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 reel.deal on November 24th, 2011, 12:02 pm

Image
lets say the 3 of us are sitting in this picture. then the new WTC Tower explodes.
then i say "that was either a 747, or a big missile." you guys say i'm crazy.
then we all go away & 24/7 TV showing multiple angles of the 747 dive-bombing and hitting.
you happy with that? you not even admit to the mrs or yr best friends you saw 'nothing',
because she & they all call you crazy ? you know i'm crazy, saying "747/missile";
when you saw yourself that 'nothing' flew, there was no 2nd hit,
yet the whole world says 'you must have missed it'...
you gonna be happy with that ?!?
just shrug & say 'whatever' ?

cause apparently thats what the whole NYC & surrounding areas have done, if 'no nothing' is true...
:blink:
Every last 9/11 2nd/No '2nd hit' eyewitness has become the 3 Wise Monkeys...
see no evil hear no evil speak no evil
^_^
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby nonhocapito on November 24th, 2011, 12:16 pm

First of all it was early morning, people were on their way to work -- NYC doesn't strike me as a town were people have a lot of free time on their hands to hang around to watch over disasters. Until the second plane, it was a disaster, but not "the" disaster that would justify you not coming to work. So the number of people that could hang out on a riverfront at 9 in the morning maybe wasn't so high. And maybe the spots like the one in the picture were cordoned off for "precautionary" measures?
They had decades to think about this project and I am certain the witnesses problem was at the center of the equation.
But I understand you're baffled, rd, I am too...
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2525
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby reel.deal on November 24th, 2011, 12:20 pm

'2nd hit' - Copperfield done it ! B)

:P
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby nonhocapito on November 24th, 2011, 12:27 pm

I get it is a joke but for sake of the argument... If walt disney corp. & copperfield had to create this illusion -- I don't see how they could create it without the help of TV. The disappearance of the statue of liberty and of the dc-9 were all a matter of controlled point of views -- the crowd looking at the statue stood on a spinning platform that changed their point of view. But it seems to me that on 9/11, the "spinning platform" could only be... television. Unless we wanna discuss the non-existing technology of extra powerful, open air "holograms", that is. :P
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2525
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby SmokingGunII on November 24th, 2011, 12:58 pm

RD - The photo I posted was taken from the Hudson, a lot closer than 5 or 10 miles away and it is virtually invisible! Of course, you argue that a "bigger missile" may have been used. In which case, somebody somewhere would have captured this on video if we follow the logic that thousands of people were watching the towers from afar. Yet all we see are contrived, fake videos showing something that is supposed to represent a 767.

The "fly over" theory at the Pentagon was instigated by the CIT team and didn't convince any of us that were on 911 movement when first propagated. Any plane passing the towers as a "sleight of hand" as the towers exploded would have been seen clearly after the explosion, flying away in the distance. Big NO to this theory.

Perhaps a drone was used? They are larger than missiles, resemble a plane, but cannot reach 500mph +. So, if we accept that the "planes" shown on the fake news footage and amateur videos were inserted to conceal something more sinister, then, whatever it was, had to be capable of the speeds documented.

I remain open to possibilities, but for now, I remain firmly in the No plane, no missile camp. :)



EDIT: Don't get me started on holograms, Nonho. You have to have control of the light environment to produce a hologram and have something to project onto. Maybe in darkness - but to make it travel 500mph too - LOL! :lol:
Last edited by SmokingGunII on November 24th, 2011, 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby reel.deal on November 24th, 2011, 1:02 pm

holograms! there is an amazing Japanese nighttime 1 of godzilla rising from the water,
and 1 day we'll see God & sunrays appear through the clouds, i'm sure, but on 9/11 ?
nah... if mega-holograms were used, then they would have also used an aural equivalent,
an authentic screaming 747 sound that at least could have all the 'videos' sound even
half way realistic. i'm joking saying Copperfield done it, but despite smoke's and your
good evaluations on 'no nothing theory'; 'no nothing' IS an illusion i find hard to take.
dont get me wrong, i like what you say, & i'm not playing devils advocate for kicks,
i'm just interested in the dichotomy of why they would craft so much cgi 'video/photo'
fake visual 'documentation'; then 'couldnt even be bothered' to send a 'dummy 747' GPS
missile into the towers 'live' for the show - to a potential million actual onlookers...
you may say 'why would they?', just as easy to say 'why wouldnt they?'...
the Star Attraction, the Centrepiece, the Main Event ! the 2nd Hit !!! LIVE !!!
was... nothing ? was that it ?!? how crap and boring ! we want our money back !!!
:P
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby reel.deal on November 24th, 2011, 1:15 pm

smoke, you do know better than me, sincerely, i've never looked at missile theory before, just kinda presumed
they'd been used, so i'm just riffin' on the theme here really, thinkin' out loud, but its a big help to hear why no
missiles, for me, even if its 'been there, done that, thrown out' for you long-termers.
I'm not stuck on 'promoting' missiles, or anything; just never really looked into it before, so thanks.
i did quite enjoy making the b-roll pentagon cgi-missile comp comparison FAIL gifs recently though...
;)
i'm still shocked that NYC witnesses had 'nothing' - at all ! - to actually 'see' though, if that actually was the case...

