FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Did Large Airliners Really Hit the Buildings on 9/11?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:03 am    Post subject: Did Large Airliners Really Hit the Buildings on 9/11? Reply with quote

I hate to say it but I no longer believe that commerical airlines hit the WTC towers... I did for a very long time, and then I learned about Dr. Judy Wood and her amazing research, and it raised enough questions in my mind to start re-examining my belief that planes did hit the towers. Now, I honestly think it was something other than a major airliner.

1. One reason that I question whether or not commercial airliners hit the towers is because:

Softer elements cannot cut through harder elements, thus...

...Aluminum CANNOT cut through steel, just like copper does not cut through diamond (FACT).

...but Steel CAN cut through Aluminum. (FACT).

In fact, BIRDS can even cut through Aluminum (see below).



So, for those of you that have been assuming that aluminum can some how cut through steel, I now have a question for you:

If birds can cut through aluminum (as seen in the picture of the aluminum airplane that hit a bird), does that mean birds can cut through steel?

It is commonly known in chemistry that harder elements can cut through softer elements, but not the reverse. The "hardness" of a material is classified using Mohs Scale, which explains how 'harder' materials can scratch / cut 'softer' materials, but not the other way around. See here: http://chemistry.about.com/od/geochemistry/a/mohsscale.htm and here: http://www.jewelry-secrets.com/Other/Whats-The-Mohs-Scale-Of-Hardness/ The-Mohs-Scale.html

This is why Diamond, one of the hardest materials of all, is used in the toughest situations, because it cuts through most everything since it is one of the hardest materials known.

Aluminum is much softer than Steel, therefore, Aluminum cannot cut through Steel, just like Copper cannot cut into Diamond.

I learned this in junior high school Chemistry, and it was a basic concept that was used over and over again throughout highschool and college chemistry courses.


There are a few exceptions I know of, one of which is when water is highly focused and sprayed at high velocity to cut through metals. They often add abrasive elements to the water to assist with cutting. The water has to be focused into a very narrow beam though so that all of the pressure is applied to a very small area, and the water has to be accelerated to 900+ miles per hour. see here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

Another exception is when a lead bullet pierces through harder metals, but as with the water exception, this is because the lead bullet exerts its pressure on a very small surface area, striking at a very extreme velocity.


2. Another reason is because many of the hijackers have been reported to be alive and well.

See here:

1. http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm

2. http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/identities.html


3. Another reason I believe commercial airliners did not hit the towers is because many videos have shown some type of infrared light-targetting mechanism on the WTC buildings as the "plane" approached, which is characteristic of a large cruise missile of some kind. Here, see the light for yourself:

1. Laser Targeting UAV, Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4BJ89Df5Q

2. ABL Laser spotting and fly by wtc I jet impact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9z15bgkoy4


And here is just one of several types of remote piloted cruise missiles which could have been used: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-86c.htm

4. And here is another reason, relating to video footage that has not really been closely examined by the mainstream media:

Chopper 5 & the Missing Shadow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYQHD69ojGY


5. And here is yet another reason I have been questioning the official airlinre story, after seeing how easy it is to create a fake airliner impact using computer technology:

9/11 Ghost Plane Theory - Digital Computer Recreation of WTC Plane Impact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWZyXRuz1Uk


I'm not saying I know exactly what happened, I just see too much evidence contradicting the "airliner" story to accept it without a doubt.

It seems that the criminals behind 9/11 are getting us to hate terrorists AND hate our government, by blaming the "hijackings" on terrorists and blaming 9/11 on our government. I think the reality of the situation is that the "terrorists" behind 9/11 are trying to blame everyone else so that they can get away with the 9/11 attacks and use 9/11 to bring about the police-state they desire within the USA.

Please let me know your thoughts,


-Abe

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com


Last edited by PookztA on Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:19 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
insidejob
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 471
Location: North London

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:45 am    Post subject: Controversial topic Reply with quote

This is a controversial topic that has been much discussed on this site.

Those opposed to No Planes believe the theory is deliberate disinformation that will make the movement look ridiculous. They tend regard evidence of no planes as deliberate fraud. They regard an alternative explanation for a No Plane evidence as proof of fraud.

