Poll: Real Planes or Video Fakery?

[Flatulo]

Poll question: Poll: Real Planes or Video Fakery?

Some people in the 9/11 Truth Movement believe that no planes at all were used in the 9/11 attacks. A number of videos have appeared on YouTube purporting that all the records of the plane strikes are fakes and that the witnesses to Flight 175 are all liars or plants.

[nebula]

1. It depends on which flights you're talking about

You need to be more specific.

Unlike the towers, there is no video footage which shows a Boeing airplane hitting the Pentagon. There is also no video and no physical evidence which shows a plane that crashed into Shanksville. This poll needs another option.

[LARED]

4. I agree there needs to be another option

4. Vote here if you can't figure out what to believe about Flight 77 and 93 even though there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence those flights crashed there, but there is no video evidence.

5. Vote here if you need to be told to brush your tooth before going to bed.

[nebula]

24. There is zero evidence of any Boeing aircraft

colliding into the Pentagon or Shanksville.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nebula]

27. That's it?

All of the 'plane' debris shown in the photos could fit in the trunk of my car.
What happened to the rest of it? Wings, tail, section, fuselage, hundreds of seats, engines?

[Flatulo]

33. So you are retracting your claim?

Typical two-step. You claim there is no evidence of airplane remains at the Pentagon. I link to evidence, and you respond that it is not *enough* evdence.

The link (which was pulled by Lithos) showed turbines, landing gear, parts of the fuselage etc.

So do you retract your claim that there is no evidence of plane wreckage at the Pentagon?

[nebula]

40. Let me repeat myself

No wings, no tail section, no fuselage, no seats, no engines, no pieces of luggage.


Hence, there is ZERO evidence of a Boeing aircraft having collided with the Pentagon.

Hence, there is ZERO evidence of a Boeing aircraft having crashed into Shanksville.

[Flatulo]

43. Your logic is severely flawed.

> No wings, no tail section, no fuselage, no seats, no engines, no pieces of luggage.
> Hence, there is ZERO evidence of a Boeing aircraft having collided with the Pentagon.

By your logic, if anything is missing from your photo collection of flight 77, then it never happened. If I DID show you fuselage, seats, engines and luggage you could say:

No dessert cart, no chicken cordon-bleu, no auxiliary power unit, no jumpseat, no inertial guidance system means ZERO evidence of a Boeing aircraft having collided with the Pentagon.

Can you see the flaw in your logic?

Only in your world does < 100% equal ZERO.

[nebula]

45. No, yours is seriously flawed.

No one said anything about '100%.' You and your lame strawman. Unless they crash into the open ocean, airplane crashes always leave behind a great deal of visible, identifiable airplane wreckage and heavy amounts of scarring of the ground. That has always been the case with large commercial airline crashes. There is no physcial evidence, no video evidence of a Boeing airplane crash either at the Pentagon or at Shanksville. And you haven't even attempted to show anything for Flight 93 or said a word about it.

[Flatulo]

46. These are your exact words.

> there is ZERO evidence of a Boeing aircraft having collided with the Pentagon.

This claim is factually, demonstrably bullshit.

We have been covering this since I joined DU a year ago. You have seen all the pictures there are to see of the Pentagon event.

There is plenty of evidence of a 757 crash into the Pentagon. There is not enough evidence to satisfy YOU, but please do not lie and state that there is no evidence.

[nebula]

48. One thing at a time

Where all the seats? At the Pentagon? What about Pennsylvania?

Are airplane seats a matter of national security?
Can you show me just one seat, anywhere? Is that too much to ask?










Man, look at that clearance. Skimming inches from the ground at close to the speed of sound, leaving not so much as a scratch on the earth. The lawn and pavement, unscathed and in pristine condition. That is quite some feat never before attempted in the history of aviation. And Hani Hanjour, who couldn't even land a Cessna, allegedly pulled it off on his very first attempt. Just incredible!

[Parche]

52. Exactly

I never quite figured out how people could be so dumb in believing this admin,

A 757 cannot do what they said it did, hell, I cant even do that on my flight simulator
and i am a 'good' pilot with that!!!! :hi:

You are right about PA crash also, remember the US Air 737 that crashed a while back
there was considerable wreckage, in pics of the Shanksville crash, there is nothing...
no wreckage, just a burnt area of ground.........

:hi:

[nebula]

53. Interesting comment

hey Parche,

Going by your personal experience with a flight simulator, do you think it would be possible to fly a Boeing 757 at such low altitude and high velocity (100's of mph)? This is something I have always been curious about, as a non-pilot. My intuition tells me it wouldn't be possible to fly it full speed at such a low altitude.

