Tuesday, September 12, 2006

No Planes Theory: R.I.P.

Those who argue that there were no planes which crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 say that "computer generated imagery" (CGI) was used to insert fake video images of planes. However, these folks are forgetting something: there are numerous eyewitness reports of people who heard the planes.

In other words, for the no planes theory to be true, not only would CGI have had to be inserted in live videocamera feeds, and all of the witnesses who saw the planes be disinfo agents, but some sort of high-tech flying sound generator would have had to be used to fake the moving sounds of planes flying into the buildings.

Here are some of the earwitness accounts:

"LT. BOB LAROCCO, FIREFIGHTER, LADDER 9: We all heard a plane that sounded like it was in trouble. So everyone stopped what they were doing. I kind of thought to myself that it was headed toward Newark Airport. I didn't think much of it. And then I heard a dull thud. I kind of stopped in my tracks and stopped for a second, and said, nah. People started running out of the stores on Second Avenue there. They were saying, oh, God, oh, God, a plane just crashed into the World Trade Center."

"[Deputy Fire Chief] Hayden: I was continuing on. I worked the night before. I was in my office when I heard a plane coming in low."

"Battalion Chief Joseph Pfiefer said, 'We heard a very loud plane, which you never hear in Manhattan. We all look up and see this commercial airline flying very low. We follow it and it goes right into the Trade Center. You could see it didn't veer off. It appeared to aim at the Trade Center smashed into the upper floors. Created a big fireball and then disappeared into the building. I transmitted a second alarm...20 seconds after that I transmitted a third alarm.'"

Jazz legend Sonny Rollins: "I heard this plane flying in kind of low. Then I heard, “Pow!” I pulled out this old black-and-white television set. I got it working, and then I saw the second plane come into the other tower."

"Toby O’Berry [who worked for Morgan Stanley in the Twin Towers] . . . looked up toward the burning tower and the people leaping from it, then heard a plane rumbling across the picture-perfect blue Manhattan sky.
And then he ran. Then he heard a rumbling sound. He looked up and saw a plane smash into the south tower. All my co-workers, they’re all dead, Toby thought. Then he turned and ran, shaking people out of their stupor along the way."

Julie Williams, who worked in WTC2, said "We stepped out of the building walked not 8 feet and I heard another plane and I turned around and I saw the 2nd plane as it hit my building."

"I had taken the Path train to the WTC and stopped at a newsstand on my way out of the building to see if they had a magazine that I was looking for . . . . I had just passed Century21 this giant discount department store on the corner when I heard the loudest plane that I had ever heard. I stuck my fingers in my ears. Then I heard a high pitch whine like when a bomb drops. Then the impact - BAM!"

Worker in the Twin Towers said, "In my jog north I heard the second plane hit . . . ."

"Everyone at the marina was out on the docks, discussing what had happened. Had the plane lost control? Then we heard another plane almost directly overhead. It was awfully low, and I said "What, is he going in for a closer look?" Then the second plane crashed into the side of the south tower. A fireball shot out both sides of the building and you could see parts of the building falling over the city."

"Bill Continelli was in lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001. He was south of the World Trade Center and heard the 2nd plane as it flew over and slammed into Tower #2."

"Standing 2 1/2 blocks away from the WTC, staring up, looking at the ball of fire in the first tower. Frozen. Paralyzed....watching charred fax papers drift down gently on the breeze. I heard the 2nd plane approaching and ran."

"It was before 9 a.m. when I heard this plane overhead...in central NJ, we're always in somebody's flight path because of the proximity to Newark Airport. This plane was loud, and I mean LOUD, shaking the house and everything in it. It sounded like it was going to land on my roof. I looked out the window, but the plane had zipped by. About 10 minutes later, my boyfriend called and told me to turn on the news...and that's how I found out."

New York based Australian author, Peter Carey, said "We’re in this little street on the corner of 6th Avenue and Houston Street, you could see down there to the World Trade Center, and I heard that plane come overhead, and it was very low . . . ."

As soon as I heard the plane hit, I grabbed my camera and walked out on Greenwich St.

"They heard a plane."

"Then I heard another plane hit."

"Early this morning around 9 am, I heard the sound of a low flying airplane. It was so loud my immediate thought was that it was a terrorist or a plane that would land on our rooftop in Greenwich Village."

