911 - "No-Planes" -the Wings and the Hole

"No-Planes" -the Wings and the Hole

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/06/no-plane-axiom.html

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

Arguing "No-Planes"

I know this theory is unpopular with most 9/11 "truthers" and 9/11 activists, and lord knows that I sometimes wonder why I am spending so much time on an apparently ridiculous theory that "no one" believes. Certainly "no sane person would believe that no plane hit the WTC, ESPECIALLY the South tower because EVERYONE saw that, there were THOUSANDS of witnesses".

I know many in the 9/11 "truth movement" just wish the no-planers would go away, as we give a bad, crazy association to "real" 9/11 truth. And even more, many in the 9/11 "truth movement" believe the no-planers are active disinfo artists, paid government shills, meant to disrupt true 9/11 activists.

In fact, I am a private citizen who just wants to know the truth about 9/11. I want to know exactly what happened that day, and specifically I want to know: if 9/11 was an inside job-- how was it set up? It simply is not enough for me to say, "oh, they used patsies for the hijackers, remote control planes and distracted the air defenses with war games". I have been down that road. If you read my archives from when I started this blog, you can see it for yourself. Early on, I bought into the whole "let's ignore all 9/11 physical evidence" meme-- big time. I even wrote a couple of posts early on saying how 9/11 activists shouldn't talk about no-plane hitting the Pentagon, because that makes us look bad.

But you know what? I started looking at the physical evidence. The towers looked like they were blown up. And the Pentagon hit started looking very strange. Then I started looking at the flight 93 crash site-- and that was even stranger. And then it looked to me like no planes crashed at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, though someone tried to make it look like planes did crash. But they could only fake so much. Then the question arose: if there were no planes at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, is it possible they didn't use planes for the WTC either? Then I started looking at the footage of "UA175" melting into the south tower, and it really didn't seem quite right to me.

Finally, I also began to wonder why so many 9/11 "truth" people were telling me NOT to look at the physical evidence when it was so compelling and clearly bizarre!

So-- my nagging feeling is that there is something VERY important about the no-plane theory that deserves attention. I don't want to force it down anyone's throat, but I think it also should be looked at by all 9/11 activists with an open mind.

The evidence for there being no planes is a cumulative argument, without any one 100% infallible piece of evidence. This is much like the whole idea of 9/11 being an "inside job"-- it doesn't rest on one rock-solid piece of evidence, but rather it rests on many official parts of the 9/11 story being improbable, and that these add up to a highly unbelievable official story. 9/11 being an "inside job" is a bit of a gestalt, really. If one can handle the 9/11 "inside job" gestalt, than handling the no-plane theory should not be a big problem.

In any case, it is worth periodically going over the reasons for the no-plane theory, if nothing else than for my own sanity.

9/11 facts that support the no-plane theory*:

1) the one "live" shot of "UA175" flying to the South tower, shown from the same feed by three different networks (ABC, CNN, Fox), was discontinuous with the explosion. Moreover, the south tower was not even seen directly as it was blocked by the north tower. All in all, very suspicious footage

2) the second shot of the south tower hit shown by CNN showed only an explosion, no plane. The area on the screen where the plane should have been was blocked by the CNN news "crawl". Also very suspicious footage.

3) several eye-witnesses saw the south tower explode, and were in a location where they could have seen the plane, but didn't see a plane.

4) several eye-witnesses spoke of missiles or a missile hitting the south tower instead of a plane.

5) the plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers (and in Shanksville and to a lesser degree the Pentagon) are not physically plausible for real plane crashes-- the holes look as though the perpetrators were simply trying to make it APPEAR as though planes crashed in the buildings and on the ground.

6) several videos of the south tower hit show the plane sliding into the tower without slowing, without exploding upon contact, without any part breaking off-- with even the freaking wingtips gliding through thick steel columns!

7) there are many video anomalies in the videos of the second hit-- the plane is deformed, there are obvious "pods", there are conflicting plane paths between videos, the videos have anomalous, often dark, coloration, etc. This all casts doubt on a real plane being in the videos.

