Dear Mr Balsamo

I know how touchy you are about this, believe me it has not been done deliberately, in fact every effort has been made to avoid it, perhaps you could point out what has been done wrong, to avoid upsetting you again.

It would have been nice to have received your response directly, not 'plugged' on the bottom of another person's post.

There is no connection with that person in the least, in fact, caution has been taken not to become embroiled in what is going on around the person's views.

Nonetheless, it would be good to know your 'pilot colleagues' views about what aircraft they considered hit the South Tower, the North Tower too, if they happened to witness that.

Robert S

mrmitosis,

no one in this thread, absolutely no one, has said that it was a standard 767.

It is the perps and the 'loyalists' who are maintaining that the plane was a hijacket UA175. Again - it's not us!

Cheers

@Robert

I usually hit the "preview" button (beside "post") to see if the post has turned out okay.

Guys,

I think the main sticking point for genuine NPT advocates is the actual impact pattern itself. How the extremities actually penetrated the face of the buildings. Jim Fetzer's argument hinges on the "impossibility" of an aircraft interacting with the building as has been seen in the videos.

Maybe that should be the main focus so we can put our "doots" down?

@tit2

As for the Pentagon, I agree that the OCT impact scenario, the comparison to Manhattan is like chalk and cheese. Not just because of the rebar/kevlar concrete, but because the alleged aircraft was supposedly in a tilt and the extremities neither entered nor marked the decorative layer of facade nor were on the lawn.

Jim,

560 mph/486 knots at 35,000 feet, is the equivalent of 259 knots at sea level.

I would expect an "empty coke can" to smash against steel at such a low speed.

In comparison,

590mph/510 knots at sea level (the actual speeds reported based on Radar) is the equivalent of 956 knots/1,100 mph/Mach 1.59 at 35,000 feet.

I would expect an airliner to pass through 1/4" steel effortlessly. Especially one that may have been modified for such an operation.

You have been taken off mod preview. Thanks for addressing my points.

One dimension of the "official account" of 9/11 is that the North Tower was hit by Flight 11, which was a Boeing 767, and that the South was hit by Flight 175, which was also a Boeing 767. The government has never said anything about these planes being other than standard Boeing 767s, which were supposed to have been 767-200s. Since Boeing 767s could not have entered the towers in the fashion shown in the videos--as I explain in "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'", including both the footage of the "hit" on the North and the South Towers--the use of those videos as substantiating the official account is an instance of video fakery, when that term is defined (as I define it) of being a use of videos to convey a false impression of the events of 9/11. Please note that no real aircraft--Boeing 767-200 in a military or "special" version--could perform the feats of the planes shown in these videos. The "impossible speed" could have been overcome by a standard Boeing 767-200, as Pilots has established by one of its studies, where the fact that an F-14 "Tomcat", for example, could have flown faster at that altitude does not refute the fact that no Boeing 767-200 could have done it, where the videos are supposed to be films of flights by Boeing 767-200s. The points I am making are as refutations of the "official account" but also apply to variations advanced here.

Rob,

I think you are not taking into account that Flight 175 was intersecting eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses that were anchored at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns and filled with 4-8" of concrete, where each such floor represented an acre of concrete and steel. Even if you were right about the potential for the flight you describe to pass through 1/4" steel, it could not have overcome the massive horizontal resistance created by these eight (8) floors. It would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, where seats, bodies and luggage fell to the ground, none of which happened. I would invite you to return to "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'" and review the diagram that I provide. Imagine the consequences of a Boeing 767 encountering just one of these floors in flight.

Jim

Many students have observed that these "cookie-cutter-like-cut-outs" are cartoonish. Indeed, if you take a close look--even at the frame with which my article, "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'" beings, you will see that the plane is half-way into the building, yet no external damage is visible. As I explain elsewhere, in the case of the North Tower, the parallel cut-out was even extended in footage to make it look better in the eyes of the perps. But a real plane impacting with the towers would have created damage that would have been far more concentrated toward the center, where the relatively flimsy wing-tips would not have cut the steel. What you are viewing is a fantasy from beginning to end. And I believe that exposing this charade would do more to awaken the American public to the fabrication of 9/11 than 1,000 repetitions of the controlled demolition of WTC-7, which has been elegantly presented in "This is an orange" by Anthony Lawson.

Dear 'onesliceshort'

That is my normal practice.
When I have not been able to get the quote as Mr Balsamo prefers it, I have just had to be prepared, to accept his wrath.

Your point on the 'extremities', is very valid I believe.
Having placed a drawn profile of a Boeing 767 200, over the gash shown in a photograph of the south face of the South Tower, it brings forward a consideration.