"As he walked across the courtyard, he looked up to see first tower ablaze and minutes later heard a roar and saw the second plane strike".
http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/w2001-02/9-11survive.html (James Calcagnini)

"Exiting the station, he heard the second plane hit." http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/w2001-02/9-11survive.html (James W. Flood)

"I saw and heard the first plane as it passed over my head."

"Mar was in the shower and I was working at my desk. I heard a plane, large, slow, and way too low, and then the unmistakable crash. "A plane crashed. I heard it. I'm going out to see". I grabbed my camera and ran out of the house."

"We had gotten to approximately point C on the picture, walking along the water, when both Rachel and I heard a plane. Looking over the southern tip of Manhatten, we could see the United jet roaring in, just skimming the tops of the buildings. Normally, when you see a jet that close, it is taking off or landing and is moving relatively slowly. This one was at full throttle. I remember yelling something like "What's he doing there?" but it went quickly behind us and was blocked from view by the buildings along the water. We didn't see the impact, but we could hear it and feel it."

5 years ago today, I was jarred out of bed by the sound of a jet airliner crashing into the World Trade Center - six short blocks from my Manhattan apartment. . . .
When the 2nd plane hit, I was standing in my living room, watching the television. We heard the plane collide with the building first, and then saw it on TV."

"On the morning of Sept. 11, as I prepared to leave for work, I heard a plane roar over our building, followed by a horrible echoing boom."

"Before the first blast, staff on the streets around Trinity heard what to some sounded like military jets carrying out a low flypast before hearing the blast."

"State Superintendent of New York works two miles from the World Trade Center. He testified of his mother’s deliverance from the area when the crash happened. “My mother got off the subway train about 9:00, and the World Trade Center was burning at the top”, recounts Diaz. “The people in the area said that it was a accidental airplane crash, so everyone carried on as usual, buying breakfast, etc. Suddenly, she heard a plane engine coming, and the people starting screaming and running, and she with them. She ran to the park. The plane then went directly into the building."

"Something hit one of the trade center towers. I was on the phone with my wife listening to her telling me to leave the city and come home, when the second plane flew past our building and crashed into the second tower. This time we all heard the plane hit and we felt the blast."

No plane theory: R.I.P.

Many quotes from eyewitnesses seeing the planes may be found here, and here is a video compilation of 44 shots of planes hitting the Twin Towers.

Moreover, the above list of earwitness accounts is by no means comprehensive. There are HUNDREDS of similiar reports. If you want to find additional accounts, use the following search, and start on page 17 of the Google results: http://www.google.com/search?q=9/11+%22heard+*+plane%22+%22world+trade+center%22&hl=en&lr=&start=160&sa=N

Postscript: I do not believe there was sufficient motive to fake video and audio of planes crashing into the Twin Towers. See http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2001/09/fatal-flaw-in-no-plane-theory.html

Finally, Jolly Roger makes this additional point about the no plane theory:

"One of the most obvious problems with the "no-plane" theory is that it requires complicity on the part of every major news outlet BEFORE the attacks -- right down to low-level employees llike camera men and control-room technicians. Now I ask you; If all of these news agencies were involved before the attacks, why do we have dozens of live reports that talk of explosions in the towers? Don't you think that if so many people were involved in the plot someone would have told the highly-paid TV news reporters "don't say anything about the explosions" before they got to the scene? The news agencies weren't involved until they started censoring the news a day or two later."


Blogger Jon Gold said...

You're disinfo... Disinfo I say!

12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Military technology is always developed in secret -- especially when it has unlimited 'psy-ops' and state-terror value.

Have you ever heard of Dolby Digital Surround Sound? Couldn't loud speakers have been set up on surrounding buildings? Think about it. Millions were spent on this operation, perhaps billions. How much extra effort would it entail to install speakers if they had the means of setting cutting charges in the WTC buildings???

What about this:
"...'the voice from heaven.' By tuning the resonance of a laser onto Earth’s ionosphere, you can create audible frequencies. Like some boom box in the sky, the laser-produced voice could bellow from above down to the target below: 'Put down your weapons.'"

And this:

And yes, with the money being spent on 'information war', the witnesses who say they 'saw' a plane could easily be lying. Just like the so-called 'witnesses' that 'saw' a plane hit the Pentagon.

The NWO is not just coming from the top-down. Why are there Masonic lodges in every town? What do these societies do other than spy, lie, and conspire for the NWO? I'm sure that there are MANY neo-fascist Masons standing in line to lie for the fascist movement.

9:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A technique for projecting holographic images to make both still and moving three-dimensional displays is undergoing development. Unlike older techniques based on stereoscopy to give the appearance of three-dimensionality, the developmental technique would not involve the use of polarizing goggles, goggles equipped with miniature video cameras, or other visual aids. Unlike in holographic display as practiced until now, visibility of the image would not be restricted to a narrow range of directions about a specified line of sight to a holographic projection plate. Instead, the image would be visible from any side or from the top; that is, from any position with a clear line of sight to the projection apparatus. In other words, the display could be viewed as though it were an ordinary three-dimensional object. The technique has obvious potential value for the entertainment industry, and for military uses like displaying battlefield scenes overlaid on three-dimensional terrain maps."

Don't forget, they are FAR AHEAD in the realm of technology of the reports that appear in the headines. If NASA says that this technology is "being developed", we can safely assume that it exists at a far more advanced stage and that it is already operational.

This was the case with particle beam weapons and microwave lasers, which were first tested secretly on innocent people in Panama in 1989 (see the documentary film The Panama Deception), and were revealed officially just within the last couple of years.

Many believe that crop circles were part of the space-based microwave laser's refinement process and not some 'alien message'. It was much easier to dismiss and cover-up as an 'outlandish conspiracy theory' when it was associated with the 'extra-terrestrial' theories.

9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there is a wide breadth of area between a 9/11 skeptic and a true conspiracy theorist, and the true conspiracy theorists are the no-planers.

i guess you can believe anything you wish when you are so far gone as to believe all eye witnesses lied, all video is fake, all photos are fake, etc. etc. that is a true conspiracy theorst.. why? because they can't prove any of it, they just believe in it.

10:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't believe anything of the sort. I am simply saying that the 'no plane' theory isn't dead because we are not in a position to kill it.

I wasn't there on that day, and I assume that you (anon.) were not there either.

Ponder this: the entirety of a hollow plane composed of relatively thin light-weight aluminum cut into a skyscraper made of steel-reinforced concrete and inches-thick steel perimeter box-columns, like a hot knife through butter.

The bulk of that plane should have blown to pieces on the OUTSIDE of the building.

So please, save your 'conspiracy theorist' ad hominems for those who deserve it: the idiots who believe everything that they see and hear in a technofascist society and ignore REAL possibilities.

Maybe the witnesses were not all lying. Maybe some were, like the phoney witnesses at the Pentagon.

Maybe, just maybe, the planes were advanced holographic projections. I didn't invent this possibility like some 'wingnut' might have; NASA and the military did.

In this conspiracy driven class-divided world, there are only conspiracy realists (veritable skeptics) and their antitheses: supernumery sleepers, blind cattle, or active fascists.

11:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since we are being fed a load of shit concerning the events of that day (not to mention most other significant historical events), we must look at the evidence and consider all possibilities to uncover the truth.

How did the planes disappear into the WTC towers without being ripped to pieces by the perimeter columns and the bulk of the debris falling to the ground??

We may never know the answer unless the criminals are brought to justice, but we can devise theories based on what we do know.

What was that white-hot projectile that was ejected from WCT2 by the explosion? Was it a depleted uranium penetrator from the warhead of a missile? Was it a piece of steel engulfed in a exothermic reaction of prepositioned thermite initiated unintentionally by the plane's fireball?

Was the video of a flash milliseconds before the plane entered WTC1 doctored or did the flash really occur? If the flash is real, was it a missile or prepositioned explosives planted on the outside of the building, which were used to cut the perimeter columns by exploding inwardly as the plane entered?

Was there really a third plane in the sky during the collisions? I saw it on a video, but is the video real? If it is real, like the unidentified white plane flying over D.C., what was it doing there? Was it projecting a holographic image of the planes?

These questions are all legitimate because the purported events defy logic and science. Until these questions are answered it will be preposterous to claim that the 'no-plane theory is dead' because of eyewitness reports.

The truth is, nobody really knows what they saw that day. We do know that the planes could not have taken down the buildings, but WHAT, in god's name, caused the pulverization of everything but the steel columns?? And, WHAT in hell caused the mid-air disintegration of WTC2's top 35 or so floors after it began to topple over???? Even Dr. Jones, the good physicist, admits in his peer-reviewed paper that he is stumped on that one!