8) evidence for planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville is weak; people initially at both scenes said there was no evidence of a plane crash, etc.

9) flight 11 and flight 77 officially did not take off according to the BTS database.

10) no black boxes were found at ground zero (officially).

11) almost no plane parts were found in the WTC rubble that was SIFTED for human remains.

9/11 concepts that are consistent with the no-plane theory:

1) the lack of air defense is best explained by a lack of any real planes to intercept-- this would have been the best way to insure no awkward air force interception of a hijacked plane.

2) the big lie that no planes were used would be a very effective tool for insuring the truth never came out, as it would sound too crazy.

3) if 9/11 was an inside set-up, not using planes is technically easier, in terms of not having to deal with moving large aircraft around and piloting them precisely and not having to deal with live hijacking situations-- they only needed to plant the plane meme and plant some parts.

4) some plane parts laying in the street or on the ground seem implausible and appear to be planted-- but parts would not need to be planted if real planes were used, would they?

5) there appear to be TOO many videos of the second hit. I have counted 30 of them and there may be more. This is of a highly transient event that could only be seen from certain angles and was completely UNEXPECTED (in principle that is!).

6) videos of the second hit were played over and over and over on TV, as if they were trying to reinforce the plane meme.

7) it is unlikely amateur pilot terrorists could have piloted planes so effectively, but remote control does not make sense for how UA175 behaved in the videos, with the last minute turn right before hitting.

8) the origin of most 2nd hit videos is very obscure-- but in some cases, they came from known computer animators.

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

A Critique of the Complete Official Version of the South Tower Hit

Everyone knows a hijacked jet slammed into the south tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, resulting in a spectacular fireball.

We ALL saw it on TV, right?

But what if the airplane never existed? What if the story of a hijacked airplane was a giant hoax, used as a linch-pin to sell the official 9/11 story?

What follows is a multi-point presentation of the complete South WTC tower attack-- and a critique of this story.

I think that there is no doubt that the official story of this central event of 9/11 simply doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny.

O.S. = official story (in some cases the official story has not been fleshed out completely, and in these instances, I try to make the best case for the official story).

O.S. 1) Terrorists hijacked a 767 and a hijacker pilot on a suicide mission took over controls of the plane.

Critique: It is unclear how this was accomplished given the hijackers were only armed with knives, boxcutters, and possibly pepper spray and fake bombs. In particular, it is unclear how the hijackers got the pilots out of their seats without ground control being alerted of a hijacking. It seems unlikely the pilots would give up their seats without a struggle, and the pilots were large armed services veterans. It is not clear how the hijackers took the cockpit by surprise, given that at least two of the 9/11 hijackings had fights/struggles in the passenger compartment as the hijackers tried to move to the cockpit.

O.S. 2) The hijacker pilot navigated to New York City and approached the WTC complex from Southern manhattan at a speed between 500 and 600 mph. The plane was seen approaching Manhattan by several video cameras.

Critique: Given that the hijacker pilot had never flown a large jet before, this feat seems highly unlikely-- particularly given the extreme speed, which was at the operational limit for the aircraft. Near sea level, such a speed could even damage the plane. It is hard to imagine someone who had never flown this type of craft before steering and descending the plane effectively at this speed. For an unknown reason, some shots show the plane approaching directly from the south, while other videos show the plane coming from the southwest. Different videos show different rates of descent. It is hard to understand how one plane could take markedly different approach paths, unless one or more videos were faked.

O.S. 3) The hijacker pilot needed to make a last second course alteration, and so banked the plane to the left for the last few hundred feet of approach. This event was captured by a few video cameras.

Critique: One video ("Park Foreman") shows the plane making an extremely rapid and smooth roll to the left (though oddly the plane's course does not obviously change). Given the extreme speed, this maneuver is not trivial, and it seems to occur too fast and smoothly for a huge jet being flown by a first-time pilot. Moreover, for a suicide pilot in the last incredible intense seconds of a massive and long-anticipated attack, it is hard to believe that the pilot wouldn't OVER-compensate, and jerk the plane even farther to the left, as opposed to the seemingly controlled piloting that is observed in the videos. Remember again, officially the plane was flying at near maximum speed, making any maneuver very tricky. Interestingly though, this apparent last-second course-correction would tend to rule out remote control guidance of the plane, since guidance systems should have made the plane come in straight on target. The idea that someone was using a joystick from a remote location to control the plane would seem to have some technical problems. However, if the plane were a computer-generated image (CGI), this last-second maneuver would be no problem to add to the video, and would basically add extra drama to the imagery.

