Disappearing planes

Originally posted by seattletruth
Just a point of clarification, the crater in the ground was already there before 9/11. This was confirmed by satellite imagery. Check out this video.

Careful there, OP. Pretty soon you'll start watching September Clues and realize there was no planes that hit the towers either.

Think about it. 100% penetration into steel reinforced towers was the most important part of their plan. If even one of the planes didn't fully penetrate, and fell to the ground, the plan would have been completely ruined, and their explosives would have been found.

Normal crash physics says that this is highly unlikely. Of course they would use missiles instead... To make the plan have a 100% success rate.

That was the key to their entire plan. No mistakes (but they made some small ones

)

[edit on 30-1-2010 by seattletruth]

This is exactly what I was thinking when I read this posted above:

Originally posted by wiredamerican

It would seem logical, to me at least, that the fuselage of the plane would have the most impact . The wings being flimsy arms would only disintegrate upon something more structurally sound.

Edit:
The wings put a pretty big hole in the towers, didn't they? Or did they?

[edit on 30-1-2010 by Dogdish]

Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III, retired head of Army Stragegic Intelligence Forces says:
Pentagon was NOT hit by a plane.

www.metacafe.com...

"The wings put a pretty big hole in the towers, didn't they? Or did they?"

According to video, the wings (and the entire plane for that matter) sliced through the towers like a hot knife through butter. I guess the video CGI guys didn't have the expertise to depict a realistic impact against the tower.

Isn't it funny how the plane, allegedly traveling at approximately 450 mph, easily sliced through the facing of the towers, but then came to virtually a complete and sudden stop once it hit the middle of the towers. This is even more absurd when you realize the length of a 767 is 160 feet and the width of the tower was 210 feet.

Back to the topic at hand, no physical evidence of large commercial aircraft at Pentagon and Shanksville means that those planes did not crash at those locations. A remote controlled model airplane would leave more damage evidence than what was observed at either of those locations.

But then again, when your captive audience consists mainly of gullible moronic suckers, you can tell them anything and they'll believe it.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"The wings put a pretty big hole in the towers, didn't they? Or did they?"

According to video, the wings (and the entire plane for that matter) sliced through the towers like a hot knife through butter. I guess the video CGI guys didn't have the expertise to depict a realistic impact against the tower.

Isn't it funny how the plane, allegedly traveling at approximately 450 mph, easily sliced through the facing of the towers, but then came to virtually a complete and sudden stop once it hit the middle of the towers. This is even more absurd when you realize the length of a 767 is 160 feet and the width of the tower was 210 feet.

Yes, I have a video of that, too!

www.metacafe.com...

In my best Mike Meyers voice: "Like Butter".

reply to post by Alfie1



Ok, looked at your video, not convinced

A) the F4 is tiny compared to a passanger jet

B) Is it not made of different materials to a passanger jet?

C) Isnt the phantom in the video being propelled by a rocket engine? so doesnt that affect what happens to it, you know, different fuel etc?

D) its not a passamger jet, and its flying into a 8 (?) foot thick concrete block

Therefore, not relevant and doesnt answer the challange

kenny71

"1996: On May 11, Valujet Flight 592 nose-dived into the Florida Everglades a few minutes after taking off from Miami. The plane, carrying 110 passengers and crew, hit the ground with such a force that it disappeared completely into the swamp and remains buried there. Investigators allege that the plane was carrying illegally stored oxygen generators that apparently fanned a fire and caused the crash. - Flexnor"
"

Thanks, good try, but a swamp is not dry land, nor is it a re-enforced building

And it STILL left bits....










So sorry but no cigar

Off to cook lunch, will be back

reply to post by Icerider




I can see how you are open to other views here.

But, can you please explain to me what difference the size of the plane makes ?

What difference you think there is in the construction of the aircraft and the relevance ?

The relevance of what propels it ?






[Mod Edit - replace quote with Reply To: tab]

[edit on 31/1/2010 by Sauron]

Icerider

Btw, you still haven't identified for me the " wings, major body parts, tailplane etc " from the Iranian crash site.

reply to post by Alfie1


Alfie, if you look at the video you posted you will see some big chunks of airplane.

But more important, and as I pointed out, there is a MASSIVE crater

MASSIVE

not a dog scrape, not a divot, a MASSIVE CRATER

I call that evidence of an impact, not a plane disappearing.

as for being open to other viewpoints, your right, Im not,
I know a crock of ***t when I smell it.
I understand why you and others on here maintain your OS line, I appreciate its your job, but please don't expect me to buy into it without proving that what you claim is possible, and has happened elsewhere.

Thats all I'm asking of you!

reply to post by Alfie1



Sorry, re the F4.

Surely a lighter constructed fighter plane will 'vanish' in smoke a lot easier than a passanger jet? Aren't they made from different, lighter, less stable alloys? (magnesium). - Im not an expert, but Id be surprised if this wasnt so
And of course an empty F$ isnt a laden jet with seats and cargo and a wingspan of what, 120+ feet?

