I Challenge You Conspirators on This (Bombs on the Planes)

Why couldn't they have loaded a couple of tons of c4 on the planes???

It's been speculated that "thermite" was used and this was somehow planted in the buildings before 911....

Why couldn't these guys have packed some c4 onto the planes the night before they took off?????

I mean if they were able to get into the building and plant bombs, why not on the plane.

Excellent job op.

reply to post by die_another_day


Yes. American Airlines employees. Puerto Rico (one of their hubs) and Miami (another hub). Cocaine, from South America, through SJU, to MIA.

AS MUCH AS 9,000 kg, since they began the operation in at least 1999.

Ten years or so....average? 1,000 kg/year. Divide that by dozens of flights per day, hundreds per month, thousands per year.

Now, imagine trying to put "tons" of something onboard an airplane, overnight. Unseen. Undetected.

See any problems?

reply to post by tomfrusso

Why couldn't these guys have packed some c4 onto the planes the night before they took off?????

Are you referring, by "these guys" to the 19 Muslim hijackers? Who were passengers booked that morning, NOT employees.

No airport access.

No access to "tons" of C-4 (how DO you get C-4, anyway? Wal-Mart??)

Even a "ton" of something, to load onto the airplane...2,000 divided by five people (per airplane....four in one case). That's a lot of back-breaking work. Gee, and the baggage handlers who loaded the airplane that morning, the mechanics and pilots who did the walk-around didn't see anything...sorta buries this theory, it would seem.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hey Weed - dont you know that the plane was made from C4 ! That way
didnt have to smuggle it onboard! Brillant - just like building the C4 into
the WTC towers and WTC 7 so could blow them up without leaving a
trace!

reply to post by weedwhacker


They're EMPLOYEES

They can load as much as they want because no one would notice.

This was a one way trip, full of risk, so they might as well just go all in or lose. 5 suitcases of explosives, would it be that hard? NO.

Carefully placing charges on the WTC buildings without leaks? IMPOSSIBLE.

Originally posted by die_another_day
So planes crashed into the twin towers and the pentagon.

The towers collapsed and the 1/5 of the pentagon got annihilated.

The towers were designed to withstand planes.

No one has absolute proof that the pentagon was hit by a missile and the towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.


So what if there were tons of C4 or other explosives in the planes?

There are instances of employees transporting tons of coc aine between Mexico and US without anyone noticing.



I think explosives in the planes would explain everything.



[edit on 9/16/2009 by die_another_day]

I understand your idea, but even that wouldn't work. That would be similar to a missile hitting a hotel. More damage but not enough to create multiple explosions on 100 steel floors below the strike area that would turn nearly everything to powder.

No. In order for what you saw on 9-11 to occur it would require pre-planted explosives.

I'd suggest starting with Kroll. Tied to Israel and considered a private version of the CIA. Since they controlled the security of the building they just might have an idea about who visited the floors (most were empty) prior to 9-11. They might have a list of names regarding who was doing all the work that office workers heard and who did what when the power was shut off just before the event that thrust us into the mid-east.

btw- I saw the IDF blow up a building once starting with the top floor and working down - just like the twin towers. They were using c-4 that day. It was about six stories though.

Hey, did you notice that Obama's new missile system is going to work with our ships lined up in a protective shield for Israel? Just in time too.

Phase 3 (phase 2 was Iraq) will begin before Christmas '09. Count on it.

[edit on 17-9-2009 by Whatthehell?]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by tomfrusso

 

Why couldn't these guys have packed some c4 onto the planes the night before they took off?????

Are you referring, by "these guys" to the 19 Muslim hijackers? Who were passengers booked that morning, NOT employees.

No airport access.

No access to "tons" of C-4 (how DO you get C-4, anyway? Wal-Mart??)

Even a "ton" of something, to load onto the airplane...2,000 divided by five people (per airplane....four in one case). That's a lot of back-breaking work. Gee, and the baggage handlers who loaded the airplane that morning, the mechanics and pilots who did the walk-around didn't see anything...sorta buries this theory, it would seem.

