A question for the "No Planers"

[Craig W]

Why use a missile instead of a plane, when a plane is effectively a missile (a flying thing that will damage whatever it hits) and you don't have the complications of having to create TV fakery, hush up any eye-witnesses, and artifically create a plane-shaped hole at the exact moment of impact?

It would seem much, much simpler to use a plane. It has the major advantage of looking like a plane, which neatly fits the cover story. And it obviates the need for TV fakery, hushing up eye witnesses and somehow creating a plane-shaped hole. It can also be loaded with explosives to cause similar damage to a missile (if that is desired).

Please explain this. What am I missing?

Try and answer the question directly, rationally and simply. Thanks.

[zark]

no-planers?

why are you using a term instigated by those involved in the cover-up?

idiot.

you aint playing with newbies any more. I got myself a rosselson.

[Craig W]

In the interests of attempting meaningful communication with you, I will ignore your rudeness for now.

How should I address those who believe there were no planes?

And do you have an answer to my question or are you only interested in mud slinging?

[Killtown]

Why use a missile instead of a plane, when a plane is effectively a missile (a flying thing that will damage whatever it hits) and you don't have the complications of having to create TV fakery, hush up any eye-witnesses, and artifically create a plane-shaped hole at the exact moment of impact?

It would seem much, much simpler to use a plane. It has the major advantage of looking like a plane, which neatly fits the cover story. And it obviates the need for TV fakery, hushing up eye witnesses and somehow creating a plane-shaped hole. It can also be loaded with explosives to cause similar damage to a missile (if that is desired).

Please explain this. What am I missing?

Try and answer the question directly, rationally and simply. Thanks.

Then why crash anything in the WTC at all? THAT would be much simpler.

[Craig W]

Hello, Killtown.

A cryptic response, answering a question with a question.

I will ask you another to attempt to get some clarity:

Do you believe anything crashed into the WTCs, if so what?

[MadgeB]

Your questions answered here Craig W, by Gerard Holmgren:
http://www.911closeup.com/

I think the bottom line is, a real plane would not have entered the towers intact, and therefore could not be blamed for all the fires inside the towers and their eventual collapse.

[Craig W]

Madge B,

Do you think anything crashed into the WTCs? If so what?

[zark]

did anything hit the WTC buildings?

what rational have you that lends you to think that something hit the buildings?

You consider yourself researchers, investigators, questioners but miss the most obvious point.

[scubadiver]

Miss the most obvious point.

What that might be?

[Killtown]

Hello, Killtown.

A cryptic response, answering a question with a question.

I will ask you another to attempt to get some clarity:

Do you believe anything crashed into the WTCs, if so what?

Yes, something much smaller than a 767 w/out wings.

Please answer my previous question now.

[Craig W]

Hello, Killtown.

A cryptic response, answering a question with a question.

I will ask you another to attempt to get some clarity:

Do you believe anything crashed into the WTCs, if so what?

Yes, something much smaller than a 767 w/out wings.

Please answer my previous question now.

No, because I am not interested in gettung into an endless round of pointless questions. I am interested in someone explaining the logic of using a missile rather than a plane.

Your answer seems to be a trying-to-be-clever way of saying "yes" in answer to my question whether you believe a missile hit the WTCs. (Why can't you just give a straight answer if that is what you think?)

If you do believe a missile may have hit the WTCs then could you please answer my earlier questions? If not, then I will wait for someone else who believes a missile may have hit the WTCs to do so.

[Craig W]

Your questions answered here Craig W, by Gerard Holmgren:
http://www.911closeup.com/

I think the bottom line is, a real plane would not have entered the towers intact, and therefore could not be blamed for all the fires inside the towers and their eventual collapse.

I have read Holmgren's piece before (but read it again last night just to make sure I didn't miss anything) and find it wholly inadequate as an explanation as to why they would use a missile rather than a plane.

The piece is incredibly muddled in its thinking, full of logical fallacies and pretends to amount to much, much more than what it really amounts to (which is nothing at all).

