Did Large Airliners Really Hit the Buildings on 9/11?

[PookztA]

I hate to say it but I no longer believe that commerical airlines hit the WTC towers... I did for a very long time, and then I learned about Dr. Judy Wood and her amazing research, and it raised enough questions in my mind to start re-examining my belief that planes did hit the towers. Now, I honestly think it was something other than a major airliner.

1. One reason that I question whether or not commercial airliners hit the towers is because:

Softer elements cannot cut through harder elements, thus...

...Aluminum CANNOT cut through steel, just like copper does not cut through diamond (FACT).

...but Steel CAN cut through Aluminum. (FACT).

In fact, BIRDS can even cut through Aluminum (see below).



So, for those of you that have been assuming that aluminum can some how cut through steel, I now have a question for you:

If birds can cut through aluminum (as seen in the picture of the aluminum airplane that hit a bird), does that mean birds can cut through steel?

It is commonly known in chemistry that harder elements can cut through softer elements, but not the reverse. The "hardness" of a material is classified using Mohs Scale, which explains how 'harder' materials can scratch / cut 'softer' materials, but not the other way around. See here: http://chemistry.about.com/od/geochemistry/a/mohsscale.htm and here: http://www.jewelry-secrets.com/Other/Whats-The-Mohs-Scale-Of-Hardness/ The-Mohs-Scale.html

This is why Diamond, one of the hardest materials of all, is used in the toughest situations, because it cuts through most everything since it is one of the hardest materials known.

Aluminum is much softer than Steel, therefore, Aluminum cannot cut through Steel, just like Copper cannot cut into Diamond.

I learned this in junior high school Chemistry, and it was a basic concept that was used over and over again throughout highschool and college chemistry courses.

There are a few exceptions I know of, one of which is when water is highly focused and sprayed at high velocity to cut through metals. They often add abrasive elements to the water to assist with cutting. The water has to be focused into a very narrow beam though so that all of the pressure is applied to a very small area, and the water has to be accelerated to 900+ miles per hour. see here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

Another exception is when a lead bullet pierces through harder metals, but as with the water exception, this is because the lead bullet exerts its pressure on a very small surface area, striking at a very extreme velocity.


2. Another reason is because many of the hijackers have been reported to be alive and well.

See here:

1. http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm

2. http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/identities.html


3. Another reason I believe commercial airliners did not hit the towers is because many videos have shown some type of infrared light-targetting mechanism on the WTC buildings as the "plane" approached, which is characteristic of a large cruise missile of some kind. Here, see the light for yourself:

1. Laser Targeting UAV, Evidence of Military Technology on 9/11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr4BJ89Df5Q

2. ABL Laser spotting and fly by wtc I jet impact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9z15bgkoy4


And here is just one of several types of remote piloted cruise missiles which could have been used: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-86c.htm

4. And here is another reason, relating to video footage that has not really been closely examined by the mainstream media:

Chopper 5 & the Missing Shadow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYQHD69ojGY


5. And here is yet another reason I have been questioning the official airlinre story, after seeing how easy it is to create a fake airliner impact using computer technology:

9/11 Ghost Plane Theory - Digital Computer Recreation of WTC Plane Impact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWZyXRuz1Uk


I'm not saying I know exactly what happened, I just see too much evidence contradicting the "airliner" story to accept it without a doubt.

It seems that the criminals behind 9/11 are getting us to hate terrorists AND hate our government, by blaming the "hijackings" on terrorists and blaming 9/11 on our government. I think the reality of the situation is that the "terrorists" behind 9/11 are trying to blame everyone else so that they can get away with the 9/11 attacks and use 9/11 to bring about the police-state they desire within the USA.

Please let me know your thoughts,


-Abe

[insidejob]

This is a controversial topic that has been much discussed on this site.

Those opposed to No Planes believe the theory is deliberate disinformation that will make the movement look ridiculous. They tend regard evidence of no planes as deliberate fraud. They regard an alternative explanation for a No Plane evidence as proof of fraud.

The most well known advocate of No Planes is:
September Clues
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550#docid=-6407 548186293238834

And arguments against it is:
September Clues Busted
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550#

Would be interesting to hear your views on Busted.

[kbo234]

[fish5133]

Maybe they were specially adapted drone planes as brought up in the 1960s Northwoods Document.
Maybe the DEW had weakened the steel prior to impact

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Ah, was wondering when you'd get round to the no planes issue.

The aluminium does not cut through steel. The buidlings act like giant cheese graters basically, shredding the planes to pieces as they hit the buildings.

You've pointed out the lesser integrity of aluminium yourself above.

The holes in the buildings left by the planes were caused by the engines, landing gear etc.

[gruts]

[satya]

i believe it was remotely controlled cargo planes with bombs aboard.
Go watch 911 in plane site

[fish5133]

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Is this proof that a plane can impact through steel and leave what many no-planers, tvf'ers belive are cartoon cut-out shapes of planes?



The USS Hinsdale...

