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: 313

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You know, Dean, something else occurred to me about the "Pentagon plane" and that is the matter of Norman

Mineta's testimony ...

 

"

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

I guess all of that was total fiction to throw everyone off the trail of "no planes."    It never happened.  There was no young man. 

 

Is that right???

 

Mineta supposedly, a couple of times, said things that contradicted the official story and he was at the time thought to be a real truth teller, telling what really happened.  But he was lying according to the script he was given.  Now I understand there is some big transportation study center in California or somewhere, thus he was rewarded by the establishment for playing his deceptive role.

ean said:

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

Jeannon Kralj said:

"

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

I guess all of that was total fiction to throw everyone off the trail of "no planes."    It never happened.  There was no young man.

   |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

I don't think anyone figures that the perps would simply come out and say they did it.  In fact,  it's much more likely that

they arranged a very complex cover.  

 

Okay.  So let's say that what happened in the above quote did actually happen!   What are the alternatives to it being

evidence against the NPT? 

 

The answer is:  it's just more faked evidence of planes.  Nor hardly very difficult to fake either.  Simply have a man

come into the room and make some cryptic references to orders and planes.  All talk and no evidence.

Were they even watching a screen with one of the many fake blips on it,  that one of the 15 exercises being held

that day were producing?  (Yes,  there were 15 exercises being run that day see P4T forums)

 

Of course,  if we are actually able to prove the NPT,  then this becomes some really incriminating evidence,  eh?

Dick Cheney would be toast!  Oh,  wait,  he never acknowledged anything,  the whole thing is merely "suggestive" of

something,  but what,  we can only infer,  by using the events of that day.  Since they could have been talking about

something entirely different,  than what this interlude is causing us to imagine,  we'll probably discover that we've

merely wasted our time,  tracking down another dead end. 

 

More "evidence" that isn't really evidence at all.  Indicating that there were planes,  when there were none at all.

And leading us to come to that conclusion,  all on our own,  without any explanation of what these people were

really talking about or even witnessing,  if anything at all.  That there was actually a 100 ton airliner being piloted

by a novice who couldn't speak English,  couldn't fly a Cessna,  yada,  yada , yada!  Seen by a number of

"eyewitnesses",  approaching the Pentagon at various speeds,  various anglesvarious paths,  performing

various acrobatics,  then completely disappearing,  after impacting the Pentagon at various times!

 

Those who have read enough of 9-11,  are already aware of many of these anomalies with the speeds,  angles paths,

maneuvers and times.  It's yet another collection that needs to be pulled together.  Those who are unaware of these

anomalies,  need to keep reading until they get them,  or keep running into these obstructions. 

 

Obwon

Great thread, Obwon!

 

I suggest another possibility is that there was an incoming plane which over-flew the Pentagon, timed with the explosives in the building, and which they obviously did not want to shoot down and expose the operation. There is some interesting info on this scenario on P4T:

www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

 

I have yet to see a plane part verifiably from any of the planes. A Boeing 757 has (according to Boeing) 1.5 million parts that are stamped and coded by either Boeing or an authorized PMA (parts manufacturer authority). And about 60 miles of wire which is stamped and coded every 12 inches. 

 

If they could produce a legitimate part from any of the "9/11 Planes" it would shut me up forever, however I do not expect this will be the case.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

Blessings, Shallel

 

 

Thoth II sums it up nicely....

 

Comment by Thoth II on October 21, 2009 at 8:15pm
."NOT ONE SINGLE PIECE OF DEBRIS FROM ANY OF THE 4 PLANES FROM ANY OF THE 4 LOCATIONS ON 9-11 HAS EVER BEEN TESTED, INPSECTED, ANALYZED, OR VERIFIED IN ANY WAY BY ANYONE AS HAVING COME FROM ANY OF THE SUPPOSED PLANES OF 9-11. Not one single piece. Why? Because there were no commercial plane crashes on 9-11"

I wonder if this ever happened in the history of air crashes, ever? I doubt it. This is strong indication that those planes hit nothing that day. Put that together with the fake videos purporting a plane to hit south tower, and the case against planes is probably getting settled down now. (I have no idea what did happen to those flights, maybe they never took off, or if some of them did, terrible things happened to the passengers, and it had nothing to do with crashing).

The last we hear of credible reports of passengers,  is of 200 people being deplaned at

Cleveland Hopkins from flight 93.  Over at P4T:  "Something strange about flight 93"

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21171

Or at:  http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg

Or just google "flight 93 Cleveland-Hopkins".

