Motive For Flyover?, Why fly a plane over the pentagon instead of just crash it into it Options

[scott75]

I believe that the plane did indeed fly over. However, I've been asked why bother. Like the twin towers, is it that the buildings would have been much less damaged if they'd simply been hit by the planes instead of with explosives? But then, why not crash them anyway; it's certainly give more credence to the idea that the planes did the damage, as it certainly did with the twin towers, making it easier to cover up the evidence that demolitions were the real things that brought them down.

[painter]

I believe that the plane did indeed fly over. However, I've been asked why bother. Like the twin towers, is it that the buildings would have been much less damaged if they'd simply been hit by the planes instead of with explosives? But then, why not crash them anyway; it's certainly give more credence to the idea that the planes did the damage, as it certainly did with the twin towers, making it easier to cover up the evidence that demolitions were the real things that brought them down.

Welcome to the forum.

You ask for speculation and what you'll get is a lot of differing opinions.

The FACT is, we do not know.

People you may be trying to educate will ask these questions as if they are intelligent questions. It is like the proverbial "well if the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to the passengers?" Well, we don't know. This question has nothing to do with what we DO know. We have to stick with what we DO know and not go too far off in the direction of what we can only speculate about.

[saturnaspider]

why not crash them anyway?

Because, IMHO: if it had have been able to hit the Pentagon (instead of the more likely scenario of a ground crash) the plane would not have penetrated like a missile. Missiles penetrate like missiles (and the military pays top dollar for the privilege of owning such specialized projectiles) and planes crash like planes.

My (IMG:http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Everything_Else/Money/2_cents.gif)

This post has been edited by saturnaspider: Feb 20 2009, 12:03 AM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

There were no missiles used in the Pentagon attack.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence for a missile.

But the motive for the flyover is obvious.

The main difference between the WTC and the Pentagon attacks is the fact that they did not plan to completely demolish their own headquarters.

Naturally they would want complete control of the damage down to surgical precision and this would not be able to be accurately predicted with a large airliner as opposed to pre-planted explosives.

Therefore it was virtually the exact same M.O. as at the WTC.

Real planes used as psychological tools while the true destruction was covertly implemented with pre-planted explosives.

In both cases the planes were relatively insignificant to the end result when considering the physical destruction.

[trvl4freedom]

I believe that the plane did indeed fly over. However, I've been asked why bother. Like the twin towers, is it that the buildings would have been much less damaged if they'd simply been hit by the planes instead of with explosives? But then, why not crash them anyway; it's certainly give more credence to the idea that the planes did the damage, as it certainly did with the twin towers, making it easier to cover up the evidence that demolitions were the real things that brought them down.

I agree with painter as well as Craig...everything is pure speculation and focusing on sensible motives (or arguing that point) can be troublesome, because it is so difficult for the average person to believe anyone (let alone perhaps forces within our own government) would ever have a justifiable or understandable motive for such horrifying acts to begin with...does or can any of this ever make any sense to someone who is good, trustworthy and kind? No.

However, if I had to guess, I would say that the reported use of commercial airliners to accomplish these acts has a far greater psychological impact on the US public then the use of explosives or other means. But again, as Craig pointed out, ctually using aircraft would not and could not have created the type of damage we saw, so the correct means were used in each case to accomplish the intended physical damage.

Each and everyone one of us who has ever flown on a plane or known a loved one who has thinks to himself, "That could have been me on that plane!" Most people have an innate fear of flying already and this strikes at the heart of that fear. That is what terrorism is all about, whether it is "homegrown" or not...to strike fear in the hearts of the average person...it is far easier to manipulate and control a populace which is under the influence of fear.

[DoYouEverWonder]

There were no missiles used in the Pentagon attack.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence for a missile.

But the motive for the flyover is obvious.

The main difference between the WTC and the Pentagon attacks is the fact that they did not plan to completely demolish their own headquarters.

Naturally they would want complete control of the damage down to surgical precision and this would not be able to be accurately predicted with a large airliner as opposed to pre-planted explosives.

Therefore it was virtually the exact same M.O. as at the WTC.

Real planes used as psychological tools while the true destruction was covertly implemented with pre-planted explosives.

In both cases the planes were relatively insignificant to the end result when considering the physical destruction.

The planes weren't just a psychological tool. In order for the attacks to work financially, there had to be no breaches of security. If they ever admitted that explosives were involved, then that would mean there were major breaches of security. If the victims could prove that explosives were involved, all those 'victim compensation' deals would be null and void and the law suites would fly.

[amazed!]

I might be stating the obvious here, but I think the reason for the flyover was to generate hundreds or thousands of eye witnesses to a low flying airliner headed in the general direction. That would, and did, make it apparent that the official story was true. People calling in to the media would instantly become credible witnesses supporting the official story.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

The planes weren't just a psychological tool. In order for the attacks to work financially, there had to be no breaches of security. If they ever admitted that explosives were involved, then that would mean there were major breaches of security. If the victims could prove that explosives were involved, all those 'victim compensation' deals would be null and void and the law suites would fly.

I don't see how your point is relevant to the question posed.

My point is that within the M.O. of both attacks the planes were not the cause of the ultimate physical destruction.

Sure they caused some physical destruction at the WTC but it is insignificant when compared to what was implemented covertly yet people were psychologically manipulated into believing it was all from the plane in both cases.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Feb 20 2009, 09:13 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Boonedoggled,

You creep me out.

