Aeroplanes did NOT hit WTC?
My Eureka Moment on 911! -- Date: 2007-06-14, 10:29PM PDT
Today after thinking about 911, I came to realize in a Eureka type moment there was neither a plane nor a missile (one of the conspiracy theories) that hit the WTC buildings. I know for a fact passenger jets never hit either building. All footage of both hits is totally contrived and unrealistic as to make one laugh. Watch them, again, if you wish to see what I am talking about.
Yes, the second hit looks like a plane hitting a building (more than the Naudet film at least, for the latter doesn't really look like anything realistic, but only a blur hitting the first building, which was probably purposely done to keep people off the truth--911 Truthers talking nonsense about nonsense is what the perpetrators wanted! Duh). So the first hit and the film of it was just to show something (anything hitting) but it meant nothing. A blur was enough. More effort went into contriving the second hit as this involved every news media outlet in that the perpetrators had the technology to feed in the fake footage of a plane hitting the buildings in real time to make it seem live though it really wasn't. (just collusion of a single engineer at each station, if that) Also, think about this. NYC is a big city as is the surrounding metropolitan area, yet, there are no real witnesses or believable film of anything hitting the second building from the average Joe Six Pack. Nothing except the mass media and contrived "amateur films"-- the latter being important to give the official story more validity. Go on to Youtube and watch the second hit and you will find nothing that is at all conclusive, yet one would expect there to be at least 10 if not 100 amateur videos showing a plane traveling for at least 10 seconds if not 20 in the approach and the final hit. There is no such video, which defies all explanation when the whole area is looking at the buildings. My God, the whole world was looking at these two building and there is no one clear video!? Give me a break. They don't exist because planes never hit the buildings in the first place. Duh. Watch the ones that you have sizzled into your brains with an open mind and you can see they are fake. They really and honestly do not look real. Notice many of them--the real salient ones you have seen a hundred if not a thousand times-- are a) only right at the impact; and b) at an angle that doesn't clearly show a path of a large commercial jet flying from afar and striking the WTC building with any real clarity. In short, most of the shots are in the last seconds and the ones that show a longer flight path look so phony and contrived. Thus, I conclude they are fakes since there is no real video that shows what really looks to be a commercial jet flying into the buildings from afar. They simply don't exist because 911 is an out and out lie. If one of the conspiracy theories (missiles fired at the buildings) is correct, why would the government shoot missiles if they can fake everything after the fact? Shooting missiles has no merit. For one, there is no point in doing so as there would be too many witnesses to them and second shooting a missile would not form the impact area looking like a plane hit. It would just be a relatively small and circular hole, much like we saw at the Pentagon. What happened at the Pentagon is another story but it is a lie, too. NO doubts whatsoever. But, but ,,, think!... just having spectacular explosions in both buildings would be enough! The charges pre-planted in the building are placed in the shape of a jet (more charges in the center to make the main hole, and less where the wings supposedly hit) and there is only a need for a major explosion to simulate the impact for the shock and awe effect. But nobody saw anything; only after the fact. Ingenious. That is all they needed to do! Eureka! Later, the news media simply feeds the story with lies that jets hit the buildings and the official story of 911 is off and running. The interviews and phone conversations with "live witnesses" are all contrived and could have even been made without the witnesses’ knowledge. In the drills being run that day or even more prior, they could have been actors with a script calling the story for drill purposes and they would not even have known! Think about it. The same might have been true of all the passengers on those flights and all the phone calls from the plane could have been done as simple practice calls as part of the drills to make it as real as possible. Would they know? No, of course not. It might have been just a drill to them for all they knew. Think about that. So where all these passengers are is not relevant at all to whether or not 911 is a lie. They all might be dead or living underground in facilities in the event of a nuclear war, near Washington.
Now sworn to secrecy and destined to live in prison underground still serving the country. Who knows?
Also, if the official story is true, major efforts would have been made to airlift the people off the top of both WTC buildings yet no such attempt was made. The people in these floors had to die so they could not tell their stories. Any 911 call that spoke of steel burning in floors nowhere near the impact would have been intercepted or blocked with existing technology. I would even bet that any survivors of the fall (people have lived on rare occasions from even higher falls parachuting) were killed by the "firemen" waiting below so they could not tell their story. The "firemen" highlighted in the Naudet documentary film probably had this role. Remember the JFK assassination when so many conspiracy theories were put forth? What they mainly did was to muddle everything. People talked about too many things when all the evidence was right before their eyes. Keep it simple. … They never investigated 911, nor did anyone else for that matter. The 911 Commission was just another Warren Commission. The police and firemen who know the truth are mostly silent for they do not wish to lose their pensions. I rest my case. 911 is a lie. Oh, and just to let you know, aluminum wings of commercial jets could never ever, ever have sliced through steel beams. Ever. Hey, sorry, what time is it? I think Jerry Springer is on now. Sorry, got to run! I hope you enjoyed this post.
