Why were planes used?

[Cartesiantheater]

For those conspiracy theorists who believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US using explosives, but that planes actually did hit the towers in an attempt to make it look like a terrorist attack:

Basically I have a question for those of you 'theorists who fit the category mentioned above.

If the US did bring down the towers with explosives, and also caused airplanes to hit the towers (and used this as the official explanation), why didn't they just use the explosives alone and just say that terrorists used hidden demolitions to bring down the towers? Why did they use airplanes when all they had to do was use bombs and blame it on the terrorists?

[stewey]

For those conspiracy theorists who believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US using explosives, but that planes actually did hit the towers in an attempt to make it look like a terrorist attack:

Basically I have a question for those of you 'theorists who fit the category mentioned above.

If the US did bring down the towers with explosives, and also caused airplanes to hit the towers (and used this as the official explanation), why didn't they just use the explosives alone and just say that terrorists used hidden demolitions to bring down the towers? Why did they use airplanes when all they had to do was use bombs and blame it on the terrorists?

That would make too much sense, and conspiracy theorists enjoy using really complex conspiracies.

[Freakshow]

For those conspiracy theorists who believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US using explosives, but that planes actually did hit the towers in an attempt to make it look like a terrorist attack:

Basically I have a question for those of you 'theorists who fit the category mentioned above.

If the US did bring down the towers with explosives, and also caused airplanes to hit the towers (and used this as the official explanation), why didn't they just use the explosives alone and just say that terrorists used hidden demolitions to bring down the towers? Why did they use airplanes when all they had to do was use bombs and blame it on the terrorists?

HYPOTHETICALLY. If the US was behind 9/11, I can think of several reasons why they would have used planes and not just go with explosions alone.

1. Perhaps they believed that the idea that terrorists snuck that many explosives into the twin towers under out noses would raise to many questions.

2.Dramatics. The planes hitting is much more dramatic than just the bombs going off. It prolongs the experience leaving a much longer lasting impression.

[Justice]

This is easy to answer !

It was made for the silver screen and the first impact ensures the world would be watching the second impact live on TV, straight out of Holywood but it’s so strange that no footage showing a plane hitting the Pentagon has been released and this place is only the most protected building in the world with CCTV’s placed every 100 meters on the roof of the building and SAM missiles systems that didn’t work , Ha Ha and did the share value of the companies that produced this missiles go down or go up on the 9/11. Come now we all know the answer to that one.

Was once a conspiracy that the world was round and the sun did not orbit the earth.

[Cartesiantheater]

Well, do you remember the Oklahoma City bombing? There was nothing spectacular about it, and a much smaller amount of people died, but the entire nation was still glued to the screen. If there were nothing but bombs, trust me, the entire world would be watching, in time to see the second one fall. I didn't even know about the airplanes until about two hours after the collapse (I was in school taking a test), but I still knew about it and was frantic. It doesn't matter- the WTC falling would tune in the whole world no matter what the catalyst.

(btw- The theory of the world being spherical and the sun's orbit were NOT conspiracy theories because, by definition, conspiracy theories can not be proven wrong. All they had to do to disprove the above theories was to show that the math was inconsistent with the stellar observations- so they were falsifiable. That's why they were NOT conspiracy theories)

But, your explanation and the one above would seem like the best that there is. Unless...

Here's another conspiracy theory that I just thought of! (it may already be a common one; I don't really look into them) What if the US gov. had intelligence of the exact hour that terrorists were planning to hit the buildings with the planes, and the Gov. intended to use the attacks as an excuse for world domination, but also rigged the buildings with explosives in strategic places to ensure that the attacks would succeed in bringing the towers down? The attacks were genuine and independent, but they were allowed and helped by the US gov.- that is, the terrorists had no idea that they were pawns. How 'bout that one?

[Ningishiddza]

Well, do you remember the Oklahoma City bombing? There was nothing spectacular about it

Actually there was. Read and study effeciency of work, particularly as it relates to explosions.

I'll give a perfect example, which also illustrates problems with the government's theories about Oklahoma City.

