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

[beachnut]

RADAR data proves Planes; Video proves Planes

I disagree, but even if I'm wrong, there's nothing in a plane crash that could turn the WTC into metallic foam.

No steel turned to foam, a most idiotic fantasy.

911 truth can't do physics, like you, so you guys claim no planes. You ignore RADAR, and claim no planes. You know how insane that claim becomes when I sit here with the RAW RADAR data proves you wrong?

11 years and the dumbest claims are, "no planes". A new record for failure to learn, 11 years.

 

[WTC Dust]

Excellent idea, we could have flying skyscrapers

Good point. Aluminum is used to make aircraft DESPITE it's relative weakness compared to steel. An airplane has to be lightweight. An airplane made of steel would be too heavy to fly.

 

[phunk]

That's funny.

If aluminum were stronger than steel, they'd make skyscrapers out of aluminum.

Do you really think that strength is the only factor in chosing a building material?

 

[Gamolon]

This line of thinking makes me laugh. Planes fall apart if you land them too hard. A bird can crash through the wing of a plane, and a bird is made out of meat, not steel.

Are you saying that meat is stronger than aluminum?

 

[beachnut]

Good point. Aluminum is used to make aircraft DESPITE it's relative weakness compared to steel. An airplane has to be lightweight. An airplane made of steel would be too heavy to fly.

The problem you have is you make up lies and fantasy based on BS.

Fact; some aluminum alloys that are stronger than some steel alloys.

How much steel is in a 767? Did you check before "foaming" silly dumbed down fantasies of foam and no planes?

 

[Resume]

Not really. I'm mentioning the obvious point that any plane would have been destroyed at the site of impact. If you say a plane hit the south wall of WTC 2, then I say the plane would have been destroyed there, and videos should show this. They don't.

The plane wasn't destroyed? Are you kidding?

It didn't bounce off because that's just stupid.

 

[SUSpilot]

I disagree, but even if I'm wrong, there's nothing in a plane crash that could turn the WTC into metallic foam.

Forget the metallic foam part (even if I think you're wrong on that).

You are communicating with someone that knows of which he speaks. You are wrong about points 22-24. Period. Non-negotiable. You don't have to like it - you just have to deal with it.

 

[Dash80]

1. The lack of plane debris at the south face of WTC 2 is really the big thing for me.

Yes it is a problem when you can't understand physics.

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.

All regurgitated no planer nonsense.

7. Richard D. Hall's trajectory analysis indicating how the 3D image projection technology might have worked.

You are not serious?! Rich Hall also thought giant anti-gravity BALLS hit the buildings!

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.

A small much slower prop-plane crashing into an apartment building is not comparable at all, this is ridiculous beyond belief!

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.

Now you are demanding videos of every hijacker boarding?!

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.

The rest is nonsense I am not going to respond to each one, you are simply parroting no-planer BS.


OH, and it was MARK BINGHAM who said his full name to his mother and she's spoken about this and why he did it. She has NO DOUBTS her son called her and no doubts that he died when flight 93 crashed.

Mocking the "let's roll" thing too?
No planer's make me sick

 

[waypastvne]

That's funny.

If aluminum were stronger than steel, they'd make skyscrapers out of aluminum.

Aluminum is way more expensive than steel, Silly

If you want the links to the physical properties of 7055 aluminum, I'll give them to you, But you don't do links.

Why is it you don't want to contact the man who found the passport ? You say you have questions, go ask them.

 

[Sunstealer]

Wow, just wow. The ignorance is simply staggering. I guess that strength to weight ratio means nothing in Dr Dusty's world nor this documented fact that

7055-T77511

http://www.alcoa.com/adip/catalog/7055-T77511 Tech Sheet.pdf
http://www.aluminum.org/content/contentfolders/techqanda/november2007/higher_strength_7xx1.htm
http://aluminium.matter.org.uk/content/html/eng/default.asp?catid=154&pageid=2144416892

is stronger than

A36 Steel

http://www.scribd.com/doc/58678532/A36-Steel-Properties
http://www.beverlysteel.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=109
http://www.steel-grades.com/Steel-grades/Carbon-steel/astm-a36.html

I wonder how the Bristol 188 managed to fly bearing in mind it was constructed from steel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_188 or the Junkers J1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_J_1 or the XB-70 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70_Valkyrie

 

[Sunstealer]

Aluminum is way more expensive than steel, Silly

If you want the links to the physical properties of 7055 aluminum, I'll give them to you, But you don't do links.

Why is it you don't want to contact the man who found the passport ? You say you have questions, go ask them.

ROFLMAO. Classic Dusty - absolutely no idea about the real world.

Can you even imagine how expensive it would be to build a skyscraper from aircraft grade alloy?

