Why there were no planes at the WTC

Also I'd like to add open-mindedness doesn't mean you have to treat any and all suggested theory as maybe valid. It means you don't have prejudice in accepting evidence (although atleast a bit of prejudice is a normal human trait ), but in case say your car disappears from where it shall be standing and you are offered these variants:
1) Someone stole it (evidence: broken window glass on the road)
2) Tow-Away team grabbed it (evidence: whatever note they do leave in the specific city)
3) Your car was just a holographic illusion, never existed, because nobody knows if there isn't govt equipment advanced by 1000s of years and capable of making a 3D hologram which sounds and casts shadows and has all these bells and whistles so it's undistinguishable from a car.
4) A wormhole opened just there snatching the car away.

Now, which variants would an open minded person consider worthwhile researching and which would he dismiss at first glance?

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

This capability to imagine — i.e. creativity — is critical to any real research undertaking. And research is precisely what we’re doing here at ATS. If we were unable to envision the previously impossible or “never-happened-before”, well then we would still be foraging for berries and grubbing for worms (although in that case we might have actually survived as a species for much longer, but that’s another topic).

The problem here is that we're not inventing new technology or continuing the species; we should be taking existing pieces of multiple crime scenes to put them together, not dreaming something up and finding obscure and speculative ways to make it work. So many people make a game of this and choose to ignore the deaths of many, even comfortably denying the fact that the victims and their families ever existed in favor of outrageous speculation. You'll have to excuse me if brushing off the lives of thousands just to further a nowhere theory makes me a little "caustic".

You might think that I’m easily bamboozled. Yes, sometimes I am, because I have an innate openness to ideas. I pretty much think I can learn something from just about anyone regardless of social status, education or even character (yes, evil people can teach us things too, although I loathe to admit it).

I don't have a negative opinion of you. While we also clash in your hydrogen bombs theory, this doesn't make me dislike you. However, I have issues with those who ignore fact, or manufacture their own hypothetical version of it, to further a cause which is pointless and insulting to an informed intelligence. I see a lot of smart people on this site, but at times I wonder if we (me included) have begun to shed common sense in favor of weird philosophy.

I just read that people are questioning John Lear’s true identity. That strikes me as odd. I have not yet read all of his posts, this is a really long thread. But what I have seen strikes me as really smart, BECAUSE his logic “adds up.
So maybe, by commending “John Lear” and “Brainsucker”, I’ll end up with egg on my face. Well, I’ll take my chances.

I doubt that Lear's an imposter, the reason being that I don't see why anyone would undergo a several-year fakery just on a website, as Lear's been here for a while. Plus, between the amigos and other mods here, I think a fake would've been busted by now.

As I said before, I question the logic, not the individual. If I see little or no logic, my questions get louder, as should anyone's.

[edit on 5-10-2006 by Astygia]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Mister Old School:

Albert Einstein (I'm sure you're familiar) is considered to be one of the most creative, imaginative, day-dreamy-type person of all times.

Nuff Said.

Sarcasm noted.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- Albert Einstein

A very important phrase for any person or society.

However, Mr. Einstein used a legendary imagination to conjure mathematic musings that stunned the world and fueled generations of physicists and mathematicians.

He was creating... and my original statement stands... creation requires imagination.

In this type of research, imagination creates a presupposition that taints the results.

Dear Astygia and tuccy:

Judging observations is not a straightforward process. Because the events/circumstances around the observations will influence the conclusions.

Here’s why I am open towards the hologram theory:

1. Planes were shown on television crashing into the towers.

2. Witnesses saw planes near or crashing into the towers.
We get lots of conflicting reports here. Some saw small planes, some saw large planes, some didn’t see planes at all, just explosions.

3.No debris from planes crashing into the buildings dropped down. Yes, there were objects flying out the backside of the tower. But no debris fell DOWN from point of impact.

4. The towers were destroyed via demolition — the countless pictures prove that.

5. According to our current laws of physics it is impossible for a lightweight aluminum airplane to penetrate/sever/bypass steel columns such as those in the outer walls of the WTC

6. Explosives had to be used to create the plane “footprints” in the walls

7. Being that our government was involved (explosions prove that), all TV footage could have been edited/”photoshopped”

This leaves, as far as I can tell, three possible explanations for what we observed on that day:

a) If actual air planes were used, some type of wide gash was blown into the outer walls with explosives prior to impact, i. e. a “door” was opened for the planes to fly in. This rings unrealistic since the openings were too small for the planes to enter. The fit would have been “way too tight”.

Therefore only b and c remain

b)holograms were used to simulate planes
c)there were no planes flying into the towers, there were real planes in the area.

Until today, I’ve only thought c) as possible.
Now I’m starting to reconsider scenario b), the use of holograms

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

What countless photos show explosives being used? Im very open minded and i have yet to see anything convice me of explosives being used. Why would they of needed to bring down the building? Just flying planes into the WTC does enough damage and death too get the public united behind our president/government. If they were holograms where did the sound come from? I would still like to hear a better explanation then oh if they have the technology to create a hologram they can create the sound too. There is a whole lot of people that heard first hand the planes. Im not even quite sure why we are still discussing this.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
2. Witnesses saw planes near or crashing into the towers.
We get lots of conflicting reports here. Some saw small planes, some saw large planes, some didn’t see planes at all, just explosions.

