Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel., How about pumpkins ? Options

[Quest]

All the debate over the physics aside, since none of us
are scientists, lets think abouth this logically.

After the first plane hit.........their were hundreds, if not
thousands of video and picture camera's fixed on the Towers.
The second plane hitting was caught by every angle possible.
Including this picture that was taken by Rob Howard of
flight 175.

(IMG:http://somagcc.blogharbor.com/_photos/flight%20175%20anomaly.jpg)


Would they doctor the videos and pictures with a plane that
had a pod on it ?

You are using unproven evidence (the plane image) as evidence this is the plane? This is known as a circular argument. Wouldn't you have to prove a plane hit the building 1st? Wouldn't you also have to find out who supposedly took the photo? Would it matter if the photo was taken by Dick Cheney?

To your point, the "pod" is there to get people discussing what TYPE of plane as opposed to wether there was a plane at all. The ruse obviously fooled many.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 08:23 PM

[Quest]

1. It's the mass and speed, not the material that it is made of, that will blast a hole through steel (and concrete), as demonstrated by the pumpkin gun videos.
2. There are no debris left below the entrance of the gash,
as demonstrated by the pumpkin gun videos.
3. When a projectile hits a stationary object fast enough, like the side of a tower, it's the stationary object that breaks first.
The projectile stays intact, after, the stationary object has broken.

If I throw a raw egg, in its' shell, at a window, hard enough, it will go through that window.
You will not find any broken eggshell below the broken pane, outside,
from where it was thrown, at the window,

...though there will be quite a mess inside the living room.

1. So Lunk, your assertion is that the wings should not be expected to exhibit any FORWARD ROTATION whatsover while penetrating the building and that even the wingtips should be expected to slice through any intact steel beems it is about to encounter. Am I correct? Is this you assertion?

2. Do you also assert that at no length/section of the wings should we expect to see deceleration?

(IMG:http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9189/hezarkhanicumv3.gif)

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 08:21 PM

[Quest]

Uhm, I don't think so. Speed is relative in the physics of a collision. An egg hitting a window is the same as a window hitting an egg.

Every analogy which has been brought up in this thread is apples to oranges. We simply don't have the data to make a solid case one way or another. Seems to me this would be a pretty simple thing to model with a computer.

Ditto.

[aerohead]

Quest i just told you who took the picture,
ROB HOWARD. And who said its unproven ?
Has someone proven it to be a doctored photo ?
There is not a video in existance of a NO-Plane
explosion. And if there was one in existance, it
would have hit youtube and the rest of the internet
years ago.

Paranoia,
Thanks for the illustration, but it reminds me of the
"pancake collapse" illustrations out there.
Is this what your calling the "concrete monsters" ?
33" tall trusses with 4 inches of composite construction
material on top ? Thats roughly the thickness of a typical
driveway. A 767, weighing nearly 300,000 lbs, could cut through
a driveway like it was jello.

(IMG:http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC-fig%202-8%20floor%20construction.jpg)



Ref- european 9/11 citizens jury.
WTC Construction


Was the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building a fake too ?

Clicky-------> B-25 Crashes THROUGH the Empire State Building



B-25 Specs

Specifications:
North American B-25J "Mitchell" Medium Bomber
Dimensions:
Wing span: Wing Span: 67 ft 7 in (20.59 m)
Length: Length: 51 ft (15.55 m)
Height: Height: 16 ft 4 in (4.98 m)
Wing Area: 610 sq ft (56.67 m²)
Weights:
Empty: 19,530 lb (8,858 kg)
Gross: 26,122 lb (11,848 kg)
Maximum T/O: 35,000 lb. (15,876 kg)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 285 mph (458 kph) at 15,000 ft (4,572 m)
Cruising Speed: 230 mph (370 kph)
Service Ceiling: 24,200 ft (7,376 m)
Normal Range: 1,350 miles (2,172 km) with
3,000 lbs (1,360 kg) of bombs
Maximum Range: 2,200 miles (3,540 km) with ferry tanks
Powerplant:
Two R-2600-29 Wright "Cyclone" 14 cylinder, air cooled radial
engines developing 1,700 hp (1,268 kW) each for T/O
Armament:
Eighteen .50 cal (12.7 mm) M-2 Colt-Browning machine guns.
Up to 3,200 lbs (1,451 kg) of bombs



200 MPH and 1/10 the weight of a 767 (30,000 v/s 300,000)

(IMG:http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/empire-state-building/esb-crash01.jpg)

This post has been edited by aerohead: Jul 29 2009, 08:40 PM

[Quest]

Quest i just told you who took the picture,
ROB HOWARD. And who said its unproven ?
Has someone proven it to be a doctored photo ?
There is not a video in existance of a NO-Plane
explosion. And if there was one in existance, it
would have hit youtube and the rest of the internet
years ago.

1. How do you know he took the picture? Because he said he did? Because someone else said he did? Do you understand that actual detectives have experts to analyze evidence and perform a procedure known as "establishing a chain of evidence"? Link to this procedure for this photo please.

2. Wouldn't you have to prove a plane hit the building before you set out to prove this was a photo of the supposed plane? If you continue to insist this is a photo of a plane that did
did the damage to the 2nd tower with no evidence, consider this "debate" over.

3. How do we know it's of an actual plane? The wings are asymetrical. Could this 'plane' even fly?

4. Where has it been proven this is an actual plane by experts? Links please.

Please reply point by point.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 09:33 PM

[Quest]

Aerohead, please weigh in on this post.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10774542

[aerohead]

Well Quest its obvious that you are the type that no
matter what someone says, you will believe what you
have convinced yourself of. This is America, believe
what you want, your free to do so. But in doing so you
must realize that you are dismissing photographic, video,
and multitudes of eyewitness evidence that tells you that
what you believe is false. Not to mention the common sense
aspect that says that they cant doctor ALL the videos and
pictures of the planes.

99.9 % of the eyewitness' said they saw or heard the plane.

Debate over

i win (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif)


No ?

Show me some videos with no planes.

[Quest]

[quote name='aerohead' post='10774545' date='Jul 30 2009, 01:39 AM']Quest i just told you who took the picture,
ROB HOWARD. And who said its unproven ?
Has someone proven it to be a doctored photo ?
There is not a video in existance of a NO-Plane
explosion. And if there was one in existance, it
would have hit youtube and the rest of the internet
years ago.
quote]

Aerohead, you are aware that a wing came of the plane and landed in the street during the empire state building crash, true?
Before we continue this debate, I have a few questions for you....

1. Is it possible the Empire State building "crash" was part of a psyops buildup to the NWO plan and future psyops events that might involve false-flag events using planes? If you claim it is a fact it wasn't, please provide proof.

2. Are you aware that Pearl Harbor was in effect a fales-flag operartion?

3. Ditto the Gulf Of Tonkin incident?

4. Same for the USS Liberty massacre?

5. All of these events took place AFTER the Empire State building crash.How do you know we have the complete story on the Empire State building crash?

6. Can you PROVE nothing more than a wing come off (during the Empire State building crash) other than using the military controlled media's word on it?

Aerohead, I am not trying to "win" so much as I am trying to show you your logic is flawed. If you made a better argument, I'd tip my hat. In the meantime, I feel I've made a better argument
and I'm asking the questions a researcher SHOULD ask.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 09:36 PM

[aerohead]

Where is fancy bread,
in the heart or in the head ?

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/party.gif)


Use some discernment Quest.

Cant burn all your money just because
someone gave you a counterfeit once.

[Quest]

Where is fancy bread,
in the heart or in the head ?

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/party.gif)


Use some discernment Quest.

Cant burn all your money just because
someone gave you a counterfeit once.

Not sure I follow you, but no offense intended, Aerohead, you've been a gentleman. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[aerohead]

Im saying,

You cant throw out everything and every event
as a false flag operation. Some things in our
history were actually true and what they appeared to
be.

Certainly not JFK, Vietnam and 9/11 but i wouldnt
put the B-25 in 1945 in that catagory.
They hit the building in heavy fog at about 200 mph.

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[Quest]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

Im saying,

You cant throw out everything and every event
as a false flag operation. Some things in our
history were actually true and what they appeared to
be.

Certainly not JFK, Vietnam and 9/11 but i wouldnt
put the B-25 in 1945 in that catagory.
They hit the building in heavy fog at about 200 mph.

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[aerohead]

Sorry i just couldnt let it go.


Here is some info on the photo.
Clicky -----> New York Magazine Article

And i will say this..........
If this photo is real, and i believe it is,
it is undeniable proof that this was NOT
flight 175, but a military drone look-a-like
with a pod on the right main landing gear
door that fired an incindiary rocket into the
building to ensure "light off" of the fuel.

(IMG:http://www.911inplanesite.com/images2004/1-767anomaly5.jpg)

Look at the bottom photo.
The shadow tells the tale.
The shadow that this pod is casting on
the left main landing gear door is the key
because it is showing itself to be that of the
pylon that this launcher is attached to.

Quest i respect your passion,
but i think you have backed yourself in a corner
with this no-plane theory and are too deep in
to it to back out for fear of embarassment.
I was wrong about my theory of an F-4 at the
Pentagon. No biggie. I was wrong due to evidence.

[Sanders]

I really thjnk the whole Pod/No-planes/Video-fakery pot-pourrie of unsolvable mysteries was the perps' ace in the hole, guaranteeing that researchers skeptical of the official story would chase their tails trying to reconcile all of the conflicting evidence and bizarre ramifications of what was broadcast. I am nearly certain that the Video Fakery pool was polluted intentionally by psy-operatives, there's the "copy&pasted smoke" vid which doesn't match the original footage (it was derived from) in coloring or aspect, and then the whole "fred" thing.

All I'm saying is, as we all discuss this issue (and I've spent as much time on it as anyone), remember that they wanted us to. It's a trap, so to speak. I'm sure there is some truth buried in there with regard to all three of these sub-topics, the best dis-info always has some truth in it ... but I see traps and potholes intentionally strewn about to confuse everyone ... too many things just aren't reconcilable ... at least that's how I read it.

2 cents.

...........................
EDIT: to clarify what I meant by "too many things just aren't reconcilable", plane speeds and the fact that the planes penetrated the steel facades of the towers intact lead me to believe that the planes were beefed up, and maybe even disguised using fakery ... but if there was fakery involved, even if only for the close ups, it makes no sense that they would include extra equipment on the plane (175). Nearly all of the video fakery claims are, IMO (after studious investigation), bogus ... but maybe not all. There are a couple of things I've seen that look suspicious - either way, if you opt that there was some fakery involved, then the "pod" was stuck in to screw with us. If the "pod" is real, then all of the video fakery clues (both bogus and legit-seeming) were created to screw with us.

[Quest]

Sorry i just couldnt let it go.


Here is some info on the photo.
Clicky -----> New York Magazine Article

And i will say this..........
If this photo is real, and i believe it is,
it is undeniable proof that this was NOT
flight 175, but a military drone look-a-like
with a pod on the right main landing gear
door that fired an incindiary rocket into the
building to ensure "light off" of the fuel.

(IMG:http://www.911inplanesite.com/images2004/1-767anomaly5.jpg)

Look at the bottom photo.
The shadow tells the tale.
The shadow that this pod is casting on
the left main landing gear door is the key
because it is showing itself to be that of the
pylon that this launcher is attached to.

Quest i respect your passion,
but i think you have backed yourself in a corner
with this no-plane theory and are too deep in
to it to back out for fear of embarassment.
I was wrong about my theory of an F-4 at the
Pentagon. No biggie. I was wrong due to evidence.

No problem Aerohead. I'l stick with you on this. BTW, this photo has been a topic a hundred times over on this and many other forums. But once again, before I address your question directly, regarding this photo, we need to set up some parameters and establish a baseline. I understand that you don't think "everything is a conspiracy" and I believe that as well. Unlike yourself, though, I DO believe MOST things are a conspiracy, that is, most of the things, or events, that lead to major actions and war, around the world. But don't take my word for it, why not engage more of the veteran posters around these forums? Ask them about the aforementioned Gulf Of Tonkin incident. Ask them about Pearl Harbor. Ask about the USS LIberty massacre and the King David Hotel bombing, the OKC bombing, JFK, RFK, MLK, 1938 radio broadcast of the War Of The Worlds"(a brainchild of the CFR) the 1969-1972 moon landings and on and on and on. What I am getting at is that 911 is part of a long continuem - it was NOT an isolated event whose purpose was to kick off a short-term goal. If we can agree on that and you are familiar with the other events we can continue the debate. If you disagree with me on the other events I mentioned there isn't much point. Does that make sense? Understand that I am not claiming that if "A" is true than "B" must also be true, what I am driving at is that we have been feed a steady diet of hoaxes since WW1 and 911 is no different with it's "no plane hit " events at Shankville and the Pentagon along with the controlled demolitions of the WTC. If you don't understand that I believe it is going to be difficult for you to undestand that I am being objective even if I do disagree with you on any particual aspect of this debate. Understand?

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 30 2009, 10:18 AM

[Quest]

I really thjnk the whole Pod/No-planes/Video-fakery pot-pourrie of unsolvable mysteries was the perps' ace in the hole, guaranteeing that researchers skeptical of the official story would chase their tails trying to reconcile all of the conflicting evidence and bizarre ramifications of what was broadcast. I am nearly certain that the Video Fakery pool was polluted intentionally by psy-operatives, there's the "copy&pasted smoke" vid which doesn't match the original footage (it was derived from) in coloring or aspect, and then the whole "fred" thing.

All I'm saying is, as we all discuss this issue (and I've spent as much time on it as anyone), remember that they wanted us to. It's a trap, so to speak. I'm sure there is some truth buried in there with regard to all three of these sub-topics, the best dis-info always has some truth in it ... but I see traps and potholes intentionally strewn about to confuse everyone ... too many things just aren't reconcilable ... at least that's how I read it.

2 cents.

I don't disagree with you Sanders but I would add that al of the 911 events have that aspect built into them. However, that shouldn't disuade us from trying to discover the truth. We just need to remember that the perps purposely tried to throw us off-track while trying to simultaneously get us at each others throats. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[ogrady]

When I read these threads I often become too exhausted to go through all the evidence (yes, I dare to use the word 'evidence') for the lack of real airplanes appearing either in the videos offered (black blob planes that appear out of nowhere, transparent planes with disappearing wings, etc.) and lack of real physical evidence at the scene (no FAA investigation, authentication of serial numbered parts, etc.)

Why not approach this question from a different angle? I refer you to one of my favorite websites: German Engineers Help the USA at:

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

In the Herzakani video we see a 'plane' melting smoothly at an even frame rate into steel girders and concrete floors, exploding not outside, but inside the building.

Look at the photos and analysis offered by our German friends. The plane doesn't fit in the hole!

It's simple.

[Sanders]

I don't disagree with you Sanders but I would add that al of the 911 events have that aspect built into them. However, that shouldn't disuade us from trying to discover the truth...

Not at all - the realization of what's really going on should make the task easier, if anything, but also help us not get too hung up on this stuff - I've seen too many heated arguments over this which serve only the perpetrators.

BTW I amended my above post. Cheers.

[Quest]

Not at all - the realization of what's really going on should make the task easier, if anything, but also help us not get too hung up on this stuff - I've seen too many heated arguments over this which serve only the perpetrators.

BTW I amended my above post. Cheers.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[Sanders]

<s>

Yes, the international community has really stepped up to the plate - Germany, Japan, Holland, (etc... ) ... sometimes it seems only America, maybe handicapped by patriotism, maybe it's the country's youth? - or maybe the result of decades of dumbing down? - all of the above?? - I'm not sure what it is, but America (collectively) can't seem to wrap their collective heads around it. Or maybe half of the country has and the media has just been able to keep a lid on it (!).

I do think the polls are skewed - it is imperative that we not realize how many of the population have figured out the ruse - lest we go looking for our pitchforks.