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.

Did you even read your own post?

You said you didn't trust him. Saying that his phrasing is wrong is much different than "I don't trust you". I think your phrasing was wrong.

Perhaps

But, it was the choice of words that created distrust. He replied that he was sincere. He could be sincere - and untrustworthy. But, most likely in this case they did not realize how suspicious their "the government did it" is. So, I granted their sincerity as justified momentarily.

But, since they have not responded in kind and acknowledged their use of propaganda language, trust is still not earned.

"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

Kill two birds with one stone

We were convinced we had to start bombing Iraq and that we should be scared, very scared, so they were able to get the DHS, TSA, Patriot Act, etc.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

Why use planes?

Have you ever seen magic tricks preformed before your eyes? You never see the slight of hand..you only see the results. You know its a trick..but you talk about what the trick was..and forget the 'trick' part.
9/11 was a trick on the world. And all the media did was talk about what they saw...nothing about the slight of hand that lead up to it.
Does that help?

I believe in Hope & Change..I Hope the government will Change
Spindale-Rutherford County-North Carolina

Sounds like a James Bond movie

Only the 9/11 conspiracy theory is even more implausible than the fictional spy movies.

Sounds like a case of the Monday's

Only it's Tuesday. Open your eyes and stretch your fingers, because you need to do a lot more research.

Tell me, Dinahtab, do you believe the NIST Report?

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

No doubt about it

The 9/11 "Truthers" have and continue to hurt the Liberty movement.

Could you elaborate on that?

I'm actually glad your conversing with me because most people would have already called me *enter common Conspiracy name here*.

Which theory, exactly, do you not agree with in regards to 9/11 "truthers:" The nanothermite? The NORAD orders? The failure of Jeb Bush's security firm?

I just want to know which part is "hurt[ing]" the Liberty Movement and what you would do to strengthen it.

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

The demolition theory...

...is the most illogical, to put it mildly.

It's time to leave conspiracy theories like that where they belong --in the movies.

That's a no-win fallacy argument

There is no correct answer because any reason given is pure speculation. It is therefore subject to scrutiny and the assumption is that if A is false than B must also be false, when in fact they are mutually exclusive (i.e. WHY & HOW).

Your friend is going about this the wrong way. He's trying to solve a problem with prejudice. That's like saying, "Bob could've never in a million years murdered Sally because he's such a great guy."

Instead, you must look at the facts and go where the evidence leads. That is the path to truth whereas the other will likely lead to a false assumption.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Explosives were used in an attempt in 1993

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

As financial expert Max Keiser has reported, suspicious stock shorts on the businesses located in the WTC and the airlines involved took place in the weeks before 911. Somebody saw the opportunity to make a whole lot of money and, if the only single weapon large enough to take down both towers with minimum collateral damage would have been a mini-nuke, which would have produced fallout and destroyed the property value of the real estate.

access of course

how exactly would the terrorists gain access to every floor to plant the explosives?? The buildings had to come down, the planes were used to hide the fact that explosives actually brought down the towers. Your friend is searching for some way to explain all that went on. There is NO WAY IN HELL the security people would have been able to explain a controlled demolition on both towers. The thought this could have happened without something massive like airplanes is absurd. All you really need to do is show him the ae911 truth video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

Planes

Were used simply because they could install the TSA in the aftermath. Permission to search everyday Americans and condition them. And how much money has been made by the military industrial complex for all those airport scanners, uniforms and other related equipment. I'm sure Mr. Silverstein's insurance on the buildings paid out much higher since they were designed to withstand jet impacts. Not mention just the fear factor, jets are everywhere.

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

The theater is more dramatic when a plane

is used to heighten the fear, which is the ultimate goal. Once the people are scared, they will give up everything.

beephree

Piggy backing on G Class stat. The

Piggy backing on G Class stat. The nano thermite is a military grade explosive. Meaning that only the U.S military has access to it. They would have to explain how AL Qaeda broke in and took explosive from the military.

Access...

... in order for terrorist to bring down the towers they would have needed access to the buildings. And if that was the case, the security firm in charge of the towers would be in the spotlight and have major questions to answer.

They used the planes to create enough damage and fires to the buildings to make their eventual collapse more believable.