Plutonium. Specifically, Plutonium 239. Let's assume we have 1 kg of pure plutonium 239.

1 kg * 1000 g/kg = 1,000 g

1,000 g of Pu239 contains how many atoms?

1,000 g / 239 g/mol = 4.18 mol

4.18 mol * 6.022 x 10^23 atoms/mol = 2.52 x 10^24 atoms of Pu239

The fissioning of any atom produces 180 MeV (million electron volts) of energy.

Therefore:

2.52 x 10^24 * 180 MeV = 4.53 x 10^26 MeV of energy.

1 kiloton = 2.62 x 10^25 MeV of energy

Therefore:

4.53 x 10^26 MeV / 2.62 x 10^25 MeV = 17.3 kt

Accordingly then, 1 kg of plutonium can be used in a nuclear warhead with a yield of 17.3 kt, right?

If that's true, then why do most countries need 4.4 to 4.6 kg of Pu239 to produce a warhead with a yield of just 1 kt or less (the US now can squeak by with 3.5 kg to get a 1 kt yield)?

It has to do with the efficiency of work. Here, it is assumed that every single Pu239 atom in the 1 kg mass fissions, but in reality, it does not, because the dynamics of a nuclear explosion are not 100% efficient.

With respect to efficiency, Pu239 is better than U235, which is better than PBX, which is better that C-4, which is better than TNT, which is better than gunpowder, which is better than gasoline, which is better than diesel.

Where do thing ammonium nitrate fertilizer soaked in diesel falls into place?

Between gasoline and gunpowder.

You've probably heard of nitrate tests, and if you watch the crime dramas, they talk about gun powder residue tests. Same thing. When you fire a weapon, like a rifle or pistol, 100% of the gunpowder DOES NOT burn. The unburned gunpowder is expelled by the expanding hot gases through cracks and crevices in the chamber, the bolt, the recoil spring and the trigger and trigger housing.

The unburned gundpower becomes embedded in the 4th, 5th and 6th layers of your skin in your hands, and if you fire a rifle, in the skin of your cheeks and chin.

A nitrate test will detect the presence of unburnt gunpowder. As you all know, Oswald was given a nitrate test that was positive for gunpowerd residue on his right hand, but not his left hand and not his face. It proved that Oswald fired a hand-gun (which he freely admitted) but did not fire a rifle (which he vehemently denied).

When ammonium nitrate fertizer is soaked in diesel and used as a bomb, 100% of the ammonium nitrate fertilizer does not burn, just like 100% of C-4 does not burn in an explosion. That's how we can tell whether or not C-4 or fertilizer or anything else was used, because unburnt residue remains and can be collected as evidence and tested.

And this is important, because the Amercan public is poorly educated in sciences and cannot think critically anyway, so when the government says a 50 pound bag of fertilizer is equivalent to 5 tons of TNT (hypothetically speaking --I don't recall the exact ratio) that is exactly what they mean: equivalent, in theory, but not in reality.

That's why McVeigh's defense team sought to subpoena the FBI's bomb expert, but the government successfully blocked it, because the FBI's expert's testimony would have been damaging to the government. It's also why many families of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing contributed money to McVeigh's defense fund, because the truth was being hidden by the government.

The amount of fertilizer used was not sufficient to cause that type of damage.

Worse still, it doesn't even begin to address other issues. For example, all of the bags of fertilizer would have to have been detonated simultaneously, to the millisecond. Failure to do so would result in delayed detonation creating blast effect waves that cancel each other out, reducing the effectiveness.

Think back to the 1 kg of Pu239. When a thin hollow-shelled sphere is imploded, it creates an inelastic collision. What happens when you roll 2 billiard balls at each other? The collide and bounce apart in opposite directions. A thin shelled hollow sphere does the same thing. For that reason, there are two plastic explosive lenses laminated together and detonated milliseconds apart. The first shockwave collapses the thin hollow shelled sphere. As it starts to fly apart, just like billiard balls, the second shockwave exerts pressure to keep the Pu239 together long enough to fission as many atoms as possible, before other forces, like heat, begin to expand the Pu239.