 

As with any big,  horrific event,  people are going to dream they were there.  Even have

nightmares about it.  So,  it's hardly a wonder that many people say they saw planes,  they

could not have seen,  because their stated locations,  did not have a sight line to it.

 

During the history of man,  there have been earlier times when,  the masses needed clear and

very powerful leaders.  But with the advent of the nuclear age,  that time has passed,  and what

we need for the future is a more distributed handling of powers.  Advances in communications

makes this possible.  However those enamored of holding absolute power,  must of needs,  inveigh

against such a system ever developing. 

 

We know from biology and history that,  the earth is a finite biological resource.  That means we're

going have no other choice,  but to conquer space,  for it's additional resources.  All of our problems

have a solution at the root of which is energy.  The Sun puts out all the energy we'll ever need,  but

radiates it away into space in all directions.  When we learn to collect this energy on a huge scale,

we'll be able to terraform planets and perhaps even build new ones ourselves.  But this will require

a very new and more advanced form of governing ourselves.  As power is more widely distributed,

the opportunities for corruption decline as compared to a more centralized version.  So,  that is either

the wave of the future,  or,  if it is not possible,  then it will be our decline.

 

Discovering the truth about 911 will be a mile stone along just such a path.

 

Obwon

 

 

 

“they arranged a very complex cover”

Yes, in regard to the planes issue, I guess that is why I brought up the matter of Norman Mineta and his 9-11 Commission testimony about the alleged stand-down order.  That issue illustrates indeed the VERY COMPLEX COVER that was put forth.  It may have been or may not have been a scene that actually took place.  If it did take place, we really have no corroborating testimony from anyone that it did take place. 

 

(I do remember that someone was on Dr. Stan Monteith’s radio show (radioliberty.com) one time and I cannot remember the person’s name, but I seem to recall that it was an Hispanic surname.  He, as I recall, was not claiming to be THE “young man” in the story but was someone who was there as a military person who witnessed the entire exchange.  He answered Dr. Stan’s questions but Dr. Stan tried several times to contact him to ask him to be a guest on some of his other radio shows but the “young man” could never be contacted again.) 

 

There are “rabbit trail” “evidences” against No Planes Theory (NPT)

 

And

 

There are “rabbit trail” faked evidences” of planes,

 

and many of both categories and  all of which cannot be and/or have not been substantiated or corroborated.

 

And of these two main categories of information that were conveyed to the public about 9-11 and planes, there is also another whole area of inquiry that applies to both categories and that is the questions that were never asked by media journalists and questions by inquisitors on the 9-11 Commission and other supposed investigators of 9-11.  Logical glaring questions that should have been asked and followed up on were never asked and were simply totally missing for the supposed “full inquiries.” For example, Dr. Fetzer was on Fox News on 6-22-06 and mentioned Mineta’s comments about the “young man” scene but no media person then or afterwards commented on that.

 

Another thing that bothers me is that every “truth” group or faction or person that is investigating 9-11 seems to have an unofficial hypothesis that they push and they seem to totally ignore, if not openly suppress, discussion of other possible areas to explore.  For example, regarding Mineta, Andrew Johnson, and by extension Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds, seem to want to only point out Norman Mineta’s connections to the directed energy weapons industry.  Dr. Steven Jones and gang (Alex Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, et al.) rarely mention Mineta’s official story contradictions (both of the two contradictions) for the presumed reason that this faction wants to not talk at all (ignore or suppress) about planes.  Then there are the people who want to mainly indict Cheney and Bush, so they do focus on this “young man” story and take it as a real occurrence supporting a Cheney stand-down order, and this group, including Dr. Stan Monteith, really do not want to hear about or discuss at all (ignore/suppress) the possibility that there may have been no plane at all headed toward the Pentagon and/or that crashed in to the Pentagon.

 

One thing Dr. James Fetzer has consistently done since he first entered the 9-11 truth arena is to stress that ALL available possible alternatives HAVE TO BE considered, if you intend to have a true “scientific” investigation.  THAT clearly has not been what has happened, and like Dr. Reynolds, I do not think that can ever really happen to produce any substantive effects.



Lonnie Star said:

Jeannon Kralj said:

"

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

I guess all of that was total fiction to throw everyone off the trail of "no planes."    It never happened.  There was no young man.

   |------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

I don't think anyone figures that the perps would simply come out and say they did it.  In fact,  it's much more likely that

they arranged a very complex cover.  