Not exactly weed my old friend. I know that you know the FBI admits collusion in the truck full of explosives that took out structural steel in the very same building about a decade earlier. How the blue blazes is that possible? Need a link? The people who accomplished the 911 tragedies could stuff any and all of your orifices with c4 and yell fire in the hole. Do you think you could stop them?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Hey Weed - dont you know that the plane was made from C4 ! That way
didnt have to smuggle it onboard! Brillant - just like building the C4 into
the WTC towers and WTC 7 so could blow them up without leaving a
trace!

I will not interfere with your statement to the wacker.
Since this involves the tragedies of the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent people working in the United States of America.
I am sure his reply will be spectacular and include the reason for the deaths of all US military personel squandered since that ninth day of September 2001.

reply to post by die_another_day


die_another_day, I'm still confused by this:

They're EMPLOYEES

They can load as much as they want because no one would notice.

WHO are employees? IF you are referring to the coc aine smuggling ring, then yes, you are correct. THAT particular group was caught in 2009. There was ANOTHER group, nabbed in Miami, back before 9/11....

The coke was secreted in panels that they pried open, the fiberglass liners of the cargo holds....between the linersand the airplane skin.

Suitcases??? You DO understand the concept of Customs inspections and checked luggage, correct? I mean, these are International Flights...you don't think the suitcases are the most obvious way, and will get greater scrutiny?

OR, going back...did you mean to imply that the Muslim hijackers were 'employees'?? I don't think there's any scintilla of evidence to support that claim.

I know that you're in a State of Fantabulousness, there in Florida, but...can you break away from your glee and give us more solid info into this 'conspiracy' of 'bombs' onboard??

reply to post by weedwhacker



Ok,

suitcases of THERMITE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH INSPECTIONS. THEY CAN GET A COP CAR WITH SOME SUITCASES AND LOAD IT ONTO THE PLANE DIRECTLY.

posted by thedman
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Hey Weed - dont you know that the plane was made from C4 ! That way didnt have to smuggle it onboard! Brillant - just like building the C4 into the WTC towers and WTC 7 so could blow them up without leaving a trace!

Well golly gee!!!

I didn't know thedman was an INSIDE JOBBER.

Learn something new every day.

Keep at it thedman. You are almost there.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c2a89fac91af.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by die_another_day



Oh...sorry, I get it now.

I was responding seriously.

Didn't realize you were being silly.

Carry on! Make it work!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Even a "ton" of something, to load onto the airplane...2,000 divided by five people (per airplane....four in one case). That's a lot of back-breaking work. Gee, and the baggage handlers who loaded the airplane that morning, the mechanics and pilots who did the walk-around didn't see anything...sorta buries this theory, it would seem.

Loading "tons of something" onto much smaller airplanes has happened before in the past.

Tail Number N987SA (scroll down to N987SA)

This airplane originally was originally registered and used by the CIA to transfer terror suspects for torture. It was carrying 6400 pounds of coc aine, or 3.2 tons when it crashed in the Yucatan.

Another small airplane, tail number N900SA, was discovered with 5.5 tons of coc aine on it. At the time of the discovery the plane was painted with a Dept. of Homeland Security logo.

Source

Tons of 'something' could easily be loaded onto commercial jets. I don't see why you are arguing against this.

Getting back to the main discussion, I don't see why there is need for speculation about bombs possibly being on the planes. The chances of bombs being on the 9/11 planes is very slim. Instead of trying to find out exactly how it happened, we should hold off instead and make sure that we investigate the known crimes of the Bush administration including torture and false justification for war as well as demanding an independent reinvestigation of 9/11.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Albastion]

reply to post by Albastion


I am aware of the CIA airplanes.

Not even closely related to the concept put forth in the OP. You aren't being serious, I hope??

I mean, we're comparing a private business jet-sized airplane (the Gulfstream G-2) and a DC-9, under control of CIA personnel, to a larger passenger jet (or jets, the two B767s....which, yes, COULD carry a lot of payload....) but they were NOT immune from observation by dozens of prying eyes...

