Planers, please walk me through 'RPT' [Archive]

bryan

06-03-2009, 12:58 PM

I'm going to go with the 'Lone gunman' scenario:real planes remote controlled.Hey,they predicted it 9 months before it happened,why not?

You could air the Lone Gunman if you knew the cartoons were going to look like cartoons and you wanted to use predictive programming to make people believe the planes were real.

Then you could point out that Pentagon Comptroller, Dov Zakheim, was associated with companies involved in aircraft remote control systems and flight termination technology.

Finally, you could get the good folks at the LetsRoll911forum to invent a 'pod theory' and back it up with video evidence to show that the planes were fitted with equipment that could fire missiles or allow the plane to home in on its target.

bryan

06-03-2009, 01:32 PM

It turns out that Stann wasn't as critical of the pod theory as he is of NPT.

There has been much discussion about the position of the "pod/missile" with respect to the main undercarriage and whether it would interfere or be possible to place the device there. Here's a nice photo of a 767 in flight with undercarrige down and doors open. Compare the above photo with the one below.

It would seem to me to be a definite possibility.

Stann :cool:

Please take note of the POD. This is an airliner a Lockheed L1011 tri-jet, not the same type as a 767 but still an airliner and almost the same size.

And yes that pod is a missile. In this case a low Earth orbit satellite launch.

Hmmm

Stann

http://letsrollforums.com/pictures-extra-equipment-pseudo-t16448p11.html

jahzel

06-03-2009, 02:54 PM

I'm really getting sick of this shit tbh

joe911

06-03-2009, 03:51 PM

Be aware that you're attempting to have a sensible conversation with somebody who doesn't just believe there were planes, but also thinks they were piloted by:
In other words, his only purpose is to waste your time.
Wow bryan talk about sensible the small segment you took from my reply actually was alot more reaslitic then what matrix proposed:

unless of course you have a hi tech lazer military targeting system available to you, a Trillion dollar Military budget for hi tech graphics facilitated by having the entire control rooms of the MSM at your disposal.

and then:
those flights either never took off, were intercepted and forced to land, or the pilots were IN ON IT and the perps themselves... most likely MILITARY pilots dressed up like AA and UA pilots.
If the passengers in fact were all real, they were either also in ON IT, or EXECUTED. imo

so with all that messing about and complicating things and all the hi tech fakery etc etc whats so unreasonable about the idea of having a suicide pilot???

So bryan im here to have sensible discussions why not play fair and stick to playing nice?

killtown

06-03-2009, 06:41 PM

OK, back on topic and no more troll posts.

Here's where we left off:

1. Why do you think the govt perps used real planes to hit the WTC?

planer: Because it seems the most simplest option

no-planer: Simplest option for what?

joe911

06-03-2009, 07:10 PM

no-planer: Simplest option for what?

planer:simplest option: crashing a real plane into the wtc because creating a hollogram plane and editing it into videos and wut not is all very complex.
the quickest way from a to b is in a straight line :)

killtown

06-03-2009, 07:21 PM

1) simplest option: crashing a real plane into the wtc because creating a hollogram plane and editing it into videos and wut not is all very complex.

2) the quickest way from a to b is in a straight line :)
1) But why did the perps want to crash planes into the WTC?

2) That's a good saying. We'll keep that saying in mind for later in the discussion.

joe911

06-03-2009, 07:21 PM

but then thinking about it if there was no plane at shanksville or the pentagon i suppose that the no plane theory at the world trade center isnt really out of the theme is it? this could get interesting....

killtown

06-03-2009, 07:23 PM

joe911

06-03-2009, 07:23 PM

1) But why did the perps want to crash planes into the WTC?

2) That's a good saying. We'll keep that saying in mind for later in the discussion.

they didnt need to,they could have just gone with the bombs and said alCIAda planted them there so i dont have a reason why they would want to crash planes into them,maybe so they could use it to increase security and put fear into people to conform to searches and giving up there personal freedoms

killtown

06-03-2009, 07:28 PM

they didnt need to,they could have just gone with the bombs and said alCIAda planted them there so i dont have a reason why they would want to crash planes into them
Do you think the public would believe that Al Qeada would be able to plant bombs throughout BOTH 110-story Twin Towers without being caught?

joe911

06-03-2009, 07:47 PM

Do you think the public would believe that Al Qeada would be able to plant bombs throughout BOTH 110-story Twin Towers without being caught?

Im not sure how the publics opinion was towards al queda was pre 9/11 i was only 7/8 when it happened so maybe someone older would be better to answer that one.

btw im listening to final round interview on your blog its interesting

white horse

06-03-2009, 08:48 PM

You see, this is how it generally goes;

Somone comes to this forum, and asks the real and valid questions...

"Does anyone else have a problem with the live TV footage? Does it appear dodgy to you?"

And they get replies form others who yes, have also seen the footage and also find it wanting.

Then others, who apparantly get really angry at this discussion of TV Fakery, yet insists on returning again and again to NPT/TV fakery threads, challenge the NPT, as they should, with questions like...

"Why do that when it is easier to fly real planes into the building..."

Don't see much direct discussion about the merits of the actual footage.

One of hte problems with using real planes, as far as I can see, is that wouldn't they just explode on the surface of the buildings and all but bounce off? I'm struggling to see this plane being able to penetrate deep inside the building...

mynameis

06-03-2009, 09:00 PM

One of hte problems with using real planes, as far as I can see, is that wouldn't they just explode on the surface of the buildings and all but bounce off? I'm struggling to see this plane being able to penetrate deep inside the building...

The transfer of kinetic energy is why this happens. Make a call and ask any physics professor about it. As an object's speed builds up, so too does the energy and this increases the kinetic energy transferred in an impact.

white horse

06-03-2009, 09:58 PM

The transfer of kinetic energy is why this happens. Make a call and ask any physics professor about it. As an object's speed builds up, so too does the energy and this increases the kinetic energy transferred in an impact.

We back on the physics lessons then.

I'm not convinced - Any videos or pictures I've ever seen of plane crashes, the plane has always come out of it pretty badly really.

So, do you know any physics profs or architectural engineers I can call who can tell me at what speed/energy quota does a plane have to reach (as a minimum) to be able to fly through steel?

----------------------------

I could go deeper...

Down the rabbit hole...

There is a problem with this entire argument... And that is that I no longer 'believe in' traditional physics. Einsteinian high school physics is full of bunkem and disinfo. (As is history, and many other subject. Not just to cover up all the lies, but to prevent us from being equipped with the right tools to spot these lies; which is why 911 is a real challenge, the perps talk a different language to us; they talk in terms of real knowlege, we have to struggle through a dense fog of guff before we can even discuss it properly).

So no, I don't trust my high school physics book to deliver unto me the truth.

killtown

06-03-2009, 10:10 PM

***PLEASE KEEP THREAD ON TOPIC***

This thread is for real-planers to explain step-by-step why they think the govt perps crashed real planes into the WTC.

killtown

06-03-2009, 10:22 PM

1) Im not sure how the publics opinion was towards al queda was pre 9/11 i was only 7/8 when it happened so maybe someone older would be better to answer that one.

2) btw im listening to final round interview on your blog its interesting
1) Let me help, don't you think the reason the govt perps used planes was to give an "official" reason as to what caused the Twin Towers to collapse that would be believable to most of the world?

2) glad to see you've taken the initiative to look at different opinions.

joe911

06-03-2009, 10:59 PM

1) Let me help, don't you think the reason the govt perps used planes was to give an "official" reason as to what caused the Twin Towers to collapse that would be believable to most of the world?

im not sure why they used planes to be honest as they could have got away with it without them so prehaps the plane were just to put fear into people?

dave52

06-03-2009, 11:29 PM

so prehaps the plane were just to put fear into people?