 

[Loss Leader]

A bird can crash through the wing of a plane, and a bird is made out of meat, not steel.

I think you have conflated two very different things - the skin of the airplane and the skeleton. Airplanes can be very thin-skinned and birds can rip through them. I doubt a bird could do it without severely compromising the flyability of the plane or the flyability of the bird.

I challenge you to find even one instance of a bird taking a commercial airplane wing off - let's say a DC-3 or larger. Wings are very strongly reinforced.

Because really, a plane is rather weakly constructed compared to a building. You cannot crash an airplane into a steel wall and have it continue on undamaged, like videos of 9/11 apparently show.

Do you see the problem there? I highlighted it in red.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm putting my ideas out there and seeing if anyone can pick them apart.

Ah. Excellent. Well, then, problem solved. Your ideas have been completely dismantled from start to finish. Consider your mission accomplished and retire from posting.

 

[beachnut]

Bird beats aluminum; aluminum aircraft beats steel. BINGO

This line of thinking makes me laugh. Planes fall apart if you land them too hard. A bird can crash through the wing of a plane, and a bird is made out of meat, not steel.
...

Yes birds do millions of dollars of damage to aircraft every years with blood, guts, and bones.

Aircraft going over 200 mph (aka 767s) will enter the WTC. This is simple physics and engineering.

Irony, bird beats aluminum, aluminum beats steel. You debunk yourself. You can't have it both ways. Try some logic. But your fantasy is based on nonsenses and lies. Why can't you do RADAR? Every scientist I know can; why can't you. When I taught GATE to 5th and 6th graders, they understood RADAR - why do you ignore RADAR?

RADAR proves 11 and 175 hit the WTC. You prove you have no evidence, but you do have nonsense.


Real world facts debunk fantasy of no planes.

Aluminum alloys used in aircraft can have ultimate tensile strength of 42,000 to 68,000 psi.
The interior of the WTC had steel at 36,000 psi.
The exterior had various grades for lateral support and gravity loads from 42,000 and higher.
Oops, aluminum can be stronger than steel. Do you do research before spreading the super-silly fantasy of no planes?

How will the WTC stop an engine made out of super alloys? How will the WTC stop a landing gear made out of steel? What percent of the WTC exterior is glass; do you want to look up the strength in psi of glass in the WTC? Do you wish you had learned physics?

 

[tsig]

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.

True, the idea of a plane shaped hole spontaneously appearing on the side of a building is strange.

 

[Dash80]

WTC Dust, you said:

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.*

Why do you keep repeating this lie?

The NTSB DOES NOT reconstruct every plane that crashes, in most cases it's not even necessary.

Examing the data recorders is often the best way to determine the cause if a crash.

TWA 800 was reconstructed because the cause of the crash was not apparent from other examination methods, but that was quite an unusual case.

All four planes were crashed intentionally on 9\11, there was no need to reconstruct them. The airframes or mechanics did not fail, it would have been a complete waste of time to even try to do any reconstruction.

You also claimed:

21. The lack of recovery of all 8 flight data recorders that should have been there.

A half lie. 4 were found.

Flight 77's recorders were recovered, the FDR was readable.

Flight 93's recorders were recovered, both the FDR and the CVR were readable.

Flight 11 and 175's data recorders were not found, but considering the extreme circumstances I don't find this surprising.

 

[Clayton Moore]

This is a topic that can only be rationally debated by people who believe 9/11 was an inside job. If you believe planes were not photo-shopped in then there are a gazillion possible contingencies that the neocons behind 9/11 had to deal with.

 

[Mashuna]

This is a topic that can only be rationally debated by people who believe 9/11 was an inside job.

Oxymoron.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This is a topic that can only be rationally debated by people who believe 9/11 was an inside job. If you believe planes were not photo-shopped in then there are a gazillion possible contingencies that the neocons behind 9/11 had to deal with.

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

Since there was no science fiction means by which the planes could be 'photoshopped' into the sky, that explanation's irrational, and you yourself say that an inside job with real planes would face 'a gazillion' contingencies, that's irrational too.

So the only rational view is the simple explanation: that hijackers flew planes into buildings.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh good Dusty is back!

Remember how you told me you understood why a location for the DEW was actually necessary for your theory to work?

Figured out where it was yet?

 

[fitzgibbon]

This is a topic that can only be rationally debated by people who believe 9/11 was an inside job. If you believe planes were not photo-shopped in then there are a gazillion possible contingencies that the neocons behind 9/11 had to deal with.

I can say with absolute, unqualified certainty that the planes weren't Photoshopped-in. You wouldn't understand why not but it'll be interesting to see if you want to know why not

Fitz