Questionnaire for 'planes hit WTC' truthers

Questionnaire for those who believe real planes hit the WTC and the Twin Towers collapsed from a controlled demolition afterward.

(PLEASE DON'T RESPOND WITHOUT ANSWERING ALL THE QUESTIONS)




1. Do you agree that the govt perps used planes to sell their story of why the towers officially collapsed?




2. Do you agree that the planes the perps chose had to penetrate and explode inside the towers so the world would believe the official collapse story, as opposed to mostly crashing up against the outside of the towers?



If "yes," please proceed to #3. If "no," please explain how the govt could sell the official collapse story if most of the plane crashed up against the outside of the tower.




3. Do you think the govt perps used the real Flight 11 and 175, or modified planes to hit the towers?

If you think they used modified planes (drone, etc), please state which model you think they used (767, 737, etc), if any special modifications were made (pods, laced with DU, etc) and for what reason(s).


(Those who think modified planes were used, please go to #3a. Others proceed to #4.)




3a. If you think modified planes were used and had no passengers, do you agree if this plane crashed wrong and part of the fuselage landed on the outside which exposed that it had no passengers in it that the perps would be busted?





4. For which ever plane you think the perps used to crash into the towers, do you think they did a live test by crashing the plane you think they used into some kind of metal structure to simulate what would happen to their chosen plane when it hit the Twin Towers, or do you think they didn't do any real world test and just crossed their fingers on 9/11 that the planes they chose would not only hit both towers, but penetrate enough into the towers to sell their official collapse story?


(Crash test of real plane flown via remote control.)




5. Do you agree that if their plane didn't hit the North Tower, or didn't penetrate enough like they hoped, that the perps wouldn't have been able to pull the WTC 7 and give a some-what believable story as to how it collapsed?




6. Do you believe flying any of the planes you think the perps used would be accurate enough to fly via remote control/computer guidance at the alleged speeds they were going in the low altitude and dense atmosphere to hit the precise spot on the towers the perps wanted them to?

If "yes," do you have any evidence to support your belief that they could?



7. Do you believe it was more risky to fly the second plane into the South Tower in the extreme banking maneuver as observed in the following CBS video rather than to program it to fly in straighter?






8. Have you ever seen a real aircraft perfectly penetrate through a steel structure without the appearance of meeting any resistance?




8a. Do you agree that CGI planes can penetrate buildings without any of its wing or tail being hacked off or having the appearance of no meeting any resistance?




8b. Do you agree that one reason both planes had to hit without their wings overlapping the sides of the narrow Twin Towers was because it would be obvious that the planes on the videos were fake if their wings were seen overlapped the sides when crashing, but that their wings didn't sheer off the sides and land on the ground?






9. If you think no plane hit the Pentagon:

a. do you think that the claim of "hundreds of witnesses saw the plane hit" is unfounded?

b. do you think that some of the alleged plane-seeing witnesses were lying?

c. do you think the rest of the alleged plane-seeing witnesses were fooled?





10. Do you agree that the military incorporated the use of TV fakery into its arsenal before 9/11?





11. Do you agree that it was possible on 9/11 for the military to digitally manipulate "live" broadcasts on TV?





12. With taking into account the enormous amount of importance of making it look like planes hit and penetrated into both Twin Towers in order for the perps to sell the official collapse story, do you agree that using TV fakery at the WTC on 9/11 would be less risky than using real planes?

If "no," please state why you think using real planes would be less risky.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by im_being_censored]

[edit on 12-6-2008 by im_being_censored]

[edit on 12-6-2008 by im_being_censored]

1) Yes. They wanted to use patsy’s to pin the crime on. Hijackers from a shadowy group, fits the bill.
2) No. They only had to give the appearance of penetrating the building.
3) No. Those were not real flights. They used modified military planes. They most likely used a stealth fighter. It would have been using holographic cloaking devices. It obviously had a pod and it would have had missiles on board and it would have been rigged to self destruct. (3a) to prevent being busted and to make sure it looks like it goes in. Just disintegrate it from front to back.
4) They have had plenty of crashes from the stealth fighters, due to defective design. Some of those could have been deliberate. Regardless, they would have had a lot of crash data to work with.
5) They would have taken building 7 out, no matter what. It was one of the primary targets and you see they already have a replacement for it up and completed. They already had plans to replace it. It was a bad design based on a crazy city plan to divert auto traffic. They realized it and you can look it up in planning meetings. They realized their mistake and wanted bldg 7 gone.
6) Yes, and do not be stupid. Stealth fighters are not just fly by wire, but fly by computer.
7) Not a risky maneuver for a stealth fighter, actually very easy. Impossible for a commercial passenger jet like a 767.
8) No. Just would not have happened. The wings and tail would have broken off and fell to the ground.
8a) whatever.
8b) Again, whatever.
9) I have no idea.
10) Yes, but not necessarily your brand of fakery.
11) Could be, but I do not think so. Funny that you think a real plane would be too subject to possible failure but you seem to think they would have taken their chances with producing fake video, on the fly.
12) No, and all the evidence I have seen is presented in a deceptive manner and upon close examination, does not hold up.
Your argument gives only false choices. It is your way or the highway.
If you are actually who I think you are, I know how you operate and you do not allow debate.
You only demand that everyone accept your narrow view that you can not prove.


