So why would hijackers crash planes into the twin towers anyway?

reply to post by thedman


He has been called Larry Goldmine due to his 'good fortune' in cashing in on the false flag.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Simple Dave. The average particle size of the physical evidence indicates extraordinary demolition. This makes any discussion about hijackers or planes irrelevant. They didn't cause the destruction.

Many tons were dumped unsorted. When the flocks of seagulls eating the human remains could not be ignored any longer an attempt was made to sort through the debris. A mechanised system was set up and searchers picked human remains, personal effects and evidence off the conveyor belts. They didn't treat the debris as evidence, they sorted through it looking for evidence. If the debris is seen as evidence itself average particle size has to be matched against energy input.

The searchers repeatedly asked for the conveyors to be slowed down. They would be slowed for a while then speeded up again. The operation was completed in approximately half the estimated time. The debris was quickly buried. It's all still there. Average particle size is the issue.

Physical evidence is vastly more relevant than words. What do we know about the hijackers that is backed up by physical evidence? Photographs, video and audio recordings from multiple sources are more relevant than words. What photographic, video or audio evidence from multiple sources do we have relating to the hijackers?

Something you ought to know to explain my attitude, Dave. I have a well known False Flag Terrorist as a very close family member. I know how vile intelligence agencies are. Media, military, police, intelligence and other groups all have corrupt members who combine their efforts in an attempt to convince the public that we should be scared of imaginary threats and therefore accept the 'protection' offered. It's a protection racket.

Before you ask it was the Hilton Bombing, Sydney 1978. In 1971 my family member accidentally killed a friend. Police gave him the choice between prison or working for them. After proving his abilities to New South Wales Special Branch and ASIO they entrusted him with the big one. Of course it all went horribly wrong. These things always do. They never paid him what they offered. They tried to kill him. Now he's an insane alcoholic.

Talking about planes is a waste of time. Talking about hijackers is a waste of time. Examining the physical evidence lays the blame squarely at the feet of David Rockefeller and associates. Could there be some connection between the lack of attention paid to the physical evidence, the emphasis on discussing theoretical scenarios that can never be proven either way and the identity of the guilty parties?

reply to post by Kester

They found microscopic-sized human bone fragments on the roof of the Deutschbank Bldg at 130 Liberty Street. None of the OS'ers ever want to deal with this aspect of the evidence. They can't explain how a simple pancake collapse due to jet fuel can powderize steel, offfice furniture, and human remains. They can't deal with people pointing out that the Towers came down in what looks exactly like a pyroclastic cloud without babbling nonsensical crap about maybe there was a volcano in on it too. They can't explain where this super-high heat came from so they ridicule like little children in a goddamn playground. As soon as someone suggests high-tech weapons, which would explain the evidence, they go into the next pathetic phase of ridicule-attack mode. Then they'll start banging on about how maybe aliens were involved. And it's not just on the Internet. I have personal friends who give me the same exact lines of garbage, as if they're all reading from the same idiot-script. So then they'll turn around and tell you its because the whole world is sane and you're the sick one.

They have no clue, that the whole world (including them) is INSANE and under the mind-controlling thumb of the ruling "elite" (they are anything BUT elite). And it's always been that way. The reality is that mainstream beliefs are always wrong about anything that matters. Aaron Russo said that Nick Rockefeller told him that one day, after it was too late, Americans would wake up and find out they have been lied to about EVERYTHING.

I have another friend who is a CIA agent, who personally escorted two of the Bin Laden's out of the country. When I first started discussing 911 with him around 2006, he was shocked by how much I knew of what really happened behind the scenes. This guy was not Internet savvy at the the time and didn't even have a computer. I told him it was the Internet where I did my research. Yes Dave, those "damn fool conspiracy websites". If it weren't for the Internet, there would be no truth attainable at all anywhere in any media whatsoever.

reply to post by SimontheMagus



Nicely put and I think you speak for a lot of us who are still trying to get to the bottom of this obvious false-flag operation that in my opinion was carried out by a rogue outfit who have infiltrated the US government.

reply to post by lambros56


Not just infiltrated the government. The inside knowledge we regrettably have due to having a terrorist in the family gives a clear view of how far the corruption goes. Every group that plays a part has a number of members who know what they are doing. The others blindly go along with it. Clearing out this vipers nest isn't going to be easy but it has to be done.

