evidence of "no-planes"

Discussion in '9/11' started by n0spam, Jan 26, 2014.

  1. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please consider this,
    How many aircraft are so totally & completely destroyed
    by crashing, that it is impossible to find a tail or for that
    matter any bit of the aircraft of sufficient size to identify
    the aircraft? In all the history of commercial aviation,
    has it ever happened that 4 aircraft crash, and crash
    in such a manner as to completely & totally destroy the
    aircraft?

    4 airliners very conveniently destroyed so as to not be positively identified
    but only "identified" by the hearsay of there allegedly having been a hijacked
    airliner tracked to the location of the crash site.

    The alleged "FLT175" aircraft as much as melts into the wall of
    the south tower ( B movie special effects anyone? )
    and let me elaborate as to why having an airliner completely disappear
    into the building ( 2X ) is crazy.

    The alleged penetration ability of the airliner is dependent on the
    aircraft being flown at >500 mph speed, and given that air resistance
    increases as the cube of the speed, and the air is thicker at low altitudes,
    the jet engines of a commercial airliner would NOT propel the aircraft to
    such a speed that near sea level. In addition, the KE possessed by the
    aircraft is a function of the speed & mass, and so diminishing the mass
    will diminish the KE ..... Therefore, as the aircraft entered the building,
    the part of the aircraft that has already entered the building has been as
    much as shredded and can no longer be considered in the mass of the aircraft.
    So the shredding of the aircraft continues until all that is left is the tail, and
    given diminished KE from diminished mass ( not to mention diminished velocity )
    WHY did the tails of both "FLT11" & "FLT175" completely disappear inside the
    WTC towers?

    and note the PENTAGON hit, the alleged aircraft hit was at such
    an angle that many tons of aircraft bits would have to have ended
    up on the Pentagon lawn NOT disappeared inside the building.
    The PENTAGON hit could NOT possibly be as described in the official story.
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even shredded, the plane parts still had the same mass.
     
  3. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Plane parts that is, can you say for guaranteed certain that the bits all stayed connected
    so that the original mass of the complete airliner was a factor in propelling the tail into the
    building with enough force to cause it to completely disappear?
     
  4. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Your thread states you'll be providing evidence of no planes. Congratulations, you will be the first. Please, provide evidence.
     
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The parts don't have to be connected to have the same mass. They could have been blown into pieces no bigger than a grain of sand and STILL had the same mass. The mass does not change.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh. Hooray.
    ANOTHER no-planes thread.
     
  6. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I once predicted few years ago that as the 9/11 conspiracy believers move into the future, they will either;

    1. Stop believing in the conspiracy theory due to the overwhelming amount of debunking done, or;
    2. Continue to believe the conspiracy theory by adopting more and more extreme positions/beliefs. ie. No-planes, vicsims, mass complicity etc.

    I think I was right. All we seem to see these days are no planers. Not many of them, but certainly the majority in the tiny mess that remains of the 9/11 "truth movement".

    As for the latter, it certainly highlights the reverse method of 9/11 truthers, where as anything can be/is possible so long as at the end of it all, 9/11 was an inside job. Start with the conclusion, work your way backwards. Anything that doesn't fit is discarded, anything that may fit is taken as gospel, no matter how dishonest/unlikely that is. Ergo, truthers who once believed in the mainstream conspiracy theory had to adopt no planer/mass complicity mantra because it was the only way they could preserve the conclusion; that 9/11 was an inside job. For them, the conclusion is the only thing that matters, no matter how insane the parts which make up that conclusion. It's almost fascinating.
     
  7. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    l have actually looked at the bit you provided "9/11 Pentagon Attack Review - American 77"
    and there are two videos allegedly proving that airliners can fly fast & low as was alleged
    to have happened in the case of "FLT77" However for both of these videos, NO mention
    of the exact speed of the aircraft is made, and the aircraft in the airshow scene fly much
    higher than "FLT77" would have done to hit the PENTAGON in the manner alleged in the official story.
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    evidence? I have yet to see any debunker who understands what qualified evidence is but sure thing.

    Video compositing:

    [video=youtube;AJrpS2CmeBM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJrpS2CmeBM[/video]

    [​IMG]

    Parts should have fallen


    [​IMG]


    Black wings on brite background do not disappear!

    [​IMG]


    Video compositing!

    [​IMG]


    you can see the transparent layers

    [​IMG]


    1 BIG one for anyone who can come up with a REAL impact video!
    [​IMG]
     
  9. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The parts would need to be still connected in order to propel the tail of the aircraft
    into the WTC tower with enough force to completely obliterate it.

    The tail as a disconnected mass would have diminished KE because
    it was disconnected from the rest of the aircraft.

    - - - Updated - - -

    obviously you didn't read my post ....... Thank U very much.
     
  10. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Wall of text is not evidence. Images, sources, documents, that is evidence. All you wrote was conjecture.

