The Facts of WTC PLANNED & CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

[Albion]

Why would those who orchestrated 9/11 go to such measures? Surely when the powers that be met around the table, the bloke who said let's hijack some planes and fly them into the towers, killing as many people as possible, to further our agenda, was given a round of applause. And the bloke who suggested holograms was quickly escorted out the back door?

[Albion]

6 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

 

Digital composites is more likely.

 

Hello HU. Thanks for the reply. What about the (I guess) many eye witnesses accounts of the planes flying over NY before they hit?

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

18 minutes ago, Albion said:

Basket Case brought me here so you can all thank him for the following naive question but..

 

Holographic planes? Really?

As far as 911 goes, you're in at the deep end here...   

[Haunted Universe]

33 minutes ago, Albion said:

Why would those who orchestrated 9/11 go to such measures? Surely when the powers that be met around the table, the bloke who said let's hijack some planes and fly them into the towers, killing as many people as possible, to further our agenda, was given a round of applause. And the bloke who suggested holograms was quickly escorted out the back door?

 

 

This has already been addressed. 

[Haunted Universe]

31 minutes ago, Albion said:

Hello HU. Thanks for the reply. What about the (I guess) many eye witnesses accounts of the planes flying over NY before they hit?

 

Hi. This is level 1 of basic psy op orchestration.  Crisis actors, media driven agenda, Mandela effect, unreliable witnesses. One witness on youtube says he said there were no planes, it was a bomb, and the journalist shit himself and walked away from him. 

[mishy]

2 hours ago, Albion said:

Why would those who orchestrated 9/11 go to such measures? Surely when the powers that be met around the table, the bloke who said let's hijack some planes and fly them into the towers, killing as many people as possible, to further our agenda, was given a round of applause. And the bloke who suggested holograms was quickly escorted out the back door?

 

Quote

Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ? It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidencewe have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless. Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

 

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through whatcould go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk. You want to sell a story about hijacked planes. At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

 

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people thatthey were planes.

 

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side totell the story. What could go wrong? 1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it. Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice.The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there." Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan. This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reportingmissiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV -using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, becauseeveryone is fixated on the video replay.

 

Those few witnesses who might geta moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays.

 

In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* -the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion. This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face. What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths. In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt. So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning. Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works.

 

The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events. Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn'tenough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves. So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.

 

Now to the other problem. Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with he groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets. Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

 

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets. This immediately splits into two sub-choices:

1) Pilot them with suicide pilots

2) Remote control them.

 

The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

 

Remote control. Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices. 1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane fromsomewhere else and pass it off as a real flight. Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with. Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip it's wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

 

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing,which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes. Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario. And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that theaircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam,and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen. And what are they going to find ?

 

Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers.This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices. 1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock themoff before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the airconsystem. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media, innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing beforethe spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

 

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into thetowers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like inthe S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the planemisses its target. And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shutup - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure. In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up,involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action.

 

All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice. As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft,and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media. In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible,because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows. The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY. This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.

 

 

The date on the PDF is 2012, but I'm sure this is from like 2008, maybe even earlier.

 

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Why-they-didnt-use-planes.pdf

Edited September 5, 2020 by mishy

[Carlos]

Wowie, these two are really getting miffed at anyone taking them to task. Apparently anyone questioning their crazy claims is a shill and all posts are trolling. Notice people that the extremely large elephant in the room stays trumpeting away without them addressing it. Third time.

 

How many people were in on this?

 

1. How many to distribute airplane parts?

2. How many to distribute DNA?

3. How many to dispose of the actual plane and kill the passengers.

4. Then since DNA was found, how many to toast the bodies and smash them up?

5. If the DNA was faked, the laboratory was in on it? How many?

6. How many in the military to execute the missile launch?

7. How many to create all those individual films?

8. How many to lace the buildings with explosives?

9. How many to plan it? Oversee it?

10. How did they communicate it all?

11. Where is the paper trail for all of this, or the money trail to pay this huge number off?

12. Adding - "crisis actors" total?

 

The thing is, this has been going on for some considerable time now - SURELY you can answer these questions? It HAS to be part of the who, what, why, where scenario - filling in the dots. At least estimates??

 

One final question:

 

In the world of high explosives and demolition, all sorts of weird and wonderful techniques are employed to make the direction of the force as required. I am not aware of one that makes metal bend towards the explosion. The impacts showed NO outward ejections at the collision point - what Mickey Mouse world does this happen in?

 

 

 

Bent inwards? Can the two noisy no planers please avoid answering anything in this post?

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Carlos

[Carlos]

7 hours ago, Albion said:

Why would those who orchestrated 9/11 go to such measures? Surely when the powers that be met around the table, the bloke who said let's hijack some planes and fly them into the towers, killing as many people as possible, to further our agenda, was given a round of applause. And the bloke who suggested holograms was quickly escorted out the back door?

 

Apparently all because there was a possibility the "big lumbering jet" might miss its target.

