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

I read this Killtown article. He talks about the hypothetical example of a plane missing. Okay, so the plane would circle and go back. Either that or they would easily change their story to 'bombs being planted'.

Sorry, but planes missing the buildings won't cut it as a good argument for CGI effects on the news that day.

Furthermore, many people were watching the second tower due to the attack on the NORTH TOWER.

I am sure at that point other countries like Russia, China would have been watching. *IF* there was this CGI game being played those countries would immediately cry out about there being NO PLANE.

The whole world was watching on tv, the military from other nations could watch it on their news and or satellites.

NEW YORK was watching the TOWERS.

IF no plane hit the towers then that is taking an awful risk with so many people watching. I would submit that this risk exceeds the risk of missing the tower!!



[edit on 6-6-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
Sorry, but planes missing the buildings won't cut it as a good argument for CGI effects on the news that day.

That's just one example in the article out of others.

selfless

I think some of the key points are all that is needed to show that it isn't a viable theory. Look also at this from the same

* What if the planes hit, but they mostly blew up on the outside? Would most reasonable people believe that planes mostly blowing up on the outside would be able to cause the towers to collapse? Just think of how many people at first questioned how the towers could have collapsed even though they saw the planes in the videos crash and penetrate all the way into the buildings. Imagine if the planes didn't penetrate enough of the way through? As one person accurately puts it, it is this penetration that the official story rests on.

Actually the plane that hit the South Tower, most of the explosion was ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING!

Its little things like that which suggest the overall research on this has not been at all thought out.

Originally posted by selfless

This thread is about killtown's article.

There is absolutely no reasons why there shouldn't be a thread on it.

For the love of all things holy! Enough already! This thread has now become about whether or not this thread should even be here! Give it a freakin' rest. This is what they have the mods for.

These back-and-forth arguments about whether the thread should even be here makes me wish a hologram of a plane would penetrate my skull right about now...

Originally posted by nick7261
These back-and-forth arguments about whether the thread should even be here makes me wish a hologram of a plane would penetrate my skull right about now...

Carefull there Nick-- Or you are likely to start a new JFK conspiracy theory. The "mini skull-crashing remote control hologram plane" theory.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by GwionX]

Originally posted by carewemust
There are thousands of people who lost relatives on the 2 planes that
were smashed into the World Trade Centers. How in the world can
anyone even imply to these surviving family members that their loved
ones died in some other way.

Huh? So we shouldn't tell them that they didn't die the way the officials said they did because it would be too insensitive???

Originally posted by talismanNEW YORK was watching the TOWERS.

IF no plane hit the towers then that is taking an awful risk with so many people watching. I would submit that this risk exceeds the risk of missing the tower!!

So by that logic, a 757 must have hit the Pentagon, right?

Originally posted by talismanActually the plane that hit the South Tower, most of the explosion was ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING!

Its little things like that which suggest the overall research on this has not been at all thought out.

1st, it blew up on the inside, but most of the fireball exited outside.

2nd, remember reading this line:

Just think of how many people at first questioned how the towers could have collapsed even though they saw the planes in the videos crash and penetrate all the way into the buildings.

That's because they saw most of the 2nd fireball exit outside.

Originally posted by GwionX
Carefull there Nick-- Or you are likely to start a new JFK conspiracy theory. The "mini skull-crashing remote control hologram plane" theory.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by GwionX]

how crass can you go, how crass con you go....



oswald did it? oh my.

Originally posted by badw0lf
I took the time to read the blog...

And now I'm convinced more than ever that humanity is doomed. Doomed to sheer stupidity.

I prefer to believe that there are pygmies on the moon, because.. I hear they like cheese.

Please also take the time to read this post.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

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.

Originally posted by selfless
Brother Stormhammer,

By your logic, there would be no more forum.

There would, indeed, be a forum...As much as I might disagree with some of the 'wilder' things put forth on ATS, this is still a fun place to visit, and I whole-heartedly encourage speculation and discussion of any and all topics from the sublime to the ridiculous (I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what goes in either category :-D )
You will note that nowhere in my (rather long) post did I say that "All threads claiming that no aircraft hit the WTC should be locked down", nor did I say that "Anyone claiming that no airplanes hit the WTC should be banned from the board!" What I *did* say is that, in my opinion, the OP is starting far too many threads that all amount to discussions of the same theory. I also suggested that the information supporting his theory would be better presented as a single, well-organized thread.

