JFK on missiles

[jfk]

[Jack]

no...it was probably easier to use remote controlled planes and homing devices.

still, great comic timing, jfk.

[jfk]

easier to use a guided missile, then add in planes on the video.

[rodin]

[Jack]

[zennon]

"Anonymous", sounds like disinfo, and evidently it's working...

[jfk]

[chek]

[jfk]

where is the evidence for homing devices on 911?!

[chek]

[jfk]

[chek]

[jfk]

chek, if planes with homing devices hit the towers, how do you think the pilots of these planes were overcome.

[chek]

[Stefan]

Taking the hypothetical situation that RC was employed - why would the pilots need to be "overcome"? If you can fly a plane by remote control (which you can - the control is so precises that you can even land planes on runways and take them off by RC) it shouldn't be rocket science to disable the onboard controls.

The Fakerysmith tactic of trying to build a case for anything but NPT being unbelievable is as much of a joke as their attempts to build a case for their own theories.

"I find the idea of RC unbelievable"

Why?

"It's far fetched"

Why?

"I don't think they could do it"

Why?

"It would certainly be difficult"

STOP SPAMMING AND MAKE A COHERENT ARGUMENT OR JUST SHUT THE F*CK UP WOULD YOU?

We KNOW it is perfectly possible to control planes by RC - it has been for decades. WHY exactly is it unbeivable?

[Stephen]

Why risk real planes? what if one plane missed a tower then that would really put the PTB in the * after the bomb went off.

[chek]

[Stephen]

[chek]

[Stefan]

If it was being piloted by RC why would it miss?

You can land a plane on a runway with remote control - a far more complex manouver than hitting any chosen part of one of the twin towers.

Your problem is you seem to have completly erased all the difficulties and near impossibilities from the scenario of fakery - the thousands of witnesses, the complete control of all ameteur video taken from a radius of miles, the complete control of every single journalist, not to mention actually inserting the planes live in the first place. That's without even getting into the issue of how they use a bomb or missile to create damage which matches the planes perfectly (a point you jokers continue to avoid).

It's the most elaborate and risk-laden idea anyone could ever imagine - also one of the most whacko sounding which is exactly why it was devised and distributed among the gullible to discredit this movement.

Planes can be landed perfectly on a runway by RC - you accept this I presume? So why is the risk of flying one into a tower any way greater than the pitfalls in your scenario as detailed above.

[Stephen]

[Stephen]

[chek]

[Stefan]

Ah so a small computer in the plane somewhere might just come out of the towers unscathed and not be collected by the feds - a risk so huge they calculated it was FAR safer to assume that noone within a radius of miles would point a video camera at the twin towers, except their plants of course, therefore allowing them to control all footage? The risk of storing enough jet fuel inside the building to cause the explosion? From those of you who have had the guts to try and explain how the damage was caused I've heard talk of "winches and jacks" being used to bend the steel inwards in the midst of a raging fire - but that's a tiny risk compared to some passing computer expert who might pick up a torn up piece of plane wreckage from the streets of New York and take it home to study?

Please mate, blink, take a deep breath, and take a good look at what you're saying.

[Stephen]

[Stefan]

I know you aren't Stephen and I appreciate that - but for such an outlandish idea there needs to be more than just "they could" there needs to be some evidence, some solid indication that they actually did - otherwise you are making a mockery of 9/11 Truth.

[Stephen]