 

https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/conspiracy-nation/

" I propose a conspiracy theory that the conspiracy theories are themselves part of a conspiracy, intended to discredit the idea of there being a conspiracy — and to divide and conquer those who might sleuth out certain facts."

 

"1. The terrorist pilots lacked the skill and training needed to fly jetliners into their targets

This is an especially popular contention with respect to American flight 77.  Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour was a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater. Yet he is said to have pulled off a remarkable series of aerobatic maneuvers before slamming into the Pentagon.  The pilots of American 11 and United 175 also had spotty records and had flown only private planes.  They should have had great difficulty navigating to New York City, and even greater difficulty hitting the twin towers squarely. To bolster this idea that the hijackers were Oswaldian pawns, the conspiromongers often invoke impressive-sounding jargon and fluffery about high-tech cockpits, occasionally trundling out testimony from pilots.

Reality: The cabal’s feats did not require in-depth technical knowledge or a high degree of skill.  The attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league in the cockpits of those 757s and 767s; however they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category-3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system – or to land at all.  They were setting out to steer an already airborne jetliner, in perfect weather, into the side of a building.  Though, for good measure, Mohammed Atta and at least one other member of his group did buy several hours of simulator training on a Boeing 727 (this was not the same type of jet used in the attacks, but it didn’t need to be).  Additionally they obtained manuals and instructional videos for the 757 and 767, available from aviation supply shops.

Hani Hanjour’s flying was exceptional only in its recklessness.  If anything, his loops and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was.  To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it.  Striking a stationary object — even a large one with five beckoning sides — at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult.  To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn.  If he’d flown the same profile ten times, seven of them he’d probably have tumbled short of the target or overflown it entirely.
As for those partisan pilots known to chime in on websites, take them with a grain of salt.  As somebody who flies 757 and 767s for a living, I think my testimony carries some weight.  Ask around and you’ll discover that the majority of professional pilots feel the way I do."

[mishy]

4 hours ago, Carlos said:

How many people were in on this?

 

I don't care because It's all on film. CGI planes with no collision physics whatsoever.

 

 

 

And regarding your picture, you need to prove a plane did that damage...how are you going to do that? Provide video evidence?

 

Tedius.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Basket Case
Removed baseless accusations

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

8 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

MOD NOTE; Please stop throwing baseless accusations about members being former members.
lf you have real concerns please PM one of the Mods or Admin.
Thanks.. BC

[Carlos]

1 hour ago, mishy said:

 

I don't care because It's all on film. CGI planes with no collision physics whatsoever.

 

And regarding your picture, you need to prove a plane did that damage...how are you going to do that? Provide video evidence?

 

Tedius.

 

You ran away like a big Jessie. Afraid to answer anything. 

 

Regarding the picture YOU need to explain how an explosion goes inwards with no debris coming out of the entry hole. You cannot because it was a bloody plane!

[mishy]

3 minutes ago, Carlos said:

 

You ran away like a big Jessie. Afraid to answer anything. 

 

Regarding the picture YOU need to explain how an explosion goes inwards with no debris coming out of the entry hole. You cannot because it was a bloody plane!

 

You're asking questions that I have no need to answer. YOU need to prove a plane caused that hole, because what the videos show is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

http://fakeologist.com/september-clues-tour-guide/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Carlos]

19 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

You're asking questions that I have no need to answer. 

 

I'm asking questions that you CANNOT answer. Mainly because there is no explanation.   

 

19 minutes ago, mishy said:

YOU need to prove a plane caused that hole, because what the videos show is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

Circular reasoning - the videos show exactly what should occur. I don't need to prove that the explosion went inwards as we can see. You are the one making the moronic claim and you know there is NO explanation for it.

 

<thread>

[mishy]

5 minutes ago, Carlos said:

 

I'm asking questions that you CANNOT answer. Mainly because there is no explanation.   

 

 

Circular reasoning - the videos show exactly what should occur. I don't need to prove that the explosion went inwards as we can see. You are the one making the moronic claim and you know there is NO explanation for it.

 

<thread>

 

Does <thread> mean you're going to stop posting dribble?

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

15 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

Does <thread> mean you're going to stop posting dribble?

MOD NOTE ;
Are you going to keep to the discussion or provoke discord ?

 

[mishy]

6 minutes ago, Basket Case said:

MOD NOTE ;
Are you going to keep to the discussion or provoke discord ?

 

I'm not the one causing discord, as you put it.

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

29 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

Does <thread> mean you're going to stop posting dribble?

 

6 minutes ago, mishy said:

I'm not the one causing discord, as you put it.

"Does <thread>  mean you're going to stop posting dribble ?" is not discussing topic.
You are all close to the line, but as long as you are still discussing the topic and no-one flags a particular post, then carry on..
 

[mishy]

1 minute ago, Basket Case said:

 

"Does <thread. mean you're going to stop posting dribble ?" is not discussing topic.
You are all close to the line, but as long as you are still discussing the topic and no-one flags a particular post, then carry on..
 

 

On 9/4/2020 at 3:21 AM, pirate said:

Genuine "Truthers" will not even debate the no planes at the WTC Complex because it's a damm lie and pure stupidity.

