Why planes were not used.

It would have been easier but to recreate a collapse from the top to the bottom its a different matter.
They had to plant the explosive perfectly and a plane would have been to much of an asshole even if remotely guided. They might have used a missle but I am not sure.
Do you remember the flash just before the plane hit the building? (I might be pushing on this one) it might have come from the inside maybe the first detonation? That would explain quite a bit of things and its perfectly at the center of the plane.
A plane might have caused an earlier unwanted detonation.
Also to prove my case I am including 2 good videos the first one its about the no shaking no rumbling and no bending upon impact of the so called plane... quite convincing IMO.
The second its a footage I hardly beleive it was not photoshopped.





`````````````````
fixed title grammar




[edit on 7/5/07 by masqua]

Dude... I appreciate you... there is no denying that 1 and 2 were hit by planes. I really respected your posts untill the good old hologram theory came up.

I know I know I get blamed for this one .
I would not post it in any other 911 forum but this is a conspiracy forum.
I would never use this argument with anyone else exept for this forum.
Its a conspiracy forum so once in a while lets try to discuss it.
Have you watched the videos? the First one makes a good point dont you think?

Entertaining videos,although it dosent change a few facts.
Fact 1-Planes WERE used and DID hit the WTCs 1&2
Fact 2-9/11 was an inside job



[edit on 7-5-2007 by Black_Fox]

Fact: it appears that planes of a certain type were used to hit the twin towers otherwise all options are open.

I too agree that the pentagon was hit with something other than a jetliner in order to contain the damage resulting from the strike. The fact that the area hit had just been previously reinforced in construction work is an obvious proof to the need to contain damage at the pentagon for the perps.

Dear piacenza:

Don’t know if this helps (boost your confidence) — but I don’t believe there were any planes crashing into buildings on 9-11 either. I couldn’t review your videos, I got Cro-Magnon 28k horrible dialup. But for the record, I’m a diehard no-airplaner!

Airplanes crashing into structures on 9-11 didn’t happen because:
1. Not necessary. Film is easily faked. Hollywood does this for a living.
2. Technically impossible. WTC’s outer perimeter columns were too strong and too densely spaced (only 2ft open space between columns). The Pentagon had an impossible flight path too low to the ground.

Stick to your guns piacenza! You’re going to feel some heat here.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Oh-no! not that holograms theory again?

Dear PepeLapew:

The hologram theory is far better than …the idea that entire 150 ft long aluminum lightweight aircraft flew through massive 14 x 14” quarter inch thick steel box bean columns spaced only 24” apart straddled by solid 3/8” thick steel plates (spandrels) and then disappearing into only 35 feet of space after slicing through three or four 4.5” thick concrete slabs and then past 47 pieces of 12x36” 2 inch thick steel box columns.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

The holograms theory is what separates the thin foil hat kooks from the serious researchers.

The only problem I have with this theory is the only video of the first plane hitting(the french documentaryone)Shows a firefighter watching the first plane come in and hit the wtc.You can even hear him say holy s***.There were many eyewitnesses to the planes hitting.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
The holograms theory is what separates the thin foil hat kooks from the serious researchers.

Dear PepeLapew:

Did you drink the Kool-Aid? Your statement is inherently wrong. A serious researcher looks at the facts first and then conceptualizes possible solutions not vice versa.

The verifiable facts absolutely indicate there were no planes on 9-11 (crashing into things):
We know what the buildings were made from — thick steel framing members.
We know how planes fly and that they cannot skim five feet above the ground — insufficient uplift, not enough air to glide on.
And we know there were no official crash reports — for the first time in U.S. aviation history for crashes above land.

Realizing and accepting the above, we can then proceed to search for possible scenarios of what might have happened.

1. No matter what, in any case, all film and pictures are faked.

a). Planes were not simulated. There were no holograms. There were no real eyewitnesses.

b). If there are true eyewitnesses, and presuming they aren’t crazy or seeing things as they aren’t — then there might have been holograms or some other device to mimic commercial aircraft.