Joe Six Pack
"a right wing liberal"
Reply to: comm-352536128@craigslist.org
=============
May 31, 2007
Why They Didn't Use Planes To Hit The WTC
(Updated: 06/02/07)
For those who say:
"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?"
Here is why they didn't use real planes to crash into the WTC:
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.
The official reason why the Twin Towers collapsed and thereby causing the WTC 7 to collapse was that large aircraft (specifically Boeing 767's) loaded with lots of fuel crashed into the towers at high speeds and exploded causing extensive internal damage and then the resulting fire weakened the steel causing the top sections to collapse down thereby smashing the rest of the buildings to pieces and then debris from the falling North Tower pelted the WTC 7 causing massive structural damage and causing it to catch fire and collapse. Most people bought the official story obviously, so the official reason as to why the Twin Towers and WTC 7 collapsed was to most people believable.
A 767 allegedly crashing and causing this massive explosion in the South Tower.
North Tower collapsing partially on the WTC 7.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 actually quite simple.
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:
Supposedly Flight 11 crashing and penetrating all the way into the North Tower.
See all WTC crash videos here.
Supposedly Flight 175 crashing and penetrating all the way into the South Tower.
See all WTC crash videos here. Click pic to activate gif.
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 they penetrated all the way into the buildings and exploded.
With the following questions, you'll understand why the perps couldn't 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.
- 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.
Finally:
- How could the perps be absolutely certain that Boeing 767's would not miss their targets and be able to fully penetrate the buildings?
Only using the real Flight's 11 and 175 with all the alleged passengers on board would prevent the perps from being caught if one or both of the planes missed their targets or didn't fully penetrate all the way into the building, but then they would still run the risk of not being able to pull the Twin Towers and WTC 7 if any of the two planes didn't crash the exact way they needed them to crash.
Some conspiracists who believe 767's hit the WTC even seem to agree that 767's could not have penetrated the Twin Towers and were baffled from what they saw on the videos (emphasis mine):
Then last on the list for the odyssey of Flight 175 is its peculiar entrance, and exit out of the world trade center. How does a plane which is 16 feet, 9 inches in diameter, made out of thin aluminum, tear through not just one set of tubular steel spandrel beams, spaced 39 inches apart, but two of them? Yet there is more. The floors of the WTC, are less than 12.5 feet between floor and ceiling. Which means this plane ripped through a minimum of TWO FLOORS of 209 feet of concrete, 4 inches thick, (with a 22 guage steel pan) and the planes cockpit and fuselage remained intact all the way back to the wing root, and made it clear through the building? Remarkable to say the least. Physically impossible to say the most.
To resolve their bewilderment, they had to created some elaborate theories of how these 767's could have fully and freely penetrated the tower's facades such as saying that the perps used special 767 drones that fired a missile from its “pod” underneath it a fraction of a second before it hit to help the planes enter the facades and think that these drones were specially made to cut through steel by being fortified with special materials. Some have even suggested that the perps used thermite/explosives placed at the exact entry points the planes would hit to weaken the facade enough to allow to allow the planes to freely penetrate
And another thing, for conspiracists who believe the WTC was brought down with traditional explosives (i.e. bombs/thermite), do you really think crashing large planes loaded with fuel into two of some of the tallest buildings in the world you've just rigged with explosives for a controlled demolition would be a good idea? How would you know that crashing large planes into them wouldn't prematurely explode any of the critically placed bombs that might jeopardize the way you wanted the towers to fall or worse, might even prevent the towers from collapsing at all? Do you really think the perps wanted the towers to fall over like trees into the neighboring non-WTC skyscrapers? What if crashing a real plane into the North Tower caused it to collapse away from the WTC 7? Still think the perps would have pulled the 7?
Using real planes to crash into the towers and make it look believable that the planes crashed in such a way to cause enough internal damage to collapse the mighty Twin Towers and then shower debris onto the WTC 7 to give them an excuse as to why that huge skyscraper collapsed would be way too risky, if not impossible, and that's why they didn't use real planes to hit the WTC. On the other hand, if the perps simply made people on the ground and who were watching TV think that planes hit there, then they eliminated the risk of having to crash real planes into the two towers.
(Discuss this article at 911movement.org forum.)
See also:
(Special thanks to The Quest for insights for this article.)
