9/11 DISINFORMATION: NO-PLANES THEORY

NEW WAVE 9/11 PSYOP >> DEW-Nuke – NPT – Digital Fakery – Holograms

The No-Planes Theory is closely related to the Video-Fakery Theory. It stands to reason that if there were ‘no planes’ then they had to have been faked in some fashion, this is either assumed to be digital fakery or holograms in real life.

Essentially the No-Planes Theory is based on the idea that it is impossible for real planes to have crashed into the World Trade Towers. It is proposed that these planes could not have flown at the speeds they were clocked at. It is proposed that the planes could not have broken through the façade. The planes are characterized as no more than “flying hollow aluminum beer cans.” [Jim Fetzer]. Jim Fetzer’s logic is so twisted and ludicrous that it could go without mention, but for the fact that it has such legs on the Internet. As a PR agent and salesman for “Conspiracy Theory” he has a substantial following of the not-so-bright. It is a testament to the ‘Dumbing Down of America’, that such a charlatan as Fetzer should have such a following – but also that he himself is a ‘Professor Emeritus’ at a prestigious university, and his field is no less than ‘the history and philosophy of science’…and he ‘teaches’ classes in ‘logic’ of all things. This can only take place in a paradigm of Kafkaesque absurdity.

Fetzer was finally caught out in his lunacy on the blog, ‘Truth and Shadows’, where he made the claim that an object in a ‘state of inertia’ would have the quality of ‘vector’__this after bleating about Newtonian Physics for months there. He has no more grasp of Newton than the average six year old. I will not go into his ‘argument’ for the no-planes theory further in this essay, but I will surely do so in the commentary section that will follow after this is posted.

As I have already addressed the video-fakery issue in the first of this series on the New Wave 9/11 Psyop, I will have more to say to the physics of the issue than reiterating the digital fakery arguments.

I will begin with a short exposition of the aircraft in question, before moving on to the crash physics of the event.

The Boeing 757 and 767:

The aluminum that modern aircraft are made of is not the same soft material as that of a beer can: Aluminum 2219-T81 UNS A92219; ISO AlCu6Mn; Aluminium 2219-T81; AA2219-T81 – with a tensile strength greater than that of structural steel.

Gross weights 172,365 kg (380,000 lb) and, from 1992, 186,880 kg (412,000 lb); further increased centre-section tankage.

Structure

Fail-safe structure. Conventional aluminium structure augmented by graphite ailerons, spoilers, elevators, rudder and floor panels; advanced aluminium alloy keel beam chords and wing skins; composites {Kevlar} engine cowlings, wing/fuselage fairing and rear wing panels; CFRP landing gear doors; and aramid flaps and engine pylon fairings.

The airframe further incorporates carbon-fiber reinforced plastic wing surfaces, Kevlar fairings and access panels. Boeing 757 & 767.

SEE: Boeing 757 – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boeing 767 | FlightMemory – Encyclopedia

www.flightmemory.com/encyclopedia/Boeing_767.html

http://www.nornc.com/stuff/planes/767.htm

Jet Impacts on WTC Towers 9/11/2001

Analysis by Willy Whitten – August and September 2012

All available data and reasoning based on such, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that large twin engine jets hit the world trade towers.

That they were flown by remote control [1], and had special engines configured to fly at the speed {at sea level} recorded: 450mph.

[1. See; Aidan Monaghan B.Sc. EET – abstract below]

This evidence includes, video footage and still images – radar analysis – wind shear analysis proving superior control –Sandia crash data – as well as kinetics analysis proving the energy needs were more than sufficient.

ABSTRACT:

Newton’s Laws of Mechanics:

> First law: Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it.

……….

This first law has to do with inertia or momentum, depending on the original states of the bodies in question.

As per the event we speak to, the first body is the building. In the frame, ie planet Earth; this body is at rest, an inert state, which has only one property: Mass.

>Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.

……….

A state of Momentum has three components: Mass – Velocity – *Specific Direction. [*vector] -Velocity is described as mass-times-velocity squared in the energy equation.

In our frame, ONLY the plane has a state of momentum.

Moment and Point of Impact are both necessary integers in formulating impact physics. At that point and moment the kinetic energy of the mass in movement is transferred into the building AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT – the impact zone.

It is at this point that we come to the third law; that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And this does certainly depend on the speed of an impact, as the first two laws clearly state that they are of first and second account before the third proposition can manifest.

Again it is at the point and moment of impact that the third law comes into effect and must be translated as per the laws of kinetics incorporating the maxim of equal and opposite reaction:

Kinetic Energy is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity.

KINETICS 9/11:

The energy equals one half the mass times the velocity squared: ( E = 1/2 m v^2)

The plane has a Mass of 120 tons – traveling at a Velocity of 540 MPH:

The kinetic energy resulting would be equal to 0.75812 ton TNT

OR: 3.1720e+9 joules (watt second)

SEE:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/kineticenergycalc.html Kinetic Energy Calculator

……….

