911 planes...

[white horse]

I believe that they used cruise missiles to hit the WTC buildings because they new planes would practically bounce off, regardless of speed, and it would be a minor incident compared to what really happened.

They needed a big shock and awe impact for the US to be roused towards war. The only way to get those buildings down was with large explosions, and lots of damage, for everyone to see, provided by cruise missiles.

Pentagon:
We 'know' a plane didn't hit the Pantagon.

Flight 93:
I also believe flight 93 could be a mistake; that NORAD had woken up by then and the plane was shot down, which would explain the lack of debris. But even then there should be something? Flight 93 is very puzzling.

The main question therefore is what happened to the real planes and the people? Were they just flown out to see and shot down/dumped in the sea? Has anyone actually researched this to provide evidence that real people actually boarded those flights, that they weren't just faked flights?

[helloperator]

I don't know that the planes would have bounced off. Is it true the outer walls (windows really I suppose) were constructed like a mesh...like a fly screen? If so, then I don't think a plane is gonna bounce off a construction like that.

I personally believe that the actual planes did hit the towers. But I don't really know about the passengers.

The official story claims a plane hit the pentagon...are they working on a foolproof cgi rendition of that 'event'...is that what is keeping them from releasing the oodles of footage that the many security cameras in the area must have? Did they hit 'render' on their computer 5 years ago, and their computer is still building the graphics?

[veritas2007]

Has anyone contemplated the results from a 500,000 tonne steel and concrete building hitting a stationary airplane at 500+ mph?

Hmmm......that's why, IMO, no planes hit the towers on 9/11.

[white horse]

Has anyone contemplated the results from a 500,000 tonne steel and concrete building hitting a stationary airplane at 500+ mph?

Hmmm......that's why, IMO, no planes hit the towers on 9/11.
IMO spot on. Yes it was a mesh structure, but that mesh was made of steel.

Aluminium Vs Steel...

According to interviews I've heard from Boeing engineers those planes should have dented the building a little bit, then the rest of the planes, the wings, the tail and a large amount of fuselage would have sheared off and dropped to the street below.

[kblood]

When these buildings were constructed, they were made plane proof, yes. But today planes are alot bigger and faster than they were when these buildings were built...

[veritas2007]

When these buildings were constructed, they were made plane proof, yes. But today planes are alot bigger and faster than they were when these buildings were built...

Ok,
Has anyone contemplated the results from a 500,000 tonne steel and concrete building hitting a modern stationary airplane at 500+ mph?

Does anyone really believe it will dissapear into the tower?

[veritas2007]

When these buildings were constructed, they were made plane proof, yes. But today planes are alot bigger and faster than they were when these buildings were built...

I'm not sure "plane proof" is quite correct but yes, there is footage of Frank A DeMartini, who was one the construction managers, explaining that the design of the towers would react to a plane strike "like jamming a pencil into a screen door".

There is some debate over what speed an aircraft could hit the towers without causing critical damage. Much reference is made to a white paper from the '60s although I've not found any website with a copy of it.

[masonfree party]

i've an aluminium model plane[about 6"] and fired it via a catabult into a steel mesh at equivalent to around 400mph to scale...guess what..it bounced off fragmenting in many places with most of the wreckage falling to the floor..looks like the games up for planers

[helloperator]

Yeah, that proves it

[sensimillia]

Yeah, that proves it

:D

[veritas2007]

Yeah, that proves it

Lol, but in all seriousness.....

I think it was Professor Morgan Reynolds who said something along the lines of:

"Give me 15 minutes with a 9lb sledge hammer and an airplane and I will make it unflyable". He also references the 'No Step' markings on the wings of commercial aircraft. They are pretty fragile things, planes. They are, in essence, air wrapped in aluminum.

[helloperator]

Yeah...I dunno. I really don't know what to believe.

[white horse]

Yeah...I dunno. I really don't know what to believe.

I think that is a good position to be in...

