Flight 175 Dropped WRONG Engine In NYC Street? [Archive]

narcolepticwatchman

01-07-2008, 10:56 PM

confirming that the south tower was not hit by flight 175, but by another plane that had taken its place."

From: http://www.thepowerhour.com/press_release/press13.htm

Confirming nothing of the sort. Confirming further that the official story is a pack of lies yes. Confirming even further that 911 was an inside job. Not in anyway confirming the involvement of planes. That engine could have oh so easily been planted. I doubt that it would have made it through the other side of the tower given the size of it and the lack of a hole on the opposite side from the main impact.

Be interesting to see what the plane theorists think about this given that they have been quick to use this engine as a basis for argument and debate on these very forums.....

Anders Lindman

02-07-2008, 01:07 AM

Confirming nothing of the sort. Confirming further that the official story is a pack of lies yes. Confirming even further that 911 was an inside job. Not in anyway confirming the involvement of planes. That engine could have oh so easily been planted. I doubt that it would have made it through the other side of the tower given the size of it and the lack of a hole on the opposite side from the main impact.

Be interesting to see what the plane theorists think about this given that they have been quick to use this engine as a basis for argument and debate on these very forums.....

I find it hard to believe that there were no planes hitting the buildings. Maybe they could have presented faked videos to the media, because there were only a few video recordings of the planes. But there must have been thousands and thousands of people in New York who saw the actual events with the planes hitting the towers that day. :confused:

Here is a video with a professor being interviewed on Fox about faked 911 videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFWk8CTXWsQ

thematrix

02-07-2008, 02:05 AM

That engine could have oh so easily been planted. I doubt that it would have made it through the other side of the tower given the size of it and the lack of a hole on the opposite side from the main impact.

What qualifies your opinion on whether a plane engine hitting a building at hundreds of miles an hour will come through the building ?

What proof is there that there was no hole the engine emerged from?

There is eye witness testimony of "Manuel Delgado" who witnesses debris landing on the bonnet of his car just after the 2nd impact at the corner of "West Broadway and Vesey" he says "There was a police car... on the corner there and some debris comes down... and it just crushes it... It looked like part of an engine. It was pretty big. It was probably the size of the hood because it kind of hit it, bounced, and then rolled off."

[source] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4147958.stm)

[original source] (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110004.PDF) note that this was reported in 2005 but the actual interview was conducted on October 2nd 2001

this conflicts with the FEMA report however fig 1-4 here (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf) puts the engine debris at Church and Murray (the bent sign saying Murray tends to suggest this location is correct) and according to google maps the corner of West Broadway and Vesey is some 250metres away from this corner.

Perhaps Manuel merely is mistaken is his location (?) his account tho does lend credence to debris from an impact falling from an actual real plane.

Be interesting to see what the plane theorists think about this given that they have been quick to use this engine as a basis for argument and debate on these very forums.....

there is a good quality photo of this engine here... (http://www.hybrideb.com/source/eyewitness/nyartlab/DSC07781.jpg)

this same photo is from the NST report and their description of it is "Figure 7-34 is a photograph taken on September 11, 2001 that shows what appears to be a portion of one of the jet engines sitting very near the corner of Church and Murray Streets. This location is roughly 1,5000 ft from the north side of WTC 2. Various photographs and videos indicate that this component hit the eastern edge of a building located on the west side of Church Street between Murray Street and Park Place (see the map in Figure 4.1) before falling the remaining distance and coming to rest at the northeast corner of the intersection. The impact on the building knocked a portion of the roof and other debris onto Church Street." [source] (http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm)

Nila Sagadevan also wrote this write up about "The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training" source (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Flying-Without-Training13jun06.htm)

Nila is described as an aeronautical engineer and former pilot - tho I cannot find any info detailing his qualifications/credentials more than that.

911myths hosts this pdf in which the author describes Nila's article re: piloting "I consider it an example of pseudo-expertise which has the only effect of further muddling the issue."

