Why planes were not used.

Fakes are generally characterized by bad reflections - one of the most complex things to create, pixels that are 'too smooth'...


I honestly keep going back to the fact that it would be both cheaper, and more effective and LESS PRONE TO ERROR to simply fly real planes into buildings - whether you remote control them or whatever..

Dear Inannamute:

Perhaps it would have been cheaper to use real planes. Trouble is it wouldn’t have worked.

The outer walls of the WTC towers were equivalent to solid steel 3/8” thick walls. If, the steel in the 14” box columns had been applied in sheet form, instead of as rectangular shapes.

One 14” perimeter columns had enough steel to cover a 56” wide surface area (14” times four). The columns were spaced one meter (39”) apart — center to center. Therefore, if disassembled, the sections of one column would have covered 1.436 times more than the necessary 7+25+7 inches (39”). At the upper floors these framing members were one quarter inch thick. Consequently, there would have been enough steel in each columns to clad 39” of wall distance in 1.436 x 0.25”=3/8” thick steel. A gauge, which no nine millimeter bullet flying at also 500 mph will penetrate. What makes you think — less dense — aluminum aircraft would have?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/14/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Once again people.

This guy wasn't on the street. He was in the building. Look him up. I saw him talking about his experience on television.

Please for the love of God explain to me how this hologram also left a burning wing inside the Trade Tower?

Stanley Praimnath of Elmont, Long Island.

" As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane
tore into the side of the building and exploded.

Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. He knew he needed to get out of his office and the building fast. But, he was trapped under debris up to
his shoulders.

quantified

A numerical simulation of the aircraft impact into the exterior columns of the World Trade Center (WTC) was done using LS-DYNA. For simplification, the fuselage was modeled as a thin-walled cylinder, the wings were modeled as box beams with a fuel pocket, and the engines were represented as rigid cylinders. The exterior columns of the WTC were represented as box beams. Actual masses, material properties and dimensions of the Boeing 767 aircraft and the exterior columns of the WTC were used in this analysis. It was found that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage columns. The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s. It was also found that a Boeing 767 traveling at top speed would not penetrate exterior columns of the WTC if the columns were thicker than 20 mm.

morgan reynold's opinion

okay. the measurements and calculations don't match the above quote from 'real science'.
however, a 46% loss of kinetic energy REQUIRES A VISIBLE SLOWDOWN of about one half, which makes the morgan reynold's take WAY more on the money. the ONLY reason i have stuck with the 'no planes' theory is because of the way the plane 'butters' into the building. it is not physically possible for a plane to break through that hardy permiter AND not visibly SHRED it's thin aluminum skin at least SOMEWHAT.

i mean, i can buy that wing spars are strong, and massive, and super massive with momentum, and that a straw can penetrate a pine tree in a tornado, but i cannot buy that every single atom of that plane buttered into the building.

a body at rest prefers to remain at rest.
a body in motion prefers to remain in motion.
for every force, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

now that's some GOOD law.

and, when we put the 'plane crash' into the formula, we see that the building offered little resistance to the plane, despite it's superiour mass and density, and the plane was able to retain it's shape even while it was completely ripping apart ITSELF as it passed through the wall.

it simply does not add up.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by billybob]

Originally posted by Mikey84
[
The second one was clearly a United Airlines, all the footage shows this too

The fact that I seen it with my own eyes, proves to me that Planes hit the towers.

The fact that the footage of the 2nd plane is clearly a United Airlines, proves to me that it was United.

I am still yet to see ANYTHING at all that puts doubt on this.


Mikey

So it had United markings on it, what type of plane?

If planes were not used, then how does one go about explaining the flaming engine that can be clearly seen coming out the other side of the building in crash no.2, which came too rest on a corner of a street some blocks away?



Whilst i'll admit i haven't devoted any attention to the "no planes theory", it does interest me, and i know i have to research it in order to increase my awareness about 9/11 as a whole.

But if there were no planes, im having a hard time understanding where this flaming engine came from

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So it had United markings on it, what type of plane?

It was a 767, most people who work in the Airline industry and any Airline Fanatic can also tell you this.

Ask your average person on the street and most can’t tell the difference between a 757, 767, 777 or even a damn 747.

