Natasha_thompson wrote

And I refuse to accept any longer, a theory that requires me to believe that lightweight aluminum aircraft, can fly right through steel reinforced concrete buildings, and the media is somehow now trustworthy.

Can you show me one example of that occurring other than the fake 911 footage?

I am just asking politely. Is it possible, that you are just not yet able, to shake off media conditioning?

It has been shown time and time again yet you have yet to aknowlege it. The case of the bomber flying in to the Empire State Bldg and both engines flying clean through the other side.

Why do you ignore this and keep asking for proof that a plan can fly through a building?

Originally posted by selfless
Spawwwn,

Your post is irrelevant with what I was saying.

I was not talking about velocity, I was talking about the material the plane is constructed with.

Of course velocity plays a part. It also plays a part when a bird trashes completely the nose cone or the wings of a plane.

But see that's the attitude i don't understand. The arguement that a plane couldn't cut through steel was being offered as a reason why this "fakery" supposedly exists. Your statement was revelevent to the subject being discussed. It was a good lead in to the point i was trying to make.

Even if you feel misquoted, calling my post irrelevent and completley dismissing the science without looking at the reasoning behind it, makes me think that ultimately you just didn't like what i had to say. The speed at which the planes crashed into the building would compromise the steel, and therefore the overall structure.

This is supposedly about "fake" planes and TV trickery, so i'm not quite sure what you're gripe is.

Spawwwn,

It's very simple.

I was only saying that he was over exaggerating how tuff a plane is, nothing else.

Even the center core of a plane is not that tuff, I'v seen wings pierced through by large birds.

This is why I even said on purpose (regardless of 911)

All I was pointing out is that a plane is solid but not as tuff as some people make it out to be.

There is a misconception on how tuff some planes are.

It's you guys who made a big deal out of this.

I was trying to avoid this, but you guys had to make it out to be something it was not about.

No, you're right selfless. They're not NEARLY as tough as we claim. That's why there's no way the B-25 went through the Empire State Building, or the C-130 that crashed in Tehran destroyed those buildings, or the El Al 747 in Amsterdam caused that much devastation. You keep saying "thin skin" and completely IGNORE everything UNDER the skin. Yes a bird can punch through the SKIN, but IT DOESN'T DAMAGE THE MAIN SPARS. You may see a bird go through the skin on the nose, but it DOESN'T GO THROUGH THE BULKHEAD that's behind the nose.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You keep saying "thin skin" and completely IGNORE everything UNDER the skin.

I am beginning to think that you aren't even reading my posts.

I never even once said the word (thin skin), that's all you.

Originally posted by selfless
Ridiculing theories is not denying ignorance.

I'm not denying ignorance, I'm merely not acknowledging insanity

how can anyone rationally argue that all of us in NYC that sat and stared didn't see what we saw? that a handfull of people watching on the tv are right and the folks that WERE THERE AND SAW IT ALL, WITHOUT THE TV, are wrong?

do you have any idea how moronic that sounds? deny ignorance? no, deny stupidity.

Then please selfless, if they're strong enough to penetrate the buildings, HOW am I over exaggerating how strong they are? I've never said that they would withstand the impact against anything. You keep talking about how birds can penetrate the wings, but yet you don't seem to differentiate between skin and structure. Please, if you say planes are strong enough to penetrate steel, and I'm showing how they're strong enough to go through steel just HOW have I over exaggerated anything?

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by selfless
Ridiculing theories is not denying ignorance.

I'm not denying ignorance, I'm merely not acknowledging insanity

how can anyone rationally argue that all of us in NYC that sat and stared didn't see what we saw? that a handfull of people watching on the tv are right and the folks that WERE THERE AND SAW IT ALL, WITHOUT THE TV, are wrong?

do you have any idea how moronic that sounds? deny ignorance? no, deny stupidity.

They say that technology is actually at least 100 years more advanced then what is known to the general populations.(This is speculations)

For all we know they could have holograms that have a temporary physical mass and can produce sound.(speculations)

I'm not saying that's the case and I'm not saying there is such technology out there but to deny the possibility that this kind of technology exists would be a false statement and an assumption.

Yes, such technology is speculation but it doesn't mean it's impossible, right?

Again, don't jump all over me just because I'm offering possibilities as to why it could be possible there were no passenger planes, I am just a person like all of you who keeps an open mind and won't ridicule a theory even if it doesn't' fit my agreement perception.

I'm pasting in a post I made in one of the other no plane threads, as it fits here very well. This is a post to those on here that are now saying that a plane could not have penetrated the WTC buildings...you know who you are...

Killtown, et all, may I ask you, why do you continue to argue a point when it has been debunked for the last 3 pages of this thread. Time after time people have posted messages that show that a plane could penetrate the whole building, even a smaller plane as in the Empire State Bldg incident.

Please do some research into physics, as many others have seemed to have done in this (and all your other threads dealing with the same SUBJECT) Then come back to us and try to give a good explanation as to why planes could not penetrate the WTC or other bldgs.

