Why they didn't use planes

[simonshack]

There was never any chance of thousands protesting on the streets with "I didn't see any plane" placards - so any doubters would soon be convinced by the endless stream of faked replays & witnesses and planted pieces of plane parts.

That's a really good point, Smokey.

As you see, I'm not at all 'pushing' the missile-theory (although I speculated about it in September Clues) - and I'm quite happy with the "NOTHING HIT WTC2" theory. The bottom line always remains:

Does it matter at all?

Since we have NO authentic imagery of that morning (please send it to me if you have any), we MUST ACCEPT that we'll never figure out exactly how things played out in reality. Good Heavens, we are talking about only a few seconds of New Yorkers' lives here!

Now, let's pretend for a minute that this 16-SECONDS airplane approach shown on TV (perfectly cut in 4 sections - and apparently shot from ideally-positioned TV choppers) portrayed REALITY:


Why would ANY onlooker (be it from the streets of Lower Manhattan or from afar) who did NOT see any airliner striking WTC2 do a fuss about it? Such a person would just ASSUME to have been distracted/too distant/or to simply have missed the whole spectacle. So what is this person going to say? "DAMN, I DID NOT SEE ANY AIRPLANE CRASHING INTO THE WTC!!!"

Who is going to listen to that person? TV showed a "perfectly clear 16-second sequence of a 767 penetrating the WTC". What does your word count against THAT? "Hey, you just missed the 16-second airplane approach we ALL saw on TV, dude"!

[reel.deal]

sorry lux, apologies. i misunderstood. no offence meant. just trying to thrash out the missile theories...

[lux]

Thanks, RD.

[Heiwa]

^ I agree with that, SG. As I said, I didn't think it would be necessary to provide an illusion and my reasons are as you stated.

And the orphan, what was he doing 2001?

[reel.deal]

the whole everybody/million actual eyewitnesses thing maybe a fallacy, but does have some truth about it.
staging 'The 2nd plane-crash', with NOTHING ?!? nothing but thin air ?!? now THAT is really something.
makes Copperfield's vanishing Statue of Liberty pale in comparison. That literally tens if not hundreds
of thousands of actual physical eyewitnesses saw no plane, no anything, just the 2nd tower explode, only
to be told by TV it was screaming 747... and shrug, & think 'must have missed it' ? wow. mindblowing.
ok, maybe the sun was in their eyes, Jersey side, but not East. It doesnt really matter, makes no
difference, but quite honestly, nothing 'hit'; no sound, no visual; & no-one thought it strange ?!?
Are Americans really that dumb ? That they could swallow this - ultimate in bullshit, #1 supreme ?
Dorothy, Toto, Tin Man & Lion... off to see the... nothing ?!?
No offence, no-one here is 'herd mentality' - thats for sure...

That no-one actually really there cares they saw no plane/no missile/no drone... heard nothing,
just saw WTC-2 explode & thought, 'oh, i must have missed "THE PLANE" ?' ...THE PLANE ON THE TV... ?
You know, THE 747... in the clear blue cloudless sky... that made the explosion !.
i think the whole NYC area stepped off the yellow brick road & still sleeping in the yellow flowers...

[Heiwa]

Are Americans really that dumb ?

Alphabetically they are ahead of the Belgians, Canadians, Danes, Egyptians, Finns, Germans, Hungarians, Irish, Japanese, K ... ???, Laotians (not many), Mongols and last, but not least, Norwegians!! Sorry Simon!

[reel.deal]

^ ^ ^
yeah, my friend keeps repeating the OCT 9/11 mantra... 'it would have got out, someone would have come forward".
to who ? the media ?!?

but no plane/missile/drone/nothing... ?!?
thats some balls.
seriously.
nah... there had to be 'something'... imho.
whatever...

[simonshack]

Are Americans really that dumb ?

Alphabetically they are ahead of the Belgians, Canadians, Danes, Egyptians, Finns, Germans, Hungarians, Irish, Japanese, K ... ???, Laotians (not many), Mongols and last, but not least, Norwegians!! Sorry Simon!

..and furher down the alphabet - the Swedes - Sorry Heiwa!

- as a matter of fact (due to my passport), I'm technically a Swede too!)