In the NIST report no such procedure was carried out, the only presentation being a very 'conveniently positioned' drawn profile over an 'equally convenient' drawn representation of the gash in the building.

Proper consideration reveals if a Boeing 767 200 was involved, only a relatively small portion of it entered the building.

The ambiguity of the NIST report covers this elsewhere.
Suggesting, not all of the aircraft they say was involved, entered the building.
Yet in other portions of the report, elaborate drawings and representations are used, to show how the aircraft became sliced allowing all of it to enter the building.
The main concentration of this being consideration of the wings, which of course the fuel was carried in.
The fuel required to explain the massive 'hydro carbon', explosion shown in video and photographs.

The horizontal stabilizers and the very large vertical stabilizer, just dismissed in the ambiguity of contratradicting statement.

Robert S

tm (and mr.fetzer - tho i didnt have time to quote his posts), you make fairly accurate observations, but fail to form a plausible scenario that explains them. nevermind of course, that you are outright dismissing eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the building. nevermind the delayed timing between wtc crash 1 and 2, which would have had thousands of eyes, and dozens of cameras pointed at the the first tower ablaze and smoking. nevermind the multiple existing footages (video, digital cameras, and 35mm film) of a plane hitting a building (second crash). nevermind the absence of footage showing an explosion but no plane. nevermind the logistical impossibility of containing such footage if indeed such an event (explosion but no plane) ever occurred.

but speaking strictly to the physical event, that is - the plane's impact and subsequent seamless penetration into the building, then more or less "stopping in its tracks", there is a much simpler explanation than video fakery, i.e. "npt" (as far as im concerned the 2 terms are inextricably tied to each other and mean the same thing). that explanation:

-immediately prior to the plane's entry, various obstacles inside the building that would have impeded its penetration, were dropped out of the way via a mini-demolition. floor sections and columns were removed and only the facade remained intact and in view. this allowed the plane to punch through the relatively thin metal outside the building, without being slowed down by anything inside the building.

-once inside the building, the plane itself, rigged with explosives and already filled with fuel, was detonated, making sure it shattered into small enough pieces that none would act upon the remaining structure (core especially) as a horizontal force.


a more-detailed explanation here:

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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774440
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774495
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774522
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774528
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774529
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10774826

-in the end my hypothesis was not refuted; those who believe the wtc crashes were a video hoax and not an actual event, and whose strongest evidence imo was the seamless penetration of plane through building, had no answer - and after diverting to other issues - the thread died off.

to illustrate it more accurately than the crudely made hand-drawn graphics i shared in that other thread, here is purdue's representation of the building, its structural components, and the plane's path:






sources (contain other related pics/graphics):
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...ase4/index.html
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...Run12/index.htm


-those floorpans and the columns inside the building should have slowed the plane down, IF they were there during penetration. but to me the more logical interpretation of what's seen in the impact videos, is the absence of structural elements in the plane's way, not the absence of a plane. imo its hard to refute how much easier it would be to mini-demo subsections of a building thats already been wired for full demo (maybe the flash seen before impact is part of this pre-impact demo), than it is to control/contain all the variables required for video hoaxing the event instead. its simple, effective, and easily doable, plus it avoids loose ends created by having to involve and or control multiple entities, ranging from news media to average joes on the street, all of whom were focused on the towers after the first impact/explosions.





re: holograms - imo such a notion is not even possible-enough to be considered as an explanation. whomever is suggesting so, i ask that they please provide an example of any hologram anywhere that can even remotely be compared to 2nd wtc crash, specifically a hologram projected in broad daylight and moving at high speeds over an entire city, able to be witnessed by multiple onlookers. until then, its merely a conspiracy theory (anyone seen u2r2h. lately?).

note - while searching for an example, i ran into this entry at fetzer's blog, but the only evidence cited for such technology is anecdotal (the author references without substantiation, a story allegedly relayed by a friend of john lear's):

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/06/ba...ane-theory.html



*while barry berman is credited with having written the above, alot of the text in that piece is extremely similar (almost word for word) to much of the logix presented here in this thread by mr.fetzer.

I would like to ask just how we arrived at the airspeed value?

Rob suggests above the value is derived from radar data. I think others have arrived at a value by somehow measuring by video reference how far the airplane travelled in a given time, thus arriving at a ground speed. Are there other methods used?

I hate to be repetitious, but I am most skeptical of the radar data for the simple fact that we know that to some extent the data was corrupted by injects in the name of VG.

In short, I don't see how a precise number for the airspeed can be calculated.

Thanks for the links p!

