An open challenge to no planers

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So a plane impacting with 1 kiloton of force is just going to hit the building and STOP?

You're talking MASSIVE forces involved. There's no way that those buildings were going to withstand the initial impact of those planes.

So the NIST and FEMA reports were wrong or lieing when they stated the buildings withstood the planes impacts ?

Do you have evidence that the NIST and FEMA reports are wrong ?

I have sent Freedom of Infomration request to the following.

NSA
FBI
NTSB

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So the NIST and FEMA reports were wrong or lieing when they stated the buildings withstood the planes impacts ?

Do you have evidence that the NIST and FEMA reports are wrong ?

Or do you have evidence that the steel facade that we were talking about withstood them? Or are you just twisting things we were talking about to make it look like I'm saying something I'm not?

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Or do you have evidence that the steel facade that we were talking about withstood them? Or are you just twisting things we were talking about to make it look like I'm saying something I'm not?

www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework. Heat from the fire was comparable to the energy produced by a large commercial power-generating plant, the report said.

www.nist.gov...

The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large dimensional size of the WTC towers helped the buildings withstand the aircraft impact.

The composite floor system with open-web bar joist elements, framed to provide two-way flat plate action, enabled the floors to redistribute loads without collapse from places of aircraft impact damage to other locations, avoiding larger scale collapse upon impact.

The hat truss resisted the significant weakening of the core, due to aircraft impact damage and subsequent thermal effects, by redistributing loads from the damaged core columns to adjacent intact columns and, ultimately, by redistributing loads to the perimeter walls from the thermally weakened core columns that lost their ability to support the buildings’ weight.

As a result of the above factors, the buildings would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the subsequent jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires, if the fireproofing had not been dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact. The existing condition of the fireproofing prior to aircraft impact and the fireproofing thickness on the WTC floor system did not play a significant role in initiating collapse on Sept. 11, 2001.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only people i see twisting things are the poeple who believe the official story without any evidence to support it.



[edit on 6-6-2007 by ULTIMA1]

And is it so hard for you to understand that we were talking about the FACADE of the building and not the entire building? What part of that is so hard to understand?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And is it so hard for you to understand that we were talking about the FACADE of the building and not the entire building? What part of that is so hard to understand?

911research.wtc7.net...

WTC 1 probably experienced some additional loading and damage due to the collapse of the adjacent WTC 2. The extent of such damage is not known but likely included broken window and facade elements along the south face. This additional damage was not sufficient to cause collapse. The first event of sufficient severity to cause collapse was the fires that followed the aircraft impact.

And all of these quotes have WHAT to do with whether the facade could have withstood the initial impact of the planes? We're ONLY talking facade here, not the entire building.

To say there were no planes is pure disinformation. Suckers that believe this and a lot of other disinfo about 911 are a big reason the truth movement will never succeed. A war machine against a bunch of headless chickens.. Yes there are questions unanswered, but the conspiracies are getting more " out there" as they struggle to get any nearer to reality.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
To say there were no planes is pure disinformation.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Careful with these accusations, you may come to realize they are unfounded.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
To say there were no planes is pure disinformation. Suckers that believe this and a lot of other disinfo about 911 are a big reason the truth movement will never succeed. A war machine against a bunch of headless chickens.. Yes there are questions unanswered, but the conspiracies are getting more " out there" as they struggle to get any nearer to reality.

Its just too bad we have no videos or photos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. No official reports matching the parts found to flight 77. No reports on where the parts found were taken.

a similar test conducted to test strength of a reinforced wall.

Similar speeds as WTC 'crashes', 500 MPH. I apologize that I do not have the original source, but a link to another site instead. I will look further for the original.


www.compfused.com...


.....found direct youtube link



[edit on 6-6-2007 by showmeproof]

Now, with a reinforced wall totally destroying the plane. One must hypothesize that a standard steel wall would cause physical damage to some aspect of the plane prior to entry: nosepieces, tail sections, wings are all designed to break off as a whole unit upon the slightest stress. Where are any of these pieces?

[edit on 6-6-2007 by showmeproof]

Originally posted by showmeproof
a similar test conducted to test strength of a reinforced wall.

Similar speeds as WTC 'crashes', 500 MPH. I apologize that I do not have the original source, but a link to another site instead. I will look further for the original.
[edit on 6-6-2007 by showmeproof]

Well for 1 the block is a lot thicker and made of harder material then the wall of the Pentagon.

Also the F-4 is made with steel. So if the F-4 could not make a dent in the block how did a 757 made from aluminum go through the wall and collums of the Pentagon ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Fowl Play
To say there were no planes is pure disinformation. Suckers that believe this and a lot of other disinfo about 911 are a big reason the truth movement will never succeed. A war machine against a bunch of headless chickens.. Yes there are questions unanswered, but the conspiracies are getting more " out there" as they struggle to get any nearer to reality.

Its just too bad we have no videos or photos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. No official reports matching the parts found to flight 77. No reports on where the parts found were taken.

Personally i do not believe flight 77 hit the Pentagon, i am talking about no planes hitting the towers... That is total BS.
Sleeper, i will use what terms i like in what situations i see fit, i do nothing against T&C.
I will reiterrate.. To say no planes hit the twin towers is total disinformation.

I wish they showed the aftermath of the concrete. But that was a nice video. Important safety note too. Kamikaze attack with an old F4 Phanton into a nuclear power plant won't do much but wreck your plane.

Originally posted by Fowl Play
[
Sleeper, i will use what terms i like in what situations i see fit, i do nothing against T&C.
I will reiterrate.. To say no planes hit the twin towers is total disinformation.

I'm assuming you are referring to me?

I'm not sleeper....

Sure you may use any terms you want and that also means that I can call your statements to be unfounded.

Which it is.

ULTIMA1 - I recall hearing the section of the pentagon hit was the section recently reinforced. One would assume that it would be at a minimum equally reinforced to that of a nuclear powerplant considering the pentagon is the 'brains' of the military.

Nuclear power plants have a thickness of several FEET of reinforced concrete (IIRC it's 5+). The Pentagon was something like 18 inches. The reinforcement was strong enough to withstand a truck bomb being almost against the wall without it penetrating. There was no reason for them to reinforce it to several feet of concrete.

Fowl Play

You are absolutely correct in your assertion. IT IS PURE DISINFORMATION designed to make the truth movement look like they are completely nuts. I have noted time and time again, people who support "no planes" ignore rational explanations, such as zoom effects, movement illusions, double movement illusions, parallax, different angles giving different perspectives etc and etc.

These things occur in film. Also the people who post these types of clips rely heavily on 'compressed' poor quality shots.

But the fact is, the military can't control every single photo and person with a video camera.

There is a tremendous LACK OF film and photos showing Nothing hitting the tower. But there are a LOT OF PHOTOS showing a plane hitting the South Tower.

There shouldn't be just one or two items, but countless.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by Fowl Play
[
Sleeper, i will use what terms i like in what situations i see fit, i do nothing against T&C.
I will reiterrate.. To say no planes hit the twin towers is total disinformation.

I'm assuming you are referring to me?

I'm not sleeper....

Sure you may use any terms you want and that also means that I can call your statements to be unfounded.

Which it is.

Saying that is unfounded is deflection and disinformation, it is claims of no planes that is unfounded, an absolute lie and disgrace actually.

Lets not forget the topic of this thread. It is a challenge to the no plane people to come up with something 'concrete'. It is a very specific challenge. They should have countless video and photos of nothing hitting the towers. Since so many private people were taking pictures and filming that day.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by talisman]