Incidentally, on 11 September 1974 she was withdrawn from the Reserve Fleet and sent to the breaker's yard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hinsdale

[gruts]

[PookztA]

new info to add to the discussion:

It is commonly known in chemistry that harder elements can cut through softer elements, but not the reverse. The "hardness" of a material is classified using Mohs Scale, which explains how 'harder' materials can scratch / cut 'softer' materials, but not the other way around. See here: http://chemistry.about.com/od/geoche.../mohsscale.htm

This is why Diamond, one of the hardest materials of all, is used in the toughest situations, because it cuts through most everything since it is one of the hardest materials known.

Aluminum is much softer than Steel, therefore, Aluminum cannot cut through Steel, just like Copper cannot cut into Diamond.

I learned this in junior high school Chemistry, and it was a basic concept that was used over and over again throughout highschool and college chemistry courses.

There is one exception I know of, which is when water is highly focused and sprayed at high velocity to cut through metals. They often add abrasive elements to the water to assist with cutting. The water has to be focused into a very narrow beam though so that all of the pressure is applied to a very small area, and the water has to be accelerated to 900+ miles per hour. see here: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

[GodSaveTheTeam]

[gruts]

[satya]

I heard a very valid comment yesterday about a b98 bomber hitting the empire state building and no severe damage......

[gruts]

I know that a B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building in the 1940s, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high.

but whether or not a moving object can penetrate a stationary structure will depend mainly on how much force is required to so and whether or not the moving object has sufficient momentum to impart such a force.

that's why you can't make direct comparisons between different collisions.

however, one thing you can definitely say is that the "mohs scale of hardness of minerals" mentioned by PookztA above has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how objects behave in collisions - and his general claim that a "softer" object could never penetrate a "harder" object is complete bs.

maybe he didn't realise that he'd disproved this claim himself when he said....

[hatsoff]

[insidejob]

As you can see. Insults and abuse tend to be a prime argument used by those hostile to the No Plane/TV Fake Theory.

No one should be fooled or bullied into thinking that there is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, of no passenger planes or TV fakery.

A lot of work has been done to substantiate No Plane. Anthony Lawson’s and Nick Irving’s work - http://www.truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf
barely compares with Ace Baker’s,
http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page

One examines evidence, produces calculations and argues that a proposition cannot be the case. The other comes up with unsubstantiated guesses as alternative explanations and then passes this off as proof.

Responding to September Clues criticism of the missing plane in the Fox News Chopper 5 very long shot, Irving states:

‘• When the plane is not visible in the wider-shot, this could be due to it being obscured by clouds and/or smog, or simply because the plane is not in-frame yet.
• Safeguards – to ponder whether they had safeguards is begging the question, as it assumes as
a premise that some act of fakery was taking place. This has not been proven.
• To declare that the “Safeguard was 17 seconds” is again begging the question. It has not been established that there were computer operators, a safeguard, or that it is the reason for the 17 second gap between the seismic records and the official version events.
This point, as presented by “September Clues”, is all speculation and does not constitute evidence of any act of “‘TV Fakery’”.’

Lawson presents no evidence to show that the plane was there or that there was a good reason that it wasn’t there. He does not show that it was obscured by clouds or smog. In Lawson’s ’September Clues Debunked’, he presents a still of a smudge as the plane.

Ace Baker present 960 words to argue no plane. Some of those state:

‘The nose of the plane enters at frame 407 (fig. 7) and is about to touch the edge of the tower in frame 423 (fig.. From frame 407 to frame 423 is a time span of 16 frames, during which the plane covers the distance indicated by the red arrow (fig. . 16 frames x 26 = 416 frames, so we know that over 416 frames, the plane would cover 26 times the distance that it did in 16 frames. 416 frames earlier than frame 423 is frame 7.’

Baker does some calculation and makes reference to an official theory supporter who cannot discredit the calculations.

One, both could be wrong. But who has done more work to support their argument?

Lawson was most celebrated for his ‘nose out’ critique. He says September Clues distorted the TV images to make it look as if the object exiting the second tower after the crash was the nose of the airplane. One problem with Lawson’s argument – if it was real what was it? Lawson simply ignores the issue.

Baker suggests:
‘Thus, the totality of the video evidence is completely inconsistent with Pinocchio’s Nose being any real event. The solid objects are ruled out because there is no exit wound, because steel/titanium objects can’t burn up, and because the apparent object is too big. The dust explosion is ruled out because it cannot maintain its shape in the face of a 300 mph headwind, nor can it explode. Both are ruled out because the various videos are completely inconsistent with one other, some showing a metallic object, others showing dust.’

And although, Lawson and Irving reject any media manipulation, the evidence is fakery is in their own work. In page 3 of Irving’s work, there is a still shot of the second plane heading toward the second tower. Smoke from the first tower is blowing in the direction from which the plane is coming, the right. Yet, on page 7, there’s another still of the plane, in the right of the shot, heading toward the second tower. But the smoke heading to the left.

So, did the smoke suddenly change direction and blow the other way? Did two planes crash into the second tower? Or is this evidence of TV fakery?

[gruts]

[fish5133]

pooktza wrote

[GodSaveTheTeam]

[insidejob]

What I’m saying is that there is a fundamental weakness in the anti-No Plane arguments. Their main strategy is to present an alternative hypothesis to dismiss a No Plane claim and then advance the hypothesis as proof. This is the same strategy that is used by defence counsel to support a client.

