On the Absence of WTC No Planer Witnesses.

[luciferhorus]

The WTC (World Trade Centre) No-Plane Theory.

This just goes on and on and on....

A few points.

1: No 757 at the Pentagon.

There are large numbers of scientists, engineers and credible experts who do not believe that an aircraft hit the Pentagon and dissapeared through a rather tiny hole. This is a separate matter to the WTC no-planer theory.

2: No 757 at Shanksville

There are also large numbers of aviation "experts" who doubt that a 757 crashed at Shanksville; further there is a definite lack of any kind of photographic and video evidence which shows the wreckage of a large aircraft. This is a separate matter to the WTC no-planer theory.

The problem with the WTC no planer theory is that it is widely considered to be a "crackpot" theory which has the effect of tending to discredit the Pentagon and Shanksville no-plane arguments and the entire "9/11 was a US military false flag" position in general, which is an entirely credible position.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/FairbanksScreenshot.jpg

3: The lack of witnesses to the WTC No-Plane theory

The first plane hitting the Pentagon has, if I understand correctly, only one piece of video evidence showing this crash.

However, by the time the second plane struck, there were 10's of thousands of New Yorkers looking "up" at the Twin Towers from street level and from other tall buildings in the vicinity. 10's of thousands of New Yorkers stopped work to gaze at the smoking building. There were also 100's of other office and apartment buildings in the vicinity of downtown Manhattan where thousands of other workers had a front row seat to watch the second plane's impact, and who stood gazing out of their windows. Further a great many video cameras, mobile phone cameras and live TV cameras were trained on the Twin Towers.

With the Pentagon crash, it would not be difficult for an organisation with the resources of the US military to plant a few witnesses to state to the media "Oh yes I saw a 757 crash into the Pentagon." However by the time of the second Twin Towers aircraft collision, there were 10's of thousands of witnesses and numerous video cameras trained on it.

Certainly there have emerged a few fake videos on the Internet where the aircraft has been removed by digital editing. However apart from these well known fakes, for the "No-Planes at the WTC" theory to be correct, it would surely be able to be confirmed by the 10's of thousands of New Yorkers who actually witnessed the event; it is simply not credible to suggest that all of these eyewitnesses were lying and that every single piece of video showing the second collision, from both the live media and members of the public with video cameras has been faked.

Personally I consider it much more likely that the "No Planes at the WTC" theory may well have been implanted by the US military themselves in order to discredit the 911 truth movement.

Lux

[ultima1]

[B]1: No 757 at the Pentagon.

Quoted for truth.

2: No 757 at Shanksville

Quoted for truth.

[bryan]

However, by the time the second plane struck, there were 10's of thousands of New Yorkers looking "up" at the Twin Towers from street level and from other tall buildings in the vicinity. 10's of thousands of New Yorkers stopped work to gaze at the smoking building. There were also 100's of other office and apartment buildings in the vicinity of downtown Manhattan where thousands of other workers had a front row seat to watch the second plane's impact, and who stood gazing out of their windows. Further a great many video cameras, mobile phone cameras and live TV cameras were trained on the Twin Towers.

In that case, you should be able to provide a long list of people who reported witnessing a plane from the streets of New York.

Here's one such eyewitness (about a minute into the video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeOjdtzwCS4

The only trouble is, not everybody believes he's genuine.

To make matters worse, his statement contradicts four other eyewitnesses who were reporting live from the scene to the TV studios and thought the building just exploded.

[luciferhorus]

In that case, you should be able to provide a long list of people who reported witnessing a plane from the streets of New York..

Well that is not necessary since the plane hitting the tower was broadcast on live TV networks and was witnessed by the reporters and camera persons obviously, and by all the persons who filmed it hitting the tower. Since 10's of 1000's of people were watching this live in New York from the streets and from other office buildings, I have not come across the 10's of thousands of witnesses who stated "oh what we saw on TV was faked," or "I saw it live and I never saw an aircraft." Since it is you who wishes to propose an incredible and bizarre theory, it is for you to establish the evidence. For example I have no need to establish evidence that there is no teapot flying around the sun, just because some person believes that there is.



Here's one such eyewitness (about a minute into the video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeOjdtzwCS4

The only trouble is, not everybody believes he's genuine.

Well "not everybody" is a rather general statement; there are 6 billion of us here. Not everybody disbelieves in Santa Clause. It is one thing for the US military to stage a few agents around the Pentagon who when interviewed stated "I saw an aircraft," and it is one thing for many people who have studied the photographic evidence of the tiny hole the 757 and its engines dissapeared into to "disbelieve" such testimony, but it is quite another for the US media to show live TV images of a plane flying into the Twin Towers and make 10's of 1000's of witnesses in New York who saw the event personally, many of whom also filmed the event, believe that they saw a plane when there was no plane.

Further since it is very easy to program an aircraft to fly into a building, why would they even consider taking such a chance as to try to fake such a thing?


To make matters worse, his statement contradicts four other eyewitnesses who were reporting live from the scene to the TV studios and thought the building just exploded.

Well the building did explode. I think we can assume that not everybody in New York was looking "up" in the few seconds that the second 757 flew into the tower.

Since the "No Planes at the WTC" is subject to endless debates and numerous threads here, despite the overwhelming "serious" and "credible" evidence presented by scientists, engineers, aviators, military personell and assorted experts, etc. (most of whom consider the "No Planes at the WTC" theory to be ridiculous"), that the WTC collapse was a US military black operation and a controlled detonation, it strikes me that the guys at the NSA and the US military Internet propagandists have nothing better to do with their time than to keep pushing ridiculous theories as they cannot deal with the credible evidence of their bumbled black operation.


Lux

[ultima1]

it strikes me that the guys at the NSA and the US military Internet propagandists have nothing better to do with their time than to keep pushing ridiculous theories as they cannot deal with the credible evidence of their bumbled black operation.

But you do beleive that the Pentagon was not struck by a plane. Why do you only believe certain witnesses and experts?

[luciferhorus]

But you do beleive that the Pentagon was not struck by a plane. Why do you only believe certain witnesses and experts?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/before-1.jpg

http://lawn.1accesshost.com/_webimages/091101Pentagon_.JPG

http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/pentagon-hole.jpg

http://www.inplanesite911.com/IMAGES/Photo%20Montage_Pentagon_JPEG.jpg

http://www.physics911.net/images/c-pentagon_montage.jpg

http://911lies.org/911_pentagon_attack_damage.jpg
Photos Above. Pentagon prior to wall collapse: where are the signs of impact?


http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi
Photo Above. WTC.


I recall back in 2001, the first person in my circle of aquaintances who raised the "false flag" issue was an investment banker who showed me all the Internet sites which raised the issue of the irregular futures trading just prior to 911. This was essentially a financial issue, however I think that it is no coincidence that the first major Internet site which raised worlwide attention to more scientific matters was the French website by Thierry Meyssan (his site seems to be down now) which showed images which he obtained from U.S. Army websites.

If you look at the photographs above of the Pentagon prior to the collapse of the wall, you don't need to be an aircraft engineer or a physicist to conclude that there is absolutely no evidence that a 757 impacted the Pentagon, and it is simply to incredulous to believe that it just "dissapeared inside."

The Pentagon issue was the first major issue and to be frank it is the most obvious at first glance.

In contrast to the Pentagon, the Twin Towers do show large rips in the side of the building and 10's of 1000's of witnesses saw the second 757's impact. It is thus simply too incredulous to believe that the live TV footage and numerous other videos shot from cameras and phones of an aircraft hitting the Pentagon have all been faked and that the 10's of 1000's of witnesses are just silent on the matter.

With regards to the Pentagon, it is quite another matter; it is well within the resources of the US military to plant a handful of key witnesses to state the media "I saw an aircraft hit the Pentagon."

Why do you only believe certain witnesses and experts

I have already dealt with the matter of "witnesses," however with regards to the "experts," I would refer you to sites such as Scholars for 911 Truth (www.scholarsfor911truth.org), Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (www.ae911truth.org/), & 911 Physics (http://www.physics911.net/).

All of the above sites accept the the "No 757 at the Pentagon" perspective.
None of the above sites accept the crackpot theory that no 757s flew into the Twin Towers.

With regards to "experts" who believe that no 757s flew into the WTC, it is my view that the major experts who propagate this theory are "experts" in US military counterintelligence who are dedicated to discrediting the 911 truth movement. Apart from such "experts" the remainder of the "No 757s at the WTC" activists appear to be the kind of people who would buy the National Enquirer because on it's front page it had an "Elvis is still alive and planning a comeback tour" and would constantly and endlessly debate that issue, as is occurrung on the this forum with the "No 757s at the WTC" issue.

Frankly since most Americans can barely read a cornflakes packet and 40% of them expect Jesus to return soon, an "expert" to many Americans is probably a National Enquirer journalist or Pat Robertson.

Lux

[ultima1]

[IMG]http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi
Photo Above. WTC.
aircraft hitting the Pentagon

If you take a second to look at the photo you posted you would see a woman standing in the hole that was supposed to be a inferno of burning jet fuel from the plane.

Where is the burning jet fuel?

Would the woman be standing there if their was burning jet fuel all over?

[kooskoets]

If you take a second to look at the photo you posted you would see a woman standing in the hole that was supposed to be a inferno of burning jet fuel from the plane.

Where is the burning jet fuel?

Would the woman be standing there if their was burning jet fuel all over?


...and where is the plane wreckage ?

[bryan]

Well that is not necessary since the plane hitting the tower was broadcast on live TV networks and was witnessed by the reporters and camera persons obviously, and by all the persons who filmed it hitting the tower.

It wasn't witnessed by the reporters at the scene - only the ones in the studio watching the incoming camera feeds. Oddly, the team in the BBC studio didn't even realise they'd broadcast images of a plane flying into the WTC.



Since 10's of 1000's of people were watching this live in New York from the streets and from other office buildings, I have not come across the 10's of thousands of witnesses who stated "oh what we saw on TV was faked," or "I saw it live and I never saw an aircraft." Since it is you who wishes to propose an incredible and bizarre theory, it is for you to establish the evidence. For example I have no need to establish evidence that there is no teapot flying around the sun, just because some person believes that there is.

You need to establish that people witnessed a plane fly into the building. Tens of thousands of people might believe they were looking the other way when the plane hit. David Handschuh is one of the few people brave enough to admit he didn't see a plane, even though he took a picture of the explosion on the impact side of the building right after the plane allegedly flew over his head.



Well "not everybody" is a rather general statement; there are 6 billion of us here. Not everybody disbelieves in Santa Clause.

When I say "not everybody", I mean around 95% of people on this forum.



It is one thing for the US military to stage a few agents around the Pentagon who when interviewed stated "I saw an aircraft," and it is one thing for many people who have studied the photographic evidence of the tiny hole the 757 and its engines dissapeared into to "disbelieve" such testimony, but it is quite another for the US media to show live TV images of a plane flying into the Twin Towers and make 10's of 1000's of witnesses in New York who saw the event personally, many of whom also filmed the event, believe that they saw a plane when there was no plane.

Many people have studied the live TV images of a plane flying into the twin towers and concluded they are fake images. Many people have studied the handful of interviews with eyewitnesses on the day and concluded they are fake eyewitnesses.



Further since it is very easy to program an aircraft to fly into a building, why would they even consider taking such a chance as to try to fake such a thing?

For one thing, a hijacked plane would run the risk of being intercepted by fighter jets.



Well the building did explode. I think we can assume that not everybody in New York was looking "up" in the few seconds that the second 757 flew into the tower.

No images of the impact were broadcast till around 9 hours after the event. Why weren't the media interviewing the people who were looking up at the right moment?



Since the "No Planes at the WTC" is subject to endless debates and numerous threads here, despite the overwhelming "serious" and "credible" evidence presented by scientists, engineers, aviators, military personell and assorted experts, etc. (most of whom consider the "No Planes at the WTC" theory to be ridiculous"), that the WTC collapse was a US military black operation and a controlled detonation, it strikes me that the guys at the NSA and the US military Internet propagandists have nothing better to do with their time than to keep pushing ridiculous theories as they cannot deal with the credible evidence of their bumbled black operation.

Controlled demolition was once a crackpot theory. Now it's the smoking gun of 9/11.

[bryan]

In contrast to the Pentagon, the Twin Towers do show large rips in the side of the building and 10's of 1000's of witnesses saw the second 757's impact.


It is thus simply too incredulous to believe that the live TV footage and numerous other videos shot from cameras and phones of an aircraft hitting the Pentagon have all been faked and that the 10's of 1000's of witnesses are just silent on the matter.


I have already dealt with the matter of "witnesses,"

The way you've "dealt with the matter" is to claim we can safely assume the eyewitnesses exist, because they haven't come forward to say they don't.



With regards to the Pentagon, it is quite another matter; it is well within the resources of the US military to plant a handful of key witnesses to state the media "I saw an aircraft hit the Pentagon."

But it's not within their resources to arrange for around a dozen media people to be on the phone to the TV studios just as the second plane is supposed to hit?



however with regards to the "experts," I would refer you to sites such as Scholars for 911 Truth (www.scholarsfor911truth.org), Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (www.ae911truth.org/), & 911 Physics (http://www.physics911.net/).

All of the above sites accept the the "No 757 at the Pentagon" perspective.
None of the above sites accept the crackpot theory that no 757s flew into the Twin Towers.

All the above sites accept the "controlled demolition" perspective. Where were they when that theory was being developed by the "crackpots" who had no support from engineers or physicists?



With regards to "experts" who believe that no 757s flew into the WTC, it is my view that the major experts who propagate this theory are "experts" in US military counterintelligence who are dedicated to discrediting the 911 truth movement. Apart from such "experts" the remainder of the "No 757s at the WTC" activists appear to be the kind of people who would buy the National Enquirer because on it's front page it had an "Elvis is still alive and planning a comeback tour" and would constantly and endlessly debate that issue, as is occurrung on the this forum with the "No 757s at the WTC" issue.

Frankly since most Americans can barely read a cornflakes packet and 40% of them expect Jesus to return soon, an "expert" to many Americans is probably a National Enquirer journalist or Pat Robertson.


Similar language is used by the mainstream media to describe the 911 truth movement in general.

[apollo_gnomon]

...and where is the plane wreckage ?

The plane was moving at 500 mph. Any wreckage would have to decelerate to zero in 0.2 seconds to remain at the impact surface.

Do you remember how many "g" that deceleration involves? I've posted it before for you, and explained the calculations. Perhaps you could review the threads and find it, as I'm not going to bother doing the work for a poster who responds with one line blanket dismissals and no facts. Or just load another bowl and dismiss the whole argument, if you choose.

So let's take one (1) arbitrary gram of that aluminum airplane. It's going 500mph. It decelerates to zero at the impact surface, to satisfy your cartoon idea of collision physics. How much force does that one (1) gram of projectile mass place on the target while decelerating from 500mph to 0mph over 0.2 seconds?

[kooskoets]

The plane was moving at 500 mph. Any wreckage would have to decelerate to zero in 0.2 seconds to remain at the impact surface.

Do you remember how many "g" that deceleration involves? I've posted it before for you, and explained the calculations. Perhaps you could review the threads and find it, as I'm not going to bother doing the work for a poster who responds with one line blanket dismissals and no facts. Or just load another bowl and dismiss the whole argument, if you choose.

lol :D



So let's take one (1) arbitrary gram of that aluminum airplane. It's going 500mph. It decelerates to zero at the impact surface, to satisfy your cartoon idea of collision physics. How much force does that one (1) gram of projectile mass place on the target while decelerating from 500mph to 0mph over 0.2 seconds?

You're the one that believes a fusilage is like a nail eh...

Get off this thread, you silly,,,

[bryan]

The plane was moving at 500 mph. Any wreckage would have to decelerate to zero in 0.2 seconds to remain at the impact surface.

Do you remember how many "g" that deceleration involves? I've posted it before for you, and explained the calculations. Perhaps you could review the threads and find it, as I'm not going to bother doing the work for a poster who responds with one line blanket dismissals and no facts. Or just load another bowl and dismiss the whole argument, if you choose.

So let's take one (1) arbitrary gram of that aluminum airplane. It's going 500mph. It decelerates to zero at the impact surface, to satisfy your cartoon idea of collision physics. How much force does that one (1) gram of projectile mass place on the target while decelerating from 500mph to 0mph over 0.2 seconds?

Have you found that titanium shaft yet?

[stannrodd]

... where's that fucking concrete core ... !!

[ultima1]

... where's that fucking concrete core ... !!

Since you seem to have a probelm reading facts and evidence i will make it simple and show you photos of Concrete core.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/04/25/alg_wtc_construction.jpg

http://www.allaboutskyscrapers.com/images/tubeFrame.jpg

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/Photo%20archives/WTC%20construction/WTC%2520construction.jpg

http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/9-11-Picture5.jpg

[luciferhorus]

... where's that fucking concrete core ... !!

Yes I should have mentioned that also.

I recall hitting this forum last year and finding that there were 100's of post's about the concrete core and that the discussion went on endlessly.

The "Concrete Core" proponents are less well known that the "WTC No planers," however it is much the same agenda.

Essentially the scientific and technical experts of Scholars for 911 Truth (www.scholarsfor911truth.org), Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (www.ae911truth.org/), & 911 Physics (http://www.physics911.net/), etc., etc., all appear to conlcude that the three WTC buildings all collapsed due to a "controlled demolition." However it is the "Concrete Core" and "WTC No Planers" proponents who seem to keep the threads going on forums like this one. These two issues seem to me to be rather irrelevant to the main issues and more of a "distraction."

Lux

[luciferhorus]

For one thing, a hijacked plane would run the risk of being intercepted by fighter jets.



Well since the evidence points to 911 being a black operation by
the US military. Why on earth would the US military try to sabotage
their own false flag operation?

http://www.cf911truth.org/pentagon.jpg

Just to some this up.

For example, at the Pentagon, there is credible photographic evidence
that no 757 hit the Pentagon.

However with the WTC "no-plane" theory, there is simply no
credible evidence for this; the 2nd plane crash
it inloved 10,s of 1000's of eyewitnesses
and numerous independent videos were captured on mobile phones
and cameras.

I think the problem has essentially been created by a few "fake" videos
which are on You Tube where the aircraft has been edited out.

The "WTC No Planer" issue to the "911 false flag" history is
the equivalent of the "Moon is a giant spaceship" issue for David Icke;
those who are unfamiliar with David's rather interesting and important
analysis of the reality of our world will judge him simply by his "Moon
spacecraft" and "reptilian" views, which detract from more serious and
important matters; similarly with the "WTC No Planer" issue, since
those unfamiliar with the evidence on the "911 False Flag" issue
may well judge everyone who takes that view as a crackpot.

Lux

[policestate]

why couldn't this go in one of the no plane threads.. there is a couple

[luciferhorus]

why couldn't this go in one of the no plane threads.. there is a couple


Well I made a new thread as I did not intend to start a discussion on the "No Plane" issue; I merely wished to point out that the entire discussion is a distraction which simply is a crackpot sensationalistic conspiracy theory which detracts from the serious issue of "911" being a black military operation and simply assists the government propagandists in labelling the 911 truth movement as crackpots.

I noticed a book in a major bookstore recently with a title which I think was 1001 conspiracy theories. It was really a book for "entertainment" value only which would be probably bought by the people with the kind of mentality who buy the National Enquirer when it has "Aliens Ate My Baby" headlines. Unfortunately many of the so called "conspiracy theories" are theories which many serious historians promote, such as the Kennedy assassination having been a US military operation, and yet such events are stuck in with the "Elvis is Still Alive and planning a comeback tour" type theories. This is the danger of endless rants about holograms flying into the twin towers; even if it were the case that the 757's which flew into the Twin Towers were in fact made of blue cheese or of sausage meat or holograms created by a giant projector by "shape shifting reptiles" from the "Moon spacecraft," because such theories cannot be proven and lack credibility, they simply serve to discredit more serious evidence of the Twin Towers demolition.

However I suppose that if there were not persons for whom it is more interesting to endlessly debate Elivis' comeback tour or 757 holograms flying into the Twin Towers area that the National Enquirer would go out of business.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/cgo/lowres/cgon507l.jpg

Prior to the existence of the 911 truth movement, the fact that the US military had a long history of narco-terrorism and black operations were historical facts which were commonly raised by anti-Capitalist activists, academics and historians, and frankly most "patriotic" Americans could not care less. Now those who seek to educate others with such "facts" appear not to be commonly accused of being "communists" but of being "conspiracy theorists." That is hardly progressive; on the contrary.



Lux

[kooskoets]

Well I made a new thread as I did not intend to start a discussion on the "No Plane" issue; I merely wished to point out that the entire discussion is a distraction which simply is a crackpot sensationalistic conspiracy theory which detracts from the serious issue of "911" being a black military operation and simply assists the government propagandists in labelling the 911 truth movement as crackpots.


You, for sure, are a crackpot.

You believe an alu plane can cut out a planelike shape in a steel building.
Only a crackpot would believe that.

You believe a plane that collides with a building would NOT lose any parts
like wings, tail, large pieces of fusilage that would fall to the ground.
Only a crackpot would believe that.

You believe that al tv images were real while they showed something
comparable to a pink flying elephant.
Only a crackpot would believe that.

Crackpots don't know nor understand anything about physics.
That's why they depend on a belief and will never know.

[luciferhorus]

You, for sure, are a crackpot.

You believe an alu plane can cut out a planelike shape in a steel building.
Only a crackpot would believe that.

You believe a plane that collides with a building would NOT lose any parts
like wings, tail, large pieces of fusilage that would fall to the ground.
Only a crackpot would believe that.

You believe that al tv images were real while they showed something
comparable to a pink flying elephant.
Only a crackpot would believe that.

Crackpots don't know nor understand anything about physics.
That's why they depend on a belief and will never know.

Well I am not really sure where you studied physics, but you are obviously unaware of the power of "momentum (mass times velocity).

http://electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/1/ramp.jpg

The above is the damage done to an apartment building in Amsterdam in the 1992 El Al Bijlmer crash from the Boeing aircraft below.

http://electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/1/elalcargo483.jpg

The construction of the apartment building was certainly not identical to the Twin Towers, but it was made of concrete reinforced with steel, which is really no match for an aluminium aircraft weighing 75 tons flying at speed. If you attempted to break the welded steel reinforcements which run through concrete slabs by hitting them with a sheet of aluminium, you would would fail and the aluminium would simply bend, however when you have an aluminium aircraft weighing 75 tons attached to four large jet engines flying at high speed, the momentum takes over.

Lux

[apollo_gnomon]

you, koos, for sure are a dipshit.

You're the one that believes a fusilage is like a nail eh...

Mock all you want. You're just proving over and over that you are incapable of understanding complex phenomena and want to simplify things.

I made a comparison to a powder-actuated nail, an object I'm pretty sure you have no experience with, to discuss the impact of a deformable object into a solid mass at various velocities. I've also compared the airframe variously to a bullet, a beer can, an egg, and a shotgun blast. You have failed to comprehend the reasons for any of these comparisons, and instead dismiss them while continuing to assert that an airplane is made entirely of aluminum foil.
Only a dipshit would believe that.

You believe an alu plane can cut out a planelike shape in a steel building.
What shape hole would an airframe leave in a building? Duck shaped? Shaped like spongebob? The hole in a target surface made by an impacting projectile will reveal the shape of the projectile - arguing otherwise requires further data, which you have carefully avoided. You apparently believe that the plane would leave some kind of non-plane shaped hole in the building.
Only a dipshit would believe that.

You believe a plane that collides with a building would NOT lose any parts
like wings, tail, large pieces of fusilage that would fall to the ground.
Only a crackpot would believe that.
You believe that the sidewalls of an end-loaded tubular structure (the columns) can simply shrug off the energy equivalent of half a ton of TNT, and that the entire airframe could decelerate from 500mph to zero in 0.2 seconds, then bounce off the building, without damaging the columns.
Only a dipshit would believe that.

[kasalt]

The "WTC No Planer" issue to the "911 false flag" history is the equivalent of the "Moon is a giant spaceship" issue for David Icke; those who are unfamiliar with David's rather interesting and important analysis of the reality of our world will judge him simply by his "Moon spacecraft" and "reptilian" views, which detract from more serious and important matters...


Allow me to point your attention here:

http://www.thedailybell.com/905/David-Icke-Reptilian-Humans-Earths-Artificial-Moon.htmlReaders can make up their own mind about David Icke and his vision of the way the world works. But we do want to point out that he does something very interesting – that almost no other public personality does in quite the same way. This former professional soccer player and television presenter has made himself over into an almost shamanistic figure, one who makes a living by clothing his observations (though, yes, he does deny it) in allegory.
Now we make no judgments and cast no aspersions. But what is most interesting about him in our view – and despite his denials – is the wonderfully imaginative and muscular way he builds up his observations. The characterizations of the elite as reptilian, for instance – agree or not – is an amazingly provocative archetype. It has burrowed its way into Western culture like a tapeworm. Carl Jung would be proud.

