Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: Why the perps would never have used planes
They would not have risked using drones or remote controlled planes. This would have been far too risky. All it would have taken was one headstrong jet pilot to have completely jeapordised this entire gig.
Using remote controlled aircraft is not like flying a toy plane. How diificult would it have been to hit the buildings head on? They would not get any dry runs at it. A clipped wing, or a poorly directed hit could have been disastrous.
Overemphasis on PLANES HITTING THE BUILDING: The cartoon plane impact shapes.
The way the second plane glides into the tower with ZERO resistance.
The fact that there is no footage of the first Boeing. Visual evidence such as the Naudet Brothers would have been thrown out of court.
Witnesses not seeing a plane hit the second tower. One of these was a reporter, didn’t see a plane nor did he hear one.
Out of all the ‘thousands’ of witnesses, how come there is only a handful of videos depicting planes?
There was definitely planes in the area but none of these were destined to hit the towers.
No missiles.
No holograms
Just explosions.
This particular psy–op also exploits a humankind weakness. The “I was there, I saw the plane” old chestnut has the potential to keep this myth perpetuating.
TRAUMATISE THE PUBLIC. FEED THEM LIES = MASS MIND CONTROL ON A GLOBAL LEVEL.
There's a pretty high chance that a world famous landmark like the Twin Towers would have been being filmed at the point of non-impact. What was the perps' strategy for dealing with anyone who had video'd the event at the time of the explosions and captured the absence of planes?
They couldn't possibly have known that no one was filming at the crucial moment. Nor could they have possibly known who might have been filming it and where they might be (thus preventing their being apprehended and forced to relinquish the tape).
What if someone had filmed it and gone straight to the media? Or were ALL news editors at ALL media outlets given strict orders by the perps to ignore any evidence that contradicted the official story?
What if, as has been suggested on another thread, Mr Yamamoto was filiming it just before going home to Japan from his holiday? On arrival in Japan he might have presented his amazing and important film to a Japanese TV news studio as first-hand evidence of this great global event.
Such exposure would have blown the whole hijacking myth apart and the subsequent uproar would surely have risked exposing the real culprits. People would clamour to know why had the TV stations shown planes? Who was behind this media manipulation? etc. _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
There's a pretty high chance that a world famous landmark like the Twin Towers would have been being filmed at the point of non-impact. What was the perps' strategy for dealing with anyone who had video'd the event at the time of the explosions and captured the absence of planes?
They couldn't possibly have known that no one was filming at the crucial moment. Nor could they have possibly known who might have been filming it and where they might be (thus preventing their being apprehended and forced to relinquish the tape).
What if someone had filmed it and gone straight to the media? Or were ALL news editors at ALL media outlets given strict orders by the perps to ignore any evidence that contradicted the official story?
What if, as has been suggested on another thread, Mr Yamamoto was filiming it just before going home to Japan from his holiday? On arrival in Japan he might have presented his amazing and important film to a Japanese TV news studio as first-hand evidence of this great global event.
What if? What if? What if Father Christmas is real but his presence is obscured by corporate comercialization?
My question is why are there only half a dozen videos and what vantage points were blocked that day by the 'emergency services'?
The FBI took the video of Evan whatisname and then gave him back a copy. Who says the FBI were not swooping on anybody else with a decent vanfage point? Most of those vantage points would have been blocked off. Vantage points of the second hit would have been scarce and highly monitored.
The FBI took the video of Evan whatisname and then gave him back a copy. Who says the FBI were not swooping on anybody else with a decent vanfage point?
You are aware that "Evan whatisname" does not support your no planes view, and SAW the plane through his view finder as he filmed it????? _________________
The FBI took the video of Evan whatisname and then gave him back a copy. Who says the FBI were not swooping on anybody else with a decent vanfage point?
You are aware that "Evan whatisname" does not support your no planes view, and SAW the plane through his view finder as he filmed it?????
Who says the FBI were not swooping on anybody else with a decent vanfage point? Most of those vantage points would have been blocked off. Vantage points of the second hit would have been scarce and highly monitored.
How utterly ludicrous can you get?
Have a look at the flightpath of the second plane on this page....
After the first tower was hit thousands of people all over Manhattan had their eyes trained on the upper floors of the WTC - from the ground, from their homes, from rooftops, from windows in the many high rise buildings....
The wtc was situated on the edge of the hudson river and the upper floors of the towers (not to mention the huge plumes of smoke heading skyward from the north tower at the time of the second hit) could easily be seen for many miles around.
Large numbers of people will also have been watching the north tower burn from New Jersey in the west, and an even larger number will have been watching from Brooklyn and Queens in the East.
The idea that "most vantage points would have been blocked off" is beyond stupid. Have you ever been to New York?
There are 38 different video angles and 16 still shots of Flight 175 and its impact. Many of these are amateur.
So they're ALL fake right? All planted by agents of the Illuminati, while simultaneously controlling or destroying all video showing just explosions without planes, in Manhattan, one of the most tourist infested locations on the planet? _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
There are 38 different video angles and 16 still shots of Flight 175 and its impact. Many of these are amateur.
