Why planes were not used.

There are actually quite a bit of evidence of fake plane debris around WTC there are piece of the fusulage which were actually found quite intact compared to this engine.

Quotes below from sources referenced by selfless


Lets see now... the plane effortlessly punches through the wall,

Effortlessly? Hardly. The planes had an incredible amount of kinetic energy. Energy = mass x velocity^2.

the wings making a shape of themselves, effortlessly punches through the core,

What other shape would the wings make but a shape of themselves? And again, it wasn't "effortlessly." That's completely misleading.

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 is completely incorrect. The planes were mostly shredded on their way through the steel columns, and did cause "extra" damage to the buildings when pieces of debris and building blew out the opposite side.

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...

Again, this is simply incorrect. The wings were shredded by the steel columns.

Keep in mind the buildings were hollow shells constructed of steel frames. I'm pretty sure the facing on the buildings was aluminum. The spaces between the steel columns offered almost no resistance to the planes. The steel columns cut through the planes' aluminum body and wings.

Also, I did read your second link with the "logic" for using fake planes instead of real planes. The argument is seriously flawed by incorrect presuppositions to numerous to go into.

The biggest of the erroneous presuppositions is that all the people who saw and heard the planes were somehow deceived into thinking it was a plane. Or maybe the biggest flaw in the logic is the assumption that the technology to create fake images and sounds of planes exists.

This entire "logical" argument is one step removed from saying that we're all living in the Matrix attached to machines that are simulating our realities. I guess this is what you call thinking outside the box.

Imo, it's this type of "out of the box" thinking that justifies the no CT crowd calling the CTers nutcases, and ultimately undermines getting anybody to pay attention to the real evidence of a conspiracy.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by nick7261]

accidental double post.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by selfless]

Nick, don't quote a source that i quoted and pass it off as something i said.
Please.

And also, i answered your question by providing you with reading material.

I don't know if you read it or not judging by the way you misinterpreted the articles assessments into some sort of ''matrix like conspiracy. Because it is not even far fetch and doesn't even speak about holograms.'' but there is nothing more i can say about the way that the planes entered the building actually defies logic then this article can and does.

Simply, what i will say regarding the way the planes entered the building is all covered into the reading material, there is nothing more to add to it.

Talk about misleading nick, look at what you did.

You took a quote that i quoted from an article and passed it off as something i said. Then you say false things about the whole article that i linked so that it appears that the article is saying the things you perceived from it, while in reality IT IS NOT intended how you perceived it, at all.

People, i encourage you to read the article for your self and not think that what nick just said about the article is what is being said in the article. And afterwards judge for your self what the article IS REALLY ABOUT.

PS: Nick, i am not a fan of the way you misled my posts in this thread and i won't turn this into a flame war. I will not reply to you again in this thread for the purpose of, not starting an argument. You took an article and then related in a way that i wrote it, and i don't stand for that.

Peace.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by selfless]

Here is the articles again,

Please note that these are only possibilities, not cold hard facts.

Logical assessments of reasons why planes were not used: www.911closeup.com...

Logical assessments of why the evidence shows planes were not used:
www.911closeup.com...

Please ignore my opinion and nick's opinion on this before you actually read it for your self and then make up your own opinion if these articles holds water in a logical sense or not.



[edit on 15-5-2007 by selfless]

Selfless,

Sorry, I mistakenly left the incorrect tags in when quoting your post. I corrected that now. To anybody reading my above post, the quotes were from a source the selfless referred me to.

I disagree with your assessment that I misinterpreted the articles you quoted. The conclusions reached by the author are based on erroneous assumptions and presuppositions.

Simply put, hollow aluminum tubes (the planes) traveling at over 400 m.p.h. hitting into a grid of steel beams would be expected to be shredded into pieces by the steel beams while damaging the facing and the interior of the buildings.

Further, to theorize that hundreds, if not thousands, of people were mistaken about seeing planes needs more than hypothetical musings to be taken seriously. And this isn't even getting into the fact that there are at least dozens of videos and hundreds of still photos that corroborate what the eye-witnesses claimed to have seen -a large airplane flying into WTC2. Not to mention the fac t that all the videos and all the still photos corroborate each other.

