Rethinkng the NPT (oh no! not again!)

By commercial air bus I mean according to the OS it was just a normal commercial airliner. Not a military jet flown by expert pilots. Military jets can withstand the extra G force stress put on the plane that flew around the pentagon. A normal 767 can not stand up to the intense Gs of the maneuver the OS claims happened...

Also whether the plane flew inches or meters off the ground in directly and horizontally into the pentagon... Through the light poles.... That is some expert flying.. even if one programed a computer to do it flying through the light poles and still hitting the pentagon dead on... Well .. that is to much for me to accept with no video evidence from the hundreds of cameras around the pentagon area.

When I speak of the disappearance from radar..... If a flock of ducks fly too close together sometime they can be picked up on radar. Radar picks up all kinds of UFOs (Not aliens) all the time.. All kinds of anomalous things like Hot air balloons and what not that have no FFI beacons... But on that day those planes just vanished from radar because they flipped off the FFI switch.

Again an OS claim that I can not accept based on my understanding of how Radar functions.

I mean its not like the planes were lost over the Bermuda triangle... They disappeared from the most monitored airspace on planet earth?

How?

I think the Radar data like the cell phones calls may of been faked like much of the whole inside operation.

reply to post by titorite


I am not sure what they mean by disappearing from radar in the OS. Whether or not they were referring to the transponder signal being turned off, thus, making it disappear in that respect. But you are right, even if the transponder is turned off, the plane still is visible on a primary radar, just as a target. If the second is what they meant, then yes, it's BS, which is what I think. From the point over Kentucky when flight 77 was believed to have turned back towards DC until it hit the Pentagon, there are radars, anyone of which should have picked up as an unknown, which then should have caused concern and alert. When you consider that there was a major air defense exercise going on, I would imagine there were plenty of radar stations on.

So, I am left with a few possibilities:

1. Flight 77 was indeed picked up on radar, but operators were told to ignore it, or were told it was part of the exercise.
2. Flight 77 was picked up on radar, seen as something for concern, authorities were notified, but once the higher ups knew, they deliberately did nothing.
3. The radars located in positions to pick up the hijacked flight were not in live mode, but running a simulation, and thus, not operating.

There are even more possibilities when you examine further. We all know about the suspiciously timed and themed air defense exercise going on. I personally believe the scenario and date were chosen deliberately by 9/11 perpetrators to throw up a sort of chaff to cloud and confuse the air defenses, preventing them from acting in a timely manner, because any real reports of hijacks or crashes would be believed as part of the war games.

Of course, there is also the possibility that the flights were reported to the proper channels, but the link was broken because certain individuals sat on that information to make certain it did not reach ears that could have done something. A silent stand down. Tracks could be covered in the resulting confusion.

Whatever the case, there is absolutely no reason flight 77 should have hit it's target completely unopposed. After the second tower was hit, there was a period of over a half hour before the Pentagon strike. Normally, after a major attack on US soil, regardless of where, D.C. suddenly gets locked down. But this time, it did not.

You know what I don't understand about NPT's? Is how everyone espousing this can suddenly just dismiss the AUDIO. I mean jeez, we've got multiple videos (and thus audio with it) where you can clearly hear flight 175 coming in, before it hits. I've entertained a few times the various NPT's, but nothing I have seen refutes the fact that AUDIO is heard on all the videos. And the audio is going to be extremely difficult to disprove.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck- chances are, it's an airplane.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Is how everyone espousing this can suddenly just dismiss the AUDIO. I mean jeez, we've got multiple videos (and thus audio with it) where you can clearly hear flight 175 coming in

And there are videos where not only can you hear the plane coming, but many people seeing and reacting to the plane before it hits the building.

But don't you know? All video footage is fake. Every piece of footage from the mainstream media to independent journalists to private citizens recording with their camcorders to private citizens sitting in their cars stuck in traffic. All of them, all fake. And then there's the hundreds of thousands of people standing outside watching that are all liars!

The NPT disinfo artists don't have to provide proof. They just say all the witnesses are lying and all the footage is fake and that's it.

I could also say Godzilla destroyed the WTC and that all the witnesses are lying to not seeing Godzilla and all videos are fake for not showing Godzilla. See how easy the disinfo artistry works? Call people liars and say all footage is fake and you can make up any disinfo story you want and have a small cult of believers peddle them around the net. Thankfully, most people see through the disinfo.