O.S. 4) The plane smashed into the south WTC tower full speed, and this event was captured by multiple video cameras. The plane hit the building almost perfectly straight on, such that both wings and wing-mounted engines impacted at about the same time.

Critique: Four of the 29 known videos of the second plane showed the plane directly impact the building, and all four showed the plane enter the building smoothly, without slowing, without any part breaking off. This will be discussed more below. However, there are other odd things about the second hit videos: 1) the plane enters the building at slightly different places in different videos, and 2) the timing of the fireball appearance after the plane goes in is different between different videos. Although live video shots of this event were shown on TV, there are serious anomalies/oddities in the initial presentation of this event. More the suspiciousness of this "live" footage here and here and here.

O.S. 5) Because the plane was banked when it hit, the plane impacted 7 different floors (see Figure 1). The fuselage impacted two different floors and the 150 foot long wings struck several more floors. Specifically, the port wing struck across two floors while the starboard wing struck across four floors.

Figure 1:

Critique: One HAS to wonder why the plane doesn't really line up with the hole very well. How can the engines get in when there are columns blocking it? Moreover, the plane should have made a BIGGER hole in the wall than its profile, not a smaller hole, if it truly smashed through the wall without anything breaking off. Next, take a good look at that large chunk of wall laying right in the bottom of the center hole where the fuselage is supposed to have entered. The only possible explanation is that the plane pushed aside this large section of wall as it went in, much like a kitty-door folds up as the kitty walks through, and that after the plane "passed" through, the folded section of wall broke off and fell down to the bottom of the hole. However, this explanation strains credulity. A plane that smashes through the wall full-speed, if we even assume that is possible, is not going to fold up a broken-off section of wall and leave it right next to the entry hole. This large section of steel columns should be pushed farther inside, particularly considering that according to the videos, the tail of the plane passed into the building without breaking off, and the tail should have caught on this chunk of columns and carried it inwards.

O.S. 6) The plane went into the building, smashing though multiple thick steel columns of the outer wall, without slowing, showing signs of break-up, or any immediate explosion. The extreme mass and speed of the plane was no match for the outer columns, and they gave way to the plane.

Critique:Watch the flash video of the plane entering the building. Does this look real? Does a real plane behave this way? I have no problem with the fact of the fuselage entering, but the lack of immediate explosion, lack of crumpling and lack of deceleration defy belief. Remember, this impact was centered at the 80th floor of a 110 story building. The outer walls were supporting much of the weight of the 30 floors above, and these outer walls were constructed of 13/16 inch steel columns. Then there were also the multiple floor slabs that dissect that plane's path. Floor slabs include heavy steel spandrels where the floor meets the outer wall, 3 inch concrete and steel support trusses. Moreover, the 160 foot plane impacted at least one extremely strong core column after penetrating only 30 feet into the building. If not the outer columns and floor slabs, this impact should have slowed the plane-- but according to the videos, it didn't! Of course, a digital plane can pass easily through steel and concrete without slowing.

O.S. 7) The wings of the plane, on video, were seen to smoothly pass into the building (see Figures 2 and 3), also here; post-impact photos of the entry hole showed several columns near the central hole were sliced through. Less clear is what happened to the thinner, outer sections of the wings; they did not seem to sever columns but still damaged them. The outer sections of wings must have disintegrated upon impacting these distant columns, with some sections of wings breaking through, and some sections shredding upon impact. Little to no fuel was kept in the outer sections of wings and so no significant fuel was spilled to spark an immediate explosion.

