The NPT (no planes theory) Discussed / Septemberclues

[Obwon]

The most interesting thing about the NPT is that, since you cannot prove a negative, it's proof lay only in it's ability to explain the collection of 9-11 events, better than any other theory. It's tricky business, made even trickier, because all it would take to disprove it entirely, is hard evidence that planes actually hit the towers.

I came up with the NPT quite a while back. I began to consider it as a possibility, not because of the videos of the aircraft, as much as because of the behavior of the so called skyjackers, their exhibited lack of skills and training, and finally because their ranks had been thinned by the discovery that nine of them were still alive, had nothing to do with 9-11, and one of them has died a year before 9-11-2001. So, with 4 planes to populate and only 9 skyjackers to do it, something seemed very wrong indeed with the official story. Rather than bother to guess which skyjackers were on which planes, I decided to take the "quick n dirty" route and simply read the transcripts of the calls from the planes. Sure enough, the entire remaining 9 skyjackers can be accounted for between the two WTC jets.

So, if we assume that no one is lying on these planes, then we have two other planes with no skyjackers on board, but yet they've strayed from their flight plan. Well, that simply doesn't make any sense at all, since we can't assume that the flight crew took over the planes and engaged a suicide mission. Yet, here we have a fatal conflict; either the "calls from the planes" are fake or American flight crews took over and engaged these attacks themselves. Obviously this forces the conclusion that the calls are fakes.

So now we must move to examine the rationale for mounting the extreme difficulties involved in providing faked calls from the aircraft. The only logical answer is: To buttress the illusion of planes being involved!

Hold on just a minute, before you question how I came to that conclusion! Examine the situation and the extreme gravity of it! Here you are plotting a major terrorist attack, that will be shown on worldwide media. To avoid getting caught, and to successfully blame the intended parties, you must avoid making any gross mistakes that cannot be corrected by a propaganda machine.

Now, let's try to get a handle on the resources of these planners. For that we take a look at the rather chintzy resources made available to the fall guys, Mohammad Atta and friends. They like to drink, they like to gamble and they like stripper bars and clubs. But rather than being the free spending patsies you'd expect them to be, they're going to cheap joints and eating pizza. These planners own no jets and their plans at various points exhibit the artifacts of a cash strapped/low budget operation. Paltry funds wired to the skyjackers, are unspent and returned. Of course, it goes without saying that these guys do not exhibit the devoted mien of the Islamic fundamentalist they're supposed to be. So this is not an operation with an unlimited budget. You don't give funds to men you expect to commit a suicide mission, then ask for those funds back, most especially if they know they're to commit suicide. While on the other hand, if they don't know that, then you have no guarantee of their performance. Triple that for gambling, womanizing lushes.

Okay, so now we're ready to examine the conditions surrounding the nature of the plans. Do we use planes or not? No, it doesn't make sense! We don't have the pilots to fly them, first off, and secondly: what if they miss?

Here some will suggest that some sort of remote technology might be employed! Well, there's a few things that mitigate against it. Not the least of which is the incredible 510 knot speed of flight 11 and the 400 knot speed of flight 175. Both of these speeds are beyond the design capacity of these aircraft, which simply means, neither of these aircraft could function as they should during these times when design specs are exceeded. The wings flutter, the control surfaces lose their "laminar air flow", they stall, and generally there is no control of the aircraft possible. Yet, the video shows, that while these craft have no operating control surfaces, they engage quite precision maneuvers. Maneuvers that should be impossible at those speeds, even for a robotic device.

Now let's have a look at the options:

Obtain 4 aircraft and prep them with remote capabilities?
Too much could go wrong, all the way from chance discovery, to sub
spec equipment, timeline/delivery failure. Real passengers and pilots would be too unpredictable, if left alive they might somehow thwart your control of the craft, meaning it misses the target and leaves you exposed to devastating discovery.

Another thing is that these real planes would be "seen" by NORAD, CENTCOM and a whole host of other radar tracking stations that litter the northeast. It's hard to predict how any "stand down" order will actually perform with so many stations looking on JFK and NWK for example.

But then there's a much more serious impediment to the actual use of planes. To kill the passengers, to ensure success, all you need to do is depressurize the aircraft at or above 30,000 ft. But, if you do that, you must be absolutely certain that the evidence of that is destroyed completely. No only does a crash into the towers not do that, but worse yet is the fact that the greater NY airspace is literally crawling with private aircraft and helicopter etc., any one of which can collide with your wayward jet and leave a rather terrible evidence trail behind.

So, for an operation that requires 100% guarantee that aircraft appear to strike the two towers, with absolute certainty, only by not using planes and by substituting illusion can this effect be securely achieved.

Now this would explain, for an event where planes were actually supposed to have been flown into the towers, why would anyone allow fake video appear on the air? You have real video of a real event, why call it into question by releasing fake video? For that matter, why even bother with "calls from the planes" which only provide another avenue of challenge?

The answer of course is, because there was no other way to create the desired impression. If there were planes no fake anything would have been needed. Video of passengers boarding the planes, and video of them crashing into the towers would have sufficed. But, only if there were no planes, would fake and false evidence be required or allowed, because it was needed.

Imagine if neither plane hit either tower! Do you think they could simply take them down and go on with the show? How? If the planes don't hit they've lost their Islamic fundie skyjackers, if the towers come down then, someone else has to be the blame. The old "van full of explosives in the basement garage" just won't do it this time around.

So, if this is true and no planes were used, then all of the videos have to be fake. Since we already know that the calls from the planes were fake, we have a very good bet going that all of the videos will be fake as well. Like I said, you don't fake things when you have the real McCoy in hand.
Inversely, when you don't have anything real to show, then all you have is fake.

I'll be waiting to see those real videos of the real planes. I can't see them being forth coming because, all the ones they showed the public on 9-11 tv were fakes. Yes, and I know that there were "eyewitnesses" who say they saw what the cameras couldn't film. Which would you believe?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The most interesting thing about the NPT is that, since you cannot prove a negative, it's proof lay only in it's ability to explain the collection of 9-11 events, better than any other theory.

This is where I stopped reading. You saved several of us a lot of time laying it out in your first sentence.

Thanks for that.

[tuc0]

... their ranks had been thinned by the discovery that nine of them were still alive, had nothing to do with 9-11, and one of them has died a year before 9-11-2001.

Do you have any... what's it called... umm... oh yeah: evidence for this claim?

Apart from that, cool story but I've read better, it's a bit disjointed and paranoid.

[BigAl]

The most interesting thing about the NPT is that, since you cannot prove a negative, it's proof lay only in it's ability to explain the collection of 9-11 events, better than any other theory. It's tricky business, made even trickier, because all it would take to disprove it entirely, is hard evidence that planes actually hit the towers.


So much misinformation, so little time.

Troll much?

[Oystein]

Dan Brown, is that you? Brainstorming for you next fantasy thriller?

[Thunder]

the evidence for NPT, is pathetic and borders on insanity and severe mental illness.

.....or CIA/Mossad disinfo.

:)

[Captain_Swoop]

If there were no planes involved, where are the missing passengers, crew and aircraft?

[Thunder]

If there were no planes involved, where are the missing passengers, crew and aircraft?

they..

never...

existed!!!!

:)

[Oystein]

they..

never...

existed!!!!

:)

Which means

- both airlines with many of their departments, employees and management are in on it (technical maintenance, booking, flight handling, catering, HR office, baggage claims...)
- the airports are in on it (security check, ...)
- the insurers are in on it (for claims or no claims about planes, lives, damages)
- The FBI is in on it
- NTSB is in on it
- The FAA is in on it
- The coroners are all in on it
- The mobile phone carriers are in on it
- The military is in on it
- NIST is in on it
- The geology department at Columbia U. is in on it
- The news media are all in on it
- Many of the alleged passenger's families, friends and employers are in on it
- Al Quaida is in on it
- BigAl is in on it

This amounts to several tens of thousands potential leaks.

We also have
- The population of 5 NYC burroughs and neighbourung areas in NJ are largely in on it

Now we are in the millions.

[T.A.M.]

You have earned the "quickest person to go on my ignore list" Obwon. I didn't have to read anything more then the first 2-3 lines of your post.

Buh By

TAM:)

[beachnut]

...
the discovery that nine of them were still alive, had nothing to do with 9-11, and one of them has died a year before 9-11-2001.

... there were "eyewitnesses" who say they saw what the cameras couldn't film. Which would you believe?

Did not get a single thing right! Over 8 years preparation to make an idiotic post based on delusions. If this is indicative of all your work, you might want to call mom and tell her you might not be getting that PhD.

Having the same name as another person, does not make you alive when you are dead.
Having the same name and being dead a year before does not make you dead.

Calling the people liars who saw aircraft impact the WTC and Pentagon, is cowardly behind their backs. A poster at JREF saw Flight 175 impact the WTC. I believe him and I believe you are making up moronic lies.

[Captain_Swoop]

Which means

- both airlines with many of their departments, employees and management are in on it (technical maintenance, booking, flight handling, catering, HR office, baggage claims...)
- the airports are in on it (security check, ...)
- the insurers are in on it (for claims or no claims about planes, lives, damages)
- The FBI is in on it
- NTSB is in on it
- The FAA is in on it
- The coroners are all in on it
- The mobile phone carriers are in on it
- The military is in on it
- NIST is in on it
- The geology department at Columbia U. is in on it
- The news media are all in on it
- Many of the alleged passenger's families, friends and employers are in on it
- Al Quaida is in on it
- BigAl is in on it

This amounts to several tens of thousands potential leaks.

We also have
- The population of 5 NYC burroughs and neighbourung areas in NJ are largely in on it

Now we are in the millions.

All the pilots who ever flew the aircraft are in on it, they keep a log.
Plus the Manufacturers of the aircraft and the sub contractors are in on it.

This keeps growing!

[SRW]

Lord Kelvin (1895): Heavier than air flying machines impossible (http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/speeches/fg_kitty_hawk_12.17.03_prt.htm)

Indeed, eight years before Orville and Wilbur Wright took their home-built flyer to the sandy dunes of Kitty Hawk, cranked up the engine, and took off into the history books, Lord Kelvin, the President of the Royal Society of England made a forceful declaration. "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible," said this very powerful man of science
http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/09/lord-kelvin-1895-heavier-than-air.html


The conspiracy widens. The plan started in 1903. Come on who would be so dastardly as to name their sons Orville and Wilbur?

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Obwon http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6204620#post6204620)
The most interesting thing about the NPT is that, since you cannot prove a negative, it's proof lay only in it's ability to explain the collection of 9-11 events, better than any other theory.
This is where I stopped reading. You saved several of us a lot of time laying it out in your first sentence.

Thanks for that.

Yep. That's just about how far I made it as well. I have absolutely ZERO patience for No Plane delusions. It was very nice of Obwon to let us know how crazy he was right off the bat though. Saved a lot of useless reading.

[Oystein]

Did not get a single thing right! Over 8 years preparation to make an idiotic post based on delusions. If this is indicative of all your work, you might want to call mom and tell her you might not be getting that PhD high school diploma.

ftfy

[djlunacee]

The most interesting thing about the NPT is that, since you cannot prove a negative, it's proof lay only in it's ability to explain the collection of 9-11 events, better than any other theory. It's tricky business, made even trickier, because all it would take to disprove it entirely, is hard evidence that planes actually hit the towers.

I came up with the NPT quite a while back. I began to consider it as a possibility, not because of the videos of the aircraft, as much as because of the behavior of the so called skyjackers, their exhibited lack of skills and training, and finally because their ranks had been thinned by the discovery that nine of them were still alive, had nothing to do with 9-11, and one of them has died a year before 9-11-2001. So, with 4 planes to populate and only 9 skyjackers to do it, something seemed very wrong indeed with the official story. Rather than bother to guess which skyjackers were on which planes, I decided to take the "quick n dirty" route and simply read the transcripts of the calls from the planes. Sure enough, the entire remaining 9 skyjackers can be accounted for between the two WTC jets.

So, if we assume that no one is lying on these planes, then we have two other planes with no skyjackers on board, but yet they've strayed from their flight plan. Well, that simply doesn't make any sense at all, since we can't assume that the flight crew took over the planes and engaged a suicide mission. Yet, here we have a fatal conflict; either the "calls from the planes" are fake or American flight crews took over and engaged these attacks themselves. Obviously this forces the conclusion that the calls are fakes.

So now we must move to examine the rationale for mounting the extreme difficulties involved in providing faked calls from the aircraft. The only logical answer is: To buttress the illusion of planes being involved!

Hold on just a minute, before you question how I came to that conclusion! Examine the situation and the extreme gravity of it! Here you are plotting a major terrorist attack, that will be shown on worldwide media. To avoid getting caught, and to successfully blame the intended parties, you must avoid making any gross mistakes that cannot be corrected by a propaganda machine.

Now, let's try to get a handle on the resources of these planners. For that we take a look at the rather chintzy resources made available to the fall guys, Mohammad Atta and friends. They like to drink, they like to gamble and they like stripper bars and clubs. But rather than being the free spending patsies you'd expect them to be, they're going to cheap joints and eating pizza. These planners own no jets and their plans at various points exhibit the artifacts of a cash strapped/low budget operation. Paltry funds wired to the skyjackers, are unspent and returned. Of course, it goes without saying that these guys do not exhibit the devoted mien of the Islamic fundamentalist they're supposed to be. So this is not an operation with an unlimited budget. You don't give funds to men you expect to commit a suicide mission, then ask for those funds back, most especially if they know they're to commit suicide. While on the other hand, if they don't know that, then you have no guarantee of their performance. Triple that for gambling, womanizing lushes.

Okay, so now we're ready to examine the conditions surrounding the nature of the plans. Do we use planes or not? No, it doesn't make sense! We don't have the pilots to fly them, first off, and secondly: what if they miss?

Here some will suggest that some sort of remote technology might be employed! Well, there's a few things that mitigate against it. Not the least of which is the incredible 510 knot speed of flight 11 and the 400 knot speed of flight 175. Both of these speeds are beyond the design capacity of these aircraft, which simply means, neither of these aircraft could function as they should during these times when design specs are exceeded. The wings flutter, the control surfaces lose their "laminar air flow", they stall, and generally there is no control of the aircraft possible. Yet, the video shows, that while these craft have no operating control surfaces, they engage quite precision maneuvers. Maneuvers that should be impossible at those speeds, even for a robotic device.

Now let's have a look at the options:

Obtain 4 aircraft and prep them with remote capabilities?
Too much could go wrong, all the way from chance discovery, to sub
spec equipment, timeline/delivery failure. Real passengers and pilots would be too unpredictable, if left alive they might somehow thwart your control of the craft, meaning it misses the target and leaves you exposed to devastating discovery.

Another thing is that these real planes would be "seen" by NORAD, CENTCOM and a whole host of other radar tracking stations that litter the northeast. It's hard to predict how any "stand down" order will actually perform with so many stations looking on JFK and NWK for example.

But then there's a much more serious impediment to the actual use of planes. To kill the passengers, to ensure success, all you need to do is depressurize the aircraft at or above 30,000 ft. But, if you do that, you must be absolutely certain that the evidence of that is destroyed completely. No only does a crash into the towers not do that, but worse yet is the fact that the greater NY airspace is literally crawling with private aircraft and helicopter etc., any one of which can collide with your wayward jet and leave a rather terrible evidence trail behind.

So, for an operation that requires 100% guarantee that aircraft appear to strike the two towers, with absolute certainty, only by not using planes and by substituting illusion can this effect be securely achieved.

Now this would explain, for an event where planes were actually supposed to have been flown into the towers, why would anyone allow fake video appear on the air? You have real video of a real event, why call it into question by releasing fake video? For that matter, why even bother with "calls from the planes" which only provide another avenue of challenge?

The answer of course is, because there was no other way to create the desired impression. If there were planes no fake anything would have been needed. Video of passengers boarding the planes, and video of them crashing into the towers would have sufficed. But, only if there were no planes, would fake and false evidence be required or allowed, because it was needed.

Imagine if neither plane hit either tower! Do you think they could simply take them down and go on with the show? How? If the planes don't hit they've lost their Islamic fundie skyjackers, if the towers come down then, someone else has to be the blame. The old "van full of explosives in the basement garage" just won't do it this time around.

So, if this is true and no planes were used, then all of the videos have to be fake. Since we already know that the calls from the planes were fake, we have a very good bet going that all of the videos will be fake as well. Like I said, you don't fake things when you have the real McCoy in hand.
Inversely, when you don't have anything real to show, then all you have is fake.

I'll be waiting to see those real videos of the real planes. I can't see them being forth coming because, all the ones they showed the public on 9-11 tv were fakes. Yes, and I know that there were "eyewitnesses" who say they saw what the cameras couldn't film. Which would you believe?

Um, yeah....troll much?

[Oystein]

The most interesting thing about the NPT is that, since you cannot prove a negative, it's proof lay only in it's ability to explain the collection of 9-11 events, better than any other theory. ...

I did read on. But was a bit saddened not to find any of the following:

- an explanation of how the twin towers were first attacked, then demolished
- an explanation of who did it
- an explanation of why they did it
- an explanation of what created a hole near Shanksville, and why
- an explanation of what what hit the Pentagon, and why
- an explanation for why the airlines think they lost planes
- an explanation for why Boeing believes the airlines lost planes
- an explanation for why the insurances think the airlines lost planes
- an explanation for how all the private videos and photographs could have been faked
- an explanation of how phone calls can be faked without any relatives or mobile phone carriers suspecting anything
- an explanation of why the FAA and the military think they tracked planes
- an explanation of what happened to the alleged passengers or, if they did never existed, how this could be kept under cover when all of the names are known
- an explanation for all the plane debris found at three sites
- an explanation for the hundreds of published witness accounts. Many motorists near the Pentagon had a very clear sight and even identified the airline
- a theory

I think Obwon has a lot of work to do to convince me.

[carlitos]

Cool story, bro.

ETA - Just for future reference, if you are going to post at places where people are ... using their brains, you should master the use of "its" in all its forms. You didn't even make it through the first sentence, and I knew where this was headed.

[beachnut]

...
Here some will suggest that some sort of remote technology might be employed! Well, there's a few things that mitigate against it. Not the least of which is the incredible 510 knot speed of flight 11 and the 400 knot speed of flight 175. Both of these speeds are beyond the design capacity of these aircraft, which simply means, neither of these aircraft could function as they should during these times when design specs are exceeded. The wings flutter, the control surfaces lose their "laminar air flow", they stall, and generally there is no control of the aircraft possible. Yet, the video shows, that while these craft have no operating control surfaces, they engage quite precision maneuvers. Maneuvers that should be impossible at those speeds, even for a robotic device.
...? How do you know the design specs? Boeing does not give out the design specs. The FAA certifies the Plane for speeds, and the speed limits like Vmo are also for long life of the airframe. The reason for Vmo is much more complicated than your lie of a plane not functioning above that speed. When you fly on airlines the pilot might take the airframe to Vmo when he is behind, you can hear it (the rush of wind at high speed, the sound increases with increased speed) when you reach 10,000 feet and he accelerates from 250 KIAS to 350 KIAS to make up time when you are late. If Vmo was a dangerous limit pilots would not get close to it!

Flight 11 impacted at 470 KIAS or lower, you need to get your facts right. This speed is only slight over Vd, dive speed. Which the plane is certified for. Some Boeing planes have exceeded MACH 1 and did not crash. Flight 11 was barely over Vd; a certified speed.

WOW; you said 400 knots, it is not even Vd. You have failed to get one thing right. Need the FAA certification for a 767? I have it.

Flight 175 impacted at 590 KIAS or less which is not MACH 1. Boeing airliners have exceeded MACH 1 and not crashed. Did you get these moronic lies from Balsamo, who is the chief dolt at p4t failed pilots club of delusions?

You have no clue what wing flutter is, and why the planes did function on 911 above Vmo. The planes were over Vmo, but they do not crash, they still worked until the terrorists impacted buildings and flew into the ground because they were chicken. These planes were designed to fly at high speed, near .9 MACH. The control surfaces work well past your fake limits.

Do you have an ATP? Are you a pilot?

What are the limits for a 767?

[angrysoba]

Obwon, do you have any evidence that the universe is more than 5 minutes old?

[TexasJack]

I'm actually going to have to step in and defend his education.

u1hnwvWhbJw

[McHrozni]

The most interesting thing about the NPT is that,

... it can be used as a quick test as to who should be sent to the loony bin.

You could be used as a positive control, I think, rather than a patient.

McHrozni

[Furcifer]

tl;dr

There is no such thing at No Plane Theory, it's a delusion. And a bizarre one at that. It does present a chance to look into the fascinating mindset of the conspiracy prone. By all means, please continue.

[twinstead]

Seagulls ROCK!

[T.A.M.]

Seagulls ROCK!

No they suck. they fly down and pick your garbage apart, and then you have to go out and pick it all up again!!!!!

TAM:D

[The Platypus]

Which would you believe?

I don't believe any of the various lies you have copied here from conspiracy kook websites and weaved into your rant.

In that one post, you have destroyed your credibility and shown that there are many many reasons i shouldn't believe a word you say.

[Bell]

The most <snip>

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1619489

[njslim]

Another troll who went off their meds

Just ignore the loser......

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No they suck. they fly down and pick your garbage apart, and then you have to go out and pick it all up again!!!!!

TAM:D

And wash your car too.

[T.A.M.]

And wash your car too.

exactly....SEAGULLS, IN NO WAY, ROCK!!!

TAM;)

[Greediguts]

exactly....SEAGULLS, IN NO WAY, ROCK!!!

TAM;)


3S50iAVZ3Uc

Not even in a flock??

[TruthersLie]

The most interesting thing about the NPT is that, since you cannot prove a negative, it's proof lay only in it's ability to explain the collection of 9-11 events, better than any other theory. It's tricky business, made even trickier, because all it would take to disprove it entirely, is hard evidence that planes actually hit the towers.

<snipped out the crazy>

Which would you believe?

Lets see...
you start with a massive error based on poor research skills.

The hijackers are still alive myth has been busted so badly it is rather amusing to see it in 2010.

And you try to tie that together with the "they can't fly that good" myth.

Crashing into a building isn't that hard...

You really should ask your Dr if lithium Bicarbonate is right for you.

[Obwon]

Okay, here's where you can start your reading:

Go to google and enter "911 skyjackers found alive", then select whatever
news sources you believe to be credible and read.

In total to date, 9 of the 19 named and pictured skyjackers were alive after the attacks and one had died a year earlier than the attacks. Leaving only 9 skyjackers to populate 4 planes and manage to somehow gain control of the aircraft, 4 out of 4 times, without the pilots issuing a warning code.

Oh, and that includes somehow getting the pilots to somehow depart from their flight plans BEFORE they even get into the cockpit. Oh my, eh?

And... If that's not bad enough, OBL actually credits one of the skyjackers, for having completed his training and carrying out the mission, even though this person was never involved and did not die on 911. Wha? Shouldn't OBL know who his cohorts were? Of course he would, thus the video of him speaking is a fake. Why so many fake pieces of evidence needed to make us believe that what we're told actually happened? At the least it means that what we are told is not what actually happened.

[Obwon]

Actually it means none of the above. If there are no planes, no one at the airline need be in on anything at all. Everything is arranged after the fact with just a few operatives here and there, whose only task is to confirm a story or an event. Anyone who knows otherwise is simply sworn to secrecy in the interest of national security and advised of the penalties that append thereto. Few, if any, professionals are going to be inclined to take the gov't to task, knowing how easily their own credentials could be called into question.

So, it's actually the reverse of what you're saying, that list is of things that would have to be met, if actual passenger planes were plucked from their scheduled trips for these tasks. But the planes flying from Boston weren't scheduled to fly on Tuesdays. So that gives you two free gates to begin your story with.

[Furcifer]

Okay, here's where you can start your reading:

Go to google and enter "911 skyjackers found alive", then select whatever
news sources you believe to be credible and read.

In total to date, 9 of the 19 named and pictured skyjackers were alive after the attacks and one had died a year earlier than the attacks. Leaving only 9 skyjackers to populate 4 planes and manage to somehow gain control of the aircraft, 4 out of 4 times, without the pilots issuing a warning code.

Oh, and that includes somehow getting the pilots to somehow depart from their flight plans BEFORE they even get into the cockpit. Oh my, eh?

And... If that's not bad enough, OBL actually credits one of the skyjackers, for having completed his training and carrying out the mission, even though this person was never involved and did not die on 911. Wha? Shouldn't OBL know who his cohorts were? Of course he would, thus the video of him speaking is a fake. Why so many fake pieces of evidence needed to make us believe that what we're told actually happened? At the least it means that what we are told is not what actually happened.

tl;dr

All of the hijackers were accounted for and there is detailed information regarding their whereabouts and travels and meals and car rentals and bank withdrawals and all kinds of crap.
All you are talking about is a few cases of mistaken identity very early on that were subsequently corrected.

Anyone remember the name of the Doctor who was mistaken for a hijacker? I think his name was Mohamed Atta, Dr. Mohamed Atta. He's like a pediatrician from New Jersey or something who happened to take his wife to The Windows on the World the day before the attack. Small world.

[Obwon]

In any event, why does any of this matter? The supposed Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists, did not have the skills to fly these aircraft, less, in the manner they were shown to have flown. So either way you're working with a set of impossible circumstances and accepting a very improbable result.

What's even worse is that the NPT predicts that there will be NO authentic film of any planes hitting the towers, because, if that were true, it would preclude the existence of fake videos of same. These fake videos take quite some effort to create, and are even more harrowing to make under a deadline, where they have to be played on network news in just an hour or two.

Why such tight time constraints? Well, consider, WTC 1 has been hit and the smoke is already drifting. To "authenticate" the effort you have to display 18 minutes later, if you are to pass it off as "Live", needs to have up to date background in it. Not only can you not guess or approximate what the background will look like, it takes way too much, needless effort, to try to duplicate it falsely. Thus, you're fake creation needs to incorporate elements that won't be available until after the first tower is struck. From there you have 18 minutes to concoct your "live" video. Hardly a wonder they got so many things wrong.

[Scott Sommers]

Go to google and enter "911 skyjackers found alive", then select whatever
news sources you believe to be credible and read.

This is very strange. I did exactly as you said, and there are no hits for this. Seriously, Google gets exactly zero hits on "911 skyjackers found alive" and only 10 hits on this phrase without quotes. Is this your idea of how to do research?

[Obwon]

If there were no planes involved, where are the missing passengers, crew and aircraft?

That is beyond the scope of this exercise. This is to focus on; planes or no planes and the reasons why either is the more rational choice.

[Obwon]

...And why do you forget that the FBI released photographs of the 19 skyjackers they named? Oh, right, by ignoring that fact you get to sound credible when you claim mistake, right? What does OBL do when he praises as one of his selected few, a skyjacker who wasn't a skyjacker and was never on his crew? Since when did OBL rely on the FBI/CIA for his terrorist planning information? Oh well, the CIA has already said that "the translations weren't literal", another way of saying "we lied". They do that a lot, funny most people never seem to notice which stories the CIA and the FBI and the NTSB have retracted, repudiated, denied, fudged, compromised, hedged, hemed, hawed and generally screwed up.

[tuc0]

Everything is arranged after the fact with just a few operatives here and there, whose only task is to confirm a story or an event. Anyone who knows otherwise is simply sworn to secrecy in the interest of national security and advised of the penalties that append thereto. Few, if any, professionals are going to be inclined to take the gov't to task, knowing how easily their own credentials could be called into question.



That's the definition of 'in on it', genius.

[angrysoba]

...And why do you forget that the FBI released photographs of the 19 skyjackers they named? Oh, right, by ignoring that fact you get to sound credible when you claim mistake, right? What does OBL do when he praises as one of his selected few, a skyjacker who wasn't a skyjacker and was never on his crew? Since when did OBL rely on the FBI/CIA for his terrorist planning information? Oh well, the CIA has already said that "the translations weren't literal", another way of saying "we lied". They do that a lot, funny most people never seem to notice which stories the CIA and the FBI and the NTSB have retracted, repudiated, denied, fudged, compromised, hedged, hemed, hawed and generally screwed up.

Who did Osama bin Laden name as one of the hijackers who turned out to be alive? Where's your source for this?

[Furcifer]

Who did Osama bin Laden name as one of the hijackers who turned out to be alive? Where's your source for this?

mohamed

[Furcifer]

In any event, why does any of this matter? The supposed Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists, did not have the skills to fly these aircraft, less, in the manner they were shown to have flown. So either way you're working with a set of impossible circumstances and accepting a very improbable result.

What's even worse is that the NPT predicts that there will be NO authentic film of any planes hitting the towers, because, if that were true, it would preclude the existence of fake videos of same. These fake videos take quite some effort to create, and are even more harrowing to make under a deadline, where they have to be played on network news in just an hour or two.

Why such tight time constraints? Well, consider, WTC 1 has been hit and the smoke is already drifting. To "authenticate" the effort you have to display 18 minutes later, if you are to pass it off as "Live", needs to have up to date background in it. Not only can you not guess or approximate what the background will look like, it takes way too much, needless effort, to try to duplicate it falsely. Thus, you're fake creation needs to incorporate elements that won't be available until after the first tower is struck. From there you have 18 minutes to concoct your "live" video. Hardly a wonder they got so many things wrong.

Dude, you're trolling the wrong forum. Nobody believes you, nobody even believes you believe this. This is the conspiracy equivalent of Shock and Awe. This troll's been done, and done better.
But as I say, please continue.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

In total to date, 9 of the 19 named and pictured skyjackers were alive after the attacks and one had died a year earlier than the attacks.

