Sponsors: Benefits of Living Abroad

View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Mobile App          Join Mailing List


Ghostplanes on 9/11? Interesting reasons and clues

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Ghostplanes on 9/11? Interesting reasons and clues

Postby Scepcop » Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:58 pm

Share |
Check this out. It is a pretty interesting logical breakdown and deduction of the No Plane Theory of 9/11.

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71

Why they didn't use planes

Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.

So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.

Now to the other problem.

Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.

Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.

The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

Remote control.

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.

Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.

In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:29 pm






Re: Ghostplanes on 9/11?

Postby Scepcop » Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:00 pm

Check out what a Boeing rep said about the maximum speed of a plane at 700 ft. It starts at 8:00.



Here Ace Baker shows you how easy it is to duplicate the CNN footage of the 2nd plane hitting the WTC, with Apple Motion. Watch him duplicate the footage step by step exactly.



Chilling and disturbing isn't it? Too bad most people are afraid to consider the implications of this.

Here is what John Lear, one of the most experienced pilots in the world who holds every FAA certificate that exists, has to say about the planes on 9/11. It's very interesting.



Check out this FAQ about the No Plane Theory:

No-Plane Theory FAQ

Q. What about all the (hundreds, thousands, millions) of eyewitnesses?

A. If a real plane flew into the South Tower, there would indeed be thousands, if not 10's of thousands of eyewitnesses. But there are astonishingly few people who actually claimed to have seen and heard a plane. The extreme LACK of eyewitnesses speaks in favor of no planes.

There are a number of eyewitnesses, like David Handschuh, who were looking at the tower, and swear they didn't see a plane.

The few eyewitnesses that do exist are either (a) lying or (b) mistaken. The govern-media has trillions of dollars, and a hundred thousand secret agents. Manufacturing "eyewitnesses" is no problem. And let's not discount false memory. Many studies have conclusively shown that fake video alters eyewitness accounts.

Q. What happened to the passengers and airplanes?

A. The real planes took off as advertised, and were hijacked by special ops. The planes were landed at Stewart Air Force Base, and replaced on radar by false blips. The passengers and crew were executed, blood and body samples taken. These samples were then planted at the "crash" locations, "found", and then legitimate DNA testing was done.

Q. But I saw an airplane crashing into the tower on live TV!

A. No you didn't. On live TV, you were shown "Chopper 5" and "Chopper 7". Both of these video show a plane passing behind the edge of the tower, not hitting it. The video that show the plane penetrating the building came later, after there was plenty of time to edit them. They look fake, because they are fake.

Q. What about the airplane parts that were found on the street?

A. No parts were found BELOW the "impact" area, or in the gashes. The few parts that were found, were located BEYOND the tower, as if they made it all the way through and out the other side. I believe they shot an airplane part out of a cannon on the 80th floor of WTC2. That's what it looks like on the video. This would explain why the molten metal was seen pouring out of that location before the demolition. They had to melt down the cannon, lest it be blown clear during the demolition.

Q. What about the phone calls?

A. What phone calls? The only recording of any phone call is Betty Ong, early in AA11. That probably was a real phone call, after the real hijackers had taken over the plane, and before they landed it at Stewart AFB. As to the rest of the alleged phone calls, they don't exist. A "transcript" means nothing. What phone calls?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Ghostplanes on 9/11?

Postby Scepcop » Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:06 pm

Check out this video of the 2nd plane that hit the WTC. Just before impact, the left wing disappears! Could that be indication of a holographic plane? lol



And here is live footage of the second explosion of the WTC that shows no plane approaching it?! Too bad no one has a better quality version of this footage.



Did Flight 93 land in Cleveland?



Listen to this 9/11 phone call by Betty Ong, a flight attendant on Flight 11. I can't believe how unemotional she sounds, as though she were "ordering a pizza" as the comments say.



Interesting video debunking the 9/11 hijacking myths.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Ghostplanes on 9/11?

Postby ProfWag » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:15 pm

Scepcop wrote:Here is what John Lear, one of the most experienced pilots in the world who holds every FAA certificate that exists, has to say about the planes on 9/11. It's very interesting.

What he has to say about space aliens and soul collectors on the moon is very interesting also, but it doesn't mean he's not full of poopy-cacka
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3751
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:54 pm

Re: Ghostplanes on 9/11? Interesting reasons and clues

Postby Scepcop » Wed Nov 17, 2010 7:57 pm

Check this out. Here is the full version of Betty Ong's call from Flight 11 to some emergency number. It's very bizarre. She says that one person has been stabbed on the flight and that hijackers have gone into the cockpit and locked the door, yet she sounds bored and sleepy at the same time. Now I don't know about you, but if I was on a hijacked plane, and a guy was stabbed and hijackers were in the cockpit, I sure would not sound "bored and sleepy"! She sounds like she's ordering a pizza. WTF?!

Also, how come there are not excited passengers in the background during the call?

Furthermore, the emergency staff sounded retarded. They keep asking her to repeat her statements, like they got all the time in the world. Not even the 911 staff when you call them, act that nonchalant and robotic. They are usually engaging and quick to respond to emergencies. But this emergency staff that Betty Ong talked to sounded like a joke. They sounded like drones who are indecisive and don't care. WTF?! Very bizarre.



Also, here is video of the second plane that hit the WTC from another angle. Notice again how, just before the plane hits, one of the wings VANISHES! It's really bizarre. I'm not sure what to make of it.



