Blasting Off The Head of the Snake

[Indubitably]

Chek,

I do not doubt and I fully accept that plane wreckage near the WTC on 9/11/2001 is consistent with your belief in planes hitting the WTC. But you cannot doubt that this same plane wreckage is consistent with the view that it was planted. 6 years later, no report exists of what sort of plane/s this wreckage actually comes from. How then can we know if the wreckage is really from plane crashes at the WTC ? The evidence we have is that the opportunity existed on that day for plane parts of this kind to be planted. Of this there is no dispute. For example, the whole area where wreckage of planes was found near the WTC was itself cordoned off from the general public for large parts of that day.

Since we are still unable to obtain the serial numbers on these items we cannot dogmatically claim this wreckage belongs to planes that hit anywhere.


We have therefore two possibilities -

1. That planes hit the WTC Twin Towers
2. That plane wreckage was planted to suggest they did so

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Even better are facts. It's a fact that 6 years later we do not have any evidence of what plane wreckage this is. Wonder why ?

[chek]

[Indubitably]

Well Chek, a plane is not a solid object. It's little more than a flying aluminium can. Are you suggesting that in both cases (North Tower and South Tower WTC) the 'plane' hit the outer steel at an angle of 90 degrees (relative to the towers themselves) ? You surely agree that at any other angle such collisions would inevitably have caused most of these planes to have crumpled to the ground, wings and all. Right ?

[gruts]

if you think that what actually happened was really impossible then please go ahead and prove it. I've been waiting for you to do so for several days now (not to mention the previous 6 years)....

[chek]

[gruts]

[Indubitably]

And how solid is a commercial airliner ? A truck can drive through a commercial airliner with ease.

[chek]

[truthseeker john]

[truthseeker john]

[Indubitably]

A commercial plane is basically a hollow cylindrical object with wings. Made of aluminium, fibreglass and with wings. Its hard parts are its engines. In many ways it can be compared to a flying beer can. Or bean can. It's purposely designed to be as light as possible.

My point is rather simple. Such an object approaching a steel guarded tower would need to strike the tower at exactly 90 degrees to the tower wall or else it (and the entire structure of the plane) would be destroyed at the moment of impact, its fuselage and wings crumbling to the ground.
A steeper angle of approach could cause the wings to strike the tower first. Etc. It's extremely unlikely that a plane, even if it hit at exactly 90 degrees to a wall, could ever enter the tower. It's absurdly unlikely that two planes could have entered two different towers at such unlikely angles within 20 or so minutes of each other. And it becomes even more unlikely that these two flights could also have allowed the wings of both planes (both sets) to have also entered these towers.

As far as settling the question of whether a truck could drive through an airliner, here is some footage - (please watch from 5 minutes 41 seconds to 5 minutes 46 seconds).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgu-g6FFjrU


The bottom line is this. If a tall building whose defences consist of reinforced steel columns could somehow fly at 600 miles an hour directly in to a parked jet aircraft the physical outcome of the collision would, scientifically, be THE VERY SAME as if vice-versa happened. In both cases the physical forces involved and the physical results would be the very same - total destruction of the plane.

[chek]

[truthseeker john]

[Indubitably]

I read recently that 3 million UK television viewers got rid of their televisions last year.

The corporate media and the British establishment cannot control truth. Truth finds its way, like grass growing around solid slabs of concrete. It gets to the sunlight. It's unstoppable.

I would appeal to your conscience to throw in the towel - to stop making this website a site for misinformation on one of the great tragedies of our times. But that is to assume you have a conscience. I make no such appeal.

Thanks for at least providing this space.

[truthseeker john]

[truthseeker john]

I described the planes as a “hollow” tube but planes are not entirely hollow - there’s all the infrastructure and the stuff inside the plane. Then for all we know those planes could have been packed with incendiary devices or explosives, although this could be difficult to prove and we may never know.

The fact remains that planes where seen by many and you admit that wreckage was found. You Indubitably, cannot, in any reasonable way, explain these away so if you are honest it should be obvious to you, that planes did indeed hit the towers.

[truthseeker john]

PS. Indubitably, I think it must be your turn to throw in the towel!

[mediadisbeliever]

Well, it's clear to me that there are not enough folk who are looking at the big picture here.
We all know that to pull off such a massive tragedy as 9/11 takes a hell of lot of organization by those who have the power to do so. It means that there is such a strong collusion and trust between all the various corrupt elements that it had to be effective if the NWO were to get their justifications for war. Therefore, in order to do this they also need the POWER of the biggest propoganda tool in the world-the media. Having the media's technology to blind the world into thinking two aircraft hit the towers has been one of the NWO's most successful tools in achieving their aims. We have after all been brainwashed with TV since its inception in the 50's. Do I need to provide examples!
An aircraft's wings and fuselage are much more prone to damage than we realize. Just watch the video links posted earlier in this topic. There is not a chance in hell that the whole of these passenger aircraft would be swallowed-up by a steel and concrete structure such as this without some damage to the aircraft being clearly visible from the outside.

Again, do not think for a second that the very intricate web of deceit by the NWO is not at all effective, and interlocked. They have every means at their disposal and to negate their power by dismissing such likely possibilities is to rubbish their ability to do whatever they want. They can, and you better believe it! Remember their order demands a ruthless devotion and a lust for power and greed by those who are part of this sick desire to control the world.
JFK warned us of such pervasiveness in his secret society speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C56QlmgMSFU
Also see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkKbE9qCzQo

It is a monster and it can do whatever it wants, we only have to catch it and treat it with a bigger contempt and ruthlessness than it has treat us.
Rule out nothing.

[gruts]

it's really funny reading that I might have been "brainwashed" by tv when I don't even watch tv.

there's nothing remarkable about the fact that the planes went into the buildings. it's what the wtc's designers anticipated would happen in the event of a collision.

on the other hand, I'm still waiting for someone to provide some credible proof that it really would be impossible for a 150 ton plane travelling at roughly 500 mph to crash through the external facade of the wtc.

or even a credible explanation of how the observed impact damage, fireballs etc could have been created in the absence of a plane.

any ideas?

[chek]

[Dogsmilk]

[truthseeker john]

[truthseeker john]

[mediadisbeliever]

[marky 54]

[truthseeker john]

The NPT has been debunked but well said, marky

[mediadisbeliever]

[mediadisbeliever]