One entry that stood out to me was the bunker buster guided missile (1991) designed to penetrate concrete with a delayed detonation. The GBU-28.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVkYe8tNZX4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11vZHrsJWjU

http://www.tanknutdave.com/component/relat...deo:8vDJ_wyrf1k

Another bunker buster



Guidance system

http://www.mashpedia.com/Laser_designator


Anomalies in both tower impacts


Apparent explosion preimpact on tower 1, apparent flash preimpact tower 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io


Footage labelled "nose in, nose out" 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i73XmZUxnVo

Another angle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54VHUi7-wDk

Now watch this video

84mm Carl Gustav HEAT 751 Shaped Charge tamdem warhead (slow motion)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6j9wEF1sf8

Similarities?

Shaped charge

https://www.llnl.gov/str/gifs/Baum2.gif

Shaped charge used in mining

http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=nrM4rrKhopY

http://www.rtbot.net/play.php?id=uLin2wlRMTg

00:28 (bulge seen between underbelly and right wing verified in other footage)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88

Second impact footage - do holograms reflect light?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHMvXKVDE4o


Fl175 pod

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804296

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804345


My point being, not that I'm pinning my flags to any one mode of penetration but that NPT/video fakery, whether you're an advocate or not, immediately negates any further avenues of investigation because all visual evidence is invalidated.

La Vanguardia newspaper, for example, contacted Boeing about the abnormal shapes on the underbelly of "Flight 175" and allegedly couldn't comment.

There's the apparent flash/explosion just before the tower 1 impact. I don't know if there was ever a 3D simulation and azimuth calculations done to see at what point the explosion occured but that's another avenue of investigation that would be blocked.

Finally, Rob's work on the impossible speed. What's better? To have a way of demanding answers as to how that (officially documented) speed was allegedly reached by a transport category 767 or to throw it on top of the NPT heap?

NTSB Video Impact Speed Study (8mb pdf)

Summary
Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)

NTSB Radar Data Impact Speed Study
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Radar_Dat...AA11,_UA175.pdf

Based on winds reported, I calculated a True Airspeed of 515 knots.

The speeds reported are impossible for a standard 767. They are not impossible if the aircraft were modified.

This post is wrong on so many counts that it is itself a piece of fakery:

(1) Since it shows the intersection with only six (6) and not seven (7) at
the North Tower or eight (8) at the South, this is sloppy research from
scratch and does not accurately represent either "hit" in New York City.

(2) I consider three alternatives: the use of CGIs, of video compositing,
and of a sophisticated hologram. CGIs and video compositing would only
apply to the broadcast footage, however, and not what witnesses saw.

(3) Not only do I take into account the eyewitness reports, but I accent
that, the more seriously we take their reports, the greater the weight for
a hologram, since otherwise "the plane" would not have been observable.

(4) There is no evidence for a "mini-demolition" of the inside of the North
or of the South Tower. Notice that the plane is completely inside the South
Tower BEFORE IT EXPLODES and there are no indications of prior explosion.

(5) The "obstacles" that would have impeded the penetration of "the plane"
into the building included those eight (8) floors of steel trusses covered with
4-8" of concrete. Their removal would have created major explosive effects.

(6) The Purdue simulation was an animation that has been widely discounted
as "work for hire". It does not show the plane intersecting with eight (8) floors,
where an explosion of its fuel would have occurred before was inside the tower.

(7) No such effects are visible, which means that this is an hypothesis which
has no evidence to support it. The author introduces a misleading version of
my position and then simply disregards the absence of any proof for his own.

(8) killtown has done excellent work on the "plane crashes", including this one
as a critique of a fake video that was actually broadcast over CBS News, "How
not to fake plane crash videos", http://fake-plane-crash-videos.blogspot.com/

(9) The obvious reason that paranoia has not convinced anyone of this theory
is that there is no evidence to support it. All the evidence is on my side, once
you separate contrived versions of my position from misleading ones like his.

(10) Among the experts I have interviewed about the use of a hologram was
Stephen Brown, who had just completed a course of holography at Cambridge
and confirmed that the technology for such a project had been available then.

Anyone who studies the evidence as I have explained it SHOULD arrive at the
same or similar conclusions, as is the case with the very nice Barry Berman blog.
My first article on this, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", appeared in 2008.

See "No Planes Theory", which exposes the apparent use of actors on 9/11,
and includes a link to one of his interviews with me on "The Dynamic Duo" on
19 August 2008 (with graphics), in which he explains why they had to fake it.

This is an especially excellent interview with the most important footage you
need to know to understand how we know that "video fakery" was employed
in New York on 9/11. It should leave no room for any serious doubt about it.

I'll let paranoia speak for himself but that comment really makes me laugh out loud.
Translated: the more evidence of a plane being spotted, the more evidence there is for "holograms"

Has anybody got the link to the alleged audio recording of the WTC1 impact where there are 2 distinct explosions heard? I think they were caught during a meeting?

