An open challenge to no planers

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
So, all one needs to do is review the hard physical evidence to logically conclude there were no planes.

Wizard-

In all seriousness, please point me to the hard physical evidence. If there is indeed "hard physical evidence", i would be intrigued to have the chance to analyze it.

Please explain something to me though; if you follow the videos that have been posted here on ATS over the past few days, and you really believe that the video footage was cgi, how do you explain the "operator error nose-cone" continuation theory? The original author failed to point out that there is a camera angle from the opposite side of the tower that shows the exact same anomaly; was the exact same error made simultaneously from two different vantage points?

None of the no-planers have answered this question; and I think you know why.

reply to post by Conspiracy Theorist

Here is no plane: In the video at 5:38
www.youtube.com...

There is nothing contradictory about the video of the flight path what so ever like the TV fakery crowd think there is.

The only anomaly here is how the plane entered the building, now that's weird. For that to happen it is more like the plane was modified to be a bunker busting type of missile, or the WTC walls were prepared for entry/sabotaged. The same would most likely be true at the Pentagon too, either the area they were 'renovating' was prepared in some way to allow a plane to enter and/or the plane that hit was modified to be a armour penetrating/bunker buster missile.

There were no planes, it's obvious. September Clues should be enough to convince anyone in my opinion. If not, this should do the job, its a 9 page analysis of all the 9/11 video. Very well done.

www.psy-opera.com...

It is obvious that there were no planes; from the original witness reports of small planes, missile attacks, Don Dahler from CNBC saying what he heard sounded like a missile, then saying he grew up on a military base and could easily tell the difference between a missile and a plane. Then you have the blatant evidence of video tampering exposed in the September Clues series and more than shady behavior from the media companies covering up the original copies of the footage, unexplainable fade to blacks, and covering up video with an oversized banner? Come on, there are way too many coincidences involved with 9/11 reports and TV coverage to point to anything other than no planes, especially with the amount of evidence supporting that every video of a plane was faked.

Here's the most impressive and scientific analysis of no planes I've seen; it's a 9 page PDF with the most well presented evidence I've seen so far proving that the videos were faked.
www.psy-opera.com...

And to anyone who hasn't watched September Clues all the way through I would definitely recommend it, it is the best 9/11 video out there in my opinion.
video.google.com...

[edit on 29-10-2008 by evilempire]

[edit on 29-10-2008 by evilempire]

.. And here's why September Clues is simply wrong on TV fakery. They forget to ask what happened to building 7? And do not address the issue of DEPTH.

Here is a video explaining exactly that.




Please debunk this video, explain to me why September Clues does not ask the question why building 7 moves and explain to me why depth is irrelevant, then TV fakers then I will listen to you again, most likely though you will not be able to and ignore the issues it raises in your flawed theory.

The ONLY point the TV faker crowd has is planes unable to enter buildings, which can be explained without tv fakery - and i would not be surprised that whatever struck the towers was not a normal plane.


[edit on 30-10-2008 by Insolubrious]

If an airplane can't enter a building without some kind of help then how did a B-25 at slow speed penetrate completely through the Empire State Building in the 1940s? There was no bunker busting technology back then, and no tv cameras to fake it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If an airplane can't enter a building without some kind of help then how did a B-25 at slow speed penetrate completely through the Empire State Building in the 1940s? There was no bunker busting technology back then, and no tv cameras to fake it.

Are you joking?

"penetrate completely through the Empire State Building" is a massive overstatement.

Firstly the ESB doesn't have a thick steel outerwall exoskeleton like the WTC did. Also the plane barely made it in, most of it fell to the ground infront of the building! The wings never made it in either by the looks of the hole.




[edit on 30-10-2008 by Insolubrious]

reply to post by Insolubrious


Care to bet your posting career on that? Didn't think so.

At least one engine of the B-25 was found on the OPPOSITE side of the building as the impact. Please tell me how that happened if it "barely penetrated the building and fell to the ground infront of it". You're right, it doesn't have a steel exoskeleton. It is CONCRETE. Which means that it should have been HARDER for the lighter plane to punch through it. It was a 10 ton B-25 traveling around 200mph.

