Why planes were not used.

And what possible reason would there be to have a missile that explodes AFTER it exits the building? That makes even LESS sense than the way you say the plane comes out intact then disappears. If you want to have a warhead do the most possible damage then it's going to explode INSIDE the building where it's going to blow apart structurally important pieces.

As for damage, it makes MORE sense to use a real 767 than a missile. There's a study that showed the impact of a 767 is the rough equivalent of 1 kiloton of explosives.

All these arguments for no planes fall flat. The discussion is too silly for me to even bother. Real-time video manipulation and real-time suggestion trickery to make people remember they saw a plane? True, up close eyewitnesses were only so many,about a dozen thousands I'd guess, compared to the billions seeing it ont TV. But tht's still a lot of people.

But here is your chance to explain the mechanics of suggestion for the many people at work, on the street, packed into high rises, who heard a plane coming in, looked and "saw" it, followed it and watched it blow up. Please explain how all this was planted in their brains.

If your explanation is not convincing, then I will have to keep ignoring this silliness. But I will wait to see this leg of the theory.

Its impossible to prove anything at this stage but again I don't think its upto someone that does not believe that no plane hit the WTC to show any proofs, as far as I am concerned a no plane makes so much more sense; you tell us what is the cone coming out of the WTC and how it got there and I tell you that I can't prove that holograms or whatever else was used.
If that is a real plane I think it should be quite safe to tell us what it was.

I am open minded, if you give me some proof a plane hit the building I gladly say it.
And out of the thousands who saw the plane how come no one was interviewed? Actually only one who was a real disinfo agent.
How come they all talk about missles no planes ,explosions, military jet?
A 767 should be quite big and hard to do recognize or even hear it.
How come of the so many thousands that saw the real thing they interviewed only the one who saw weird things?
Its a conspiracy site I don't think that the truth begins in here as I already said many times this is the only place where I would discuss something like this. It looks to me that you guys are acting like OCT they have no pisical evidence they can't explain anything scientifically and they are still around here. You are using the same tactics, explain me scientifically why the nose cone appears in the front why it explodes, why it did not slow down, why it did not deform itself and I am more than glad to change my mind 360 degree. Till than (and I think it will be a long time to go) am I authorized to voice out my opinion on no planes hitting the towers? Its the same principle of being a OCT against CT and you guys are using it.

Here it is the only witness who saw the plane hitting the WTC there might be one more video around of another witness but thats it for that day how come?



[edit on 18-5-2007 by piacenza]

Thank you for that rundown of the confused and fragmentary results of your thousands of hours of youtube research. I am going back to ignoring the issue now in good conscience.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Thank you for that rundown of the confused and fragmentary results of your thousands of hours of youtube research. I am going back to ignoring the issue now in good conscience.

Why do you even bother to make a post like this and just move along? As usual no explanation but hey great catchy line almost like GWB.

piacenza


Even though this is a conspiracy site, everyone here is still really concerned with 'truth'. That is why people who 'hoax' ufo's or anything else here are banned.

I understand your feelings, you want to freely discuss what is on your mind and this is the place to do that. Fine. But at the same time try and research *ALL* sides and listen to what people might be saying.

Go to the following link, and it has a pretty decent 'debunking' of the no planes theory.

www.questionsquestions.net...

Originally posted by piacenza

Here it is the only witness who saw the plane hitting the WTC there might be one more video around of another witness but thats it for that day how come?

[edit on 18-5-2007 by piacenza]

You're not serious, right?

Do you really believe this is the ONLY witness who saw the plane hit WTC2? I know two people personally who saw the plane hit WTC2. So that means that there are at least 3 witnesses to this event.

How many more witnesses do you need before you believe they all saw a plane?

Again you guys are going away from the facts:
1) What is the nosecone coming outside of the building and how in hell did it get there?
2) Can I see some eyewitnesses videotaped on that day that saw a plane?
Its incredible how hard it will be to find some.

3) I am totally open to the possibility that a plane hit the building just because of the engine part found on the street of NY but for the other debris please give me a break.