The most well known advocate of No Planes is:
September Clues
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550#docid=-6407 548186293238834

And arguments against it is:
September Clues Busted
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550#

Would be interesting to hear your views on Busted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kbo234
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:20 am    Post subject: Re: Controversial topic Reply with quote

insidejob wrote:

Those opposed to No Planes believe the theory is deliberate disinformation that will make the movement look ridiculous. They tend to regard evidence of no planes as deliberate fraud.


Quite.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2545
Location: One breath from Glory

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe they were specially adapted drone planes as brought up in the 1960s Northwoods Document.
Maybe the DEW had weakened the steel prior to impact Twisted Evil

_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, was wondering when you'd get round to the no planes issue.

The aluminium does not cut through steel. The buidlings act like giant cheese graters basically, shredding the planes to pieces as they hit the buildings.

You've pointed out the lesser integrity of aluminium yourself above.

The holes in the buildings left by the planes were caused by the engines, landing gear etc.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Did Large Airliners Really Hit the Buildings on 9/11? Reply with quote

PookztA wrote:
I hate to say it but I no longer believe that commerical airlines hit the WTC towers... I did for a very long time, and then I learned about Dr. Judy Wood and her amazing research, and it raised enough questions in my mind to start re-examining my belief that planes did hit the towers. Now, I honestly think it was something other than a major airliner.

1. One reason that I question whether or not commercial airliners hit the towers is because:

Softer elements cannot cut through harder elements, thus...

ffs this is just taking the piss....

you seem to have run out of pre-prepared spam on the subject of judy wood's absurdities, so it's predictable that you've moved on to some pre-prepared spam on the npt/tv fakery bs, which (surprise, surprise) has been posted here hundreds of times before.

were you born yesterday? Rolling Eyes

I know that trying to reacquaint you with the real world is almost certianly a waste of time, but I have to tell you that what you're saying is 100% wrong.

I also know that with you guys, the fact that you're 100% wrong is not something that ever bothers you or stops you from continuing to repeat the same old garbage ad nauseam - but as has already been explained countless times - how objects behave in collisions depends on a lot more than what they are made of.

just as small birds can damage large planes, so can planes damage large buildings.

under the right circumstances water can cut through steel (metal cutters that have been used in industry for years use highly concentrated jets of water), ice can cut through steel (or the Titanic wouldn't have sunk) etc....

the outer facade of the wtc consisted of hollow sections of steel that were joined together.

the idea that an object with as much momentum as the 2 planes that hit the towers couldn't overcome the bolts and welding holding the sections together is just plain daft really, but I guess if you believe in beam weapons that can dustify steel being fired at the WTC from orbit I guess you'll believe anything....

and I see that you've also simultaneously posted exactly the same thing on hundreds of forums as usual. how do you find time to sleep dude?

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
satya
Banned
Banned


Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Posts: 107

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i believe it was remotely controlled cargo planes with bombs aboard.
Go watch 911 in plane site

_________________
Think for yourself....Question Authority
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2545
Location: One breath from Glory

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

satya wrote:
i believe it was remotely controlled cargo planes with bombs aboard.
Go watch 911 in plane site


Could be but still planes

_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is this proof that a plane can impact through steel and leave what many no-planers, tvf'ers belive are cartoon cut-out shapes of planes?



The USS Hinsdale...

Incidentally, on 11 September 1974 she was withdrawn from the Reserve Fleet and sent to the breaker's yard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hinsdale

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fish5133 wrote:
Maybe they were specially adapted drone planes as brought up in the 1960s Northwoods Document.
Maybe the DEW had weakened the steel prior to impact Twisted Evil
the towers were actually knocked to the ground by a massive invisible holographic banana.

if you disagree - prove me wrong! Twisted Evil

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

new info to add to the discussion:

It is commonly known in chemistry that harder elements can cut through softer elements, but not the reverse. The "hardness" of a material is classified using Mohs Scale, which explains how 'harder' materials can scratch / cut 'softer' materials, but not the other way around. See here: http://chemistry.about.com/od/geoche.../mohsscale.htm

This is why Diamond, one of the hardest materials of all, is used in the toughest situations, because it cuts through most everything since it is one of the hardest materials known.

Aluminum is much softer than Steel, therefore, Aluminum cannot cut through Steel, just like Copper cannot cut into Diamond.