The author is Giulio Bernacchia - his credentials are detailed here (http://www.911myths.com/html/giulio_bernacchia.html)
and are hard to dismiss. He calls Nilas expertise into question several times.

His paper which basicalluy trashes Nilas is linked here (http://www.911myths.com/images/7/73/Another_Expert.pdf)

Given that serious doubt is cast on Nila and he is the SOLE source of the indentification of the south tower engine being of the wrong type for a 767 - I don't put much stock in his engine ID.

and finally if there were "no planes" - how do you explain all of the witness testimony and aircraft wreckage documented here ??? (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175_Crash_Evidence)

narcolepticwatchman

02-07-2008, 01:52 PM

What qualifies your opinion on whether a plane engine hitting a building at hundreds of miles an hour will come through the building ?

What proof is there that there was no hole the engine emerged from?

I had a look at some photos, saw there was no gash, hole or bent steel on the opposite side, checked the window sizes and the gaps between the column centres, looked at another photo showing the same engine with a guy standing next to it, used the guy as a scale and summised that he was greater than 4 ft tall, then shook my head in disbelief when I realised that the engine would not fit through a 2ft gap.

As for the eyewitness testimony, eyewitnesses are easily faked and made up. If you doubt the capabilities of the CIA or Mossad or any other military or secret service could manufacture such 'testimony' then you are living in cukoo land.

thematrix

02-07-2008, 09:46 PM

I had a look at some photos, saw there was no gash, hole or bent steel on the opposite side, checked the window sizes and the gaps between the column centres, looked at another photo showing the same engine with a guy standing next to it, used the guy as a scale and summised that he was greater than 4 ft tall, then shook my head in disbelief when I realised that the engine would not fit through a 2ft gap.

there are lots of images detailing the engines "exit hole" .

The engine was under the wing horizontally and would likely have exited the building horizontally and not vertically as we see it in that picture.

Thats the rear portion of the engine in the street, so perhaps when the front half broke off it tumbled and broke through the other side , the factthat some videos of the impact show debris leaving a vapour trail as it comes out of the tower and falls to earth tends to suggest that that debris was an engine and it was horizontal.

A lot of researchers don't seem able to get the type of plane right. UA 175 was a Boeing 767-222 not a 767-200 it had Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engines.

Presumably the FBI didn't bother to identify the airplane parts by corss referencing the part numbers which would all have been catalogued - or they did and just won't tell anyone.

The only two people I can find referenced who ID the engine in the street are Nila (already somewhat discredited in previous post) and an unnamed 767 engineer mentioned on rense.com. Not exactly convincing. (Tho to be fair and balanced I've not found anyone who has ID'd the engine as anything else with dodgy credentials or not)

also a piece of aircraft with a serial number on it was spotted and first highlighted over on the loose change forums - it was identified by a poster on the randi forums [over here] (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2601518#post2601518) as being a numbered part of a boeing 767 200-300 type aircraft.

As for the eyewitness testimony, eyewitnesses are easily faked and made up. If you doubt the capabilities of the CIA or Mossad or any other military or secret service could manufacture such 'testimony' then you are living in cukoo land.

Oh yes sorry I forget - all the evidence that supports the conspiracy theorists (especially the no planers) is completely true - and any evidence to the contrary was planted deliberately as false disinfo by government black ops shills. How silly of me.

narcolepticwatchman

02-07-2008, 11:06 PM

there are lots of images detailing the engines "exit hole" .

show me one

The engine was under the wing horizontally and would likely have exited the building horizontally and not vertically as we see it in that picture.

So you are an expert on the engine flight path following supposed collision with numerous box columns, core columns and further box columns. That statement made me laugh. Thanks.

mynameis

02-07-2008, 11:48 PM

United Airlines Flight 175 was a Boeing 767, but the engine that crashed to the ground was from a Boeing 737 according to the below site.