:huh:
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby nonhocapito on November 24th, 2011, 1:38 pm

After all, if they needed to use a missile, why not using a radio-controlled airliner and get it over with?
Thing is, in reality things can go wrong.

The brilliance of 9/11 was that... "nothing was real". Except, possibly, timed explosions in the towers -- as those are virtually 100% foolproof, I can imagine, especially if the military is involved. No indian-looking peter sellers to put his foot on the detonator there.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEWTTbtl82s
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2525
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Heiwa on November 24th, 2011, 1:43 pm

The new WTC1 tower is designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, an architure firm based at Chicago. Their website is at http://www.som.com/ . They also have a foundation.
Maybe they use professor Bazant as consultant so I thought I was going to enlighten them a little. :rolleyes:

So I sent an email to the following:

somfoundation@som.com (Nancy Abshire) ; somchicago@som.com ; hrsomchicago@som.com ; somnewyork@som.com ; hrnewyork@som.com ; somsanfrancisco@som.com ; hrsomsf@som.com ; somlondon@som.com ; hrlondon@som.com ; somdc@som.com ; hongkong@som.com ; somshanghai@som.com ; SOMAbuDhabi@som.com ; sommumbai@som.com

The e-mail is as follows:

quote

"Dear Ms Nancy Abshire and cc - Human Resources, SOM offices everywhere.

I understand SOM is involved with a lot of interesting skyscraper/tower, tall, high structural designs including the new WTC1 tower at NY and that your foundation supports architects and engineers interested in the matter.

Re the new WTC1 the present owners, Silverstein, collected a lot of money after 911 due the destruction of the old towers suggesting they were brought down by progressive global structural collapse initiated by planes causing local structural failures up top in the structure, terrorism, etc.

I assume you at SOM have investigated that suggestion so that the new construction will not be subject to progressive global collapse if hit by a terrorist or civil plane?

Actually, you do not have to worry at all. No structure of any kind can be destroyed by progressive global collapse starting up top. I explain it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm .

Being generous I will donate €1 million to the SOM foundation if any SOM staff member can describe a structure that will destroy itself by gravity from top down: see http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm .

Best regards

Anders Björkman, M.Sc, President
Heiwa Co - European Agency for Safety at Sea
http://heiwaco.tripod.com

un-quote
I will copy/paste any reply here if received. :D
Heiwa
Member
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 7:20 pm

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby reel.deal on November 24th, 2011, 1:58 pm

Image
smoke, this picture is a great scale demonstration, but... yes the JASSM is near-invisible compared to the 767,
however, lets suppose for purposes that a JASSM was used, it could be said the very '500'mph 'motion', aswell
as changing refracting glints of sunshine would draw the eye to it. enough to 'represent' a 767 ? perhaps.
if a 'bigger missile', it doesnt neccessarily mean 'more amateurs capturing', as you say a '500'mph projectile,
& even if they did, youtube 2001 would sure as shit pull that video - straight away. who else gonna publish
that visdeo/freezeframes ? New York Times ? Hold the Front Page !!! 'fly-by' is a dud, 'remote-control 767' -
too big, JASSM - too small, so something inbetween, a mix of both - 'if' a projectile was neccessary...
I am coming round to 'no nothing', and fewer onlookers, greater distances away, etc, but still...
it doesnt hurt to look at all possibilities, for sure...

Peter Sellers - 'The Party' :lol: ...'Being There' B)
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby nonhocapito on November 24th, 2011, 2:20 pm

reel.deal wrote:Peter Sellers - 'The Party' :lol: ...'Being There' B)


It has nothing to do with anything but... here's a screenshot from the ending of 'being there', when the "rulers" decide that the successor (or rather, the messiah, since he's showed a moment later 'walking on water') will be the 'simple man':

Image

Here's from the ending of the original "Ocean's eleven" movie of 1960, also a funeral:

