New Video - No real planes hit World Trade Center (Continuous Pieces)

Google Video Link

This is an absolute must see, for anyone doubting the no planes type of theories it's time to face the facts- and it's an almost undeniable fact that normal flimsy boeing passenger planes did not hit the steel walls of the twin towers on 9/11. Instead something else must of happened that is still being covered up today.

Basic high school physics dictates the plane could not punch through the facades of the twin towers leaving cartoon like plane shaped holes in the steel framework - and without any deflection, crumpling or deceleration!

It should of exploded up against the side of the building, not punch through one side and out the other.

Planes cannot even travel at 500mph below 7000 feet or sea level - which the so called 'planes' that hit the towers were supposed to be travelling.

There are lots of professional opinions in the video I suggest anyone who does or does not still believes normal Boeing planes hit the towers on 9/11 watches the above video, it went live approx. 12 days ago.




[edit on 22-3-2009 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Basic high school physics, dictates the plane could not punch through the facades of the twin towers leaving cartoon like plane shaped holes in the steel framework - and without any deflection, crumpling or deceleration!

Planes cannot even travel at 500mph below 7000 feet or sea level - which the so called 'planes' that hit the towers were supposed to be travelling.

There are lots of professional opinions in the video I suggest anyone who still believes normal Boeing planes hit the towers on 9/11 watches the above video.

Insolubrious,

Please read this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In it contains two of three parts of a NASA rocket scientist lecture on the physics and the validity of a plane traveling at said altitudes and speeds. This is as real as it gets. If you feel he is at all mistaken, his e-mail is listed. I can assure you he will write back.

Part One

Part Two

You have one single source - Ryan Mackey.

The above video contains dozens of indepth interviews and opinions of many experts from a variety of fields. Not just some rocket scientist from NASA. I suggest you watch the video I posted. Please.

And besides, I wouldn't trust NASA any further than I could throw them. They covered up the moon landing for cripes sake, they're just as misleading as the official story on 9/11.


[edit on 21-3-2009 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by Insolubrious
You have one single source - Ryan Mackey.

The above video contains dozens of indepth interviews and opinions of many experts from a variety of fields. Not just some rocket scientist from NASA. I suggest you watch the video I posted. Please.

And besides, I wouldn't trust NASA any further than I could throw them. They covered up the moon landing for cripes sake, they're just as misleading as the official story on 9/11.


[edit on 21-3-2009 by Insolubrious]

Not to mention you stated 500mph at 7000feet, which is a LONG way from sea level, or 1000 feet at the top of the towers. This was also discussed for the pentagon.

Additionally, it appears hes another one of those people who just posts based on your 10 line blurb instead of watching a 2 hour documentary that explains properly and thoroughly.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by king9072]

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Basic high school physics, dictates the plane could not punch through the facades of the twin towers leaving cartoon like plane shaped holes in the steel framework

It only LOOKS like cartoon plane-shaped holes and it wasn't in the steel:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa124b72a1a1.jpeg[/atsimg]

As you can see, the ends of the wings only damaged the aluminum covering on the steel and the steel columns are intact. You can also see that the steel columns aren't severed. It is actually the connectors that were severed. The steel columns themselves didn't fail. The columns were put together in sets of 3 and looking at the above picture, you can see they are severed in sets of 3:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e157541a8ac2.jpg[/atsimg]

What about the cartoon-like cutout at the Empire State Building back in 1945? Was that tv fakery also even though they didn't even have tv's?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2174b3241f94.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Planes cannot even travel at 500mph below 7000 feet or sea level

Totally and absolutely false. A 767's engines can't attain 500mph in level flight at 800 or 1000 feet as their engines aren't powerful enough to reach those speeds. But if the plane were descending from 30,000 feet, you wouldn't even need the engines as gravity takes over. You can glide the plane down from 30,000 feet and reach or even exeed 500mph. But you won't be able to maintain that speed at lower altitudes because drag sets in.

