Why planes were not used.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So what SHOULD have happened then? The planes should have bounced of? Wing spars are huge, and strong to support the weight of the fuel, the engines, and fuselage.

What should have happened? The wings should not have sliced through the beams, which they did, even near the tip of where the wings would have hit! The engines would have most likely smashed through, as they weigh 6 tons apiece. The front of the plane would probably bludgeon its way through, but the tailsection of the plane should have fallen to the ground.

If a bird strike can put big dents/holes in a plane wing, what do you think a steel beam would do travelling at 400mph..

Steel vs aluminium wing.. whats going to win.

And you're looking at the SKIN of the wing. The SPAR of the wing, that runs the entire length of the wing is HUGE. The wing spar is responsible for supporting all the fuel in the wings, the engines, and the fuselage when the plane is in flight. The spars that run through the fuselage and the wings are incredibly strong.

As for the tail falling off, it would be EASIER for the tail to go into the building than the REST of the fuselage. You already have a huge hole in the building, so what's going to rip the tail off? NOTHING.

shrunkensimon

You do realize the speed that these planes were traveling at and the overall force due to their weight? This in no way supports your idea of CGI. At best it would support a theory of the plane having something structurally changed to make it stronger. But I think it is perfectly logical to assume that they were ordinary passenger planes.

Please post the *RAW* footage that is in good quality , that has no plane please.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
You do realize the speed that these planes were traveling at and the overall force due to their weight? This in no way supports your idea of CGI. At best it would support a theory of the plane having something structurally changed to make it stronger. But I think it is perfectly logical to assume that they were ordinary passenger planes.

Yes of course i understand the forces involved. Thats why i said the engines would make it through, and the other really dense parts of the plane. However, as im sure you'll know, aluminium is not as strong as steel. The wings are fragile, to say the least.. if a bird hits the wing during flight, it will make a huge dent in the wing..

I dont have a problem with the engines and the main body of the plane puncturing the walls, but the wings.. that just makes no sense. I would expect the wings to shatter on the outside, and only portions of them breaking through the windows... very much like a cheese grater, slicing the wings up into segments. The steel beams would be dented of course, but should not be sheered through!

Its a matter of strength. If you took a stationary plane, and smashed an iron grid at 400mph into one of its wings, which do you think would come of worse. The wing, or the steel?

Originally posted by talisman
Please post the *RAW* footage that is in good quality , that has no plane please.

No can do. I do not have the original raw footage, and i think you'll find its pretty hard to get the raw footage of any of the angles. Nearly all of them have been doctored in some way, because people just gave their footage straight to the media

I think you knew that before you even wrote the question though..

What do you think is INSIDE the wings? I've said twice, and I'll KEEP saying it, that there is a VERY strong wing spar INSIDE the wings. You keep pointing to the skin. Yes wings are fragile, but the SPAR isn't. Main spars in planes are massive structures that have to be very strong.

The external columns also weren't as thick as the internal core columns.

[edit on 5/20/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What do you think is INSIDE the wings? I've said twice, and I'll KEEP saying it, that there is a VERY strong wing spar INSIDE the wings. You keep pointing to the skin. Yes wings are fragile, but the SPAR isn't. Main spars in planes are massive structures that have to be very strong.

The external columns also weren't as thick as the internal core columns.

[edit on 5/20/2007 by Zaphod58]

Thats all irrelevant, because the plane shape does not match up correctly with the impact hole anyway!

The external columns mite not have been as thick as the core ones, but that is still a misleading statement. The perimeter columns were in no way "thin", they were still massive columns, made out of great quality steel.



Are you trying to claim that the wing tips would slice through the steel? Because when you line up the plane dimensions with the hole, thats what is implied.. which is absurd.

They don't? Damn, you better tell this guy then!

www.questionsquestions.net...

That looks pretty lined up to me.

That's the typical trick that he talks about on the page I linked to. They either use a different model 767, or don't line it up properly. Or even use a totally different plane (like a 737).

[edit on 5/20/2007 by Zaphod58]

No, it is not lined up. Im not going to waste my time highlighting every single column which should/should not be affected, because i know anyone who can see will be able to recognise the fact that it does not match.

So what does that make you then? Blind, stupid, or both..

I see you didn't bother even LOOKING at the page that I linked to. Typical. It's not YOUR page so screw looking at it right? And since I don't agree with you I guess it's time to start calling me names, and going on about how stupid I am. Again, typical.

No other plane fits the hole as precisely as a 767, down to the narrow grooves created by the wings on either side of the impact hole, especially visible on the right. Attempts at overlaying diagrams by no-plane advocates, such as Stefan Grossmann and the German Engineers, are flawed, using inaccurate diagrams of 767s, aligning those diagrams incorrectly and/or using photographs from angles that appear to show debris where the engine holes should be.

Combined with the certainty that the large plane in the Naudet video has wing mounted engines, there is absolutely no rational reason to bother with considering planes other than a 767. Substituting another airliner with wing mounted engines gains the perpetrators nothing but the risk of exposure. Could it be a 767 other than flight 11? Possibly, but there is no physical evidence to prove that substitution. The claim that flight 175 was a windowless 767 tanker is also baseless, since none of the images available are high enough resolution to discern the presence or absence of windows.

www.questionsquestions.net...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I see you didn't bother even LOOKING at the page that I linked to. Typical. It's not YOUR page so screw looking at it right?

And since I don't agree with you I guess it's time to start calling me names, and going on about how stupid I am. Again, typical.

No, i did actually, infact i still have the NIST diagram up on my browser. Oh no, so i called you a name. Funny how half your post is you whining about it

Also, why should i give a damn about proving image analysis to you? I dont even know you, tell me why i should care.. Im not here to convert people who i know have no intention of honest truth seeking, like yourself.

shrunkensimon

dont have a problem with the engines and the main body of the plane puncturing the walls, but the wings.. that just makes no sense. I would expect the wings to shatter on the outside, and only portions of them breaking through the windows... very much like a cheese grater, slicing the wings up into segments. The steel beams would be dented of course, but should not be sheered through!

But someone is currently explaining to you the strength of the inner part of the Wing, your concentrating on the outer part only. When you couple that with the force and speed then what we saw is not abnormal.

no can do. I do not have the original raw footage, and i think you'll find its pretty hard to get the raw footage of any of the angles. Nearly all of them have been doctored in some way, because people just gave their footage straight to the media

I think you knew that before you even wrote the question though..

And how do you think I reasoned that you didn't have it? Because I have never seen anything by anyone who claims this theory put something like this up?

This is my point. I only 'hear' people say this. You don't trust the witnesses on 9/11, yet you expect me to believe that you saw RAW Good Quality footage of NO PLANE?

I challenge you to find any good quality footage by these 'CGI' people with the original source referenced. All I have seen to date, is either 'tampered' video, poor quality video and or normal anamolies when one films with digital camera's.

I am still waiting for some good quality. A very simple and fair request.

*PUT UP SOME GOOD QUALITY FOOTAGE*

It may take longer to download, but for the purpose of this discussion I think what I ask for is reasonable. Unless of course there is something to hide?






[edit on 20-5-2007 by talisman]

man i get so sick and tired of looking at posts from people who claim how much of a free thinker or open minded they are yet shoot down theories without looking hard into it. i dont think we should focus on the gov's mode of op on that day anyway. all we should do is focus on the obvious to show 9/11 was a lie. but no, we all have to be scientists or experts. Maybe there were no planes. Could be holograms. You really think the technology or advances in science have been disclosed to the public? Im sure the tech being developed under highest classification are a couple generations ahead of our tech knowledge. holograms, ha who would believe it, as we know that would be impossible. ha, and the public is so well informed already. but choose your sides, thats what they like. you know what they want. its demo or repub. black or white. good or evil. no yes. terrorist or patriot. security or freedom. sounds more like conditioning

I agree completely with the last statment, we really know nothing about new technologies, they are giving them to us sloooowwwwly, they want to take every single drop of blood and money before they are releasing the new one. Water Engine, almost perpetual machines were created at the beginning of the 1900 but you don't hear anything about those tecs. How could it be that cars basically use the same amount of gas as the first models that came out?

there we are straight from the washiongton post:
www.washingtonpost.com...

The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."

We always ask what happened to those passengers well the solution might be the easiest of them all, maybe the planes never departed.So many anomalies about those flights, 2 of the planes were not scheduled for that day. Out of all of the passanger families only one person questioned the government, to the opposite we have hundreds of families that lost loved one on the WTC questioning the govt. They are all happy with the settlement no one has sued anyone. Why one of the family member wants to speak about the event.
According to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) statistics both flight 11 and flight 77 officially never took.Lets not even talk about the passanger manifest...

MINDoverFAITH

Depends what your idea is about 'open mind'. Anyone can throw that out there and not back it up.

For example; what if someone comes by and says that all of New York is holodeck? You going to be seriously open to this? Or that no-one else exists beyond my own mind and everything is just my imagination?
No we *ALL* presuppose things, and then we try and see which ones can make sense and find rationality.

It doesn't make any sense for the gov to have used CGI or Holograms. In fact with all the amateur video that day and pictures, the idea of a CGI effect is ludicrous. For example let us say for the sake of argument that the gov decided to use CGI. One video by 'JOE BLOW ON THE STREET' could ruin their whole operation! You honestly think this would happen?

This theory hurts the search for truth, it is also a theory which insults people who have lost loved ones that day. I have already mentioned that a famous hockey player happened to be on one of the planes. When I ask ---what happened to his body? No-one can come up with anything rational.

We have to honor the people who died by an honest search for truth. IF there is truth to what these people were saying, you would see people coming out from places like Industrial Light and Magic and other special effects houses backing them up.

When they don't have ONE PERSON behind them who has actaully developed films using the highest tech, that should tell you something.


When they only use highly compressed video of poor quality, that should tell you something.

To-date no-one from this side has responded to what I have asked, namely something of quality that has its source referenced.


[edit on 21-5-2007 by talisman]

listen to this great interview by someone that sounds like he knows what he is talking about.
He references specifially to the sound of the first so called plane.

That video is from before the second tower was hit and before the first hit video came in. The news was still working out what had hit the tower (most early speculation was a small propeller plane).

AMAZING hologram of kate moss.



www.liveleak.com...

see. i told you so. it's possible.