Cheers

WTC1 impact (men visible in the video look to the sky when they hear the sound of aircraft approaching the north tower. I hear two sounds of explosions after the aircraft impact. The second lower than the first).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

WTC2 impact (I hear three sounds of explosions after the aircraft impact):

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

I am beginning to appreciate your moniker. Given that we cannot be dealing with a real plane, since this one is performing feats that no real plane could perform, there are only three apparent alternatives: (1) the use of CGIs, (2) the use of video compositing, and (3) the use of a sophisticated hologram. But (1) the use of CGIs or (2) the use of video compositing would not make "the plane" visible to witnesses but only in broadcast videos. Since "the plane" was visible to witnesses--and this is my point!--it cannot have been done by (1) the use of CGIs or (2) the us of video compositing. The greater the emphasis on the witness reports, therefore, the more weight for (3) the use of a sophisticated hologram. This is a relatively simple argument by elimination. I really don't understand how you could be following this thread and not get it!

Rob,

Dennis and I have been discussing your position, which, at least to me, is not entirely clear. You seem to be inclined to believe that a real plane--specially modified, I take it--actually crashed into the North and South Towers. Please tell me if I have that right: that, in your opinion, real planes crashed into both Twin Towers.

Since we have footage showing what looks a great deal like a Boeing 767 and not an F-14 "Tomcat", I take it you believe that a "special plane" that looked a great deal like a Boeing 767 was used at the South Tower, because otherwise video fakery would be obvious--and it appears to me that you want to deny video fakery!

Some of the problems that arise on your account, if we understand it properly, derive from your apparent claim that modified planes could do this even though they have the same wing sweep and the same non-tapered fuselage shape as is evident in the available videos regarding 'how' these planes were modified:

First, the modified engines would have to fit the existing NACELLES perfectly or the image wouldn't work.

Second, the modified plane would have to overcome the same parasite and form drag coefficient it had when it left the production line.

Third, if 'heavily modified' planes, presumed to have been re-engined and aerodynamically sleeker, were used, then why don't we see that in the videos?

We would therefore appreciate your explanation for how the perps got rid of all of that form and parasite drag on these B-767s that day, because there is no evidence of tapered fuselages, or different engines in FACTORY NACELLES that are visible.

Unless you are maintaining that parasite and form drag disappeared on 9/11, in straight and level flight, it went up by the square with velocity, which means that it got WORSE that day. So what is your justification for why this was not an impediment to 515 knots TAS that morning?

Jim

Other audio recording of the WTC1 impact (I had forgotten him!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtCfzDxD0g0

We hear the sound of the aircraft before is impact on the north tower, as in the Naudet video. With the luck we will have audio recording of the Pentagon impact, but it would surprise me!

ok, first off, your argument is silly. think back to your early days when people modified their cars. bone stock on the outside, lots of mods on the inside. sleepers, i believe is the term. airplanes are the same.
why is that beyond the pale? holograms are more plausible? i think not.

Well said GP.

Jim, read this three more times.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10804300

Bump.

Hey Jim, you missed a post.



Says the guy who said this beaut.



Please, enough with the childish insults. I've been civil to you even though you've been selective and as subtle as a breeze block to posters with legitimate questions and points.

Peace.

Rob,

You have offered an hypothesis that appears to be untestable. Not to make
the obvious point, but what you have given in response to my questions is a
theory, when Pilots, especially you, are supposed to eschew "theories". How
could we possibly tell whether a plane that looks like a Boeing 767-200 has or
has not been "modified" to perform feats a standard 767 could not perform?

And, as I have previously observed, no real plane could have entered that
building without displaying the effects of a collision, "modified" or not. So if
you have an explanation that can justify, even remotely, your new position
about a "modified" 767, then I would like to hear it. You threatened me with
suspension for not answering your questions. I think you should answer mine.

Don't forget that it was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel
trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external steel
columns at the other, which were filled with 4-8" of concrete. I'm sorry to
say it, but you appear to have no justification at all for your fanciful theory.
And that others take your side does not show your side is reasonable or true.

Jim

Thanks tit2.

There is another audio of the first tower impact caught on a recording in an office building. No visual, just audio, where two explosions are heard. Can't find it and it was big news years ago.

Obtain and inspect the numerous aircraft parts recovered from Ground Zero. This will only happen through a new and independent investigation with subpoena power as outlined in our Mission Statement.



Jim, it's not a "new position". It is discussed in 9/11 World Trade Center Attack which was released nearly 3 years ago. You should perhaps view it sometime.