Your posts come off as someone grasping at straws trying to hold on to an assinine theory that has been shown to be wrong on so many levels in ALL YOUR THREADS that your theory of "no planes", "holograms", "faked video" and "brainwashed witnesses" seem to be no more than a teenagers attempt to cause mayhem on what, IMO, is a very well founded, and grounded website, namely ATS.

I don't think the masses that really care about the truth of 9/11 or even the commen laymen that has a bit of interest in the turth of that day can fathom the trivial arguments you prestent daily on the subejct can take you the least bit seriously after you argue points that have been shown to be false in every way.

Please, tell us what the point of your arguments are!?!?! As I, for one, can't comprehend why you continue on with your theory after being disproven again and again.

Perhaps I do understand, as I was young once and took pleasure in getting other's to argue even though I knew I was wrong. Kudos to you if that is the case. We have all been there, and done that, but I think this topic might be a little too serious for this type of behaviour.

If I am wrong, and you are not "younguns" just having a "moment", forgive me...then again, if you are adults, with a sound mind, God help us.

I, for one, am done with your threads, as it seem you are set in your ways and will not listen to reason.

Have at it, and argue till the cows come home (I'm a country gal and can't help but say that), but I encourage all reasonable people on ATS to dismiss this wholeheartedly, and not give these "people" the ammunition to continue this, and their other theories (although I think they have one theory and are bombarding ATS with it) any merrit, as it has been shown to be ridiculous, false and assinine.

Do not feed the wild animals, as they will come back for more and more, to the point where they break thought the fence (like the planes broke through the bldgs on 9/11)

;-)

Cheers all, even those who believe there were no planes crashing into buildings on 9/11. I would love to debate you more, but I have more important things to do, and more posts on ATS to discuss in an intelligent manner, so carry on, debate subjects that defy physics, video, witnesses, and scientific data to your hearts content. I will be no part of it....

...Unless I get bored one day and decide to contribute again.

Salut!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Then please selfless, if they're strong enough to penetrate the buildings, HOW am I over exaggerating how strong they are?

I just thought you were exaggerating in the tone of your post how tuff an airplane is, that's all.

I'm sorry that I brought it up, I admit that I could have just not said anything.

Im not a plane construction expert but ill bet they are light and just strong enough to fly. And it would seem to me that the steel building took the same force of impact as the plane. And aluminum is not as strong as steel but to me that doesnt mean aluminum wont cut through steel. Doesnt weird things happen during tornados like straws through light poles. (Im sure there is a better example than that)

yeah but selfless, even if we are overestimating a planes resiliance, it still would gain force and be able to pentrate the steel because it was being propelled like a moving bomb.

Bullets shatter and break when they enter a human, however bullets by themselves are not very tough. It would be hard to push a bullet through a person with your hand, just like it would be hard to drive a car through a brick wall at 5 MPH. However the reason they kill people is because they are propelled at an extreamly high rate of speed. The velocity concept applies to the plane the exact same way.

It was a comment to disprove the general idea that the plane would not have been strong enough, to be able to cut the steel.

Originally posted by selfless
I am just a person like all of you who keeps an open mind and won't ridicule a theory even if it doesn't' fit my agreement perception.

so then you are willing to accept the possibility of a soul catcher on the far side of the moon? willing to not only accept the possibility but to actually be able to argue in its favor?

it's one thing to say holograms are possible. it's a totally different one to say that a hologram was produced that was visible from every conceivable angle in the area and that every single person was fooled except for 6 or so people, one of whom (bsregistration) claims to have a girlfriend who was not duped by the hologram and actually saw a missile.

yeah, that's the ticket.

Originally posted by Spawwwn
It was a comment to disprove the general idea that the plane would not have been strong enough, to be able to cut the steel.

And yet it was quoted from my post because you assumed that i meant that.

I never said that the plane could not penetrate a building, look back and see for your self.

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by selfless
I am just a person like all of you who keeps an open mind and won't ridicule a theory even if it doesn't' fit my agreement perception.

so then you are willing to accept the possibility of a soul catcher on the far side of the moon? willing to not only accept the possibility but to actually be able to argue in its favor?

it's one thing to say holograms are possible. it's a totally different one to say that a hologram was produced that was visible from every conceivable angle in the area and that every single person was fooled except for 6 or so people, one of whom (bsregistration) claims to have a girlfriend who was not duped by the hologram and actually saw a missile.

yeah, that's the ticket.

Why do you associate bsregistration with me? Why do you associate the John Lear theory with me and this thread?

Why is it so hard to speculate that such a hologram could be in existence?

Remember that the people once thought the planet wasn't round because they were not yet aware of it.

And please stop talking to me in absolute like I am a person who's convinced there were no planes, I never said it was the only possibility.

Yes people, please do not lump Selfless in with many of the other people in this thread that say there were no planes and that even if there were planes, they could not have penetrated the bldg.

Although I don't agree with many of his posts, at least he has an open mind and does look at all evidence presented when making a point, unlike others.

Thank you very much sensfan for your consideration.