22 comments:
Earth's magnetic field:
It is quite amazing after all this time, so many 911 investigators can't get their heads around the fact that they've been duped into believing planes hit buildings and that 90% of their investigative efforts have been on red herrings. Rather they say things like "explain how private home video was altered to show planes". What private home video? There is an amazing lack of private video other than what was claimed to be private and trickled out through the corporate media. Also the FBI did have a much publicised appeal at the time to collect any real private videos.
It is also quite amazing that most of those who realize no planes hit buildings, don't seem to in turn realize that means no big conspiracy. In fact terms like "MIHOP" and "inside job" are not only obsolete they are misleading. It is also not correct to use false questions like "Why would the government fake crashing planes into the WTC". There is no evidence that the bloated bureaucratic machine know as "the government" was involved at all. No planes equals LIHOP at best.
Evan Farebanks looks like he is standing in front of a video projection screen. He also appears to genuinely believe he was there and really witnessed a plane even though he acknowledges it looked like "a bad special effect". Mind control perhaps? Isn't that the forte of the CIA.
When is anyone going to confront low level perps like the Naudet brothers regarding the blatant video fakery throughout their 911 mockyoumentary. Who the hell are they really and who hired them for 911?
Luke,
Hang in there. You are misunderstanding.
For example, it's not whether the structure was lightweight steel. It's the was wah the crashes were shown. It the nose out fakery. It's many aspects of the whole day that all point to "jetliners didn't hit the towers".
Why can't skeptics leave comments without immature childish insults?
Very good article. "What if the planes hit, but they mostly blew up on the outside?"
What if the planes would add up to the physical reality ?
No. That would be impossible. One of the key effect of 9/11 is that the "planes" simply vanished into the buildings, completly... like knives through hot butter.
Hello, Killtown. I read what "Power to the People" said to you at 911 Blogger and came to check this out. I can't comment there now as I am temporarily banned for getting into it with John Albanese (which is fine and I'm not mad at the moderators and don't think I'm being censored, except I wish they had not taken down the thread).
Anyway, since I can't support you there, I just want to say that this is a really fine article.
I always understood the problem with a plane to be that it would not penetrate the building and would leave incriminating debris showing it was not the plane it was supposed to be. That's true to an extent, and is also the reason they would not use a remote control plane, but maybe they could have controlled the debris and lied about it, so that doesn't explain everything. Your explanation does -- a real plane on real video would not have made a plausible cover for the destruction of the buildings.
I told a fellow no-planer the other day I was 95% convinced that no planes hit. Even though I am totally convinced the videos depict an unphysical event, I still had a doubt whether the risk of detection was too high to make it plausible. You've shown me that the other risks were much higher.
I don't know how they would control all the witnesses and all contradictory videos, but I have ideas how that could be done. Plus, there are many contradictory witnesses). I even think one of the "private" videos is contradictory because it shows people in the foreground not reacting to the plane but only to the explosion. and even a contradictory video that may be real. Regardless, they did it.
Thank you, Killtown.
My third paragraph is muddled. Inconsistent debris is really just the reason why I don't buy remote control planes. But your explanation is much better - neither a remote control plane nor a real Flight 11 or 175 with the passengers they said were on it would penetrate and give a cover for the "collapse," and both might cause other problems as you describe.
Couldn't you just do a 'where are they now' of all the passenger's families and see who is who?
If planes did not hit the towers then you probably have a large pile of discrepancies waiting to be pointed out.
At the risk of sounding callous, the fate of the passengers is not an issue here. If they existed, they were murdered. What difference does it make how exactly they were murdered, if we already agree that the official story of their murder is a lie?
Proof that they got on planes at Logan and Newark is not proof they were on a plane that hit the towers. And proof that they did not get on planes, or did not exist at all, might still be construed as evidence that remote controlled planes hit. But we know that the remote controlled plane theory is not true, based on the crash physics and reasoning of Killtown above. So asking about the passengers is a red herring, no offense intended. It does not address the issue in dispute.
Sure, it would be good to know the answer, if possible, but it is not incumbent on us to answer.
I disagree. If you are indeed correct about 'no planes', then looking at the passengers on the plane, their hisotry/background/family you will find massive discrepancies that will provide you with valuable information pointing to a fake passenger list.
I do not believe the theory of no planes and if it's true, I do not believe all the passengers would be killed.
No offense taken.
First question, if there were no planes used, how did they fake the shadows that many witnesses saw?
Second, in terms of penetration, a plastic straw can penetrate a wooden telephone pole during a tornado. Plastic versus wood and in this case, the weaker material wins.
Third, how can Stanley Praneth (sp?) be accounted for as he watched the plane travel towards him and penetrate the building underneath him?
Killtown, I respect your research on all other areas of 9/11, but the no plane deal is a real stretch of the imagination and I'm a CTer and frequent debunker of debunkers.
Hi Swing, I added a link to 911movement.org forum to discuss my article further. Please join!