9/11: World Trade Center Attack from P4T Preview on Vimeo.

As an organization we do not offer theory. However, as individuals, we would not be human if we didn't discuss the possibilities considering the data does not support the govt story. Again, there are many varying opinions within our organization, where we stand united is under our Mission Statement atop our home page.

Video Fakery and NPT has been discussed at length in this section of the forum. Such theories do not hold water, nor has it convinced me.

A hologram theory certainly does not convince me, especially when we cannot even access such advanced technology if it even exists.

You seem to think that we posses the technology to produce real life holograms flying over a Major city, but are unable to modify an aircraft internally for increased performance.

Again Jim, aircraft are modified all the time for increased performance.

For example, a DC-8 was modified to exceed Mach 1, all they did was modify the leading edge of the wing and shift the CG with ballast. Neither of which can be detected on a Youtube video.

Finally, I didn't threaten you with suspension. I put you on mod preview till you answered my post that you evaded, and then removed the restriction after you made your reply.

However, I will now threaten you with suspension if you continue your ad homs and attacks on our respected members of this forum.

I don't care if you insult me, but you will not insult our forum members.

In short, we will never endorse your theories as an organization. I can only image if we did, the people on this list would be dropping like flies. Perhaps that is your goal......
(by the way, be sure to keep an eye on it as we have another update coming.)

NPT and Video Fakery has done nothing but create "Truth Movement" divide since 2006.

Some plane parts were found but appear to have been planted, such as the engine component that was found at Church & Murray, which I discuss in "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'". I cannot see how a position that I have only recently advanced based upon evidence that was not available at the time could possibly have been dealt with previous to this thread.

In particular, unless you are maintaining that Newton's laws were suspended on 9/11, there is no more merit to your "modified plane" than a normal 767. You seem to be keen on offering a position that has no known evidential support, which appears to me to violate your own constraints on "theories". I am having a hard time finding consistency in your methodology, Rob.

I have also been quite specific about holographic technology, where the hologram thesis has been endorsed by John Lear, by Steffan Grossman and, perhaps most importantly, by Stephen Brown, whom I interviewed on "The Real Deal", who had recently completed a course on holography at Cambridge and assured me that the technology to have done this was available then.

Moreover, when I have repeatedly explained that this "plane" was intersecting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8" of concrete and all that, your reply strikes me as logically irrelevant and non-responsive to the issues I have raised. When you are willing to disregard relevant evidence, as you have here, you can make it fit virtually any theory at all.

Jim, when one believes an airliner is more like an "empty coke can", than an actual airliner with thousands of gallons of liquid in their wings, internal structural supports such as a main spar, bulkheads, and ribs... has seats, passengers (averaging 170-180 lbs of 70% liquid), a cockpit filled with heavy instruments, Flight Management computers, heavy ADC/IAC computers, DAU's, luggage.....not to mention 6000 lb engines hanging from it (and an APU in the tail), i suppose i can see how you would think an "empty coke can" will crush against the side of the WTC.

I would agree with you if in fact an Airliner was an "empty coke can" as you assert and believe. Unfortunately for you, an Airliner is nothing like an "empty coke can". And when you understand this, perhaps you will understand why your theories fail and get limited support.

When we take into consideration KE = 1/2mv^2, we see that an airliner with a mass of more than 120,000 kg traveling at 860 feet per second has much more energy than an "empty coke can" traveling at the same speed.

Again Jim, an airliner is nothing like an "empty coke can". It is more like a large coke can with structural supports, filled with thousands of filled coke cans (and as a matter of fact, there are many filled coke cans in the galley... you can probably get a Sprite too, lol)

Considering the sheer amount of evidence for the WTC impacts (witnesses, video, aircraft parts)....

This seems more plausible to me than your theories, especially if the aircraft were modified for such an operation.



Again Jim, Pilots For 9/11 Truth will never endorse NPT nor Video Fakery. It has been discussed at length in this section of the forum. Feel free to do a search and post rebuttals to the points raised.

Let me see if I have this right. You object to my position because you fault the analogy with an empty coke can when, as I have explained, that is ONLY an analogy. It most certainly is no substitute for my argument, although I can see why you would prefer to attack it INSTEAD of my argument. Let me clarify a few points.

Airplanes operate on the basis of classical Newtonian principles, especially Newton's three laws of motion. I am therefore rather taken aback that you would want to suspend them for the sake of defending a position about what we see in these videos when they are obviously portraying events that violate Newton's laws.

You gain a specious plausibility by modifying the aircraft and ignoring the physical features of the building, even though I have repeatedly identified them: eight (8) steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns, at the other to the external support columns, and filled with 4-8" of concrete (or an acre apiece).

