Which is the bigger risk?

[prole art threat]

If planes had never been smashed into buidings before, how on earth would they know if the 9/11 plan would be successful? What if half of the plane had landed in the street exposing the fact that there was no bloody passengers in it, let alone hijackers? Stop being so bloody stupid and blind.

Using a missile would solve this problem. If you really think there is no holographic technology out there that can cloak missiles in this day and age, then you are being as daft as brushes.

Think. Start thinking and stop succumbing to disinformation from the PTB. Start thinking. RIGHT NOW!

[Hazzard]

[telecasterisation]

prole art threat wrote;

[prole art threat]

[prole art threat]

[kc]

[prole art threat]

I apologise for swearing but I am sick and tired of being called a 'shill', 'owl', 'agent provocateur' as well as having my theories rubbished by Telecaster who hasnt even got one of his own. That is such an easy position to be in, not being brave enough to actually stand by a theory of one's but just play devil's advocate all the time and dismantle everybody elses.

[John White]

[marky 54]

would it be impossible to make a missle to be the same size/shape of an aircraft? i dont see why they would need a hologram and they would of hit the target easily and know it would enter the building, and maybe would explain why it exited out the other side and appears to have no windows on the craft. and explain why the plane dosnt brake up when hitting, we are assuming the wings ect are made of aliminium, maybe not if built to act like a bunker buster. i believe this over holograms/no planes, but i dont know its just a thought that could maybe explain some of the issues with impact.

[marky 54]

do missles of the kind have thermate inside? could that explain the reaction on the outer wall?

[Ignatz]

[telecasterisation]

[prole art threat]

[Hazzard]

Prole its just that you seem to want to go around the farm to get to the barn.

Why on earth would they go to such rediculous and outlandish measures just to do something a rigged up jetliner and a few tonnes of explosives could do.

Those security sweeps they did weeks and months before 9/11 when they had the perfect oppurtunity to set up explosives in key positions...was it infact installing some kind of holoprojection device or something? Or where they checking to make sure that nothing would interfere with the plan?

I mean come on dude you have been watching to many movies.

I have been studying the likes of Tesla and have been interested in science and particularly biology and physics since I was a child. I know whats possible and im not going to say that technology isnt infact leaps and bounds ahead of what we know today.

But dude you just have to wake up to reality sooner or later becuase basicaly whether you are right or wrong one thing is for CERTAIN. You are cuasing problems, and if you arnt part of the solution you are apart of the problem.

Im not saying you get in line, shut up and be a good slave like the rest of us. I am simply saying that you have to accept that not everyone is going to agree with you on the how. But guess what, I think its pretty clear that we all agree on the who.

So why not just let it be for now until we can at least get our foot in the door. Dude you just have to stop pushing your way or the highway becuase you are cuasing contention that just isnt needed right now.

[prole art threat]

I will pose the question once again, the silent question that nobody wants to hear



What if a large portion of the plane had fallen into the street or just wedged it's arse into the building like the one that hit the Empire State Building many moons ago?

This would have exposed the fact that there were NO PASSENGERS OR HIJACKERS JUST A PLANE FULL OF EXPLOSIVES.

If youre suggesting it was the Boeings with passengers, what if they had also landed in the street and miraculously survived.

Look my point is this, by using holographic imagery they would be certain that none of the above happened. Of course there was a risk the hologram wouldnt have worked and maybe there was a contingency plan to fall back on. At the end of the day, real planes dont have magically fading wings on them and they dont glide through steel like a knife through butter.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

The reality is that a whole lot of truthers believe there were no planes - they are just sitting on the fence because they fear ridicule.

Click on the link below and tell me from all the images which planes are real - most of this is the on the day footage from mainstream media

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html


Something does puzzle me - you all accept the media are lying little shtis
and covering things up - so why do you believe them when they tell you there were real planes?

[Stefan]

You say how would they know that the planes would go into the buildings if it had never happened before-

The same way we know the buildings should not have collasped as a result- it is possible to analyse these things theoretically based on physics. You can be fairly certain they would have done some research to ensure the desired result occurred.

There are far more risks involved in trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the world with holograms as far as I can see.

[prole art threat]

[Stefan]

[prole art threat]

[Stefan]

Explain how it was maybe?

My point was that they could easily have worked out that the planes would penetrate the towers in exactly the same way people have demonstrated that they did- theoretically.

A hologram seems like a much more complicated plan than just flying a plane into a building. And we know flying a plane into a building is actually possible.

[prole art threat]

[gypsum]

[Stefan]

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Please point out to me any plane on the link below that you believe is real

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

[Stefan]

[marky 54]

[Stefan]

A done up missile is a lot more plausible than a hologram, and the advantage would be a nose with far greater strength and penetration.

But correct me if I am wrong- hasn't snowy grouch demonstrated beyond a resonable doubt that a plane could acheive the destruction we saw?

And wouldn't it be far easier to use a plane that a missile.

Could they not have even reinforced the nose of a real plane?

Here is a question which I feel is important and I hope someone has the answer.

From how long was there radar coverage of the plane?

I know in some cases the planes left radar for a while before returning.

Was that the case with all of them?

If the planes were infact on record on radar from airport to WTC, idea of anything other than a plane hitting becomes extremely problematic.

[prole art threat]

[Stefan]

Prole,
I'm getting confused now- are you claiming there were planes, or there were no planes?

I personally think there were planes- either from a CIA orchestrtaed terrorist attack or remote control planes. But I accept I don't know for sure.

The idea of holograms seems outlandish and unnecesarily complicated when it has been demonstrated that actual planes could acheive the damage we saw- and the shape of the hole so perfectly fitted a plane.

I was simply stating that if the no-planes theory was that of a missile "decorated" as a plane it would be a lot more plausible than a hologram- or there being nothing there and CG inserting it later. That's not to say I think it is the most likeley.

Real planes- military remote controlled or 757s remain the most obvious and simple solution, as they would have been tracked by radar, as the objects are, and would involve a lot less logistics to pull off than any of the science fiction-esque solutions others have come up with.