19 votes

I need help with a question regarding the planes hitting the towers on 9/11.

I was speaking with a close friend of mine, a former military man, about 9/11 and the different theories about it. I was telling him how more and more people were beginning to believe that our own government was behind the attacks. With that thought in mind, he asked me a question that I could not answer. The question is this: if our government was behind the attacks and planned on blaming terrorist for it, why use planes, then explosions to bring them down? Why not just use explosives and then blame that on the terrorist, since they are known for using explosives anyways? He said he felt that, if this is true, then what is the point of using planes? He said it's like stabbing someone to death, then shooting them to cover up the bullet holes. I would love to give him a logical reason, but I couldn't think of one. Can someone help me out with this? Thanks

PS
This is a real question, I am not trying to say I believe the official reasons for 9/11, so please don't down vote me. :)



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Quid pro quo and then some:

money made on airline stocks, TSA instituted (which is translating into other area of public transportation), blame the implosion on the hot kerosene fires (absurd but most people won't question it), and Silversitein is still cleaning up by currently pursuing a lawsuit against American Airlines for negligence.

Then there was the meme that 'airplanes used as weapons' was a long-time threat of terroists. Ha! See how it came true? Our government is so smart...gosh.

How could a terrorist rig a building for implosion? The 1993 bombing barely made a dent in the Towers. Blaming the fall of the Towers on the fires caused by the planes softens the specualtrion (of how terrorists could rig three buildings for implosion) and is more easily swallowed by the masses.

Private contractors could easily do the implosion rigging disguised as maintenance workers, etc. The Towers were full of asbestos and there was long time talk of bringing them down and rebuilding because the retrofitting for the asbestos was so costly BUT so was imploding and rebuilding.

Soooo...a terrorist attack works nicely allowing tax-funded insurance companies to foot the bill. Who cares about all the asbestos relased into the air and the paltry 3000 people killed - we bottom feeders don't matter.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

You nailed it: KEEP EYE ON THE BALL

It was reported all over the MSM that the day prior and in days prior to the attacks, airline shorts were purchased by the MILLIONS in GEOMETRIC ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater than they ever had been.

Then the shorts were sold.

This was the subject of an FBI investigation and was put to bed quietly never to have been heard from since.

But the records are still there.

Someone bought those airline shorts in the day and days before and they sold them. FINCEN.gov at Dept Treas has the records. They know who it was.

KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL.

If there was ever a "smoking gun" that's it.

Yep the shorts are the smoking gun.

All other excuses fall apart in the face of them.

Well, that and PNAC.

I Disagree On The Shorts

First off, I should say that I *DO NOT* believe the official story. However, I disagree w/ your interpretation about the short sellers being the "smoking gun". Why? Because even if the official story is true, there would still be people (the people who funded/planned the job) who knew on 9/10/2001 that there were going to be hijackings the next day. Couldn't they have shorted the airline stocks?

If you want a smoking gun, I still say WTC 7 and the Pentagon lawn. And the wargames that occurred on 9/11. And the fact that the planes were hijacked for an hour without there being any defense planes to track them down. And the "stand down" order to NORAD from Dick Cheney. And the fact that they carted away the steel and shipped it off to China without investigating it. And the fact that NIST didn't test for explosives. And the fact that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. And the "free fall" of the buildings. I'll just stop there.

They DID short the stocks.

And the records exist.

sharkhearted's picture

The other smoking gun is

....controlled demolition.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

That's not provable though.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you. However, you don't have hard evidence for it, it has to be deduced.

However, the HARD RECORDS of the puts buys and sells EXIST.

The records are THERE. And FINCEN.gov has them as well as the brokerages and the SEC.

Those records will show who bought record numbers of puts on airline stocks in the days prior. Those records also show who sold them and made FORTUNES.

There is hard evidence in the

There is hard evidence in the form of a peer-reviewed scientific publication that shows residue of high-grade thermate...