So they're ALL fake right? All planted by agents of the Illuminati, while simultaneously controlling or destroying all video showing just explosions without planes, in Manhattan, one of the most tourist infested locations on the planet?
38 does not equal 'tourist infested' when a great proportion of them were filmed by the news stations. I would have expected hundreds. There were no planes, the risk of then being shot down was too high. I love the way you link to Killtown - a no plane site! Oh, the irony.
There are 38 different video angles and 16 still shots of Flight 175 and its impact. Many of these are amateur.
So they're ALL fake right? All planted by agents of the Illuminati, while simultaneously controlling or destroying all video showing just explosions without planes, in Manhattan, one of the most tourist infested locations on the planet?
Ah - beat me to it - yeah, saying they're all "multiple clips from the same camera" is just not accurate.
In a city of thousands, popular with tourists, it would be simply impossible know who was filming and from where. The fact that the buildings dominated the city meant the available vantage points wasn't exactly restricted. Besides which, no-one has ever given a coherent explanation as to why thousands of eyewitnesses aren't going round saying they never saw or heard no goddam plane. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
What if? What if? What if Father Christmas is real but his presence is obscured by corporate comercialization?
My question is why are there only half a dozen videos and what vantage points were blocked that day by the 'emergency services'?
The FBI took the video of Evan whatisname and then gave him back a copy. Who says the FBI were not swooping on anybody else with a decent vanfage point? Most of those vantage points would have been blocked off. Vantage points of the second hit would have been scarce and highly monitored.
A decent vantage point would not have been needed. Any vantage point would have done. I have been to NY and I am sure that there would have been hundreds, if not thousands, of public places from where you could have seen the impact sites.
The FBI would would have had to have officers patrolling all of these vantage points simply on the off chance that someone was filiming the Twin Towers from there? That's a whole lot of Feds.
What about somebody filming from inside a building or a vehicle? How would they have learnt of these films and how would they have stopped them from being broadcast?
When I visited I took a film of the sky-line from a boat on the harbour. Would the feds have been there too?
It seems extremely unlikely that the perps would have employed this risky method of preventing the exposure of the scam.
You suggest that their should have been more than "half a dozen" videos of the strikes. Let's say you're right. Doesn't that make your hypothesis even less likely? The Feds would only have had to have missed one or two films for the whole project to have been under threat.
Would they have taken that risk when it could lead to the whole psy-op and scam backfiring and the real perps being exposed? _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
I was going to do a point by point refutation of 911APGM's scenario, but what would be the point?
These scenarios are not meant to be thought about too hard, which is probably why they appeal to a certain constituency.
Who's feeding it to 'em and why is the bigger question.
Well obviously, you don't want us to think about them too hard.
Using physical planes was far TOO BIG a risk. They could not have envisaged 100% that they would not have been shot down.
And you could guarantee 100% a missile wouldn't fail, no-one would be filming you didn't know about or no-one would notice the total absence of the aircraft it was claimed were there? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
The FBI took the video of Evan whatisname and then gave him back a copy. Who says the FBI were not swooping on anybody else with a decent vanfage point?
You are aware that "Evan whatisname" does not support your no planes view, and SAW the plane through his view finder as he filmed it?????
Give me your source.
The source is the video your clan posted of his footage recently where he speaks about thinking how unreal it looked as he filmed it.
He did not say "I filmed a big explosion, the FBI took my film, then it showed a plane hitting".
If you are claiming so, show me your source. _________________
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 2:21 pm Post subject:
911 a past gone mad wrote:
chek wrote:
I was going to do a point by point refutation of 911APGM's scenario, but what would be the point?
These scenarios are not meant to be thought about too hard, which is probably why they appeal to a certain constituency.
Who's feeding it to 'em and why is the bigger question.
Well obviously, you don't want us to think about them too hard.
Using physical planes was far TOO BIG a risk. They could not have envisaged 100% that they would not have been shot down.
On the exact polar opposite contrary 911APGM.
I would prefer it that you did think harder about it.
Why do you have the idea that using planes would be too big a risk?
Aircraft are almost 100% reliable these days - without question the most maintained and regularly checked pieces of engineering operating in the world today. Mechanical or control failure to all intents and purposes is a non-issue.
The impact run-ins could easily have been rehearsed and practised at any number of desert bases, and smart bomb guidance systems ensure there is a ready pool of competent, practiced remote guidance know-how fully au fait with using the systems probably used.
We know that it was Cheney had laid the groundwork to ensure they were not shot down months beforehand.
The Global Guardian 'exercises' put the majority of interceptors out over Alaska to the west and Iceland to the east on the day so that only 8 (off the top of my head) fighters were left dealing with nearly 30 false radar blips. Direct guidance control by data link from the AWACS orbiting off the Eastern Seaboard would ensure NO interception occurred.
And yet despite all this, you for some unexplained reason think it's 'too big a risk'.
No my friend, it's not me trying to stop you looking deeper into these issues, despite what you're told. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
38 does not equal 'tourist infested' when a great proportion of them were filmed by the news stations. I would have expected hundreds. There were no planes, the risk of then being shot down was too high. I love the way you link to Killtown - a no plane site! Oh, the irony.
