Disappearing planes

reply to post by mikelee


That certainly looks plausable, does it not?

reply to post by Icerider


Yes it does. And at 500 + mph whose gonna get a really good look.

i'm a pilot, i say huh uh.! nope, bad fake job. the pilots group claiming fraud agree with me. read up on it....the pilots against 911. that's good reading. don't worry that our world is upside down suddenly with backwards logic....just keep smiling, have faith! read that book, not all of it, start with john, matthew mark, luke. and today i read Rev. 3....a phrase in there says no need to worry....

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
I guess the video CGI guys didn't have the expertise to depict a realistic impact against the tower.

Umm

How many jet airliners have you seen flying into skyscrapers in your lifetime?

I'm 40, and in the sum total of my life I can only say I've seen two.

What I'm trying to say is that you would have had no idea what it would look like prior to the event -because it had not happened before - so making the proclamation that its CGI is, frankly, a complete straw man argument.

[edit on 31/1/10 by neformore]

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Icerider

 

The basic fallacy in what you are trying to argue is to compare regular air crashes with 9/11.

perhaps it would be a fallacy if he WERE saying what happened on 9-11 WERE plane crashes. There WERE no plane crashes on 9-11.

Time for you to clear the cobwebs out of your fuzzy little head like more than 95% of the people on this forum have.

only 5 % of the people on this forum agree with you.

None of the pilots on 9/11 was trying to avoid a crash, quite the opposite.

There were no plane crashes on 9-11.

Even UA 93 was deliberately flown into the ground because the passengers were about to overwhelm the hi-jackers.

There was no plane crash hence, there were no hijackers.

This is a high speed crash; you must have seen it. Every truther in the western hemisphere must have seen it and then scrubbed it from their memory. :-

Scrubbed what from their memories? there isn't even fake footage of a crash for flight 93.

www.youtube.com...

This is very comparable to the Pentagon; high speed into solid object. But you expect to see wings ?!

not comparable to the pentagon at all. Something that disintegrates into fine dust cannot penetrate multiple walls like the bombs did at the pentagon.

Get a clue.

I'm not going to argue facts with a delusional person on a forum without moderators on constant standby to point out how wrong you are.

So if you would like to challenge these facts, accept my challenge to a member debate.

If not, stay delusional.

bye bye.

[edit on 1/31/2010 by JPhish]

I have an extra piece of evidence.

A friend of mine has grandparents who live close to Shanksville. He grandfather was in the USAAF during the Second WOrld War and saw plenty of compbat. He was a witness to many, many planes going down at the hands of enemy fighters.

He was amazed by the events at Shanksville. He said that it was unlike any other crash that he had ever seen. The police immediately roped off a VAST area of several square miles whereas a plane crashing would normally simply have a small area roped off. It gives the clear indication that she was already in fragment form, scattered "to the winds" when she hit the ground.

reply to post by Signals


Same outcome for the PBM that went searching for them. Something terrible happend out there to have them all disoriented and scared. The question is..what?

No proof they ever crashed either just suspected

21 souls lost.. and for what?

[edit on 17/05/09 by Raider of Truth]

reply to post by Icerider


And the fact that the hole in the pentagon was a perfect fit for a cruise missile (as evidenced by images of confirmed C. Missile hits), and rather small for a commercial jetliner, with huge wings and tail section!

I'd accept the OS regarding the Pentagon, if all commercial jets didn't have wings or tails, but just a missile shaped fuselage!

The façade of the impact point was later PULLED down as it was obviously dangerous to responders and so on, but prior to the wall being brought down, only a very small hole of approx 16 foot diameter was apparent. NO horizontal damage where the wings and engines would have hit, NO damage where the vertical and horizontal tail section would have hit, only a small round hole..

The OS maintains that the wings were coming in at an angle oblique to the ground, and that they were ripped off when ground contact occurred..perfectly reasonable, until you look at picures of the ground and see there are no gouges or groves from the contact, and no wings or tail section come to that matter.

Whenever anyone who asks where are the aircraft, we get treated to a high school physics lesson. We are told, unequivocally, that an aircraft, made of light materials, mainly Aluminium smashing into solid steel at hundreds of MPH, will pretty much disintegrate the main parts of an aircraft...OK...i accept that...so WHY is it then, that when the pentagon aircraft took out half a dozen STEEL street light poles bending some of them 90 degrees, with it's very soft, very light and fragile ALUMINIUM wings and fuselage, why didn't the wings or whatever came into contact with these poles, get immediately ripped off at the point of contact, or in this case don't high school physics apply?

I don't think there should be 'truthers', i think there should be 'bloody common sense-er's'!



[edit on 31/1/2010 by spikey]

[edit on 31/1/2010 by spikey]

reply to post by JPhish


I take and agree with your fact about the hijackers, MANY of the supposed hijackers that they stated hijacked, piloted and crashed the aircraft, in fact about 50% of the names the FBI had on display as 'Wanted', just a COUPLE OF HOURS after the events, are in FACT alive and well!

Yet, they were listed as BEING the 'terrorists' that were turned into atom sized particles in the 'crashes', along with all THREE aircraft, all other bodies from the planes, all luggage, seats, everything...except a paper passport of one of these alive/dead hijackers, miraculously survived intact.

