Why didnt they simply put AA11 and AA77 there? Its a good news for us because at least for now , the raw statistics can be simply looked into and used as a tool to debunk bullshit. The next move will be limitting an access to them by simply putting "tool booths".
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: May 2nd, 2011, 11:01 pm

Postby simonshack on July 13th, 2011, 2:14 pm

bostonterrierowner wrote:Why didnt they simply put AA11 and AA77 there?


Just a thought I had the other day...this might be very simply because the UA "flights" were a little easier to fake, since Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of Securacom which...

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby bostonterrierowner on July 13th, 2011, 2:48 pm

simonshack wrote:
bostonterrierowner wrote:Why didnt they simply put AA11 and AA77 there?


Just a thought I had the other day...this might be very simply because the UA "flights" were a little easier to fake, since Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of Securacom which...

George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm


I on my part tend to think that UA 93 and UA 175 actually took off , empty with only the pilots inside. UA 93 probably simply landed in CLeveland and UA 175 in New Windsor , NY. These are my arguments :

Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard
Reported by: 9News Staff
Web produced by: Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM
A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.
White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.
United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.
United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.
On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved.
"United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights

Short message from this ABC affiliated TV station form Cleveland , quickly forgotten and neglected. On a crazy day like 9/11 it was impossible to totally control information flow. I found it online with some effort. No trace of it in 9news archives. How did I even think of it? I red some stories on Lets Roll , about Cleveland , passangers shifting , possible killing , NASA facilities and other bullshit. I decided to follow the hint and see if I can find any merit in it.I later discovered and I think its true that Cleveland airport was evacuated between 10 am and 11 am probably closer to 10 am on 9/11 , to make sure that noone will take a picture of UA 93 touching down and God forbid its tail number. According to BTS , UA 93 took off from Boston at 8:01. Distance between Boston and Cleveland ? 900 miles , just enough for a jet to make it in around 2 hours.

Lets go to UA 175 now. What do we know about this machine? Well on USA TODAY online edition I found a mention that AA 11 and UA 175 almost collided over Stuart Air Force Base in New Windsor , NY . I think that even 9/11 commission mentions this idiotic story. What happened? Well I think that during the games called 9/11 somebody from FAA not familair with the scenario made some noise about UA 175 landing in Stuart , beans were spoiled so they came up with this nonsense. Again , when did it happen? 8:36 . UA 175 according to BTS left Boston at 7:58 . Distance between to locations ? 236 kilometers , 40 minutes is just enough for a jet to make it.


I hope it helps :)
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: May 2nd, 2011, 11:01 pm

Postby nonhocapito on July 13th, 2011, 4:33 pm

bostonterrierowner wrote:I on my part tend to think that UA 93 and UA 175 actually took off , empty with only the pilots inside. UA 93 probably simply landed in CLeveland and UA 175 in New Windsor , NY.


Everything is possible, but I wonder: Why having real planes to take off? If the answer is: so that everything looked "normal" at the airports, then I must argue that the planes had to had passengers and luggage too. A commercial airliner taking off completely empty would also attract quite a lot of attention, no? What would happen at the gate?

It the hub was under control so much that you could have empty planes to take off, then what was the point to have planes leaving at all? Besides, they would only work as decoy for the people in the control towers, considering there would be no boarding or loading. I think all they did was to add entries in their computers and pretend there were planes.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Postby bostonterrierowner on July 13th, 2011, 4:59 pm

nonhocapito wrote:
bostonterrierowner wrote:I on my part tend to think that UA 93 and UA 175 actually took off , empty with only the pilots inside. UA 93 probably simply landed in CLeveland and UA 175 in New Windsor , NY.


Everything is possible, but I wonder: Why having real planes to take off? If the answer is: so that everything looked "normal" at the airports, then I must argue that the planes had to had passengers and luggage too. A commercial airliner taking off completely empty would also attract quite a lot of attention, no? What would happen at the gate?

It the hub was under control so much that you could have empty planes to take off, then what was the point to have planes leaving at all? Besides, they would only work as decoy for the people in the control towers, considering there would be no boarding or loading. I think all they did was to add entries in their computers and pretend there were planes.


Like I said , I tend to think that they actually took off , I dont dismiss the possibility that they didnt. If BTS database was faked with these 2 flight numbers why didnt they go all the way? I seriously doubt that it was easier to work on UA than on AA given the size and resources used to perform this giantic hoax aka 9/11. Perps had people in both airlines , fuck , they own and totally control them , along with airports , BTS and everything of relevance . It took years to design "attacks" . Do you seriously think that somebody in AA said no on 9/11 and refused to play the ball ? If 4 flights are just the entries , and 2 of them appear in BTS and other 2 dont , the only explanation to it is that somebody didnt want them to be there. Morover , AA 11 , UA 93 , UA 175 were serviced on september 10th , according to BTS. AA 77 is 100% fictional , no mention of it in BTS at all.