I learned this in junior high school Chemistry, and it was a basic concept that was used over and over again throughout highschool and college chemistry courses.

There is one exception I know of, which is when water is highly focused and sprayed at high velocity to cut through metals. They often add abrasive elements to the water to assist with cutting. The water has to be focused into a very narrow beam though so that all of the pressure is applied to a very small area, and the water has to be accelerated to 900+ miles per hour. see here:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PookztA wrote:
new info to add to the discussion:


Discussion?

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PookztA wrote:
new spam that I've copied and pasted

more spam (surprise surprise)!

and again - you're not prepared to really discuss anything, and what you're saying is 100% wrong (surprise surprise).

material strength is a factor in determining how much force is required to overcome an object - but with enough momentum any object can break through any other.

please explain how ice can penetrate steel when a ship strikes an iceberg. ice isn't even as dense as water, so steel is definitely harder than ice - right? so according to you it would be impossible for ice to cut through steel....

and water can be used to cut through all kinds of metals without abrasives.

it's not an exception to any rule, if you understand physical laws - which you clearly don't.

if you think about the strength of the welding and bolts joining together the individual sections of the outer facade of the wtc on the one hand - and the force that is applied by the impact of a 747 going at high speed, and how long that force will be applied for, given that the plane is over 200 feet long, then there can only be one winner.

in the real world anyway.

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
satya
Banned
Banned


Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Posts: 107

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I heard a very valid comment yesterday about a b98 bomber hitting the empire state building and no severe damage......
_________________
Think for yourself....Question Authority
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know that a B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building in the 1940s, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high.

but whether or not a moving object can penetrate a stationary structure will depend mainly on how much force is required to so and whether or not the moving object has sufficient momentum to impart such a force.

that's why you can't make direct comparisons between different collisions.

however, one thing you can definitely say is that the "mohs scale of hardness of minerals" mentioned by PookztA above has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how objects behave in collisions - and his general claim that a "softer" object could never penetrate a "harder" object is complete bs.

maybe he didn't realise that he'd disproved this claim himself when he said....

PookztA wrote:
BIRDS can even cut through Aluminum

on the other hand, maybe he'll come back and explain how birds are actually harder than aluminium, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.... Laughing

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hatsoff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 173
Location: liverpool; the city that speaks out, always, scouseland, in the island formerly known as the UK

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
Is this proof that a plane can impact through steel and leave what many no-planers, tvf'ers belive are cartoon cut-out shapes of planes?



The USS Hinsdale...

Incidentally, on 11 September 1974 she was withdrawn from the Reserve Fleet and sent to the breaker's yard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hinsdale


the text that should accompany the photo
The ship was holed in three places: A seven foot hole in the engine room at the water line caused by the engine and fuselage to which it is believed was attached a bomb which was the first explosion, a ten inch hole in the engine room about 2 feet above the water line caused by a bomb which was later discovered as a dud, and a four foot hole in Compartment A-304-EL a crew's berthing space, caused by a bomb which was the second explosion

incidently steel plates on ships hulls are 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick

_________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good people to do nothing.
Edmund Burke


Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.
Einstein


golden ratio


mass and gravity both exist only as a means to acheive mathematical self-embedding of everything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
insidejob
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 471
Location: North London

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:35 pm    Post subject: Insult or argument Reply with quote

As you can see. Insults and abuse tend to be a prime argument used by those hostile to the No Plane/TV Fake Theory.

No one should be fooled or bullied into thinking that there is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, of no passenger planes or TV fakery.

A lot of work has been done to substantiate No Plane. Anthony Lawson’s and Nick Irving’s work - http://www.truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf
barely compares with Ace Baker’s,
http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page

One examines evidence, produces calculations and argues that a proposition cannot be the case. The other comes up with unsubstantiated guesses as alternative explanations and then passes this off as proof.