There's a difference between being open minded and having a total lack of critical analysis of the data.

hey nick7261 but how do you explain the nose (fusalage) of the plane getting out of the WTC fairly intact to later on explode?

Keep in mind that the media trickery is just one of the possibilities and is not said to be an absolute in that article, just one of the possible theories offered in the examples of possibilities.

Lets not cherry pick the article that offers several possibilities and say that the article is saying it's only one possibility.

piacenza

That most likely was one of the engines that went through.

Do you guys realize that someone can easily say...

"Well it just wasn't the Planes that were holograms, but that the WTC were holograms, and that no-one actually died, and that everyone is a 'plant'."

The logic everyone here is using is deeply flawed.

Again, piacenza YOU KEEP talking about something being 'fake' or looking 'fake'.

YOU ARE NOT A FILM EXPERT to make such judgements.


I asked specific questions.

#1. HOW did the 'hologram' leave wing marks in the WTC?

#2. The eyewitness who saw a piece of the wing burning in the the building.

#3. The witnesses who saw a plane go into the towers.

#4. The hockey player who happened to be on one of the planes, where the heck did he go if he wasn't on the plane?

#5. *THE SOUND OF THE JETS" that would be very difficult to reproduce in flight.

#6. The variety of angles.

#7. The difficulty in background 'blue screens' against billowing smoke.


You are not a film expert, you don't know what is involved with BLUE SCREEN's, the difficulty in the lighting especially faking backgrounds that have in the front uncontrolled smoke.

So again, talk to a real film expert. I have already sat down myself with people who make films and engage in real special effects.

They say "BUNK" and "BS" to any of the CGI or fake plane theories.

Unless you guys can start showing some real Bona Fide experts who either work for a company like Industrial Light and Magic then what your saying is nonesense.

The real reason it was real footage I have been told, is that it would too difficult to do what you guys think they did.

It isn't as easy as you think.

Originally posted by talisman
---
Do you guys realize that someone can easily say...

"Well it just wasn't the Planes that were holograms, but that the WTC were holograms, and that no-one actually died, and that everyone is a 'plant'."

The logic everyone here is using is deeply flawed.
...

not to mention that fakes surrounding 9/11 prove nothing but an obfuscation effort.

there are litterally hundreds of photoshopped images, surrounding the pentagon in particular, which does make our job harder but at the same essentially time proves media compliance and the existance of a cover-up. who could feed hundreds of fake images to the MSM, let alone produce them?

the only truely reliable source of information was available on 9/11/2001 to anyone who a) viewed the life broadcast (not so good, but still less time to fake, just selective cropping - and mistakes were made) b) saw everything happen with their own eyes.

i admit that the south tower hit did not look right, why not try the simpler theories first?

edit: Pentagon Fakes analysis

[edit on 15.5.2007 by Long Lance]

For the second time, can someone explain to me how the engine found on the street/seen coming out in a fireball, as a i posted before, is possible, if the planes aren't really real.

The fact that only one person has attempted to answer my question lends credence to why i never touched this theory before.

Dear shrunkensimon:

Not that any of this is ‘news’ but the engine found on the street was planted. And poorly so. It didn’t even match the engine type of a Boeing 767.

The fireball coming out of the building could have been edited into the films — bluescreen all the way! Or, if you want something more ‘realistic’ perhaps there really was some sort of preplanted firework device to mimic the event (of an engine ejecting from the tower). Naphthalene improvised explosive simulator devices are commercially mass produced here in the U.S. for our military for practice purposes.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by talisman

Unless you guys can start showing some real Bona Fide experts who either work for a company like Industrial Light and Magic then what your saying is nonesense.

The real reason it was real footage I have been told, is that it would too difficult to do what you guys think they did.