[ellis_deatrip]

Essentially the scientific and technical experts of Scholars for 911 Truth (www.scholarsfor911truth.org), Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (www.ae911truth.org/), & 911 Physics (http://www.physics911.net/), etc., etc., all appear to conlcude that the three WTC buildings all collapsed due to a "controlled demolition." However it is the "Concrete Core" and "WTC No Planers" proponents who seem to keep the threads going on forums like this one. These two issues seem to me to be rather irrelevant to the main issues and more of a "distraction."

Lux

Are scholars for 911 Truth and Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth are both associated with Steven Jones ?
It seems established that Steven Jones is quite dodgy and possesses the characteristics of being another planted "distraction" in the 9-11 psy-op.
911 - Parallels - Steven Jones sabotaged the 911 truth, as he did with Cold Fusion - YouTube

[kooskoets]

Well I am not really sure where you studied physics, but you are obviously unaware of the power of "momentum (mass times velocity).

There's the dumbass argument again.

You know it doesn't matter in a collision which of the objects is moving ?
If the building (500.000 tons ) would be thrown against a stationary plane at 500+ mph.,
you would get the SAME outcome.

So the much larger momentum gives the same result.
But then again, how would a crackpot know.



http://electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/1/ramp.jpg

The above is the damage done to an apartment building in Amsterdam in the 1992 El Al Bijlmer crash from the Boeing aircraft below.

You know large pieces of that plane were found in front of the building ?
You know that plane was a fully loaded freightplane ?
You know that building was concrete, not steel ?




http://electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/1/elalcargo483.jpg

The construction of the apartment building was certainly not identical to the Twin Towers, but it was made of concrete reinforced with steel, which is really no match for an aluminium aircraft weighing 75 tons flying at speed. If you attempted to break the welded steel reinforcements which run through concrete slabs by hitting them with a sheet of aluminium, you would would fail and the aluminium would simply bend, however when you have an aluminium aircraft weighing 75 tons attached to four large jet engines flying at high speed, the momentum takes over.

Lux

In any collision the weakest object will take the most damage.
In any case of a plane against a steel building, the building wins.

That's all proven physics.
But then again, how would YOU know.

[kooskoets]

<snip nonsense>


You've lost all credibility looooong time ago.

[luciferhorus]

You know that building was concrete, not steel ?


It is entirely illegal in Europe and America to build high rise buildings with concrete alone; all such buildings use concrete wich is reinforced by steel, and in the case of supporting columns these are grids of reinforced steel meshes welded together

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/SagradaFamiliaRoof2.jpg/400px-SagradaFamiliaRoof2.jpg

Above: a concrete building showing steel reinforcements prior to the pouring of concrete.



In any collision the weakest object will take the most damage.
In any case of a plane against a steel building, the building wins.

That's all proven physics.
But then again, how would YOU know.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ScreenHunter_12-Feb.-06-09.42.jpg

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/3e5/34d/3e534dd4-c119-4cc8-92df-bcc9a865568f

http://www.internationalist.org/elalcrash1092www.jpg

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Feb/Week4/15229622.jpg
Above: Amsterdam 1992. A 75 ton Boeing aircraft vs. Steel reinforced concrete.

Well your "conspiracy theory" physics seems to be in conflict with reality; when a 75 ton jet travelling at high speed slammed into an Amsterdam apartment building it created a gaping hole right through the middle of the building and took out steel reinforced concrete supports.



You know large pieces of that plane were found in front of the building ?

...............


That's all proven physics.
But then again, how would YOU know.


Well you are referring to the Amsterdam crash, however pieces of the aircfaft were found at the WTC on the ground.

I don't have a PhD in Physics, and I suspect that neither do you. That is why I tend to refer to http://www.physics911.net and to listen to the arguments of other physicists.

I should point out that Physics 911 does support the view that the WTC was demolished in a controlled demolition and they entirely support the "No Planer" view when it comes to the Pentagon, as they consider it impossible for a large aircraft to dissapear into a tiny hole, however they do not dispute the physics of an aircraft flying into the WTC. In fact they have a pdf which responds to these ridiculous claims on http://www.physics911.net/pdf/salter.pdf



"767 Debris
Wheels, engine parts, a piece of a fuselage and other 767 debris were found in and around the WTC. The
argument that there is not enough wreckage to account for a 767 crash is purely speculative: We don't
know how much plane debris was recovered from the rubble of the WTC. The government refuses to
allow independent access to all the debris collected, and they may even be deliberately withholding
evidence to create suspicions and encourage no-plane claims."
http://www.physics911.net/pdf/salter.pdf





Anyway...just to restate why I started a new thread...

If this (the WTC No Planer Conspiracy Theory) is a disinfo operation we can expect that more "defectors" from high places will come forward to support it. The ongoing strategy will not be to win over the entire 9/11 truth movement, but simply to establish the legitimacy of investigating it so that people like Morgan Reynolds or Jimmy Walter will have just enough political support to give the impression to the general public that this is a key issue to 9/11 research. Therefore, the action for 9/11 activists to take now is not just to oppose the no-plane (at the WTC) garbage but to shun the figures who promote it. After all, the success of the Loose Change DVD showed us (despite its flaws) that you don't need to be famous or rich to have a profound influence. We don't need standard bearers who push discrediting ideas, no matter how fortuitous their support seems.
http://www.physics911.net/pdf/salter.pdf


Well I made a new thread as I did not intend to start a discussion on the "No Plane" issue; I merely wished to point out that the entire discussion is a distraction which simply is a crackpot sensationalistic conspiracy theory which detracts from the serious issue of "911" being a black military operation and simply assists the government propagandists in labelling the 911 truth movement as crackpots.

I noticed a book in a major bookstore recently with a title which I think was 1001 conspiracy theories. It was really a book for "entertainment" value only which would be probably bought by the people with the kind of mentality who buy the National Enquirer when it has "Aliens Ate My Baby" headlines. Unfortunately many of the so called "conspiracy theories" are theories which many serious historians promote, such as the Kennedy assassination having been a US military operation, and yet such events are stuck in with the "Elvis is Still Alive and planning a comeback tour" type theories. This is the danger of endless rants about holograms flying into the twin towers; even if it were the case that the 757's which flew into the Twin Towers were in fact made of blue cheese or of sausage meat or holograms created by a giant projector by "shape shifting reptiles" from the "Moon spacecraft," because such theories cannot be proven and lack credibility, they simply serve to discredit more serious evidence of the Twin Towers demolition.

However I suppose that if there were not persons for whom it is more interesting to endlessly debate Elivis' comeback tour or 757 holograms flying into the Twin Towers area that the National Enquirer would go out of business.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/cgo/lowres/cgon507l.jpg

Prior to the existence of the 911 truth movement, the fact that the US military had a long history of narco-terrorism and black operations were historical facts which were commonly raised by anti-Capitalist activists, academics and historians, and frankly most "patriotic" Americans could not care less. Now those who seek to educate others with such "facts" appear not to be commonly accused of being "communists" but of being "conspiracy theorists." That is hardly progressive; on the contrary.



Lux

[kooskoets]

Well your "conspiracy theory" physics seems to be in conflict with reality; when a 75 ton jet travelling at high speed slammed into an Amsterdam apartment building it created a gaping hole right through the middle of the building and took out steel reinforced concrete supports.



Firstly there's a huge diff. between concrete ( steel reenforced ) and steel.
Steel will deform and absorb a lot of energy in the process.

The steel reenforcement in concrete is in no way comparable to steel tubes.

But again, how would you know.

Also you 'forgot' to answer why there were no parts of the plane found at the impactside of the buildings on 911.
In Amsterdam most of the plane landed on the impactside.

Read the PDF in my sig. and actually LEARN something instead of believing.

[bryan]

Well since the evidence points to 911 being a black operation by the US military. Why on earth would the US military try to sabotage their own false flag operation?

How do you know the black operation wasn't organised by a rogue state in the Middle East?


the 2nd plane crash it inloved 10,s of 1000's of eyewitnesses and numerous independent videos were captured on mobile phones and cameras.

Still waiting for you to link to interviews broadcast on the day with some of these tens of thousands of eyewitnesses. If you check the TV archives, you'll see there are plenty of eyewitnesses who appear to have been looking the other way when the second plane hit.



I think the problem has essentially been created by a few "fake" videos which are on You Tube where the aircraft has been edited out.

The problem has been caused by the many fake videos shown on TV where the aircraft has been edited in.

[bryan]

The construction of the apartment building was certainly not identical to the Twin Towers, but it was made of concrete reinforced with steel, which is really no match for an aluminium aircraft weighing 75 tons flying at speed. If you attempted to break the welded steel reinforcements which run through concrete slabs by hitting them with a sheet of aluminium, you would would fail and the aluminium would simply bend, however when you have an aluminium aircraft weighing 75 tons attached to four large jet engines flying at high speed, the momentum takes over.


How difficult do you think it would be to make a realistic computer reconstruction of the Amsterdam plane crash? It's so easy to simulate the 9/11 plane crashes, that even a musician with no formal training in video compositing has been able to produce videos of cgi planes flying into the twin towers that are virtually indistinguishable from "the real thing". That fact alone should cause alarm bells to ring.

[bryan]

What shape hole would an airframe leave in a building? Duck shaped? Shaped like spongebob? The hole in a target surface made by an impacting projectile will reveal the shape of the projectile - arguing otherwise requires further data, which you have carefully avoided. You apparently believe that the plane would leave some kind of non-plane shaped hole in the building.
Only a dipshit would believe that.

When a duck is involved in a head-on collision with a plane, does it leave a hole in the fuselage in the shape of its outstretched wings?

[luciferhorus]

When a duck is involved in a head-on collision with a plane, does it leave a hole in the fuselage in the shape of its outstretched wings?

I suppose that you have performed your own experiments by crashing a 75 ton duck flying at 600 miles per hour into sheets of aluminium.



Read the PDF in my sig. and actually LEARN something instead of believing.

What exactly are your qualifications in physics or civil engineering?

My first career as a teengager was to spent two years in an architects office as an apprentice draughtsman and the same two years doing an ONC in building construction along with other engineering and architectural draughtsperson; I dropped out before I completed the ONC, however I later took a building trades qualification in carpentry and have years of experience in the construction industry and yet I am still entirely unqualified to comment on the physics of an aircraft hitting a tower; that is why I refer to the argument and evidence of physicists ad engineers such as the Scholars for 911 Truth (www.scholarsfor911truth.org), Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (www.ae911truth.org/), & 911 Physics (http://www.physics911.net/) sites, where the WTC No planes conspiracy is widely disputed.

All of the above sites would I think agree with your statement

Crackpots don't know nor understand anything about physics.
That's why they depend on a belief and will never know.

However they would apply this to you, not to themselves; to rely on pseudo-physics of conspiracy theory crackpots rather than on the evidence of scientists, engineers and physicists who themselves concede that there was no 757 at the Pentagon is simply arrogance.

Lux

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories (Extracts)http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

With the amount of attention that the Pentagon no-plane theories have received, it shouldn't be surprising that some would also make the bizarre claim that no 767s hit the World Trade Center, despite voluminous video and photographic evidence to the contrary............

Video Fakery

The over-arching weakness of the TV fakery argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one unmodified image posted to the web would have exposed the operation. New York is a media capital of the world, with national networks, local network affiliates and independent TV stations, international media bureaus, and many independent video companies like the kinds I've worked for, and professional photographers. Professionals would have been rushing out to document whatever they could, through professional pride or the hope for making a buck off it. Evan Fairbanks and war photographer James Nachtway are some examples. And then there are also cameras in the possession of ordinary citizens and the thousands of New York's ever-present tourists. In addition, one should consider the possibility of foreign intelligence assets acquiring their own images of the attack (which so many knew was coming) which could be used for blackmail.

...............


In reality, the perpetrators would have found out about each image that they didn't control only after the image appeared on the web or in the media. And then it would have been too late to alter the image. The TV fakery hypothesis, therefore, is utterly absurd...........

The Collision

The WTC1 Hole

None of the arguments against a 767 can adequately explain how a hole in the building was created that fits a 767 perfectly, including widening of the hole where the engines were located. Here is a 767-200 diagram (with the wings tilted upwards 3 degrees to simulate flexing due to aerodynamic lift (aeronautic experts will have to determine the exact amount of flexing), sized to 75% of the width of the WTC and rotated to fit over the hole in WTC1:

(See http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html for images.

No other plane fits the hole as precisely as a 767, down to the narrow grooves created by the wings on either side of the impact hole, especially visible on the right. Attempts at overlaying diagrams by no-plane advocates, such as Stefan Grossmann and the German Engineers, are flawed, using inaccurate diagrams of 767s, aligning those diagrams incorrectly and/or using photographs from angles that appear to show debris where the engine holes should be.......

Faulty Physics

the NIST computer models testing the dispersal of kinetic energy on impact showed that every part of the airplane except for wing sections with empty fuel tanks would penetrate the outer wall of the WTC. This scenario explains the shape of the impact area perfectly. No-plane advocates have not conducted their own computer impact modeling, and until they do the NIST report remains the authority on the subject. Grossmann has stated his intention to conduct such a computer analysis, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a complex model of the physics of impact from someone who can't even properly align a diagram of a 767 over the entry hole.

The attempt by the "engineers" to create doubt by showing differently shaped impact holes in buildings made of different materials and construction techniques than the WTC demonstrates nothing and is a waste of time.

.............

Reynolds presents a long-winded argument that posits that it was against the laws of physics for the plane to easily penetrate the outside wall and then be stopped further inside the building. This analysis demands the assumption that the central core has the same strength or stopping power as the outer wall when the core columns were thicker than the exterior columns and the plane had already lost 25% of its kinetic energy penetrating the outer wall and floors. It is only an illusion that the plane entered the building intact (more on this below). In reality it would have been partially fragmented (how much is hard to tell, as the MIT study points out) so the plane debris would have been spread out over a greater area, lessening the kinetic energy applied per unit area of the core columns, allowing the columns to better withstand the impact.
..............


Reynolds states several times that the wing tips should have "bounced off" the building in larger pieces than we see on the images of the impact. In support of this he cites what he calls the "shredding mechanism" proposed by the MIT damage analysis (Wierzbicki et al). His argument distorts and misrepresents information presented in the MIT study


...................


More detailed analysis of the physics and material science involved would have to be done by someone with more knowledge than me, but it should be clear at this point that Reynolds' core arguments fall apart merely by the application of elementary principles and existing test results...........

...........

767 Debris

Wheels, engine parts, a piece of a fuselage and other 767 debris were found in and around the WTC. The argument that there is not enough wreckage to account for a 767 crash is purely speculative: We don't know how much plane debris was recovered from the rubble of the WTC. The government refuses to allow independent access to all the debris collected, and they may even be deliberately withholding evidence to create suspicions and encourage no-plane claims

..............


Conclusion

There are many solid pieces of visual evidence–video recordings and photos–that show 767's impacting the World Trade Center towers. If only one of these images is authentic, the entire no-plane hypothesis is invalidated. There are absolutely no images of anything else hitting the towers despite the attention the burning WTC1 tower was receiving from a city of millions. The attempts by the no-planers to create credibility for their hypothesis by citing purported anomalies in the visual record have been characterized by a high degree of technical incompetence and illogical thinking. Because an authentic visual anomaly would only prove that that particular image was faked, and would not prove that something besides 767s hit the towers, it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis.

]http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

[kooskoets]

To put it simple :

1) In ANY collision the WEAKEST object will start to deform and absorb energy.

2) A steel building, meant to stand and survice hurricanes, is much stronger that an aluminium airplane
which is lightweight to be able to fly.

3) As we see NO deforming, crumbling and breaking of the front fusilage in ANY video,
the video's cannot be real. ( in fact, no crash physics are visible at all )

4) As no parts, like wings, tail, pieces of fusilage were found on the ground at the impactside,
there were NO planes colliding with the buildings on 911.

That's only one way to come to the conclusion there were no real planes.

[kooskoets]

Video Fakery

The over-arching weakness of the TV fakery argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC?

Sure...

As there were NO planes...who would be filming or take pictures of an EMPTY SKY
just before the building unexpectedly exploded ?

Exact...NOBODY.

Besides...any footage showing the empty sky would be simply discredited and/or ignored by the mass media.

[luciferhorus]

To put it simple :

1) In ANY collision the WEAKEST object will start to deform and absorb energy.

3) As we see NO deforming, crumbling and breaking of the front fusilage in ANY video,
the video's cannot be real. ( in fact, no crash physics are visible at all )



It is certainly the case that that much of the Boeing aircraft which hit the Amsterdam steel reinforced concrete apartment building was pulverised, as would have been the case with the WTC; however to argue that the aircraft would have no damage or penetration of the buildings and that the impact would be entirely halted by steel is simply nonsense.

You have yet to explain where you did your PhD in physics or engineering and why you think that the physicists and engineers who do believe that there was no 757 at the Pentagon are convinced that a an aircraft hit the WTC, despite making arguments that the building collapsed in a controlled demolition.

Do you actually know of any physicists and engineers who support the no planes at the WTC other than conspiracy theorists who believe they have a better understanding of physics than the physicists?



Read the PDF in my sig.

The PDF is by Ace Baker who describes himself as a "musician," not a physicist or an engineer; we have all watched Hollywood CGI and we all know that it is possible to insert aircraft into video by CGI and to remove aircraft from video by CGI; that it is possible does not make it actual with regard to the WTC on 9/11. To restate, the first aircraft collision took Manhattan by surprise, but by the time of the second aircraft collision, there were simply too many people watching the twin towers and too many cameras filming the impact to consider the no plane theory as credible.

Anyway, the whole crackpot WTC No Plane issue simly serves to discredit the 911 truth movement, the vast majority of whom (including physicists and engineers) do not contribute the collapse of the towers to the collision of an aircraft anyway, but to a controlled demolition.



http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/docs/WTC1_hole.jpg





http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/
"It's true that such crashes "send things smashing about in a big way," but the velocity of the impact has a large effect on the shape of the damage. In particular, the higher the speed of the crash, the more thorough but localized the damage to the target. And the lightweight aluminum airframe of a 767 would be essentially shredded by the over 400-mph impact with the tower's curtain wall.............

The idea that the wings should have bounced off reflects a failure to appreciate the effects of inertia in such a high-speed collision. Yes, we might see large pieces of wing survive a collision at 100 mph but not at 400 mph, which involves 16 times as much kinetic energy. .......

..........."

Reynolds' article, which combines strong theories with erroneous ones, is a microcosm of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Experience has shown that the mainstream media will amplify the least credible and most offensive theories and misrepresent them as gospel of the "conspiracy theorists." Reynolds' concluding paragraph highlights the importance of getting the science right.

If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an "inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right, "though heaven should fall."

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/[/I]

[kooskoets]

It is certainly the case that that much of the Boeing aircraft which hit the Amsterdam steel reinforced concrete apartment building was pulverised,...

...and land on the impactside.


... as would have been the case with the WTC;...

The difference is obvious.
No debris at all on the ground at the impactside.

I
however to argue that the aircraft would have no damage or penetration of the buildings and that the impact would be entirely halted by steel is simply nonsense.

Nobody denies that the heavy, dense parts like the engines,
landinggear and fueltank could be able to create holes.

The fusilage however is not capable to do that.
It has not the weight/density to push through the steel tubes nor has it
the strength to be pushed through by the mass behind it.

It would deform, crumble and break apart resulting in video's that showed this happening
and lots of debris on the ground at the impact side.

And that was not the case.



You have yet to explain where you did your PhD in physics...

Why would i ?

You seem to need some authority to believe and that's the wrong take.

You should think for yourself and understand.
Beats any believing, i tell you.




...and why you think that the physicists and engineers who do believe that there was no 757 at the Pentagon are convinced that a an aircraft hit the WTC, despite making arguments that the building collapsed in a controlled demolition.

That's what "authority's" do.
They tell lies for all kinds of reasons.

That's why it's so important to think for yourself and not believe anyone, me included.
You must understand the stuff.



Do you actually know of any physicists and engineers who support the no planes at the WTC other than conspiracy theorists who believe they have a better understanding of physics than the physicists?

Judy Wood for one.
But then again...she pushes some " Hutchison effect" of which i have seen no proof.

Well...that's 'authority' eh.



"It's true that such crashes "send things smashing about in a big way," but the velocity of the impact has a large effect on the shape of the damage. In particular, the higher the speed of the crash, the more thorough but localized the damage to the target. And the lightweight aluminum airframe of a 767 would be essentially shredded by the over 400-mph impact with the tower's curtain wall.............


As the late Holmgren said : an object cannot leave a contour shaped hole
and be shredded to pieces at the same time.

It's one or the other.


The idea that the wings should have bounced off reflects a failure to appreciate the effects of inertia in such a high-speed collision. Yes, we might see large pieces of wing survive a collision at 100 mph but not at 400 mph, which involves 16 times as much kinetic energy. .......


The idea that the wings went through those steel tubes reflects a failure to appreciate the effects
of inertia of the steel wall itself.

Either the alu is DECELERATED or the steel is ACCELERATED.
And the steel tubes have a lot more mass than the alu wings.

[truegroup]

When a duck is involved in a head-on collision with a plane, does it leave a hole in the fuselage in the shape of its outstretched wings?

Depends if it's wings have 10,000 gallons of fuel in them I suppose. Difficult to tell really.

[ultima1]

It is certainly the case that that much of the Boeing aircraft which hit the Amsterdam steel reinforced concrete apartment building was pulverised, as would have been the case with the WTC;

Also the fact that the apartment building did not completly collapse.

the impact would be entirely halted by steel is simply nonsense.

Well the Purdue study shows that the aluminum airframes were shredded as it entered the buildings but fuel and debris kept going inside.

[stannrodd]

The difference is obvious.
No debris at all on the ground at the impactside.

Can you prove this to be true..

Show us some photos of "no debris" on the impact side..

Oh and just BTW no planes cannot make impacts .. therefore there is no impact side. :D

:eek:

[bryan]

I suppose that you have performed your own experiments by crashing a 75 ton duck flying at 600 miles per hour into sheets of aluminium.

Many pictures of bird damage to planes have been posted here and I don't remember seeing any holes that were the same shape as a bird in flight, although it did used to happen in Roadrunner.


Depends if it's wings have 10,000 gallons of fuel in them I suppose. Difficult to tell really.

So if only half the span of the wings had fuel on board, you'd expect the gash to be half as long as the full wing span?

[bryan]

Can you prove this to be true..

Show us some photos of "no debris" on the impact side..

Oh and just BTW no planes cannot make impacts .. therefore there is no impact side. :D


And don't forget, you have to prove there was no debris without making reference to the notion of "debris", otherwise you'll get a "fail" at the Stann School of Logic & Common Sense.

[ultima1]

And don't forget, you have to prove there was no debris without making reference to the notion of "debris", otherwise you'll get a "fail" at the Stann School of Logic & Common Sense.

How about the FACT of no official reports matching debris found to 9/11 planes?

[stannrodd]

And don't forget, you have to prove there was no debris without making reference to the notion of "debris", otherwise you'll get a "fail" at the Stann School of Logic & Common Sense.

:confused: Only no planers need to disprove Debris

[luciferhorus]

Future Science, Holograms, etc.

Ok well I decided to look into this some more ad find out why so many people are convinced that the aircraft which flew into the Twin Towers were the product of either TV fakery or holograms.

Of course the idea of these planes being holograms seems to be an incredible theory at first; however it does seem to be the case that the US miliary have been working on this techology since at least 1991 (according to the Washington Post). "The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that [the Post] has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS [psychological operations] application (see article below);" the article further states: "a virtual aircraft is created to deceive the enemy as to the size and location of attacking forces."http://justgetthere.us/blog/archives/Project-Bluebeam-TV-Fakery,-Holographic-Projections-Audio-Spotlights.html

We cannot be absolutely certain whether such technology has been developed and perfected by the US military, but since we know for a fact that they were working on such a project, I think it is fair to say, at the very least, that it appears to be entirely "possible."

However I would also state that since most scientists, engineers and practically everyone in the 911 truth movement is convinced that the towers were a controlled demolition, that the evidence for this is far more powerful and convincing, whereas the idea of "giant holograms" crashing into the towers, even though such technology appears to be "possible" is simply too far fetched for the average American who is barely scientifically literate and who mostly seem to be concerned with football result and accumulating a collection of shoes and handbags, etc.


"From history commons: According to a 1999 Washington Post website report, the US Air Force starts a research program this year to develop a “holographic projector” as a psychological warfare weapon. Holograms are three-dimensional images created by laser technology. The US military explored the idea of using holograms during the 1991 Gulf War to deceive the Iraqis, but did not pursue it for technical reasons. One idea was to project a hologram of Allah several hundred feet in size over Baghdad, but this would take a mirror in space more than a mile square, plus huge projectors and power sources. Additionally, there are strict Islamic proscriptions on the depiction of Allah. However, the US military did not abandon the concept. “The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that [the Post] has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS [psychological operations] application. The 'Holographic Projector' is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to 'project information power from space… for special operations deception missions.'” A 1996 study commissioned by a US Air Force panel called “Air Force 2025” shows how a future “Airborne Holographic Projector” might look like. In this illustration, a virtual aircraft is created to deceive the enemy as to the size and location of attacking forces."
http://justgetthere.us/blog/archives/Project-Bluebeam-TV-Fakery,-Holographic-Projections-Audio-Spotlights.html


TV fakery.