The counsel has to demonstrate that there is reasonable doubt in the claims of a prosecution counsel so that the case cannot be said to be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. If the jury accepts there is reasonable doubt then the case is lost.

This is the main strategy of Lawson and Irving in regard to September Clues. But they suddenly flip a criminal case method to the level of scientific proof. There is an alternative explanation therefore September Clues is disinfo.

This is the bad faith method of those hostile to No Planes.

They then attach to their argument the notion that No Planes is backed by the Perps to undermine the 911 movement. This legitimates to hostile attitudes, impatience and attempts to silence and exclude No Planes.

In reality, the concern is more public relations than science. Yet, there is no circumstantial evidence to support the disinfo claim. The fact that the movement accepts no planes in two of the 911 incidents is an irony lost on them.

Then they drop the method of finding alternative arguments for individual No Plane claims to dismiss the approach and instead go for faith. They say:
i. well thousands of people saw the planes fly into the buildings
ii. they could not have manipulated the media.

No evidence is presented to substantiate either of these claims. Indeed, there is film of people in Midtown moments after the planes struck. Far from hundreds saying they saw it all, most people were clueless as to what happened. People say they saw a plane crash into the Pentagon but, unlike the Twin Tower witnesses, they were seeing things.

If this method were to apply to the 911 Truth Movement, then the movement should end all its campaigning now.

Where is the direct evidence that the debris from the ‘nose out’ incident was real?

Where is the direct evidence that explains why the TV images on 911 were poor when, presumably, most other images are not?

None is forthcoming. We are supposed to accept hypotheses as scientific law.

The reality is that the 911 Truth Movement depends on ‘balance of probabilities’ and circumstantial evidence. Given this, the movement is more credible than the official conspiracy theory.

Why is it different for No Planes?

No Planes could very well be wrong. The alternative hypotheses have validity. But why employ the disinfo tactic?

[GodSaveTheTeam]

[TonyGosling]

There are two fundamental weakness in the no plane arguments.
1. There has never, to my knowledge, been a convincing presentation of this hypothesis and
2. This sounds totally loopy and just puts the ordinary Joe totally off 9/11 Truth.

I think there has been a deliberate attempt to use no plane at the WTC thories to undermine the truth movement.

It's a powerful but simple meme muddling operation:

As we know there was no 767 at the Pentagon. What these Psychological Operation meme muddlers do is swap that for 'no plane at the WTC' and push it out as far and wide as possible through disinfo agents and the credulous.

[Daniel Elliott]

1- Perhaps I'm just easily convinced.

2 - It has nothing but draw me further into researching the WTC.

Long live alternate views in the quest for the truth.

[insidejob]

I'll look into the deliberate distortion of clips further.

But still, the 'no plane is a hoax to fool and undermine the truth movement' argument doesn't make much sense.

Most people who go along with the official theory believe that the idea that there were no plane at the Pentagon and Shanksville is bonkers.

And why the Perps are contradicting the official theory by coming up with disinfo that encourages people to believe there were no planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville is a little beyond me.

I also note the 'proof' that there was a perspective issue with the NBC 'dive bomber' shot and the Fox News flying level shot. Someone did some work to create a flight path that matched both. This was then presented as proof. Unfortunately, the proof practically cut the Fox News' level flight path in half. That is, the Fox level flight was too long to adequately reconcile it with the NBC dive bomber shot. I can't fault the person who did the exercise but it fails to prove that no plane is nonsense disinfo.

[sam]

Glass is much harder than felt-coated rubber.

Steel is harder than lead.

So I need never worry that a tennis ball might break a window.

And Presidents and Popes are wasting their time bullet-proofing their limo doors.

I'm glad that's all cleared up

[PookztA]

here is another reason I question the official airliner story, relating to video footage that has not really been closely examined by the mainstream media:

Chopper 5 & the Missing Shadow:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i-pksWo-Y4

[gruts]

dude - if you really are as sincere as you claim to be then why do you insist on behaving like a mindless spambot - ignoring the discussion you've started and posting more old spam that doesn't prove anything and has already been discussed a long time ago?

how about answering some of the questions you've been asked above, and re-assessing the value of what you originally posted before posting more spam?

for example - do you realise that "mohs scale of hardness of minerals" has absolutely nothing to do with how objects behave in collisions, and your belief that it does is completely wrong (and merely demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about)?

and if your beliefs are based on bs, then what exactly is the point of posting more of the same bs?

and do you really think that a bird is harder than aluminium?

[PookztA]

here are 2 more reasons (added to the 1st post)...

4. And here is another reason, relating to video footage that has not really been closely examined by the mainstream media:

Chopper 5 & the Missing Shadow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYQHD69ojGY


5. And here is yet another reason I have been questioning the official airlinre story, after seeing how easy it is to create a fake airliner impact using computer technology:

9/11 Ghost Plane Theory - Digital Computer Recreation of WTC Plane Impact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWZyXRuz1Uk

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Godzilla is real...all you have to do is watch this clip and look...see...he's there...in the middle of a city...


Link