No they weren't. Slamming into a steel or concrete structure or the ground at 500+ miles per hour is 100% fatal in all cases. All of the hijackers died on impact.

To suggest any of them lived is stupid and insane.

[Bell]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Troll_cows_ill_jnl_artlibre.png/434px-Troll_cows_ill_jnl_artlibre.png

[Oystein]

...Anyone who knows otherwise is simply sworn to secrecy in the interest of national security and advised of the penalties that append thereto. Few, if any, professionals are going to be inclined to take the gov't to task, knowing how easily their own credentials could be called into question. ...

How silly! How utterly unable you are to understand the way that people work, tick, think and communictate in the real world!

Tens of thousands sworn into secrecy after the fact? How are you even going to find them all?


Example: Catering.

There is a catering company at Boston Logan Airport that delivers carts full of food trays and drinks to all flights of American Airlines.

Catering is basically a logistics operation. You purchase food items, deliver them to airports on time, prepare them for flights (e.g.: caterer gets number of tickets sold per class, plus special orders from passengers with special dietary needs. Maybe the hijackers even ordered in-flight meals that are halal? This info is used to determine how many roasted chickens with paste and how many pork chops with wedges they need to deliver to a specific flight), put them in carts, boxes and trays that are compatible with the plane's kitchen setup. Some passenger, like in first class, get their meals on porcelain plates and eat them with metal knife and fork. After arrival, carts, boxes and trays are collected, cleaned, and reused for another flight. Every single flight leaves a trail of electronic and paper records at the catering company. In particular, they know how many pieces of carts, boxes, trays, porcelain plates and metal cutlery they put on a flight.

Conversely, if they did not deliver anything to a flight, this will be apparent from the lack of such records and the fact that all carts, boxes, trays, porcelain plates and metal cutlery are still accounted for elsewhere.

Now, when news broke that an AA plane crashed, some people at the catering company must have realised immediately that they might have lost some carts, boxes, trays, porcelain plates and metal cutlery that were already scheduled to go on other flights from LAX later that day. So somebody checked the systems to find out how many.

Suppose there was no plane, no flight. Do you think by the time the catering company found out that they had not serviced flight AA11, everybody there was already sworn in? What is the risk that someone there will write an email home, or to all his friends, writing "we are all abuzz here at ACME catering co. about the crash of AA11, but the funny thing is: We did not service that flight! That is sooo strange..."?




Similar scenarios would happen at the hangar where the plane mechanics hang out.
Similar scenarios would happen at several insurance companies.
Similar scenarios would happen at the AA office that schedules flight crews and cabon crews.
Similar scenarios would happen at FAA
Similar scenarios would happen at both the departure and arrival airports.
etc.
etc.



Within 2.5 hours of the first crash, American Airlines announced that it had lost flights 11 and 77:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa11&startpos=100
(11:18 a.m.) September 11, 2001: American Airlines Publicly Announces Loss of Flights 11 and 77
Edit event

American Airlines issues a statement confirming that it has lost two of its aircraft in “tragic incidents this morning.” The statement identifies the aircraft as “Flight 11, a Boeing 767 en route from Boston to Los Angeles,” and “Flight 77, a Boeing 757 operating from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles.”

We may safely assume that this info was on the air shortly thereafter; that many many employees of every company involved with operation commercial flights were glued to the TV screens; that news of the loss of specific flights was rapidly spread via email, phone and personal chat throughout all of these companies; that everybody in these companies who had any access whatsoever to the operational details of flight service checked these immediately; that rumours would have spread like wildfire and persisted forever if theses searches had come up empty; that no secret government agency could have possibly silenced the thousands of people I am talking about here.

Had there been no planes, then at 12 noon on 9/11/2001 that rumour would have been out and unstoppable, just from the personal interest of thousands of involved professional alone.

[Oystein]

...From there you have 18 minutes to concoct your "live" video. Hardly a wonder they got so many things wrong.

Even when you have 9 years to concoct your silly CT, you get so many things wrong.

[dtugg]

I saw a plane fly into the WTC.

100% of no planers are mentally ill morons.

[Oystein]

That is beyond the scope of this exercise. This is to focus on; planes or no planes and the reasons why either is the more rational choice.

Somehow, when discussing "planes" or "no planes", a question dealing with "planes" would seem squarely within the scope of this exercise...

Many organisations and the people therein know the planes that American Airlines and United Airlines reported as "lost" and exactly. Boeing keeps track of every single of their planes that are still in active commercial service anywhere in the world. If AA/UA announced the loss of a plane that Boeing does not track, that would ring an alarm there. If AA/UA announced the loss of a plane that Boeing does track, then your theory must explain where that plane is. If it is still in service, that would ring a bell at Boeing. If it is not, then it either hidden somewhere, or has been wrecked. Both propositions would involve yet more people who are very much in the know - people who know they participated in mass murder.

Here again is a complete enumeration of all the possibilities:

1. Plane - you're wrong
2. No plane
2.1 Tracked by Boeing
2.1.1 Still in service after 9/11 - raises an alarm
2.1.2 Not in service anymore
2.1.2.1 Plane still exists - must be hidden somewhere. Planes are big and hard to hide without raising suspicion
2.1.2.2 Plane has been wrecke - wrecking a plane takes a lot of work, i.o.w. people who know what they did.
2.2 Not tracked by Boeing - raises an alarm

I hope you realize that every possibility poses a problem for your theory.

[TruthersLie]

Okay, here's where you can start your reading:

Go to google and enter "911 skyjackers found alive", then select whatever
news sources you believe to be credible and read.

You may want to use those google fu skills and learn how to read.

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

Try again. Read for comprehension.


In total to date, 9 of the 19 named and pictured skyjackers were alive after the attacks and one had died a year earlier than the attacks. Leaving only 9 skyjackers to populate 4 planes and manage to somehow gain control of the aircraft, 4 out of 4 times, without the pilots issuing a warning code.

So solly cholly.

You really should read for comprehension. There was a misidentification EARLY in the process. Please find ANY documents after October 1st, 2001 which state any hijackers were still alive.

It should be easy to do.

[TruthersLie]

In any event, why does any of this matter? The supposed Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists, did not have the skills to fly these aircraft, less, in the manner they were shown to have flown. So either way you're working with a set of impossible circumstances and accepting a very improbable result.


I love this shift.

Now it is
"hey it doesn't matter that I have no research skills and all 19 hijackers were fully identified, and there was a retraction. It doesn't matter that I"m wrong ABOUT THIS... look at THIS OVER HERE..."

Nice shift.

But since we know the hijackers were fully accounted for, now you shift to the debunked
"they couldn't have flown those maneuvers"

PROVE IT.

[McHrozni]

Okay, here's where you can start your reading:

Go to google and enter "911 skyjackers found alive", then select whatever
news sources you believe to be credible and read.

Do you consider BBC credible?
If so you might want to read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

If not, please find a source that doesn't use the BBC story as an original source.

McHrozni

[LashL]

The NPT (no planes theory)Discussed. Disgust.



Fixed that for you.

[MRC_Hans]

Mmmm, okay.....

The most interesting thing about the NPT is that, since you cannot prove a negative, it's proof lay only in it's ability to explain the collection of 9-11 events, better than any other theory.

That's tough, since the so called Official Conspirace Theory is by far the simplest and most plausible explanation in existence.

It's tricky business, made even trickier, because all it would take to disprove it entirely, is hard evidence that planes actually hit the towers.

You mean like numerous eyes withnesses, video footage, aircraft parts, body parts, etc?

I came up with the NPT quite a while back. I began to consider it as a possibility, not because of the videos of the aircraft,

How anyone can come up with a no plane theory because of the videos is beyond me. You must mean in spite of the videos, right?

as much as because of the behavior of the so called skyjackers, their exhibited lack of skills and training,

You mean as in them all being certified pilots? Those doing the piloting, that is, the others had other tasks.

and finally because their ranks had been thinned by the discovery that nine of them were still alive, had nothing to do with 9-11, and one of them has died a year before 9-11-2001.

Uhh, no. That was debunked ages ago.

So, with 4 planes to populate and only 9 skyjackers to do it, something seemed very wrong indeed with the official story.

No, something was wrong with the idea that there were only 9 skyjackers.

Yet, here we have a fatal conflict; either the "calls from the planes" are fake or American flight crews took over and engaged these attacks themselves. Obviously this forces the conclusion that the calls are fakes.

Only on the premise that there were no skyjackers. However, there were. They were identified, their remains were found.



To avoid getting caught, and to successfully blame the intended parties, you must avoid making any gross mistakes that cannot be corrected by a propaganda machine.

Gross mistakes like involving thousands of people, you mean?

Now, let's try to get a handle on the resources of these planners. For that we take a look at the rather chintzy resources made available to the fall guys, Mohammad Atta and friends.

Now you have a decision point: Do you trust the investigations of the money trail? You must if you use their findings as evidence. But the money trail proves that the hijackers were there. So do you reject the money trail and claim it's faked? Then you can't use it as an argument.

They like to drink, they like to gamble and they like stripper bars and clubs. But rather than being the free spending patsies you'd expect them to be, they're going to cheap joints and eating pizza.

So? Maybe they liked pizzas. Also, they needed not to attract attention to themselves. If they went around being big spenders (assuming they wanted to and could get the funds), then the FBI/CIA spotlight would be likely to find them.

Of course, it goes without saying that these guys do not exhibit the devoted mien of the Islamic fundamentalist they're supposed to be.

I think you are trying to point out that they didn't exacly live to the letter of their religion. However, most likely they expected that their martyrdom would earn them forgiveness for all that. I'm not sure about the general interpretation of Islamic scripture, but it appears that the version would be terrorists are going by is that if you die for the cause, you are guaranteed a free pass to paradise. So they might as well have a bit of forbidden fun first.


Okay, so now we're ready to examine the conditions surrounding the nature of the plans. Do we use planes or not? No, it doesn't make sense! We don't have the pilots to fly them, first off, and secondly: what if they miss?


Seems they decided to use planes, and they had pilots. Certified pilots trained in the United States. They were not the most skilled pilots in the world, but as any pilot can tell you, landing is the toughest part, and they planned on skipping that.

Here some will suggest that some sort of remote technology might be employed! Well, there's a few things that mitigate against it.

Yes, such as range, getting away with installing it, and precision.

Not the least of which is the incredible 510 knot speed of flight 11 and the 400 knot speed of flight 175. Both of these speeds are beyond the design capacity of these aircraft,

Not at all, those are cruise speeds. The problem was that the altitude was too low for the speed.


which simply means, neither of these aircraft could function as they should during these times when design specs are exceeded. The wings flutter, the control surfaces lose their "laminar air flow", they stall, and generally there is no control of the aircraft possible.


No, no, not at all. You obviously have very limited knowledge of aircraft and flying. You can get those effects, but this happens at higher speeds. As long as you are subsonic nothing of the kind happens (and the planes were subsonic).

What might happen would be undue stress of the airframe and control surface, leading to potential later failures, but that was not of any concern, in the case.

Yet, the video shows, that while these craft have no operating control surfaces, they engage quite precision maneuvers. Maneuvers that should be impossible at those speeds, even for a robotic device.

Wrong again, not only were the maneuvers quite possible, they were not even very advanced. In fact they were rather clumsy:

First WTC plane came in straight and level. No great feat, except good aiming. A bit higher than planned, probably.

Second WTC plane came in in a curve, so the aim was much poorer, but the altitude was good. A little more to starboard, however, and the fuselage could have missed the building. Not very perfect.

The Pentagon plane almost overflew the target and had to circle back to burn off altitude, then ended so low that it came very near to crashing in front of the building. Not very impressing.

And, obviously, the last plane didn't hit its target. It dind't even hit anything qualified as a secondary target; it crashed in an open area with no damage to ground targets to speak of. Fail.

Another thing is that these real planes would be "seen" by NORAD, CENTCOM and a whole host of other radar tracking stations that litter the northeast. It's hard to predict how any "stand down" order will actually perform with so many stations looking on JFK and NWK for example.

And indeed they were tracked.

To kill the passengers, to ensure success, all you need to do is depressurize the aircraft at or above 30,000 ft. But, if you do that, you must be absolutely certain that the evidence of that is destroyed completely. No only does a crash into the towers not do that, but worse yet is the fact that the greater NY airspace is literally crawling with private aircraft and helicopter etc., any one of which can collide with your wayward jet and leave a rather terrible evidence trail behind.

This makes no sense at all. Why couldn't depressurizing be part of the narrative, if need be. BTW, if you had ever been on a plane, you would have noticed that they have oxygen masks for such an event.


Imagine if neither plane hit either tower! Do you think they could simply take them down and go on with the show? How? If the planes don't hit they've lost their Islamic fundie skyjackers, if the towers come down then, someone else has to be the blame. The old "van full of explosives in the basement garage" just won't do it this time around.

Circular argumentation: You say that if the event was faked, it had to be faked.

However, if there were real hijackers, there was no problem. Even if they missed (as one plane did).

So, if this is true and no planes were used, then all of the videos have to be fake.

And that is a very tall order. A dozen international news networks broadcasting directly and who knows how many private persons filming. Not to mention all the eye withnesses.

Since we already know that the calls from the planes were fake,

False. We don't know that.

we have a very good bet going that all of the videos will be fake as well.

However, the premise was false. Plus, faking all that footage is MUCH harder than faking a few calls.


Like I said, you don't fake things when you have the real McCoy in hand.
Inversely, when you don't have anything real to show, then all you have is fake.


Seems you are in the process of living out the bolded part.

I'll be waiting to see those real videos of the real planes. I can't see them being forth coming because, all the ones they showed the public on 9-11 tv were fakes.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Yes, and I know that there were "eyewitnesses" who say they saw what the cameras couldn't film. Which would you believe?

I can believe both since they are in accordance.

Hans

[T.A.M.]

Please tell me the "hijackers are still alive" canard is not being brought out AGAIN?

TAM:)

[triforcharity]

In any event, why does any of this matter? The supposed Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists, did not have the skills to fly these aircraft, less, in the manner they were shown to have flown. So either way you're working with a set of impossible circumstances and accepting a very improbable result.

What's even worse is that the NPT predicts that there will be NO authentic film of any planes hitting the towers, because, if that were true, it would preclude the existence of fake videos of same. These fake videos take quite some effort to create, and are even more harrowing to make under a deadline, where they have to be played on network news in just an hour or two.

Why such tight time constraints? Well, consider, WTC 1 has been hit and the smoke is already drifting. To "authenticate" the effort you have to display 18 minutes later, if you are to pass it off as "Live", needs to have up to date background in it. Not only can you not guess or approximate what the background will look like, it takes way too much, needless effort, to try to duplicate it falsely. Thus, you're fake creation needs to incorporate elements that won't be available until after the first tower is struck. From there you have 18 minutes to concoct your "live" video. Hardly a wonder they got so many things wrong.

