Merged No Planes At WTC (Split from: WTC Dust)

[Dash80]

Do you know any?

My sister does, she was a United employee, and prior to 9/11 actually flew with some of the crew members that were lost.


What do you think happened to them?

 

[BadBoy]

I agree with you on this. The videos DO show what happened. I don't think these videos are faked. I think they are genuine videos of the events of 9/11 as they took place.

Since there does not appear to be an impact between a plane and a building in these videos (because of the lack of plane debris), what they show is a faked plane image passing through the south face of WTC 2, followed by explosions.

The explosions are undoubtedly real. The WTC was, in fact, destroyed.

What about the large plane shaped hole that continued to be present in all the pictures until the building collapsed?

What about all the plane parts that came out of the building on the other side, like the engine and undercarriage that can be seen in videos and pictures?

What about the missing plane and the missing people?

Why pretend a plane even hit? Why not just blow them up? em, its been done like that before.

Why blow them up, why not just fly a plane into the buildings.

You see, most normal rational people would see all the other stuff, and then see the plane disappear into the building and say to themselves "well look at that, the plane went clean into the building - who'd have guessed, wow"

 

[BadBoy]

There are some differences between a solid concrete wall and a wall made of steel columns.

There are some differences between the f4 jet in the video and a passenger plane.

Still, an impact at about 500MPH between these two different types of planes and two different types of walls should be similar in effect. Namely, the plane would be destroyed at the precise moment that it impacted the wall, and videos of this event would show plane debris bouncing backwards off the wall.

Why? why why why do you automatically assume they would be simialr in effect?

A small plane hitting a concrete block
A very large plane hitting mostly glass

 

[BadBoy]

There's not THAT much difference between steel and concrete
in terms of "can this wall withstand a plane crash?".
There's not THAT much difference between the material that
makes up an F4 and the material that makes up a passenger plane.

Tell me what you think the differences are. Don't tell me that a
plane squeezed through the WTC windows without hitting the
steel, though. LOL

Well then, I guess they could just use glass and aluminium to protect power stations in the future. Because there is obviously not much difference between materials strength my granny could supply large square spans of knitting to protect them.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Kid Eager]

Apparently "THAT" is a defined term of measurement that we can use and replicate in scientific experiements...

 

[Dash80]

Well then, I guess they could just use glass and aluminium to protect power stations in the future. Because there is obviously not much difference between materials strength my granny could supply large square spans of knitting to protect them.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content and response to same.

 

[laca]

Edited by LashL: 

Removed quote of moderated content and response to same.

 

[dafydd]

http://unbiasedeye.com/tag/medical-marijuana/

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Do you know any?

I do.

 

[Dash80]

Do you know any?

There you go WTC Dust, that's 3 people who know a plane victim and/or their familiies.

 

[Metullus]

Do you know any?

Yes.

 

[Dash80]

Four people.

 

[The Platypus]

I'm not doing that. What looks like a plane in the videos isn't a plane.

What is it then?

 

[brazenlilraisin]

What looks like a plane in the videos isn't a plane.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When will you be providing it? To put it another way, there is no need on anybody's part to prove there are real planes in videos that show planes impacting the WTC. You have yet to present any evidence that 'no planes' is even a sliver of a possibility.

 

[Craig4]

I'm not doing that. What looks like a plane in the videos isn't a plane.

No, you're showing a plane hitting a building. Why are you doing that?

 

[Dash80]

What is it then?

Richard Hall's flying balls!

http://youtube.com/#/watch?v=q4VQs57m4So&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dq4VQs57m4So

 

[twinstead]

Who else used to show images of planes hitting the buildings to prove no planes hit the buildings? Was it C7?

 

[MRC_Hans]

The stuff that's flying in all directions? That's the stuff. It is bouncing backwards off the concrete wall.

The trajectory of the individual pieces isn't exactly opposite in direction of the
path of the jet, but the pieces are all moving slightly backwards as they
fly off in various directions.

The difference is that the concrete wall is not penetrated by the aircraft, which is exactly what was the purpose.

If you add up all the vectors of the various pieces, the sum of the vectors
is exactly, precisely opposite in direction and equal in magnitude to the
forward vector.

And you conclude this how?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

There's not THAT much difference between steel and concrete
in terms of "can this wall withstand a plane crash?".

There certianly is. The concrete in question is not even a wall, it is a solid block. The walls of the WTC consisted of window panes, aluminum panels, steel plates and steel beams. There is a fundamental difference.

There's not THAT much difference between the material that
makes up an F4 and the material that makes up a passenger plane.

The F4 is more compact, and it didn't carry any fuel, but otherwise, not any fundamental difference.

Tell me what you think the differences are. Don't tell me that a
plane squeezed through the WTC windows without hitting the
steel, though. LOL

Who claimed that?

However, since the majority of the WTC skin was indeed window panes and soft panels, a lot of the plane mass did indeed go through there.

Hans

 

[WTC Dust]

I find it amazing the things you'll admit to being wrong about, and the things you won't admit being wrong about.

Simply amazing!

When someone points out a mistake I've made, I'm grateful for it. I kept saying 9:59AM, even though I meant 9:03AM. Duh.

I like scrutiny, and am seeking it out in this forum. I'd be embarrassed if I gave a talk and kept mentioning 9:59AM, and now I probably won't make that mistake.

The other mistake that I made was when I said that the passengers of the airplane that hit the Empire State Building survived. Whoopsie! No, they didn't. I had mis-read a website article about it saying that the survivors were able to walk down the staircases, and I thought they were referring to the passengers on the plane, but they were referring to the people inside the building who survived.

The ESB mistake was a real mistake. I actually thought that the passengers of the airplane survived, but I was wrong. When it comes to the 9:59AM thing, that was a brain fart. I knew the timing, but I kept saying the wrong time. It's probably because 9:59AM is the magic moment for me, because its when a large amount of the lighter colored dust was being created, when before the dust was quite dark.

And what I've discovered is that there are multiple types of WTC dust, and that these differences are valuable in terms of a forensic analysis. I'd like equal scrutiny on this idea, too.