[dave52]

I think that is a good position to be in...

I agree entirely. Don't discount NPT, but don't jump in with both feet either. It's a very compelling line of investigation, no doubt.

[helloperator]

Well I suppose if we wanna get philosophical about it I could say that noone really knows anything. I think anyway that the internet and forums aren't the place that things can be proved or disproved. It's ok for discussion and what not, but really, I don't think anything at all can be proved on a forum.

[shredmasteruk]

Nobody saw cruise missiles, no cruise missile parts were found, but airliner parts WERE found. Airliners were seen by members of the public, and even filmed at the time caught live

A plane travelling at 490mph / 590 mph, isn't going to bounce off, it has too much momentum, its going to tear in, it will break apart but heavy stuff in it like the engines, are going to do a lot of damage as they carry forward...

In 1991, I went to a lecture on explosives and luminescence at york university as a school science trip, during the lecture there was a demonstration of a musket loaded with a soft wax candle. The candle blew through two breezeblocks four bricks a wooden panel, and cracked the wooden panel behind that... I'd expected the candle to bounce off, shows what I knew...

[veritas2007]

We need more than anecdotal evidence.

[mr_pixie]

Nobody saw cruise missiles,

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14793

[white horse]

Nobody saw cruise missiles, no cruise missile parts were found, but airliner parts WERE found. Airliners were seen by members of the public, and even filmed at the time caught live


Witness from the Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWj-dUOWNzI&feature=related

As for missiles at the WTC - I really don't know... just a hunch.

Maybe it was a military plane that was beefed up like a bunker buster to cause some real damage.

All I know is that 'live' footage is way way dodgy!!

September Clues is pretty good to make you think...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeIVD5wT4KE (Part 1 of 8)

[white horse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0b34msR6cI

Neither believe or disbelieve, but see with your own eyes and question??

[white horse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh7cKDXnS_s&feature=related

My take on NPT is not that I strongly believe either...

Cruise Missile
Military Aircraft
Hologram
Orb

The one thing for certain is the footage is very dodgy. And the response of the networks is dodgy. Things have ben altered and messed with.

I believe 911 taboo is one of the best ones... posted in this thread...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15203

[davidbarstis]

But isn't the real issue that the whole 9/11 story is a lie? That can be proven in so many other ways than NPT and others. Not that we can't investigate that and find more facts but the thing is why do we need the NPT to already expose an obvious lie. When we say things like the plane should bounce off, when hay can be shot into telephone poles in a tornado, it makes it look like we are getting desperate to prove it was a lie. Don't get me wrong, we need and should discuss everything but we should not jump on things as a main argument when the basics about 9/11 crush anyone who thinks it was as the government says. I'm not getting on anyones case I just feel that we should let the government know the scam is up instead going on and on about what we already know. Is proving over and over again 9/11 was a lie going to solve the real problem?

[weston white]

All this really proves in my view is that their stock footage was faked, it does not mean actual planes were not used, perhaps they wanted their own unique footage, perhaps they lost their original footage and needed to fake another one, perhaps they only a few news reports were able to respond in time, only a few choppers were authorized to fly in the area, perhaps on a few key news agencies were in on this event and they had to doctor things up to get "exciting" POV (and in doing so hastily made obvious errors). Having unique footage of a 9/11 type event means huge profit.

[weston white]

Just to note as a possibility, military helicopters do have the ability to hover stationary by a computer control that keeps them a X number of feet above the ground, perfectly leveled, (subject to weather conditions); I am not sure if private aircraft are equipped with this function as well, though it is certainly likely. Using this function burns up a lot of fuel though.

So this could have been the case with the strange video, though it is strange that the background appears to be a foggy haze, I never noticed that before, lends to prove it has been greatly doctored... heck it could have even been taken form some special unmanned military stealth craft that fixes on a target and removes all background images/distractions for easy tracking and observation of the target... which may also explain why no aircraft was seen until it was within very close range of the target (target referring to the WTC).