The Hijackers were licensed pilots.

Evidence that they were faked?

Lastly, explain the hundreds of amatuer video of the impacts, and the THOUSANDS of eyewitnesses (including MYSELF) who say the airliner hit the Tower.

I'll wait.

[triforcharity]

. What does OBL do when he praises as one of his selected few, a skyjacker who wasn't a skyjacker and was never on his crew? Since when did OBL rely on the FBI/CIA for his terrorist planning information? Oh well, the CIA has already said that "the translations weren't literal", another way of saying "we lied". They do that a lot, funny most people never seem to notice which stories the CIA and the FBI and the NTSB have retracted, repudiated, denied, fudged, compromised, hedged, hemed, hawed and generally screwed up.

I don't suppose that you will be providing any....I dunno, EVIDENCE of this bull will you?

[Obwon]

An essential part of the NPT are those claims that the planes vaporized on impact. Well, suffice it to say that for the planes to have experienced significant vaporization under ideal conditions, they'd have to have flown at mach 15 +. At 500 mph, the energy of impact is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the metal 56 degrees f. So, we either need a new reason why there was no recoverable debris, or we must assume -- because 100 ton planes cannot simply vanish into thin air -- no planes actually crashed where no debris is present or seen.

[Bell]

:words:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Troll1.JPG/800px-Troll1.JPG

[triforcharity]

An essential part of the NPT are those claims that the planes vaporized on impact. Well, suffice it to say that for the planes to have experienced significant vaporization under ideal conditions, they'd have to have flown at mach 15 +. At 500 mph, the energy of impact is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the metal 56 degrees f. So, we either need a new reason why there was no recoverable debris, or we must assume -- because 100 ton planes cannot simply vanish into thin air -- no planes actually crashed where no debris is present or seen.

No recoverable debris where? Where do you GET this ************ from?

[X]

Who says the planes "vaporized on impact"?

And where on earth did you get the idea that "there was no recoverable debris"?



Look, Obwon; at the top of the 9/11 C.T. section here are some sticked posts and sub-forums.

Go look through them. Also, along the top bar is a button labeled "search". Try using it.

I say this because a brief perusal of your posts shows you to be sorely misinformed about a great many topics.


Until and unless you can demonstrate at least a basic understanding of physical principals and ability to check your facts for accuracy (note: This does not mean simply Googling the claim and assuming that if it shows up elsewhere it's correct, it means actually checking it out), there is little point to discussing your "No Plane Theory".

Especially when it is based on long-disproven notions and inane nonsense.



Oh, and this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128186) might help you wrap your head around the "impossible flight maneuvers" nonsense.

[twinstead]

Somebody needs to inform all those volunteers and first responders who picked up plane parts, personal effects, and body fragments for days in Shanksville that there was no recoverable debris.

[carlitos]

An essential part of the NPT are those claims that the planes vaporized on impact. Well, suffice it to say that for the planes to have experienced significant vaporization under ideal conditions, they'd have to have flown at mach 15 +. At 500 mph, the energy of impact is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the metal 56 degrees f. So, we either need a new reason why there was no recoverable debris, or we must assume -- because 100 ton planes cannot simply vanish into thin air -- no planes actually crashed where no debris is present or seen.

You are misinformed about nearly everything you posted above. There was lots of identifiable plane debris recovered from the crashes.

Obwon - you are probably too young to have flown much, but I have. I used to fly for business a lot before 9/11. Flight schedules are published, public documents. I used to carry a book in my briefcase which had all the world's flight schedules in it. In this book were AA 11, UA 93, AA 77 and UA 175. Those were real flights. Every flight was published, booked by travel agents using SABRE, catered, crewed, fueled up and was boarded by real passengers with real names, real jobs and real families back home. The flights taxied and took off. They were tracked by RADAR until they crashed. In 2 cases (IIRC), the black box data was recovered and confirmed the different piloting style of the hijackers vs. real pilots. This is the real world. Your thoughts are fantasy.

[Bell]

Somebody needs to inform all those volunteers and first responders who picked up plane parts, personal effects, and body fragments for days in Shanksville that there was no recoverable debris.

Just for arguments sake... I guess I didn't see a 767 porthole on display at the WTC Tribute Visitor Center (http://www.tributewtc.org/exhibits/featured.php).

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Obwon,

How original! Even Ben Kenobi can see the errors of your ways. Perhaps the Dark Side isn't too fond of the "no-planes" theory because it makes them look retarded. You know what I meant by the Dark Side don't you? The 9/11 Truth Movement!

Even a big walking carpet like me can tell the difference with my own eyes. The planes existed, they were piloted by radical muslims hell bent on destroying Americas financial & military businesses & killing as many of our civilians as they can.

You are not Ben Kenobi, no amount of hand waving can produce enough evidence to prove your silly "no-planes" theory.

[excaza]

An essential part of the NPT are those claims that the planes vaporized on impact.

Except the planes didn't vaporize on impact.

Well, suffice it to say that for the planes to have experienced significant vaporization under ideal conditions, they'd have to have flown at mach 15 +.

Mach 15? You're just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

At 500 mph, the energy of impact is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the metal 56 degrees f.

Yeah, the energy of a fully loaded jetliner impacting a building is pretty insignificant. More hand-waving 'calculations' please! :rolleyes:

So, we either need a new reason why there was no recoverable debris

Except there was. Reality calls!

or we must assume -- because 100 ton planes cannot simply vanish into thin air

Well you got something right. :jaw-dropp

-- no planes actually crashed where no debris is present or seen

Except there was debris.

[TexasJack]

I wish there was a moron meter in each thread so I could anticipate the degree of stupid.

[excaza]

I wish there was a moron meter in each thread so I could anticipate the degree of stupid.

Post count is a good start ;)

[alienentity]

That is beyond the scope of this exercise. This is to focus on; planes or no planes and the reasons why either is the more rational choice.

No offense, Obwon, but evidence and logic are also beyond the scope of this exercise.

I agree 100% with one thing you wrote, as applied to what you wrote: 'Well, that simply doesn't make any sense at all'
:p

[alienentity]

Obwon, you should hook up with Jammonius. Together you could be like the happy couple, Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood - take the world by storm, open a giant can of Truther Whupass on them dastardly perps!

[Furcifer]

Wait, wait, wait.

How'd they get the plane shaped holes in both buildings? :boggled:

Magic subforum------->

[beachnut]

In any event, why does any of this matter? The supposed Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists, did not have the skills to fly these aircraft, less, in the manner they were shown to have flown. So either way you're working with a set of impossible circumstances and accepting a very improbable result.

... What a load of hogwash!
You failed; people saw the impacts of planes at the WTC and Pentagon. Parts of planes at all three site, and in PA. Darn, a fake plane with real parts. Your fantasy has failed, when will you figure out 911?



Terrorist had pilot licenses from the FAA. Plus most kids could fly a 767/757 and crash into a building. Have you failed to go on an orientation ride in a small plane? The 757/767 is easier to fly than a small prop plane. Your lack of knowledge on the terrorists is due to what reason? They were pilots! They trained for years! They would not have passed a checked ride, they fly terrible, my mom can fly better but they could hit targets from 40 feet to 200 feet wide all day long; that is how wide some runways are.

They were pilots so they had basic flying skills.
You can't tell anyone what you mean by the manner they were flown.
What maneuver can't the terrorists do? Explain in detail why?

An essential part of the NPT are those claims that the planes vaporized on impact. Well, suffice it to say that for the planes to have experienced significant vaporization under ideal conditions, they'd have to have flown at mach 15 +. At 500 mph, the energy of impact is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the metal 56 degrees f. So, we either need a new reason why there was no recoverable debris, or we must assume -- because 100 ton planes cannot simply vanish into thin air -- no planes actually crashed where no debris is present or seen.
No recoverable debris? All the DNA of Flight 93 passengers was found, all but one on Flight 77. No recoverable debris? Do you mock the dead on purpose making up wild delusional lies?

No recoverable debris?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77engine.jpg
Why do you lie? Why have you failed to figure out 911 given the answers?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1westRectorStreet.jpg
Debris, recovered! Why are you telling lies?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/93VDR.jpg
FDR; has flight data from a jet used on 911. No Debris? Why do you make up delusions?

[TruthersLie]

No offense, Obwon, but evidence and logic are also beyond the scope of this exercise.

I agree 100% with one thing you wrote, as applied to what you wrote: 'Well, that simply doesn't make any sense at all'
:p

well considering that he things that
obwon = obiwan.

It breaks my heart to see that not only do truthers not know how to spell, they have bad research skills.

[AJM8125]

We already have a no planer, but I can't resist asking:

Obwon, I see you've posted in the 43 videos thread. You'll note the length of that thread. You should also know that thread is an epic failure on the part of the OP simply due to the fact he hasn't managed to convince anyone of any of the absurd claims he's made. How is your delusion any different from his?

The other no-planer has laid out a ridiculously convoluted theory centered around an imaginary weapon system derived from super secret imaginary technology that some imaginary cadre of bad guys used to turn the WTC into dust. Do you also believe this or do you have some imaginary weapons of your own? Thermite, hush-a-booms, the fairy godmother, what ever.

Out with it. What destroyed the World Trade Center?

[Corsair 115]

Please tell me the "hijackers are still alive" canard is not being brought out AGAIN?


Apparently so, yes. It would seem that, just like vampires and zombies, the "hijackers are still alive" silliness just won't stay dead.

[MRC_Hans]

An essential part of the NPT are those claims that the planes vaporized on impact. Well, suffice it to say that for the planes to have experienced significant vaporization under ideal conditions, they'd have to have flown at mach 15 +. At 500 mph, the energy of impact is barely sufficient to raise the temperature of the metal 56 degrees f. So, we either need a new reason why there was no recoverable debris, or we must assume -- because 100 ton planes cannot simply vanish into thin air -- no planes actually crashed where no debris is present or seen.However, since tons of plane debris was recovered from the sites, this speculation is moot.

Hans

[Sabretooth]

In many aspects, in my personal experience, flying a jet is easier than driving a car. Taking off and landing are the tricky parts...two areas which the terrorist pilots had no interest in learning. Flying requires the knowledge of two things: Flight stick and throttle. Period. Once a jet is airborne, it's a matter of using the flight stick to point your nose (ie: steering wheel) in the direction you would like to go. The speed is controlled by the throttle (ie: gas pedal). Any acne-faced Xbox loving teen could fly a jet and not even look up from the bag of Funions.

How can you suggest the terrorists did not have the skills required to fly a plane, when it is truly a very simple process?

[Obwon]

Hahaha... Seems many of you, who are against the NPT, l are using the same bogus evidence that has already been admitted to be false. In any event, as far as plane debris, you have only to read the official stories answer, that the planes either vaporized or atomized on impact. That tells you that there wasn't any debris. The landing gear and the engine part, were both admitted to be not from either WTC plane.

How's that? Get it? The engine shown streaming from the tower trailing fire, which lands on Church street Near Murry, and is found there smoking! Is reported to have bounced off a car and left a hole in the street, is the wrong size engine for 767 and the FBI, NTSB admits that it did not come from either plane! Confirmed by the found part number! So what was it doing on Murry st. smoking, no less, if it didn't come on a skyjacked plane? But hey, that tells you something, if it's planted, which it is, then why plant it and call into question the 911 events? The answer, of course. is it has to be planted, because there are no planes.

Like I said, either you have planes, in which case you don't need or want false evidence around, or you don't have any planes, in which case the more false evidence the merrier, since it can hurt any worse than the truth.

And yes, of the 19 skyjackers 9 were found alive and one died a year before the 911 attacks. Yet they are not only listed as the skyjackers, one and all, but Bin Laden speaks highly of one of them, who was never involved!

Oh yes! And then you want to argue that that yellow pour that comes streaming out of the building is melted aluminum, but energy of the crash can only raise the temperature of the craft by 58 degrees f. The jet fuel is disbursed when it burns and cannot inject it's energy into the metal of the aircraft, nor does it burn hot enough to melt it. So you need another source for that yellow pour, the one you've been using doesn't get it.

Trying to say there was confusion about the skyjackers is a no go! The FBI published, not only the names, but their pictures and histories. So now you have only 9 possible skyjackers to populate 4 planes. While "the calls from the planes" claim that each plane had between 4 and 5 skyjackers on board. Do you mean to tell us that OBL couldn't find 19 Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist to carry out his planned attacks? Well, that's pretty much in line with his original claim that he had nothing to do with these attacks. At least that was the story before the fake videos of him claiming success etc., began being found in the hills of Afghanistan. Go figure, eh?

[carlitos]

Please try again. You are mistaken nearly completely about your perceptions of what happened.You are misinformed about nearly everything you posted above. There was lots of identifiable plane debris recovered from the crashes.

Obwon - you are probably too young to have flown much, but I have. I used to fly for business a lot before 9/11. Flight schedules are published, public documents. I used to carry a book in my briefcase which had all the world's flight schedules in it. In this book were AA 11, UA 93, AA 77 and UA 175. Those were real flights. Every flight was published, booked by travel agents using SABRE, catered, crewed, fueled up and was boarded by real passengers with real names, real jobs and real families back home. The flights taxied and took off. They were tracked by RADAR until they crashed. In 2 cases (IIRC), the black box data was recovered and confirmed the different piloting style of the hijackers vs. real pilots. This is the real world. Your thoughts are fantasy.

[beachnut]

Hahaha... Seems many of you, who are against the NPT, l are using the same bogus evidence that has already been admitted to be false. In any event, as far as plane debris, you have only to read the official stories answer, that the planes either vaporized or atomized on impact. That tells you that there wasn't any debris. The landing gear and the engine part, were both admitted to be not from either WTC plane.

How's that? Get it? The engine shown streaming from the tower trailing fire, which lands on Church street Near Murry, and is found there smoking! Is reported to have bounced off a car and left a hole in the street, is the wrong size engine for 767 and the FBI, NTSB admits that it did not come from either plane! Confirmed by the found part number! So what was it doing on Murry st. smoking, no less, if it didn't come on a skyjacked plane? But hey, that tells you something, if it's planted, which it is, then why plant it and call into question the 911 events? The answer, of course. is it has to be planted, because there are no planes.

Like I said, either you have planes, in which case you don't need or want false evidence around, or you don't have any planes, in which case the more false evidence the merrier, since it can hurt any worse than the truth.

And yes, of the 19 skyjackers 9 were found alive and one died a year before the 911 attacks. Yet they are not only listed as the skyjackers, one and all, but Bin Laden speaks highly of one of them, who was never involved!

Oh yes! And then you want to argue that that yellow pour that comes streaming out of the building is melted aluminum, but energy of the crash can only raise the temperature of the craft by 58 degrees f. The jet fuel is disbursed when it burns and cannot inject it's energy into the metal of the aircraft, nor does it burn hot enough to melt it. So you need another source for that yellow pour, the one you've been using doesn't get it.

