Did Large Airliners Really Hit the Buildings on 9/11?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
You cant prove the puffs of debris are due to charges

You're correct, we can't prove that those ejections at the WTC are from explosives. But the only other thing on this earth that is comparable is controlled demolitions as that's the only other place that concentrated ejections have ever been seen before.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
out of all the structural engineers in the WORLD only 1100 think the way you do.

We can't speak for all the structural engineers in the world. What is more accurate is that out of all the architects and engineers in the world that have gone public with an opinion one way or another, there are more that support 9/11 conspiracies than support the official version of events. If you contend that that is false, I would ask for you to provide a list of names of architects and engineers that surpass 1100 that agree with the official version of events.

The rest of the worlds' architects and engineers choose to be silent for any number of reasons. Until they go public, they don't count. Just like unless someone votes in an election, they don't count either.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

I am not trying to be rude but was your response meant as a joke? Just asking.
The buildings collapsing was not shock and awe. The shock and awe was the reality of the United States being attacked on the mainland for the first time in it's history. Not only attacked but attacked economically,politically,and militarily. The country was in shock the minute the second plane hit and we realized what was happening.
So the Question still stands. If they planned to attack us with explosives and bring the buildings down that way WHY DID THEY NEED THE PLANES?

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

I am not trying to be rude but was your response meant as a joke? Just asking.
The buildings collapsing was not shock and awe. The shock and awe was the reality of the United States being attacked on the mainland for the first time in it's history. Not only attacked but attacked economically,politically,and militarily. The country was in shock the minute the second plane hit and we realized what was happening.
So the Question still stands. If they planned to attack us with explosives and bring the buildings down that way WHY DID THEY NEED THE PLANES?

While I agree with what you say, I have to correct one error. The United States has been attacked NUMEROUS times on it's mainland before.

SOURCE

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

WHY DID THEY NEED THE PLANES?

To create the enemy.

Without them, you would of just saw the buildings being demolished.



[edit on 3/18/2010 by ugie1028]

ok i have read all this and have watched the videos over and over again that wasnt an airliner number one and the explosions happen about a second to a second and a haalf before the supossed airliner even came close to the buildings and why are all the videos of the airliners either fuzzy or have glitches in them and if you run the tail numbers on the planes you will also notice that those planes were nowhere near those buildings

reply to post by _BoneZ_




Re dust ejections

How many times has this scenario happened to compare it with.

ie Total collapse of buildings 110 floors hiigh hit by planes.

If would say the number of engineers who haven't commented is far more vocal than 1100 out of the 10's of thousands of structural engineers world wide

Do you not agree that its plausible that the aircraft impact, resultant fires, thermal diffrences on the steel work could cause the collapse.

I mean both buildings started initial collapse above impact areas which you can see on videos.

www.youtube.com.../u/30/ycP4HTEJXWw


www.youtube.com.../u/29/9SSS0DDqfm0

Originally posted by rick1
I am not trying to be rude but was your response meant as a joke?

9/11 isn't a joke.

Originally posted by rick1
If they planned to attack us with explosives and bring the buildings down that way WHY DID THEY NEED THE PLANES?

I assume you mean "they" as in muslim terrorists from caves? That would be incorrect. The military industrial complex created and carried out 9/11. Just like they created just such a similar plan to attack our own country back in 1964 called "Operation Northwoods".

Originally posted by wmd_2008
If would say the number of engineers who haven't commented is far more vocal than 1100 out of the 10's of thousands of structural engineers world wide.

You're presuming to speak for people who have not spoken. If someone chooses to remain silent or neutral, that doesn't mean they automatically sway one way or another on a topic.

Of the engineers who have gone public with an opinion one way or the other, there are significant more that believe in a 9/11 conspiracy than believe the official version.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Do you not agree that its plausible that the aircraft impact, resultant fires, thermal diffrences on the steel work could cause the collapse.

Not in a million years. Fires have never brought steel-structured highrises down before or after 9/11.

reply to post by ugie1028

So at the Murrah building there was no enemy and at the first WTC bombing there was no enemy. Only if a plane flies in to a building is an enemy created. If my son,daughter,or wife were somewhere a building was brought down I wouldn't care how it was brought down. The people who did it are now my enemies. A plane doesn't create enemies actions do!!!!!
So again if they brought the buildings down with explosives why did they need the planes?
I am only asking because I can't figure it out myself and I've thought and thought about it.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Thanks for the info! I stand corrected.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

You are incorrect on both of your points. So let us be very very clear ok.
I never and I repeat NEVER said 9/11 was a joke. If you go back and read my post you will see I am talking about asking you if YOUR RESPONSE TO MY POST is a joke and not 9/11 being a joke. Huge difference.
Secondly you ASSUMED,WHICH IS ALWAYS A BAD THING,I was talking about Muslims when referring to the planes. I was not I was talking about our govt. I've always found that if I'm unsure of what somebody is saying a good thing to do is ask them to clarify it.
So now that you know I take 9/11 seriously and I was not referring to Muslims would you help me answer this question?
If our govt planned on bringing down the buildings by cd why did they need the planes?

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by ugie1028

 

So again if they brought the buildings down with explosives why did they need the planes?
I am only asking because I can't figure it out myself and I've thought and thought about it.

Well Rick assuming your question is sincere I will speculate on a possible scenario. Normally I like to stay away from speculation but here it goes...