[Parche]

54. 757

I have flown the 757 737-400/800 767-400
and i am now flying the 717, that is the one I really enjoy flying on the simulator

if what they say the plane was flying at over 450mph?
there is NO way it could have done what they say it did
and i have tried it before, you cannot fly that low without hitting something on the ground
trees etc....especially flying at that speed

and i dont know if the planes that hit the 2towers were flying at above 550mph for a longer
time then what is known, if you fly above the maximum, things start falling off, who knows.

they (CIA/Cheney) planned this 'attack' very well, with cheney in charge of the military excercises
that day (the only VP in history that has ever been in charge of a military excercise)
he effectively wiped out the response by the Air Force ("real world or excercise")
and I was in the Air Force for 3years, something doesnt add up.........

:hi:

[Sweet Pea]

35. This seems to be the standard response

from someone who is unfamiliar with what can happen to an airliner that is traveling that fast when it hits an object like the Pentagon.

They equate it with other aircraft mishaps where obvious pieces of aircraft are strewn around or recognizable parts are present.

Images have been posted here before of crash scenes where there were no "recognizable" debris - by "recognizable" I mean no "there's the tail section!" or "that is a wing!" type wreckage. I'm not certain, but perhaps the troofers would claim no aircraft crashed at those accident sites, either.

The problem is, however, all crash scenes are not like that. Flight 77 impacting the side of the Pentagon at 450 knots will not leave many, if any, recognizable pieces. The engine pieces, the landing gear mainmount, assorted piece-parts of the aircraft - if anyone thinks that a 450 knot impact into a structure like the Pentagon will result in the tail or a wing just bouncing off and sitting pretty next to the facade is on drugs.

Anyone who has any experience being around aircraft or mishap sites would know that. The No Planers over at "911 Pilots for Twoof" really befuddle the mind with their claims and ignorance of crash dynamics in this case.

Edited for typo and to keep Jeff off my case

[LARED]

38. How's the view?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

49. Ooooooh, look there...

... brigade member, Lared, delivers another zinger:

[Flatulo]

2. Kick for larger sample size - nt.

[greyl]

3. The results are correlating fairly closely with

this previous poll.

[JackRiddler]

5. Certain disinformation artists posing as "9/11 Truth Movement" members

have consistently attacked all other exponents of 9/11 skepticism through "snitch-jacketing" as spooks, and searched for years to find the most absurd possible construct to present as an untoppable strawman for "debunkers" to mock. After "the pod," "the flash" and the hologram plane, they finally settled on no planes anywwhere at all and have pushed it through "white noise" video they appropriately term "transgression art." Do they really believe this or are they a modern-day COINTELPRO operation?

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

Don't care.

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Tell us all about the True Scotsmen, Jack. n/t

[Flatulo]

7. Nice spin, Jack, but I think the reality is that some people are just crazy.

[JackRiddler]

8. The reality is that the official story just crashed down around its defenders

whose preferred stance is to pretend they never took the 9/11 Commission seriously, anyway.

- belated reporting by NY Times that Zelikow was the White House tool we knew him to be back when the September 11 widows called for his immediate resignation - in 2003!

- a report based on CIA "summaries" of confessions extracted by torture from prisoners who may or may not even exist, or be the same people as identified by CIA

- even the 9/11 Commissioners moving to cover their asses and whine how they were lied to by NORAD

- as the latest of dozens of indications that the official investigations left out anything contradictory, the FBI memo release gained by the heroic KJF of this very board

- what we've known for years: Able Danger, Pakistani connections, Edmonds, wargames, even Rowley - not in the Commission Report, but it does include the statement that knowing where the money came from is "of little practical significance"

- show trial of men who by any definition are no longer competent to stand trial coming up, their executions to be placed in the lap of the next administration

There is no official story left. It's more of a phantom plane than anything else.

So it's very important that the kabuki "debate" about no-planes scenarios be your focus, no?

[Bolo Boffin]

9. It seems to be important to you that it be our focus, Jack. n/t

[Fainter]

10. Evidently You Agree W/Jack's Take On the State Of The OCT. n/t

[JackRiddler]

13. Clearly.

Soon enough no one's going to remember the 9/11 CR or their prior endorsements thereof, any more than they recall the JICI. We start the game back at zero with the upcoming terror "trials" of the "masterminds" (who after five years of torture and solitary - assuming they're actually real prisoners - are by definition incompetent to stand trial, but that won't stop the military tribunals).