Yes it is certainly possible to to create real time TV fakery and to add or remove images such as an aircraft. However just because it is possible, does not make it actual in terms of the WTC on 911.

"From history commons: Press reports warn that newly-developed digital data manipulation software which automate the creation of fake pictures, videos, or audio recordings could be used for political deception or military advantage. Moviegoers are used to elaborate special effects, but until recently that required expensive and time-consuming, frame-by-frame, post-production work. Now, however, software developed since the mid-1990s permit much faster, even real-time, special effects. Real-time video manipulation allows the deletion of people or objects from a live broadcast or the insertion of pre-recorded images. The technology has commercial applications: it is used in sports broadcasting to generate a virtual “first-down” line or virtual billboards. It is also used, more controversially, in some news programming (see January 13, 2000). A related technology called “digital morphing” is now available to create virtual characters who can convincingly imitate real-life persons, as in the film “Forrest Gump”. Voice morphing, a technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, allows the creation of computer speech based on a short recording of someone’s voice. The virtual voice can be surprisingly life-like: the robotic intonations are a thing of the past. For intelligence agencies and PSYOPS (psychological operations) personnel the new techniques are potential weapons of the future. While the public at large is familiar with edited or “photoshopped” images, it is not yet aware of the possibilities for audio or real-time video deception."

http://justgetthere.us/blog/archives/Project-Bluebeam-TV-Fakery,-Holographic-Projections-Audio-Spotlights.html

"Strange Science."

Someone posted a set of videos on a thread on the "911" section of this forum which I was watching yesterday; unfortunately I cannot fnd the links to them; however they were interviews with a retired aeronautical engineer who as I recall have a lifelong career with Boeing or Northrop or similar. Essentially he was talking about advanced technologies and so forth and that the US military has developed some very advanced secret equipment which the public is entirely unaware of; this is almost certainly the case; thus many things which appear "far fetched" and "mysterious" to the average person in the street, can be simply explained in terms of advanced science. The engineer in question also spoke about the development of anti-gravity technology and stated that the UFO pehnomenon is simply a part of the US military's secret projects, which may be mysterious to the masses, but it perfectly scientifically explicable.

Infrared Photography and Cloaking Technologies.

If you type in "infrared photography UFO" into Google, you will find an array of sites with images of what appear to be spherical or geometrically shaped objects in the skies which are invisible to the naked eye; such images have been widely photographed, including by members of the scientific community. Again rather than assuming that this is "bizzare" of the product of "little green men" I think it safe to say that this too must have a "scientific" explanation which is probably closer to home, since the US military have also been developing cloaking technologies.

That's Impossible: Invisibility Cloaks- Part 1/5 (History Channel)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

The issue of cloaking technologies may not relate to 9/11, however the point I wish to make is that in the video above, the argument is made that a large British military tank was able to project 360 degree images of the landscape behind the tank onto the tank itself, and thus it seemes to dissapear from any angle; thus it appears quite possible to look up in the sky, and see a 757 which is actually only a projection of a 757; the actual craft itself may have been something very different.

I mention all these matters since what is "incredible" and "unbelievable" or even a "crackpot" theory to most people, may well just be the product of very advanced science.

When it comes to all the minute details of what occurred on 911, much of what is discussed is speculation, however the overwhelming evidence from the scientific and engineering community of the 911 truth movement is that the government propganda on 911 is full of holes, and that is can be established that the demolition of the WTC and the impact at the Pentagon were "not" due to the impact of Boeing aircraft.

Lux

[ultima1]

Future Science, Holograms, etc.

You need to go to the DARPA webpage and look at some of the projects they have been working on.

www.darpa.gov

[kooskoets]

Ok well I decided to look into this some more ad find out why so many people are convinced that the aircraft which flew into the Twin Towers were the product of either TV fakery or holograms.


Please...nobody believes 'holograms' is a possibility.
Don't start pushing that stuff.

It's tv-fakery that was used and the chance that it will be used again is about 100 %.

That's why this fact should be known by the (m)asses.

[sidlittle]

It's tv-fakery that was used and the chance that it will be used again is about 100 %.

That's why this fact should be known by the (m)asses.

Absolutely this.

and its why the "it doesn't matter if planes were used or not.. lets all get along" brigade, many of whom are probably well meaning, are at the same time misguided.

[luciferhorus]

Please...nobody believes 'holograms' is a possibility.
Don't start pushing that stuff.

On the contrary, I am not the one "Pushing" such bizzare theories; I merely wondered "why" it is that people believe such theories, which clearly some peopl do. Since the US military have been working on the use of large holograms for military purposes and while it is certainly not impossible, the point is that there is no solid evidence for their use, whereas there is solid evidence for controlled demolition and the use of thermate.


It's tv-fakery that was used and the chance that it will be used again is about 100 %.
That's why this fact should be known by the (m)asses.

Well again while TV-fakery is also certainly possible impossible, it is simply a speculative theory; I do not find the same "hard evidence" for this as there exists for other aforementioned matters which disprove the government position, and is evidence which is widely acceptable to the scientific community.

This position is summed up by the following statement.



"DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign


Many people associate these fringe, crackpot theories with the 9/11 truth movement. These "theories" remain a persistent problem within the 9/11 Truth movement. But anyone who has done any kind of research into 9/11 or the 9/11 truth movement knows that these "theories" are not supported by the 9/11 truth movement and those who peddle them are not 9/11 truthers. For example:

9/11 Blogger:

So those who propose that the 9/11 planes were video forgeries or "holographs" are either seriously confused, or they are purposefully promoting disinformation.

This site will not defend, support, or promote the instigators of these lies, or those who give them a platform. They are not friends of the truth.


As far as the DEW/Energy weapon theory, 9/11 Blogger had this to say:

There are many problems with the DEW idea... it shouldn't actually be called a scientific hypothesis or theory. You have to be able to TEST a scientific hypothesis or theory, but you cannot test a system that you cannot even properly identify.


Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice:

STJ does not support theories of exotic weaponry or similar (DEW, nukes, TV Fakery, no planes at the WTC) and will remove from it's membership any who make public assertions about such theories. That is not a personal decision but a scientific, strategic and common sense one -- those theories have no scientific evidence to support them and serve to undermine what our own published researchers are moving forward with by making us appear nonsensical, and cannot be supported by STJ.


Loose Change forums:

NPT theories (no-plane theories), and support of movies like September Clues, is not allowed in any way. Planes hit the WTC. We refuse to allow that to be disputed on this forum.


Other organizations that do not support DEW/energy weapon or the no-plane/tv fakery "theories" also include:

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth

These, with the aforementioned, make up the bulk of the research organizations within the 9/11 truth movement. Following is some further reading on the above theories:

An article about why these theories are not wanted nor allowed in the 9/11 truth movement:
On Disinformation and Damaging Associations

DEW/Energy Weapons debunked:
Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center

A study of some issues raised in a paper by Wood & Reynolds

INTERVIEW WITH DR. JUDY WOOD AND DR. GREG JENKINS


TV fakery debunked:
A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories

September Clues, TV Fakery Debunked

Debunking September Clues - A point-by-point analysis


Those who support or peddle the above theories are not 9/11 truthers and are not seeking truth. They are seeking to deface and destroy the 9/11 truth movement with their ridiculous "theories" that have no scientific, verifiable, or truthful basis."
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread550030/pg1


Hyperlinks to the "TV fakery debunking" videos are on the site above.

Inlcuding: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/september-clues-debunked.html

Lux

[ellis_deatrip]

On the contrary, I am not the one "Pushing" such bizzare theories; I merely wondered "why" it is that people believe such theories, which clearly some peopl do. Since the US military have been working on the use of large holograms for military purposes and while it is certainly not impossible, the point is that there is no solid evidence for their use, whereas there is solid evidence for controlled demolition and the use of thermate.




Well again while TV-fakery is also certainly possible impossible, it is simply a speculative theory; I do not find the same "hard evidence" for this as there exists for other aforementioned matters which disprove the government position, and is evidence which is widely acceptable to the scientific community.

This position is summed up by the following statement.



[I]"DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign


Many people associate these fringe, crackpot theories with the 9/11 truth movement. These "theories" remain a persistent problem within the 9/11 Truth movement. But anyone who has done any kind of research into 9/11 or the 9/11 truth movement knows that these "theories" are not supported by the 9/11 truth movement and those who peddle them are not 9/11 truthers.

Lux
:rolleyes:
"Truth" don't need any movement, Truth is truth, it doesn't budge. The links above are not any closer to the truth than the shit they claim to debunk.Thermite? yeah right.There is too much NOT explained by the thermite huggers' theories . Fuck , this whole "Truth" movement is an industry now.An Industry like a majority of the rest is based on deception and LIES. Lies have spawned industries, created jobs, and wasted Trillions of dollars.
Lies will always need a movement.These liars will use the phrase "you are harming the truth movement". They understand that a movement is a criminal game that they will be able to control and use against anything they disagree with.
There is no evidence to support planes were used. Video, pictures, witnesses are NOT evidence.Only debris can verify a plane crash. No parts of any planes ,not one single piece has ever been physically verified in any way by anyone from any of the 4 planes from any of the 4 locations on 9/11.

Therefore to believe there were planes is supporting a LIE.

[hadabusa]

If you take a second to look at the photo you posted you would see a woman standing in the hole that was supposed to be a inferno of burning jet fuel from the plane.

Where is the burning jet fuel?

Would the woman be standing there if their was burning jet fuel all over?

indeed.

and thats not even everything thats odd.



LH, i do see all points youve made, theyre reasonable.


i know NPT sounds troughoutly insane.

(wtc).

ive been looking into both sides&trough spectrum, from september clues to your sites and jref.


im still undecided.


i really looked into all arguments i came across, and something just isnt right.

not even mentioning the collapses.


weve got a guy here(kbeet)saying hes an eyewitness.

he seen the tail hanging out of building, from 1.5 miles, tough.

he says a quatermile max, but his described location , lower 5th , is 1.5 miles, away.

either hes full of bs, or theres truth in what he says.

he accuses npt ct's of tampering all vids,pics.

means, he saw something different then we seen on tv.

no idea if hes legit, he SEEMS honest&good hearted guy to me.

cheers

[hadabusa]

There's the dumbass argument again.

You know it doesn't matter in a collision which of the objects is moving ?
If the building (500.000 tons ) would be thrown against a stationary plane at 500+ mph.,
you would get the SAME outcome.

So the much larger momentum gives the same result.
But then again, how would a crackpot know.




You know large pieces of that plane were found in front of the building ?
You know that plane was a fully loaded freightplane ?
You know that building was concrete, not steel ?




In any collision the weakest object will take the most damage.
In any case of a plane against a steel building, the building wins.

That's all proven physics.
But then again, how would YOU know.

hm.look here.

F4 Phantom Vs. Wall - YouTube

[hadabusa]

lh, btw, i personally dont say nothing hit wtc.

im sceptical wether it were passenger planes.

[luciferhorus]

hm.look here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8

It seems that we are discussing the same issues on several threads.



Yes, it looks to me like the concrete wall is several metres thick, and it may well be steel reinforced concrete. Steel reinforcing is standard in the construction industry, since concrete block construction can only hold the weight of small, lightweight dwellings, not large skyscrapers.


http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/col-dimensions.gif

The diagram above is of the outer steel tubular colums which covered the outside of the WTC in between the windows. As you can see it is only 2.5 inches think at it's densest point; not quite the same as ramming into a reinforced concrete wall which is several metres thick.

I have some very thin steel cable at home which is used for hanging heavy picture frames on walls. It is only a couple of millimetres thick. It cannot be broken by hand, but it will only hold so much weight before snapping. I could probably tension the steel cable and hit it with a block of wood or aluminium and I am quite certain it would break. In fact if I dropped a heavy enough large pile of newspapers on it, it would break.

Allegedly the kenetic energy released by a Boeing 767 in a flight collision with an object would be 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules). I am not qualified sufficiently in physics or in engineering to be able to understand exactly what 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules) can do to a hollow steel column, but I could certainly break a small steel cable with a lump of aluminium, and that would be nowhere near 3.706 billion ft lbs force, but it may be a useful comparison to 100 ton aircraft slamming into a 2.5 inch (the thickness of the steel plate) tubular steel column.

There are numerous calculations of the collision on http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm.

The WTC Boeing crashed through a singluar 2.5 inch tubular outer column, however that was like tissue paper in comparison to the inner core columns which are described as "47 steel box columns tied together at each floor by steel plates." It is of course universally held by all engineers and architects of the 911 truth movement that it would be impossible for a Boeing to do anything other than minor damage to a grid of 47 attached steel columns in the core of the WTC.

The effect of a Boeing hitting a web of 47 steel core columns at the WTC attached together by metal plates would be much like the effect of the jet on the previous page hitting a reinforced concrete wall several metres thick.

It would be quite another matter to fly a 100 ton Boeing into a 2.5 inch inch thick tubular steel column; one would not expect the same resistance as a connected grid of 47 steel columns or a reinforced concrete block several feet thick.

If any of the WTC No-paners have a spare Boeing 767, or a 100 ton aircraft, I would suggest that they fly it at a tubular steel column 2.5 minches thick, at 400 mph and see what happens, otherwise we have to wonder why the architects, physicists and engineers of the 911 truth movement don't have a problem with the maths of this and why they seem to almost universally consider the "WTC No Planers" to be out to destroy the credibility of the evidence which "can" be proven of the impossibility of a Boeing aircraft sufficiently destroying a connected grid of 47 steel box columns or of dissapearing into a tiny hole at the Pentagon.

Lux

http://electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/1/ramp.jpg

The above is the damage done to an (steel reinforced concrete) apartment building in Amsterdam
in the 1992 El Al (Israeli) Bijlmer crash from the 747 Boeing aircraft below. I cannot find the airspeed of the Israeli Boeing, but it was certainly "not" flying at anywhere near to 400 mph; the craft suffered engine failure, it had lost two of its four engines, and the crash ocurred partly because it was flying too slow as it came into land and lost altutide.

http://electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/1/elalcargo483.jpg

[ultima1]

The wall in the video with the F-4 is a special made reinfoced wall to protect nuclear plants.

You cannot really compare it to the walls of the WTC towers and Pentagon.

[kooskoets]

It seems that we are discussing the same issues on several threads.

No...you're discussing nothing.
Y're a copy/paste bot without an opinion of your own.

[kooskoets]

The wall in the video with the F-4 is a special made reinfoced wall to protect nuclear plants.

You cannot really compare it to the walls of the WTC towers and Pentagon.

Nobody compares concrete to steel.
That video shows how, in a collision, the weaker object takes the most damage.

That's also what would happen in a REAL collision between a plane and a WTC tower.
The plane would be shredded.

[luciferhorus]

No...you're discussing nothing.
Y're a copy/paste bot without an opinion of your own.

In the post above there are a few sentences which I have surrounded by quotation marks and which are italicised in the original and the source is cited as http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...demolition.htm..


Since I am not sufficiently qualified in engineering or physics to make such calculations, I have no choice but to refer to experts in that field.

You have still to tell us where you did your PhD in engineering or physics, or is your "No plane theory" just one you have made up on your own without bothering to consult the opinions of experts in physics and engineering.

If a qualified electrician tells you that the wiring in your house is unsafe, and you repond with "Oh I have my own opinion about that," that is just foolishness and arrogance.

You seem to keep repeating the mantra of, "in a collision, the weaker object takes the most damage," as if to suggest that a "weaker object" receives no damage at all and that the 2.5 inch tubular steel outer columns should have been stong enough to wistand the impact of a 100 ton aircraft flying at 400 mph; and yet you are unable to substantiate your scientific qualifications to make such a judgement or to provide calculations of other scientists to support your theory, which if correct, would also imply that in the collision between the El Al (Israeli) jet in Amsterdam and a steel reinforced concrete apartment that the building should similarly have just have absorbed the impact with little or no damage.

This is the problem of "conspiracy pseudo-science" in that it reduces the credibility of scientists who do argue that the WTC towers were not brought down by aircraft, but by controlled demolition, but who find no problem with a 100 ton aircraft damaging a 2.5 inch tubular steel column.



Personally I am suspect that the "No Planes at the WTC" theory is a US military psy-op designed to discredit the scientific evidence suggesting a US military operation. I am not of course suggesting that everyone who touts the "No planes at the WTC" theory is working for the US military, but either that or they seem to be little more than useful idiots who substitute their own unqualified opinions for that of "science."

Read Ace Baker's scientific treatise.
Composites-1-9.pdf

And to restate, Ace Baker describes himself as a professional musician, not a scientist.
Lux

[ultima1]

That's also what would happen in a REAL collision between a plane and a WTC tower.
The plane would be shredded.

Actually in the towers the steel lattice cut the plane, it was not like they hit a solid wall like the block in the video.

[kooskoets]

Since I am not sufficiently qualified in engineering or physics to make such calculations, I have no choice but to refer to experts in that field.


So you just have no opinion of your own. OK ?
What you're doing here ?

Move on.




You have still to tell us where you did your PhD in engineering or physics


Ive explained myself on that point very clear.
Go to your church, you have NO opinion.



You seem to keep repeating the mantra of, "in a collision, the weaker object takes the most damage," as if to suggest that a "weaker object" receives no damage at all and that the 2.5 inch tubular steel outer columns should have been stong enough to wistand the impact of a 100 ton aircraft flying at 400 mph; and yet you are unable to substantiate your scientific qualifications to make such a judgement or to provide calculations of other scientists to support your theory,


It's not MY theory, it's PROVEN PHYSICS.
You keep lulling about "impact of fat plane" while totally omitting the inertia of the building.






which if correct, would also imply that in the collision between the El Al (Israeli) jet in Amsterdam and a steel reinforced concrete apartment that the building should similarly have just have absorbed the impact with little or no damage.

Nobody sais the building would have NO damage,
Stop twisting my words, freak.

In A"dam the planewreckage was fould on the impactside and that was not the case in NY.
I told you that before but you just don't read, to busy copy/pasting other shills 'theories'.



And to restate, Ace Baker describes himself as a professional musician, not a scientist.
Lux

Again, Ace Baker has an opinion of his own.
And he has a ton of proof to show he's correct.

You have NOTHING.
Again...go to your church and come back when you're ready to discuss YOUR OWN OPINION.

[kooskoets]

Actually in the towers the steel lattice cut the plane, it was not like they hit a solid wall like the block in the video.

Cut, shred, ripp apart...all that.

Nothing of that shows on those video's, so they're fake.
No debris was found on the impactside, so there were no planes.

[ultima1]

Cut, shred, ripp apart...all that.

Nothing of that shows on those video's, so they're fake.
No debris was found on the impactside, so there were no planes.

Well the Purdue universtiy study shows that the planes thin aluminum was cut as it entered the buildings, the fuel and some parts continued on causing the majority of damage, NOT THE PLANE ITSELF.

[kooskoets]

Well the Purdue universtiy study shows that the planes thin aluminum was cut as it entered the buildings, the fuel and some parts continued on causing the majority of damage, NOT THE PLANE ITSELF.

Yip, but the purdue cartoon shows an unrealistic happening.
A plane, entering a building and being ripped apart at the same time.

That is impossible.

They made their cartoon like that by deceptively using the MEAN speed for all parts,
while in the real world, parts like engines, landinggear and full fueltank would not decelerate very much and the fusilage-parts would be stopped
and land on the impactside.

[ultima1]

Yip, but the purdue cartoon shows an unrealistic happening.A plane, entering a building and being ripped apart at the same time.

That is impossible.

NO its not imposible. The thin aluminum airframe would have been cut by the steel lattice of the building as it entered the building.

But the video of what looks like an intact nose of a plane comming out the other side of the building is impossible.

[kooskoets]

NO its not imposible. The thin aluminum airframe would have been cut by the steel lattice of the building as it entered the building.



Sorry, it's impossible.

You cannot have a collision where one object breaks through another and that same object
is destroyed at the same time.

It's just logic here.

Or give an example where an object makes a hole in another and is destroyed/ripped apart at the same time ?
I know no real world examples of that and think that is not surprising.

[ultima1]

[QUOTE=kooskoets;1059008023]Sorry, it's impossible.

You cannot have a collision where one object breaks through another and that same object
is destroyed [QUOTE]

Yes, the speed of the aircraft would have driven it into the buidling but as it entered the buidling it was being shredded by the steel lattice.

As explained in the Purdue study.

[kooskoets]

[QUOTE=kooskoets;1059008023]Sorry, it's impossible.

You cannot have a collision where one object breaks through another and that same object
is destroyed [QUOTE]

Yes, the speed of the aircraft would have driven it into the buidling but as it entered the buidling it was being shredded by the steel lattice.

As explained in the Purdue study.

It's impossible.
The purdue study takes the MEAN speed for all parts and that is just deception, as i said before.

Lots of alu sheet parts would bounce back and fall to the floor while the heavy parts would hardly decelarate.
As i said before.

As i asked before : can you give an example of a collision where one object make a hole in another
while being ripped apart at the same time ?
Can you or can you not ?

[ultima1]

Sorry, it's impossible.

You cannot have a collision where one object breaks through another and that same object is destroyed

Well what about the following photo? The plane breaks through the trees but the trees also destroys the plane as it goes through.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/INDONESIA_AIR_CRASH_03.jpg?t=1277822169

The same thing happened to whatever hit the Pentagon.

[kooskoets]

Well what about the following photo? The plane breaks through the trees but the trees also destroys the plane as it goes through.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/INDONESIA_AIR_CRASH_03.jpg?t=1277822169

The same thing happened to whatever hit the Pentagon.

Oh come on...

The plane breaks through the trees

You're kidding, right ?
Was there a planeshaped hole in those trees ?

That pic. was only used to show the fragility of a plane.
Can't compare it to two colliding objects.

Please produce a valid example as i asked ?

[hadabusa]

Nobody compares concrete to steel.
That video shows how, in a collision, the weaker object takes the most damage.

That's also what would happen in a REAL collision between a plane and a WTC tower.
The plane would be shredded.

its a bit double edged sword, tough.

i know, its a special sort of concrete, thr plane was pulverized, but the wings cut trough it.

:confused:

[kooskoets]

its a bit double edged sword, tough.

i know, its a special sort of concrete, thr plane was pulverized, but the wings cut trough it.

:confused:

No...the wings didn't cut through.
They were cut off at the edge of the concrete block.

[ultima1]

That pic. was only used to show the fragility of a plane.
Can't compare it to two colliding objects.

The photo is used to show how fragile the airframe is and that hitting enough thickness of concrete or steel would destroy the plane. BUT the plane would make it in some distane due to speed and momentum.

Such as the steel lattice of the WTC buidlings or the wall of the Pentagon.

[kooskoets]

The photo is used to show how fragile the airframe is and that hitting enough thickness of concrete or steel woudl destroy the plane.

Yes,but here's what i asked :


can you give an example of a collision where one object make a hole in another
while being ripped apart at the same time ?

Can you give me an example ?

[ultima1]

Yes,but here's what i asked :




Can you give me an example ?

How about a bird hitting a plane.

The bird makes a hole through the wing or nose but is destroyed by going through.

[kooskoets]

How about a bird hitting a plane.

The bird makes a hole through the wing or nose but is destroyed by going through.

Nope.

The bird will be dead i guess, but it will be still one piece.
It's not ripped apart at all.

[bryan]

Well again while TV-fakery is also certainly possible impossible, it is simply a speculative theory; I do not find the same "hard evidence" for this as there exists for other aforementioned matters which disprove the government position, and is evidence which is widely acceptable to the scientific community.

The hard evidence is in the TV archives. No-planers tend to have spent a lot of time in the archives, whereas the people pushing the lie that planes hit the towers refuse to even acknowledge the archives exist.



Loose Change forums:

NPT theories (no-plane theories), and support of movies like September Clues, is not allowed in any way. Planes hit the WTC. We refuse to allow that to be disputed on this forum.

And you think this is a good way to run a movement dedicated to finding the truth? It reminds me of how the round-earthers were treated by the Vatican. At least Simon Shack hasn't been burned at the stake yet.

[bryan]

Yes, the speed of the aircraft would have driven it into the buidling but as it entered the buidling it was being shredded by the steel lattice.

As explained in the Purdue study.

So the columns are shredding the plane at the same time the plane is breaking the columns. Is there not a conundrum here?

[ultima1]

Nope.

The bird will be dead i guess, but it will be still one piece.
It's not ripped apart at all.

So you have never seen a birdstike.

[ultima1]

So the columns are shredding the plane at the same time the plane is breaking the columns. Is there not a conundrum here?

NO, i suggest you read the conclusion of the Purdue study.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html
A scientifically based video animation of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center by researchers at Purdue shows that it was the weight of the fuel combined with the fire, and not the aircraft itself, that caused the most damage to the buildings. Only a few parts of the airplane, such as the titanium jet propeller shafts, actually continued through the building, the researchers say.