Also, check this out. A guy named David Handschuh, a professional photographer, said in this interview that he stood right under the WTC when the second plane hit and saw NO PLANE!

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Ghostplanes on 9/11? Interesting reasons and clues

Postby ProfWag » Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:59 pm

Scepcop, have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, Muslim extremists flew planes into buildings on 9/11?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3751
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:54 pm

Re: Ghostplanes on 9/11? Interesting reasons and clues

Postby mr. mike » Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:06 pm

I can explain Betty Ong; all flight personell are trained to talk slowly and try to keep calm even if the wings are on fire....I can hear her fear which she contols by talking slowly.

The only problem with the Ghostplanes theory is what did they do with all the bodies of the passengers and the planes? Fly them out over the ocean and detonate them or was this an inside job and the planes were routed to some Air Force base? I've heard a lot of interesting arguments pro and con concerning 9/11 conspiracies, but this one is the strangest. Also, they might look lumbering, but commercial airlines can do some basic aerobatics*; they don't do them usually because of passenger safety.

ProfWag, to me there is still the question of if the guys who carried out 9/11 were Al-Queda or if they were Egyptian Islamic Jihad members paid for by Bin Laden. Al-Queda exists now, but there is the question, did the organization truly exist back then? I'm not the only one who asked this question; BBC documentarian Adam Curtis made that one of his points in his film "The Power of Nightmares."
_______________________________________________________________________________________

*Loops, steeply-banked (60 degree +) turns, flying upside down, possibly doing split-S turns.
mr. mike
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:26 am

Re: Ghostplanes on 9/11? Interesting reasons and clues

Postby Scepcop » Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:38 pm

ProfWag wrote:Scepcop, have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, Muslim extremists flew planes into buildings on 9/11?


We've all considered that. But there is no evidence for that. Also:

1. Half of the hijackers have been found alive.
2. They didn't have the experience or skill to fly a 757. It's a lot harder to fly than you think.
3. It's aeronautically impossible for a 757 to move at 400 or 500mph at 700 ft. Call Boeing and ask them. It's common knowledge among pilots.
4. The hijackers names do not appear on the original flight manifests, only in later versions.
5. Hijackers cannot hijack planes with box cutters. The only guy who ever successfully hijacked a plane had a gun. Plus pilots do not usually give up the controls. And they are trained to hit the emergency transponder in the event of a hijack, so why didn't they?

Did you consider those things?

Why don't you consider that maybe the story is false? You agree that governments often lie right?

How do you know it was Muslim hijackers? You are taking it on faith aren't you? How is that any different than a Christian who believes that the Bible is infallible because they are told so?

Please answer directly without copouts please.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Ghostplanes on 9/11? Interesting reasons and clues

Postby Scepcop » Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:51 pm

mr. mike wrote:I can explain Betty Ong; all flight personell are trained to talk slowly and try to keep calm even if the wings are on fire....I can hear her fear which she contols by talking slowly.

The only problem with the Ghostplanes theory is what did they do with all the bodies of the passengers and the planes? Fly them out over the ocean and detonate them or was this an inside job and the planes were routed to some Air Force base? I've heard a lot of interesting arguments pro and con concerning 9/11 conspiracies, but this one is the strangest. Also, they might look lumbering, but commercial airlines can do some basic aerobatics*; they don't do them usually because of passenger safety.

ProfWag, to me there is still the question of if the guys who carried out 9/11 were Al-Queda or if they were Egyptian Islamic Jihad members paid for by Bin Laden. Al-Queda exists now, but there is the question, did the organization truly exist back then? I'm not the only one who asked this question; BBC documentarian Adam Curtis made that one of his points in his film "The Power of Nightmares."
_______________________________________________________________________________________

*Loops, steeply-banked (60 degree +) turns, flying upside down, possibly doing split-S turns.


Anyone can say that. How are you going to "train" someone to remain calm in a life or death situation without actually putting them in a life or death situation? Simply telling them to remain calm isn't going to do it.

When the life and death situation comes, your body goes into fight or flight panic. Anybody would react with panic and adrenaline.

Betty wasn't just calm. She acted too casual. She kept repeating herself, and the operator was dumb and kept asking the same questions over and over again like someone who didn't want to pay attention.

Your question about the perps disposing of the bodies is a valid one of course. But do you really think it's impossible for the perps to kill all those passengers or murder them?

You gotta understand that these people are more evil than you think. They thrive on death and suffering. It's normal to them. The rulers of the Aztecs and Amazonians sacrificed their innocent people all the time. Some people thrive on torture, especially the ruling class. Why do you think the CIA tortured people in Iraq? These are hidden dark truths. Have you heard of "dark ecstasy"? See this video for a very disturbing explanation of it:





So you see, it's not really farfetched for the perps to murder innocent people. Anything is possible. We don't have the smoking gun about what happened to the passengers. But it's a possibility. Keep that in mind. Just cause it's too disturbing to you to think that the perps could murder those passengers doesn't mean it's impossible for them to. Do you understand that?

Also, another possibility is that those passengers were fictitious. Not impossible. Or they could be living in another country and paid off. Anything is possible.

So where is your skepticism of the official story? There are thousands of holes and implausibilities with it. Have you analyzed them? Many intelligent experts have and disbelieve it. Even Geraldo recently changed his mind. See the segment he did about Building 7 here.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 11:29 pm


Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 1 guest