Demolition truck next to wtc,Disprove No-Planes Theory also!

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn


And what about the people who reported NO plane, but just an explosion?

You know, not everyone had a birds eye view of the towers, most of there views where blocked/obscured by the buildings. As for noone hearing a plane, Sirens right beside them, screaming people, crying people, and general people talking can distract you. Not to mention hardly anyone was expecting another plane to hit.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
What about the people who reported missiles?

If you saw a 500mph 767 from the side (the plane hit the tower at a angle, people on the left side of the aircraft, or directly underneath it could confuse it. Again refer to what i said above.) you wouldn't go "O Look a 767!!" It was moving very fast, and came in quickly.

No Offense to any new yorkers but not everyone in the world can identify a 767 going 500mph, as a 767. Some are not that "bright" or observant to make that assumption.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Also, there's no evidence that hundreds of thousands of NYer's saw planes hitting the towers

Where is your proof that they didn't? There were tons of people in panic, running, talking, crying screaming, and whatnot. Of course everyone didn't see the planes. As i said before they were not expecting it! Buildings not exactly let sound through, so most would have been able to definatly hear it coming. Factor in the sirens, screaming, and you got Zero Hearing ability of anything less than a couple hundred meters.

Originally posted by CB_BrooklynWhy do you make stuff up?

Should i even point out the irony here??


Cheers!


Josh

[edit on 3-10-2007 by 3rdeye]

[edit on 3-10-2007 by 3rdeye]

Lets throw a rotten old log on this fire. Just a bit curious about a jet a smoke emitted from the second tower about at 5:12 on the video. Is this from the pressure from the floors falling before the building got hit?

Originally posted by bull12scr
The people that report seeing no planes were asleep and only awakened by the sound of chaos or weren't on the right side of the building complex. The people that reported seeing missiles were the attention seeking posers such as yourself who let thier imaginations and internet clouded fantasy worlds get intertwined with reality. Whats worse are the people who believe all of this. The people that are so desperate for some kind of meaning in thier life that they cling to this kind of internet propoganda and try to have so called intelligent convesations about it.

The only people who are alseep are the people that still believe the official story, they are living in a media fed fantasy world.

People should do some research to find out what happened that day instead of believing everything the media tells them. What have you done to find the truth of what happened that day?

Have you filed FOIA request with the FBI and NTSB, becasue i have.

Have you e-mailed any of the companies that were at ground zero, because i have.

Now who is the desperate person seeking some kind of meaning for their life ? Someone who is doing actual research or someone who believes the propoganda of the media ?

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
There's an article on Dr Wood's site that addresses the velocity issue: drjudywood.com...

Ahh this explains why you said the bit about breaking Newton's laws that we hear so much about. If you read carefully you can see where the mistake in math and logic are in this article, and that the claims of the mass of the buildings impact zone were 100 times that of the plane are erroneous.

This conclusion is reached by using the total weight of 5 floors of the building, which is the mistake. The plane did NOT fly directly into 22,000 + tons of solid mass as the calculation indicates, but merely through the facade of one side of the outer part of the building. The mass of which will be much, much, MUCH less that 22,000 tons! Add in the velocity of a plane traveling at 500 mph or so, and there you have it. The velocity of the plane is very important.

A simple way of imagining this is to watch a martial arts expert breaking a board with his hand. If he does it too slow, what happens? Yep, the board doesn't give and most likely he will break his hand. Now, that same board that can break his hand will give like a hot knife through butter if he does it fast enough, an increase in velocity, voila!

But still, the aluminum plane would have been damaged more than the building.

And it was. The plane was totally destroyed, while the building stood and several floors burned for almost 2 hours. But it still had enough velocity to make it just through the outer wall before it exploded.

A real plane would encounter resistance and crumple when hitting the building, not glide into it like a bad special effect.

If the building had been one solid piece of mass instead of a giant box then you would be correct.