Trying to say there was confusion about the skyjackers is a no go! The FBI published, not only the names, but their pictures and histories. So now you have only 9 possible skyjackers to populate 4 planes. While "the calls from the planes" claim that each plane had between 4 and 5 skyjackers on board. Do you mean to tell us that OBL couldn't find 19 Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist to carry out his planned attacks? Well, that's pretty much in line with his original claim that he had nothing to do with these attacks. At least that was the story before the fake videos of him claiming success etc., began being found in the hills of Afghanistan. Go figure, eh?
You spew lies. How can you be wrong on all the facts and evidence?

The engine is from a 767, it was still hot.

Oh, you are pretending to be a 911 truther liar. Sorry.

[AJM8125]

Hahaha... Seems many of you, who are against the NPT, l are using the same bogus evidence that has already been admitted to be false. <snip>

Explain that declaration.

[TruthersLie]

Hahaha... Seems many of you, who are against the NPT, l are using the same bogus evidence that has already been admitted to be false.


Feel free to provide any source that shows the evidence is false. I wont' hold my breath for it.


In any event, as far as plane debris, you have only to read the official stories answer, that the planes either vaporized or atomized on impact.

Citation please.
There were literally tons of plane debris at the towers, the pentagon and in shanksville... so you might want to look up the words
vaporized
atomized



That tells you that there wasn't any debris. The landing gear and the engine part, were both admitted to be not from either WTC plane.

no that tells us that beyond not being able to spell, you are rather ignorant. Please provide any citaiton which states the landing (which landing gear, where?) and the engine (which engine, from where?) aren't from the wtc planes.



How's that? Get it? The engine shown streaming from the tower trailing fire, which lands on Church street Near Murry, and is found there smoking! Is reported to have bounced off a car and left a hole in the street, is the wrong size engine for 767

Wrong. but feel free to provide any evidence beyond ramblings oh young padowan.


and the FBI, NTSB admits that it did not come from either plane! Confirmed by the found part number!

Then you can provide that citation to support this wild claim right?


So what was it doing on Murry st. smoking, no less, if it didn't come on a skyjacked plane? But hey, that tells you something,

it tells me you can't do 5 minutes of basic research... Does it tell you something else?

When you are looking up the words vaporized and atomized, you might want to look up burden of proof, and of citations.

Oh heck.. just try to finish high school. Go back to your english teachers and tell them you need help learning how to do any real research.


if it's planted, which it is,

prove it.
(because you can't it means it isn't planted)


And yes, of the 19 skyjackers 9 were found alive and one died a year before the 911 attacks. Yet they are not only listed as the skyjackers, one and all, but Bin Laden speaks highly of one of them, who was never involved!

Pretty please. A citation. Pretty please.



Oh yes! And then you want to argue that that yellow pour that comes streaming out of the building is melted aluminum, but energy of the crash can only raise the temperature of the craft by 58 degrees f. The jet fuel is disbursed when it burns and cannot inject it's energy into the metal of the aircraft, nor does it burn hot enough to melt it. So you need another source for that yellow pour, the one you've been using doesn't get it.

When you go back to high school and ask the english teacher to help you out, you might want to go and talk to the science teachers too.


Trying to say there was confusion about the skyjackers is a no go! The FBI published, not only the names, but their pictures and histories. So now you have only 9 possible skyjackers to populate 4 planes.

Ah yes... the early confusion. Please, pretty please find me one list of the hijackers AFTER October 1, 2001 which is inaccurate.

Why would the saudi government allow the US to slander 15 of their citizens if 9 of them are still alive? Hmmm?


While "the calls from the planes" claim that each plane had between 4 and 5 skyjackers on board. Do you mean to tell us that OBL couldn't find 19 Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist to carry out his planned attacks? Well, that's pretty much in line with his original claim that he had nothing to do with these attacks. At least that was the story before the fake videos of him claiming success etc., began being found in the hills of Afghanistan. Go figure, eh?

Woo hoo... now fatty bin laden.

wowsers twoof. You are all over the place... shotgun twoofing... and missing on EVERYTHING.

Have you asked your dr if lithium bicarbonate is right for you? Do that after you go back to school.

[triforcharity]

So much fail in one single post.

Just.....wow. Obiwon, that is quite comical. Do you plane on providing any sources for that utter ************?

[MRC_Hans]

Hahaha... Seems many of you, who are against the NPT, l are using the same bogus evidence that has already been admitted to be false. In any event, as far

*yada, yada, yada, ....*

that was the story before the fake videos of him claiming success etc., began being found in the hills of Afghanistan. Go figure, eh?

I really don't know, Obwon. Now all this just might have, well, not convinced, but made some people speculate in, say 2003. ... No, make that 2002.

However, in case you haven't noticed, we are now well into 2010. This means that loose allegations, direct lies, and silly technical mis info is soooo old hat. :nope:

At this point in time, the only thing that just might move things is evidence. New evidence, as existing evidence has been examined so many times. Solid new evidence, as existing evidence is pretty massively and consistently against inside jobs in general and no plane theories in particular.

....

Evidence... you do know what that word means, right? :dio:

... Look it up, just in case ... :rolleyes:

Hans

[Oystein]

In many aspects, in my personal experience, flying a jet is easier than driving a car. Taking off and landing are the tricky parts...two areas which the terrorist pilots had no interest in learning. Flying requires the knowledge of two things: Flight stick and throttle. Period. Once a jet is airborne, it's a matter of using the flight stick to point your nose (ie: steering wheel) in the direction you would like to go. The speed is controlled by the throttle (ie: gas pedal). Any acne-faced Xbox loving teen could fly a jet and not even look up from the bag of Funions.

How can you suggest the terrorists did not have the skills required to fly a plane, when it is truly a very simple process?

There's one thing that has always boggled my mind:
Truthers like to claim that the last mile before impact was too difficult for the highjackers to pull off, when in fact that is the easy part - just point your plane a big target and shout "Allah-u Akbar!"

When I did my MS FlightSim simulations, the really tricky part was finding Washington after turning the plane around in Ohio or West Virginia. That requires a couple more skills than you learn from Xbox-shooters.
Is any information available, from FDR maybe, how the hijackers navigated, or what training they had in navigation? If you train on a Cessna, how helpful is that for the navigation of a 7x7? And why have Truthers never claimed that finding Washington in the first place would have been beyond the skilles of thos Arab cavemen? (Finding New York is somewhat easier I think, even though I did not fly the same routes and instead came in directly from just north of Long Island).

[Arus808]

deleted nonsens

I'll be waiting to see those real videos of the real planes. I can't see them being forth coming because, all the ones they showed the public on 9-11 tv were fakes. Yes, and I know that there were "eyewitnesses" who say they saw what the cameras couldn't film. Which would you believe?
sorry, but I'll believe my Aunt and Uncle over a noname troll, and the millions of Americans who saw it live on tv and in person.

My aunt and uncle were in NY on 9/11 on their way to the WTC when they saw the first plane hit, just as they were a block away from the WTC. As they were evacuating with the rest of the workers, they witnessed the 2nd plane impact.

And unless you have proof otherwise, you are telling me they are liars; and anyone who says my autn and uncle are liars are pathetic losers and deserve to be ignored


People 3 pages , and you are all feeding this troll. He has 9 posts so far, and has generated a 100 reply thread. Do we really need to rehash 9 years of the same garbage in one thread?

[Furcifer]

Hahaha... Seems many of you, who are against the NPT, l are using the same bogus evidence that has already been admitted to be false. In any event, as far as plane debris, you have only to read the official stories answer, that the planes either vaporized or atomized on impact. That tells you that there wasn't any debris. The landing gear and the engine part, were both admitted to be not from either WTC plane.

How's that? Get it? The engine shown streaming from the tower trailing fire, which lands on Church street Near Murry, and is found there smoking! Is reported to have bounced off a car and left a hole in the street, is the wrong size engine for 767 and the FBI, NTSB admits that it did not come from either plane! Confirmed by the found part number! So what was it doing on Murry st. smoking, no less, if it didn't come on a skyjacked plane? But hey, that tells you something, if it's planted, which it is, then why plant it and call into question the 911 events? The answer, of course. is it has to be planted, because there are no planes.

Like I said, either you have planes, in which case you don't need or want false evidence around, or you don't have any planes, in which case the more false evidence the merrier, since it can hurt any worse than the truth.

And yes, of the 19 skyjackers 9 were found alive and one died a year before the 911 attacks. Yet they are not only listed as the skyjackers, one and all, but Bin Laden speaks highly of one of them, who was never involved!

Oh yes! And then you want to argue that that yellow pour that comes streaming out of the building is melted aluminum, but energy of the crash can only raise the temperature of the craft by 58 degrees f. The jet fuel is disbursed when it burns and cannot inject it's energy into the metal of the aircraft, nor does it burn hot enough to melt it. So you need another source for that yellow pour, the one you've been using doesn't get it.

Trying to say there was confusion about the skyjackers is a no go! The FBI published, not only the names, but their pictures and histories. So now you have only 9 possible skyjackers to populate 4 planes. While "the calls from the planes" claim that each plane had between 4 and 5 skyjackers on board. Do you mean to tell us that OBL couldn't find 19 Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist to carry out his planned attacks? Well, that's pretty much in line with his original claim that he had nothing to do with these attacks. At least that was the story before the fake videos of him claiming success etc., began being found in the hills of Afghanistan. Go figure, eh?

You can't help yourself if you continue to lie. Again,this is the wrong forum to bring lies to and expect people to believe them blindly.

[MRC_Hans]

sorry, but I'll believe my Aunt and Uncle over a noname troll, and the millions of Americans who saw it live on tv and in person.

My aunt and uncle were in NY on 9/11 on their way to the WTC when they saw the first plane hit, just as they were a block away from the WTC. As they were evacuating with the rest of the workers, they witnessed the 2nd plane impact.

And unless you have proof otherwise, you are telling me they are liars; and anyone who says my autn and uncle are liars are pathetic losers and deserve to be ignored


People 3 pages , and you are all feeding this troll. He has 9 posts so far, and has generated a 100 reply thread. Do we really need to rehash 9 years of the same garbage in one thread?Well, I suppose we need to learn not to stop and look at car wrecks.

Hans

[twinstead]

Yea, normally I like to give those with alternative viewpoints the benefit of the doubt but as a general rule, no planers are either idiots or insane, and you can't have a constructive debate with either.

[X]

Are you having a laugh, Obwon?

[MRC_Hans]

Are you having a laugh, Obwon?He may be, the question is on who it really is. ;)

Hans

ETA: Even if too many people take too much time throwing pepples at the village idiot, he remains ... the village idiot.

[Sabretooth]

When I did my MS FlightSim simulations, the really tricky part was finding Washington after turning the plane around in Ohio or West Virginia. That requires a couple more skills than you learn from Xbox-shooters.

Keep in mind, though, that PC flight sims can only show terrain to a minimal degree and at minimal visibility range. All the terrorists really needed to know was to fly East of their position. Being that the weather was very good for VFR flight rules on 9/11, locating DC by sight would have been relatively easy.

[Grizzly Bear]

I'll be waiting to see those real videos of the real planes. I can't see them being forth coming because, all the ones they showed the public on 9-11 tv were fakes. Yes, and I know that there were "eyewitnesses" who say they saw what the cameras couldn't film. Which would you believe?
Heh, one of the few believers in TV fakery I ever met in person still said he believed the planes hit the towers. Mainly because he couldn't reconcile the witnesses both near and far to where the crashes took place, the DNA identification which later followed, the debris that was recovered and photographed/filmed, and all of the culminating evidence pointing to it. I don't think it should be any surprise when people start calling you a lunatic when you're making this sort of argument. It quite literally makes the controlled demolition theories look sane in comparison. You're free to believe whatever you want but don't expect to be taken seriously with the sort of non-evidence that is associated with the no-plane theory. Just my 2 cents on things here

[Oystein]

Keep in mind, though, that PC flight sims can only show terrain to a minimal degree and at minimal visibility range. All the terrorists really needed to know was to fly East of their position. Being that the weather was very good for VFR flight rules on 9/11, locating DC by sight would have been relatively easy.

When I get close enough to recognize landmarks such as The Mall, the Pentagon, a large airport - yes, that would close the deal. My experience from flying as a passenger on commercial planes however is that I rarely can tell one city from another, one mountain range from another, one lake or river from another. I have recognized Berlin only when I was already near the city limits, and I have once identified Cologne while doing a turn over Düsseldorf, from maybe 20 miles away, by spotting its famous cathedral. But most of the time when I fly to Düsseldorf I just know that this blob over there must be Cologne because I trust that the pilot found Düsseldorf alright, this must be the Rhine river, I am looking south, and that blob looks like a big city.

Like I said, New York would be much easier, with its collection of tall, vertical landmarks, and the various waterways leading there.

[MRC_Hans]

Keep in mind, though, that PC flight sims can only show terrain to a minimal degree and at minimal visibility range. All the terrorists really needed to know was to fly East of their position. Being that the weather was very good for VFR flight rules on 9/11, locating DC by sight would have been relatively easy.

First of all, there is such a thing as GPS. GPS was commercially available in 2001, and even if it was not installed in the planes in question, which would surprise me, they could easily have brought portable GPS on board with them, complete with waypoints etc.

Even with no GPS, there are other navigational aids on an airliner. Since they were certified pilots, they MUST have learned to use those.

Even with no electronic aids, simple compass and dead reconing would have brought them in visual distance of their targets, on a clear day like that. Any boy scout or yachtsman could do it.

Hans

[Oystein]

...
Even with no GPS, there are other navigational aids on an airliner. Since they were certified pilots, they MUST have learned to use those.

Even with no electronic aids, simple compass and dead reconing would have brought them in visual distance of their targets, on a clear day like that. Any boy scout or yachtsman could do it.

Hans

True true true, but all that is still more difficult than moving the horn left, right, up, down to hit a big target sitting still in bright sunshine before you.

I know I can go to a private airfield and fly a round with an instructor. Mind you, me doing the flying: Takeoff, cruise a little, return. I think the instructor would only land. Oh and he would tell me where to go in case I lost sight of the airfield.
If the hijackers learned only one thing in their flight training, it's how to locate the yoke, and push it forward, back, left right to fly down, up, left right.

[MRC_Hans]

True true true, but all that is still more difficult than moving the horn left, right, up, down to hit a big target sitting still in bright sunshine before you.

I know I can go to a private airfield and fly a round with an instructor. Mind you, me doing the flying: Takeoff, cruise a little, return. I think the instructor would only land. Oh and he would tell me where to go in case I lost sight of the airfield.
If the hijackers learned only one thing in their flight training, it's how to locate the yoke, and push it forward, back, left right to fly down, up, left right.Not wrong, but irrelevant, because the hijacker pilots were provably certified pilots, which means that they had received a number of flying lessons, and flown solo. They had also had simulator lessons on the airliner types in question, so even if my aunt could have hit the targets, the hijackers were far better educated than that.