That's your physics lesson for today. Now, go out there and build a bomb.

[Justice]

"Here's another conspiracy theory that I just thought of! (it may already be a common one; I don't really look into them) What if the US gov. had intelligence of the exact hour that terrorists were planning to hit the buildings with the planes, and the Gov. intended to use the attacks as an excuse for world domination, but also rigged the buildings with explosives in strategic places to ensure that the attacks would succeed in bringing the towers down? The attacks were genuine and independent, but they were allowed and helped by the US gov.- that is, the terrorists had no idea that they were pawns. How 'bout that one?"

The evidence does not point to government being stupid it points to the government being complicit in arranging the 9/11 attack from start to finish unless it was a real thing and government just want to create the impression that they did it so lots of conspiracies will pop up to be shoot down at a later stage so that no one will ever listen to a theory again, and then they can pull of what they like and know they will get away with it.

I could be telling you the truth but I could also tell it in such as way that you would never believe what I’m telling you, if you get my point.

[Demonskates]

I agree,i think that the idea of terrorists wireing the wtc towers would have seemed to far fetched.they needed the planes to make it more plausible.
plus the fallout after the explosions(had terrorists wired the wtc towers with explosives)would have been insane,"who the hell was in charge of security" "you didnt notice a bunch of guys planting explosives!?? "
They didnt want our people to be accountable for something like that.
they wanted the "terrorists" to be the scape goat.

[Jupiter]

On topic, but just a slight diversion (not enough to warrant a thread). Was the date chosen because it is the same as U.S. Emergency services number 911, do you suppose?

[Demonskates]

On topic, but just a slight diversion (not enough to warrant a thread). Was the date chosen because it is the same as U.S. Emergency services number 911, do you suppose?
Ive wondered that myself.

[Demonskates]

"Here's another conspiracy theory that I just thought of! (it may already be a common one; I don't really look into them) What if the US gov. had intelligence of the exact hour that terrorists were planning to hit the buildings with the planes, and the Gov. intended to use the attacks as an excuse for world domination, but also rigged the buildings with explosives in strategic places to ensure that the attacks would succeed in bringing the towers down? The attacks were genuine and independent, but they were allowed and helped by the US gov.- that is, the terrorists had no idea that they were pawns. How 'bout that one?"

The evidence does not point to government being stupid it points to the government being complicit in arranging the 9/11 attack from start to finish unless it was a real thing and government just want to create the impression that they did it so lots of conspiracies will pop up to be shoot down at a later stage so that no one will ever listen to a theory again, and then they can pull of what they like and know they will get away with it.

I could be telling you the truth but I could also tell it in such as way that you would never believe what I’m telling you, if you get my point.

Not a bad theory,they are useing the divison of peoples beleifs,the u.s. did it,the terrorists did it,as thier own disinformation campaign.
Like with roswell,a saucer crashed,no it didnt,it cant be proved either way,it has its own built in disinformation system.

same thing with JFK.Because of all the conspiracy theorys,or nay sayers,mounds of disinformation makes the issue even harder to see through,confuseing the public,and hindering any attempt at getting the truth.

Heres a scenario to illustrate my point.
Say the government finds out from the top scientists and astronomers that the world was going to end at the end of this week,due to some horrific collision with an asteroid.
do you think the government would admit that?No it would cause world wide panic and chaos.
but the scientists and astronomers let the world know because its peoples right to know.
when the government is asked about it they say everything is fine,despite what the astronomers and scientists are saying,to keep order.
Its then left up to the public to decide for themselves what is true or not,there will be evidence to support what both sides are saying.Two sides of the story are out there, one is true and one is not,the government knows that,and uses it,
the public itself is the one creating the misinformation that the government is relying on to keep order.buisness as usual.originally there were to sides to the story,but through disinformation,by the end of it there are hundreds of storys,obscuring what is fact and what is fiction.
the government loves conspiracy theorists because in the end it helps the government more than if there werent conspiracy theorys.It confuses the public to the degree that they dont know what to think,so they dont think about it.(or at least Jon Q. Public anyway)
The government relies on these divisions so that the real truth is so bogged down with half truths and theories that the real truth is next to impossible for anyone to decipher.
Even when the government lied,which we all know they like to do,it doesnt make things cut and dry,and when Jon Q. Public gets involved,disinformation becomes rampant.
Its a slick system that I feel the Government uses all the time to get away from issues they dont want to deal with.

