How did the 9/11 "hijackers" actually do it??

[soglad]

I'm sleepless with this thought. How on Earth did they actually do it? If they did. A huge plane with hundred or more passengers vs about 3-4 people? With what? Tennis rackets? It's just absurd.

I tried Google but it shows up nothing....

[roxanna222]

Ok well first and this is only what I believe the buildings where implanted with explosives, demolition type. The planes US military. Those flights well the cia can make anyone disappear. Dont think they didnt plan this very carefully. Maybe not help just my thoughts on it.

[hagbard_celine]

The planes were all "fly-by-wire" so if their controls were taken over by someone on the ground then the pilots wouldn't be able to do anything about it. Such technology exists, in fact Dov Zakheim spoke about it! It's designed to land a plane safely if the pilots are killed or fall ill. No more need for movie-style life-saving nuns; the ground controller simply takes over the wheel and lands the plane like a model glider.

Then agin, were the planes that hit the buildings actually airliners? Witnesses describe them as grey and windowless.

[baron von lotsov]

I don't know for sure but fly-by-wire seems like the most likely.

One little point though that might amuse you. I spent years wondering what on earth a box cutter was. I had never heard of such a thing and only after several years of reading about 9/11 did I one day read some article, which explained that they were talking about a stanley knife. Damm yanks!!!

[them]

How on Earth did they actually do it? If they did. A huge plane with hundred or more passengers vs about 3-4 people? With what? Tennis rackets? It's just absurd.

A train of thought worth contemplating;

Before the events of September 11th nobody had ever observed airliners flying into tall buildings by individuals of dastardly intent. If you wish to consider the official version of events for a moment, i.e jihadists did it, you should acknowledge that the passengers on board may well have assumed the hijacking would end on a runway with a set of demands either being met.. or a bloodbath rescue attempt.

Don't you think? (not rhetorical)

http://media.geekarmy.com/geekarmy/perspective_001.jpg

[mk72]

Mind control and explosives that cut through steel. You can see the molten steel pouring out of the building just before it came down. I always wonder what happened to the poor people on flight 77, and the pentagon since it was clearly not airplanes that crashed. Where were they taken?

[them]

I don't know for sure but fly-by-wire seems like the most likely.

One little point though that might amuse you. I spent years wondering what on earth a box cutter was. I had never heard of such a thing and only after several years of reading about 9/11 did I one day read some article, which explained that they were talking about a stanley knife. Damm yanks!!!

Weapon of choice for the Chelsea Headhunters.

[narcolepticwatchman]

There were no planes. No passengers and no highjackers.

There is no way the planes could make the holes in the buildings.

The only logical explaination is that there were no planes at all. Its the old Adolf hitler 'Big lie' techinque. Everyone has bought it.......and when you have bought it, its oh so hard for people to then deny or refute.

[dark86]

either:

no planes at all.

drone planes.

gassed / mind controlled passengers.

[thirdwave]

that whole day was a pack of lies.... I think the secrete services used there technology and media manipulation to the maximum that day and we may never know the full story of what happened..... only through time we can probably come to our own conclusions do to how technology develops over the next coming years...

one thing that we do know is the government have put our complete lies.

[christophera]

I'm sleepless with this thought. How on Earth did they actually do it? If they did. A huge plane with hundred or more passengers vs about 3-4 people? With what? Tennis rackets? It's just absurd.

I tried Google but it shows up nothing....

I feel that if there were hijackers, the planes must have been set up to help them. Knockout Gas in bottles with remote valves seems like a good way. There were reports of something like that from cellphones. The stewardesses have satellite phones that will work.

It turns out that flights 11 and 77 were not supposed to fly that day. What that means I don't know.

[christophera]

I feel that if there were hijackers, the planes must have been set up to help them. Knockout Gas in bottles with remote valves seems like a good way. There were reports of something like that from cellphones. The stewardesses have satellite phones that will work.

It turns out that flights 11 and 77 were not supposed to fly that day. What that means I don't know.

The security at the airports of departure was controlled by stratsec, which marvy bush was on the board of directors.

The issues related to planes, scheduling, air traffic control, NORAD, are all questions that must be answered by accountable government, and, ........... we don't have one.

