A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories

Me · Post by Me » Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:26 am

New addition..........

Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 4 - October 2006

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume ... Salter.pdf

Fallious · Post by **Fallious** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:02 am

Very good stuff. I was only exposed to the 'no planes' theory a few days ago through this forum and it didn't make a bit of sense. This is an excellent debunking of the overall theory and key arguments made by proponents.

It's interesting to compare this with the debunking articles we are so often pointed too by OBL theory believers. Compared to Popular Mechanics, or the various Myth articles this is a shining light of how to source genuinely valuable debunking evidence. It also doesn't play the shameful game of personal attacks that the majority of 9/11 truth debunking articles resort to. Very interesting indeed.

CB_Brooklyn · Post by **CB_Brooklyn** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:09 am

Before believing Eric Salter's paper, read about the author here, and a debunk of his paper here.

Also read this paper by Dr Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:17 am

CB_Brooklyn wrote:Before believing Eric Salter's paper, read about the author here, and a debunk of his paper here.

Also read this paper by Dr Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter

Excellent points

I cannot believe that Scholars for Truth have allowed SALTER to print such disinformation - to do so leads me to believe that Scholars for Truth are NOT THE REAL ARTICLE THEY CLAIM TO BE

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:32 am

I can't claim to be an expert on Salter's material, though he has been discussed on this message board before:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... 0525#20525

I mainly commented on the language he used. I believe Prof Reynolds is or was going to do either a live or online debate with him and people "in his camp".

Part of the reason for the split in ST911 is because certain people were trying to dictate what were and were not valid threads of research. There is enough residual evidence on which to write valid scientific papers/articles to suggest something other than Big Boeings may have hit the WTC Towers. To suggest such research could not be included under the umbrella of ST911 is tantamount to thought control.

"Journal of 9/11 Studies" only includes Salter's paper. It could easily have included Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood's articles - but someone has deemed them unfit for peer review.

CB_Brooklyn · Post by **CB_Brooklyn** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:29 pm

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
Excellent points

I cannot believe that Scholars for Truth have allowed SALTER to print such disinformation - to do so leads me to believe that Scholars for Truth are NOT THE REAL ARTICLE THEY CLAIM TO BE

The Journal for 9/11 Studies, where Salter's paper was published, is run by Dr Steven Jones.

But Jones has already been exposed as a fraud.

TimmyG · Post by **TimmyG** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:26 pm

CB_Brooklyn wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
Excellent points

I cannot believe that Scholars for Truth have allowed SALTER to print such disinformation - to do so leads me to believe that Scholars for Truth are NOT THE REAL ARTICLE THEY CLAIM TO BE

The Journal for 9/11 Studies, where Salter's paper was published, is run by Dr Steven Jones.

But Jones has already been exposed as a fraud.

this is absolutely bonkers

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:19 pm

TimmyG wrote:
CB_Brooklyn wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
Excellent points

I cannot believe that Scholars for Truth have allowed SALTER to print such disinformation - to do so leads me to believe that Scholars for Truth are NOT THE REAL ARTICLE THEY CLAIM TO BE

The Journal for 9/11 Studies, where Salter's paper was published, is run by Dr Steven Jones.

But Jones has already been exposed as a fraud.
this is absolutely bonkers

Hi Timmy

I would be interested to know why you think it is bonkers

Snowygrouch · Post by **Snowygrouch** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:31 pm

This reminds me of a BBC documentary on a group of scientists who claim Steven Hawking is a fraud (note that his NOT their therories were accepted by the scientific community; read SOUR GRAPES).

Yep WHATEVER, just you try passing a bloody physics degree. The first year of engineering is hard enough, let alone a PhD.

What a load of utter ******** ****.

I`m bloody well off to critics corner.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:00 pm

Snowygrouch wrote:This reminds me of a BBC documentary on a group of scientists who claim Steven Hawking is a fraud (note that his NOT their therories were accepted by the scientific community; read SOUR GRAPES).

Yep WHATEVER, just you try passing a bloody physics degree. The first year of engineering is hard enough, let alone a PhD.

What a load of utter ******** ****.

I`m bloody well off to critics corner.

Snowy - you probably think that because Steve Jones is a nice guy he couldn't possible be a fraud - check the evidence about him and leave personalities out of it.

