So now, after asking for data to back up the claim, are just going to ignore it? Whatever floats your boat I guess.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm mocking it.

Unfortunately you addressing apples and oranges with that picture of aluminum sheeting. I have yet to find definate proof (the original structural blueprints for the steelworks) that would say what grade the steel girders called for. My best guess would be ASTM A572 Grade 50. As it was the common spec for the time.

Grade 50 (the important number there) refers to the Ultimate Tensile Strength.....50ksi or 50000psi. In otherwords it would break before the T3 would under stress and strain. 20000psi less pressure in fact. The real difference is the thickness 1/4 -1/2 inch (more in the core box columns) which would shread the 1/8-1/4 inch T3.

So while the force of the impact would get through. That sudden deceleration would have reduced the force enough to slice the plane to ribbons like paper through a shredder. So I have my doubts of that being the nose poking out the building. Especially considering the tip of the nose is riveted on to the front of the cockpit as the last piece of the exterior. Even the wings are on by that point.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
How can anyone continue to believe these theories given the obvious deceptive techniques of the most active proponent?

The mistake they're making is in thinking their views are solely responsible for the sceptisicm they've received here. Whilst it's true their views are relatively unpopular, the truth is that it is their attitude and refusal to substantiate their claims that has left forum members feeling exasperated.

You excellent compilation of unanswered questions, MOS, is a case in point. Your repeated requests for proponents of the TV fakery theory to address them were met with more new equally dubious videos backed-up by newly registered recruits. I also feel it was unhelpful to continue to discuss TV fakery and no-plane theories as if they were essentially one and the same. They are not.

It's a shame Natahsa has gone; I believe she had something to offer outside of TV fakery and no-plane theories. Despite disagreeing with her about both, she and I appear to share the view (if an essay she wrote in 2003 is anything to go by) that we need to take a step back and look more broadly at the historical context in order to fully appreciate why 9/11 might have been a false flag operation.

Believe me, nobody is going to kill you for your outrageous belief that UFO's shot holographic planes thru the Towers.

Originally posted by Natasha_ThompsonI
I was in the middle of writing a response to Crakeur, being careful to choose my words in an attempt to make peace with her

I am many things. a she is not one of them.

Originally posted by Natasha_ThompsonI
I wish I were a better witness.

if you had been here and looked out a window or stood on the street and looked up, you would have been. using the videos that you use to back your outlandish claim, you are no longer a good witness. you are not using reality as your reference point.

peace can be made when you admit that the odds are pretty damned slim that we are all wrong and a few people who were not even here, are right.

selfless (I hope I'm not mangling the name, apologies if I am), I don't dispute the concept of there being the capability of producing a hologram. I am stating that I find it completely ludicrous to think that a hologram could be produced that would be viewable from every conceivable angle to fool every possible viewer in a several mile radius. it wouldhave been a travelling hologram that would need to be projected by something that would have to be moving too I guess, to cover all the ground it covered.

then there's the whole, where are the planes issue, where are the passengers, the phone calls from planes to family members etc.

there are way too many points that break the no planes theory to shreds and not one single bit of anything that might make the no planes thoery something even worth contemplating. it is that far fetched. that is why I brought the soul catcher in to the mix. you are saying that we don't know what tech is out there and, therefore, we should be willing to entertain almost any theory before shooting it down. using your logic, the soul catcher theory deserves attention before shooting it down.

I disagree. I think the soul catcher is more plausible and more likely than the no planes theory and I think the soul catcher is totally insane.

I have a few questions for the 'NO PLANE' theorists. Excluding the Hologram people since even they would actually have something flying that looked like a plane. But for the CGI folks.

I would like anyone of them to explain exactly HOW did the Military control every single camera in NEW YORK city and every Video?

How did they make it so that they alone would possess all the footage?, Since anyone can film something and then upload it somewhere or store it for a later date.

How did they make is so NO one would be filming of their own accord??

Please give me the answer to this question.

thnks





[edit on 9-6-2007 by talisman]

It's good to try to independently confirm events.

But, did anyone ever think of the possibility that discrediting the USA govt. might be a conspiracy?

Why are all of the conspiracies perpetrated by the the USA?

The USA govt. are not the only people with the ability to create conspiracies, nor are they the only government who manipulates its people.

I do believe the USA took advantage of what happened on 911 to manipulate us into a war.

Do you really think they would have taken time off from their ultra-rich lifestyles, yachts, country clubs, etc. to plot such a messy conspiracy? One that would potentially risk their wealth, status and poll ratings?

If the USA had such great powers, why wouldn't they have planned a better conspiracy, instead of the flimsy one proposed here?

If this really is a conspiracy, we don't have much to worry about since it would speak volumes of the capacity of our conspirators.



[edit on 9-6-2007 by Electro38]

After making it to page 7, my head is spinning, and certainly not from any earth shattering revelations, but about how truly lost the cause of 9/11 truth is. 16 pages debating whether or not planes hit the WTC based on nonsense "evidence", when there are far more solid facts and oddities of that horrid day that were the very cornerstones for people in the beginning to question the offical story? The real evidence has long been ignored because we have irrational space cadet loonies in the 9/11 truth movement completely derailing the whole thing. This nonsense of planes or no planes have totally overshadowed the REALLY important pieces of the puzzle: the airforce lack of response, especially to flight 77, the many witnesses to flight 93 getting shot down, the increase in put options in United and American airlines, Odigos warning message to employees, the cheering Israelis, the indestructable passports, the collapse of the twin towers and building 7, and so on.

It was these verifiable facts, not way out theories, that started the whole 9/11 question. Yet now the movement's loudest voices are cranks and charletans who are shouting thier silly theories with no solid evidence to back them up. We didn't need "no planes" to question the government's offical account. We HAD the evidence! yet that wasn't good enough for some crackpots, who basically have hijacked the movement totally.

