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

[WTC Dust]

The major difference is that the cladding on the exterior was largely aluminum (like the exterior of the plane), the steel structural members inside provided little resistance, AND, once having penetrated the aforementioned structure, the floors inside were 95% open air until the plane reached the core.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think the steel structural members inside provided little resistance?

 

[WTC Dust]

Was the Phantom fully-fueled? I bet not, so as to minimize the obscuring effects of any explosions from ignited fuel upon impact.

I don't know about the contents of the fuel tank of the F4. I do know that videos of 9:03AM do not show any type of explosion at the moment this plane-like object reaches the south face of WTC 2.

There's a reason I'm a no planer, and this is it: those videos don't depict ANYTHING that resembles a collision between a moving vehicle of any sort and a wall of any sort.

It's not just the particulars of an airplane vs. a jet. It's not just the differences between a concrete wall and a set of steel columns interspersed with windows. If a semi-truck crashed against a steel wall, I'd expect to see an explosion of debris at the moment the truck crashed.

In the videos, you see what looks like a plane gliding fully into and through the south face of WTC 2 without an explosion of plane debris or fuel. There are some white poofs when the "engines" reach the south face. There are some smaller, darker poofs when the "wings" reach the south face. It is only after the "tail" disappears that the big explosion happened.

That ain't right. Aluminum isn't that strong. Airplanes are not that strong. An airplane would not remain intact throughout the collision. The fragile wings of an airplane would not have made such perfect slices through steel beams. Plane debris would have been similar to what was seen in the F4 video, despite some differences between an F4 and a passenger jet and some differences between a concrete wall and a steel wall.

If better footage surfaces that shows plane debris and other damage to the plane that isn't visible on the videos that are available today, I'll change my mind. I won't change my mind just because someone says it makes sense to them that things happened as told by the common story of 9/11. I don't care if it makes sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me, and I'm the one I trust.

 

[WTC Dust]

Would it? You do realize you are trying to compare a 40,000lb plane running into a 12 foot thick solid concrete wall, to a 400,000lb plane running into a wall made of steel beams, and between those steel beams is a lot of much weaker aluminum siding and glass?

My neck is starting to hurt from having to shake my head so much reading your nonsense.

Glass is weaker than steel, but no airplane could have crashed into the south face of WTC 2 without crashing into the steel. You have to account for the steel. If the entire building wall were made of glass, you'd have a point.

 

[WTC Dust]

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?

I don't know.

 

[WTC Dust]

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

I am saying that advanced weaponry shattered almost the entire WTC into fragments. If an instrument could shatter an entire building into fragments, it could shatter part of a building (a plane-shaped part, in this case) into fragments.

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?

None of those supposed plane parts could be said to have bounced backwards off the south face of WTC 2, as I'm talking about.

What about the missing plane and the missing people?

No planes means no planes. That's what I'm saying. There were no planes.

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

This is actually a good question. If the perps hadn't supplied the plane cover story, then people would have wondered why the buildings blew up and would have insisted on an investigation. With the plane cover story in place, they and (apparently the US government) thought they knew what destroyed the WTC. "No need to investigate. We know what did it." The perps won over most people, but they did not win me over.

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"

Normal people did question this, but people have the strange idea that our government knows best. If it had been anything else, then our government would have figured it out, in their estimation, but not mine.

 

[WTC Dust]

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

You can't ignore the steel.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

If you think this way, why don't you focus on the fact that the exterior walls of the WTC were made of steel?

 

[WTC Dust]

Four people.

I'd like to hear the stories of these JREFers who know these people.
Names, dates, places, details, etc.

 

[WTC Dust]

What is it then?

A plane shaped object. A faux plane. A fake plane. A 3D image of a plane, projected moving through the sky.

By the way, I'm being consistent when I say that I'm a no planer here. The object that was in the sky in those videos was not a plane. It was an image of a plane, but an image of a plane isn't a plane.

 

[Resume]

I don't know.

Nearly everyone else in the world knows what happened to them.

 

[Resume]

A plane shaped object. A faux plane. A fake plane. A 3D image of a plane, projected moving through the sky.

By the way, I'm being consistent when I say that I'm a no planer here. The object that was in the sky in those videos was not a plane. It was an image of a plane, but an image of a plane isn't a plane.