Snowygrouch · Post by **Snowygrouch** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:13 pm

Who said anything about NICE?????!??!?!?

I said try passing a physics PhD if you know jack-* about dilldy-squat.

I`m off to post a REAL example of 9/11 research.

I have NO IDEA why numerous people are even IN the "truth movement",
some seem to be REAL good at throwing mud and rather less inclined to dig in it. You get me?

I really dont know why I F****** bother I, really dont sometimes.

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:19 pm

SG,

I know it sounds like I am "going on", but I really recommend that those who read Salter's paper also read Prof Wood's, Prof Reynolds and Rick Rajter's articles. One of them has too many Ad Homs for my liking, but the evidence they present is, to me compelling (and some of it concerns Steve Jones directly):

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?pa ... have_holes

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?pa ... with_jones

http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?pa ... crash_myth

oops latter one is also link by CBB above!

Snowygrouch · Post by **Snowygrouch** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:19 am

Dear Andrew,
I`m a big fan and have a great affinity for your company and conversation; but on this ONE point alone I must I`m sorry to say violently disagree with your opinion on this.

I`ve read the links you provided and I am NOT impressed with Reynolds work here.

Example 1:

He shows photos of WTC beams bent "outwards", when in fact a close scrutiny reveals (as anyone who has studied the NIST reports knows) the WTC beams were covered by ALUMINIUM sheet panels. It is in fact THESE that lean outwards, the steel beneath is clearly bent INWARDS from the impact and the aluminium panels are simply hanging loose.

Example 2:

He states thermite is simply to melt through and thus does not really explain the large volume of moulten metal found.

Wrong!

The moulted metal is a PRODUCT of the thermite reaction, the base constituents form liquid iron. See below:

http://www.ilpi.com/genchem/demo/thermite/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our demonstration of magnesium burning inside a block of carbon dioxide, is a terrific example of an exothermic (heat evolving) and thermodynamically favorable reaction.
Another great example of a thermodynamically spontaneous reaction is the thermite reaction. Here, iron oxide (Fe2O3 = rust) and aluminum metal powder undergo a redox (reduction-oxidation) reaction to form iron metal and aluminum oxide (Al2O3 = alumina):

Fe2O3(s) + 2 Al(s) Al2O3(s) + 2 Fe(l)

This reaction is so exothermic that the iron is actually molten!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Already it is VERY obvious to me that Reynolds has NOT done his homework. He makes very far reaching comments like "the technology exists to paste in pixels real time". Thats one HELL of a short explanation of a theory. I`d prefer a little more detail there.

As far as I`m concerned this is a very blatant example of a human affliction that effects academics as much as anyone.

SOUR GRAPES.

His theories seem to be FAR more concerned with making Jones look bad than seriously addressing what I HAD thought we were all here for?>................

The truth

Sorry but Reynolds work is (in my eyes) a hastily constructed poorly researched document of finger pointing, jibes and pie in the sky.

Yes I know there are all sorts of Gov/Military labs with some crazy stuff but LOOK AT THE BLOODY HOLE IN THE BUILDING!!!!!!!

Anyone who can explain to me how to fake that hole in the WTC; I suggest you try.

Lets start fitting theory AROUND evidence, not the other way around.

CB_Brooklyn · Post by **CB_Brooklyn** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:22 am

SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 PLAGIARISM AND DISINFORMATION

PROFESSOR STEVEN JONES TRASHES THE DEMOLITION EVIDENCE

STEVEN JONES 'CIA MOLE' TO DISCREDIT COLD FUSION (15MB MP3 DOWNLOAD)

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:06 am

Snowygrouch wrote:Dear Andrew,
I`m a big fan and have a great affinity for your company and conversation; but on this ONE point alone I must I`m sorry to say violently disagree with your opinion on this.

I`ve read the links you provided and I am NOT impressed with Reynolds work here.

Example 1:

He shows photos of WTC beams bent "outwards", when in fact a close scrutiny reveals (as anyone who has studied the NIST reports knows) the WTC beams were covered by ALUMINIUM sheet panels. It is in fact THESE that lean outwards, the steel beneath is clearly bent INWARDS from the impact and the aluminium panels are simply hanging loose.

Example 2:

He states thermite is simply to melt through and thus does not really explain the large volume of moulten metal found.

Wrong!

