IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Some Say Aluminum Planes Can't Penetrate Steel., How about pumpkins ?

Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 01:23 PM
Post #26





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 26 2009, 10:33 AM) *
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.


Do you mean to say that the plane's nose is SOLID - like a bullet? Do you mean to say that no impact video should show the plane crumpling from the nose to wingroots? Nor deceleration? My contention has always been that was why the videos had to show no crumpling or deceleration, to make plausible to the viewer the notion that the entire plane went into the building with no debris falling to the ground below the gash. After all, the plane is hollow and it's frame is in sections as well. Again, you mean when the hollow plane shell with a sectioned frame hits the steel beams and concrete floors, the building will just say, "Ole"? At what point would the WTC beams hold?

If I took a phone both and was able to stand it on end and hurl it a the WTC at 500MPH, would the phone booth punch through and exhibit no crumpling or deceleration? Next, If I took a hollow, aluminum camper trailer and did the same, no crumpling or deceleration? If I took a small Cesna and did the same, still no crumpling or deceraltion (like in the CNN video)? If did did likewise with a Lear jet (no offense John Lear ;-)), no crumpling or decelration? Would the wings break off or punch through the building with the Cessna? How about the Lear jet? Would the wings in either case show deceleration or there positional relationship from wingtip to the fusealge (forward rotation) as they encountered unbroken beams? That is not what happened in the CNN video. The CNN video looked ike the building was made of TISSUE PAPER because of the behavior of the WINGS. There was absolutely NO DECERATION or FORWARD ROTATION exhibited by the wings as they encountered unbroken beams.

My point is, at what point would the laws of physics start to come in to play? WOuld it be the Lear jet? The Cessna? How about the aluminum camper? Maybe the phone booth?

Can I get some comments on this witness?
9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU...PL&index=19

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 27 2009, 05:05 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 26 2009, 01:39 PM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 26 2009, 10:23 AM) *
Can I get some comments on this witness?
9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDm0MkWs9p0...laynext_from=PL


Interesting video, however it started after the impact of the plane.
Is there any footage taken before this, from the same camera?
I often have to look for the shutter button on my camera,
taking my eyes off the view finder for a second.

Remember, the plane was going fast.

The construction material of the planes' parts
becomes less relevant at higher speeds.
Look at the pumpkin surely that isn't as strong as a nosecone of a plane,
but it went though the solid steel side of a van!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 01:43 PM
Post #28





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 26 2009, 06:39 PM) *
Interesting video, however it started after the impact of the plane.
Is there any footage taken before this, from the same camera?
I often have to look for the shutter button on my camera,
taking my eyes off the view finder for a second.

Remember, the plane was going fast.

The construction material of the planes' parts
becomes less relevant at higher speeds.
Look at the pumpkin surely that isn't as strong as a nosecone of a plane,
but it went though the solid steel side of a van!


Sorry Lunk, I posted the wrong video.

HAve a look at this one.
9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU...C7&index=19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jul 26 2009, 01:48 PM
Post #29





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 26 2009, 01:23 PM) *
If I took a phone both and was able to stand it on end and hurl it a the WTC at 500MPH, would the phone booth punch through and exhibit no crumpling or deceleration?


No. A phone booth does not have enough mass behind it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 01:52 PM
Post #30





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 26 2009, 06:39 PM) *
Interesting video, however it started after the impact of the plane.
Is there any footage taken before this, from the same camera?
I often have to look for the shutter button on my camera,
taking my eyes off the view finder for a second.

Remember, the plane was going fast.

The construction material of the planes' parts
becomes less relevant at higher speeds.
Look at the pumpkin surely that isn't as strong as a nosecone of a plane,
but it went though the solid steel side of a van!


The reason the pumpkin APPEARED to go through the van is because it had relative weight and as the van door was impacted the door gave in yet the sheet metal on the door was not punched through by the pumkin as far as I could see. The doorsheet metal buckled inward acting as a NET which let the pumpkin's weight momentarily concentrate on a small area whith caused the door to give way from it's hinges. As Sanders said earlier, you cannot compare pumpkins and oranges. Example, If the door had a conical point to it sticking out 3 feet and the pumpkin impacted it I think we would be looking at pumpkin pie filling instead of a busted door on a van. It's all relative and while entertaining, the pumpkin/van example is a crude, amateur comparison.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 26 2009, 02:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 01:57 PM
Post #31





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (JFK @ Jul 26 2009, 06:48 PM) *
No. A phone booth does not have enough mass behind it.


