| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
 Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: Question 4 "767 hit/bombs demo'd the WTC" crowd |
 |
|
Why risk crashing a fully fueled large jetliner, such as a 767, into a building you've just rigged up to be demolished by bombs?
How could the perps be sure that the jetliner crashing into their rigged building wouldn't have exploded any of the critical pre-position explosives needed to make the building fall the way they wanted it to and/or destroy any of the timing wires to make their explosives go off at the precise time they wanted to?
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
because a jet liner would be less risky to set of charges than a exploding missle.
because they wanted people to believe a plane hit the towers not a missle.
theres two reasons, if anyone else wants to add more please do im getting very bored of this. espeically when people answer there own question there asking in the question.
for example the reasons you give for a plane being risky is any differant to a missle how? do missles explode and dodge charges?
what if no charges were placed on the floors that were impacted? or what if charges were set of at the point of impact but were not placed in vital postions?
you dont need to answer these questions there just there to take into consideration, answering them will go off topic so please dont.
Last edited by marky 54 on Thu May 10, 2007 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why hit it with a missile?
Don't some of the same risks apply? Plus you have the added complications of having to create TV fakery, hush up eye-witnesses and amatuer video footage and make a plane- shaped hole...
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | because a jet liner would be less risky to set of charges than a exploding missle.
because they wanted people to believe a plane hit the towers not a missle.
theres two reasons, if anyone else wants to add more please do im getting very bored of this. espeically when people answer there own question there asking in the question. |
A jetliner w/ more fuel creates a larger explosion than most missiles I know.
you can make people think a plane hit there w/out hitting a plane there (think Pentagon).
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:27 pm Post subject: Re: Question 4 "767 hit/bombs demo'd the WTC" crow |
|
|
| Killtown wrote: | Why risk crashing a fully fueled large jetliner, such as a 767, into a building you've just rigged up to be demolished by bombs?
How could the perps be sure that the jetliner crashing into their rigged building wouldn't have exploded any of the critical pre-position explosives needed to make the building fall the way they wanted it to and/or destroy any of the timing wires to make their explosives go off at the precise time they wanted to? |
My theory is that because the WTC complex was securely guarded after the '93 bombing attempt, the planes were necessary to create the illusion that they are what destroyed the Towers from without. No way to guard against that, right?
Nobody could reasonably expect a trillion dollar continent-wide organisation like NORAD to actually accomplish its mission, right?
Planes + jet fuel fires = case closed to the majority of people.
The targeting and timing system is not an insuperable obstacle with existing technology, and Chris Bollyn has already shown compelling evidence that the strike points were carefully chosen.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | 1) Why hit it with a missile? Don't some of the same risks apply?
2) Plus you have the added complications of having to create TV fakery, hush up eye-witnesses and amatuer video footage and make a plane- shaped hole... |
1) You'll have to ask that to the "missile hit/bombs exploded WTC" crowd
2) None of that is anymore complicating then rigging one of the tallest skyscrapers in the world to explode without people noticing.
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The goal was to create an illusion that would make it look like we got attacked by suicidal hijackers. There's no need to actually make things complicated and use large airliners which would have to be accounted for. Don't you think the guys at the airport would notice a completely empty plane taking off? People work at airports, you know.
With a missile, it can be launched off a ship and the crew thinks it's being used in a war game exercise. Launching a missile in a war game is a lot more normal than launching an empty Boeing 767 on September 11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Help me out here, Killtown. So I understand where you are coming from:
What do you think hit the Twin Towers?
What caused the collapse of the Twin Towers?
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | Help me out here, Killtown. So I understand where you are coming from:
1) What do you think hit the Twin Towers?
2) What caused the collapse of the Twin Towers? |
1) Not a 767.
2) Not a 767 and fire.
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Killtown wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | because a jet liner would be less risky to set of charges than a exploding missle.
because they wanted people to believe a plane hit the towers not a missle.
theres two reasons, if anyone else wants to add more please do im getting very bored of this. espeically when people answer there own question there asking in the question. |
A jetliner w/ more fuel creates a larger explosion than most missiles I know.
you can make people think a plane hit there w/out hitting a plane there (think Pentagon). |
i dont think you can compare to the pentagon.
think of the towers as the focus for peoples attention, this place had lots of witnesses on the ground and on t.v, no room for error.
the pentagon and shanksville on the other had had a lot less witnesses on the ground and wasnt broadcast live constantly, therefore more room for error and illusion of a plane hit when infact there wasnt one.
only using a plane with so many people around trying to get to work makes sense, or at least something that was made up to look like a plane so that when people were told on t.v it was a plane they would be convinced that is what they saw.
i really think the plane shapes in the building support this, even if it was a missle with plane parts attached and paint job. something looking like a plane hit both towers there was not room for error at this site with so many watching. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blimey, I thought I was cagey!
For clarity:
Do you think anything hit the Twin Towers?