I think it must be the 'cavemen from Afganistan' meme that comes in here. They were not cavemen (and not from Afganistan); they were intelligent, well-educated young men, with actual pilot training. There was absolutely no part of the flying done on that day that they should have had any difficulty doing.

Hans

[Oystein]

...
I think it must be the 'cavemen from Afganistan' meme that comes in here. They were not cavemen (and not from Afganistan); they were intelligent, well-educated young men, with actual pilot training. There was absolutely no part of the flying done on that day that they should have had any difficulty doing.

Hans

My point exactly.

I was wondering why many truthers hang onto that claim that Hanjour or the others could not fly well enough to hit a target that they already see, but no one, AFAIK, has argued that they would have been too dumb to navigate to their targets.

[Sabretooth]

When I get close enough to recognize landmarks such as The Mall, the Pentagon, a large airport - yes, that would close the deal. My experience from flying as a passenger on commercial planes however is that I rarely can tell one city from another, one mountain range from another, one lake or river from another.

True, but looking forward is a much different experience. While I don't have any specific data, I would venture a guess that visibility on such a clear day as 9/11 would have been in the 40-50 miles range.

Assuming that visibility range (I'm not pretending that it's fact, it's just an educated guess), a total of 5 minutes looking at a regular old state map points out some glaring natural landmarks. Most notably that DC is approximately 20 miles west of Chesapeake Bay. Next “water mark” is that DC forms on a peninsula (of sorts) on the Potomac. Those two MAJOR terrain land marks would show up rather well in your view on a day like 9/11.

Another point to ponder is the ILS and Beacon nav equipment. Minimal training on the nav system would allow someone to point a virtual direction arrow to Ronald Reagan Airport. DC is a whopping 2 miles north of said airport just on the other side of the Potomac.

Navigating to DC would have taken very little preparation on the part of the “cavemen”. ;)

Is it wrong that everytime I hear “cavemen” I am visualizing Geico? :confused:

[pgimeno]

Who says the planes "vaporized on impact"?

Loose Change.

No, really. I have tried hard to find a clue of where this myth came from. The closest I have found is this:

Figure 11 is a photograph taken in A&E drive showing a 9 foot diameter "exit wound" where the plane debris exited the C ring. There were very few identifiable plane parts in the wreckage. Most of the plane disintegrated from the intense heat of the fireball. Other than some fire and smoke damage, there was a relatively small amount of damage in the A and B rings.

Leo J. Titus, A Review of the Temporary Shoring at the Pentagon (http://www.ukusar.com/downloads/TemporaryShoring_at_the_Pentagon.pdf), p.12 (15 in the PDF).

Now, disintegrate is not quite the same as vaporize. And I don't think Mr. Titus is an expert of anything related to fires or aircraft crash investigation.

So, the only explanation I've found is that the LC authors made that up.

[Sabretooth]

So, the only explanation I've found is that the LC authors made that up.

:jaw-dropp you don't say!

[ktesibios]

First of all, there is such a thing as GPS. GPS was commercially available in 2001, and even if it was not installed in the planes in question, which would surprise me, they could easily have brought portable GPS on board with them, complete with waypoints etc.

Even with no GPS, there are other navigational aids on an airliner. Since they were certified pilots, they MUST have learned to use those.
Hans

the NTSB published a study of the use of autopilot and navigational aids on AA77 and UA93, based on informatin from the flight data recorders, which record autopilot settings and VOR receiver tuning:

Study of Autopilot, Navigation Equipment, and Fuel Consumption Activity
Based on United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77
Digital Flight Data Recorder Information (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf)

It shows that the hijackers did avail themselves of these labor-saving devices, using VOR to point the way to Washington and using the autopilot in heading mode to steer the planes in that direction.

Since no FDRs were recovered in New York we can't know just how the hijackers of AA11 and UA175 found their way to their targets, but even without electronic aids something like "fly south of east until you come to a river flowing from north to south. Turn right and fly south along the river. Keep your eyes peeled for a hazy dome of air pollution on the horizon." would probably have worked to find NYC.

[Corsair 115]

Even with no GPS, there are other navigational aids on an airliner.


VOR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range) is one of those others. It's been around for over fifty years. Most PC flight sims will have it among the instruments you can use in the simulation.

[firecoins]

That is beyond the scope of this exercise. This is to focus on; planes or no planes and the reasons why either is the more rational choice.
WOW. It isn't rational to know where the passangers and crew of the "non planes" are? Really? These people were found at the crash sites dead along with the remains of the hijackers you say weren't there. Rational choice; the planes existed.

[George152]

As to VFR navgation all you need is an aeronautical chart and the terrain.
Find where you are then where you want to go
whizz.wheel and protractor give you the compass course to fly and the ETA.
Thousands of pilots do this every day

[bill smith]

I think the evidence for no-planes may have been planted as a way to label no-plane Truthers as crazy thus dividing the Truth Movement and generally confusing the issue.

[Furcifer]

I think the evidence for no-planes may have been planted as a way to label no-plane Truthers as crazy thus dividing the Truth Movement and generally confusing the issue.

I think after 9 years people will try to rationalize just about anything to further their own twisted agendas.

But it doesn't matter what I think, it's all about what I can prove.

[bill smith]

I think after 9 years people will try to rationalize just about anything to further their own twisted agendas.

But it doesn't matter what I think, it's all about what I can prove.

No it's a matter of what people can be persuaded of. You are free to try and persuade them back if you can. It depends on the strength of the presentation.

Read my sig for some insight..

[Furcifer]

No it's a matter of what people can be persuaded of. You are free to try and persuade them back if you can. It depends on the strength of the presentation.

Read my sig for some insight..

Baby steps, I just took you off ignore a couple weeks ago. I'm not going to bother turning back on sig lines just yet.

It's a matter of critical thinking. You either have it and come to the proper conclusion based on the evidence or you don't and allow yourself to be persuaded. Not doubt it's the monkey on your back.

[Cobalt]

Is it 2006?

[bill smith]

Baby steps, I just took you off ignore a couple weeks ago. I'm not going to bother turning back on sig lines just yet.

It's a matter of critical thinking. You either have it and come to the proper conclusion based on the evidence or you don't and allow yourself to be persuaded. Not doubt it's the monkey on your back.

I think the best thing you could do is put me back on 'ignore' to be honest.

[MRC_Hans]

I think the evidence for no-planes may have been planted as a way to label no-plane Truthers as crazy thus dividing the Truth Movement and generally confusing the issue.Which evidence? Is there any evidence for no planes at all?


Hans

[bill smith]

Which evidence? Is there any evidence for no planes at all?


Hans

If I showed you you would probably run off as debunkers usually do.

[MRC_Hans]

If I showed you you would probably run off as debunkers usually do.I read that as "I don't have any".

But of course, English is not my first language.

Hans

[bill smith]

I read that as "I don't have any".

But of course, English is not my first language.

Hans

Uberhaupt..lol

[twinstead]

If by "run off" you mean "laugh hysterically", bill, then yes we would run off. It must be a language thing indeed.

[leftysergeant]

The idea that the planes "vaporized" was inserted into the meme by a terrorist sympathizer with some military experiencew, so the twoofers just assumed that he was telling them some solid scientific facts.

General Benton Partin explained the flash of white on impact at the Pentagon as the aluminum aircraft vaporizing.

To most of us non-morons with fire fighting experience, it looked more like a high-speed water balloon burst. The fact that the first sign of a fireball was just slightly larger than the limits of that hemisphere of white mist/light/vapor or whatever supports that it was jet fuel.

Partin was probably willing to side with the government on this one because he saw the Shrub and his merry morons as being more sympathetic toward the terrorists whom Partin would like them to lend some support, and was quite willing to pull from his underwear the same sort of evidence that he used to defend another of his favorite terorists in the Murrah bombing.

Partin is not one of the more loyal officers in America's armed forces.

[bill smith]

If by "run off" you mean "laugh hysterically", bill, then yes we would run off. It must be a language thing indeed.

But you always laugh hystericaly Twinstead- regardless. You have even adnitted as much in previous posts.

[triforcharity]

Ok, since the topic would be appropriate, please do so here Bill. Please show your evidence that proves the FAA and the NTSB, FBI, and the coroners of the respective states wrong.

I'll wait.......

[Furcifer]

I think the best thing you could do is put me back on 'ignore' to be honest.

But I've already watched every video at failblog.org:(

[bill smith]

Ok, since the topic would be appropriate, please do so here Bill. Please show your evidence that proves the FAA and the NTSB, FBI, and the coroners of the respective states wrong.

I'll wait.......

Don't. I'm busy for now and I'd like a bigger audience to blow away.

[triforcharity]

So, you plan on blowing more smoke up our rear ends? How exciting.....:rolleyes:

[Sabretooth]

Don't. I'm busy for now and I'd like a bigger audience to blow away.

Careful. Big brother is watching. Wouldn't want them to get the wrong idea.

;)

[pgimeno]

General Benton Partin explained the flash of white on impact at the Pentagon as the aluminum aircraft vaporizing.

Oh gosh! Is that really the basis for that claim? For what I can remember, Partin's hypothesis was that *part* of the aluminium from the fuselage turned into powder on collision and burned. How was that turned into "the entire plane vaporized" and how is that an "official explanation"? Even some truther sites agree with the version of Partin's hypothesis I've outlined, e.g. 911review.com/errors/phantom/flash.html (I think that's from Jim Hoffman who is a believer in the Pentagon plane).

To most of us non-morons with fire fighting experience, it looked more like a high-speed water balloon burst. The fact that the first sign of a fireball was just slightly larger than the limits of that hemisphere of white mist/light/vapor or whatever supports that it was jet fuel.

That's interesting and would explain the Pentagon flash, but leaves the WTC 1 and 2 flashes unanswered, since these happen right when the tip of the plane touches the building and disappear immediately, long before the wings impact. I think Partin's hypothesis has some merit. The claim that aluminium bullets burn on impact gives it at least a bit of credibility. Of course that's not the same as saying that the whole of the fuselage vaporized, let alone the whole of the plane.

[twinstead]

I'm afraid there will never be a bigger audience than you have right here bill.

[Sabretooth]

That's interesting and would explain the Pentagon flash, but leaves the WTC 1 and 2 flashes unanswered, since these happen right when the tip of the plane touches the building and disappear immediately.

I have an opinion on the whole "white flash" thing - and I apologize in advance if this has already been covered as I've not taken the time to search the forums:

Jets that travel at high speeds produce compressed air that appears as a bright white vapor. I've heard it called "subsonic vapor" among other things. Scientifically, this phenomena is known as the "Prandtl-Glauert singularity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prandtl%E2%80%93Glauert_singularity

Basically, the convergence of the aircraft on to the WTC’s created pocket of compressed air, which produced the bright white burst.

Again, this is just my personal opinion/hypothesis…I’m not claiming right or wrong. But it is possible, no? Just a thought to toss into the discussion.

Pic of the singularity effect on a military F-18/A is attached for review.

[Chorduroy]

I'm convinced Obwon is an insufferable troll. Nobody can be that deluded, can they?

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm convinced Obwon is an insufferable troll. Nobody can be that deluded, can they?

Jammonious is on equal footing with Obwon. And the former has been at it here for much longer :)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Basically, the convergence of the aircraft on to the WTC’s created pocket of compressed air, which produced the bright white burst.

Again, this is just my personal opinion/hypothesis…I’m not claiming right or wrong. But it is possible, no? Just a thought to toss into the discussion.

Good opinion!

But it's not possible for a commercial airliner to travel faster than the speed of sound while in level flight.

757 cruising speed: 530 mph
767 cruising speed: 590 mph

Speed of sound: 768 mph

[Sabretooth]

Good opinion!

But it's not possible for a commercial airliner to travel faster than the speed of sound while in level flight.

757 cruising speed: 530 mph
767 cruising speed: 590 mph

Speed of sound: 768 mph

If I remember correctly, it's not necessary to break the sound barrier. I'm sure I can find a video or two that shows aircraft creating the vapor at speeds well below Mach.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If I remember correctly, it's not necessary to break the sound barrier. I'm sure I can find a video or two that shows aircraft creating the vapor at speeds well below Mach.

Just as long as it's a commercial jet not in a dive, then you'd be in the clear.

[pgimeno]

Basically, the convergence of the aircraft on to the WTC’s created pocket of compressed air, which produced the bright white burst.

I don't think that's what is seen. The burst is just white; the bright part comes from sunlight, as can be observed in the lower half of your pic. The planes' noses are supposed to be fairly aerodynamic, so I don't think there can be that much compression of air on that part at that speed. Also, the WTC had a "square wave" profile, so before that much pressure was created, I would thing it might escape by one of the "valleys" or break the window behind it.

The WTC2 flashes seem to be quite bright even with not so much light, see e.g. http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html#flash. In one of the frames it has a reddish look.

That's also my opinion, I can't discard your explanation.

[Titanic Explorer]

I'm still amazed our resident tinfoil hat no planer Jammy asserts no planes hit the WTC, and the airplane debris found on the streets (and on nearby rooftops) was

(A) planted

and

(B) not really airplane debris.

HOW can any sane person draw such bizzare conclusions?

[leftysergeant]

Oh gosh! Is that really the basis for that claim? For what I can remember, Partin's hypothesis was that *part* of the aluminium from the fuselage turned into powder on collision and burned. How was that turned into "the entire plane vaporized" and how is that an "official explanation"?

The twoofers take it as an official statement because he was a general. That he is a nutbar who usually takes an anti-government stand seems to escape them.

I seriously doubt that any great percentage of the plane vaporized or burned on impact. This would be inconsistant with the amount of penetration that the 9/11 oplanes and some of the WWII Kamikazes achieved.


That's interesting and would explain the Pentagon flash, but leaves the WTC 1 and 2 flashes unanswered, since these happen right when the tip of the plane touches the building and disappear immediately, long before the wings impact.

I think it more resembles the flash in the Phantom concrete test. That did not consume any great amount of the aircraft.

[Titanic Explorer]

From what I have seen, most Truthers are 'no planers'.
Very few of them are 'WTC no planers' like Jammy, but quite a few of them are 'Pentagon no-planers' and 'Shanksville No planers'. I have yet to meet the Truther who beleived that a plane flew into the Pentagon.

One thing the no-planers do not like to talk about are the people who were on the planes. They can't explain away the fact that these people really existed and haven't been seen alive since 9/11, so they just wave their arms and wish them away. (Like Jammy has done on other threads with Ed Felt and Betty Ong).
I've heard some Truther tinfoil hatters claim the people and planes existed, but landed at an undisclosed location, where the passengers were killed.

[pgimeno]

The twoofers take it as an official statement because he was a general. That he is a nutbar who usually takes an anti-government stand seems to escape them.

Oh got it. It was an official who said that, so it's official.

/facepalm

I seriously doubt that any great percentage of the plane vaporized or burned on impact.

