Killtown Explains Why They Didn't Crash Planes into the WTC

For those who say:


"Why would the government fake crashing planes into the WTC towers and thereby also having to fake all the crash videos when it would be much easier for them to crash real planes into them?"




Here is why they didn't use real planes to crash into the WTC:



BELIEVABILITY


killtown.blogspot.com...




AboveTopSecret.com Editorial Update
The majority of ATS members participating in these TV FAKERY threads have discovered serious problems with the theory. Please use the thread linked below for the ongoing discussion.
SEPTEMBER CLUES exposes 911 TV Fakery


[edit on 7-6-2007 by AboveTopSecret.com]

How about ...

bsregistration explains "Why They Didn't Crash Planes into the WTC"? Would that be too much to ask? ... in Your own words?

My apology for that last stipulation, but parrots tend to get on my nerves. Then again, perhaps that's just me ...



 

Or how about...

bsregistration stops filibustering the 9/11 forum by creating 6 different threads on the exact same topic

Originally posted by Essedarius
bsregistration stops filibustering the 9/11 forum by creating 6 different threads on the exact same topic

The topic is 911.... the forum is 911....

Oh geeeeeeze .. ANOTHER one? Why didn't you just add this to one of the other bunches of threads you've started on the same subject?????????

Here are some good articles that demonstrates some good reasoning as to why it's possible there were no planes.


(Why they didn't use planes)
www.911closeup.com...


(WTC Forensics)
www.911closeup.com...

Originally posted by selfless
The topic is 911.... the forum is 911....

The topic is "media fakery" and this thread is the fourth or fifth on that same topic by this same author.

This thread should be closed. Please don't call me a government shill.

oh my god....sorry but this is it...ANYONE WHO BELIEVES PLANES DIDN'T HIT THE TOWERS on 9/11...you people are complete morons...there is no other word or way to describe you....there were no holograms, there were no missles dressed up like planes, blah blah blah...there were 2 planes that crashed into the towers...END OF STORY...if you argue ANYTHING about not being a plane argue the pentagon....but enough of this NO PLANE theory BS!!!! not one of you can give a SOLID explination to back up your theories....and some of you say paid actors were the only ones interviewed on 9/11...wow...just wow...

Ron White said it best....."blue collar comedy tour"

"you can't cure stupid"

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by selfless
The topic is 911.... the forum is 911....

The topic is "media fakery" and this thread is the fourth or fifth on that same topic by this same author.

This thread should be closed. Please don't call me a government shill.

Hmmm no.... this thread is about an article written by killtown, not the media. Maybe you should read the threads before you accuse others.

I believe killtown is a member of ATS and i suggest reading the article posted on the original post of this thread, it's a very good article.

Here's a good paragraph from killtown's article.

Then last on the list for the odyssey of Flight 175 is its peculiar entrance, and exit out of the world trade center. How does a plane which is 16 feet, 9 inches in diameter, made out of thin aluminum, tear through not just one set of tubular steel spandrel beams, spaced 39 inches apart, but two of them? Yet there is more. The floors of the WTC, are less than 12.5 feet between floor and ceiling. Which means this plane ripped through a minimum of TWO FLOORS of 209 feet of concrete, 4 inches thick, (with a 22 guage steel pan) and the planes cockpit and fuselage remained intact all the way back to the wing root, and made it clear through the building? Remarkable to say the least. Physically impossible to say the most.

Yes, this is a thread to killtown's article, where he discusses THE SAME THING YOU KEEP BRINGING UP in different threads, so it's all about the same thing. Enough already!!!

Originally posted by sensfan
Yes, this is a thread to killtown's article, where he discusses THE SAME THING YOU KEEP BRINGING UP in different threads, so it's all about the same thing. Enough already!!!

Actually no, allow me to correct.

This article does not talk about the alterations of the medias, it mostly talks about the physics and the sense in reasons as to why it's unlikely that planes accomplished what took place on 911.

There is absolutely no reasons to take off this thread.

Take off this thread and it will mean that all other threads about 911 should not be allowed to be posted.

Think about it, someone posts a thread about controlled demolition and then he posts a thread about mini nukes, should the threads be removed? Nope.

Originally posted by shadow_soldier1975
you people are complete morons

I think there are plenty of ways to discuss controversial 9/11 theories without calling the those you think believe in silly theories "morons." And likewise, I think it's possible to engage in debate to support your theory, without calling those who disagree "shills."

Let's dispense with the name calling, and focus on the topic.

I'm afraid I have to disagree, Selfless.

By your logic, if I post one thread about (as an example), an alleged UFO sighting, and a second one about how no media outlet is covering my alleged UFO sighting, and another about the possible physics that would cause my alleged UFO to fly, and yet another berating the ATS community for not whole-heartedly supporting my alleged UFO sighting, and yet another thread with links to another UFO site where I discuss my alleged UFO sighting, and (gasp) ANOTHER thread discussing how the internet is being censored because nobody is talking about my alleged UFO sighting...I wouldn't be overdoing things just a touch? I wouldn't be spamming, after all....every one of my threads is intended to discuss something different, after all.