 

Okay.  So let's say that what happened in the above quote did actually happen!   What are the alternatives to it being

evidence against the NPT? 

 

The answer is:  it's just more faked evidence of planes.  Nor hardly very difficult to fake either.  Simply have a man

come into the room and make some cryptic references to orders and planes.  All talk and no evidence.

Were they even watching a screen with one of the many fake blips on it,  that one of the 15 exercises being held

that day were producing?  (Yes,  there were 15 exercises being run that day see P4T forums)

 

Of course,  if we are actually able to prove the NPT,  then this becomes some really incriminating evidence,  eh?

Dick Cheney would be toast!  Oh,  wait,  he never acknowledged anything,  the whole thing is merely "suggestive" of

something,  but what,  we can only infer,  by using the events of that day.  Since they could have been talking about

something entirely different,  than what this interlude is causing us to imagine,  we'll probably discover that we've

merely wasted our time,  tracking down another dead end. 

 

More "evidence" that isn't really evidence at all.  Indicating that there were planes,  when there were none at all.

And leading us to come to that conclusion,  all on our own,  without any explanation of what these people were

really talking about or even witnessing,  if anything at all.  That there was actually a 100 ton airliner being piloted

by a novice who couldn't speak English,  couldn't fly a Cessna,  yada,  yada , yada!  Seen by a number of

"eyewitnesses",  approaching the Pentagon at various speeds,  various anglesvarious paths,  performing

various acrobatics,  then completely disappearing,  after impacting the Pentagon at various times!

 

Those who have read enough of 9-11,  are already aware of many of these anomalies with the speeds,  angles paths,

maneuvers and times.  It's yet another collection that needs to be pulled together.  Those who are unaware of these

anomalies,  need to keep reading until they get them,  or keep running into these obstructions. 

 

Obwon

oh oh oh,  (sandy horshack's out), ...if another plane flew by, as

was maybe the case with even the wtc towers, the flyer of by coulda

carried the scramjet, and/or its cousin/once removed,/otherwise...

and i don't contend that it flew thru the building, as shown fakedly

in second hit shots, but that it swiped by and struck up many, many

strategically placed explosive buhthingies.  simple, yet out there.

 

     i sold myself years ago on that they used something similar

to x43A scramjet.....but everyone more or less ignored me , or just

said, pat pat pat, good sandy,   yeah, coulda been this or that,.

but if ya look at the pics from insanely guilty naudet bro flick from

original 9/11 (see web fairy 9/11 section please, hi Webby,)

, the object in first hit looks WAY like an x-43A scramjet.

(i;'ll hafta post again to include a pic of carried scrammy...)

     even the stories about pods fit with the scrammy, cause scrambob

is carried thusly the way the so called said pod was sposeda be.

Dean, hi Dean, i wouldn't mind hearing your input if you've visited the scrammers...

 

      sigh, don't listen to me, i ain't no rocket scientist, nor do i

buhspire ta be....but if ya go looking for things (and just ask naaasuh,

them doos exist,  )  it looks way freakin like of the x43,.....eh?

      and i will purposely now send a pic of big mama carrying scrammy.

and in case someday someone says so, (like that will happen, ) i will

say hey, bud, i told you so.  please visit nasa for all their FABULOUS photos, eh?

don't be too surprised at what you will find.  dryden is it?  crap, i forget the

exact name.  particularly, non planers should be more familiar with what

nasa flies around the space and stuff.  i was oblivious until i looooked...

 

      hey, i got it in print from years ago, why i say do people take so

long to cornsider the possibility?   scrammy is a real live boy.  just

because we don't see em nightly on the nightly nooze does not mean

that they do not exist.   for they most certainly do.  let us suspect them there.

 

 

 

 

 

Can that image be sharpened up at all?  What is the vertical defect that extends for quite some distance above the bright flash?

 

Where is this from?  Do you think this is actual footage of whatever struck the building or do you think it is fake?

 

 

 

 

When the "mission" is looked at from all angles,  going from what happens inside the buildings

after the strike,  the damage (no of steel box columns completely cut through),  etc.,  You have

to realize that none of this could have been done,  but the planes that were either depicted in

the videos,  or that we were told and provided "evidence" of having been skyjacked and flown

into the towers.