Responding to September Clues criticism of the missing plane in the Fox News Chopper 5 very long shot, Irving states:

‘• When the plane is not visible in the wider-shot, this could be due to it being obscured by clouds and/or smog, or simply because the plane is not in-frame yet.
• Safeguards – to ponder whether they had safeguards is begging the question, as it assumes as
a premise that some act of fakery was taking place. This has not been proven.
• To declare that the “Safeguard was 17 seconds” is again begging the question. It has not been established that there were computer operators, a safeguard, or that it is the reason for the 17 second gap between the seismic records and the official version events.
This point, as presented by “September Clues”, is all speculation and does not constitute evidence of any act of “‘TV Fakery’”.’

Lawson presents no evidence to show that the plane was there or that there was a good reason that it wasn’t there. He does not show that it was obscured by clouds or smog. In Lawson’s ’September Clues Debunked’, he presents a still of a smudge as the plane.

Ace Baker present 960 words to argue no plane. Some of those state:

‘The nose of the plane enters at frame 407 (fig. 7) and is about to touch the edge of the tower in frame 423 (fig.Cool. From frame 407 to frame 423 is a time span of 16 frames, during which the plane covers the distance indicated by the red arrow (fig. Cool. 16 frames x 26 = 416 frames, so we know that over 416 frames, the plane would cover 26 times the distance that it did in 16 frames. 416 frames earlier than frame 423 is frame 7.’

Baker does some calculation and makes reference to an official theory supporter who cannot discredit the calculations.

One, both could be wrong. But who has done more work to support their argument?

Lawson was most celebrated for his ‘nose out’ critique. He says September Clues distorted the TV images to make it look as if the object exiting the second tower after the crash was the nose of the airplane. One problem with Lawson’s argument – if it was real what was it? Lawson simply ignores the issue.

Baker suggests:
‘Thus, the totality of the video evidence is completely inconsistent with Pinocchio’s Nose being any real event. The solid objects are ruled out because there is no exit wound, because steel/titanium objects can’t burn up, and because the apparent object is too big. The dust explosion is ruled out because it cannot maintain its shape in the face of a 300 mph headwind, nor can it explode. Both are ruled out because the various videos are completely inconsistent with one other, some showing a metallic object, others showing dust.’

And although, Lawson and Irving reject any media manipulation, the evidence is fakery is in their own work. In page 3 of Irving’s work, there is a still shot of the second plane heading toward the second tower. Smoke from the first tower is blowing in the direction from which the plane is coming, the right. Yet, on page 7, there’s another still of the plane, in the right of the shot, heading toward the second tower. But the smoke heading to the left.

So, did the smoke suddenly change direction and blow the other way? Did two planes crash into the second tower? Or is this evidence of TV fakery?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Insult or argument Reply with quote

insidejob wrote:
So, did the smoke suddenly change direction and blow the other way? Did two planes crash into the second tower? Or is this evidence of TV fakery?

this really is getting boring....

what I see repeatedly is that proponents of tv fakery first of all blindly ignore the overwhelmingly implausible requirements of such a scenario (all the videos and photos were faked by the perps with active involvement from all the media outlets covering the events, and all the eyewitnesses are wrong/lying/being mind-controlled by the perps, and all the physical evidence at the impact site - like the impact holes made by the planes - was somehow created in some other way by the perps, and the plane debris was all planted by the perps etc)....

Secondly, their "analysis" of the video evidence is generally faulty, inconclusive or deliberately dishonest ("september clues" for example, is a combination of all three).

Thirdly - they seem to be completely fooled by something as simple to understand as perspective - and by the fact that they are looking at a 2D representation of an event that actually happened in 3D (try looking at that smoke again and thinking about whether it really changes direction).

Fourthly - they make ridiculous claims which clearly demonstrate that they don't understand basic science or how things happen in reality (eg "aluminium can't penetrate steel").

but most characteristically - no matter how many times they are shown to be wrong, they ignore it and just carry on repeating the same stuff regardless. and it does get a bit annoying when "evidence" that has already been discussed to death and completely discredited gets brought up over and over again as if it's fresh information.

and just like Pookzta, you're dredging up stuff that's already been covered in great detail.

at least when Ace Baker was posting it himself a couple of years back we were getting it from the horse's mouth and it was still new - however unconvincing.

why not look up some old threads and you'll find the answers to your questions....

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2545
Location: One breath from Glory

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pooktza wrote
Quote:
. One reason that I question whether or not commercial airliners hit the towers is because:

Softer elements cannot cut through harder elements, thus...