reply to post by SimontheMagus


High tech weapons certainly go some of the way towards explaining the evidence. My view is that this was originally a Nazi plot. Concealing explosives in building materials then detonating the building with a plane crash and blaming the complete destruction on a bomb in the plane. The idea crossed the Atlantic with Operation Paperclip. It was developed and constructed by the Rockefellers. Many delays meant the explosives had degraded. The '93 bombing failed to detonate the explosives. Energy weapons helped detonate these degraded explosives when things finally got moving and also caused much of the steel to become a cloud of dust.
Both towers were meant to detonate and disintegrate instantly. Both failed to detonate and we got the photographic and video evidence that exposes the crime in the time between the initial explosions and the backup plan being put into action. The 'fireproofing' on the impact floors was some form of detonating technology. It failed.
This failure to detonate is the cause of much confusion. The public are trying to work it out thinking that it was meant to be like that. The perpetrators are terrified because the evidence fell into our laps. If you cast your mind back you may remember that in the first couple of days the media suggested baggage handlers may have been involved. Had it gone according to plan the story would have been baggage handlers smuggled bombs on board. The double failure meant they had to give us the intensely hot fire theory. There is no evidence in any form anywhere indicating intensely hot pre-collapse fires other than the hotly contested apparent molten metal pouring out. NIST offer some words and pretty coloured diagrams to support their claim but they have no evidence.
The endless obsession with planes and hijackers takes attention away from the nature of the physical evidence on the Fresh Kills landfill. This evidence answers the essential questions. Regardless of the number and type of technologies used, (I suspect thermite was added as a false trail leading away from the Rockefellers), the average particle size proves extraordinary demolition hence the war on terror is a fraud. Be warned all you who take fiat currency in exchange for fighting the war on terror.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
..which sort of suggests he'd like to destroy some towers, wouldn't you agree?

I don't know whether it would show he set out to obtain an education specifically to target skyscrapers, but yes, it does suggest that his training would have led him to think of attacking large buildings like skyscrapers rather than, say, passenger ships.

Yes, quite often they take cars, trucks, boats and pack them with explosives. Also a common tactic with these groups is to plant secondary explosives for when the first responders arrive. So taking it a step further would be to pack a plane with explosives, then we have the secondaries go off when the rescue workers arrive. John McCain pointed that out on 9/11.

If you're referring to the hijacked planes used on 9/11 then you're overlooking that the second plane was caught on several hundred cameras and about 200,000 people throughout southern Manhattan and New Jersey was watching it real time. If it was "packed with explosives" it would have created a larger blast than just a lot of flames from the fuel and we wouldn't need to wonder whether explosives were used- the whole top of the structure would hve been blown to smithereens and there'd be no doubt whatsoever explosives were used.

Exactly my point, what other reason would they hit the towers anyway, it seems like a contradiction in the official story.

I don't where the contradiction is here that you're referring to. Even if Atta did set out from day one to target the WTC and even if Al Qaida did eagarly enlist him because they wanted to finish the job they started in 1993, it would only confirm the claim the attack was a terrorist attack by Islamic fundamentalists, not refute it.

Originally posted by Kester
reply to post by lambros56

 

Not just infiltrated the government. The inside knowledge we regrettably have due to having a terrorist in the family gives a clear view of how far the corruption goes. Every group that plays a part has a number of members who know what they are doing. The others blindly go along with it. Clearing out this vipers nest isn't going to be easy but it has to be done.

Spot on and well put.
This is what confuses me with these people on here who believe the official story.
Can't they see this ?
They harp on about how Bush was too dumb to carry this out.

I think Bush and his cronies had no choice.
The decision had been made and they had to go along with it.

reply to post by lambros56


Except, maybe.....have you contemplated that maybe, just maybe......the Bush administration was trying so "desperately" to 'remove' any vestiges of the former (Clinton) presidency that they took their eyes off of the ball??

Really.....just think about the timeline.

Try to, also, "think" like a person intent on terrorism!!

It isn't that difficult.....been written down in hundreds, thousands of books and movie script ideas!

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by lambros56

 

Except, maybe.....have you contemplated that maybe, just maybe......the Bush administration was trying so "desperately" to 'remove' any vestiges of the former (Clinton) presidency that they took their eyes off of the ball??

Really.....just think about the timeline.

Try to, also, "think" like a person intent on terrorism!!

It isn't that difficult.....been written down in hundreds, thousands of books and movie script ideas!



Well........to be honest. I can't get my head around what you're trying to say.
You're going to have to spell it out to me, I'm afraid.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Can anyone tell me what was the reason was for hijacking two planes and crashing them into the twin towers. Why go through so much trouble? In terms of the official story and historically it doesn't make any sense, unless of course the intention was to take the buildings down.

Can you think of any logical reason behind the idea EXCEPT to bring the towers down?

I'm sure plenty of folks will help you this, however, I find it odd that you are seeking answers to this rather well discussed question eleven years after the event.

reply to post by lambros56


I believe you will sort it out, if you "edit" you post within the time limit.

Here is what you asked:

Well........to be honest. I can't get my head around what you're trying to say.
You're going to have to spell it out to me, I'm afraid.

The point I have tried to make, ever since the experience of '9/11' is.....as I've come to learn, there were "hints" of a "major terrorist plot" involving airplanes that were being bandied about within the various agencies, at that time, who were "supposed" to keep things in check and manage the threats.

These "agencies" are, obviously: FBI, CIA and NSA.