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/7120021.jpg

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7120021

Is it a Boeing 767 engine or a Boeing 737 engine? :confused:

Is it a habit that you believe anything you read on the internet? No. Go get a second opinion from a reliable source...K, thx.

thematrix

03-07-2008, 12:19 AM

show me one

if you insist..

red box outlines the engines exit hole. (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengineroute1_files/STnapalmexit.jpg)

closer up better picture showing same thing (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengineroute1_files/STexitopeningz.jpg)

[source webpage] (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengineroute1.htm)

So you are an expert on the engine flight path following supposed collision with numerous box columns, core columns and further box columns. That statement made me laugh. Thanks.

I would describe myself as an intelligent, well researched layman and not an expert.

Jet engines work by sucking air through their mostly tubular design and venting it out the back quickly along with hot exhaust gasses. Inertia means that until it hits a force strong enough to deflect it things keep moving in the same direction. It might well have tumbled as it broke off the wing and seperated from the rest of the engine (as I did point out above) but certainly after it emerges from the building it's very likely to follow the path of least resistance and "fly" with the air rushing through it perpendicular to the way we see it resting on the street.

In any case how the engine flew isn't very important, the fact that it did fly through the air after a real plane impacted a real tower is much more so.

I'm glad I made you laugh though - there is not enough laughter in the world.

picture showing possible "vapour trail" made by burning debris as it falls to earth (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengineroute1_files/overriver2.jpg)

stealth_0073

03-07-2008, 12:29 AM

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/9089/53582614hk2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Explain how the engines leaves 2 laser eye imprints, 1 in middle of building
and 1 at the corner of building.

narcolepticwatchman

03-07-2008, 12:31 AM

if you insist..

yellow box outlines the engines exit hole. (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengineroute1_files/STnapalmexit.jpg)

closer up better picture showing same thing (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengineroute1_files/STexitopeningz.jpg)

[source webpage] (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengineroute1.htm)

I would describe myself as an intelligent, well researched layman and not an expert.

Jet engines work by sucking air through their mostly tubular design and venting it out the back quickly along with hot exhaust gasses. Inertia means that until it hits a force strong enough to deflect it things keep moving in the same direction. It might well have tumbled as it broke off the wing and seperated from the front bit of the engine (as I did point out above) but certainly after it emerges from the building it's very likely to follow the path of least resistance and "fly" with the air rushing through it perpendicular to the way we see it resting on the street.

In any case how the engine flew isn't very important, the fact that it did fly through the air after a real plane impacted a real tower is much more so.

I'm glad I made you laugh though - there is not enough laughter in the world.

picture showing possible "vapour trail" made by burning debris as it falls to earth (http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengineroute1_files/overriver2.jpg)

:D Congratulations. you have just posted a picture of some broken aluminium cladding.....not some bent, broken, sheared, or even slightly skewed box columns....which still have centres of approx 40".....making a gap of 26" ....still just over 2ft.

mynameis

03-07-2008, 12:42 AM

stealth_0073

03-07-2008, 12:50 AM

How large is the dimensions of the core engine minus the fan blades?

Wow. Looks like that's about 2 ft x 3-4 ft. Next you'll be saying the hole is triangle shaped or diamond shaped and can't fit that.

that engine has just been rolled out of from the shop lol.

mynameis

03-07-2008, 01:00 AM

that engine has just been rolled out of from the shop lol.

Papercraft or paper mache? Whoa!!!:D:)

stealth_0073

03-07-2008, 01:48 AM

the engine planters at work
http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/5126/38479455vx5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

notice the abc7 van in background? this was were the ABM fake media crew
were hanging about, btw this was fox hijacking cbs live 9 feed
for a brief minute.

thematrix

03-07-2008, 05:13 AM

:D Congratulations. you have just posted a picture of some broken aluminium cladding.....not some bent, broken, sheared, or even slightly skewed box columns....which still have centres of approx 40".....making a gap of 26" ....still just over 2ft.

My apologies - it's the red box that shows the engine exit hole and not the yellow outline box in the previously posted pics.