How was the Grand Canyon formed?

_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hatsoff wrote:

the text that should accompany the photo
The ship was holed in three places: A seven foot hole in the engine room at the water line caused by the engine and fuselage to which it is believed was attached a bomb which was the first explosion, a ten inch hole in the engine room about 2 feet above the water line caused by a bomb which was later discovered as a dud, and a four foot hole in Compartment A-304-EL a crew's berthing space, caused by a bomb which was the second explosion

incidently steel plates on ships hulls are 1/4 to 1/2 inch thick


But you see the point. The bombless wings have impacted and left a clearly visible indentation.

The hull of a ship is a flat, sheer (unbroken) structure.

The WTC wasn't. It was primarily a tube (core column structure) inside another tube (outer walls)



The idea that the wtc 1 & 2 buildings were somehow impenetrable is a fallacy.



The towers were primarily lightweight steel structures with floors made of lightweight concrete, supported by light-trusses which were secured from the cores to the outer walls with light flexible fittings. They were built to flex and bend in a hurricane for example.





The sections were comprised of tubular columns. They were hollow. Welded and bolted (not flat and sheer like a ship's hull plating) and when the planes impacted they broke the welds and bolts and many of the pieces...



...simply gave way and broke off.



Dont forget that this picture is post-plane and the ensuing explosion.

Notice how the damage is in square sections, where the welds etc, simply gave way. Snapped basically.

It's not that the aluminium sliced through the steel as much as it was the steel pieces giving way, as they were designed to do.

They were designed that way, to take the impact of planes snapping and breaking various sections but leaving the rest of the structure intact.

As Frank DeMartini said, "the jet plane is like a pencil puncturing the screen netting, it really does nothing to the screen netting"


Link


That's not to say the building wont be left completely undamaged though.

insidejob...if you're still being deceived by September Clues then go right ahead, it's been found to be full of distortions and misdirection time and time again. Even on this forum.

I personally find it less likely that the big "faker-perps" would risk all the potential tourists with cameras etc taking photos and film of "no-planes" and that all the people that said they saw a plane were actors.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
insidejob
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 471
Location: North London

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:53 am    Post subject: Show me the evidence Reply with quote

What I’m saying is that there is a fundamental weakness in the anti-No Plane arguments. Their main strategy is to present an alternative hypothesis to dismiss a No Plane claim and then advance the hypothesis as proof. This is the same strategy that is used by defence counsel to support a client.

The counsel has to demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt in the claims of a prosecution counsel so that the case cannot be said to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. If the jury accepts there is reasonable doubt then the case is lost.

This is the main strategy of Lawson and Irving in regard to September Clues. But they suddenly flip a criminal case method to the level of scientific proof. There is an alternative explanation therefore September Clues is disinfo.

This is the bad faith method of those hostile to No Planes.

They then attach to their argument the notion that No Planes is backed by the Perps to undermine the 911 movement. This legitimates to hostile attitudes, impatience and attempts to silence and exclude No Planes.

In reality, the concern is more public relations than science. Yet, there is no circumstantial evidence to support the disinfo claim. The fact that the movement accepts no planes in two of the 911 incidents is an irony lost on them.

Then they drop the method of finding alternative arguments for individual No Plane claims to dismiss the approach and instead go for faith. They say:
i. well thousands of people saw the planes fly into the buildings
ii. they could not have manipulated the media.

No evidence is presented to substantiate either of these claims. Indeed, there is film of people in Midtown moments after the planes struck. Far from hundreds saying they saw it all, most people were clueless as to what happened. People say they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon but, unlike the Twin Tower witnesses, they were seeing things.

If this method were to apply to the 911 Truth Movement, then the movement should end all its campaigning now.

Where is the direct evidence that the debris from the ‘nose out’ incident was real?

Where is the direct evidence that explains why the TV images on 911 were poor when, presumably, most other images are not?

None is forthcoming. We are supposed to accept hypotheses as scientific law.

The reality is that the 911 Truth Movement depends on ‘balance of probabilities’ and circumstantial evidence. Given this, the movement is more credible than the official conspiracy theory.

Why is it different for No Planes?

