9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Time to take on the 911 planes.

I read a posting by a scientist who said that the planes could not have entered the
WTC towers whole,  his reasoning was something like this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you throw an egg at a brick wall,  it smashes against it.  But consider what
happens in this process.  Let's say that the brick wall has a certain amount of
strength.  That requires a certain amount of force to get through it.

Now,  if we say that X is the amount of force,  the egg needs to get through the
wall,  then we can give the egg that amount of force,  and hit the wall with it...
What happens? 

Well,  he says,  the egg smashes again,  here's what he says is why:

When the egg hits the wall,  with the energy required to penetrate it.
It can only do so,  if all of it's mass remains concentrated in the area of impact.
But,  since the shell of the egg,  is not strong enough resist the forces being
exerted on it,  it breaks and releases the energy containing mass.  Which then
allows the energy containing mass to spread that energy over a wider area. 
Which dissipates the energy against a larger area with increased resistance. 

Thus,  the aluminum shell of the aircraft,  can't be expected to tolerate the forces
of impact,  and will therefore allow the energized mass it contains to spread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm no scientist but it does make some sense.  I just wish he'd given the figures,
etc.,  so that others could have a look see and tell us what they think.

I also read something about the forces expected to be acting on the craft and
the resistance the tower walls should have provided,  but again,  all narrative
and no figures.  So,  I thought I'd post here,  in the hope that someone might
be inspired to do a more detailed work up. 

Obwon

Views: 312

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Dr. Morgan Reynolds, NoMoreGames.net, has numerous old articles elaborating quite nicely on this.  Dr. Reynolds is the king of no planes.  All of this points to the video fakery story.  In Plane Sight and 9-11 Ripple Effect, videos by Dave VonKleist and William Lewis contain many examples of these miraculous whole planes melding into the sides of the towers, phenomena that their video narratives take no note of at all.  There are numerous other well known early 9-11 videos that contain the melding planes into the towers and that are not commented upon in the video script.  The "orthodox" 9-11 truth theory EXCLUDES any talk of no planes.  If you want to belong to the "true religion" of the "9-11 truth movement", you better stick to thermate, molten metal, building 7, and Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth.  If you wander off of that plantation, you are stricken from most 9-11 "truth" sites and forums.

 

There were no planes that crashed into any buildings at the World Trade Center.  There was no plane that crashed into the Pentagon though there may have been planes flying nearby overhead at the time of the event.  There was no plane that crashed in Shanksville, PA, though there probably was a plane shot down somewhere near there with plane remains scattered over a large area.

 

Listen to Dr. Fetzer's radio show with Dean Hartwell and his book "Planes Without Passengers" and read reviews of that book online to begin to understand the role planes played in this psy-op of all psy-ops.

Many Thanks Jeannon  I'll have a look. 

Let me mention that what I'm looking for is a "time sliced" review,  sort of going by thousandths of a second,

telling us how much energy the craft contained and what these forces were doing at impact as the plane

progressed,  using the strength and weaknesses of the materials involved.  Energy,  loads and calculations.

It doesn't have to be exact,  but merely "tight" to the  known facts,  speeds and approximate forces etc.

 

Yes,  the NPT is anathema to those involved in 911 truth.  This is because,  if it is proven,  and it's pretty

easy to accept that if there isn't enough plane material found at the scenes,  then there could not have been

any planes.  Simple!  Since none of the planes could have either vaporized or particalized.  So,  they recongnise

a theory that just won't go away!  Having no proof to offer,  to the contrary,  they seek to demonize the theory and

it's advocates,  as a way of staving off the day of discovery as long as they can. 

Hey,  what can I say?  It works!

 

Thanks again,  I'm off to have a look at your submissions.

Obwon

If anyone wants to talk about the 9/11 planes, I am ready to go!

 

One of the best questions to answer is: what is the source(s) of information that commercial flights flew into the WTC or Pentagon?

Dean,

 

could you just give a brief list of the four alleged Flights and what agency records you checked and what you found by checking those records.

 

Flight 11   no such flight   what official records did you check.

 

I just want to make a sign with those brief facts for my 9-11 street effort this year.  I think it would be great just to get the bare bones facts about the alleged flights out there this year, especially in light of the fact that information about the planes has been totally suppressed by the "Jones boys" and the 9-11 "truthers" prominent on the radio and the web. 