The plane impacted the78th and 79th floors on the towers north end

Flames and dense smoke obscured the top of the structure. Later on a wing was found on Madison Avenue, one block away.


Nearby buildings were damaged by fragments of the impact and one of the planes engines was found on the South side of the building in the top of a twelve story building. The engine had flown over thirty-third St. and had crashed through a skylight in a penthouse. The engine started a $78,000.00 fire in the studio of sculptor Henry Hering. Hotel magnet Vincent Astor owned this 12-story building.
The other engine hit the door leading into an elevator shaft and fell 80 stories. While falling the engine cut the cables on many of the elevators. A woman riding one of these elevators was sent plummeting downward, but the elevator braking system prevented a basement crash, instead the top of the elevator was crush an she was trapped in total darkness.
The fuselage of the plane disintegrated into the 78th and 79th floor killing all four onboard the B-25, as well as killing or injuring everyone working in the War Relief Services and National Catholic Welfare Conference offices. Those who perished were either killed by the flying metal or by the raging inferno that followed.

www.withthecommand.com...

The crash tore a hole about 18 ft (5.5 m) wide by 20 ft (6 m) tall in the 34th Street exterior of the Empire State Building. While the 78th and 79th floors bore the brunt of the damage, one of the B-25's engines fell down an elevator shaft and set off a major fire in the basement. The other engine hurtled across the building and tore through seven walls before emerging from the 33rd Street side of the tower. The debris crashed through the roof of a thirteen-story building across the street where another fire erupted. Other heavy wreckage, including the landing gear, also caused damage to the Empire State and nearby buildings while Stan Lomax reportedly saw part of a wing catapulting towards Madison Avenue.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

The plane exploded WITHIN the building. There were five or six seconds - I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance - and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire. I kept calling to him, "Come on, Joe; come on, Joe." He walked out of it.2
Joe Fountain died several days later. Eleven of the office workers were burned to death, some still sitting at their desks, others while trying to run from the flames.
One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.

history1900s.about.com...

(Emphasis mine on third source.)

Barely penetrated? I guess that depends on your definition of barely. Must be different where you come from.







[edit on 10/30/2008 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by Zaphod58


Excellent post. Thank you very much!

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

It is CONCRETE. Which means that it should have been HARDER for the lighter plane to punch through it. end

That's just doesn't make sense, concrete is harder for a plane to punch through than steel?!

Pretend we have two walls here, both 1 inch thick, one made of concrete, one made of steel. I give you a sledge hammer and ask you to punch through the wall using the sledge hammer, which one do you think would be easier? The concrete wall or the steel wall?

It's pretty much the same deal, steel should provide more resistance than concrete against a plane collision, as concrete is a softer, less dense and lighter material than steel. This is also why there was more intact steel than concrete at ground zero too..



[edit on 30-10-2008 by Insolubrious]

Way to ignore the fact that a B-25, which is MAYBE 1/4 the size of a 767 punched completely through the Empire State Building traveling at roughly half the speed.

As for steel vs plane aluminum you are STILL talking about 200,000lbs or so travelling at 400+mph. There is no steel in the world, and no concrete in the world that will stop it, unless you're talking about the concrete around a nuclear reactor which is several FEET thick. Steel is strong, yes, but with that much momentum, and that much mass it's going to go through, whether it's a steel frame or a concrete frame.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As for steel vs plane aluminum you are STILL talking about 200,000lbs or so travelling at 400+mph.

www.glenbrook.k12.il.us...

Newton's Third Law of Motion

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

It matter's not which object is in motion, The building hit the plane at 400mph, the plane hit the building at 400mph.

You're telling me that if one of those 50 ton piece of steel outerwall sections travelling at 400mph would break/melt if it hit a plane?




Check Your Understanding

1. While driving down the road, a firefly strikes the windshield of a bus and makes a quite obvious mess in front of the face of the driver. This is a clear case of Newton's third law of motion. The firefly hit the bus and the bus hits the firefly. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the firefly or the force on the bus?