No Planes could very well be wrong. The alternative hypotheses have validity. But why employ the disinfo tactic?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Show me the evidence Reply with quote

insidejob wrote:
What I’m saying is that there is a fundamental weakness in the anti-No Plane arguments. Their main strategy is to present an alternative hypothesis to dismiss a No Plane claim and then advance the hypothesis as proof. This is the same strategy that is used by defence counsel to support a client.


That may be true for some anti-no planers but for me, the emphasis is on the misdirection in something like S.C. I'm not an anti-no planer by the way. I just dont believe it has any credibility and I'll be the first to shout it from the rooftops if I'm ever convinced otherwise.

If the many examples of this are simply mistakes, then what kind of credibility can you really give the faceless simon shack?.

You yourself are commiting the bias you accuse the "anti-no planers" of. You are lumping everyone who disagrees with the no-plane stance in together. i.e. ...Some anti-no planers(in your opinion) do this or that, so that is true for all anti-no-planers and the whole anti-no plane stance.

Isn't it just better to look at the many examples of misdirection in S.C. itself?

For example, clips of different lengths are compared to prove that the clips are different and therefore fake..

Look here for example...

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15468

In S.C., the basic issue of perspective is completely ignored...

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=15790

Quote:
The counsel has to demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt in the claims of a prosecution counsel so that the case cannot be said to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. If the jury accepts there is reasonable doubt then the case is lost.


If you ask me that's exactly the method employed by shack and the rest of the mash-up squad. They edited witness testimony, compared clips of different lengths without the simple basis of perspective, they lead the case with very clever subliminal subtitles, to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of its viewers that there were no-planes on 9/11.

Quote:
In reality, the concern is more public relations than science. Yet, there is no circumstantial evidence to support the disinfo claim.


I believe there is. The above links are examples of the use of disinfo and misdirection. Anyone with the skill to employ slick leading-titles as found in S.C. and even a movie editing suite must realize the basic dimensional principle of perspective before they get started.

Quote:
The fact that the movement accepts no planes in two of the 911 incidents is an irony lost on them.


Not quite the same though is it? There is no evidence of planes at the other locations is there? There is however evidence of planes being at the WTC. Even beyond the video news footage of them. Eyewitness testimony and of course amateur footage and photos.

To simply say "well that evidence must be a giant fake because there is no evidence of planes at the other two locations" seems a rather backward approach to me.

Quote:
Then they drop the method of finding alternative arguments for individual No Plane claims to dismiss the approach and instead go for faith. They say:

i. well thousands of people saw the planes fly into the buildings
ii. they could not have manipulated the media.


Is it really faith to suggest many people saw the planes on 9/11. Even if you believe that there are not enough eyewitnesses that say this, what do you expect? A plethora of people like reporters and police running around making sure there were planes by asking people if they really saw them?

Many tend to forget that before the second plane, nobody was expecting the second. At that point, 9/11 hadn't happened. We're talking a pre-9/11 world.

They may have manipulated the media. I dont know honestly. But it just doesn't seem credible to me at the moment. I've tried to believe in the basis of S.C. but just found it to be full of mistakes or worse, misdirection.

Quote:
No evidence is presented to substantiate either of these claims.


There's no evidence whatsoever that witnesses saw a plane? Really? If I presented evidence here, would you say the eyewitnesses were just actors?

Quote:
Indeed, there is film of people in Midtown moments after the planes struck. Far from hundreds saying they saw it all, most people were clueless as to what happened.


Again you're forgetting that before the second plane strike no-one was expecting it. Again you're ignoring the issue of perspective. People would have been surrounded by massive buildings.

A simple retort would be where are the many witnesses saying there was no plane? Where is the footage of no plane hitting the buildings?

Sure you can post the Asian looking fellow saying "no second plane, it was a bomb!" to the unsuspecting reporter, but then if he's an unsuspecting reporter, where's the big media-fakery complicity here?

Why isn't that reporter in on it? Why has the footage been allowed on air and into the public domain?

Quote:
People say they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon but, unlike the Twin Tower witnesses, they were seeing things.


Some 9/11 truthers say that but not me. And I'm sure not all. Again one would have to ask, why didn't they just fake plane footage of the pentagon?

Quote:
Where is the direct evidence that the debris from the ‘nose out’ incident was real?


