Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

[ramset]

well BO you sound very informed what course of action have you decided to take about all the fooling Chet

[ramset]

ONE a ten story deep basement is not hard to fall into  in thirty years of testing highrise buildings in NYC I NEVER saw anything put together the way the towers were.No steel beams Chet

[one]

ONE a ten story deep basement is not hard to fall into  in thirty years of testing highrise buildings in NYC I NEVER saw anything put together the way the towers were.No steel beams Chet

I will  take that as a no ..........you have never seen   any other high rise building  fall into its own basement because of  something like a  fire.

I do agree that the  towers were built a little different ........a higher  percentage of the  load was carried by the  outer walls than normal .     But they still had central cores .    To fall straight  down  like that you have to take out the core.

If the  core is not taken out .....the building  may fall but it  will fall to one side or another.

The  planes could  have   taken  out  the  upper part of   the cores  of  the  towers ........but the lower  part of the cores would be intact .     

If  the  lower part of the cores were intact   the rubble  would have  stripped   the  floors from them but  left them standing .....


gary

[shruggedatlas]

In my opinion high  rise  buildings  don't  normally  fall that way . 

You don't know anything about how the World Trade Center is supposed to fall.  In a more general sense, I am sure you have not seen lots of high rise building fall due to massive damage inflicted, so you have no idea how any highrise is supposed to fall when hit by a large plane.  So you are just making stuff up.

Also, and I have brought this up before, what the hell is the motive for a conspiracy?  To invade Iraq?  Why weren't some iraqis framed as hijackers.  Instead, we have people from our so called "ally", Saudi Arabia, which we cannot actually invade.

And who green-lit this way-more-complex-than-necessary scheme?  I mean, they could have just blown up the towers with explosives and said the terrorists did it.  After all, it had been tried before.  Why introduce this massively complex scheme with real or fake planes?

Here is what the plan must have sounded like (from Rolling Stone magazine):

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

[SeanTheLight]

aren't we in a "global war on terror"? lots of reasons to initiate a global war if you are the right people. *shrug*

my question in return is, why is it necessary to create/continue a deceptive and suppressive system of control instead of working towards a greater good, in which "they" are still in control?

ie: why suppress helpful technologies?