It really blows my mind. Is it another mind-fuck game with us? I think the most important question is : why didnt they put all 4 flights in BTS ? Is it some esoteric message to "all these that have the eyes to see"?

On my part I still think its more probable that UA flights really took off than they didnt. Why did they choose to do so remains a mystery :)

One more argument in my favour is BTS itself and Kafka's remarks on bureaucracy :) I agree with you NoHo that messing with raw statistics is somehow still a problem for the Perps.
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: May 2nd, 2011, 11:01 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby SmokingGunII on July 13th, 2011, 7:43 pm

I spent years researching the information that proved/disproved whether planes actually took off or not. Then, one day, I realised it wasn't worth spending time on, because commercial airliners couldn't perform at the speeds and altitude documented. It's irrelevant. Same with the missile theories. Irrelevant. Planes don't do what they did on 9/11. Once people are able to understand this fundamental detail, the rest becomes a little easier to comprehend.
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby bostonterrierowner on July 13th, 2011, 10:34 pm

SmokingGunII wrote:I spent years researching the information that proved/disproved whether planes actually took off or not. Then, one day, I realised it wasn't worth spending time on, because commercial airliners couldn't perform at the speeds and altitude documented. It's irrelevant. Same with the missile theories. Irrelevant. Planes don't do what they did on 9/11. Once people are able to understand this fundamental detail, the rest becomes a little easier to comprehend.


I dont understand what you are implying. I know exactly that commercial planes werent used in controled demolition of WTC. Their performance or anything else wasnt the subject of this thread. If you take an effort and follow my posts regarding if UA 93 or UA 175 actually took off you will see that we were really talking about official statistics and more precisely BTS and if they were messed with. That was the origin of this exchange of thoughts .
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: May 2nd, 2011, 11:01 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby SmokingGunII on July 14th, 2011, 10:23 am

BTO - My post wasn't a criticism of what you had written, just a personal observation.

I know all about the official "wheels off" data - the missing AA11 & AA77 data. The switching of Planes to drones. The two boarding gates etc. My point was that continually discussing whether there were "ghost" planes (a theory I think has a lot of merit), wastes people's time, especially new researchers.

We know that commercial airliners didn't fly into the targets that day. We know that the media footage is manipulated. We know the vast majority (some will say all) victims were fake entities. We know that the witnesses and photographers paraded on screen were linked to the media or military. In my opinion, this is what we should concentrate on. There are other 9/11 sites that concentrate on the plane theories.

I hope that clears up my previous post.
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby bostonterrierowner on July 14th, 2011, 11:18 am

SmokingGunII wrote:I hope that clears up my previous post.


Of course it does , best regards :)
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: May 2nd, 2011, 11:01 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby hoi.polloi on July 14th, 2011, 4:49 pm

Here is a record of my attempts to get any sort of documents out of the 9/11 archive of events regarding required flight load documents that would strongly indicate a real or fake flight.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=94&hilit=FOIA+request

There are no passenger manifests, nobody can tell me who has them if they exist, and the FAA has told me directly that the absence of them is more than conspicuous.

Therefore, we can safely assume there were no "hijacked airplanes" and no "killed passengers".

As for other flying projectiles that might have been present, I agree with SmokingGunII; it matters not. The point is already well established - again and again - that the "outside attack that killed thousands" is a bureaucratic lie.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Tufa on July 21st, 2011, 9:00 pm

With reference to the first post, keep in mind that a conventional controlled-demolition is to take place later. You don't want that some incoming missile or Plane to cut a cable. You can never bring down the Towers without the cables; alternative "special weapons" are simply lies.

My view is that N.Y., locally, is not informed of the first "strike". There is no smoke or anything. Just simply let the clock tick, until you reach 9:00 am, when you can turn on smoke generators for a simulated fire in both towers, both at the same time! And then, just suddenly, there is a fire in the Towers, and a massive plane-hit on the News.

What would the chance be, that a witness is concentrated to a degree that he can tell what he did not see? And he can rule out that what he did see, that wasn't, was not earlier, before the "hit", and not later? :wacko:
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: November 24th, 2009, 11:13 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby simonshack on July 21st, 2011, 11:30 pm

Tufa wrote:With reference to the first post, keep in mind that a conventional controlled-demolition is to take place later. You don't want that some incoming missile or Plane to cut a cable. You can never bring down the Towers without the cables; alternative "special weapons" are simply lies.

My view is that N.Y., locally, is not informed of the first "strike". There is no smoke or anything. Just simply let the clock tick, until you reach 9:00 am, when you can turn on smoke generators for a simulated fire in both towers, both at the same time! And then, just suddenly, there is a fire in the Towers, and a massive plane-hit on the News.