[edit on 12-6-2008 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60

2) How could they give the appearance of real planes penetrating the building if they didn't?
3) I'm confused, you are saying they used a stealth with a hologram projected on top of it to make it look like a 767? Was the "pod" many people see under the 2nd plane real, or part of the hologram? Did pod fire out a missile too?
3a) Yes, but the question specifically stated "*if* this plane crashed wrong."
4) Did any of these stealth crash into objects similar to the WTC?
5) What excuse would they have given as to why the WTC 7 collapsed if their stealth missed the North Tower?
6) You should go back and read the question again, because I don't think you fully understood it.
7) Your evidence of this is?
8a) Please don't be scared to answer.
8b) Ditto.
11) Why. The media warned us that the military was capable of faking video on the fly.
12) When have I ever not allowed debate or demand everyone accept my "narrow" views?

reply to post by im_being_censored


2) They could give that appearance by not having big plane chunks falling down the side of the building.
If the whole thing disappears as it impacts the building then , the job is done. It does not actually have to go into the center of the building.
3)No, I mean that there was a plane that had items attached to it that did the projection. I cannot go into greater detail because it is secret. The only thing we know is that such a black project does exist for use by the military to fool observers. As for the pod, that is real and is masked by some of the videos. The not real part is the 767. If it was realy a fighter, cloaked as an airliner, it would not have had the right amount of jet fuel to make the proper fireball. So it was necessary to bring along a big canister of MK-77. That is the modern version of napalm.
3a) the mechanism for dealing with the problem of falling plane parts would have been fixed by the same thing that would have been used for a timed incremental destruction of the pane.
If it hit wrong or missed its target, partially, it would have been disintegrated, leaving it up to the media to come up with some explanations, but no incriminating evidence.
4) I have no Idea. You are asking for speculation. Anything is possible.
5) They would do what they do now and ignore it.
6) I do not need any evidence. Are you kidding? These things are designed to be flown remotely.
7)If our fighter jets can not pull off a maneuver like that, we should give up.
8a) I am not afraid to answer, it is just that you are trying to get me to agree to a premise to your fake video theory.
8b)Ditto.
11) We have been flying planes for a longer time than we have been making fake videos, live.
12) I think you are really SimonShack and are using another name because you got banned from abovetopsecret.

First off,im not trying to derail this thread.
But I also have a question.
Why would anyone,who is convienced that 9/11 was more than we were told,choose the hardest to prove theroy to wake people up?
Out of all the other evidence,WTC 7,The Pentagon,Operation Northwoods,insider trading,etc,why would people choose one of the hardest and seemingly most far fetched theory to sell people on?
This only muddys the already near impossible effort to get a new investigation.

reply to post by Black_Fox


Good point.
I am trying to eliminate some of the more far out explanations.
I feel that what I am proposing makes more sense than some.
Just my opinion but it is what seems like the evidence points to.
SimonShack feels like he has a lot invested in his research and I have a ridiculous amount of time invested in it.
I am not trying to convince anyone who chooses to not look at things, themselves.
It is just what it looks like to me.
I think there is value in looking at the videos and trying to point out that they are all fake will only get people to ignore them.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by jmdewey60]

The Pod might have been the only real thing we saw on 911, it was probabbly the missle and on top they forged the so called "real time plane". TV fakery actually explains almost everything:
The disappearing plane inside the buildings, the missing wings, the small object hittingthe pentagon, the laser pointer seen on many footages, the nose out thing (digital mistake?),the different trajectory for th same plane, the footages without a plane hitting, the witnesses saying it was a bomb or a missle, the incredible speed at such low altitude. The impossible camera views,etc...etc...etc...
I mean TV fakery absolutely has a rational explanation for everything and its the easiest of the solutions so it must be the correct one.
Thumbs up to the government for the idea, thumbs down for the execution. I think they should have waited another 3 4 years to make it look a little better.
I am personally 100% convinced that digital fakery was used on 911, the only thing I wish to know a little more is exactly how everything was planned and which agencies were involved. Other than that for the 911truth movement is time to move on. I personally did, I am still obsessed with a few facts but I don't really care at all if the truth comes out or not, I care about knowing the how's just for myself. People are just simply to dumb, they will vote for MC Cain, they will get another war and they will be happy with it why try to let them see the truth? I don't think they deserve it, let them run behind the so called "terrorist" and let them live their stupid lifes.

reply to post by piacenza


I am guessing you have moved on, as far as the details go, so you do not want to elaborate on where we can find these things you mention.
Like, where are these impossible camera angles and videos with no plane.
I have been working on those things in particular and do not see it.
Did you watch a video on youtube that gives you a fuzzy picture through some trees and tells you,"See, it's a fake video"?
If you have evidence of an impossible video angle, I would like to know about it because I would be the first one to expose it, if it was true.
Also, crappy versions of videos, seen on youtube, may not show a plane but a good quality one does.
And that video shot from chopper 5 coming up from New Jersey is not evidence of a missing plane.
It starts out headed in one direction, then it immediately goes into a turn to the left as the camera stays on the towers.
So in actuality the camera is constantly panning to the right.
That is why it does not show up in the early wide shot.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I lost interest in discussing the issues, there is no reasoning anyway, believe what you want to believe there is plenty of "grany" videos around showing a real plane going inside the towers. If you can provide me one good quality one that shows a real plane going inside the tower and reacting in a normal phisical way please go ahead. PS they do not exist don't even try looking. I also posted a lot more facts you concentrated only in the trajectory of the plane which it came from at least 3 angles.

reply to post by piacenza


You mentioned impossible camera angles.
What that sounds like to me is that there were videos taken from a place where if you tryed to reproduce that shot, you would not be able to find the same spot.
I was not talking about the plane angles.
I am not trying to get into a big discusion about it.
I thought you might know something that I do not know about.
I tryed to find out about the Battery Park video and have looked at every detail of it and studied hundreds of photos.
I failed to find anything I can point at that would prove it was fake.
I went through the others and a few photos to figure out where they were taken from.
If I missed something, help me out.