The moulted metal is a PRODUCT of the thermite reaction, the base constituents form liquid iron. See below:

http://www.ilpi.com/genchem/demo/thermite/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our demonstration of magnesium burning inside a block of carbon dioxide, is a terrific example of an exothermic (heat evolving) and thermodynamically favorable reaction.
Another great example of a thermodynamically spontaneous reaction is the thermite reaction. Here, iron oxide (Fe2O3 = rust) and aluminum metal powder undergo a redox (reduction-oxidation) reaction to form iron metal and aluminum oxide (Al2O3 = alumina):

Fe2O3(s) + 2 Al(s) Al2O3(s) + 2 Fe(l)

This reaction is so exothermic that the iron is actually molten!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Already it is VERY obvious to me that Reynolds has NOT done his homework. He makes very far reaching comments like "the technology exists to paste in pixels real time". Thats one HELL of a short explanation of a theory. I`d prefer a little more detail there.

As far as I`m concerned this is a very blatant example of a human affliction that effects academics as much as anyone.

SOUR GRAPES.

His theories seem to be FAR more concerned with making Jones look bad than seriously addressing what I HAD thought we were all here for?>................

The truth

Sorry but Reynolds work is (in my eyes) a hastily constructed poorly researched document of finger pointing, jibes and pie in the sky.

Yes I know there are all sorts of Gov/Military labs with some crazy stuff but LOOK AT THE BLOODY HOLE IN THE BUILDING!!!!!!!

Anyone who can explain to me how to fake that hole in the WTC; I suggest you try.

Lets start fitting theory AROUND evidence, not the other way around.

Snowy what you are saying is incoherent
I
f you are defending Steve Jones then stick to the accusations against him and your rebuttal of them - quoting complex equations like Fe2O3(s) + 2 Al(s) Al2O3(s) + 2 Fe(l) is not going to convince anybody

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:25 am

My physics and hard evidence won't convince anybody, lets stick to speculation hey.

And also to say that people are rude to the no 7x7'ers is a bit of pot, kettle and black for anyone who read the emails to Stephen Jones and also the majority of the supporters posting here. All that is done is simply post more video clips that prove nothing and don't answer serious questions.

Snowygrouch · Post by **Snowygrouch** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:52 am

I see,
So we`ve got to the stage where quoting scientific fact is

"not going to convince anyone"

Nuff said to be quite frank.

Reynolds paper rubbishes Jones because he states the Thermite only CUTS; however the reaction actually PRODUCES iron too as a by-product.

FE is the chemical symbol for IRON.

Sorry if you think thats nonsense; trouble is, its scientific fact. Something reynolds seems to be wary of if his 'paper' is anything to go by.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:14 pm

Snowy - I think your in denial about Steve Jones

Snowygrouch · Post by **Snowygrouch** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:27 pm

WHATEVERRRRRRRRR

flamesong · Post by **flamesong** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:40 pm

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:Snowy - I think your in denial about Steve Jones

Very doubtful. But you are in denial about science.

Ally · Post by **Ally** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:44 pm

flamesong wrote:
THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:Snowy - I think your in denial about Steve Jones
Very doubtful. But you are in denial about science.

About aluminium fuselage's penetrating a steel reinforced structure and emerging out the other side?

That's junk science.

flamesong · Post by **flamesong** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:01 pm

I might not have a degree in physics but I did study it for five years at school and I spent a year training as an apprentice artificer. I remember that during my training we were shown a demonstration of a thin paper disc fitted to a fast motorised tool could be used to cut brick. So, the properties of materials are not necessarily fixed. Just as the properties of metals change when heated - so they change when at great speed.

The animation in your signature is disingenuous by virtue of its low resolution. It appears to show the aircraft's wings slicing through the building. In all liklihood, the wings are being sliced by the uprights in the building and entering in collectively in sections.

The fuselage will behave completely differently due to it's shape. The mass hitting the building per square metre would have been many times the mass hitting the building where the wings hit. It is unsurprising, to me at least, that part of the fuselage entered the building relatively intact, probably between floors, and some part of it exited the other side and was subsequently blown apart by the pursuing fireball.