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Critique: there is no good explanation for what happened to the wings; their behavior defies physics. The behaviour of the wings is discussed here [BELOW] and here.[BELOW] I think wings on a real plane would have broken off and exploded upon impacting the steel columns of the outer wall. Wings are semi-hollow segmented constructs of aluminum, they are not stronger than steel. Wings frequently break off in other plane crashes. In a slow speed impact, is there any doubt that a thick steel column would rip apart a wing? At high speed, this would only have happened QUICKER. Of course, digital wings can easily pass through steel columns. In reality, the wing-like damage to the outer columns must have been mimicked by precision pre-planted explosives.

O.S. 8) The fuselage of the plane, once inside, impacted a core column of the WTC tower (see Figure 4). This column was substantially larger than the outer wall columns. This column was only aout 30 feet in from the outer wall. There is no data on what happened to this column. We can hypothesize that this column, and the one to the north of it (in line with the plane's path) were minimally damaged by the plane due to their massive strength. Since the plane did not slow upon impact, the plane must have shredded around this column and the one north of it, causing almost complete destruction of the fuselage. Momentum carried the rest of the plane, including the huge tail structure, full-speed into the building as the fuselage shredded against the columns.

Figure 4:

Critique: the lower superstructure of the fuselage that supported much of the weight of the plane and held it together, was a continuous rigid structure. Impact of the fuselage superstructure on a massive core column should have slowed the plane significantly, since the force of the impact would have been transmitted through the plane's framework. The core columns were massive, thick steel entities and would not be expected to be severed by a impact with a light-weight aluminum plane. If we assume there was a plane, the only explanation is that the plane broke up after impacting the core column, since the plane officially disintegrated AFTER entering the building. But if this is the case, then why didn't the plane slow? We can see in the video that the tail of the plane smoothly passed into the building following the same initial course of the plane. The idea that the huge 30 foot tail of the 767 passed into the building at full-speed and without deviation in its angle SIGNIFICANTLY AFTER the plane impacted a core column defies common sense. Overall, in the larger sense, we have a huge problem with what officially happened. The 160 foot long plane enters the 208 foot wide building, seemingly indestructible as it passes completely into the building. Yet somehow, in the last 48 feet, the plane disintegrates. This simply defies physics. On the other hand, a computer image of a plane, would certainly be able to pass into the building in the manner seen in the 9/11 videos.

O.S. 9) The starboard wing was torn off from the plane by the corner core column (Figure 4) and was also shredded by the various floor slabs it impacted.

Critique: Again we have the problem with the wing entering the building seemingly in an indestructible fashion, then getting sliced into pieces and spilling fuel.

O.S. 10) Much of the plane's fuel was coincidentally carried in the starboard wing, such that when this wing was torn and shredded, the fuel spilled out with a large amount of momentum.

Critique: if the fuel tanks were as full as is always claimed in the official story, it seems highly unlikely that little to no fuel would be in the port wing.

O.S. 11) A few sections of the fuselage and starboard wing had enough momentum to break all the way through the building. The fuel exited the northeast corner of the building with this debris in a large mass about the size of the fuselage, but this mass quickly erupted into a massive fireball (Figure 5).

Figure 5:

Critique: this large object that initially appears out the north face of the south tower is very odd. It is large enough to be the fuselage, yet a fuselage should not explode massively and essentially evaporate as this object does. The flash movies on this page show this odd phenomenon in good detail. If this object that bursts out of the corner is not the fuselage, what is it? And what causes the object to explode the way it does?

O.S. 12) In particular, a section of the starboard wing that traversed the 83rd floor had a large amount of fuel and scraped across the east wall of the tower, starting the east wall fireball (Figure 5, panel 2).

Critique: the explosive pimples that appear on the side of the building at floor 83 are odd. The only official explanation can be that they are generated by a shredded portion of the starboard wing. Even if we assume a shredded section of wing exploded against the wall, it is hard to believe so much fuel was carried in this thin outer section of wing. Further, the explosions occur outwards from the wall but also travel along the wall. It is hard to imagine how a section of wing can hit against the inside wall, start an explosion, but keep traveling, hit against the wall again, start another explosion, and hit against the wall AGAIN, and start another explosion. Watch the video. How can one section of wing do this?

O.S. 13) The port wing of the plane carried little fuel and was completely destroyed by the core columns and thus did not produce significant damage, explosion or fire on the west side of the building.

Critique: a true oddity is that where the rest of the plane impacted the core, there were few if any fires reported or seen in pictures and videos . Further, in contrast to the North tower hit, I could not find reports of fuel going down the elevator shafts in the South tower. How can this be? The bulk of the plane clearly impacted the core structure (Figure 4), and officially a great deal of fuel should have been in the port wing and fuselage.

O.S. 14) Damage to the core columns from the fuselage, plus fires started by the remaining plane fuel, significantly weakened the tower structural columns at the point of impact, causing the top 30 floors of the building to tip.

Critique: the top 30 floors clearly started to tip, as seen in several videos. (No, I don't think these videos were faked; I think only the plane image was manipulated). If we assume a plane attack, there is no reason to think the core columns that supported much of the weight of the building were damaged. If core columns were damaged by a plane, the plane should have broken through the other side of the building, since not even core columns could stop it. If we assume significant numbers of core columns WERE damaged by a plane, the building should have started tipping immediately after the crash. But ultimately, the idea that jet fuel-induced hydrocarbon fires could weaken the massive thick steel core columns enough on just one side to cause the whole top of the building to topple, simply doesn't hold up. The outer columns of the building were not even particularly damaged on the side where the top started to tip (to the east).

15) The tipping upper tower reached the point of no return, and the top 30 floors of the tower broke off and fell down, starting a global collapse of the complete tower.

It is not clear how the top 30 floors of the tower, which were undamaged, disintegrated in a matter of two seconds. Also not clear is why black jets of smoke were seen shooting out of the upper 30 floors as the top of the tower started to tilt. In the absence of demolition, there is no explanation for what caused the tipping top of the tower to stop falling over on its side and instead to disintegrate.

16) The collapse of the towers released so much energy that the black boxes of the plane were destroyed (officially).

The idea that both black boxes were completely destroyed (as well as the black boxes from the North tower plane) is hard to believe, given the strength of the boxes and that human remains were found in the rubble. Unofficially, it was reported the black boxes WERE found but were kept secret for some unknown reason. My interpretation is that there were never any black boxes to find, because no plane ever struck the tower!

Okay, perhaps you're onto something-- but what about all those videos and photographs of the plane? There are indeed a lot of videos, perhaps even TOO many. I have found 29 different videos that capture the 2nd plane before it hit the WTC. These show the plane for varying lengths of time, for less than a second to almost ten seconds in one case. 29 videos of such an extremely transient event that could only be seen from very select angles seems like a lot to me. A careful scrutiny of the videos reveals a number of abnormalities, most strikingly the fact that different videos show different approach paths for the plane (as indicated above). The more one analyzes these videos, the more one should be struck with their obvious peculiarities in many different regards. I have discussed the large number of videos in more depth here. Overall, the background story is far too hazy on all these videos for us to have confidence in their veracity. The photos that exist of the putative second plane before it hit the tower are also similarly odd. Some of the photos are simply laughable fakes. Other photos show the plane coming in too low for where it impacted. Other photos have oddities, such as the famous Carmen Taylor photo of the plane right before it hit, which shows a plane with a clearly abnormal bulge under the starboard wing root. Many of the anomalies of the second plane images are covered in this fine article by Marcus Icke. The bottom line is that I believe all plane images in photos and videos were added in using computer graphics and computer animation.

But what about all the eye-witnesses?

In fact, some witnesses said they saw a plane, some eye-witnesses said there were missiles being shot at the building (this is even written in police reports and a CNN reporter says people told him missiles were being shot at the building) and some eye-witnesses saw the building explode but saw no plane at all (also here). Some people may have seen a plane that flew by after the North tower was hit and before the second building exploded. The bottom line is that the original eye-witness testimony is conflicted, and eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway. Moreover, the TV images of the second plane have been so embedded in people's minds by now we can't take seriously anyone who might currently come forward and say they were an eye-witness to the plane. In the absence of reliable eye-witness evidence, the physical evidence must rule.