OK, we are getting somewhere.

How about the camper? Should we see crumpling and deceleration?

A small Cesna? Should we see crumpling and deceleration? Would the wings rotate forward?

A Lear jet? Should we see crumpling and deceleration? Would the wings rotate forward?

JFK, would you please comment on this video?
9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU...PL&index=19

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 27 2009, 04:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 26 2009, 02:28 PM
Post #32



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Another witness, where was he standing when he didn't see a plane?
It would have looked like a bomb (and probably was, as well as a plane)
from the other side of the tower.
I have been pondering no planes for a long time.
The video taken through the chain link fence showing the IR guidance beam,
pretty much convinced me, but the research into the plane motor found at Church and Murray, and the research at pumpshitout helped confirm it.

BTW the pumpkin did go through the door and there was pumpkin remains all over the inside of the van, in that video.
Here is a, softer than a nosecone, pumpkin, flying through both sides of a boat and a car!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RryMwlrA4G8

A full beer can will penetrate steel if it is flying fast enough, I bet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JFK
post Jul 26 2009, 03:33 PM
Post #33





Group: Guest
Posts: 564
Joined: 2-June 08
Member No.: 3,485



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 26 2009, 01:57 PM) *
OK, we are getting somewhere.

How about the camper? Should we see crumpling and deceleration?

A small Cesna? Should we see crumpling and deceleration? Would the wings rotate?

A Lear jet? Should we see crumpling and deceleration? Would the wings rotate?

JFK, would you please comment on this video?
9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU...PL&index=19


Of course it was a bomb. As Frank DeMartini said, the towers could withstand multiple impacts.

And William Rodruegez said that there was an explosion from below prior to the impact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 26 2009, 05:05 PM
Post #34



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Still looking for pumpkin debris under gash in van?

...perhaps there was no pumpkin?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 09:30 PM
Post #35





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 26 2009, 10:05 PM) *
Still looking for pumpkin debris under gash in van?

...perhaps there was no pumpkin?


laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 26 2009, 09:37 PM
Post #36





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (JFK @ Jul 26 2009, 08:33 PM) *
Of course it was a bomb. As Frank DeMartini said, the towers could withstand multiple impacts.

And William Rodruegez said that there was an explosion from below prior to the impact.



JFK, the witness said SPECIFICALY, "There was no plane. It was a bomb". Are you sure you were paying attention to the video? The witness makes this VERY clear.

9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDm0MkWs9p0...laynext_from=PL

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 27 2009, 04:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 27 2009, 05:55 PM
Post #37



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 26 2009, 05:37 PM) *
JFK, the witness said SPECIFICALY, "There was no plane. It was a bomb". Are you sure you were paying attention to the video? The witness makes this VERY clear.

9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDm0MkWs9p0...laynext_from=PL


In this, "It's a bomb, mom." video the camera is looking at the back of the tower that was hit on the other side, by the plane. From this vantage point the incomming plane would have been obscured by the tower, and the camera man wouldn't have been able to see its' aproach, and only could have witnessed the resulting explosion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jul 27 2009, 08:08 PM
Post #38


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



the pumpkin thru truck experiment is not exactly analogous to the plane in to the wtc, but it is relative. the pumpkin penetrates a thin shell of aluminum or (thin) sheet metal on the van's side. ps - yes even the pilars are thin metal - unless there is a steel rollcage built in. so this part (of the pumpkin vs. van experiment) can indeed be compared to the plane penetrating the outer shells of the wtc building.

BUT what about the plane meeting with the concrete floor sections? for the pumpkin experiment to be more analogous, suppose you put a 2ft thick* section of concrete from wall to wall in the van:





- and then shot a pumpkin towards this concrete block. what happens then? 2 things: pumpkin makes a dent on the outside (barely penetrating the concrete though it may give it surface damage), and secondly, the whole van is displaced:



if you were to shoot something sturdier than a pumpkin, say a lead ball, then you would have more damage to the impact surface of the concrete, and you would have even more displacement of the van, both locally at impact point and at the ground (since the van isnt bolted to the ground it can move in the directon of the impact object). now if your lead ball was solid enough, and going fast enough, it could conceivably tear and shred its way thru the concrete block. but there would be at least some resistance - something you dont see in the wtc 175 video.

so what would/should happen to the wtc building meeting a solid plane, is that both at the concrete floor sections, and at the core columns, there should be resistance and displacement in both directions. on one side the plane should slow down, on the other the building should sway in the direction the plane was going. but that didnt happen. why? what facilitated the plane's easy slide into the building? and why didnt the building sway?

1- the (concrete) floor sections as well as some of the support columns on (at least) the impact side were dropped down and out of the way, immediately prior to impact. this hollowed "hangar" is what the plane crashed into, with the door to the hangar being only the thin outershell walls of the building.

2- the plane itself blew up, not just due to being shredded from the penetration, but from explosives rigged precisely to break it into as many smaller pieces as possible. had this not been done, a substantial and sizeable chunk of moving mass (the plane) would meet with the center core of the building, where instead of passing thru like a grater, it would meet with a solid enough "wall", that it would displace the whole building in the form of a very massive sway (at the top) leaving the whole thing off kilter like the leaning tower of piza, or an impact (and consequent sway) possibly massive enough to break off the top of the building (especially if some columns and floors were dropped to help the plane in).


yes - its just a hypothesis, and yes - it requires some maths/physics and ideally some computer simulations, none of which i am capable of doing. but it would be nice to hear others' thoughts on my ideas...

salute.gif




*edit - after some research i found the thickness of the floors varied from 4 to 8 inches (most of them being 4 inches) thick, NOT 2 feet thick. but my point is still the same about even 4 inches of concrete and the resistance it should have offerred.

This post has been edited by paranoia: Feb 12 2011, 04:33 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 27 2009, 08:50 PM
Post #39





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 27 2009, 09:55 PM) *
In this, "It's a bomb, mom." video the camera is looking at the back of the tower that was hit on the other side, by the plane. From this vantage point the incomming plane would have been obscured by the tower, and the camera man wouldn't have been able to see its' aproach, and only could have witnessed the resulting explosion.



Sorry, Lunk. There is something strage going on the the video link, it keeps jumping to the next video. That was the wrong clip. Let's try it one more time and let's get your opinion.

9/11 Witness: No 2nd plane, it was a bomb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU...PL&index=19

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 27 2009, 08:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 27 2009, 10:24 PM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



There is sort of a lack of information here.

Where was the witness watching from?
Could he have been talking about another explosion?

There were lots of explosions that day,
outside of the plane crashes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 28 2009, 09:52 AM
Post #41





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 28 2009, 02:24 AM) *
There is sort of a lack of information here.

Where was the witness watching from?
Could he have been talking about another explosion?

There were lots of explosions that day,
outside of the plane crashes.


Oh, I'll agree with that. Where was he standing? Could he have seen the plane? But he was obviously RIGHT THERE and I think it's more than a little obvious he did not even hear a plane much less see one. After all, isn't engine roar normally associated with jet planes? I think it might also be safe to say that he thought he had a good enough view/perspective that he he should have seen/heard it, if indeed a jet was there and it hit the building.

Question, if someone said they saw a jet plane hit a building right in front of them but they also said they know for a fact that it made no sound, would you question wether they saw a plane at all, or maybe they saw one but the plane ran out of fuel, or the engines(s) experienced some type of failure? Or would you just assume that the engine roar was there and that the witness must be mistaken when he claimed to hear no engine roar?

You can't have it both ways, Lunk.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 28 2009, 11:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 28 2009, 11:48 AM
Post #42



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



We already know that there were other explosions at the WTC that day.
One witness, outside of context, without more specifics, doesn't really say alot.

The janitor, said their was an explosion in the basement, just prior to the plane hitting at the top,
so it is very probable, that there were bombs syncronised with the planes hitting the buildings.

In other words the witness in the video probably did see a bomb go off,
and just diid not happen to see, or hear, the plane.
There would have been a lot of noise below the towers after the first strike,
that may have obscured the sound of the jet engines, from the ground.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 28 2009, 01:39 PM
Post #43





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 28 2009, 04:48 PM) *
1. We already know that there were other explosions at the WTC that day.
One witness, outside of context, without more specifics, doesn't really say alot.

2. The janitor, said their was an explosion in the basement, just prior to the plane hitting at the top,
so it is very probable, that there were bombs syncronised with the planes hitting the buildings.

3. In other words the witness in the video probably did see a bomb go off,
and just diid not happen to see, or hear, the plane.
There would have been a lot of noise below the towers after the first strike,
that may have obscured the sound of the jet engines, from the ground.


1. I wouldn't say the witness's testimony was"out of context", rather you could argue it is uncooborated. However, there are other witnesses that have likewise not seen, nor heard a plane, such as the on-site TV repoter who said he saw no plane. I think I can safely say he didn't HEAR one either because he didn't mention it to the TV station news team and nor was a plane heard on the reporters microphone and nor was the onsite reporter's voice drowned out. Of course, either witness would not have seen it because hearing it 1st is what usually draws attention skyward in the 1st place. In other words, regarding planes, it is unlikely you are going to see what you cannot hear. This is especially true if there was no plane at all. whistle.gif

2. The basement explosion took place seconds PRIOR to the "hit" in the 81st floor; not at the same time. I have posted the audio for this in another thread here. The difference in timing between the basement explosion and 81st floor "hit" is EASILY distinguishable - and there is a reason it was done this way. IMO, the purpose of the basement explosion was to draw attention around the WTC periphery to GROUND LEVEL just PRIOR to the 2nd plane 'hit'. The purpose? This was the slight-of-hand; pull attention to the ground to keep witnesses from seeing what WASN'T about to happen above - no plane hitting the building. More than likely, explosives were merely planted around the 81st floor, to create the plane-shaped "gash" at the same time as the charges used to bring down the towers. The explosion goes off in the basement, everyone looks down and after a few seconds amid the confusion, the explosives in the 81st floor go off and the media tells everyone a plane hit and brodcasts the 'hit' videos from CNN and FOX replete with Hollywood screams. The "planes hit" meme is then immediately reinforced on the street with the help of phoney witnesses.

Probable fake witness? - listen to the over-the-top accent change @ 25:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO4Ohg_YHUE...feature=related

Another fake witness? Harley T-Shirt guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf-qWfT6IAM...feature=related

3. The "no 2nd plane" witness didn't hear/see "the" plane? Would the no 2nd plane witness have at least heard the plane in the following 2 clips if indeed this plane was there? Would the on-site reporter have heard the plane in the following videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q5nE-k0tUQ...feature=related

BTW, where is the basement explosion in either of the above 2 videos that we, and William Ridriguez, know was there? Could it be the audio was faked in the above videos to hide the basement explosion distraction that took place just prior to the fake "plane hit"? Bet on it.

Lastly, the audio in the above 2 clips are in sharp contrast and contradictory to what one would expect if you heard a "small plane" or "missile", which was supposedly witnessed/earwitnessed by some. How could ANYONE confuse the jet roar in the above videos with a small plane or missile? My bet is that no large plane hit, no small plane hit and no missile hit. The small plane/missile meme is merely to make plausible the idea that, "Those that heard or saw a small plane or missle were mistaken. It must have been a hijacked passenger plane." Small plane/missle is what the perp's media pushed just after 9/11 and the brainwashed public, along with many 9/11 truthers, ate it up.

Again, could the above videos AND audio be fake? You betcha dupa.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 29 2009, 12:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 28 2009, 03:19 PM
Post #44





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



The following clip would appear to have captured a fake/staged interview just behind the interview with the above "There was no 2nd plane. It was a bomb." witness.

WTC Attack Witnesses: Staged Interview Interrupted
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAJq1ejs2mQ...feature=related

CNN's hoax on America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIZh1nm8Lzg

This is the way stuff works, guys.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 28 2009, 11:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jul 29 2009, 12:23 AM
Post #45


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



if you size up all the variables involved for the successful achievment of video/tv "fakery" of "U175" crashing into the tower and compare it my proposed hypothesis of pre-impact mini-demolition, you'd find that the variables for the latter are alot easier to manage for the perps, especially if the building has already been compromised by way of having been rigged for a demolition anyway.

i have always thought/agreed that something is wrong with the ease that the plane enters the building. BUT i think that faking it would be so difficult to get away with and to accomplish successfully, that there has to be a more plausible (and therefore probable) explanation. i can think of nothing that forbids a pre-impact mini-demo from having occurred, and the evidence would suggest there is a good chance that im on to something. yet no one wants to touch it. how come?

<perplexed>
dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th December 2019 - 03:57 AM