fatal flaw of the 'no planer's'

[fixuplooksharp]

BOTTOM LINE: WE KNOW THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, AND PERHAPS EVEN THE TECHNOLOGY TO STAGE A 'NO PLANES' ATTACK ON THE WTC. BUT, SINCE THE WHOLE WORLD WAS WATCHING, THERE IS NO RATIONAL MOTIVE:

1. ALL members of the 9/11 Truth movement believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy
2. ALL members of the 9/11 Truth movement believe the government brought down the twin towers, and wants us to believe that it was the impact and subsequent damage from aircraft that was the cause
3. ALL members of the 9/11 Truth movement believe that regardless of what hit or did not hit the towers, THAT THEIRE COLLAPSE WAS DUE TO OTHER CAUSES
4. THE ACTUAL CAUSE of the collapse was engineered by the government with no expense spared - for example, controlled demolition from the top down uses up much more explosive material than the traditional bottoms up. However, in order to make it appear that the planes caused the collapse, the cost of the extra explosive material was no object.
5. It is clear that the span of time before the 1st plane hit the WTC and the second was deliberate, in order to ensure that the "whole world was watching" by the time of the second attack, but could not be so long as to further bring into question to inaction of our defenses.
6. Since the use of actual planes to hit the WTC was not intrinsic to the collapse, the basic question is this:

WHAT IS THE MOTIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE RISKS WITH A DECEPTIVE STRATEGY, WHEN IT IS SO MUCH EASIER TO USE ACTUAL AIRCRAFT/DRONES, AND GET HUNDREDS OF REAL WITNESSES TO HELP IN THE COVER UP ?

Based upon this logic, it is clear that the NPT is one of the most counter-productive arguments to use with the general public, and those who push it at every opportunity are either delusional, driven by petty spite at other researchers, or actually disinformation agents.

[scubadiver]

I will second that!

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Fixuplooksharp said

WHAT IS THE MOTIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE RISKS WITH A DECEPTIVE STRATEGY, WHEN IT IS SO MUCH EASIER TO USE ACTUAL AIRCRAFT/DRONES, AND GET HUNDREDS OF REAL WITNESSES TO HELP IN THE COVER UP ?


I there were far more risks involved with using real planes, so please tell me why you think there were less - I will post a reply

Look forward to hearing your reasons

[Zlocke]

The NPT "people" really get on my nerves. As you put it so well - There is so much more obvious evidence to produce. All this does is belittle the WHOLE 9/11 movement.
NPT boys - "your either with us, or your with the Bush's!!"

[iro]

[Jane]

[Zlocke]

The "Your either with us, or with the Bush's" was a joke. Sorry, I never meant to offend.
I have just finished sending out ovr 45 copies of Loose Change 2 - todays orders - and have had a couple of beers.
But I do think we need to get across the easiest to swallow evidence first otherwise we risk turning people away form us.
Look at LC2E, my god there is SO MUCH left out of this. There is SO much for people to open up too, we need to do it one step at a time. I ALWAYS start with the "small hole,big plane" theory - the Pentagon. This gets people thinking.
Go from there.

[chek]

It seems to me that the 'how could it do that?' line of logic mostly exposes our lack of engineering knowledge more than anything else, and fiddling round with blown-up images taken from compressed movie files will not yield much in the way of credible information in itself.

It might initiate another line of enquiry, but that's about all.

For instance the recently posted video showing the test of an F-4
(a 25 ton fighter jet) that was crashed at 500mph into a concrete reactor wall simulation, showed almost total destruction.

But that was into concrete (as at the Pentagon) and finding the full report and post-test photos analysing what remained of the wall and the plane, would be a better basis for understanding what these structures actually do at those speeds.

The nearest analogy for the Towers collisions would be putting an alumimium can through a steel cheese grater at 500mph (or whatever high speed it actually was).

The severed steel beams and chipped off aluminium outer cladding look convincing to me in the photo showing the woman looking out from the edge.

Even with GPS and terminal laser guidance, I'm not convinced that at that speed, hitting preset pre-shaped areas could be relied on.

I'd also consider it quite likely that the non-shredded aluminium sections that impacted the column structure would shatter but not separate significantly from the intact sections that passed through the spaces between the columns. The tail section for instance might deform and follow the fuselage with a ripping rather than a shattering action on the suddenly decelerated portions.

The fuselage and 6 ton engines (concentrated masses at that speed) would quite likely collide right through the steel, the whole lot not necessarily causing much outer debris on entry. In any case it's only my supposition based on the video files I've seen.

I'm not even sure that the types of aircraft said to have been used in the attacks have been correctly identified. For me, all the images aren't clear enough to even be certain of that. Maybe any plane spotters could help there.

There are also photos of recovered burned and dented aircraft parts from the WTC on the net (though I haven't got a link to that right now). Aircraft safety is such a big issue that all these pieces will be marked with identity numbers and would be traceable. Lack of that evidence would in itself be suspicious.

Most importantly, any holographic technology - even if it were in existence - would have to be publicly demonstrated before claims to its use would have any credibility with most reasonable people.

I consider myself fairly open-minded on the available technology options (was a laser-tritium fissionless trigger used to detonate a mini-fusion nuke that powderised the concrete - and the steel 'spire'? ) but I find the hologram theory less than compelling.

I do agree that without majorly convincing additional evidence, NPT is a liability.

And in any case, it was only the opening act for the main drama -the collapse itself. I've seen comments that either the planes impact alone or the collapse alone, would have been enough to achieve whatever policy objective by whoever was behind the attack.