[kooskoets]

NO, i suggest you read the conclusion of the Purdue study.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html
A scientifically based video animation of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center by researchers at Purdue shows that it was the weight of the fuel combined with the fire, and not the aircraft itself, that caused the most damage to the buildings. Only a few parts of the airplane, such as the titanium jet propeller shafts, actually continued through the building, the researchers say.

A scientifically based video animation of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center by researchers at Purdue

There you have your answer.
That video didn't come from a FEM calculation.

It is a "scientific" cartoon.
A make believe fairy tail,

Get over it...

[macgyver1968]

Does an object lose mass by being broken into smaller pieces?

[kooskoets]

Does an object lose mass by being broken into smaller pieces?

No, but not all pieces will have the same speed.
And that's what is depicted in the purdue video.

It's a fraud, made to mislead.

[hadabusa]

Does an object lose mass by being broken into smaller pieces?

no, but its not a single object anymore.

[ultima1]

A scientifically based video animation of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center by researchers at Purdue..
It is a "scientific" cartoon.
A make believe fairy tail,

Get over it...



I will get over it IF you can proof the science wrong.

[kooskoets]

I will get over it IF you can proof the science wrong.

What that video shows is an object. pushing a hole in another object while
being ripped apart at the same time.

That is impossible.

You've not been able to provide an example of such a happening because
such a thing cannot happen in this world.

[ultima1]

What that video shows is an object. pushing a hole in another object whilebeing ripped apart at the same time.

That is impossible.

NO its not impossible, you cannot prove the sceince wrong. Its pretty much common sense that steel will rip apart aluminum.

Sorry but the scientific facts stand, get over it.

[kooskoets]

NO its not impossible, you cannot prove the sceince wrong. Its pretty much common sense that steel will rip apart aluminum.

But will the steel rip apart aluminium while being cut through at the same time ?
Will it ?



Sorry but the scientific facts stand, get over it.

WHAT scientific facts you're talking about ?

BTW : you failed to give an example of a collision where one object makes a hole in another
while being ripped apart at the same time.

Is there something coming up or are you ready to admit it is an impossibility ?

[ultima1]

But will the steel rip apart aluminium while being cut through at the same time ?

No one says it is being cut through at the same time, thats something out of someones imagination.


WHAT scientific facts you're talking about ?

The facts from the Purdue study. I am waiting for you to prove them wrong.

You have failed to post anything to debate the Purdue study.

[kooskoets]

No one says it is being cut through at the same time, thats something out of someones imagination.

So...what's this imaginary happening doing in the purdue video ?
So...what's this imaginary happening doing in the planehuggers logic ?



The facts from the Purdue study. I am waiting for you to prove them wrong.

I already did.
YOU are the one dodging the Q.


You have failed to post anything to debate the Purdue study.

Again : you failed to give an example of a collision where one object makes a hole in another
while being ripped apart at the same time.

Is there something coming up or are you ready to admit it is an impossibility ?

[bryan]

No one says it is being cut through at the same time, thats something out of someones imagination.

Did the columns break before or after they shredded the plane?

[ultima1]

Did the columns break before or after they shredded the plane?

Well if you would have read the Purdue study or any report done you would know that the damage was not done by the plane itself.

IT WAS DONE AFTER THE STEEL SHREDDED THE AIRFRAME, PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING.

Also the fact that there was not a lot of damage done according to most reports.

[ultima1]

I already did.


NO you did not post and evidence to prove the science of the Purdue study wrong, Sorry but your opinion or theory does not count as evidence.

[kooskoets]

NO you did not post and evidence to prove the science of the Purdue study wrong, Sorry but your opinion or theory does not count as evidence.


Originally Posted by ultima1 View Post
No one says it is being cut through at the same time, thats something out of someones imagination.


So...what's this imaginary happening doing in the purdue video ?

Can't you read ?

And once gain :

you failed to give an example of a collision where one object makes a hole in another
while being ripped apart at the same time.

Is there something coming up or are you ready to admit it is an impossibility ?


You sure have a hard time with that one, isn't it ?
Come on...

[bryan]

Well if you would have read the Purdue study or any report done you would know that the damage was not done by the plane itself.

IT WAS DONE AFTER THE STEEL SHREDDED THE AIRFRAME, PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING.

Also the fact that there was not a lot of damage done according to most reports.

Columns were broken by parts of the wing that were outboard of baffle rib 18. What broke those columns?

[ultima1]

You sure have a hard time with that one, isn't it ?
Come on...

NO you did not post and evidence to prove the science of the Purdue study wrong, Sorry but your opinion or theory does not count as evidence.

[ultima1]

Columns were broken by parts of the wing that were outboard of baffle rib 18. What broke those columns?

You cannot read the Purdue Study ?

[kooskoets]

NO you did not post and evidence to prove the science of the Purdue study wrong, Sorry but your opinion or theory does not count as evidence.

Again : not MY opinion.
Just facts.

Nice of you to admit you cannot give an example of that strange collision you believe has happened.
Took you a long time. ( ..and that alone shows the purdue video is useless disneywork)

Maybe you get some knowledge after all...

[bryan]

You cannot read the Purdue Study ?

Why don't you just answer the question and maybe explain why you put so much faith in the Purdue study?

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=37


A newly released Purdue University animation showing how fire caused the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 claims to be independent but in reality has been federally funded and was conducted by individuals with direct links to the Pentagon and the White House.


It has also been brought to our attention that structural engineer Mete Sozen, the lead investigator in the Purdue study, was also on the American Society of Civil Engineers research team that confirmed the government’s story about the OKC bombing in 1995, despite the huge amounts of inconsistencies and conflicting testimony.

Coincidence?

[ultima1]

Why don't you just answer the question and maybe explain why you put so much faith in the Purdue study?

Because anyone with a basic knowledge of what aircraft are made out of will agree with the Purdue study. Also basic common sense and intelligence will tell you that the steel lattice will shred the thin aluminum as it entered the building.

[ultima1]

Again : not MY opinion.
Just facts....

NO facts were posted to dispute the Purdue study, stop being dishonest.

[kooskoets]

NO facts were posted to dispute the Purdue study, stop being dishonest.

You have admitted that the video shows something that can not happen in reality.
That IS a fact, dummy.

[ultima1]

You have admitted that the video shows something that can not happen in reality.
That IS a fact

The fact is that you cannot post something to prove the study wrong, get over it and move on.

[kooskoets]

The fact is that you cannot post something to prove the study wrong, get over it and move on.

I did a few times...no point in denying.

You failed to give an example of a collision where one object makes a hole in another
while being ripped apart at the same time.

Because such a happening is impossible.
The video shows such a happening so it's a cartoon.

You keep on dodging questions, asking for facts while they're in front of you to cover your failure.

Another troll bites the dust.

[ultima1]

I did a few times...no point in denying.

Everyone can see you have not posted anything to prove the study wrong. Stop being dishonest.

You failed to give an example of a collision where one object makes a hole in another while being ripped apart at the same time.

Yes i have posted examples and proven it, you have failed to be adult enough to accept it as everyeon here can see.

Anyone with basic common sense would know that stell lattace would shred thin aluminum, why can't you have the common sense to see it?

[apollo_gnomon]

I am pleased to see that the two of you have found one another.

A match made in heaven!!

[bryan]

Because anyone with a basic knowledge of what aircraft are made out of will agree with the Purdue study. Also basic common sense and intelligence will tell you that the steel lattice will shred the thin aluminum as it entered the building.

An egg-slicer will slice a boiled egg, but the egg-slicer will still be in one piece after the egg has been sliced.

[ultima1]

An egg-slicer will slice a boiled egg, but the egg-slicer will still be in one piece after the egg has been sliced.

But the egg is not traveling at 500 MPH..OOPPSS there went your theory.

[kooskoets]

Everyone can see you have not posted anything to prove the study wrong. Stop being dishonest.

Everyone can see i did.



Yes i have posted examples and proven it, you have failed to be adult enough to accept it as everyeon here can see.



...and outed as a liar also.

You NEVER gave a proper example.
I rest my case.

[bryan]

But the egg is not traveling at 500 MPH..OOPPSS there went your theory.

How fast does a boiled egg have to be travelling to destroy an egg slicer?

[ultima1]

How fast does a boiled egg have to be travelling to destroy an egg slicer?

How about trying to use a example that is more closer to a plane and a building and not some fantasy theory?

A planes airframe with momentum will do some damage, but is not strong enough to stop being shredded by the steel lattica as common sense and basic intelligence dictates.

[ultima1]

Everyone can see i did.

Then post it again for us all to see. Evidence that would hold up in court, since i do the same.

[kooskoets]

Then post it again for us all to see. Evidence that would hold up in court, since i do the same.

Here, look in the mirror. (http://www.serendipity.li/bush/beyond_insanity.htm)

[ultima1]

Here, look in the mirror.

Thanks for showing us you cannot post the real evidence asked for,, BUT i can.

Following photo shows trees destroyed the airframe.

It also shows planes airframe destroyed the trees .


http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/INDONESIA_AIR_CRASH_03.jpg?t=1278130978

[ellis_deatrip]

There weren't any trees growing up on the top floors of the WTC. And that photo shows a plane that can be VERIFIED as a plane using its remains to gather serial numbers to identify it as the actual plane that it appears to be, and I bet there's still a black box too. There has not been one part or a blackbox recovered in the investigations of all four events, that allegedly involved planes. The only evidence that is required is to prove there were planes. until then there weren't any. Video does not hold up in court .I have a friend that beat a robbery charge in which the evidence was CCTV of him with his shirt off displaying his tattoos. Video and Imaging doesn't prove shit.:rolleyes:

[bryan]

How about trying to use a example that is more closer to a plane and a building and not some fantasy theory?

Why don't you suggest an experiment I could try in my kitchen to show that a lattice made of a hard, strong material could completely shred an object made of a softer, weaker material and at the same time be smashed apart by the same softer object?



A planes airframe with momentum will do some damage, but is not strong enough to stop being shredded by the steel lattica as common sense and basic intelligence dictates.

Your imaginary aluminium airframe didn't just "do some damage" to the wall. It made clean breaks in short sections of steel box column.

[ultima1]

There has not been one part or a blackbox recovered in the investigations of all four events, that allegedly involved planes.

There were black boxes at Pentagon recovered but they were not matched to planes by serial number.

There are reprts that black boxes were recovered at the towers but no reports matching those either.


The only evidence that is required is to prove there were planes.

NO, the evidence required is that if there were planes what planes were they?

[ultima1]

Why don't you suggest an experiment I could try in my kitchen to show that a lattice made of a hard, strong material could completely shred an object made of a softer, weaker material and at the same time be smashed apart by the same softer object?

I simply suggest research and looking at the majority of plane accidents they will show the point i am making.

Photo of plane making hole in brick building, BUT brick building shears off wings.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/awing.jpg?t=1278174456

Your imaginary aluminium airframe didn't just "do some damage" to the wall. It made clean breaks in short sections of steel box column.

BUT was shredded in the process as proven with facts and evidence.

[kooskoets]

Thanks for showing us you cannot post the real evidence asked for,, BUT i can.

Following photo shows trees destroyed the airframe.

It also shows planes airframe destroyed the trees .


http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/INDONESIA_AIR_CRASH_03.jpg?t=1278130978

As i already pointed out : the plane didn't create a planeshaped hole in any of the trees.

So why bring it up again ?

You really think that an already debunked argument, if brought up enough times, will be accepted in the end ?
Like a lie will become truth if repeated enough times ?

You shure have a strange mind...

[apollo_gnomon]

I've looked again at the PDF listed in kooskoet's current sig - http://www.psy-opera.com/Papers/Composites-1-9.pdf

The whole thing is "scientoidical" meaning it seems to be scientific at a superficial reading, but if you know what you're talking about you quickly realize either the author doesn't know what he/she is talking about or is lying. It's shaped like science, it resembles science, but it isn't science.

The paper is rife with logical errors and fallacies, but I won't go into those. I'd like to bring your attention to one point in the paper on pg 69:

22. Detonation Flashes as Sync Pops
The "airplane" strike on each twin tower featured a quick bright flash, right at the nose, just as it appeared to enter the wall. What were these flashes? Under the video composite hypothesis, the flashes have a very useful purpose: Sync pops.

Such a sync pop would be a vital element in this video fakery. Without the flashes, getting the 9/11 airplane composites right would have been far more difficult, and taken a lot more time.

Everyone has seen the countdown that precedes a motion picture. It ends when the counter reaches the number 2. On that exact frame, there is bright flash, and often a beep tone. Known as a "two pop" or a "sync pop", the reason for having this flash is synchronization.

This is one of many possible explanations. The author does not explore and methodically reject all other possibilities - as would be correct in a scientifically rigorous study - but simply attaches meaning to the event. That's not science, that's pseudoscience, flimflam, and possible bullshit.

Sync pop that he mentions is used in film, not video, where the audio track is physically separate from the image, and in film playback where the audio pickups and image projection systems are separated by a number of physical frames on an adjustable mechanism within the projector. Union projectionists were trained to keep the soundtrack in sync with the image. Many modern projectors are digital, which avoids the problem altogether.

The "composite images theory" as stated by the Ace Baker PDF requires a synchronizing event in all pieces used to build the final image - the master, the mask and the insert. That would require either the live footage to have a flash somehow inserted in the same exact spot and time by all cameras, or for the flash to be projected onto the building for the various camera angles to use.

Also, this PDF asserts without proof that the flash is what would be used by actual video compositing, which is bullshit. Show some proof from any relevant industrial reference and prove me wrong. That's not how it's done.

Meanwhile, everyone seems to be forgetting about the big microwave transmitter in the nose of the plane. The aluminum cladding on the building would certainly react to that much microwave energy - don't believe me, go put a ball of foil in your home microwave and see what happens.

Microwaves arcing off the aluminum cladding just before impact. That's all we're seeing. Applying standard Conspiracy Theorist proof requirements, all I need to do is find one anomaly to dismiss the entire reference. Hmm?

[kooskoets]

This is one of many possible explanations. The author does not explore and methodically reject all other possibilities - ....

Why should he...


Under the video composite hypothesis, the flashes have a very useful purpose: Sync pops.

[apollo_gnomon]

Why should he...

Because arguing from an a priori conclusion is incorrect. I've already falsified one of his points, which you have ignored. Instead all you do is post a knee-jerk denialist reaction.

You have no knowledge. You have belief. Your belief has been shown over and over to be faulty, but you continue to simply wave your belief around like a flag, instead of mustering facts behind your thinking.

Some "truth seeker" you are.

[kooskoets]

Because arguing from an a priori conclusion is incorrect. I've already falsified one of his points, which you have ignored. Instead all you do is post a knee-jerk denialist reaction.

You have no knowledge. You have belief. Your belief has been shown over and over to be faulty, but you continue to simply wave your belief around like a flag, instead of mustering facts behind your thinking.

Some "truth seeker" you are.

I try to put it a little simpler so you'll be able, i hope, to understand.

AB, in his PDF, is presenting a composite hypothesis.

Still there ?

He notes that the appearance of the spots fit in nicely with that hypothesis.

Under the video composite hypothesis, the flashes have a very useful purpose: Sync pops.

Understand ?

Then you write :

Sync pop that he mentions is used in film, not video, where the audio track is physically separate from the image

He isn't talking about syncing audio but syncing the CGI to the video.

Still there ? Can you follow ?

Then you write :

Also, this PDF asserts without proof that the flash is what would be used by actual video compositing, which is bullshit.

And that is another wrong.

The PDF states that the flash would be very usefull as a method to sync a CGI to the video.
No assertions there.

Still there ?


You're just a hoaxer and a fool and you're very good at that.

[bryan]

The paper is rife with logical errors and fallacies, but I won't go into those. I'd like to bring your attention to one point in the paper on pg 69:

The only logical fallacy is your strawman argument that the flashes are presented as proof of TV fakery. Is it a coincidence the choppers were in an ideal position for live video compositing? Why do Ace Baker's simple cgi's behave just like the planes in the videos? How did all those TV cameras manage to miss the impact altogether? Why did the impact videos take at least 9 hours to reach the TV studios? These are the questions raised by the paper and it's not surprising you don't want to go into them. Writing it off as a coincidence must be embarrassing, even for a shill like you.



The "composite images theory" as stated by the Ace Baker PDF requires a synchronizing event in all pieces used to build the final image - the master, the mask and the insert. That would require either the live footage to have a flash somehow inserted in the same exact spot and time by all cameras, or for the flash to be projected onto the building for the various camera angles to use.

You seem to be totally confused here. The flashes would be explosions in the building and would be captured on the raw video.



Microwaves arcing off the aluminum cladding just before impact. That's all we're seeing.

You're assuming a plane flew into the building, which is proved wrong by the main arguments in the pdf.

[apollo_gnomon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon View Post
The paper is rife with logical errors and fallacies, but I won't go into those. I'd like to bring your attention to one point in the paper on pg 69:

bryan responds:
The only logical fallacy is your strawman argument that the flashes are presented as proof of TV fakery.

Not Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, or "misrepresentation of an opponent's position".

Baker says about his 22 "data points" "Each and every one strongly favors the compositing hypothesis." Therefor each of the 22 points is subject to further individual analysis, and must be held to equal rigor.

Is it a coincidence the choppers were in an ideal position for live video compositing?

Fallacy of explanation, either
Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
or
Post hoc ergo propter hoc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
as well as Hasty generalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia fallacy.

Why do Ace Baker's simple cgi's behave just like the planes in the videos?
Are these present in the PDF? Please give a page number if so, as I must have missed it. I'm supposed to be cleaning the garage today, so I read it during a water break.

How did all those TV cameras manage to miss the impact altogether? Why did the impact videos take at least 9 hours to reach the TV studios? These are the questions raised by the paper and it's not surprising you don't want to go into them.
Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia fallacy. Or perhapsLoaded question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. What you have falls under both.


Writing it off as a coincidence must be embarrassing, even for a shill like you.
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia followed by the usualAd hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia attack which reveals your own prejudice and paranoia.


Quote:
Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon View Post
The "composite images theory" as stated by the Ace Baker PDF requires a synchronizing event in all pieces used to build the final image - the master, the mask and the insert. That would require either the live footage to have a flash somehow inserted in the same exact spot and time by all cameras, or for the flash to be projected onto the building for the various camera angles to use.

Bryan responded:
You seem to be totally confused here. The flashes would be explosions in the building and would be captured on the raw video.
That would serve quite well to allow multiple cameras to key the mask and insert to the same location and time. Problem is, the flash isn't an explosion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon View Post
Microwaves arcing off the aluminum cladding just before impact. That's all we're seeing.

Bryan response:
You're assuming a plane flew into the building, which is proved wrong by the main arguments in the pdf.

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The absence of planes is asserted to be "proven" by the 22 points of the Baker PDF. The datapoints cannot be defended by the (a priori, another fallacy) conclusion that there were no planes.

Wowsers. EVERY SINGLE THING you said is a logical fallacy. I'm impressed.


By the way, Bryan. I'm compiling a spreadsheet listing the post times by you, koos, and dave. I have a hypothesis that you are all the same person. Now that I've read the Baker PDF I'm pretty sure who koos is, but I want to line up the times to figure out how long your commute is.

[kooskoets]

< snip schutzpa >

By the way, Bryan. I'm compiling a spreadsheet listing the post times by you, koos, and dave. I have a hypothesis that you are all the same person. Now that I've read the Baker PDF I'm pretty sure who koos is, but I want to line up the times to figure out how long your commute is.

And we've got another barbarian, (http://www.serendipity.li/bush/beyond_insanity.htm)

[apollo_gnomon]

How about responding to point of the post? Or is it too difficult to type with those sox on your hands?

[ultima1]

As i already pointed out : the plane didn't create a planeshaped hole in any of the trees.

But it did destroy the trees and the airframe was destroyed by the trees.

Proving again that a material can destroy another material but be destroyed by the same material.

Photo of plane making hole in brick building, BUT brick building shears off wings.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/awing.jpg?t=1278174456

[thespiritforce]

You say and I take offense that Jesus will not return, as there were witnesses to Him ascending, in Spirit fashion, unto heaven and said, He would return...So, what now makes you an expert of whether or not Jesus will return or not? And I can read a box of cereal, very well, as well...TY, but don't lump all your expertise in and on everything, as you seemed to have done, as I am quite sure you're not an expert, as you seem to have claimed or got about, as close, as anyone I know of that boost and brags about such things and knowledge on and of it all and as I said, on everything, but maybe doesn't quite know everything, as one may thinks. I mean...come on man...sheesh!

But, I do believe in a cover up on 9-11 and the statement of the no planes hitting the WTC buildings is absurd, as you say, on that part, of your very liberal take on just about everything under our sun you claim to be an expert of and in...not! :rolleyes:

[luciferhorus]

LH, i do see all points youve made, theyre reasonable.


i know NPT sounds troughoutly insane.

(wtc).

ive been looking into both sides&trough spectrum, from september clues to your sites and jref.


im still undecided.


i really looked into all arguments i came across, and something just isnt right.

not even mentioning the collapses.



Yes well the "No Planes" at the WTC also seemed quite insane to me at first, however I have been reading and researching the various points of view regarding this matter. I have read through all of Ace Bakers' "video editing" PDF and watched the only two "live" broadcasts of the second plane hitting the tower; they are "telephoto" shots from several miles away, from an era before the widespread use of HD (High definition) video; it is certainly not impossible for the US military to digitally edit a number of video footages; we can see how rather "bad" they are at this craft from the fake Osama Bin Laden film. There are numerous rather supicious aspects to the footage of the second plane, as outlined in Ave Baker's pdf, which I will not restate here

Morgan Reynold's analysis of the 911 crash also supports the No Plane theory, though I should point out that Reynolds is a professor of economics, not physics or engineering; however his arguments appear quite convincing.

See:

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

http://nomoregames.net/911/Fetzer_conference_vol_IV.pdf

One also has to consider the opposing view in "A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories" which is a response in part to Morgan Reynold's arguments on: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf




In any collision the weakest object will take the most damage.
In any case of a plane against a steel building, the building wins.

That's all proven physics.
But then again, how would YOU know.

Well I am still waiting for your to explain your qualifications in physics and engineering.

In a normal court case, members of the jury do not have to be "experts" in various fields, since the defence and prosecution will call various experts to explain matters in simple terms to the jury, such as medical experts in a murder trial, or engineers in the case of a building failure or collapse. Similarly with the collission between a 100 ton airliner flying at 400 miles per hour, or whatever, and hollow tubular steel columns where the steel is two and a half inches think; those who are not qualified as "experts" thus have to read and analyse the opinions of other experts.

http://www.wftv.com/2008/0229/15449035_240X180.jpg

The above is an image of an automobile crash where a steel framed car collided with a tree and was split in half. By your logic, since wood is weaker than steel, most of the damage should have occurred to the tree and not to the steel framed car; however such an argument is entirely inconsistent with the actual evidence.

Of course if the tree in the above photo was only a couple of inches thick, it is quite likely that the tree would just be knocked over and that the car would have suffered very little damage. Similarly with steel columns of the WTC. If the steel columns had been solid and not hollow, and several feet thick, instead of being 2.5 inches thick, then they would have been much more likely to act like the tree above or like the reinforced concrete barrier several meters thick which was used in aircraft collision tests; however just because the columns were made of steel, does not make them invincible when hit by the kenetic energy of a 100 ton aircraft flying at speed.

Exactly what thickness of steel would totally withstand such a collision is a calculation which engineers and physicists would have to produce, however I am entirely unqualified to do so, as I suspect you are also, and thus I have to refer to articles by other "experts," many of whom seem to have no problem with 2 and a half inches of steel succumbing to the enourmous impact of a jet aircraft; and further since aircraft have demolished steel reinforced concrete building before, I find nothing strange about this.

Which is not to say that I am entirely unsuspicious regarding aircraft colliding with the towers, however neither am I uncritical regarding the WTC No-Plane theories, as I consider the weight of other evidence regarding this being a black operation and a controlled demolition to be much more convincing.

You say and I take offense that Jesus will not return

I am not sure how the return of Jesus relates to the WTC No Plane issue, however you will find me most days on the "Religion" section of this forum where all such matters are debated.

However if a person of the ilk of Jesus were to return, I suspect that it would be the Christian Capitalists and the various proponents of the "Capitalist Jesus" business who would be the first to reject him and to be openly hostile towards him.

Generally I find that few things give offense to the Christians more than when I actually quote the alleged teachings of Jesus; indeed I would define a "Christian" in general as a person who openly rejects the teachings of Jesus and is usually openly hostile towards them.

http://www.luciferia.tv/communist_jesus.gif


Lux

[apollo_gnomon]

it is certainly not impossible for the US military to digitally edit a number of video footages; we can see how rather "bad" they are at this craft from the fake Osama Bin Laden film.
I dispute this point as well. I reviewed the film in question and found that the film images were consistent but the widely-distributed stills had been distorted in a way that changed OBL's face.

but that's another thread....


If the steel columns had been solid and not hollow, and several feet thick, instead of being 2.5 inches thick,
A clarification is in order here. The 2.5" thick beam walls were only used lower down. The thickness of the beam walls tapered over the height of the building, and at the impact point was either 3/8" thick, or 1/4" thick. It seems that a thickness transition was somewhere in the span of the impact zone floors, so the mathematical models have mostly used the 9mm (=3/8") thickness.

