No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

reply to post by tuffvibes

Thanks for your reply weedwacker. I accept it is possible that they could have been destroyed, but it's strange that parts of the plane were apparently found but the black boxes were not. Although, I just read an article that says they were found and handed to the FBI who claim they do not have them. Obviously it's just an internet report and one should not believe everything we read.

reply to post by tuffvibes

Thanks for your reply weedwacker. I accept it is possible that they could have been destroyed, but it's strange that parts of the plane were apparently found but the black boxes were not. Although, I just read an article that says they were found and handed to the FBI who claim they do not have them. Obviously it's just an internet report and one should not believe everything we read.

reply to post by tuffvibes


Whoops sorry for bad posts - hit wrong key typing.....

Thanks for your reply weedwacker. I accept it is possible that they could have been destroyed, but it's strange that parts of the plane were apparently found but the black boxes were not. Although, I just read an article that says they were found and handed to the FBI who claim they do not have them. Obviously it's just an internet report and one should not believe everything we read.

The aircraft parts recovered were those that exited the building - a large
amount of aircraft debris came out the opposite site of the buildings

Can see some of the debris here flying out of South Tower



Map of where aircraft debris was found



Here is some of the recovered debris

Jet engine on street



Landing gear wheel



Seat in trunk of car



Aircraft parts





As for "black boxes" aka Flight and Cockpit Voice recorders

As WEEDWHACKER alluded to - the boxes are designed to resist a crash,
but are not indestructable. At WTC boxes were slmmed in the building at
around 500 mph, speed of a bullet, subjected to intense fires . Then smashed with hundreds of thousands of tons of debris, buried under huge mound of debris which was burning for 3 months.

Little wonder boxes did not survive

A gtoup of my friends were there that day and actually caught the 2nd plane on footage. It was a VHS recorder back in the day But yes, they did see/hear/and video it.

I can see your pictures do look genuine, and I know people have various theories for how the plane debris ended up where it did, but I still have a few questions...


The engine on the street picture is next to a street sign with 'Murray' written on it, it's either a 'coincidence' that the street sign is there and was damaged by the engine or it could also be there to try and add authenticity?!

The 2 pictures that have aircraft parts in sprayed paint, I also find it strange as to why they would need to spary these words on these containers? Surely someone would have been supervising the collection of parts and plane parts aren't mistakable so the name spraying is not really necessary? again, perhaps done to add authenticity?

Wasn't Hi-8mm and Mini-DV the videos people used back then? VHS is a very old format and the cameras were huge. It seems your friends were using old technology and lugging around and massive piece of equipment that day? I'm assuming this video has been converted and is in the public domain? If so could you possibly provide a link please? Thanks

Regarding the black boxes: I was under the impression they could sustain higher G-forces and temperatures than those they would have encountered from the 9/11 crashes? So with that in mind they technically should have been found.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by tuffvibes]

www.youtube.com...

From 2:04 onwards just by he word 'discovery' a plane can be seen clearly flying past? This is visible not long after the North Tower is hit and way before the South Tower is hit. Does anyone find that strange?

reply to post by tuffvibes


???

What is "strange" about another airplane (flying normally, and slowly as seen) in the vicinity of the WTC Towers?

Were you not aware of the proximity of La Guardia airport?

flightaware.com...

reply to post by tuffvibes


Sure, like I said....

I was under the impression they could sustain higher G-forces and temperatures than those they would have encountered from the 9/11 crashes?

They would most likely have survived the crash, and subsequent fires. (Although, in the case of AAL 77, at the Pentagon, the outer casing on the CVR broke open, and the solid-state data cards were disrupted).

IF the buildings hadn't collapsed, then it's likely the Recorders would have been recoverable, after the fires were extinguished and clean-up/investigations commenced.

BUT...as thedman noted (and I thought is obvious) the chances of those Recorders surviving being buried under all those tons of building debris are slim.

Like I said, odd things do happen...I've read personal accounts from a few survivors who were IN THE BUILDINGS when they collapsed!! I remember one man's adventure....when everything settled he was perched precariously on a slab, and it was threatening to unbalance and fall...his rescue took a great deal of time, as they had to be careful not to upset the fragile balance.

I've never seen a video of a plane "dive bomb"ing "almost vertically". Can you post a link to the video you speak of?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes I was aware there was an airport close by but the plane I mentioned looked quite close to the towers and surely they don't fly that close unless they're hijacked of course! Plus what with 2 planes being hijacked no planes should have been in the air, especially that close!

Regarding the black box recorders, it's possible they were destroyed when the buildings collapsed but I was under the impression that the first 'plane' didn't go all the way in and recorders are in the rear, and if other plane parts were found on the ground then it's possible that the recorders were not inside when they collapsed, there's no proof they were inside.

reply to post by tuffvibes




It wasn't "close".

...but the plane I mentioned looked quite close to the towers and surely they don't fly that close unless they're hijacked of course!

I gave a link to another aviation chart image...but I have a better one, except I don't know how to do a 'screen shot' capture.