Making the 9-11 truth quest one for information that can be used to wake up Americans without depending on official accountability.

[mercuryrapids]

Isn't there any CCTV footage of them boarding the planes at Boston, Newark or Dulles? Didn't the only footage that has been released show thm at Portland?

[Ian2day]

Somehow the planes decided to home into the tall building beacon in the twin towers. If the navigation computers used a windows based operating system. Maybe they had the blue screen of death. They were waiting on hold for ever to get through to a call centre and when they eventually did. The instruction was to just pull the plug! This meant on bootup that the guidance system malfunctioned and used the tall building beacon as a homing signal. Or there was never any buildings to begin with. As according to Icke everything is an illusion.

[smurf]

Mind control and explosives that cut through steel. You can see the molten steel pouring out of the building just before it came down. I always wonder what happened to the poor people on flight 77, and the pentagon since it was clearly not airplanes that crashed. Where were they taken?

That's a very good question. They were probably taken to underground bases somewhere. Some of them may still be alive in some horrible place. God, what a terrible though..

[howie]

I've never understood why there wasn't a Todd Beamer "Let's Roll" character on flight 175, the passengers would have seen the burning tower from miles away.

[banoyes]

The question itself is a logical fallacy
a form of propaganda.
ahh... the games

[mynameis]

I heard they had guns on board the plane(s). Dunno how that happened.

[christophera]

I heard they had guns on board the plane(s). Dunno how that happened.

The issue of the takeover (guns, gas) and the information that perhaps those planes were not scheduled to fly at all that day, indicates some preparation of the planes, and then unexpected insertion into flight schedules.

I also feel like flight 175 definitely shows signs of a bomb. The fuel fire ball is contained and compressed back against the planes direction of travel.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcsouthimpactongueflame.gif

[hagbard_celine]

The issue of the takeover (guns, gas) and the information that perhaps those planes were not scheduled to fly at all that day, indicates some preparation of the planes, and then unexpected insertion into flight schedules.

I also feel like flight 175 definitely shows signs of a bomb. The fuel fire ball is contained and compressed back against the planes direction of travel.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcsouthimpactongueflame.gif


Leaking fuel doesn't always catch fire. In fact you can drop a lighted match into a bucket of fuel (DON'T try it just in case!:eek:) and it will probably just go out. The fuel needs to be in vapour form, mixed with oxygen molecules and with a heat source for the combustion reaction to take place. They had to take steps to ensure that the fuel would ignite, both for effect and to destroy any incrinimating evidence. It could be that the "flash" that appeared on the planes just before they impacted was some kind of detonator. A "spark-plug" if you wish, to set the leaking fuel ablaze.

[christophera]

Leaking fuel doesn't always catch fire. In fact you can drop a lighted match into a bucket of fuel (DON'T try it just in case!:eek:) and it will probably just go out. The fuel needs to be in vapour form, mixed with oxygen molecules and with a heat source for the combustion reaction to take place. They had to take steps to ensure that the fuel would ignite, both for effect and to destroy any incrinimating evidence. It could be that the "flash" that appeared on the planes just before they impacted was some kind of detonator. A "spark-plug" if you wish, to set the leaking fuel ablaze.

I think the flash you refer to is seen on the Tower before impact. My analysis of that shows it as light reflected off the tower and back ontot he tower from the curve of the leading edge of the planes wing. As the wing approaches the angel of incedence grows less and less until it appears refelcted off of the building as directly in front of the plane, where it forms a flash.

My point about the explosion is really about the surrounding floors. I contend the towers were built to demolish and that the corrugations of the floors had C4 poured into them. However, construction safety dictates that if possible an accidental detonation should not propagate. Meaning that each floor was an independent circuit. This video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5860825099435530591&q=5860825099435530591&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) actually shows that kind of independence in high speed delayed detonations.

If that were the case and the plane had a bomb on it only the floors immediately in the sphere of the bombs 20,000 FPS blast would be detonated by the bomb. We see a clean circle of detonation surrounding the plane.

One thing is for sure is that a fuel explosion is not going to pulverize concrete if it is not contained and creating high pressures. The amount of pulverized concrete is many times that of the fire ball of fuel.

[timezone]

Confronting the evidence 9/11 documentary

http://www.jonhs.net/911/confronting_evidence.htm

[christophera]

Confronting the evidence 9/11 documentary

http://www.jonhs.net/911/confronting_evidence.htm

Jimmy Walters is a good dude. He's been caught up in misinformation however and been rendered ineffective because of it.

Basically all of the quasi leadership that has been installed in the truth movement IS spreading disinformation regarding the structure. They all use the FEMA information of the structure without question.

[christophera]

Confronting the evidence 9/11 documentary

http://www.jonhs.net/911/confronting_evidence.htm

I've produced a 16 minute documentary that provides more explanation supported with evidence than all of the other 9-11 video combined.

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition I (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6240504594075547308&q=twin+towers+deception+and+demolition&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition II (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5255701680091399090&q=twin+towers+deception+and+demolition&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

It utilized the video environment to show evidence as it cannot be easily done any other way. It does this with evidence no other video addresses AND no other website addresses.

Which should bring huge suspiscion to them all.

[graflok]

There were no planes. No passengers and no highjackers.

There is no way the planes could make the holes in the buildings.

The only logical explaination is that there were no planes at all. Its the old Adolf hitler 'Big lie' techinque. Everyone has bought it.......and when you have bought it, its oh so hard for people to then deny or refute.

Thanks. I agree. :)

[keystone]

Leaking fuel doesn't always catch fire. In fact you can drop a lighted match into a bucket of fuel (DON'T try it just in case!:eek:) and it will probably just go out. The fuel needs to be in vapour form, mixed with oxygen molecules and with a heat source for the combustion reaction to take place.That's why an FAE device is so effective. However, the main destructive force of an FAE bomb is a blast wave caused by the overpressure and not fire.

Not sure how this data sits in the context of the discussion but thought I'd share it anyway.

[christophera]

Thanks. I agree. :)

But then if I asked you how the holes in the buildings were made, you would be without a logical answer.

[christophera]

That's why an FAE device is so effective. However, the main destructive force of an FAE bomb is a blast wave caused by the overpressure and not fire.

Not sure how this data sits in the context of the discussion but thought I'd share it anyway.

There are those that believe that the fire bomb of flight 175 at impact was due to napalm and use the color of it as evidence. I cannot tell. Seems that oxygen levels would change the color a lot. Does naplam have the concussion effect of fuel explosions?

[graflok]

But then if I asked you how the holes in the buildings were made, you would be without a logical answer.

How do you know? You've never asked me and neither has anyone else.

My answer is that a hole made in a building doesn't mystify me. I've seen holes
in buildings and I've seen explosions. It's not hard to imagine how it might
be done through an explosive means other than the impact of a Boeing 767
at 500+ mph.

[christophera]

How do you know? You've never asked me and neither has anyone else.

My answer is that a hole made in a building doesn't mystify me. I've seen holes
in buildings and I've seen explosions. It's not hard to imagine how it might
be done through an explosive means other than the impact of a Boeing 767
at 500+ mph.

Unbelievable that you present that and that you would fail to account for the fact that a large explosive would have to cover 170 foot (wingspan) of the towers face in order to bend the perimeter columns inwards ALL THE WAY ACROSS.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/edna/libertyforum/still-alive.jpg

[kamakazi]

Originally posted by soglad
I'm sleepless with this thought. How on Earth did they actually do it? If they did. A huge plane with hundred or more passengers vs about 3-4 people? With what? Tennis rackets? It's just absurd.

I tried Google but it shows up nothing....

try common sense instead of google

edit: accidentally quoted wrong name

[demise_of_time]

Hey guys, I'm new to the forums and have a couple questions regarding the no planes theory.

1. I saw one video on YouTube that was commenting on how bad the acting was when the second plane supposedly hit; was the poster implying that CGI planes were added to footage that was shown live, or doctored quickly and shown to give the illusion? I don't see how only certain cameras could pick up the plane; was this actually real time CGI on certain cameras?

2. In order for the plane to appear to be part of the actual environment, the angles from which we were shown the footage would have to match up for lighting reasons, as you can clearly see the second plane appears to get darker as if going into the shade before hitting the building; does this prove highly planned/controlled CGI?

3. The only reason I would believe the above two is because of the multiple videos I just watched where people were all like "Wtf?! No second plane hit the tower; it just fucking exploded!". The best one I saw was one where a "controlled" angle if you will shows the plane going into the second tower while a mysterious "beep" can be heard on the audio track (possibly to signal the reporter that the event was about to take place and prepare for reaction) and the second reporter on the street who is being streamed live says he just sees the building explode and no plane was ever in sight.

Thanks for helping me clear this up!

[christophera]

kamakazi,

You've gotten the wrong username in the quote of the below post, not mine. I've fixed it and linked to the proper poster and reposted.



http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=74965&postcount=1

I'm sleepless with this thought. How on Earth did they actually do it? If they did. A huge plane with hundred or more passengers vs about 3-4 people? With what? Tennis rackets? It's just absurd.

I tried Google but it shows up nothing....

try common sense instead of google

[tracker]

11-07-2007, 10:09 PM #1
soglad
Premier Subscribers


Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,517 How did the 9/11 "hijackers" actually do it??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sleepless with this thought. How on Earth did they actually do it? If they did. A huge plane with hundred or more passengers vs about 3-4 people? With what? Tennis rackets? It's just absurd.

I tried Google but it shows up nothing....















i understand the obserdety of what you are trying to say .

with an airoplane full of able bodied adults , many of them men , the news teams expect us to accept the wild notion that they took the airoplane bye force with

plastic knives ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????:eek:


yes ok im convinced ????????????????????????:D

next we will here that a group of 6 year olds stormed nasa by force with plastic cups and paper plates .
and got away on tricycles and gokarts ???????????????????:rolleyes:

[christophera]

Hey guys, I'm new to the forums and have a couple questions regarding the no planes theory.


hey demise_of_time,

I'm not a no planer, but you are asking good questions regarding video fakery. I'm a video editor with minimal experience but realize that the capacity for special effects with todays technology is huge. I see it in film all the time and recognize it for what it is. There have been some shows just about the effects, "Terminator II", "Predator" and "Lord of the Rings" are a few that are detailed with behind the scenes technology reporting.

My point is this. If there were planes and somebody wanted to fake video to try and show that there were no planes, it would be easy. However, if there were no planes and someone tried to fool all the people watching and the cameras, it would be very difficult.

Also, the NPT requres remote control. If the perps had remote control, the had options AND they didn't use them to make a logical scenario and instead did something that exposes that the plane images they worked so hard to create and fool all those people and cameras had nothing to do with the towers coming down.

WHY, because WTC 2 was hit second, and hardly hit compared to WTC and hardly burnt, but yet it came down first. The sequence of impact and fall is backwards and that error is exactly the kind of thing remotes are employed to prevent. SO, ...... why didn't they use the remotes to make it perfect.

Logically, there were no remotes, therefore the NPT will not work at the WTC logically.

[dave52]

Hey guys, I'm new to the forums and have a couple questions regarding the no planes theory.

There's lots of fors and againsts when it comes to No Planes. Hunt around and make up your own mind.

[graflok]

a large explosive would have to cover 170 foot (wingspan) of the towers face in order to bend the perimeter columns inwards ALL THE WAY ACROSS.


They flattened both towers with explosives. You think they couldn't blow a hole
through the side of one of them? Or, do you believe it was all done by jet fuel?

[keystone]

They flattened both towers with explosives. You think they couldn't blow a hole
through the side of one of them? Or, do you believe it was all done by jet fuel?Just to address this specific point. If they had the explosives would have had to have been on the OUTSIDE of the building. Bit tricky to have arranges that I would have thought. If on the inside the metal would have been bent outwards.

[christophera]

They flattened both towers with explosives. You think they couldn't blow a hole
through the side of one of them? Or, do you believe it was all done by jet fuel?

I believe you haven't a clue what it takes to do any of it because you didn't address my point about the direction of the bent perimeter column as keystone points out.

Your behavior is damaging humanities efforts to find peace and sustainability and your failure to address that one simple issue proves it meaning you should STOP your NPT activism immediately. You do not have the knowledge and expertise to address the issues competently and your continued compulsive position WITHOUT the knowledge to argue your point will show you lack overall political integrity IF YOU CONTINUE.