Call me crazy, but it sounds like 911 was the first significant use of their new space-based 'beam weapons'. Since concrete contains water, perhaps an intense and focused microwave beam (laser) was used to excite the water molecules of the towers until the concrete just crumbled into a fine dust. Of course, since metal conducts electrons when bombarded with photons (photoelectric effect) and would not have been affected by microwaves, the columns were cut by simultaneous thermite and thermate reactions.

Any other THEORIES should be welcomed, because theories are all that we will have until the people wake up collectively and take the world back from the elite monsters that continue to steer the course of History.

12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not familiar with claims associated with no-plane speculation concerning the Towers - although it does look credble that 3 buildings were pre-set for implosion with explosive charges - and chemical fire pattern recorded on video, and chemical material left afterward is surely troubling.

It is the Pentagon explosion that is the most troubling. A military censorship of an enlisted persons Blog recently occurred - and his case raises more questions than one wants...especially with the President also suspending WhistleBlower Protection laws the week of the 9/11 Anniversary.

Reports say that the hole in the Pentagon was too small to have been caused by a Jetliner. And there is reportedly no trace of debris or bodies.

Some speculate that the entire plane and all bodies must have been instanly incinerated after impact? Site witnesses say one could look through the blast hole to see unburned wood furniture inside. In an incineration blaze nothing of the sort certainly would have remained. Where is the evidence that a plane did fly into the Pentagon? What happened to the plane - and few passengers who were allegedly on Board?

Were defense planes held back over an hour by Executive Order - or because they could see no threat?

Why did they not protect known targets?

What testing has been done to verify what happened at the Pentagon? Where is the documentation? These are reasonable questions - and I am happy to help dispel rumors and concerns whene I see credible evidence. Truth *should* win.

2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree about the Pentagon.

But, the towers were *not* imploded. WTC 7 was; that is clear from the videos.

The towers turned to dust and neatly cut sections of steel. The dust clouds expanded like pyroclastic flows normally associated with volcanic eruption clouds, indicative of the HUGE amount of energy involved.

Was all this simply the result of cutter charges?

WTC 7 fell into a neat pile of rubble with much less dust created in the process.

Something is amiss.

4:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Planes do NOT incinerate upon impact, EVER. That is physiclly impossible.

6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We all heard a plane that sounded like it was in trouble.
when I heard a plane coming in low.
what kind of plane did they hear? because what we saw on tv was a 767 but analyses of this 767 reveals it to be nothing more than a cartoon. and a real 767 would make a hole bigger, not smaller, than a 767 - if it could make even make a hole in wtc2 at all.

We all look up and see this commercial airline flying very low. We follow it and it goes right into the Trade Center. You could see it didn't veer off

wow did they see the ua175 that approached from the SSE or did they see the ua175 that approached from the SW? because we saw 2 different ones depending on which channel we were watching.

8:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting that all the witnesses HEARD the plane but hardly any saw one. The 'plane' was probably a huge missile.

11:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Can we give No-Planes a death certificate?"

"Can we lay it finally to rest?"

No. None of us can see everything that we would need to see in order to make such a conclusion.

Read all of the above comments and you'll see that many questions remain unanswered.

9:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one has mentioned the Doppler effect. Anyone directly below the towers at impact would *see* the impact and then *hear* the impact about 1 second later. Except for thunder and lightening, we don't experience this effect every day, and it can be quite disconcerting. I was videotaping on the Bklyn Heights Promenade that morning, 6,000 ft from WTC (zoomed in on the fire inside WTC1) and the fellow next to me was saying, *What's that plane doing? Why's that plane getting so close? They're getting too close!* and then the huge flash of the fireball. (Unfortunately I missed it with my camera). THEN I HEARD the plane getting closer, THEN I HEARD the explosion, all at about a six second delay. Then the *narrator* standing next to me said, *It's all a fake! They're making a movie! Those are special effects!* I've always assumed he was disoriented by the sheer unbelievability of it all, coupled with the six second Doppler delay of the sound, since his prior narration had been so graphic.

6:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Doppler effect has to do with a shift in the wavelength and frequency of the sound that is heard. In other words, if an object that is emitting a sound is approaching an observer, it's sound will increase in frequency (and decrease in wavelength, i.e. "blue-shift") as it approaches the observer, until the object reaches the observer and its actual frequency is heard.

What you are referring to is the time/speed discrepency of the velocity of light versus the velocity of sound. The time delay occurs because light travels at nearly 300,000 km per second, whereas sound travels at only around 1200 km per hour in air, at 20 degrees celsius.