One of the very videos that the no-planers use to "prove" the above disinfo quote, debunks the very people that think this is their proof.

Every engineer says exactly what I just said in the very no-planer's video:

www.youtube.com...


TV fakery has also been debunked here:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Totally and absolutely false. A 767's engines can't attain 500mph in level flight at 800 or 1000 feet as their engines aren't powerful enough to reach those speeds. But if the plane were descending from 30,000 feet, you wouldn't even need the engines as gravity takes over. You can glide the plane down from 30,000 feet and reach or even exeed 500mph. But you won't be able to maintain that speed at lower altitudes because drag sets in.

One of the very videos that the no-planers use to "prove" the above disinfo quote, debunks the very people that think this is their proof.

Every engineer says exactly what I just said in the very no-planer's video:

www.youtube.com...


TV fakery has also been debunked here:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

I think he was refering to level flight at those altitudes, NO planes cannot achieve those speeds doing that. And yes they can obviously reach those speeds and far exceed them when theyre diving, but thats not really what is bein discussed nor do I believe thats what the Op was reffering to.

Originally posted by king9072
I think he was refering to level flight at those altitudes

No, actually the no-planers say that a plane can't fly at 500mph at 1000 feet at all, descension or not. Read this post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by king9072
I think he was refering to level flight at those altitudes

No, actually the no-planers say that a plane can't fly at 500mph at 1000 feet at all, descension or not. Read this post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lol, so categorize a whole group cause of some of their opinions? I don't think thats fair, but the video above talks to many professionals that say its just not possible, diving or not. Just because your diving does not change aerodynamic laws. But the whole debate is pointless, cause the news footage shows the second plane coming in completely level, approximately 1000 feet in the air, traveling at between 540-590mph.

NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Now quick, bounce around the topic repeating inane bs.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by king9072
I think he was refering to level flight at those altitudes

No, actually the no-planers say that a plane can't fly at 500mph at 1000 feet at all, descension or not. Read this post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Keywords above: "a plane".

A 767-200? Highly unlikely. Boeing refuses to provide wind tunnel data according to Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Boeing places limits on aircraft for a reason. 767-200 Max operating is 360 knots. Period.

Speed is speed. Doesnt matter if its a dive, climb or otherwise.

For the layman. your tires are rated at a certain speed before they fall apart (ask your tire man.. really). Many are rated at 150 mph. If you go downhill, uphill or level, they still will fall apart at such a limit. Makes it kinda dificult to control your car downhill with shredded tires.. huh?

This doesnt mean a modified 767-200 cant achieve such speeds or another other aircraft. Hence BoneZ reference to "a plane".

However, its rather ironic Mackey debates No Plane Theory without an opponent, but feels debating actual data provided by the govt claimed to be from Flight Data Recorders... with actual verified experts.. is absurd.

Someone posted somewhere around here that Mackey is not a bonafide "Rocket Scientist" and just a systems safety manager. In other words, a glorified QC manager. I tend to agree.



[edit on 21-3-2009 by RockHound757]

Thanks OP, I always like adding more stuff to my collection of data, should it ever vanish from the net, or the net itself disappear..... I'm downloading the 340 MB file now and will let you know what I think when I'm finished watching it, might be a few days, as it is a 2.5 hour viewing session.....thanks again....

It amazes me that this kind of crap is still being debated. The second plane hit on live TV on multiple networks. If this truly is a conspiracy, then the number of people in on it would number in the thousands (including eyewitnesses). The chances that none of them would talk are astronomical to say the least. There are conspiracies out there, but this isn't one of them!

Let's face it, there are people out there who hate us this much, and THEY are to blame for the loss of life that day, plain and simple!

Really folks, it's time to loosen up those tinfoil hats!

Originally posted by RockHound757
Boeing places limits on aircraft for a reason. 767-200 Max operating is 360 knots. Period.

