I Challenge You Conspirators on This (Bombs on the Planes)

Originally posted by twistedcontradictions
www.judicialwatch.org...

OK THIS IS VIDEO OF THE PLANE HIDDEN THE PENTAGON PROOF! THE PLANE IS HARD TO MAKE OUT IN VIDEO 1 BUT VIDEO 2 EXPAND AND LOOK AT THE CLEAR DETAILS OF THE A/C. SECURITY VIDEOS FROM ENTRY GATES AT PENTAGON.

Originally posted by twistedcontradictions
media.portland.indymedia.org...

And here is the enhanced photo of the plane with the debri trail into the pentagon it was making right before impact the a/c was on the ground just over 500 ft before impact of builing.

Seriously, what do either of these posts have to do with the thread, or any of its responses? Couldn't you just make your own thread or add to one that was actually talking about the Pentagon? I appreciate that you want 9/11 truth but this isn't the place for you to post that.

Although it was interesting to see how certain users function, I'm going to leave the thread at this point unless someone comments directly on something I said, in which case I might respond if I feel like it. In all honesty this whole thread feel like it is just one huge red-herring.

So why didnt anyone ever discover any traces of any explosive at all during the cleanup or anything?
Not a soul ever found any wires, blasting caps, or any trace of explosive on anything, not even blast marks or anything. Why is that?

Thermite in plane. Thermite will melt the core of the building and leave residue when the building collapses.

There are way less (a dozen?) people to shut up if my theory is correct.

CIA: I'll kill your whole family if you don't do this.

Employee: (doesn't even know what will happen) OK I'LL DO IT.


You can't do this to the possibly hundreds of people at the Pentagon or the "demolition engineers" at the WTC. Eventually it will leak, but so far there hasn't been any leaks.

Originally posted by GenRadek
So why didnt anyone ever discover any traces of any explosive at all during the cleanup or anything?
Not a soul ever found any wires, blasting caps, or any trace of explosive on anything, not even blast marks or anything. Why is that?

gr I thought you have been around the block, been there done that and that. WELLL I guessed wrong about you again.
When you are looking for scraps of DNA and drivers licence'. Crap like wires and nano thermate just aren't visualized in the conciseness of normal folk.
You on the other hand IMO could see the thermite or thermate and caps and hide it from the world for a number of selfish reasons.

reply to post by Donny 4 million

gr I thought you have been around the block, been there done that and that. WELLL I guessed wrong about you again.
When you are looking for scraps of DNA and drivers licence'. Crap like wires and nano thermate just aren't visualized in the conciseness of normal folk.
You on the other hand IMO could see the thermite or thermate and caps and hide it from the world for a number of selfish reasons.

Ok we have FF who know about building construction and collapses,
construction people who have seen controlled demolitions and cleaned
up following an implosion crawling all over that scene for months
afterwards. Noboby spotted anything unusual in the debris

Not good enough for you?

How about the bomb squads from NYPD and surrounding police agencies
spending months searching the rubble. Includes members of the
Passaic County Sheriff Dept - I have talked to many of them when
they do training for my fire department.

They did not notice anything unusual - again no wiring, blasting caps,
delay tubes or other materials associated with explosives.

reply to post by Albastion


Firstly, it was not I who first posited the coc aine angle, it was the OP. The implication was, "If 'they' can smuggle coc aine, then 'they' can plant bombs".

My intent was to show how illogical that assumption is.

If small planes were being used to carry tons of coc aine it means that larger planes could be used to carry even more tons of coc aine.

Here you are, still talking about coc aine. OK, let's call it C-4 then (or the magical 'thermite' the OP likes now...he's changed it a few times, so the actual name doesn't matter any more).

If small planes were being used to carry tons of coc aine...

Uh huh. Why is it difficult to understand this? Loading an airplane with cargo....coc aine, explosives, or alpacas....when done under YOUR conditions, where YOU have all the control and only YOU have access to the airplane, well that's dead easy, now isn't it?

Of course, even a very snazzy business jet can carry some weight (and if you own it, the 'weight' is your ego...):

Specifications (Gulfstream III)

General characteristics

Crew: Captain, Co-Pilot, Crew Chief and/or Flight Attendant
Capacity: Twenty-six

~skip~

Useful load: 31,000 lb (14,061 kg)

There, I found a Gulfstream III, instead of a II. BUT, there isn't a great deal of difference between the two. (For the non-aviation types, 'useful load' is airplane talk for the difference between the Empty Weight and the MGTOW...max gross take off weight. Therefore, the 'useful load' must also include however much fule you have onboard.)

...larger planes could be used to carry even more tons of coc aine.

RIGHT!! That's kinda sorta the point, why FedEx and UPS have such a bang-up smokin' hot business!

BUT....the idea of secretly stashing "tons" of explosives on the regularly scheduled passenger jets on the morning of 9/11 is just ridiculous.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Uh huh. Why is it difficult to understand this? Loading an airplane with cargo....coc aine, explosives, or alpacas....when done under YOUR conditions, where YOU have all the control and only YOU have access to the airplane, well that's dead easy, now isn't it?

(...)

BUT....the idea of secretly stashing "tons" of explosives on the regularly scheduled passenger jets on the morning of 9/11 is just ridiculous.....

These are the two things I absolutely agree with you on... except for one minor detail.

BUT....the idea of secretly stashing "tons" of explosives on the regularly scheduled passenger jets on the morning of 9/11 is just ridiculous.....

I agree with you. I don't think there were explosives on the planes when they hit the towers on 9/11, and I never did. If so, wouldn't they explode on impact?

I would just like to point out one thing that is directly related to what you were posting: it wouldn't be ridiculous for someone to do some sort of weird thing to the plane if that person had all the control over the airport like you mentioned. If that person somehow could control the people and planes at the airport though influence, that person or group might be able to do other funny stuff to the aircraft very easily other than loading it up with tons of explosives. Just a thought.



[edit on 19-9-2009 by Albastion]

You know what you need?

A policeman in a police car with two suitcases of thermite telling the employees to load them on the plane because the suitcases belong to an ambassador or something.



This is a new theory that I suddenly thought of, thus I need to change my statements because smart people are capable of changing their opinions.

At the very least the planes that hit had to be huge bunker buster missiles dressed up as planes just to make it through the steel. Aluminium planes cannot punch through structural steel and concrete like a knife through butter, so something else must of hit those towers, same with the Pentagon too, where a so-called passenger plane punched through 3 rings of steel and re-enforced concrete and burned for days even after firefighters drowned it with water and pyrofoam.

Even if those planes were made from steel they would of bounced off towers.

A bird will easily dent the nose cone of a plane, so what would happen if several tons of steel and concrete hit a plane!

My money is on some kind of missile that hit those towers, purposefully dressed up as an AA flight.

reply to post by Insolubrious

Even if those planes were made from steel they would of bounced off towers.

Your grasp of physics, and how things work in the real world, seems to have been skewed slightly by cartoon images. It would seem. To me.

A bird will easily dent the nose cone of a plane, so what would happen if several tons of steel and concrete hit a plane!

The 'nose cone' (radome) of modern large passenger jets is made of a honeycomb composite material, designed to be transparent to radio frequencies, because THAT is where the onboard weather radar antenna is mounted.

However, simply knowing that the energies involved, due to the relative speeds, in a collision with a seemingly fragile bird and the big, bad, ole' airplane leads me to believe that you're not a lost cause at all, despite your earlier comment.

In fact, you just helped to explain WHY the fast-moving very massive airplanes were able to inflict the amount of damage seen. SPEED. MASS. FORCE.

Welcome to the real world of physics.

Please don't make me drag out that old video of the fighter jet (F-4) being rocket-sledded into the concrete wall again....please.

Sorry Weedwacker but your logic is backwards. The phantom hitting the concrete video I have seen a dozen times and it proves exactly what I just posted, since the plane atomized upon impact. If the phantom continued through the concrete without any deceleration or signs of collision then leaving a plane shaped hole in the concrete exploding only once it had passed through the wall then you maybe on to something. Otherwise your just spewing garbage you've been conditioned to swallow.

It's weird how the building doesn't just "snap" and instead it "stacks" and "collapses."

I think it's thermite brought by the plane melting the middle core.


No one is sure whether or not the firefighters found thermite. Only the firefighters or other experts at the scene would know.

reply to post by Insolubrious


AAARGH!!

The Phantom versus the concrete block...first, it was a TEST for a Nuclear Powerplant design to see if they could build an enclosure to withstand a direct attack by a fast-moving object!!!