The towers were not flattened, they were disintegrated.

[graflok]

I believe you haven't a clue what it takes to do any of it because you didn't address my point about the direction of the bent perimeter column as keystone points out.

And, your credentials in the field of explosives are ...?


Your behavior is damaging humanities efforts to find peace and sustainability and your failure to address that one simple issue proves it meaning you should STOP your NPT activism immediately. You do not have the knowledge and expertise to address the issues competently and your continued compulsive position WITHOUT the knowledge to argue your point will show you lack overall political integrity IF YOU CONTINUE.


But, my spelling is pretty good, don't you think? :)

[banoyes]

Also, the NPT requres remote control. If the perps had remote control, the had options AND they didn't use them to make a logical scenario and instead did something that exposes that the plane images they worked so hard to create and fool all those people and cameras had nothing to do with the towers coming down.

WHY, because WTC 2 was hit second, and hardly hit compared to WTC and hardly burnt, but yet it came down first. The sequence of impact and fall is backwards and that error is exactly the kind of thing remotes are employed to prevent. SO, ...... why didn't they use the remotes to make it perfect.

Logically, there were no remotes, therefore the NPT will not work at the WTC logically.

There were no planes. Period
This fine fellow keeps repeting the same BS
No planes means NO freeking planes,remote or other wise.

The rest is gibberish WHY, because WTC 2 was hit second, and hardly hit compared to WTC and hardly burnt,
HUH??

The sequence of impact and fall is backwards and that error is exactly the kind of thing remotes are employed to prevent.
HUH??
SO, ...... why didn't they use the remotes to make it perfect.
HUH??
The most convoluted gibberish I ever read

[mr_self_destruct]

Huh huh huh - are you doing a Beavis and Butthead impression? Which one are you?

[lightgiver]

I suppose the wing fell off before the plane hit the building and the nose did not disintegrate upon impact:rolleyes:;)
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=OwGebpA97UM

you make your own mind up,911 was an inside job,
and needs a re investigation in the wide open.

oh,hi there demise of time,and it sure is.;):)

[thematrix]

Leaking fuel doesn't always catch fire. In fact you can drop a lighted match into a bucket of fuel (DON'T try it just in case!:eek:) and it will probably just go out. The fuel needs to be in vapour form, mixed with oxygen molecules and with a heat source for the combustion reaction to take place. .... It could be that the "flash" that appeared on the planes just before they impacted was some kind of detonator. A "spark-plug" if you wish, to set the leaking fuel ablaze.

er did you read what you just typed??

if the spark plug as you describe it was to ignite the fuel - notlots would have happened - the fuel at the time of the "sparkplug" is still fully contained within the wing tanks. On impact the plane is shredded by the steel/glass front of the tower - the speed and inertia of the fuel spreads it widely about the area until it's in a good enough mix with teh air to form a crude type of thermobaric(fuel/air) explosive - then it's ignited - THEN it explodes

The blast wave alone from that explosion would have killed many and caused significant damage (there are reports that damage to the marble cladding on the walls of the lobby on the ground floor is due to this) - plus it ignites a large fire simultaneously on many floors of the building.

[thematrix]

HUH??


HUH??
HUH??
The most convoluted gibberish I ever read

thats spooky - I get almost exact the same reaction after reading every post you write!

wooo synchronicity - or er something like that....

[christophera]

There were no planes.


Explain reasonably why the perps would make people think that WTC 1 was first hit by a plane then drp WTC 2 first.

If you do not do that, you are unreasonable.

[bryan]

On impact the plane is shredded by the steel/glass front of the tower

So what do you think cut the steel to leave a plane-shaped gash in the side of the building?

[mynameis]

So what do you think cut the steel to leave a plane-shaped gash in the side of the building?

It's the momentum and mass of the plane that breaks the steel at the welds. Water can do the same thing without the mass.

Thick Metal Cutting with a Water Jet CNC machine - AQUACUT - YouTube

[thematrix]

So what do you think cut the steel to leave a plane-shaped gash in the side of the building?

most of the steel was not "cut" by the plane - the force of the impact pushed the steel backwards into the building and for most of it the bolts holding the sections together sheared before the steel broke.

For some of it that was cut - it was the plane that did the cutting obviously.

The two are not mutually exclusive - think of a head on car crash between a big heavy Mercedes and a smaller lighter Ford Fiesta.

The lighter car sustains much more damage because of it's lighter contstruction but BOTH cars get mangled in the crash. The steel columns and in certain places the concrete floors shredded the plane on impact - at the same time the overwhelming force of the impact smashed a whole through the front facade of the building until it hit the core where it was slowed enough not to smash out of the other side (with a few exceptions where the trajectory of impact allowed some heaver plane fragments to travel through the tower and out the other side)

[christophera]

most of the steel was not "cut" by the plane - the force of the impact pushed the steel backwards into the building and for most of it the bolts holding the sections together sheared before the steel broke.

Exactly, tempered steel bend a little then breaks. Exactly what we see in photos of the impact zones.

[lightgiver]

So what do you think cut the steel to leave a plane-shaped gash in the side of the building?

Lovely stuff ;)
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM
and easy to plant any where:D

[lightgiver]

and if you are not convinced?
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=FWn8QNQWSsY

911 commission report,a book of LIES.

[bryan]

most of the steel was not "cut" by the plane - the force of the impact pushed the steel backwards into the building and for most of it the bolts holding the sections together sheared before the steel broke.

If the bolts sheared, causing the columns to break away from the crossbeams, then each column would have resisted the impact according to which part of the plane hit it, independently of the other columns. Do you think a wing tip would have enough force to push a column backwards and shear the bolts?


The steel columns and in certain places the concrete floors shredded the plane on impact - at the same time the overwhelming force of the impact smashed a hole through the front facade of the building until it hit the core where it was slowed enough not to smash out of the other side (with a few exceptions where the trajectory of impact allowed some heaver plane fragments to travel through the tower and out the other side)

This sentence is begging to be narrated by Caroline Catz. Aren't responsible 9/11 truthers supposed to limit themselves to asking the tough questions and demanding a new investigation? What is there to suggest that the plane was shredded, apart from a vivid imagination?

[christophera]

and if you are not convinced?
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=FWn8QNQWSsY

911 commission report,a book of LIES.

Big error. There were no steel core columns. What they call "the core" is really outside the concrete tubular core and fastened to it. This superimposition of the intact tower over it will show its location.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/superimp.spire.wtc1.jpg

Here is what is seen in the video but closer and clearer. Right is interior box column, center is an end view of the concrete core shear wall, and left is the remainder of some of the interupted walls that crossed the core of WTC 1 and supported the hallways.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg

Then after the spire, which is called an interior box column as a part of the inner wall of the exterior steel framework, falls, there is rebar standing. Big, 3 inch high tensile steel.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

[christophera]

If the bolts sheared, causing the columns to break away from the crossbeams, then each column would have resisted the impact according to which part of the plane hit it, independently of the other columns. Do you think a wing tip would have enough force to push a column backwards and shear the bolts?



This sentence is begging to be narrated by Caroline Catz. Aren't responsible 9/11 truthers supposed to limit themselves to asking the tough questions and demanding a new investigation? What is there to suggest that the plane was shredded, apart from a vivid imagination?

Responsible truthers are dedicated to EVIDENCE, and there is NO EVIDENCE for the steel core columns in the core area. Only misrepresentations of construction photos and fake plans (http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11Disinfo_fakeplan.html)

The NPTists need to focus on your valid point of "demanding a new investigation". I KNOW that only verified information can be used for that and that such verification must be held BY THE PEOPLE. Meaning the issue of the core deception can be verified by the people, truthers. However, they are too enamored with titillating fantasy provided by the psyops of NO PLANES.

The misdirection of the quest for truth will be successful IF those not taken in by the nonsense CANNOT stick with what can be evidenced clearly.

[christophera]

The NPTists have never defined how the NP information might be used to compel a proper investigation. This is a real need IF a group expects others to go along with their theory, particuarly when it so seriously compromises the public's quest for 9-11 truth with it's outrageous assertion.

[bryan]

The NPTists have never defined how the NP information might be used to compel a proper investigation. This is a real need IF a group expects others to go along with their theory, particuarly when it so seriously compromises the public's quest for 9-11 truth with it's outrageous assertion.