Any wonder why I have totally distanced myself from 9/11 goof movement? In fact, I am beginning to wonder if the rumors are true, that these wack job theories popping up are directly from some government type disinformation campaign to deliberately muddy the waters of 9/11 investigation. Its looking more and more that way.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
After making it to page 7, my head is spinning, and certainly not from any earth shattering revelations, but about how truly lost the cause of 9/11 truth is. 16 pages debating whether or not planes hit the WTC based on nonsense "evidence", when there are far more solid facts and oddities of that horrid day that were the very cornerstones for people in the beginning to question the offical story? The real evidence has long been ignored because we have irrational space cadet loonies in the 9/11 truth movement completely derailing the whole thing. This nonsense of planes or no planes have totally overshadowed the REALLY important pieces of the puzzle: the airforce lack of response, especially to flight 77, the many witnesses to flight 93 getting shot down, the increase in put options in United and American airlines, Odigos warning message to employees, the cheering Israelis, the indestructable passports, the collapse of the twin towers and building 7, and so on.

It was these verifiable facts, not way out theories, that started the whole 9/11 question. Yet now the movement's loudest voices are cranks and charletans who are shouting thier silly theories with no solid evidence to back them up. We didn't need "no planes" to question the government's offical account. We HAD the evidence! yet that wasn't good enough for some crackpots, who basically have hijacked the movement totally.

Any wonder why I have totally distanced myself from 9/11 goof movement? In fact, I am beginning to wonder if the rumors are true, that these wack job theories popping up are directly from some government type disinformation campaign to deliberately muddy the waters of 9/11 investigation. Its looking more and more that way.

I agree with some of what you've said, but I'd also like to submit that our govt. could have saved themselves a lot of "conspiratory" trouble if they had just remembered 1992 when a single truck bomb almost took down the towers.

Had the US govt. remembered that they could have used that scenario as their new conspiracy template and saved themselves all of the trouble of controlling the airlines, aligning themselves with all of the co-conspirators and manipulating all of the video data collected independently throughout the city by officials, civilians, and multiple liberal (and conservative) news organizations.

They chose, instead of this simpler single truck bomb plan to execute their more risky, convoluted, multiple airplane, multiple video manipulation, reckless plot?

[edit on 9-6-2007 by Electro38]

Stop responding! It's all a diversionary disinfo campaign and they're succuss lies in every response and even read they're given.

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?

The problem with your statement is that the plane in question was not "lightweight". While made of, relatively speaking, lightweight components, the plane, fully loaded, weighed in the area of 266,000 lbs. which is by all accounts rather massive. Think of it as about 24 fully grown African elephants.

Corey Lidle of the NY Yankees flew his Cirrus SR20, a single engine piston airplane with a maximum speed of 200 knots (about 230 MPH) into a building in NY and did some extensive damage, this in a plane with a max landing weight of only 2900 lbs. Ample photos are avaible on the web.

Now the Boeing 767-200 series has a max weight 92 times greater than the Cirrus SR20. It has a maximum VNE (never exceed velocity) of 545 MPH, which by all accounts it was flying close to when it hit the building.

Now without getting into the tedious (yawn) and pedantic repetition of physical formulas from my copy of Physics for Dummies it boils down to the simple and indisputible fact that the plane would have gone through the skin of the building like the proverbial hot knife through butter.

As for the remark by the other poster regarding 9mm bullets and wondering why the gun nuts hadn't brought it up, well this "gun nut" didn't because its irrelevant. The typical 9mm bullet weighs somewhere between 118 and 147 grains (less than one ounce) and travels from the barrel at around 900 to 1100 feet per second (613 -750 MPH) depending on the load, length of the barrel, etc. To say this another way, the airplane was like a bullet weighing 4,256,000 ounces hitting the building at a velocity about 89% of a 9mm bullet.

Now it's true that a 9mm bullet will not easily penetrate 1/4 inch steel, however a .30 caliber bullet fired from a rifle will easily punch a nice neat hole in the same piece of steel. That 30caliber bullet is flying at about 2700 feet per second or so (depending on cartridge) and weighs about the same as the 9mm bullet.

The point here is that kinetic energy is a combination of mass X velocity. A bowling ball weighing many hundreds of times more than a bullet will only knock a bowling pin down because its just not going that fast. A bullet going 900 FPS will shatter the bowling pin. Now make the bowling pin go the same speed as the bullet and you will transform the bowling pin into match wood. The same goes for large and not so light weight airplanes flying into skyscrapers.

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 10/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Flyingdog5000

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?

The problem with your statement is that the plane in question was not "lightweight". While made of, relatively speaking, lightweight components, the plane, fully loaded, weighed in the area of 266,000 lbs.

Yes, I hear you, and that is a very good question. I should have spoken more clearly.



Those planes are large collections, of low mass density [lightweight] materials, which altogether are heavy in weight.

Those same materials are mainly very low density, low mass weight, high tensile strength plastic composites, with low compression strength being brittle and thus poorly impact resistant.

The aluminum allow sheeting in question, is also less malleable than common aluminum sheeting, having greater rigidity and less flexibility also, and it too is poor as far as impact resistance goes.

The above materials, are no match for the building materials in question, despite the velocity involved, because projectile impact energy is based upon velocity ... weight ... 'and' ... density.

That is why kinetic energy projectile weapon rounds, are made out of lead or even denser materials like depleted uranium [DU], instead of low density [lightweight] materials like plastic or hard brittle aluminum or even aluminum alloys.

Hope that helps.

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Natasha_Thompson]

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Natasha_Thompson]