Surely the numerous videos (which we can now look back on) of the plane crashes recorded what all those people with conflicting ideas saw/didn't see? I'm not sure I get you on this point.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
6. Explosives had to be used to create the plane “footprints” in the walls

I'm not sure how explosions can suck a steel columned wall into the building.

In this type of research, imagination creates a presupposition that taints the results.

Really?

That is universally true in any type of research. You should know that Old_School, it's called the Heisenberg Principal.

Remember, too, that without the acceptance of some supposition, one neither forms a hypothesis nor a Theory, and therefore there is no ensuing Research. The one treated here is the common statement, "Something is wrong with this picture!", (more correctly, "these pictures", in the case at hand)

[edit on 5-10-2006 by Ed Littlefox]

3.No debris from planes crashing into the buildings dropped down. Yes, there were objects flying out the backside of the tower. But no debris fell DOWN from point of impact.

Wouldnt explosives have sent debris flying out of the building at the point of impact??

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Astygia and tuccy:

5. According to our current laws of physics it is impossible for a lightweight aluminum airplane to penetrate/sever/bypass steel columns such as those in the outer walls of the WTC

Given the number of times I've heard the Tornado/Straw/Tree stump anecdote (which one day I will actually investigate) or the Katana/anvil story (which I have investigated) and the number of times I've seen practitioners putting their heads to good use in breaking concrete blocks, not to mention such fragile things as hands going through concrete blocks...

Now, let's face it, flesh is a lot softer than aluminium and it can go through cement without being splattered, so why can't the inertia of a wide-bodied passenger jet travelling at 600mph or (1000+ klicks for the imperially-challenged) smash straight through a concrete wall when the much less inertia of a car has no problem going through brick walls?

Physics: energy is transferred. That 757 had one hell of a lot of kinetic energy in it at 9am on September 11. Where did it all go?

And just how little weight is there in a fuelled 757?

Dear HowlrunnerIV:

Who the heck is Linda Park? Nice picture though.

Concrete is strong versus compressive forces only. It is WEAK versus forces of tension. Which is why you can easily break or chip concrete block by merely tapping it with a hammer. Yet that same concrete block will support the enormous pressures of a huge wall above it.

Steel is strong in both ways — under pressure and tension. No karate kick is going to go sever even the thinnest piece of steel flatstock. The steel will simply bend. Had those outer columns in the WTC walls been really low-gauge steel, then the planes might have somehow gotten “stuck” in the side of the building as if they had been caught in a “net” of sorts. But since the steel was structural grade the planes would have had to have crumbled and bounced off (and dropped down).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
But since the steel was structural grade the planes would have had to have crumbled and bounced off (and dropped down).

You realise as amazing as this sounds, if you get water flowing fast enough...it can actually cut metal.


Amazing but true!

Boys and girls, science is not what you see in the movies. I'm not even getting into shear force or how your karate kick experiment lacks calculating vertical forces to it so that as beam bends, the top of the beam is put into compression and the bottom is put into tension and internal horizontal forces start acting inside the beam to make it shear.

A kick of sufficient force could shear a beam, but a human lacks the strength or velocity to induce enough pressure.

ZeddicusZulZorander:

Wus-up Zedd?

You are absolutely correct, water can cut metal. Water-jet-cutting is used in industrial processes. I haven’t researched this but I think pressures of around 60,000 psi are used. This will of course cut steel. I don’t know what the velocities are but it’s safe to say — they’re “high”.

But I digress. There have been numerous examples of planes crashing into steel buildings. We know from EMPIRICAL (i.e. real life, “actually happened type”) evidence what takes place. The beams get bent, the air craft crumples and debris drops to the ground.

But now I have a bigger question, perhaps you and everyone else on ATS can help me out. Where are all the “Nobel Laureates”? Where are all the University Scientists? Where are all the “crack” engineers and materials experts? Why haven’t we heard their comments about 9-11 issues? Yes, there are some, naturally. Where else would be getting our web “links” from. But there ought to be hundreds of thousands more. What is going on here!?

I have a nagging suspicion that most of them either believe or want to believe the official version of events on 9-11. To illustrate, here’s a person example of my very own. I have an uncle who is a first-rate professor of metallurgy at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland. He has authored a cornucopia of patents on steel alloys and has scientifically researched metals all his life. And even he believes the official 9-11 story TO BE PROVEN AND TRUE. He thinks all this talk about “demolition” and government involvement is totally ridiculous. So all you skeptics out there — you’re in “good company”.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Wizard.....

Many have been provided....

-NIST report
-Popular machanics

and such.....

But due to overwelling anti-bush resentment on this site (partically 9/11 threads)
these are brushed off as 'government plants to hid the truth'

So, if you are open-minded, check those out otherwise you can just resort to the usual 'hate-mongering and denial'

(The NIST report is 43 volumes long)

Originally posted by ferretman2
(The NIST report is 43 volumes long)

Does length determine how factual it is? I keep seeing you post this on different threads, and it's like you think 43 volumes must mean 43 quality volumes rather than 43 volumes of repetitive, non-informative bull (which is mostly what it is!).