However if a person of the ilk of Jesus were to return, I suspect that it would be the Christians who would be the first to reject him and to be openly hostile towards him.
Agreed.

[luciferhorus]

I dispute this point as well. I reviewed the film in question and found that the film images were consistent but the widely-distributed stills had been distorted in a way that changed OBL's face.

but that's another thread....


"The [CIA] actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us darker-skinned employees,” he said. [Washington Post 5/25/10]"
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape.html?q=osamatape.html

The quotation above refers to a different (unreleased) fake Bin Laden video, but at least it does substantiate the claim that the CIA have made a fake Bin Laden video using actors.

There are a number of problems with the Fake Bin Laden video.

1: The actor in the video uses his right hand when writing, whereas Bin Laden is known to be left handed.

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/1164014.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FDD6ED9653C0F48A13 E6F273913309EE66B23DB3427AE0CE0EE30A760B0D811297

2: Perhaps the strongest argument for the video being fake is that Bin Laden mentions two hijackers who have later been proven to be still alive.

A German TV show found that the White House's translation of the video was inaccurate and "manipulative". Bin Laden even praised two live 'hijackers' - Wail M. Alshehri and Salem Alhazmi. Why didn't he know the names of hijackers he personally chose? Ibid

Although Wail M. Alshehri and Salem Alhazmi were named by the US government as hijackers, this has proven to be entirely untrue.

The following article is from the BBC:

Wail M. Alshehri

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/people/wailalshehri.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1559151.stm

"Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

.....

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Hijacking suspects
......
Flight 11: Waleed M Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami

.....
Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco. "

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Salem-NJ-ID-Cardjpg.jpg

Salem Al-Hazmi

The real Salem Al-Hazmi, however, is alive and indignant in Saudi Arabia, and not one of the people who perished in the American Airlines flight that crashed on the Pentagon. He works at a government-owned petroleum and chemical plant in the city of Yanbu. He said yesterday he had not left Saudi Arabia for two years, but that his passport had been stolen by a pickpocket in Cairo three years ago. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers_flt_77.html

When I point out that the CIA were pretty sloppy when it came to the Bin Laden fake video, I refer to the fact that the actor in the video who plays the part of Bin Laden mentions two alleged hijackers who clearly had nothing to do with 911 and who are not even wanted by the FBI, despite the fact that they are alive and well.

"After some confusion and doubt Saudi Arabia admitted that in fact the names of the hijackers were correct. "The names that we got confirmed that," Interior Minister Prince Nayef said in an interview with The Associated Press."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_al-Hazmi


A clarification is in order here. The 2.5" thick beam walls were only used lower down. The thickness of the beam walls tapered over the height of the building, and at the impact point was either 3/8" thick, or 1/4" thick. It seems that a thickness transition was somewhere in the span of the impact zone floors, so the mathematical models have mostly used the 9mm (=3/8") thickness.

Oh, OK well I stand corrected. Frankly I find it quite credible that when a 100 ton aircraft flying at speed collides with a hollow steel column which is only a quarter of an inch thick that it would destroy the column.

http://www.ntcrashrepairs.ie/App_Themes/default/images/devestating_car_crash_2.jpg

Most automobiles which are frequently colliding have a rigid welded steel chassis, and they are regularly colliding with trees and other objects at speeds of usually only up to about 70 to 80 miles an hour; further the average weight of a family saloon is usually about two tons, not 100 tons like a 767, and I think that we have all seen photographs of mangled steel automobiles. It does seem to be the case that quarter inch steel is quite similar to that used in automobile chassis.

I was reading the following article about the use of Aluminium chassis in automobiles. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/automobiles/22ALUM.html The article states that because aluminium has about a third of the strength of steel, three times as much aluminium has to be used.

Thus in approximate terms, an aluminium chasis (much like the rigid frame in the aircraft wings) made of one inch thick aluminium "is" just as strong as a steel chassis which is a third of an inch thick. Thus the argument that aluminium is weaker than steel is dependent on the thickness of the aluminium and the thickness of the steel.

Similarly we all know that steel is much stronger than wood, however in the photo above, a car which collided with a tree can be seen to have wrapped itself around the tree and the tree remains relatively undamaged, this is because of the "thickness" of the tree.

A steel chassis is simply no match for wood when the wood is about a foot thick (as in the image above) and the chassis is made of steel which is probably only about a quarter of an inch thick.

Similarly with a 100 ton 767; although the wiings are covered in fragile thin aluminium sheeting, this sheeting covers a frame which is made of much denser aluiminium and which is strong enough to support the weight of the petrol tanks, the engines and the huge pressures created by air resistance; when all this crashed into a hollow steel column made of quarter inch thick steel, it seems entirely credible that the relatively thin steel columns would not withstand the kenetic energy produced by the 100 ton aircraft.

It is quite another matter of course when one watches a collision test with an aircraft and a steel reinforced concrete wall which is about 2 meters thick, which acts much the tree does when an automobiles' steel chassis is thrown at it.

Personally I much more interested in the "truth" about what happened at the WTC; the WTC No-Planers tend to be the most ridiculed of the 911 truth movement, however to be frank, the more I research this subject, the more I am intruiged by the WTC No Plane argument, however their argument has weak points and strong points, and part of their "weak" argument seems to be the argument that a 100 ton aircraft flying at about 400mph would not demolish a quarter inch thick hollow steel column.

The only way to really test this is to A: fly a 100 ton aircraft at a quarter inch thick steel column or B: to refer to the calculations of other engineers and physicists (since I am not qualified sufficiently to make such calculations) or C: to study other accidents where aircraft did demolish steel reinforced concrete buildings; and in the latter case there is sufficient evidence to show that the kenetic energy of a large aircraft is quite sufficient to do that.

I did spend two years as an apprentice in an architect's office and I did two two years of my ONC in building construction; I eventually got bored with it, dropped out and headed off to a beach in India, however later in life I went back to the building profession and I eventually qualified in carpentry. In both architecture and carpentry, for small projects one generally "over-engineers" columns and beams which have to support weight, but in large projects calculations have to be made by structural engineers, which is a specialised technical craft. There are of course many building regulations which need to be conformed to. Since I work more with "wood," I know from common sense that if I put a beam in a roof (like the one in my current project) which is a 6 inch by 6 inch hardwood (oak) beam, that despite wood being weaker than steel, that this beam will be much stronger and support more weight than a quarter inch steel beam; I don't need to calculate this mathematically or ask an engineer; it is just common sense.

Another common form of carpentry is "shuttering carpentry," where one makes the molding shuttering which surrounds a column of meshed welded steel reinforcements into which the concrete is poured. These steel reinforcements are always usually "at least" a quarter of an inch in diameter or more; in fact quarter inch diameter steel is actually rather thin. However since we do have evidence of aircraft demolishing steel reinforced concrete, I think the argument that a 100 ton aircraft would "not" demolish a steel column a quarter inch thick is essentially null and void.


Lux

[bryan]

Baker says about his 22 "data points" "Each and every one strongly favors the compositing hypothesis." Therefor each of the 22 points is subject to further individual analysis, and must be held to equal rigor.


The absence of planes is asserted to be "proven" by the 22 points of the Baker PDF. The datapoints cannot be defended by the (a priori, another fallacy) conclusion that there were no planes.


Begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question) fallacy. Or perhaps Loaded Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question). What you have falls under both.

The 22 points reinforce each other. Some are more central to the argument than others, and in my opinion some can stand alone better than others. For want of physical evidence in the form of good quality video footage, the interpretation of the flashes depends on whether you believe planes hit the towers or not.

Ace Baker:

Each and every one strongly favors the compositing hypothesis. Taken individually, many of them render the real plane hypothesis extremely unlikely, others rule it out. Put together, all doubt is erased. Chopper 5 and CNN Ghostplane are video composites.

I've re-read the section on the sync pops and Ace Baker does give more importance to the flashes than I thought. Even so, I still think it's a stretch to claim that proof the flashes were a natural reaction between the plane and the building would invalidate the other 21 points. As it happens, all you've done so far is suggest that it's not beyond the realms of possibility there might be some innocent explanation for the flashes and some of the other 21 points.



That would serve quite well to allow multiple cameras to key the mask and insert to the same location and time. Problem is, the flash isn't an explosion.

This would be a good place to start providing some evidence.



Fallacy of explanation, either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
as well as Hasty Generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization) fallacy.

You're committing the Slothful induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Are these present in the PDF? Please give a page number if so, as I must have missed it. I'm supposed to be cleaning the garage today, so I read it during a water break.

The videos are separate from the pdf.

9/11 Live Airplane Composite Theory - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeXvMblFwO0


Theory of Ghostplane - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNXmgF2yAEc


And the pdf is now a web page.

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page



Strawman Argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) followed by the usualAd Hominim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack which reveals your own prejudice and paranoia.

Paranoia?


By the way, Bryan. I'm compiling a spreadsheet listing the post times by you, koos, and dave. I have a hypothesis that you are all the same person. Now that I've read the Baker PDF I'm pretty sure who koos is, but I want to line up the times to figure out how long your commute is.

[apollo_gnomon]

Actually, it was handed to you as a "gimme" but you failed to pick it up. That last paragraph is a fallacy known as "poisoning the well."

Education. Try some. The fact is, every single statement in your prior post was fallacious.

[tabea_blumenschein]

There are a number of problems with the Fake Bin Laden video.

1: The actor in the video uses his right hand when writing, whereas Bin Laden is known to be left handed.


It used to be common practice in public schools to force left-handers to write with their right hand. When I was starting school, some teachers were still doing this. I consider myself lucky that I avoided them.

I remember seeing a picture in an old magazine showing Jimi Hendrix writing out some lyrics with his right hand, although he was left handed. Does that mean the Hendrix picture was faked?

Not only that, there's a strong bias to this very day against using the left hand for things such as writing in many parts of the world, especially Islamic countries.

Left-handed Bin Laden writing with his right hand? Not surprising or problematic at all.

[thespiritforce]

It used to be common practice in public schools to force left-handers to write with their right hand. When I was starting school, some teachers were still doing this. I consider myself lucky that I avoided them.

I remember seeing a picture in an old magazine showing Jimi Hendrix writing out some lyrics with his right hand, although he was left handed. Does that mean the Hendrix picture was faked?

Not only that, there's a strong bias to this very day against using the left hand for things such as writing in many parts of the world, especially Islamic countries.

Left-handed Bin Laden writing with his right hand? Not surprising or problematic at all.

Yes, it sounds like you stay on a Holiday. Get it right, Bub...there are 2 involved here...The Terrorist and Freedom Fighters and we are not the latter.

[hadabusa]

It used to be common practice in public schools to force left-handers to write with their right hand. When I was starting school, some teachers were still doing this. I consider myself lucky that I avoided them.

I remember seeing a picture in an old magazine showing Jimi Hendrix writing out some lyrics with his right hand, although he was left handed. Does that mean the Hendrix picture was faked?

Not only that, there's a strong bias to this very day against using the left hand for things such as writing in many parts of the world, especially Islamic countries.

Left-handed Bin Laden writing with his right hand? Not surprising or problematic at all.

hi tabea, nothing personal , but this was weak:cool:

[luciferhorus]

Left-handed Bin Laden writing with his right hand? Not surprising or problematic at all.

Left Handed Bin Laden

In Islamic nations the right hand is used for eating and for greeting other persons, touching etc., and the left hand is used for personal hygene, such as cleaning oneself in a toilet; this has much to do with personal cleaninless and not eating with the same hand that one uses for cleaning onself, however there does not appear to be the same stigma attached to persons who use their left hand for writing.

http://infowars.net/pictures/feb07/190207fatnose.jpg

Overweight, fat nosed Bin Laden.

Further it has been noticed that the actor playing Bin Laden is far too overweight to be Bin Laden in 2001 who was suffering severe health probems and was rather thin; further it has been noticed that the actor in the tape has a much wider nose than Bin Laden and it not even a very good lookalike.

The Bin Laden actor who cannot speak Arabic properly and who does not speak with either a Saudi accent or any known Arabic accent.

Further it has been noticed by persons who speak Arabic as their first language that the Arabic spoken in the video is not consistent with people who speak Arabic as a first language and that the voice of the actor playing Osama does not sound like Osama, nor even that of a Saudi citizen. Arabic is the first language of the real Osama Bin Laden who has a university education and speaks with a rather upper class Saudi accent.

"We - Arabs - couldn't understand the quotes of the fabricated Bin Laden and we had to read the English translation !! We heard some Arabic words but they didn't make any sense of meaning ! and even the accent of (Osama Bin Laden) was neither Classic Arabic nor the assumed Saudi accent"
http://forum.montadayatbh.net/showthread.php?t=6467

Previous US military Fake Osama Tapes.

Further this was not the first fake Bin Laden tape produced by the US military.

"Previous to this tape a poor quality release in November 2002, deemed to be completely authentic by US Experts, was determined to be a total fake by the Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence in Switzerland. This time Bin Laden was said to be admitting to recent small scale terror attacks. Yet the voice on the tape was different to around twenty previous recordings of Bin Laden."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3409

Fake Tape allegedly filmed during Ramadam. US military would have to have been able to travel forwards in time to obtain it

"It was real comedy when we heard the mysterious guest
"... Abu Ghiath " in the tape quoting " In this Blessed Month"

That meant that the tape was recorded in Ramadan while the American regime claimed having this tape on 24th of October !! and Ramadan ¨
?? started on 16th November !! How come?"
http://forum.montadayatbh.net/showthread.php?t=6467


The Bin Laden actor wearing gold rings

Further the actor who plays Osama wears gold rings, which is certainly not Osama's style and is widely considered un-islamic by fundamentalists.

The Bin Laden actor who mentions two hijackers by name who have been proven to have been falsely identified in US propaganda.

Probably the main argument for the tape being a fake is that the actor playing Osama mentions two of the alleged hijackers by name; hijackers who have been subsequently discovered to be alive and well in Saudi Arabia and Morocco and who are not wanted by the FBI; if Bin Laden really knew who the hijackers were, it is rather strange that he mentions the two persons who have subsequently been proven to have nothing to do with 911.

FBI spokesperson claims there is no "hard evidence" connecting Osama with 911.

Further despite the fake tapes, according to the FBI there is no "hard evidence" linking Osama to 911; however if the tapes were genuine, this surely would be "hard evidence."

In fact, "the FBI's page on bin Laden as a 'Most Wanted Terrorist' does not list him as wanted for 9/11, and when asked why, a FBI spokesman said, 'because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'." (Debunking 9/11 Debunking, pg. 21, David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, 2007.)
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_19.htm

Fake Bin Laden video considered to be a joke by US intellience.

The fake Bin Laden tapes further appear to be widely considered to be a joke by the US intelligence themselves.

"Last Friday Lawrence( Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program), citing informants in the US intelligence apparatus’s Bin Laden units, told Kevin Barrett (a US radio talk show host) that everyone knows the tape is fake, adding that the hoax has been kept alive because it is politically useful to those who wish to bolster the official 9/11 conspiracy that 19 hijackers directed by Bin Laden from a cave carried out the attacks."
http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm

US military propaganda has absolutely no credibility.

Since the US military have a long history of deception, narco-terrorism, state terrorism, balck operations, false flag operations etc., why anyone would want to take their word for it that the fake Osama video is genuine in light of such evidence is rather strange, unless of course the person is simply brainless or is simply one of the many state terrorist collaborators who frequent the Internet for propagandistic purposes.

Lux


[QUOTE=luciferhorus]

"The [CIA] actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us darker-skinned employees,” he said. [Washington Post 5/25/10]"
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape.html?q=osamatape.html

The quotation above refers to a different (unreleased) fake Bin Laden video, but at least it does substantiate the claim that the CIA have made a fake Bin Laden video using actors.

There are a number of problems with the Fake Bin Laden video.

1: The actor in the video uses his right hand when writing, whereas Bin Laden is known to be left handed.

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/1164014.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FDD6ED9653C0F48A13 E6F273913309EE66B23DB3427AE0CE0EE30A760B0D811297

2: Perhaps the strongest argument for the video being fake is that Bin Laden mentions two hijackers who have later been proven to be still alive.

A German TV show found that the White House's translation of the video was inaccurate and "manipulative". Bin Laden even praised two live 'hijackers' - Wail M. Alshehri and Salem Alhazmi. Why didn't he know the names of hijackers he personally chose? Ibid

Although Wail M. Alshehri and Salem Alhazmi were named by the US government as hijackers, this has proven to be entirely untrue.

The following article is from the BBC:

Wail M. Alshehri

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/people/wailalshehri.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1559151.stm

"Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

.....

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Hijacking suspects
......
Flight 11: Waleed M Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami

.....
Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco. "

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Salem-NJ-ID-Cardjpg.jpg

Salem Al-Hazmi

The real Salem Al-Hazmi, however, is alive and indignant in Saudi Arabia, and not one of the people who perished in the American Airlines flight that crashed on the Pentagon. He works at a government-owned petroleum and chemical plant in the city of Yanbu. He said yesterday he had not left Saudi Arabia for two years, but that his passport had been stolen by a pickpocket in Cairo three years ago. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers_flt_77.html

When I point out that the CIA were pretty sloppy when it came to the Bin Laden fake video, I refer to the fact that the actor in the video who plays the part of Bin Laden mentions two alleged hijackers who clearly had nothing to do with 911 and who are not even wanted by the FBI, despite the fact that they are alive and well.

"After some confusion and doubt Saudi Arabia admitted that in fact the names of the hijackers were correct. "The names that we got confirmed that," Interior Minister Prince Nayef said in an interview with The Associated Press."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_al-Hazmi


Lux

[tabea_blumenschein]

hi tabea, nothing personal , but this was weak:cool:

There was a time when for the most part, left-handed people were out-and-out bullied into writing with their right hands. Teachers would actually go so far as to tie their left hands behind their backs. Would it be any different for lefties growing up in Islamic countries, given their cultural biases?

Seriously, what's so "weak" about that?

[hadabusa]

There was a time when for the most part, left-handed people were out-and-out bullied into writing with their right hands. Teachers would actually go so far as to tie their left hands behind their backs. Would it be any different for lefties growing up in Islamic countries, given their cultural biases?

Seriously, what's so "weak" about that?

see LH's post above.

and why would fbi describe him as lefthanded?


they totally messed up, the lefty thing is just a minor fault.

[1776]

Just so we all know... first and foremost...

The Art of Corporate Media Mind-Control
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Well that is not necessary since the plane hitting the tower was broadcast on live TV networks and was witnessed by the reporters and camera persons obviously, and by all the persons who filmed it hitting the tower. Since 10's of 1000's of people were watching this live in New York from the streets and from other office buildings, I have not come across the 10's of thousands of witnesses who stated "oh what we saw on TV was faked," or "I saw it live and I never saw an aircraft." Since it is you who wishes to propose an incredible and bizarre theory, it is for you to establish the evidence. For example I have no need to establish evidence that there is no teapot flying around the sun, just because some person believes that there is.




Well "not everybody" is a rather general statement; there are 6 billion of us here. Not everybody disbelieves in Santa Clause. It is one thing for the US military to stage a few agents around the Pentagon who when interviewed stated "I saw an aircraft," and it is one thing for many people who have studied the photographic evidence of the tiny hole the 757 and its engines dissapeared into to "disbelieve" such testimony, but it is quite another for the US media to show live TV images of a plane flying into the Twin Towers and make 10's of 1000's of witnesses in New York who saw the event personally, many of whom also filmed the event, believe that they saw a plane when there was no plane.

Further since it is very easy to program an aircraft to fly into a building, why would they even consider taking such a chance as to try to fake such a thing?



Well the building did explode. I think we can assume that not everybody in New York was looking "up" in the few seconds that the second 757 flew into the tower.

Since the "No Planes at the WTC" is subject to endless debates and numerous threads here, despite the overwhelming "serious" and "credible" evidence presented by scientists, engineers, aviators, military personell and assorted experts, etc. (most of whom consider the "No Planes at the WTC" theory to be ridiculous"), that the WTC collapse was a US military black operation and a controlled detonation, it strikes me that the guys at the NSA and the US military Internet propagandists have nothing better to do with their time than to keep pushing ridiculous theories as they cannot deal with the credible evidence of their bumbled black operation.


Lux

I have provided serious evidence that no one has yet to debunk or discredit that supports the No Plane theory on 9/11.

Witnesses you ask?

What about the Witnesses?
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

9/11 Fake: Missile Witnesses Cut Out!
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


How about the Top 10 Reasons why No Planes hit the Towers?
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


How did they sell this hoax to the public, you ask?

9/11 Fake: How the plane fraud was sold
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


9/11 Fake: Media make believe
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


9/11 Fake: FBI NY Confirms TV Fakery!
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


9/11 Rubble Piles & Dust (Impossible)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


Colonel Tom Bearden on Military Energy Weapons (1985)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


The No Plane theory is the most solid theory for 9/11 thus far...

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

This IS possible... the technology has been around for DECADES....


Peace&Love
God bless

[tabea_blumenschein]

see LH's post above.

and why would fbi describe him as lefthanded?


they totally messed up, the lefty thing is just a minor fault.

You're entitled to your opinions.

I think this thread has gone seriously off-topic. If anyone thinks the authenticity of the Bin-Laden tapes is worth discussing, maybe they should start a new thread.

Let's get back to the concerns raised in the opening post, shall we?

[hadabusa]

You're entitled to your opinions.

I think this thread has gone seriously off-topic. If anyone thinks the authenticity of the Bin-Laden tapes is worth discussing, maybe they should start a new thread.

Let's get back to the concerns raised in the opening post, shall we?

likewise&agreed.

:D

[luciferhorus]

Just so we all know... first and foremost...

The Art of Corporate Media Mind-Control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LzAxDPRtbI



I have provided serious evidence that no one has yet to debunk or discredit that supports the No Plane theory on 9/11.

Witnesses you ask?

The No Planes at the WTC Theory.

It seems to me that the "No Planes at the WTC" argument is one of the weaker links in the chain regarding the evidence that 911 was a "black military operation." With regards to solid "proof" there appears to be little in the way of hard evidence either way, in terms of proving or disproving the theory.

What about the Witnesses?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujVRPJX2BNc

9/11 Fake: Missile Witnesses Cut Out!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS5lFVxr4A8

Yes it can be established that "some people" did not see an aircraft, but that by itself is not "proof" that there was no aircraft. The aircraft's approach would have been obscured by buildings and flying at speed; it would not have been visible for very long.

Ultimately of course, the argument that the three WTC buildings were subject to controlled demolitions does not depend at all on whether an aircraft collided with the building, since even scientists and engineers who reject the "WTC no plane" theory argue that it would be impossible for the three WTC buildings to collapse in such way, just because of collisions with an aircraft, and in the case of building 7, no collision at all, and a filmed admission from the building's owner that it was pulled down.


How about the Top 10 Reasons why No Planes hit the Towers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqkDKybuOfo

Although I am open to the possibility of "No Planes at the WTC" I am also interested in exploring the weaknesses of the arguments.

Top 10 reasons why no planes hit the WTC on 9/11/01

1. Planes are made of light materials like aluminum and fiberglass. Think of them as long beer cans. Even birds can give planes problems.

Aluminium misconceptions and quarter inch steel.

We have already explored this matter here on this forum. Boeings are not made exclusively of aluminium and fiberglass; the engines, undercarraige and numerous other components are made of steel. Further certain aluminium components such as the aluminium frame which would have compressed on impact, is not necessarily weaker than steel; it is entirely dependent on the "thickness" of the compressed aluminium mass and the thickness of the steel.

There is a misconception about the strength of aluminium. The aircraft's wings had an inner frame which had to support many tons in weight in order to carry the petrol tanks and the engines. It is a popular misconception that an aluminum frame is automatically weaker than a steel column; aluminum has approximately a third of the strength of steel; thus in approximate terms, if you have a piece of steel which is a quarter of an inch thick, then a similar sized piece of aluminium which is 3 quarters of an inch thick (i.e., 3 times the compressed thikness) both objects would have the same strength. Similarly with "wood (timber)" which is much weaker than steel, however a tree of ample thickness can still tear apart a steel framed automobile chassis made of quarter inch steel (or thereabouts).

The outside columns at the upper levels of the WTC were hollow columns which were allegedly made of steel which was only a quarter inch thick. I have posted other images here on a number of threads which show the result of automobiles' steel chassis frames which have been ripped in two when in collision with a tree. Further we have past evidence of the destruction of steel reinforced concrete buildings being demolished by aircraft.

A steel column which was only a quarter of an inch thick is unlikely to withstand the kenetic energy produced by a 100 ton aircraft flying at 400mph; just as a 2 ton automobile with a rigid welded steel chasis in collision with a tree at a much slower speed can be cut in two by "wood" despite steel being stronger than wood.

The assumption that a Boeing aircraft is like a "beer can" is clearly false; a beer can has no inner framework designed to hold it together and it certainly does not have to carry the weight of 100 tons of aluminium, petrol tanks, passengers, seating, landing gear and equipment.

