Why planes were not used.

you are all crazy, i was there.. i saw a plane, my friends were there, they saw a plane... planes crashed into the buildings... it was not TV fakery. We saw planes!! i think 9/11 was an inside job, but planes were used. I saw a plane. I wassnt on my farm in texas watching it on tv.

Again another eyewitness.Thanks Hikix.I'd have to say that theory is pretty much busted.I too feel that some group within the us gov.was responsible.I don't believe that a commercial plane hit the pentagon,but thats an entirely different can of worms.

I'm no scientist but, I think that the reason the building only moves when there is constant pressure or force on it(like wind.) The only thing i could think of to show this is the "penny stack trick"(don't know real name)... This is when you have a stack of penny's and you flick on at the bottom one and they kind of "switch" places.
(Keep in mind, this is just off the top of my head.)

I would think the building would have at least done something but, I highly doubt that there were no planes involved.

I have thought about things like... "Look a plane just hit that building" *turns around and sees the building in flames* "Did you see it?" "Yes."

I just think that with everything you saw that day, you could be convinced of anything. I believe in some sorts of like "brainwashing" and whatnot but, It would probably be cheaper , easier and more reliable to just fly the planes into the building(s). I am 100% convinced that is was an inside job though... just WAY too many facts backing that up.

-bumross

Am I the only person on earth who thinks the first video is very bad for a profesional camera guy filming the NYFD documentary?

Even I would not make such bad moves and bad zooming on such an event....

On the holograms theory for me the jury is still out....

I remember in the 90's reading about the dangers of keeping a box of kleenex and other objects in the read window of your car. Fact is, with a sudden frontal collision the shear kinetic force of the kleenex box can kill you by smashing the back of your head. This is how violent a box of tissues can become.

Now think about this kinetic force, think about it long and hard and imagine you replace the box of kleenex with a 300,000 lbs Boeing 767-200ER.
Now imagine you replace that low travelling spped of the kleenex box with a screaming 500 MPH and you get over 3 billion joules of shear kinetic energy.

That my friend is sufficient to puncture steel columns.
Yet people will keep clinging to the idea that the 767 should have somehow bounced off the tower and this in their minds proves that holograms were there instead of airplanes.

Again, the holograms are what separates the conspiracy kooks from the researchers.

Originally posted by kix
On the holograms theory for me the jury is still out....

Not only the jury is out on this one but the hologram theorists are also all out for lunch too.

PepeLapew

I honestly think that the Hologram Theory was originally introduced as disnfo to;

#1. Increase the ever widening evidence pool. Piling evidence on-top of evidence.

#2. To confuse new-comers to the 9/11 movement, make them think all of us must be crazy.

You will notice time and time again, the evidence they rely on is specifically the ones with very bad compression and simple anomolies that can be explained by anyone.


[edit on 8-5-2007 by talisman]

This is a very tricky issue. At one time I would have said the "no plane" theory was too far out, but now I'm not so sure. It's worth looking at the video The Pentacon to see how you could have "yes plane" and "no plane" in one scenario. There is a video of Diane Sawyer speaking over a shot of the towers with a plane seen in the backround flying out to sea. Don't remember exactly at what time the shot was taken, but it is a plane that is otherwise unaccounted for as far as I know.

I have seen footage of a guy in a baseball cap giving what is almost certainly a scripted interview after the collapse of one of the towers. He lays out the "official" fire induced collapse theory in 25 carefully chosen words or less, but is he also trying to reinforce the idea that a plane did it, and not planted bombs?

A lot of eyewitnesses only saw explosions. I have seen a home video shot from an angle where the South Tower suddenly explodes into flame from no apparent cause. The videographer tells his friend that "they're bombing it" (the tower). He undoubtedly had a bad angle and just couldn't see the plane, but it makes me wonder how many other people actually saw the plane impact.

To actually see the plane impact would require a certain sight line if you were near the towers or would require that you were quite a distance away from the towers and in the right direction on one side or the other of the tower. It is practically certain that vast numbers of New Yorkers, even one street over in any direction did not see the plane impact the South Tower.

One thing that strikes me as suspicious regarding the films of the South Tower impact is the color of the smoke as the plane hits. Some of the smoke is too white for me. I think that there were detonations of some kind that accompanied the impact.