[petgoat]

29. Not to mention phony executions by "lethal" injection, followed by

plastic surgery and being let loose.

[JackRiddler]

31. Nah.

As it now stands the "reporters" gallery will be behind six inches of glass that will no doubt have curtains to draw at the judge's discretion, and the audio can be cut off at any time. The defense counsel is military officers plus optional civilian helpers off a list drawn up by the military. So a bit of makeup and costuming will suffice. "KSM" is the one the government will helpfully idenfity as such.

[Flatulo]

11. This post is about 'no-plane' theories.

Would you care to denounce those particular delusions?

[JackRiddler]

12. I just did in the first post I made on this thread.

Would you care to read?

[William Seger]

14. What?!?

> "The reality is that the official story just crashed down around its defenders"

Wow, that sent me searching for a story I must have missed. Couldn't find it. Link, please?

> "...whose preferred stance is to pretend they never took the 9/11 Commission seriously, anyway."

Oh, I see; you're still looking for that straw-man to duel with... never mind.

> "There is no official story left."

Oh really? I'll guess we'll have to wait and see, but I suspect that if and when the "movement" gets that investigation it's asking for, it's likely to run smack into a harsh reality: There is a large and very convincing body of evidence that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes and crashed two into the towers, one into the Pentagon, and one into a Pennsylvania field, and that the towers and WTC7 collapsed from a combination of structural damage and fires -- and no credible evidence for any kind of "inside job" that day. If you are asking for an "investigation" that will start with the conspiracy theorist mindset that all the evidence that proves your theories wrong was faked and that all the evidence that would prove you right was covered up, so all manner of speculation is on an equal footing as long as we start with the assumption that there was some kind of conspiracy, then I don't think there's any need for such an "investigation." The results would be as meaningless as all those websites that are already doing that.

On the other hand, if you are sincerely asking for an investigation into things the Commission intentionally avoided, I could support that. Unfortunately, when you say "there is no official story left," I have to doubt that that's your intent. I can easily support the idea of a new investigation, but first I'd like to lay a large bet at a Las Vegas book that "truthers" will be just as dissatisfied as they are now.

[wildbilln864]

15. I don't think so...

"There is a large and very convincing body of evidence that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes and crashed two into the towers, one into the Pentagon, and one into a Pennsylvania field, and that the towers and WTC7 collapsed from a combination of structural damage and fires --"

Link please? :popcorn:

[William Seger]

16. Like I said...

... violent collision with reality ahead.

[wildbilln864]

17. you should buckle up then. nt

[William Seger]

20. If you don't know

... what evidence I'm talking about, you really aren't in any position to discuss the issue. But of course, you do; you're just illustrating what I was talking about: the mind-trap of conspiracism. The conspirators faked all the evidence for the "official" story and covered up all the real evidence. And if anyone tries to tell you something different, they must be part of the conspiracy, too. You perfectly illustrate why it's completely pointless to have another investigation in the futile attempt to satisfy "truthers."

[wildbilln864]

21. Again you try to put words into other's mouths.

"The conspirators faked all the evidence for the "official" story and covered up all the real evidence. And if anyone tries to tell you something different, they must be part of the conspiracy, too."
You alone said the above. That's your tale, I'm sitting on mine. :eyes:
I know the majority of evidence you're probably talking about and it is questionable in many cases.

ETA: the word "probably".

[JackRiddler]

23. And the sun rose in the east, too...

"There is a large and very convincing body of evidence that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes and crashed two into the towers, one into the Pentagon, and one into a Pennsylvania field, and that the towers and WTC7 collapsed from a combination of structural damage and fires..."

Let's start with a clarification: each of these statements can be true (we can debate who these 19 were or were not) but if any of it was orchestrated or facilitated or consciously allowed to happen with foreknowledge for political gain by an element of the U.S. government or its contractors, then that constitutes treason and qualifies as "an inside job," and is a more important reality given the use of 9/11 as a transformative event than any mere terror plot.

[William Seger]

28. So, you overstated your case just a tad

... since, as I said, there isn't any credible evidence that that's what happened, so the "official story" isn't quite on its death bed yet. Of course, I don't know for a fact that it didn't happen that way. But whereas you think that's a very plausible scenerio, I don't. You seem to think it's probable, in fact; I don't. It's not as absurdly implausible as controlled demolitions and "TV fakery" but it's implausible enough that I need convincing. And anyway, there's kind of a rule in this country that if you're going to accuse someone of a crime, you have to at least say who did what, and if you're going to get any legal action, you need some convincing evidence. Declaring the "official story" defunct before you even get that far is highly premature.

