Why they didn't use planes

[reel.deal]

maybe it went down like this...

maybe it didnt...

maybe there was some CGI video'drape' overlay, over 'some' real live 'NYC' ?
maybe there wasnt, still... we gots to put up all possible conjecture, right ?
you cant discount something without first examining it, right ?

[HonestlyNow]

Just sayin' that Penn Plaza is three miles away from WTC, not one-and-a-half or two miles away.
Did Sean really not know? I suppose that's possible.

[Equinox]

Now, please note the tall tree at right in the upper image: it appears higher than in the lower image. We must therefore assume that, for the upper image, the 'cameraman' was slightly closer to the bridge. However, this means that the bridge should also appear higher than objects behind it (the WTC7, for instance). Instead, the very opposite is observed. No focal distortion issues will account for this - unless one is willing to believe that 2 different cameramen shot these images, with slightly different lenses, one during the collapse of WTC1 and the other during the collapse of WTC2 - yet both standing at almost the exact same spot... But even such a stretch of imagination would not explain the relative heights/sizes of the WTC7 - and the 'walking trees' at left.

Image -1 History Channel Documentry

Image-2 NIST FOIA: CBS-Net Dub4 01-32


In Image-1 using the X-Y distance from the top, of the tree to the top of the bridge struts, we can ascertain the shot is closer to the bridge, than the view in Image-2.
The objects behind the bridge in Image- 2 should appear higher than the objects behind the bridge in Image-1, As demonstrated with WTC7 A-B distance comparison in both images. Which it does not.

[lux]

Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories. In a 20-story building, for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors. In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier cleanup following the blast.

From:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm

[simonshack]

Thanks Lux,

So it would seem that top floor charges are not strictly necessary to make a steel structure collapse. Not to derail this thread into the umpteenth controlled demolition debate, but let's just watch this steel structure being brought down - with ground-level explosives ONLY:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGfpJqc63Bs

The point of this little digression from the "Why they didn't they use planes" topic was to establish one thing: if (and it's just an "if") they had a winged rocket/missile crash into the upper floors of WTC2 (to fool the 'million' onlookers into thinking they saw "FLIGHT 175" striking the tower), it would NOT entail running the risk of disrupting/jeopardizing the demo-wiring placed way below the impact zone.

Now, I have been 'scolded' in the past by our member Tufa for speculating that a rocket/missile was used. His quite valid opinion is that NOTHING impacted WTC2 - only a bunch of phony "eyewitness" reports was needed to imprint that notion in our minds. Let's say I am personally 50%-50% on this subject. However, I don't think we can rule out the missile-theory on the basis of the argument that "it would have been too risky - because it would have played havoc with the demolition-wiring inside the towers". As for the risk factor of the missile MISSING the huge target of WTC2 - and falling into the streets, I would say that should be practically nil - given modern military technology. Thoughts, anyone?

[Heiwa]

Regardless - why produce, e.g. this noisy show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy8Z6jXQ ... re=related, when, according US terrorist support agency NIST easier is just to start a little fire up top to soften the structure locally (no plane really needed), so top crushes down bottom, noiselessly, silently almost at free fall speed by itself only assisted by gravity, when something else is shown 'live on TV'?

[reel.deal]

So what was 'the shit that hit' WTC-2, for the amazement of 'a million' eyewitnesses ?

Well, a remote-controlled 747 would be way too problematic with way too many unpredictable 'variables'.
so, some kind of 'missile' then, for 'the show'...

Payload vs No Payload.
Payload - creates the 'same'/'similar' explosion to what we see on TV.
No Payload - guarantees the cartoon 'plane-shape' silhouette stays true.

I was thinking a payload missile would wreck the guaranteed cartoon 'plane-hole',
but, with missile AND cartoon plane-hole cutter-charges precision-synchronised, guess you can have it both ways...
so yeah, real missile fine... not a problem !
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... r#p2351975

[Heiwa]

I was thinking a payload missile would wreck the guaranteed cartoon 'plane-hole',
but, with missile AND cartoon plane-hole cutter-charges precision-synchronised, guess you can have it both ways...
so yeah, real missile fine... not a problem !
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... r#p2351975

But is not a real missile too fast, thin, narrow, small or obscure to be seen by millions missile watchers? Miss I le ... vity?

[reel.deal]

maybe so... so what we 'lookin' at' then ? if you and i were sat on 'Jersey Shore' , 9AM 9/11, and we saw 'something'
fly through the sky & hit WTC-2, what would that 'something' be ?

so, if a missile 'too fast', & its no commercial 747; then it has to be some kind of drone...
or else 'nothing' then, no '2nd hit' flew through the sky ?!?

everyone perfectly happy with 500mph planes 150m above sea-level, & 'top-down' pancake-collapse volcanos...
maybe a 500mph missile worked just fine...

[lux]

But is not a real missile too fast to be seen by millions missile watchers? Miss I le ... vity?

Just looking briefly around the web I see that there are cruise missiles that fly at about 550 mph which is comparable to the speed claimed for the Boeing.

But, I don't think they used a missile (or any sort of real aircraft).