Something that I haven't seen mentioned before that speaks in favour of the real plane hypothesis is the fact that the structure of the exterior walls of the towers might have acted like an egg slicer on the soft aluminum of the aircraft allowing much of the fuselage to pass through the building's windows much as one could push an egg through a slicer.

I haven't made up my mind, but we are after all in the world of dirty tricks here. I think all avenues should be explored. I might be short on the respect end of things but damn I want justice for those victims. I can't get that picture of the woman standing in the hole in the tower wall out of my head.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear piacenza:

Don’t know if this helps (boost your confidence) — but I don’t believe there were any planes crashing into buildings on 9-11 either. I couldn’t review your videos, I got Cro-Magnon 28k horrible dialup. But for the record, I’m a diehard no-airplaner!

Airplanes crashing into structures on 9-11 didn’t happen because:
1. Not necessary. Film is easily faked. Hollywood does this for a living.
2. Technically impossible. WTC’s outer perimeter columns were too strong and too densely spaced (only 2ft open space between columns). The Pentagon had an impossible flight path too low to the ground.

Stick to your guns piacenza! You’re going to feel some heat here.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

i'll give you some heat(technically speaking), buddy.
i kind of suspect holographic planes are the reality, too. i'm not MARRIED to the idea, but it best suits the evidence (as does a powerful mystery weapon used to down 1 and 2).

i mean, aluminum which is a fraction of an inch thick, going up against a tightly woven steel lattice designed to resist a hurricane WHILE supporting 500,000 tonnes(and just try and carry as 4X8 sheet of plywood on a windy day to grok the force [oh yeah, while your carrying your doppleganger on your shoulders])?

aluminum loses. wing spars should be the only contestant in this battle.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
I remember in the 90's reading about the dangers of keeping a box of kleenex and other objects in the read window of your car. Fact is, with a sudden frontal collision the shear kinetic force of the kleenex box can kill you by smashing the back of your head. This is how violent a box of tissues can become.

Again, the holograms are what separates the conspiracy kooks from the researchers.

so, for one thing, you are saying that when holographic technology is realised at the brightness and resolution required to fake the WTC impacts, you will think all the projections are solid, and won't admit that (3D) 'television' is real?

i've done real life crash dummy test, and the box of kleenex bounces off the back of your head, and doesn't hurt too much. only an idiot would believe that a car impact can throw a box of kleenex faster than, say, a good pitcher. if a pitcher can throw a baseball at as hundred miles an hour, then he can throw a box of kleenex as fast as a sudden deceleration of a car going seventy miles an hour. it's the steel from the dashboard being pushed into your knees that does the real damage, and/or smashing your head into the glass.

so, do think a good pitcher can kill someone by throwing a box of kleenex at them?

Originally posted by talisman
You will notice time and time again, the evidence they rely on is specifically the ones with very bad compression and simple anomolies that can be explained by anyone.

Hu-uh! Roger that.
Now imagine this: imagine you release a video file to a community of millions and millions of people (the net). Of course, some of these people will take your video and play around with it, add sounds, delete frames, zoom in here, zoom out there and so on.... So eventually you end up with 5 or 10 different 'versions' of your original video. Then some wise ass takes a few versions and compares them and simply states "Look, we have several versions so this is proof the video is fake"
But just because there are a dozen 'versions' of the original by no means does this prove the video is fake but mind you, this is the kind of logic the hologram kooks revert to.

Use your brains people, please!

Originally posted by billybob
aluminum loses. wing spars should be the only contestant in this battle.

Exactly! Now we are talking between two guys who understand the structure of a metal airplane. The wing's SKIN is typically made of .025 inch thick 6061-T6 aluminum however, that's only the skin, the spars (or beams of the wings) are not that weak. Here is a typical Boeing 767 spar in construction, a 767 would have 3 of these in each wing:

Now, imagine getting slapped by that massive beam at 500 MPH ..... the WTC exterior columns were no match!
But some people still hold in belief that a 300,000 pound Boeing traveling at 500 MPH with a momentum of 3 billion joules would just bounce off like a rubber ball.