So, let’s put together what we now know about the crash physics for this event:

This explosive energy, equivalent to about ¾ ton of TNT is applied as a directed force – vector quality – against the structure of the façade at the points on the structure corresponding to the shapes of the entering jet {the shapes change because of original contours meeting at different moments, plus deformations from impact.

We also have verification that the energy was applied externally from a video analysis shows a measurable rocking back of the building in reaction to the impact. This movement is imperceptible to the human eye until seen in a grid.

An interior explosion would create a radial blast lacking vector.

This is overwhelming evidence that real jets impacted and penetrated the towers.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

[1] http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Monaghan_Analysis.pdf

Review of Analysis of Observed and Measured In-Flight Turns Suggests Superior Control of 9/11 WTC Aircraft

Aidan Monaghan B.Sc. EET

Abstract:

“Video footage depicts United Airlines Flight 175 (UA 175) impacting World Trade Center tower 2 (WTC 2) on September 11, 2001 in New York City via a trajectory comprised of two separate banked turns. The second turn was apparently not required to generate impact. The first turn, which maintains a constant angle of bank (AoB), is evident at 1.2 miles before impact. Although human control of UA 175’s observed maneuvers cannot be ruled out, the precise coordination of variables such as the selections of a correct bank angle and turn start time for the first turn apparently pose challenges to the unaided human control hypothesis. The observed turn stability favors the use of autopilot operation, either functioning in a conventional course control mode or in Control Wheel Steering (CWS) mode. The probability that either of these two control systems were used is discussed. Flight deck images of United and American airlines 757s and 767s suggest that such CWS functions may have been disabled circa 2001. Constant radius turns utilizing plotted waypoints during commercial aviation operations are routinely supported by augmented GPS navigation service and related commercial Flight Management Systems (FMS) available circa 2001.

As will be demonstrated, the implementation of UA 175’s observed 1.2 mile constant radius arc, seconds earlier or later than observed, would apparently result in UA 175 missing WTC 2. Estimates of the likely effect of crosswinds on the approach to WTC 2 are also provided. It is noted that a projected impact via the first observed banked turn would have occurred under crosswind conditions capable of generating between 122 and 134 approximate total feet of lateral displacement from the calculated final position of the aircraft if not affected by such crosswinds. Aircraft distances and other calculations are based on reported aircraft speed for UA 175 of 799 feet per second at impact and measured times to impact. The observed speeds of both attack aircraft were extreme by comparison to the typical speeds of similarly descending aircraft. While creating significantly less response time for possible human hijacker pilot course corrections during final target approaches that would demand superior control surface operation, a general vector analysis considering the final course and speed for each aircraft suggests that the unusually high speeds observed would generate greater accuracy of the aircraft while enroute to their targets, as a result of smaller course deflection angles and ground track displacements, created by existing and potential crosswinds.”

This suggestion of Superior Control over these aircraft is strong evidence of the likelihood of robotic piloting of the aircraft.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

So what is the relevance of the Sandia test of the F-4 Phantom jet impacting a massive concrete block?

The conclusion based on the slo-motion video taken was:

“No change in velocity was measured before or during impact to within an error of 3%.”

It is this scientifically determined fact that puts the false assertions to rest that it was in some way “mysterious” that the impacting jets passed through the façades without perceptible slowing. Or as the ‘no-planers’ claim, “like a hot knife through butter.”

Fetzer uses the term “effortlessly,” but as see in the discussion of the physics detailed above, to claim this impact was ‘effortless’ is rhetorical nonsense.

The term “effort” is the energy put into work to achieve the effect manifest. As we have seen in the analysis of the crash, there was massive ‘effort’ or force in the kinetic energy of the mass of the aircraft; equal to 0.75812 ton TNT or 3.1720e+9 joules (watt second).

Taking these facts into account is why I disagree that there needed be any other energy involved than that of the momentum in vector of this mass. I discount a charge inside as that would be internal {a radial non-vector blast}, which is a problem already addressed in the reaction of the building. I discount the idea of a missile being fired from the aircraft because the shaped charge of the energy due to vector is immense alone. It is not merely a matter that the added energy would be redundant, but it would also have been excessive. Too large an explosion might have blown too much material far beyond the WTC area into buildings blocks away. That is not part of the target. The mechanics and energy needs for this strike were carefully calculated, and the results well expected and achieved.

Added Note:

UA175 final trajectory based on the available videos by Achimspok.

http://www.911blogger.com/news/2009-06-17/ua175-last-12-seconds-3d-simulation

This shows that in all the available videos that the final trajectory of the planes were exactly the same in all videos. Which again blows the video-fakery theories out of the running.

\\][//

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “9/11 DISINFORMATION: NO-PLANES THEORY

  1. It is obvious that two planes hit the Twin Towers. Without two dramatic planestrikes, a storyline long planned and previewed by predictive programming, the controlled demolition of three buildings would be too obvious for even a sheep to choke down as seersucker at the ol TV trough. To frame the first strike when nobody was supposed to expect it, there just happened to be that Jules dude with his video camera filming shoes and pantlegs at the perfect intersection with the NYFD. Keep moving right along now. His brother walked out of the firehouse where they were embedded, and filmed the second strike, but so did many others as by then many cameras were turned toward the Towers. Got planes? Good, because M$M dropped the very obvious explosives’ story by 9/12.
    No planes crashed in PA and at the Pentagon however. Maybe that is what the no planes diversion is really all about, to make us forget that there were no bodies, seats, engines, fuselages, wings or luggage at those two other crash sites.