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Insolubrious]

Yes, anyone who saw the footage would have to agree that TWO airplanes did in fact hit the two WTC Buildings. I was watching when they hit. Only someone who is totally blind would fail to see that. Maybe Osama Bin Laden wasn't responsible, totally, for it. But there were two airplanes that flew into the WTC buildings.

reply to post by Insolubrious


Why do no planers always go to this one? Then maybe you can explain to me how it is that a car traveling at 40 mph can completely go through a concrete wall? The wall hit the car at 40 mph, so it shouldn't have penetrated. Or how it is that a plane that is barely moving can penetrate a wall while it's on the ground. But yet a plane traveling at 400 mph suddenly can't penetrate steel?

OP, I cannot express the words I would use to describe my opinion of you, as it would have me banned from this website.

So you believe OBL was "partially" responsible? So what, The american government put the bombs there, and coinscidentally OBL and his band of bed wetters inside some cave somewhere flew 2 planes into the buildings?

Use common sense.

That's a sledgehammer. Just 20 pounds of steel. If I were to board a plane with that sledgehammer I could punch holes in the fuselage with ease, rendering it totally unable to fly.

Now take that same sledgehammer and put me up on the 80th floor of the south tower, I could hammer away at the outer wall all day and I would barely make a dent in it.

Now can you imagine what a 50 ton piece of steel might do to a plane travelling at 400mph?

Newton's 3rd law - It matters not which object is in motion. The outer steel wall hit the plane, the plane hit the outer steel wall.


Here's another example of steel vs aluminum with an airplane demolition (no need for explosives!):





[edit on 31-10-2008 by Insolubrious]

The SKIN yes. The SKIN of an airplane is as thin and as light as possible. Have you ever seen the main spars that run through the wings and fuselage? They're huge and they've incredibly strong. Try to hit THAT with a sledgehammer, and it's not even going to dent it. THOSE are what did the most damage to the steel. You are hitting the steel building with those main spars that are incredibly strong and they're both being broken by hitting them together. If a plane was ONLY the skin, then I'd say you were right. A plane is much MORE than just the skin but yet every single no planer completely IGNORES the internal structure of the aircraft and says how weak the skin is.

This is one of many spars that are in a 767:




There are (I BELIEVE) at least 6 spars in a 767. That doesn't even take into account the bulkheads and many other very heavy internal structures in the aircract.


As for your video, what does that prove? That same machine could tear apart the steel beams in the WTC. It was DESIGNED to tear apart metal pieces into smaller pieces.

[edit on 10/31/2008 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58

As for your video, what does that prove? That same machine could tear apart the steel beams in the WTC. It was DESIGNED to tear apart metal pieces into smaller pieces.

[edit on 10/31/2008 by Zaphod58]

Oh come on Zaphod, you mean to tell me the spars in the plane created that huge cavern like hole in the WTC steel?

And that JCB cannot TEAR steel apart! It could only just lift one of those 50 ton outerwall sections, let alone tear it. This is why we have things called blowtorches and thermal lances.

JCB Tears steel..



[edit on 31-10-2008 by Insolubrious]

No, you are being deliberately obtuse and misrepresenting what I said, as far as the planes AND the JCB.

As for the plane, the spars would have helped cause the damage but you have the ENTIRE mass of the plane behind it. The skin doesn't just stop affecting things because it's so thin. The ENTIRE MASS of the plane hit the building and tore through it. You can't just have one portion of the plane affect it and another part just disappear. The entire internal structure of the plane is much tougher than no planers claim, WHICH was the point of what I said. I did NOT say that ONLY the spars affected the building. I simply pointed out that the internal structure is stronger than people claim.

As for the JCB I wasn't talking about the ENTIRE 50 ton outer wall section. I was talking about the beams that the plane penetrated. I may not know much about buildings and construction equipment, but even I know that it couldn't tear apart the ENTIRE section. But I've seen them cut through a steel I-beam before.