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn

A real plane would have crashed against the building, not glide into it, plastic nosecone to tail, as if the building wasn't even there.

Throw a dart at a square kite and see what happens.

reply to post by blahdiblah


Can you just explain instead of us having to think about it. i mean this isnt a compitition to see who's smarter

Originally posted by thedmanThe person filming was near WTC 7
which blocked the sounds .

...so this supposed demolition truck was right near WTC 7?

I'm new to all of this 9/11 speculation so forgive me if I appear to not know what I'm talking about (because compared to most of you, I don't), but aren't there videos showing WTC 7 imparticular collapsing precisely as though it had been subject to controlled demolition (creasing in the middle and then collapsing inwards)?!... and furthermore, didn't it collapse due to no apparent cause, with the official explanation being "fire due to the nearby WTC towers"?

Just a minor point I noticed no-one had yet made.

Originally posted by Soloist

A simple way of imagining this is to watch a martial arts expert breaking a board with his hand. If he does it too slow, what happens? Yep, the board doesn't give and most likely he will break his hand. Now, that same board that can break his hand will give like a hot knife through butter if he does it fast enough, an increase in velocity, voila!

And it was. The plane was totally destroyed, while the building stood and several floors burned for almost 2 hours. But it still had enough velocity to make it just through the outer wall before it exploded.

If the building had been one solid piece of mass instead of a giant box then you would be correct.

That apparently was one tough plane. It held up much better than would a sherman tank flying into the WTC at 500 MPH.... After severing ten steel core columns while plowing edgewise into 208 feet of concrete and steel floors, the aluminum nose of the plane emerged still intact? The 'nose-out' is a very significant anomaly which cannot be explained away or labelled as a theory. But then again, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

holy cow! did i just se airplane debris land on new york streets seconds after the second plane crashed????wow
so much for the missie theory ...and every other one flying around, I wonder what rosie odonnell is going to do now? debunk this video?

great video find

anyhow both sides of the issue make good points, it does not matter which side of the fence i am on to concede that point.
but the only way t end this bickering back and forth is to re-enact the plane crash and see what happens to a real plane crashing into real wtc type building.
TURN IT OVER TO THE MYTHBUSTERS!

[edit on 4-10-2007 by icybreeze]

well ive always said those were to controlled to have a plane bring them down I never really want to get into long drawn out battles over it all on ats but that footage shows to me that their was a charge inside

If you look at the time "06:21" on one side the smoke blowing right to left - on the other side it's blowing up wards at that time watch the smoke blowing upwards it clearly shows a ploom of smoke and an orange glow.

It couldt have been caused by the other plane on the other building as it was hit to low to cause an shock wave just my other thought was that it could have ben the gas pipe on the floor.

I was told they did have a resturant up near the top some place. just my two cents worth on this video everyone is entitled to their own opinon like I said I dont want to get in a long battle over this.

Man, this # is making my angry.

My cousin was working that day at the Deutsche Bank Office in WTC Building 7. She saw with her own eyes the second plane that hit WTC. There is no hologram airplane, no missile. Come clear and accept it. Iam not saying it was not a inside job, but I do believe her that she saw airplanes since she is a clever girl and not a stupid person who thrust the medias.

The planes who crashed into the WTC were real, so real like the planes that bombed Pearl Habour. I think that the US Government had knowledge about the upcoming attack and placest TNT into Buildings to ground them and make the whole story more worse and to destory evidence for silverstein. Same like Pearl Habour both Governments had knowledge about the attacks and let them happend to getting a war reason.

Another therory I might believe is, that the planes where remote controlled.


BTW I have a question for you. Do you really believe that the government could fake such a attack with hologram airplanes or faked videos? Why make it complicated with 100.000 of eye witnesses? Why not simply place a carbomb beneath the building with a dirtybomb?