    • “No planes crashed in PA and at the Pentagon however.”~Jack Flash

      Yes, agreed.

      The “No Planes” theory is exclusively addressing the WTC strikes. I had a long debate with Fetzer on Truth and Shadows on this topic. One of his techniques of disingenuous argumentation was to try to confuse the various issues of the WTC planes, with the Pentagon and Shanksville planes.

      He would also jumble the language by saying that those who argued for plane strikes at the WTC were arguing specifically for the official designated airliners of the official narrative. Fetzer was promoting the absurd idea of ‘hologram planes’… The debates on T+S are quite interesting to look back on. Fetzer proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he knows nothing of applied physics. He is a charlatan. And that is the tragedy of the so-called “Truth Movement” – that it was so quickly infiltrated by shills and charlatans such as Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy Wood.
      I have a special distaste for Simon Shack as well; A real goofball that guy. He doesn’t know the first thing about digital cinematic effects. But he attempts to pass himself off as an expert.

      It was the major arguments on Truth and Shadows on these subjects that was the impetus to write the ‘New Wave 9/11 Disinformation’ articles. Which I hope to combine into a combined feature article at some point – as none of the present works are composed and constructed properly.

      \\][//

      • Many have been fooled by the use of the word “hologram” in PR promoting stage shows at amusement parks, fairs, and concerts. The techniques used at these events all revolve around Musion Eyeliner, which is not in fact a hologram technique, but one based on Peppers Ghost, a process developed for stage over a hundred years ago. In the effect the illusion can only be achieved by a specific POV, or ‘eyeline’ thus the term “eyliner” in Musion Eyeliner.

        Holograms cannot be projected.

        PEPPER’S GHOST

        “Pepper’s ghost is an illusion technique used in theatre, haunted houses, dark rides, and magic tricks. It uses plate glass, Plexiglas or plastic film and special lighting techniques to make objects seem to appear or disappear, become transparent, or to make one object morph into another. It is named after John Henry Pepper, who popularized the effect.

        For the illusion to work, the viewer must be able to see into the main room, but not into the hidden or “blue room.” The edge of the glass is sometimes hidden by a cleverly designed pattern in the floor.

        The hidden room may be an identical mirror-image of the main room, so that its reflected image matches the main rooms; this approach is useful in making objects seem to appear or disappear. This illusion can also be used to make one object or person reflected in the mirror appear to morph into another behind the glass (or vice versa). This is the principle behind the Girl-to-Gorilla trick found in old carnival sideshows and in the James Bond movie Diamonds Are Forever.[1]

        The hidden room may instead be painted black, with only light-colored objects in it. In this case when light is cast on the room, only the light objects reflect the light and appear as ghostly translucent images superimposed in the visible room.

        In the Haunted Mansion at Disneyland, Walt Disney World, and Disneyland Tokyo, the glass is vertical to the viewer as opposed to the normal angled position, reflecting animated props below and above the viewer that create the appearance of three-dimensional, translucent “ghosts” that appear to dance through the ballroom and interact with props in the physical ballroom. The apparitions appear and disappear when the lights on the animations turn on and off.

        Giambattista della Porta[edit]
        Giambattista della Porta was a 16th-century Neapolitan scientist and scholar who is credited with a number of scientific innovations, including the camera obscura. His 1584 work Magia Naturalis (Natural Magic) includes a description of an illusion, titled “How we may see in a Chamber things that are not” that is the first known description of the Pepper’s Ghost effect.[2]

        Porta’s description, from the 1658 English language translation, is as follows.

        Let there be a chamber wherein no other light comes, unless by the door or window where the spectator looks in. Let the whole window or part of it be of glass, as we used to do to keep out the cold. But let one part be polished, that there may be a Looking-glass on bothe sides, whence the spectator must look in. For the rest do nothing. Let pictures be set over against this window, marble statues and suchlike. For what is without will seem to be within, and what is behind the spectator’s back, he will think to be in the middle of the house, as far from the glass inward, as they stand from it outwardly, and clearly and certainly, that he will think he sees nothing but truth. But lest the skill should be known, let the part be made so where the ornament is, that the spectator may not see it, as above his head, that a pavement may come between above his head. And if an ingenious man do this, it is impossible that he should suppose that he is deceived.[3]

        John Pepper and Henry Dircks[edit]
        The Royal Polytechnic Institute London was a permanent science-related institution, first opened in 1838. With a degree in chemistry, John Henry Pepper joined the institution as a lecturer in 1848. The Polytechnic awarded him the title of Professor. In 1854, he became the director and sole lessee of the Royal Polytechnic.