I think it was a test on many fronts.

Was it possible to create an event and convince people it happened? Kind of a mass hypnosis if you like.

Was the tech available to manipulate the TV Footage and convince the masses?

Finally, a test of the new tech that bought down the towers.

I think it was generally a successful operation. I think the floodgates have been opened. Do not trust the nightly news, your government or any of the armed / security forces.

Welcome to the wild country...

bryan

06-03-2009, 11:33 PM

Im not sure how the publics opinion was towards al queda was pre 9/11 i was only 7/8 when it happened so maybe someone older would be better to answer that one.

Sorry for being so cynical, Joe. I didn't realize you were just starting out in your search for the truth. :)

The question's not about the public's attitude to al Qaeda. It's about whether people would believe that a bunch of shady looking Arabs could have got access to the buildings to plant the bombs.

joe911

06-03-2009, 11:54 PM

I think it was a test on many fronts.

Was it possible to create an event and convince people it happened? Kind of a mass hypnosis if you like.

Was the tech available to manipulate the TV Footage and convince the masses?
1)what do you mean by event are you refering to 9/11 specificly?
2) yes its possible,but could be difficult,time consuming and costly

Finally, a test of the new tech that bought down the towers.

I think it was generally a successful operation. I think the floodgates have been opened. Do not trust the nightly news, your government or any of the armed / security forces.

Welcome to the wild country...
I agree with you there i think that it was a test to see if they could pull something of that scale off and get away with it,,hence the london bombings too.
And your right about the news,ive not had a tv for a year now and ive become alot more aware and taken a greater interest in global happenings, id encourage everyone who still has a tv to turn it off :)

Sorry for being so cynical, Joe. I didn't realize you were just starting out in your search for the truth. :)

The question's not about the public's attitude to al Qaeda. It's about whether people would believe that a bunch of shady looking Arabs could have got access to the buildings to plant the bombs.

thats ok mate,sorry for been a ass to you :) and talking of appologies i owe kt one too from a while back so kt im sorry man :)

killtown

07-03-2009, 08:37 PM

im not sure why they used planes to be honest as they could have got away with it without them so prehaps the plane were just to put fear into people?
Let's get the opinion from other planers as to why they think the perps used planes at the WTC before we proceed with this discussion.

PS - thanks for the apology. ;)

killtown

07-03-2009, 08:45 PM

Real-Planers:

1. Why do you think the govt perps used real planes to hit the WTC?

macleodmunro

07-03-2009, 09:45 PM

Real-Planers:

1. Why do you think the govt perps used real planes to hit the WTC?

I really don't know either way if real planes were used, but i wouldn't be surprised if they have the technology to fly planes by remote control into buildings.

If you want the masses to believe that planes flew into the buildings then the most convincing way to do that would be to just fly planes into the buildings.

mynameis

07-03-2009, 10:49 PM

It was set up as a drill under Able Warrior and Able Danger. The training operation/terrorist drill is a false flag psyop. Under Donald Rumsfeld, PROMIS (PTECH) also disabled the national air defense system with the military drills. Real planes were used to confuse the ATC, FAA, and Military. Real planes headed to New York created a fog of war, whereas a different kind of false flag test went underway at the pentagon. And as I said before, we should be focused on new investigations of the plane debris and parts recovered, so it can be determined if the aircraft claimed by FAA, NIST, and the 911 commission are or are not the planes in question. However, all we do get is the ignorant claims of non-existent planes instead of actual proof and not the specious arguments of NPT claims as empirical evidence. I'm talking about Washington's airplane debris, not New York.

killtown

07-03-2009, 10:50 PM

I really don't know either way if real planes were used, but i wouldn't be surprised if they have the technology to fly planes by remote control into buildings.

If you want the masses to believe that planes flew into the buildings then the most convincing way to do that would be to just fly planes into the buildings.
By WHY do you think the perps chose real planes to crash into the WTC?

macleodmunro

07-03-2009, 11:24 PM

By WHY do you think the perps chose real planes to crash into the WTC?

Because if they want to convince people that terrorists hi-jacked real planes and flew them into the WTC, then using real planes would be the most convincing way to do it.

I must point out that i'm still relatively new to the general truth about 9/11 and as of yet i've not come across anything concrete to lead me to believe that planes weren't used.

My mind stays very much open.

killtown

08-03-2009, 12:42 AM

Because if they want to convince people that terrorists hi-jacked real planes and flew them into the WTC, then using real planes would be the most convincing way to do it.
But why would the govt bother to crash planes into the WTC if they were just going to demo the buildings?

stannrodd

08-03-2009, 06:02 AM

But why would the govt bother to crash planes into the WTC if they were just going to demo the buildings?

Stupid question really.

Why would the govt bother etc .. ??

This implies and insinuates that the government are the perpetrators .. you seem to imply you have such evidence to support what you purport.

Would you be prepared to go on the record in a court of law to explain your position ??

Who owned the buildings ?? I doubt Silverstein would help you out on why the govt would bother .. on his behalf..

Stann

bryan

08-03-2009, 09:25 AM

Stupid question really.

Why would the govt bother etc .. ??

This implies and insinuates that the government are the perpetrators .. you seem to imply you have such evidence to support what you purport.

Would you be prepared to go on the record in a court of law to explain your position ??

Who owned the buildings ?? I doubt Silverstein would help you out on why the govt would bother .. on his behalf..

Stann

Could you clarify who you think the perpetrators are? I agree that saying 'the government' did it is a simplification, but most people here would realize that it's shorthand for the 'shadow government', including the arms industry, the Israelis, the bankers and the media.

mynameis

08-03-2009, 10:14 AM

white horse

08-03-2009, 01:59 PM

I know this is off the subject, bry brought it up for its relevance. However, if the plot matches to bankrupt the nation. Then its relevance is important in following a money trail, who ordered who for the services that were not mobilized on 9/11? I would start with Rumsfeld, I don't think he's a patsy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_economy

[I'll join your off-topic]

Rumsfeld is a powerful and evil dude; I think also the same of Cheney and Daddy Bush. Those three are real bone fide power brokers, most of their power is extra-governmental/constitutional tho. But I don't think they are the highest, and there are more that we don't know.

macleodmunro

08-03-2009, 07:40 PM

But why would the govt bother to crash planes into the WTC if they were just going to demo the buildings?

Who would believe that terrorists could fill the towers & WTC7 to the gunnels with explosives and nobody notice.

Instead they can blame the planes (real or not) for the buildings falling over,
they get the result they want,
the masses except it,
and everyone gets on with their lives as normal.

Job done.

merlincove

08-03-2009, 09:03 PM

i was speaking to a girl from New Jersey on Friday who is over here visiting her boyfriend who is a good friend of the familly.

i said how much i'd like to visit new york and she said that because she lived there when she was younger she never really got to see the sights as they were kinda always there. She toild me about the Twin Towers and she said that she heard the first plane fly over while she was with her mother, she was thiteen at the time and she said the noise of the plane scarred them both as it was flying so low, minutes later they saw the news that the Twin Towers were under attack. Her aunt who was working in new ypork watched as the second plane hit, and apparently said that it was definatley a plane.

It was quite interesting speaking with someone who's had first instance experience of this as everythinbg else i've been able to see has been movie footage and the conspiracy files.

i guess we can all sit here on our computers and asses the information that we recieve from each other, but actually being able to speak to someone who saw or heard something is important because we are then able to touch into something and make a better mental prognosis of what we felt happened on that day.

