Pat Speer Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Real planes do not melt through steel walls withoutexplosion, fire, smoke, debris breaking off. Aluminum vs steel columns...which wins? Does this video show what actually happened? Jack Jack, what image is that? It looks to be the first plane, as it hits so high up on the building. And yet there's already smoke in the air? Is a CT messing with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Smith Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 Real planes do not melt through steel walls without explosion, fire, smoke, debris breaking off. Aluminum vs steel columns...which wins? Does this video show what actually happened? Jack Jack, what image is that? It looks to be the first plane, as it hits so high up on the building. And yet there's already smoke in the air? Is a CT messing with us? Thats the Evan Fairbanks video, of the second (south tower) impact, that was run on ABC that day. As Fairbanks and Peter Jennings watched the footage, Fairbanks made the obsevation that the plane entered the building like "a bad special effect." It does look very strange, the way it goes in without meeting any resistance from the outer steel walls of the tower. The whole thing is strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 It does look very strange, the way it goes in without meeting any resistance from the outer steel walls of the tower. The whole thing is strange. Have you not seen any video's of a plane flying into the ground .... the ground offers pretty good resistence and yet the plane just seems to be absorbed by the impact and sometimes leaves nothing more than a burn spot behind with countless pieces of very small debris. Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Thanks, Jack. Thought provoking material, once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 8, 2006 Author Share Posted September 8, 2006 (edited) Real planes do not melt through steel walls without explosion, fire, smoke, debris breaking off. Aluminum vs steel columns...which wins? Does this video show what actually happened? Jack Jack, what image is that? It looks to be the first plane, as it hits so high up on the building. And yet there's already smoke in the air? Is a CT messing with us? That smoke is from the FIRST tower fire. That building is hidden behind the building in the video. Jack It does look very strange, the way it goes in without meeting any resistance from the outer steel walls of the tower. The whole thing is strange. Have you not seen any video's of a plane flying into the ground .... the ground offers pretty good resistence and yet the plane just seems to be absorbed by the impact and sometimes leaves nothing more than a burn spot behind with countless pieces of very small debris. Bill Miller Comparing DIRT to STEEL? What a non sequitur! The entire facade was steel box columns about 2 feet square. On lower floors these box-columns were made of 4-inch steel plate, tapering to two-inch plate on upper floors. The outer columns were connected to the inner steel core by spandrels and trusses and concrete floors. Aluminum vs steel...which wins? Jack Edited September 8, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 (edited) The entire facade was steel box columns about 2 feet square. Yes but but they were hollow, according to Jack's own source the walls tapered to 2 inches thick near the top, other sources say a quarter inch. It's funny that the "inside job" crowd often makes self contradictory claims. Some, including Jack White, complain that the hole in the reinforced concrete, limestone fronted, blast proofed wall of the Pentagon was too small. They believe the 757 should have left a hole bigger than its wingspan and scoff at the examination that the wings folded or shattered. The "no planers" who are considered a lunatic fringe even with in the "truth movement"* complain that the hole left in the sides of the WTC towers and their thin steel columns by larger 767s were too big! Jack seems to believe the planes should have shattered like eggs or been squashed like a bugs against a windshield. The 260 ton projectile shaped planes smashed into the towers at about 470 and 590 MPH the WTC thin perimeter columns were able the incredible force exerted against them. The perimeter columns were made from unusually high strength steel but were also unusually thin. They were two to three times thinner than normal noted a structural engineer from Berkley who studied the impacts and said, "this is not allowed by the structural design codes then and is still not allowed in current codes" and compared the resistance of the outer walls to "a thin soda can". (The Port Authority was exempt from city building codes) http://www.designnews.com/article/CA636342...ndustryid=43653 Aluminum vs steel...which wins? By the same logic one could ask water vs 8 inch thick or thicker titanium (which is harder than steel) which wins? When enough pressure is applied water does according to a manufacturer of waterjet cutting tools. How thick can it cut? Up to 8-in. thick steel and titanium are cut on a production basis. There have been cases where 12-in and even 15-in. thick material has been cut. The vast majority of users, however, cut between 1/4-in. to 2-in. thick materials. http://www.flowcorp.com/waterjet-resources.cfm?id=268 But Jack is right to a certain degree aluminum vs. steel isn't much of a match up which explains the fuselage of the planes was completely destroyed by the impacts and only scraps were found.*One conspiracist site scoffed "we're waiting for the "No Buildings" theories ..." http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html Brian, any thoughts to what happened to all those passengers and crew that were abord those planes if they were drones that hit Towers? There are several possibilities. 1). The flight control computers of the original flights were overridden by remote control, the planes were then swapped with remote controlled drones, and then dumped into the Atlantic Ocean - 2). the flight control computers of the "hijacked planes" were taken over by remote control and the planes then flown into the World Trade Center - 3). the aircraft, including passengers and crew, that we are told hit the towers, never existed as scheduled flights that day. The problem with such remote control theories is that pilots can override flight computers on Boeings and no one has shown that 767s or 757s could be remotely overidden from the ground. There is a thread on that topic in the conspiracies section. Edited September 8, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 (edited) This diagram which looks like it came from the page Jack got his from shows the wall thickness tapering to just a quarter inch (0.25" - middle column). It also acknowledges that some sections were merely bolted together so the question is no longer 2 inch or even ¼ inch thick steel but bolts vs a 260 ton 470 – 590 MPH plane [/size] http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/len..._dimensions.gif If the diagram doesn't appear see this page which has the same diagram and photo Jack posted with very similar layout. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html . If Jack didn't get the photo and diagram from here perhaps he can tell us where he got them from. If he got them from here why did he say the columns tapered to 2 inches when his source shows them reaching 0.25 inches Len Edited September 8, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 I never trusted anything I saw in the media anyway. But this raises the level of my distrust to a whole new plateau. Could the much derided theory, of the WTC south tower "suicide plane" as video special effect, inserted into the live CNN satellite feed, have some merit after all. I believe it is at least possible. A very interesting concept ... just one question though ... If the suicide plane was a special effect, then what was all the actual eye witnesses looking at??? And if there actually was a plane that flew into the tower, then why the need for a special effect??? Bill Miller Those are good questions. As far as eye witnesses go, if some kind of remote controlled drone, with no resemblance to a United Airlines 767, were flown into the tower at over 500 mph, then it's possible that people standing on the street would not have gotten a good enough look at it to positively identify it as such. Since there is little, if no doubt that something hit the towers, then it does stand to reason that the perpetrators would use something resembling the designated hijacked 767 (United Airlines). It would be much easier for them to use an actual 767, retrofitted with remote control software, that could be used to fly the plane from the ground. On the other hand, maybe that would have been too sloppy, as an actual 767 could have caused more damage than desired, to the point of knocking loose the carefully placed explosives at the impact point. On the other hand a remote controlled drone, or missile[s?] would also probably knock the explosives loose at the impact point. I am not saying I believe in this particular theory of the plane being a special effect, but am only open minded to it's possibility. Another possibility is that the perps of this dastardly crime, intentionally planted doctored videos and photos into the evidentiary record to confuse the hell out of everyone, and lead them down a rabbit hole of endless speculation. Maybe that is what these black ops people planned all along: to give the public so much evidence of conspiracy, much of it contradictory, and leading in opposite directions, so it will take them so many years to figure out, they (the perpetrators) will be old or dead by the time it is all pieced together. I have no doubt that they thought like this before they decided to go ahead with the operation. This whole thing was planned and carried out by a neo-con black ops team in the CIA/JCS/military intelligence sector of the U.S. government. That is one thing I have no doubt about. The tail of the "plane" shown in the video looks very similar to one of the military remotely flown drones. In my opinion, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 The tail of the "plane" shown in the video looks very similar to one of the military remotely flown drones.In my opinion, of course. So you think the tail looks like this? (Global Hawk http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/glo...wk-0630pred.jpg ) Or this one? (Pionner - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ial_Vehicle.jpg ) Or this one? (Predator - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c...-9_Predator.jpg ) Or do you mean that of another drone? If so which one? There is a fairly extensive list on Wikipedia. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aeri...icle#UAV_models ] Perhaps you could oblige us with some side by side images showing how the tail looks like that of some drone more that that of a 767. Len Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 (edited) Drone tails! Len, is it not any wonder why some people have so much trouble understanding the JFK assassination photographical record. Bill Miller Edited September 10, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 The entire facade was steel box columns about 2 feet square. Yes but but they were hollow, according to Jack's own source the walls tapered to 2 inches thick near the top, other sources say a quarter inch. It's funny that the "inside job" crowd often makes self contradictory claims. Some, including Jack White, complain that the hole in the reinforced concrete, limestone fronted, blast proofed wall of the Pentagon was too small. They believe the 757 should have left a hole bigger than its wingspan and scoff at the examination that the wings folded or shattered. The "no planers" who are considered a lunatic fringe even with in the "truth movement"* complain that the hole left in the sides of the WTC towers and their thin steel columns by larger 767s were too big! Jack seems to believe the planes should have shattered like eggs or been squashed like a bugs against a windshield. The 260 ton projectile shaped planes smashed into the towers at about 470 and 590 MPH the WTC thin perimeter columns were able the incredible force exerted against them. The perimeter columns were made from unusually high strength steel but were also unusually thin. They were two to three times thinner than normal noted a structural engineer from Berkley who studied the impacts and said, "this is not allowed by the structural design codes then and is still not allowed in current codes" and compared the resistance of the outer walls to "a thin soda can". (The Port Authority was exempt from city building codes) http://www.designnews.com/article/CA636342...ndustryid=43653 Aluminum vs steel...which wins? By the same logic one could ask water vs 8 inch thick or thicker titanium (which is harder than steel) which wins? When enough pressure is applied water does according to a manufacturer of waterjet cutting tools. How thick can it cut? Up to 8-in. thick steel and titanium are cut on a production basis. There have been cases where 12-in and even 15-in. thick material has been cut. The vast majority of users, however, cut between 1/4-in. to 2-in. thick materials. http://www.flowcorp.com/waterjet-resources.cfm?id=268 But Jack is right to a certain degree aluminum vs. steel isn't much of a match up which explains the fuselage of the planes was completely destroyed by the impacts and only scraps were found.*One conspiracist site scoffed "we're waiting for the "No Buildings" theories ..." http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html Brian, any thoughts to what happened to all those passengers and crew that were abord those planes if they were drones that hit Towers? There are several possibilities. 1). The flight control computers of the original flights were overridden by remote control, the planes were then swapped with remote controlled drones, and then dumped into the Atlantic Ocean - 2). the flight control computers of the "hijacked planes" were taken over by remote control and the planes then flown into the World Trade Center - 3). the aircraft, including passengers and crew, that we are told hit the towers, never existed as scheduled flights that day. The problem with such remote control theories is that pilots can override flight computers on Boeings and no one has shown that 767s or 757s could be remotely overidden from the ground. There is a thread on that topic in the conspiracies section. A high German official said the planes manufactured in America have, for some time now, been equipped with an override which allows for the removal of control from the pilot, in case of Hijacking, and places the plane under the control of an "autopilot" program which has the ability to land planes without pilot assistance. He said that the airlines in Germany have removed this option from their planes, at considerable expense, because they did not wish to have anyone else taking control of their planes. Other software for the planes, was designed primarily for customer comfort, includes programming which prevents maneuvers which exceed "comfort zone" g-limits. The planes, according to reports, were flown as if they were fighters... The final turn reportedly was very tight and the g-forces generated would have exceeded all parameters within the programming. In other words...the "planes" could not have been commercial passenger jets. If an Airplane hits the newly constructed, extra heavily steel reinforced outer walls, my guess is that the engines might penetrate the walls...the nose of the plane might, just might, push through that wall somewhat...but there would be debris for blocks, from the wings being broken off and deflected up, into the air, and to then land whereever aluminum, moving at 400 mile per hour, before deflection, would have come to rest. I lived in north park, in san diego, when the PSA plane dove into the ground after a collision with a small private plane. The wreckage was strewn for blocks...in all directions. Bodies..and body parts, were found for weeks after that crash upon roofs, in trees and in the neighborhood pets mouths. Where was the wreckage or body parts located in the Pentagon photos? The bodies would not all fit nicely into a small hole.....they would be flung around in all directions when, in that millisecond between impact and explosion, the airframe is being stretched and ripped apart. Imagine the fireball seen on the Tower footage, now, apply that image to the pentagon. Where is the blast pattern which should be evident in the lawn as well as upon a large portion of the outer wall? Can the Govt. claim that the very small fireball/explosion seen on the video from the pentagon is supposed to be comparable in size and magnitude to the explosion caused by a similar jet with a similar fuel load at the towers? So many "facts" in 9/11, when researched, do not bear up under scrutiny. Call me anything you want to, I will still believe we have been victimized by our own govt. in order to further it's agenda in the middle east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 Drone tails! Len, is it not any wonder why some people have so much trouble understanding the JFK assassination photographical record. Bill Miller is it NOT? LMAO! Stay on point champ -- drones and the JFK assassination photo record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 I lived in north park, in san diego, when the PSA plane dove into the ground after a collision with a smallprivate plane. The wreckage was strewn for blocks...in all directions. Bodies..and body parts, were found for weeks after that crash upon roofs, in trees and in the neighborhood pets mouths. Where was the wreckage or body parts located in the Pentagon photos? The bodies would not all fit nicely into a small hole.....they would be flung around in all directions when, in that millisecond between impact and explosion, the airframe is being stretched and ripped apart. Chuck, I remember that crash. Someone caught a photo of the airliner heading nose first, STRAIGHT DOWN, towards the ground. Horrific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 (edited) A high German official said the planes manufactured in America have, for some time now, been equipped with an override which allows for the removal of control from the pilot, in case of Hijacking, and places the plane under the control of an "autopilot" program which has the ability to land planes without pilot assistance.He said that the airlines in Germany have removed this option from their planes, at considerable expense, because they did not wish to have anyone else taking control of their planes. Other software for the planes, was designed primarily for customer comfort, includes programming which prevents maneuvers which exceed "comfort zone" g-limits. […] The final turn reportedly was very tight and the g-forces generated would have exceeded all parameters within the programming. In other words...the "planes" could not have been commercial passenger jets.. These fallacies have already been addressed in the post linked below and the following one on the same thread, your research should at least be able to entail reading the appropriate threads on this forum. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=7035&view=findpost&p=68161 "The planes, according to reports, were flown as if they were fighters..." No there was ONE case, that of flight 77, where a Dulles air traffic controller told ABC News. "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." http://web.archive.org/web/20011024150915/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html So they thought it was a military plane not because they didn't think a 757 could fly that way but because they couldn't believe a pilot would fly that way. As sign of the intellectual honesty of the "truth" movement esp. the "no planers" over 99% of them leave out the underlined part of the quote. A Google search for the first part of the quote turned up 18,500 hits the second part only 127 and many of those are debunking sites or "truth" sites that don't back the 'the Pentagon wasn't hit by a 757' theory. "If an Airplane hits the newly constructed, extra heavily steel reinforced outer walls, my guess is that the engines might penetrate the walls...the nose of the plane might, just might, push through that wall somewhat...but there would be debris for blocks, from the wings being broken off and deflected up, into the air, and to then land whereever aluminum, moving at 400 mile per hour, before deflection, would have come to rest." You are not an aeronautical engineer or a crash investigator and seem to know very little about plane crashes, what you think isn't really relevant. Numerous people with relevant expertise determine that seems intuitive (to me at least) that the majority of the wreckage continued in the plane's direction of travel and entered the Pentagon. Numerous pieces of wreckage were however found on the Pentagon lawn, photos can be seen on the appropriate threads of this forum. "I lived in north park, in san diego, when the PSA plane dove into the ground after a collision with a small private plane. The wreckage was strewn for blocks...in all directions. Bodies..and body parts, were found for weeks after that crash upon roofs, in trees and in the neighborhood pets mouths." I would assume that the wreckage of that crash was mostly spread out in a fan shaped pattern away from the point of impact (i.e. in the direction of travel of the 727 when it hit). I am no expert on plane crashes but I've read about a few. The degree to which wreckage gets spread out depends of several factors 1) angle of impact 2) speed of impact 3) weight and size of the plane and 4) type of terrain impacted. The Pentagon crash was an exceptional case because the plane crashed into a building large enough to envelope the wreckage. "Where was the wreckage or body parts located in the Pentagon photos? " As already mentioned there are numerous photos of wreckage, if you only look at flakey CT sites you won't see any though. Here is just one. http://www.pentagonresearch.com./images/174.jpg Many more can be seen here note that the sites support the "inside job" theory http://www.pentagonresearch.com./757debris.html http://www.pentagonresearch.com./debris.html http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm "The bodies would not all fit nicely into a small hole..." Let's see the logic of that statement, you can fit a few hundred (live) bodies in the fuselage of a 757 and the hole was more than big enough for the fuselage of a 757. ".....they would be flung around in all directions when, in that millisecond between impact and explosion, the airframe is being stretched and ripped apart." Have any evidence for this claim? When a car crashes the bodies are normally ejected forward, not backwards or sideways. Why wouldn't the bodies fro this crash continue in the direction of travel of the jet? How much of a persons body (or the of the plane itself for that matter) do you expect to remain after the 200 ton plane it's in crashes into a blast resistant wall at 500 mph? The coroner identified the DNA of all but one of the passengers from body parts found in the Pentagon, was he "in on it"? "Imagine the fireball seen on the Tower footage, now, apply that image to the pentagon. Where is the blast pattern which should be evident in the lawn as well as upon a large portion of the outer wall? Can the Govt. claim that the very small fireball/explosion seen on the video from the pentagon is supposed to be comparable in size and magnitude to the explosion caused by a similar jet with a similar fuel load at the towers?" 1) Pre-collapse photos of the Pentagon show burn marks around the entrance hole. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pent_before1.jpg 2) Perhaps the lawn wasn't burnt because the area in front of the entrance hole was a heliport and parking lot. 3) Please provide evidence the Pentagon fireball was significantly smaller than both Trade Center fireballs. As to why the fireball of the Pentagon crash might be smaller (IF it was) then the one at the Trade Center, I'm not sure but factors could include that: 757's are about half the size of 767's and that in the case of the Pentagon crash the fireball was contained from below by the ground. "So many "facts" in 9/11, when researched, do not bear up under scrutiny." So many "anomalies" in 9/11, when researched, do not bear up under scrutiny. "Call me anything you want to, I will still believe we have been victimized by our own govt. in order to further it's agenda in the middle east. " Belief not backed by VALID evidence if merely speculation or faith. is it NOT? LMAO! Stay on point champ -- drones and the JFK assassination photo record? LOL this from the guy repeatedçy brought up Zavada's thesis in totally unrelated threads Edited September 10, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Robbins Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 - I could and would give evidence that supports my position, but...... I will not do so because I want people to do their own nosing around. I believe that in doing so they will be able to appreciate the many questionable, and some downright illegal, actions taken by our govt. before, during and after this event happened. As far as changing your point of view with any "evidence"? A waste of time. If God him/herself were to drop by and whisper "it was an inside job" in your ear you'd tell him to go to hell. I appreciate that your opinions carry so much weight and are obviously superior to mine.... The evening news just had a piece on 9/11. They reported that a recent poll they conducted show that 42% of Americans believe that our govt. covered up evidence about 9/11. Anyway...it's been nice chatting with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now