No one who acknowledges the massive horizontal resistance posed by those structures would find the idea of a "modified plane" overcoming those obstacles without its velocity dropping to zero, its fuselage crumpling, its wings and tail breaking off, with bodies, seats and luggage falling to the ground remotely plausible. None of that happened.

You suggest that I am out to divide the 9/11 Truth community. But I am drawing obvious conclusions that are supported by the evidence and follow from the most widely acknowledged laws in the history of physics, which cannot be violated and cannot be changed, even by "modified" airplanes that fly faster than standard.

And, when you assert, "Considering the sheer amount of evidence for the WTC impacts (witnesses, video, aircraft parts)....", I wonder if you have been reading any of my studies. Nothing about my hypothesis is inconsistent with the witnesses; it is based upon the videos; and it encompasses the phony planted parts.

So which of us is being more respectful of truth? The one whose arguments are based upon the available evidence, including the structure of the edifice, and consistent with the laws of physics? Or the one whose theory is based upon unavailable evidence, ignores the structure of the building and violates Newton's laws?

So much "horizontal resistance" that light couldn't even make it through.




Actually, the plane was shredding to pieces. See the animation I posted above.

Jim, i just calculated the amount of Energy released during impact.

The impact energy of a 767-200 (a standard 767 mind you, who knows what the mass was if modified), traveling at 510 knots (860 ft/sec), is nearly equivalent to the energy of 2000 sticks of Dynamite exploding.

This is what 2000 sticks of Dynamite accomplished.



Granted, that was only a 30 story high rise. I think the energy of 2000 sticks of dynamite can take care of 8 floors if concentrated.

Someone feel free to check my math as I did this pretty quickly.

KE=1/2mv^2

KE = 1/2(120,000kg)(262.4m/s)^2

where...
120,000 = Estimated Mass of 767-200 (it is actually higher, but for argument sake)
262.4 m/s = speed reported 510 knots (860f/s)


KE = 60,000(68853.76)

KE = 4,131,225,600J

Energy of 1 stick of Dynamite = 2.1 MJ

4,131,225,600/2,100,000 = 1967.25 Sticks of Dynamite.



I am not "suggesting" anything, I am telling you that your theories have divided the "Truth Movement". You know this first hand within your own organization. Whether you are doing it intentionally or not, you can only know.

The rest of your post I didn't bother to read. Again Jim, this topic is discussed ad nauseum in this section of the forum. Feel free to browse and post your rebuttals. As stated, it has been discussed, we will never endorse NPT nor Video Fakery as an organization. Sorry if that upsets you, that's just the way it is, and it is not due to lack of discussion or ignorance. Our Mission Statement is clear.

Keep in mind, we are one of the few forums out there which will allow such discussion. Most forums have banned the discussion of NPT and Video Fakery.

Do I have to point out that there is no evidence that the "plane" was shredded and that you are taking for granted that the Purdue simulation is trustworthy, when it obviously is not. Those who are dividing the truth movement are those who deny obvious consequences based upon the laws of physics and base positions on irresponsible studies by unworthy sources.

In particular, the Purdue simulation is blatantly defective in major respects. It does not represent the number of floors intersected accurately; it ignores the area of the facade that is steel and concrete; it offers an entry that accents two floors without representing their internal structure. Do you know the principle of computer science "GI, GO", Rob?

Given the gross simplification of relevant features of the building that I have identified, surely you appreciate that the Purdue engineers have sold their integrity as scientists and offered a flimsy model of what was, in reality, a highly robust structure. They exemplify the principle, "Garbage in, garbage out"! This simulation is YOUR "empty coke can"!

I have been puzzled by your calculations of the force that would be applied by your "modified" plane, when you offer no calculation of the resistance posed by the building. And are you forgetting that the effects of a plane flying 500 mph hitting a stationary building are the same as a stationary plane being hit by a building moving at 500 mph? Where are they?

Your 2000 sticks of dynamite is no substitution for the mass and resistance of a 500,000-ton steel and concrete building. And where are the effects of those 2000 sticks of dynamite? When are they supposed to have gone off? AFTER THE PLANE ENTERED THE BUILDING? Give me a break, Rob. You are fantasizing and theorizing while denying you are doing that.

And bear in mind that the Purdue simulation was done on the basis of a mass of assumptions, many of which are obviously false. Simulations are always based upon assumptions, which means that they are, as in this case, animated representations of theories. What this means is that you, the head of an organization that eschews theories, is basing his and Pilots' position on one.

I am also struck by attitude expressed in your statement, "Pilots For 9/11 Truth will never endorse NPT nor Video Fakery." That stance implies that, regardless of any future evidence or any future research, Pilots' stance will not change--even though you place emphasis on future inquiries that might vindicate your position. That is the method of tenacity and wishful thinking, not science and reason.