What would the chance be, that a witness is concentrated to a degree that he can tell what he did not see? And he can rule out that what he did see, that wasn't, was not earlier, before the "hit", and not later? :wacko:


Dear Tufa,

I have to say this post of yours makes perfect sense. I am - very sincerely - thanking you for contributing serious logic to this research over the years. You have taught me to sharpen my thinking processes, and for this I'm grateful. Of course, September Clues still contains my early speculations of a plane-shaped missile possibly being employed to gather at least some authentic witness reports of 'something' impacting the towers. As you know, however, it was never the central point of SC, and I now think the missile hypothesis should be ideally redacted from it (woah, I just dread the thought of having to remix an SC update, though - in six languages!) . It was a speculation I made at the time to try and reconcile the many conflicting eyewitness reports: back then, I was simply not aware of just HOW MANY lies the perps had managed to churn out! :P (in fact, just like most normal and decent people on this planet)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6408
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby hoi.polloi on July 21st, 2011, 11:31 pm

Tufa wrote:With reference to the first post, keep in mind that a conventional controlled-demolition is to take place later. You don't want that some incoming missile or Plane to cut a cable. You can never bring down the Towers without the cables; alternative "special weapons" are simply lies.

My view is that N.Y., locally, is not informed of the first "strike". There is no smoke or anything. Just simply let the clock tick, until you reach 9:00 am, when you can turn on smoke generators for a simulated fire in both towers, both at the same time! And then, just suddenly, there is a fire in the Towers, and a massive plane-hit on the News.

What would the chance be, that a witness is concentrated to a degree that he can tell what he did not see? And he can rule out that what he did see, that wasn't, was not earlier, before the "hit", and not later? :wacko:


Okay, it's probably all very speculative. I prefer to stick to the safe opinion that we don't know and it doesn't matter.

In my mind, however, what you describe is the most likely scenario. One has no need to complicate the simulation of the first hit with a physical object. It's meant to simulate a surprise attack, after all.

But then, the alleged non-media employee-witnessed impact (referred to as "the second hit" by television employees) may have been a single plane-shaped projectile - the only projectile required for the entire operation. Forget about the Shanksville and Pentagon jokes. All you need is a single "impact" thing and you can say a dozen were just behind it "but you missed them - look, I'll show you on TV". Saying just one was missed is not much of a stretch for most (gullible) people after they've seen something real and you've already convinced them your dummy was filled with living people. Right?

On the other hand, it seems most people don't need much to think it's real and maybe there was not even a single projectile.

On the first hand again, since we don't know how the towers were demolished, we cannot say "projectiles would have messed with their demolition process." Most likely, fake projectiles were factored into the story.

There is ample room for there to have been two "plane" things or one or none at all. Again, I stress we are speculating and we don't have enough evidence to argue for 2, 1 or 0 missiles.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Tufa on July 22nd, 2011, 1:05 am

This discussion forum work with a series of extremely controversial subjects.

simonshack wrote:Of course, September Clues still contains my early speculations of a plane-shaped missile possibly being employed to gather at least some authentic witness reports of 'something' impacting the towers. As you know, however, it was never the central point of SC, and I now think the missile hypothesis should be ideally redacted from it


I called up Simon in 2008, and argued strongly against the missile hypothesis, especially when it is presented without any spare-exit, or what I shall call it. If a missile was indeed used, I think it was empty from explosives; and I just remember that in the S.C. film, a comparison is made between a missile hit and the, eh, "fireball" of the "second hit". I'll think Simon was fooled because I think the missile hit is also a fake (with added petrol).

Note that, in the September Clues, the missile hypothesis bind the film together so if it is removed, the structure might be lost. The Reader should also note that there was a previous version, before the one we have now, and the film is based upon what was known 2006-2007.

hoi.polloi wrote:Okay, it's probably all very speculative. I prefer to stick to the safe opinion that we don't know and it doesn't matter.
[...]
Since we don't know how the towers were demolished, we cannot say "projectiles would have messed with their demolition process." Most likely, fake projectiles were factored into the story.

There is ample room for there to have been two "plane" things or none at all. Again, I stress we are speculating and we don't have enough evidence to argue for 2, 1 or 0 missiles.
Very well put, and I find an AGREEMENT ON THE MATTER. This I find rewarding, and a promise of that the days of this Hoax is running out. I would especially like to make clear that, in my opinion, the War on Terrorism is the important point, and not any of these technical details.

simonshack wrote:I was simply not aware of just HOW MANY lies the perps had managed to churn out! :P
Indeed to the point. But on every Hoax and Lie, there is a small and determined group, trying to do something about it. In future these groups will come together; the knowledge in the general population will increase, and at some point the entire thing will "tip over".

Faking news and news pictures is as old as the camera itself: JFK-Zapruder (2003) Dr. David W. Mantik (3:00 -- ) from the JFK 2003 Zapruder conference.
The purpose of faking news is to promote new wars. On this ground the fakery, all of it, will have to come to an end.
Tufa
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: November 24th, 2009, 11:13 pm

Next

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 7 guests