Whatever it was that hit the Towers on Sept 11th, we may never know for sure, but they fell due to underhand / hidden hand manipulation to assert a goal and an agenda that is far more reaching than the invassion of Baghdad or Afghanistan, or even the erossion of our liberties.

We can continue to afrge amongst ourselves for ever more over what we believe to be true from the evidence we glean from books and documentaries and others' well chosen opinions. There have been a few posts on site from people who were in New York that day, and it is these people we should listen to as their memory was shaped directly from experience and not from the media - the people who stood in the streets looking up at the smoking Tower as the second plane came in. Talking to this young lady who lived in New York showed me that one thing, that it is those people who can shed light into the arena.

Peace

killtown

08-03-2009, 10:40 PM

Who would believe that terrorists could fill the towers & WTC7 to the gunnels with explosives and nobody notice.

Instead they can blame the planes (real or not) for the buildings falling over,
they get the result they want,
the masses except it,
and everyone gets on with their lives as normal.

Job done.
OK, looks like after 5 pages, the first question in the RPT has been answered:

1. Why do you think the govt perps used real planes to hit the WTC?

Instead they can blame the planes (real or not) for the buildings falling over

If this is not the most widely accepting answer for question one for most planers, feel free to interject.

killtown

08-03-2009, 10:43 PM

2. What do planers think the perps used for their controlled demolition of the Twin Towers?

joe911

08-03-2009, 10:59 PM

2. What do planers think the perps used for their controlled demolition of the Twin Towers?

thermite? or an explosive of some kind

killtown

09-03-2009, 12:17 AM

So far:

1. Why do you think the govt perps used real planes to hit the WTC?

Instead they can blame the planes (real or not) for the buildings falling over

2. What do planers think the perps used for their controlled demolition of the Twin Towers?

thermite, or an explosive of some kind

killtown

09-03-2009, 12:20 AM

3. What kind of plane do you think the perps used to crash into the WTC?

(I'm sure planers will differ on the type of plane they think was used, so all types of planes speculated to have been used will be added to the answer.)

mynameis

09-03-2009, 12:22 AM

How you assume that these answers represent at all, the views of all is beyond explaination?

killtown

09-03-2009, 12:29 AM

How you assume that these answers represent at all, the views of all is beyond explaination?
If you think real planes hit the WTC and controlled demolition took the towers down, feel free to add your thoughts to the questions.

mynameis

09-03-2009, 01:03 AM

If you think real planes hit the WTC and controlled demolition took the towers down, feel free to add your thoughts to the questions.

Your questions that are not derived from a consensus of thought about September 11th are important how? There is no consensus only the opinions being given here from this line of questioning. And this line of questioning is the typical style to waste our time. Facts surrounding September 11th are important and relevant, its not what we think but what we do. Here is my other opinion, this is another mere distraction thread. Carry on...answering people....

killtown

09-03-2009, 01:13 AM

Your questions that are not derived from a consensus of thought about September 11th are important how? There is no consensus only the opinions being given here from this line of questioning. And this line of questioning is the typical style to waste our time. Facts surrounding September 11th are important and relevant, its not what we think but what we do. Here is my other opinion, this is another mere distraction thread. Carry on...answering people....
You don't sound too confident about your Real-Plane Theory.

fanoftruth

09-03-2009, 09:32 AM

3. What kind of plane do you think the perps used to crash into the WTC?

Good question. If they used real planes (and at this stage I still lean towards real planes) I'd have to say that they used 767s. If you are selling a story that two 767s hit the towers then in my opinion there is no way you could ever, or would ever chance using anything else, simply because you are leaving yourselves wide open to the possibility that someone, or more likely numerous people, would capture the second hit on their home recording equipment.

Having said that I tend to think that practically every single one of the second hit videos looks fake or doctored in some way. I find it quite astonishing that on a crystal clear day in New York, and in the midst of the most high profile attack in modern history, that there is to this day not one single high quality piece of footage of a clearly marked 767 in United Airlines colours hitting the south tower...

bryan

09-03-2009, 09:50 AM

And this line of questioning is the typical style to waste our time.

The Socratic Method's a waste of time!

The Socratic Method (or Method of Elenchus or Socratic Debate), named after the Classical Greek philosopher Socrates, is a form of philosophical inquiry in which the questioner explores the implications of others' positions, to stimulate rational thinking and illuminate ideas. This dialectical method often involves an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against another; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, strengthening the inquirer's own point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

mynameis

09-03-2009, 07:36 PM

The Socratic Method's a waste of time!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

If used in a disingenuous way it is to waste time.

For instance:

the classic Socratic method ends up squandering a great deal of class time on answers by students who are poorly prepared or simply don't understand the question posed to them. It also often confuses students about the right answer by "hiding the ball" from them - a serious drawback in classes where students have to learn a large amount of complex and counterintuitive material. Finally, aggressive use of the Socratic method sometimes leads to resentment and tension between students and the professor, which at least in my experience inhibits learning more than it facilitates it.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_17-2008_08_23.shtml#1219340811

A use of the method is employed by teachers for their students. Killtown has no credentials as a teacher and can only be considered a student by the ignorant standard set forth by Socrates, "I know that I know nothing." Therefore, the Socratic Method employed by himself here and now is a mere debater's tactic to waste the time and energy better spent by others on other issues not covered to death. For example, I find that it is funny for a clown, in an imaginary clown town that he continue beating a pinata unto infinity as a joke. And a two year old asks continually, why does the clown continue to beat the pinata? Ad infinitum. When compared to what has already been raised numerous times this inquiry comes at the receiver as a tangential issue. Trying to prove a contradiction of sorts only works with philosophy and not in static facts.

Truth is objective and does so because it is freely independent from the individual. When knowledge and beliefs conflict you get cognitive dissonance. If the questioner were independent of beliefs the raising of a tangential issues would not come from cognitive dissonance. Of course, one man's perception of blue sky is a hippie's multicolored rainbow.

bryan

09-03-2009, 08:00 PM

the classic Socratic method ends up squandering a great deal of class time on answers by students who are poorly prepared or simply don't understand the question posed to them.

Is that why it's taken six pages to answer two questions?

mynameis

09-03-2009, 08:06 PM

Is that why it's taken six pages to answer two questions?

I don't think so. I think it is because the thread's question are not posed from a grace represented by true ignorance; his ulterior motives, etc...

joe911

09-03-2009, 08:14 PM

3. What kind of plane do you think the perps used to crash into the WTC?

Passanger planes to sell the hijacked by terrorist story

secondsun

09-03-2009, 08:59 PM

http://i43.tinypic.com/30ac6j4.jpg

fanoftruth

09-03-2009, 11:06 PM

Interesting set of images. Were they posted to make a point..?

*not asked sarcastically*

bryan

09-03-2009, 11:24 PM

Interesting set of images. Were they posted to make a point..?