        In 1862, inventor Henry Dircks developed the Dircksian Phantasmagoria, his version of the long-established phantasmagoria performances. This technique was used to make a ghost appear on-stage. He tried unsuccessfully to sell his idea to theatres. It required that theaters be completely rebuilt to support the effect, which they found too costly to consider. Later in the year, Dircks set up a booth at the Royal Polytechnic, where it was seen by John Pepper.[4]

        Pepper realized that the method could be modified to make it easy to incorporate into existing theatres. Pepper first showed the effect during a scene of Charles Dickens’s The Haunted Man, to great success. Pepper’s implementation of the effect tied his name to it permanently. Though he tried many times to give credit to Dircks, the title “Pepper’s ghost” endured.

        The relationship between Dircks and Pepper was summarised in an 1863 article from Spectator:

        “This admirable ghost is the offspring of two fathers, of a learned member of the Society of Civil Engineers, Henry Dircks, Esq., and of Professor Pepper, of the Polytechnic. To Mr. Dircks belongs the honour of having invented him, or as the disciplines of Hegel would express it, evolved him from out of the depths of his own consciousness; and Professor Pepper has the merit of having improved him considerably, fitting him for the intercourse of mundane society, and even educating him for the stage.”[5]”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper%27s_ghost

        The following is a very basic and crude example of Pepper’s Ghost:

        \\][//

  2. This much has been crystal clear since 2005, by these admissions from NIST:

    “Objective 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (p xxxvii/39)”

    The extent of NIST’s explanation for the totality of the collapses and their many demolition-like features is simply that the total collapse was “inevitable” once a collapse event was “initiated”. A footnote in the Executive Summary reads:

    The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39)

    The footnote is a re-worded version of a paragraph in the text of the Report’s Draft, which read:

    “… although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft)”

    That adjustment reflects the addition of a half-page section entitled “Events Following Collapse Initiation,” that combines a vague rendition of the pile-driver theory with incomplete, circular, and straw-man arguments against the demolition hypothesis. The addition of this section does not change the fact that NIST did not attempt to model, or characterize the collapses in any meaningful way.

    http://911research.com/essays/nist/

    For simplicity let us just put forward these two short items, directly from NIST itself:

    >“Objective 1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (p xxxvii/39)”

    >“… although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft)”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    It is clear to any sane individual that NIST did not fulfill Objective 1.

    Any claims that this was a full and complete scientific investigation are utterly without merit.
    To the contrary, NIST produced a pseudo-scientific fraud of criminal proportions, and those who propagate this fraud are complicit in this criminal enterprise.

    \\][//

    • As to the video “analysis” above, the solution is simple and obvious; all of the buildings on the left side of the screen are in the foreground in this POV of the Tower. The plane flies in front of them and smashes into the tower that is farther away than the foreground buildings.

      The rest of the juvenile prattle by the narrator is already covered in the body of this thread [above]: the materials question, the impact analysis, show this kid hasn’t a clue as to what he is talking about.

      I just picked up this video from COTO today, where all of those commenting fell for it like slipping on a banana peal. That is why I am COTO no more, they are all a bunch of hacks when it comes to critical analysis.
      \\][//

  3. Pepper’s ghost
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper%27s_ghost

    There is no such thing as a “projected hologram” – what is usually referred to as ‘holograms’ in stage shows is ‘Pepper’s Ghost’, as explained in this article on wiki.

    “Pepper’s ghost is an illusion technique used in theatre, haunted houses, dark rides and in some magic tricks. Using plate glass, Plexiglas or plastic film and special lighting techniques, it can make objects seem to appear or disappear, to become transparent, or to make one object morph into another. It is named after John Henry Pepper, who popularized the effect.”
    \\][//

  4. LITTLE BIRD MEETS BIG JET PLANE: A Fetzer Fable

    This is a tale told by James Fetzer to buttress his mass-ratio assertions to the plane impacts on the WTC towers. As many of those arguments, he does not argue to mass-ratio, but rather to crash dynamics and comparative materials strength. And he seems not to recognize this himself, as I have queried him on this myself extensively.

    Nevertheless the ‘Bird and Plane’ story is another instance of arguing material strengths and crash dynamics. However in this story he defeats his own mass ratio argument he plays to the crash into the towers. This story is actually an allegory to the building hitting a stationary plane; same dynamics: huge mass hitting tiny mass.

    First, ‘Comparative Materials Strengths:

    What do you suppose the tensile strength of a bird’s skull is? We are talking bone, at most two millimeters thick. The skull of even large birds can be crushed by a strong mans hand. The structural strength of the bones of the rest of the bird is even less than the skull. So in all, the structural strength of the entire bird is very small, birds are very frail in this regard. Now we go back to the airplane strikes bird story: How is it possible that a bird of such frail structure, and a mass thousands of times less than the airplane, is capable of penetrating metal that is stronger than industrial steel?

    To Mass-Ratio v Crash Physics:

    It is possible and has happened hasn’t it? Yes, and it has to do with speed, momentum and kinetics. Just like the impact of the jet into the towers – speed and kinetics and crash physics – not mass ratios; For what would you suppose is the mass ratio of our little bird and a 140 ton airplane? That mass-ratio would be just about 400,000 to 1. And the material strength ratio is literally inconsequential when one is comparing the crash physics of two metal objects to flesh, blood, and bones against metal.