If he wants to make several discussions out of various aspects of his topic, he is more than free to do so...but wouldn't his case be stronger if (to take one example) he took his evidence of 'media trickery', found a few more cases of media trickery (if it's as blatant as claimed, such cases shouldn't be hard to find), and started a media-specific (rather than a 9/11 specific) thread over in "Media and Education" or "General Conspiracy"?

I have no desire to see anyone's right of free expression limited, particularly here...and if you got that impression from what I wrote, then I need to go have a chat with my old Creative Writing teacher, and my Business Communications instructors, because I"m not expressing myself well.

Well, after thinking about this for a while, I've come to the conclusion that, if TV fakery is a proven fact, it's nothing more than disinfo to lead people astray.

If there were thousands of people watching the WTCs that day, all it would take would be ONE eye-witness to step up and say he did not see the towers hit by planes. The only way ALL the media could be lying and ALL the people around could be lying would be either with holograms or an alien presence.

That linked article is supposed to be proof that no planes hit the towers ? Where is the actual evidence to back up such a ridiculous claim ?



[edit on 6-6-2007 by Mogget]

IF no plane hit the towers then that is taking an awful risk with so many people watching. I would submit that this risk exceeds the risk of missing the tower!!

I agree with Talisman on this,how can all those eyewitnesses have been wrong?Planes hit those towers,imo.The pentagon? I'm not sure if a commercial airliner hit that,but 2 definitely hit the towers.

there is a famous audio os someone saying on 9/11, that the plane didn't look like a passenger jet. Another reporter said--it didn't have WINDOWS. So what I am meaning by retelling this is that there has been analysis about the TYPE of PLANES that crashed into the WTC's.

Surely some of you have seen the videos that show, as the plane apporaches the tower it seems to fire something from its front--forgot technical term for front of a plane.

So do you see. There has been careful looking close AT planes. planes. PLANES.

Also there was a wondering what the underneath of the planes was seemingly sticking out.

IF you look at this thread in a meta-fashion, you see its just a mish mash of diversion. there is no adding really to the work that is being done by serious researchers of the 9/11 atrocity like for example Professor Steven Jones. Ie., he experiemted what is that spilling liquid we see spilling out of the tower. So he experiments, and has videos of these experiments--------Ie., proper scientific approach.

We have professor David ray griffin finely going over the points that accusers of 9/11 truth cliche, etc. THAT is effort, and a gradual building of evidence

THIS is........................absurd
IF A person has seen a plane in real time, Killtown all your theories are demolished. And more than one person, in real time, DID see them

So then, what do you do? Well you have no option but resort to what disinformers do to people who have reported seeing UFOs in real time. YOU then 'see for them' to fit your theory: they 'must' have misseen, they 'must' be blind, deaf stupid

You know, like THE most dramatic event in a person's life, and you imagine they might mis-take what they witnessed

Originally posted by Killtown
1st, it blew up on the inside, but most of the fireball exited outside.

So, according to this, the fact that loads of fireball exited it, people wouldn't believe the planes did very much damage? Common sense dictates the fireball is going to expand, and find a way out of the tower.

2nd, remember reading this line:

Just think of how many people at first questioned how the towers could have collapsed even though they saw the planes in the videos crash and penetrate all the way into the buildings.

That's because they saw most of the 2nd fireball exit outside.

So, now evidence of a large explosion isn't evidence of damage to the average person?

Killtown, I find it sort of ridiculous and incredible for you to claim that never hit the World Trade Centers. There was debris found that was ejected out of the building and explains the damage that was caused to some of the outside aluminum facades and not so much to the exterior steel columns.

Not to mention the numerous video angles of aircraft plowing into the building. I don't know if you can fake the aircraft and the sound roar of them going overhead as they crash into the WTCs on some of the videos just to suit a conspiracy purpose.

Some things just go too far, the more you delve into the World Trade Center conspiracy, the more it delves into you.

Originally posted by crowpruittI agree with Talisman on this,how can all those eyewitnesses have been wrong?Planes hit those towers,imo.The pentagon? I'm not sure if a commercial airliner hit that,but 2 definitely hit the towers.

You don't think a 757 hit the Pentagon? Then this question is for you:

Question for 'no 757 hit Pentagon, but 767 hit WTC' crowd

Originally posted by apexSo, now evidence of a large explosion isn't evidence of damage to the average person?

Not when most of it exits the building.

Originally posted by Masisoar
Killtown, I find it sort of ridiculous and incredible for you to claim that never hit the World Trade Centers.

I think no plane hit the Pentagon and Shanksville. What's the difference?