*not asked sarcastically*

Here's his point, as I understand it:

If you were thinking of having a serious discussion about what happened 9/11, you might as well forget about it because the thread will be spammed to death by people who don't want you to know.

killtown

09-03-2009, 11:48 PM

killtown

09-03-2009, 11:50 PM

Passanger planes to sell the hijacked by terrorist story
I take it you think the real Flight 11 & 175 were used and were electronically hijacked just like in the "Lone Gunmen" episode?

joe911

10-03-2009, 12:20 AM

I take it you think the real Flight 11 & 175 were used and were electronically hijacked just like in the "Lone Gunmen" episode?

im not sure to be honest its only speculation i cant say for definite because there are many things it 'could' be.
btw have you seen any of the other episodes of the lone gunman?

killtown

10-03-2009, 01:29 AM

im not sure to be honest its only speculation i cant say for definite because there are many things it 'could' be.
btw have you seen any of the other episodes of the lone gunman?
Speculation is fine. This is your theory. Just guess what kinds of real planes could have been used for this operation that supports the videos showing them crashing through the WTC. Multiple answers are fine, as long as you don't think they conflict with the videos.

fanoftruth

10-03-2009, 08:06 AM

"What kind of 767s? The real Flights 11 & 175 that were electronically hijacked? Drone 767s? Drones with a "pod"?" - Killtown

Personally I have never believed that the original flights, 11 and 175, hit. For me the 9/11 attacks were a modern day Northwoods put into action and for that reason I've always tended to lean towards drones that were swapped for the original flights when they were off radar. I'm also not embarrassed to say that yes I do see a 'pod' on the underside of '175' which to my eyes is definately present and to my satisfaction hasn't been sufficiantly debunked by the 'landing gear explanation'.

the itinerant shrubber

10-03-2009, 09:32 AM

The more complicated you design a stunt,the more likely it is to fuck up. You really think it's that hard to find a bunch of people willing to die for a cause?
Real hijackers shepherded along by small elements within the intelligent services and hidden among dozens of phantom planes and hijackers.
Thats the simplest and easiest plan and the one they would of gone for.
Hologram planes? You can almost here them laughing at us.

joe911

10-03-2009, 08:50 PM

Speculation is fine. This is your theory. Just guess what kinds of real planes could have been used for this operation that supports the videos showing them crashing through the WTC. Multiple answers are fine, as long as you don't think they conflict with the videos.

possibilities:
1 real planes real hijackers
2 real plane suicide pilot
3 real plane remote controlled
4 drone plane remote controlled (northwoods style)

bryan

10-03-2009, 08:58 PM

I'm also not embarrassed to say that yes I do see a 'pod' on the underside of '175' which to my eyes is definately present and to my satisfaction hasn't been sufficiantly debunked by the 'landing gear explanation'.

The pod theory was disinformation and was introduced into 9/11 research by Phil Jayhan at the LetsRoll911 forum, where stannrodd was, and apparently still is, a moderator. People were waking up to the fact that the plane was a cartoon, and the pod theory was designed to reinforce the original assumption that the plane was a physical object which flew into the South Tower.

Even the official real-planes 9/11 truth movement now considers the pod theory to have been disinformation, but of course they have to claim that the purpose was merely to discredit the movement by making 9/11 truthers look naive.

killtown

10-03-2009, 09:59 PM

...I've always tended to lean towards drones that were swapped for the original flights when they were off radar. I'm also not embarrassed to say that yes I do see a 'pod' on the underside of '175' which to my eyes is definately present and to my satisfaction hasn't been sufficiantly debunked by the 'landing gear explanation'.
OK, drone plane with a pod. What do you think the pod was for?

killtown

10-03-2009, 10:01 PM

You really think it's that hard to find a bunch of people willing to die for a cause?
Real hijackers shepherded along by small elements within the intelligent services and hidden among dozens of phantom planes and hijackers.
Thats the simplest and easiest plan and the one they would of gone for.
Not sure I understand you, you think the govt perps used the real Flights 11 & 175 with real suicide pilots that crashed the planes into the towers without any "remote control" assistance?

killtown

10-03-2009, 10:06 PM

possibilities:
1 real planes real hijackers
2 real plane suicide pilot
3 real plane remote controlled
4 drone plane remote controlled (northwoods style)
1) So "LIHOP" meaning the govt allowed the alleged real hijackers to take off with the plane and crash it where they wanted to?

2) So you are saying the govt hired a suicide pilot?

3) So Flights 11 & 175 flown via remote control, sort of like the "Lone Gunmen" episode?

4) OK, drone 767 painted in UA colors.

joe911

10-03-2009, 11:22 PM

1) So "LIHOP" meaning the govt allowed the alleged real hijackers to take off with the plane and crash it where they wanted to?
Have you seen 7/7 ripple effect? in this the guy talks about how they convinced the "terrorists" they were just taking part in a drill,could be the same case here..
2) So you are saying the govt hired a suicide pilot?
no im just saying a suicide pilot is a possibility,as with the other things i listed
3) So Flights 11 & 175 flown via remote control, sort of like the "Lone Gunmen" episode?
yea could have been
4) OK, drone 767 painted in UA colors.
yea like i said its another possibility

killtown

10-03-2009, 11:35 PM

1) Have you seen 7/7 ripple effect? in this the guy talks about how they convinced the "terrorists" they were just taking part in a drill,could be the same case here..

2) no im just saying a suicide pilot is a possibility,as with the other things i listed
1) So real plane, real hijackers, flown via remote control?

2) but how would that fit into RPT, the theory that the govt used real planes to crash into the WTC?

fanoftruth

10-03-2009, 11:47 PM

"OK, drone plane with a pod. What do you think the pod was for?" - Killtown

Obviously I don't know that and can only speculate but I would say that if there was indeed a 'pod' present then it could have contained substances which lead to the immensely visual explosion that eminated after the crash in comparison to the first hit. For me the south tower hit was the one that sold the world on the sheer danger and threat of what they were watching on TV, it was designed to have as big a visual punch as possible.

There is also something which sharply exits the opposite side of the tower which seemingly leaves a smoke trail behind it. The 'pod' may have been releated to that object which shoots out the tower. I personally never bought into being able to see a missile fired from the pod (I used to frequent letsroll911 a few years back) promoted by Jayhan but I wouldn't completely rule it out, but as I said in my first paragraph I'd guess at some sort of explosive device which lead to the immense fireball which ensued.

joe911

11-03-2009, 12:36 AM

1) So real plane, real hijackers, flown via remote control?

2) but how would that fit into RPT, the theory that the govt used real planes to crash into the WTC?

1) its one possibility yes,
2)i dont understand what your asking

killtown

11-03-2009, 01:39 AM

"OK, drone plane with a pod. What do you think the pod was for?" - Killtown

1) I would say that if there was indeed a 'pod' present then it could have contained substances which lead to the immensely visual explosion that eminated after the crash in comparison to the first hit.

There is also something which sharply exits the opposite side of the tower which seemingly leaves a smoke trail behind it. The 'pod' may have been releated to that object which shoots out the tower. I personally never bought into being able to see a missile fired from the pod (I used to frequent letsroll911 a few years back) promoted by Jayhan but I wouldn't completely rule it out, but as I said in my first paragraph I'd guess at some sort of explosive device which lead to the immense fireball which ensued.

2) For me the south tower hit was the one that sold the world on the sheer danger and threat of what they were watching on TV, it was designed to have as big a visual punch as possible.

1) So would it be fair to say that "Podders" believe it was a pod that (a) fired a missile/projectile out a fraction of a second before hitting the tower, or (b) carried an extra explosive device possible to create a bigger explosion?

2) I totally agree.

killtown

11-03-2009, 01:44 AM

2)i dont understand what your asking
I didn't understand your second option compared to your 1st option. If there was a "suicide pilot," did they fly it in, or was it still controlled via remote control which seems like that would make it the same as your option #1.

john white

11-03-2009, 03:05 AM

I see your busy psych profiling Killtown

Meanwhile, there is no "real plane theory": thats an absurdity and an impossibility. There could only be a "theory" of real planes for those already 100% commited to believing every single image from 9/11 is a fake, every witness a plant, every testimony a deception.