I know this stuff dude, I am building a Sonex airplane in my garage and I use construction techniques very similar to Boeing with a Cherry Textron riveted monocoque 6061-T6 structure.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

Only been a member about a year or so ... only posted a few times ... but c'mon this is ludacris

Planes hit those buildings. There is no way around that.

Why go through the cost, the obviously needed use of many ... WAY too many personell & and the extreme risk of exposure using that kinda (unconfirmed to exist) tech. ..... when it is easier to simply allow/coerce/fund/brainwash/whatever ... some religious nutcases to highjack a few planes & make their demands believing that is all that is happening ... then take remote control of a few planes, order a military stand-down because of confusion over some "war games" and use the situation to your advantage to achieve your desired goals?

Especially after failed test-runs with vehichle-based explosives at the WTC and in Oklahoma city had failed to achieve the "spectacular" results you could achieve by adding these aerial attacks to vehichle-based attacks (see: White vans with explosives on 9/11 ... sorry ... to tired to try to figure out the link thing for the first time) ... then afterwards send Anthrax to any dissenting voices, especially in the media ... the theories go on & on but:

I'm sorry ... out of all the theories I've heard ... the hologram theory is BY FAR the most far fetched ... Again, I'm sorry, but there are a million other theories out there that I could support which contradict the official reports (which are OBVIOUS LIES/ COVER-UPS FOR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE/CRIMES, CRIMES, WAR CRIMES, ETC., ETC., ) but they are all at least theories based in actual ... how do I put it? ... Reality.

Not meant to be rude at all ... just blunt ... because this one is X-Files fodder & not reality ... please anyone ... ANYONE ... give any proof ... ANY ... that this kinda tech. even exists? Ya do that & I bow down & put credence in this theory ... but I want PROOF ... otherwise I classify any theory relating to holgrams as BS ... Below Standards!

I think a major part of my issue with this particular theory is the tendency of many people to confuse holograms with volumetric displays.

A hologram is a 2d image that has 3d properties. The most common hologram is a shiny silver foil like sort of substance - go look at one of your credit cards for a good example.

While there are many mediums, and yes, holograms are real, the one medium that you absolutely CANNOT HAVE A HOLOGRAM IN is plain AIR.

There is nothing in air that reflects light in order to create the 3d image. Wiki has a good page on holograms here

Holograms as used by say, star trek, are not actually holograms. They are 3d volumetric displays.

There is a wiki page on these, also.. one of the most interesting points would be this one

So far, the ability to reconstruct scenes with occlusion and other position-dependent effects have been at the expense of vertical parallax, in that the 3-D scene appears distorted if viewed from locations other than those the scene was generated for.

While I haven't bothered to go look for information on this before, it confirmed what I already knew about "holograms/holographic technology".. that it's extremely hard to create something that appears to be 3d in the air that appears that way from all possible viewing positions.

Remember, for the planes to have been "not there", every single eyewitness and every single camera would need to have seen the fakes, and see them appear properly as planes from their perspective.. both moving, and stationary at any point in time.

Most volumetric display systems have at least two dimensions worth of emitters, too - eg a screen, or in some cases, a 3d display (such as a sort of booth arrangement that's been seen at some science exhibitions)

For something of the complexity of two planes hitting two different towers, you would need some pretty hefty equipment, along the entire line of flight for those planes, in at least 3 dimensionally different positions.

Yes, there is the possibility that this technology *could* exist. It would, however, be prohibitively expensive, and far too likely to be flawed in some points of view - 360 degree full visibility? Really unlikely.

If 3d projection technology were affordable, and available, most likely you'd see limited 3d capabilities on your computer screens and TV first - remember, even today, most 3d movies involve the use of colored lenses

Science fiction is not science. Just because you can extrapolate the future existence of technology from current technology does not mean it is available today.

To reiterate my earlier point then, even if it were possible (which I doubt to be 100% the case) to crash holographic planes into the WTCs, it is simply not plausible. A REAL PLANE IS CHEAPER to do.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
The holograms theory is what separates the thin foil hat kooks from the serious researchers.

What serious research have you done? I've only seen you attack and slander.

Originally posted by Killtown

Originally posted by PepeLapew
The holograms theory is what separates the thin foil hat kooks from the serious researchers.

What serious research have you done? I've only seen you attack and slander.