It is because I haven't yet been able to find an adequate answer to my question that I asked it here.

Could anyone answer my question in their own words: Why use a missile rather than a plane?

[Fred]

Hi Craig,

Here's an analogy I like to use: if you had to tighten some screws for a project you were working on, would you rather use:

a.) An airplane hijacked by religious fanatics?
b.) A tomato?
c.) A screwdriver?

There is an entire industry that makes tools designed to create large fireballs and blow up buildings. The tricky part about 9/11 was blaming an enemy that had no means of attacking America. If you want to blow up a building, you use the right tools for the job.

Now, the second part of the problem is blaming it on Afghanistan. How do you accomplish that? Now you've entered the arena of Psyops. Their job is to use mass media to convince people of things that are untrue. It's what they do. They had embedded Psyop personnel working in CNN's newsroom since 2000 to learn how to "bring down an informational cone of silence over the news media". Please read the Minsistry of Defence's excellent paper "Manipulating the Media" by Stephen Badsey.

Cheers,

Fred

[Craig W]

Hi Craig,

Here's an analogy I like to use: if you had to tighten some screws for a project you were working on, would you rather use:

a.) An airplane hijacked by religious fanatics?
b.) A tomato?
c.) A screwdriver?

There is an entire industry that makes tools designed to create large fireballs and blow up buildings. The tricky part about 9/11 was blaming an enemy that had no means of attacking America. If you want to blow up a building, you use the right tools for the job.

Now, the second part of the problem is blaming it on Afghanistan. How do you accomplish that? Now you've entered the arena of Psyops. Their job is to use mass media to convince people of things that are untrue. It's what they do. They had embedded Psyop personnel working in CNN's newsroom since 2000 to learn how to "bring down an informational cone of silence over the news media". Please read the Minsistry of Defence's excellent paper "Manipulating the Media" by Stephen Badsey.

Cheers,

Fred

Hello Fred,

Yet another cryptic response. Why is it so difficult for anyone with this view to give a straight answer?! Why the evasiveness?

Your analogy is totally irrelevant and not at all applicable. Please try and answer the questions.

Are you of the opinion that missiles hit the WTCs that day? Yes or no?

If yes then I refer you to these questions from my original post:

Why use a missile instead of a plane, when a plane is effectively a missile (a flying thing that will damage whatever it hits) and you don't have the complications of having to create TV fakery, hush up any eye-witnesses, and artifically create a plane-shaped hole at the exact moment of impact?

It would seem much, much simpler to use a plane. It has the major advantage of looking like a plane, which neatly fits the cover story. And it obviates the need for TV fakery, hushing up eye witnesses and somehow creating a plane-shaped hole. It can also be loaded with explosives to cause similar damage to a missile (if that is desired).

Please explain this. What am I missing?

Try and answer the question directly, rationally and simply. Thanks.

[Craig W]

Why use a missile instead of a plane, when a plane is effectively a missile (a flying thing that will damage whatever it hits) and you don't have the complications of having to create TV fakery, hush up any eye-witnesses, and artifically create a plane-shaped hole at the exact moment of impact?

It would seem much, much simpler to use a plane. It has the major advantage of looking like a plane, which neatly fits the cover story. And it obviates the need for TV fakery, hushing up eye witnesses and somehow creating a plane-shaped hole. It can also be loaded with explosives to cause similar damage to a missile (if that is desired).

Please explain this. What am I missing?

Try and answer the question directly, rationally and simply. Thanks.

Then why crash anything in the WTC at all? THAT would be much simpler.

This question is a red herring.

You could ask the same question of those who believe a missile hit the WTCs: Why not just blow the towers?

Answering this question in no way answers my question as to why they would use a missile instead of a plane.

Any chance of a straight answer from anyone?

[Fred]

Hi Craig:

1. Missiles are designed to blow up buildings. What do you think missiles are meant to do? Transport passengers from airport to airport?