Really I don't want to keep repeating these points so I am merely restating these points again so that I may copy and paste this in future, rather than just going around in circles repeating the same arguments over and over again.

Part of the problem of making arguments which are little more than pseudo-scientific nonsense is that even if the "No Planes at the WTC" argument was in fact correct, it simply makes those who are proposing this look ridiculous.

2. There were many steel core columns supporting both of the Twin Towers. No plane could enter such a structure without being completely destroyed.


The 100 ton aircraft flying at 400mph vs 1/4 inch tubular steel columns.

Impact between a Boeing aircraft and the steel reinforced concrete Amsterdam apartment building in 1992 resulted in both the destruction of the aircraft and the destruction of the portion of the apartment building which it collided with.

The idea that a 100 ton aircraft would just collide with a steel column made of quarter inch thick steel, and that the thin steel column would remain entact and just demolish the entire aircraft is simply ridiculous. We have all seen photos of car accidents involving automobiles in a head on collision where steel chassis are ripped apart at much lower speeds and where the cars weigh as little as one to two tons.


3. Two planes were depicted as being inside and intact the Twin Towers, a pair of buildings made with 200,000 tons of steel each.

The Classic Straw Man Argument

There is no possibility that the aircraft could have entered the buildings "intact;" that is simply nonsense; none of the computer models which have simulated the crash even considered such a scenario; thus this is a classic "straw man" argument. The aircraft would have started to "squash" itself into a smaller space on impact, just as in a head on collision with an automobile accident. At 400 mph this process would have occurred in a fraction of a second.


4. Eyewitnesses: Very few people in New York's business district actually had a decent view of the South Tower of the WTC. Only a few thousand people at most would have been able to see the South Tower explode. The author of this website has interviewed people who do not believe that they saw a plane strike the South Tower.

Meanwhile, it was a simple matter for the TV networks to keep the eyewitnesses who didn't see a plane off the air.

If a person states "I did not see an aircraft" that is hardly proof that there were no aricraft.


5. Both Boeing 767s (i.e., Flights 11 and 175, which supposedly struck the North and South Towers respectively) have 165 foot wingspans. Meanwhile, both the North and South Towers were 210 feet wide. We're supposed to believe that both planes were entirely inside the tower they hit, with no pieces showing, with only 45 feet of room to spare!

This is essentially the same as point three above. It is also a "Straw Man" argument. The planes were not "entirely inside" the tower when they hit; the aircraft components only entered the towers "after" they hit. Duhh. Such arguments are comical and belong in a Homer Simpson cartoon.

6. United Airlines Flight 175 was shown entering the South Tower like a ghost. When the tip of the plane's fuselage hits the steel exterior of the South Tower the fuselage should be breaking up. That would cause the wings to break off.

Yes I agree that the video looks suspicious, however the aircraft was travelling at an estimated 400mph approximately; thus it would by the nature of momentum tend to move "forward" into the tower. As soon as the plane hit the tower it would immediately start to compress into a smaller space; this process would take a fraction of a second and cannot be seen in the rather low quality images of the collision which were filmed from a great distance away.

Having said this, I must admit that the video looks very much like a "cartoon" aircraft entering into the WTC like a knife through butter. There are two possibilities here. One is that appearances can be deceiving, since the plane hit the building at speed in a low quality video. The second possibility is that despite the US military operation involving months of planning, that they are not very good at video editing and special effects; I think the special effects guys in Hollywood could have done a much better job on a lower budget.

I should "out" myself at this point as having owned a film editing PC since 1999 which cost me the price of a new car, and which included a $7500 (US) Matrox RT editing card. I am quite familiar with the use of a video editor and with 3D special effects software. My main activity at the moment, apart from inciting nuclear war against Britain and America, has to do with virtual reality 3D archtecture and design. I don't dispute the argument that the WTC collision "looks" like a rather primitive cartoon colliding with a building and dissapearing inside it; however that is hardly "proof."


7. Newton's Third Law of Motion states that "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.". Let's apply Newton's Third Law to Flight 175. In the 9/11/01 story, Flight 175 strikes the the South Tower at 450 m.p.h.

Now imagine that the South Tower moved at 450 m.p.h. and struck a stationary Flight 175. We would not expect that Flight 175 would be undamaged. We would not expect that it would simply disappear into the South Tower.

1: Most video cameras only film at 25 frames per second; if one had a high speed camera at close range, then the process of the compression of the aircraft into a smaller space would be seen.

2: It is not beyond credibility that the kenetic energy produced by a 100 ton aircraft at 400 mph (approx) would hurl the components inside the building.

3: If the South Tower had hit a stationary aircraft at 400 mph this not the same scenario; the South Tower in comparison to a 100 ton aircraft is a relatively fixed immovable object.

If the South Tower had flown into a 100 ton aircraft, the aircraft in comparison would not be fixed and immovable, it would rather be like a golfer taking a swing at a golf ball (a golf ball is not a fixed and immovable object); if on the other hand a golfer took a swing at a fixed object like a concrete building, this is an entirely different scenario; if a steel and aluminium golf ball weighing 100 tons was propelled into the twin towers at 400mph, it's momentum would propel it in a forward motion "into" the twin towers.


8. There was no audio of 'Flight 175' striking the South Tower. This is true even though there were about a dozen videos of the event said to be obtained from lucky amateurs.

There does exist footage where aircraft noise can be heard, including the footage of the first plane's impact which was filmed by a documentary crew, however I do understand the "No Planers" theory which is that the sound would have been added later.

Since 911 was obviously a large multi-million dollar operation involving a large network of co-conspirators, I would think it unlikely that the US military would "not" have placed film crews to record a fake event assuming the No Plane at the WTC theory is correct.

We do have other evidence of the US military faking videos such as the fake Osama Bin Laden video (see the separate thread on this). The US military would have had months of preparation in order to "fake" such an event and to hire co-conspirators who would film the event, to which later video editing could be contrived to show planes hitting the WTC.

There is absolutely no doubt that the US military is capable of video fakery and that it has done so in the past, however that in itself is not proof of no planes at the WTC.

9. There are innumerable contradictions with the news reports of planes striking the WTC. (The author's writing is here.) Just a cursory examination of the 911 news reports can reveal dramatic inconsistencies.

Yes some people did not see the planes; again this is not proof that there were no planes.


10. There has been massive censorship of the 911 Hoax. Dozens of media sources have exercized a zero tolerance policy for any suggestion that no planes struck the WTC before it was vaporized from exotic weaponry and nuclear weapons.

Well that is possibly because the No Planes at the WTC theory is of course the hardest to prove, whereas I think one would have to be a complete idiot to believe that a Boeing aircraft dissapeared into a tiny hole a few feet wide at the Pentagon.

Further I think that it is quite a leap of faith for most Americans to believe that several major network film crews and others who filmed the event could possibly "all" be working for the US military; however that is certainly not a conclusion I have reached.

On the London 7/7 operation it has been admitted that were allegedly 800+ people working on the staged terrorist event. Similarly on 911 there was a military exercise targetting the same targets which were actually hit on 9/11 this would also have involved 100's of co-conspirators.

With regards to the infiltration of the mass media by the Anglo-American state terrorists, this is rather well known and admitted to.

It should further be pointed out that everyone involved in 911 would have a financial motivation not to disclose the operation since the statistics of "futures contracts (bets essentially)" placed prior to 911 show up to 90 times the normal activity on certain stocks where bets were correctly placed on the collapsing share price of companies who suffered losses in 911.

That modern day military operations work in much the same way as the creation of a Hollywood movie, is well attested to; the US state terrorists after all have much bigger budgets for their "Wag the Dog" scenarios and of any Hollywood producer, and further a Hollywood producer will usually not execute / murder members of his or her staff who reveal trade secrets, whereas with the US military this is standard practice.


9/11 Rubble Piles & Dust (Impossible)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u13t-f2Og8A

This has no bearing on the "No Plane" issue. The buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition which included the use of Thermate, which has been proven to exist in the WTC dust; numerous people heard multiple explosions, the sounds of which have been captured on film and can be seen detonating on lower floors during the collapse.


Colonel Tom Bearden on Military Energy Weapons (1985)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbR3MiKGDHg

Yes this is quite an interesting video, however it simply establishes that the US military have advanced weaponry including energy weapons; there is widespread evidence that the US military have covert "secret" weapons technologies; this is not disputed.

The No Plane theory is the most solid theory for 9/11 thus far...

I would say it is the "least" solid theory, since even if the theory is true, many of the arguments for this theory are pseudo-scientific and speculative; the arguments for 1: controlled demolition, 2: the evidence of thermate particles, 3: No plane at the Pentagon and Shanksville, 4: the coincidence of there being a military exercise targetting the same targets on the same day on both NY 911 and London 7/7, is simply too strange to be coincidental, and 5: the unusual trading on the future's markets where hundreds of billions of dollars were generated from 911; 6: the use of 911 propaganda and the fake Bin Laden tape as a justification for the removal of the Taliban from power and the reinstatement of the herion dealers (whom the Taliban overthrew in 1992) by the US narco-terrorists; are all much stronger arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3xlajkspYc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=527SvRVZQME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxzHmcxqgKk

Yes this is rather interesting, however he is a professional pilot who does not believe that Boeings could be remotely controlled to impact the twin towers; this is entirely unlikely; US military remote control technology existed in those days which could take off and land aircraft remotely, operate drones and detonate a cruise missile on a postage stamp.

If a computer knows the lattitude, longitude and altitude of a target it can control a flight path with greater accuracy than even a human pilot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTqsZP6YmVM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHn4MHOaHw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPtrFcsbUN4

This IS possible... the technology has been around for DECADES....

Yes those are also very interesting videos, but they relate to anti-gravity technology which the US military have been working on for years, and is the simplest possible explanation for the UFO phenomenon; however this does not relate to the No Planes at the WTC issue.

Having said all this, and having studied the arguments of the WTC No Planers, I am quite open to the possibility that this occurred, however many of their arguments are weak, speculative, pseudo-scientific and unfortunately there is no irrefutable "proof" or "disproof" of no planes one way or another, whereas the tiny hole in the Pentagon, the absence of wreckage at Shanksville, the presense of Thermate in the WTC dust and the arguments for controlled demolition at the WTC buildings are all "strong" arguments which make the case for an engineered black US military operation, despite their total incompetancy at their "cover up" project; the Americans are mostly imbeciles and brainless illiterates IMO (in my opinion) who can bearly read a cornflakes' packet, much like their 911 president after all; fortunately this is not universally applicable and a few intelligent, courageous and scientific individuals among the masses of American psychophants have raised the cry of "foul play."

Since 911 obviously was planned months in advance and had a large crew of operatives and co-conspirators, it is certain that those engineering this operation considered it an excercise in public mass deception and in "what they could get away with," so while the "WTC No Plane theory" is not improbable for a terrorist organisation with the multi-billion dollar resources of the US military, I just think there are much stronger arguments to made regarding this being a black US miltary operation.


Lux

[bryan]

Education. Try some. The fact is, every single statement in your prior post was fallacious.

That's just a fancy way of saying you don't like what I said but you can't refute it. Did you find any evidence to back up your assertion that the flashes are not explosions?

[1776]

The No Planes at the WTC Theory.

It seems to me that the "No Planes at the WTC" argument is one of the weaker links in the chain regarding the evidence that 911 was a "black military operation." With regards to solid "proof" there appears to be little in the way of hard evidence either way, in terms of proving or disproving the theory.

Well there is hard evidence to support the theory, and also some evidence that negates, at least, part(s) of it [see Thermate/Thermite issue]. Even this issue, however, doesn't lend discredit to those supporting the fact that No planes were used to hit the buildings that day. Both could have very well happened. Meaning, whether the buildings were destroyed using conventional demolitions, Thermate/Thermite, or otherwise (Directed Energy Weapons, Nuclear, etc.), they still could have used the No plane hoax to execute the operation and gain public support to invade Irak... I mean Iraq.

If you haven't noticed already, I do not have an agenda, like most people do here on this forum and abroad (most "Truth" researchers even). I'm after the Truth, whether it makes me look like a fool or a prophet! :)

An example being, I have both videos lending support to the "Thermite" demolitions theory (which is very strong, Richard Gage's presentation is bullet-proof), and the Dr. Judy Wood theories also. I'm undecided, as one can plainly see. There's evidence for both. Maybe it was? Who knows.

The bottom line, though, is this; The no plane hoax could have been perpetuated either way.

A couple good videos (two different theories, remember):

Relics from the Dust: The Demolition Issue
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
and
9/11: Blueprint For Truth (Pt. 1 of 13)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


it can be established that "some people" did not see an aircraft, but that by itself is not "proof" that there was no aircraft. The aircraft's approach would have been obscured by buildings and flying at speed; it would not have been visible for very long.

Ultimately of course, the argument that the three WTC buildings were subject to controlled demolitions does not depend at all on whether an aircraft collided with the building, since even scientists and engineers who reject the "WTC no plane" theory argue that it would be impossible for the three WTC buildings to collapse in such way, just because of collisions with an aircraft, and in the case of building 7, no collision at all, and a filmed admission from the building's owner that it was pulled down.

We are in complete agreement here.

Although I am open to the possibility of "No Planes at the WTC" I am also interested in exploring the weaknesses of the arguments.

Top 10 reasons why no planes hit the WTC on 9/11/01

As am I, hence this discussion :) Let's continue...

Aluminium misconceptions and quarter inch steel.

We have already explored this matter here on this forum. Boeings are not made exclusively of aluminium and fiberglass; the engines, undercarraige and numerous other components are made of steel. Further certain aluminium components such as the aluminium frame which would have compressed on impact, is not necessarily weaker than steel; it is entirely dependent on the "thickness" of the compressed aluminium mass and the thickness of the steel.

There is a misconception about the strength of aluminium. The aircraft's wings had an inner frame which had to support many tons in weight in order to carry the petrol tanks and the engines. It is a popular misconception that an aluminum frame is automatically weaker than a steel column; aluminum has approximately a third of the strength of steel; thus in approximate terms, if you have a piece of steel which is a quarter of an inch thick, then a similar sized piece of aluminium which is 3 quarters of an inch thick (i.e., 3 times the compressed thinkness) both objects would have the same strength. Similarly with "wood (timber)" which is much weaker than steel, however a tree of ample thickness can still tear apart a steel framed automobile chassis made of quarter inch steel (or thereabouts).

The outside columns at the upper levels of the WTC were hollow columns which were allegedly made of steel which was only a quarter inch thick. I have posted other images here on a number of threads which show the result of automobiles' steel chassis frames which have been ripped in two when in collision with a tree. Further we have past evidence of the destruction of steel reinforced concrete buildings being demolished by aircraft.

A steel column which was only a quarter of an inch thick is unlikely to withstand the kenetic energy produced by a 100 ton aircraft flying at 400mph; just as a 2 ton automobile with a rigid welded steel chasis in collision with a tree at a much slower speed can be cut in two by "wood" despite steel being stronger than wood.

The assumption that a Boeing aircraft is like a "beer can" is clearly false; a beer can has no inner framework designed to hold it together and it certainly does not have to carry the weight of 100 tons of aluminum, petrol tanks, passengers, seating, landing gear and equipment.

Really I don't want to keep repeating these points so I am merely restating these points again so that I may copy and paste this in future, rather than just going around in circles repeating the same arguments over and over again.

Part of the problem of making arguments which are little more than pseudo-scientific nonsense is that even if the "No Planes at the WTC" was in fact correct, it simply makes those who are proposing this look ridiculous.

I see some of your points, but some aren't realistic at all. For instance, you're arguing that a tree (wood) can demolish an automobile (steel), which we all know is true. But, this is apples and oranges when discussing how a Boeing 757 (majority Aluminum, some steel components) literally vanishes into the face of a 110 story sky scraper (reinforced steel columns and concrete.) I'm not a math buff, but the video evidence (and the witness testimony, the media lies & the politicians lies in interviews, etc.) has been more than enough for me to understand that TV fakery was employed on 9/11. Whether or not real planes did, in fact, hit those towers otherwise, is still a mystery (although I don't think real planes were employed, truthfully, no.)

Use your gut, what does it tell you here?
The Flight of the Hologram (slow motion) - YouTube

I'm not saying that holograms were or weren't employed that day, but I'm definitely of the opinion that planes were not.

The plane wouldn't have pierced through the tower like it did. This guy makes an excellent analogy to it, below

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 7 of 16)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Is water less dense than steel or concrete?

Look at the end of Part 5, this video: YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Can't you see that something isn't right about the planes that supposedly crashed dead center into the Twin Towers on 9/11?? Even the most learned/experienced of pilots have also said it would be damn near impossible to fly the Boeing 757 into that building, let alone hit it DEAD CENTER... twice! Common sense has to be employed when investigating the Plane hoax on 9/11. I had to deflate my own ego before I was able to be open, honest & willing to believe something that went contrary to all my beliefs prior (2 years ago I believed that planes hit the towers)... the Truth is more important to me, today.

In fact, Part 4 of the video series referenced above was banned from YouTube (on behalf of NBC's complaints) permanently... let's take a look at it hosted on another video site, shall we?

http://www.livevideo.com/video/7FEF3DDC8B6544D3B795E86F61F28708/continuous-pieces-9-11-part.aspx

I wonder why it was banned? ;)

The 100 ton aircraft flying at 400mph vs 1/4 inch tubular steel columns.

Impact between a Boeing aircraft and the steel reinforced concrete Amsterdam apartment building in 1992 resulted in both the destruction of the aircraft and the destruction of the portion of the apartment building which it collided with.

The idea that a 100 ton aircraft would just collide with a steel column made of quarter inch thick steel, and that the thin steel column would remain entact and just demolish the entire aircraft is simply ridiculous. We have all seen photos of car accidents involving automobiles in a head on collision where steel chassis are ripped apart at much lower speeds and where the cars weigh as little as one to two tons.

Of course that idea is ridiculous. It's also just as ridiculous to expect US to believe that a 100 ton aircraft can disappear into a 110 story sky scraper without it's wing(s) being ripped off or air craft pieces falling to the ground below in lower Manhattan! Is it not? This is not make-believe, this is science... this is physics.

The Classic Straw Man Argument

There is no possibility that the aircraft could have entered the buildings "intact;" that is simply nonsense; none of the computer models which have simulated the crash even considered such a scenario; thus this is a classic "straw man" argument. The aircraft would have started to "squash" itself into a smaller space on impact, just as in a head on collision with an automobile accident. At 400 mph this process would have occurred in a fraction of a second.

Okay, this is really a non-issue. Let's stick to the facts, I'm not trying to use deception tactics to win an argument here. I doubt you are, either.

Did you look at Part 7 of the "9/11 Laws of Physics" video series?

If a person states "I did not see an aircraft" that is hardly proof that there were no aricraft.

Fair enough. The same goes for the opposite. Television & holographic technology have muddied the waters here, unfortunately.

This is essentially the same as point three above. It is also a "Straw Man" argument. The planes were not "entirely inside" the tower when they hit; the aircraft components only entered the towers "after" they hit. Duhh. Such arguments are comical and belong in a Homer Simpson cartoon.

Again, I'm not employing any 'debate' tactics, here. I hate straw man arguments and 'red herrings' as much as the next guy. Again, I can only refer you to Part 7 of that video series. The science is SOLID. This is proof. Is it not?

It's amazing to me that the building just 'ate the plane'...

Yes I agree that the video looks suspicious, however the aircraft was travelling at an estimated 400mph approximately; thus it would by the nature of momentum tend to move "forward" into the tower. As soon as the plane hit the tower it would immediately start to compress into a smaller space; this process would take a fraction of a second and cannot be seen in the rather low quality images of the collision which were filmed from a great distance away.

Having said this, I must admit that the video looks very much like a "cartoon" aircraft entering into the WTC like a knife through butter. There are two possibilities here. One is that appearances can be deceiving, since the plane hit the building at speed in a low quality video. The second possibility is that despite the US military operation involving months of planning, that they are not very good at video editing and special effects; I think the special effects guys in Hollywood could have done a much better job on a lower budget.

I should "out" myself at this point as having owned a film editing PC since 1999 which cost me the price of a new car, and which included a $7500 (US) Matrox RT editing card. I am quite familiar with the use of a video editor and with 3D special effects software. My main activity at the moment, apart from inciting nuclear war against Britain and America, has to do with virtual reality 3D archtecture and design. I don't dispute the argument that the WTC collision "looks" like a rather primitive cartoon colliding with a building and dissapearing inside it; however that is hardly "proof."

The technology is there, you and I both know it. With everything that was going on that day, they obviously didn't execute their operation as cleanly as they would have liked. This is just my personal opinion, of course. I'm not going to use a straw man argument and ask about your "nuclear incitement with Britain and America", and I'm not too sure why you even included that little statement. Regardless, the plane cannot just penetrate the building the way it supposedly did on TV on 9/11. The speeds were impossible, anyways!

Impossible Plane Speed with Boeing 9/11
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

From the Horse's mouth!! BOEING!

1: Most video cameras only film at 25 frames per second; if one had a high speed camera at close range, then the process of the compression of the aircraft into a smaller space would be seen.

These are 'what ifs'. Perhaps you are right, we don't know. I know what can be seen, and it looks ridiculous to say the least.

2: It is not beyond credibility that the kenetic energy produced by a 100 ton aircraft at 400 mph (approx) would hurl the components inside the building.

It doesn't mean that ALL of it would be eaten by the building, because of it's kinetic energy... that just doesn't make sense! It doesn't agree with science. All the numbers in the world cannot justify what happened on 9/11 (the visible evidence from television that is). You wouldn't expect to find any pieces of the air craft at the base of the tower? The wings aren't expected to detach on impact? Come on, man, this is not rocket science here.

3: If the South Tower had hit a stationary aircraft at 400 mph this not the same scenario; the South Tower in comparison to a 100 ton aircraft is a relatively fixed immovable object.

If the South Tower had flown into a 100 ton aircraft, the aircraft in comparison would not be fixed and immovable, it would rather be like a golfer taking a swing at a golf ball (a golf ball is not a fixed and immovable object); if on the other hand a golfer took a swing at a fixed object like a concrete building, this is an entirely different scenario; if a steel and aluminium golf ball weighing 100 tons was propelled into the twin towers at 400mph, it's momentum would propel it in a forward motion "into" the twin towers.

This IS a Straw Man, and we both dislike them ;) So let's continue, shall we?

There does exist footage where aircraft noise can be heard, including the footage of the first plane's impact which was filmed by a documentary crew, however I do understand the "No Planers" theory which is that the sound would have been added later.

Since 911 was obviously a large multi-million dollar operation involving a large network of co-conspirators, I would think it unlikely that the US military would "not" have placed film crews to record a fake event assuming the No Plane at the WTC theory is correct.

We do have other evidence of the US military faking videos such as the fake Osama Bin Laden video (see the separate thread on this). The US military would have had months of preparation in order to "fake" such an event and to hire co-conspirators who would film the event, to which later video editing could be contrived to show planes hitting the WTC.

There is absolutely no doubt that the US military is capable of video fakery and that it has done so in the past, however that in itself is not proof of no planes at the WTC.

This is also purely speculation, on your part. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it's not something we can confirm or deny here.

Yes some people did not see the planes; again this is not proof that there were no planes.

Again, I agree with you. Same goes for the opposite.

Well that is possibly because the No Planes at the WTC theory is of course the hardest to prove, whereas I think one would have to be a complete idiot to believe that a Boeing aircraft dissapeared into a tiny hole a few feet wide at the Pentagon.

Further I think that it is quite a leap of faith for most Americans to believe that several major network film crews and others who filmed the event could possibly "all" be working for the US military; however that is certainly not a conclusion I have reached.

All the media is ran and controlled by the Mystery Schools (those elites who are at the heads of all secret societies, major corporations, Nations, and cults/sects around the globe), the same outfit who ushered in the New World Order with 'Operation 911'.

You don't think it's possible (not you Luciferhorus)?

OutFOXed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (Pt. 1 of 8)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

It's more than possible... it's a reality.

On the London 7/7 operation it has been admitted that were allegedly 800+ people working on the staged terrorist event. Similarly on 911 there was a military exercise targetting the same targets which were actually hit on 9/11 this would also have involved 100's of co-conspirators.

With regards to the infiltration of the mass media by the Anglo-American state terrorists, this is rather well known and admitted to.

It should further be pointed out that everyone involved in 911 would have a financial motivation not to disclose the operation since the statistics of "futures contracts (bets essentially)" placed prior to 911 show up to 90 times the normal activity on certain stocks where bets were correctly placed on the collapsing share price of companies who suffered losses in 911.

That modern day military operations work in much the same way as the creation of a Hollywood movie, is well attested to; the US state terrorists after all have much bigger budgets for their "Wag the Dog" scenarios than any Hollywood producer, and further a Hollywood producer will usually not execute members of his staff who reveal trade secrets, whereas with the US military this is standard practice.

This is, again, wide speculation on your part. But I will indulge...

Where do you think there is more room for error?

Do you think there is more room for error using REAL JET AIR CRAFTS hi-jacked by some idiot Egyptian 'terrorist' with no real flight training, and expect everything to carry out flawlessly and nail the tower with both planes?.....

