Why they didn't use planes

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info
Brutal Metal
Member
Posts: 401
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:58 am
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Brutal Metal » Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:50 pm

Stupid Question??? I'm simply referring to parts of the Sept Clues movie, it AIN'T MY WORDS!!

Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Dcopymope » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:49 pm

[ADMIN: off-topic text copied into "MK-ultra" thread: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 7#p2355987 ]
Brutal Metal wrote:In some of the video clips Simon suggests that parts of the towers were blown out to represent the gaping hole of a plane, what's your view on that OP? CGI? Fake footage? can't be both?
CGI, fake footage, either way, it’s not real footage unless proven otherwise. All of lower Manhattan was most likely evacuated as the attacks happened, with a smoke screen deployed to make sure no one can see what was happening, so there would be no point in trying to blow out parts of the towers to represent a gaping hole of a plane. This is yet another thesis that would apply to the Pentagon attack where it actually matters.

Kentrailer
Banned
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Kentrailer » Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:43 pm

So, you're saying the image of the "plane strike holes" were super-imposed on the actually in-tact structure? Interesting to think about.

That would explain why no material was blown out in the image as you might expect if charges were used...

Unrelated: I know it's taboo to mention here, but does anyone on this forum believe that potentially some sort of directed energy weapon could have been used? Why isn't this possible, besides the fact that Wood went to Virginia Tech and is kind of weird? I mean, there isn't enough debris to account for conventional demolition is there?

Jonathan
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Jonathan » Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:42 pm

Kentrailer wrote:So, you're saying the image of the "plane strike holes" were super-imposed on the actually in-tact structure? Interesting to think about.
...
Please look at Heiwa's post just 3 above.
Or read some more around the forum.

I'll only say the same thing:

These are images, pictures.
Not photographs or motion videos of actual events.

Me, personally, I'm not very interested in the amount of debris
- which seems to be rediculously small compared to what one would expect to see after two 110 floor high buildings crumbled.

One reason is the one mentioned above - you can't draw correct conclusions from false assumtions.

What do you really KNOW about the amount of debris?

There is Occam's razor, too:
why look for difficult and complicated explanations noone really knows anything solid about when it can be just as simple as stated and all the facts fit with it?

Kentrailer
Banned
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Kentrailer » Wed Sep 14, 2011 5:37 pm

I just find it strange that everyone is ruling at DEW (which our government has and has been perfecting for years) there are a number of videos and photos which show potentially the same rubble pile (yes, I am aware much of the photo and video on that day is faked). I find it highly unlikely that the perps would want the pile to look too small however.. If anything they would want the pile to look as big as possible to convince the public the building collapsed and didn't disintegrate into a 2 story pile of dust and beams.

The fact that there seemed to be a fine dust rising from the complex for months and months afterwards also doesn't coincide with conventional demolitions.. To me that doesn't seem like smoke, it looks like molecular disassociation is taking place. In my opinion, DEW shouldn't be ruled out so quickly.

How do you explain all the engine blocks missing from cars and firetrucks? planted evidence as well?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7000
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Sep 14, 2011 6:33 pm

Kentrailer wrote:
How do you explain all the engine blocks missing from cars and firetrucks? planted evidence as well?
Dear Kentrailer,

It is not planted evidence. Let me break down my answer to your above post in two easy parts:

1: When a car or a firetruck gets scrapped - and before it gets thrown into a junkyard - engines are removed for spare parts.

2: When a Hollywood disaster movie (such as "Independence Day" or the like), the stage props manager will retrieve such vehicles from junkyards to be featured in the disaster sceneries. They're cheap - and look a bit like bombed-out vehicles. Anything that doesn't quite fit into the movie plot is fixed with 'photoshoppery'.

I keep wondering why it is so difficult (even for experienced 9/11 researchers like yourself) to consider the now well-supported and plausible hypothesis that the entire available 9/11 street-level footage is nothing else but a Hollywood production - possibly shot in a Los Angeles movie facility. Have we not all seen scores of movies with reconstructed sceneries of entire cities? Judy Wood's only role is to 'salvage' the dwindling belief in the reality of this imagery (including burned-out cars, 'dustifying' towers, 'suspicious' rubble piles, etc, etc...) - that's all. To use novel and untested technology to bring down the WTC complex would have been a definite no-no: an absolutely foolish and unnecessary extra risk - the kind of which no military-managed operation will ever go with.

In fact, both Judy Wood and Dimitri Khalezov are nothing but last-ditch attempts to 'salvage' whatever credibility is left of the totally unrealistic 9/11 imagery.

Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Dcopymope » Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:48 pm

simonshack wrote:
Kentrailer wrote:
How do you explain all the engine blocks missing from cars and firetrucks? planted evidence as well?
Dear Kentrailer,

It is not planted evidence. Let me break down my answer to your above post in two easy parts:

1: When a car or a firetruck gets scrapped - and before it gets thrown into a junkyard - engines are removed for spare parts.

2: When a Hollywood disaster movie (such as "Independence Day" or the like), the stage props manager will retrieve such vehicles from junkyards to be featured in the disaster sceneries. They're cheap - and look a bit like bombed-out vehicles. Anything that doesn't quite fit into the movie plot is fixed with 'photoshoppery'.

I keep wondering why it is so difficult (even for experienced 9/11 researchers like yourself) to consider the now well-supported and plausible hypothesis that the entire available 9/11 street-level footage is nothing else but a Hollywood production - possibly shot in a Los Angeles movie facility. Have we not all seen scores of movies with reconstructed sceneries of entire cities? Judy Wood's only role is to 'salvage' the dwindling belief in the reality of this imagery (including burned-out cars, 'dustifying' towers, 'suspicious' rubble piles, etc, etc...) - that's all. To use novel and untested technology to bring down the WTC complex would have been a definite no-no: an absolutely foolish and unnecessary extra risk - the kind of which no military-managed operation will ever go with.

In fact, both Judy Wood and Dimitri Khalezov are nothing but last-ditch attempts to 'salvage' whatever credibility is left of the totally unrealistic 9/11 imagery.
What is your viewpoint on the possible use of voice to skull technology on 9/11?

Patent For Microwave
Voice-To-Skull Technology:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... /4,877,027

Abstract:
Sound is induced in the head of a person by radiating the head with microwaves in the range of 100 megahertz to 10,000 megahertz that are modulated with a particular waveform. The waveform consists of frequency modulated bursts. Each burst is made up of ten to twenty uniformly spaced pulses grouped tightly together. The burst width is between 500 nanoseconds and 100 microseconds. The pulse width is in the range of 10 nanoseconds to 1 microsecond. The bursts are frequency modulated by the audio input to create the sensation of hearing in the person whose head is irradiated.

Houdini
Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:26 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Houdini » Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:58 pm

Another angle to remember re: the gaping hole -- in all the so-called live footage of the gaping hole, nowhere inside the hole do we see ANY remnant of a plane - no tail, no wing, no fuselage, NOTHING! Yet there are even pictures of people standing in the hole, looking out!

Dandy
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Dandy » Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:07 pm

It is with my great reservation to pick up and to drop kick this hornets nest but after significant rumination I now personally believe that actually 'they did use planes'.
I however am comfortable to maintain that much of the available footage and related images are fake with the 'fakery' ranging from one subjective extreme to the other. The least fake end of the spectrum being elements of audio & visual touch up/enhancement with no real political intent of deception to the creation and dissemination of totally fake/studio created imagery and footage that was/is used as a means to dynamically alter opinion/consolidate a political will.
I postulate that it was a pragmatic decision to use fake footage/have fake footage available as the propaganda value of what would be shown could be quantified and planned for in advance. Fake footage was therefore created in advance and used in approximate real time as the actual attacks on 9/11 - but planes were used.
The reason fake footage continues to surface and to be aired is that NPT suits those that are responsible for the events of 9/11 as firstly it is wrong and secondly it divides opinions like nothing else for those who are honestly seeking truth and to divide is to ultimately conquer.
Simon has ably and I believe sincerely demonstrated that fake footage was used and that fake footage was somehow screened as live footage but if one was to logically and honestly adhere to the oft' repeated clarion call of Ockham's razor it would surely follow that planes were actually used as the initial attack objects, as it is ever so unnecessarily complicated to not actually use planes and to state 'they' did. Why go to such lengths?

Jonathan
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Jonathan » Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:36 pm

Dandy wrote: ... but if one was to logically and honestly adhere to the oft' repeated clarion call of Ockham's razor it would surely follow that planes were actually used as the initial attack objects, as it is ever so unnecessarily complicated to not actually use planes and to state 'they' did. Why go to such lengths?
Quite the opposite, I think.

It would have been "to go to great lengths" to actually use them.

For one reason:
People could have gotten hurt :ph34r:

Do you mean that literally?
"They" crashed real planes in real objects, but then did not show those real events, but fakes instead?
No real footage at all, although it is there?
Where?

If fake footage was used, knowingly, for whatever reason, is it justified to call such before known and therefore staged event an attack?