 

It seems that information about the planes and passengers was something that was planned to be suppressed from the very beginning as all of the 9-11 "truth" "psy ops" played out.

 

 

___________

 

Also, another big area of discussion I would like to know more about is your statement  "no passengers were hijacked or killed on September 11, 2001"

I guess the operative word here is "passengers".  There were some people who played the role of passengers on some flights and you say those people likely knew about the plot.  I guess it is possible that some of those people who played that role were killed since they have never been heard from again.

 

 

I used to keep files on things,  expecting the frames to remain the same,  even as the arguments changed.  But,  during the Bush years that changed,  the frame kept shifting so that historical material was of little use on the front lines.  Okay,  that said,  over

on Pilots for 911 truth.org,  is where you'll find much of the research and/or links thereto.  As well as a pleasant environment for

both reading and writing. 

 

As far as I've seen,  the stories at each 911 location has begun with original reports that don't include planes,  except by "witnesses" who are discovered to have some connection to various and suspicious gov't offices.  Otherwise,  the public doesn't appear to be aware of any planes,  let alone any heavy commercial aircraft.  Though some posit small commercial commuter and/or single engine aircraft.  The mention of planes comes later on,  but the original reports are sort of hidden away and/or ignored. 

 

Otherwise the sources of information about commercial flights was media generated and,  as is the case,  "informing millions" of incorrect information,  trumps what the actual eyewitnesses said.  No surprise that we have many people claiming to have been eyewitnesses,  coming forward over the last ten years.  Many of these people,  upon examination,  are discovered to have had no sight lines to the events they claim to have witnessed.  In effect confirming that many so called eyewitnesses have only the work done in their own heads to base their claims upon.

 

Yet another feature we see is the changing narratives at each site.  Suspiciously,  as these narratives change,  so too does a number of "eyewitnesses"  emerge to "confirm"  each altered version.  With the old narrative "eyewitnesses"  simply vanishing into the mists. 

Then,  quite magically,  as the narratives change,  so too does "film" emerge to "document" the newer narratives.  Which is why the serious researcher is limited to what film we have of that day from broadcasts.  In any event,  it is needless to say that none of this should be true of a real event.  When something really happens,  you'll note that the eyewitnesses will give differing accounts of the matter,  but they'll usually all have something in common,  that the physical evidence can possibly confirm.  That's not the case with these matters though.  The same plane,  supposedly witnessed by all,  changes shape,  size,  track and sounds.  All while the physical evidence supports none of it. 

 

So,  from skyjackers,  less in quantity than the official story states (seven were found alive and one died a year before),  to skyjacker pilots,  incapable of flying heavy aircraft.  To radar data that shows that the planes could not have been flown the way they're depicted (over their stress limits and without enough power to reach such speeds [and no,  dives cannot account for it],  not to mention the severe control difficulties that arise from such stresses. 

 

Then one has to consider the meticulous record keeping that airlines are required to maintain,  the enormous difficulty of inserting "prepared" planes into a scheduled flight array,  and the number of identifiable parts that should present at any crash scene,  one is forced to conclude that there were no planes used that day,  except as possible diversions.  What few parts that are found are either unidentifiable or officially denounced as parts from any craft involved.  Even the so called "Murry Street Engine",  which is shown on video,  emerging from the south tower crash,  landing on Church and Murry streets,  supposedly leaving a crater and coming to rest at the corner,  is officially identified as not having been from either aircraft.  Funny the media made no big thing over this discovery,  such that you'll still hear it cited as evidence even today. 

 

I could go on and on all day for weeks with this.  So,  long story short:  There simply could not have been planes used to

strike either the Towers,  the Pentagon or Shanksville. 

 

(Did you know that flight 93 wasn't scheduled until early September?  The skyjackers brought their tickets in

August,  when the only scheduled flight for Sept. 11 was flight 91.  The story goes that flight 91 was canceled because

the pilot discovered a crack in the windshield,  so some passengers were transferred to flight 93,  including,  of course, the

skyjackers.  Shortly after flight 93 departs,  the now famous "no fly order"  comes down and we find the canceled flight 91

is sitting at the head of the runway,  waiting to take off.  Go figure,  eh?)  