2. Commercial jetliners are not designed to blow up buildings.

3. TV is a mass communication medium

4. 9/11 was an inside job

5. People learned about 9/11 from TV

6. Insiders used TV to spread the 9/11 lie

Got it? Why don't you tell us what you learned from the Ministry of Defence paper I referred you to. I think if you are going to ask questions twice you should at least have done your homework once.

[Craig W]

No, I'm afraid not, Fred. I haven't got it. Or at least what you appear to be trying to demonstrate. I have however deepened my knowledge of the evasive tactics of some on here. I wonder why you and others who share this view might be so evasive...

I see you managed to avoid answering my questions yet again.

The behaviour pattern is clear for anyone to see: state opinion as fact and avoid all awkward questions and attempts to engage in rational discourse.

To which MoD paper are you referring? I have no recollection of this.

Any chance you could answer my questions?

[Stefan]

Hi Craig:

1. Missiles are designed to blow up buildings. What do you think missiles are meant to do? Transport passengers from airport to airport?

But don't we all agree that the imapct of the object did not blow up the building? Whether we favour explosives and thermite or a directed energy weapon, the general consensus seems to be that the buildings were stable post impact.

2. Commercial jetliners are not designed to blow up buildings.

Again, I thought we all agreed that the impact of whatever hit these building is not what caused their collapse?

3. TV is a mass communication medium

Yes...

4. 9/11 was an inside job

Certainly...

5. People learned about 9/11 from TV

Most people did, a good few thousand saw it with their own eyes.

6. Insiders used TV to spread the 9/11 lie

Absolutley, there is consensus on this as well. But to what extent is surley what is up for debate here.

Some would say that they did this by only ever showing reports of the pre collapse explosions once and never mentioning them again, by burying building 7 immediatley after it had been reported and by showing the towers coming down over and over again while building and repeating the myth of the Muslim plot without proof they conditioned people into accepting only a very small portion of what was shown that day originally as the events, and then through repetition got them to accept a whole lot that was not proved or even suggested by evidence.

That TV was used to spread the 9/11 lie is pretty much not debatable, but that TV faked everything we saw that day certainly is.

Got it? Why don't you tell us what you learned from the Ministry of Defence paper I referred you to. I think if you are going to ask questions twice you should at least have done your homework once.

No I don't get it, and I think a lot of others don't as well. Which is why you are being asked a lot of questions. I don't think the above has sufficiently answered them at all.

[Fred]

Stefan, maybe the reason you don't get it is because it's too complicated for you. Why don't you try playing checkers instead?

[Stefan]

I prefer chess.

[Fred]

Hi Craig,

The second part of your question is interesting, that of "why use anything at all." I think there is an excellent chance that some sort of fly-by plane was indeed used to give the startled eyewitnesses something to see.

In his excellent new video, Andrew Watson includes a clip from a woman who may have seen a plane fly past the building.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/AD6491BD ... esses.aspx

[Craig W]

Fred, in case you missed the point of this thread, it was to find out from the horse's mouth (ie those who believe the WTCs were hit by missiles) why the attackers would use missiles and not planes.

Please stick to this subject.

Your failure to answer my simple questions only serves to undermine your view on this matter.

Any answers would be gratefully received.

[Fred]

I gave you analogy that went over your head, and then I gave you six reasons.

Did you need more than six reasons?

[Stefan]

Fred,
I've responded to those sic reasons and am still waiting your response.

This is what a debate is, and if you are really convinced the truth is on your side, it is the route to convincing us of it.

You present an idea.

An opponent counters that idea.

You deal with that countering and flesh out your idea further.

And so on.

Your MO is:

You present an idea.

An opponent counters that idea.

You call the opponent a nasty name or rudely dismiss them and repeat the idea.

And so on.