 

 

On 9/4/2020 at 3:35 AM, pirate said:

The WTC WAS DEMOLISHED...but the planes HAD TO BE THERE AND BE SEEN AND HEARD HITING THE BUILDINGS...the planes were real planes...to suggest it was some sort of trick imagery/hologram/camera trick is just real plain Dumb...and as for nobody died in the buildings is even dumber....Dumb & Dumber.

 

23 hours ago, Carlos said:

 

No. You don't get to rely on physics. If any group of people exist that have no right to claim they "know" about physics, it's the people who make all this ridiculous noise about no planes.

 

The physics involved amount to team no-plane simply denying things and refusing to learn. No point in debating such people. September clues is appalling inaccurate junk. The mad claim about nose-out epitomises this, with the same view of the exit debris and fireball being visible on other footage.

 

 

23 hours ago, Carlos said:

 

 

Last I heard there was a Grand Jury investigation - didn't see any conclusion to it. I find it painfully ironic that you and the other painfully wrong no planers who have been soiling any internet discussion of this have the audacity to claim nothing has been concluded. 

 

 

Ad hominem rubbish. No planers are the bottom feeders for 911 conspiracies. And thank you for the "so fucking obvious" bullshit. 

 

Could you pretty please tell me which of the two alternatives I identified,  that you would go with if you were a perp.

 

 

Hypocrisy. Not a good look dude.

 

What next? Try to avoid getting into a drawn out argument with people who have no capacity for reasoned debate. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21 hours ago, Carlos said:

 

They were full of seats, people, luggage, cross members, food trolleys, fuel, instruments, tv screens, partitions, carpets, cables, undercarriage and other items all weighing at 82.4 metric tons. This travelling along at 530mph. 

 

Only the truly brainless can fail to understand the colossal kinetic energy in play. The engine was the correct type, not placed there and the passport was iffy.

 

 

Irony. Anything with sufficient force would go through it.

 

 

No it wasn't. Your sense of reality is quite disturbing.

 

 

I don't recall seeing anywhere how the hijackers claimed to be trying to bring the buildings down. Completely irrelevant.

 

 

It hit an immovable object, the packed ground at maximum speed. It smashed into tiny pieces and ejected over many miles. I won't bother posting clear-up accounts and links.

 

 

It was a plane. CCTV is fairly useless at capturing such fast objects anyway. 

 

 

I just realised I am being dragged into an almost as dumb debate as the flat earth.

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Carlos said:

 

No you rather silly person. That is not what I am saying at all. If the coke can weighed 90 tons and was travelling at 500mph you might 

 

 

 

 

Etc etc.

 

But yeah, I'm provoking discord.

 

Back on topic, where are the black boxes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

2 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

But yeah, I'm provoking discord

Every one of those posts you highlighted by quoting  ALSO contained discussion.

"Does <thread> mean you're going to stop posting dribble?" does not contain or continue the discussion.
Please take this as a gentle friendly hint.
Thanks.

[Carlos]

50 minutes ago, mishy said:

 

Does <thread> mean you're going to stop posting dribble?

 

Why are you so afraid to answer? The building exterior shows an inward explosion and nothing was ejected out the entrance hole.

 

How does your no-plane nonsense explain it.

 

[Carlos]

9 minutes ago, mishy said:

Back on topic, where are the black boxes?

 

Wow, the person calling people names objects to INDIRECT banter. Back on topic, answer my question!

 

Black boxes, if one was needed the perps could just fake one, or do you think they exceeded their massive man power list with all the other crap and they decided not to bother

[Haunted Universe]

3 hours ago, Carlos said:

I don't need to prove that the explosion went inwards as we can see

 

2 hours ago, Carlos said:

The building exterior shows an inward explosion and nothing was ejected out the entrance hole.

 

Oh really? Also, wheres your giant airliner in this photo?

 

It's a bird, it's a plane....actually, it's just cutter charges and simple napalm-type Hollywood effects blowing a plane silhouette into the south face of WTC2. Study the actual perimeter columns and see how they were successfully blown in and in ridiculously straight lines. The problem the perps had, however, is that the ugly grey aluminum siding which had covered the perimeter columns was blown OUTWARDS and into the streets as you can see here. Not to mention, most of them were blown out in FULL LENGTH STRIPS!

 

How can something have come slicing through the tower and not have sliced the aluminum siding which had covered it?

 

 

 

 

 

[Haunted Universe]

This is the roof of WTC5 after the 'plane' hit. Wheres the planes parts? A week later you will see blue airliner fuselage wreckage laying on it. I wonder why it's not in this original pic?

 

 

[Haunted Universe]

Wheres your plane Carlos? Not one shred of plane debris in this hole. A hole that should have been so hot which made the towers fell yet theres a person standing in it. It defies belief that you see NOTHING resembling a giant aircraft that had apparently just plowed into the building at 500mph which was what created this hole.

 

Those squares and rectangles are very suspect too. Perfectly straight and made. What a coincidence!

 

 

[Haunted Universe]

Heres a better view of the hole. How strange that the hole looks pre-designed with straight rectangles and squares.