Plane Sized Holes And No Planes, Reconciling the Evidence with NPT Options

[Factfinder Gener...]

People questioning No Plane Theory quite often point to the plane sized holes that so obviously scarred the impact zones of the World Trade Center Towers.

Heres an illustration of the impact damage that occurred to the the North face of WTC1:
(IMG:http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhatAirplanes/WhatImage2.jpg)

Beams have been scarred, pushed in, and in some instances, apparently knocked out. There's a sizable amount of damage and this would not be consistent with the punch in hole of a Tomahawk Penetrator for example.

But if in accordance with NPT there weren't any planes, and the holes couldn't have been made by the missiles that some NPT advocates suggest actually caused the explosions, then what could have made the holes?

Well the disintegration of 1,000,000 tons worth of Scrapers had to be the result of some massive and skillful application of destructive force, whatever the agency of that force might have been. Making a couple of plane sized holes, timed to coordinate with missile impact, would have been merely a side project for the explosive experts on board for a big job like that.

C-4 would be the very best way to control the effect. C-4 is a substance the consistency of modeling clay. It is made by combining RDX (Royal Demolition Explosive) with a polyisobutylene binder and a di(2-ethylhexyl)sebacate plasticizer to make it malleable, along with a tiny amount of motor oil.

(IMG:http://www.ribbands.co.uk/images/prodimgs/C4.jpg)

The C-4 material needs the application of a detonator. This can then be used with coordinated precision to trigger the explosion. The detonator starts a reaction which leads to rapidly expanding gases unleashing high pressure waves of explosive force. The gases in C-4 expand initially at about 26,400 feet per second applying a huge amount of force to everything it confronts. 8 to 10 pounds of C-4 for instance, would take out an eight inch square steel beam

(IMG:http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/c4-1.jpg)

Shaped C-4 charges placed strategically on the outside facade, under the aluminum cladding, wedged into joints and cracks and for special effect, rammed into funnel charges designed to channel the blast force into the facade and blow parts of it inward, could all have been skillfully and selectively placed to achieve the pyrotechnic effect and leave a convincing enough hole.

(IMG:http://www.teledynesafetyproducts.com/images/dual_controller.gif)

As I already mentioned, the attached detonator could then be used along with an electronic initiation unit to trigger the desired explosion at precisely the right moment, coordinating perfectly with the impact of the missile.

(IMG:http://www.nymc.edu/trauma/wtc-explosion.jpg)

Voila!

So summing up this brief but necessary post: there is no need to dismiss No Plane theory just because of a couple of holes in the story. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

References:
How Stuff Works
About C-4
Damian Lewis June 2 2007 - Daily Mail
Soldiers of Fortune

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Aug 25 2007, 10:57 PM

Firstly, the aluminum cladding fit over the exterior columns like a glove. The cladding is basically aluminum siding like on the side of your house. There's no room under the cladding to put anything. It would've been a big news story if there was some "company" dismantling a massive amount of cladding in the areas the jets hit. It's not even logical.

I'm still amazed at the amount of explaining away of the evidence there is. It seems like NPT/TVF people are trying everything in the book to explain away all the evidence, no matter how obsurd or illogical or even impossible it sounds, when all that was needed was 2 jets as seen on 9/11.

CNN - jet is heard, a few people scream as the jet flies over their heads, then everybody screams as the jet slams into the tower. Read that again, people react to the jet before it hits the tower, acknowledging that there was a jet.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fwX40zKds4c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>


Home video - jet is heard, people talk about the plane and acknowledge it was a plane.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xB0msfbPecE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>


Here you have 2 videos. In both videos you have the sound of the jet, people reacting to that jet and then the jet impacts the building. Because you can hear the jet and people react to the jet, that means there was a jet. The only way to say there wasn't a jet is if you say everything was fake including the witnesses. You can believe that fairy tale, but i never will.

[jrnsr]

Given a couple a couple of days to prepare the "holes" it would not have been difficult to torch out every single piece of steel that was cut and jackhammer or drill out concrete flooring.

This would be everyday work for remodeling a commercial store or say, model-changeover at an autoplant. Demolition is a normal routine in construction.

Once the columns and steel were torched, a sizable amount of explosives packed in at the siding, even where columns weren't cut out, could blast aluminum siding out (note siding blasting out horizontally hundreds of feet and hanging outside) and leave a big gaping hole in any shape conceivable.

There were numerous real explosions taking place in critical locations, but I maintain there was some visual cosmetics going on for the viewing audience, too.

[Factfinder Gener...]