The only worthwhile contribution you've made to 9/11 research is making people realize there's something seriously wrong with Fintan Dunne, who once gave you an interview and took you seriously.

[thematrix]

Do you think a wing tip would have enough force to push a column backwards and shear the bolts?

yes!

Do you know how fast the plane was travelling - how much potential kinetic energy was involved in the impact, and how strong the columns would have had to have been to resist that impact?

Look at birdstrikes on aircraft - how is a fragile bird supposed to smash apart a big heavy aircraft engine?

Look at bullets made froma very soft metal (lead) at a high enough velocity they will smash through solid steel.

It's not the strength (or lack of strength) of an impacting object that does the damage - it's the force that it hits with.


This sentence is begging to be narrated by Caroline Catz. Aren't responsible 9/11 truthers supposed to limit themselves to asking the tough questions and demanding a new investigation? What is there to suggest that the plane was shredded, apart from a vivid imagination?

I have no dea who Caroline Catz is.

er there is lots of plane debris found all around ground zero. There as not any intact planes recovered - ergo the plane was shredded.

There is video of a crash test where a military jet was smashed into a thick concrete wall - the plane was turned into confetti by the impact. Ergo at high speeds impacts with solid objects smash planes into tiny pieces (i.e. shred them) - yes this was a different plane altogether but the basic construction of aircraft is similar (thin aluminium fuselage - solid heavy engines and landing gear pieces)


Think about it - the facade of the WTC tower was a series of steel hollow columns - with WINDOWS inbetween them. The varying difference in resistance offered to the impacting plane by the steel columns and the flimsy windows will act like a series of cheesewires slicing and shredding an impacting aircraft until the force of impact smashes the weakest point of the steel resisting the plane (which happened to be the bolts holding together sections of the columns for the most part) and it stops offering resistance.

[lightgiver]

Big error. There were no steel core columns. What they call "the core" is really outside the concrete tubular core and fastened to it. This superimposition of the intact tower over it will show its location.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/superimp.spire.wtc1.jpg

Here is what is seen in the video but closer and clearer. Right is interior box column, center is an end view of the concrete core shear wall, and left is the remainder of some of the interupted walls that crossed the core of WTC 1 and supported the hallways.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc1spirecorewall.jpg

Then after the spire, which is called an interior box column as a part of the inner wall of the exterior steel framework, falls, there is rebar standing. Big, 3 inch high tensile steel.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg

big error on what:confused:you mean your info is correct and ours is not:rolleyes::D:D lol,what makes you an expert:confused:

a FEW pics.

[lightgiver]

yes!

Do you know how fast the plane was travelling - how much potential kinetic energy was involved in the impact, and how strong the columns would have had to have been to resist that impact?

Look at birdstrikes on aircraft - how is a fragile bird supposed to smash apart a big heavy aircraft engine?

Look at bullets made froma very soft metal (lead) at a high enough velocity they will smash through solid steel.

It's not the strength (or lack of strength) of an impacting object that does the damage - it's the force that it hits with.



I have no dea who Caroline Catz is.

er there is lots of plane debris found all around ground zero. There as not any intact planes recovered - ergo the plane was shredded.

There is video of a crash test where a military jet was smashed into a thick concrete wall - the plane was turned into confetti by the impact. Ergo at high speeds impacts with solid objects smash planes into tiny pieces (i.e. shred them) - yes this was a different plane altogether but the basic construction of aircraft is similar (thin aluminium fuselage - solid heavy engines and landing gear pieces)


Think about it - the facade of the WTC tower was a series of steel hollow columns - with WINDOWS inbetween them. The varying difference in resistance offered to the impacting plane by the steel columns and the flimsy windows will act like a series of cheesewires slicing and shredding an impacting aircraft until the force of impact smashes the weakest point of the steel resisting the plane (which happened to be the bolts holding together sections of the columns for the most part) and it stops offering resistance.

tell this guy,what YOU the EXPERT have just said:confused::p
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM

i suppose he is wrong as well???

[lightgiver]

Like this bullet matrix:confused:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgn7MUp6UxA :D:D