I agree on this, for all three planes. A very tiny portion did, if at all.

[Sabretooth]

Just as long as it's a commercial jet not in a dive, then you'd be in the clear.

Here's one of an airliner producing a vapor tube while landing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIvdcEiB_fU

Similar situation. Vapor starts around the 30 second mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxU0b-2FBfs

The vapor is caused by air compression due to the airflow over the wings. Despite the aerodynamic curvature of the nose of an airliner, it's not perfect (which is obvious when considering drag).

Again, just an observation. I suppose I could put a lot of time into this...but I believe this is far more plausible than a missile, bomb, or no-plane. ;)

[pgimeno]

From what I have seen, most Truthers are 'no planers'.
Very few of them are 'WTC no planers' like Jammy, but quite a few of them are 'Pentagon no-planers' and 'Shanksville No planers'. I have yet to meet the Truther who beleived that a plane flew into the Pentagon.

I've seen a few, but not on forums.

Jim Hoffman thinks that the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory is a "booby trap" for truthers to be easily debunked:
911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

Oil Empire authors think that the planes were remote-controlled [ETA: and surprisingly don't simultaneously think that there were no planes]:
www.oilempire.us/remote.html

The ISGP author is a LIHOP one, I think, don't remember exactly:
www.isgp.eu/disinformation/911/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm

One thing the no-planers do not like to talk about are the people who were on the planes.
Indeed, the OP immediately dodged that question when he was asked on that matter.

There's a thread dedicated to that:

How do no-planers explain away the people who were on the planes? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=181310)

[Chorduroy]

Don't. I'm busy for now and I'd like a bigger audience to blow away.

So, you have evidence proving that 9/11 is an inside job, and you are ...

too "busy"?

What could possibly be more important? Shouldn't you be working 24/7 to expose this evidence?

I'm going to go ahead and assume the "evidence" isn't terribly strong.

[bill smith]

So, you have evidence proving that 9/11 is an inside job, and you are ...

too "busy"?

What could possibly be more important? Shouldn't you be working 24/7 to expose this evidence?

I'm going to go ahead and assume the "evidence" isn't terribly strong.

I think I will wait until you are a little less wet behind the ears.

[The Platypus]

I think I will wait until you are a little less wet behind the ears.


Which is nothing but a dodge because you have no evidence...

[twinstead]

If anything on this Earth is obvious it is that bill has:

1. A great imagination
2. No real evidence of an inside job whatsoever

[dafydd]

If anything on this Earth is obvious it is that bill has:

1. A great imagination
2. No real evidence of an inside job whatsoever

And nothing else to do.

[DGM]

And nothing else to do.
I don't know about that! I think he/she (I don't think it's ever been determined) has either a new job or a girl/boy friend (not that this would determine the sex of "bill smith" :D). He/she has been posting a lot less lately and has taken long breaks in the recent past between posts. I'm hoping for boy/girl friend, He/she always stuck me as someone that needed to get laid.

:D

[Furcifer]

If anything on this Earth is obvious it is that bill has:

1. A great imagination
2. No real evidence of an inside job whatsoever

None at all. He's just trolling, waiting for "The One". Eventually, like a million monkeys at a million typerwriters, someone will come up with a theory that makes sense.

Gotta give it to him for trying. "DEW's, bounced off of flying orbs, that look like planes, ignite the super nanothermite, Silverstein, in the library, with a candlestick?"

No Clue.

[triforcharity]

I have an opinion on the whole "white flash" thing - and I apologize in advance if this has already been covered as I've not taken the time to search the forums:

Jets that travel at high speeds produce compressed air that appears as a bright white vapor. I've heard it called "subsonic vapor" among other things. Scientifically, this phenomena is known as the "Prandtl-Glauert singularity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prandtl%E2%80%93Glauert_singularity

Basically, the convergence of the aircraft on to the WTC’s created pocket of compressed air, which produced the bright white burst.

Again, this is just my personal opinion/hypothesis…I’m not claiming right or wrong. But it is possible, no? Just a thought to toss into the discussion.

Pic of the singularity effect on a military F-18/A is attached for review.

Or, possibly static electricity?

[Reheat]

I have an opinion on the whole "white flash" thing - and I apologize in advance if this has already been covered as I've not taken the time to search the forums:

Jets that travel at high speeds produce compressed air that appears as a bright white vapor. I've heard it called "subsonic vapor" among other things. Scientifically, this phenomena is known as the "Prandtl-Glauert singularity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prandtl%E2%80%93Glauert_singularity

Basically, the convergence of the aircraft on to the WTC’s created pocket of compressed air, which produced the bright white burst.

Again, this is just my personal opinion/hypothesis…I’m not claiming right or wrong. But it is possible, no? Just a thought to toss into the discussion.


Or, possibly static electricity?


Static electricity or a reflection is a better explanation. The vapors being discussed are quite common at high subsonic speeds and in very humid air. However they occur in areas of low pressure on the aircraft such as, above the wings (particularly the wing tip area) and around areas of the fuselage where lift is being produced (this would occur mostly with fighters when pulling G's in humid air). It is quite doubtful that these vapors would ever form around the radome of a commercial airliner. I have never seen them form in this area either on a commercial airliner or a fighter.

[AaronMHatch]

I'm sorry to make a new thread regarding 911, but I could find only one thread on this forum mentioning septemberclues.info.

www.septemberclues.info

The intro page has a video explaining how the planes were added graphically to news broadcasts. What amazes me is how they base much of their argument on the one premise that the tip of the plane could not remain intact on their on the other side of the tower.

Is there any scientific proof that the tip could not remain intact?

[Reheat]

Is there any scientific proof that the tip could not remain intact?

What evidence exists that what exits on the opposite side of the building was the tip?

[Furcifer]

I'm sorry to make a new thread regarding 911, but I could find only one thread on this forum mentioning septemberclues.info.

www.septemberclues.info

The intro page has a video explaining how the planes were added graphically to news broadcasts. What amazes me is how they base much of their argument on the one premise that the tip of the plane could not remain intact on their on the other side of the tower.

Is there any scientific proof that the tip could not remain intact?

Anything's possible. But if I remember correctly, someone did a video analysis an it's just part of the way the camera interpolates images. It isn't the nose cone.

Someone will be along shortly to expand on this.

[AaronMHatch]

What evidence exists that what exits on the opposite side of the building was the tip?

My roommate suggested that it could be an imprint of the shockwave rather than the tip.

[beachnut]

I'm sorry to make a new thread regarding 911, but I could find only one thread on this forum mentioning septemberclues.info.

www.septemberclues.info (http://www.septemberclues.info)

The intro page has a video explaining how the planes were added graphically to news broadcasts. What amazes me is how they base much of their argument on the one premise that the tip of the plane could not remain intact on their on the other side of the tower.

Is there any scientific proof that the tip could not remain intact?
lol, the planes nose is fiberglass.

septemberclues is total nonsense

How did the planes get added to thousands of people's eyes?

[Furcifer]

What evidence exists that what exits on the opposite side of the building was the tip?

lol, I think "nondescript pointy blob" looks like "nondescript pointy blob" theory.

[Furcifer]

My roommate suggested that it could be an imprint of the shockwave rather than the tip.

The plane was subsonic on the entrance side, let alone the exit side :boggled:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm sorry to make a new thread regarding 911, but I could find only one thread on this forum mentioning septemberclues.info

You didn't look hard enough.

Spam post reported to mods.

[Reheat]

My roommate suggested that it could be an imprint of the shockwave rather than the tip.

It was more likely an engine or a landing gear.

[AaronMHatch]

You didn't look hard enough.

Spam post reported to mods.

Thanks, buddy. Very helpful. Care to explain why when I search for septemberclues.info I only find a couple posts that don't discuss the site itself? What should I have searched for?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Thanks, buddy. Very helpful. Care to explain why when I search for septemberclues.info I only find a couple posts that don't discuss the site itself? What should I have searched for?

Try thread titles that have "no plane" in them. I count at least three on the front page.

[Furcifer]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84152&page=2

Have a read.

[AaronMHatch]

Try thread titles that have "no plane" in them. I count at least three on the front page.

Ah, so no other threads regarding the site.

Thanks, 3bodyproblem.

[beachnut]

Ah, so no other threads regarding the site.

Thanks, 3bodyproblem.
The web site is presenting delusional lies. This has been covered, the septemberclues was found to be lies and moronic lies.

[Foolmewunz]

Are we responsible for viewing and reviewing every idiotic site? That group appears to be in the "not enough science to understand even Ace Baker" category. They actually state, in their introduction page, that there were NO PRIVATE VIDEOS of the events of that day.

In order to support that, you either have to believe in a totally insane and impossibly vast conspiracy, or you have to be the most paranoid individual on the face of the earth.

They have no traffic. When I checked in, there were six visitors and no members on line. And the six visitors were probably all from here.

Ignore them. It's the Teletubby Truthers. Children playing games. (Read some of the threads. They do a lot of ROTFLing and LLMAOing about stuff they have no clue about.)

[Furcifer]

Ah, so no other threads regarding the site.

Thanks, 3bodyproblem.

No problem. I did a quick refresher and it does appear to be a compression artifact or the right engine of the plane. It's so hard to tell because the video has been compressed and tampered with some many times.

I couldn't find the exact post, but one of the resident video experts did an analysis and they explored the effects of compression on the video and how the clip was the right length that the algorithm may have taken the image and then compressed it.

If you read that thread, Dave Rogers makes several great observations about how ridiculous it would be to use that video as a template for a fake video.

[Sabretooth]

It is quite doubtful that these vapors would ever form around the radome of a commercial airliner. I have never seen them form in this area either on a commercial airliner or a fighter.

I agree as I have not seen it before either. But prior to 911 I never saw airliners crash into a building at 500+ mph.

I brought it up because of how compressed air acts. Once compressed enough, it tends to give off a white cloud.

This simple enough to recreate without leaving your couch. For about 30 seconds, just force as much pressure on the air in your mouth as you can. At the end of the 30 seconds, open your mouth and puff lightly. You produce a small amount of white vapor.

A plane hitting a building has to cause some compression. So I felt it could be possible to have some sort of vapor appear.

[Fonebone]

Static electricity or a reflection is a better explanation. The vapors being discussed are quite common at high subsonic speeds and in very humid air. However they occur in areas of low pressure on the aircraft such as, above the wings (particularly the wing tip area) and around areas of the fuselage where lift is being produced (this would occur mostly with fighters when pulling G's in humid air). It is quite doubtful that these vapors would ever form around the radome of a commercial airliner. I have never seen them form in this area either on a commercial airliner or a fighter.

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.
The flash was created by a Advanced Unitary Penetrator AUP3 shape charge
made of depleted uranium that pyrolyzes an entry hole into fortified and hardened bunker doors or walls.
The entry hole glows orange because the
outer edge of the entry hole is molten metal.
The cruise missiles that struck the WTC1 and the pentagon were likewise breached by DU solid shape charge bunker buster AUP penetrators.
The DU AUP is propelled out from the missile nose with an explosive charge microseconds before the cruise missile strikes the target.
As the dU penetrator strikes the target the kinetic mass contained in the depleted uranium is ignited by friction into a white hot slug of molten material creating the flash as it burns an entrance hole.
Solid DU antitank rounds can easily penetrate 10 inches of tank armor without explosives.

[dtugg]

I'm still amazed our resident tinfoil hat no planer Jammy asserts no planes hit the WTC, and the airplane debris found on the streets (and on nearby rooftops) was

(A) planted

and

(B) not really airplane debris.

HOW can any sane person draw such bizzare conclusions?

Who said jammy is sane?

[dtugg]

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.
The flash was created by a Advanced Unitary Penetrator AUP3 shape charge
made of depleted uranium that pyrolyzes an entry hole into fortified and hardened bunker doors or walls.
The entry hole glows orange because the
outer edge of the entry hole is molten metal.
The cruise missiles that struck the WTC1 and the pentagon were likewise breached by DU solid shape charge bunker buster AUP penetrators.
The DU AUP is propelled out from the missile nose with an explosive charge microseconds before the cruise missile strikes the target.
As the dU penetrator strikes the target the kinetic mass contained in the depleted uranium is ignited by friction into a white hot slug of molten material creating the flash as it burns an entrance hole.
Solid DU antitank rounds can easily penetrate 10 inches of tank armor without explosives.

Evidence? j/k, you of course will not be producing any.

[SezMe]

This info is used to determine how many roasted chickens with paste ....
Best typo of the month. :)

[Furcifer]

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.
The flash was created by a Advanced Unitary Penetrator AUP3 shape charge
made of depleted uranium that pyrolyzes an entry hole into fortified and hardened bunker doors or walls.
The entry hole glows orange because the
outer edge of the entry hole is molten metal.
The cruise missiles that struck the WTC1 and the pentagon were likewise breached by DU solid shape charge bunker buster AUP penetrators.
The DU AUP is propelled out from the missile nose with an explosive charge microseconds before the cruise missile strikes the target.
As the dU penetrator strikes the target the kinetic mass contained in the depleted uranium is ignited by friction into a white hot slug of molten material creating the flash as it burns an entrance hole.
Solid DU antitank rounds can easily penetrate 10 inches of tank armor without explosives.

Yah, duh!

Static electricity, whatever :rolleyes:

[Captain_Swoop]

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.
The flash was created by a Advanced Unitary Penetrator AUP3 shape charge
made of depleted uranium that pyrolyzes an entry hole into fortified and hardened bunker doors or walls.
The entry hole glows orange because the
outer edge of the entry hole is molten metal.
The cruise missiles that struck the WTC1 and the pentagon were likewise breached by DU solid shape charge bunker buster AUP penetrators.
The DU AUP is propelled out from the missile nose with an explosive charge microseconds before the cruise missile strikes the target.
As the dU penetrator strikes the target the kinetic mass contained in the depleted uranium is ignited by friction into a white hot slug of molten material creating the flash as it burns an entrance hole.
Solid DU antitank rounds can easily penetrate 10 inches of tank armor without explosives.

You do have some evidence that a Cruise Missile can be disguised as an Airliner?

If that's what happened where did the real airliner go? What happened to all the passengers and crew?

[Captain_Swoop]

They are stealing ideas from some of the well known Apollo Hoax proponents, they are clueless as well.

[bill smith]

What evidence exists that what exits on the opposite side of the building was the tip?


If you look at the attached video you will note that the the way the plane transfixes the building is one unbroken contiguous movement. Imagine it as if a pencil had been stuck through. The continuous movement would have looked the same. So what emerges has to be the nose because nothing else could have gotten ahead of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvWwIxMbmE

[T.A.M.]

If you look at the attached video you will note that the the way the plane transfixes the building is one unbroken contiguous movement. Imagine it as if a pencil had been stuck through. The continuous movement would have looked the same. So what emerges has to be the nose because nothing else could have gotten ahead of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvWwIxMbmE

1. Not true. You are assuming a perfect path through with no resistance to slow down certain parts. What if the tip hit a steel column just prior to exiting the other side of the building? the rest of the plane would likely continue on at the same rate, while the cone would either be (A) destroyed, or (B) at least slowed down.