UNLESS you wish to go the route of assuming that EVERYBODY was 'in on it'??

Truly....these sorts of comparisons aren't helping in the search for the "truth" now, are they?



[edit on 18 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Albastion

 

I am aware of the CIA airplanes.

Not even closely related to the concept put forth in the OP. You aren't being serious, I hope??

I mean, we're comparing a private business jet=sized airplane under control of CIA personnel to a passenger jet (which, yes, COULD carry a lot of payload....) but is NOT immune from observation by dozens of prying eyes...

UNLESS you wish to go the route of assuming that EVERYBODY was 'in on it'??

Truly....these sorts of comparisons aren't helping in the search for the "truth" now, are they?

You were the one trying to derail the thread with your coc aine nonsense... I was just countering your false claims.

More info about the CIA plane with 5.5 tons of coke here.

This has nothing to do with 9/11 except possibly showing that the CIA engages in illegal activity all the time, and to respond to your post that it would be hard to load up an aircraft with tons of stuff. It's hard, but the point is that it is possible.

Generally this thread isn't important except to point out that instead of making wild speculation-filled theories we should just agree that the OS doesn't add up and demand a reinvestigation.

If there were tons of C4 on the planes, why didn't the towers fall immediately after the planes hit and the C4 exploded?

That's my question for you.

Originally posted by die_another_day
There are instances of employees transporting tons of coc aine between Mexico and US without anyone noticing.
[edit on 9/16/2009 by die_another_day]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Well, then how do YOU know about it??

Source examples of "tons" of coc aine being smuggled between Mexico and the US by airline employees, please.

Originally posted by die_another_day
23 American Airline Employees Arrested Over Cocaine Ring
[edit on 9/17/2009 by die_another_day]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
IF you are referring to the coc aine smuggling ring, then yes, you are correct. THAT particular group was caught in 2009. There was ANOTHER group, nabbed in Miami, back before 9/11....

The coke was secreted in panels that they pried open, the fiberglass liners of the cargo holds....between the linersand the airplane skin.

Suitcases??? You DO understand the concept of Customs inspections and checked luggage, correct? I mean, these are International Flights...you don't think the suitcases are the most obvious way, and will get greater scrutiny?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Even a "ton" of something, to load onto the airplane...2,000 divided by five people (per airplane....four in one case). That's a lot of back-breaking work. Gee, and the baggage handlers who loaded the airplane that morning, the mechanics and pilots who did the walk-around didn't see anything...sorta buries this theory, it would seem.

Then I say in my reply in this post
post that CIA planes were found carrying tons of coke.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am aware of the CIA airplanes.

Not even closely related to the concept put forth in the OP. You aren't being serious, I hope??

...

I mean, we're comparing a private business jet-sized airplane (the Gulfstream G-2) and a DC-9, under control of CIA personnel, to a larger passenger jet (or jets, the two B767s....which, yes, COULD carry a lot of payload....) but they were NOT immune from observation by dozens of prying eyes...
[edit on 18 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

If there was a drug ring busted up in Miami where they were using commercial jets then that proves coc aine can be smuggled with commercial jets.

If small planes were being used to carry tons of coc aine it means that larger planes could be used to carry even more tons of coc aine.

If you already knew these things, then why do you feign ignorance? Why do you ask questions that you already know the answer to?

reply to post by Albastion


Can you imagine if the weed comes back and tells you he was flying those planes too. And it was just a mistake and they really didn't mean to do it.
And the money they were supposed to make was for the 911 relief fund

www.judicialwatch.org...

OK THIS IS VIDEO OF THE PLANE HIDDEN THE PENTAGON PROOF! THE PLANE IS HARD TO MAKE OUT IN VIDEO 1 BUT VIDEO 2 EXPAND AND LOOK AT THE CLEAR DETAILS OF THE A/C. SECURITY VIDEOS FROM ENTRY GATES AT PENTAGON.

media.portland.indymedia.org...

And here is the enhanced photo of the plane with the debri trail into the pentagon it was making right before impact the a/c was on the ground just over 500 ft before impact of builing.