Someone could sum up the critical parts of that report in less than 10 pages, and all the rest is when the Towers were evacuated and how the wind loads they were designed to carry and the fact that the winds weren't that bad on 9/11 and this is how the Towers were constructed and non-information on the collapses themselves (remember, they didn't even try to analyze the global collapses!) and that sort of thing. Like I said, someone could sum up the "good" info, on the collapses and impacts, in less than 10 pages. I could sum up the information relevant to the collapses in a paragraph. Read it yourself.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

But I digress. There have been numerous examples of planes crashing into steel buildings. We know from EMPIRICAL (i.e. real life, “actually happened type”) evidence what takes place. The beams get bent, the air craft crumples and debris drops to the ground.

These didn't crumple. . .

www.cbc.ca...

www.evesmag.com...

www.cyclone.nl...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.signonsandiego.com...

These planes were like huge "bullets". If you toss a bullet at something, it will just bounce off & fall to the ground yes, BUT, add velocity to the equation and you get a whole different outcome. . .

These 767's were @300,000 lbs. Try to calculate what they would appear to weigh at 600mph. You'll end up with a number with a lot of zeros at the end my friend. . .

spelling

[edit on 6-10-2006 by 2PacSade]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear HowlrunnerIV:

Who the heck is Linda Park? Nice picture though.

Concrete is strong versus compressive forces only. It is WEAK versus forces of tension. Which is why you can easily break or chip concrete block by merely tapping it with a hammer. Yet that same concrete block will support the enormous pressures of a huge wall above it.

Steel is strong in both ways — under pressure and tension. No karate kick is going to go sever even the thinnest piece of steel flatstock. The steel will simply bend. Had those outer columns in the WTC walls been really low-gauge steel, then the planes might have somehow gotten “stuck” in the side of the building as if they had been caught in a “net” of sorts. But since the steel was structural grade the planes would have had to have crumbled and bounced off (and dropped down).

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.

Mmm, so according to your theory, no penetrator bomb could actually excist! Any penetrator bomb would just bounce of its target with no harm done.

As i have explained in a previous post on this topic, a object with enough mass and accleration can penetrate via its own force another object without falling apart on initial impact. Its only when the moving objects force is reduced due to rapid decelleration that is starts to crumble.

In the case of a penetrator bomb, its designed to go through reinforced concrete/steel support/armour and then explode once inside the building/shelter/armoured vehicle.

With the WTC, the 767's inertia was enough that it penetrated the outer shell of the towers, the weaker points at the wing joints gave way as can be seen in one video on this topic but they still had enough inertia to go into the towers. Only when the aircraft had slowed down and hit the inner shell holding the lifts and the main internal support structure did the plane disintegrate and explode. If the inner shell had not been there, the 767's may have well in fact flown through the towers, albeit missing a few parts and come out the other side through inertia alone.

Its all about physics.

Does length determine how factual it is? I keep seeing you post this on different threads, and it's like you think 43 volumes must mean 43 quality volumes rather than 43 volumes of repetitive, non-informative bull (which is mostly what it is!).

How do you know the information provided in the NIST report is BS....

Like you actually reviewed it

You.......like a vast majority hear, don't actually bother with 'fact-finding', you just repeat what someother individual has said.

Wizard asked about reports which back up the offical 9/11 story.....I mentioned the length because if he wanted to actual get facts himself,(instead of just repeating the 'scholars for 9/11 truth website) it might take him awahile to find the particular reports he is looking for.

'Dr.' Joes jhas already been debunked numerous times.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by ferretman2]

I'm headed to the mine until late Monday night. Please save your insults, ridicule and scorn until then. Thanks.

Unless you're a hypocrit, and are exactly what you accuse me of, then you should know exactly what the NIST report says and should be able to confirm what I've said about it. If not, tell me exactly what it says that I miss in the below:

Perimeter columns buckled from heat, floors lost support, trusses failed, then global collapse began and its completion was "inevitable". Impact damages were insufficient, obviously. That's what it says.

Problem is, it now has no assumed global collapse model to fall back upon since it has claimed it does not support pancake theory. They never went over anything specific in terms of a global collapse in their report (READ IT for god's sake instead of ad hominem'ing me). They put most of their resources in trying to find a way to justify the collapse initiations only. Another problem, they fail to show enough buckling to justify the initiation of a collapse.

Another problem, they fail to explain how the truss failures appeared to have occurred all at once across whole floors of the buildings, when the trusses were welded at both ends and independent of each other on each floor. This is called symmetry. It only occurs in controlled demolitions.

[edit on 6-10-2006 by bsbray11]

Dear Everybody:

This link to a German website — home.debitel.net... —
might help clarify some questions about whether or not there were planes flying into the WTC towers. Unfortunately I’ve “run” out of ATS-points to purchase further storage space for picture upload. Well I was able to squeeze one more graphic in. Perhaps it’s useful to our discussion.



Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods




[edit on 10/7/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]