An Alternative Theory

So what did happen at the south WTC tower on 9/11? I think the story of a hijacked 767 hitting the tower is a carefully orchestrated media hoax. I do not know what happened to UA175. But the point is that the official story of this flight hitting the South tower makes little sense. My best guess is that teams of photographers and videographers in on the plot were in carefully pre-positioned places waiting for the second tower to explode. See this article for more on the generation of the plane images. I think that the power down of the top half of the South tower described by Scott Forbes was when the explosives and incendiaries were planted. Interestingly, if we assume there was no plane, and the South tower attack was all done with bombs, it gives a entirely different perspective from which to view the collapse of the South tower.

Summary: we have been lied to about this central event of 9/11. It is a perfect example of the "big lie" technique, where the lie is so enormous, no one can believe it actually is a lie. But viewed from a distance, it makes perfect sense that a televised hoax, using media outlets such as CNN, was the perfect vehicle for selling the whole story of Arab terrorists hijacking planes and attacking the US (not unlike a modernized version of Orson Well's "Martian Invasion" radio hoax). Afterall, there had to be some reason why US Army psy-ops personnel were working at CNN. And it has long been known that the US media is heavily infiltrated by the CIA.

How much do you truly trust the US news media?

Moreover, do you enjoy being LIED to about something so enormous?

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

Those Outer WTC Columns and Plane Wings

Previously I have wondered how plane wings could slice through the outer columns of the WTC (for instance, see here, here, here and here.

I was under the impression that the columns where the "plane" impacted the south tower were constructed of 1/4 inch steel, which is fairly strong.

However, in this article, I found that the outer columns at the base of the WTC were much thicker steel than at the top, which makes a lot of sense:



These columns not only had to support much of the floor weight, but also the outer walls themselves. So naturally, they would be graded in weight, with much heavier and stronger columns (thicker steel) on the bottom and lighter columns towards the top. The columns on the bottom had 2.5 inch thick steel sides. That is SERIOUS steel.

Then I found this article on analysis of the WTC steel which says that for the south tower, the outer columns at the impact area were 1/4 inch by 13/16 inch.

I assume this means the sides of the box columns were 13/16 inch, and the front and backs of the columns were 1/4 inch. The columns were a little over three feet apart, with about two feet between columns. 13/16 inch of steel is pretty damn strong, and no wonder-- because at the 80th floor, where the south tower was hit, there was still 30 more stories of building to hold up!

This means, the 767 wings had to slice at least ten times per wing through 14 inches of 13/16 inch thick high-strength steel column plates as the plane slid smoothly, without slowing, into the tower. This apparently happened, because the videos of the second hit show this-- and we know the videos don't lie do they?

And surely the wings didn't shred as they went in, because then fuel in the wings should have spilled out and immediately ignited. But that didn't happen because the fuel only exploded on the far side of the building.

So somehow, the magical 9/11 aluminum plane wings passed through large strong steel columns.

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

Wings Break Off

I set up an experiment testing how a plane might break up upon impacting arrayed steel columns like the WTC wall. The plane and the columns were both constructed of similar pieces of wood (which here favors the plane, since in real life, aluminum is weaker than steel). The dimensions of the models were not perfect, but they were a rough match for the WTC and a 767. I did not put floors into the model, so this also favors the plane.

I pushed the plane forcefully into the "wall", and while the fuselage penetrated the wall after reasonably strong force was applied, the wings broke off at the root where the wings met the plane. The wings actually bent backwards and slid into the hole alongside the fuselage. The wood of the wings actually broke. A few "columns" broke where the fuselage went in, and a couple broke on either side of the fuselage hole, where the wings broke off-- but basically the array of columns were much stronger than the long wings.

This actually makes sense in terms of physics. The fuselage had a concentrated impact force on a relatively small front area, and thus could break the columns inward. However, a wing has a much wider impact area, which dissipates the impact force, thus favoring the columns' strength. If I were an engineer, I'm sure I could find an equation that could describe this phenomenon. Basically, of course, it is the same principle why a pointed object has more penetrating power than a long straight edge-- even if both are equally sharp.