I'm still amazed at the amount of explaining away of the evidence there is.  It seems like NPT/TVF people are trying everything in the book to explain away all the evidence, no matter how obsurd or illogical or even impossible it sounds, when all that was needed was 2 jets as seen on 9/11.

"all that was needed was two jets."

BoneZ what were the planes needed for in your opinion? To knock down the buildings? I'm not clear on your opinion re this aspect.

Love to have you clarify,

Cheers, FfG

[KP50]

I'm still amazed at the amount of explaining away of the evidence there is.  It seems like NPT/TVF people are trying everything in the book to explain away all the evidence, no matter how obsurd or illogical or even impossible it sounds, when all that was needed was 2 jets as seen on 9/11.

"all that was needed was two jets."

BoneZ what were the planes needed for in your opinion? To knock down the buildings? I'm not clear on your opinion re this aspect.

Love to have you clarify,

Cheers, FfG

What were the planes needed for? Maybe to fly into the towers after "being hijacked"? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/doh1.gif)

[Factfinder Gener...]

I'm still amazed at the amount of explaining away of the evidence there is.  It seems like NPT/TVF people are trying everything in the book to explain away all the evidence, no matter how obsurd or illogical or even impossible it sounds, when all that was needed was 2 jets as seen on 9/11.

"all that was needed was two jets."

BoneZ what were the planes needed for in your opinion? To knock down the buildings? I'm not clear on your opinion re this aspect.

Love to have you clarify,

Cheers, FfG

What were the planes needed for? Maybe to fly into the towers after "being hijacked"? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/doh1.gif)

I honestly want to know what BoneZ thinks the planes were needed for and by whom. It isn't a silly question IMO. There's many different theories out there and I'd like to know what BoneZ believes, for context.

But while we're at it: Why do you think the hijackers wanted to fly into the Towers, KP50? Again it's a genuine question. Please don't Doh me (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Factfinder Gener...]

So summing up this brief but necessary post: there is no need to dismiss No Plane theory just because of a couple of holes in the story. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

BoneZ, I don't quite know what place you're coming from and what your 911 stance is but there seems to be gaps in your logic on this point.

The holes in the buildings do not debunk "No Planes". The videos and their voice tracks are a separate issue and I believe it best not to get sidetracked here. For the holes to debunk NPT it would have to be true that only planes could have created those holes.

The holes could have been easily falsified and there is evidence that they indeed were.

(IMG:http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-2d/7-87_wtc2-impact-comparison.jpg)

As you may, note from the above comparative, Levy and Abboud, for their 2002 paper, had to take considerable creative license with the actual impact damage in order to reconcile the holes with the behavior of the alleged planes as depicted in the video evidence. I put it to you that this would not be the case if the holes were genuine

My understanding of the capability of explosives experts leads me to draw the conclusion that it would be eminently feasible and well within the scope of what else was accomplished that day to falsify those holes.

I respectfully maintain that this was what was done and if not in the exact manner that I depict then in one similar.

"all that was needed was two jets."

BoneZ what were the planes needed for in your opinion? To knock down the buildings? I'm not clear on your opinion re this aspect.

Love to have you clarify,

Cheers, FfG

The no-planes and tv fakery people keep trying to explain away every piece of evidence they possibly can to show that no planes hit and all videos were fake. According to no-planers/tv fakery'ers, the following is fake:

- the planes
- the jet fuel explosions from impact
- the impact damage/holes
- the videos
- the pictures
- the witnesses

They keep trying to explain that everything was faked and nothing was real. All you need is 2 jets hitting the towers and that's all the explanation you need for what happend. And no, planes or jet fuel did not knock the towers down. What should've happend is the fires put out in the towers and then a reconstruction process of several years would've taken place to repair the damage to the towers. But explosives were placed throughout the towers to bring them down and then blame the collapse on the impact/jet fuel fires.

Why do you think the hijackers wanted to fly into the Towers, KP50?

There's no evidence that "hijackers" flew those planes into the towers. Many of the "hijackers" have been shown to still be alive.

The following video is from a series that aired earlier in 2001 a few months before 9/11 called "The Lone Gunmen". It is eerily similar to what actually happend on 9/11:

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-8993585907544533885&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>

As you can see, the jet was passenger-filled and was remotely taken over and controlled. On 9/11, either this was probably the case, or the real passenger jet landed safely and an empty remote-controlled jet was inserted, which is the more likely scenario as it appears there were some sort of explosives in the noses of both aircraft.

[amazed!]

The REASON airplanes were required was to IMPRESS upon the collective psyche trauma. The post traumatic behavior of the collective psyche is legend.

And then we discover through a 60 Minutes piece that the presence of adrenaline in the human system contributes to PTSD as far as permanence of the memory and trauma goes.

The same thing could be achieved with doctored videos, and perhaps we have doctored videos, but as BONEZ just demonstrated, thanks very much, there were so many pictures, sounds, and witnesses to the presence of at least one Boeing that the notion of NPT is very far-fetched.

[painter]

FfG, as I'm sure you know, just because something is "possible" or "feasible" doesn't make it so. Yes, it is "feasible" that shaped charges were used -- just as it is technically "possible" for video to be faked in some way. But to get beyond the point of "inconclusive" (at best) and rise above the designation of "hypothesis" to become a genuine "theory," the No Plane (so called) Theory has to prove conclusively that the various hypothesis upon which it is based are not merely "possible" or "feasible" but are, in effect, the ONLY or, at the very least, the MOST LIKELY explanations.

Definitions:

Hypothesis: Is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: Is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses, verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One researcher cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In this instance you are indicating that it is "conceivable" that shaped charges were used -- but I question how conceivable that is. Above you state, "Making a couple of plane sized holes, timed to coordinate with missile impact, would have been merely a side project for the explosive experts on board for a big job like [the WTC demolition]." Reading such statements always cause me to pause. You're suggesting this would have been relatively easy, "merely a side project," which, by the way it is worded, causes the reader to gloss over any concerns of difficulty. My mind immediately backs up and says, 'not so fast!' "Easy" is, of course, a relative term. What may be "easy" for me may be impossible for you, and vice versa. But in this specific hypothesis what we are dealing with is planting plastic explosives over an area of a building the size of a Boeing aircraft, spanning roughly 8 floors, suspended nearly 100 floors above lower Manhattan.

The question obviously is, how would such charges be placed?

Can we agree, first of all, that at least some of the work would had to have been done on the outside of the building -- or do you maintain that all this work could as well been done from the inside?

If you accept that at least some, if not the majority, of this work would had to have been done from the outside, what was the means by which it was done? For example, I believe I read or heard somewhere that there were tracks on the exterior of the buildings which allowed movable platforms, or scaffolds, to pass up and down the sides of the building for the purpose of window cleaning and maintenance.

Given that William Rodreguez was a custodian of the WTC for many years, I would assume that he would be very familiar with how all this worked and, conceivably, whether or not such work was done in the vicinity of the impact areas of either or both towers sometime prior to 9/11. I suspect that a simple email to him requesting information about these services -- such as, how did they operate, what access was there to them from what floors, were the employees contracted from the outside and, if so, does he know the name of the vendor, or, if they were a part of the building maintenance crew, who did he know in that crew that might be willing to answer question -- and so forth -- could be very fruitful.

If, on the other hand, you maintain that these charges could have been placed on the interior of the building, in a similar way, I should think it would be possible to find out what companies occupied the floors where the impacts occurred. Were the floors occupied or not? If so, was any maintenance work done along the walls, if not, who could have had access to these empty floors -- etc.

The point I'm making here is that it is not enough to propose that something is "possible," "conceivable," or "feasible." To get anywhere near a point of certainty two things have to happen: 1) alternative explanations have to be ruled out methodically and exhaustively and 2) the likelyhood of the championed hypothesis has to be increased by providing an equally methodical and exhaustive explanation of how it could be achieved. If, for instance, you were able to find out WHO would have been the supervisor of any exterior work going on at the WTC prior to 9/11 and you were able to question him; or, perhaps alternately, you were able to show that such external work was done in the impact areas prior to 9/11 -- then you would have considerably boosted the credibility of your case.

Obvioiusly the NPT is a complex proposition with several sets of hypotheses that need to be validated in order to be accepted. Video and audio evidence must be shown to be false, impact area needs to be shown to be implausible and false, and rational, verifiable alternatives to these to sets of evidence need to be provided. Counter argument needs to be anticipated and ruled out by evidence which shows conclusively that it is invalid -- and so on.

I, for one, do not have either the time or the interest in pursuing these in this kind of detail. I have my own work to do as well as my own interests in the 9/11 arena. However, there may be others here who are interested in and might be able to help you with this inquiry.

[Factfinder Gener...]

No Plane (so called) Theory has to prove conclusively that the various hypothesis upon which it is based are not merely "possible" or "feasible" but are, in effect, the ONLY or, at the very least, the MOST LIKELY explanations.

"Making a couple of plane sized holes, timed to coordinate with missile impact, would have been merely a side project for the explosive experts on board for a big job like [the WTC demolition]." Reading such statements always cause me to pause.

You're suggesting this would have been relatively easy, "merely a side project,"

we are dealing with planting plastic explosives over an area of a building the size of a Boeing aircraft, spanning roughly 8 floors, suspended nearly 100 floors above lower Manhattan.

on the other hand, you maintain that these charges could have been placed on the interior of the building, in a similar way, I should think it would be possible to find out what companies occupied the floors where the impacts occurred. Were the floors occupied or not? If so, was any maintenance work done along the walls, if not, who could have had access to these empty floors -- etc.

Thank you, painter, for so clearly laying out your response. Allow me to respond to your response.

" the MOST LIKELY explanations"

In respect of my understanding of the scientific basis underlying the truth of 911, and here we must consider science as being in its forensic aspect, No Plane Theory is absolutely the most likely, if not the ONLY likely, explanation as regards the events of 911.

Please notice I said in my understanding. Now it is quite possible that my understanding of the forensic science relative to this issue might be more comprehensive than many of you others here. I am not saying this is definitely the case, just that it may be the case. In this respect I will try and put together a post, specifically in regards to the forensic science that I have employed in reaching my understandings, with particular reference to the field of Penetration Mechanics and its associated field of Metallurgy.

Now aside from any forensic science, I believe I have already presented irrefutable evidence on this forum of video falsification (e.g. the WB 11 Live Shot and its false angle of approach.) I accept that this issue is most correctly dealt with on the relevant OPs, but I do wish to underline its connected relevance to the points at issue here over at this thread, namely that NPT is the most likely explanation.

" merely a side project for the explosive experts on board for a big job like [the WTC demolition]"

I am talking about a side project for the team that was able to completely disintegrate one million tons of Scraper, a never before accomplished feat. I was distinctly talking in relative terms and do not believe I am off base here. Anyone who had the skills to accomplish this massive disintegration, and without substantial secondary damage to the surrounding environs and beyond, has most definitely got the skills to falsify the holes in the building facades. The disintegration of one million tons of steel and concrete is, after all, a pretty impressive credential.

" I should think it would be possible to find out what companies occupied the floors where the impacts occurred. Were the floors occupied or not?"

This is a most important point and there is an intriguing set of leads to follow in this regard. My admittedly preliminary research indicates that there is evidence to be gleaned from verifying these matters that will most definitely support NPT.

Allow me to do some more research on this matter before presenting the evidence, and please forgive me for not wanting to tip my hand on this particular issue quite yet. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Painter, thank you once again for a most considered and enlightening post. I am truly glad to be discussing these matters with someone of your calibre.

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

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Aug 26 2007, 02:27 PM

[Factfinder Gener...]

,

According to no-planers/tv fakery'ers, the following is fake:

- the planes
- the jet fuel explosions from impact
- the impact damage/holes
- the videos
- the pictures
- the witnesses

They keep trying to explain that everything was faked and nothing was real.

No, planes or jet fuel did not knock the towers down.  What should've happend is the fires put out in the towers and then a reconstruction process of several years would've taken place to repair the damage to the towers. But explosives were placed throughout the towers to bring them down and then blame the collapse on the impact/jet fuel fires.

There's no evidence that "hijackers" flew those planes into the towers. Many of the "hijackers" have been shown to still be alive.

the real passenger jet landed safely and an empty remote-controlled jet was inserted, which is the more likely scenario as it appears there were some sort of explosives in the noses of both aircraft.

Thank you, BoneZ for addressing my questions so respectfully and comprehensively. I now have a much better handle on where your arguments are coming from and this is most valuable in a rational discussion, I feel.

"everything was faked and nothing was real."

That may be Fred and Co's position but it is not mine. Good illusion is always a skillful blend of the real and the unreal: a half truth as it were. This is what I believe to be the foundation for understanding 911. From your response it is now evident that you support this viewpoint, i.e. that the official 911 is a lie comprised of half truths. I agree with many of the points you put across in this post of yours and it is heartening to see that we have common ground. Ascertaining this is also a good basis from which to evolve a fruitful discussion.

"the real passenger jet landed safely and an empty remote-controlled jet was inserted, which is the more likely scenario as it appears there were some sort of explosives in the noses of both aircraft."

This statement of yours illustrates just how close our viewpoints actually are. I agree that the real passenger jets were landed safely and a substitution took place. I merely differ as to what that substitution was. Your understanding of the evidence suggests to you that it was a remote controlled plane with an explosive nose cone and my understanding leads me to the conclusion that it was a self guided missile with a penetrating nose tip, i.e. a D.U. tip. (Interestingly, Raytheon would be involved in helping to institute both of these methodologies)

As the days unfold we will get a chance to further lay out the materials behind our understandings and I don't doubt that this will be of mutual and overall benefit.