I have a general question.

I understand that Pilots for Truth will not endorse, for example, "video fakery" or "NPT."

But by ruling out theories, isn't Pilots for Truth adopting a theory? The Plane Theory.

Hi Dean,

Please review our mission statement of the top of our home page. Pay particular attention to the underlined sentence.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org

In short, we do not offer theory as an organization. We want a new and independent investigation with subpoena power due to the fact that data, precedent and other information does not support the story we have been told by our govt.

Others are free to theorize and discuss the possibilities. It also seems that some others prefer to attack if one does not subscribe to their theories. Whatever floats their boat I suppose... we continue our work.

Rob,

Not only has Dean correctly observed that you are supporting a "plane" theory, but the simulation that you have endorsed is OBVIOUSLY based upon a theory--and one that, as I have shown, is seriously defective. If you deny NPT, you are endorsing PT--unless you declare that Pilots for 9/11 Truth cannot decide whether or not real planes really hit the North and the South Towers. If that is your position, then I think that you had better declare it, because the world is going to astonished and amazed if that is Pilots' position. You want to hide behind a mission statement, but surely the mission of "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" is 9/11 Truth! So tell us. It is impossible to get away from theorizing, Rob, since even calling something "a plane" without qualification implies that it is a real plane. You are doing a lot of that here, so I think you might as well simply admit it. If Pilots doesn't know whether real planes hit the Twin Towers, then tell us. Inquiring minds want to know.

Jim

First you claim 560 mph. Now you claim 500 mph.

What's next, 450 mph?

Why do you keep reducing the speeds reported?

Perhaps this is why?

KE = 1/2mv^2

lol....

Thank you for the reply, Rob.

The organization does not offer theory or point blame.

I get it.

But if you really mean NO NPT

Or no no plane theory

Are you not as an organization offering a theory of "plane theory"?

Well, you really got me there, Robl Yes, "500" was a typo. Congratulations.
Strictly speaking, my example of Newton's third law works with any velocity.
But, I dare say, your argument confronts more serious issues than this one.

Yes Jim, according to people like you, we are plane huggers, according to people like Bursill and Lawson, we are NPTer's.

We get it from all sides. We are used to it.

But our Mission Statement is clear.

Jim, two typos in the same post, in the same sentence, exactly the same way? Really?

Ok... if you say so.

Jim, what is the speed reported? Do you know? Be sure to proof read your post now, don't want "typos" to mislead the readers....lol

Actually i HAVE given a plausible scenario. And No. I have NOT outright dismissed eyewitnesses.
On the contrary, i mention them in the selfsame post you're referring to! - as well as in posts no.
99 -111 - 129 - 140.



Jim fetzer has already commented on this in a logical way, i think. Will just add to the above,
that apart from the center core, there was no columns inside the building. It was all open
office space.



What about the intact spandrel plates in the above elevation that would have been hit by the wings and the nazelles?



Like the great surprise i got recently, discovering the fear and dread people feel when it comes to discussing "infinity"
and "eternity", then likewise i'm actually totally bewildered and flabbergasted to discover that so many people find it
so impossible to imagine the presence of hologram projections at WTC!

Is it because no "theory" has been more vilified, more ridiculed, more scorned and more laughed at by the 'shills' and
the loyalists than anything else? But shouldn't this fact, at least to some degree, give just a little bit of food for thought
to some of "youse"?? No!

OK then, but what about the same kind of abuse, perhaps to a little lesser extent, P4T and CIT have experienced over
the many years from the same nasties! Should we not give this 'just a little bit of thought' either?

Of course we should, and we should in all honesty and in all fairness do the same to all three. As the saying goes: They
are all 'above' the targets, and hence the persistent, remorseless and sustained flak attacks from the perps and their
sycophants!
What other reasons could you possibly come up with, except it being for this very fact?

Please bear in mind that neither DARPA (see post no. 140) nor the military industrial complex in general, seems to have
any 'fears' about this new technology. Millions upon millions of dollars has been spent in research and development all
through the nineties and into the new millennium, to further develop this "new apparent wonder toy"!

(The Japanese and the Europeans got no fears either. So why is it ridiculed in this forum?? I just don't get it..... unless
of course, it's simply based on "willful ignorance"!! Nahh, that would be to horrible to contemplate, i think )!

Cheers

Rob,

Are we not supposed to notice that you have not replied to my post #180?
I spent some time on it to explain why your position is riddled with theory.