 

Then there's the story that flight 93,  was confused with another UAL flight,  as having reported a bomb on board.  This "mix up" was apparently the fault of UAL itself.  Both flights were ordered to land at Cleveland Hopkins,  where there are reports that

some 200 people deplaned from flight 93.  Of course,  by this time the "no fly" order was in effect.  You'll read about it in "something strange about flight 93"  over at 911pilotsfortruth.org or you can google "something strange about flight 93".

 

Okay,  that's it for now.

These pilots and professionals did the actual checking,  you can find their data here:  http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/

Look down the page and you'll see a treatment for each plane and each site.  But,  mainly you'll note that they use

BTS data for what flights were scheduled that day.  Then they trace each flight using radar data and other methods that

they explain,  such as decodes of black box data that is provided by the FBI or NTSB.  It's all there and there are many

pilots and people who will help you choose the most reliable bits to use,  you shouldn't have to spend more than a day there.

 

Me?  I'm starting to burn out,  been at this way too long.  So it's heartening to see "fresh blood" coming in.  Maybe

I'll get a second wind some where along the way. 

 

Jeannon Kralj said:

Dean,

 

could you just give a brief list of the four alleged Flights and what agency records you checked and what you found by checking those records.

 

Flight 11   no such flight   what official records did you check.

 

I just want to make a sign with those brief facts for my 9-11 street effort this year.  I think it would be great just to get the bare bones facts about the alleged flights out there this year, especially in light of the fact that information about the planes has been totally suppressed by the "Jones boys" and the 9-11 "truthers" prominent on the radio and the web. 

 

It seems that information about the planes and passengers was something that was planned to be suppressed from the very beginning as all of the 9-11 "truth" "psy ops" played out.

___________

 

Also, another big area of discussion I would like to know more about is your statement  "no passengers were hijacked or killed on September 11, 2001"

I guess the operative word here is "passengers".  There were some people who played the role of passengers on some flights and you say those people likely knew about the plot.  I guess it is possible that some of those people who played that role were killed since they have never been heard from again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes,  "passengers" is the operative word,  meaning that;  if they were eventually killed,  it wasn't as part of
their being aboard the supposedly skyjacked aircraft.   There is,  what appears to be,  credible evidence that
flight 93 landed at Cleveland Hopkins and deplaned 200 people.  Flt 93 was in that area at that time,  and 
it was thought,  from reports from UAL,  that flt 93 had reported a bomb on board and was ordered to land.
At which time no skyjacking was probably in progress,  so the pilots would have had control and would have
complied with orders to land,  before any such skyjackers could have emerged. 
The mayor and a news outfit,  first confirm,  then later recant their stories,  which appear to have been
confirmed by witnesses at the airport who saw the movement of these planes,  there were two of them that
landed there some 15 minutes apart.  Of course,  you'll want to read these accounts yourself to choose what
you believe is verifiable. 
You should have no problems there,  you can either just read,  or register and ask questions and get help from
knowledgeable people there,  many of whom are licensed pilots,  who fly these aircraft and know many things
about them that we don't. 
Also,  the csv files they're using are huge,  many gigabytes and require special software to decode,  which
is why I'm referring you to them so you can get the best data and someone to confirm it's authenticity. 
They give their results in these threads and put names to them.  So you shouldn't have much trouble at all.
Obwon

 



Jeannon Kralj said:

Dean,

 

could you just give a brief list of the four alleged Flights and what agency records you checked and what you found by checking those records.

 

Flight 11 - Bureau of Transportation Statistics (not scheduled/not logged off)
                 National Transportation Safety Board Flight Path Study from Federal Aviation Administration (mention of flight but not gate)
                 Boston Globe (conflicting stories on which gate and what time)
                 Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, Air National Guard, reported that FAA told her Flight 11 still "airborne" after the activity at World Trade Center
         

Flight 175 - BTS (N612UA pushed off 7:58 AM as scheduled flight and "wheels off" at 8:23 AM)

                  History Commons - from media sources (cites apparently different flight 8:14 AM)

 

Flight 77 - 9/11 Official Report (Flight took off from Dulles, no gate cited)

                BTS - no Flight 77 scheduled or logged as taking off

 

Flight 93 - BTS (wheels off at 8:28 AM)

               History Commons (wheels off 8:28 AM)

 

For best explanation as to use of BTS sources on 11 and 77, see my essay Tampering with 9/11 Flight Records Revealed!

