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

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by WTC Dust
23. The extreme difficulty of navigating from Boston to NYC without the aid of air traffic controllers. ...

How about fly west till you see the Hudson, turn left, follow river south till you see NYC, aim at towers?
Are you really that daft?

 

[SUSpilot]

Until then, I guess it will remain a mystery. It will also remain a mystery as to why you think this is important, since there were no hijackings on 9/11.

Because this is your modus operandi. You make a series of points about which you know nothing, in this case that someone couldn't navigate a plane from Boston to New York, as proof of your "theory", and then deny, deny, deny when someone points out your logical fallacy.

BTW, I teach people how to do this in about two to three hours of ground and about one to two hours of flight time. It is something someone can self-study.

So will you now concede that it is possible? Or will you run away from it as it knocks yet another hole in your preconceived notions?

 

[Loss Leader]

No matter how the towers went down the preliminary hijacking scenarios had to play without a hitch.

It didn't. It played with a hitch. The 20th hijacker couldn't get into the country. One group was forced to go on with only four members. Then, these four guys lost control of their plane. The other teams of hijackers managed to kill hundreds of people each. These guys only killed forty.

Not only that, but they arguably had the highest value target of any team - the US Capitol. Can you imagine the political capital your imaginary evil conspiracy could have gained with the very symbol of American government destroyed?

 

[Skibum]

Are you saying that the WTC had really flimsy exterior walls? If so, that qualifies as a "weak building" bandaid.

You don't have a clue as to how buildings are designed/engineered do you? I'll give you a hint...they are not built to survive every possible situation.

But yes. The exterior walls were much, much, much, 'weaker' and 'flimsier' than you seem to think they were.

 

[Clayton Moore]

It didn't. It played with a hitch. The 20th hijacker couldn't get into the country. One group was forced to go on with only four members. Then, these four guys lost control of their plane. The other teams of hijackers managed to kill hundreds of people each. These guys only killed forty.

Not only that, but they arguably had the highest value target of any team - the US Capitol. Can you imagine the political capital your imaginary evil conspiracy could have gained with the very symbol of American government destroyed?

Nice try. So the neither the Pentagon nor the Capitol had any way of protecting itself from an approaching jetliner?

The military develops contingencies for many scenarios. Do you really think rogue aircraft were never considered?

 

[Skibum]

Nice try. So the neither the Pentagon nor the Capitol had any way of protecting itself from an approaching jetliner?

The military develops contingencies for many scenarios. Do you really think rogue aircraft were never considered?

considering a plane hit the pentagon i would have to go out on a limb and say no or at least not a very effective way.

 

[ehcks]

Nice try. So the neither the Pentagon nor the Capitol had any way of protecting itself from an approaching jetliner?

The military develops contingencies for many scenarios. Do you really think rogue aircraft were never considered?

Up until 9/11/2001, the way to deal with hijacked jetliners was to wait for them to land then surround them. Hijackers didn't tend to be suicidal. Killing everyone on board because someone wants money was a terrible idea.

After 9/11, a few things changed. Only now will we think about shooting down hijacked planes. Also, not many people will be stupid enough to hijack a plane when all they want are hostages.

 

[Dash80]

Nice try. So the neither the Pentagon nor the Capitol had any way of protecting itself from an approaching jetliner?

The military develops contingencies for many scenarios. Do you really think rogue aircraft were never considered?

The Pentagon is practically within spitting distance of an airport, planes fly near it all the time. How come the area isn't littered with the debris of aircraft shot down by these defenses you talk about?

 

[Craig4]

Nice try. So the neither the Pentagon nor the Capitol had any way of protecting itself from an approaching jetliner?

The military develops contingencies for many scenarios. Do you really think rogue aircraft were never considered?

I notice here that Moore confuses ill informed questions with evidence. Such a common CTer mistake. Such a simple rule really, if it ends with a question mark it's not evidence. Odd how people never get that.