I invite you to follow my instructions, and look for yourself at this site:
skyvector.com...

When you get there, do this: Upper left corner, type "KLGA", then click 'Go'. (Since it's your first visit, I am not sure which page you will see, first). But, look for a tab across the top labeled "Enroute L-34". Click that. You will now be looking at IFR Charts for the proper area, you may have to scroll, and zoom in to center the La Guardia airport on your screen.

Orient yourself, you can see Manhatten Island there...look for blue symbol that's labeled 'HEROS'. (That is simply a GPS waypoint, and it was obviously defined post-9/11, based on its name...in tribute). It is located just southwest of the tip of South Manhatten, where the WTC Towers stood.

NOW...see that Victor Airway, on the LGA 225 Radial? It's a multiple-name Airway, V-6, V-123, V-157, V-433 and V-455 all coincide, there, for a brief time (they diverge later).

Airplanes departing LGA, and after taking off on Runway 22, for instance, will join that routing (depending on their ultimate destinationm, and IFR clearance) to the TICKL intersection, and then on flight plan course, as filed or instructed. (OR, there may be another defined Departure Procedure, but the routing would be very similar).

So, the airplane in the video shot was departing LGA, southwest bound, well East of the WTC Towers. See?

You are aware of how camera lenses work, right? We don't know what the focal length was, in that camera in that shot. BUT, it looked perfectly normal to me, AND the airplane was above the height of the Towers, by then. Notice the camera angle...think about it.

Plus what with 2 planes being hijacked no planes should have been in the air, especially that close!

Oh, dear...! Ths is exactly WHY the "9/11 conspiracy" frenzy, and nonsense, has taken hold!!

It is a combination of repeated, incorrect assumptions and interpretations...

LOOK again, at the video. Consider the point in time...ONLY one Tower has been hit, so far. NOBODY, yet, knew what was about to unfold, nor did ANYONE (in the NYC area) know that there had been a hijacking...(only one known at all...UNTIL UAL 175 hit the North Tower). Note the North Tower is not on fire? That's a major clue.

But, as you can see, by saying what you said...well, it gets repeated, and others say it, and suddenly it makes OTHER people 'wonder'...when the original comment was WRONG to begin with!

Like I said...THAT is how these nutty "conspiracies" develop!


[edit on 4 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

weedwacker, you say the north tower was not on fire? Are we looking at the same video?! The north tower is clearly on fire!

I don't profess to be a video/camera expert, but I have a reasonably good set of eys and it looks fairly close to me, obviously not so close that it's going to hit but quite close considering what has just happened! It also seems to be ascending.

They were apparently aware the plane was hijacked way before it hit the tower and grounded all planes, and re-directed the ones in the air to other airports, so with all that in mind it does seem odd one would be so close.

(verbatim)
"Oh, dear...! Ths is exactly WHY the "9/11 conspiracy" frenzy, and nonsense, has taken hold!!

It is a combination of repeated, incorrect assumptions and interpretations"

"Like I said...THAT is how these nutty "conspiracies" develop!"

Oh, so I'm crazy and frenzied because I am highlighting something I find strange. No disrespect, I know you are a pilot but you seem to dismiss everything everyone says, but only selectively answer questions. You didn't answer my question on whether the black box was in the building either.

I'm starting to wonder if you're trying to deliberately put people off? Hidden agenda?

reply to post by tuffvibes

Regarding the black box recorders, it's possible they were destroyed when the buildings collapsed but I was under the impression that the first 'plane' didn't go all the way in and recorders are in the rear, and if other plane parts were found on the ground then it's possible that the recorders were not inside when they collapsed, there's no proof they were inside.

Recorders are in the tail - part of aircraft considered most likely to survive
the impact.

Aircraft parts recovered were mostly from the front of the aircraft - these
would have had sufficent momentum to punch through the building
Objects farther back would have been slowed by collosion with building
structures and furnishings. What happened was that the rear half of the
plane wound up against the far wall of the building in a huge pile of debris
from the aircraft and anything in its path. The debris pile was soaked in jet fuel and ignited into enormous fire. Flight recorders would have been
in this pile

When buildings collpased the recorders would be caught up in churning pile
of building debris, then buried under the pile. The pile burned for 3 months until mid December - temperatures in the burning pile reached
1900 F. Not likely anything would have survived this.

reply to post by tuffvibes


OK, OK...I get the sequence, NORTH vs. SOUTH Tower, and which was HIT FIRST backwards, sometimes...

weedwacker, you say the north tower was not on fire? Are we looking at the same video?! The north tower is clearly on fire!

I wasn't paying close attention while writing...again, multi-tasking.

For the record: NORTH Tower (WTC 1) hit first (AAL 11). Approached from the ~North. SOUTH Tower (WTC 2) hit next (UAL 175). Approached from the ~South.

POINT is...in the video, only ONE Tower is on fire, therefore it is still before the second hit. The TERROR attacks, and hijackings, were not yet common knowledge, and flights were continuing to take off...although all departures in the NYC area were stopped rather quickly after the first hit, just not immediately.

It also seems to be ascending.