Nonsense.

 

[Liam]

If there were no video footage of the planes hitting the towers I bet there would be a few more "no planers", as there is with the Pentagon and Shanksville.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

1. The lack of plane debris at the south face of WTC 2 is really the big thing for me.
2. Also, the "nose" of the plane image that poked out of the north side of WTC 2 in the FOX video. Other pieces of evidence are the
3. lack of a plane in the Pentagon videos and the
4. lack of a plane at the Shanksville crash.
5. Also, the poof of smoke in the "End of Serenity" farmhouse image near Shanksville is similar to the smoke that would come from an ordnance blast, not an airplane crash.
6. The Citizen Investigation Team looked at the Pentagon plane story, and they did lots of interviews and concluded that a plane did not fly along the path that is suggested by the common story.
7. Richard D. Hall's trajectory analysis indicating how the 3D image projection technology might have worked.
8. The strength of steel vs. aluminum.
9. The F4 video.
10. The plane that crashed into the Bellaire Apartments in NYC where the plane ended up almost entirely at the foot of the building and did not really penetrate the building, or turn it into dust.
11. The strange, evolving set of passenger names on the flight manifests. 12. The lack of an entire set of evidence showing each of the 19 men boarding their respective flights.
13. The fact that not a single trial has proved that anyone hijacked any airplanes on 9/11.
14. The strange passport given to the FBI. Paper wasn't really burned, I understand, but the unlikelihood of a passport surviving a plane impact causes me to question who gave the passport to the FBI.
15. All the video and images available of other plane crashes that show that a plane actually survives a crash in every case (in pieces).
16. After a plane crash, the NTSB collects all the pieces and puts the plane back together, but it wasn't done for any of these four supposed flights on 9/11.
17. The lack of a consistent story from the air traffic controllers.
18. The fact that the United States armed services are poised to intercept errant flights, and do this on a regular basis, and did this on a regular basis in 2001.
19. The LA news story at the airport that included no family members showing up at the airport.
20. The anomalies in the NTSB accounting for these vehicles.
21. The lack of recovery of all 8 flight data recorders that should have been there.
22. The stories I've read from self-proclaimed pilots who say, "Naah. It'd be real hard to hit the WTC by piloting a plane."
23. The extreme difficulty of navigating from Boston to NYC without the aid of air traffic controllers.
24. The unlikely idea of inexperienced pilots being able to navigate a passenger jet with such precision.
25. How cellular phones worked in 2001.
26. "Hi, Mom. It's me, Tod Beamer." Who says this? "Let's roll!" Uh-huh.

If, in the end, it turns out that planes were really hijacked on 9/11 and flown into various targets on the east coast, I will retract all my statements about no planes and apologize for wasting everyone's time on that issue.

It wouldn't change my main body of work.

I've been studying the damage to the World Trade Center, not anything about planes. The ONLY reason I ever talk about planes is because other people bring it up.

 

[WTC Dust]

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



And you conclude this how?

Hans

It's not really a conclusion.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.



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



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

Tell me what the fundamental differences are that make a difference in terms of the behavior of a plane crash into a wall.

Just saying that there is a difference isn't enough, because there are differences. But differences in what direction. Is a concrete wall stronger than a steel wall? Is it weaker? Is an F4 stronger than a passenger jet, or weaker? What are you saying the differences are? What is the magnitude of these differences. How do these differences translate into such a dramatically different result between the two videos?

 

[WTC Dust]

If there were no video footage of the planes hitting the towers I bet there would be a few more "no planers", as there is with the Pentagon and Shanksville.

That's one of the things that has always puzzled me. Most of the 9/11 community agrees that the evidence for planes is sketchy at the Pentagon and at Shanksville, but they are unwilling to extend that line of thought when it comes to the WTC.

Those videos do make a difference.

I say forget planes and focus on the damage to the WTC. THAT is the really strange thing.

 

[Loss Leader]

In the videos, you see what looks like a plane gliding fully into and through the south face of WTC 2 without an explosion of plane debris or fuel.

It wasn't really gliding. It was moving at 586 miles per hour. That was about 100 miles per hour faster than the first plane.

There are some white poofs when the "engines" reach the south face. There are some smaller, darker poofs when the "wings" reach the south face. It is only after the "tail" disappears that the big explosion happened.