The problem is, they (those 3 biggies) did NOT co-ordinate well...pre "9/11".

In fact (and this is PURELY speculation) one (or more) of those agencies were actively involved in tracking those people who, ultimately, turned out to be then "9/11 HIJACKERS"....except, those (agencies) involved failed to ascertain the actual timing, and implementation, of their plot.

It is quite possible that those (who were tracking) missed certain "cues" and allowed their 'prey' to go beyond what was anticipated.

This means....they ^%&ed up!

AND, THAT is sufficient reason for the Bush (Jr.) administration to orchestrate a HUGE "cover-up"....which has, since, morphed into the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement".

Getting it, yet??

reply to post by ProudBird



Thanks for reminding me what I asked.....but you didn't have to.....really.

Well I agree about the three agencies you mentioned who %^*^ed up.
I think they %^#^ed up on purpose.
I think the government knew when it was going down but didn't do nothing to stop it....for reasons, only they would know.

You sound a lot like weedwhacker........attitude !

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

I have another friend who is a CIA agent...

This guy was not Internet savvy at the the time and didn't even have a computer.

I think someone's pulling your leg.

reply to post by lambros56

I think they %^#^ed up on purpose.

Or....the "%^#^-up was due to inter-agency rivalries, and "one-upsmanship" ego-based cock-up mindsets??

Try getting your mind wrapped around that scenario...and THEN!!! Think how you'd "cover your ass" on then way out the door!

IF you can grasp that scenario, you may have a glimpse into the Bush (Jr.) administration's mindset, on the afternoon of 11 September, 2001 (Eastern Time) as they tried to focus on "damage control" for their "boss".....AND, how to ":spin" it to his (their "boss's") 'advantage'!!

Case in point, as to "spin": After the "MUCH publicized" ridiculous "landing" on a carrier, the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, was THIS: ((May 1, 2003):



Lies.....wanna talk about LIES???

Bring IT!!!

I have not read al the post here so this may have been talked about already. Why crash the planes so high up?
It seems to me that if the intent was to bring the towers down then crashing them into the lowermost floor they could would have made better sense. You cut a tree down from the bottom. They had no way of knowing that crashing that high up would have that effect and not once but twice. We will never the the whole story on 9/11. No matter which side you are on when it comes to 9/11 you will all have to agree on that much

Originally posted by fixer1967
I have not read al the post here so this may have been talked about already. Why crash the planes so high up?
It seems to me that if the intent was to bring the towers down then crashing them into the lowermost floor they could would have made better sense. You cut a tree down from the bottom. They had no way of knowing that crashing that high up would have that effect and not once but twice. We will never the the whole story on 9/11. No matter which side you are on when it comes to 9/11 you will all have to agree on that much

This just accentuates the fact that airliners could not possibly destroy buildings that big.

The further down you go the more weight has to be supported. That means more steel and thicker steel. That really means the plane impacts would do less damage the the fires would have to heat up more steel to supposedly weaken anything. That is why discussing this for ten years without accurate data on the distribution of steel down the towers is so absurd.

psik

reply to post by Insolubrious


I don't know. But it was the World Trade Center, now the new one is One World Trade Center. The height is 1776 feet. The same year our nation was born. Plenty people want a one world government. We are the world, we are citizens of the world. This is not true, I am a citizen of The United States of America. The new world order is not the new order the founding fathers wanted. Instead people are wanting a socialist world government.

So maybe the transition from a world trade center into a one world trade center with a height of 1776 feet has some meaning.

reply to post by soaringhawk


The original World Trade Center site consisted of 7 buildings numbered 1 through 7

Buildings 1 & 2 were the twin towers 110 floors each

Building 3 was the 23 story Marriott Hotel between the towers

Building 4,5,6 were low raise (8-9 floor) buildings on the east side of the site

Building 7 was 47 story building north of the site

Map of original World Trade Center



The new site plan also envisions 6 buildings (Building 6 not in plan)

Map of new World Trade Center site plan




Building 1 aka "Freedom Tower" is scheduled to open in 2013, majority of steelwork is complete

Building 2 (200 Greenwich St) is under construction, it may never be completed do to cost and market demand
for space

Building 3 (175 Greenwich St) is under construction, again may be reduced in height based on demand for
space, possible completion date is 2015

Building 4 (150 Greenwich St) is 72 story building under construction, steel work has already reached 72 floors
Completion expected in

Building 5 (130 Liberty St - site old deutsche Bank demolished after 9/11 do to damage) 42 story building under
construction. Primary work is under way.

Building 7 was rebuilt as 52 story building, it opened in May 2006

So what is your paranoid obession on rebuilding WTC 1 ....

reply to post by fixer1967

I have not read al the post here so this may have been talked about already. Why crash the planes so high up?

Because it was ringed by other buildings over 40-50 stories high

Reaso was hit so high was to avoid all these buildings