 

If it is not possible for planes to have created this damage array,  then the damage is not caused

by planes!  If the fragile wing tips could not slice through several boxed steel columns all the way

out to the wing tips,  then the damage seen after the fake strikes,  was not caused by planes.  There's

nothing magical about it.  A "rabbit" has been pulled from an empty hat,  in front of our eyes!  The

only question is,  will we believe that rabbits can be pulled from empty hats?  Or will we believe that

some trick has been played?  If something could not happen,  then something else must have happened.

 

Just as it is not necessary to prove how the magician did his trick,  to know that in reality,  it's impossible

for it to be real,  we don't really need to know what hit the towers,  to know that what we were told isn't

true.

 

Obwon

 

 

As far as "not considering all of the evidence/alternative theories",  goes;  anyone who is enamored of the NPT

has to have considered all of it,  to even arrive at the possibility that no planes were used.  It is only by

taking each piece of evidence,  and exploring each theory concerning it,  that one is able to conclude that

the NPT is the more likely explanation of the wide trail of conflicting presentations. 

 

You do not arrive at the NPT,  by simply stating it to be so!  For,  without knowledge of what happened,

what the explanations,  evidence,  eyewitness testimony and analysis of it all are, l there is not a clue

in the mix,  that an NPT can even exist with any credibility.   One only arrives at the NPT,  after having

read and discarded many theories and finding way too much of the "evidence" either suspect or not

as credible as it should be.  In short the NPT is an after effect!  One that attempts to explain all of the

evidence in the simplest way.  Not one that rejects evidence,  nor rejects any theories,  until they've

been examined and shown to be flawed,  not probative or false.

 

To check the NPT theory,  try reversing the equation.  How many things would need to be certain,  if

the Planes Theory were true?  Sure you'll find a piece here and a piece there,  that seems to make

it appear there were planes,  but then you'll run into the unexplained artifacts,  no plane parts,  too few

plane parts,  improper damage configurations,  improper video exhibits,  impossible speeds,  lack of

training of the suspects,  for the incredibly complex task they must perform like experts with thousands

of hours of actual flight experience. 

 

Most people simply thought,  at the outset,  that it's really easy to simply take over a heavy aircraft and

fly it in a straight line.  Actually,  in practice,  as pilots with thousands of hours in the cockpits of these

same airliners will tell you,  there's a whole lot more to it than that!  You can't simply take "visual" information

and translate that into a flight plan,  even if you have an auto pilot to assist you.  ...And,  that's before

you even get to the maneuvers these aircraft were put through,  that no autopilot would allow,  if you didn't

disconnect it.  The aircraft then reach speeds that they don't have the engine power to reach.  Nor could

they survive the stresses,  if they could reach those speeds.  Then it is while they are in this incredibly

unstable configuration,  where even the controls don't operate predictably,  that they manage to

execute maneuvers that even experience pilots admit they could not do. 

 

Other exerts explain that using other specially prepared aircraft or missiles or drones,  present another

level of complexity that there is no evidence of.  All of which,  should mean that people who bring in

alternative craft theories,  are just making things up,  because there simply isn't any evidence that

backs up such claims.  Meaning that,  if you're going to posit something other than what we've been

told,  beyond merely proving it false,  you would be going further to substitute something for which

there is no evidence to support.  Example:  You do not know how the magician pulled the rabbit from

the empty hat,  but you do know it was a trick.  But,  unless you know more,  you still can't say

where the rabbit came from or how it got into the hat. 

 

The NPT is the simplest explanation of all of the evidence at all four sites,  all of the anomalies and

all of the results.  It also explains why false evidence is needed in all four places,  and why the

"eyewitnesses"  have so many conflicts.  But,  like I said,  you can't arrive at the NPT,  until after

you've considered all of the evidence and testimony presented at all four sites,  and have

considered all of the theories that pertain thereto.  Only after you are sure,  that there is nothing

that bars the door to the NPT, can you adopt it as a credible possibility.

 

 

 "you can't arrive at the NPT,  until after

you've considered all of the evidence and testimony presented at all four sites"

 

Voltaire said: "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."  I just want to point out our problems with semantics and language that 9-11 imposed on us from the beginning and that there really is no way out of the confusion. 

 

NPT  no planes theory  -  is a confusing term from the get-go.  But I guess we need some terms so we accept that we have a common understanding of "NPT."  First of all, we are not talking at all about a real "theory."  Also, we are not really meaning "no" planes, as we seem to acknowlege that in some peripheral ways, planes were part of the script, but planes just had nothing to do with crashing into buildings or even into the ground at Shanksville.