In all fairness I don't think any "serious" research will reach up to the standards of those thinking this was a hologram. The only "research" that would prove it for followers of this theory is probably a time travel and a flight ticket.

OK, I never call any theories crazy, but this one I have to.

Why? Because I was in NYC at the time, I seen it with my own eyes, I was not “paid” to be a witness/extra (as one poster said), neither where my friends, It definitely wasn’t a movie or a hologram.

I can say 100% fact that Airplanes hit the buildings. Weather it was an inside job is for a different thread, but the whole argument that Planes where not used is ridiculous.

Can you explain the other Millions of Manhattan, Brooklyn and New Jersey residents that seen it with their own eyes?

Also in the post that someone said “eyewitnesses where paid” that’s a lot of witnesses to pay, don’t you think at least one of them would of let the secret out by now?

there were reports that the the hit on WTC#2 was performed by an unmarked, windowless plane, obviously of different construction, if true. military aircraft are often fitted with cable cutters, the concept could be extended to the tower's skin, if you invested enough dead weight.

switching planes would easily explain why the first hit did not seem to penetrate very far and caused a gaping entrance hole, while the other simply cut through the columns before even fully exploding.

We know how planes fly and that they cannot skim five feet above the ground — insufficient uplift, not enough air to glide on.

Huh? Did you bother to verify that with anyone? Just because you read it on some conspiracy site, does not make it true.

If that were not possible, then explain cropdusting, or if planes cant make lift there, how do planes take off? Actually the opposite is true, planes can actually get more of a lift force (ground effect) the closer to the ground they are like that.

Its typical though, when conspiracy people try to bring up aviation, they invariably get the simplest things wrong.

Originally posted by Long Lance
there were reports that the the hit on WTC#2 was performed by an unmarked, windowless plane, obviously of different construction

This stems from a single reporter's testimony which has been severely debunked. He claimed that he saw a blue logo and no windows. I tell you what, watch an airplane pass by 1000 ft overhead traveling at 500 MPH and see if you can detect windows or a logo of any colors?
Furthermore that reporter was not at a proper position to make his claims.

Eyewitness report from FOX reporter Mark Burnback [sic] who observed UA 175 that hit WTC2.

It definitely didn’t look like a commercial plane. I didn’t see any windows on the side. Again it was not a normal flight that I’d ever seen at an airport. It had a blue logo on the front and it did not look like it belonged in the area.

This statement is taken as gospel both by Mr. Avery and his admirers, an amusing fact given the deserved reputation FOX enjoys as a propaganda station for the Cheney/Bush administration. Mr. Avery has lifted parts of the quote from Dave vonKleist’s “In Plane Site”, but has not mentioned that in the fuller version witness Birnbach states that he was at a subway stop in Brooklyn, hence at least a mile from the plane that was silhouetted against the sky, so that Birnbach would not be not able to see any windows because of both the distance and the lighting. Eyewitness reports for brief shocking events are notoriously unreliable; and other photos of the plane definitively show it had standard United Airlines markings; airplane wreckage with windows was found amongst the rubble at WTC5. Thus, Mr. Avery makes selective use of unreliable eyewitnesses ill placed to make the relevant observations, and he ignores other available evidence that this witness is mistaken. That’s just for starters.

Both Messrs Avery and vonKleist also ignore the obvious. 911 was not a low budget operation. If a switch of planes were necessitated for some reason, the substitute plane would look exactly like the plane it replaced.[2] The covert operators cannot control all the people taking photos and would not risk having a good clear picture of a plane that did not look exactly like AA11 or UA175. So they would not use a commercial plane without windows with an aberrant blue logo (“circular” per Birnbach’s full statement), and would not attach a huge pod or missile to the underside of the plane. In fact, the historical precedent for 911 was Operation Northwoods, a top-secret project to provide a pretext to invade Cuba that was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962 but vetoed by President Kennedy. One Northwoods project involved hijacking a Cuban or American airliner, and if an American airline, switching it with a remote controlled drone that would be crashed over Cuba to blame the Cubans. Northwoods states in pertinent part:

…8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. (Emphasis added)

To put matters plainly: any substitute plane would be an exact duplicate of AA11 or UA175. To do anything else would be inviting disaster.

Mister Avery is well established for injecting such fallacies into the truth movement.