This page addresses the issue of remote control in the most logical sense relating to what happened on 9-11 at the WTC
Having spent a great deal of time on bulletin boards I produced many arguments to reason my perspective. This exchange explains why remote control was not used at the WTC for either planes or demolition's.
It seems Izzy actually agrees and was just looking for clarifications and my defensiveness was unneeded
"izzy" wrote:
You write: "The pilot of the flight 11 hit the wrong tower.
"There was no remote control over planes or detonations."
I see this in your site, and do you still feel that the planes had pilots on board??? There's so much to the contrary....
"Christopher" wrote:
The human compulsion to create a perfect deception if it is possible says that if remote control was used to fly the planes AT LEAST the sequence of demolition would match the sequence of collision.
"izzy" wrote:
Your reply went over my head.......please re-read my question.
"Christopher" wrote:
I think you are the first person who did not understand my response to the "remote" issue and my position on it. Perhaps it is the response that needs to be re-read.
Context:
planes/fires had nothing to do with demolitions because the sequence is backwards and people having the control to decieve WILL use everything available to do it. If it was remote, a logical sequence of demolition would have been adhered to.
"izzy" wrote:
Well, I'm delighted to be the first, and probably won't be the last. Perhaps we have a language problem--is English your first language? Your site has the statement:
"The pilot of the flight 11 hit the wrong tower. "
[Assumption: There was a pilot on board??]--how can you explain the extreme manuevers?]
"There was no remote control over planes or detonations."
[Assumption: You're saying not only were the detonations not remote controlled, but planes were manned with a pilot on board????.]
I need to get this clear before going further. So far your replies seem evasive.
"Christopher" wrote:
My replies are direct and you simply are not getting it.
The wrong tower fell first, the top of it fell the wrong way. The top of the second tower to fall fell the wrong way.
All this could have been avoided with remote control in either planes or over detonators.
Or, ......... maybe the 9-11 perps were right, Americans are just too stupid to notice the inconsistency and they used their remote control to screw it all up on purpose just for laughs.
See this thread.
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5994[/quote]
"izzy" wrote:
Christopher, You keep dodging the question of what you state in your website; Repeating the question for the 3rd time:
YOU WROTE:
"The pilot of the flight 11 hit the wrong tower.
"There was no remote control over planes or detonations."
I see this in your site, and do you still feel that the planes had pilots on board??? That remote control wasnt' used on planes or detonations????There's so much to the contrary....
Here is your website: and here is where you put in big print
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667 Now do you think you can reply without flaming?
"Christopher" wrote:
Iz,
I didn't realize you didn't know I was indirectly answering Yes.
There were pilots on board and I've stated good reason for believing that to be the case.
"izzy" wrote:
Ok, you are of the opinion that the planes were pilot controlled, how about the demolitions--they are not remote contolled? (I understand you say there was a concrete core, not a steel core of 47 beams, right?)
"Christopher" wrote:
As I've reasoned, having remote control over either the planes or the demolition's give the power to create the most perfect ruse. I find it VERY difficult to imagine that the perps would NOT use that power to make the ruse perfect. Operators of remote planes would be situated in vantage points that would have full command of the target area as far as flight path. They would be familiar with the area and their targets location orientation etc. They would rehearse the attack, they would be accurate and know that it was vital to the ruse that WTC2 be hit first if the towers had timed demolitions. Alternately if the planes are piloted and the plane hits the wrong one first and the demolition's are remote controlled, the operator of the demo controls see's that the plan has changed and detonates WTC1 first to make the ruse better.
I saw a documentary in 1990 that detailed the towers construction and it focused on the cast concrete core or the difficulties it presented in construction because of a special plastic coating on the rebar. In the documentary it was said to be an "anti corrosion, anti vibration" coating. I definitely remember the narrator saying that it was a thicker coating than the usual plastic coating to prevent rust. In all the photos no pieces that could be termed "full length steel" are ever seen falling. What is seen is a massive fountain of sand, gravel and flyash/vermiculite clouds from floors exploding hundreds of feet skyward. On my site:
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
there are a series of photos that show structural elements that stood momentarily and if the steel core columns existed, they would be seen. All that is seen is the silhouette of the tubular cast concrete core. What steel is seen, I have identified and it all supports the contention of deception as to the core of th towers. The official story expects us to believe that the 14" thick hand fabricated box columns that were wider at the bottom and tapered to fit the core face, are the "core columns". The first photos of the clean up showed the tapered interior box columns. Segments still bolted together 60-80 feet long where the taper was easily seen. Now all those pics are gone.
The photos all show that the basement was full of sand and gravel. The official, above ground structure has no gravel whatsoever specified and the volume of lightweight concrete (flyash/vermiculite) would only half fill the basement.
"cavemanattack" wrote:
What I don´t understand :
Everyone who sees the videos of the South Tower collapse, if you ask them :
Did the tower tip the right way?
they will answer :
Of course the tower tipped the right way.
And if the plane had hit the opposite side of the building, THEN everybody who saw the videos of the collapse would go :
Hey, the tower is tipping the wrong way!
"Christopher" wrote:
Hmmmm, that is more of a behavioral issue than a forensic analysis of demolition. The people were told it was a collapse and the explosions were ignored. Yes, hard to believe but that is what happened and we are still trying to get it straight.
"cavemanattack" wrote:
So it seems to me that the plane must have hit exactly the spot it was supposed to hit. If it had hit the opposite side, it would be all wrong.
So I don´t follow you Christopher, is what you´re saying that the plane was supposed to hit the opposite side? But it seems to me that such a hit would make the collapse look really absurd.
"Christopher" wrote:
I Posted right off how glad I was you posted the "Tipping the wrong way thread". I had thought of that in 2,002 after someone told me which way it went but forgot to assemble the photos to analyze it. You got me started again and I'm done now, THX!
Imagine a cartoon:
Planes fly into buildings knocking them down. When they hit they break the tower at the impact point and the top falls towards the impact side and the body of the tower follows the planes path.
In the case of the plane having enough inertia to do this, the top falls towards the impact because it is at rest, and will tend to stay at rest and the plane will try to fly under it after removing its support. in the case of the WTC it was intended to mimic a structural failure caused by planes and fires.
Say we didn't know where planes hit the towers. If we were to take events at the WTC on 9-11 backwards from the falling towers and the directions their tops and bodies fell according to the above "cartoon" model to determine which side they were hit on, we would say that WTC1 was hit on the south side and 2 hit on the west side. Add to this the logically inconsistent fall/impact sequence issue and it is proof that demolition's took the towers down.
The reason for this is that collapses always occur on the side of the structure that fails to bear the load. Horizontally cutting 45 or so columns on one face, approximately one half the buildings width, in a tower with no core, might cause a structure failure of the remaining columns and the tower would fall in that direction. In the Twin Towers stood a massive rectangular, tubular steel reinforced cast concrete, core that could sustain numerous hits from planes and cannot not melt or be weakened by fire. To reduce it to sand and gravel would require massive energy. For all these reasons FEMA lied.