Which is 414.28 mph or 564.49 feet per second. If you ask me, that's more than fast enough to cause the damage seen on the towers.

"A plane", in other words, a fixed wing aircraft, can achieve 500+ mph at less than 1,000 ft above sea level, intact and controllable.

Can a 767-200 do it? Only Boeing can answer. So far, they refuse to comment.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Which is 414.28 mph or 564.49 feet per second. If you ask me, that's more than fast enough to cause the damage seen on the towers.

But 130+ mph less than reported.

Boeing set limits on their aircraft for a reason. Why do you think they set airspeed limits?

Originally posted by king9072
But the whole debate is pointless, cause the news footage shows the second plane coming in completely level

And false again. The following video has 43 of the known angles of impact of the south tower. Watch at 0:56, the plane is abolutely NOT level, but only levels out in the last 3 or 4 seconds before impact:

www.youtube.com...

At 7:01, another angle of the second plane coming down from altitude. At 8:44, a really great angle of the plane coming down from altitude.

Ok folks... the following is whats called a Vg diagram. Every aircraft has one.

Obviously this is for a slower aircraft.

Note what is says in the region above Vne (never exceed speed)



We wont even get into the increase G Loadng due to "UA175" bank angle...

For those interested in more Vg Charts...

images.google.com...

Vne/Vmo for the 767-200 is 360 knots.

Edit: Added link

Edit2: By the way. .the OP video sucks... JMHO..

[edit on 21-3-2009 by RockHound757]

[edit on 21-3-2009 by RockHound757]

reply to post by RockHound757


Vne doesn't mean "break apart instantly if pass" speed. Egypt Air flight 990 hit almost 700 mph in a vertical dive, with the engines shut off, pulled out at 16,000 feet, stalled about 24,000 feet, and broke up at 10,000 feet. That was a 767-300.

As for a "modified 767" having a higher speed, it's STILL a 767. Without an almost total rebuild with a different shape, it would have similar restrictions to speed.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by RockHound757

 

Vne doesn't mean "break apart instantly if pass" speed. Egypt Air flight 990 hit almost 700 mph in a vertical dive, with the engines shut off, pulled out at 16,000 feet, stalled about 24,000 feet, and broke up at 10,000 feet.

Point being, Egypt Air broke up in flight due to excessive speed.

Your numbers are also inaccurate, which is why you fail to source such claims.

Edit to Add: Please quote your numbers from this source...

www.ntsb.gov...

Hint: You cant. Lemme guess, The NTSB Final Report on Egypt Air doesnt count?


[edit on 22-3-2009 by RockHound757]

reply to post by RockHound757



From your source (which apparently you didn't notice):

At 0150:08, as the airplane passed through about 30,800 feet msl, the airplane exceeded its maximum operating airspeed (0.86 Mach), and the Master Warning alarm sounded. The maximum rate of descent recorded during the dive was about 39,000 fpm at 0150:19, as the airplane descended through about 24,600 feet msl. At 0150:23, the airspeed reached its peak calculated value of 0.99 Mach, as the airplane descended through about 22,200 feet msl.

At sea level that would be approximately 754 mph. True airspeed was about 602 mph at 22,200 feet. Vne for a 767-200/300 at sea level is 412 mph.

The point being that while it DID break up from excessive speed, it ALSO broke up from excessive G forces from diving, then pulling up, then stalling again. It didn't go past Vne, and then suddenly shatter into pieces. It was past Vne for several minutes before it broke apart. Vne doesn't mean that if you pass it, your plane breaks apart instantly.

The dive started at 0149, the stall at 25,000 feet was at approximately 0151, with impact with the water at 0152. Note that the NTSB doesn't state that the aircraft broke apart until impact. The FDR and CVR stopped recording at 0150 but primary radar systems still saw the aircraft until impact at 0152.

[edit on 3/22/2009 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Here is the taxi cab driver at the pentagon saying it was staged.



Peace