Originally posted by titorite

Why start a thread about the No Plane theory if you want to exclude aspects of the No plane theory?

Had you read the thread you would know the answer to that question. I wanted to see what would happen if we took away the technological difficulties involved with holograms, because I'd come across information that made me think that perhaps that kind of technology didn't exist.

Even with that proviso removed, the NPT theory is wanting.

I'm quite open to thinking things through. Reviewing the thread will amply demonstrate that. However, the notion that all the video involves fakery is simply ridiculous, which is why I wanted to exclude that version of the NPT. I have read the threads that espouse this theory. I didn't want this thread cluttered with that nonsense, but as, for me, the thread has served its purpose of examining NPT without video fakery, how people clutter it up is not something I care about much any more.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

The possibilities exist of them being:

1. Closet fundamentalists who were successfully recruited by spooks posing as revered imams
2. Fundies who thought they were simply going on a routine hijack mission, only to discover mid-flight that they were in for more
3. they were patsies recruited by the CIA
4. They were deeply entrenched CIA assets who were not even involved in the attacks, but served as sort of "stage actors" before hand, to set up a good trail.
5. Complete, nonexistent fabrications.

Some interesting possibilities here. My favourite, as you can probably tell from previous posts, is no. 3. No. 1 doesn't do much for me because when you look at the fake Bin Ladens of various videos, my feeling is that it would be hard for them to get a convincing imam for recruitement purposes. But I could easily be wrong.

No. 5 doesn't work for me either because they left a trail. I can see no. 4 being a possibility.

Actually I think they were a mix of people who knew they were CIA assets, like Mohammed Atta, and patsies with varying degrees of fundamentalism. Plus, possibly, some of them never existed at all, for all I know.

The waters have been so successfully muddied, though, it's hard to tell.

Have you checked out the Webster Tarpley? I'd like to know what you think.



Now, begins the real mind maze. Which makes the most sense, and which scenarios can be fitted with No Plane Theories? Can there be a crossover, if so, what would that be?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
You know what I don't understand about NPT's? Is how everyone espousing this can suddenly just dismiss the AUDIO.

The thing that got me started on this thread was seeing a link (no, sorry, can't be bothered to find it, I'm bad and evil and terrible and lazy) to a page specifying holographic sound generation and its possible battlefield usage, from 1996.

I then applied the not-exactly-empirical but nontheless useful rule of thumb that the military is a clear generation ahead of everyone else, and parts of the military still further ahead. It made me think, ok, so if they did have the tech to pull off the holograms thing, does that make any extra sense of the plot?

Not so much the evidence, the plot. People, as this thread clearly shows, can look at the same video and one person will say, OMG there was no plane, did you see that? To which the response is, that's a plane, what the hell are you talking about? So I wanted to see what would happen if you removed that presumption of technological restraint. Did it buy us anything in terms of how the plot was put together?

So far, I don't think so. The quickest and easiest now seems like Global Hawk installed in the planes and a nasty surprise for the hijackers.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I don't see how disappearing from radar" would prove point 5. if anything, it would prove my opinion that there was a conscious stand down, or that radars were deliberately concentrating elsewhere.

From what I understand, part of the many simultaneous exercises that morning (which, pace Tarpley, served the simultaneous purpose of drawing available planes away from the NE) involved inserting false radar blips, certainly into NORAD and possibly into the civilian radar imaging as well.

That would have made things extra difficult to keep track of.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
There are even more possibilities when you examine further. We all know about the suspiciously timed and themed air defense exercise going on.

I'd have to review the Tarpley again, but from memory, there was one exercise that was playing out the exact scenario of 9/11: but there were exercises going on in Alaska, which drew a lot of materiel up there: some planes got shipped off I think to Saudi as part of another exercise: and Tarpley counts something like fifteen separate but related drills going on on that one day.

Here's the link:
video.google.co.uk...#

Enjoy.

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I don't see how disappearing from radar" would prove point 5. if anything, it would prove my opinion that there was a conscious stand down, or that radars were deliberately concentrating elsewhere.

From what I understand, part of the many simultaneous exercises that morning (which, pace Tarpley, served the simultaneous purpose of drawing available planes away from the NE) involved inserting false radar blips, certainly into NORAD and possibly into the civilian radar imaging as well.