Why is it important at all to you, whether or not it was as you believe?
The fakes are still a fact, no?

Dandy
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Dandy » Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:15 pm

Yes It was going to great lengths to actually use planes and it is an even greater (and complicated) length to not use planes and claim that they were used.

Fluffy notions that the perpetrators did not want to hurt people are with the greatest respect nonsense - what would be classed as collateral damage for a larger geo-political motive has been shown historically and currently as acceptable - this was a psychological operation after all.

How many if any that were killed is not at this stage important for my reasoning but I will stick to my paradigm that real planes were used and fake footage was aired - and they did this so total information control would be exerted from the start.

Jonathan
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by Jonathan » Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:41 pm

Dandy wrote:...and it is an even greater (and complicated) length to not use planes and claim that they were used. ...
We clearly disagree. I, too, claim logic.
Dandy wrote:...
Fluffy notions that the perpetrators did not want to hurt people are with the greatest respect nonsense...
That notion may indeed be fluffy, but it is just one of many as I said.
[edit:] and its appearent fluffiness does not make it invalid by labeling it nonsense [/edit]

It is, for just one other, not really easy to remotely fly 2 airliners into the towers.
Besides the risk of it not being successful, it would - and that is for SURE - have disturbed the setup which had to have been in place to bring them down.

Questions remain:
Where is any real footage?
Why is it important to you that actual planes actually crashed somwhere?
"...total information control..." does not require it - the fake pictures where quite powerful.
Last edited by Jonathan on Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by reel.deal » Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:07 pm


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H24QlYy5YEo
:blink:

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2246
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by fbenario » Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:36 am

Dandy wrote:It is with my great reservation to pick up and to drop kick this hornets nest but after significant rumination I now personally believe that actually 'they did use planes'.
...
if one was to logically and honestly adhere to the oft' repeated clarion call of Ockham's razor it would surely follow that planes were actually used as the initial attack objects, as it is ever so unnecessarily complicated to not actually use planes and to state 'they' did. Why go to such lengths?
Sorry, buddy, you DON'T get to post that on this forum. As I've written before:
Posts that criticize or negate any of the basic conclusions of the forum, including no planes, no hijackers, no Muslims, and no victims, along with any argument based on evidence 'shown' in any of the 9/11 images/videos, all of which are proven fakes, are equally unwelcome, and will likely be deleted - unless accompanied by substantial evidence likely to convince the experienced reader.
You cannot post here that you think planes were used on 9/11 based solely on some vague logical thought process of your own. You must post evidence likely to convince the experienced members of this forum.

We're not going to waste any more time responding to your posts.

fred
Banned
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Why they didn't use planes

Unread post by fred » Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:45 am

simonshack wrote:To use novel and untested technology to bring down the WTC complex would have been a definite no-no: an absolutely foolish and unnecessary extra risk - the kind of which no military-managed operation will ever go with.
Simon, I agree with everything in your reply to Kentrailer, especially your assessments of using the shills to boost the credibility of the fake imagery.

However I think Kentrailer does has a valid point, and so I have a minor quibble with you: Why do you assume or believe that Directed Energy Weapons are novel or untested? They've been working on this stuff for a lot longer than you or I have been on this planet. Tesla is quoted in many articles from 1935 saying he could bring down the Empire State Building with a small portable device. [And the ESB actually survived a real military plane crash, unlike the flimsy made-for-TV WTC complex.]

Your DVD player uses a laser and your kitchen oven probably contains a microwave. Do you honestly believe that there are no destructive military applications for this very useful technology that somehow found its way into your cheap consumer devices like CD players decades ago? This stuff would have been novel and untested 100 years ago. Now it's in kitchen appliances.

Raytheon and Boeing have only had maybe the last 70 years before 9/11 to figure out how to blow something up with it. Then there are the non-consumer technologies which weapons scientists and engineers have been working on for generations. Most of Tesla's notebooks are still classified today. The USA imported a bunch of Nazi scientists from Germany after WWII. The Israeli's are known to have a pretty good grasp of weapons technology. Have you been attending every secret weapons test for the last 100 years to conclude that they're still stuck with technology invented by Alfred Nobel? This stuff has been around a lot longer than we have. I think somebody has figured out how to make it work by 2001.

c.f.