Note that in real-life, the aluminum wings should break off even more readily when they impact heavy steel columns than in this experiment.

This finding that the wings break off also fits with what is observed in other plane crashes: the wings break off.

This means of course, that no 767 hit either WTC tower.

The plane-shaped hole was merely a ruse, to trick people into thinking a large plane had impacted the WTC. Unfortunately this trick defied physics.


Further: in theory, wings could break through the columns if they had enough mass and momentum. The key point though is that on a plane, the wings are far from the center of mass, they cannot carry enough force to break through the columns and thus their response is to break and fold back. The analogy would be like having your arms stretched straight out and trying to knock down two strong wooden posts on either side of you with your fists. With your whole body behind your hands, you could knock down one post, but your body's force is too diffuse to knock down both posts when your arms are stretched out to the side.

And yes, Holmgren was right. If the wings and plane were strong to slice cleanly into the wall, the plane should have sliced all the way through the building!

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

WTC Forensics
THE HOLE IN THE TOWER

November 11 2005
Gerard Holmgren


Observe that we have a hole in the tower which is approximately the size and shape of a 767, indicating that the alleged large passenger jet punched decisively through the building. Also observe that we have no wreckage significant enough to be identifiable.


The combination of these two factors is a forensic proof that it can not have been a plane of that size, as I shall explain shortly.


Before that comes another forensic proof. Note that the shape of the hole indicates that the wings punched through the building, making more or less a shape of themselves.


When you sit in a passenger jet and look out the window to the wings, what do you see ? A light aluminium structure which is segmented into panels and movable flaps. Hardly a cutting blade or battering ram, except against light materials.


The WTC was constructed of heavy construction steel, built to withstand hurricanes. We are asked to believe that such flimsy aluminium wings sliced through this structure decisively enough to make a cartoon type shape of themselves. Steel cutting blades are generally made from cobalt or tungsten and are either sharpened to precision or toothed.


If unsharpened, untoothed aluminium wings, with moveable panels could slice through construction steel like this, then blades for cutting steel would be a whole lot cheaper and less demanding of precision manufacture than what they are. This alone is enough to show that the 767 type shape in the wall, including an almost exact fit for the wings is an absurdity.


But lets just suppose that this was possible. That a plane could decisively punch through a building in this way. If so, then the wreckage can't just disappear into effectively nothing. Its simple conservation of energy. When a stronger object strikes a weaker object or vice versa, there are three possible outcomes.


The struck object is completely destroyed or moved out of the way, leaving the striking object with no damage and only loss of velocity to show for the collision. The striking object is completely destroyed or bounces off, leaving the struck object unmoved and undamaged. The destructive energy of the collision is shared in some balance between the struck object and the striking object. Most collisions will give this result although the destruction may well be much more heavily weighted towards one or the other, leaving one object with the majority of the damage.

What you can't have is a striking object destroying itself against the same object that its decisively punching through.


Here's some every day examples.


1a. Striking object negligibly damaged, struck object destroyed.

An arrow shot through a piece of carboad. The impacted part of the carboard is decisively destroyed making a hole roughly the shape of the arrow, and the arrow passes through, losing velocity and comes to rest undamaged.


1 b Striking object negligibly damaged struck object moved.

A bowling ball hitting a bowling pin. The pin is knocked clear and the bowling ball slows a little as a result.


2a Striking object destroyed, struck object unmoved and undamaged.


A glass thrown against a wall. The glass smashes, the wall is unmoved and undamaged.


2b Striking object bounces off, struck object undamaged


A tennis ball thrown against a wall and bouncing off.


Now note what happens if the tennis ball breaks as it hits the wall. Instead of bouncing, it will now flop pretty much where it is. It cant break *and* bounce off as it did before. If you add energy to one part of the process, you have to subtract it from somewhere else. Conservation of energy.


