Killtown Explains Why They Didn't Crash Planes into the WTC

Originally posted by talisman
Actually the plane that hit the South Tower, most of the explosion was ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING!

Ok.... so it exploded but yet no planes fell down on the streets?

The plane just penetrated the building and then there was an explosion and then the plane were never to be seen again?

Well, i personally don't buy it, but it's subjective opinion.

Inertia and Momentum.


No, it wouldn't fall straight down at all.

[edit on 6/6/07 by SteveR]

Originally posted by Mogget
That linked article is supposed to be proof that no planes hit the towers ? Where is the actual evidence to back up such a ridiculous claim ?



[edit on 6-6-2007 by Mogget]

They are just points of common sense as to why what happened on that day could not have happened that way so therefor there is something wrong here and something missing.

Just my opinion of course.

Originally posted by SteveR
Inertia and Momentum.


No, it wouldn't fall straight down at all.

[edit on 6/6/07 by SteveR]

BIG STEEL COLUMNS

Might have a different opinion on that issue.

I'm not sure many who have posted here have even bothered to read my entire article, but questions for the planers who believe the WTC was demo'd:

How were the perps so sure BOTH planes would hit the building accurately and penetrate all the way through the facade without much of the plane blowing up on the outside and falling to the street and being exposed as drones if you believe they were drones?

Originally posted by SteveR
Inertia and Momentum.
[edit on 6/6/07 by SteveR]

Well then why did the planes not exit out the other side?

Instead it just magically stopped at the exact right spot where we would not see any parts of the planes sticking out of the building? I don't buy it anymore.

Originally posted by selfless

Originally posted by SteveR
Inertia and Momentum.


No, it wouldn't fall straight down at all.

[edit on 6/6/07 by SteveR]

BIG STEEL COLUMNS

Might have a different opinion on that issue.

So the fact that it's a fast moving jet doesn't come into play at all? How come that is, is it just to suit your weird theory that planes were not used? Have you thought about how much energy would need to be dissipated by the steel columns? Even if it had been solid steel the jets would have penetrated.Just because the planes broke up doesn't mean they stop penetrating, how do you explain the wreckage flying out the other side of the buildings if the plane would just break up? And if a plane can't get in, what hope does some sort of drone or whatever do it?

edit:

Well then why did the planes not exit out the other side?

It did, it had just broken up by then. You seem to think it should either go straight through unharmed or bounce off, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by apex]

Originally posted by apex
is it just to suit your weird theory that planes were not used?

Hold on a minute here,

I am not a person of a single theory, i am a person of infinite possibilities.

When i see some points about a certain event i won't shut out possibilities just because it won't be the popular choice.

I am just a person who's open to the possibility that there were no planes because there are some evidence that indicates the possibility.

That doesn't mean I am telling anyone there were no planes, that's up to the individuals to make up their own minds.

Hope that's clear.

Originally posted by apex
So the fact that it's a fast moving jet doesn't come into play at all?

No no, it does come into play, very much so in fact.

It comes into play in the sense that, at the speed the plane was coming, it wouldn't just make a stop the only place in the building where the plane would disappear completely from view sight.

I think it's more likely there would have been a CRASHING effect but I don't think the plane should have penetrated enough of the building to just take all of the inertia from the fast speed of the plane and stop it dead into the center of the building. The only place where the big plane could fit with out sticking out of the facade it penetrated.

Originally posted by apex
Have you thought about how much energy would need to be dissipated by the steel columns? Even if it had been solid steel the jets would have penetrated.Just because the planes broke up doesn't mean they stop penetrating,

I fail to see what you mean here...

Are you saying that the steel in the world trade center was not solid? How can you have none solid steel? Or are you talking about cosmetic facade?

Well if the plane penetrated the building and then was cut in pieces by the steel and magically separated into sections inside the building and magically stayed with in the infrastructure, then I don't think that would justify why the building collapsed in 1 hour and this brings us to another inside job conclusion.

Originally posted by apex
how do you explain the wreckage flying out the other side of the buildings if the plane would just break up? And if a plane can't get in, what hope does some sort of drone or whatever do it?

Again, i fail to see your point here.

I thought you were saying the planes broke up?

And I never said that the plane can't get in, I am saying that it wouldn't just magically stop inside the building, the only place where it would disappear from view sight.

Yes, what hope does some sort of drone do it because it's so unlikely to happen that way because of the laws of physics that it brings another motivation as to why it's possible there were no planes used on the WTC.

Originally posted by apex
It did, it had just broken up by then. You seem to think it should either go straight through unharmed or bounce off, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that i think it either would go straight through or bounce off.

Is it because i asked why the planes would not exit the outer side? That was a sarcastic question regarding a point someone made.

I don't think either would happen.

I think it would have a CRASHING effect.

What I am saying is that,

I THINK it should enter the building and then have debris fall in the streets the same side it penetrated and it should not just stop in the spot of the infrastructure that would make the plane disappear from view sight, i don't even think that would be possible.

Hope that clears up a few mis perceptions about my opinions.



