Heiwa wrote:Imagine the difficulties to find, recruit and train the suicide terrorists that shall hijack the planes and then, ohlala, pilot them to the targets and finally slice into the tops of them ... knowing that all this tralala will not destroy the strong bottoms of the towers at all ... and not even the tops above the sliced holes. Better not to use all these paraphernalia and simplify with animations.
The number one question...
"Why would the government fake crashing planes into the WTC towers and thereby also having to fake all the crash videos when it would be much easier for them to crash real planes into them?"
Here is why they didn't use real planes to crash into the WTC and used TV fakery instead:
Why do most of Americans still think planes brought down the Twin Towers? Because to them, the official story of why the Towers collapsed was believable. Large aircraft loaded with lots of fuel crashed into the Towers at high speeds and penetrated inside
before exploding thereby causing extensive internal damage. Then the resulting fire weakened the steel causing the top sections to collapse down thereby pulverizing the rest of the buildings. Then debris from the falling North Tower pelted the WTC 7 causing massive structural damage and causing it to catch fire and eventually collapse.
A Boeing 767 allegedly crashing and causing this massive explosion in the South Tower.
North Tower collapsing partially on the WTC 7.
Most people who believe 9/11 was an inside job probably believe that the WTC 1, 2, and 7 were pulled (i.e. brought down by some kind of controlled demolition method) and therefore should also agree that the collapse of all three of these buildings was arguably the most important goal of the perps that day.
For 9/11 conspiracists who believe planes hit the towers, I would say that almost all of them believe these planes were flown by some kind of remote control or on-board computer guidance system and they either believe it was Flight 175 with all the passengers that was electronically hijacked similar to the Lone Gunmen 'Pilot' episode, or it was some kind of empty Boeing 767 drone painted in United Airlines colors.
So if crashing large aircraft loaded with fuel into the WTC was enough to make most people believe that planes crashing and fire caused the Twin Towers to collapse, what logic is there to argue no planes crashed there? It's quite simple actually.
'Penetration' is the Key
Look at some of the WTC crash videos. Observe not just that we see a plane crashing into the Twin Towers, but how these planes crashed into the towers:
Flight 11 supposedly crashing and penetrating all the way into the North Tower before exploding.
Flight 175 supposedly crashing and penetrating all the way into the South Tower before exploding. (Top video: Naudet Brothers. Middle: Evan Fairbanks. Bottom: Jennifer Spell
The videos show that these planes that hit the towers supposedly at 470mph (Flight 11/North Tower) and 590mph (Flight 175/South Tower) penetrated all the way into the buildings which gave the perception that these planes were able to cause enough internal damage to cause both towers to collapse because the videos showed the world that these planes had penetrated
all the way into the buildings before their fuel tanks exploded.
With the following questions, you'll understand why the perps could not have used real planes to make the official collapse theory believable:
* What if any of the planes missed hitting the towers? Do you think the perps would have pulled both towers? What if the plane aiming for the North Tower missed, you think the perps would still have pulled the WTC 7?
* What if the planes hit, but they mostly blew up on the outside?
Would most reasonable people believe that planes mostly blowing up on the outside would be able to cause the towers to collapse? Just think of how many people at first questioned how the towers could have collapsed even though they saw the planes in the videos crash and penetrate all the way into the buildings. Imagine if the planes didn't penetrate enough of the way through? As one person accurately puts it, it is this penetration that the official story rests on
and the perps had to use a method that would guarantee penetration into the towers.
*What if the perps used two drone 767's and any of them missed their targets or didn't completely penetrate all the way through the towers and pieces of it landed outside on the ground thereby exposing it as a drone? Game over for the perps.
* How could the perps be absolutely certain that Boeing 767's would not miss their targets and that their relatively delicate fuel tanks in the wings would be able to fully penetrate the steel facades and concrete encased floor slabs before exploding? Do you think the perps would trust that 767's would be able to penetrate through two buildings without doing a real world test run to see if they would be able to penetrate? Or do you think the perps actually built replicas of portions of the Twin Towers' facade and crashed 767's into them to see if they would actual penetrate inside before blowing up?
Only using computer generated imagery (CGI) of planes instead of real planes would guarantee penetration into the Twin Towers and since this operation would be done on a computer, the perps could rehearse their plan over and over and over again and the CGI plane would always penetrate through the WTC because you can make pixels do anything.
However, imagine the cost, time, complexity, and secrecy the perps would had to undertake from simulating real planes flown via remote control crashing into some kind of "WTC replica" over and over again until they could guarantee the planes would penetrate (if they ever could).
source-- http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/wh ... t-wtc.html