The reality is Real Plane Fact and No Plane Fantasy: which you know of course, being as you are the one crafting that fantasy with the deliberate purpose of deceiving people with it

Just as your attempt to create fake parity between "NPT" and your memetic "RPT" is a deception designed by yourself to shore up your disinformation

fanoftruth

11-03-2009, 08:51 AM

"So would it be fair to say that "Podders" believe it was a pod that (a) fired a missile/projectile out a fraction of a second before hitting the tower, or (b) carried an extra explosive device possible to create a bigger explosion?" - Killtown

I think the missile/Jahyan theory runs popular with only those who attend his site on a regular basis. I've heard, seen and read others who believe the pod could have been an explosive or incindiary device so I believe that's a relatively popular theory.

Other options which no doubt you've come across in research would be a remote guidance system, and as promoted by David Shayler (ex british intel) a missile which was emitting the image of a plane. Wether such technology exists behind closed doors or not I really couldn't say but if such a thing was possible it would actual cover and explain all aspects of the 2nd hit ; people hearing a missile, the physics of the impact, the image of the 'plane' appearing fake, etc.

killtown

11-03-2009, 07:45 PM

1) I've heard, seen and read others who believe the pod could have been an explosive or incindiary device so I believe that's a relatively popular theory.

Other options which no doubt you've come across in research would be a remote guidance system,

2) and as promoted by David Shayler (ex british intel) a missile which was emitting the image of a plane. Wether such technology exists behind closed doors or not I really couldn't say but if such a thing was possible it would actual cover and explain all aspects of the 2nd hit ; people hearing a missile, the physics of the impact, the image of the 'plane' appearing fake, etc.
1) Curious, if it was explosive packed in that pod or a remote guidance system, why do you think they had to build a special protruding pod for any of them?

2) That would fall into NPT. This thread is only about RPT.

killtown

11-03-2009, 08:16 PM

To help move this thread along, I'm going to keep the answers to #3 simple and add to it later.

So far:

1. Why do you think the govt perps used real planes to hit the WTC?

So they can blame the planes for the Twin Towers collapses

2. What do planers think the perps used for their controlled demolition of the Twin Towers?

explosive and/or thermite

3. What kind of plane do you think the perps used to crash into the WTC and how were these planes flown into the Towers?

(a) The real Flights 11 & 175 with their listed passengers and hijackers were electronically hijacked much like in the scenario of the Lone Gunmen "Pilot" episode.

(b) An empty drone 767 painted in UA colors flown via remote control much like the scenario described in 'Operation Northwoods'.

Feel free as we go to add other options I didn't list.

fanoftruth

11-03-2009, 08:21 PM

"1) Curious, if it was explosive packed in that pod or a remote guidance system, why do you think they had to build a special protruding pod for any of them?" - Killtown

No idea why, it makes much more sense to have it out of sight.

And option B for your recent question.

killtown

11-03-2009, 08:31 PM

4. What was govt perp's main goal in NYC?

(I'm going to re-number this question as #1 after answered.)

joe911

11-03-2009, 09:22 PM

4. What was govt perp's main goal in NYC?

(I'm going to re-number this question as #1 after answered.)

does this include everything thats happened as a result of 9/11?

killtown

11-03-2009, 09:51 PM

does this include everything thats happened as a result of 9/11?
No, just want to know what you think their plan for NYC was. Was it to destroy the entire WTC, or just demo the Twin Towers and whatever happens as a result of that happens.

joe911

12-03-2009, 12:23 AM

No, just want to know what you think their plan for NYC was. Was it to destroy the entire WTC, or just demo the Twin Towers and whatever happens as a result of that happens.

i think it was to mainly destroy the towers and then building 7 to cover up the command center,the other buildings could have been rigged but again its only speculation, wtc 1,2,7 were definitly going down on 9/11 they pulled the others anyway so larry silversteen won in the end

killtown

12-03-2009, 12:30 AM

i think it was to mainly destroy the towers and then building 7 to cover up the command center,the other buildings could have been rigged but again its only speculation, wtc 1,2,7 were definitly going down on 9/11 they pulled the others anyway so larry silversteen won in the end
So would you bet more that the perps wanted to destroy the entire WTC complex vs. just destroying the WTC 1, 2, and 7 and hoping the collapse of the towers would destroy the rest of the complex?

joe911

12-03-2009, 12:42 AM

So would you bet more that the perps wanted to destroy the entire WTC complex vs. just destroying the WTC 1, 2, and 7 and hoping the collapse of the towers would destroy the rest of the complex?

I guess the more buildings that fell the fatter larrys wallet got,either way he made big money from it

killtown

12-03-2009, 01:04 AM

So far:

1. What was the govt perp's main goal in NYC?

To destroy the entire WTC complex.

2. Why do you think the govt perps used real planes to hit the WTC?

So they can blame the planes for the Twin Towers collapses

3. What do planers think the perps used for their controlled demolition of the Twin Towers?

explosive and/or thermite

4. What kind of plane do you think the perps used to crash into the WTC and how were these planes flown into the Towers?

(a) The real Flights 11 & 175 with their listed passengers and hijackers were electronically hijacked much like in the scenario of the Lone Gunmen "Pilot" episode.

(b) An empty drone 767 painted in UA colors flown via remote control much like the scenario described in 'Operation Northwoods'.

killtown

12-03-2009, 01:20 AM

joe911

12-03-2009, 01:27 AM

5) Was there a specific way they had to crash the planes into the Twin Towers to give a believable story as to how planes crashing into them could have caused both of them to eventually to collapse? If so, please explain what specific way they had to crash the planes.

Not really,im sure they could have just said alquaida planted the bombs in the building and got away with it.
Crashing a plane surely isnt that difficult,especially if its remote controlled...

dangermouse

12-03-2009, 02:39 AM

the planes are the equivalent of a stage magician saying "look into my eyes!" while his hands are poking around covertly manifacturing the rest of his illusion.
Real planes cause a bigger distraction ;)

killtown

12-03-2009, 04:52 AM

Not really,im sure they could have just said alquaida planted the bombs in the building and got away with it.
Crashing a plane surely isnt that difficult,especially if its remote controlled...
Planes are seen in the videos, so the govt perps obviously choose to use planes as a part of their conspiracy to collapse the Twin Towers according to RPT.

RPT is also saying the planes were used as a cover for the demolition of the Towers. With that said, was there a specific way the govt perps had to crash the planes into the Towers to give a believable story as to how planes crashing into them could have caused both of them to eventually to collapse?

fanoftruth

12-03-2009, 08:45 AM

"RPT is also saying the planes were used as a cover for the demolition of the Towers. With that said, was there a specific way the govt perps had to crash the planes into the Towers to give a believable story as to how planes crashing into them could have caused both of them to eventually to collapse?" - Killtown

One of the weakest arguements debunkers use to refute controlled demolition is to continually remind us how demolitions occur from the base of the building, allowing gravity to take over once the base of the structure has been destroyed. This simply could not have been done in the case of the twin towers. You do not need a degree in physics to know if the bases of the twin towers had been destroyed (as in a 'standard' demo) they would have tipped over and completely fallen onto their sides down into New York city...something which would have caused numerous times more damage and required a far more substantial clean up operation, spreading the debree across a larger radius. If the towers were to be taken down they had to have been destroyed in a top-to-bottom fashion. Therefore the structural failure, as far as people were to believe, needed to occur near the top of each tower...

Enter the planes. Hitting each tower in their respective top segment saw to it that the towers could undergo the exact type of demolition that buildings of their type would need. Remember ; a structure that high in comparison to it's own width would simply topple over sideways if taken down like a normal demolition. This had to be destroyed top to bottom. As the world watched on through their TV sets they had to be sold on the sheer scale of the attack. For this the towers had to come down. 50 or so minutes after the plane crashes they did - and 99% of the people watching at home were convinced as to the reason why.