Someone please explain to me what this guys cousin saw on this day. You above claim to have filed your requests for this and that. Why did this girl see planes that day. Now while we are at it please explain how and when the supposed explosives were placed throughout the building. Post your info with some credible sources. God knows we can't trust any of the news agencies or the government so please post this info with sources so that I can do the same research as you.

Well, my source is my cousin. And for the explosives. I saw recently a documentation on german cable TV regarding the similarity between the WTC explosions and professional demotional work.

The documentation says aswell that many sources saw 1-2 weekends before 9/11 people working inside WTC at a restricted level. Aswell at WTC before tower 1 went down, explositions setoff in the garage beneath the tower. Thats why the ground collapsed. Same about WTC 7. My cousin said that the building wasnt hit by debris or plane parts but it collapsed aswell.

German version:
video.google.com...

English version:
video.google.com...

Enjoy!

[edit on 4-10-2007 by mallory-john]

[edit on 4-10-2007 by mallory-john]

reply to post by mallory-john

The documentation says aswell that many sources saw 1-2 weekends before 9/11 people working inside WTC at a restricted level. Aswell at WTC before tower 1 went down, explositions setoff in the garage beneath the tower. Thats why the ground collapsed. Same about WTC 7. My cousin said that the building wasnt hit by debris or plane parts but it collapsed aswell.

Search this site............these issues have already been covered. No need to start over from scratch on these issues again for the millionth time......

Originally posted by bull12scr
Now while we are at it please explain how and when the supposed explosives were placed throughout the building.

I want to know who was in charge of security in those buildings and who would've been the ones to see criminal activity (like planting explosives) and report it.

Does anyone know what authority that would have been, at the WTC complex? The Port Authority, and they also contracted out security to the company formerly known as Securacom, and you need to do a little research on that company before just assuming they always do their job.


It would be like rigging your own house with explosives. Even if there are other people living there, you don't have to do it right in front of them, you can tell them you're doing any number of things as you plant them (ie, lie to them), and I doubt anyone would suspect you of blowing your own place up anyway. The problem with the PA and the WTC complex is that it was a Rockefeller-run affair from the start, both David and Nelson Rockefeller, and the Rockefeller family is a very, very influential family with a not-so-compassionate history when it comes to making profit and further influence and power in the world. J.D. Rockefeller was thought to be the richest man in the US before it was discovered that he had sold most of the stock of his company over to the Rothschild family, whose name is also stamped all over the gold that I'll assume to still be in Fort Knox. If that doesn't mean anything to you, then forget it and don't worry about it.

Either way, rigging the buildings probably would not be that bad of a logistics problem at all if you already have a bad security hook-up and own all of the property you're going to be bringing in front teams for. People are stupid. In masses, they're even stupider, because they tend to assume someone higher up is looking after everything that needs to be looked after that isn't their personal responsibility. For example, I never walk up to somebody in public that's doing construction or some kind of structural repair, and bug them about what it is they're doing. Would you? Because I doubt it. And that would be why it isn't hard to rig a building covertly.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bull12scr
Now while we are at it please explain how and when the supposed explosives were placed throughout the building.

Security of WTC was provided by Securacom, which has Marvin Brush. Yep, family member of POTUS as Principal.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Funny side note, the bomb dogs were removed a few days before from WTC.


Regarding Rockefeller, the United States is not run by the POTUS, its run be the 6 weathly, powerful families grouped around Rotschilds.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by mallory-john]

Originally posted by icybreeze
holy cow! did i just se airplane debris land on new york streets seconds after the second plane crashed????wow

so much for the missie theory ...and every other one flying around, I wonder what rosie odonnell is going to do now? debunk this video?

I saw a little debris, mostly builidng debris. (can you tell the difference between missile and airplane debris)? As far as it being airplane debris we have no actual reports of any of the debris matching any of the 9/11 planes.

We also have the police report from the 9/11 commission report of a missile being fired from the Woolworth building. Also we have photos of the damage to the top of the Wollworth building.

[edit on 4-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Meandering back towards the original topic of this thread - the no-planes theory. I just have one issue with it.