Stop obsessively lurking and go hang out at the traitors lodge or something.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I might be stating the obvious here, but I think the reason for the flyover was to generate hundreds or thousands of eye witnesses to a low flying airliner headed in the general direction. That would, and did, make it apparent that the official story was true. People calling in to the media would instantly become credible witnesses supporting the official story.

Absolutely true but I think the question in the OP is why didn't they simply fly the plane into the building.

Complete control of the damage is plenty enough motive but as others have said we can never know all of the reasons why they carried out the operation exactly they way they did.

[Sanders]

Absolutely true but I think the question in the OP is why didn't they simply fly the plane into the building.

9/11 was carefully planned and strictly controlled, DUH!!! - Was it an accident that the area struck had just been renovated and strengthened? Joint Chiefs were there in the building. Generals were in the building, Rumsfeld was in the building. It was carefully controlled and planned. The flyover was simply for the benefit of witnesses (from what I can figure).

Nothing was left to chance. So much better to do the damage some other way - with a missile or a bomb.

[Boonedoggled]

Boonedoggled,

You creep me out.

Stop obsessively lurking and go hang out at the traitors lodge or something.

Should I consider that as a warning coming from a moderator or a personal provocation?

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Should I consider that as a warning coming from a moderator or a personal provocation?

Neither.

Just sharing how the mere sight of your wretched name causes a little bit of vomit to rise up and get stuck in the back of my throat.

If anyone doesn't know who "boonedoggled" is and wonders why I feel this way they should read this.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Feb 20 2009, 02:10 PM

[painter]

Craig, is there some reason why we shouldn't just IP ban him?

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Craig, is there some reason why we shouldn't just IP ban him?

He hasn't broken any rules.

I just know from his history at other forums that he is a deceptive war-crime-apologist and a creepy coward who obsessively lurks and pays attention to every little thing we do or say every day of his God forsaken life.

But whatever.

I don't think we should automatically ban our enemies but imho there is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

[painter]

He hasn't broken any rules.

I just know from his history at other forums that he is a deceptive war-crime-apologist and a creepy coward who obsessively lurks and pays attention to every little thing we do or say every day of his God forsaken life.

But whatever.

I don't think we should automatically ban our enemies but imho there is nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

Item 5 of the forum rules clearly state:

• Those who advocate without sincere question the government's OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory -- so called "debunkers") are REQUIRED to read Post #1 of this thread, the links contained in it and ANSWER the questions asked. Failure to do so will have your posting privileges suspended until you do. (If your posting privileges have been suspended, ask a Moderator or Administrator via Private Message to be allowed to post your answers in the thread.) Answers that can be shown to be false or deceptive will get you banned. We also ask that any "debate" be kept in the DEBATE forum.


What is the point of allowing someone who has no respect for us or our questions to participate or even lurk on our forum? It might be one thing if he was here to debate a specific topic in the debate forum, or if he'd been invited here for some specific reason, but otherwise -- what is the point?

[Craig Ranke CIT]

What is the point of allowing someone who has no respect for us or our questions to participate or even lurk on our forum? It might be one thing if he was here to debate a specific topic in the debate forum, or if he'd been invited here for some specific reason, but otherwise -- what is the point?

Alright then.

You guys are the bosses!

I stay out of these types of decisions but I sure can vouch for the fact that he is an "OCT supporter".

[dMz]

FWIW, "Boonedoggled" did answer the questions at post #37:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10762713

It wasn't exactly informative and didn't look to have much effort put into it. (It reminded me of some of that old Oliver North Congressional testimony from what I recall, but that was years ago).

[painter]

Alright then.

You guys are the bosses!

I stay out of these types of decisions but I sure can vouch for the fact that he is an "OCT supporter".

Well, actually, I wish you wouldn't "stay out of these types of decisions". I'm actually asking for your input -- and if you'd rather do that privately, we could do that, too. I'm just curious.

I find the thread you linked to, for example, with the photographs of the service men who have suffered as a result of this war (not to mention all the wounded and dead citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan) right on the mark. That is what people who support the OCT are supporting: death, destruction, pain and suffering on an enormous scale based on what we have very good reason to say -- not "believe" but "say" -- are LIES.

I run into this all the time -- more aggressive Democrats, for example, who want to see Bush and the gang held responsible for the criminal acts of his Administration (but who, bizarrely, do not include 9/11 in those crimes). What I see over and over again is they don't "get it" -- they don't GET that these people are REALLY CRIMINALS and that they are representatives of a TRULY CRIMINAL CLASS that is out of control on this planet and causing ALL OF US enormous grief -- including the NEW 9/11 "economic meltdown" that began on 9/11/08. They don't GET IT that this isn't a "right/left" or "democrat/republican" or whatever other dichotomy issue; they don't get it that the SYTEM itself is being PLAYED by criminal syndicates hiding behind governmental policies and "free market" manipulations -- and that in their greed and psychopathy they are on the verge of destroying not only themselves but ALL of us.

Just blows my friggn' mind. Why should we give people who support and defend this criminality ANY consideration or wiggle room at all? Facts are facts and all they want to do is obscure and cover-up those facts and by their actions defend policies and actions which are abhorrent to all decency and human conscience. So far as I'm concerned, they are delusional psychopaths and should treated as such.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I'm with you 100%.