It's also important to note, when discussing why the planes hit as they did, the testimony of William Rodriguez. He has stated quite clearly and bravely ever since 9/11 that there was a major explosion on one of the North Towers basememnt levels moments before the plane impacted at the top. Also if anyone has come across the film '911 Eyewitness' in their research they will know that it documents explosions which are followed by white smoke eminating from the base of the towers. All this happens though whilst the top sections of each building are engulfed in thick black smoke. Everybodies attention is fixated on the smouldering top sections of each tower, coupled with the whole of New York city's residents watching the skies in fear of another attack...

So the planes impacting the top sections acted as major distractions. Everbody watches the sky for any more danger, they watch on in horror as the tops of the towers spew out thick smoke...meanwhile allowing a little pre-demo work to go on near the base of each tower whilst nobody is looking.

noesis

12-03-2009, 10:40 PM

hi everyone

I sit in the middle ... i've read both sides of the argument. My logical mind says the simplest answer ie RPT is the right one but i'm not going to rule out the NPT because "why not". The question i have and i'm not trying to be clever is why does it matter whether real planes were used or not? The outcome is the same either way. Can someone explain to me why the debate rages? I cant see either side changing their mind on this. Is there extra significance holograms were used?

Noesis

joe911

12-03-2009, 10:59 PM

With that said, was there a specific way the govt perps had to crash the planes into the Towers to give a believable story as to how planes crashing into them could have caused both of them to eventually to collapse?

nope aslong as the plane hit

dave52

12-03-2009, 11:13 PM

The question i have and i'm not trying to be clever is why does it matter whether real planes were used or not? The outcome is the same either way. Can someone explain to me why the debate rages?

Hi Noesis, good question - and a pretty bloody important one too...!

We all know that agendas are fed to us by the media, but TV Fakery takes it up a huge notch. Being told by a reporter that this or that happened is one thing - but to create a movie with Holywood effects and to sell it to the public as fact, well that opens up a whole slew of possibilities...

It also implicates the media directly. A journalist who witnesses an event and reports what he's seen, all be it with the required spin, is a dupe, a useful idiot. But to pass off fake footage as real, that is a direct lie, that is knowingly misleading the public. I'm not saying that all the reporters or newscasters that day were implicated, most of them were in a studio watching the same feeds that we were, but most of the eye-witnesses that phoned through to give their version of events were media people, producers, wives of producers etc.

These people knew what they were doing...

noesis

13-03-2009, 03:27 AM

Hi Noesis, good question - and a pretty bloody important one too...!

We all know that agendas are fed to us by the media, but TV Fakery takes it up a huge notch. Being told by a reporter that this or that happened is one thing - but to create a movie with Holywood effects and to sell it to the public as fact, well that opens up a whole slew of possibilities...

It also implicates the media directly. A journalist who witnesses an event and reports what he's seen, all be it with the required spin, is a dupe, a useful idiot. But to pass off fake footage as real, that is a direct lie, that is knowingly misleading the public. I'm not saying that all the reporters or newscasters that day were implicated, most of them were in a studio watching the same feeds that we were, but most of the eye-witnesses that phoned through to give their version of events were media people, producers, wives of producers etc.

These people knew what they were doing...

Thanks Dave, it's a good point. For me, planes or no planes, the media were complicit and still are complicit in selling us a lie and its served to show us (if we didnt already) to question everything we are sold. I cant imagine what it would be like living in the states with the media being so all-consuming. We have NBC morning show etc running here in the early morning, and even that drives me batty. :)

Sorry to hi-jack your thread Killtown, it's just something i've always wanted to ask.

killtown

13-03-2009, 08:14 AM

nope aslong as the plane hit
So if any one of the planes hit and mostly blew up on the outside of the tower, you really think most people would believe that would be enough to cause that tower to collapse? What would officials give as the official explanation of precisely how a plane crashing on the outside caused the inside core to weaken?

killtown

13-03-2009, 08:16 AM

Sorry to hi-jack your thread Killtown, it's just something i've always wanted to ask.
No worries mate. :)

joe911

13-03-2009, 06:07 PM

So if any one of the planes hit and mostly blew up on the outside of the tower, you really think most people would believe that would be enough to cause that tower to collapse? What would officials give as the official explanation of precisely how a plane crashing on the outside caused the inside core to weaken?

people beleive whatever they are told:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs-nHQYY6Fg
i dont understand what your point is? would it matter what the masses thought,there are still people who beleive sadam had weapons of mass destruction. Experts like kevin ryan have gone public saying theres no way that jet fuel brought down the towers and there are still people who beleive everything in the official story.
I dont know what reason they could have come up with to explain it but they would have come up with something creative

queenofleon

13-03-2009, 06:41 PM

planer:simplest option: crashing a real plane into the wtc because creating a hollogram plane and editing it into videos and wut not is all very complex.
the quickest way from a to b is in a straight line :)

Why is it complex? because you havent learned via mainstream that this technology exists? or because you cant be arsed to research it?

This technology does exist, it is well known it exists, and proof of that is they used it at the bejing olympics. The fireworks were not real, they were holograms, so whats easier, lighting fireworks, or turning on a hologram machine?

So from that we can ask what is easier again, lighting a firework or flying passenger plains over a built up area into the WTC?

Doesnt that answer your question?

The logistics of hijacking a plane is ALOT more difficult then turning on a hologram machine.

The rest is just total blackout of every ligit eye witness testimony and simply editing the propaganda accordingly to fit the agenda, so the opposite of what you say is true. It is alot easier to fake holograms than flying 2 planes into the towers.

mynameis

13-03-2009, 07:14 PM

Why is it complex? because you havent learned via mainstream that this technology exists? or because you cant be arsed to research it?

This technology does exist, it is well known it exists, and proof of that is they used it at the bejing olympics. The fireworks were not real, they were holograms, so whats easier, lighting fireworks, or turning on a hologram machine?

It seems some "cant be arsed to research it" and stop using disinformation when it suits dishonest ideology and fake facts. It is well known that the technology didn't exist in for the media 2001. Nor does a hologram project in daylight at the height each plane flew into the twin towers.

http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/olympic-fireworks-digitally-faked-449304

queenofleon

13-03-2009, 07:23 PM

It seems some "cant be arsed to research it" and stop using disinformation when it suits dishonest ideology and fake facts. It is well known that the technology didn't exist in for the media 2001. Nor does a hologram project in daylight at the height each plane flew into the twin towers.

http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/olympic-fireworks-digitally-faked-449304

WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT MATE?

Look , if you "CANT BE ARSED" to reasearch it I wont provide the links for you.

get your head our of your concrete Ideologies and LOOK IT UP.

Dont you realise in terms of technology we are years ahead than what TPTB allow the mainstream to know???

Regardless of whether you think it was a plane or a hologram the technology exists. And as far as I am concerned it doesn take einstein to work out THAT A PLANE CAN NOT CUT THROUGH STEEL LIKE BUTTER, and a nose of a plane can not come out of the OTHER SIDE once it has carreered through a steel interior.

If thats the case...I thank you ..no need to worry about Project Blue Beam then come 2012...phew.... thanks for your indepth and enlightening knowledge.

:rolleyes:

killtown

13-03-2009, 07:44 PM

people beleive whatever they are told:

i dont understand what your point is?
OK, lets step back a bit. What explanation did officials use to sell the engineering community of how the planes were able to cause the towers to eventually collapsed?

killtown

13-03-2009, 07:45 PM

It is well known that the technology didn't exist in for the media 2001.
Which technology?

queenofleon

13-03-2009, 07:50 PM

Which technology?