There are SO many holes that don't make any logical sense in the OS (story being the operative word for it) especially the hole in the Pentagon wall...

reply to post by neformore


Not really.

Many movies of the disaster type, have aircraft crashing into buildings and pretty much anywhere and everywhere.

Plenty of CGI to compare against.

reply to post by Raider of Truth


The working theory was that they became lost, and simply ran out of fuel.

They are probably still sitting in their cockpits.

Originally posted by spikey
Not really.

Many movies of the disaster type, have aircraft crashing into buildings and pretty much anywhere and everywhere.

Plenty of CGI to compare against.

Stop...wait.

You want to claim that this was CGI because you've seen CGI in movies?



Really?

Decent real science studies from a baseline event. Not from a fantasy.

Oddly, in this case, the planes hitting the building at that speed IS the baseline event.

Originally posted by spikey
...so WHY is it then, that when the pentagon aircraft took out half a dozen STEEL street light poles bending some of them 90 degrees, with it's very soft, very light and fragile ALUMINIUM wings and fuselage, why didn't the wings or whatever came into contact with these poles, get immediately ripped off at the point of contact, or in this case don't high school physics apply?

There are different grades of steel for a start, and the poles were probably constructed from a grade a damn site softer than the grade of aluminium that the aircraft industry makes jet liners from.

Not only that but they are hollow and the force exerted by the wings on a small impact point with that kind of momentum means that the poles are going to come off a lot worse.

Street light poles aren't rigid monoliths of solid steel.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


There WAS no wreckage found at either crash site.
There was NO 90 foot opening ( dont know where you got that one from).
Flight 93 WAS shot down. Certain people from the military have admitted it ( see project camelot).

Until people open their eyes, there will never be any juustice for those who lost their lives and for the first responders etc who are now dying from the dust that covered NYC.

Three buildings went down in less than 12 seconds each and some of you wont even question that !

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Icerider

 

And the fact that the hole in the pentagon was a perfect fit for a cruise missile (as evidenced by images of confirmed C. Missile hits), and rather small for a commercial jetliner, with huge wings and tail section!

I'd accept the OS regarding the Pentagon, if all commercial jets didn't have wings or tails, but just a missile shaped fuselage!

The façade of the impact point was later PULLED down as it was obviously dangerous to responders and so on, but prior to the wall being brought down, only a very small hole of approx 16 foot diameter was apparent. NO horizontal damage where the wings and engines would have hit, NO damage where the vertical and horizontal tail section would have hit, only a small round hole..

The OS maintains that the wings were coming in at an angle oblique to the ground, and that they were ripped off when ground contact occurred..perfectly reasonable, until you look at picures of the ground and see there are no gouges or groves from the contact, and no wings or tail section come to that matter.

Whenever anyone who asks where are the aircraft, we get treated to a high school physics lesson. We are told, unequivocally, that an aircraft, made of light materials, mainly Aluminium smashing into solid steel at hundreds of MPH, will pretty much disintegrate the main parts of an aircraft...OK...i accept that...so WHY is it then, that when the pentagon aircraft took out half a dozen STEEL street light poles bending some of them 90 degrees, with it's very soft, very light and fragile ALUMINIUM wings and fuselage, why didn't the wings or whatever came into contact with these poles, get immediately ripped off at the point of contact, or in this case don't high school physics apply?

I don't think there should be 'truthers', i think there should be 'bloody common sense-er's'!



[edit on 31/1/2010 by spikey]

[edit on 31/1/2010 by spikey]

Can you refer me to any witnesses who saw a cruise missile on 9/11 please ?

Regarding the light-poles, that you seem to think are such a hazard, they are specifically designed to break away easily in the event of a car hitting them, let alone an airliner. This is to minimize damage to passengers of course. It is not uncommon for them to be blown down in hurricanes.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Icerider

 

The basic fallacy in what you are trying to argue is to compare regular air crashes with 9/11.

perhaps it would be a fallacy if he WERE saying what happened on 9-11 WERE plane crashes. There WERE no plane crashes on 9-11.

Time for you to clear the cobwebs out of your fuzzy little head like more than 95% of the people on this forum have.

only 5 % of the people on this forum agree with you.

None of the pilots on 9/11 was trying to avoid a crash, quite the opposite.

There were no plane crashes on 9-11.

Even UA 93 was deliberately flown into the ground because the passengers were about to overwhelm the hi-jackers.

There was no plane crash hence, there were no hijackers.

This is a high speed crash; you must have seen it. Every truther in the western hemisphere must have seen it and then scrubbed it from their memory. :-

Scrubbed what from their memories? there isn't even fake footage of a crash for flight 93.

www.youtube.com...

This is very comparable to the Pentagon; high speed into solid object. But you expect to see wings ?!

not comparable to the pentagon at all. Something that disintegrates into fine dust cannot penetrate multiple walls like the bombs did at the pentagon.

Get a clue.

I'm not going to argue facts with a delusional person on a forum without moderators on constant standby to point out how wrong you are.

So if you would like to challenge these facts, accept my challenge to a member debate.

