Prepare tin foil hats - no planes hit the twin towers

anything I don't mind said:
You would think so but even the most experienced pilots have been unable to fly an airplane in to the buildings of the wtc on simulations when trying to recreate the apparent flight paths. In fact it was a lot easier to fly a missile and edit the video than it would be to fly commercial airlines in to the buildings, as evident.
Click to expand...

so if that was the case, why use a missle? if it was a controlled demolition as seems to be the general conscensous with most theory's, what was the need to fly a cruise missle into it, seems unnecessary.
 
Rroff said:
Will take a lot to convince me that events of that day are as clear cut as the official story* - I was playing quake 3 online at the time on a US server with a friend from the US while we were chatting on TS - his apartment had a clear view of events that day and though he didn't see the first impact he did see the second with his own eyes - so if something other than a passenger plane hit it it was a very good mockup. The interesting thing was several things that happened that day as reported in the BBC were being reported ahead of them actually happening defintely the WTC7 stuff was - I'd mention something and he'd be like "no dude thats wrong" then see the exact thing I'd just said about as reported by the BBC happen a few minutes later.


* Not that I believe in any conspiracy theory as such - I believe its more likely to be attempts to cover up failings by various agencies as much as anything else.
Click to expand...

Althought it has gone largely unnonticed on the day in the media there was some witnesses to missiles. EVeryone in the world was in complete shock and people in ny we can only imagine. Some people on the street, from amateur footage were denying to have seen a plane and then when people said that they saw the plane on the tv, everyone just went a long with that.

If it was a missile in new york (which i think it was) then it would have been travelling at faster than the speed of sound or close to it. With the limited visibility within new york, you could have been standing right near it and not seen anything as you would have seen it before you heard it. that means if you were in a street with high building you would see a flash go by and then a second later you would hear it and if it looked like a plane a bit, as some missile do. Then people would have thought they saw a small plane, interestingly a lot of people in the media were reporting to have seen a small plane with one person saying that some people said they thought they saw a missile and that they should be open to the possibility that it was a missile attack. That was quickly ignored by the talking heads as they kept on the plane narrative. Within the first 10 mins of the 911 media kicking off they already knew it was planes and who did it. So its not difficult to imagine how everyone just believed the media over their own eyes.

And say ok you saw a missile what you going to do about it? Who is going to believe you when the media is saying its a plane and there is video "evidence" of a plane. You call up the authorities (lol) you tell them it was a missile, they either kill you or laugh at you or ignore you. If you video evidence any good thinking trusting person would contact the authorities and what happens to that footage then and the person?
 
Zuban said:
so if that was the case, why use a missle? if it was a controlled demolition as seems to be the general conscensous with most theory's, what was the need to fly a cruise missle into it, seems unnecessary.
Click to expand...

They couldn't simply control demolition the buildings so they needed a "collapse narrative" they couldn't have got away with saying that explosives were planted in the building as that would require a lot of planning and so on. They knew that it wasn't technically possible to actually hijack planes and hit the buildings, even using empty planes would have been next to impossible to hit the towers. The easier method was to use missiles and then controlled demolition the buildings and claim that they collapsed due to fire and structural failure as a result of the plane impacts.

Strangely with wtc7 they didn't even need a fake plane impact story everyone just believed the non sense that some fires led to a complete free fall symmetrical "collapse". Just shows in hindsight people are so gullible when it shock that they probably could have just started a fire and then people would have believed the pan cake non sense theory.

considering the 911 commission didn't even mention wtc 7 initially, it just shows how there was no one actually questioning anything at all. As questioning of the official narrative was dismissed on september 12th in a speech by bush claiming that we should never put up with conspiracy theories, what he was actually saying was that we will not tolerate any questioning of the official narrative no matter how ridiculous it (the official narrative) sounds.
 
anything I don't mind said:
They simply deny it. Where i say there is no deceleration, they say there is deceleration. Where i say the plane does not breakup, they say it does breakup.

I've even had someone tell me that the plane would go inside the building in-between the steel cladding. ie all the plane managed to break up and enter via the foot wide gaps between the steel gladding, break the glass and enter. Other arguments include all the plane disintegrated on impact and was not actually going inside, it just vanished as it hit the building and only looks like its going inside.

We can clearly see from every single air plane impact video that has ever been released of the 2nd impact that the plane enters the building, not showing any decelerations, in some cases the planes tail is still completely in tact and a per frame analysis has been done showing that when the front part of the plane was inside the building, the tail was still in the same place as it would be even if the building was not there. Therefore the plane shows no visible signs of impacting anything, as no deformation of plane structure and no deceleration.
Click to expand...


I'm no physicist but surely the majority of the planes mass would be over the wings so the tail would would not crumple significantly infill that had begun to slow significantly, and by that time the front half of the plane had been piledriven into the building by all that kinetic energy?

Think of sticking 2 bags of crisps to a metal plate one either side and drop it onto the floor. You wont end up with 2 bags of shattered crisps.
 
Last edited:
MeEsH BaKkA said:
I'm no physicist but surely the majority of the planes mass would be over the wings so the tail would would not crumple significantly infill that had begun to slow significantly, and by that time the front half of the plane had been piledriven into the building by all that kinetic energy?
Click to expand...

Planes are light weight and break very easily, part from the engines and the landing gear.

If a 737 hit a steel building like that, it would be like hitting a brick wall. The planes wings would blow up on impact outside, the noes would crumple up and the entire plane would squash up. newtons third law, it would be the same as taking the wtc building and hitting the plane at 500km/h. The plane would be pancakes. The engines have the highest chance of entering the building if the engines could squeeze past the steel outer cladding.