Isnt rocket fuel highly explosive, more so than kerosene, and doesnt a rocket motor consist of less heavy machined parts than a jet engine - much easier to destroy?

Isnt the ground at shanksville supposed to be softer than an 8 foot thick brick wall? how about the pentagon, was that an 8 foot wall?

All of which brings me to the conclusion that although the video is fascinating it doesn't answer my very simple request.

Hey I tried. I later researched it some more and saw the pictures of flight 592 myself. In honesty though when a plane goes missing you are going to find parts to it because everyone would be looking for it. JFK Jr for instance. They scoured the Atlantic ocean and found pieces of his Cessna. Where theirs smoke theirs fire.

reply to post by kenny71


Kenny, I thank you for trying! I really do. I don't actually think anybody has got a handle on the truth of what happened that day, except for a very small group of people.

I am pretty sure that there are people on here whose sole objective is to suppress truth. The way you've answered me here, tends to make me think your not one of them.

Have you noticed that, after the initial brow beating, this thread has gone very quiet. Have you noticed that your the only one who has even come close to presenting what I originally asked for?

I would rather know it was a bunch of fundamentalist nuts did this, than think that people who run the world were complicit, I would welcome evidence that this is not so, but I'm afraid it doesn't exist, and the lack of response to even my very simple request suggests this is so.

I shall be qouting this thread in future postings, thats for sure

I hope one day we will have a truth everyone can agree on but until then I have to ask questions.

"Yes, I have a video of that, too!
www.metacafe.com...
In my best Mike Meyers voice: "Like Butter"."

Yep, that's the video. Notice how the alleged plane impacts towards the right side of the building's facade. If this aircraft was able to slice cleanly through the facade, most of the plane SHOULD have gone straight through the building and out the other side just as cleanly.

Since the plane allegedly impacted towards the right side of the building, its momentum could not have been stopped by the core column, which was located in the middle of the building.

This leaves only one other explanation: the large, heavy and fast moving plane was stopped cold in its tracks by heavy duty office chairs, office desks and cubicle walls.

The disappearing planes hypothesis has been debunked over and over again over the years. It is pure disinformation designed to try and discredit all of the real theories on what happened and how it happened that day.

A more interesting question is why was it decided at the top that a disinformation hypothesis was needed in the first place ? That is, if the "Official Conspiracy Theory" is what really happened.

Right ?

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Not only super heavy duty sturdy, but also flammable at temps high enough to liquify really big pieces of fire retardant covered steel!

Why don't they build planes out of that stuff?

reply to post by Longbob


Longbob, I'm trying to work out your stance on this issue.

All I want is evidence from other plane crashes that have similar physical properties.

Can you clarify if you are proposing that the two non NYC planes crashed as claimed?

If you are, can you offer evidence, as requested, that suggests this is possible?

Thanks!

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

"The wings put a pretty big hole in the towers, didn't they? Or did they?"

According to video, the wings (and the entire plane for that matter) sliced through the towers like a hot knife through butter. I guess the video CGI guys didn't have the expertise to depict a realistic impact against the tower.

Isn't it funny how the plane, allegedly traveling at approximately 450 mph, easily sliced through the facing of the towers, but then came to virtually a complete and sudden stop once it hit the middle of the towers. This is even more absurd when you realize the length of a 767 is 160 feet and the width of the tower was 210 feet.

Back to the topic at hand, no physical evidence of large commercial aircraft at Pentagon and Shanksville means that those planes did not crash at those locations. A remote controlled model airplane would leave more damage evidence than what was observed at either of those locations.

But then again, when your captive audience consists mainly of gullible moronic suckers, you can tell them anything and they'll believe it.

Just one problem - exterior walls of WTC were NOT SOLID STEEL. Instead
was a lattice work of steel beams BOLTED together. Aircraft impact
sheared off the bolts holding it.


Notice it in this panel knocked off WTC 1 (North) Tower




Also not the aircraft wqheel em,bedded in panel.....

I worked at Arlington Cemetery on September 11th 2001. I saw things that were pretty tragic. I have read a lot of what people have wrote on ATS about flight 77. Its almost disturbing. I can tell you that it went ABRACADABRA into the Western side of the Pentagon. It also skirted the ground first. I also saw some of the people who died in the Pentagon get buried in Arlington Cemetery. I have no comment on the trade centers.

Q: How many Vietnam Vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: You don't know man! You weren't there.

Yeah, its pretty horrific when innocent civilians become victims of military agendas, thats for sure.

I've seen some of the guys working at the cemetery interviewed, but none of them claimed to see the actual impact, said it was out of their line of vision.

If your not pulling my leg, then maybe you should go on record somewhere, because I wasn't aware that anyone witnessed the actual impact. even the guy in the helipad control box "ducked and covered"

I know some claimed they did, like the guy at the navy annex, but its been shown he couldn't have seen the impact.

Actually, I would like it if you could tell me where abouts you where when you saw the crash, I would like to go and have a look for myself, and it would lend weight to what you say, for sure. I have time tomorrow, and Ive not been there for a while.

Hmmmmm...

Check your messages Icerider I am off the record now.