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

[Clayton Moore]

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

Maybe photoshop software wasn't used but in the video the plane went cleanly into the building which was impossible.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Maybe photoshop software wasn't used

No maybe about it. Perhaps you could enlighten with how you think it was 'accomplished'?

but in the video the plane went cleanly into the building which was impossible.

Who aside from 'truthers' said it went in "cleanly"? IIRC, there was some walloping great damage to the building. From your deep background in physics, are you suggesting it should've bounced-off or been sticking out the side or somesuch?

Fitz

 

[phiwum]

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.

Excellent point!

Either meat is stronger than aluminum or sometimes, something soft can penetrate something hard.

Let's start building planes out of chickenpigeon! We already know that pigeons can fly and pigeon flesh is stronger than aluminum, right?

 

[tsig]

Maybe photoshop software wasn't used but in the video the plane went cleanly into the building which was impossible.

Why would they fake an impossible shot?

 

[Loss Leader]

Some of the plane should have been repelled/rejected/stopped by the building and visibly fallen outside of the building.

What reason do you have to believe there should have been recorded evidence of that, even if it happened? What reason do you have to believe that there is not recorded evidence of that?

Why must the null hypothesis be that there were no planes unless X videos and pictures exist? We have no video or stills of the crusades. Does that mean they didn't happen?

 

[beachnut]

Delusional no plane claims. Insanity or parody?

With RADAR, no other data is needed to confirm what hit the WTC towers. Flight 11, and Flight 175, did the damage seen. Only ignorance or insanity can make someone gullible enough to support or believe the no plane claims.

 

[Dash80]

Why would they fake an impossible shot?

Because Clayton wants us to believe "they" are both amazingly clever and monumentally stupid

 

[Metullus]

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.

This category of thinking falls into one of the two types of conspiracy theories I call "bandaids". Bandaids are little fixes that cover up the boo-boos and prop up the common storyline to make it work. The two main categories of bandaids are "strong plane" and "weak building" theories.

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. Since this is not possible, either the videos were faked or the plane crash was faked. I say the plane crash was faked, or, more precisely, the plane was faked, because the perps didn't put up a 3D model of a collision. They only modeled the plane.

Why, pray tell, is it necessary that the planes "continue on undamaged"? You are, I think, the only one who is insisting on this little fiction. No one else is.
Aluminum airplane vs steel hulled ship.
Another aluminum aircraft vs steel-hulled ship.
Can you guess what this is?

 

[beachnut]

RADAR debunks no planer claims. No plane believer don't do RADAR, don't do science

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

Where is your evidence. A low resolution video does not count. You have zero support for this silly statement. Try physics next time.

lack of debris? Wrong about a thousand times
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/111aircraftpartWTC2.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtcengine4.jpg

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 ...

The "nose" was debris. Proof of a plane hitting because it was aircraft and office debris. RADAR had tracked 175 to impact from takeoff. Oops, debunked by RADAR. RADAR beats your no plane theory, makes it nonsensical fantasy.

3. lack of a plane in the Pentagon videos and the ...

There is a plane in the Pentagon video, it is a low resolution fish-eye lens, frame rate very slow. RADAR proves it was Flight 77. RADAR debunks your next silly claim. BUSTED.
All the DNA except the small kid you said is not murdered by terrorists so you can have a silly fantasy; found in the Pentagon, along with the entire destroyed plane. Oops, you are spreading lies; why? Why do you make up lies about 911? Does it make you feel good to lie about murdered people? Your fellow humans, murdered, and you make up disgraceful lies and fantasies.

4. lack of a plane at the Shanksville crash. ...

What a bunch of insane nonsense. DNA for each passenger was found at the crash site. All the plane parts were found at the crash site. FDR for the aircraft was found buried with the murdered people in the crater. How nice of you to say no one died in the crash. Good job. Really cool. How sweet.

RADAR again debunks your fantasy claim.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris21sm.jpg
Plane parts in PA - busted again. Why can't you see the aircraft parts? Take off your fantasy blinders.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris11c.jpg
Flight 93 FDR - oops, debunks your denial of no body murdered on Flight 93.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris11d.jpg
Oops, Flight 93's engine, buried in the ground due to a high speed impact. Lack of practical science skills leaves you unable to comprehend reality? Why do you make up lies about 911? Do you hate those who died on 911?

