Did Large Airliners Really Hit the Buildings on 9/11?, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times
Topic started on 16-3-2010 @ 09:04 PM by PookztA
I hate to say it but I no longer believe that commerical airlines hit the WTC towers... I did for a very long time, and then I learned about Dr. Judy Wood and her amazing research, and it raised enough questions in my mind to start re-examining my belief that planes did hit the towers. Now, I honestly think it was something other than a major airliner.

1. One reason that I question whether or not commercial airliners hit the towers is because:

Softer elements cannot cut through harder elements, thus...

...Aluminum CANNOT cut through steel, just like copper does not cut through diamond (FACT).

...but Steel CAN cut through Aluminum. (FACT).

In fact, BIRDS can even cut through Aluminum (see below).



So, for those of you that have been assuming that aluminum can some how cut through steel, I now have a question for you:

If birds can cut through aluminum (as seen in the picture of the aluminum airplane that hit a bird), does that mean birds can cut through steel?

It is commonly known in chemistry that harder elements can cut through softer elements, but not the reverse. The "hardness" of a material is classified using Mohs Scale, which explains how 'harder' materials can scratch / cut 'softer' materials, but not the other way around. See here: chemistry.about.com... and here: www.jewelry-secrets.com...

This is why Diamond, one of the hardest materials of all, is used in the toughest situations, because it cuts through most everything since it is one of the hardest materials known.

Aluminum is much softer than Steel, therefore, Aluminum cannot cut through Steel, just like Copper cannot cut into Diamond.

I learned this in junior high school Chemistry, and it was a basic concept that was used over and over again throughout highschool and college chemistry courses.

There is one exception I know of, which is when water is highly focused and sprayed at high velocity to cut through metals. They often add abrasive elements to the water to assist with cutting. The water has to be focused into a very narrow beam though so that all of the pressure is applied to a very small area, and the water has to be accelerated to 900+ miles per hour. see here: science.howstuffworks.com...


2. Another reason is because many of the hijackers have been reported to be alive and well.

See here:

1. guardian.150m.com...

2. 911research.wtc7.net...


3. Another reason I believe commercial airliners did not hit the towers is because many videos have shown some type of light-targetting mechanism on the WTC buildings as the "plane" approached, which is characteristic of a large cruise missile of some kind. Here, see the light for yourself:

1. Laser Targeting UAV, Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11:


2. ABL Laser spotting and fly by wtc I jet impact:



And here is just one of several types of remote piloted cruise missiles which could have been used: www.globalsecurity.org...

I'm not saying I know what was used, I just see too much evidence contradicting the "airliner" story.

-Abe


reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 09:58 PM by Sean48
reply to post by PookztA


This is basically the same "evidence" with the same links as your other

2 or 3 threads on Judy, just a different title.

It's been de-bunked in all previous threads .


reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 10:02 PM by PookztA
reply to post by Sean48



actually the links and pictures in my original post have never been posted by me in any other thread in this forum.

this is the first "no planes" post I have made, because I felt like I should share this information.

That's fine if you don't agree with my opinion, because I am simply sharing the information I have found. Agree with it or Disagree with it, I could careless as long as you are viewing it and then deciding for yourself.

As long as everyone is thinking for themselves and not just group-thinking like so many truth-seekers do, then I am happy.

I respectfully disagree, because I am no longer convinced that airliners hit the buildings.

-Abe



reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 10:02 PM by Shadow Herder
Originally posted by PookztA

Softer elements cannot cut through harder elements, thus...

It is commonly known in chemistry that harder elements can cut through softer elements, but not the reverse.
-Abe



Dont think so tim. Unless this little girls hand is 'harder' than cement

Also, a softer bullet can penetrate harder materials. Has to do with speed, inertia and a bunch of other scientific mumbo-jumbo it gets a little complicated.



[edit on 16-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

[edit on 16-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]


reply posted on 16-3-2010 @ 10:06 PM by warisover
reply to post by PookztA


Hello PookztA, I hate to say it too,(because I get labeled a disinfo shill from the truthers) [even though I'm a truther] but there was no commercial airplanes that crashed into anything on 9-11. There were no credible witnesses that can confirm seeing jetliners crash into the towers. We know there was no plane that hit the pentagon, why is it so hard for people to realize that no planes hit either tower?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 11 days ago with 14 member flags
In Depth Look At The Pentagon Witnessess On 9/11
  Posted 19 days ago with 12 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 5 days ago with 12 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 16 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags