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

[JFK]

Search youtube for "pumpkin canon vs" (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Sanders]

A ) Pumpkins are heavy - I'm guessing there's a lot of force carried by a pumpkin shot out of a cannon.

B ) Where'd the pumpkin go? Inside the car, or all over the place?

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

Apples & pumpkins - er, I mean, oranges.

[Quest]

A ) Pumpkins are heavy - I'm guessing there's a lot of force carried by a pumpkin shot out of a cannon.

B ) Where'd the pumpkin go? Inside the car, or all over the place?

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

Apples & pumpkins - er, I mean, oranges.

The lesson learned here is that buildings should be made out of pumpkins.

[JFK]

A ) Pumpkins are heavy - I'm guessing there's a lot of force carried by a pumpkin shot out of a cannon.

B ) Where'd the pumpkin go? Inside the car, or all over the place?

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

Apples & pumpkins - er, I mean, oranges.

A. As are 767's.

B. Yes, Kinda like those 767's.

[Sanders]

B. Yes, Kinda like those 767's.

There's the rub.

Did identifiable debris rain down on the streets of Lower Manhattan, or did the planes penetrate the buildings 100%?

This is a great vid, I love watching pumpkins being shot from cannons, but this doesn't convince me that aluminum planes can penetrate steel-framed building exteriors like at the WTC without raining debris on the streets below.

That's just me.

[Sanders]

The lesson learned here is that buildings should be made out of pumpkins.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[JFK]

There's the rub.

Did identifiable debris rain down on the streets of Lower Manhattan, or did the planes penetrate the buildings 100%?

This is a great vid, I love watching pumpkins being shot from cannons, but this doesn't convince me that aluminum planes can penetrate steel-framed building exteriors like at the WTC without raining debris on the streets below.

That's just me.

Gee that's strange, in every video I have seen regarding the attacks debris did rain down on the streets below, Or in the case of scaffoldriders landing gear about 1100 feet on the opposite side of the impact and even further in the case of the engine on Murray st.

BTW, have you had a look at the Boeing maintainance manuals regarding the construction of the wings ?

I have and there is much more than just aluminum in those wings. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Quest]

1. Gee that's strange, in every video I have seen regarding the attacks debris did rain down on the streets below, Or in the case of scaffoldriders landing gear about 1100 feet on the opposite side of the impact and even further in the case of the engine on Murray st.

2. BTW, have you had a look at the Boeing maintainance manuals regarding the construction of the wings ?

3. I have and there is much more than just aluminum in those wings. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

1. Then surely there would be photos of debris laying on the ground just below the gash. Or are you telling us there is debris to be found in many places - except where you would expect to find it most - on the ground BELOW THE GASH. Are you aware that there are many photos and even videos of a blown out WTC lobby? These same photographers would have to STEP OVER debris lying JUST OUTSIDE the lobbies to gain entry to the lobby. The plane debris they STEPPED OVER isn't worth photographing? Please provides links to photos of debris that landed BELOW THE GASH.

2. I have seen diagrams of the wings and wings in varoius stages of construction. The wings are apprently strong enough to provide lift for a large plane and passengers as well. This also means the wings should be able to cut through a steel framed building? Question, why didn't the wings also cut through the Pentagon outer walls? If your claim is "the wings DID cut through the Pentagon walls", please provide some photos.

3. See point #2.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 25 2009, 02:19 PM

[Sanders]

BTW, have you had a look at the Boeing maintainance manuals regarding the construction of the wings ?

I have and there is much more than just aluminum in those wings. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Yes I know. This topic is at the mercy of personal opinion - no one has done any real definitive research into it to my knowledge.

So far, we can agree that we disagree (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

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

EDIT: Like grass to heroin, this topic has the potential to lead one into NP territory - not so, I say. You just need a beefed-up aircraft to get into the towers intact. This might be a window into the source of the "flash" which Loose Change chalked up to under-carriage added-hardware. DU is another plausible explanation.

However they did it, we don't know the details. I am highly skeptical however that a stock 7x7 could slip into the buildings like the footage shows.

[JFK]

1. Then surely there would be photos of debris laying on the ground just below the gash. Or are you telling us there is debris to be found in many places - except where you would expect to find it most - on the ground BELOW THE GASH. Are you aware that there are many photos and even videos of a blown out WTC lobby? These same photographers would have to STEP OVER debris lying JUST OUTSIDE the lobbies to gain entry to the lobby. The plane debris they STEPPED OVER isn't worth photographing? Please provides links to photos of debris that landed BELOW THE GASH.

2. I have seen diagrams of the wings and wings in varoius stages of construction. The wings are apprently strong enough to provide lift for a large plane and passengers as well. This also means the wings should be able to cut through a steel framed building? Question, why didn't the wings also cut through the Pentagon outer walls? If your claim is "the wings DID cut through the Pentagon walls", please provide some photos.

3. See point #2.

I am not saying that I think a plane impacted the Pentagon, However this is the photo from which the "cruise missile" theory originated...

(IMG:http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/blue1.jpg)

What everyone forgets to consider are these photos...

(IMG:http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/blue6.jpg)

(IMG:http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/morris1.jpg)

BTW Quest, you may want to research the "slats" and the mechanism which controls them which is on the leading edge of the Boeing 7*7 class aircraft.

[lunk]

Water, at high enough pressure, can cut through steel.
Airplanes, loaded with fuel, (going fast enough) would do the same to a standing building.

I remember watching one of my little friends (when I was young), picking up empty bottles, on the tidal mudflats, and throwing them down on other empty bottles sitting in the mud. Only one of them would break.
"It was always the stationary bottle in the mud that broke, never the one thrown down at it." he gleefully pointed out,
to me, in bare feet.

[Quest]

JFK wrote

BTW Quest, you may want to research the "slats" and the mechanism which controls them which is on the leading edge of the Boeing 7*7 class aircraft.

What about them?

JFK, please answer the following point I posed ealier...

1. Then surely there would be photos of debris laying on the ground just below the gash. Or are you telling us there is debris to be found in many places - except where you would expect to find it most - on the ground BELOW THE GASH. Are you aware that there are many photos and even videos of a blown out WTC lobby? These same photographers would have to STEP OVER debris lying JUST OUTSIDE the lobbies to gain entry to the lobby. The plane debris they STEPPED OVER isn't worth photographing? Please provides links to photos of debris that landed BELOW THE GASH.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 25 2009, 02:42 PM

[JFK]

JFK wrote


What about them?

JFK, please answer the following point I posed ealier...

Here is a hint... They are not aluminum.

If I had those photos I would post them.

That in no way means that they do not exist.

Are you aware of the new youtube videos by the fire department ?

I have not had a chance to download and study them frame by frame yet and hope to do so this coming week.

Your answer may be in one of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na6XeefG-og

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr021PHvn9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC5fCWve_Y4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfWSjb8R7lk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zGvOztlZ-4

[DoYouEverWonder]

Well, at least the van didn't collapse. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Quest]

Here is a hint... They are not aluminum.

If I had those photos I would post them.

That in no way means that they do not exist.

Are you aware of the new youtube videos by the fire department ?

I have not had a chance to download and study them frame by frame yet and hope to do so this coming week.

Your answer may be in one of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na6XeefG-og

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr021PHvn9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC5fCWve_Y4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfWSjb8R7lk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zGvOztlZ-4

JFK, I can't help but feel you are skirting the issue a bit. I have been in this as long or longer than yourself and I am not ware of ANY photos or videos ANYWHERE that have been produced showing debris from the crashed plane, on the ground, BELOW THE GASH. In fact, I have been making this same argument for at least 5 years, and not one individual has produced a single one. Nada. Nothing. Now, I am not saying that it absolutely doesnot exist but the more time that goes by, the less likely said evidence is forthcoming. Furthermore, it was you that have been stating that "planes hit the towers". I say, "OK, where is the debris?". You say "the building ate it". But yet, you admit that debris was indeed found around the WTC periphery albeit a block or more away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72hfopU7TAg...feature=related
IMO, this is wholely consistent with planted debris as in the case of the Pentagon or Shanksville. It's much easier to planet evidence AWAY from a scene than NEAR a scene unless of course you CONTROL the scene as in, the case of Shanksville and the Pentagon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72hfopU7TAg...feature=related

Now, do you not find it remarkable that debris was found AWAY from the building like the fuselage part on the roof, and the engine part found some distance away and yet, no debris has been found immediately under the gash??? Either the building swallowed the plane or it didn't. Which is it? And since we know that the building didn't swallow the plane whole, why were not the WTC photographers and video takers photographing the plane debris they must have been STEPPING OVER as they entered the lobby? Lastly, not only do we have no photos of debris under the gash but I have never even heard eyewitness testimony of debris under the gash. It seems we have a problem here. The problem with eyewitness testimony is that we would then have a name and we could then proceed to determine if the individual was lying regarding the supposed evidence that could not have been found - because there was none. Get it? No videos of debris below the gash. No photos of debris below the gash. And most damning of all, ZERO testimony and no name atached to a live human being who reported debris below the gash.

Question, how difficult does anyone think it would be to plant LARGE sections of plane debris under the gash immediatrely after the "impact" without being seen or photographed? Imagine the fuss if a "rescue" truck pulls up and started pulling fusalge skin, wheels and seats out of the back and carried them under the gash. Think that might cause a rucus?

Have a look at the following video. The fireman is talking about the lobby damage and how it "looked like the plane hit the lobby" yet all he had to do was step just outside the lobby and show the plane parts that would obviously have been there had indeed a plane hit. It is obvious that this fireman is not awre of any large plane parts on the ground just outside the lobby and once again the is no photographic evidence. And who made this clip? Why, again, the Naudets brothers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgREwTFiuVU

I'll look all of the videos, JFK, but I'll lay odds now that there is a snowball's chance in he** I am going to find any debris under the gash in them.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 25 2009, 08:07 PM

[rob balsamo]

I havent read this thread thoroughly.. but if this is drifting into NPT, please move it to Alt Theory forum. Thanks.

[JFK]

My first post at Letsroll was 10-27-2005, 17:44.

I spent several months prior to that first post attempting to debunk the evidence being presented at the time because I did not want to believe what was being portrayed.

I failed in that attempt.

If you have been in this for as long as you say you have then you know that occasionally new stuff gets released.

And yes, I believe that as you say "the building swallowed the plane whole", but with the explosion some of that plane must have been blown back out that same hole.

Also if you have been in this as long as you say you have then you are aware of ScaffoldRider and his pics of the landing gear and miscellanious parts on that roof.

Are you saying he planted those ?

[Quest]

JFK wrote,

1. If you have been in this for as long as you say you have then you know that occasionally new stuff gets released.

2. And yes, I believe that as you say "the building swallowed the plane whole", but with the explosion some of that plane must have been blown back out that same hole.

3. Also if you have been in this as long as you say you have then you are aware of ScaffoldRider and his pics of the landing gear and miscellanious parts on that roof.

4. Are you saying he planted those ?

1. This is true but more often than not the "new" stuff that gets released is to cover up a mistake on the part of the perps. That being said, as sensational as a photo of plane debris found on the ground UNDER THE GASH would have been, it has been witheld for 8 years. And again, don't you think it would be absurd for video takers of the bombed out lobby not to take videos or photos of the plane parts they would have to STEP OVER to gain entrance to the lobby?

2. How could the perps have known that a huge amount of plane debris would not exit the back of the building along with empty seats? I mean, the plane in the video went in very easy, why should it not come out the backside just as easily (and expose the perps with plane parts that could be identified as being from a different plane)? Ooops, I forgot. It did just that in the (fake) FOX 5 and CNN videos shown on TV with the plane's nose coming out. I'm sorry, I digress. Futhermore, what if the plane only clips the bulding and falls into the street? If that were the case it would have been game-over for the perps with so many parts to identitfy it as that not belonging to a passenger plane, not to mention empty seats that should have had passengers buckled in them - or maybe no seats at all as in the case of a military drone. Nope. Not using a plane just like the Pentagon and Shanksville would make more sense to me. Less risk of a miss and identifaction through serial numbered parts and also a guarnteed hit that was needed to make plausible the collapse. Just substitute a fake hit video ala the Pentagon.

3. Yes, I have seen Scaffold Riders pics and all of the debris was small from what I recall and nothing that could not have been planted. Am I saying Scaffold Rider planted it? No. Not at all. What I AM saying is that absense of of proof for one theory is not proof of another. Just because I cannot explain/prove the debris Scaffold Rider saw does not mean it wasn't planted. I saw a fake plane crash video on CNN with it's nose come out the backside of a building. I am a 911 truther. Does that mean the CNN video is infallible and authentic if I claim it? There was an engine found at the Pentagon. We have all seen the pictures. We are 911 truthers. Does that mean it was the engine of the supposed plane that hit the Pentagon? You tell me. That Scaffold Rider saw the debris is fine. It does not change the fact that the nose of a plane cannot come out the back of a steel framed building virtually intact (in the CNN and FOX 5 videos) and it does not change the fact that the plane exhibited no visible crumpling or deceleration as it entered the building. It also doesn't change the fact that we have absolutely no photographic evidence of the plane debris under the gash. What's interesting here is that an incorrect engine , part of a fusalege and a wheel WAS shown, so obviously the 911 perps weren't worried about investigators identifying the parts as not having come from a passenger plane VS. a remote-controlled military drone drone, so then why the reluctance of the perps to show plane parts below the gash if indeed there were some?

4. Regarding Scaffold Rider, is it possible he was merely someone who was there and witnessed planted plane debris or planted debris in the tower that was blown out by planted explosives to creat the "gash"? It's possible. Is it possible the debris was planted in the towers to be exploded outward at the time planted explosives went off? Sound implausible? Isn't that about what happened at the Pentagon whose "hit" wing had just undergone a year long "renovation" that had just been completed on the morning of 911? It was obvious that explosives had been planted or a missle hit and planted debris as well. And who would need a missle if explosive could be planted in the wing while it was being renovated? Planted debris is also the case for Shanksville, btw. I am not sure why the WTC would be any diferent. Also, let's not forget that there was lots of odd goings on in the WTC in the weeks leading up to 911 as testified to by Kevin Ryan. More than likely, this is when the explosives were planted. How difficult would it have been to carry some boxes of plane parts or shreds of metal into the WTC when explosives are being planted to make a plane sized gash? IMO, not very. And if it were done it would be consistent with what happened at the Pentagon and it's "renovated" wing that was coincidently completed on the moring of 911.

BTW, in contrast to Scaffold Rider's testmoney, how about the eyewtiness who said, "Planes? What planes? Who said planes hit the towers? There was no 2nd plane. There were bombs". What do you say about THAT witness? If no plane hit, how did the debris in Scaffold Rider pictures get there?
9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU...feature=related

Is it possible that Scaffold Riders debris photos and the second tower "no plane hit" wintnesses stories are reconcilable? I say they are - if the debris was planted or blown out the building with explosives that were used to create the gash.

The "hit" videos are fake, IMO. Plain and simple. Now, you can claim that they were faked to hide the identity of the supposed plane that hit but "faked videos" is also consistent with NO PLANE actually hitting the building; as in the case of the Pentagon. Again, where is the plane? Oops, the building ate it, like the Pentagon and Shanksville's miracle ditch.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 26 2009, 04:23 AM

[Quest]

Rob, no problem moving this to Alt. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

[lunk]

I'm still trying to figure out what happens when an airplane hits a building, at high speed. So far I think that the building breaks first.

Moving up from smashing beer bottles on the beach...

Another friend was explaining bullet proofing, long ago.
He found that by having a thick piece of aluminum with a space behind it and then a thin sheet of steel would stop a bullet. The bullet would smash through the thick piece of aluminum causing it (the bullet) to mushroom or flatten into a greater surface area which was easily stopped by the sheet of steel behind it. It was important to leave a gap between the aluminum and steel so that the bullet could spread out, before hitting the steel.

In other words the bullet maintained its shape going through the aluminum, like the beer bottle being thrown down at another beer bottle in the mud.

There should not have been any debris found directly below the gash from the impact of a plane on a tower, the entire plane went through the wall and would have broken up inside the building, with parts flying out after.

This post has been edited by lunk: Jul 26 2009, 05:45 AM