I'm no expert in these matters but it seems to me if a real aircraft/missile struck the tower there would be a visible jolt or sway in the tower as a result of its impact. The towers were said to be flexible and did sway quite a bit just from the wind it is said.

I know there was fake video used in the "strikes" but, if a real object struck the tower, why would they hide this jolt or sway? The tower doesn't seem to budge an inch in any video I've seen yet some fake "witnesses" say the building did sway a great deal on "impact."

There were at least some witnesses who said no plane struck the building(s) including one very credible one I saw on YT which was removed from that site long ago.

There has been some conjecture that some sort of 3D illusion tech was used to present a fake plane. Of course, there is no way to prove that as such technology would be a military secret. I don't know that that would even be necessary but it is a possibility. We know they do have technology for rendering large objects more or less invisible so it stands to reason they would at least work on the opposite of that visual effect. And, as I posted earlier, there were witnessed sightings of "vanishing planes" seen in the vicinity of NY prior to 9/11 which suggests an optical llusion of some sort.

[Heiwa]

... it seems to me if a real aircraft/missile struck the tower there would be a visible jolt or sway in the tower as a result of its impact. The towers were said to be flexible and did sway quite a bit just from the wind it is said.

I have done some basic structural analysis of the towers steel structure and found that it would displace 3 meters sideways at the top, when being hit by a 100 tons plane 50 meters below and then oscillate fwd/back for a couple of minutes absorbing the impact energy, i.e. the structure was quite flexible. Same in a hurricane – the towers would swing back and forward making anyone inside seasick. Maybe it was the reason the property owners, the NYPA, never found any tenants for the towers?
The towers were built cheap on speculation in 1960’s and became ‘white elephants’? Almost empty from start and most of the time later. It explains the photos taken of the towers after completion showing the sun shining through them! No internal walls or lighting on 50+ floors. Ghost towers!
OK, the owners realized that and fitted cheap internal walls and lighting later and rented the space as storage. The latter explains the amount of paper snowing down on 911. I assume at least one bomb was placed up top to start the paper snow fall. Then the perps destroyed the towers from bottom up on 911. The perps were confident.
One of them made a mistake though at Beirut, Libanon, in the 1950’s putting his daughter Anne into a private school there with nice French speaking Libanese girls remembering Anne. It would have been OK, unless he and Anne (and wife)then moved to Hawaii and the wife started to train US infiltrators (college students) at the local university, while he, Anne’s father, played the role as furniture merchant. It would still be OK but Anne got pregnant with one over-aged African student (and gave birth to a boy at Mombasa, Kenya, 1961), divorced him and married another over-aged student, now Asian, and military. It would still have been alright unless the family business connections got messed up, so all three, Anne, the African and the Asian, died early. Only the little boy survived, brought up by grandmother (and the company) to become, after a spell in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, the real president of the company that runs the show. With a company like that you don’t need planes flying into towers, I am sorry to say.

[SmokingGunII]

I have been in the "no plane or missile" camp for some time and remain so. Certainly there is absolutely no reason to have used a missile for the first impact as nobody would have been expecting the attack in the first place.

It would make some sense to have had something hit the 2nd tower as, no doubt, eyes would now be trained on the towers from afar. It would also be a lot safer to send a missile from the southerly direction, over water, rather than over Manhattan itself. But why bother, when you have complete control of the footage aired on television as well as the written media? Any dissenters can be gagged by the media, labelled as "conspiracy theorists", "unreliable witnesses" or simply mistaken.

There was never any chance of thousands protesting on the streets with "I didn't see any plane" placards - so any doubters would soon be convinced by the endless stream of faked replays & witnesses and planted pieces of plane parts.

[lux]

^ I agree with that, SG. As I said, I didn't think it would be necessary to provide an illusion and my reasons are as you stated.

[reel.deal]

The lack of any 'sway' of the Towers in the 9/11 'plane crash' videos is a huge pointer towards CGI. If hit by 747s,
of course they would wobble, & reverberate. Too tricky to convincingly animate, so they didnt even try.

Invisi-cloak stealth projectile ? Dont think so. Sure... most in Manhattan saw no 'plane',
but Brooklyn, Queens & Jersey should. It would be insane to have 'NOTHING' fly through the sky.
Its the centrepiece of the show. To have people argue forever whether it was a 747 or a missile
is fine; to have nothing at all to see is just... beyond the pale. In the all blue 9/11 skies ?
The whole point in having something actually fly into the towers is that its
THE pivitol visible cue, for the whole psyop to stick.

There was probably literally a million actual real witnesses, so why bother with any visual clue ?
nah... risk some potential out of HERF/EMP range video getting banged up on youtube... ?
Have potentially up to a million callers into public access cable TV & local radio ?
9/11 was already compromised by not having any 'sound of screaming jets'...
Nothing and no-one can guarantee 100% total visual control.
The 2nd hit is the centrepiece of the entire thing.
Doesnt change anything, thats just my take...

[lux]

Invisi-cloak stealth projectile ? Dont think so.

If you're referring to what I wrote, you've completely misunderstood it. I suggested no such thing.