Thank you once again for your response but I also want to take the opportunity of thanking you, painter, Sanders, Zap, Cary, Ocean's Flow et al (please forgive me for not being able to remember all your names just yet) for the diligent support you people provide for what I am quickly beginning to understand is a most unique and important 911 forum.

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

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Aug 26 2007, 02:37 PM

[painter]

I split the Factfinder General / KP50 dialogue out of this thread as it was disruptive. It can be found here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=8621

[Factfinder Gener...]

I split the Factfinder General / KP50 dialogue out of this thread as it was disruptive.

Thank you painter. A wise decision, and much appreciated. Your objectivity in these matters is most valuable, as I'm sure my esteemed fellow forum member, KP50, will agree. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[KP50]

I split the Factfinder General / KP50 dialogue out of this thread as it was disruptive.

Thank you painter. A wise decision, and much appreciated. Your objectivity in these matters is most valuable, as I'm sure my esteemed fellow forum member, KP50, will agree. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Thanks FFG, I have never been esteemed before - my more usual epithets are annoying or tedious. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

My views pretty much match those of Bonez on this topic. While there is obviously smoke and mirrors at the Pentagon, it would be bizarre to attempt the same deception having made the whole world look in the very place that the deception is taking place. I am still open-minded if the evidence is conclusive - but I haven't seen it yet.

[amazed!]

It seems to me that those videos BoneZ presented with the sound of the plane and the picture of the plane, taken by ordinary folks, is the nail in the coffin of the NPT.

Some might say "oh well it was faked", but that dog won't hunt.

Flying the planes into the towers was probably the easiest part of the whole deal. A couple of Dov Zakheim's Boeings, on remote control, and voila, a cake walk.

[Factfinder Gener...]

It seems to me that those videos BoneZ presented with the sound of the plane and the picture of the plane, taken by ordinary folks, is the nail in the coffin of the NPT.

Some might say "oh well it was faked", but that dog won't hunt.

Flying the planes into the towers was probably the easiest part of the whole deal.  A couple of Dov Zakheim's Boeings, on remote control, and voila, a cake walk.

You are being hoodwinked by the ordinary folk ruse, IMO.

As far as the famous "Ghost Plane" video, Hezarkhani (Videographer) and Taylor (Still Photographer who took a "matching" image) were standing side by side and sharing CG model planes according to extensive and pretty conclusive research. (Much of it done by people at this site.)

Taylor was hiding her background as a "pro" photographer in her interviews.

There is little that is ordinary about 911 when you scratch beneath the surface.

And also: There is nothing "easy" about accurately targeting a building with a fast flying passenger jet, let alone having it penetrate, which I hasten to add is scientifically impossible, IMO.

I'll present more on this later.

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

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Aug 27 2007, 01:05 PM

let alone having it penetrate, which I hasten to add is scientifically impossible, IMO.

I'm glad that planes entering buildings is scientifically impossible only in your opinion. Those of us that have delved in science all of our lives would beg to differ. I'm a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as well as Painter. The main line of investigation is how and why the WTC buildings collapsed. Architectural Engineers design these buildings. If there was the slightest question of how the planes were able to glide into the buildings, that would be another part of the investigation at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. But they know that the planes were capable of the damage we see.

I'm going to post a short video for you which i'm sure you may have seen before. It's the WTC construction manager talking about jetliners impacting the towers:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HGhWkRAR1Vc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

He said the jet plane "punctures the towers" like a screen netting. He did not say that the planes would bounce off the indestructable perimeter walls. The planes and the buildings did exactly what he said would happen. The planes punctured the towers, but did little to the structural integrity of the buildings.

Now comes the "flash". I believe that explosives were added to the nosecones of the planes to help open up the walls and assure that the planes entered fully so that none of the pieces fell to the ground and could identify the planes.

The moral of this post, it's far from scientifically impossible that planes can enter buildings. It's exactly scientifically possible. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[amazed!]

I had not thought about explosives being onboard the aircraft, but that would be an interesting scenario.

But there certainly were explosives in the buildings, and considering that one of the ships struck the floors where Paul Bremer's company was housed makes it likely that Bremer had alot to do with it, like having explosives placed beforehand.

[painter]

I had not thought about explosives being onboard the aircraft, but that would be an interesting scenario.

But there certainly were explosives in the buildings, and considering that one of the ships struck the floors where Paul Bremer's company was housed makes it likely that Bremer had alot to do with it, like having explosives placed beforehand.

I'm not familiar with the "Paul Bremer" angle. What do you know about that -- or, have a link?

TIA