Image

just sayin'... B)
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2525
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Brutal Metal on November 25th, 2011, 12:00 am

reel.deal wrote:Image
smoke, this picture is a great scale demonstration, but... yes the JASSM is near-invisible compared to the 767,
however, lets suppose for purposes that a JASSM was used, it could be said the very '500'mph 'motion', aswell
as changing refracting glints of sunshine would draw the eye to it. enough to 'represent' a 767 ? perhaps.
if a 'bigger missile', it doesnt neccessarily mean 'more amateurs capturing', as you say a '500'mph projectile,
& even if they did, youtube 2001 would sure as shit pull that video - straight away. who else gonna publish
that visdeo/freezeframes ? New York Times ? Hold the Front Page !!! 'fly-by' is a dud, 'remote-control 767' -
too big, JASSM - too small, so something inbetween, a mix of both - 'if' a projectile was neccessary...
I am coming round to 'no nothing', and fewer onlookers, greater distances away, etc, but still...
it doesnt hurt to look at all possibilities, for sure...

Peter Sellers - 'The Party' :lol: ...'Being There' B)

YUP the mysterious ghost plane was command central for the TV feeds shown and the jassm missle launch! And this isn't sarcasm just a sinister assumption!! :D
Brutal Metal
Member
 
Posts: 401
Joined: July 22nd, 2010, 4:58 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Dcopymope on November 25th, 2011, 12:41 am

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

SPOT THE DIFFERENCE - BOEING 767 V JASSM MISSILE

Image


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

No planes. No missiles. Explosions & plane shapes all controlled from inside the towers. No chance of fouling up.


As far as the use of missiles is concerned, my final verdict is that none was used, as it would have been pointless to use them anyway as SmokingGunII explains, I now think the same for the Pentagon attack as well. It would have been even riskier to use a missile at the Pentagon because of the wide open space and the hundreds of cameras that would have surely caught it on tape. They most likely just used explosives on the Pentagon like they most likely did at the towers.
Dcopymope
Member
 
Posts: 670
Joined: April 10th, 2010, 2:59 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby reel.deal on November 25th, 2011, 12:58 am

i dunno what i think! i'm liking 'no nothing' for the 2nd hit, but it just dont sit right to me.
no nothing seems highly likely, maybe most probable, plausible, yet...
i just dunno ! could just as easy as not send a neutered no payload big JASSM shape 'dud'
into the synched explosion, just to wow the 'crowds'...

true though, definite no need at the Pentagon, and the 'damage' 'looks like' they got bored
replicating cgi 'plane-crashes', or even 'missile-damage' and just used sticks of dynamite.
yeah, there should be 500 'Pentagon-Hit' CCTV tapes, instead of the joke 2 or 3...
maybe they were gonna do the nuclear plant early 'live' rumours said was next target, but
switched to Pentagon at the '11th hour', & left no time to fake much Pentagon CCTV...
Quite a contrast, between the amounts of Pentagon & WTC '9/11 crash imagery'.
;)
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Postby Dcopymope on November 25th, 2011, 1:10 am

SmokingGunII wrote:RD - The photo I posted was taken from the Hudson, a lot closer than 5 or 10 miles away and it is virtually invisible! Of course, you argue that a "bigger missile" may have been used. In which case, somebody somewhere would have captured this on video if we follow the logic that thousands of people were watching the towers from afar. Yet all we see are contrived, fake videos showing something that is supposed to represent a 767.

The "fly over" theory at the Pentagon was instigated by the CIT team and didn't convince any of us that were on 911 movement when first propagated. Any plane passing the towers as a "sleight of hand" as the towers exploded would have been seen clearly after the explosion, flying away in the distance. Big NO to this theory.

Perhaps a drone was used? They are larger than missiles, resemble a plane, but cannot reach 500mph +. So, if we accept that the "planes" shown on the fake news footage and amateur videos were inserted to conceal something more sinister, then, whatever it was, had to be capable of the speeds documented.

I remain open to possibilities, but for now, I remain firmly in the No plane, no missile camp. :)



EDIT: Don't get me started on holograms, Nonho. You have to have control of the light environment to produce a hologram and have something to project onto. Maybe in darkness - but to make it travel 500mph too - LOL! :lol:


I already explained why I don't think they would have to use a hologram, if a smoke screen was used then they obviously didn't want anyone to see anything hit the towers in the first place. As far as the feasibility of holograms projected into the sky, or what is typically called Project Bluebeam, I show in the link below what exactly can be used as a screen to project holograms into the sky, and the sky doesn't have to be dark either, it has to do with the chemtrail operations. They've obviously been testing this technology for a very long time on a daily basis. The first major test of this technology was probably the event known as "The Great Los Angeles Air Raid" in 1942.

link: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=912&p=2354793&hilit=+Rather+than+using+a+badly+photoshopped#p2354793

The Great Los Angeles Air Raid
Last edited by Dcopymope on December 15th, 2011, 11:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 4 guests