Jim

Come on!. It was an illustration of Newton's third law. I added the sentence,

"Strictly speaking, my example of Newton's third law works with any velocity."

for clarity, but you posted before you noticed it was there, if you have by now.

I give you this trivial victory, but for you post #180 represents a major defeat.

According to data, numerous witnesses, numerous videos both network and private, and aircraft parts recovered at the site, real aircraft aircraft hit the WTC as observed. This does not mean the aircraft were N612UA nor N334AA as the evidence does not exist or support such a theory for those particular aircraft. In fact, data, precedent and numerous verified experts contradict what we have been told by our govt in so far as the aircraft observed to strike the WTC South Tower was a standard 767-200, N612UA, nor has the govt been forthcoming with documentation to provide positive identification of N612UA or N334AA.

But again, this does not validate NPT as was discussed between John Lear and myself.

Based on KE energy calculations and precedent, there was more than enough energy to create the damage observed in the South Tower, even for a standard 767 operating at nearly 22,000 kg's less than MTOW. Keeping in mind, these calculations do not account for any possible modification which may have increased the mass (perhaps significantly) of the aircraft observed to cause the damage at the WTC.

But again, a standard 767 could get the job done, if it were able to achieve such speeds. It cannot, but it can if modified.

Hope this helps.

Jim, how much "resistance" did this 30 story building exhibit when faced with the same energy concentrated on only 8 floors of the WTC?

Giving this more thought, I am now inclined to believe that a conjecture I had
shared with Dennis may be true, namely, that you do not understand Newton's
third law. In fact, it would not have been an illustration of the third law to use
different velocities on both sides of the equation. That should have told you it
was an ILLUSTRATION of the third law, not an APPLICATION to this case. But
it is certainly correct that, in application to this case, a plane flying 560 mph
hitting a stationary 500,000-ton building would have the same effects as the
same plane, now stationary, being hit by that building moving at 560 mph. If
you give this more thought, I think you will see the absurdity of your position.

Since you feel the need to share what Dennis is saying, perhaps you can provide a source quote?

Be sure to get permission for me to post his quotes as well.

Here's a hint Jim, Dennis doesn't support NPT either.



Again Jim, the speeds reported were not 500 mph, nor 560. Please review the data. I've given it to you many times in this thread.

But i guess that's just another "typo", twice, in the same post.

Rob,

Why are you evading and evading? The post was about the Purdue simulation
and observed it was based upon a number of important but false assumptions.
In other words, to the extent to which you are basing your own position on the
Purdue simulation, you are basing it on a theory that is, in fact, a false theory.

When we view controlled demolitions like those you are presenting, notice that
we can see the immediate effects of the explosives exploding. When precisely
are you maintaining that your 2000 sticks of dynamite equivalent blew? We do
not see those effects when the plane effortlessly enters the South Tower, Rob.

I am very troubled that you are not only denying you are theorizing when you
are obviously theorizing, even in insisting it was a plane rather than the image
of a plane. There is no good reason for preferring that position to mine, which
I support by Newton's laws, the building's structure, and the videos themselves.

And the very idea that Pilots would adopt the PERMANENT STANCE that there
have to have been real planes, regardless of the evidence, present or future,
exemplifies the method of tenacity in adopting a belief and never changing it,
when you should instead be responsive to new evidence and new hypotheses.

You should at least admit that the Purdue animation is indefensible for several
reasons, including those I enumerated: it does not reflect the proper number
of intersected floors; it does not display the features of the facade accurately;
and what it presents as the interior is oversimplified to the point of absurdity.

Do you understand why the values on both sides had to be the same? That Newton's
third law declares that, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? I am
just a bit taken aback that you want to change the subject, time after time after time.

Jim, the "equal and opposite" reaction that was done to the plane is the fact that the plane did not come out the other side in one piece.

Again -




The energy of 2000 sticks of dynamite did not hit a 500,000ton solid steel plate Jim. It hit eight floors surrounded by 1/4' thick steel box beams connected by bolts. 2000 sticks of Dynamite took care of 30 floors in FL.

lol

Is this image supposed to be an argument? Because an argument has premises and a conclusion. I have repeatedly observed that each floor was composed of a steel truss connected at one end to the core columns and at the other to the external support columns. They were filled with 4-8" of concrete. The "plane" was intersecting with eight (8). And that would have been the case if the actual floors had been empty. Look at the diagram I have provided and invited you to consider many times now (in "Planes/No Planes and 'Video Fakery'). How am I supposed to take you seriously when you are ignoring the crucial features of the structure that pose the greatest obstacle to your theory?

That is a great idea Jim.

Don't take me seriously, and please don't use our work in your articles, as now we are just going round and round, and you still have yet to accurately recite the speeds reported

Thanks!