The reason planes were used was to make the story or narrative plausible for the public, to prevent an investigation, to control the damage and loss of life. Also to commit and to coverup current crimes and of course start the "war on terror".

The story being: state sponsored Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes and flew them into buildings on 9/11. The planes hit the buildings and the buildings fell down. Everyone could easily see the planes hit the buildings and the buildings fall down. The terrorists got lucky once.

Now imagine if only bombs had been used to bring down the same buildings. The loss of life would have been staggering maybe 35 to 50 thousand people. Imagine the public outrage! How were the terrorists able to plant enough explosives to actually topple the WTC? How did they get access to the buildings? Who is responsible for these failures? Did our intelligence agencies know anything? Heads would surely have rolled for a failure of that magnitude.

I also think the planes made it more plausible for people to imagine it happening to them. Many more people have been on an airplane at some time in their life than have gone to the World Trade Center, or have gone to NYC, for that matter. So if there were no airplanes I think most people would have believed it was just an isolated incident, a problem that happens only in major cities. "I've never been to Oklahoma City, so it doesn't effect me too much out here in Smallville, America" as opposed to "Wow, I'm flying out to see Aunt Ginny next week... is this going to happen to me?"

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by ugie1028

 

So at the Murrah building there was no enemy and at the first WTC bombing there was no enemy. Only if a plane flies in to a building is an enemy created. If my son,daughter,or wife were somewhere a building was brought down I wouldn't care how it was brought down. The people who did it are now my enemies. A plane doesn't create enemies actions do!!!!!
So again if they brought the buildings down with explosives why did they need the planes?
I am only asking because I can't figure it out myself and I've thought and thought about it.

IF it was NOT done by Al Queda then they needed the planes to make it look like it was done by jihadist islamists. Islamic terrorists always attack on more than one front. This needed to have two stages so it would "look" islamic in nature. My 2cents, Rick.

"So again if they brought the buildings down with explosives why did they need the planes? I am only asking because I can't figure it out myself and I've thought and thought about it."

If you're hell bent on invading and controlling a couple of strategically located Arab countries and needed an iron clad excuse for the brain dead public, what method would you use to frame Muslim extremist terrorists? Would you not utilize the two methods the terrorists are most notorious for, such as hijacking of airplanes and suicide attacks?

Doesn't this scenario make for an air tight slam dunk case, avoiding the need for the public to ask for a potentially damning proper investigation? Until, of course, people start getting wise and begin putting the pieces together one by one. However, by that time, you have discarded the evidence, accomplished your geopolitical objectives and are home free.

In addition, with airplanes being allegedly used in the attack, the newly created Homeland Security Department has the perfect excuse to erode people's civil liberties with the use of unconstitutional no fly lists, insidious and invasive airport body scanners and increased security measures at every major airport coast to coast, if not worldwide. All the while, making a nice tidy little profit on these new "necessary" security measures.

More than anything, 9/11 was an all out psychological war against the American public, which continues until this very day. Since the overreaching ambitious objectives of the perpetrators could not be met with just the bombing of a building (as evidenced by Oklahoma City '96 and WTC '93), the plan to include aircraft in the operation fit the bill perfectly.

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Thanks for the info! I stand corrected.

Hey no problem, I just knew that was in error because of my WW II books.

I hate to say it but I no longer believe that commerical airliners hit the WTC towers...

Your laser dot is very likely nothing more than sunlight refracting off the approaching plane, nothing more. You employ no science or physics in your beleif that an airliner couldnt penetrate the towers. Your own video clearly shows the planes hitting, yet you claim it never happened.
Im giving you the benefit of doubt that your more intelligent than that, and therefor must conclude you have posted this to deliberately anger and annoy and inflame people here.
Your claim is more offensive to victims than blaming it on the US government and similar 9/11 rubbish.
Two planes destroyed the WTC towers, so directed by some evil and misguided people.
The majority of the world knows this fact.

Whats your next claim? The planes were cgi along with the towers and they are still standing and nobody died? Global Media conspiracy?

Take your right arm and extend it as far as it will go, then with all the energy you can muster, slap yourself silly!





[edit on 18-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by Leo Strauss

If you don't believe any explosives were used you can't answer my question.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

The objectives of the perpetrators at wtc93 were not realized because one> they hit only one building and two the one they did manage to hit was a failure. Murrah building same thing almost. One building only. Although they did blow it up it was an obscure building no one knew anything about.
9/11 was completely different. We were attacked economically,politically,and militarily. Explosives or planes would have worked with that big of an attack. Imo using planes gives them a much more likelihood of being found out because there is so much more evidence.
And why in the world would our govt.(perpetrators) send men to flight school? You and I both know they know plenty of people who can fly.

Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by Leo Strauss

 

If you don't believe any explosives were used you can't answer my question.

I don't understand your reply...I did answer your question.

In fact if explosives alone had been used the towers could not possibly have been brought down in a controlled demo fashion. Why would "terrorists" care to bring all 3 bldgs down into their own footprints? They would have desired as much death and destruction as possible right?
So they would have planted enough explosives at the base of the towers to cause the buildings to topple to one side. I actually shuddered to think of the devastation that would have caused.

Funny though the buildings did NOT topple and that was one of the things that made me suspicious of the OS from the beginning. In fact the leading building collapse expert witnessed the first collapse in person and said he believed there were bombs because WTC 2's destruction was "too even". He died during the second collapse.