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. ...

Wrong again. It is exactly what an aircraft crash looks like. You should have taken an aircraft accident investigation course before making up another silly lie based on ignorance.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flight93AirBusB52.jpg
Oops, busted.
BUSTED - big fail to make a statement based on zero research.
You have not been in combat, and don't know what a aircraft crash looks like.

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. ...

CIT proved 77 did impact the Pentagon. All of their witnesses said they saw Flight 77 on the impact flight path. They saw Flight 77, exactly where RADAR had it. Oops.

All CIT witnesses point to the flight path on the FDR and RADAR.

Zero research has you using the word of idiots from CIT.
BUSTED again, using nuts as your support for your fantasy of no planes.

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

Richard Hall's analysis shows signs of mental illness, and inability to understand RADAR.

Hall's uses RADAR which proves flight 11 and 175 impacted the WTC.

BUSTED again, you are using an insane person to support your fantasy.

8. The strength of steel vs. aluminum. ...

Alloys of aluminum, some are stronger than steel.

BUSTED, you failed to do research. Plus physics and engineering prove an aircraft going faster than 200 mph will crash though the WTC shell - you forgot to do the math.

Got math? No

9. The F4 video. ...

Proves aircraft can be destroy during high speed impacts. Like 911.
BUSTED

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. ...

The tiny plane that hit the apartments? LOL
You really don't do physics. Why? No science, no physics, no math. Just wild insane claims.

Impacts with KE greater than 200 pounds of TNT enter the WTC.
The light plane you bring up had the impact energy of .9 pounds of TNT. Not a valid comparison to a 2000 pounds of impact KE impact.

BUSTED - due to lack of physics. Do the math next time, instead of fantasy.

11. The strange, evolving set of passenger names on the flight manifests. ...

False claim. What a silly claim.

12. The lack of an entire set of evidence showing each of the 19 men boarding their respective flights. ...

Oops, the terrorists on Flight 93 and 77, have their DNA recorded, found in the crash sites.
BUSTED.
Flight crew identified terrorists by seat numbers, and names match the manifests.
BUSTED by paper work and eye witness last words before she was murdered by terrorists, you deny existed. How do you fail so completely?

13. The fact that not a single trial has proved that anyone hijacked any airplanes on 9/11. ...

Oops, wrong again. A trial did identify each terrorist. Seriously, 13 BUSTED claims so silly it defies reality.
The airlines identified the terrorists, even the FBI figure out this one in hours. Why can't you given 11 years and the answers?

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. ...

It is very likely object survive the terrible crashes.
BUSTED again.

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). ...

You don't do physics.
Slow crashes, big pieces.
High speed crashes, small pieces.
Called physics. Someone don't do physics, and it is not me.

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. ...

WRONG. Sad to explain this, but the NTSB puts planes together to solve why they crashed. After reports from crew, it was clear the planes were take by terrorists to crash into buildings.
BINGO.
911 aircraft "crashes" were on purpose, the NTSB does not do crime, they do accidents.

911 was not four aircraft accidents, they were four aircraft used as weapons.

You are BUSTED again.
NTSB don't do on purpose, the FBI does crime, the NTSB does accidents. Do some research next time, and use some logic.

The NTSB was used as a technical adviser, and products were produced as needed to aid the FBI investigation.

17. The lack of a consistent story from the air traffic controllers. ...

BS, a non issue. You can't explain or support in a rational fashion, to support the fantasy of no planes. A most insane claim, is the no plane claim. But go ahead try to make something rational out of this weak point.
All the controllers say it was four planes.
BUSTED

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. ...

Add NORAD to a long list of things you don't know anything useful.
No, NORAD was not poised to intercept hijacked planes. You don't know what NORAD did before 911. This was debunked many times for those who lack knowledge.
BUSTED

19. The LA news story at the airport that included no family members showing up at the airport. ...

BS, another failed claim.

20. The anomalies in the NTSB accounting for these vehicles. ...

BUSTED, not true.