That would have made things extra difficult to keep track of.

Yes. Exactly. Like I said, radar chaff, figuratively speaking, to cloud, tie up, and ensure air defense is properly ineffective and incapable of preventing damage.

reply to post by rich23


I'm divided between options 1-3, personally.

I watched the Webster Tarpley video. He echoed some of my own theories: that the CIA knew all about Atta and the gang, and were actively protecting and handling them to ensure they went through the whole build-up, getting the funds, training, ect.. Some of the hijackers were probably genuine crazies happy to die for Allah, some were actively aware of the CIA connections but didn't care, some were straight CIA assets. What the CIA did with Atta and a couple others was similar to what a horse owner does with his prize racehorse before a major race, like the Kentucky Derby. Train them and ensure they are kept out of every possible harm, feed and groom them in the best way, allow them controlled training and keep daily tabs on everything they do to ensure they are brought to optimum condition on race day.

Another point he makes that I find excellent and similar to my own, is that there were moles in several places, such as NORAD, FAA, FBI, DoD ect. to ensure no one interferes with the prize horses before and after they left the gate. That's why I personally think that Air Defense was nonresponsive that day.

it is also why I do not believe the whole government was involved, or even Bush, directly. I personally think that the total number of conspirators who actively knew what was being planned, and were an active, knowing part in the whole thing, was probably less than 100, but their moles and workermen were well placed in the right places. Like, moles in the Pentagon who pushed for and got the exercises set up for that day in particular, and moles in FAA/NORAD who deliberately sat on the distress calls and hijack alerts, preventing the information from getting where it needed: to those who were supposed to scramble jets (who were all far away playing war, completely unaware).

He is also correct in saying that Bush himself had little to nothing to do with it. Dubya simply was not important enough, he was the puppet man. Bush is not smart enough or elegant enough to be evil. If he had his way, he'd be sitting at the Crawford Ranch, having a barbecue, destroying another business that his daddy gave him for his birthday, and making armpit noises to impress his family and friends. The real players rode his coattails or hid in the shadows. Bush just parrots whatever his "betters" tell him. Bush is Homer Simpson, Cheney and Rumsfeld are Mr. Burns and Smithers.

I disagree with, however, his innuendo regarding flight 93 and flight 77, both of which I believe were real and crashed (though I am convinced that flight 93 was shot down)

I did find his parallel between The Gun Powder plot and 9/11 to be quite interesting. I also was surprised he brought up Ward Churchill's BS and his damage to the 9/11 movement.

I also disagree with him on the point of MI6 having anything to do it, and a Mossad link being difficult to prove. Out of all the foreign agencies suspected of being involved in 9/11, Mossad's link is perhaps the most substantial, most glaring, and easiest to find.

[edit on 17-7-2009 by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Titorite,

I've already said I've looked at these threads, it's been done to death, but no, you have to come to a thread intended to be a refuge from all this TV fakery nonsense and infest it with the same stuff.

Why?

You don't read this as a conversation, it's just a chance to come in here with your distracting nonsense. It's rude and boring. You don't read people's posts properly, you can't even spell "Naudet", so why should I pay anything you say the slightest heed?

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I watched the Webster Tarpley video.

Thought you'd like it. If you haven't seen Core of Corruption (again on Google Video) it's worth looking at having seen the Tarpley - even worht watching again if you've seen it before.

That's why I personally think that Air Defense was nonresponsive that day.

Plus the fact that, as he details, many planes were simply elsewhere.

I did find his parallel between The Gun Powder plot and 9/11 to be quite interesting. I also was surprised he brought up Ward Churchill's BS and his damage to the 9/11 movement.

His historical parallels and perspectives can be enlightening. I don't know about Ward Churchill, I'll have a hunt round see what I can find.

I also disagree with him on the point of MI6 having anything to do it, and a Mossad link being difficult to prove. Out of all the foreign agencies suspected of being involved in 9/11, Mossad's link is perhaps the most substantial, most glaring, and easiest to find.

He does like to put Britain firmly in charge. It doesn't feel like that from here, I can tell you. He's also got a bit of a thing about the Royals. Now maybe it's because I live here, but they seem fairly harmless parasites to me. I actually think a royal family is a good thing, because when someone becomes head of state, like the US president, he's the focus of all sorts of irrational thoughts in the public subconscious. Here we can look at out politicians (I'm thinking Thatcher and Blair in particular here) with the contempt they deserve because the rouals act like a lightning rod for that kind of emotional tie.

