Whats the point in not using planes?

[Bobby]

I ask this question not for people to give me loads of evidence , TV footage , and other things that would convice me no end that there was never any planes there in the first place. I ask one simple question , what would be the point in sending missles in there in the first place. When what you then have to do is Fake every TV shot and photo , plant the debris , convice every single eyewitness that they saw a plane and not a missle and tell them that if they tell the truth will be tantamount to treason , somehow create a plane shaped whole in the building , and for what?

Lets face it that building was already coming down , the amount of explosives in the building would have bought the thing down on its own. So why bother putting a missle in the thing in the first place. "Because Alluminium doesn't penatrate steel does it". Well lets take a simple example. If I through a Cricket Ball at a window from about 6 inches away , its not going to break , however if I use my bat and smash the ball against the window at a much quicker speed , its going to break.

I want to know why they would bother with the whole "NO Plane" thing , when the idea of trying to pull it off , would be so ardeous and pointless.

[mason-free party]

the logistics of trying to fly 2 remote controlled airliners at 400+mph at very low level to then hit their targets with out error would be 99.9% impossible..i'm afraid this scenario would only happen in a video game...or TV fakery...thats my opinion anyway.
Far easier to fire 2 missiles and doctor the TV images...i mean they had plenty of practice faking the the moon landings and then selling it to the gullible masses

[TonyGosling]

Not true, a NATO battle computer could do it to a 99.99% probability of success with all its harddrives down!

[Craig W]

I started similar threads here: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=8916&start=0
and here, Bobby:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=9008&start=0

As you can see, getting useful help from NPT believers is hard work. Most don't seem to want to bother with debate and logic and are far keener on stating opinion as fact and accusing you of this or that. Most seem to be averse to having their views scrutinised and, even when specifically encouraged and given a platform, don't seem to want to "sell" it. I don't understand it myself. But I've given up asking them for help in understanding their 911 "truth".

After quite a lot of time spent looking into NPT, I still think it is WAY more plausible that planes were used than not.

[Killtown]

[mason-free party]

september clues part 6
http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/C69E733A247346FE94FCA7A0EC019 45F/268916/september-clues-part6.aspx

[coconut]

No-Planers seem to have forgotten that all modern airliners are fitted with a magical contraption known as "autopilot", which is more capable than any human pilot is or ever will be.

[mason-free party]

[Ace Baker]

If there were real planes, then why all the fake videos? Why not just videotape the real planes, and let the people see that?

Come on. A real aluminum passenger jet would never just slip into the building like that. Never. You'd have wreckage all over the damn place.

If it was really flight UA175, you'd have dead people but no dead hijackers. You'd have had a pilot on the radio screaming for 30 minutes that his plane had been electronically hijacked. Don't forget about cell phones. "Hey mom, I'm on a plane and the pilot says it's been electronically hijacked. Help!'

If it was a drone, you'd have no dead people at all, and the wrong kind of parts being picked up by thousands of random New Yorkers.

Think it through like a perpetrator, and understand that you already have the media in your back pocket. You want to sell a story about hijacked planes, because it is believable, and it creates an excuse to take over the airports and create the gestapo department of homeland security.

[egw]

That's one thing I like about this site - all of the fruit loops and professional bullsh*t artists are cordoned off in the controversies section, and sensible people only have to visit if/when they're feeling like a bit of sport.

Very wise.

[Ace Baker]

OK, egw, what's wrong with I said, and what do you think happened?

[mason-free party]

[Stefan]

I thought the fact the the plane that hit the empire states building (steel framed with stone cladding), entered the building and left a hole had killed off the "planes don't enter buildings!" tripe?

Sad to see that it's still alive.

So now we see an over-relyance on "a remote controlled plane could never hit the building"...

Why not exactly?

Planes can land on a runway perfectly by remote control - that is a far more delicate operation that mereley hitting a building.

A human pilot could even hit the towers if skilled enough, why the sudden desperation to make us all accept a computer with digital precision could not do the same?

This whole argument has gone from bad to embarrassing.

[scar]

[Stefan]

[scar]

[Stefan]

[scar]

[TmcMistress]

[mason-free party]

Why not use real planes?