[Fred]

Six more reasons to use missiles instead of planes:

1. Missiles are cheaper
2. Missiles are used in wargame exercises
3. Missiles are harder to see on RADAR
4. Missile coordinates can be programmed by one person, and the team launching the missile does not need to know its intended target
5. Missiles are smaller and easier to smuggle
6. Crews at commercial and military airports do not need to notice an unscheduled take off of a missile because they can be launched from anywhere in the world, most planes need runways and therefore can be launched only in the presence of airport staff

[Dogsmilk]

Fred - could you possibly explain how the Stephen Badsey paper in any way specifically supports your 'tv trickery' hypothesis? He's talking about war reporting. If you liked that, I suggest you read this - http://www.amazon.co.uk/First-Casualty- ... 735&sr=8-2 - it's excellent. Manipulation of the media is well understood and documented - propaganda is vital to any regime. However, what you are suggesting implies the direct collusion and full knowledge of the media - that they were directly 'part of it', they were directly 'in on it'. This is very much stronger than standard claims of media complicity in allowing propaganda to pass as fact The ability to inject totally CGI footage and have that broadcast as real implies actual direct control of the media as opposed to attempting to manipulate what it says. Badsey says not one word about the media being overtly controlled and wilfully collusive with domestic mass murderers. And he isn't saying anything that plenty of people who wouldn't even countenance LIHOP yet alone your stuff wouldn't nevertheless agree with. I don't get how you think it backs your case.

[Fred]

Dogs, If that's your interest why not read "Winning CNN Wars".

Why do you think Mr Badsey was asked by MoD to write a paper on "Manipulating the Media" in 2000? He protests that the title was not of his own choosing. In the paper he clearly states the question of whether the Media of a Western country, and in particular the United States, could be manipulated into supporting a war.

Tell me in your own words who commissioned this paper and why.

[Craig W]

Six more reasons to use missiles instead of planes:

1. Missiles are cheaper
2. Missiles are used in wargame exercises
3. Missiles are harder to see on RADAR
4. Missile coordinates can be programmed by one person, and the team launching the missile does not need to know its intended target
5. Missiles are smaller and easier to smuggle
6. Crews at commercial and military airports do not need to notice an unscheduled take off of a missile because they can be launched from anywhere in the world, wheras most planes need runways

Jeez, you're hilarious. I mean laugh out loud, hilarious.

1) Like the perps are short of money - duh!
2) So are planes - duh!
3) Red herring. Why would that matter?
4) see 3
5) Eh? Smuggle by whom, why and from where?
6) see 3.

Is that really the best you can do? I'm amazed.

Do you really believe you have answered my questions?

Look again. And here's another one:

What was the purpose of the missiles?

[schizophrenogenic element]

Six more reasons to use missiles instead of planes:

1. Missiles are cheaper
2. Missiles are used in wargame exercises
3. Missiles are harder to see on RADAR
4. Missile coordinates can be programmed by one person, and the team launching the missile does not need to know its intended target
5. Missiles are smaller and easier to smuggle
6. Crews at commercial and military airports do not need to notice an unscheduled take off of a missile because they can be launched from anywhere in the world, wheras most planes need runways

Jeez, you're hilarious. I mean laugh out loud, hilarious.

1) Like the perps are short of money - duh!
2) So are planes - duh!
3) Red herring. Why would that matter?
4) see 3
5) Eh? Smuggle by whom, why and from where?
6) see 3.

Is that really the best you can do? I'm amazed.

Do you really believe you have answered my questions?

Look again. And here's another one:

What was the purpose of the missiles?

Craig, what does the 'W' stand for..., oh, I see, hahaha, yes, I see now.

[Fred]

Hilarious, huh?

Now you have 12 reasons and you're clearly too stupid to understand any of them, here are a couple of more points to beat into that thick skull of yours.

13. The plane wouldn't have damaged the building seriously.
14. The building was designed to withstand plane impacts
15. The engineer who designed the building said it would be like pushing a pencil through a screen door
16. The TV audience and even the intellectually feeble would notice that the plane had failed to damage the building in any significant fashion.

I don't find you very funny. I just think you're rather dull, Criag. That's not an insult it's just an observation.