There is news footage of it exploding through the other side.

Quote:
Where is the direct evidence that explains why the TV images on 911 were poor when, presumably, most other images are not?


I think you're going on the footage used in S.C. which is not the original footage, it has been downloaded, probably converted and then rendered and re-uploaded. There is bound to be some loss of quality.

Quote:
None is forthcoming. We are supposed to accept hypotheses as scientific law.


Same goes when watching S.C.

Quote:
The reality is that the 911 Truth Movement depends on ‘balance of probabilities’ and circumstantial evidence. Given this, the movement is more credible than the official conspiracy theory.


Quote:
Why is it different for No Planes?


Because, as well as the flawed approach of S.C., the balance of probabilities is against no-planes.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
TonyGosling
Editor
Editor


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 15562
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are two fundamental weakness in the no plane arguments.
1. There has never, to my knowledge, been a convincing presentation of this hypothesis and
2. This sounds totally loopy and just puts the ordinary Joe totally off 9/11 Truth.

I think there has been a deliberate attempt to use no plane at the WTC thories to undermine the truth movement.

It's a powerful but simple meme muddling operation:

As we know there was no 767 at the Pentagon. What these Psychological Operation meme muddlers do is swap that for 'no plane at the WTC' and push it out as far and wide as possible through disinfo agents and the credulous.


insidejob wrote:
What I’m saying is that there is a fundamental weakness in the anti-No Plane arguments. Their main strategy is to present an alternative hypothesis to dismiss a No Plane claim and then advance the hypothesis as proof. This is the same strategy that is used by defence counsel to support a client.

_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Daniel Elliott
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 74

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1- Perhaps I'm just easily convinced.

2 - It has nothing but draw me further into researching the WTC.

Long live alternate views in the quest for the truth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
insidejob
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 471
Location: North London

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:43 pm    Post subject: Disinfo? Reply with quote

I'll look into the deliberate distortion of clips further.

But still, the 'no plane is a hoax to fool and undermine the truth movement' argument doesn't make much sense.

Most people who go along with the official theory believe that the idea that there were no plane at the Pentagon and Shanksville is bonkers.

And why the Perps are contradicting the official theory by coming up with disinfo that encourages people to believe there were no planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville is a little beyond me.

I also note the 'proof' that there was a perspective issue with the NBC 'dive bomber' shot and the Fox News flying level shot. Someone did some work to create a flight path that matched both. This was then presented as proof. Unfortunately, the proof practically cut the Fox News' level flight path in half. That is, the Fox level flight was too long to adequately reconcile it with the NBC dive bomber shot. I can't fault the person who did the exercise but it fails to prove that no plane is nonsense disinfo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glass is much harder than felt-coated rubber.

Steel is harder than lead.

So I need never worry that a tennis ball might break a window.

And Presidents and Popes are wasting their time bullet-proofing their limo doors.

I'm glad that's all cleared up Cool

_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

here is another reason I question the official airliner story, relating to video footage that has not really been closely examined by the mainstream media:

Chopper 5 & the Missing Shadow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i-pksWo-Y4

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dude - if you really are as sincere as you claim to be then why do you insist on behaving like a mindless spambot - ignoring the discussion you've started and posting more old spam that doesn't prove anything and has already been discussed a long time ago?

how about answering some of the questions you've been asked above, and re-assessing the value of what you originally posted before posting more spam?

for example - do you realise that "mohs scale of hardness of minerals" has absolutely nothing to do with how objects behave in collisions, and your belief that it does is completely wrong (and merely demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about)?

and if your beliefs are based on bs, then what exactly is the point of posting more of the same bs?

and do you really think that a bird is harder than aluminium? Laughing

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

here are 2 more reasons (added to the 1st post)...

4. And here is another reason, relating to video footage that has not really been closely examined by the mainstream media:

Chopper 5 & the Missing Shadow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYQHD69ojGY


5. And here is yet another reason I have been questioning the official airlinre story, after seeing how easy it is to create a fake airliner impact using computer technology:

9/11 Ghost Plane Theory - Digital Computer Recreation of WTC Plane Impact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWZyXRuz1Uk

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Godzilla is real...all you have to do is watch this clip and look...see...he's there...in the middle of a city...


Link

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group