It isn't as easy as you think.

easy? no one said it was easy. i think we all agree it would be easier to simply fly a plane into the building(with either remote control guidance or an expert pilot, that is. i don't think people realise how needle in a haystack things are at 500 mph in a 100 ton skyboat).

high tech is indistinguishable from magic if you don't know how it works.

the holes were real. the fireball was real. they were created with explosives.

the expert you're looking for is nico haupt.

billybob

the holes were real. the fireball was real. they were created with explosives

I sincerly see a serious logical flaw in this reasoning. With respect, I seriously do.

I shall offer what I have before. I think your statement shows this to be the case.

One could turn around and ask you "Why is the HOLE REAL"?
How do you know there were explosives?

How do you know a RAY BEAM wasn't used on the WTC the night before and then the WTC were re-created for everyone on the morning of 9/11?

So the buildings were holograms with the planes.

Now of course I don't believe this based on rational experience and the lack of evidence thereof.

My point in saying this is that when the pandora's box is opened on such theories, then there is no rational reason to reject or accept either or.

Because none of us could possibly know.

If one can't know those were planes, then one can't know anything!

Unless you engage in what is truly arbitrary. That is the logical flaw.




[edit on 15-5-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman So the buildings were holograms with the planes.

Dear talisman:

No, of course the twin towers were never holograms. We have razor sharp images showing their demise. And we have lower Manhattan covered with physical debris from the towers.

From the ‘planes’ we have NOTHING. Except for horrible quality, phony-looking film. Not as much as even a small screw from those Boeings was found. Oh, sure, there were plane parts. A piece of landing gear (with the wrong type of tire). An engine (wrong model). Intact suitcases nicely labeled with baggage claim tickets and all!!! Atta’s lifejacket with his passport. And who knows what other nonsensical items.

Considering that four WTC buildings were blown to smithereens is it still so unreasonable to consider that there might not have been any planes at all? In light of all the following further facts against their presence; i. e. super-strong steel outer building walls, no damage reports by FBI or NTSB — for the first time ever, no official and definitive passenger lists directly from the airlines, impossible cell phone calls making the reported stories from inside the airplanes also impossible, no film — fake or otherwise — from the Pentagon ‘attack’, ridiculous crash site layout at Shanksville, PA, and so forth.

Sorry guys,
The dweeb with the razor, Occam or whatever, would have had to say, no way, Jose! There were no planes on 9-11!

And no, I haven’t been smoking peyote.
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/15/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Considering that four WTC buildings were blown to smithereens is it still so unreasonable to consider that there might not have been any planes at all?

Yes. VERY. The fact that plenty of people on the ground saw it happen (at the WTC anyway).

Originally posted by piacenza
hey nick7261 but how do you explain the nose (fusalage) of the plane getting out of the WTC fairly intact to later on explode?

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about? Are you referring to the WTC2 videos showing the mass flying out of the other side of the building?

Dear Mirageofdeceit:

So, if you were to agree that there are no credible witnesses at the Shanksville and Pentagon sites (because there isn’t even any plausible phony evidence of plane crashes), then this would mean that we were ‘lied’ to about those incidents, right?

Now, shouldn’t this — together with all the other givens — weaken the credibility of the eyewitness accounts of those ‘plenty of people’ at the twin towers?

Don’t those other two fake scenarios increase the likelihood that:
a) The eyewitnesses are actors.
Or b) The bystanders were duped.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

or c. a little from column a. , a little from column b..

Originally posted by talisman
billybob

the holes were real. the fireball was real. they were created with explosives

I sincerly see a serious logical flaw in this reasoning. With respect, I seriously do.

intertwining/interacting complex systems become exponentially more complex as a megasystem.
'they' already made it(the attacks) very complex. but there are boundaries to what even 'they' can do, even with holographic, and/or mind control technologies, and nearly unlimited budgets.
they cannot erase history at lightspeed. there is hysteresis provided by the BILLIONS of walking, talking supercomputer-brained robots on the planet.
there is hysteresis provided by autonomous mechanical recording devices, too, like seismic monitoring, satellite photography, emergency band radio, black boxes....teevee.

it is one thing to do a 'magic trick' that fools humans. it is another entirely to fool the entire physical reality.