4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


This preliminary post will discuss the hugely publicised claims that a plane struck the WTC South Tower on the morning of September 2001 – this being a view held by the vast majority of researchers in this field and, allegedly, supported by a great amount of video, photographic and eyewitness evidence. It’s also a view that transcripts show was being encouraged by major corporate news broadcasters within minutes of explosions occurring within the South tower on that fateful morning - of which CNN is one corporate example. (I can submit as evidence excerpts from a live transcript broadcast by CNN on that morning in which a ‘plane’ was virtually invented during that broadcast in flat contradiction to several live caller’s testimony).

5 years have passed. But in that 5 years much has happened. We now have, for example, many valid reasons to doubt that the ‘plane’ was a United Airlines Boeing 767-222. Most of the reasons are, as we all agree, products of detailed study of the video evidence and also of examination of oral evidence given by supposed eyewitnesses to this event. We can therefore say things have not been static in this affair.

Further evidence that a Boeing 767 did NOT strike the WTC South comes from the plain fact that video and other evidence from the great gash made in the tower by the supposed plane is not sufficiently large to support any such 767 strike. In addition, still surviving vertical steel reinforcement beams (these filmed and photographed in the minutes prior to the collapse of WTC South) further confirm no 767 could possibly have entered that building without its wings being severed at the very point of impact by the said steel H beams – these serving (and designed) as barriers to any such plane strike.

It would be fair to say there are today 3 separate and incompatible views of what happened at WTC on the morning of 9/11 in 2001 –

1. That a hijacked United Airlines Boeing 767 struck WTC South
2. That some other sort of plane struck WTC South
3. That no plane struck WTC

In the first theory the plane in question was Flight UA175 diverted by hijackers from Boston and originally headed to Los Angeles. In the second theory the origin of the ‘other plane’ has not been identified with any such certainty but its existence is proposed after detailed analysis of film and oral evidence. In the third theory no planes were involved (this despite a mountain of video, oral and other evidence which appears to rule it out. The third theory, by definition, calls in to question the relevance of claims that the USAF failed to respond to plane attacks since it suggests no planes attacked/struck the WTC (or, indeed, the Pentagon) on that day. Furthermore, the 3rd theory calls in to question the validity of accusations made against members of the USAF for supposedly failing in their duty to protect citizens on that tragic morning. (The same is true of the supposed plane strike on the Pentagon of that same morning).

For the purpose of this short post let us combine the chief area of agreement between the two most popular theories in saying that –


This, after all, is the unanimous opinion of all who subscribe to both theory 1 and also 2 above.

Having said this, I must agree with many researchers that –

The media record of the event at WTC South provides images of a ‘plane’ so very different in so many respects from a real UA Boeing that we can say this supposed ‘plane’ was definitely NOT Flight UA 175. The same media record therefore brings Theory 2 and Theory 3 together for the first time in a crucial point of agreement by saying that -


We may therefore discount eyewitness or other claims that a Boeing with UA livery was involved in the attack on WTC South.

We are therefore reduced to the simpler issue of determining whether the ‘plane’ shown in video/photographic evidence was a real plane or, instead, a faked image created by men who wished to present it as a true plane.

Helping us in this task are, as we agree, many video clips and a good number of still photographs, together with the remainder of eyewitness testimony (reliable or otherwise). Also helping us will be such things as –

Frame by Frame analysis of other aspects of these Video Images
Expert opinion on other aspects of this supposed flight
Circumstantial and other evidence


The above source has often been claimed to provide us with the best material with which to make an analysis. In frame by frame analysis the port wing and the port tail fin of the ‘plane’ show some strange discrepancies as the ‘plane’ approaches the tower – they seem to be disappearing. Additionally, the leading wing of the starboard wing appears to have disappeared completely in this CNN footage. Additionally, the distortion of color and contrast seen around the airframe are strikingly similar to compression artefacts that would occur if we converted a visual image to JPG format or if we converted video from one compressed format to another. This is clear evidence of the image on this video having been tampered with. To say that this ‘plane’ has been added in post production would not be original. It is, in fact, entirely consistent with the above facts.

This same video source gives us further cause for suspicion. At the point where the ‘plane’ is supposedly striking and entering the tower the ‘plane’ shows strange luminous quality of the ‘plane’ is specially strange – particularly in the port engine area.