Lets take a look at some pictures, always easier to visualise.

KEsim2pl.jpg
JMAlmxYl.jpg

This plane had faulty breaks and ran over the run way in moscow.

N0TWoBnl.jpg

This is from a bird impact. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/10/article-2339139-1A3F2D18000005DC-384_634x458.jpg



On the day of 911 the british media is known to have told the british public that the wtc 1 and 2 had ZERO internal columns.
 
Last edited:
anything I don't mind said:
They couldn't simply control demolition the buildings so they needed a "collapse narrative" they couldn't have got away with saying that explosives were planted in the building as that would require a lot of planning and so on. They knew that it wasn't technically possible to actually hijack planes and hit the buildings, even using empty planes would have been next to impossible to hit the towers. The easier method was to use missiles and then controlled demolition the buildings and claim that they collapsed due to fire and structural failure as a result of the plane impacts.

Strangely with wtc7 they didn't even need a fake plane impact story everyone just believed the non sense that some fires led to a complete free fall symmetrical "collapse". Just shows in hindsight people are so gullible when it shock that they probably could have just started a fire and then people would have believed the pan cake non sense theory.

considering the 911 commission didn't even mention wtc 7 initially, it just shows how there was no one actually questioning anything at all. As questioning of the official narrative was dismissed on september 12th in a speech by bush claiming that we should never put up with conspiracy theories, what he was actually saying was that we will not tolerate any questioning of the official narrative no matter how ridiculous it (the official narrative) sounds.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time beleiving that given how accurate guided missles etc have been for a long time now, that it would not be possible to fly a drone 767 into the towers.
 
Zuban said:
I have a hard time beleiving that given how accurate guided missles etc have been for a long time now, that it would not be possible to fly a drone 767 into the towers.
Click to expand...

Well show me the evidence for drone 737 technology in 2001 capable of flying a plane at the given path and i will be open to the possibility. It still wouldn't explain the fake crash physics or make the post crash damage any more consistent with a plane impact. It would also not make it any more possible to travel an air plane on the officials paths as the apparent speed.

I find it strange how you have a hard time believing that but not the rest of it... if only you (and millions more like you) took that same valid scepticism to the official narrative.
 
Rilot said:
Why are you even debating this?
Click to expand...

You are probably not asking me but ill respond.

I think the truth is important and being such a large event and everything that has happened as a result of the events that day. I think it is important where necessary to investigate and uncover the truth as to what happen. If we do not point out fraud and lies when we see it, then we are no better than the perpetrators in my opinion.
 
So the government intercepted and grounded two planes, murdered everyone on board, then stuffed their corpses into missile-fuelled drones and flew them into the towers?

Hell... sounds plausible to me.
 
But, but there are no lies.

Apply Occam's razor to it. What's the simplest explanation? That terrorists hijacked some planes and smashed them in to the WTC? Or that there's some global conspiracy of all major media and western governments to make people believe that plans crashed in to the WTC when in actual fact they were carefully demolished in such a way to make it look like a terrorist attack. This of course has to include all of the eye witnesses being brainwashed, the demolition or missiles (?) being planted / fired without anyone blowing the whistle or noticing anything, and all the plane manifests being forged and bodies planted etc etc. also without anyone noticing.

I mean, come on. Really?
 
anything I don't mind said:
Well show me the evidence for drone 737 technology in 2001 capable of flying a plane at the given path and i will be open to the possibility. It still wouldn't explain the fake crash physics or make the post crash damage any more consistent with a plane impact. It would also not make it any more possible to travel an air plane on the officials paths as the apparent speed.

I find it strange how you have a hard time believing that but not the rest of it... if only you (and millions more like you) took that same valid scepticism to the official narrative.
Click to expand...

They have been able to remotely fly planes of that size for decades prior to 911, its not hard to imagine tying together some existing technologies to make it happen.
 
Rilot said:
But, but there are no lies.

Apply Occam's razor to it. What's the simplest explanation? That terrorists hijacked some planes and smashed them in to the WTC? Or that there's some global conspiracy of all major media and western governments to make people believe that plans crashed in to the WTC when in actual fact they were carefully demolished in such a way to make it look like a terrorist attack. This of course has to include all of the eye witnesses being brainwashed, the demolition or missiles (?) being planted / fired without anyone blowing the whistle or noticing anything, and all the plane manifests being forged and bodies planted etc etc. also without anyone noticing.

I mean, come on. Really?
Click to expand...

Yeah. One of those two explanations sounds really far fetched. Terrorists hijacking a plane? Really? lol as if.
 
so the thousands of people who saw the plane are lying??

all the video evidence doctored??
even the live footage?????????????????????
 
Pestilence said:
So the government intercepted and grounded two planes, murdered everyone on board, then stuffed their corpses into missile-fuelled drones and flew them into the towers?

Hell... sounds plausible to me.
Click to expand...

No one said this. To me that sounds ridiculous and i don't even think that makes any sense.

The government did nothing of the sort. Watch the third documentary I posted to find out who did it and why.

In terms of the planes, its unlikely that the apparent planes that were used were ever actually in the air on the flight paths as they said they were. The transponders were faked, how they were faked is open to debate. But we know that the passengers lists are extremely questionable and the apparent terrorists were not even on the initial manifests. Thus the evidence all points towards there be no planes and thus no passengers. What happens to passengers is they were most likely murdered on the ground and/or they were fake people. Its difficult to believe but people have looked in to the passengers and have found very strange things indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom