seriously, those who believe in “no-plane theory” remind me Young Earth Creationists, and those, believing in controlled demolition as Old Earth Creationists.
Just a remark..
I think that even if it was admitted by the US government that 9/11 wasn’t done by a bunch of arabs who hate freedom of speech and bikinis, it wouldn’t change policy one bit. They’ve never left germany, japan, or korea, why would they leave afghanistan and iraq? And now of course they’re all over Pakistan and Libya. I always wondered why Russia and China don’t veto all these UN resolutions instead of just abstaining from voting on it. Is it complete fear of US military might?
You think every single cell phone and video camera in the city surrounding the World Trade Center buildings was compromised by a conspiracy, not to mention all of the owners of said cameras and cell phones. This is beyond straining credulity. We don’t have a single video from anyone that shows the buildings exploding without a plane crashing into them, despite the fact that it took 51 minutes for the second plane to hit the tower, plenty of time for people to set up cameras (and they did.).
The fact of the matter is, we have planes crashing into the world trade center recorded on tape from many different sources. Therefore, planes hit the tower beyond any reasonable doubt. Unless you can provide evidence of forgery in every single video out there, the evidence stands. So far I have not seen any foul play in any of the videos, let alone all of them.
Could you please comment on why you think the maker of September Clues faded out one image entirely when he was attempting to match the “in” plane with the “out” object.
The amount of deceleration the plane experiences is relative to the amount of force the structure of the plane can withstand. Planes are not designed to withstand any impact whatsoever. They are designed to be light, with thin materials. Therefore, the amount of force that the frame of the plane can absorb of 540mph of forward momentum before being crushed is almost negligable.
First law of motion:
Every body remains in a state of constant veolocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.
Watch these bullets as they hit a solid object.
Do you notice any deceleration at the back of the bullet? Why not?
Except when planning on taking down the towers, they could have found out very easily that they were designed to withstand a plane impact.
We have molten steel on tape, and evidence of it in the dust of the world trade centers.
This is a great example of someone being irrational.
Care to explain the thermitic material? I have provided sources done by PHD professors and scientists who have paid dearly for the privilege of having their work scrutinized respectfully.
Here’s a video of the experiment I referenced: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGsOkT__M7Y
[INSULT DELETED]
Somehow I strongly doubt you read all 338 comments in the five minutes between my post and your post. Regardless, perhaps you’d like to point out exactly where the National Geographic experiments were debunked. But keep in mind that I was only referring to one experiment (the first one) done for that documentary.
to autolykos:
i don’t underestimate the mass of the towers at all. there’s no precedent for destruction that resembled the wtc towers’. i mean, glass didn’t just shatter and end in up shards, it was micronized, and steel can buckled and warp, but be aerosolized? and only with a kerosene combustant? no, it’s not credible. i’d have expected to see something like this:
now as to the actual mechanism of the destruction, i think that must remain an open hypothesis. enormous energy must have been involved. sure, fire, conventional explosive, and maybe thermite were thrown into the mix to give a semblance of normality to the explosions, but the way different materials were affected (ferrous metals aerosolized, but gold and aluminium left intact, ditto for paper) suggests something quite strange happened that morning.
i’m waiting for a full debriefing from richard myes, he said he’d return my call!
to autolykos:
yes, i’ve seen the national geographic girder clip. i don’t doubt beams can distort under stress and heat (though it must be noted that the fire in the pit was spread out and even, where the fire in the towers was confined to a small area and uneven in effect).
what kerosene/gravity-collapse don’t satisfy for me are the strange things like these very large holes evident in the substructure.
not to mention the weird collateral damage (3:30 on)
to seraiah:
visually, i don’t note any deacceleration of the bullets. but it must have occurred, as heat produced at the expense of kinetic energy. the body of the bullet offers resistance to distortion, even if lead is soft.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091227003050AAhBrEE
Although the World Trade Center collapse appeared similar to a controlled demolition, I think that the national geographic video showed that a planes fuel can produce enough heat to melt the steel frame of the two buildings that collapsed.
the bullet hitting the wall also shows how i’d expect a soft structure like an aluminium fuselage to react on hitting a harder material like steel. (of course there are steel parts in the engine, flaps, etc that are going to penetrate the structure, but they are not spread out over the entire plane body).
the perps left some debris around just long enough for a few pictures, and then cleared the crime-scene and destroyed the evidence. see 1:17 and let’s roll (thanks hollywood for the corny lines).
to jane agrasser:
distorting one isolated girder over a uniform, diffused heat-source is completely different from the real-life scenario of interlocking beams, and non-diffuse heat application.
that aside, i saw no evidence of the girder being turned to steel micro-particules that then floated up in the air. conventional heat doesn’t explain the weirdness of the damage.
Well said Seraiah. These two points alone should be enough for anyone to recognize no-planer theories as disinformation used to divide and discredit those who believe in “inside job” theories.
Do you therefore accept that Killtown’s and similar analyses are no evidence whatsoever supporting a no-plane theory?
There’s mountains of evidence and reasons to consider controlled demolition the most likely hypothesis to be true. See Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
For anyone still doubting controlling demolition: can you please explain the thermitic material?
to corleonebrother:
when i say “visually”, i mean to the naked eye. i haven’t measured the deacceleration. but it necessarily exists, as distorting any object requires energy, and that energy comes from the bullet’s kinetic energy.
regarding thermite, i don’t have any problems with it being part of the controlled demolition mix, together with conventional explosives. but i don’t see it as the primary mechanism, on which i have no hard and fast theories, only questions.
as for no-planers being disinformation spreaders, the converse could be just as true. leaving planes in the equation not only lets the msm off scot-free, but also fingers the muslims as perps (even if it wasn’t their actions that destroyed the towers), bolstering support for military entanglement in mesopotamia.
thermite doesn’t explain the damage to car # 2723 (scroll to image). it’s not a conventional sort of heat that leaves 1/2 a car in pristine nick, ravaging the other half. i don’t know what does this.
Well just suppose you did a Killtown-style analysis of that bullet video Seraiah posted, and found that there was “no deacceleration” apparent even from a thorough visual analysis of the footage. Would it then prove that the bullet didn’t deaccelerate? You see the problem…?
Also, since a plane is far flimsier than a bullet, the deacceleration of a plane would be less than that of the bullet. So even if you found a slight deacceleration on the bullet footage, it would still not prove anything.
There are far more fruitful areas of 9/11 investigation than trying to find flaws or inconsistencies in the images and videos of the plane impacts.
Well, first of all, do you accept the footage of the Twin Towers and WTC7 obliterations (“collapses” is an inaccurate term) to be genuine? Or do you doubt that footage too (like obf)?
And second, what do you consider to be the primary mechanism? (What’s your best guess?)
Woah! Hang on there… what?! The MSM are not getting off scot-free here: they have plenty to answer for! Like why CNN and BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 20 minutes early… why there were apparently planted witnesses and experts-on-call to inject memes into the news which support the official fairytale… why they stifle genuine discussion of 9/11 truth issues… and why they continually make hit-pieces, designed more to discredit the honest, reliable 9/11 researchers, by smearing them, than to provide answers to genuine questions.
And what’s with the false dichotomy? If I’m not a no-planer I must think “muslims did it”?! What?! Some muslims may have performed operational roles, and some might have been used as patsies, but this whole event was planned and orchestrated by the NWO / Elites, and they are the ones responsible for it… no doubt about it.
Check out 9/11 The Myth and The Reality.
What Prof. Griffin says at the beginning about myths is very interesting, not just from a 9/11 truth perspective or even a theological perspective, but also from an anti-statist perspective. The State’s very existence is based on the great myth (a myth in both the senses Griffin explains) that the State is somehow necessary for social order. Creating and perpetuating myths is what the State does. And it does it very well… after all, more than 99% of the population believe the great myth of the State, and most people believe a large number of other myths spun by the State… myths in history, politics, economics, etc.
to corleonebrother:
i differ from onebornfree in that i do believe that the pictures of the towers’ disintegration are valid. and i do think it’s quite possible thermite was incorporated in the demolition, perhaps as a red herring. but as to the actual mechanism, i don’t know. workmen combing the site for human remains are on film testifying that the metal in their workboots was melting, and they needed to change boots every few hours. i don’t doubt this testimony, only that it’s not heat that’s decomposing the metal, for obvious reasons.
you’re right about the bbc/cnn lying. i suggest that adding the planes into live footage is taking collusion to a whole new level. but i concede they’re not getting off scot-free even with planes.
and yes, i think we agree that at best, the muslim involvement was peripheral, and to serve as scapegoats.
and finally, regarding deacceleration. the visuals must not conflict with the laws of physics. if the bullet’s rear end shows no sign of deacceleration with my visual measuring method, then there’s something wrong with the latter. my prbblem is with the plane slicing and disappearing into the building intact, to then mysteriously disintegrate completely within the structure. aluminium is still a lot softer than steel, regardless of the velocity of the projectile.
for what it’s worth, i owe david ray griffin and peter dale scott a debt of gratitude for raising my concerns early in the piece, though it was not their work that converted me to the inside-jobbers’ views.
and yes, we agree that the state is remarkably successful at spin. its success extends also to destroying, killing and silencing.
That is quite a leap. Planes hit the buildings therefore muslims are perps? Also, what is “the msm”?
Abrasive and acidic dust does this. There was asbestos, silica, and nitric oxide/dioxide in the dust. Not to mention the active thermitic material. I suspect that the rear of this car was under a roof, in an allyway, or some such thing that protected the rear of the car.
For some reason the fact that cars were moved was also suspicious in that article. Cars were moved and stacked on top of eachother after the events of 911 to get them out of the way.
I am quite sure that the plane decelerated, that doesn’t mean that it’s going to show up in a 11 frame analyses. Why do you believe that it should?
Also, everything in the tower essentially disintegrated, you are not therefore insinuating that all the people and office material did not actually exist. Why are you making a special case for the plane?
Which contributed to the “mysterious” disintegration of the plane, not to mention the jet fuel explosion or thermite.