[Cartesiantheater]

Actually there was. Read and study effeciency of work, particularly as it relates to explosions.

I'll give a perfect example, which also illustrates problems with the government's theories about Oklahoma City.

Plutonium. Specifically, Plutonium 239. Let's assume we have 1 kg of pure plutonium 239.

1 kg * 1000 g/kg = 1,000 g

1,000 g of Pu239 contains how many atoms?

1,000 g / 239 g/mol = 4.18 mol

4.18 mol * 6.022 x 10^23 atoms/mol = 2.52 x 10^24 atoms of Pu239

The fissioning of any atom produces 180 MeV (million electron volts) of energy.

Therefore:

2.52 x 10^24 * 180 MeV = 4.53 x 10^26 MeV of energy.

1 kiloton = 2.62 x 10^25 MeV of energy

Therefore:

4.53 x 10^26 MeV / 2.62 x 10^25 MeV = 17.3 kt

Accordingly then, 1 kg of plutonium can be used in a nuclear warhead with a yield of 17.3 kt, right?

If that's true, then why do most countries need 4.4 to 4.6 kg of Pu239 to produce a warhead with a yield of just 1 kt or less (the US now can squeak by with 3.5 kg to get a 1 kt yield)?

It has to do with the efficiency of work. Here, it is assumed that every single Pu239 atom in the 1 kg mass fissions, but in reality, it does not, because the dynamics of a nuclear explosion are not 100% efficient.

With respect to efficiency, Pu239 is better than U235, which is better than PBX, which is better that C-4, which is better than TNT, which is better than gunpowder, which is better than gasoline, which is better than diesel.

Where do thing ammonium nitrate fertilizer soaked in diesel falls into place?

Between gasoline and gunpowder.

You've probably heard of nitrate tests, and if you watch the crime dramas, they talk about gun powder residue tests. Same thing. When you fire a weapon, like a rifle or pistol, 100% of the gunpowder DOES NOT burn. The unburned gunpowder is expelled by the expanding hot gases through cracks and crevices in the chamber, the bolt, the recoil spring and the trigger and trigger housing.

The unburned gundpower becomes embedded in the 4th, 5th and 6th layers of your skin in your hands, and if you fire a rifle, in the skin of your cheeks and chin.

A nitrate test will detect the presence of unburnt gunpowder. As you all know, Oswald was given a nitrate test that was positive for gunpowerd residue on his right hand, but not his left hand and not his face. It proved that Oswald fired a hand-gun (which he freely admitted) but did not fire a rifle (which he vehemently denied).

When ammonium nitrate fertizer is soaked in diesel and used as a bomb, 100% of the ammonium nitrate fertilizer does not burn, just like 100% of C-4 does not burn in an explosion. That's how we can tell whether or not C-4 or fertilizer or anything else was used, because unburnt residue remains and can be collected as evidence and tested.

And this is important, because the Amercan public is poorly educated in sciences and cannot think critically anyway, so when the government says a 50 pound bag of fertilizer is equivalent to 5 tons of TNT (hypothetically speaking --I don't recall the exact ratio) that is exactly what they mean: equivalent, in theory, but not in reality.

That's why McVeigh's defense team sought to subpoena the FBI's bomb expert, but the government successfully blocked it, because the FBI's expert's testimony would have been damaging to the government. It's also why many families of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing contributed money to McVeigh's defense fund, because the truth was being hidden by the government.

The amount of fertilizer used was not sufficient to cause that type of damage.

Worse still, it doesn't even begin to address other issues. For example, all of the bags of fertilizer would have to have been detonated simultaneously, to the millisecond. Failure to do so would result in delayed detonation creating blast effect waves that cancel each other out, reducing the effectiveness.