 

"all the evidence"  -  Here we have the problem of the word "evidence."  We certainly do not mean the word "evidence" in a strict sense, like the "rules of evidence" in a court of law or any other strict definition of what constitutes "evidence."  We have "data" and even it is extremely questionable as "data." Then the word "all" becomes equally confusing because we have no way of knowing even a little bit about "all" the evidence.  We don't know how much we do not know, but we know we probably do not know at least some of the "all."

 

 

I think Dr. Morgan Reynolds and others started questioning from the very beginning of their time of entry into the 9-11 truth "movement"  about those early videos including the Naudet brothers footage of a plane going in to the South Tower.  The MSM news clips and the Dave Von Kleist and other early 9-11 truth videos contained that absurd footage of a plane melding into the tower with no breakup whatsoever, but those early videos just ignored that absurdity and focused on other things, like pods on planes and such.  (Dr. Reynolds probably came into the "movement" about early 2005 and maybe same for Dr. Fetzer.)  So Dr. Reynolds did not first study "all of the evidence."  He did us the great favor of early on shining the light of reason on those absurd videos.   Dr. Reynolds then made some study of the possibility of "video fakery" but probably, although much later, Dr. Fetzer did the best and the most regarding exposing video fakery.

 

 


Lonnie Star said:

As far as "not considering all of the evidence/alternative theories",  goes;  anyone who is enamored of the NPT

has to have considered all of it,  to even arrive at the possibility that no planes were used.  It is only by

taking each piece of evidence,  and exploring each theory concerning it,  that one is able to conclude that

the NPT is the more likely explanation of the wide trail of conflicting presentations. 

 

You do not arrive at the NPT,  by simply stating it to be so!  For,  without knowledge of what happened,

what the explanations,  evidence,  eyewitness testimony and analysis of it all are, l there is not a clue

in the mix,  that an NPT can even exist with any credibility.   One only arrives at the NPT,  after having

read and discarded many theories and finding way too much of the "evidence" either suspect or not

as credible as it should be.  In short the NPT is an after effect!  One that attempts to explain all of the

evidence in the simplest way.  Not one that rejects evidence,  nor rejects any theories,  until they've

been examined and shown to be flawed,  not probative or false.

 

To check the NPT theory,  try reversing the equation.  How many things would need to be certain,  if

the Planes Theory were true?  Sure you'll find a piece here and a piece there,  that seems to make

it appear there were planes,  but then you'll run into the unexplained artifacts,  no plane parts,  too few

plane parts,  improper damage configurations,  improper video exhibits,  impossible speeds,  lack of

training of the suspects,  for the incredibly complex task they must perform like experts with thousands

of hours of actual flight experience. 

 

Most people simply thought,  at the outset,  that it's really easy to simply take over a heavy aircraft and

fly it in a straight line.  Actually,  in practice,  as pilots with thousands of hours in the cockpits of these

same airliners will tell you,  there's a whole lot more to it than that!  You can't simply take "visual" information

and translate that into a flight plan,  even if you have an auto pilot to assist you.  ...And,  that's before

you even get to the maneuvers these aircraft were put through,  that no autopilot would allow,  if you didn't

disconnect it.  The aircraft then reach speeds that they don't have the engine power to reach.  Nor could

they survive the stresses,  if they could reach those speeds.  Then it is while they are in this incredibly

unstable configuration,  where even the controls don't operate predictably,  that they manage to

execute maneuvers that even experience pilots admit they could not do. 

 

Other exerts explain that using other specially prepared aircraft or missiles or drones,  present another

level of complexity that there is no evidence of.  All of which,  should mean that people who bring in

alternative craft theories,  are just making things up,  because there simply isn't any evidence that

backs up such claims.  Meaning that,  if you're going to posit something other than what we've been

told,  beyond merely proving it false,  you would be going further to substitute something for which

there is no evidence to support.  Example:  You do not know how the magician pulled the rabbit from

the empty hat,  but you do know it was a trick.  But,  unless you know more,  you still can't say

where the rabbit came from or how it got into the hat. 

 

The NPT is the simplest explanation of all of the evidence at all four sites,  all of the anomalies and

all of the results.  It also explains why false evidence is needed in all four places,  and why the

"eyewitnesses"  have so many conflicts.  But,  like I said,  you can't arrive at the NPT,  until after

you've considered all of the evidence and testimony presented at all four sites,  and have

considered all of the theories that pertain thereto.  Only after you are sure,  that there is nothing

that bars the door to the NPT, can you adopt it as a credible possibility.

 

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2022   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service