I cannot think of any other options. But maybe I’m missing something. Parallel universe perhaps?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

heres the video I spoke of.It even has eyewitness testimony.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by crowpruitt]

Dear crowpruitt:

Ah.. the Russian CNN announcer. I remember her.

I know it’s not proper for me to comment on your video without having fully watched it. I tried. But I’ve only got slow 26 k dial-up where I’m at right now. Still I’ll comment. Please don’t hate me for doing so.

It really doesn’t matter what the video shows — unless you want to consider the holograms a possibility. And there may be a case for those.

However, my point is the video cannot be showing a real plane. Because the physical realities of the building design don’t allow it. Now I understand it’s hard to imagine all those bystanders could be actors. But many a people would sell their own mother down the river for a few bucks. Let alone starving wannabe movie stars — they’d dance (and do more) with the devil himself for far less. In short, there are only two possibilities here, the video is staged or it’s showing something simulating an airplane. No other options can apply.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

I understand what you are saying Wizard,I too find the building not moving during impact very strange.And you're right,everyone can be bought so to speak.But New York has ALOT of bystanders.That means alot of people would have to be paid.After the first tower was hit or exploded many more people would have been watching.I respect your opinion though,but i just can't belive that yet.Looks like I got more research to do.

I was there. I watched the second plane go into the tower.

I didn't see the first plane hit but I watched the other hit...I heard it coming in and, with many others, watched it enter into the side of the building.

Whether it was an inside job or not may still be up for grabs...but the idea that no planes were involved is absurd.

Thanks for your input Spines.As I said above the no plane theory is just a little far fetched for me.BTW Spines that had to have been a hell of an ordeal to go through.My hats off to ya.

spines

Of course it is absurd. You are right, and don't let that nonsense in any way affect your search for 'Truth'.

There are all sorts of things that happen that create illusions. Just earlier today someone posted something on JFK, and it really did look like the DRIVER shot JFK until a further analysis reveals it to be just the head of the other person in the car.

Illusions, Digital Compression, odd angels. Its obvious that planes hit.

In my humble opinion, people who push this I question their true motives and what they are actually doing.

"Wolf in Sheeps Clothing". They say some very damaging things that hurt the movement and the search for truth, but they don't care.

Its obvious laides and gents. Planes, Real Planes hit those buildings.

A Hockey player happened to be on one of them, and NO I don't think they flew the real plane out to sea.

This just takes common sense.


Just to add something;

I was thinking it might be a good idea for truth seekers just to ignore these 'NO PLANES' arguments in the future.

Just let them talk amongst themselves, that way the truth movement will not be seen as some crazy movement filled with nut cases.

I plan to just IGNORE THESE topics in the future and I recommend others who feel the same way to do so.



[edit on 7-5-2007 by talisman]

All things being equal, the simplest explanation is most probably the correct..

As in - the easiest way to make it look like planes crashed into buildings, is to crash planes into buildings.

There is no way you could control the entire street population of NY, there is no way you could control every video camera from every building, every pedestrian, every helicopter.

It would be more complicated, more EXPENSIVE, and more open to failure to fake the planes flying into the buildings, than it would be to simply do it..

There are many things wrong with the official story on 9/11.. the plane/no plane thing, is not one of them, in my opinion.

Inannamute

I'm starting to think 9/11 truth sites should put out a disclaimer on this, a clear one that everyone can see.

Otherwise ordinary people who try and search for the truth and have no idea where to start might end up totally confused.

I just mentioned previously it might be a good idea for people to ignore this, because responding gives it credibility and it deserves none at all.

It is totally disrespectful to the people that died.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
The holograms theory is what separates the thin foil hat kooks from the serious researchers.

Please respond with more than just one sentence that holds very little meat to the bone. This is a serious discussion about a serious theory and should not be taken so lightly.
Now on that note I think that the planes were not real on any of the buildings that were destroyed and it was definately an inside job. Sooner or later the truth will set you free.
One last note: Holograms are real.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]