Why?

Why go to all the trouble to create fancy holographic presentations to achieve something an actual plane could achieve? You're already going to kill the passengers and crew and destroy the aircraft, you've already rigged the building to fall into a tidy little heap, you already know exactly what's going to happen. You can outfit the actual plane with a remote control device, pinpoint it's target, fly it right over the city and have hundreds of witnesses to the event. The sound anomalies, if they are anomalies, and the aircraft wreckage in the street are details that can be argued forever. I bet you can prove a 757 can fly silently if given the right wind conditions, sound tunnels and ambient distortion. I bet you can identify parts of the wreckage as Boeing or non-Boeing all night long. I'm not trying to dispute those details either way. I'm still stuck on why.

Why fake the planes?

Even if the planes wouldn't successfully pass right through the side of the building, who cares? You can still collapse it on cue and blame it on weakened steel or fire damage. If you're trying to make this look like a terrorist act, you would want to make it look as real as possible. Real is targeting real planes at the WTC.

Are you disguising a missile, trying to make it look like a plane? Why? If you've already had a team of demolition experts rigging the building in the weeks prior, the building is coming down regardless. You may as well crash that hijacked plane into the building.

Is this a grand demonstration of the government's new missile-cloaking device? The new Philadelphia Experiment? Maybe. But why go to all the extra work of using a cloaked-missile, or no missile at all, just a hologram. Just to prove you can? Who are you showing this off to? Why not crash a real plane, and tell your defense budget honchos 'no sir, that was really a hologram, looked real, didn't it?'.

Why does a hologram make sense? Why would it be better than using a real plane? What would the conspirators have to gain?

The holographic plane theory, in my opinion, is simple disinformation, with the intention of turning decent, hardworking conspiracy theorists like us against each other, and discrediting the whole notion of a conspiracy surrounding 9/11. Tell any normal (read: less informed) person that the government was involved in 9/11, they'll probably listen to you. Tell them there were no planes, just huge holograms, and they will laugh at you.

Credibility is a very valuable asset, and while I support and encourage investigation into any and all possibilities, for any and every scenario, I believe some topics are damaging to the fight for truth, and must be handled delicately, reviewed, dissected and analysed, and the truth, if any, extracted and promoted.

Originally posted by HaveSeen4Myself
That apparently was one tough plane. It held up much better than would a sherman tank flying into the WTC at 500 MPH....

I would love to see evidence of a sherman tank flying into the WTC at 500mph ... I'm assuming of course that you must have since you seem to know how well it would hold up.

After severing ten steel core columns while plowing edgewise into 208 feet of concrete and steel floors, the aluminum nose of the plane emerged still intact?

I look forward to your evidence that the nose of the plane was left intact. Matter of fact that evidence would prove beyond all doubt that planes did in fact strike the towers as there would be no other way to get an aircrafts' nosecone in the tower.

But then again, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Exactly! Thanks for understanding! We don't want FACTS like; the thousands of eyewitnesses from all angles, the live TV footage shown around the world, the plane debris on the ground, the deceased passengers of those planes, the recorded phone calls to loved ones from those passengers, the amateur video footage, photographic evidence, the camera footage of the hijackers at the airport, their flight training records, the admission on video of bin laden speaking of the events and the hijackers, you know where he's LAUGHING...

We certainly don't want those FACTS to get in the way of stories of holograms and "Doctors" with websites that obviously skew the math to try and prove it couldn't have happened.

Originally posted by Soloist

I look forward to your evidence that the nose of the plane was left intact. Matter of fact that evidence would prove beyond all doubt that planes did in fact strike the towers as there would be no other way to get an aircrafts' nosecone in the tower.

Well there is a video of something comming out of the other side of the South tower. But we know it cannot be the nose, the nose is made of graphite composite and would have been destroyed as soon as it hit the building.

We still have no actual reports of any parts found matching any of the 9/11 aircraft.