And about foreign security services... I think the most glaring tie is actually to the ISI, who wired Atta the money, as I'm sure you remember.

The Mossad thing... supposedly Mossad guys were sitting close to each of the hijackers... must have been agents that someone wanted rubbing out, if so. Of course there don't seem to have been any proper passenger manifests, so how can we know?

But IIRC Hopsicker says that Mossad agents were renting a place close to Atta's place that he shared with the ex-stripper Amanda Keller. There's the dancing Israelis...

I did see a documentary that tried to pin 9/11 pretty much on "the Jews". I'm not sure if I watched the whole thing. I was being bombarded with facts but it felt like a polemic so I just didn't finish it.

As for MI5 and -6, there are strong ties with the US security state. The London bombings were definitely the same sort of operation as 9/11. One interesting fact... the then Chief Exec of the London Underground was an ex-CIA guy. I checked it out on the L.U. website when I read about it, and it was the guy... but then a few weeks later he'd been replaced with someone else.

But the idea of Britain bossing anyone about, much less the US, is laughable. We're the US' bitch, and some of us don't much care for that.

There's a nice documentary called "Taking Liberties£" which is all about the Blair attack on our basic freedoms... little old ladies prosecuted as terrorists, all that sort of thing. A lot of good people standing up against some pretty evil laws.

Not enough, though. Not yet, anyway...

[edit on 17-7-2009 by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Originally posted by rich23

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I watched the Webster Tarpley video.

Thought you'd like it. If you haven't seen Core of Corruption (again on Google Video) it's worth looking at having seen the Tarpley - even worht watching again if you've seen it before.

I have seen core of corruption, yes. Tarpley's stuff seemed to reflect some of that, but in some aspects, really seemed in direct opposition.

His historical parallels and perspectives can be enlightening. I don't know about Ward Churchill, I'll have a hunt round see what I can find.

Ward Churchill caused a stir a few years back with some really nasty, crude comments. He's an obnoxious arse, a favorite of the most rabid anti-American.

He does like to put Britain firmly in charge. It doesn't feel like that from here, I can tell you. He's also got a bit of a thing about the Royals. Now maybe it's because I live here, but they seem fairly harmless parasites to me. I actually think a royal family is a good thing, because when someone becomes head of state, like the US president, he's the focus of all sorts of irrational thoughts in the public subconscious. Here we can look at out politicians (I'm thinking Thatcher and Blair in particular here) with the contempt they deserve because the rouals act like a lightning rod for that kind of emotional tie.

Having lived for a couple years in Britain myself, I agree with some respects. However, i still find Brits seem to have too much trust in institutions and authorities in general, seeming quite scandalized when one of them even does something minor. Americans, in general, for the most part, have a subconscious dislike abnd distrust of anyone with power, in the sense they would be scandalized and quite concerned if one turned out to be an honest, concerned leader. You could almost say, that if a politician is not corrupt or weird in some way, Americans won't trust him much.

And about foreign security services... I think the most glaring tie is actually to the ISI, who wired Atta the money, as I'm sure you remember.

The ISI, yes, they had some pretty hard ties to the 9/11 hijackers, as did several prominent Saudis and their families who also were involved in the money transfer. But for sheer number of suspicious connections, the Mossad and certain factions of the Israeli government have everyone beat.

The Mossad thing... supposedly Mossad guys were sitting close to each of the hijackers... must have been agents that someone wanted rubbing out, if so. Of course there don't seem to have been any proper passenger manifests, so how can we know?

There was only one: Daniel Lewin. He was stabbed during the takeover of flight 11., according to the interpretation of the flight attendants emergency calls. He was an American/Israeli who was on a business trip. He was still listed as an active member of an Israeli anti-terror unit at the time of death, and I've read some sources who state the company that he founded, Akamai, had ties to the NSA. Not Mossad, but still some interesting connections. But he was the only one killed in the attacks.

But IIRC Hopsicker says that Mossad agents were renting a place close to Atta's place that he shared with the ex-stripper Amanda Keller. There's the dancing Israelis...