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

77 and 93 FDR and CVR were found. 77 CVR was damaged. The collapse of the WTC and fires were more than the FDR/CVR were designed to survive.
Your ignorance of what a FDR/CVR can survive, is not a valid point to support a fantasy of no planes.

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." ...

It is easy to hit the WTC in a 767. A kid off the street with no flight experience could do it. I flew heavy jets, and I don't know a rational pilot who thinks it was impossible for terrorists to hit the towers.

How many pilots have you talked to. If they agree there were no planes, then they are not rational, don't fly with them.

23. The extreme difficulty of navigating from Boston to NYC without the aid of air traffic controllers. ...

We don't use ATC to know where to fly.
BUSTED - you have no idea what you are talking about.

How could anyone miss the WTC towers? The terrorist pilot was trained to use VORs. He dialed in a frequency in a box he studied, and the arrow pointed to NYC; you line up the arrow, and you end up in NYC.

Too easy, except for 911 truth followers, who can't drive, fly, or think for themselves.

24. The unlikely idea of inexperienced pilots being able to navigate a passenger jet with such precision. ...

Precision? They were bad pilots, and did nothing with precision.

They crashed. Crashing is the easiest flying you can do, it takes no skill.

No skill is required to crash a jet into a building.

25. How cellular phones worked in 2001. ...

Cell phones did work on 911; I used cell phones in flight before, they work. However there are many problems using cell phones in flight.

Let me repeat, there is no technical reason cell phones can't work in flight. But like real life, no cell towers, no work.

However, on 911 most the calls lasting for any usable time, were seat-back phones.

BUSTED.

26. "Hi, Mom. It's me, Tod Beamer." Who says this? "Let's roll!" Uh-huh. ...

I talk on the phone to my mom exactly like Tod Beamer.
BUSTED

If, in the end, it turns out that planes were really hijacked on 9/11 and flown into various targets on the east coast, ...

They were. Rational people know this as a fact. Is your fantasy stopping you from understanding reality?

I will retract all my statements about no planes and apologize for wasting everyone's time on that issue. ...

Please apologize for making fun of the murdered passengers. Now.

It wouldn't change my main body of work. ...

You fantasy is safe, you don't recognize evidence, you don't do physics, etc.

I've been studying the damage to the World Trade Center, not anything about planes. ...

Two aircraft did the damage to the WTC. You are making up lies about the WTC damage, not studying.

The ONLY reason I ever talk about planes is because other people bring it up.

You imply there were no planes. RADAR proves you wrong. Did you check the RADAR data? Did you talk the ATC controllers? Pilots?

 

[WTC Dust]

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

It's a critical factor. Not the only factor.

 

[WTC Dust]

Are you saying that meat is stronger than aluminum?

Nope. That a meat bird can destroy an aluminum wing of an airplane.

 

[WTC Dust]

The plane wasn't destroyed? Are you kidding?

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

Videos don't show any type of damage to the plane-like object at the south face of WTC 2.

 

[WTC Dust]

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?

LOL

You're saying they build skyscrapers out of steel instead of aluminum
because steel is cheaper than aluminum? LOLOLOLOL

 

[WTC Dust]

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.





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





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

They haven't been effectively refuted, yet.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Are you in the TV Fakery camp?

 

[Resume]

Videos don't show any type of damage to the plane-like object at the south face of WTC 2.

Other than it bursting into flames upon impact.

Plane-like object, that's rich.

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Ah, but a real plane would have broken apart at the south face of WTC 2. No unambiguous evidence of this is on ANY of the videos of 9:03AM.

 

[Resume]

They haven't been effectively refuted, yet.

You'd have to coherently propose them first.

 

[Resume]

Ah, but a real plane would have broken apart at the south face of WTC 2. No unambiguous evidence of this is on ANY of the videos of 9:03AM.

Stop with the Roadrunner cartoons already.

 

[WTC Dust]

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

Hey! We agree on something. The planes weren't photoshopped in!

I say the planes were faked. Faux planes. Real video.
You probably say they were real planes, but you can't show any plane
debris at the south face of WTC 2. So I'm winning this one.