2. The video is not close enough and not of high enough resolution to make the claims that are being made. They know it and we know it, but they choose to ignore that.

3. Even if it is the nose cone material, like I said, the video is not close enough or high enough resolution to state definitively that cone was in tact on exit.

This stuff has been covered in detail, but often not under the thread heading bearing the title...so lets cut Aaron some slack.

TAM:)

[Sabretooth]

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.
The flash was created by a Advanced Unitary Penetrator AUP3 shape charge
made of depleted uranium that pyrolyzes an entry hole into fortified and hardened bunker doors or walls.
The entry hole glows orange because the
outer edge of the entry hole is molten metal.
The cruise missiles that struck the WTC1 and the pentagon were likewise breached by DU solid shape charge bunker buster AUP penetrators.
The DU AUP is propelled out from the missile nose with an explosive charge microseconds before the cruise missile strikes the target.
As the dU penetrator strikes the target the kinetic mass contained in the depleted uranium is ignited by friction into a white hot slug of molten material creating the flash as it burns an entrance hole.
Solid DU antitank rounds can easily penetrate 10 inches of tank armor without explosives.

Wait...is this for real? I mean, if it's not, where's the j/k at the end?

[leftysergeant]

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.

Show me that such technology exists outside the mind of a hashish-crazed troll typing BS to the ionternet from his mama's basement.


Solid DU antitank rounds can easily penetrate 10 inches of tank armor without explosives.
So freaking WHAT? Show me an explosive device that can cut airplane-shaped holes in three buildings and an abandoned mining pit and you have something more than a wooden nickel's worth of innuendo to support tyour blather.

[leftysergeant]

Static electricity or a reflection is a better explanation. Or the same phenomenon we see in the Phantom-meets-wall video.

The vapors being discussed are quite common at high subsonic speeds and in very humid air. However they occur in areas of low pressure on the aircraft such as, above the wings (particularly the wing tip area) and around areas of the fuselage where lift is being produced (this would occur mostly with fighters when pulling G's in humid air).

I have seen it surrounding a B-1 at an airshow at McChord AFB (where it is so humid that any stationary object will grow moss.)

It is quite doubtful that these vapors would ever form around the radome of a commercial airliner. I have never seen them form in this area either on a commercial airliner or a fighter.

It probably did nopt play a significant role in the WTC attacks. It might explain the shock wave on impact at the Pentagon.

[ElMondoHummus]

My roommate suggested that it could be an imprint of the shockwave rather than the tip.

There's no need to restrict your analysis to the video. Since this is a live event which left physical evidence behind, we can also take into account the debris that was found. And it has been documented that various parts were found on the buildings rooftops and streets below. Helpful illustration:
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/GoodFEMADiagram1-4.jpg

Specifically, a large engine part was found on the intersection of Church and Murray, landing gear was found on top of 45 Park Place, and a part of the fuselage was found on top of WTC 5.

Engine:
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/wtcengine4.jpg

Fuselage:
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/FL175Fuselage-WTC5.jpg

(If imagry of the landing gear on the roof of 45 Park Place exists, I'm unaware of it).

Anyway, in summary: There's no need to restrict your scope to the September Clues video itself. We know what came out the other side of the building because it was recovered on the streets and rooftops below. Whatever it was, there's no reason to believe it was the nosecone.

More info:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2604892#post2604892
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2339101#post2339101
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97636
None of the links are for the actual septemberclues.info page itself, but since all that site does is put to text elements of the September Clues video, they function as a rebuttal to it anyway.

ETA: Ooops. Sorry, folks. Link copy/paste fail. Corrected the second photo link to go to the proper picture.

[triforcharity]

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.
The flash was created by a Advanced Unitary Penetrator AUP3 shape charge
made of depleted uranium that pyrolyzes an entry hole into fortified and hardened bunker doors or walls.
The entry hole glows orange because the
outer edge of the entry hole is molten metal.
The cruise missiles that struck the WTC1 and the pentagon were likewise breached by DU solid shape charge bunker buster AUP penetrators.
The DU AUP is propelled out from the missile nose with an explosive charge microseconds before the cruise missile strikes the target.
As the dU penetrator strikes the target the kinetic mass contained in the depleted uranium is ignited by friction into a white hot slug of molten material creating the flash as it burns an entrance hole.
Solid DU antitank rounds can easily penetrate 10 inches of tank armor without explosives.

LOL!! Now we've gone into DU rounds? It just keeps getting better and better.

[ElMondoHummus]

LOL!! Now we've gone into DU rounds? It just keeps getting better and better.

I hate to say it, but that's actually been peddled before:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4111644#post4111644
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127109
Granted, the concept of a DU penetrator being put on a cruise missile is a new permutation of it, but it's still nothing more than a crock. It's a Frankenstein's monster of truther pieces-parts being stuck together because the individual truther thinks it sounds cool. All sound, no proof, a whole bunch of nothing. As per SOP for these guys.

[bill smith]

There's no need to restrict your analysis to the video. Since this is a live event which left physical evidence behind, we can also take into account the debris that was found. And it has been documented that various parts were found on the buildings rooftops and streets below. Helpful illustration:
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/GoodFEMADiagram1-4.jpg

Specifically, a large engine part was found on the intersection of Church and Murray, landing gear was found on top of 45 Park Place, and a part of the fuselage was found on top of WTC 5.

Engine:
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/wtcengine4.jpg

Fuselage:
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/nonsmileys/wtcengine4.jpg

(If imagry of the landing gear on the roof of 45 Park Place exists, I'm unaware of it).

Anyway, in summary: There's no need to restrict your scope to the September Clues video itself. We know what came out the other side of the building because it was recovered on the streets and rooftops below. Whatever it was, there's no reason to believe it was the nosecone.


More info:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2604892#post2604892
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2339101#post2339101
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97636
None of the links are for the actual septemberclues.info page itself, but since all that site does is put to text elements of the September Clues video, they function as a rebuttal to it anyway.

It's amazing that that neat wreckage- all nicely lined up for inspection and all was found on the roof of the building in the attached video AFTER the fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ

Maybe you would post the picture of the rooftop wreckage for people's amusement. Thank you.

PS. See the bottom picture in post #20 just above.

[Reheat]

If you look at the attached video you will note that the the way the plane transfixes the building is one unbroken contiguous movement. Imagine it as if a pencil had been stuck through. The continuous movement would have looked the same. So what emerges has to be the nose because nothing else could have gotten ahead of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvWwIxMbmE

That analysis based on the video and based on the chaotic momentum of an airliner crashing through a building is so utterly stupid it defies belief that anyone would type such drivel.

I have a sandbox in my back yard you can play in as opposed to cluttering this Forum with pure unadulterated crap. The cat won't bother you! :rolleyes:

[bill smith]

That analysis based on the video and based on the chaotic momentum of an airliner crashing through a building is so utterly stupid it defies belief that anyone would type such drivel.

I have a sandbox in my back yard you can play in as opposed to cluttering this Forum with pure unadulterated crap. The cat won't bother you! :rolleyes:

I guess the concerned vitizens looking in can just use their eyes and make their own judgement. Maybe they will think you are right or maybe they will think you are just a bit thuggish..

[Reheat]

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.
The flash was created by a Advanced Unitary Penetrator AUP3 shape charge
made of depleted uranium that pyrolyzes an entry hole into fortified and hardened bunker doors or walls.

I'd suggest that whatever you're smoking or drinking not be passed around. It's obviously dangerous.

[Reheat]

I guess the concerned vitizens looking in can just use their eyes and make their own judgement. Maybe they will think you are right or maybe they will think you are just a bit thuggish..

It's more likely that sane folks will think that you are impersonating one of the three stooges.

[bill smith]

It's more likely that sane folks will think that you are impersonating one of the three stooges.

Golly Gumdrops- do you really think so ? lol

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.
The flash was created by a Advanced Unitary Penetrator AUP3 shape charge
made of depleted uranium that pyrolyzes an entry hole into fortified and hardened bunker doors or walls.
The entry hole glows orange because the
outer edge of the entry hole is molten metal.
The cruise missiles that struck the WTC1 and the pentagon were likewise breached by DU solid shape charge bunker buster AUP penetrators.
The DU AUP is propelled out from the missile nose with an explosive charge microseconds before the cruise missile strikes the target.
As the dU penetrator strikes the target the kinetic mass contained in the depleted uranium is ignited by friction into a white hot slug of molten material creating the flash as it burns an entrance hole.
Solid DU antitank rounds can easily penetrate 10 inches of tank armor without explosives.

Whatever FB's taking, I don't want any! That post alone should constitute for pure insanity.

Next thing we know, we'll be eating food in the HoloDeck while watching the shoot out at the O.K. Corral.

[TruthersLie]

we have lots of evidence that september clues is ********.

1m_fD7RII_I

and we can't forget my favorite shredding of the no planer bs.... from ANOTHER TRUTHER.


Iu-OZOQXHwI

and

B6jS2Ah22us&feature=related

And here we go with the full 28 minute destruction of no planers.... by a truther of all people.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550#

[AaronMHatch]

Thanks for the help! I'm going to start reading the other threads discussing the no plane theory.

[TruthersLie]

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.

<facepalm>
oh my.... Yes you read it here first. It was CLOAKED.

Now Fone... I have news for you... the things on the little box that has pictures and sound are NOT ALWAYS TRUE.

I understand that star trek appears very real, but it isn't.

and I know that Scully is HOT, and Mulder is kinda smart... but you are NOT part of the FBI, and the "xfiles" is not real. I hate to break it to you....


The flash was created by a Advanced Unitary Penetrator AUP3 shape charge
made of depleted uranium that pyrolyzes an entry hole into fortified and hardened bunker doors or walls.

I'm sorry, but there were no hardened bunker doors or wallsi n the twin towers... It wouldn't have been needed. A bunker buster would have blown THROUGH the towers and hit the buildings next door... why do they still have most of their windows?



The entry hole glows orange because the
outer edge of the entry hole is molten metal.
The cruise missiles that struck the WTC1 and the pentagon were likewise breached by DU solid shape charge bunker buster AUP penetrators.
The DU AUP is propelled out from the missile nose with an explosive charge microseconds before the cruise missile strikes the target.
As the dU penetrator strikes the target the kinetic mass contained in the depleted uranium is ignited by friction into a white hot slug of molten material creating the flash as it burns an entrance hole.
Solid DU antitank rounds can easily penetrate 10 inches of tank armor without explosives.

I really can't come up with a non insulting reply here... 'the stupid.... it burns.'

[bill smith]

Thanks for the help! I'm going to start reading the other threads discussing the no plane theory.

Glad to be of service. If you need any more information feel free to ask.

[Titanic Explorer]

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.
The flash was created by a Advanced Unitary Penetrator AUP3 shape charge
made of depleted uranium that pyrolyzes an entry hole into fortified and hardened bunker doors or walls.
The entry hole glows orange because the
outer edge of the entry hole is molten metal.
The cruise missiles that struck the WTC1 and the pentagon were likewise breached by DU solid shape charge bunker buster AUP penetrators.
The DU AUP is propelled out from the missile nose with an explosive charge microseconds before the cruise missile strikes the target.
As the dU penetrator strikes the target the kinetic mass contained in the depleted uranium is ignited by friction into a white hot slug of molten material creating the flash as it burns an entrance hole.
Solid DU antitank rounds can easily penetrate 10 inches of tank armor without explosives.

And your evidence of this would be....?

I think this is either a troll post, or someone who shared Jammy's padded cell.

Sorry to break the news sparky, but Star Trek type holographic cloaking devices are fictional.

[16.5]

Thanks for the help! I'm going to start reading the other threads discussing the no plane theory.

No problem.

I can also get you links to flat earth threads and threads about unicorns if you want.

[TruthersLie]

No problem.

I can also get you links to flat earth threads and threads about unicorns if you want.

Ah... He might want to look up Xanth.... unicorns, ogres and flat earth....

[AJM8125]

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.



http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=199&pictureid=3541

[Furcifer]

It's amazing that that neat wreckage- all nicely lined up for inspection and all was found on the roof of the building in the attached video AFTER the fire.


Nice neat wreckage? Well done bill, you invented an alliterative oxymoron.

[T.A.M.]

The flying object that struck the WTC2 tower south face was a cruise missile cloaked by a Boeing 767 disguise.
The flash was created by a Advanced Unitary Penetrator AUP3 shape charge
made of depleted uranium that pyrolyzes an entry hole into fortified and hardened bunker doors or walls.
The entry hole glows orange because the
outer edge of the entry hole is molten metal.
The cruise missiles that struck the WTC1 and the pentagon were likewise breached by DU solid shape charge bunker buster AUP penetrators.
The DU AUP is propelled out from the missile nose with an explosive charge microseconds before the cruise missile strikes the target.
As the dU penetrator strikes the target the kinetic mass contained in the depleted uranium is ignited by friction into a white hot slug of molten material creating the flash as it burns an entrance hole.
Solid DU antitank rounds can easily penetrate 10 inches of tank armor without explosives.

Wow, that is the biggest pile of....awesome, ever. You should write for Hollywood dude. They need people with imaginations like yours.

TAM:D

[Titanic Explorer]

And Truthers wonder why people laugh at them..

[Titanic Explorer]

It's amazing that that neat wreckage- all nicely lined up for inspection and all was found on the roof of the building in the attached video AFTER the fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ

Maybe you would post the picture of the rooftop wreckage for people's amusement. Thank you.

PS. See the bottom picture in post #20 just above.


Since you think wreckage was planted do you think the FDNY were 'in on it'?
Do you have evidence?

[leftysergeant]

Wow, that is the biggest pile of....awesome, ever. You should write for Hollywood dude. They need people with imaginations like yours.

Nah. You would have the Special Effects people constantly bugging the producers about just how the hell they are supposed to rig the kinds of charges that will do the magical things that he thinks explosives can do. It excapes even THEIR tool kit.

[pgimeno]

[nonsense snipped]
Oh, this one was not a parody? Damn Poe...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Aaron Hatch -

I apologize if I came across a tad snarky. Sometimes we tend to suffer "topic fatigue" around here. As an example, start a thread labeled "World Trade Center Building Seven", post a recipe for Hot Cross Buns, and then watch it go for fifty pages. You'll quickly see what I mean. Topic fatigue sets in faster the stupider the topic itself is, and no plane theories are as dumb as they get.

You are correct that the "septemberclues" site isn't mentioned much in the threads I referenced, but the specific claims made at "septemberclues" are.

I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[AaronMHatch]

It's alright, Sword_of_Truth. I felt bad making the thread because I knew some people would be tired of seeing it. I should have done more reading.

[Chorduroy]

I think I will wait until you are a little less wet behind the ears.

Of all your excuses for failing to provide "evidence", this is your most recent.