This technology

http://www.musion.co.uk/?gclid=CPyz0szIoJkCFQ6vQwodMyWWpQ

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2534499/Beijing-Olympic-2008-opening-ceremony-giant-firework-footprints-faked.html

joe911

13-03-2009, 08:22 PM

Why is it complex? because you havent learned via mainstream that this technology exists? or because you cant be arsed to research it?
its complex compared to just flying a plane into the building,and mainstream haha when pigs fly my friend,im a media student so im fairly good with technology and computers,,and why do i need to research into it its YOURtheory YOU give us your argument thats how peer review works.

This technology does exist, it is well known it exists, and proof of that is they used it at the bejing olympics. The fireworks were not real, they were holograms, so whats easier, lighting fireworks, or turning on a hologram machine?

ok heres a quick game of spot the difference
http://blog.loaz.com/media/blogs/timwang/2008-Beijing-Olympic-Closing-Ceremony-Fireworks-Bird-Net.jpghttp://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/img/Airplane-heading-to-South-Tower.JPG
ill give you a big clue (sky)
just read the article you linked to and:
Gao Xiaolong, head of the visual effects team for the ceremony, said it had taken almost a year to create the 55-second sequence. Meticulous efforts were made to ensure the sequence was as unnoticeable as possible: they sought advice from the Beijing meteorological office as to how to recreate the hazy effects of Beijing's smog at night, and inserted a slight camera shake effect to simulate the idea that it was filmed from a helicopter
so your theory is flawed because you say "turning on the hollogram machine is easy,,,," your own source confirms that it isnt as simple as you say. And what do you think created the impact hole?light?? and how do you create a hollogram in broad daylight?

So from that we can ask what is easier again, lighting a firework or flying passenger plains over a built up area into the WTC?
well spending at least a year creating the illusion and then finding a way to syncronise it with the impact hole and all the other messing about,,my answer is still fly a real plane into it.

The logistics of hijacking a plane is ALOT more difficult then turning on a hologram machine.
Like i said,,your own source prooves its not just a case of "turning on a hologram machine" so still remote controling a plane is alot easier than a team of people working hard for a year to fake what they could acheive in a few months of making a drone.
so the opposite of what you say is true. It is alot easier to fake holograms than flying 2 planes into the towers.
i think you should re-read your articles and think about what your saying friend

joe911

13-03-2009, 08:24 PM

OK, lets step back a bit. What explanation did officials use to sell the engineering community of how the planes were able to cause the towers to eventually collapsed?

they said that jet fuel caused the steel to melt,causing the collapse

fanoftruth

13-03-2009, 08:40 PM

"OK, lets step back a bit. What explanation did officials use to sell the engineering community of how the planes were able to cause the towers to eventually collapsed?"

The planes knocked most of the fire-proofing off the towers' steel thus allowing the ensuing fires to cause enough weakening to the structure that it imploded. You know this yourself so what exactly is the point of coming here to ask us? You're clearly not gathering information and the questions you are asking are loaded with insuation so why not cut the foreplay and just get to the crux of what you really want to talk about.

I also gave what I thought was a neat and thorough answer a page or two back in reply to your question about the planes hitting where they did. I'm not sure if you caught it.

queenofleon

13-03-2009, 08:53 PM

its complex compared to just flying a plane into the building,and mainstream haha when pigs fly my friend,im a media student so im fairly good with technology and computers,,and why do i need to research into it its YOURtheory YOU give us your argument thats how peer review works.

ok heres a quick game of spot the difference
http://blog.loaz.com/media/blogs/timwang/2008-Beijing-Olympic-Closing-Ceremony-Fireworks-Bird-Net.jpghttp://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/img/Airplane-heading-to-South-Tower.JPG
ill give you a big clue (sky)
just read the article you linked to and:

so your theory is flawed because you say "turning on the hollogram machine is easy,,,," your own source confirms that it isnt as simple as you say. And what do you think created the impact hole?light?? and how do you create a hollogram in broad daylight?

well spending at least a year creating the illusion and then finding a way to syncronise it with the impact hole and all the other messing about,,my answer is still fly a real plane into it.

Like i said,,your own source prooves its not just a case of "turning on a hologram machine" so still remote controling a plane is alot easier than a team of people working hard for a year to fake what they could acheive in a few months of making a drone.

I think you should re-read your articles and think about what your saying friend

Fair enough Joe....I am open to a remote control plane most def, initially that seemed the most sensible explanation to me also...but I would be more inclined now through looking into it that the hole was more than likely made by a missile. They have been atleast 3 eye witnesses I have come across in my research who were on the ground *one of which was a FOX journalist* who said they heard a missile crack, infact on some footage you can hear it. one woman said that it was no way a passenger plane yet that footage was squashed immediately.

Turning on a hologram machine was indeed a very simplistic way to explain it, but as I am at work and simultaneously talking to customers I wont get into the predantics of it. I was simply saying that the technology exists, cos it does.

And for you to accept that fuel can turn steel into molten is unreal!! As someone who seems passionate about finding the truth, have you not come across the UNTOLD experts and engineers who say that is IMPOSSIBLE!!

you look pretty young to me from your picture and I give props and respect to anyone your age that is thinking about this stuff rather than just getting pissed and falling out of clubs....but my personal opinion is there were no planes.

An interesting thing I did find about 5 years ago on the net was an apparent leaked military document of flight 93's route and it showed how it landed at a NASA base and the passengers were taken to an underground base. Now I dont know how ligit this was because when I went back to look into it in depth it had dissapeared, so anyone who has come across this I would be interested in links etc... I always had an issue with where the passengers were with the NPT, and the reasons I believe they were no planes are numerous, regardless if I can account for the passengers or not.

In my humble opinion the planes are holograms, the planted wreckage was suspect, jet fuel can not melt steel and bring buildings down, the nose can not come out of the other side, a plane can not cut through steel like butter and there are too many holes in your theory.

My two pence worth "friend"

fanoftruth

13-03-2009, 09:01 PM

"An interesting thing I did find about 5 years ago on the net was an apparent leaked military document of flight 93's route and it showed how it landed at a NASA base and the passengers were taken to an underground base"

That is very interesting indeed! I have neither come across this myself or ever hear it mentioned before.

joe911

13-03-2009, 09:14 PM

Turning on a hologram machine was indeed a very simplistic way to explain it, but as I am at work and simultaneously talking to customers I wont get into the predantics of it. I was simply saying that the technology exists, cos it does.
Agreed the technology does exist,,when you have more time id be interested to hear what you have to say in more detail.

And for you to accept that fuel can turn steel into molten is unreal!! As someone who seems passionate about finding the truth, have you not come across the UNTOLD experts and engineers who say that is IMPOSSIBLE!!
I dont accept that ,kt asked what the officials explanation was for the towers collapsing,,i know about the experts ive seen steven jones and kevin ryans work ect...

you look pretty young to me from your picture and I give props and respect to anyone your age that is thinking about this stuff rather than just getting pissed and falling out of clubs....but my personal opinion is there were no planes
yea im 15 and thankyou:) and thats fine everyones entitled to there opinion

An interesting thing I did find about 5 years ago on the net was an apparent leaked military document of flight 93's route and it showed how it landed at a NASA base and the passengers were taken to an underground base. Now I dont know how ligit this was because when I went back to look into it in depth it had dissapeared, so anyone who has come across this I would be interested in links etc... I always had an issue with where the passengers were with the NPT, and the reasons I believe they were no planes are numerous, regardless if I can account for the passengers or not.

isnt this covered in loose change 2? im sure ive heard it before so someone somewhere must have a copy of it.

killtown

13-03-2009, 10:08 PM

they said that jet fuel caused the steel to melt,causing the collapse
The planes knocked most of the fire-proofing off the towers' steel thus allowing the ensuing fires to cause enough weakening to the structure that it imploded. You know this yourself so what exactly is the point of coming here to ask us? You're clearly not gathering information and the questions you are asking are loaded with insuation so why not cut the foreplay and just get to the crux of what you really want to talk about.