I like the way you now don't just change the subject, Ally, you also change the thread.

wepmob2000 · Post by **wepmob2000** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:10 pm

The wings and the fuselage of the 767 are in essence two completely different structures melded together. The jobs they're designed to do are completely different, so one would expect their behaviour in an impact like this to also differ. The fuselage is a stressed skin structure where the external skin bears most stresses. Its an amazingly strong structure for its weight, and can easily bear the loads it is designed for. A reasonable analogy would be the strength of a carboard centre insert from a kitchen roll, stand it on its end and see how reletivetively strong it is when bearing a load in that direction.

Its quite possible for a portion of this fuselage to emerge from the other side of the building, especially if, as Flamesong says, it impacted between floors. That of course presumes we are seeing the fuselage emerging and not perhaps a dust-cloud or something else.

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 · Post by **THETRUTHWILLSETU3** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:36 pm

It's obvious the PTB want to stop us from finding out about their were no planes - there is probably something very sinister they are trying to cover up.

If you do a search on Google for NO PLANES THEORIES - guess which comes up as number 1.............................. SALTER ..... need i say more

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:07 pm

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:It's obvious the PTB want to stop us from finding out about their were no planes - there is probably something very sinister they are trying to cover up.

If you do a search on Google for NO PLANES THEORIES - guess which comes up as number 1.............................. SALTER ..... need i say more

well yes, if you want anyone to believe the nonsense you come out with. some evidence maybe?

mason-free party · Post by **mason-free party** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:11 pm

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/20 ... acked.html

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:14 am

Other posts about banning and personal arguments have been deleted

ALL: Please refrain from Personal Attacks. Do it by PM if you want. Keep it off the forum.

Try to stick to points of evidence all the time.

Andrew Johnson · Post by **Andrew Johnson** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:22 am

Snowygrouch wrote:Dear Andrew,
I`m a big fan and have a great affinity for your company and conversation; but on this ONE point alone I must I`m sorry to say violently disagree with your opinion on this.

Thanks very much SG - and I entirely reciprocate. I am in admiration of your achievements at the Uni.

Time will tell who is correct. I went through something of a "depressed state" when I realised that Morgan and Judy were almost certainly correct. It was difficult to swallow, especially as I had corresponded with Steve Jones and find him to be of pleasant demeanour. I very much dislike M & J's Ad Hom's in the paper they wrote, and wished that meant I could say they were incorrect and somehow ST911 had not split the way it did - but it's happened and I (we?) can't be in denial about the split.

I am still convinced about the basic validity of NBB, but rarely discuss it with people outside here, because it is very hard to swallow. Morgan and Judy's (and others) explanation of the anomalous evidence is the best I've seen, though I understand completely why people think it's nonsense (just as probably 90% of the population wouldn't accept CD of the towers). But I've said all this before.

seatnineb · Post by **seatnineb** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:45 pm

I don't want to draw definitive conclusions.....just give exposure to some interesting witnesses who did not see the plane....when their location should have allowed them to see the plane!

Also bear in mind that these witnesses gave their testimony within the 1st few days of 9/11.......

From the East:

Testimony of Victor Cruzate:

When I was back in the roof I saw just before my eyes the explosion on Tower 2. I didn't see the plane, nor did any of the other guys on the roof. We speculated for a few minutes. The only thing we could imagine was on of the wings of the first plane hitting the other tower and provoking the explosion, but that was very unlikely. Finally one of the people on the roof said: "The radio is saying that there was a second plane."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1537530.stm

And this is video footage shot by the same Victor Cruzate showing the angle he was viewing from(North East)
Video available at:
http://www.cruzate.com

Meanwhile onTV(but not shown LIVE)

From the West:

Testimony of David Thom:

After a while, I saw a huge fireball on the second tower -- being on the far side, I didn't see the plane and assumed a bomb or something had gone off.
http://www.tgeneva.com/~davethom/

And here is a photo taken by the same David Thom showing the angle he was viewing from(New Jersey):

Meanwhile on TV(but not shown LIVE)

[/quote]

Briaman · Post by **Briaman** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:56 pm

THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote: need i say more

If we're voting on this then my votes a definate No - you don't need to say anything more. Ever.

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories

Misleading infomation

Re: Misleading infomation

Steven E Jones exposed as fraud

Re: Steven E Jones exposed as fraud

Re: Steven E Jones exposed as fraud

Jones

Re: Jones

Jones

Reynolds

three more links

Re: Reynolds

Incoherant

Denial

Re: Reynolds