Whatever the claimed subject might be (media trickery, the 'real' cause of the WTC collapse, etc...), the fact is that one poster has created several threads that all deal with a single topic. At the very least, it's bad form...if there's that much to be said about your topic, then by all means, say it in one well-organized post so that it can be seen and studied without chasing through a half-dozen different threads. At the very worst, somebody is so desperate for attention that they don't want their pet theory / conspiracy to fall off the front page.

In my personal opinion, the OP and his theory would be better served if he (she? I really don't know, and it's not germane) would consolidate all of the evidence (if any) supporting the theory under discussion, along with a synopsis (for those of us who either have slow net connections, or simply don't care to click through fifty links to get fifteen sentences of info).

The OP (and those who agree with him) would also be well served by refraining from insults and / or name-calling. Not everyone who disagrees with someone is a 'complete moron'... some people are simply very skeptical (that would be me).

I'm very skeptical about the idea that no aircraft hit the WTC, and frankly, there hasn't been a lot of actual evidence provided, either here or at Killtown. There are straw men in plenty, but very little in the way of real supporting evidence. For example, the claim that that Flight 175 'entered and exited' the WTC, is utterly destroyed by the Killtown article...but it's a claim that I have yet to hear from anybody who actually saw the event...or even the film footage. How can a 16' fuselage penetrate two sets of spandrel beams 39" apart? It can't, but a more accurate question would be "can parts of an aircraft that hit spandrel beams 39" apart continue in the direction of motion with sufficient energy to exit the structure through a different wall?" I have first-hand experience with a similar situation...there is no way that a Ford Mustang can penetrate a steel-truss bridge girder 12" across...but I know from cleaning up the wreck after said Mustang hit said girder that parts of said Mustang were over 100' downrange from the impact point...and that was at 1/6th the speed those airliners (alleged airliners, if it will make you happy) hit the WTC steelwork. Pardon the long digression, but it was made for a point...this theory is (at least in my opinion) in need of serious support that is so far, seriously lacking. There's not enough solid info here to sustain one thread, never mind several.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
I'm afraid I have to disagree, Selfless.

This thread is about an article made by killtown, it doesn't even say the word media in the article once, as far as I can remember.

The previous thread was about the media and therefor this thread is not the same AT ALL.

This forum is 911, this topic is related to 911.

This thread very well deserves a thread of it's own and the article is a good read.

Someone can post up a 911 video in one thread and then start a new thread about a different video that talks about 911 as well. The videos need 2 different threads to discuss the 2 different videos.

If we start to tell people not to make threads that talks about the same theories, all threads should be removed or else it's a biased injustice.

BSregistration should get a new name now because he will never be able to post another thread with out having wolves come into his threads and tell him to stop posting threads just because of a bad first impression.

Look beyond the first bad impression that BSregistration made and you will notice that this thread is indeed not a repeat of his old thread.


[edit on 5-6-2007 by selfless]

Brother Stormhammer,

By your logic, there would be no more forum.

I would like to see someone who believes the no plane theory try to convince a New Yorker, who was there on that day, their story. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but I haven't found one eyewitness that supports the no plane theory. If I am wrong, please show me this witness, or maybe a piece of ACTUAL evidence to back this theory up.

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole
I would like to see someone who believes the no plane theory try to convince a New Yorker, who was there on that day, their story. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough, but I haven't found one eyewitness that supports the no plane theory. If I am wrong, please show me this witness, or maybe a piece of ACTUAL evidence to back this theory up.

It's like a balance.

On one side you have your statement and on the other side you have the possibility that no planes were used.

The scale tips, what side will it fall?

A person that reads the arguments as to why it's possible there were no planes can't deny certain evidence and common sense and reasoning of the theory.

A person can't argue the fact that there are people who saw planes but then again, i only saw this aspect of the event on television and well i know what television is designed for.

Is there any credible witnesses who saw planes out there? Not registered on ATS and not on television? I guess a person have to go to New-York and ask questions to individuals.

(My personal opinion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The evidence of no planes being used is so strong that I think it's more likely that the whole New-York area was some how mislead some way or another into thinking there were planes that hit the WTC while in reality there were not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I leave it to others to make their own conclusions with out resulting to insults.

Selfless..there were only 3 survivors ABOVE the point of impact. They are all witnesses to the PLANE hitting ...not a hollogram.

All these no plane fake threads should be locked IMO

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Selfless..there were only 3 survivors ABOVE the point of impact. They are all witnesses to the PLANE hitting ...not a hollogram.

All these no plane fake threads should be locked IMO

Who said they were holograms?

People like CaptainObvious should be banned IMO.