How To Make A Convincing looking Plane Crash

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I'm listening to the podcast of today's episode of the Deana Spingola radio show, with her guest, Andrew Johnson of Finding 911 Truth. He is saying what sounds to me like, "The planes could not have caused that damage to the World Trade Center towers, so there were no planes."
How does that make any sense?
How would you make those holes in the walls of the towers, if you were planning a false flag attack to launch a new age of imperialism?
Here's how I would do it:
Rig up a decommissioned airliner to be flown remote-controlled.
Paint it a nondescript color, maybe make a blotck on the vertical stabilizer where an airline logo normally would be found.
Fly it in a level, straight line, to reduce the amount of course correction involved it maintaining a proper flight path.
Have some military jets in the air over the horizon, plus, of course, some doomsday, mobile battle control center planes circling around lower Manhattan.
Calculate exactly when the plane will hit.
Launch missiles from the jets at the right time to hit the building a half second after the plane hits.
Have the missiles to shut down their engines, or run out of fuel, before they get 300 yards from the wall, to avoid a visible trail from the combustion.
Attach indestructible boxes with homing devices along the wings.
Have each homing device give off a different code.
Have each missile programmed to home in on one of those codes.
The debris from the plane disintegrated on impact would throw up a screen to mask the impact of the missiles and the explosions will seem to be originating from the impact of the plane.
edit on 28-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Or you could just fly a plane into the building at 500 miles per hour.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


Or you could just fly a plane into the building at 500 miles per hour.

If you want to believe that, fine.
This is for those who think it was just a CGI plane or something (which is what this person I was listening to suggested).
edit on 28-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Seriously??
That is completely insane. How about the people who were passengers on the planes that crashed into the towers? Were all their deaths faked?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:15 PM
link   
So the plane was a hologram and then they fired a missile ( that must've been invisible) to cause the explosion?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Anyone pushing a theory that no planes crashed into the world trade center is not right in their head, or purposefully pushing dis-info. Move on to more interesting facts about that day.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
Seriously??
That is completely insane. How about the people who were passengers on the planes that crashed into the towers? Were all their deaths faked?
Some may have been made-up people, such as fabricated payroll accounts to pad expenses for defense industry firms, to syphon off money to fund black operations. Some people may have been real but already targeted for assassination for various reasons.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by JimmyJim
 

So the plane was a hologram and then they fired a missile ( that must've been invisible) to cause the explosion?

There is a real plane that crashes, but other planes in the background to launch missiles.
No holograms, but cgi to cover missiles inadvertently picked up by news helicopter cameras.
A lot of witnesses did not even see the plane, so do you think they would see something smaller and faster?
edit on 28-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 

Anyone pushing a theory that no planes crashed into the world trade center is not right in their head, or purposefully pushing dis-info. Move on to more interesting facts about that day.

You know that, and I know that, but a lot of people are confused because there are all these dis-info people to cause that confusion.

edit on 28-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Please tell me that you are not buying into this theory!
I am a New Yorker. My wife survived the first attack on the towers in 1993. I have friends and family that were killed on 911 and who survived. The survivors saw planes with THEIR OWN EYES!! The list of the dead include some very real people my friend, especially real to their families. That being said I do not suppose that the story we were fed is what really happened. But this theory is way out there and baseless.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Please tell me that you are not buying into this theory!
I am a New Yorker. My wife survived the first attack on the towers in 1993. I have friends and family that were killed on 911 and who survived. The survivors saw planes with THEIR OWN EYES!! The list of the dead include some very real people my friend, especially real to their families. That being said I do not suppose that the story we were fed is what really happened. But this theory is way out there and baseless.

Buying into what?
I think I had a conversation with you before.
I do not buy into no-planes. (never have)
I am saying it is not hard to create a scenario to explain the damage to the tower walls.
What people say is that aluminum can not cut steel. I agree. Steel turns airplanes into dust, except for a few parts like the turbines and the front landing gear. Those would not account for all the damage.
There is that argument out there, and a lot of people find it reasonable.
I'm saying that even if that was true, how does it mean there was no plane?
I saw the plane so I know it was there.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

OK, so you are not buying his no plane theory. That is a good thing. I think the timing would have to be too precise for the leading missile thing, especially to not get picked up by any eyewitnesses. But logic says that an aluminum aircraft crashes into a steel structure should smash with debris falling to the ground. Those planes went through like a hot knife through butter. Something doesn't line up.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Thanks for keeping the issue of 9/11 alive.

I believe the planes alone wouldn't do as much damage by themselves. This is why I believe the POD theories, which basically suggest that there were missiles attached to the bottom of each plane, poss explosives inside each plane as well. Plenty of videos show a flash just before the impact into each tower. IN PLANE SITE is a good video showing these anomolies.