[JackRiddler]

30. Speaking of that rule about accusations "in this country"...

Does that include solitary confinement and torture for five years prior to bringing the charges?

For starters - the list could be a lot longer but let's throw out a set of names for you - I see probable cause to open grand jury proceedings against Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers, Winfield, Eberhart and Mies for either gross negligence as members of the chain of command as the events unfolded, or for intentional dereliction of duty with intent to facilitate. The grand jury process is supposed to explore these charges and follow up on anything pointing to others, and determine what indictments will be brought, then a trial jury ultimately decides using an innocent until proven guilty standard.

By their own rules, however, their suspicious behavior qualifies them for immediate preventive detention and waterboarding to extract confession.

[William Seger]

32. Gross negligence? You betcha

And if you are under the misapprehension that I support Bush*Co's treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners and torture, I consider authorizing those to be impeachable offenses for anyone who has sworn to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[JackRiddler]

34. I am not under that misapprehension...

I am under the impression that you worry about the travesty of justice conducted by the government at Guantanomo less than you do about the potential for false accusations against government officials.

Why? Because of the focus of your posts here. Please, persuade me otherwise.

What's the point of our arguing scenarios? When have these characters been made to justify their behavior on the day? For that matter when were Maltbie, Frasca, Bowman et al. grilled on the matters brought up by Rowley, Edmonds, Sharshar et al.? Where's a pursuit of the Able Danger allegations - not a pooh-poohing by self-appointed debunkers but a real and open exposure of the story as told by witnesses and documents? (I know you think it's a joke but why hasn't NIST at any point indicated it would undertake the forensic tests for various explosives or incendiaries that may have been used on site samples and thus settle that question?)

There's enough to start investigations to look into perjury charges for Rice and clearing up the suspicious behavior on the chain of command, false accounts given in the course of investigations by NORAD and FAA officials, obstruction of investigations and possible destruction or hiding of evidence (torture tapes, black box stories) etc. I think "gross negligence" is a naive view of the command's systematic dereliction of duty indicating an intent to facilitate the operation, but would welcome any investigation that started by examining alleged gross negligence as long as it sets no limits on what constitute acceptable or speakable findings.

I do have a prejudice: U.S. government "security," "defense" and foreign policy and the agencies and contracters involved have been routinely criminal in act and intent on a truly grand and ambitious scale. I don't see why anyone wants to preemptively clear members of this apparatus of possible charges that have so much precedent in the past (false flag attacks, falsified casus belli, state support for terrorism operations, etc.)

[William Seger]

37. I don't need to persuade you of any such thing

If there isn't anyone here who argues that the treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners is justified, why would you expect me to be making any posts about it at all? When I want to express my opinions about that, I do it on boards where there are at least a few people with a different opinion. I have done that, but I'm not too concerned about justifying to you (or HamdenRice) why or what or where I post or don't post.

As for "pooh-poohing by self-appointed debunkers" of things like Able Danger, I don't think you can find any example of me doing that. On occasion I have attempted to point out that when you are making a case out of circumstantial evidence, that only works if the interpretation you're giving is the only reasonable one, and the "movement" is still far short of that in its circumstantial case.

As for "preemptively clear members of this apparatus," again I'm pretty sure you must be talking about someone else. What disturbs me is that too many in the "movement," in attempting to make their implausible theories seem more plausible, want to "preemptively clear" what certainly appears to be the same group of people who attempted to blow up the WTC once before, who declared war on the U.S. and subsequently attempted to sink the Cole and succeeded in destroying two U.S embassies in Africa. Were those "false flags," Jack? Are you one of those who thinks there aren't any real terrorists?

[JackRiddler]

42. There are real terrorists everywhere

including - especially - in governments, at the head of spook agencies and militaries. The worst form of terrorism is the bombing conducted by air forces every day in Iraq. Coups against inconvenient governments are terrorism. "Regime change" is terrorism.

But clearly, you talking about "the Base" - the veterans of the CIA-ISI-Saudi organized international anti-Soviet jihadi movement who left Afghanistan to spread everywhere. Yes, they're real - plenty of U.S. tax dollars were spent to help set them up, I don't think that was wasted on a phantom. And they can be found on many sides, curiously often the CIA's as in the Yugoslavian wars. Britain used some of them to plot an assassination of Gaddafi 20 years ago. Do you really think Bin Ladin's rolodex and the CIA's don't overlap?