    \\][//

    • Flight Termination System (FTS)
      Developed by SPC International (System Planning Coorporation).
      Former Vice President was Dr. Zakheim.
      System Planning Corporation developed the Flight Termination System (FTS), a safety and test
      system for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles.
      Doc Zakhaim became later member of the Bush Administration.

  5. How To Make (And Record) Explosive Sounds Using Common Household Chemicals
    By Peter Drescher
    “When sound designers post photos of these sessions to their websites and Facebook pages, they always have big goofy grins on their faces … and not just because explosions are fun to (safely) experience up close and personal. It’s also because they have to utilize a wide array of microphones and recording gear, usually in some remote mountain location, to accurately capture the crack-thud-wham of the explosive shock wave. It’s an audio guy’s dream scenario.”

    http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2012/09/how-to-make-and-record-explosi.html
    . . . .
    On the Controlled Demolition Inc. web site there is – or was, an explanation of how the company produced videos of their demolition, both for records, and as promotional materials.

    These productions are designed to present a totally professional presentation. The camera’s are set up at various distances and angles, with zoom and telephoto capabilities. The sound is produced separately using special shotgun mics that can be calibrated to capture a clear and finely equalized signal, so that every sonic detail is captured. The video and sound is edited together all synced to a time code for a pro production.

    And it is this difference in quality that makes the difference in what you here from news camera’s that are mainly designed to capture the dialog of the newsman on the scene. he is close to the mike and it is set to pick up his voice at conversational levels. the mics for such productions are attenuated to protect the diaphragm, and unexpected loud noises will drop out for the purpose of not causing diaphragm damage. Most commercial mics are set at a range of attenuation circuitry that drops out automatically when there are strong spikes in dB levels. This is why capturing the sound of thunderstorms can be difficult without specially attenuated mics.

    I used to do field recording when I was doing sound design to go with ambient music. I had spotty successes, ones that could be used with editing together the sounds and cutting out the dropouts when a surprise strike of lightning would hit nearby. It would take several seconds for the sound to fade back in after such events.

    And the point of this ‘tutorial’ (of sorts), is that it is not surprising that the sound in the videos from 9/11 have picked up spotty sound tracks during the bomb events. Many shots were from fairly good distances and would only pick up the reflected sounds produced in the “canyons” of buildings and streets. At great distances using telephoto lenses, very little to nothing would be picked up. At mid distances, fairly distinct sounds could be captured. At closer distances, the attenuation situation would occur and dropouts would be present.

    There are however several videos that were just at the right distance and settings that picked up good clear recordings of the explosions. On of them is posted on this page. Another is of a female reporter talking about secondary explosions on camera and they can be heart distinctly in the background. There is of course the video of the firemen at a phone booth making calls to their homes, when there are suddenly booms that totally freak them out.

    All together, with these recordings, plus the hundreds of ear witness testimonies, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that explosions are what took down the towers and #7.
    \\][//

  6. Richard Hall doesn’t have any idea how to read radar. If you watch closely – the official path [red] matches every single time. In his presentation Richard Hall shows a 767 impacting the WTC on video, verified by radar.

    The [ASR] radar is the most accurate. A radar path is not some pencil sharp line, it is a block, equal to 2 times the estimated or known accuracy in width. The plane can be anywhere inside that path. Radar reception and reflection is dependent on the power and distance of the station. Just as a seismograph will have varying readings and times for the same earthquake will depend on the distance, terrain and technical capabilities of the equipment used to register the quake.

    Hall has however shown that all of he videos show the same flight path and angle of attack.
    Hall claims that Andrew Johnson claims that only 21 people reported seeing a plane. However Hall has just shown you 53 videos by people who saw the plane!
    . . . . . .
    As for Judy Woowoo, the images of the impact area clearly show that the wing tips did not cut the columns but did mar the outer aluminum facade. Also you can indeed walk on these aircraft’s wings; doors open right out onto them, there are in fact escape protocols using the wings as escape paths for emergency unboarding.
    . . . . . . . .
    I have already shown you the crash physics of the planes hitting the towers, using Newton’s laws themselves.
    Now let’s see about the rest of the garbage that Hall is spewing in his presentations:


    \\][//

  7. 9/11 PLANES HOAX

    “A plane does not pass through steel & concrete like a ghost!

    Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” High school physics states that the force an airplane exerts on a building is the same as the force a building exerts on an airplane. Let’s apply Newton’s Third Law to Flight 175. In the 9/11 story, Flight 175 strikes the South Tower at 450 m.p.h. Now imagine that the South Tower moved at 450 m.p.h. and struck a stationary Flight 175. We would not expect that Flight 175 would be undamaged. We would not expect that it would simply disappear into the South Tower. Any video that shows an aluminum airplane with a fibreglass nose cone gliding through a steel and concrete building violates Newton’s Laws of Motion.”~Dean Hartwell
    http://911planeshoax.com/tag/dean-hartwell/
    . . . . . . . . .
    We see that Hartwell is making the same elemental errors as Fetzer makes in misinterpreting Newtonian Physics. The paragraph above shows us that, like Fetzer, Hartwell is ignoring the frame of the event, that is the fact that it takes place on planet Earth. He is dealing with Newton’s mechanics as if we are talking about the event taking place in a vacuum without gravity, and all the environmental specifics of the real event on 9/11.