There are literally dozens of smoking guns.

I'm not going to argue on this.

You don't have to convince me I ALREADY AGREE.

The evidence you mention must be DEDUCED.

However, the evidence of the stock put purchases and sales IS DOCUMENTED AND EXISTS in the government hands right now which NAMES NAMES.

There is no amount of deduced evidence that can stack up to that hard evidence which exists RIGHT NOW.

Remember, the goal was to get Americans hating the

Middle East. Hollywood spent years conditioning people to automatically associate plane hijackings with the big bad Arabs. Once "it happened in real life" they didn't even need to be sold on it. Simply using explosives could have led to suspecting a McVeigh (sp) type was responsible. Not to mention it had to be viewed by as many people as possible.

Q: What was the first thing

Q: What was the first thing Hitler did?
A: Restrict travel.

"papers please"

It's the whole boiling a frog in cold water idea. Start slowly by making the people submit to unconstitutional orders, "for their own safety". The 4th amendment is absolutely dead because of the TSA. Now that they saw that people were willing to give up that right with absolutely no objection, the rest of our rights are starting to fall (NDAA, drones, Patiot Act, Free speech zones, gun restrictions, etc.)

Without the planes, there is no justification for TSA, which lead to everything else.

Nothing like TSA or any of the other above mentioned violations came after all those embassy bombings or OKC.

The planes were a misdirection

is my theory. I am convinced by the evidence that all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. We are asked to believe that all three buildings were brought down by fire when no other high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.

The planes were used to start the fires that supposedly brought down the buildings. The NIST report blames the planes and the fires they caused. Bringing the buildings down by controlled demolition alone would be too obvious and any investigation would necessarily have gone in a different direction than the one that was undertaken. It was easy to blame the planes and it was easy for an uninformed, government-can-do-wrong public to believe the official story.

People are not willing to believe that their own government would do something as dastardly as kill innocent civilians to create a justification for going to war. I am not personally ready to believe that until an investigation uncovers who the perpetrators are. However, I wouldn't be surprised if 9/11 was an inside job. After all, Roosevelt provoked the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor so he could justify going to war.

sharkhearted's picture

This is your theory....

...and that of many more of people EVERY DAY.

Right there with ya. Spot on observations.

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

Easy - How would they explain

Easy - How would they explain how the terrorists wired the 3 buildings without anyone knowing, particuarily with all the security and cameras.

How do you explain

That our own government wired the building without anyone noticing? If the terrorists couldn;t do it, why do you think our government did. Fer chrissakes, it is quite obvious that there were real terrorists, and real planes were flown into real buildings, real people died. If you want to find conspiracy somewhere look no further than the folks who took advantage of the attacks to advance an agenda that seeks to remove the rights of the american people. These same people are not even necessarily knowing that theyare doing it, they are just stupid panicky folks just like the average voter who supports them, they want to do SOMETHING to make themselves safe. When you are terrified the terrorists will get you any moment, almost any half-witted asinine "solution" will work for you. It is simple human nature showing its worst form, we all know it, let's stop tryignt o make up some cockamamie theory to explain it, and just accept that it is something inside all of us that we must always struggle to overcome.

Josh Brueggen
Engineer
Entrepreneur
Gardener
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

Gee Josh

with all of those down votes, I would have thought a response was in order.

What's wrong, can't take being quesitoned like Larry Silverstein? Lol, it's funny that you're acting exactly like TPTB when asked questions. But hey, you're entitled to an opinion...just not the facts.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

They did it during the security stand downs prior to the attack.

That was when everything was finalized. The actual dirty work took part as they were "renovating" floor by floor in the months prior.

See, that was easy now wasn't it?

Care to guess who was a prominent figure in the security company that had a contract on the building complex?

And by "they" I mean whomever did it. Not necessarily "our government."

How many monkey's

can dance on the head of a pin?