There probably were hundreds of cameras in Manhattan that morning, but for 9am, 38 seems to be a reasonable number to capture the event.
The fact that I can use a NPT site to dispute your own fallacious arguments is indeed ironic, if only because it amply illustrates the contradictions inherent in NPT. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
I was going to do a point by point refutation of 911APGM's scenario, but what would be the point?
These scenarios are not meant to be thought about too hard, which is probably why they appeal to a certain constituency.
Who's feeding it to 'em and why is the bigger question.
Well obviously, you don't want us to think about them too hard.
Using physical planes was far TOO BIG a risk. They could not have envisaged 100% that they would not have been shot down.
On the exact polar opposite contrary 911APGM.
I would prefer it that you did think harder about it.
Why do you have the idea that using planes would be too big a risk?
Aircraft are almost 100% reliable these days - without question the most maintained and regularly checked pieces of engineering operating in the world today. Mechanical or control failure to all intents and purposes is a non-issue.
The impact run-ins could easily have been rehearsed and practised at any number of desert bases, and smart bomb guidance systems ensure there is a ready pool of competent, practiced remote guidance know-how fully au fait with using the systems probably used.
We know that it was Cheney had laid the groundwork to ensure they were not shot down months beforehand.
The Global Guardian 'exercises' put the majority of interceptors out over Alaska to the west and Iceland to the east on the day so that only 8 (off the top of my head) fighters were left dealing with nearly 30 false radar blips. Direct guidance control by data link from the AWACS orbiting off the Eastern Seaboard would ensure NO interception occurred.
And yet despite all this, you for some unexplained reason think it's 'too big a risk'.
No my friend, it's not me trying to stop you looking deeper into these issues, despite what you're told.
This is all just speculation. Show me proof that 'remote controlled' planes could be controlled with such precision. Give me the spec on remote controlled planes.
The FBI took the video of Evan whatisname and then gave him back a copy. Who says the FBI were not swooping on anybody else with a decent vanfage point?
You are aware that "Evan whatisname" does not support your no planes view, and SAW the plane through his view finder as he filmed it?????
Give me your source.
The source is the video your clan posted of his footage recently where he speaks about thinking how unreal it looked as he filmed it.
He did not say "I filmed a big explosion, the FBI took my film, then it showed a plane hitting".
If you are claiming so, show me your source.
So you have started to lie now. "This is how desperate it has got. [b]The FBI took my film and then it showed a plane hitting."
Where does it say anything about looking through his viewfinder? Find the source and stop lying!
Ever heard of UAVs? They are unmanned and have to take off and land.
Is that any less precise than hitting one of the world's biggest buildings? _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
What if? What if? What if Father Christmas is real but his presence is obscured by corporate comercialization?
My question is why are there only half a dozen videos and what vantage points were blocked that day by the 'emergency services'?
The FBI took the video of Evan whatisname and then gave him back a copy. Who says the FBI were not swooping on anybody else with a decent vanfage point? Most of those vantage points would have been blocked off. Vantage points of the second hit would have been scarce and highly monitored.
A decent vantage point would not have been needed. Any vantage point would have done. I have been to NY and I am sure that there would have been hundreds, if not thousands, of public places from where you could have seen the impact sites.
The FBI would would have had to have officers patrolling all of these vantage points simply on the off chance that someone was filiming the Twin Towers from there? That's a whole lot of Feds.
What about somebody filming from inside a building or a vehicle? How would they have learnt of these films and how would they have stopped them from being broadcast?
When I visited I took a film of the sky-line from a boat on the harbour. Would the feds have been there too?
It seems extremely unlikely that the perps would have employed this risky method of preventing the exposure of the scam.
You suggest that their should have been more than "half a dozen" videos of the strikes. Let's say you're right. Doesn't that make your hypothesis even less likely? The Feds would only have had to have missed one or two films for the whole project to have been under threat.
Would they have taken that risk when it could lead to the whole psy-op and scam backfiring and the real perps being exposed?
Any response? _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
What about somebody filming from inside a building or a vehicle? How would they have learnt of these films and how would they have stopped them from being broadcast?
I was trying to find the 'other' footage of the North Tower 'hit'. Why don't you get off your backside and do some research instead of whining like some girly kid?
It's here, now where is the plane?
Link _________________ Steven Elvis Jones leads the way
That's my problem, DM. Call me old-fashioned but I like the old approach to learning and discourse, where people propose a hypothesis and then debate the pros and cons of it.
I just can't get used to this knew guerilla approach which substitutes reasoned debate and logic with baseless assertions and logical fallacies.
Ho-hum. _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
That's my problem, DM. Call me old-fashioned but I like the old approach to learning and discourse, where people propose a hypothesis and then debate the pros and cons of it.
I just can't get used to this knew guerilla approach which substitutes reasoned debate and logic with baseless assertions and logical fallacies.
Ho-hum.
Gonzo trutherism? I kind of like that idea... _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