[chess_king]

-i don't think that there would be any reason for a real projectile to impact the wtc. nobody sees it, so why not just say you must have missed it.(it was on telivision, it must be real) i am not even sure that an explosion was nessesary.(a hoax should be as simple as possible)

-i also have a question. what happened in the feb. 26, 1993 attack? was it fake? real? how real? obviusly it was a prologue to 9/11 but i am not sure what really happened on that day either.

[reel.deal]

WTC '93... 9/11 prelude... truck bomb softened up foundations, then just plastered them over...

some guy is doing zoomed-in 9/11 details gifs & vids on youtube, will find link later...
i liked this one, of the chopper... something very 'classic 9/11' about it,...


made a remix: "9/11 NO SMOKING"

[fbenario]

-i don't think that there would be any reason for a real projectile to impact the wtc. nobody sees it, so why not just say you must have missed it.(it was on telivision, it must be real) i am not even sure that an explosion was nessesary.(a hoax should be as simple as possible)

I agree with you. I also don't think anything flew through the air, and I don't think anyone saw or heard any explosion at the moment the "2nd plane hit". The theories presented here about smoke-screens, no 'close-in' eyewitnesses, mass confusion/mass psychology, and TV-induced gullibility demonstrate convincingly that no props at all were necessary, and would in fact have brought in too many uncontrollable factors and risks.

[lux]

This guy said, "No second plane. It was a bomb."


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmHOF11L5t8

[Equinox]

^ ^ ^
yeah, my friend keeps repeating the OCT 9/11 mantra... 'it would have got out, someone would have come forward".
to who ? the media ?!?

but no plane/missile/drone/nothing... ?!?
thats some balls.
seriously.
nah... there had to be 'something'... imho.
whatever...

It’s perfectly feasible to believe an shock and awe missile
Would have been used on 9/11 (and Due to the pinpoint accuracy only a missile, more than likely)

The accuracy was there..

Missile cam target strike test.


JAASM Through a small window easy done.



Eyewitness who would have seen it could have easily mistaken its profile for a real 767.


JAASM Painted up in AA colors would be easy done. I myself would no doubt definitely believe if It was painted up.

[Jeanie]

The towers were most likely enveloped in thick smoke (military obscurants) as they collapsed – and no real footage exists of that brief event.
All collapse shots are computer generated animation much like the ones we see have seen in the Independence Day Movie.








cheap charm bracelets Celebrity Style Nikki Hilton Earring Celebrity Style Sofia Vergara Bracelet Silver Round Tag Necklace Tiffany Style

Admin question: What's the deal with these jewelry ads, Jeanie?
Please introduce yourself here as required: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... &start=540

[reel.deal]

we dont know/cant know, will never know; so all bets are off.
whatever 'proof' or 'evidence' that may one day miraculously emerge, or not ever, most likely,
will always be tempered by the fakery found at this forum.

so... regarding the no plane/no missile/no drone/no nothing at the NYC WTC on 9/11...
none of us will ever know, for sure; thats the bottom line.
so if i'm at 25/75, Simons at 50/50, maybe, everyone else 100/0 % 'no nothing'...
why so 100% 'no nothing' at the WTC ? to extend the same principle surely
then applies to the Pentagon aswell, no ?

Or what ? yes missile at Pentagon, but definite no missile at WTC ?
or is the Pentagon 'different', the 'exception that proves the rule' ?
Pentagon looks like a missile hit, to me...
otherwise, why Pentagon missile but WTC no missile/missiles ?
1 rule for Pentagon/ another rule for WTC ?

if someone can contest that 9/11 was 100% missile free that would be great.
but to be convinced i need some really good supporting counter-theory...
unneccessary/surplus to requirements possibly, but why ?
why leave out & omit 'The Main Event' ?
9/11 = 'missile free' ? ...really ?

if you opt for Pentagon missile/WTC 'no nothing'; isnt that a contradiction ?
i know it doesnt matter, makes no difference, just curious is all...
didnt mean to end up no plane > no missile > no drone > no nothing;
just lookin' at the 'missile theory'...
was there, or was there not... ?

if there wasnt any missiles, why not ?
for what purpose - no missiles ?