At the time of the supposed ‘plane’ strike the whole south wall of the WTC South was in shade. Which begs the question –


The much discussed ‘Pod’ is not present in the opening frames of this video tape. It only becomes apparent in the final frames – a few frames before supposed impact.

CNN’s DVD of this ‘plane’ gives us other remarkable discrepancies. At one point an antenna on a rooftop on the opposite site of the Hudson River appears to be IN FRONT of a section of the ‘plane’. WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBILITY AND A STRONG CASE FOR SAYING WE ARE DEALING HERE WITH FAKE VIDEO. THIS VIDEO APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CREATED FROM 3 LAYERS – ONE OF THEM A PLANE, A SECOND WITH ADDED FOREGROUND, AND A THIRD LAYER WITH THE WTC TOWERS.




3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you are wrong. Don't know about faked videos, and I am not saying there were no planes. I am saying that the video we saw of the plane perforating the South Tower and disappearing completely within the building, with no discernible loss of speed, no debris, and no explosion, seems physically impossible.

I have read this paper that suggests I am right, though that is not the conclusion the authors drew: Mohammed R. Karim and Michelle S. Hoo Fatt, Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 131, No. 10 (October 2005). My understanding is that the author's purpose was not to question the visual evidence or that the plane could perforate the external columns, but rather to determine, with the assumptions of their model, how think the external columns would have to be in order to keep the plane for penetrating the exterior columns. Their model assumed a row of box beams with 9.5 mm wall thickness, average width of 356 mm, and a height of 10.9 meters, with the box beams fixed on both ends so that they could not move. They conclude that the external box beams would have needed a 20 mm wall thickness to stop the aircraft from penetrating.

This paper shows that even without considering the resistance of the floors, about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage the external columns.
The paper finds that the residual impact velocity of the aircraft after penetration was 171 m/s, slowed from 240 m/s at initial impact. The paper purports to show that the wings, where the fuel is stored, could have penetrated the external columns. I doubt that, but assuming that is true, a 46% loss in kinetic energy just to penetrate the columns means the plane should have slowed down a lot. Presumably most of the loss in kinetic energy had occurred by the time the wings had finished penetrating, as the tail section would slip through the hole created by the front of the fuselage. Therefore, the tail section should have been visibly slowed by the time it entered the building.

Adding the floors, which start right behind the external columns, and which the front of the plane would have hit (1 floor square on or maybe two floors offset), and 4-5 which the wings would have hit, and also perhaps adding the the core columns if the front of the plane reached them, there should have been a loss of kinetic energy much higher than 46%, and a slowing much more than 23%, by the time the plane entered the building. Assuming it could enter at all. And the wings should have been slowed significantly by the time they hit. The authors stated that the minimum impact velocity of the plane to penetrate the exterior columns was 130 m/s. I don't know what they base that on. But again, that does not include the floors which in reality the plane had to get through.

How on earth did that plane get all the way in without slowing down?

Eric Salter, in his paper at 9/11 Scholars for Truth's website, assumes that the plane lost 36% of its kinetic energy from hitting the external columns and the floors, based on his assumption that the plane decelerated 18%. The study above shows a 46% loss in kinetic energy from hitting the external columns, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FLOORS, which have a great deal more mass. Even without the floors, the plane should have decelerated by 23%, not 18%. (Salter's calculation has been disputed in Morgan Reynold's paper, which assumes at most a 9% decleration, and probably 2-3%.) There is no deceleration visible to my eye in the plane entering the South Tower.

I do not see how the wings penetrated the columns and end of the floors, and do not see how the fuel in the wings would not have exploded on impact of the wings with the outside wall.

MIT's Wierzbicki and Teng said in their paper that they were surprised to see the wings penetrate the buiolding when they saw it. They have a paper purporting to show how that happened. It does not. Karim and Hoo Fatt's paper shows how unrealistic their assumptions were. In their model, they created a box structure out of the wing and assumed the wing and engine masses were distributed over the entire span length.

I am not an engineer. If you are, please read the above paper and the Wierzbicki paper cited therein. I can't follow the formulas, but I think I understand their assumptions and conclusions.

10:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not Rest in Peace.. Rot in Hell. Except for the minority just caught up in the nonsense, the spooks spewing no plane garbage deserve no peace

11:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ear Witness
There were aircraft
none that hit the Towers
the white plane made a low approach
then zoomed off
the white fuckin plane
no explaination

7:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if a real aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone were to really strike a massive steel/concrete wtc with a force equivalent to X then the massive steel/concrete wtc would also be striking the aluminum/plastic of a real 767 with the same force equivalent to X.