Image


New York World-Telegram
11 July 1935

NIKOLA TESLA, AT 79, USES EARTH TO TRANSMIT SIGNALS: EXPECTS TO HAVE $100,000,000 WITHIN TWO YEARS

Could Destroy Empire State Building with Five Pounds of Air Pressure, He Says


by

Earl Sparling

"Nikola Tesla is 79 years old, and he is one of the true geniuses of this time. Nevertheless, twenty-odd newspapermen came away from his Hotel New Yorker birthday party yesterday, which lasted six hours, feeling hesitantly that something was wrong either with the old man's mind or else with their own, for Dr. Tesla, serene in an old-fashioned Prince Albert and courtly in a way that seems to have gone out of this world, announced that: -

1. He had discovered the so-called cosmic ray in 1896, at least five years before any other scientist took it up and twenty years before it became popular among scientists, and he is now convinced that many of the cosmic particles travel fifty times faster than light, some of them 500 times faster.

Needs No Commutator

2. He has found a way to produce a direct electric current by induction and without the use of a commutator, which is something the experts in electricity have considered impossible for the past hundred years.

3. He has invented an "absolutely impossible" machine which will impart vibrations to the earth which, with proper receiving apparatus can be picked up anywhere on the earth's surface, and that this mysterious machine will allow scientists to explore the deep interior of the earth, will enable practical geologists to discover gold, coal and petroleum, and at the same time will give ships the means of navigating without compass or sextant.

Dr. Tesla has 600 to 700 patents to his name. He invented the rotary field motor, and is admittedly the seer and father of all modern electrical development. As has been his custom for five years now, he arranged his own birthday party, drank only hot milk as his part of the celebration, and made his announcements with the superb certainty of a man who knew what he was talking about, even if none of his guests did.

Tells of "Quake"

He said, among other things, that he expects to have $100,000,000 within two years, and he revealed that an earthquake which drew police and ambulances to the region of his laboratory at 48 E. Houston St. in 188.7 or 1888 was the result of a little machine he was experimenting with at that time which "you could put in your overcoat pocket."

The bewildered newspapermen pounced upon this as at least one thing they could understand and "the father of modern electricity" told what had happened as follows: -

"I was experimenting with vibrations. I had one of my machines going and I wanted to see if I could get it in tune with the vibration of the building. I put it up notch after notch. There was a peculiar cracking sound.

"I asked my assistants where did the sound come from. They did not know. I put the machine up a few more notches. There was a louder cracking sound. I knew I was approaching the vibration of the steel building. I pushed the machine a little higher.

"Suddenly all the heavy machinery in the place was flying around. I grabbed a hammer and broke the machine. The building would have been down about our ears in another few minutes. Outside in the street there was pandemonium. The police and ambulances arrived. I told my assistants to say nothing. We told the police it must have been an earthquake. That's all they ever knew about it."

Watch Out, Mr. Smith

Some shrewd reporter asked Dr. Tesla at this point what he would need to destroy the Empire State Building and the doctor replied: - "Five pounds of air pressure. If I attached the proper oscillating machine on a girder that is all the force I would need, five pounds. Vibration will do anything.- It would only be necessary to step up the vibrations of the machine to fit the natural vibration of the building and the building would come crashing down. That's why soldiers always break step crossing a bridge."

His early experiments in vibration, he explained, led to his invention of his "earth vibrating" machine. Tall and thin and ascetic face, his eyes sunken but … humorous under protruding brows, he was cagey about describing what his new machine is, although he believes it will be "the chief thing of my many inventions posterity will thank me for." …

----

New York Times ( 11 July 1935, p. 23, c. 8 )

His Greatest Achievement

one of the subjects, which he hoped, he said, will come to be recognized as his "greatest achievement in the field of engineering," was, he said, the perfection by him of "an apparatus by which mechanical energy can be transmitted to any part of the terrestrial globe."

This apparatus, he said, will have at least four practical possibilities. It will give the world a new means of unfailing communication; it will provide a new and by far the safest means for guiding ships at sea and into port; it will furnish a certain divining rod for locating ore deposits of any kind under the surface of the earth; and finally, it will furnish scientists with a means for laying bare the physical conditions of the earth, and will enable them to determine all of the earth's physical constants.
He called this discovery "tele-geodynamics," motion of earth-forces at a distance. It is of this, he said, that it would "appear almost preposterous." The apparatus, he added, is "ideally simple," consisting of a stationary part and a cylinder of fine steel "floating" in air.

He has found means, he said, of "impressing upon the floating part powerful impulses which react on the stationary part, and through the latter to transmit energy through the earth." To do this he has "found a new amplifier for a known type of energy," and the "purpose is to produce impulses through the earth and then pick them up whenever needed."

----

Novel and Untested since 1917?

Image

Post Reply