    But as for your comparison of AAL77's final moments, and the low flying airliners I have on my blog, you may want to note one key difference is that neither of the aircraft I linked were trying to crash into a building; hence they did not fly a couple of feet off the ground, although certainly low enough to be a good comparison.
     
  11. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    now who is dealing in conjecture & speculation, does flying 40 ft off the ground = flying 2 ft off the ground?
    and at what speed, the airshow bit doesn't specify an exact speed, was the aircraft flying at 300 mph
    or? too many variables.

    Bottom line with the variables being WHY do we have 4 airliner crashes
    that COMPLETELY destroy the aircraft? such that we can not tell if there
    had been simply a scattering of random wreckage, rather than a real plane crash
    at that site.

    BTW: my argument about diminished KE applies also to the PENTAGON
    crash, what black magic & witchcraft propelled the tail of the aircraft into
    the building?
     
  12. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    At the speeds they are doing there is little in the way of such things as ground effect, so really the only difference between 40 feet and 2 feet is the balls of the pilot, and as I stated AAL77 was crashing, not showing off. It's a comparison, not a direction one, but close enough.

    Your remainder of your argument seems just that, an argument. You have not provided any calculations of Kinetic Energy to support your assertion.
     
  13. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,682
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Supply evidence that in every other commercial jet crash it was possible to identify an aircraft had crashed and it was not a random scattering of wreckage
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ah huh.....

    But I bet you didnt see this one coming did you?

    Psychologists Say: ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ SANE, Government Dupes CRAZY and Hostile.[​IMG]

    Laurie Manwell, Univ of Guelph; users of the, “Conspiracy Theorist” label impedes their cognitive function, published in American Behavioral Scientist 2010; anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing beliefs.

    Univ of Buffalo Prof Steven Hoffman; anti-conspiracy people prone to “confirmation bias”, and pre-existing belief confirmation, using irrational mechanisms (such as the “CT” label) to avoid personal conflict.[​IMG]

    Extreme irrationality of those who attack “Conspiracy Theorist's” is exposed by Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State Univ. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: Conspiracy Theoristst as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion.[​IMG]

    Now pro-conspiracy voices are more numerous and rational than anti-conspiracy ones and anti-Conspiracy Theory people are like hostile, paranoid cranks.






    oh and starting with a conclusion is exactly what NIST did with building 7, its called dry labbing!

     
  15. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    yah but when are you debunkers going to explain how a tin can wing can mow down 5 light poles?

    How much force did each pole exert against the wing?


    [​IMG]
     
  16. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    but it cant deliver the same moment LOL
     
  17. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,752
    Likes Received:
    4,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    David Blaine, the towers and planes are still there.
     
  18. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please add detail, I do NOT get your reference to "David Blaine" ..... will you post a rebuttal,
    or more information .... or something (?)
     
  19. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,682
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why do you continue to lie. It has been explained to you why the power poles behaved the way they do. Why do continue to spew disinformation and rumor on the topic?
     
  20. n0spam

    n0spam New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2014
    Messages:
    485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The video shows the cartoon image of an airliner striking and breaking off light poles, without taking damaged to the aircraft or causing it to waver at all from its course. The light poles would have to have inflicted damage to the wings of the aircraft therefore imposing difficulty in keeping it on course straight & level.

    hijacked airliners were NOT used as weapons on 9/11/2001
     
  21. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,682
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are wrong
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,822
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I asked for the amount of force exerted against the wing of the plane by the poles, it was avoided by debunkers like a plague! They vanished!

    Now that may be what is considered explained dablunder land but not in anyone elses world.

    The closest thing I have seen is when fang claimed calculated the resulting force of a plane hitting a column in the wtc only 1 ton more than a duck!

    It appears debunkers are not in a position to "explain" anything.
     
  23. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,682
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because the question has no relevance. They were not standard poles. You know that, you have been shown that. But you continue to act as if nothing was ever explained. Retreading 10 year old arguments, getting the same explanation for 10 years, just proves the true depth of your dishonesty.
     
  24. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Where are the black boxes of Flight 11, 77 and 175? They say they never recovered them. And you believe them... well, maybe that's true, cause there were no black boxes in the first place. If the planes were real, they must have removed them from the planes before 9/11.

    Where is the wreckage of Flight 93? Not a single picture of the wreckage has ever been seen. They say they unburried 95% of it, but they refuse to show it.

    Over 100 surveillance cameras have recorded the plane approaching the Pentagon, the FBI and the Secret Service admitted. A place like the Pentagon is packed with security cameras as you might expect. Yet they refuse to show the tapes.
     
  25. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,123
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Flight 77's and Flight 93's 'black box' were recovered in tact except AAL77's CVR. The FDR was readable and its data is publicly available to anyone. Flight 11's and 175's FDR suffered heavy impacts, followed by fires, and then had two 110 story buildings fall on them. Contrary to peoples exaggeration about their ability, they are not indestructible.

    Flight 93's wreckage : http://bit.ly/1d3UVK0

    Still waiting for you to provide evidence of no planes as you outlined in your thread title.
     

Share This Page