2:22 PM  
Blogger ayalZ said...


that video also proves that Planes, at least the second plane was 100% real.

no hologram can recreate those sounds, and the sounds of shit falling on the ground etc...

3:43 PM  
Blogger Rabbit said...

Area 911 and any others who still cling to this ridiculous theory there are several things you need to wake up to. The NO-Plane theory is a CIA disinfo campaign. It is utterly fantastic and relies on people being stupid about basic science just the way the official story does. In fact I notice a very similar means of dealing with things among the No-Plane crowd as among the idiots who believe the official theory. This farcical theory relies upon some utterly false science for a start and I see that "Area 911" for one has swallowed it hook line and sinker. The claim that an Aluminium plane could not have penetrated the steel and concrete structure. Rubbish is all I can say. LEAD bullets can penetrate steel and concrete and so can water, as any submariner could tell you. This has nothing to do with the relative hardnesses of the materials and everything to do with velocity and mass. Quite simply the planes involved had enough velocity to go with their mass that breaking through the towers was no problem, although of course the planes were destroyed in the process. This has been establiedh by the Purdue University simulations which don't allow the amount of damage the official story claims but they sure don't get hung up on junk science claims that planes can't break through steel and concrete buildings. Another little trick of this funny junk science is the attempt to present the buildings as solid steel and concrete. They were a lattice of steel and concrete and on the scale of the forces of the crashing planes, a lattice which would of course give at select points.

Then there is the farcical implication that hundreds of witnesses and more than forty videos, as amny more photos have also been faked. Of course the number of conspirators required for the TV fakery/No-PLane theories (theory is really giving them more credit than they are due) is in the order of tens of thousands alos and this frankly is as easily debunked as the Faith Brigade falsely try to debunk mainstream 9/11 truth. By wondering how after this long we have no whistle blowers?

The sensible and factually backed beliefs about 9/11, don't need more than a few dozen people in the know, as most could be used in situ and a good number of these people have come forward to tell of anomalies they saw or experienced.

the no-plane theory is the only thing which the debunkers usually want to talk about, yet it is very notieable within 9/11 Truth that no-Planers are only ever interested in arguing with 9/11 truthers.

we are not denying the technology exists. In fact a good disinfo campaign would rely on some little known "conspiracy theory" like this as some fact improves the credibility. However there is NO evidence that this was used on the day and an overwhelming amount of evidence that at least the two WTCs were struck with aircraft.

For the record there is also a very substantial body of photos of retrieved aircraft parts and some very solid reports that the black boxes were found. This amounts to real whistle blowing, the sort which always follows when deceit is in the offing. So where is even ONE person to testify to this amazing great fakery exactly? After all there must be thousands to choose from.

4:04 AM  
Blogger Rabbit said...

One more little matter which should help clinch it for any who are genuinely just confused and not actual disinfo agents.

The fireballs of those crashes were very classic fuel explosions. The amount of fuel necessary would have been several thousand gallons at least and there are reports from firemen who smelled kerosene (Jet fuel) in the buildings also. The no-ppane fiasko, which reqwuires more and more incredible assumptions to stay afloat, would have needed all this fuel somehow stored in the WTcs with bombs attached. Thousands of gallons of fuel in drums, placed at just those levels, now who thinks that would have been ignored by those in the building?

Of course we are also left with an exact outline of the plane after the crash, just like we would expect if we are familiar with other plane crashes, yes folks, it isn't as if this was the first plane to strike a skyscraper, something the no-planers conveniently forget. Now I am a retired Pyrotechnician and when I was in the game, I was recognised as a natural born bang bunny. I can practically shave with explosives and I can do it from instinct even better than calculations by others as a rule. I know with a sure heart that NO pyro or demo expert in the world could have guaranteed such a perfect plane outline and yet the plan, if indeed it was all a fake, would have required exactly that. So whilst someone might have been good enough, and lucky also to have achieved the perfect carving of a plane profile, (don't forget these charges had to be concealed also, so choosing the exact locations needed would have been virtually impossible from a professional viewpoint); they could never have been confident enough that a serious plan of such magnitude could have been considered if it included such a virtually impossible task.

4:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home