 

Also, another big area of discussion I would like to know more about is your statement  "no passengers were hijacked or killed on September 11, 2001"

I guess the operative word here is "passengers".  There were some people who played the role of passengers on some flights and you say those people likely knew about the plot.  I guess it is possible that some of those people who played that role were killed since they have never been heard from again.

 

I don't see proof of anyone flying as an actual passenger that day.  People did board planes, such as 175 and 93, but the best evidence shows that their planes went west and did not crash into buildings.  I see no proof of hijackings, either.  As for those never heard from again, given the proof of conspiracy and concealment, the presumption should be that people are alive unless proven otherwise.  I do not see proof of DNA testing by credible independent sources regarding any so-called "passengers."

Thanks Dean,  I couldn't have separated that out from all the other stuff that gets me upset over this mess.

I get so tempted to just write out full bore!  Of course,  I was on the usenet boards back when the trolls etc.,

had control. 

 

You said: "As for those never heard from again, given the proof of conspiracy and concealment, the presumption should be that people are alive unless proven otherwise. "

 

And I agree. 

 

I think that one of the "selling points",  that obtained approval for this false flag attack,  was (like operation Northwoods) that

no one would actually be harmed.  I think that was why all those dodgy blip crossovers of planes on the radar screens were

made.  Because the people who did the approving,  would be people with the power and resources to watch the plan unfold.

 

But,  somewhere along the way,  some smaller group of insiders,  made some changes that resulted in actual deaths.

That took things to whole different level,  such that much that probably would have needed little in the way of explanation,  now

required proof positive that was unavailable.  A hasty new plan had to be rigged to reach for total concealment,  that had

not been seen as necessary before.  Okay,  where does this suspicion come from?  It comes in from the fact that the

stairways were blocked,  three stories below the crash floor in the tower.  My guess is that explosives were planted to do this,

when they should not have been,  resulting in people trapped in the collapse,  who should have easily evacuated.

Then add that the doors to the roof,  were not just locked,  but chained and locked. 

 

Nor did John O'neill even try to free these doors,  so that roof top evacuations could be made,  in the way that they had in '93.

In fact,  after the first plane struck the north tower,  O'neill shows up at the "command center" on the 23rd floor in WTC7,  and

was last seen walking towards the towers,  some 30 minutes before they collapsed.  Hauer claims he identified Johns remains.

grrrrr!!!



Lonnie Star said:

I used to keep files on things,  expecting the frames to remain the same,  even as the arguments changed.  But,  during the Bush years that changed,  the frame kept shifting so that historical material was of little use on the front lines.  Okay,  that said,  over

on Pilots for 911 truth.org,  is where you'll find much of the research and/or links thereto.  As well as a pleasant environment for

both reading and writing. 

 

As far as I've seen,  the stories at each 911 location has begun with original reports that don't include planes,  except by "witnesses" who are discovered to have some connection to various and suspicious gov't offices.  Otherwise,  the public doesn't appear to be aware of any planes,  let alone any heavy commercial aircraft.  Though some posit small commercial commuter and/or single engine aircraft.  The mention of planes comes later on,  but the original reports are sort of hidden away and/or ignored. 

 

Otherwise the sources of information about commercial flights was media generated and,  as is the case,  "informing millions" of incorrect information,  trumps what the actual eyewitnesses said.  No surprise that we have many people claiming to have been eyewitnesses,  coming forward over the last ten years.  Many of these people,  upon examination,  are discovered to have had no sight lines to the events they claim to have witnessed.  In effect confirming that many so called eyewitnesses have only the work done in their own heads to base their claims upon.

 

Yet another feature we see is the changing narratives at each site.  Suspiciously,  as these narratives change,  so too does a number of "eyewitnesses"  emerge to "confirm"  each altered version.  With the old narrative "eyewitnesses"  simply vanishing into the mists. 

Then,  quite magically,  as the narratives change,  so too does "film" emerge to "document" the newer narratives.  Which is why the serious researcher is limited to what film we have of that day from broadcasts.  In any event,  it is needless to say that none of this should be true of a real event.  When something really happens,  you'll note that the eyewitnesses will give differing accounts of the matter,  but they'll usually all have something in common,  that the physical evidence can possibly confirm.  That's not the case with these matters though.  The same plane,  supposedly witnessed by all,  changes shape,  size,  track and sounds.  All while the physical evidence supports none of it. 