I also gave what I thought was a neat and thorough answer a page or two back in reply to your question about the planes hitting where they did. I'm not sure if you caught it.
1st, I'm not doing this thread to mock RPT, I just want to do a thorough walk-through of this theory so I fully understand RPT and also for planers to fully understand their own theory and see if RPT seems more logical and probable than NPT, or any other alt. theory.

Think of it like a mathematician claiming to have found a new formula. They would be expected to prove this new formula step-by-step.

"The planes knocked most of the fire-proofing off the towers' steel thus allowing the ensuing fires to cause enough weakening to the structure that it imploded. "

OK, now go back to my early question where I ask if the perps had to crash the planes a certain way to obtain a "believable" story as to how planes crashing could have caused the towers to collapse and then next where I asked *if* the planes mostly crashed and blew up on the outside of the towers, could a believable story be given by officials the convince most of the engineering community that planes seen crashing on the outside could cause the towers to collapse?

joe911

13-03-2009, 10:24 PM

OK, now go back to my early question where I ask if the perps had to crash the planes a certain way to obtain a "believable" story as to how planes crashing could have caused the towers to collapse and then next where I asked *if* the planes mostly crashed and blew up on the outside of the towers, could a believable story be given by officials the convince most of the engineering community that planes seen crashing on the outside could cause the towers to collapse?

but the engineers dont accept the official story as it is. wouldnt a plane flown remotley if lined up correctly guarantee a hit? i dont understand what your getting at mate are u assessing what if it didnt go to plan? (presuming using real planes were the plan)

fanoftruth

13-03-2009, 11:55 PM

"i dont understand what your getting at mate are u assessing what if it didnt go to plan? (presuming using real planes were the plan)" - joe911

It's not the impact that Killtown is getting at per se, it is the penetration of the plane inside the building. The point he is trying to make is that the perps wouldn't be able to sell the public the idea of structural failure if the plane simply met too much resistance when impacting the tower's facade and cr
ashed/blew up against the side. If we were to believe the buildings core was weakened then it would have been imperative that the planes completely entered the building fully.

Killtown is making the point that if the point of the scenario in new york was to see the eventual collapse of the twin towers then could it be left to chance that each plane would react against the buildings facade the way we see in the footage and manage to completely enter the building. If the planes crashed against the side of each tower then would the perps still be able to take each tower down without attracting too much suspicion?

joe911

14-03-2009, 05:14 PM

Killtown is making the point that if the point of the scenario in new york was to see the eventual collapse of the twin towers then could it be left to chance that each plane would react against the buildings facade the way we see in the footage and manage to completely enter the building. If the planes crashed against the side of each tower then would the perps still be able to take each tower down without attracting too much suspicion?

But they wouldnt have left it to chance,,say if it were remote controlled it would have been aligned well in advance even autopiloted with it set to hit the towers.
Maybe (and this is just speculation) the plane was like a little bonous for them,maybe they were going to run with the story that alCIAda planted bombs inside the wtc and they were going to use the planes as a guise for inciting fear into people and luring them into accepting increased security?

fanoftruth

14-03-2009, 08:23 PM

"maybe they were going to run with the story that alCIAda planted bombs inside the wtc " - joe911

Yes, there is that possibility. It's also possible that the perps had other planes in stand-bye in case the plane did fail to penetrate so they could execute multiple hits on each building.

I've never seen any conclusive proof that an airliner at full speed wouldn't be able to completely break the facade though so I'm inclined to think the perps were confident enough that 1 plane would do the trick.

helloperator

15-03-2009, 02:06 AM

No planes = massive, insane risky gamble.

Every man and his dog was watching the wtc area after the first incident.

joe911

15-03-2009, 08:44 PM

Yes, there is that possibility. It's also possible that the perps had other planes in stand-bye in case the plane did fail to penetrate so they could execute multiple hits on each building.

thats a really interesting idea,,with all the ghost planes on radar because of the war game exercises there could easily have been more planes somewhere incase the first 2 missed.

joe911

20-03-2009, 06:14 PM

c'mon folks this thread was actually starting to getomewhere :)

killtown

21-03-2009, 07:19 PM

c'mon folks this thread was actually starting to getomewhere :)
Sorry Joe, I was finishing up my new 'Hoodwinked' video (see other thread here). I'll be continuing with the thread.

killtown

23-03-2009, 11:21 PM

But they wouldnt have left it to chance,,say if it were remote controlled it would have been aligned well in advance even autopiloted with it set to hit the towers.
Joe, you're missing the point. Read what fanoftruth wrote:

If the planes crashed against the side of each tower then would the perps still be able to take each tower down without attracting too much suspicion?

Remember the perps needed the perception of this following to happen in order for them sell their "plane took down the towers" story:

The planes knocked most of the fire-proofing off the towers' steel thus allowing the ensuing fires to cause enough weakening to the structure that it imploded.

If your planes mostly crashed and exploding on the outside of the buildings, would that be enough to sell a story of how that could have caused the mighty Twin Towers to collapse?

joe911

23-03-2009, 11:34 PM

Joe, you're missing the point. Read what fanoftruth wrote:

If the planes crashed against the side of each tower then would the perps still be able to take each tower down without attracting too much suspicion?

Remember the perps needed the perception of this following to happen in order for them sell their "plane took down the towers" story:

The planes knocked most of the fire-proofing off the towers' steel thus allowing the ensuing fires to cause enough weakening to the structure that it imploded.

If your planes mostly crashed and exploding on the outside of the buildings, would that be enough to sell a story of how that could have caused the mighty Twin Towers to collapse?

Maybe they had several planes ready,with all the ghost planes on radars because of the drills they could easily hide a few planes among them

killtown

23-03-2009, 11:41 PM

Maybe they had several planes ready,with all the ghost planes on radars because of the drills they could easily hide a few planes among them
But the more planes mean more work, more passengers to find or make up, more chance of things going wrong and that what make the "crashing real planes vs. TV fakery would be easier" argument less and less applicable.

You still need to answer if the perps need the planes to crash in a certain way, or just crash any way to be able to sell the collapse story afterward.

joe911

24-03-2009, 12:00 AM

You still need to answer if the perps need the planes to crash in a certain way, or just crash any way to be able to sell the collapse story afterward.

wouldnt they be able to sell the story that the force of the plane hitting the building caused the steel to bend?:confused:

killtown

24-03-2009, 02:24 AM

wouldnt they be able to sell the story that the force of the plane hitting the building caused the steel to bend?:confused:
Joe come on man, do you really think that?

When you look at the videos, how do the planes crash into the buildings?

john white

24-03-2009, 03:45 AM

Joe come on man, do you really think that?

When you look at the videos, how do the planes crash into the buildings?

They clearly DID sell that story Killtown, given that is exactly what the majority of the world believes as of this moment

SO clearly crashing planes into the towers WAS an effective cover for the controlled demolition

Well that's one of your main planks to your fraudulent theory demolished very easily

Of course, you know its easy to demolish, because you are one of those responsible for inventing the lie of NPT, and you know, right now, that its utter crap, because it always has been, from the start, nicely dropped into 9/11 truth in the autumn of 2006 with the specific purpose of destroying the unity that had come into existence and thereby acting to protect the traitors who murdered Americans

Do you really think your not going to face trial someday Killtown?

Do you REALLY feel you are SAFE?

Your not

Still waiting for you to take me to court for libel by the way

Still waiting to find out exactly who you are