Cointelpro Sentiment

No one is claiming "our government" planted explosives!

Only statists and media propagandists make that claim.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Marvin Bush's (W's brother)

Marvin Bush's (W's brother) security firm Stratasec was responsible for security at the WTC. There were numerous "renovations" going on weeks before the attack. I always wonder what Rudy Gulianos command center in WTC 7 was really used for. Maybe he was just responsible for releasing the dancing Mossad agents & the criminal destruction of evidence. All just coincidences I'm sure.

Also, people reported the

Also, people reported the electricity had to be shut down as part of the renovations at night and conveniently the security cameras were unoperational for the days leading up to the crash. It would be tough to explain that terrorits could pull that off and not be detected. Yes - easier to be on the inside and do the job.

Confused

So you are saying that it's not more believable that insiders are better positioned to get...uhm...inside?

The other option WAS TRIED.

In 1993. They tried and failed.

Using planes

gives us the TSA. TSA is the enforcement arm of the DHS.

Because the Saudi terrorists were planning a plane-based

Attack. They were allowed, even encouraged, to carry out their attack and select groups within the international intelligence community got the buildings all ready to make sure this attack wouldn't be forgotten. Just a theory.

Careful - I don't trust you now.

Before I answer, here is why I don't trust your honesty, you said:
"more and more people were beginning to believe that our own government was behind the attacks."
NO!
More and more people do not believe the official story. -or-
More and more people think rogue elements without our intelligence services and Mossad worked together to carry out 9/11. -or-
More and more people believe that there are many who have not been brought to justice for 9/11. -or-
More and more people want a new investigation becasue 2 planes did not cause the total collapse of 3 skyscrapers.
Etc....

Using your phrasing is the way the media describes 9/11 truthers - they think "the gobmint" did it. People like Glenn Beck then say: "I cannot believe that our elected officials killed 3000 of their own citizens" or some such reply. It creates the idea that everyone knew about it, down to the Undersecretary of Agriculture, and then detractors will say "there is no way everyone in the government would keep quiet - why are there no whistleblowers?".

Am I making sense? It often appears to me that anyone who makes a claim like yours, that "the government" committed 9/11, tends to be opposite of someone after truth.

All that said....Having worked in live entertainment and technical theatre - it sure is easier to make someone "appear" on stage with a flash of light and a noise on the other side. All it takes is everyone in the audience to turn their head for a second, and poof - magic. I think the answer is the same concept, slight of hand. For several decades the meme of Middle-Eastern men hijacking airplanes was pretty much drilled into everyone's brain, from TV shows to movies, to "real" news stories. And remember, the flgiht that crashed in PA was, most likely, supposed to hit Building 7. Without "missiles", the idea that some cave-jockeys from Afghanistan were capable of planting explosives and taking down 3 of the largest buildings in NY in one day is even too absurd for the average person.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

I never understood why people find governments killing their own

is so unbelievable.

It's not like we don't have plenty of examples throughout history.

Heck, of all the perps guilty of killing innocent people, governments enjoy the top 30-50 or spots, maybe more.

Simple

Because it is never "the government". It is always a small cabal inside the government. It is always an elite group of bankers and financiers that aren't even part of the government that have successfully fooled the people.

Like I mentioned, saying "the government" committed 9/11 is by default creating the assumption that every member of Congress (Ron Paul included) knew the plan and helped; that every senate aid was helping guide the operation; that the assistant to the Secretary of the Interior was calling friends and telling them not to fly. It just is extremely absurd, much less believable - which is why it is the most common propaganda used against 9/11 truth.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Yes

You caught me! MUAHAHAHAHA! I fooled you all! * rolls eyes* I really don't care that you don't trust me. My question was sincere, and you are welcome not to answer if you "don't trust me".

So, yes?

I didn't doubt the sincerety of the question, outside of the phrasing used. Do you understand why it is bad use of words? I'm just trying to help.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain