Let's take a look at Real Planes Theory

[bryan]

Let's take three examples of 9/11 research and examine whether RPT is really based on science, logic and evidence.


1. The nose out

There are three competing explanations for the nose out. Two of these assume there were planes, the other assumes there were no planes.


Alternative 1: The right engine of Flight 175 became detached from its wing and passed straight through the building, landing in the street a few blocks away.

Comment: The most serious of the many problems with this story are: the pointed end of a jet engine faces toward the back of the plane; the nose out was far bigger than the engine of a 767; and the engine of a 767 is bigger than the engine that was found in the street. (John White subscribes to this theory.)


Alternative 2: Debris ejected through the windows by the jet fuel explosion took on the appearance of a large single object on the outside of the building.

Comment: The main objection to this interpretation is that the ejected debris took on a form that was almost identical to the front end of the object which appeared to fly into the tower a split second earlier. (Mynameis has no problem accepting this theory.)


Alternative 3: The plane was a computer generated image inserted into the live chopper feed and made to disappear behind the towers just before pre-planted explosions went off inside the building. The cameraman inadvertently allowed the image to travel too far and the nose of the plane appeared to emerge from behind the building.

Comment: Maybe somebody could peer review this theory.


2. The fade to black

There are also three competing theories for the fade to black.


Alternative 1: The automatic gain control regulating the amount of light passing through the camera's aperture overreacted to the brightness of the explosion, causing a total blackout of the live feed.

Comment: As far as we know, this would be the first occurence of such a problem in the history of live broadcasting. The camera in question was made by Wescam Communications, "a world leader in the design and manufacture of stabilized, multi-spectral airborne imaging systems", according to their website.

http://www.wescam.com/products/products_services_0.asp

Other cameras filming the same explosion, including consumer-grade equipment, were unaffected. (Mynameis is uncritical of this explanation.)


Alternative 2: The transmitter at the top of the North Tower was affected by the explosion in the South Tower, causing an interruption of the signal and the fade to black.

Comment: Chopper 5 was zooming in on the WTC from 4 or 5 miles away, and would have been communicating with the TV studio via satellite. The feeds from Chopper 4 and Chopper 7 suffered no fade to black, nor did any of the TV cameras on the ground close to the towers. (Mynameis is also uncritical of this explanation, but can't decide whether he prefers this one or the previous one.)


Alternative 3: The person in charge of quality control at the TV station saw the cgi plane emerging from the other side of the building and realized the operation had gone wrong. He panicked and interrupted the broadcast, causing the fade to black. He then restored the broadcast, knowing it was too late and the damage had already been done.

Comment: This is another theory waiting for a peer review.


3. The sequence of the plane crashes

Once again there are three competing explanations for the crash sequence anomaly.


Alternative 1: The suicide hijacker who was piloting Flight 11 was usurped by a paganistic faction, who made use of shamanic directional symbolism to persuade him to fly into the North Tower instead of the planned South Tower.

Comment: No comment. (The real-planes researcher who proposed this theory no longer posts on this forum.)


Alternative 2: The impact of the second plane had to be hidden from the TV cameras because a military aircraft was substituted for the passenger plane.

Comment: This contradicts one of the main arguments used by real-planers against NPT: there were too many eyewitnesses and people with cameras in New York. People could have taken photos and videos of the military planes, and according to this theory some did. So where are the thousands of eyewitnesses who would have seen military planes? (This explanation was offered by a real-planer who may genuinely believe there were planes.)


Alternative 3: The impact of the second plane had to be hidden from the TV cameras because only a very basic cgi could be inserted into a live feed. That meant the fake plane had to be made to disappear behind the towers just before the explosion. The more detailed cgi's of the impact would be inserted into videos of the explosion using post-production video editing techniques.

Comment: The real-planes researchers pretend that this anomaly doesn't exist.


The above information, together with the fact that the real-planers claim there's NO EVIDENCE of TV fakery at the WTC, proves that RPT is not finding answers to the questions and is probably designed to do just the opposite.

[abababba]

Alternative 1: The right engine of Flight 175 became detached from its wing and passed straight through the building, landing in the street a few blocks away.


Is this theory based on the fact that an engine actually did shoot through the other side of the building during the empire state building crash in 1945? Is there a fundamental difference between the two planes and/or construction of the two buildings that would make it obvious that an engine could do this for the empire state building and not for WTC?

On the other hand it seems ridiculous because the nose seems to follow close to a straight line into and out of the building, but this is a reasonable question. I agree with you that it looks nothing like an engine and everything like a nose but still an interesting point to consider.

[bryan]

Is this theory based on the fact that an engine actually did shoot through the other side of the building during the empire state building crash in 1945? Is there a fundamental difference between the two planes and/or construction of the two buildings that would make it obvious that an engine could do this for the empire state building and not for WTC?

On the other hand it seems ridiculous because the nose seems to follow close to a straight line into and out of the building, but this is a reasonable question. I agree with you that it looks nothing like an engine and everything like a nose but still an interesting point to consider.

I don't know much about the ESB crash but I just found some info on a website and it says the engine went through a window on the way out.


One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.


http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm


It looks like the planners of 9/11 got some ideas from this one, because the left engine of Flight 175 is supposed to have damaged the core columns of the South Tower so badly that it caused the collapse of the building.

The windows in the Twin Towers were 26 inch wide by 92 inch tall. That's one reason why the nose of a plane couldn't have gone into the building, let alone come out the other side. The plane theorists generally argue that the nose was shredded by the columns, which were then fractured or pushed out in sections by the huge mass of the plane which came later.

The column/spandrel section below was blown out of the North Tower and fell about 1000ft onto concrete, but the box column doesn't look any worse for wear.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel-full.jpg

No contest for the nose of a plane, anyway.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=231&pictureid=1969


Another thing about the nose out is, according to what we see in the videos, it gets eaten up by the flames instead of continuing its flight away from the building and falling to the ground.

[secondsun]

....why start another bullsh*t thread?...why could`nt you just post this in Killtown`s thread?

[abababba]

....why start another bullsh*t thread?...why could`nt you just post this in Killtown`s thread?

Different topic, instead of motive issues, this is dealing with physical evidence mostly.

Should there be only one thread for everyone asking questions of people who believe planes hit the buildings?

[bryan]

....why start another bullsh*t thread?...why could`nt you just post this in Killtown`s thread?

This thread pulls a few strings together and draws a conclusion.


Why don't you try to rebut the OP?


You could totally demolish my argument in three easy steps.

1. Suggest a plausible explanation for the nose out.

2. Suggest a plausible explanation for the fade to black.

3. Suggest a plausible explanation for the crash sequence.

Even one of these steps would partially undermine my case.


Think of the time you'd save in the long run. You wouldn't have to type any more posts saying NPT is bullshit and no-planers are brain dead.

[abababba]

Is there nobody out there that is willing to say it is actually the nose of a real plane? That is interesting.

Also, I wonder how they were able to plant that extremely large piece of plane debris without many people noticing.

[bryan]

Is there nobody out there that is willing to say it is actually the nose of a real plane? That is interesting.

Aaron Brown said: "it may have been an illusion, but that's how it looked".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A9VtRWJXj0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A9VtRWJXj0


On the other hand, I found a video which claims to prove, using a 'simple science experiment', that it could very well have been plane-shaped dust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewljuu39iTw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewljuu39iTw

Warning: the preparation is tedious, so skip to about 4 mins into the video.

[abababba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewljuu39iTw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewljuu39iTw



Haha, that looks exactly like dust.

[bryan]

Here's another challenge for the real-planers.

How does Real Planes Theory explain what we see in the picture below?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel-full.jpg


There are two main parts to the question.


1. How did the wheel become wedged between the columns in the first place?

2. How did the wheel remain wedged between the columns after a fall of around 1000ft onto concrete?


Once we have some suggestions, we can compare them to a possible explanation according to NPT.


Alternative 1: Somebody drove up in a van, took the wheel from the back of the van, carefully inserted it between the two columns, then stood back and took a photograph.

Comment: This could have been done without people noticing because the area around the WTC was cordoned off after the North tower exploded and even journalists were kept a few blocks away.


Using Occam's razor, we shoud be able to decide which one of the two or more competing explanations most convincingly accounts for the photographic evidence.

[mynameis]

And how would your magic fairy men move a 300 lb tire from a truck and angle the sucker into the steel facade?

[bryan]

And how would your magic fairy men move a 300 lb tire from a truck and angle the sucker into the steel facade?

OK, so there was a team of men and they rolled the wheel into position. Thanks for the input. That's how peer review's supposed to work. It's a pity we don't see more of it here.


Now do you want to explain how you think the wheel got from the plane to the place where it was photographed?

I think we can assume that the landing gear was down on take-off, then once the plane was in the air it was raised again. The question is, were the wheels lowered again for the crash? The quality of the Naudet brothers footage is not good enough to show whether the landing gear was up or down, so we can only speculate. Is it more likely that the wheels were inside the plane or outside the plane when it crashed into the North Tower? We can do a hypothesis for each scenario if you want. The first part of the question is how the wheel got wedged between two columns.

[mynameis]

OK, so there was a team of men and they rolled the wheel into position. Thanks for the input. That's how peer review's supposed to work. It's a pity we don't see more of it here.


Now do you want to explain how you think the wheel got from the plane to the place where it was photographed?

I think we can assume that the landing gear was down on take-off, then once the plane was in the air it was raised again. The question is, were the wheels lowered again for the crash? The quality of the Naudet brothers footage is not good enough to show whether the landing gear was up or down, so we can only speculate. Is it more likely that the wheels were inside the plane or outside the plane when it crashed into the North Tower? We can do a hypothesis for each scenario if you want. The first part of the question is how the wheel got wedged between two columns.

And nobody seems to remember your team of clowns doing this during the attack or after the attack? Also, since the wheel is wedged into the window tightly what does this tell you, how is that accomplished? Occam's razor says you are arguing a non point when the crash traces the wheel to the window.

[matrix911]

And nobody seems to remember your team of clowns doing this during the attack or after the attack?

do you have any common sense at all? seriously.

as was pointed out, the entire area was cordoned off by... wait for it... THE F B I AKA FEDS AKA PERPS bla bla bla

now, if you really can't use basic common sense to figure out HOW the staging could have been accomplished and fact that if the area is secured by the F B I (no not the female body inspectors) which means NOBODY was around but the FBI/CIA (perps), how is what you say logical that "nobody seems to remember them doing that"?

are you f'in kidding? reaalllllly?? seriously? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

NOBODY WAS AROUND TO SEE IT,,, BY DESIGN. DUH.

unless i'm missing something you're trying to say other than what it appears, can u really be this,,err uhm,,, naive? ignorant? stupid? :confused:

uhhhh, actually nevermind,,, I already know the answer

[bryan]

And nobody seems to remember your team of clowns doing this during the attack or after the attack?


I've already said I think the area was cordoned off by the police.



Also, since the wheel is wedged into the window tightly what does this tell you, how is that accomplished? Occam's razor says you are arguing a non point when the crash traces the wheel to the window.

The tyre appears to be quite a bit narrower than the gap between the columns, so how is it wedged so tightly that it stayed in place after the whole column section fell to the ground?

But that's jumping the gun. What are the chances that the wheel would be in a perfectly vertical position when it came into contact with the wall, and why didn't it go straight through the window? Can you identify the rest of the landing gear in the photo?

[mynameis]

do you have any common sense at all? seriously.

as was pointed out, the entire area was cordoned off by... wait for it... THE F B I AKA FEDS AKA PERPS bla bla bla

And that is proof how? You've said that the area was cordoned off? As common sense would say, the FBI were doing their job of protecting the public so the first responders could do their jobs, or starting an investigation. A rogue group would not set up evidence with a 300 lb tire with many citizens and media on the street after the second plane hit, nor would they be setting up evidence during the collection process with many first responders and emergency crew onlookers. It's obvious that this claims main belief is that these were not FBI who exactly were they, Santa's Elves? Seriously, you have something here, I think the public must not know how the FBI uses tax payer money, not to conduct an investigation that's really kriminal.

[mynameis]

But that's jumping the gun. What are the chances that the wheel would be in a perfectly vertical position when it came into contact with the wall, and why didn't it go straight through the window? Can you identify the rest of the landing gear in the photo?

Odds are good with number of windows on any given floor x the number of tires on the airplane....Vertical? I find fits snuggly.

[mynameis]

No are you f'in kidding? reaallllly?? seriously? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

SOMEBODY WAS AROUND TO SEE IT,,,BY DESIGN. DURRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!

Chase the story down if you all have the f'in time to want to do a real investigation.



are you f'in kidding? reaalllllly?? seriously? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

NOBODY WAS AROUND TO SEE IT,,, BY DESIGN. DUH.

# When Alan Reiss and Richard Paugh, of the Port Authority, got out to the WTC plaza, they "saw an odd shape and looked closer. It was the nose gear of an airplane, missing the rubber tire, but with its wheel still connected to the hydraulic elbow that retracts into the bottom of the plane. Paugh began to take notes on its shape and location... they lugged the part into the police office, put a sticker on it, and Paugh said 'a plane hit the building', Reiss added 'it's a big plane, it's not a Piper Club, it's a bi-i-i-g fucking wheel.'"[1]
# Sgt. Raymond DiLena, PAPD - "We exited the tunnel and drove north on West Street parking in the left lane a few blocks south of the WTC Complex. I noticed the lampposts were sheared off and body parts littered the street. A seciton of the landing gear proved to me that this was a commercial airliner."

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/World_Trade_Center_debris

[matrix911]

No are you f'in kidding? reaallllly?? seriously? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

SOMEBODY WAS AROUND TO SEE IT,,,BY DESIGN. DURRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!

Chase the story down if you all have the f'in time to want to do a real investigation.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/World_Trade_Center_debris

what does that link or the "debris" supposedly found and supposedly from UA175/11 prove?

answer these questions:

where's the independent verifiable evidence? ie tail number serial number etc.

who allegedly "found" each piece of debris thats being officially tagged as being from175 and 11?

show me a comparable 767 engine with the engine thats in that pic.

prove to me there were independent and corroborated witnesses around other than FBI/MIB/CIA/NSA/FAA/BLA/BLA/BLA who were there while this "debris" was found.

would you like me to go on listing more obvious, logic and reasonable questions and reasons why the DEBRIS "evidence" is proof of nothing?

[matrix911]

And that is proof how? You've said that the area was cordoned off? As common sense would say, the FBI were doing their job of protecting the public so the first responders could do their jobs, or starting an investigation.


once again, you're entire logic relies on blind faith and TRUST of GOVT OFFICIALS from which the OCT originates and was created that has been PROVEN to have MORE FLAWS, CONTRADICTIONS, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND HOLES than a SIEVE and any other criminal investigation in the history of mankind.

Yet you continue to give these scumbags a free pass without ever even seriously considering the above FACTS which plague the OCT.

its truly is sickening... and its people like you that are responsible for allowing this LIE to continue and perpetuate the ignorance in the face of so many of the above points unanswered.

if you believe inside job at all, then its beyond bizarre that you're able to ignore those questions/contradictions etc and harp on petty issues like DEBRIS that have never and can never be PROVEN in any way other than ASSERTIONS and trusting what the GOVT and MEDIA are proclaiming is FACT, EVIDENCE AND TRUTH.

for you to accept the OCT and all this/their "evidence" including debris allegedly found or DNA evidence of passengers AND EVEN hi jackers passports being found intact anonymously after one of the most intense fires in history which vaporized an entire 767 (actually 2) and brought down and turned to dust one of the most advanced steel structures in human history, means either you're among the most gullible, ignorant and naive persons on the planet, or you're part of the cover-up and disinformation.

i suspect it might be both... but the jury's still out on that :rolleyes:


A rogue group would not set up evidence with a 300 lb tire with many citizens and media on the street after the second plane hit,


this ROGUE group RUNS THE GOVT ie FBI, CIA etc!

or do you think some random govt ROGUE GROUP was able to gain ACCESS to the highest levels of the PENTAGON, and WTC7, one of the most SECURE agencies/buildings in the UNITED STATES?

so having such CONTROL and POWER being above the law would give them EASY ACCESS and the ability to DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED WHENEVER THEY WANTED.

and to assume that they had planted anything in plain view or didn't have the access or ability to do it without any "citizens" and media around (who we already know many are and were involved in the operation/oropoganda/cover-up), is simply ABSURD, NAIVE AND LAUGHABLE.

its more than obvious now that you're not a reasonable, rational or logical person to have so much trust and blind faith for this government ie FBI CIA and first responders you believe couldn't be involved with the operation.

I finally can see you're not here to find or seek the truth of 911.




nor would they be setting up evidence during the collection process with many first responders and emergency crew onlookers. It's obvious that this claims main belief is that these were not FBI who exactly were they, Santa's Elves?


see above.


I think the public must not know how the FBI uses tax payer money, to conduct an investigation that's really kriminal

You said it, not me hun

[mynameis]

once again, you're entire logic relies on blind faith and TRUST of GOVT OFFICIALS from which the OCT originates and was created that has been PROVEN to have MORE FLAWS, CONTRADICTIONS, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND HOLES than a SIEVE and any other criminal investigation in the history of mankind.

Yet you continue to give these scumbags a free pass without ever even seriously considering the above FACTS which plague the OCT.

its truly is sickening... and its people like you that are responsible for allowing this LIE to continue and perpetuate the ignorance in the face of so many of the above points unanswered.

if you believe inside job at all, then its beyond bizarre that you're able to ignore those questions/contradictions etc and harp on petty issues like DEBRIS that have never and can never be PROVEN in any way other than ASSERTIONS and trusting what the GOVT and MEDIA are proclaiming is FACT, EVIDENCE AND TRUTH.

for you to accept the OCT and all this/their "evidence" including debris allegedly found or DNA evidence of passengers AND EVEN hi jackers passports being found intact anonymously after one of the most intense fires in history which vaporized an entire 767 (actually 2) and brought down and turned to dust one of the most advanced steel structures in human history, means either you're among the most gullible, ignorant and naive persons on the planet, or you're part of the cover-up and disinformation.

i suspect it might be both... but the jury's still out on that :rolleyes:



this ROGUE group RUNS THE GOVT ie FBI, CIA etc!

or do you think some random govt ROGUE GROUP was able to gain ACCESS to the highest levels of the PENTAGON, and WTC7, one of the most SECURE agencies/buildings in the UNITED STATES?

so having such CONTROL and POWER being above the law would give them EASY ACCESS and the ability to DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED WHENEVER THEY WANTED.

and to assume that they had planted anything in plain view or didn't have the access or ability to do it without any "citizens" and media around (who we already know many are and were involved in the operation/oropoganda/cover-up), is simply ABSURD, NAIVE AND LAUGHABLE.

its more than obvious now that you're not a reasonable, rational or logical person to have so much trust and blind faith for this government ie FBI CIA and first responders you believe couldn't be involved with the operation.

I finally can see you're not here to find or seek the truth of 911.

you're here to defend the murderers, derail intelligent discussion and troll.

so to fill in the blank with your handle, mynameis ... one need only insert TROLL.



see above.



You said it, not me hun

I found you something to put your horseshit.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__VkvLKd8IcY/Rh0VknCsOGI/AAAAAAAAABA/ag6piktNQLY/s320/4-10-07-hk_crock_pot.jpg

Your ad hominem attacks have no power here. You can only blame yourself for your own problems as highlighted above by projections, NLPs, and cognitive dissonance . You are now slandering the good names of police officers and first responders who were witnesses to the events added to disrespecting those who died on 9/11. You assume to know what I think and believe, yet you're not even Uri Geller. Because the truth which has been proven time and time again, you should soak your sorrows in the beer goggles, when you can't see the truth. So continue your rants because some on Icke's forum actually enjoy reading tantrums and mental breakdowns. You act like that above and you think I'm bizarre. You sure as hell ain't playing any longer 911M4TR1X, I think you're only playing with yourself.

[bryan]

When Alan Reiss and Richard Paugh, of the Port Authority, got out to the WTC plaza, they "saw an odd shape and looked closer.


Is this the same Port Authority that sold the Twin Towers to Larry Silverstein six weeks earlier? It's a pity Larry was at the dentist's at the time of the attacks, or we could have asked the man himself if he saw any plane parts.



It was the nose gear of an airplane, missing the rubber tire, but with its wheel still connected to the hydraulic elbow that retracts into the bottom of the plane.


Are you saying the wheel in the photo is just the tyre? That means we have a third part to our question:

How did the tyre become separated from the wheel and the hydraulics?

Luckily, NPT has no problem explaining this apparent anomaly, because separating the tyre from the hydraulics beforehand would make the planted evidence easier to handle.


Odds are good with number of windows on any given floor x the number of tires on the airplane....Vertical? I find fits snuggly.

If you have a good look at the picture you'll see that the gap between the columns is quite a bit larger than the width of the tyre. Is that what you call snug? Do you think it would be tight enough to keep the tyre in place as the column section bounced off the ground after falling 1000ft?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel-full.jpg

The odds against the wheel lining up exactly with a window is not so much to do with the number of windows but more to do with the number of degrees in a circle. As it happens, the more snuggly the tyre fits, the greater the odds against it squeezing into the gap, so your snuggness argument has swings and roundabouts.



I think the public must not know how the FBI uses tax payer money, not to conduct an investigation that's really kriminal.

If the FBI had used tax payer's money to conduct an investigation into 9/11, we wouldn't be sitting here trying to work out what really happened.



You've said that the area was cordoned off? As common sense would say, the FBI were doing their job of protecting the public so the first responders could do their jobs, or starting an investigation. A rogue group would not set up evidence with a 300 lb tire with many citizens and media on the street after the second plane hit, nor would they be setting up evidence during the collection process with many first responders and emergency crew onlookers.


What kind of common sense says the FBI or other government agencies wouldn't plant evidence at the scene of a crime that was organised with the complicity of the authorities?


And that is proof how?


Since your esteemed FBI failed to do its job on 9/11, we are short on physical evidence and conclusive proofs. That means we have to develop theories, evaluate them, compare them with other theories, and try to judge which theories best account for the little evidence we do have.

I don't claim the photo is irrefutable evidence that the tyre was planted. I've put forward a theory and I'm willing to compare it with other theories. Unfortunately, there are no other theories to compare it with, because real planes theory doesn't present evidence of its own, but relies on the assumption that real planes is the default and no planes can't be proved.

So far in this thread we've looked at four examples of 9/11 research, compared the different theories, and determined that the score is 4-0 for NPT.

I have more example I'd like to introduce, but I'm aware that a walkover is not good for the spectators. In the interests of avoiding a debacle, I want to invite the real-planers to give examples of anomalies or inconsistencies which they believe can be explained better by RPT than by NPT. That way we might be able to make a more interesting contest out of it.

[stannrodd]

The odds against the wheel lining up exactly with a window is not so much to do with the number of windows but more to do with the number of degrees in a circle. As it happens, the more snuggly the tyre fits, the greater the odds against it squeezing into the gap, so your snuggness argument has swings and roundabouts.

Ok I did statistics / & probability stuff too .. bryan !

Could you show that what you claim above is generally true?

When I did this stuff the "apparent odds" versus the "actual odds" were .. generally at odds with each other.

It doesn't matter really .. anything can happen .. and statistically that is true.

Random outcomes versus a prediction based on random outcomes usually are the same in a large sample ..

So having a snuggly fitting tyre in this environment is demonstrating that anything can happen as theorized .. and it apparently did ..!

It's what is predictable. Maybe improbable but .. shit happens !!

Stann

[bryan]

Why was there little or no deceleration of Flight 175 as it passed through the wall of the South Tower from nose to tail? Can any of the competing theories answer this question?


Alternative 1: The structure of the hollow aluminium aircraft had so little strength that during the impact with the building the front section offered no resistance to the momentum of the rear section.

Comment: This explanation raises at least two questions. 1) If the plane was so fragile, how did it make a plane-shaped hole in the steel facade. 2) Why don't we see any deformation of the aircraft in the video footage?


Alternative 2: The aircraft we see impacting the South Tower is a computer generated image, inserted into videos that were filmed just as the building exploded.

Comment: I haven't heard any valid counter arguments to this explanation.


Latest score:

NPT - 5

RPT - 0

[stannrodd]

Alternative 1: The structure of the hollow aluminium aircraft had so little strength that during the impact with the building the front section offered no resistance to the momentum of the rear section.

Comment: This explanation raises at least two questions. 1) If the plane was so fragile, how did it make a plane-shaped hole in the steel facade. 2) Why don't we see any deformation of the aircraft in the video footage?

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/Boeing-KC-767A.jpg

If we assume that the 767 was a KC767 variant the above image shows the general internal structure and contents of one type of variant. (tanker/passenger)

To me at least it doesn't look like a fragile hollow aluminium tube. Allow your mind to absorb the ...."what it is made of" .. forget your predetermined perspective for a moment.

Now have a look at the "impact" site of WTC2. The first part of a plane impacting would place the cockpit and front undercarriage as being the first components to hit. The front undercarriage assembly is a very strong "bullet" travelling at "500mph". This is followed shortly after by the engines and the central wing section/main spars and main under carriage. This is then followed by the tail and the auxilliary power unit (another engine) which is housed in the tail section. The impact site shows that the major damage closely matches the components I have described ... Outside the engines the wing tips have caused much less damage and many perimeter columns are still intact though damaged.

If we look at an undamaged section of the WTC 2 perimeter wall at the same level you will notice that the majority of the wall is glass windows and small box columns with aluminium cladding. The cladding and window fitting/frames making the columns appear larger than what they really are. There are also the spandrel plates and the edges of lightweight concrete floor pans, neither of which are strong in the horizontal plane.

The mass of a fully laden KC767 is what bryan. Well it's in the order of 180,000 Kg (180 tonnes ). The modeling shows that the plane could easily have penetrated the building with surplus kinetic energy.

I don't have a problem with this .. for the sake of a statistical argument.

Your question..

2) Why don't we see any deformation of the aircraft in the video footage?

I will respond .. by saying why do you expect to see deformation .. you really need to show some reasoning as to why this should be so. I have shown that it isn't to be expected in another post.

Alternative 2: The aircraft we see impacting the South Tower is a computer generated image, inserted into videos that were filmed just as the building exploded.

Comment: I haven't heard any valid counter arguments to this explanation.

This is speculation based on someones ability to show that the "real" footage can be replicated using cgi .. that's all it proves.

Not being able to prove something incorrect is not proof that it is correct.

We've done that one bryan .. it's a circular argument.

Stann

[mynameis]

If the plane was so fragile, how did it make a plane-shaped hole in the steel facade. 2) Why don't we see any deformation of the aircraft in the video footage?

Latest score:

NPT - 5

RPT - 0



NPT - 0

RPT - 10^6x40,000

Cause its the truth, not. A score is not a substitute for the truth of which NPT dwells in ultimate denial. The plane isn't fragile as it is intact until it enters the tower. The body of the plane is able to withstand high amounts of air compression and thermal forces. Yet, it the kinetic transfer of energy from the impulse of collision, does not equate with damage output observed? Can we see mountain erosion to in real time? No. We lacked the technical capabilities to capture minutia of detail with the technology in 2001. Just as we can't create minutia from 2001 like the live CGI details NPT claims exist, or the technology inserting holograms hundreds of feet into the air without any projector in daylight when many close to the WTC heard and saw the plane and out number and outweigh the tiny fraction of NPT witnesses, where most have been proven in vantage points that obstruct their views anyway.

[stannrodd]

Bryan,
For a comparison to the tanker variant here is a 767-400 cutaway

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/Boeing-767-400ER.jpg

It's still not a hollow aluminium tube as you claim. It is a whole lot of stuff flying in formation within an aluminium skin and the main components mentioned before are the same.

The tanker/ passenger version could explain the huge fireball .. who knows what the tanks were full of !! Something fairly explosive no doubt.

Stann

[bryan]

The front undercarriage assembly is a very strong "bullet" travelling at "500mph"


So the undercarriage blasts a 17ft diameter hole in the wall for the fuselage to pass through?

I don't think so.



This is followed shortly after by the engines and the central wing section/main spars and main under carriage.


You say "shortly after", but before the wings reach the building, around a third of the whole length of the fuselage has to pass through the wall. How does it do that? Does it make a hole, is it shredded between the columns, or can your imagination do even better than that?



Outside the engines the wing tips have caused much less damage and many perimeter columns are still intact though damaged.


If "many perimeter columns are still intact", how did the wing tips pass through the intact columns to get to the inside of the building? We don't see any parts breaking off in the videos. In fact, as the leading edge of the wing cuts through each column in turn, working outwards from the fuselage, how could any part of the wing even damage a column if it hasn't already cut through the previous one?



If we look at an undamaged section of the WTC 2 perimeter wall at the same level you will notice that the majority of the wall is glass windows and small box columns with aluminium cladding.


The perimeter wall is 58% steel if you include the spandrels. We've already seen how a section of "small box column" could fall 1000ft onto a car park without batting an eyelid.



There are also the spandrel plates and the edges of lightweight concrete floor pans, neither of which are strong in the horizontal plane.


There are parts of the plane-shaped holes where the columns have been fractured, rather than the welds or bolts broken. That means the steel must have come under a huge amount of pressure, which also means the spandrels and concrete floors above and below the fracture must have held up better than the steel against the same amount of pressure. What makes you think the floors are not strong in the horizontal plane?



I will respond .. by saying why do you expect to see deformation .. you really need to show some reasoning as to why this should be so. I have shown that it isn't to be expected in another post.


Here's what you've 'shown':


The plane is not destroyed as a unit .. all at once ... but progressively from the front to the rear of the aircraft in a very short period of real time.


This destruction takes place in such a way that it's not visible on the videos? Could you explain in more detail how you think the plane was destroyed?



This is speculation based on someones ability to show that the "real" footage can be replicated using cgi .. that's all it proves.

Not being able to prove something incorrect is not proof that it is correct.

We've done that one bryan .. it's a circular argument.


There's nothing circular about it. If the cgi hypothesis accounts for the known evidence better than any other hypothesis, then cgi is proved to be the most likely explanation, even though it can always be disproved by fresh evidence in the future. That's what science is all about.

[stannrodd]

Which thread do you want to continue this discussion in bryan .. it would seem that we are doing a parallel discussion with another thread. Perhaps you can decide and get a moderator to "merge" the threads.

Be Back L8R

Stann ;)

[matrix911]

Which thread do you want to continue this discussion in bryan .. it would seem that we are doing a parallel discussion with another thread. Perhaps you can decide and get a moderator to "merge" the threads.
Be Back L8R
Stann ;)

translation: is there a thread we can move this discussion to so i won't look stupid answering the impossible or can we just call it even now and forget this discussion even took place.

[stannrodd]

translation: is there a thread we can move this discussion to so i won't look stupid answering the impossible or can we just call it even now and forget this discussion even took place.

I was referring to the other thread where the same discussion is taking place. Feel free to join in the discussion if you have anything useful to contribute.

Your abusive demeanor simply demonstrates your immaturity and a lack of anything useful to say. You have to ask yourself why you posted .. don't you. Did you get a thrill ??

Do have a pleasant day.

Stann

[matrix911]

just let me know where and when you answered the questions and comments bryan posted.

thats all.

thankkkkkkkkks stannly



I was referring to the other thread where the same discussion is taking place. Feel free to join in the discussion if you have anything useful to contribute.

Your abusive demeanor simply demonstrates your immaturity and a lack of anything useful to say. You have to ask yourself why you posted .. don't you. Did you get a thrill ??

Do have a pleasant day.

Stann

[stannrodd]

I am currently composing a post dealing with those issues and will post them here.

Are you the thread policeman here ??

Stann <<<< !

[matrix911]

I am currently composing a post dealing with those issues and will post them here.


great... cos i'm really looking forward to it. I'm getting popcorn and snacks for the occasion.


Are you the thread policeman here ??
Stann <<<< !

why? are you wanted for thread bashing again? :rolleyes:

[stannrodd]

Now especially for Matrix911' amusement while he enjoy's pocorn and other snax .. her ya go Mat.. :D

So the undercarriage blasts a 17ft diameter hole in the wall for the fuselage to pass through?

I don't think so. But perhaps the squashed front section including the undercarriage assembly did.


You say "shortly after", but before the wings reach the building, around a third of the whole length of the fuselage has to pass through the wall. How does it do that? Does it make a hole, is it shredded between the columns, or can your imagination do even better than that?

See above comment. Perhaps likely that some shredding takes place.

The front of the engines and the fuselage/wing junction are at about the same time impacting the tower. Followed by the mainspar and main undercarriage assembly.

If "many perimeter columns are still intact", how did the wing tips pass through the intact columns to get to the inside of the building? We don't see any parts breaking off in the videos. In fact, as the leading edge of the wing cuts through each column in turn, working outwards from the fuselage, how could any part of the wing even damage a column if it hasn't already cut through the previous one?

You say ".. as the leading edge cuts through each column " .. why ?

Look at the structure of the wings in the cutout I provided. Which part of the wing do you think did the cutting.
The leading edge ? The main spar ? the mechanics driving the flaps, ailerons and trim ? Or a combination of all of them in a compressed mass at each column. The latter is my guess based on how I see the collision time line.



The perimeter wall is 58% steel if you include the spandrels. We've already seen how a section of "small box column" could fall 1000ft onto a car park without batting an eyelid.

The aircraft impacted just eight spandrel plates ... six of which were cut through and two weren't. Insignificant resistance in the whole picture.

There are parts of the plane-shaped holes where the columns have been fractured, rather than the welds or bolts broken. That means the steel must have come under a huge amount of pressure, which also means the spandrels and concrete floors above and below the fracture must have held up better than the steel against the same amount of pressure. What makes you think the floors are not strong in the horizontal plane?

Corrugated sheet metal with three inches of lightweight concrete designed for vertical loading. Horizontal loading was not an issue really and the floors were dampened to minimize movement.

This destruction takes place in such a way that it's not visible on the videos? Could you explain in more detail how you think the plane was destroyed?

I've done that .. " it was destroyed progressively from the nose to the tail during the collision with the tower."

If the cgi hypothesis accounts for the known evidence better than any other hypothesis, then cgi is proved to be the most likely explanation, even though it can always be disproved by fresh evidence in the future. That's what science is all about.

If in your opinion .. the evidence is better.. then for you it is more likely. IMO the evidence now suggests real planes impacted the towers. The issue of cgi in terms of broadcast video is far from proven.

No doubt the truth will emerge. I know which side I would bet on .. right now.

Stann

[bryan]

Which thread do you want to continue this discussion in bryan .. it would seem that we are doing a parallel discussion with another thread. Perhaps you can decide and get a moderator to "merge" the threads.


The other thread would be better for this particular subject but people wouldn't be able to trace the quotes back.



But perhaps the squashed front section including the undercarriage assembly did.

See above comment. Perhaps likely that some shredding takes place.

I've done that .. " it was destroyed progressively from the nose to the tail during the collision with the tower."


The problem here is that your idea of 'destruction' is so vague that there's no way we can check the videos to confirm if that's what really happened. The front section was squashed, there was possibly some shredding and the plane was destroyed progressively from nose to tail. Challenging your theory is like trying to prove God doesn't exist.

The question is simple: Was the section of fuselage between the nose and the wings crushed, was it shredded, or did it break through the wall? If it's a combination of all three, then take us roughly through the sequence of events. If you can't do that, you haven't even got a theory.



You say ".. as the leading edge cuts through each column " .. why ?

Look at the structure of the wings in the cutout I provided. Which part of the wing do you think did the cutting.
The leading edge ? The main spar ? the mechanics driving the flaps, ailerons and trim ? Or a combination of all of them in a compressed mass at each column. The latter is my guess based on how I see the collision time line.


If the wings were at 90 degrees to the fuselage, all the columns could be damaged without being broken, although there'd still be the question of how the wing got into the building. We've discussed this point before, so you know what I'm getting at. The wings are angled backwards, so that by the time the wing tip hits its respective column, the rest of the wing is already inside the building. How can there be rows of columns that are damaged but not fractured?



The aircraft impacted just eight spandrel plates ... six of which were cut through and two weren't. Insignificant resistance in the whole picture.

Corrugated sheet metal with three inches of lightweight concrete designed for vertical loading. Horizontal loading was not an issue really and the floors were dampened to minimize movement.


You're clinging on to assumptions in spite of the evidence. I've pointed out that some of the floors and spandrels withstood the impact better than the steel columns did, yet you're still claiming they were insignificant.

[bryan]

Question #6

Why would the pilot of Flight 175 risk damaging the aircraft by taking it into a 20,000ft power dive, levelling off at 700ft before flying into the South Tower?


Alternative 1: The Islamic suicide hijackers, being reckless and irrational by nature, didn't care if the plane broke up before it reached its target.

Comment: Even if this were believable, it's not easy to accept that an inexperienced pilot could have levelled off the aircraft and then successfully flown it into its target after a 20,000ft power dive.


Alternative 2: The aircraft that performed a 20,000ft power dive was nothing more than a blip inserted into a radar system by the perps. The South Tower was hit by a missile or the building just exploded.

Comment: If only certain radar systems were involved, organisations such as NORAD might not have seen the blip, which could partially account for the apparent stand-down.


Unfortunately, we don't seem to have an alternative that would explain why a remote-control pilot would risk blowing the entire operation by taking the aircraft into a dangerous power dive. If the perps knew the US Air Defenses had been ordered to stand down, they wouldn't need to take any risks at all.