    On planet Earth, the building is in an inert state. In such a state it has only one quality, that of Mass. There is no momentum, trajectory nor vector for this building as it is structurally rooted into the ground. See my crash analysis in the body of the original post above.
    \\][//

  8. The point in countering propaganda is not to change the propagandist’s mind, but to lay his techniques and dissembling bare to a candid world.~ww
    \\][//

  9. First scientifically accurate visualization of 9/11 attack
    Engineers and computer scientists at Purdue University have created the first scientifically accurate visualization of the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11. Even though it is an animation it is still intensely engrossing.

    This video portrays what in my opinion is a very good visualization of the plane impact.
    One will note that the damage sustained by the building clearly would not have led to a global collapse.
    It is highly doubtful that NIST’s “collapse initiation” would even have been possible.
    \\][//

  10. A Critical Review of WTC ‘No Plane’ Theories
    By Eric Salter
    “…we already know from the real-life Sandia test the very large amount of fracturing that happens in a collision of this speed.
    The outer parts of the wings that hit the columns would not have remained in large pieces that wrapped
    around the columns, but instead would have been fractured into small pieces. The segments of the wing
    over the windows would have continued into the building. The wing material left outside would fall to the
    ground as small particles.
    To put it another way: Technically, it was not the hardness or thickness of the concrete block that caused
    the complete pulverization of the airplane in the Sandia test. The kinetic energy of the plane itself caused
    the disintegration (and certainly some heat energy as well). The cement block merely facilitated that
    conversion of kinetic energy. Any object that could stop the forward motion of a plane (or part of a plane)
    moving at that speed would cause the same amount of fracturing. The outer wall columns of the WTC
    completely stopped the forward progress of the outer half of the wings. Thus, the wings were pulverized.
    The concrete floors would have had a similar effect on any parts of the airplane whose forward motion
    was halted. Thus, the videos of the second impact are totally realistic and are simply a verification of the
    results of the Sandia test. Those who have denounced them as showing impossible “melting planes” are
    simply displaying a lack of understanding of physics.
    Reynolds goes on to argue that the shock of impact should have caused the wings to break off and move
    forward. The study he cites is a simulation of a 747 whose forward progress comes to a complete stop.
    Obviously, the mere 12% reduction in speed of the 767 on penetrating the outside of the building was not
    sufficient to make this happen.
    More detailed analysis of the physics and material science involved would have to be done by someone
    with more knowledge than me, but it should be clear at this point that Reynolds’ core arguments fall apart
    merely by the application of elementary principles and existing test results.
    Near the end of the article, Reynolds cites a series of alleged anomalies in the images of the impact that
    supposedly indicate fakery. As shown above, I’ve already addressed the majority of these “anomalies”
    and they turned out to be amateurish misrepresentations of normal video phenomena.
    Reynolds says: “Sorting out theories of ‘what really happened’ awaits another day…” No doubt he wants
    to put off explaining the impossible: how the perps of 9/11 could have controlled all the cameras present
    on 9/11.
    Unfortunately, Reynolds’ contribution to 9/11 truth effectively functions as a Trojan horse, sandwiching
    bogus no-plane theories between more reputable data, like the tower demolitions. Undoubtedly, the black
    ops behind 911 must be pleased when Reynolds talks about the no-plane theories on national TV.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf
    \\][//

  11. Reply to Dr. Greening
    Author: The author of this work, Gordon Ross, was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in
    both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John
    Moores University, in 1984.

    Dr Greening states, “Certainly, if Ross’ suggestion that 24 floors below about the 95th
    floor moved downward after the impact of the upper section, the videos and photographs of the
    collapse of WTC should show a noticeable downward displacement of floors between the 70th
    and 94th levels immediately after the impact. In fact, no such movement was observed. ”
    My analysis showed that a gravity only collapse would produce a “noticeable downward
    displacement” and an arrest. I would argue that the absence of a noticeable downward
    displacement is less significant than the very noticeable absence of arrest. Since neither was
    observed then logic would dictate that either the analysis is wrong or it was not a gravity-only
    collapse.
    By adopting Dr. Greening’s own arguments, corrections, contentions, figures and
    reasoning, the analysis once again shows that the collapse would be arrested at an early stage.
    Dr. Greening has not disproved the logic and conclusions of my article, but has in fact
    reinforced the most important conclusion: that collapse would have been arrested at an early
    stage.

    Further doubt has been cast on a gravity-driven collapse using the analysis Dr.
    Greening has provided in reference to the pulverisation of the concrete. Combining this
    with our knowledge of the theoretical minimum collapse time having regard only to
    momentum transfer, it is shown that a collapse time of 17.5seconds, is the theoretical
    minimum collapse time having regard only to the momentum transfers and the concrete
    pulverisation. This timing contrarily does not take regard of the loss of effective mass that
    would be present due to the pulverisation and the ejection of the concrete pieces outside the
    area where they play a role in promulgating the collapse. Having regard to this and the
    other energies involved, the theoretical minimum collapse time can be seen to be
    approaching double that of the figures given for the collapse timing in official reports, even
    with no account taken of the energy demand from the distortion and destruction wrought
    to the steel superstructures.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf
    \\][//

  12. The NIST WTC Investigation–How Real Was The Simulation?
    A review of NIST NCSTAR 1
    By Eric Douglas, R.A.

    The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.

    NIST’s physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST’s conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.

    There were also flaws in NIST’s computer simulations, including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global simulation. The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NIST’s subsequent “scenario pruning” was confused and unsubstantiated. The decision to exclude the hat truss from the structural/thermal response simulations was a significant omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to pull-in forces on the exterior columns is central to NIST’s theory but not explained or supported by simulation.

    This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although not necessarily incorrect, are not inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2. The author calls on NIST to explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf
    \\][//

  13. Modern Popular History is a Myth That Prevails Against All Evidence.
    This myth is upheld with 3 false conceptualizations:
    1. Coincidence Theory
    2. Incompetence Theory
    3. Blowback Theory
    \\][//

  14. Frank Legge, David Chandler, Kevin Ryan — Disinformants on Pentagon Event:

    “Legge’s new “paper” was debunked over 2 years ago when “Reheat” attempted the same absurd argument.

    9/11: The North Flight Path (official Release), Aerodynamically Possible – Witness Compatible

    The North Approach, Technical Supplement to “9/11: The North Flight Path”

    Speed based on Radar

    His previous two “papers” were also summarily debunked.

    Warren Stutt Decode Shows Altitude too high to Impact Pentagon
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10778240

    Warren Stutt’s admitted lack of expertise with respect to FDR Investigation
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10799563

    RA – PA Correlation, proving the “Altitude Divergence” calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10794074

    If Legge/Stutt “Altitude Divergence” calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10793490

    Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt’s theory false.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10794159

    Explains Lack Of Attention To Detail in the very first paragraph of the Legge/Stutt “Paper”
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10793061

    Proof of Legge trying to weasel his way out of mis/disinformation he has presented
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p…&p=10793501

    A Response To Frank Legge And Warren Stutt, P4T rebuttal to Legge/Stutt “Paper” and “Rebuttal”
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21025

    Now if he can only get someone on his side who has extensive aeronautical knowledge and understands aerodynamics. Then again, we already know what happened when he tried….

    “There is nothing wrong with this paper that a trip through a shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth community could not cure.” – Lt Col Shelton Lankford

    “Hello Shelton:

    I read your review of the Legge/Chandler paper and it is excellent!
    Thank-you very much for your efforts in this regard. I have not reviewed
    the paper and don’t intend to, but I have read it and agree whole-heartedly
    with your comments. The dark forces of disinformation are very busy these
    days, in particular in regards to CIT and P4T. Of course this is because
    the research of CIT and P4T demonstrates a direct link between the
    military/government and the false flag events at the Pentagon.” – Captain Bruce Sinclair

    Not even laymen with respect to aviation will endorse Legge’s “paper”.

    “Rob,

    Have just returned from a 2-week trip to Russia, so I was pleased to get updated on this issue.

    No (of course) I did not endorse Legge’s paper.” – David Ray Griffin

    For someone who claims to question 9/11, Frank Legge sure does spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove the govt story…. if it quacks like a duck…”~Rob bBalsamo
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=09330de3e6abd7f9c6d42bad16bac47e&showtopic=21569&st=20
    \\][//

  15. The Boeing 757 and 767:

    The aluminum that modern aircraft are made of is not the same soft material as that of a beer can: Aluminum 2219-T81 UNS A92219; ISO AlCu6Mn; Aluminium 2219-T81; AA2219-T81 – with a tensile strength greater than that of structural steel.

    Gross weights 172,365 kg (380,000 lb) and, from 1992, 186,880 kg (412,000 lb); further increased centre-section tankage.

    Structure

    Fail-safe structure. Conventional aluminium structure augmented by graphite ailerons, spoilers, elevators, rudder and floor panels; advanced aluminium alloy keel beam chords and wing skins; composites {Kevlar} engine cowlings, wing/fuselage fairing and rear wing panels; CFRP landing gear doors; and aramid flaps and engine pylon fairings.

    The airframe further incorporates carbon-fiber reinforced plastic wing surfaces, Kevlar fairings and access panels. Boeing 757 & 767.
    Jet Impacts on WTC Towers 9/11/2001

    Analysis by Willy Whitten – August and September 2012

    All available data and reasoning based on such, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that large twin engine jets hit the world trade towers.

    That they were flown by remote control [1], and had special engines configured to fly at the speed {at sea level} recorded: 450mph.

    [1. See; Aidan Monaghan B.Sc. EET – abstract below]

    This evidence includes, video footage and still images – radar analysis – wind shear analysis proving superior control –Sandia crash data – as well as kinetics analysis proving the energy needs were more than sufficient.

    ABSTRACT:

    Newton’s Laws of Mechanics:

    > First law: Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it.

    ……….

    This first law has to do with inertia or momentum, depending on the original states of the bodies in question.

    As per the event we speak to, the first body is the building. In the frame, ie planet Earth; this body is at rest, an inert state, which has only one property: Mass.

    >Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F acting on the body, is in the direction of the net force, and is inversely proportional to the mass m of the body, i.e., F = ma.

    ……….

    A state of Momentum has three components: Mass – Velocity – *Specific Direction. [*vector] -Velocity is described as mass-times-velocity squared in the energy equation.

    In our frame, ONLY the plane has a state of momentum.

    Moment and Point of Impact are both necessary integers in formulating impact physics. At that point and moment the kinetic energy of the mass in movement is transferred into the building AT THAT SPECIFIC POINT – the impact zone.

    It is at this point that we come to the third law; that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. And this does certainly depend on the speed of an impact, as the first two laws clearly state that they are of first and second account before the third proposition can manifest.

    Again it is at the point and moment of impact that the third law comes into effect and must be translated as per the laws of kinetics incorporating the maxim of equal and opposite reaction:

    Kinetic Energy is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity.

    KINETICS 9/11:

    The energy equals one half the mass times the velocity squared: ( E = 1/2 m v^2)

    The plane has a Mass of 120 tons – traveling at a Velocity of 540 MPH:

    The kinetic energy resulting would be equal to 0.75812 ton TNT

    OR: 3.1720e+9 joules (watt second)

  16. “Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building. This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section. I have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall.

    Building 7 was not only demolished, it was demolished with tremendous overkill. Freefall was so embarrassing to NIST that in the August 2008 draft release for public comment of their final report, the fact of freefall was denied and crudely covered up with the assertion that the collapse took 40% longer than “freefall time.” They asserted that the actual collapse, down to the level of the 29th floor, took 5.4 seconds whereas freefall would have taken only 3.9 seconds. They arrived at their figures with only two data points: the time when the roofline reached the level of the 29th floor and an artificially early start time several seconds prior to the beginning of the obvious, sudden onset of freefall.

    They started their clock at a time between the collapses of the east and west penthouses when the building was not moving. They claimed they saw a change in a “single pixel” triggering what they asserted was the onset of collapse, but anyone who has worked with the actual videos will recognize that the edge artifacts in the image of the building make this an unrealistic standard.

    Furthermore, even if there was a tiny motion of the building at that point, it continued to stand essentially motionless for several more seconds before the dramatic onset of freefall collapse. The fact of a cover up in NIST’s measurement is underlined in that the formula they point to as the basis for their calculation of “freefall time” is valid only under conditions of constant acceleration. They applied that equation to a situation that was far from uniform acceleration. Instead, the building remained essentially at rest for several seconds, then plunged into freefall, then slowed to a lesser acceleration.

    Their analysis demonstrates either gross incompetence or a crude attempt at a cover up. The scientists at NIST are clearly not incompetent, so the only reasonable conclusion is to interpret this as part of a cover up.

    I had an opportunity to confront NIST about the easily demonstrated fact of freefall at the technical briefing on August 26, 2008. I and several other scientists and engineers also filed official “requests for correction” in the days that followed. When they released their final report in November 2008, much to the surprise of the 9/11 Truth community, they had revised their measurements of the collapse of the building, including an admission of 2.25 seconds of absolute freefall. However, they couched the period of freefall in a framework of a supposed “three phase collapse sequence” that still occupies exactly 5.4 seconds.

    The recurrence of 5.4 seconds, even in a completely revised analysis, is very puzzling until you realize its context. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told the audience in the August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing that their computerized collapse model had predicted the collapse down to the 29th floor level would take 5.4 seconds, well beyond the 3.9 seconds required for freefall. From the events at the Technical Briefing it appears that a team headed by structural engineer John Gross dutifully fabricated a 5.4 second observation to exactly match the prediction”~David Chandler — Wednesday, 16 April 2014
    \\][//

  17. Wanker;
    [noun]
    1. an individual who manifests all of the turgid negative qualities of Homo Vishnu Idioticus
    2. a complete and utterly insufferable bore and asshole
    3. a pussyboy nannytwat ignoramus
    \\][//

    • Dangler 12 58 minutes ago
      +Willy Whitten You are citing sources you DO NOT comprehend and making completely absurd claims based upon them. Typical.

      Yes, I actually understand, as I am trained and WORK as a multidisciplinary engineer in the Energy Corridor. Now then, shall we compare CV? How about your panel of ‘experts’? Why dont you explain, in detail, the source you cite and how it applies to this situation?
      Reply ·

      Willy Whitten 51 minutes ago (2 PM my time on 10/27/2015)
      Dangler says, “Now then, shall we compare CV? — He means, curriculum vitae – in plain English a resumé.
      Yes indeed, beginning with your real name and proof that it is that person posing here as “Dangler 12”.
      \\][//
      YouTube forum: 9/11: Decade of Deception
      I seem to recall going through this before with this shill – he is actually just a fucking truck mechanic!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s