1. Not accurate enough, could miss targets. Big problem.
2. Not strong enough, would mostly shred and bounce off, as in the Sandia F-4 test. Then, no excuse for "collapse".
3. Would leave real wreckage which could be investigated. Whether real passenger flights or substitutes, big problems with wreckage too.
4.Could easily be shot down before they reached their target

Check out the real evidence of faked TV footage below

www.livevideo.com/socialservice

[lockerbie]

"Not accurate enough, could miss targets. Big problem. "

yes because good remote control, computer control and auto pilot systems have not been invented yet.

"Not strong enough, would mostly shred and bounce off, as in the Sandia F-4 test. Then, no excuse for "collapse". "

bounce off? i'll feel safer in one of these great rubber planes.

"4.Could easily be shot down before they reached their target "

of course the government would control that, and they might be unwilling to shoot down their own plane.

[Ningen]

Lockerbie, he didn't say the plane would bounce off. He said the plane would shred and bounce off. He simply mean that the debris would bounce off an end up below the tower. That was obvious. Your joke avoids the issue. The Sandia test is shows no planes, it doesn't refute no planes as has been stated by Greg Jenkins and Jim Hoffman.

[Ningen]

Lockerbie, you're probably right that the perps could have had confidence that electronic hijacking would ensure an accurate impact with acceptable risk.

But the plane would not melt into the building and would leave debris.

I also agree that if real planes were used the military could control the response, so that is not necessarily an argument against planes. But
it's possible that FAA and NEADS were fooled electronically, and that the planes out of Otis were kept away from Manhattan to avoid the pilots visually confirming no planes. But that's just what I think happened, not support for my argument that it did.

[lockerbie]

if a plane melts into something it hits depends very much on what it hits. the outside of the wtc builings? like most skyscrapers, mostly glass.

[coconut]

The Sandia F-4 test involved a concrete wall many feet thick, hence the shredding. The Twin Towers' outer walls were comprised of relatively thin and lightweight steel box columns and glass.

You cannot compare the two. The wall at the F-4 test was far thicker and far stronger than the WTC perimeter columns.

[Ningen]

Lockerbie, the external columns at that height, the best I can tell, were box beams with front and back walls of 6/16" thickness, and side walls of 13/16" thickness. They were backed by floors. The fuselage would have impacted one or two floors.

Even assuming thinner box beams of 6/16" on all four sides, and not counting the resistance of the floors at all, Karim and Hoo Fatt found a loss of 46% in kinetic energy to penetrate the columns. They also assumed the fuselage through the columns, merely subtracting some kinetic energy from the equation.

In real life, the fuselage would have been crushed and fragmented against the columns backed by floors.

I know that the Sandia wall was much thicker. But the columns offered enough resistance to stop the progress of the much weaker fuselage, and all that energy would have been transmitted back and destroyed the fuselage. I can see some penetration by the engines and by the center of mass comprising the mid fuselage and wing between the engines, where most of the fuel was. But not the front of the fuelage, which NIST and Purdue claim perforated the columns. That is BS.

The F-4 in the Sandia test was most shorter and attached to a box car. The F-4's wing span was much shorter than a Boeing 767, and much shorter in relation to plane length. A Boeing 767's wings are as long as the plane.

[Ningen]

Sure, the windows betwen the columns were wider than the columns, but "mostly glass" is misleading. And you can't forget the floors backing the columns.

A big question is whether the plane would act like a projectile, so that energy was not diffused along the columns. The modelers that get the modeled plane through the building treat it as a rigid projectile, but the speed and rigidity doesn't justify that IMO, and certainly not in relation to the front fuselage.

[egw]

"Mostly" = >50%, last I heard. I haven't seen an exact ratio, but the faces of the towers were mostly glass

The floors backing the columns would make it more likely that the planes punched through the columns - more likely that the columns break rather than bend.

The columns were also joined together with bolts. How does the shear resistance of bolts stand up against 500mph worth of fuelled-up jet plane?

[TmcMistress]

First off, those planes weren't exactly made out of paper. Second, there was debris. Not much, but that's to be expected from a 500 mph collision with a gigantic block made out of steel and glass.

Ningen, there is simply no comparison between the collisions in the Sandia test and the WTC towers.

I'll say it one more time... there is NO logical reason to fake the witnesses, fake the television shots, fake the explosions, fake the passenger lists, etc. ... WHEN YOU CAN JUST DO IT FOR REAL.

[Killtown]

I got a question, where did the officials get the speeds of impact of these alleged planes that hit the towers?