Think back to the 1 kg of Pu239. When a thin hollow-shelled sphere is imploded, it creates an inelastic collision. What happens when you roll 2 billiard balls at each other? The collide and bounce apart in opposite directions. A thin shelled hollow sphere does the same thing. For that reason, there are two plastic explosive lenses laminated together and detonated milliseconds apart. The first shockwave collapses the thin hollow shelled sphere. As it starts to fly apart, just like billiard balls, the second shockwave exerts pressure to keep the Pu239 together long enough to fission as many atoms as possible, before other forces, like heat, begin to expand the Pu239.

That's your physics lesson for today. Now, go out there and build a bomb.
HAHAHAHAHA! I think you missed the ENTIRE point of my bringing up the Oklahoma City Bombing! What I was saying is that there wasn't any "Hollywood style" stuff like planes crashing into buildings going on, but the country and world were STILL glued to their TV's. This post of yours, although informative (although honestly I skipped after you wrote the numbers relevent to that atoms {moles and such}-because it was irrelevant to the point I was making). I was talking about the IMMEDIATE public reaction IMMEDIATELY after the explosion. I was pointing out that everyone was watching even though there was nothing crazy like airplanes slamming into a building. But thanks anyway. Later today I will analyze this whole post of yours. (if I have time)

[Cartesiantheater]

Aha! All this "government using conspiracy theories" stuff! Now you guys are seeing why I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy (aside from what most scientists are saying)! Don't you see? This 9/11 thing, this FALSE ACCUSATION, IS DISTRACTING THE WORLD FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION'S REAL CRIMES! Like starting a war, invading our privacy by tapping our phones, trying to police the world, and on and on and on. What do you think?

[Demonskates]

Aha! All this "government using conspiracy theories" stuff! Now you guys are seeing why I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy (aside from what most scientists are saying)! Don't you see? This 9/11 thing, this FALSE ACCUSATION, IS DISTRACTING THE WORLD FROM THIS ADMINISTRATION'S REAL CRIMES! Like starting a war, invading our privacy by tapping our phones, trying to police the world, and on and on and on. What do you think?
that was what i was getting at with the whole disinformation theory i have,not only does it obscure the truth,and make it harder to tell what is fact,it also is a major distraction from other things the government is doing.(dont tell my right hand what the left is doing)

[Cartesiantheater]

that was what i was getting at with the whole disinformation theory i have,not only does it obscure the truth,and make it harder to tell what is fact,it also is a major distraction from other things the government is doing.(dont tell my right hand what the left is doing)
Well, I guess then the only part where I disagree with you is that the WTC towers were brought down with explosives- and I don't believe it mainly because I have not seen a scientific paper that makes this claim that has survived peer review, and because of the miraculous fact that no one saw the equipment and material required for a controlled demolition the weeks before the collapse. But as far as using these ideas to get a way with real crimes- that seems quite possible to me.

[Demonskates]

To be honest im not a true conspiracy theorist,im not sure i buy controled demolition either,but im keeping an open mind,a couple of points that people have made are not completely impossible i guess.im just trying to see both arguments,i dont want you to think that i contradict myself,im trying to understand peoples line of reasoning from both perspectives,with each new post i lean one way or the other depending on weather or not it makes any kind of logical sense,all i can say is if the conspiracy theorists turn out to be right,ill have lost all faith in government and humanity.

[Einstein700]

HYPOTHETICALLY. If the US was behind 9/11, I can think of several reasons why they would have used planes and not just go with explosions alone.

1. Perhaps they believed that the idea that terrorists snuck that many explosives into the twin towers under out noses would raise to many questions.


good answer to this thread i think, simplest is usually best too.

If there was no plane everyone would of asked 'how could foreign terrorists plant that much explosives in wtc without being noticed, its not possible!'

speculating here but, I think we all know that if it was staged terrorism act by the US 'black ops' then they could of had whatever security clearances they needed to perform such an operation, the knowledge and equipment to do it and it would all be calculated and planned as accurately and precise as possible to pull it all off within certain minimal timeframes and schedules, all the while knowing which sort of information can and cannot be hidden by their propaganda machine.