Airplane interior surfaces are painted with a bright green zinc chromate primer to ward against corrosion...it's easy to spot and durable,so the 'bits' can be collected by sight.
Real 9/11 truthers believe that robot planes hit the towers and they then fell because of controlled demolition. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=358521&p=1063932002#post1063932002 The no-plane theory was started by some PR firm to discredit the truth movement.
How many people actually read my first post? From the responses I've read so far, nobody or at least nobody who is posting. Can we please address the issue of why "FLT175" is clearly bogus?
Attention ~ Focus on the thread topic. Address the thread topic, or move on to a thread of more interest to yourself. Stop the derailing.
Just saying "not bogus" isn't a rebuttal, what I am looking for is an argument that addresses the issue. I have shown why the wing tip should not have penetrated the WTC wall, what do you have?
Who elected you to be the arbiter of what "real 9/11 truthers" embrace or not? the no-plane theory was a response to examination of the facts here. do not make the assumption that you know what constitutes "real 9/11 truthers" as opposed to "fake" 9/11 truthers, we are all seeking TRUTH here, so what is the problem?
Then you calling them 'bogus' isn't an argument,either...You need to prove also that the wing tip wouldn't penetrate,when all evidence shows it DID
So, ALL of it was not returned to the airlines, does anyone know how that was arranged, did the powers that be simply keep some of the wreckage for display in the museum, or did the airlines agree to this? also, this still sidesteps the question of an inventory and accounting, some quantity of alleged aircraft wreckage is pointed out and named as sufficient evidence to prove the reality of "FLT11" / "FLT175" however, exactly how is this as yet undefined quantity of wreckage deemed sufficient to prove its really the product of any commercial airliner crash?
For anyone who wants to discuss this, my original post on the subject of RE: no planes has facts and logical arguments within, if anyone wants to question the logic, or discuss any part of it, I'm here to seek truth. Its an open forum, so lets get the discussion out in the open.
This illustrates what the aircraft would look like as it penetrated the tower wall, note that the wing tips, once separated from the body of the aircraft would not have the KE to penetrate the wall, nor would it be at all probable that the wing tip should penetrate, because it would be free to rotate and thus the least likely scenario would be for the wing tip to penetrate. However the official story states that on 9/11/2001 for a total of 4 instances of this action, the wing tips consistently penetrated the WTC wall(s). go figure. You make plenty of assumptions, not the least of which is, the assumption that the physics support your claim. Please show the calcs or an industry related article that supports this claim. Until you can prove this claim the rest of your argument isn't worth addressing.
This hole looks pretty consistent with a high speed 767 impact to me. http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi The no-plane theory is ridiculous. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=358521&p=1063932002#post1063932002 Real 9/11 truthers don't believe the no-plane theory.
Do you actually believe that the WTC towers had a structure of Aluminum? STEEL BOX COLUMNS .... can you get your head around that?
and exactly WHO is in charge of defining a "REAL TRUTHER" ? I have just laid out an explanation as to why the wing tips should not have penetrated, and yet in the face of that, and without supplying any new data to refute my claim, you simply state again that the full length of wingspan gash is supposed to be the way it is and that is that.
I call upon people to use the intellect that their creator endowed them with. Its a given that say in a situation where you have a nice sturdy brick wall, and a little smart-car runs into it at 60 mph the car will be destroyed and probably not penetrate the wall, however in the case of a large truck with 10 tons of scrap iron on board, the vehicle will most probably penetrate the wall. Mass matters, and its a given, so in the case of the wing tips of the airliner(s), once cut free of any connection to the aircraft, the wing-tip part would only have its mass and speed to contribute to its KE (KE=0.5M*V^2) So one either needs to harbor the assumption that the WTC wall was made of paper, or? It gets even more interesting when one considers the fact that KE being a function of Mass and Velocity, if the mass of an object is reduced, so also is its KE. and in the course of penetrating the wall, the airliner would have been shredded upon entry, and so the mass of the bit entering the building would be undergoing constant reduction. Therefore proportionally reduced KE.
Hahaha.. Do you know the Architect's work? The WTC had an aluminum skin.. and the floors were cantilevered from the central steel box columns.. I knew the buildings would collapse that morning.. That's what makes these conspiracy theories so bloody idiotic.
No Planers, make me laugh. even other Truthers think their ideas are insane...and that they are likely disinfo agents.
Can you document your statements? can you provide guaranteed for certain data as to the nature of the structure of the WTC towers, this is something that its really not all that difficult to look up, have you done your homework on this subject?
To dismiss an idea just because you don't like it, is completely mad. Have you actually examined the data for the no airliners argument? condemnation without examination is wrong!
ive been researching Truther ideas since 2004, my friend. they all make me giggle. but No-Planer ideas make me crack up!!