If not, stay delusional.

bye bye.

[edit on 1/31/2010 by JPhish]

OK, so you are a "no-planer". An extreme type of truther not welcome on even many truther sites. Are you a disinfo agent really ? You can tell me, I won't tell anybody.

Anyway, if you think I am delusional I am relieved to hear it.

reply to post by Alfie1


Maybe just to review the posts in this thread:

Originally posted by Dogdish
More likely, they were drones.

Here's some video proof:
www.metacafe.com...

Just a short video, worth watching.

Originally posted by mikelee

Hmmmmm...

Originally posted by Icerider
reply to post by mikelee

 

That certainly looks plausable, does it not?

Originally posted by mikelee
reply to post by Icerider

 

Yes it does. And at 500 + mph whose gonna get a really good look.

Maybe in your mind this has no effect on your straw man "no planer" argument, but in fact, no one has stated that this destruction happened without a destructive source.

Ok, Well, unfortunately nobody has managed to meet my original request, I still don't see any other 'vanishing plane' air disasters.

I decided to do a little research myself, just to see what does happen when a major crash occurs.

I chose two examples, both high profile, both 747's ( a little larger than the planes in question).

The first was the El Al flight 1862 which lost control due to engine failure after takeoff. The crew circled round to try and regain the airport, but the loss of two engines made the plane uncontrollable in the prevailing conditions. The plane impacted a residential high rise at a near vertical angle.



The impact was enveloped in a giant fireball (the plane was carrying flammable and toxic cargo, as well as depleted uranium)



And the crash destroyed a major chunk of building



Somehow it didn't manage to push the nosecone out the rear of the building, at least I can't find anything to suggest it did.
It seems like it was broken up within the body of the crash.
Perhaps this High rise full of 'unregistered and unemployed' was tougher than the Pentagon?
Despite this there was still a lot of wreckage recovered, including some quite sizable pieces




as well as the FDA and the CVR







Details of the flight can be found here

flightsafety.org...

Similar to the Pentagon attack? kinda, but certainly a lot more damage, widerspread, and more wreckage to show. In fact, with full tanks, and reportedly carrying propanol, is amazing that anything was left of her at all.
But it was.

Lockerbie

Another 747, Pan Am flight 103. Blown to pieces at 31000 feet, and spread over a wide area, but leaving substantial chunks of aircraft.






And yet despite this it still managed to leave a noticable hole in the ground.



and there was plenty of debris - this is just one of the collection sites




so there you go, the plane came down IN PIECES and still made a crater that size.


I appreciate these are not exactly the same as the incidents in question, but at present they are the best examples I can find, and they don't convince me.

So once again, please, show me some other disappearing planes!

Originally posted by Icerider
Ok, Well, unfortunately nobody has managed to meet my original request, I still don't see any other 'vanishing plane' air disasters.

I decided to do a little research myself, just to see what does happen when a major crash occurs.

I chose two examples, both high profile, both 747's ( a little larger than the planes in question).

The first was the El Al flight 1862 which lost control due to engine failure after takeoff. The crew circled round to try and regain the airport, but the loss of two engines made the plane uncontrollable in the prevailing conditions. The plane impacted a residential high rise at a near vertical angle.



The impact was enveloped in a giant fireball (the plane was carrying flammable and toxic cargo, as well as depleted uranium)



And the crash destroyed a major chunk of building



Somehow it didn't manage to push the nosecone out the rear of the building, at least I can't find anything to suggest it did.
It seems like it was broken up within the body of the crash.
Perhaps this High rise full of 'unregistered and unemployed' was tougher than the Pentagon?
Despite this there was still a lot of wreckage recovered, including some quite sizable pieces




as well as the FDA and the CVR







Details of the flight can be found here

flightsafety.org...

Similar to the Pentagon attack? kinda, but certainly a lot more damage, widerspread, and more wreckage to show. In fact, with full tanks, and reportedly carrying propanol, is amazing that anything was left of her at all.
But it was.

Lockerbie

Another 747, Pan Am flight 103. Blown to pieces at 31000 feet, and spread over a wide area, but leaving substantial chunks of aircraft.






And yet despite this it still managed to leave a noticable hole in the ground.



and there was plenty of debris - this is just one of the collection sites




so there you go, the plane came down IN PIECES and still made a crater that size.


I appreciate these are not exactly the same as the incidents in question, but at present they are the best examples I can find, and they don't convince me.

So once again, please, show me some other disappearing planes!

Icerider

Let's face it, you don't have any interest in seeing any " vanishing plane " air disasters do you ?

Your purported research has come up with two crashes which could not be more different from anything on 9/11.

Both the Lockerbie and Amsterdam crashes were Boeing 747,s. You say they are " a little larger than the planes in question". Talk about an understatement, 747's are wide-bodied jumbo jets with 4 engines. Hugely bigger than 757's.

In the case of the Amsterdam crash, they were trying to make an emergency landing. Probably not doing a third of AA 77's 530 mph into the Pentagon.

In the Lockerbie case, the plane was blown up at 30,000 ft plus.

I cannot see how any relevant conclusions can be drawn from your examples.