Exactly how much time are you talking about? How much time would have passed from when the engines reached the south face to when the wings would have hit to when the tail would?

586 mph is, according to my math, 859 feet per second. The 767-200 is 159 feet long. That means it would have taken about 0.18 seconds from the time the plane's nose would have hit to the time the tail would have. What scientific reason is there to believe that anything should have been seen in less than 0.18 seconds which was not seen?

That ain't right. Aluminum isn't that strong. Airplanes are not that strong. An airplane would not remain intact throughout the collision. The fragile wings of an airplane would not have made such perfect slices through steel beams.

Why are you doing your calculations in terms of strength and not in terms of force? The strength of aluminum against steel doesn't seem to be as important as the force the aluminum imparted on the steel. What scientific reason is there to disregard force?

I don't know if this guy is right. If so, the force of the aluminum plane was massive. What scientific reason is there to disregard the force that would have been applied to the steel?

If better footage surfaces that shows plane debris and other damage to the plane that isn't visible on the videos that are available today, I'll change my mind.

What scientific reason is there to expect to see on the video equipment of that day anything different than what was recorded using the technology of that day? Nobody had high-speed film rolling. Nobody had a camera distance precisely measured to the building. Nobody had multiple views exactly perpendicular to the event and exactly head-on to it. Everyone's footage that you have ever seen has been subjected to multiple computer compression algorithms at varying speeds of playback and resolutions.

Why would you expect better evidence to exist?

I don't care if it makes sense to you. It doesn't make sense to me, and I'm the one I trust.

That's fine for you. However, since you attempt to be trying to convince others, it is insufficient. If you want anyone to ever believe anything you say, you're going to have to show exactly why it should not make sense to a reasonable, sane person.

 

[Resume]

I say forget planes and focus on the damage to the WTC. THAT is the really strange thing.

You would say that because the fact of the planes impacting the WTC really screws up the cat-piss crazy no-planer, sooper-seekrit energy weapon scenario.

Reality messes up fantasies all the time.

 

[Skibum]

1. The lack of plane debris at the south face of WTC 2 is really the big thing for me.
2. Also, the "nose" of the plane image that poked out of the north side of WTC 2 in the FOX video. Other pieces of evidence are the
3. lack of a plane in the Pentagon videos and the
4. lack of a plane at the Shanksville crash.
5. Also, the poof of smoke in the "End of Serenity" farmhouse image near Shanksville is similar to the smoke that would come from an ordnance blast, not an airplane crash.
6. The Citizen Investigation Team looked at the Pentagon plane story, and they did lots of interviews and concluded that a plane did not fly along the path that is suggested by the common story.
7. Richard D. Hall's trajectory analysis indicating how the 3D image projection technology might have worked.
8. The strength of steel vs. aluminum.
9. The F4 video.
10. The plane that crashed into the Bellaire Apartments in NYC where the plane ended up almost entirely at the foot of the building and did not really penetrate the building, or turn it into dust.
11. The strange, evolving set of passenger names on the flight manifests. 12. The lack of an entire set of evidence showing each of the 19 men boarding their respective flights.
13. The fact that not a single trial has proved that anyone hijacked any airplanes on 9/11.
14. The strange passport given to the FBI. Paper wasn't really burned, I understand, but the unlikelihood of a passport surviving a plane impact causes me to question who gave the passport to the FBI.
15. All the video and images available of other plane crashes that show that a plane actually survives a crash in every case (in pieces).
16. After a plane crash, the NTSB collects all the pieces and puts the plane back together, but it wasn't done for any of these four supposed flights on 9/11.
17. The lack of a consistent story from the air traffic controllers.
18. The fact that the United States armed services are poised to intercept errant flights, and do this on a regular basis, and did this on a regular basis in 2001.
19. The LA news story at the airport that included no family members showing up at the airport.
20. The anomalies in the NTSB accounting for these vehicles.
21. The lack of recovery of all 8 flight data recorders that should have been there.
22. The stories I've read from self-proclaimed pilots who say, "Naah. It'd be real hard to hit the WTC by piloting a plane."
23. The extreme difficulty of navigating from Boston to NYC without the aid of air traffic controllers.
24. The unlikely idea of inexperienced pilots being able to navigate a passenger jet with such precision.
25. How cellular phones worked in 2001.
26. "Hi, Mom. It's me, Tod Beamer." Who says this? "Let's roll!" Uh-huh.

