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

How certain are we that 2 of the 4 planes are still flying as Dean Hartwell indicated and is it possible to firm that up?

Dr. Hubert,

 

I have reasoned that two planes, Flights 175 and 93, flew that day.  Best evidence are the Bureau of Transportation Records, lack of official plane wreckage at any scene, media reports of passengers at the gates or planes in question and the sighting of passengers in Cleveland.

I detail this and other evidence in Planes and Passengers and will go into even more depoth in the upcoming Facts Talk but the Guilty Walk: the No Hijacker Hypothesis and Its Indictment of Our Leaders (due July 30)

 

Dean

I can agree that planes flew that day,  just that they didn't hit the targets claimed.

It makes much more sense that flight 93 landed in Cleveland,  where it's 200

passengers came from is open to guesswork.

 

As the official story says,  the skyjackers purchased their tickets in August,

at which time flight 93 wasn't scheduled.  Flight 91 was the only flight in that

time range,  so they would have had to accept reservation on flight 91.  So

the question becomes,  how did they switch from flight 91 to flight 93?  Since

we learn that flight 91 was not canceled as claimed.  Flight 93 was added to

the schedule in early Sept.  so that on a day when the airlines couldn't

fill one plane either at Boston or Newark for Los Angles,  both airports now

have two planes scheduled for LAX,  within the same hour.

 

My guess is that flight 175 went else where,  someone forgot to take down the

flight 175 blip from the screens and left it flying after it had supposedly crashed.

In reality it had to be somewhere else.  

 

 

 

Yes,  I can agree that the terms are being used loosely.  "All",  means whatever we can find on the subjects,

combined with much of what has been said.  And "evidence" is munged to include speculatons,  however

reasonable they may be. While NPT is used as you say,  to indicate,  not that planes didn't fly,  but that

the ones stated,  did not impact the crash sites indicated.  But hey,  we're not scientists and we're doing

a pretty good job of it,  using what little we've been given,  and without precise definitions to work with.

 

the "NPT" people took quite a massive bashing when the idea was first released.  But the idea still was able

to hold it's own,  even against claims that it's holders were loonies,  it was still able to gain converts and still

is.  "Evidence"  that should dispel the NPT quite easily,  is being "withheld"; provoking the challenge that it

doesn't exist,  and still it doesn't appear.  Go figure.

Good comments.

 

The firm proving of the NPT would

 

completely dispell the notion of "hijackers. 

 

dispell the notion of "extremist Islamic terrorists" going in to the WTC buildings and planting some traditional kind of controlled demolition explosives.  (So if anyone wants to hold on to the idea of demolition charges being professionally and precisely pre- placed in the buildings, it would become just "too much" to try to say those explosives planter people were "radical Muslim" types.)  In a way, I can sort of see that all the "theories" about exactly what physical agents destroyed the WTC buildings are a deliberate diversion and distraction from discussing no planes ideas, and all of these dueling theories do nothing but split up the remaining vestiges of the 9-11 truth movement.  Neither Dr. Judy Wood nor Dr. Steven Jones care to give any serious attention to no planes.

 

expose the completely planned, orchestrated, scripted, theatrical production aspects of 9-11, such as may have been the incident related by Norman Mineta in the PEOC room of the White House.  People who play parts and read their script and play their roles in a false faked theatrical event are LIARS and TRAITORS so establishment of NPT would expose certain and many individuals as such.

 

Just in discussing planes this little bit so far in this thread, it is clear that American Airlines and United Airlines were in on this subterfuge and that makes those entire companies LIARS and TRAITORS.

 

I hate to say this but I can see no one person in all of 9-11 truth who seems to have a strong love and devotion to the sovereignty of the U.S.A., and all seem to be globalists to one degree or another.

 

 

Lonnie Star said:

Yes,  I can agree that the terms are being used loosely.  "All",  means whatever we can find on the subjects,

combined with much of what has been said.  And "evidence" is munged to include speculatons,  however

reasonable they may be. While NPT is used as you say,  to indicate,  not that planes didn't fly,  but that

the ones stated,  did not impact the crash sites indicated.  But hey,  we're not scientists and we're doing

a pretty good job of it,  using what little we've been given,  and without precise definitions to work with.

 

the "NPT" people took quite a massive bashing when the idea was first released.  But the idea still was able

to hold it's own,  even against claims that it's holders were loonies,  it was still able to gain converts and still

is.  "Evidence"  that should dispel the NPT quite easily,  is being "withheld"; provoking the challenge that it

doesn't exist,  and still it doesn't appear.  Go figure.

Jeannon Kralj said:

"Just in discussing planes this little bit so far in this thread, it is clear that

American Airlines and United Airlines were in on this subterfuge and that

makes those entire companies LIARS and TRAITORS."

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

 

I'll disagree with this...  It seems to me that they were on the sidelines

watching!  They kept quiet and just went along with it all.  Otherwise,

why would UAL miscue and report flight 93 with a bomb on board,  thus

setting the stage for having it be required to land at Cleveland Hopkins?

If these airlines had been along,  there would certainly have been

work done on the BTS data early on.  Since the airlines have to deal

with this all the time when they schedule and re-schedule flights.

So,  I don't think it would have been missed.  And there probably would

have been a better handling of the damage/debris array,  than what

we've seen. 

 

Instead,  I think they were cowed by the high level people in gov't who were

prodding them along,  so they just went along,  knowing that such powerful

people are not to be toyed with. I'm sure that if they knew something,  they'd

probably have exposed it,  since they'd know better than to go along,  because

they'd have a much greater fear of being caught,  along with the perps,  because

things weren't planned very well.  They do have the ability to evaluate

the potential of faking crash sites,  and would know that it's not likely

to be very successful.  They'd be way to fearful of climbing aboard such

a plan,  if they knew what it was.  So,  like mostly everyone else involved,

they were handed a fiat accompli and then told to comply after the fact.

 

First they would be given "innocent" things to do!  Later they'd realize that

those "innocent things"  would add up to complete incrimination,  they'd

have no choice but to further comply.  In a corporate setting,  unlike a gov't

one,  it's hard to get orders and information into exactly the hands that

it needs to be placed in. Worse yet,  explanations are needed,  more than

are needed in gov't.  As a consequence of this,  the Airlines had to be

kept,  very largely in the dark.  The perps,  would instead,  rely more

heavily on plants within the airlines operations centers,  who could

amplify or squash the various inputs and outputs. 

 

But that's just my take,  I think corporations make very unreliable partners.

Too unreliable for the seriousness of this kind of undertaking.

 

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2021   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service