The FBI busted a huge Israeli spy ring shortly after 9/11, and there were several reports of active Mossad trailing of the 9/11 suspects. There was also the Odigo warnings, and the Israelis weren't just dancing: they had maps of Manhattan with high profile, key places marked, 4500 bucks in cash on them, fake passports, and when the bomb sniffing dogs were set on their moving truck, the dogs reacted as they would if they smelled explosives. There was also some suspicious financial activity that is heavily linked to Israeli companies, and a couple of the companies that did security at the key airports where the hijackers took off from were Israeli companies with links to Mossad and other agencies.

I did see a documentary that tried to pin 9/11 pretty much on "the Jews". I'm not sure if I watched the whole thing. I was being bombarded with facts but it felt like a polemic so I just didn't finish it.

I've seen them as well. They like to mix up a couple facts, but coat and bury them in an avalanche of thinly veiled anti-semetic rants. To say "The Jews did it" is as idiotic as saying "The Americans did it". Because just 99.9% of Americans were not involved, the same goes for 99.9% of Jews or Israeli citizens. I firmly believe that Jews did not do it. It was done by a bizarre mish mash of certain elements of the American, Israeli, Pakistani, and Saudi governments, in a great case of "one hand knows not what the other does".

As for MI5 and -6, there are strong ties with the US security state. The London bombings were definitely the same sort of operation as 9/11. One interesting fact... the then Chief Exec of the London Underground was an ex-CIA guy. I checked it out on the L.U. website when I read about it, and it was the guy... but then a few weeks later he'd been replaced with someone else.

I agree with you here. I think MI-5 and MI-6 both were involved in some capacity with the London bombings. The "British did it" theories smell strongly of the philosophy of Lyndon La Rouche, who is quite the Anglophobe, believing the Queen secretly owns and controls the US, which is an amusing little notion, to say the least. MI5 and MI6 ties to U.S. intelligence are estabalished and well known, but again, I feel this was an operation done by a very tiny, select few, and the rest of say, the CIA or FBI, would simply be unaware. it was likely that MI6 had gotten wind of a terrorist attack and passed the word on to the CIA, but the ones truly running the scam simply blew it off and told their underlings to do likewise.

But the idea of Britain bossing anyone about, much less the US, is laughable. We're the US' bitch, and some of us don't much care for that.

Yes, it is something I don;'t care much for, either. Britain is in quite a spot: either be a bitch of the U.S. or a subordinate bitch-state in the EU. No one seem to want to come up with another option, one that would involve an independent, neutral country serving as no one's bitch.

There's a nice documentary called "Taking Liberties£" which is all about the Blair attack on our basic freedoms... little old ladies prosecuted as terrorists, all that sort of thing. A lot of good people standing up against some pretty evil laws.

Not enough, though. Not yet, anyway...

[edit on 17-7-2009 by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Haven't seen it, but I've seen enough cases and outrages over the taking of people's liberty. I couldn't believe some of the crap they were trying to pull. I think i remember one case where some kid with fireworks on Guy Fawkes Night getting nicked by the cops for "possible terrorist activity"?

Not saying i`m a NPT, but then again i`m not saying I am not, could do with someone explaining this though, it`s very confusing.......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/efb0b3a6d685.jpg[/atsimg]

Thanks in advance .

If you want an answer to that, ask BoneZ. He actually has taken apart the NPT several times, and can explain it better in detail than I can. I myself never had the patience to explain it, as the NPT, in my opinion, was something from the lunatic fringe that I never thought anyone took seriously.

reply to post by rich23


Well Rich 23, You have responded to me twice without ever giving my the chance to reply back... But I shall do so here and now.

Why should you pay attention to anything I say? Well the fact that you reply twice without me responding says that you have at lest a microdum of interest in what I have to say. And yes I misspelled Naudet. Its not like that is a common name but why hold the misspelling of an uncommon french name (My wife a Quebecer has never met any other Naudets either) as a personal indicator of my intellect?

I do not think I have been rude nor boring... But I do find offense with being told that I am using this chance to reply with "distracting nonsense".

Is it possible that every 911 home video has been edited?

Let me answer with a question, is it Impossible ?

Now I don't think every film is edited. Some films do show an explosion with no plane in the shot.

And some TV stations used the WTC towers as a backdrop and always had cameras on them. So where is that footage?

Its like this... If their could be a possibility that no plane attacked the pentagon or shanksville or both... then why should their also be planes in the WTC? Just because you saw it on tv 8 years ago?

You want to explore the hologram aspect.. OK I get that.. You also want to explore the "No plane" aspect I get that too. Thats why I asked if you wanted to discuss the lack of jet fuel contamination aspect...to which you have not picked up on.

Whether you have a hologram (which I do not believe ) or a CGI trick neither one has jet fuel. Maybe every ounce of fuel DID burn up but if it did then it would still leave a residue that the EPA would get upset about and insist on testing over....IF it existed.

Their is also the plane melting into the building factor. Whether or not it was a hologram or not REAL planes flying at that speed into a solid object are not "absorbed" into the dirt nor are the "absorbed" into buildings. At the point of impact plasticity occurs. Metal ripples. Glass shatters. Pieces Fly everywhere for a few nano seconds. Then the gas tank reaches the super friction heated point of impact. THEN EXPLOSION OCCURS RIGHT THERE. Not after the plane has been totally absorbed.

Its a flaw in the story any car crash expert and relate too.

Your thoughts?

[edit on 18-7-2009 by titorite]

For Titorite.. Not sure if you have ever watched these videos, some interesting facts, especially when they are showing identical views from the same vantage points, yet one film is missing a plane or has the back drop edited out......

video.google.com...

Originally posted by Seventh
Not saying i`m a NPT, but then again i`m not saying I am not, could do with someone explaining this though, it`s very confusing.......

It's not confusing when you understand physics, how the towers were built, and how the planes hit the towers.

We know that the first plane hit the north tower near the center and the core of the north tower stopped the plane and the jet fuel fireball was seen on one side. It was a different story with the south tower:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e6c140b194cb.gif[/atsimg]


In the south tower, a good majority of the second plane missed the core or nicked it, but the rest of the plane went past the core crumpling up agaist the opposite wall and corner, hence the fireball seen on 2 sides of the tower.

In summary, north tower plane hit the middle, core stopped the plane. South tower plane missed or nicked the core allowing a good portion of the plane to continue past the core. Hope that was explanatory enough.

Originally posted by titorite
Now I don't think every film is edited. Some films do show an explosion with no plane in the shot.

So your answer would be "yes", every film showing a plane is fake. Gotcha.

Originally posted by titorite
And some TV stations used the WTC towers as a backdrop and always had cameras on them.

Got any proof of this or are we just making things up again?

Originally posted by titorite
If their could be a possibility that no plane attacked the pentagon or shanksville or both... then why should their also be planes in the WTC?

Because of the lack of physical evidence at Shanksville and the Pentagon. 200,000+ pounds of aircraft wreckage are missing at both locations. Add on top of that, the impact hole at the Pentagon doesn't look consistent with a large jetliner having impacted it.

The WTC is a different story. We have 40+ videos of the second impact and 2 of the first impact. We have a video that shows plane debris exiting the tower and killing at least one person on the ground. We have hundreds of thousands of witnesses that were outside watching the tower and not a single one has come forward to any news outlet, newspaper or any other media to claim that the TV kept showing planes, but everyone that was standing out there never saw a plane. Then there's the physical damage to the tower that is also consistent with having been struck by a large jetliner.

Originally posted by titorite
Thats why I asked if you wanted to discuss the lack of jet fuel contamination aspect...to which you have not picked up on.

Most of the jet fuel burned up in the initial fireballs. And unless every piece of debris from the towers was tested, there's no way you can say there was a lack of jet fuel at the WTC. Peddling something as fact without proof = disinfo.

Originally posted by titorite
Their is also the plane melting into the building factor.

I already explained this in detail in the other thread. You either ignored it or missed it, but here it is again:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by titorite
Whether or not it was a hologram or not REAL planes flying at that speed into a solid object are not "absorbed" into the dirt nor are the "absorbed" into buildings.

Planes don't get absorbed into the ground because the ground doesn't move. Buildings like the WTC will absorb a plane because: a.) the buildings were designed to absorb the planes; b.) unlike the ground, buildings do move and break apart; c.) no-planers don't understand the physics behind how and why it happened. Which is explained in my post to you in the above link.


Keep 'em comin!


-- Debunking NPT Since 2006 --