If, in the end, it turns out that planes were really hijacked on 9/11 and flown into various targets on the east coast, I will retract all my statements about no planes and apologize for wasting everyone's time on that issue.

It wouldn't change my main body of work.

I've been studying the damage to the World Trade Center, not anything about planes. The ONLY reason I ever talk about planes is because other people bring it up.

All demonstrably false. If I felt you had any inclination towards listening and learning I'd explain but...we all know that isn't happening.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

1. The lack of plane debris at the south face of WTC 2 is really the big thing for me. The steel columns were designed to resist vertical loads. When a 100+ ton plane hit them side-on, their joints broke and the columns bent out of its way.2. Also, the "nose" of the plane image that poked out of the north side of WTC 2 in the FOX video. Other pieces of evidence are the
3. lack of a plane in the Pentagon videos and the There was exactly as much plane in the videos as there ought to have been.4. lack of a plane at the Shanksville crash. There was no lack of a plane at Shanksville
5. Also, the poof of smoke in the "End of Serenity" farmhouse image near Shanksville is similar to the smoke that would come from an ordnance blast, not an airplane crash. And you know this how?
6. The Citizen Investigation Team looked at the Pentagon plane story, and they did lots of interviews and concluded that a plane did not fly along the path that is suggested by the common story. Then they were wrong.
7. Richard D. Hall's trajectory analysis indicating how the 3D image projection technology might have worked. It doesn't exist.
8. The strength of steel vs. aluminum. Show us your working.
9. The F4 video. Doesn't help you.
10. The plane that crashed into the Bellaire Apartments in NYC where the plane ended up almost entirely at the foot of the building and did not really penetrate the building, or turn it into dust.
11. The strange, evolving set of passenger names on the flight manifests. Do you mean the full list versus the list of victims with the hijackers names removed?
12. The lack of an entire set of evidence showing each of the 19 men boarding their respective flights. Do you have "an entire set of evidence" of the last time you got on a plane? Why not?
13. The fact that not a single trial has proved that anyone hijacked any airplanes on 9/11. Exactly how many times has that been tested in court and found wanting?
14. The strange passport given to the FBI. Paper wasn't really burned, I understand, but the unlikelihood of a passport surviving a plane impact causes me to question who gave the passport to the FBI. Mere incredulity.
15. All the video and images available of other plane crashes that show that a plane actually survives a crash in every case (in pieces). Find a similar crash.
16. After a plane crash, the NTSB collects all the pieces and puts the plane back together, but it wasn't done for any of these four supposed flights on 9/11. Have you tried to find out why?
17. The lack of a consistent story from the air traffic controllers. Evidence?
18. The fact that the United States armed services are poised to intercept errant flights, and do this on a regular basis, and did this on a regular basis in 2001. Show us a comparable event.
19. The LA news story at the airport that included no family members showing up at the airport.
20. The anomalies in the NTSB accounting for these vehicles.
21. The lack of recovery of all 8 flight data recorders that should have been there. Exactly how unusual is that?
22. The stories I've read from self-proclaimed pilots who say, "Naah. It'd be real hard to hit the WTC by piloting a plane." Real pilots say that's ridiculous and I believe them.
23. The extreme difficulty of navigating from Boston to NYC without the aid of air traffic controllers. How extremely difficult is basic navigation, exactly?
24. The unlikely idea of inexperienced pilots being able to navigate a passenger jet with such precision. Precision? Aim for huge city, aim for huge landmark in city. How hard is that?
25. How cellular phones worked in 2001. Evidence?
26. "Hi, Mom. It's me, Tod Beamer." Who says this? Someone who is under great stress and who always answers the phone with "Hi, X. It's me, Tod Beamer". "Let's roll!" Uh-huh.

If, in the end, it turns out that planes were really hijacked on 9/11 and flown into various targets on the east coast, I will retract all my statements about no planes and apologize for wasting everyone's time on that issue.

It wouldn't change my main body of work.

I've been studying the damage to the World Trade Center, not anything about planes. The ONLY reason I ever talk about planes is because other people bring it up.

Can we ask what aspect you are studying right now and what progress if any you have made in, say, the last year?