NIST report showing trajectory of starboard engine pg 280 fig 6-10 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf)

NIST report fig 6-10 is captioned "Figure 6–10. Projected trajectory of the starboard engine of UAL 175 with an initial lateral
approach angle of 13°."

As the "box columns" formed the central core of the building and we can see that the engine trajectory didn't hit any of them (as calculated by NIST) how would you see "bent, broken, sheared, or even slightly skewed box columns" on the exterior of the building shortly after impact ???

There is a gaping hole at the corner of the exterior columns where the engine is said to have emerged that is plenty big enough for that engine piece to fit through.

The website where the photos are sourced in my previous post state that the red box outlines the exit point of the "napalm bomb" carried by whatever hit the tower - NIST claims it's the exit point of the engine. Draw your own conclusions.

that engine has just been rolled out of from the shop lol.

hardly

a pristine Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engine as was fitted to N612UA (a 767-222) that was UA flight 175 on 9/11 looks like this diagram (http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/JT9D.gif) or this photo (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Aircraft_engine_IP%26W_JT9D.jpg/767px-Aircraft_engine_IP%26W_JT9D.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Aircraft_engine_IP%26W_JT9D.jpg&h=599&w=767&sz=161&hl=en&start=1&sig2=NrqmPhuT-viKz12VoylLJQ&um=1&tbnid=Vlxoj7Yv3YJUfM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=142&ei=rD9sSM6fKo3k1gbDkeHjAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJT9D%2Bengine%2Bdimensions%26um%3D1%2 6hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26sa%3DG)

You can see the front of the engine (the bit with all the fan blades) which is 93.3inches (237cm) in diameter minus the outside housing. The whole engine is 132.2 inches long (335.8cm) according to here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT9D)

As the engine in the photo is hardly this big it is safe to say that this engine piece is in anything but pristine condition and has NOT been "rolled out of the shop"

It looks to me as tho the piece that fell into the street is the front half of the engine minus the fan blades - tho if there are any aircraft engine experts that can identify this better I am all ears.

stealth_0073

03-07-2008, 01:14 PM

hardly

a pristine Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engine as was fitted to N612UA (a 767-222) that was UA flight 175 on 9/11 looks like this diagram (http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/JT9D.gif) or this photo (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Aircraft_engine_IP%26W_JT9D.jpg/767px-Aircraft_engine_IP%26W_JT9D.jpg&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Aircraft_engine_IP%26W_JT9D.jpg&h=599&w=767&sz=161&hl=en&start=1&sig2=NrqmPhuT-viKz12VoylLJQ&um=1&tbnid=Vlxoj7Yv3YJUfM:&tbnh=111&tbnw=142&ei=rD9sSM6fKo3k1gbDkeHjAw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJT9D%2Bengine%2Bdimensions%26um%3D1%2 6hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26sa%3DG)

You can see the front of the engine (the bit with all the fan blades) which is 93.3inches (237cm) in diameter minus the outside housing. The whole engine is 132.2 inches long (335.8cm) according to here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JT9D)

As the engine in the photo is hardly this big it is safe to say that this engine piece is in anything but pristine condition and has NOT been "rolled out of the shop"

It looks to me as tho the piece that fell into the street is the front half of the engine minus the fan blades - tho if there are any aircraft engine experts that can identify this better I am all ears.

if an engine fly's threw air is it going land neatly under scaffold lol
without even a mark on ground and btw not one video shows an engine exiting from the towers ( i have searched every plane video known to man)

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight93/427-585/pa103-engine.jpg (http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight93/427-585/pa103-engine.jpg)

narcolepticwatchman

03-07-2008, 05:10 PM

My apologies - it's the red box that shows the engine exit hole and not the yellow outline box in the previously posted pics.

NIST report showing trajectory of starboard engine pg 280 fig 6-10 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf)

NIST report fig 6-10 is captioned "Figure 6–10. Projected trajectory of the starboard engine of UAL 175 with an initial lateral
approach angle of 13°."

