This is a pretty strange post. The plane did crashed into the building and displayed all the behavior that would have been expected by crumpling and
breaking into parts. You can see the damaged plane from photos taken external to the building. Limestone is a relatively soft and porous material,
completely unlike steel. But since you mention it, that the 767s in New York create these cookie-cutter cut outs in the steel supporting columns but
no outline of the 757 at the Pentagon is visible, even though its facade was also made of limestone, is rather striking. But then so is the absence
of a massive pile of aluminum debris, the wings, the tail, bodies, seats and luggage. Not even the engines were recovered at the Pentagon. See
"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon",
I find it very curous that you could think that a crash site that displays
the kinds of damage to the building and the plane that would be expected is supposed to contradict my point that WE DON'T SEE THOSE KINDS OF DAMAGE
TO THE SOUTH TOWER. The physics involved here, by the way, is not mine but Newton's. You might want to check out some of Stefan Grossman's work at
, for more of his work:
What Happened On 9-11: THE GREATEST ILLUSION OF ALL MANKIND
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER was built and designed to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet. That includes the Boeing models 747,757,767,777.
Therefore when a Jumbo Jet, consisting primarily of merely a hollow pressurized cabin, impacts the reinforced concrete and steel support beams of the
World Trade Center that it crumples on impact on the outside of the building and falls to the ground because of little encroachment into the
The American Media has told people that a Jet wing can cut through steel reinforced concrete designed to withstand the impact of a high speed jet
America was told that what they witnessed was what appeared to be a jet flying completely into the World Trade Center as if it were Jello. What the
American media reported was something that is physically impossible. This is another Single Bullet Theory.
The answer is that a cruise missile with a military hologram aboard crashed into the building. A Cruise missile is small enough to fly into the
building if it were to avoid any steel beams and merely properly aimed at open office glass panes.
The idea of a hologram sounds far-fetched initially, I know. But the problem is that no real Boeing 767 could have flown at 560 mph at 700-1,000 foot
altitude, entered the building in violation of Newton's laws, or passed through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it
passes through its own length in air. But the image of a Boing 767 could do all those things, which supports the inference that it was indeed a
I am not an expert on all these things, which is why I bring those who are together to pool our resources. Thus, I created a research group
consisting of the best qualified individuals--including a world authority on the human brain who was also an expert on ballistics; a Ph.D. in physics
who is also an M.D. and board-certified in radiation oncology; another physics Ph.D. with expertise in electromagnetism--to study the assassination of
We discovered that the autopsy X-rays had been altered, that autopsy photographs--and the "backyard" photos--had been faked, and that the Zapruder
film--long thought to be the closest thing to absolute truth about his death--had been reconstructed to remove the limo stop and conceal the true
causes of his death. Separating authentic from inauthentic evidence was our objective, where the case is easy to understand once that is
I have pursued the same strategy in founding Scholars for 9/11 Truth by bringing together experts of different backgrounds, such as pilots and
aeronautical engineers, physicists and engineers (structural and mechanical) as well as other disciplines to sort out what really happened. That is
how I can pursue these issues with such great confidence: I have benefitted from the expertise of those who know more than I about their areas of
So I don't quite understand why the fact that I have studied physics but am not a physicist is supposed to be held against me, when I collaborate
with those who are. Pilots for 9/11 Truth, John Lear, Stefan Grossman, and many others know more about planes, physics, and aerodynamics than do I,
which is why I defer to them. What I don't understand is how anyone like you can not accept the results of their studies, like "9/11
That seems to me to combine arrogance with ignorance. The use of a hologram sounds like a stretch, but I also interviewed Stephen Brown on "The Real
where he explained that he had taken a course on holography at
Cambridge and that the use of a hologram for this purpose was entirely feasible given the state of technology in 2001. If I can defer to greater
expertise, why can't you and ATS?
If you have a better explanation, produce it. But remember that it has to explain how this image of a plane could be flying faster than a real Boeing
767 could fly at that altitude, how it could enter this massive steel and concrete building in violation of Newton's laws, and how it could pass
through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. Good luck!
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by JimFetzer
Jim YOUR background is NOT, PHYSICS, ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION thats obvious by your strange assumptions so come on explain how in the Empire State
crash a SMALLER,LIGHTER SLOWER AIRCRAFT put one of its engines through 8" of limestone many layers of brick several office walls more layers of
brickwork and another 8" of limestone on the opposite wall care to explain Jim because it couldn't happen according to Fetzer
Oh and thats open to any of your deluded followers as well!
edit on 4-3-2011 by wmd_2008 because: comment added