[edit on 6-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Killtown

How were the perps so sure BOTH planes would hit the building accurately and penetrate all the way through the facade without much of the plane blowing up on the outside and falling to the street and being exposed as drones if you believe they were drones?

Simple...The conspirators (Al Queda operatives) Were not sure the buildings would fall ! They knew that all the people on the Jet liner would die, along with themselves, and anyone on those floors of the WTC towers.

The message would be clear to America, regardless if the buildings fell or not.

Originally posted by Killtown
I'm not sure many who have posted here have even bothered to read my entire article, but questions for the planers who believe the WTC was demo'd:

How were the perps so sure BOTH planes would hit the building accurately and penetrate all the way through the facade without much of the plane blowing up on the outside and falling to the street and being exposed as drones if you believe they were drones?

How could they be so sure? Because the perps who decided to remote-fly planes into the towers understood physics, whereas you, Killtown, know nothing about tensile strengths, bending moments, Newton's three Laws of Motion, the Law of Conservation of Momentum and the law of Conservation of Energy. Anyway, they were not bothered by people finding debris on the ground because they used planes identical to Flight 175 and Flight 17. Simple when you think about it.

Originally posted by selfless
Well then why did the planes not exit out the other side?

I understand you feel the walls of the WTC should have repelled the body of the plane. However, the greatest structural resistance of the WTC would have been inside the core. The planes hit at the right trajectory to meet the core columns. I beleive this is where they lodged in place, for the most part. The walls themselves were punctured as soon as the nose cone and wings hit with the entire momentum and inertia of the plane. After the walls gave way the body of the plane passed inside without resistance. This is how I beleive it worked.

SteveR,

I'm sorry, it was mostly a sarcastic question.

I don't think it should have flown out the other side he he..

It's just that i find it far fetch that the plane would stop right in the spot of the infrastructure that makes the plane disappear from view sight, that's all.

Perhaps it was a military operation in which the buildings were rigged with certain explosives and set up in a way that would allow mock planes to penetrate the building and somehow stop the planes at the right spot in the building's infrastructure where the plane would disappear from view sight.

Originally posted by selfless
It's just that i find it far fetch that the plane would stop right in the spot of the infrastructure that makes the plane disappear from view sight, that's all.

Well, that's an interesting area of inquiry.

I would theorize the plane lost structural strength when it hit the core columns. Thus if the plane was crumpled the length of the wreckage would be minimized.

That being said, the length of a regular 767-200 is 159 feet. Whereas the width of a WTC was 210 feet. (64m)

They fit inside with 50 feet to spare and that's parallel to a wall.

Originally posted by SteveR
They fit inside with 50 feet to spare and that's parallel to a wall.

That's the thing...

Coming at about 600km, it doesn't leave much chance for the plane to just stop the only place where it would disappear from view sight.

Especially on the 2 buildings.

Join us in the bang zoom bang thread, a new theory is arising.

They DIDN'T "disappear" or "stop". They were already coming apart as they entered the building. After the explosion you can see parts of them come out the other side of the building. How else do you explain the engine and landing gear found on the ground? Along with various other parts they found.

[edit on 6/6/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They DIDN'T "disappear" or "stop". They were already coming apart as they entered the building. After the explosion you can see parts of them come out the other side of the building. How else do you explain the engine and landing gear found on the ground? Along with various other parts they found.

[edit on 6/6/2007 by Zaphod58]

Hmmm, you are talking about the engine photo? Because you see a picture of an engine on the ground you will believe with out a doubt that it came from the plane that crashed in the building?

Doctored exists, I don't hold much credibility to photo's coming from the same source that tells me 911 was done by terrorists hijackers.

And, we see an explosion but we don't see plane parts come out the other side nor do we see plane pieces fall on the same side the plane comes from.

We see a plane penetrate the building, then we don't see the plane no more afterwards.

It's hard to believe for a big plane like that even if it was cut into pieces from the steel columns that it would all resides inside the infrastructure, the odds of this happening are slim to none.

And also, it's hard to believe that if the steel columns held and took the plane apart that the towers fell 1 hour after it was hit, the whole thing is very much unrealistic to say the least.

What i see that happened on that day does not consist with the laws of physics, that's just what I think.

PS: I did not see several pieces of planes on the ground, can you show me please?

I saw a video on television a few years ago of a person with a camera filming the whole surrounding areas of the world trade center and I did not see one piece of debris from the planes on the ground, and we saw the whole surrounding area of where the debris should have been.

Have you even watched the videos? What do you think those things coming out the side OPPOSITE the impact, and heading down towards the ground are? A missile? Bomb? Magic sylph? They're parts of the plane that exit out the other side of the building. How else do you explain the fact that they're on a path that lines up perfectly with the impact site?

Chunk of fuselage (the square windows):



Landing Gear on the ground:






[edit on 6/6/2007 by Zaphod58]

Yes i have seen the videos, One of them was told to you in the post above.

Did you even read my post?

What i see is an explosion on the other side of the building, i don't see parts of the plane fly the other side though.