WTC attacks - the alternative thread

[editor]

There are no black boxes because the 3 aircraft striking the WTC and Pentagon were switched.

Sure they were.

Thing is you seem unable to answer how and where this amazing feat was achieved, why the hundreds - if not thousands - of people involved in the servicing, boarding, loading, preparation, navigating and flying of the planes didn't seem to notice anything and - finally - how those calls were 'faked'.

Unless you can finally come up with something approaching a credible explanation for these tricky facts, your 'theory' remains as ridiculous and as ludicrous as ever.

So how did they fake the calls? And what happened to the original planes, pilots and passengers?

Real world answers please.

 

[miss minnie]

If you look closely, just a split second before the plane impacts the building, it's possible to see the flash of a whitish plumes of exhaust smoke indicating that missiles are being fired into the building.

sorry, i'm a newbie to these threads although i've perused them for some time and followed the links.

can someone please explain what advantage there is in firing missiles into a building seconds before a fuckoff great jumbo jet is going to hit it anyway? surely there'd be enough damage done by the jet anyway?

edit: i see that jo/joe has asked this as well...

 

[Walter Mitty]

whats the point in missiles when youre gonna fly a fueled up jumbo into a building?

To make sure the building collapsed, the force of a plane alone wouldn't cause the WTC to collapse as it had already been strenghted after the previous bombing.

 

[Jo/Joe]

fela, when i pointed out that the media was covering the USG and 911 and the commission, you said you were in thailand and hadn't read about it. Yuo were, therefore, clearly ignorant of the media you keep slamming.

 

[editor]

can someone please explain what advantage there is in firing missiles into a building seconds before a fuckoff great jumbo jet is going to hit it anyway? surely there'd be enough damage done by the jet anyway?

edit: i see that jo/joe has asked this as well...

I think most of us have asked the same question too, but the best DrJ could come up with was that these ne'er seen before, missile-toting, remote-controlled, pretend passenger aircraft would make more of a 'Hollywood style explosion' with a hidden extra rocket released 0.33 of a second before impact.

 

[miss minnie]

so what was the point of making sure that the building collapsed? surely there'd have been enough damage to have made the point about terrorism?

or was the conspiracy engineered by firms of architects?

 

[bigfish]

Theres a 3rd explanation, the orginal planes could have been fitting with rocket launchers and no black boxes.

Bollocks!

Ground crews at civilian airports would never in a million years let commercial airliners with mysterious cylindrical objects strapped to their fuselages out of the hanger in the first place.

Get real!

 

[white rabbit]

To make sure the building collapsed, the force of a plane alone wouldn't cause the WTC to collapse as it had already been strenghted after the previous bombing.

Why would missiles cause buildings the size of the twin towers to collapse any more than thousands of gallons of aviation fuel?

It was clearly the result of the burning fuel because the collapse didn't happen immediately.

And why did it matter that they collapsed? Surely that was as unexpected for the attackers as for anyone else. Just flying planes into the building and causing a terrible fire would be bad enough. They'd probably have to be demolished afterwards anyway.

 

[editor]

To make sure the building collapsed, the force of a plane alone wouldn't cause the WTC to collapse as it had already been strenghted after the previous bombing.

Err, the WTC wasn't designed to withstand the impact of a large passenger aircraft stuffed full of fuel.

But why I'm bothering to offer facts to someone who believes in suicide guns is quite beyond me.

When designed, planners did take into account the possibility of an accidental collision by an aircraft, possibly from one of the nearby airports. There is precedent for this type of accident; fourteen people died when an American B-25 bomber accidentally struck the Empire State Building's north face in thick fog in 1945.

The World Trade towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Unfortunately, since that time, airliners have become much larger and heavier, and now carry much more fuel. As you will see below, no building design could ever hope to withstand the deliberate impact of a modern jetliner carrying a full load of fuel.

...Given the size and fuel loads of modern airliners, there is probably no way to construct a building, or at least one that is to be used for offices, to withstand a direct impact, deliberate or otherwise.

http://www.wcsscience.com/wtc/page3.html

 

[Walter Mitty]

The cylindrical objects could have been hidden inside the plane only becoming visible prior to firing but considering Bigfish has told me to get real I doubt i'll convince anyone else.

 

[In Bloom]

The cylindrical objects could have been hidden inside the plane only becoming visible prior to firing but considering Bigfish has told me to get real I doubt i'll convince anyone else.

You've still yet to give a good reason for bothering to fire missiles into something you're about to hit with a fucking airliner.

 

[Dirty Martini]

We are asked to believe that one of the hijackers brought his passport with him on a domestic fight, even though he knew he would not need it then, or ever again; that upon impact the passport flew from the hijacker's pocket (or was he holding it in his hands?), that the passport flew out of the aircraft, that it flew out of the burning tower, and that it was carried by the air currents and landed safely, where it could be discovered, several blocks away ...

That a passport might be found under such circumstances is not impossible. Even if it were the only passport or similar document found. Weren't mission patches found on the ground after the Challenger disaster?

Let's assume a passport wasn't found. Most of the references to this find are from Sept 16 or thereabouts, with very little after that date. Can't we assume that, with news about every aspect of the attacks emerging so quickly at that time, that the authorities got it wrong? That there was no such passport, and that it wouldn't have taken much, even for a police commissioner, to mention something that never got beyond the stage of speculation and rumour? The passport story never made it beyond a round-up of developments in the week after the attacks.

Certainly doesn't justify using it as a *central* plank of accusations of a cover-up imo.

 

[WouldBe]

There are no black boxes because the 3 aircraft striking the WTC and Pentagon were switched.

blah, blah, blah.

Thats right mate. You carry on living in your little paranoid fantasy world.