 

So,  from skyjackers,  less in quantity than the official story states (seven were found alive and one died a year before),  to skyjacker pilots,  incapable of flying heavy aircraft.  To radar data that shows that the planes could not have been flown the way they're depicted (over their stress limits and without enough power to reach such speeds [and no,  dives cannot account for it],  not to mention the severe control difficulties that arise from such stresses. 

 

Then one has to consider the meticulous record keeping that airlines are required to maintain,  the enormous difficulty of inserting "prepared" planes into a scheduled flight array,  and the number of identifiable parts that should present at any crash scene,  one is forced to conclude that there were no planes used that day,  except as possible diversions.  What few parts that are found are either unidentifiable or officially denounced as parts from any craft involved.  Even the so called "Murry Street Engine",  which is shown on video,  emerging from the south tower crash,  landing on Church and Murry streets,  supposedly leaving a crater and coming to rest at the corner,  is officially identified as not having been from either aircraft.  Funny the media made no big thing over this discovery,  such that you'll still hear it cited as evidence even today. 

 

I could go on and on all day for weeks with this.  So,  long story short:  There simply could not have been planes used to

strike either the Towers,  the Pentagon or Shanksville. 

 

(Did you know that flight 93 wasn't scheduled until early September?  The skyjackers brought their tickets in

August,  when the only scheduled flight for Sept. 11 was flight 91.  The story goes that flight 91 was canceled because

the pilot discovered a crack in the windshield,  so some passengers were transferred to flight 93,  including,  of course, the

skyjackers.  Shortly after flight 93 departs,  the now famous "no fly order"  comes down and we find the canceled flight 91

is sitting at the head of the runway,  waiting to take off.  Go figure,  eh?)  

 

Then there's the story that flight 93,  was confused with another UAL flight,  as having reported a bomb on board.  This "mix up" was apparently the fault of UAL itself.  Both flights were ordered to land at Cleveland Hopkins,  where there are reports that

some 200 people deplaned from flight 93.  Of course,  by this time the "no fly" order was in effect.  You'll read about it in "something strange about flight 93"  over at 911pilotsfortruth.org or you can google "something strange about flight 93".

 

Okay,  that's it for now.

Thank you very much, Dean, and all.

 

I think noting all the anomalies regarding the alleged flights have a far greater chance of proving conspiracy or false flag than trying to prove what agents were used to destroy the twin towers.

 

It seems that in the 9-11 "truth movement", and I've been in it to some degree from Day 1, there was an early steering toward emphasizing discovering exactly how the towers were destroyed, and a concommitant steering away from any discussion of the planes and passengers.  Planes and passengers were gradually a big blank, not talked about at all, aspect of 9-11.

 

Whenever I see that some area of discussion is not being allowed to be discussed, it makes me want to explore that topic all the more.   The more preoccupation with thermite and thermate and DEWs and Hutchison Effect, the more time is spent in the realm of unprovables, unknowables and untestables.

Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage and all those who bought in to their assertions adamantly avoid any mention of planes.  It seems that having the "Islamic terrorist hijackers" was a nonnegotiable part of their "story", but it was kept as "understood" or "goes without saying."  I have listened to and read numerous words of Dr. Jones and several other of his "fans" who started hurling ad hominems and ugly ridiculing to shut up anyone who wanted to broach these subjects.  That is when I knew that Dr. Jones was not about 9-11 truth and that his whole "work" was agenda driven.  Dr. Judy Wood also totally avoids the subject of planes and passengers but her "close associate" is Dr. Morgan Reynolds and he has placed great emphasis of the planes not crashing in to buildings, so that "team" did not try to totally squelch discussion of planes.

 

Dean Hartwell has searched the records and gotten the facts regarding the flights and that is the most proven strongest set of facts as best I can see.  Will go read about the record tampering now.  Thanks again.

So, bottom line, try to remember at least these basic

 fact.s

 

Flight 11, ("WTC 1, North Tower, First hit")  no such flight.  Bureau of Transportation Statistics (not scheduled/not logged off)

        American Airlines   Boeing 767

 

Flight 77  ("Pentagon")  no such flight. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (not scheduled/not logged off)

         American Airlines   Boeing 757

Jeannon,

 

Thank you for your attention to the planes!

 

While people who understand the laws of science better than I do battle the issue of how the towers came down, I am happy to promote the clear evidence that planes were not used as the official theory states.

 

Dean

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2021   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service