I disagree strongly with that. Hearing mature and seasoned professional men and women go into absolute total psychic shock on air - they literally cannot believe what they are witnessing or what has happened and in many cases just keep repeating 'Oh my god' over and over mantra-like to themselves completely unself-consciously, demonstrates the perfectly paced beginning, middle and unprecedented tragic ending total shock theatre of the event.

The effect on most of us was probably very similar if not so immediate as to an eye witness. But essentially the same.
And from the first crash to the 2nd Tower's fall, was all over in less time than your average Oliver Stone movie..

[Zlocke]

Blimey - You type fast!!!

[Jane]

We should be able to discuss this kind of thing and express our opinions and thoughts without causing offence or being attacked or being seen as launching an attack on someone ele - George W Bush has yet to learn this - maybe it's due to his "beliefs" and the kind of people around him! (ie "Your're either with me or against me - I will not tolerate criticism!"

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

So is anybody going to post a reply justifying why it would be less risky to use real planes?

It's no good having a theory headline if you have no content.

[JimB]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[chek]

[JimB]

I can't respond to your points tonight but my point about fuzzy pictures falls apart if you can post high quality images or vid clips showing plane parts disappearing. Over to you. Show us it isn't just poor sampling quality.

[marky 54]

i have tried and tried to accept a no plane scenario myself, and although i can see some points there is always something that bothers me, ie: can explosives cause neat thin wing prints in the buildings? if you look where the tips impact its to neat to believe explosives caused that print and much harder to believe they'd go to all that trouble and rely on so many differant things to have to go right to pull it off. surely they would of wanted minimum risk to the event going wrong. if the planes missed the buildings or hit but didnt penertrate, they could of just called of the demolition and no one would know any wiser, but they could still say america was attacked to get support. so my stance with no planes is you could be right but its gonna be way over the top for people to believe and prove. even if both planes missed they could of still got support because of what was attempted, and tell the americans someway into the war that they are pulling wt1, wtc2, wt7, to make way for a new complex that will symbolize their war against terror. the freedom tower. and use the explosives already planted to do so. so they couldnt go wrong with real planes if they were indeed 767's, any they would still of got what they wanted.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

you have not answered any of my questions marky - please keep to the subject matter

[chek]

It's not certain that the commercial flights were the ones used - there is an eyewitness report of a windowless grey jet with blue disc on the second strike.

It is also known that other planes were seen orbiting and transiting the area, so another attempt may have in reserve in the unlikely event of a miss.

From a flight point of view, the altitude of the 3 towers is well out of ground effect, and updraughts from the buildings would be negligable at terminal speed.

They had to use the planes because there would be no other way to explain away the long term security lapses of a blue-chip corporate occupied buildings - and WTC7 was NYC HQ of FBI CIA and SEC.
indicated by the time it would take to place the quantity of explosives needed.

The planes wouldn't do it by themselves, but could be made to look like they did.

[marky 54]

no i didnt answer the questions , instead i posed a question, can explosives cause the thin wing tips shape in the building? i can see your point up untill this question. and it needs to be answered if people are going to beileve the whole thoery. and its whats stopping me thinking explosives could be used to cause a plane shape. so if you think explosives can cause a neat thin wing tip shape, then please say this is all im asking to beable to take on board what others think.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

all they would need to do marky would be mock up a section of the building and practice cutting out shapes using explosives

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[marky 54]

ok im looking into it. but even if true i do really beileve and you have to understand this, that its gonna be really hard for people to believe and get them to watch the evidence when no planes are mentioned.

[chek]

[quote="THETRUTHWILLSETU3"][quote="JimB"]

[marky 54]

debris hhtp://www.youtube.com/watchv=QlrzdhvGI3A&mode=related&search=

[fixuplooksharp]

[quote="THETRUTHWILLSETU3"][quote="chek"]It's not certain that the commercial flights were the ones used - there is an eyewitness report of a windowless grey jet with blue disc on the second strike.

It is also known that other planes were seen orbiting and transiting the area, so another attempt may have in reserve in the unlikely event of a miss.

From a flight point of view, the altitude of the 3 towers is well out of ground effect, and updraughts from the buildings would be negligable at terminal speed.

They had to use the planes because there would be no other way to explain away the long term security lapses of a blue-chip corporate occupied buildings - and WTC7 was NYC HQ of FBI CIA and SEC.
indicated by the time it would take to place the quantity of explosives needed.

The planes wouldn't do it by themselves, but could be made to look like they did.[/quote]

You have not answered all my points chek[/quote]

you are dreaming mate. chill out. be happy, theyre going down, no need to add more fire currently, save it for later, once they are in court.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

[quote="chek"][quote="THETRUTHWILLSETU3"]

[chek]

[quote="THETRUTHWILLSETU3"][quote="chek"]

[Jane]

It could be there were no planes - I don't know and to be honest nor do I really care! This is work that can be done in the background - the most important thing is getting out there and getting people to look into and question what we have been told about the events of 9/11. One hour spent arguing and discussing theorries like this is one hour wasted when we could have been handing out leaflets, arranging a showing of a film, a talk - even forwarding the message in some way to other people via email!

Once a substantial number of people (it seems there almost is already!) wake up and take notice about the lies we have been told about that day, the reaction will not be spening hours and hours debating as to what exactly the truth was - it will be reacting against the fact we were told lies - and starting to work towards building a far, far better world then we have now!

[Ally]

I don't see much point debating the issue with ignoramouses anymore, it's interesting those with me most vitriol towards NPT all have less than 40 posts, seems like they just join to attack the theory which for me holds because I believe all the footage of 175 is fake and manipulated to disguise what was probably a huge missile. But that's just my opinion, once the proof is watertight I'll be expecting a few apologies.

[blackcat]

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 is a shill. Nobody who really wants to see this movement succeed could be so self indulgent with a theory that does such damage.