Hey, Killtown -- just a "hello" from a 911bloggerite. Ningen suggested I check out this blog, and although I remain unconvinced, it's reasonable food for thought.
Jpass, looking at the passenger list is fine and might strengthen the case, and is inherently valuable to know what happened.
But the no-planes theory is not dependent on showing that the passengers did not exist or showing what happened to them, and does not address the question of faked versus remote-controlled planes.
Like I said, proof the passengers got on a plane is not proof that the plane hit one of the buildings. The theory is not dependent on showing discrepancies in the passengers. So again, the fate of the passengers, if any, is a red herring. The issue of reported planes, remote-controlled other planes, or no planes is resolved by the crash physics,logistics, and achieving the goal of covering for the demolitions. These are very strong arguments, and the resistance to this theory is only the "thousands of witnesses" that "must" have seen the planes hit.
My answer is that deceiving witnesses or faking witnesses is hard, but possible. The crash physics are impossible.
"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life [or an aluminum plane melt into a steel tower], I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened." David Hume, Of Miracles.
Why would people willing to fly people into buildings (whether by hijacker or remote control) be less willing to kill them another way? I don't see the logic. I think it would depend on logistics and risk of detection - which is better, faking or killing real passengers?
Morally, faking would be better, and the perps are not necessarily amoral, just cold and rational in their willingness to kill to meet their purposes. They might have been willing to risk some complication to lessen the death toll. (They might also have killed more people in the buildings than they intended.)
Swing Dangler:
First question, if there were no planes used, how did they fake the shadows that many witnesses saw?
Lying, mistaken, fly-by plane?
Second, in terms of penetration, a plastic straw can penetrate a wooden telephone pole during a tornado.
According to NOAA, the pole or tree is bent by the tornado, the straw flies in to a crack, and the crack closes around the straw when the tornado passes.
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/
Prainmath's story does not hold water. He claims he saw a wing penetrate and hit a door. He also claims he survived in the impact zone, where shrapnel and explosion would have killed him.
He's not necessarily consciously lying, but he could be.
Yea but it could possibly help your case which is already not very convincing, imo.
I'm sorry, I mean to say it would help the theory that we are discussing.
Again, it would not help the theory, because the question of whether another plane hit would remain.
Jpass - Flights 11 and 77 were not listed in the government database for transportation statistics:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html
There are listed now, but with no actual departure and no "wheels-off" times.
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/flight-11-and-flight-77-now-in-bts.html
Flight 175's "wheels off" time in the transportation statistics is not consistent with the time reported by the FAA and the 9/11 Commission.
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-time-did-flight-175-take-off.html
It is also odd that United Airlines would not report that Flights 175 hit the South Tower until late in the day on 9/11.
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/united-airlines-reports-on-flight-175.html
I think the blips on the radar scenes of FAA and NORAD were "damn inputs."
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/i-think-this-is-damn-input-to-be-honest.html
All this raises the question of whether these flights were real, but again, this could be used as an argument for remote controlled planes, which I do not think is correct because of the crash physics.
"how did they fake the shadows that many witnesses saw?"
What witnesses saw these shadows? You mean the ones watching Oliver Stone's World Trade Center.
A plane is allegedly flying over 1000 feet at 500mph at 9am above a city of sky scrappers and now we have claims of witnesses seeing shadows.
Are these the same witnesses that saw "a blue logo"?
ningen and killtown. you amaze me. and war on suckers too. i started out as the ignorant 9/11 conpiracy guy. Telling people about loose change, but now i've come to read posts like this and you guys have evidence and can back up everything and then there are the people like swing dangler who post stuff and ccuse you of things you didn't say or mean (killtown on 9/11 truth movement). hang in there!! Hopefully the truth will come around.
Just curious what do you guys think of the '08 candidates. sorry if that's too off topic. I like what Ron Paul has to say.
Just wanted so say, that I knew this theory existed, but I didn't pay any attention to it. Cause I saw planes on TV ;)
Few days ago I found this 4-part "September clues". It was clearly presented and it rocked big time. Last weekend I examined Killtown's and other people's material about no-plane-theory and saw also even weirder stuff, like a moving bridge! I'm convinced.
Thanks to all guys, who has worked exposing this.
Just a quick note for people, who say "but the plane flew very fast and because of that it penetrated the WTC-wall."
I'll give you 3 (weird) scenarios.
1. Boeing 767 hits the (stationary) WTC at 500mph.
2. Boeing 767 and WTC hits each other with "head-to-head" crash, both travelling 250mph.
3. WTC hits stationary Boeing 767 at 500mph.
What would be the damages for both parties (Boeing & WTC) in each case?
PHYSICS: its all the same
1=2=3