If you do, do you think the collapse was a natural event (as a direct or indirect result of whatever hit them) or an artificial, assisted event? Ie did they fall because of fire or were they felled somehow?
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi craig: I'd like to know exactly how the Boeing 767 disappeared off RADAR. Could you please tell me what kind of RADAR the air traffic controllers were using that day that cannot see a Boeing 767?
What kind of paint was on this drone aircraft?
Could you please post some schematics for the computer that the air traffic controllers were using?
I haven't seen any of you "Drone People" explaining why the Air Traffic controllers were unable to see your beloved drones. Could you please explain how they accomplished that trick? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kc
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 359
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fred, how low do you think radar works? You think they set it so it can detect the wavering spires of skyscrapers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi KC, the Radar I know about can see things much SMALLER than a boeing 767. I'm not sure how one makes a big boeing plane or drone aircraft radar invisible.
If ATC radar cannot see the largest planes in the sky, what can they see?
Thanks
Fred |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Killtown, don't know if you saw this post.
| Craig W wrote: | Blimey, I thought I was cagey!
For clarity:
Do you think anything hit the Twin Towers?
If you do, do you think the collapse was a natural event (as a direct or indirect result of whatever hit them) or an artificial, assisted event? Ie did they fall because of fire or were they felled somehow? |
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | Killtown, don't know if you saw this post.
| Craig W wrote: | Blimey, I thought I was cagey!
For clarity:
Do you think anything hit the Twin Towers?
If you do, do you think the collapse was a natural event (as a direct or indirect result of whatever hit them) or an artificial, assisted event? Ie did they fall because of fire or were they felled somehow? |
|
I notice you've been about again, Killtown.
Perhaps you missed this again.
Any answers?
Thanks.
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum trolls only ask rhetorical questions to which they already think they know the answer. They never answer questions because that would expose them to criticism. It's all about controlling the debate.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Busker
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 374
Location: North East
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Zzzzzzzzz...... it doesn't matter what did or didn't hit the towers. It's all a waste of time and effort.
What matters is the official story cannot be correct. Therefore a coverup at the very least. Negligence or complicity at the worst. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Whatever crashed into the towers, or even didn't, it ALL ran a terrible risk of failure and being found out.
Just imagine for a moment what would happen if people got suspicious if you didn't do it well enough, and they started up websites and talked about it and distributed DVD's about how they thought it was all a conspiracy and stuff?
Luckily though it all went swimmingly, so none of what I just said means anything, so forget it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | Whatever crashed into the towers, or even didn't, it ALL ran a terrible risk of failure and being found out.
Just imagine for a moment what would happen if people got suspicious if you didn't do it well enough, and they started up websites and talked about it and distributed DVD's about how they thought it was all a conspiracy and stuff?
Luckily though it all went swimmingly, so none of what I just said means anything, so forget it. |
LOL 
...and they all lived happily ever after. THE END
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Busker wrote: | Zzzzzzzzz...... it doesn't matter what did or didn't hit the towers. It's all a waste of time and effort.
What matters is the official story cannot be correct. Therefore a coverup at the very least. Negligence or complicity at the worst. |
You are dead right, Busker. I am just trying to shine a spolight on and apply a little logic to NPT and related stuff.
Bizarrely, those who would have us believe these ideas seem to think it is sufficient to shout about them without providing evidence or reasoning and without answering questions.
So come on, Killtown, where are you?
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Killtown
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 438
Location: That Yankee country the U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So i want to know how this 767 that supposedly crashed there didn't cause any of the strategically placed bombs to go off and/or mess up the blast wiring?
_________________
killtown.blogspot.com - 911movement.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Killtown wrote: | | So i want to know how this 767 that... ...crashed there didn't cause any of the strategically placed bombs to go off and/or mess up the blast wiring? |
Classic critic/JREF question
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Killtown wrote: | | So i want to know how this 767 that supposedly crashed there didn't cause any of the strategically placed bombs to go off and/or mess up the blast wiring? |
My understanding is that demolition charges (depending on the type mind you), are not detonated/encouraged to go off by simply giving them a nudge or bathing them in a big hot fireball type of arrangement.
As for the wiring, or the concept of wiring the WTC towers from top to bottomish area, I would guess (for that is what we have to do), this would be done via transmitters and not miles of wiring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | | Craig W wrote: | Killtown, don't know if you saw this post.
| Craig W wrote: | Blimey, I thought I was cagey!
For clarity:
Do you think anything hit the Twin Towers?
If you do, do you think the collapse was a natural event (as a direct or indirect result of whatever hit them) or an artificial, assisted event? Ie did they fall because of fire or were they felled somehow? |
|
I notice you've been about again, Killtown.
Perhaps you missed this again.
Any answers?
Thanks. |
You missed it again. Doh!
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evans_England
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Remember this, that plane - or its fuel would not have started a thermite reaction.
_________________
9/11 - Only in america... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