As for just basic non-substantial talk about this and that, I think you are right it could be pulled off in a number of ways. But thankfully you already know those no plane ideas to be foolish and unwise.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by jmdewey60
 

OK, so you are not buying his no plane theory. That is a good thing. I think the timing would have to be too precise for the leading missile thing, especially to not get picked up by any eyewitnesses. But logic says that an aluminum aircraft crashes into a steel structure should smash with debris falling to the ground. Those planes went through like a hot knife through butter. Something doesn't line up.
What went through was the fuel. The only solid thing I see (looking at the videos) going completely through was what looks like a big rod of depleted uranium which would have been a ballast devise to help steady the plane. I also think that was the flash when the plane first made contact with the wall. As soon as the plane decelerated, the rod would have broken free and lit up when it hit the steel.
The plane turned into aluminum and bits of debris.
You know there is not much evidence of any kind from 911, right?
Like, where is the steel wall that was poked through, so we can take a microscope to it to see what made it?
Well, it does not exist, and they did not collect plane fragments for us to look at.
Where did all that stuff go? Good question, but you can see it in the videos, falling in a big cascade, down the wall.
edit on 28-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizayne
 
I think there was things in the plane for, if no other reason than to destroy it if it failed to hit its target. I think it could easily have been fitted with some canisters containing a napalm-like substance. The jet fuel burned up way too fast and the additional eccelerants would make a more profound statement on TV, for propaganda purposes.

edit on 28-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I know I have made hundreds of posts in 911 Conspiracies. They are scattered throughout many threads.
I looked in my profile history of threads that I started in this sub-forum, and this is the only one.
This thread is close to two years old, so I think it is time to add some content to it. I figured I should go ahead and try to think of where I wanted this thread to go, and didn't, since people only seem interested here in discussing theories rather than facts.
On September 11, 2001, I was living in what you could call the "outskirts" of Sarasota, Florida. Close enough to be in the TV market of that city, meaning I could easily pick up Sarasota TV stations with a home antenna. This is exactly what I was doing at the time because I got sick of paying over a hundred dollars a month for cable. So on that morning, when the Twin Towers were hit, all I was able to watch was what I could pick up off the air (this was in the age of analog TV signal).
My girlfriend woke me up and told me that I needed to see what was going on, on TV, that something had happened that I should know about. As soon as I got close enough to see the screen, the idea came to mind, "false flag", since this was already being warned about on internet radio (Alex Jones) that elements inside the government was planning one that was going to kill a lot of people.
edit on 17-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
A lot of witnesses did not even see the plane, so do you think they would see something smaller and faster?


Have you seen an object fly at ~400-500 mph (average of 430 kn)? How many people just gaze up in the sky as they go about their day to see something, where they normally won't see it, going that fast?

You would have to be actually looking up to see it. 500mph is ~733 ft/s. That is fast, so unless you are actively seeking an object that is moving that fast, you will either only catch a glimpse or not at all.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

Have you seen an object fly at ~400-500 mph (average of 430 kn)? How many people just gaze up in the sky as they go about their day to see something, where they normally won't see it, going that fast?
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have, having been in the military and in a unit involved in developing anti-missile technology.

The point I was making in this thread, originally, was that once a missile's motor shuts off, and it is still traveling at close to maximum velocity, it would be virtually impossible to see from the ground if it was a thousand feet up.
edit on 17-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
continuing on from earlier:
When I started watching, obviously the first tower had been hit, and it was smoking away, as seen from cameras on the roof of the Rockefeller Center building in Midtown Manhattan. My girlfriend had already possession of the remote, so I just sat there on the couch while she was sitting in a chair over to the other side of the coffee table. She watched for a while and then I guess decided that the 'watching' job had been appropriately handed over to me, and got up to go into the kitchen to make something to eat. When she got up, instead of handing me the remote, she set it down right in front of there on the table, slightly out of my reach. Since I was by then sunk down into the couch, I just let it lie since I doubted there would be anything different to see on any other channel. The point here is that it was like 'remote roulette', where it was random what channel it ended up on, the flipping stopping when the urge to eat became greater than the urge to watch.
How this becomes important is that it ended up being tuned to a station that instead of switching to the network feed in NY, it was a locally manned newsroom with the video feed from NY, with their own commentary. Of course, anyone with a remote in their hand would have, once they realized this was what they were listening to, immediately switched to a channel where the people talking were right there in the city taking phone calls from their reporters on the scene.
As I was watching, one of the two announcers (a man and a woman) said, "We are being told that someone has set up a camera in Battery Park, just south of the World Trade Center, and we will be switching to that feed. Then it was someone on the Lower Esplanade, right next to the edge of the sea-wall in the south end of Battery Park, just looking into the water, with no sound, and no one in front of the camera. The local nes people doing the announcing started talking to fill in the dead air and were making comments on what they were seeing, then one said, "oh, there's a plane, and it seems to be flying oddly, in that it is too low and does not seem to be flying in a regular flight path. There are some airports nearby but That is not the direction they would be coming from if they were going to any of them." Then the commentary stopped while the plane got closer and almost flew directly overhead of the camera, then crashed into the south tower. There was a big flame, and then a big puff of smoke, and then the video switched back to the feed from before it went to that camera. The whole thing took about a minute.
edit on 17-5-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by JimmyJim
 

So the plane was a hologram and then they fired a missile ( that must've been invisible) to cause the explosion?

There is a real plane that crashes, but other planes in the background to launch missiles.
No holograms, but cgi to cover missiles inadvertently picked up by news helicopter cameras.
A lot of witnesses did not even see the plane, so do you think they would see something smaller and faster?
edit on 28-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


If you're already flying a plane into the building, why would you need missiles? Couldn't you just reinforce the plane so that a portion laden with explosives would lodge into the building and detonate remotely? Granted I think the simplest explanation is that someone flew a plane into the buildings, but if you're of the opinion that the jet fuel wouldn't brun hot enough or whatever it seems like it would be easier not having to coordinate additional aircraft, missiles, all the people involved with every plane that takes off etc... I really don't believe there are that many people capable of keeping something like that a secret, and the number who would have to be increases exponentially if you involve the military.

I fully admit I haven't researched much about 9/11. I probably should but it seems like every time I tried it was just a clusterbleep and very few people were willing to give or take in their theories.




new topics
top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join