Are you talking about Ali Mohamed, the U.S. special forces sergeant and reputed triple agent credited with a planning role in both WTC '93 and the embassy bombings? Where is he now, do you know? Because he wasn't prosecuted or officially released, but nothing's been said about his whereabouts for a decade.

What about former (?) Egyptian agent and FBI informant Emad Salem, who got the million to dime on the '93 and Landmarks plots, who taped conversations with the FBI of himself claiming he was prevented from stopping the '93 plot? He's somewhere on Witness Protection.

What about Omar Saeed Sheikh, whose record suggests an ISI agent except Musharraf called him MI6? Isn't it funny how first he was the money man for Atta, then the official story replaced him after the Pearl killing? Why didn't the 9/11 Com follow up on the Pakistan allegations, or bother to mention them at all? Is this related to Mahmud Ahmed's role?

How about the serial "incompetence" protection afforded to apparent Saudi agents Alhazmi and Almidhar, whose FBI informant landlord (Abdussatar Shaikh) the 9/11 Commission claimed it can't name, although his name had been in the papers?

Did you read the Rolling Stone story last month on the various terror plots the government claims to have uncovered in the U.S. in recent years? How is it that the guy with the ideas, the guy who organizes the plotters and encourages them, cajoles them to overcome any reluctance, the guy who supplies them with the explosives, is invariably the FBI informant?

So why was Able Danger shut down after identifying the four alleged 9/11 ringleaders as the "Brooklyn Cell" plotting mayhem in the U.S.? Who wanted that? Has there been a real investigation, did it issue public findings that clear this up?

There are many types of entanglement here between the alphabet agencies and the supposedly independent agents of terror - as a minimum, can you at least question that as a strategy and acknowledge blowback (and coverup)? Should we keep supplying the managers of this mess with carte blanche, because there are "real terrorists"?

Lebanon barracks and embassy attacks, "Carlos the Jackal" and Abu Nidal, WTC '93, the Embassy Bombings and the Cole - this is the usual, selective string of precedents neocons and the corporate media line up when they talk about the historic lead-up to 9/11 (of course without mentioning the likes of Ali Mohamed or Emad Salem).

Operation Mongoose, the Northwoods plot, the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication with millions of innocent dead and a large chunk of the world poisoned in the aftermath, the rape of Chile, bombings by CIA set-up Gladio and the "strategy of tension" in Italy and across Europe, the incubator babies...

How about something that wasn't American but surely interesting to American spooks: the 9/99 Moscow bombings as an immediate and perhaps inspiring model of a fully successful inside-job putsch carried out by a secret state establishment on "its own" people to launch a war and set up an authoritarian regime.

See? I can play the same game of name the precedent.

So many examples since then - the plot to fake an Iraqi attack on warplanes dressed up in UN colors comes to mind - but how about the construction of Zarqawi, the man credited with practically every mindless street bombing in Iraq for a couple of years?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/how-the-spooks-took-over-the-news-780672.html

In his controversial new book, Nick Davies argues that shadowy intelligence agencies are pumping out black propaganda to manipulate public opinion – and that the media simply swallow it wholesale

Monday, 11 February 2008

Onthe morning of 9 February 2004, The New York Times carried an exclusive and alarming story. The paper's Baghdad correspondent, Dexter Filkins, reported that US officials had obtained a 17-page letter, believed to have been written by the notorious terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi to the "inner circle" of al-Qa'ida's leadership, urging them to accept that the best way to beat US forces in Iraq was effectively to start a civil war.

The letter argued that al-Qa'ida, which is a Sunni network, should attack the Shia population of Iraq: "It is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis."

Later that day, at a regular US press briefing in Baghdad, US General Mark Kimmitt dealt with a string of questions about The New York Times report: "We believe the report and the document is credible, and we take the report seriously... It is clearly a plan on the part of outsiders to come in to this country and spark civil war, create sectarian violence, try to expose fissures in this society." The story went on to news agency wires and, within 24 hours, it was running around the world.

There is very good reason to believe that that letter was a fake – and a significant one because there is equally good reason to believe that it was one product among many from a new machinery of propaganda which has been created by the United States and its allies since the terrorist attacks of September 2001. (...)

[wildbilln864]

18. where's the,

some planes were used and video fakery also was done, option? :shrug:

[Flatulo]

19. My poll - my options. nt

[wildbilln864]

22. thanks...

for admitting you're only interested in deriding truthers and not getting to the truth. :banghead:

[Flatulo]

25. I'm not interested in deriding Truthers - just Bullshit Addicts.

I have nothing but respect for anyone who can research and uncover hitherto undisclosed or under-reported information about the background and history leading up to 9/11.