 

[Dirty Martini]

can someone please explain what advantage there is in firing missiles into a building seconds before a fuckoff great jumbo jet is going to hit it anyway? surely there'd be enough damage done by the jet anyway?

You forgot the explosives strapped to the girders. Belt, braces and, er, some more braces.

 

[Walter Mitty]

You've still yet to give a good reason for bothering to fire missiles into something you're about to hit with a fucking airliner.

It wasn't a real airliner it was a remote controled thing and likely would wiegh a lot less than a boeing 70. So thats why it needed the missles.

 

[Dirty Martini]

It wasn't a real airliner it was a remote controled thing and likely would wiegh a lot less than a boeing 70. So thats why it needed the missles.

Why would it weigh less? No engines, presumably no fixtures and fittings?

Man alive.

 

[white rabbit]

Why would it weigh less? Because it's completely imaginary.

 

[miss minnie]

It wasn't a real airliner it was a remote controled thing and likely would wiegh a lot less than a boeing 70. So thats why it needed the missles.

why not just fill it with bricks? cheaper than missiles, no?

 

[In Bloom]

It wasn't a real airliner it was a remote controled thing and likely would wiegh a lot less than a boeing 70. So thats why it needed the missles.

Why not just use a remote controlled aircraft

 

[editor]

It wasn't a real airliner it was a remote controled thing and likely would wiegh a lot less than a boeing 70. So thats why it needed the missles.

I rarely wish this, but I sincerely hope for the sake of your sanity that you're a troll.

 

[Dirty Martini]

The fishiest thing about this whole saga?

On the forums page, get this, it says this thread has 499 replies.

But, the post above this one is #500.



Where's the missing post? Has it been switched? Did it get diverted to another forum?

I think we should be told.

 

[Lock&Light]

The fishiest thing about this whole saga?

On the forums page, get this, it says this thread has 499 replies.

But, the post above this one is #500.



Where's the missing post? Has it been switched? Did it get diverted to another forum?

I think we should be told.

I think you'll find that one posting has had 499 replies. It's much less fishy than bigfishy missiles.

 

[miss minnie]

The fishiest thing about this whole saga?

On the forums page, get this, it says this thread has 499 replies.

But, the post above this one is #500.



Where's the missing post? Has it been switched? Did it get diverted to another forum?

I think we should be told.

one seed post - the thread starter - and 499 replies. spooky!

 

[editor]

Where's the missing post? Has it been switched? Did it get diverted to another forum?

You've been fooled by a remotely controlled thread firing fake posts.

The real posts were kidnapped and a crack CIA team of Post Impressionists (led by General Seurat) are now fooling regulars with word perfect impersonations of regular posters.

Take me, for instance. I've been created using the Disney Mickey Mouse Personality Emulation System (the same one used to fool passengers wives on the 9/11 planes) and although I may sound like the editor, in fact I'm a 65 year old operative with a knotty mop for a wig.

 

[fela fan]

fela, when i pointed out that the media was covering the USG and 911 and the commission, you said you were in thailand and hadn't read about it. Yuo were, therefore, clearly ignorant of the media you keep slamming.

No jo, i didn't say that. I am very explicit with the language i use coz i know how easy it is to have it changed.

I hadn't read about the commission in the two british dailies that i look at often on the web, except for teh pdb about a couple of weeks ago. And i see what's going on in the world by looking at the bbc website every day.

I don't think the media i'm slamming are any different to what they were in 2000 and 2001 when i last looked at it regularly. I know what they're like very well. I've done plenty of personal investigations, both for fun and to help me with articles. One of the worst aspects of the press in britain is it's apparant freeness. Get beneath the surface, however, and it becomes far more insidious.

Why don't you do a bit of research on them yourself, and i'm not taking the piss! If you're interested in language, then you will have fun.

 

[fela fan]

That a passport might be found under such circumstances is not impossible. Even if it were the only passport or similar document found. Weren't mission patches found on the ground after the Challenger disaster?

Let's assume a passport wasn't found. Most of the references to this find are from Sept 16 or thereabouts, with very little after that date. Can't we assume that, with news about every aspect of the attacks emerging so quickly at that time, that the authorities got it wrong? That there was no such passport, and that it wouldn't have taken much, even for a police commissioner, to mention something that never got beyond the stage of speculation and rumour? The passport story never made it beyond a round-up of developments in the week after the attacks.

Certainly doesn't justify using it as a *central* plank of accusations of a cover-up imo.

Please don't quote things that i never said.

You asked for a source for the news of the passport, i provided one. CNN. Now you have a source, that's not good enough, and you now choose to say there was no passport found in direct contradiction to that police officer who told the nation about it. He in fact got a passport mixed up with another kind of document? Conspiracy.

And it's you lot that say get real.

I'll ask the question again since it's not been answered: do passengers need passports for domestic flights in the US?

 

[white rabbit]

I'll ask the question again since it's not been answered: do passengers need passports for domestic flights in the US?

Not normally. But if you're foreign and don't want a ton of shit, it's useful to have one to identify yourself.

 

[fela fan]

The fishiest thing about this whole saga?

The passport being found. And those on here telling me it's not impossible.

No of course it's not impossible, nothing is impossible. But to hear people who reguarly accuse others of being flat-earthers, tin foil hats, CTs, it brings a wry smile to my face watching them trying to allow their head to actually believe a passport - one of the hijacker's at that - could survive what we all saw on the telly. It is a truly amazing piece of self-delusion. The accusers become the accused...

And i'm still wondering if passports are needed on domestic US flights...

 

[fela fan]

Not normally. But if you're foriegn and don't want a ton of shit, it's useful to have one to identify yourself.

Do you carry one wr, because you're foreign.

 

[white rabbit]

I'm not worried about being held up by the cops.