=====================================

"The greatest mystery of all is truth." - Me, 2009

Can you explain

How rouge governemnt agents would have access? They certainly couldn't get in and wire the towers by flashing an FBI or CIA badge, can you imagine the rumors that would fly around the buildings if such a thing were to happen. Besides, unlike a normal "trunk and branch" design of a skyscraper, the WTC towers were supported by exterior steel columns with glass in between. There is no way to place explosives on these columns without it being visible.

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

can you explain

WTC # 7 ?

Does this make sense?

A real hijacking some CIA & Mossad were aware of? Allowed it to happen? Spread disinfo that flight 93 was headed for DC to cover up it missing its intended target WTC 7? Have you watched Ryan Dawson's War By Deception?

Easy. Because..

1)Bombs had already been used in previous false flags. Oklahoma City and WTC bombing in 1993. Highlacking planes and flying them into buildings had long been talked about as a potential means of attack by terrorists, despite what Condi Rice lied about when she said "No one could ever have suspecte..".

2)It wasnt actually 'bombs' that brought the buildings down. It was NANO-THERMITE, which is an incinerary. The bombs activated the nano-thermite. Nano-thermite cuts through solid steel like a hot knife through warm butter. So...

3) They needed the planes, to cover up the bombs!

http://www.jbs.org/
Semper Fortis

I think the plan always

was to fly aircraft into the buildings. Remember...a new Pearl Harbor. Something spectacular.

I would imagine, that the idea of taking down the towers evolved from that. The planes were the sizzle and the building collapses were the the steak.

Plus, now they gvt. doesn't have to explain how someone could get access to the buildings to plant the explosives....and clearly, the gvt. does not want to get anywhere near the "secondary explosives" argument. That would nullify the entire narrative.

Why

Would the government take down the towers at all? I expect that the effect of hijacked planes hitting the towers would have been enough to start the wars/ start the TSA/ pass the PATRIOT act. Using explosives to bring down the towers would just be an unnecessary risk to such a nefarious plan, only an idiot would take such an additional risk for little, if any, additional gain. By deductive reasoning then, since it makes no sense for the towers to collapse then the collapse was entirely accidental to the attack (regardless of who was behind it) and if the collapse was not the intentional there is no reason that any explosives would have been planted. I do not see why so many people get hung up on the "government did it" theory to the complete detriment of what the government did CLEARLY do, which is shred the constitution and destroy our natural rights. Let's quit screwing around over this garbage and get our heads in the game, the slimeballs in DC would like nothing more than for us to argue conspiracies forever as it distracts us, while also allowing them to paint us as fring loonies. In fact, have this argument is the outcome they can only sit back and dream would be the outcome, why are so many blind to that?

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

and WTC #7 ??

quoting you (josh):
"since it makes no sense for the towers to collapse
then the collapse was entirely accidental to the attack ..
there is no reason that any explosives would have been planted."

wake up.

Your friend is in denial.

Your friend is in denial.

Fear?

If they didn't use planes, what excuse would there be for us to be molested at airports?

9/11 changed the way people look at air travel. We now have TSA and Homeland Security.

The act of Hijacking an airliner and flying it into a building put fear into the hearts of Americans who ordinarily wouldn't think twice of flying. It opens us up to be accepting of stricter security and less privacy.

Wasn't there a guy on FAUX NEWS who was fired for stating the truth? "I'm no bigot, but when I see a person in muslim attire or garbs, I get a little nervous." (I forgot who said that) (I don't fear muslims, but 9/11 has given many people an excuse to be ignorant and racist)

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

That was Juan Williams of NPR

After he was fired he was picked up by Fox News.

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

AH!

Indeed it was! I can't believe that name escaped me, lol. Thank you sir!

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

Joη's picture

you want views

if you want an answer, use a descriptive title, don't bait, it only annoys.

[note: title was "I need an answer to a question" at time of writing]

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Does that satisfy you?

Does that satisfy you? I changed it.

Joη's picture

you changed it from

"I need an answer to a question" to "I need help with a question please."

That title no further informs me about this post beyond OP's willingness to be politely gimmicky.

later: the title has become "I need help with a question regarding the planes hitting the towers on 9/11." and is more informational, good.

I would've put the crux in the banner, though, something simple like: "If it was faked, why use planes?" But that's just me, now.

Thank you.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?