Planes hit the towers; one of them was clearly a United Airlines 767, with United Airlines Livery and Logo.

Mikey84

Originally posted by billybob
a 46% loss of kinetic energy REQUIRES A VISIBLE SLOWDOWN of about one half, which makes the morgan reynold's take WAY more on the money. the ONLY reason i have stuck with the 'no planes' theory is because of the way the plane 'butters' into the building. it is not physically possible for a plane to break through that hardy permiter AND not visibly SHRED it's thin aluminum skin at least SOMEWHAT.

Perhaps exoskeleton is a better metaphor than skin. This is a compelling-sounding argument, and I admit I know nowhere near enough to either agree or disagree. And it doesn't change that everything else points to big ol' planes flying into the Twin Towers.
The limitations of full 3-D holographics in broad daylight, other special effects requirements, the absolute absurdity of TV fakery theories, the fires, the flaming engine, the plane imprint, the stuff found on the street, the missing planes and people, the radar screens, etc.

This all has one simple explanation.

Originally posted by Mikey84
It was a 767, most people who work in the Airline industry and any Airline Fanatic can also tell you this.

Ask your average person on the street and most can’t tell the difference between a 757, 767, 777 or even a damn 747.

Karl Schwarz said he could prove it was a 737, so I checked the width of a 767 vs 737 and WTC2 damage.


If anyrhing else it was well faked.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 15-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by billybob

you are merely text on a screen.

"i was there, too, and i didn't see the planes. there were no planes" easy to do with a computer keyboard.

Believe what you will, I know where I was. Either way the point is, I know what I seen with my own eyes, So I would like someone to explain that if planes didn’t hit the buildings, what did I and thousands of other people see, then add to the millions who seen it on TV?

Originally posted by billybob

i don't know if anyone else thought of this, but there is also the possibility of 'direct input' of sensory data to the brains of all onlookers.

I really really hope your being sarcastic.


I mean, if there is this theory that the planes might have been holograms and put something into our brain to make us hear the hologram, then in that case couldn’t you just say the whole September 11 was a big hologram? No wait, New York is a big hologram it doesn’t even exist!

Show me one shred of proof about the “no planes theory” that’s all I’m asking for, one single tiny little bit of proof… and no one can offer.

Mikey.





[edit on 15-5-2007 by Mikey84]

This thread is getting interesting because many of the CT are acting like OCT. There are phisic flaws with the impact of this so called plane that need an explanation. who does not beleive a 767hit the WTC is saying hey but how did the motion of the plane did not slow down one bit upon impact?
This deserves a logical answer. Same thing for the nose looking thing coming out of the twin tower ,the flashes that are recorded exactly at the impact point (I am not refering to the simple one famous flash). The explosion even distributed also in the tail section.
The presence of survivors at the impact point.
For me is the same thing they used at the pentagon. A missle with depleted uranium, camuflaged as a plane or morelike it a missle with an hologram coming out of it (who knows how).
The technology used in 911 is almost behind comprehension, I am still going to show a wild video that deserves an explanation but no one seems to care.
I beg you to watch the following video with an open mind for one just don't say its a bird and watch closely the whole building how it changes once those "birds" leaves.


Please watch it again and again.
At first you will only see 2 flying object flying and you can say birds. After you will realize they are actually quite big to be Birds.
But later on the big zoom you might notice that those flying object are actually morphed in the building and they are huge.
When they leave the buildings you will notice that the building will change the way they look.
You might not see it at first but they are there and its a real video. Again I think that what it was used on 911 its ismply misterious.
I am not even sure those fireballs are real I am not sure about anything we saw on 911, it looks and souns like the perfect magical illusion.

piacenza,

I have to agree, that it is weird looking.

When I watched it the first time, I could only see the bits in the air – it does look too big and fast to be a bird, and I don’t think it’s debris as the angle of projection doesn’t fit.

I then watched it a 2nd time, and seen the bit you are talking about the building, It looks like it’s attached and then all of a sudden just jumps/leaps off and into the air.

Very strange indeed. Good Video

(I still believe and know Commercial Airliners where used in the attack)

But anyone have any ideas on that thing in this Video, I don’t and I agree with piacenza, it looks too big to be a bird.

Mikey


[edit on 15-5-2007 by Mikey84]

Can someone please answer my question i posted; If there were no planes, then how can one explain the engine that landed a few blocks away from the towers/which could also be seen leaving the other side of the tower in a fireball on many videos..

Please.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Can someone please answer my question i posted; If there were no planes, then how can one explain the engine that landed a few blocks away from the towers/which could also be seen leaving the other side of the tower in a fireball on many videos..

Please.

The people who believe the hologram theory, cannot explain that, so therefore will not answer and as usual just completely avoid the question.

Either that or your going to get a reply a long the lines of “that was planted there”

Mikey

Are you refering to the small engine found?

Ops sorry its a one line post.

Are you by chance refering to the small engine found on the stree of NYC
on the day of 911 after the terrorist attack? ANd if yes would you mind to be so kind to show us a picture of this big engine? I would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation.

This is the engine im referring too;



Incidentally it comes from a webpage about this engine, which goes on to say that it is an engine from a Boeing 737, and not a 767.

It can be seen shooting out the back/corner of the tower as a flaming fireball.



To me, this is direct evidence that there were real planes used. I could understand the "they planted it there", but as to how they faked a flaming fireball..

Im not here to cause a cussing match between different theory believers, but i am genuinely interested in the "no planes theory", because its something i havent looked into properly. But the reason why i never considered it was primarily becasue of the flaming engine.

Originally posted by Mikey84
The people who believe the hologram theory, cannot explain that, so therefore will not answer and as usual just completely avoid the question.

Either that or your going to get a reply a long the lines of “that was planted there”

Mikey

You need to stop putting people into categories. Just because holograms is one of the infinite possibilities does not mean that people who are open to the idea only considers this theory to be the correct one.

''Those who are open minded about 911 and the hologram theory because everything that happened defined the laws of physics and reality on that day'' is a juster statement.

Well think to your self, if technology advanced enough to create the illusion of planes to the masses took place on that day, they are also able to reproduce a plane engine on the streets.

The truth is, no one can answer the question because the theory of the hologram plane deals with technology not known to the public and therefor no one knows the effects of this technology and what it can truly accomplish.

This theory stemmed from the fact that nothing about the way the planes entered the buildings can be explained so therefor, people are looking way outside the box on this one. As far as outside the box as it takes to even catch up to the anomalies that occurred on that day.

One must not look at reality in limitations, that limits the frequencies of perception and comprehension.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon



To me, this is direct evidence that there were real planes used. I could understand the "they planted it there", but as to how they faked a flaming fireball..

I must point out, if that is the engine coming out. That is one gigantic engine.

Notice the engine is the metal part, not the cover on it.

www.airforce-technology.com...

It's also hard to imagine a small engine like that plow through an entire building and fly the other side.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless
This theory stemmed from the fact that nothing about the way the planes entered the buildings can be explained so therefor, people are looking way outside the box on this one. As far as outside the box as it takes to even catch up to the anomalies that occurred on that day.

One must not look at reality in limitations, that limits the frequencies of perception and comprehension.

What about the way the planes entered the buildings can't be explained?

The buildings were not solid steel or concrete; they were hollow steel skeletons. Likewise, the planes were nothing more than hollow aluminum tubes -not solid masses.

The steel beams shredded the planes as they plowed into the buildings the same way a blended liquifies food. What happened to the planes is similar to what would happen to an egg if you threw it against a bird cage, except with about a billion times more energy.

Originally posted by nick7261
What about the way the planes entered the buildings can't be explained?

www.911closeup.com...

Lets see now... the plane effortlessly punches through the wall, the wings making a shape of themselves, effortlessly punches through the core, and then, with a few feet to spare, once its completely inside the building, puts the brakes on and then blows up into nothing, with the explosion miraculously causing no extra damage to the building.

This would also mean that those razor sharp aluminium wings which sliced so easily through the flimsy construction steel would have been merrily slicing away for about 100 ft into the building, slicing the building like a loaf of bread before the plane blew up. The slice then healed itself. Perhaps the explosion put it all back into place...

This kind of thing might happen in cartoons and in the "minds" of people like Eastman, but it's notably absent from real life.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by selfless]

Here is a very obvious logical stand point on why it's possible that planes were not used.

If you take time to read all this, it explains very good the logic of the situation.

www.911closeup.com...