Or....

Do you think there is more room for error using TV fakery and video image mapping, etc. and/or holograms?

The latter seems like the way to go to me.

If you're as serious as I am about the Truth, luciferhorus, I'd highly suggest you listen to this interview with 'killtown' (a no planer, yes.) It's an awesome interview from someone who believes that planes DID hit the towers. Listen to the entire interview from start to finish. This interview has hardly any views at all (on Youtube), but it's one of the best ones I've heard in relation to the No plane theory, anywhere!

KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 1 / 5
KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 1 / 5 - YouTube

KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 2 / 5
KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 2/5 - YouTube

KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 3 / 5
KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 3/5 - YouTube

KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 4 / 5
KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 4/5 - YouTube

KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 5 / 5
KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 5/5 - YouTube

This has no bearing on the "No Plane" issue. The buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition which included the use of Thermate, which has been proven to exist in the WTC dust; numerous people heard multiple explosions, the sounds of which have been captured on film and can be seen detonating on lower floors during the collapse.

It does have bearing on the No plane theory. How doesn't it? Planes could not have done this! That's the point (yes, I understand that planes could have still hit the towers, and they were brought down using other means, this is also a possibility.)

When buildings come down, the height of the rubble pile that remains is about 12% of the building's original height. For example, when the Kingdome (sports stadium) was demolished, the rubble was about 30ft high, which was 12% of its original height of 250ft. The Twin Towers of the WTC in NY stood 110 stories tall, but when they came down on 9/11 they didn't topple over, they came STRAIGHT DOWN.

Given what is known about rubble piles, we would expect the pile for each tower to be about 12% of its original height. 12% of 110 stories equals 13.2 stories. The expected rubble piles at Ground Zero should of been about 10 stories higher than the lobbies of the Twin Towers, which were about 3 stories in height. The rubble piles are visibly less than 3 stories in height!!

Where did all the building material disappear to?

See the huge dust clouds immediately following the destruction of the towers?

What causes the dust to be so fine, to be suspended in mid-air and carried away with the wind (gradually, slowly)?

What on earth happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11??

Yes this is quite an interesting video, however it simply establishes that the US military have advanced weaponry including energy weapons; there is widespread evidence that the US military have covert "secret" weapons technologies; this is not disputed.

Okay, fair enough. Given everything else we now know surrounding 'Operation 911', I'd say it is relevant, wouldn't you?

I would say it is the "least" solid theory, since even if the theory is true, many of the arguments for this theory are pseudo-scientific and speculative; the arguments for 1: controlled demolition, 2: the evidence of thermate particles, 3: No plane at the Pentagon and Shanksville, 4: the coincidence of there being a military exercise targetting the same targets on the same day on both NY 911 and London 7/7; is simply too strange to be coincidental, and 5: the unusual trading on the future's markets where hundreds of billions of dollars were generated from 911; 6: the use of 911 propaganda and the fake Bin Laden tape as a justification for the removal of the Taliban from power and the reinstatement of the herion dealers (whom the Taliban overthrew in 1992) by the US narco-terrorists; are all much stronger arguments.

This is also wide speculation. After the evidence I provided above, you still think it's the least solid theory out there in relation to 'Operation 911'?

Yes this is rather interesting, however he is a professional pilot who does not believe that Boeings could be remotely controlled to impact the twin towers; this is entirely unlikely; US military remote control technology existed in those days which could take off and land aircraft remotely, operate drones and detonate a cruise missile on a postage stamp.

Have you used flight sims? I mean, real ones... professional flight simulators?

You cannot recreate what happened on 9/11 with a Boeing 757, NEVER! Try!

It's impossible! If you DID hit the building, it WOULD NOT be dead center! No way!

If a computer knows the lattitude, longitude and altitude of a target it can control a flight path with greater accuracy than even a human pilot.

I'm guessing you haven't exercised your assumptions in a professional flight simulator with a Boeing 757 & the Twin Towers. It's damn near impossible.

Yes those are also very interesting videos, but they relate to anti-gravity technology which the US military have been working on for years and is the simplest possible explanation for the UFO phenomenon; however this does not relate to the No Planes at the WTC issue.

Having said all this, and having studied the arguments of the WTC No Planers, I am quite open to the possibility that this occurred, however many of their arguments are weak, speculative, pseudo-scientific and unfortunately there is no irrefutable "proof" or "disproof" of no planes one way or another, whereas the tiny hole in the Pentagon, the absence of wreckage at Shanksville, the presense of Thermate in the WTC dust and the arguments for controlled demolition at the WTC are all "strong" arguments which make the case for a black US military operation.

Since 911 obviously was planned months in advance and had a large crew of operatives and co-conspirators, it is certain that those engineering this operation considered it an excercise in public mass deception and in "what they could get away with," so while the "WTC No Plane theory" is not improbable for a terrorist organisation with the multi-billion dollar resources of the US military, I just think there are much stronger arguments to made regarding this being a black US miltary operation.


Lux

I would, again, have to highly suggest you listen to the 'Killtown Interview' referenced above (all 5 parts).

9/11 ushered in the New World Order, this much I do know.

Hell, even the FBI admits to TV fakery being investigated!
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me, I look forward to your response.


Peace&Love
God bless

[apollo_gnomon]

That's just a fancy way of saying you don't like what I said but you can't refute it.
No, that's a technical way of saying that even if your facts are correct and true your presentation of them creates an illogical argument. If you don't know what logical fallacies are I suggest reading up on them. Most universities in the US require a course on logic or something comparable as a "critical thinking" requirement, even for Bachelor of Fine Arts degrees. That's where I learned it. There are books out there that can help you learn on your own.

Formal logic is a powerful tool. When someone uses fallacies in arguments you can analyze what they say and not react emotionally to the illogical parts.

Did you find any evidence to back up your assertion that the flashes are not explosions?
Still working on that, as time permits. I'm not content to just take the top 3 hits on the first page of the first google search I run. I'm trying to learn about aircraft radar in general at the moment.

The "flash" itself consists of what, one or 2 frames in each of the vids that show it? Not much visual information to go on. However, the speed of an explosion is pretty great, so I would expect it to project debris/fireball outward within the timeframe of recording, instead of looking like a perfectly circular flat patch of white light on the surface of the aluminum architectural cladding of the columns.

Also, the flash itself might have been infrared - as I understand it many video cameras can "see" ir. I've come across references to using a camcorder to read the pulses coming from tv remotes. Robotic experimenters sometimes use tv remotes as prebuilt components for controlling or programming their creations, and need to know what the pulsetrains are for various buttons so that they can program the detector to respond to the buttons they want to use.

See? I'm not just going to pull a "well it's obvious" bullshit answer out over something like this. I'm going to actually do some research and figure it out.

[thespiritforce]

Yes, here we have and see the fine Art of Deception, The Misleading of others, Creating Doubt and the Great Tricksters at work to Divide and Conquer..."YOU!" As read it for yourself and know

The No Plane theory is the most solid theory for 9/11 thus far...

There has been massive censorship of the 911 Hoax. Dozens of media sources have exercised a zero tolerance policy for any suggestion that no planes struck the WTC before it was vaporized from exotic weaponry and nuclear weapons.

There are innumerable contradictions with the news reports of planes striking the WTC. (The author's writing is here.) Just a cursory examination of the 911 news reports can reveal dramatic inconsistencies.

There was no audio of 'Flight 175' striking the South Tower. This is true even though there were about a dozen videos of the event said to be obtained from lucky amateurs.

Now imagine that the South Tower moved at 450 m.p.h. and struck a stationary Flight 175. We would not expect that Flight 175 would be undamaged. We would not expect that it would simply disappear into the South Tower.

Eyewitnesses: Very few people in New York's business district actually had a decent view of the South Tower of the WTC. Only a few thousand people at most would have been able to see the South Tower explode. The author of this website has interviewed people who do not believe that they saw a plane strike the South Tower.


With regards to solid "proof" there appears to be little in the way of hard evidence either way, in terms of proving or disproving the theory.

There's evidence for both. Maybe it was? Who knows.

The bottom line, though, is this; The no plane hoax could have been perpetuated either way.

Although I am open to the possibility of "No Planes at the WTC" I am also interested in exploring the weaknesses of the arguments...and this last part in RED no less...for affect...ing...you.

Education. Try some. The fact is, every single statement in your prior post was fallacious.


saying you don't like what I said but you can't refute it

Did you find any evidence to back up your assertion

And so on and so on all through this thread of mostly nonsense and keeping the real truth in doubt, as it is and has been made to be and "YOU" people fall for it every time.:eek:

Like forget it!...The real problem is and not about whether or not planes hit the Twin Towers or not...is The USA got us into a needless war and 1000's if not 100' of 1000's have died in vain...not to have to mention, but the treasure wasted on these needless wars, as well and all you all want to do is argue about whether planes hit the Twin Towers...all the while mothers, fathers, daughters, sisters, brothers, grandfathers, grandmothers and so on and so on are crying each and everyday of the misjustice and needless suffering of all these people's hearts and minds! SHAME!

[luciferhorus]

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me, I look forward to your response.



OK 1776, you have obviously put a lot of time and effort into your response, but it will take me some time to watch all the videos in your post and to respond back to you and I am busy with other matters today. Frankly the more I read about the "No Plane" at the WTC, the more I begin to see that some of the arguments for this are quite reasonable.

I think that most people disregard the WTC No Plane issue on grounds of credibility; it seems quite incredible to most people that the US military would go to such an extent as to manufacture the entire occurrence, however I am under no such illusions; both NY 911 and London 7/7 were major military operations involving 100's if not 1000's of personel and were obviously multi-million dollar operations, which especially in the case of 9/11 probably involved months of planning and the elaborate setting up of explosive charges etc. It is certainly not beyond credibility that the US military would simply insert cartoon aircraft into videos when this technology is hardly rocket science and is widely available to all of us.

Have you used flight sims? I mean, real ones... professional flight simulators?

You cannot recreate what happened on 9/11 with a Boeing 757, NEVER! Try!

It's impossible! If you DID hit the building, it WOULD NOT be dead center! No way!

Yes I admit that I have absolutely no experience with flying aircraft. Since numerous pilots have stated that it would be almost impossible to fly into the Twin Towers at dead centre at 400mph (which I think is around the maximum speed of a 767 at ground level) then of course I will have to take their word for that as I have never flown an aircraft. However almost all large aircraft have autopilots; I do understand that there are limitations to what a standard civillian aircraft autopilot can do, however if it was a US military aircraft which hit the Twin Towers, the US military have some very advanced forms of autopilots and unmanned remote control aircraft which can even take off and land remotely. If an aircraft can land in narrow section of runway by autopilot, surely it could also hit the twin towers? Surely an aircraft could be remotely programmed just to fly to the latitude, longitude and altitude of the "target" which in this case was the Twin Towers?

http://content.ll-0.com/signal/signal_e_a000882785.JPG?i=101007095838

The Taranis unmanned combat aerial vehicle is the largest unmanned aircraft the United Kingdom has developed . Designed for a high degree of autonomy, it will demonstrate capabilities for stealthy, long-duration, deep-penetration missions..............The autonomy goal for Taranis is to create a robot aircraft that can taxi, take off, plot a course to a target and locate a target without human interaction.

http://www.imakenews.com/signal/e_article000882785.cfm

Of course the article on the Taranis (above) talks about this as technology currently in development and as a technology of the future, but I think it not unlikley that much of what we consider "future technology" has already been developed by the US military and may well be "current" technology which is simply "secret" or "covert" technology.


Well there is hard evidence to support the theory, and also some evidence that negates, at least, part(s) of it [see Thermate/Thermite issue]. ..... whether the buildings were destroyed using conventional demolitions, Thermate/Thermite, or otherwise (Directed Energy Weapons, Nuclear, etc.), they still could have used the No plane hoax to execute the operation and gain public support to invade ....Iraq.

When buildings come down, the height of the rubble pile that remains is about 12% of the building's original height. For example, when the Kingdome (sports stadium) was demolished, the rubble was about 30ft high, which was 12% of its original height of 250ft. The Twin Towers of the WTC in NY stood 110 stories tall, but when they came down on 9/11 they didn't topple over, they came STRAIGHT DOWN.

Given what is known about rubble piles, we would expect the pile for each tower to be about 12% of its original height. 12% of 110 stories equals 13.2 stories. The expected rubble piles at Ground Zero should of been about 10 stories higher than the lobbies of the Twin Towers, which were about 3 stories in height. The rubble piles are visibly less than 3 stories in height!!

Where did all the building material disappear to?

See the huge dust clouds immediately following the destruction of the towers?

What causes the dust to be so fine, to be suspended in mid-air and carried away with the wind (gradually, slowly)?

What on earth happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11??




Well Stephen Jones has conclusively established that he found Themate in the WTC dust, so I think that proves that Thermate was used, since I doubt that Jones would fabricate such evidence. However ...that does not mean that the demolition was "only" accomplished with Thermate.

Certainly the fact that much of the Twin Towers were reduced to "dust" seems to be unusual in controlled demolitions, where only "some" concrete and components are reduced to dust. I have not adequately studied the theory the the Twin Towers were demolished using micro nukes, however since we conclude that this was a US miltary operation, I think it is a statement of the obvious to say that the US military do possess such weapons.

With regards to direct energy weapons, this is really more of a mysterious technology which we know little about, however what we do know is that the US military has a multi-billion dollar black budget (see Nick Cook's videos below) and is likely to possess techologies which most of humanity are entirely unaware of.

Holograms. Stranger and Stranger.

I thought I might just mention this because this seems to be the most bizzare, outrageous "tin foil hat" conspiracy theory, unless one is actually aware of the nature of US military research; it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the military establishment do have a "holographic" project and cloaking (invisibility) projects, the latter of which is discussed and revealed in part in Nick Cook's video below. In light of the decades of research and development of advanced military technologies by the military establishment, often what is considered strange, bizzare and outrageous is not strange at all in the world of advanced military technology.

Just to restate, I should point out that Nick Cook is not a "conspiracy theorist" in the traditional sense; however I suppose that persons who have done very little research into the world of secret military research and technology would at first glance write off some of his claims, such as the "invisible tank (see the video below)" in the same way that holographic aircraft can be written off, however science is science and often what seems impossible is actually possible, especially considering the military establishment have had trillions of dollars over many decades to work on such projects.

I should point out that the offical $30 billion "black budget" which Nick Cook refers to in his video is only the black budget for secret projects which the US military admits to, and does not include include famous line item expenditures such as $100 for a hammer (see "A $2.98 Hammer REALLY Costs Our Government $100" on http://www.scragged.com/articles/yes-virginia-a-298-hammer-really-costs-our-government-100.aspx), or Donald Rumfield's most famous quotation ""According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion (thousand billion) in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted" (see http://www.benfrank.net/patriots/news/national/pentagon_missing_trillions), or the the US military's opium imports from Afghanistan and their cocaine imports from Latin America which have been estimated at a 1.1 trillion dollars a year ( see http://www1.american.edu/salla/Articles/BB-CIA.htm); however such estimates are impossible to prove or disprove.


Lux




UFO's and the US military's secret projects.

I'm not sure if this video has been posted here before, however the following video is not the standard UFO conspiracy theory video; it is a one hour and 40 minute documentary by Nick Cook, an editor for "Jane's Defense Weekly." Essentially the argument and evidence in the film leads to the conclusion that U.F.O's are essentially advanced technology produced by the U.S. military.

http://www.binnallofamerica.com/pix/rr/5308d.jpg

Personally I tend to think that much of the UFO conspiracy theory information is encouraged by the US military as "disinformation" to cover their secret technology and black military operations; this is also stated in the video.

Alien Abductions, Cattle Mutilations & U.S. Military Psyops

"Alien Abductions" may well also simply be abductions by the US military. Another position suggested by a "cattle mutilation" researcher in the video is that the culprits of animal mutilation could easily just take the entire animal, but rather they leave the evidence behind; he suggests that this is deliberately to spread fear, and it is an atmpsophere of mass of "fear and control" which is to the advantage of the US police state. One testimonial in the video relates to the sighting of a black helicopter at the time of cattle mutilation, suggesting that the culprits may be closer to home

Unseen World.

In addition to "visible" UFO sightings, a recent development has been the use of infra red lenses which pick up geometrically shaped craft which cannot be seen with the naked eye, nor photographed with a standard lense; the US military have also been working on "cloaking" technology for many years. It seems that much of what we may consider "future science" or even "crackpot science" is actually current science, but kept under wraps by the US military.

Nick Cook: "The Billion Dollar Secret." (1 hour 40 mins.)

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-3975546396136405829#

Nick Cook: "UFO's: The Secret Evidence" (1 hour 40 mins.)

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-834605691449249469&hl=en&emb=1#

Lux.

http://www.binnallofamerica.com/pix/rr/5308a.jpg

"In Billion Dollar Secret, Cook makes a fairly strong case for his theory that some UFO reports in the American Southwest could be explained by deeply classified "black" aircraft and super advanced technology, perhaps as one interviewee suggests: "fifty years ahead of anything you can imagine." Cook points out that the US Defence Department "black budget" (money used to fund expenditures it does not want to disclose publicly) has been estimated to be about $30 billion annually, more than enough for the "black world" to build their own UFOs. Further, on September 10, 2001, US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld admitted to the media that amazingly: "According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions...........

With that kind of money at the US Defence Department's disposal, almost anything becomes feasible, even, as Nick Cook suggests in his book, ultra secret antigravity aircraft. The idea that the US military could have developed some new form of advanced technology in secret, such as antigravity, may sound fantastic, but it is not that unlikely when you consider that it has already happened once with stealth technology.

When stealth aircraft were still denied to exist and even thought impossible by most people, F-117 stealth fighters were already flying over the American Southwest. According to Cook's The Hunt for Zero Point, one even crashed at Bakersfield, California in 1986, two years before they were unveiled to the public. So the US military may well have other denied aircraft in the sky today and perhaps similar crashes of "black" military projects could explain some of the many alleged UFO crashes over the last sixty years. In Cook's second documentary UFOs: The Secret Evidence, he speculates that the famous Roswell UFO incident could be such a case...........

It is Cook's book and second documentary that really deserve our attention. In these, Cook explored what is known in the defence business as "The Legend," that the Nazis had invented flying saucers in the dying days of the Second World War and that, after the war, the Allies captured them.

On the face of it at least, "The Legend" does provide a beautiful and down to Earth explanation for the origins of UFOs. We do Know that the Nazis were perhaps decades ahead of the Allies in terms of jet aircraft and rocket weaponry, and that, after the war, the Allies did capture a great deal of technology and personnel from Germany (for instance V-2 rockets and Wernher von Braun). We also know that the Nazis did have some exotic designs and ideas for aircraft and that, during the war, some very mysterious aerial phenomena was seen in the skies over Europe, such as the famous foo fighters. Further, soon after the captured German scientists arrived in the American Southwest after the war to work, the modern UFO era began and, in July 1947, a flying saucer allegedly crashed near Roswell, New Mexico........."

http://www.binnallofamerica.com/rr5.23.8.html

[apollo_gnomon]

Well Stephen Jones has conclusively established that he found Themate in the WTC dust, so I think that proves that Thermate was used, since I doubt that Jones would fabricate such evidence. However ...that does not mean that the demolition was "only" accomplished with Thermate.
{emphasis added}

No. The chemical analysis revealed a chemical mix which he attests would "ONLY" come from thermite (or thermate) but does not search for non-thermite/thermate sources of the chemicals in question.

The metallurgical evidence of sulfidation and oxidation of structural steel is another limb of this evidence set.

All of the chemicals supposedly "only" present in thermite are found in the building materials. Sulfur is used in the vulcanization of rubber. Carpet padding uses sulfur-vulcanized foam rubber. Gypsum drywall is CaSO4·2H2O. During long-burning fires, especially in "reducing atmosphere" combustion (ie, the smoldering hole left after collapse of the towers) the oxygen from drywall can be pulled off by other chemical reactions with more "grab" available, such as aluminum and steel oxidation.

Even this one point is not "conclusively established."

[luciferhorus]

{emphasis added}

No. The chemical analysis revealed a chemical mix which he attests would "ONLY" come from thermite (or thermate) but does not search for non-thermite/thermate sources of the chemicals in question.

The metallurgical evidence of sulfidation and oxidation of structural steel is another limb of this evidence set.

All of the chemicals supposedly "only" present in thermite are found in the building materials. Sulfur is used in the vulcanization of rubber. Carpet padding uses sulfur-vulcanized foam rubber. Gypsum drywall is CaSO4·2H2O. During long-burning fires, especially in "reducing atmosphere" combustion (ie, the smoldering hole left after collapse of the towers) the oxygen from drywall can be pulled off by other chemical reactions with more "grab" available, such as aluminum and steel oxidation.

Even this one point is not "conclusively established."

Yes many of the by-products of thermate detonations are commonly found and do not offer by themselves proof of anything.

"Thermite reactants and products are:

aluminum, iron oxide, iron and aluminum oxide

Since these chemicals are pretty commonplace, detection of any one, or all of them, would not be proof of anything.

Now commercial thermites have additives such as MnO2, BaO2, etc, but Mn and Ba are found in many items such as light fixtures, TVs, etc, so once again finding traces of Ba or Mn is hardly proof of the presence of thermite"
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/did-anyone-besides-dr-jones-test-for-thermite-t22.html

I am qualified in neither metallurgy, physics or chemistry and thus I am dependent on studying the evidence presented by those who are.

The evidence of thermite being used in the twin towers is not based on thermate detonation by-products being found. There is an entire discussion board solely devoted to the issue of "Thermite and Nanothermite" on the 9/11 Forum on: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/thermite-and-nanothermite-f44.html .

http://doujibar.ganriki.net/othertheme/ae911truth-thermite-05.jpg

There is also an academic paper on this which Stephen Jones is a co-contributer; it is a 10 megbyte pdf which can be dowloaded from the link below.

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM Click the green download button.

http://doujibar.ganriki.net/othertheme/ae911truth-thermite-07.jpg

I don't want to restate the entire argument, much of which can really only be understood by academics in that specialist field, however just to quote one line of the Introduction: "The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." The term "unreacted" refers to Thermite which did not fully detonate.

The 29 page, illustrated 10 meg pdf is hghly technical, however if one simply skips to the final page and reads the conclusion, one of the closing sentences is "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material." Ibid.

Thus this is hardly just about thermite by-products, but rather about the actual existence of undetonated thermite.

In addition to this, Jones and others actually did experiments using thermite to see what effect this had on metal, and compared this to metal found at the WTC, and there is other evidence from the WTC which supports the thermite argument.

In another of Jones' papers, citing another academic paper he states

"An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7." This brief but important letter states: While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway. ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001) How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved....Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports. Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite).....Finally, sulfidation was observed in structural steel samples found from both WTC7 and one of the WTC Towers, as reported in Appendix C in the FEMA report. It is quite possible that more than one type of cutter-charge was involved on 9/11, e.g., HMX, RDX and thermate in some combination. While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic. The
evidence for the use of some variant of thermite such as sulfur-containing thermate in the destruction of the WTC Towers and building 7 is sufficiently compelling to warrant serious investigation.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

The entirety of part one of Jones' essay above deals with the issue of Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools

I don't really want to just copy and paste all that in here as the document is rather large and can be read in intirety online, however just to offer a few quotations:

http://investigate911.org/Fires-burned-and-molten-steel-flowed-in-the-pile-of-ruins-still-settling-beneath-my-feet-Sarah-Atlas-Task-Force-One-Urban-Search-and-Rescue-911-WTC.jpg

"Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event....For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees
Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
‘Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f151/cubone360/WTC20Molten.jpg

I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cuttercharges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. [See Grimmer, 2004] Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the
thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting.

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, for example in thermate, will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the
FEMA report.

..........

http://www.tedgunderson.net/sitebuilder/images/911_molten_metal-540x396.jpg

On the other hand, falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal! The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from?"
Ibid

Thus to summarise, the argument that cutter charges which can melt metal were used in 911 is not dependent solely on detonated thermite by products being found in WTC dust; it is much more complex than that, since "actual" undetonated thermite has also been found, and in addition much of the phenomena that one would expect to find when cutter charges are used were found at the WTC.

Jones article above includes a number of images of molten metal and "meteorite" of fused steel (below).

http://investigate911.org/Numerous-multi-ton-meteorites-of-cooled-molten-metal-found-at-911-WTC-by-Bart-Voorsanger.jpg

Lux

[bryan]

No, that's a technical way of saying that even if your facts are correct and true your presentation of them creates an illogical argument. If you don't know what logical fallacies are I suggest reading up on them. Most universities in the US require a course on logic or something comparable as a "critical thinking" requirement, even for Bachelor of Fine Arts degrees. That's where I learned it. There are books out there that can help you learn on your own.

Formal logic is a powerful tool. When someone uses fallacies in arguments you can analyze what they say and not react emotionally to the illogical parts.

If a thorough knowledge of formal logic was necessary to determine guilt, juries would have to be made up of philosophers. Jury members are ordinary people who are expected to be able to see through a pack of lies without knowing the names of all the logical fallacies.