 

[Wolrab]

Dust, you can not hand wave away the aircraft. They were real, so were the passengers and the hijackers. It is not a matter of what you believe, it is a matter of reality vs. your delusions.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

What is your reason for expecting an explosion at that point?

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.

And your qualifications for saying this?

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.

Not at 500kts

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.

Because it happens inside the building.

That ain't right. Aluminum isn't that strong. Airplanes are not that strong.

Incorrect. Airplanes are that strong.

An airplane would not remain intact throughout the collision.

It doesn't. It disintegrates inside the building.

The fragile wings of an airplane would not have made such perfect slices through steel beams.

What makes you think the wings are fragile? They are very strong, being able to carry the weight of the entire aircraft.

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.

No. The structure of the building makes all the difference.

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

Ahh. Fine. I can say the same for me. ... Bye, then.

Hans

 

[Clayton Moore]

What is your reason for expecting an explosion at that point?



And your qualifications for saying this?



Not at 500kts



Because it happens inside the building.



Incorrect. Airplanes are that strong.



It doesn't. It disintegrates inside the building.



What makes you think the wings are fragile? They are very strong, being able to carry the weight of the entire aircraft.


No. The structure of the building makes all the difference.



Ahh. Fine. I can say the same for me. ... Bye, then.

Hans

Those answers. One is worse than the other. Oh my goodness. SMH.

 

[twinstead]

Those answers. One is worse than the other. Oh my goodness. SMH.

Says you.

So explain what you would have expected to see if planes "really did" crash into the WTC buildings at 500 mph. What I saw was EXACTLY what I, and most rational people and what all the eye witnesses and physical evidence support, would expect to see in that situation.

 

[fess]

Nice try. So the neither the Pentagon nor the Capitol had any way of protecting itself from an approaching jetliner?

The military develops contingencies for many scenarios. Do you really think rogue aircraft were never considered?

Well, when I was in the military, we didn’t spend much time training on how to shoot down civilian aircraft flying within our borders.

 

[Loss Leader]

Well, when I was in the military, we didn’t spend much time training on how to shoot down civilian aircraft flying within our borders.

Based on my knowledge of video games, when the little red box turns green you press the enter key. The spacebar is for your machine guns.

 

[WTC Dust]

Up until 9/11/2001, the way to deal with hijacked jetliners was to wait for them to land then surround them. Hijackers didn't tend to be suicidal. Killing everyone on board because someone wants money was a terrible idea.

After 9/11, a few things changed. Only now will we think about shooting down hijacked planes. Also, not many people will be stupid enough to hijack a plane when all they want are hostages.

Not really. That's just what the hijacker conspiracy theory would have you believe.

 

[WTC Dust]

The Pentagon is practically within spitting distance of an airport, planes fly near it all the time. How come the area isn't littered with the debris of aircraft shot down by these defenses you talk about?

Because there were no planes hijacked on 9/11. At least you seem to be getting "the absence of evidence" concept. Good job.

 

[WTC Dust]

Dust, you can not hand wave away the aircraft. They were real, so were the passengers and the hijackers. It is not a matter of what you believe, it is a matter of reality vs. your delusions.

No they weren't.

 

[beachnut]

No plane fantasy nuts don't care about who is murdered

No plane nuts are like the people who murdered the people on 911 and murderers in Boston; they don't care about people. No plane nuts spread lies and hate their fellow humans.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/nyregion/911-tapes.html?_r=0

Betty Ong - she died on 911 - she gives her last words as evidence of hijacking, but it was not a hijacking it was murder.

No plane nuts can't figure this out, because they hate people. Despicable little people who are like those who plant bombs and murder people; sick.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html
Betty Ong's last words admitted as evidence during a trail.

No plane nuts can't join reality. They can't listen to the last words of Betty Ong - they prefer to spread lies and hate.

 

[WTC Dust]

Says you.

So explain what you would have expected to see if planes "really did" crash into the WTC buildings at 500 mph. What I saw was EXACTLY what I, and most rational people and what all the eye witnesses and physical evidence support, would expect to see in that situation.

Something similar to, but not identical to, the F4 crashing into a concrete wall.