Yes, as I said! The airplane, in the NatGeo video clip you showed, is operating from the nearby airport, La Guardia. It is obviously at LEAST a half mile (or more) from the Tower, as it passes by. Also, it is ABOVE the 'obstruction'. Routing for airplanes in the area DO take into account all known obsturctions, that airplane looks perfectly normal. IF you've been to NYC, then you've seen the same, or similar.

They were apparently aware the plane was hijacked way before it hit the tower and grounded all planes...

Huh? "they"? No, what makes you say that ALL planes were grounded "way before it hit the tower"?

You scoffed at me, in your response, because I mentioned how misinformation gets spread around...yet?? Here we go again?

Let's get specific, once more:

At 8:46 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11 was crashed into the World Trade Center's North Tower, followed by United Airlines Flight 175 which hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m.

AND...

9:03:04: Flight 175 crashes at about 590 mph (950 km/h) into the south face of the South Tower (2 WTC) of the World Trade Center, banked between floors 78 and 85.

>skip to<

9:04 (approximately): The FAA's Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center stops all departures from airports in its jurisdiction (New England and eastern New York State).

en.wikipedia.org...

AFTER the second airplane (UAL 175)...the 'local' departures were stopped, in the area. AFTER 0904 EDT. It was LATER that the ENTIRE country's airspace was shut down....

...but only selectively answer questions. You didn't answer my question on whether the black box was in the building either.

No, I don't...and yes, I did.

But, this is insulting!:

I'm starting to wonder if you're trying to deliberately put people off? Hidden agenda?

No 'agenda'. However, when thre are obvious misconceptions, and misinformation being spread, well...some people, like me, think those things should be pointed out. Remember what IU said abouit how these "conspiracies" start, and then spread?? Case in point.....


[edit on 4 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Here you have it, the discussion drifts deeply inside the semantics of the alleged mediahoax (according to NRPT). I don't get what should be acomplished here, whats the point in debating information that is forged according to this theory.
It's like talking about which branch of goverment produces ufos in a thread about the extraterrestial hypothesis...

While I am not enough into this therory to provide you with enough stuff to write about some other people are:
911logic.blogspot.com...

If you want something to disect try this one... he even goes over the 'eyewitness accounts' in the media...pretty solid stuff, while maybe hard to follow.. well as I said he *really* is into it...

reply to post by kybertech


I'm at a bit of a loss to see your point, here....however, thanks for the link to that ridiculous blog....was good for a chuckle.

Reading down to near the end, this little gem caught my eye; thought I'd share it with the more scientifically inclined here at ATS:

Now I realize I can't help everyone to understand Newton's Third Law - but I can try, using an example.

Imagine yourself punching a steel beam (obviously, you're not going to damage it). That pain that you would feel in your fist and travelling up your arm is a direct result of Newton's Third Law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Notice how this law has no "fine print" disclaimers, like "...unless that force is travelling at a very high speed" or "unless that force is applied in mid-air."

When applying Newton's Third Law to a plane crashing into box-steel beams, what must be realized is that all of the speed and momentum of the plane that seems to impress som many people, is applied to the surface area of the plane that would be in contact with the beams at the point of impact. Equal and opposite.

In essence, the plane would be hitting itself with the same force it would be applying to the steel beams.

Would be side-splittingly hilarious, if it weren't so sad....both because it shows that this person has NO IDEA about physics (is deluded into thinking he/she does) and, by default, it appears that a great deal many other people fall into the same category....since there continue to be a (thankfully small) contingent of "No Planers" out there.

Mind boggingly astonishing, though...at the inanity of the "arguments" for 'no planes'. THAT is why it makes me so sad (and somewhat frightened....to think that someday, people with so little knowledge of scientific principles might rise to positions of power and authority in the World, as I age and....oh, right....with the increase in religious fervor, of late, it seems to be already happening. Yikes!)

Hmm, while out of context this statement seems pretty hilarious can you prove him wrong?
I know I can't. But I neither can say for sure that a boing should behave that way seen on the videos.
I just dont have the recources to make a computer simulation, there is free software out there to do that, however to do just that but I don't think I will ever be able to obtain detailed models to do it. And neither is anyone else...

While I am relatively cirtain that the plane would do damage to the building and enter it (Empire State Building) I can not say for sure it would have to be consistent with the so called 'ghost plane' video. The problem here of course is considering only this video it could still be forged _and_ there were _really_ planes. Maybe they just didn't have enough footage.. however this scenario is very unlikely.

As for myself I would rather discuss the footage where there is no plane visible at all. I have not yet found a reasonable plausible explination for this from a real plane theory point of view.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by kybertech]

I'm confused. Why did no plane hit?

Originally posted by wheelerism
I'm confused. Why did no plane hit?

I too...
It's a theory from my pov so I don't know if it did. Ask someone else, preferable someone who is 100% convinced either way... IF you want to make a perfect troll posting

Originally posted by wheelerism
I'm confused. Why did no plane hit?

Some people believe the planes on 9/11 were computer generated.

Yeah, I know...