But people who sell bullshit fantasies get no respect from me, and I will sanitize their bullshit at every opportunity until I get tombstoned or bored.

Sorry.

[wildbilln864]

41. don't be sorry....

I'm with ya there!

[SidDithers]

36. Evidence of video fakery being posted on youtube...

nobody else see the disconnect there?

Sid

[leftofthedial]

39. not either or

[SDuderstadt]

44. Looks like the "no planes" option is...

going down in flames (forgive the pun). Does this mean the no-planers will now shut up about this? One can only hope.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

47. CBS' The Early Show on the morning of 9-11 (Part 1)...

Listen to the witness interview/testimony of Wendell Klein (begins at 5:25), the Doorman on duty at the Marriott World Trade Center Hotel on the morning of 9-11, which would have put him in very close proximity to the North Tower when it was allegedly struck by American flight 11 (a Boeing 767 commercial jetliner) at 8:46 a.m.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2GV56KvwoWk

At 5:55 in the video:

Gumbel: "...Tell us what you saw and what you heard."

Klein: "...I heard first an explosion."

Isn't that interesting? I guess the hijackers must have switched those massive jet engines to "whisper" mode -- probably out of consideration for the many NYC area college students that might have been trying to study.


------------------------------------------------------

Now have a listen to the first 20 seconds of this video to get an idea of what Wendell Klein should, and surely would, have reported hearing "first" had a commercial jetliner actually slammed into the North Tower:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=g3mJOLWvb1s


Here's what a low passing Boeing 727 sounds like:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wzidphcp6N8


------------------------------------------------------

At 6:48 in the CBS video:

Gumbel: "...How much debris, can you give us an idea how much came crashing to the ground?"

Klein: "...It's just a lot, umm brick -- a lot of bricks, a lot of glass, umm, enough to damage cars on the street, made cars swerve into each other, that kind of thing."

What? No mention of any aircraft wreckage? Gee, that's a little puzzling. Oh wait a minute, that's right, now I remember, 9-11-01 was the day basic crash physics was temporarily suspended -- so rather than crash AGAINST the steel reinforced concrete skyscraper, the aluminum commercial jetliner was simply swallowed whole, disappearing completely into the building with absolutely no discernible bending, crumpling, shearing, or deceleration. And if you don't believe this, why just have a look at the cartoon video of UAL flight 175 slamming into the South Tower:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zoSaZv7Jcxc

What more proof could you ask for? Cartoons don't lie, folks -- now move along, there's nothing to see here.

[Sweet Pea]

50. I'll ask here, as well, regarding your post

How robust/thick was that facade the aircraft was supposed to bounce off of?

You have an aircraft that weighs over 100 tons, with much of that weight made up of the mass of fuel and titanium, steel, block aluminum and other dense metals, traveling at 500-something knots.

The outer framework of the WTC at the floors it impacted was made up of 3/8" steel with 14" box beams made up of the same 3/8" steel, all held together with welds and 4 rivets and covered with aluminum cladding.

And you sit there and try to tell me the aircraft, the 100+ tons at 500 knots, is going to bounce off this 3/8" steel an daluminum cladding - bounce off and fall to the street below.

THIS is why the Troofer and No Planers and Pilots for Twoof are the laughing stock of the sane world.

edited to add lead in

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

51. I'll give you the same answer here that I did on my thread...

...Gee, you're not gonna just make shit up are you, Sweet Pea?

Sweet Pea: And you sit there and try to tell me the aircraft, the 100+ tons at 500 knots, is going to bounce off this 3/8" steel an daluminum cladding - bounce off and fall to the street below.

Please feel free to provide a link to any post where I made any such claim. And while you're at it, perhaps you should have a look at how the towers were constructed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Also, I can't help but notice how you conveniently forgot to address the question of why Mr. Klein would not have identified screaming jet engines as the first thing he heard. Any reason for that, Sweet Pea?


Are you still having trouble solving this equation, Sweet Pea?

Absence of Plane Wreckage + Video Fakery + A Credible On-Site Witness Who Reports No Screaming Jet Engines = ?????

Study it and think hard. All that's required to solve it is a little common sense, enough courage to face the painful truth of it, and of course, some integrity -- you wouldn't by any chance be running a deficit in any of these three areas, would you Sweet Pea?


Pieces of the 9-11 puzzle are coming together -- watcha gonna do?