YOU wished to claim that the airplanes "should" have bounced off the building. ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU CLAIMED?

Can't have it both ways.

NOW....the Towers were NOT made of over six-foot thick re-inforced concrete. Neither were the Pentagon walls.

The Tower's outer support structure were hollow steel members, rectangular in shape. There was a facade of aluminum cladding, and some panels made of thin concrete.

Surely you can understand how, at those speeds, the FORCE of the MOVING object is VERY LARGE. Crack open a physics book, and do the calculations.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

YOU wished to claim that the airplanes "should" have bounced off the building. ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU CLAIMED?

Can't have it both ways.

NOW....the Towers were NOT made of over six-foot thick re-inforced concrete. Neither were the Pentagon walls.

The Tower's outer support structure were hollow steel members, rectangular in shape. There was a facade of aluminum cladding, and some panels made of thin concrete.

I said it would of bounced 'if' the plane was made from steel (which would be impossible to get off the ground anyway).

No - I expect that most of the plane should of exploded up against the facade of the building, raining down huge amounts of plane like debris, including luggage and people. Many plane parts should of fallen down yet nothing did, the whole plane was swallowed up by the building.

Not even the damn wings came off as it went in! One guy who was on the floor of impact claimed the wing went right through the steel, though the walls and ended up behind him embedded in his office wall!

If you had a 50 ton piece of steel travelling at 500mph hitting a stationary plane you would get the same effect as a plane travelling at 500mph hitting a stationary 50 ton piece of steel. It would be like a wrecking ball hitting that plane.

The floors were filled with concrete and steel running horizontally (approx 60 meters of solid concrete and steel floor pans) which also would provide huge amounts of resistance, much like a plane hitting a wall 60 meters thick.

Uranium based penetrator weapons are developed by the military for the same effect the planes had on those towers on 9/11. The military spends millions developing these bunker busting warheads to cut through concrete and steel then detonate after yet on 9/11 conventional airliners produce the same effect.

To put it in perspective you would think the military are gutted by this information! All that money wasted developing uranium bunker busting munitions when all the had to do was use airliners instead!

Seriously though, uranium penetrators are the only type of tech we know of that can do this. Uranium warheads are pyrophoric and when ignited produce some very extreme temperatures (way hotter than any thermite) and is literally like a hyper-active blow torch hitting the steel and slicing through it like butter. I also would not be surprised if uranium based weapons were used in some way to initiate the collapse.



[edit on 22-9-2009 by Insolubrious]

reply to post by die_another_day


not sure if this has already been addressed...but:

No plane hit WTC 7.

Your explosives on the plane theory doesn't cover all the events.

This is not to say explosives could not have been on the planes that
hit the twins...just stating that it doesn't answer everything.

reply to post by turbofan


WTC 7 was obviously "pulled down"

Twin Towers and Pentagon works in my opinion.

reply to post by Insolubrious

No - I expect that most of the plane should of (sic) exploded up against the facade of the building, raining down huge amounts of plane like debris, including luggage and people. Many plane parts should of (sic)fallen down yet nothing did, the whole plane was swallowed up by the building.

Once again, you are completely misunderstanding the concept of physics.

ONLY in cartoons does an object moving at high velocity suddenly STOP!

THAT is why they are cartoons! I am sorry for you, not to comprehend the reality of the real world.

Not even the damn wings came off as it went in!

Ibid.

One guy who was on the floor of impact claimed the wing went right through the steel, though the walls and ended up behind him embedded in his office wall!

Gee....an eyewitness??? An actual witness to the event. Who survived??????

YET.....YOU sit there, and type nonsense into the computer, and post it? YOU read the eyewitness account, and still don't get it???

*face/palm*

Why do I try?

[edit on 23 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by die_another_day
reply to post by turbofan

 

WTC 7 was obviously "pulled down"

Twin Towers and Pentagon works in my opinion.

It doesn't even come close to explaining the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, to my mind. The big problem there is how the monumental, and undamaged, sections below the impact points lost all their structural integrity at the moment of collapse, allowing the building to free-fall, not to mention removing the moment of inertia of the top of the south tower that began to topple and rotate.... and then stopped rotating to fall straight down.

Bombs on the planes does not get rid of the core columns.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by Karilla]

Here's a nice little presentation on JASSM/9/11 plane comparison.



Morgan Reynolds sums it up well!