See? I'm not just going to pull a "well it's obvious" bullshit answer out over something like this. I'm going to actually do some research and figure it out.

You said the flashes weren't explosions before you did the research.

[apollo_gnomon]

You said the flashes weren't explosions before you did the research.
True, as far as it goes, since I've given you no indication of prior work on this subject. I've done a bit, in the past, but I don't keep notes or links for every subject and have to reinvent my wheels when I come back to certain subjects.

[apollo_gnomon]

If a thorough knowledge of formal logic was necessary to determine guilt, juries would have to be made up of philosophers. Jury members are ordinary people who are expected to be able to see through a pack of lies without knowing the names of all the logical fallacies.
Juries are picked for a LACK of expertise in fields relevant to a case. If an expert witness makes a fallacious statement on the stand, the cross-examining lawyer will rip the witness to shreds. All that is needed is to create some small semblance of "reasonable doubt" in the minds of the jury - remember OJ Simpson? "If the glove does not fit you must acquit."

Debate, however, is not court. Assertions must be proven. Not that any of you guys actually ACCEPT anything that's ever proven against you - time and again you just march on waving a new flag.

Science, on the other hand, is neither debate nor court. A scientist needs to provide evidence both for their own claim, and needs to prove that alternative explanations do not satisfy the conditions of the claim.

Thus, I'll come back to the "flash," and I'll try to present this in a scientific manner. I'm an amateur scientist, so work with me as I'm not practiced at this.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again.
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Primary question:What caused the "flash" on the Trade Center Towers seen in videos of 9/11 just prior to impact?

Hypothesis: the flash was caused by the radar in the nose of the airplane hitting the aluminum cladding on the beams.
Questions to guide further research:
1) Is there radar on the nose of the plane?
2) would the radar reflect off of the aluminum or arc from it in a way that would be visible on camera?
3) How big would the radar pattern be at the point shown in the videos?


1 - Airborne Weather Radar
http://www.radartutorial.eu/15.weather/pic/collins1.jpg
Figure 1: Collins solid-state weather radar
It is common that the majority of commercial aircraft nowadays carry an Airborne Weather Radar system that is most often built into the aircraft nose. Airborne Weather Radar provides the pilot with a local (ahead only) weather picture in the cockpit and allows him to identify and avoid specific, undesirable weather formations. A maximum range of 180 Nm is common although the commonly used range (as selected by pilots) would normally be in the 30 to 80 Nm range.
http://www.radartutorial.eu/15.weather/wx11.en.html

Radar Frequency Bands
Band Designation Frequency Range Typical Usage
VHF 50-330 MHz. Very long-range surveillance
UHF 300-1,000 MHz. Very long-range surveillance
L 1-2 GHz. Long-range surveillance, enroute traffic control
S 2-4 GHz. Moderate-range surveillance, terminal traffic control, long-range weather
C 4-8 GHz. Long-range tracking, airborne weather
X 8-12 GHz. Short-range tracking, missile guidance, mapping, marine radar, airborne intercept
K u 12-18 GHz. High resolution mapping, satellite altimetry
K 18-27 GHz. Little used (H 20 absorption)
K a 27-40 GHz. Very high resolution mapping, airport surveillance
mm 40-100+ GHz. Experimental
Source: AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics)
http://www.aewa.org/Library/rf_bands.html


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Airborne_weather_radar_NASA.jpg


A Boeing 767 Radio Station
Equipment Type Manufacturer / Model Modulation Type Power
HF Voice Transceiver Rockwell Collins HFS-700 A3E (AM) J3E (Upper Sideband) 400W PEP
VHF Voice Transceiver Rockwell Collins VHF-700B (700B tunes 8.33 kHz steps) A3E (AM) 25W
DME Rockwell Collins DME-700 P (Timed Pulses) 316W
Radar Altimeter (4300 MHz) Rockwell Collins LRA-700 F3 (FM Radar) 400mW
TCAS Honeywell RT-910 P9 (Data on pulses) 400W
WX Radar Rockwell Collins WRT-701X P0 (Pulsed Radar) 120W
http://www.ab9il.net/images/767-antennas.jpg
http://www.ab9il.net/aviation/767-radio.html

[apollo_gnomon]

Answer to 1) above --

Yes. There is a weather radar antenna in the nose, using 120W pulses in the C-band which operates from 4 to 8 gigahertz.

In addition there are glide-slope and localizer radar units in the radome (nose) of the 767. I have no further information on those radars.

[stannrodd]

Static electric discharge = flash

If not then it = thermobaric warhead

Stann

[ultima1]

Static electric discharge = flash

Any evidence to support this static discharge theory?

[kooskoets]

WX Radar Rockwell Collins WRT-701X P0 (Pulsed Radar) 120W

Why don't you tell us that 120 Watts is not gonna make anything glow but a lightbulb.

Furthermore...that tiny sender is only sending one promille of the time,

You lose.

[ultima1]

As a Planer, could you post some maths to show how you're more clued up than United Airlines on fueling a Boeing 767?

I am not a planer or a no planer, i am a truther looking for the truth.

As far as clued up for one i was a cew chief in the Air force and know how fuel systems operate.

[thespiritforce]

Answer to 1) above --

Yes. There is a weather radar antenna in the nose, using 120W pulses in the C-band which operates from 4 to 8 gigahertz.

In addition there are glide-slope and localizer radar units in the radome (nose) of the 767. I have no further information on those radars.

Dang I can copy and paste real good. HOORA! I AM THE MAN...NOT.:rolleyes:

[ultima1]

Dang I can copy and paste real good. HOORA! I AM THE MAN...NOT.:rolleyes:

You cannot post anything. What are you talking about?

[thespiritforce]

You cannot post anything. What are you talking about?

What in hell are you talking about...I just copied and pasted what you copied and pasted and I too say...HOORA...Like I did something or you did. Sheesh! :D

[ultima1]

What in hell are you talking about...I just copied and pasted what you copied and pasted and I too say...HOORA...Like I did something or you did. Sheesh! :D

At least i can post evidence, you cannot.

You cannot post anything but to repeat what have you been told, you cannot think for yourself.

[thespiritforce]

At least i can post evidence, you cannot.

You cannot post anything but to repeat what have you been told, you cannot think for yourself.

But, I can re-post what you have copied and pasted here, as I copy and paste what you have copied and pasted and I know you can't think for yourself, as you have no idea of what I am even talking about...LOL:eek:

[ultima1]

But, I can re-post what you have copied and pasted here

So you copied and pasted the facts i posted, that could only mean that you agree with them.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

[kooskoets]

Originally Posted by kooskoets ( NOT TRUE !!! ) View Post
As a Planer, could you post some maths to show how you're more clued up than United Airlines on fueling a Boeing 767?

I am not a planer or a no planer, i am a truther looking for the truth.

As far as clued up for one i was a cew chief in the Air force and know how fuel systems operate.

Why are you posting quote with my nick that are not mine ?
twit

[ultima1]

why are you posting quote with my nick that are not mine ?
Twit

so who was it psoted by if did not quote you?

[kooskoets]

so who was it psoted by if did not quote you?

How would i know ?
Do your own homework...

[ultima1]

How would i know ?
Do your own homework...

Well when i quoted it, it had your name on it.

[bryan]

Why are you posting quote with my nick that are not mine ?
twit

He answered a question addressed to somebody else, quoted the wrong person, posted his reply in the wrong thread, gave the wrong answer, and spelled it wrong. He can only get better.

[ultima1]

He answered a question addressed to somebody else, quoted the wrong person, posted his reply in the wrong thread, gave the wrong answer, and spelled it wrong. He can only get better.

Well at least i can post evidence to support what i post,. which makes me a lot better then you and others.

[apollo_gnomon]

He answered a question addressed to somebody else, quoted the wrong person, posted his reply in the wrong thread, gave the wrong answer, and spelled it wrong. He can only get better.

My god, Ultima, are you TRYING to be this dense? You are just amazing. How do you quote somebody and get the name wrong? Did you even read the freakin post? And you respond in the wrong thread!!

I'm not exactly mr memory here, but just glancing I KNOW that wasn't posted by kooskoets.

{edit to add:}

The quote was bryan, post #570, in the "767 vs. wall" thread.

Wow. Just, wow. :eek:

[kooskoets]

He answered a question addressed to somebody else, quoted the wrong person, posted his reply in the wrong thread, gave the wrong answer, and spelled it wrong. He can only get better.

well...

...which makes me a lot better then you and others.

Is there hope for the psychopaths ?
He's not going to get better i'm afraid. He already is... :)

[ultima1]

Is there hope for the psychopaths ?
He's not going to get better i'm afraid. He already is... :)

Thanks for proving my point again that people liek you have to resort to name calling becasue you cannot be mature enough to have an adult discussion and you cannot deabte anything i have posted.


REPORTED AND IGNORED.

[ultima1]

my god, ultima, are you trying to be this dense? You are just amazing. How do you quote somebody and get the name wrong? Did you even read the freakin post? And you respond in the wrong thread!!

reported and ignored.

[1776]

Well at least i can post evidence to support what i post,. which makes me a lot better then you and others.

Are you kidding me? Are you 12 or something?

Anyone can go look at your POST HISTORY (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/search.php?searchid=3326864) and see what value you've provided to the forums... :rolleyes:

After reviewing your posts, you'd really consider yourself better than him and others?


Peace&Love
God bless

[ultima1]

Are you kidding me? Are you 12 or something?

After reviewing your posts, you'd really consider yourself better than him and others?

Yes because of several reasons.

1. I can think for myself instead of going by what someone has told me.

2. I can do resarch.

3. I can post facts and evidence to support what i post.

[apollo_gnomon]

reported and ignored.

Thanks. I've never been reported and ignored. I feel all wobbly inside now.

Oh. That's just the burrito.

[ultima1]

Thanks. I've never been reported and ignored. I feel all wobbly inside now.

Oh. That's just the burrito.

Sorry but i cannot put up with people insulting me, i have been banned from forums because i insulted people who insulted me so now i just report them to mods.

[kooskoets]

WX Radar Rockwell Collins WRT-701X P0 (Pulsed Radar) 120W


Why don't you tell us that 120 Watts is not gonna make anything glow but a lightbulb.

Furthermore...that tiny sender is only sending one promille of the time,

You lose.

So those spots were certainly NOT caused by a radar.
Still no answer....

[ultima1]

So those spots were certainly NOT caused by a radar.
Still no answer....

Why don't you tell us what made them since you seem to know everything.

[apollo_gnomon]

Why don't you tell us that 120 Watts is not gonna make anything glow but a lightbulb.

Furthermore...that tiny sender is only sending one promille of the time,

You lose.

Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I was busy this weekend with National Guard duty.

First, you can't compare a single-frequency output (like a microwave emitter) to the visible portion of incandescent light. Incandescent lights are about 2.5% efficient - meaning that you are only seeing about 3 watts of light from 120W of consumed electricity.

Second, it would be nice if you would write your posts in English. That would save time and eliminate confusion. I think you are referring to the transmitted pulse length followed by listening period, so I'll respond accordingly. If you meant something else, please explain.

The transmitted pulse is "on the order of a microsecond long" (per wikies - Weather radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). The "listen" cycle is around a millisecond. Thus there will be about 1000 pulses in one second.

Video records 29.97 "frames" per second (in the US), each covering 0.033 seconds, 33.3 milliseconds.

The "flash" occurs in one frame only - there is no indication of the flash in the frames just prior and just after the flash. Within the one video frame there would be about 33 pulses.

So why does the flash happen in only one frame? Standing waves (http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/microwaves/standing_wave1.html). The reflected pulse and transmitted pulse can create standing waves and feedback loops in the emitter at close distances.


WARNING

DO NOT operate the weather radar set while PERSONNEL or COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS are within 18 FEET of the antenna reflector.

When the weather radar set is operating, high-power radio frequency energy is emitted from the antenna reflector which can have harmful effects on the human body and can ignite combustible materials.
(From http://det32.com/Training/master_training_page.htm December: Airborne WX Radar training PPT)

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/flash.jpg
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/flash.jpg

In this picture we can see that the flash is a bit less than one airframe diameter in size. The airframe is 5 meters (about 15') in diameter (http://www.topspeed.com/aviation/aviation-reviews/boeing/1982-1994-boeing-767-200-ar86579.html). In the above image we can also see the flash reflecting off the airframe. This is a very important detail for the "composite image" theory. The nose (and thus radar emitter) is less than one diameter away from the aluminum skin on the tower columns. This is consistent with the safety warning quoted above.

[ultima1]

WARNING

DO NOT operate the weather radar set while PERSONNEL or COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS are within 18 FEET of the antenna reflector.

When the weather radar set is operating, high-power radio frequency energy is emitted from the antenna reflector which can have harmful effects on the human body and can ignite combustible materials.

Quoted for fact...

[kooskoets]

First, you can't compare a single-frequency output (like a microwave emitter) to the visible portion of incandescent light. Incandescent lights are about 2.5% efficient - meaning that you are only seeing about 3 watts of light from 120W of consumed electricity.

A 120 watts lightbulb is NOT going to make a piece of alu glow.

120 watts is 120 watts, no more.







So why does the flash happen in only one frame? .

What's that got to do with it.
120 watts is NOT going to make a piece of aluminium sheet glow white.

In fact, some have been trying to make aluminium glow red and failed.
you know...aluminium DOES NOT glow up when heated, not white, not even red.

Posting a silly warning that's also included with every cigarette lighter doesn't change that.

Just move on, ignorant shill.

[kooskoets]

Quoted for fact...

Quoted for stupidity.

[ultima1]

Quoted for stupidity.

Quoted for fact because i worked around planes.

Have you ???????

[kooskoets]

Quoted for fact because i worked around planes.

Have you ???????

You've been surrounded by people that THINK they are planes.

[ultima1]

You've been surrounded by people that THINK they are planes.

So in other words no you have not worked around planes and do not know what you are talking about when it comes to planes.

[apollo_gnomon]

You've been surrounded by people that THINK they are planes.

Be careful. People might think you're a troll if you keep making posts like this.

[bryan]

Quoted for fact...

Apollo gnomon's theory just got the kiss of death.

[stannrodd]

In fact, some have been trying to make aluminium glow red and failed.
you know...aluminium DOES NOT glow up when heated, not white, not even red.

Some digital cameras will "see" the infra red heat of hot solid aluminium or hot molten aluminium when photographed. If you could perceive infra red with your eyes your statement above would be incorrect. :rolleyes:

In the absence of oxygen aluminium changes from solid to molten with no visual change in colour (human eyes) .. in the presence of oxygen it will change to aluminium oxide and not form molten metal.

[apollo_gnomon]

120W of microwaves wouldn't melt the aluminum cladding, but it would sure as hell arc off the metal, especially with the dielectric coefficient of the iron behind it. Put a ball of foil in your microwave to see how bright that can be. Or google it, if you don't want screw your own oven up with standing waves feeding back into the magnetron.

The light would be pretty broad spectrum including IR, which would make the blink look even brighter on CCD.

[aviatorexp]

The flash could also be discharge of the static electricity built up during the flight if it had not built up to the point of discharging to atmosphere through the static wicks. Especially after a fast descent from altitude.

[stannrodd]

The flash could also be discharge of the static electricity built up during the flight if it had not built up to the point of discharging to atmosphere through the static wicks. Especially after a fast descent from altitude.

It could be I guess .. but I reckon it was a thermobaric warhead on a proximity fuse ..

.. attached to the nose of a 767 & a DC10 tanker loaded to the gunwhales ..

Stann :)

[ultima1]

It could be I guess .. but I reckon it was a thermobaric warhead on a proximity fuse ..

.. attached to the nose of a 767 & a DC10 tanker loaded to the gunwhales ..

Stann :)

WOW, what an imagination !!!!! :)

[truegroup]

WOW, what an imagination !!!!! :)

I really don't get you. You were posting for weeks about 'what plane though' when we were discussing the planes that hit the WTC.

I answered your what planes question with the two official planes, you said they weren't confirmed because of serial numbers blah blah blah.

Someone gives an opinion of planes not related to the official explanation to explain anomalies in the entrance hole and odd parts found, and you write that reply?

What is YOUR opinion. Go on, tell us. Then you can stop fart-arse-ing about with debating stuff that you don't seem to have a position on.

[kooskoets]

120W of microwaves wouldn't melt the aluminum cladding, but it would sure as hell arc off the metal, especially with the dielectric coefficient of the iron behind it. Put a ball of foil in your microwave to see how bright that can be. Or google it, if you don't want screw your own oven up with standing waves feeding back into the magnetron.

The light would be pretty broad spectrum including IR, which would make the blink look even brighter on CCD.

It's sending only 1/1000 part of the time. It's NOT a microwave oven. OK ?
You have effectively only 120 milliwatts or 0,12 watts.
So forget it.

Standing waves require a fixed distance OK ?
So forget that one also.

In fact your whole "theory" has no fundament at all.
So forget the whole thing.

[apollo_gnomon]

and your explanation for the blink is ...... ?

[kooskoets]

and your explanation for the blink is ...... ?

For a reasonable possibility : see the pdf linked in my sig.

[apollo_gnomon]

Oh yes, the "compositing" key. Not a "reasonable" possibility, but a great big bucket of Maybe and

Origin of the blink itself left unexplained, and big freaking dots do not match ANY technique in actual use by the industry.

All I've heard is "maybe it was explosives." Shit, I'll buy the static discharge theory before I buy into an explosive that only makes a flat white flash for less than 1/30 second.

[kooskoets]

All I've heard is "maybe it was explosives." Shit, I'll buy the static discharge theory before I buy into an explosive that only makes a flat white flash for less than 1/30 second.

Well...in fact i couldn't care less about your opinion.
Dragging in fallacy after fallacy has rendered you completely useless imho.

[stannrodd]

Well...in fact i couldn't care less about your opinion.
Dragging in fallacy after fallacy has rendered you completely useless imho.

Stating the obvious .. Kooser ? .. we already know that yours is the only opinion of value to you.

Just like Christophera .. like peas in a pod. You simply preach bullshit and don't discuss anything rationally.

Your agenda is to push no planes at all costs .. even when it makes you look daft.

[kooskoets]

Just like Christophera ..

come on...drunk again eh ?

[ultima1]

Someone gives an opinion of planes not related to the official explanation to explain anomalies in the entrance hole and odd parts found, and you write that reply?

I am not looking for opinions i am looking for facts.

Strange how i can post facts but others on here cannot.

What is YOUR opinion. Go on, tell us. Then you can stop fart-arse-ing about with debating stuff that you don't seem to have a position on.

I do not post opinions i post facts and evidence.

For 1, most of the evidence and official reports have not been released so we do not know what happened.

People that say they do know what happened are being very dishonest and closed minded.

[apollo_gnomon]

I am not looking for opinions i am looking for facts.

Strange how i can post facts but others on here cannot.



I do not post opinions i post facts and evidence.

For 1, most of the evidence and official reports have not been released so we do not know what happened.

People that say they do know what happened are being very dishonest and closed minded.

BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!

Quit talking about how you post facts, and just post some. Every one else here (well, except koos and bryan and dave) have posted facts. All you've done is talk about how persecuted you are and how everyone else is just posting opinion.. . .

BLAH BLAH FREAKING BLAH!!!! You don't even post OPINIONS!!!


Get over yourself.

[ultima1]

BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!

Quit talking about you you post facts, and just post some.

I have been positng them.

Whty can't you be adult enough to admit to that ???

[apollo_gnomon]

Really? I just clicked yer name to see your last 20 or so posts, and they're ALL crap like the one above.

FAIL

[ultima1]

Really? I just clicked yer name to see your last 20 or so posts, and they're ALL crap like the one above.

Thanks for showing you will not accpet or admit to facts and evidence shown.

[stannrodd]

come on...drunk again eh ?

Another fantastic revelation from Kooser .. more evidence of beer can physics I guess.

Tonight I salute the NZ soccer team (All Whites)... the only team unbeaten at the World Cup in Spain... Sad for the Dutch ... eh Koozer !!

And congrats to Spain :)

[kooskoets]

Well...it looks like the only way to keep the no-plane reality covered up is to spam every thread
with fallacies, wordgames and further nonsense by some dumbo's beyond belief.

[apollo_gnomon]

Well...it looks like the only way to keep the no-plane reality covered up is to spam every thread
with fallacies, wordgames and further nonsense by some dumbo's beyond belief.
Yeah, cuz, ya know, this forum has the Evil Powers mightily worried.

Honestly, the no planes theory doesn't even exist outside of a few conspiracy sites. Get over yourself, ace.

[1776]

Well...it looks like the only way to keep the no-plane reality covered up is to spam every thread
with fallacies, wordgames and further nonsense by some dumbo's beyond belief.

This is all par for the course, no doubt. Anyone learned in the Ancient Mysteries of Babylon and their Craft and Order's knows this much to be true. It's all part of their tactics to divide & conquer, the Hegelian Dialectic if you will.

Yeah, cuz, ya know, this forum has the Evil Powers mightily worried.

Honestly, the no planes theory doesn't even exist outside of a few conspiracy sites. Get over yourself, ace.

So let's suppress it where it is found, despite it only being found in a few enlightened corners of the Internet and abroad! :rolleyes:

That's possibly one of the most ignorant statements I've seen in years. No shit!

Peace&Love
God bless

[luciferhorus]

Yeah, cuz, ya know, this forum has the Evil Powers mightily worried.



The DI forum has over a million posts on it and there are often around 2000 people viewing it at any time; it is accessible from almost every nation on earth and it shows up often on the front page of Google for searches on the particular subjects being discussed here.

Even among the few dozen extended essays I have placed here (not this thread), using certain repetitive keywords, many of them show up on Google front page for related searches.

Personally I think that most Americans are trapped in a "reality bubble" of their own immediate environment and their mass media. However in the real world of 6 billion people where 95% of us are non Americans, for many of us, almost all US state terrorist propaganda is distrusted and reviled and probably nowhere is this more true than among the communites of the world's 1 billion+ Muslims where generally the suggestion that the US state terrorist propaganda on 911 might be true, is not only considered a conspiracy theory, but a dangerous and radical idea which is likely to arouse an angry and violent reaction.

This is only one of many such Internet discussion groups where such matters are being discussed, however in my judgement, the jury has long since passed it's verdict.

There is a vast array of evidence which suggests that 911 was a black US military operation, and the case against the US state terrorists does not hang on the details of every single aspect of that case; even if only one aspect of the prosecution argument shows that 911 did not occur simply because of a small group of mostly Saudi US military operatives armed with box cutters, but that it was clearly an "inside job" then that is sufficient.

Further even if 911 had never happened, the US would still be the world's leading terrorist state and it would still be hated and reviled throughout the world for it's long history of wars, military coups, state terrorism, narco-terrorism, black operations etc., etc.

The folly of the state terrorists who made it quite obvious that they were behind the US 9/11 and London 7/7 attacks were probably among the two major propaganda coups for the many enemies of Anglo-American state terrorism, which have only added fuel to the fires of hatred and made eventual retaliation and the inevitable destruction of the world's leading terrorist states (the US and the UK) all the more certain.

The wheels of karma may be slow to grind, but they are inevitable and certain.

Vengeance. Retaliation. Apocalyptic War. All the evil of the Anglo-American state terrorists shall come back on them 777 times 7 and more.

Lux.
Apocalytpic War, Fire, Plague and Poisoned Waters.
http://1984usa.com/higherlearning/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/depleted-uranium_2005.jpg

[stannrodd]

Well...it looks like the only way to keep the no-plane reality covered up is to spam every thread with fallacies, wordgames and further nonsense by some dumbo's beyond belief.

This should read....

... the only way to keep the no-plane theory alive is to spam every thread with fallacies, wordgames and further nonsense by NPT dumbo's ...

I say this because it's exactly what you do Kooser ..

You fail to engage in honest discussion everywhere you post. You should set up a church where you can simply preach your shit.

Stann

[kooskoets]

This is all par for the course, no doubt. Anyone learned in the Ancient Mysteries of Babylon and their Craft and Order's knows this much to be true. It's all part of their tactics to divide & conquer, the Hegelian Dialectic if you will.



So let's suppress it where it is found, despite it only being found in a few enlightened corners of the Internet and abroad! :rolleyes:

That's possibly one of the most ignorant statements I've seen in years. No shit!

Peace&Love
God bless

OT:
Watching that video series now.
Labyrinth of truth (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=91362)

Interesting stuff...

[kooskoets]

This should read....



I say this because it's exactly what you do Kooser ..

You fail to engage in honest discussion everywhere you post. You should set up a church where you can simply preach your shit.

Stann

And when was the last time YOU posted something worth reading ?
Bet you don't even remember.

[ultima1]

And when was the last time YOU posted something worth reading ?

When was the last time you treid to debate facts and evidence like an adult.

Bet you do not remember.

[stannrodd]

And when was the last time YOU posted something worth reading ?
Bet you don't even remember.

Let's look at this recent post of yours .... :D

:rolleyes:

Worthless comment, nil content .. simply more of your stupid No Plane Abuse ...

Get a grip mate..