As the "box columns" formed the central core of the building and we can see that the engine trajectory didn't hit any of them (as calculated by NIST) how would you see "bent, broken, sheared, or even slightly skewed box columns" on the exterior of the building shortly after impact ???

There is a gaping hole at the corner of the exterior columns where the engine is said to have emerged that is plenty big enough for that engine piece to fit through.

The website where the photos are sourced in my previous post state that the red box outlines the exit point of the "napalm bomb" carried by whatever hit the tower - NIST claims it's the exit point of the engine. Draw your own conclusions.

Lol....flip, flop lets see ya flip again. The photo you have shown is nowhere clear enough to show an exit hole in the red box. You are referencing the NISt report....deary me....no point even arguing with you, next you'll be referencing popular mechanics....Finally, The permiter columns were also 'box' columns which were 14" sqaure......what else you want me to call them? Now you are being even more silly if that is at all possible.

As for mynameis....2ft x 3-4ft? did you eyeball that or have you done some analysis? Also, given that you may be right and there is an inch clearance either side (i'm not saying you are...this is just to blow you out of the water again) for the engin to fly out in the manner you have suggested, without touching the steelwork would mean that it would have to fly straight through the building, not hitting anything on its way....which it obviously must have cause theres loads missing, either still or spinning perfectly on its vertical axis.....remembering how far its supposed to have gone after the towers....in a word...proposterous.

Anders Lindman

03-07-2008, 05:34 PM

Is it a habit that you believe anything you read on the internet? No. Go get a second opinion from a reliable source...K, thx.

Yes, I agree that I haven't researched this much. That's why I put in a '?'.

thematrix

03-07-2008, 06:22 PM

Lol....flip, flop lets see ya flip again. The photo you have shown is nowhere clear enough to show an exit hole in the red box. You are referencing the NISt report....deary me....no point even arguing with you, next you'll be referencing popular mechanics....Finally, The permiter columns were also 'box' columns which were 14" sqaure......what else you want me to call them? Now you are being even more silly if that is at all possible.

There are plenty of other photos that show exit holes - you claimed "I had a look at some photos, saw there was no gash, hole or bent steel on the opposite side" when there are a pile of photos that show holes, gashes and bent steel on the opposite side of the tower to which the plane impacted.

I highlighted two such pictures, admittedly I made a minor error in the description of the location of the hole that I have now corrected.

As far as referencing NIST - I am referencing a diagram of the plan view showing the layout of the floor in relation to the core central columns.

This much is NOT in dispute - also the towers were uniquely(?) constructed in such a way that all of the vertical load bearing steel was in the central core columns or on the outer perimeter columns. In the floor surrounding the core there were no such vertical steel members. Any walls dividing the area were lightweight interior walls mostly constructed of plasterboard as I understand it. The diagram merely shows the likely path of the engine through the tower seeing as the aircraft hit at a specific angle. It shows that the only significant structure that would have possibly halted this engine and kept it contained within the tower was the corner column it smashed through.

That engine weighs several tonnes and on impact it was travelling at over 500mph - that a hell of a lot of kinetic energy. Clearly it didn't meet enough resistance within the tower to stop it from smashing out of the corner of it.

What a lot of people dispute regarding the NIST report (pertaining to the structure of each tower) is outlined here (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html)

Just because the NIST report is from a government agency it doesn't mean every single detail contained within it is a lie.

Not in anyway confirming the involvement of planes.

I am curious - exactly what evidence in your opinion would confirm the involvement of planes?

narcolepticwatchman

03-07-2008, 07:47 PM

I am curious - exactly what evidence in your opinion would confirm the involvement of planes?

possibly some realistic crash physics at the point of impact. the wing tips would not slice or shear those perimeter box columns, the building offers zero resistance to the impact, the plane does not even hint at an explosion until it is inside the building, zero plane debris breaks off at impact and falls outwith the building.

narcolepticwatchman

03-07-2008, 08:09 PM

thematrix - have a good look at that site you keep gettin your information from.....full of half truths and lies to me......totally pushing the plane angle for ALL of the sites.

do you think a plane crashed @ the pentagon??

Surely you won't tell me you thinnk one crashed @ shanksville?? You know the 'wing scars' were there in 94? yet this site you are peddling states

Numerous eyewitness reported that the jetliner precipitously dropped from the sky, several seismographic stations recorded its impact at 10:06 AM, and the impact crater bears the profile of the plane and is consistent with a ground impact from a nearly vertical trajectory.

Eh? and wheres the debris :D its a joke mate......they're building up the straw man.....notice all these sites seem to have disinformation sections plugging the same topics....DEW and no planes....what about all the other disinfo out there about 911??? pod theories and the like....they don't even get a look in on these sites...it aint hard to see who is tryin to do the cover up.

mynameis

03-07-2008, 08:29 PM

thematrix - have a good look at that site you keep gettin your information from.....full of half truths and lies to me......totally pushing the plane angle for ALL of the sites.

do you think a plane crashed @ the pentagon??

Surely you won't tell me you thinnk one crashed @ shanksville?? You know the 'wing scars' were there in 94? yet this site you are peddling states

Eh? and wheres the debris :D its a joke mate......they're building up the straw man.....notice all these sites seem to have disinformation sections plugging the same topics....DEW and no planes....what about all the other disinfo out there about 911??? pod theories and the like....they don't even get a look in on these sites...it aint hard to see who is tryin to do the cover up.

Why does the steel bend inwards?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/woman_wtc.jpg

mynameis

03-07-2008, 08:30 PM

As for mynameis....2ft x 3-4ft? did you eyeball that or have you done some analysis?

What's the normal hight for a cross walk device in NY? Extrapolate it.

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/7120021.jpg

stealth_0073

03-07-2008, 08:38 PM

mynameis you still haven't explained how a engine can leave
2 laser eyes in that photo i showed you on page 2

the still photo is from live nbc chopper 4 straight after impact
all i done is added filters so you can see it a tad more clearly.

http://911logic.blogspot.com/

mynameis

03-07-2008, 08:47 PM

mynameis

03-07-2008, 08:54 PM

stealth_0073

03-07-2008, 09:01 PM

First, it's not my photo. Second I don't care what you're talking about, because it's not my photo.

huh

its not my photo 2 its taken from archives !!!
iam beginning to wonder about you pushing bullshit engine theory's
and linking to shill sites.

mynameis

03-07-2008, 09:02 PM

huh

its not my photo 2 its taken from archives !!!
iam beginning to wonder about you pushing bullshit engine theory's
and linking to shill sites.

I haven't even linked anything what the heck are you talking about?

stealth_0073

03-07-2008, 09:13 PM

sorry quoted person

also the photo you linked with the woman standing in hole
that woman has been photoshop in.

mynameis

03-07-2008, 09:22 PM

sorry quoted person

also the photo you linked with the woman standing in hole
that woman has been photoshop in.

No Edna Cintron, if that is her hasn't. Go ask her family. You are a sick individual.

challand

03-07-2008, 09:38 PM

*sigh* Why do no-planers always seem alot like dis-info agents? :rolleyes:

thematrix

03-07-2008, 09:41 PM

possibly some realistic crash physics at the point of impact.

What in your opinion would be "realistic crash physics"

Have any physics experts ANYWHERE disputed the fact that real planes crashed into real towers?? In fact if what was observed wasn't "realistic crash physics" lots of physics teachers et al would have been jumping up and down very shortly afterwards complaining about it.

the wing tips would not slice or shear those perimeter box columns,

there are NO PERIMETER BOX COLUMNS (save for the columns at each corner the "box columns" are in the core structure) - a fair chunk of what you describe as "sliced or sheared" columns is in fact sliced and sheared aluminium cladding - the wing tips it seems didn't sever any of the perimiter supports - just the cladding attached to the surface of the supports.

the building offers zero resistance to the impact,

if that statement was true the plane would have flown unharmed through the entire building!!!!! (Do you see why?)

the plane does not even hint at an explosion until it is inside the building,

Why would it? - in order for there to be an explosion there must be fuel to explode. The explosions are caused by a mixture of fuel and air (thermobaric) it takes a little time for the fuel in the tanks to mix with the air, then that fuel air mix needs to be ignited by an ignition source THEN there would be an explosion.

zero plane debris breaks off at impact and falls outwith the building.

there are eyewitness reports (from first responders) who detail exactly that (plane debris outside the building before the first collapse) AND there is physical evidence (engine and landing gear)

<sarcasm> oh sorry I forgot - all the witnesses are lying (unless they support the no planes theory) and all of the physical evidence was planted by govt shills</sarcasm>

Seriously - if you can pull your head out of the sand for just a minute and admit you *MIGHT* be wrong about the no planes theory then we might get somewhere.

I want to see 9/11 reopened - I want to see a public enquiry with lots of experts from relevant fields (pilots architects engineers CD experts etc etc) I want them to lok at every piece of evidence there is and using science answer any reasonable question to the best of their collective abilities. I want the truth to be revealed and the perpetrators brought to justice.

I believe any reasonable "truth seeker" wants the same kind of thing.

Instead of all arguing the toss over what might have happened the whole truth movement ought to unite and call for such an enquiry, if for no other reason so that everyone can lay ths topic to rest and all the people researching it now can leave it behind and spend their time and energy on positive things.

stealth_0073

03-07-2008, 10:13 PM

No Edna Cintron, if that is her hasn't. Go ask her family. You are a sick individual.

the woman photo is fake but the damage is real

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/6499/ednayi3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

this was from a documentary wich is real if i do a frame by frame
the woman object changes shape almost like a hologram

the nist photo team have simply added the woman who is not edna
photo, and overlayed it into the NIST stills

another part of the psyop
the rabbit hole goes deeper than you can imagine.

challand

03-07-2008, 11:04 PM

You know it's always the same, someone like Matrix intelligently debates and whatnot and the no plane crazies keep rambling on, turning a entire thread into a distracted mess of idiocy that makes us look stupid.

No Planes = No brains

Screw you Central Command spooks.

narcolepticwatchman

03-07-2008, 11:26 PM

Whoa! Why so angry? Throttle the anger back some...and take a deep breath.

lol....wtf you on about again....never angry on here, you musta noticed that the amount of time we have spent arguing. remember?? you seemed to get pretty angry then if I recall, resorting to childish name calling etc :D tut tut

narcolepticwatchman

03-07-2008, 11:43 PM

What in your opinion would be "realistic crash physics"

Have any physics experts ANYWHERE disputed the fact that real planes crashed into real towers?? In fact if what was observed wasn't "realistic crash physics" lots of physics teachers et al would have been jumping up and down very shortly afterwards complaining about it.

I'm sure they would if they looked into it enough....i do know that mechanical engineers and materials experts have disputed it though.

there are NO PERIMETER BOX COLUMNS (save for the columns at each corner the "box columns" are in the core structure) - a fair chunk of what you describe as "sliced or sheared" columns is in fact sliced and sheared aluminium cladding - the wing tips it seems didn't sever any of the perimiter supports - just the cladding attached to the surface of the supports.

Yes there were. the perimeter columns were 14" square.....these believe it or not are also know as box columns just as the core columns were. the fact that these had a square x section rather than rectangular doesn't really matter....its still a box. and the perimeter box columns (i'm gonna keep callin them that coz it obviously annoys you) have sheared at the wing tips on the right hand side.....there is also sheared columns beyond where the engines would be closer to the tip on the opposite side. i can tell the difference between cladding and the structural steel thank you.

if that statement was true the plane would have flown unharmed through the entire building!!!!! (Do you see why?)

the statement is true because it wasn't a real plane

Why would it? - in order for there to be an explosion there must be fuel to explode. The explosions are caused by a mixture of fuel and air (thermobaric) it takes a little time for the fuel in the tanks to mix with the air, then that fuel air mix needs to be ignited by an ignition source THEN there would be an explosion.

Does it? on this one, the INSTANT it collides with something it explodes. Ignition source being sparks possibly from an overhead cable first, however, its a stick on that sparks and intense heat would be in abundance be if a real plane collided with structural steel. a bird strike on an engine can cause it to go on fire....i'm sure a steel strike on one could also. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVmRXAPeN-0

Numerous others like it if ya want to search

there are eyewitness reports (from first responders) who detail exactly that (plane debris outside the building before the first collapse) AND there is physical evidence (engine and landing gear)

I told you before, I don't want to hear about eyewitnesses and planted evidence.....i see what happened with my own eyes and make up my mind. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and easy to fake. Evidence can easily be planted....you think attas passport really flew out of the building?

Seriously - if you can pull your head out of the sand for just a minute and admit you *MIGHT* be wrong about the no planes theory then we might get somewhere.

i think i have done enough research of my own to make my own mind up without you repeating stuff I have heard a million times and telling me what to think dude. Get off your high horse.

Seems like you are just wanting to shove your opinions down my throat without talking cognisance of my questions to you as well mate.....answer the shanksville and pentagon questions in my previous post.

narcolepticwatchman

03-07-2008, 11:45 PM

Why does the steel bend inwards?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/woman_wtc.jpg

I'm not sayin nothin hit it....what I am saying is that imo no plane hit the towers.

mynameis

04-07-2008, 01:14 AM

I'm not sayin nothin hit it....what I am saying is that imo no plane hit the towers.

So what size and shape of what hit the towers leaving the steel bending inwards then? :confused:

mynameis

04-07-2008, 01:16 AM

the woman photo is fake but the damage is real

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/6499/ednayi3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

this was from a documentary wich is real if i do a frame by frame
the woman object changes shape almost like a hologram

the nist photo team have simply added the woman who is not edna
photo, and overlayed it into the NIST stills

another part of the psyop
the rabbit hole goes deeper than you can imagine.

I think you have no expertise to make these claims, that's what I think. What experts in video and editing software credentialed are reliable sources to your claims? You're incorrect that is a living person and you are repugnant for belittling this person's death.

thematrix

04-07-2008, 02:12 AM

i think i have done enough research of my own to make my own mind up without you repeating stuff I have heard a million times and telling me what to think dude. Get off your high horse.

Seems like you are just wanting to shove your opinions down my throat without talking cognisance of my questions to you as well mate.....answer the shanksville and pentagon questions in my previous post.

I am not on a high horse - apologies if my posting style comes across that way - I am willing to admit that it is *possible* that no planes hit the towers, tho the evidence available makes that scenario astronomically unlikely.

I am not telling you what to think - just pointing out there is mountains of evidence that suggests otherwise.

There is very little evidence in the public domain that *proves* anything.

I believe that yes a plane (tho it's not proven that plane was flight 77) most likely a 757 or at the very least something with a wingspan thats very close to that of a 757 with engines in about the same places (because of lightpole damage and the generator damage - as well as all of the 90odd eye witnesses) hit the pentagon.

And I believe that flight 93 was most likely shot down over shanksville - the powers that be realised shortly afterwards that the passengers had tried to take back the plane and immediately spun the story of "good old American Heroes fight back" and neglected to mention how the plane came down.

I don't think it matters what I believe happened - or what you believe happened. We are both entitled to our opinons and beliefs.
We can both argue over what we believe until hell freezes over it won't change much.

What matters I think is getting a new proper investigation convened so that what actually happened is brought to light and supported with irrefutable evidence - so that the people who did this can be brought to justice and most of the questions, especially those questions the families of the victims have can be put to rest.

Can we agree on that much?

We do have stuff in common - we both believe 9/11 was an inside job and the official story is a pack of lies. If we allow differences in the how we believe stuff happened we end up still arguing the toss on the internet and thats exactly where the powers that be would rather we stayed imo.