And we don't KNOW that's the nose. We know that it APPEARS to be the nose, but we can't say with 100% certainty that it IS the nose. We're too far away, and the resolution is too low to EVER be able to say with 100% certainty what that part was.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And we don't KNOW that's the nose. We know that it APPEARS to be the nose, but we can't say with 100% certainty that it IS the nose. We're too far away, and the resolution is too low to EVER be able to say with 100% certainty what that part was.

A guess is appreciated anyway. Thank you

Going by the fact that we know an engine was found on the ground, I've said before and will say again that I think it's an engine piece, shrouded by smoke and debris.

Originally posted by piacenza

Why do you even bother to make a post like this and just move along? As usual no explanation but hey great catchy line almost like GWB.

It's to let you know why I'm moving on and why I've ignored this thread. IMO this no planes stuff is the bad, obvious disinfo put out there so people suckered by other disinfo can pat themselves on the back over how good they are at avoiding disinfo. Like the pods, and the yellow-flashing missile, etc. A few straw men for us to tear down ourselves. Not calling anybody here an agent, that's just how it ends up.

Re: the cone emerging from the building. Think of it this way - a plane flies because of its engines. When it blows up, the engines would have the most momentum, and might even keep firing for a half-second or whatever, and with no heavy plane weighing them down anymore. They are built cylindrical like a missile, if not very sharp-tipped, and would smash through all kinds of walls, depending. It seems they went in, and so back out seems possible too. Ergo, in addition to the mostly intact engine snapped on the street (were any of the other three found?), this was probably an engine.

OR they also shot an airliner engine out the side of the tower with a cannon to help fake it out (or just CGed that in and dumped the engine from a garbage truck) - on top of the window section planting, the wall bombs, the fireball generators, seamless, realtime multi-angle multi-source CG manipulation, the mental suggestion/programming/auditory halucination generation, the planes and passenger disposal problem, etc.

If you SERIOUSLY believe this... well, somehow I think you guys are smarter than that, but... okay I'll leave it there. Enjoy.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Well it really looks like the nosecone that entered ,the lenght and the shape do not suggest its an engine and I would like also to know how come it explodes later on since its not attached any longer to the wing.
My guess is as good as yours only difference IMO its that its not an engine at all, I will look at the trajectory of the so called engine and I am pretty sure it wont have anything to do with the nose cone.
The lenght and the shadow suggest it might be something.
I am including now another stupid youtube video there is an interesting part where you can clearly see a plane leaving at high speed after the second impact.
I am quite sure its the plane that released its load on WTC.

It doesn't explode. The explosion behind it catches up to it. The fuel that came from the plane spread out and exploded and the blast moved faster than the piece of the plane was moving, so it caught up to it. You can clearly see the explosion start BEHIND it, and move forward enveloping whatever this part is.

But its irrelevant really of what the "nosecone" actually is, because photo evidence shows that nothing could have left the other side of the tower anyway, because there are no holes to accomodate for an exiting object. The fact that one news channels footage cut for a second when the nosecone was seen makes it even more suspicious.

Im still not totally convinced of the no plane theory, but its pretty hard to ignore photo and video evidence, and personally i take photo/video evidence above witness testimony, unless i know them personally/or i was there and saw it myself.

Afterall, 99% of the people who "saw" the plane were really just looking at a 2D image of the days events on an electric screen.. to think they actually "saw" what happened is absurd. How can you say that when you weren't actually there?

shrunkensimon

There is an exit hole on the other side.




there is plenty of room for that object to have come through

What am i supposed to be seeing in that picture..whats your point?

This is the image of where the exit hole should be. Please tell me where a nosecone came through, or anything else for that matter..

And that's exactly what the hole SHOULD look like. You're not talking a huge intact airplane coming out of that hole. You're talking about shredded pieces of debris, so you're not going to have the big hole like the impact hole.

So is that nose cone (or engine) some shredded pieces of an airplane? This object has a shape as a shadow, it moves, it looks real, is it a composite of thousands of small debris? Thnx for posting the picture of the non exisisting hole I have not see it for many yrs now I even forgot about it.

As I said before, we can debate on what it is for YEARS, but THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW what it is. Unless we were right there, or right on the ground where it came down at we will NEVER know what it is.