Which brings us to


3 Destruction shared between both objects.


A car colliding with a brick garden fence. Both objects suffer some damage and the car pretty much stops. The possible graduations of how the damage is shared are infinite, but what you cannot have is the car decisively punching through the fence leaving a cartoon type shape of itself, complety going through and *then* suddenly disintegrating beyond recognition.


If the car disintegrates itself to almost nothing, it will be because it hits a stronger surface which pushes most of the energy of the collision back into the car. So you might get a car reduced to confetti, but the surface it struck will be negligibly damaged/moved.


Or you might get a car bursting through a barrier of stretched cardboard, easily punching a shape of itself, but in this case you wont get a confetti car. It will emerge the other side negligibly damaged. Or you might get a wall of roughly equal strength to the car, in which case, you get a damaged but still basically intact car, coming to rest , probably part way through a wall which has been significantly damaged but doesn't have a cartoon type shape of the car punched neatly through it.


Think of the cartoon scene, where the cat chases the mouse through a mincer. The cat emerges from the other side still running, not realizing that its now made of a jigsaw type shapes. It keeps running for a while, and then with a look of resignation realizes that its been cut up, stops and collapses into a pile of little jigsaw type pieces.


Why do small children find this funny ? Because even at that age, they know that what they've seen is impossible.


In real life, the cat either


Gets immediately cut into pieces and ceases all co-ordinated movement as a single object, and doesn't damage the blades or Bursts through the mincer blades, breaking them or Mangles itself, stopping almost immediately and also causing significant damage to the blades.

So what we asked to believe at the WTC is a Tom and Jerry cartoon.


What would happen in real life is


the plane would smash itself to pieces against the building, doing little damage to the building and the wreckage falling mostly to the street. or The plane would pass through the wall making a cartoon type shape of itself (heh! Those sturdy aluminium cutting blades slicing through the flimsy construction steel of the building ! ) and come to rest, relatively intact. or You'd have a smashed up and scattered plane, still in large identifiable pieces some of it inside the building, some falling to the street below, and damage to the wall of some unpredictable configuration.

The latter option is what happened when the plane hit the Empire State building in 1945. Large pieces of the plane broke off and fell to the streets below, and the bulk of it stuck pretty much in the side of the building.


In the Sandia video, you see option 1 - the plane being reduced to almost nothing and the struck surface negligibly affected.


What is impossible is for the plane to punch neatly through the building leaving a cartoon type shape of itself and *then* disintegrate into nothing. If this were possible we'd find the following examples in everyday life.


You saw through a piece of wood. When you've finished you've got a neat cut, and the saw blade has completely disintegrated.


You swing a sledge hammer through a plasterboard wall. The wall is decisively punched through, and when the hammer emerges the other side, the head has disintegrated.


A tennis ball hits a racquet. The ball smashes through the strings, leaving a neat round hole, passes through and then disintegrates into tiny pieces after its passed through.


One last thing to look at. Suppose that we forget about the aluminum cutting blades problem, and suppose that the plane passed through decisively, relatively undamaged, thus obeying conservation of energy laws and then , being packed with explosives, blew up into pretty much nothing after passing through.


In this case, how does an explosion massive enough to disappear a 70 ton plane, have a negligible effect on the building inside which the explosion is taking place, leaving no damage other than that apparently caused by the entry of the plane ?


This problem is heightened by the following observation. If the plane passed decisively through the wall, then the plane is by definition the more robust of the two objects, having easily smashed aside the wall. But when the explosion goes off it totally disintegrates the stronger plane and yet somehow doesn't damage the comparatively flimsy building. Not possible.


Since the WTC was about 210 ft each side and the alleged plane about 160 ft, then with the plane completely inside the building, the extremities of the plane are less than a stones throw from the edges of the building. So any secondary explosion, powerful enough to disappear the plane should have also exacerbated the damage to the wall, where the plane passed through. If there had been, for a brief moment, a plane shaped hole, that should have been blasted bigger and differently shaped by the explosion which blew up the plane.

In fact it was this observation which finally laid to rest any lingering doubts I had about the Sth tower plane being a fake, after I looked at WF's site, way back.

As if that's not enough, there isn't room for a 767 to completely disappear inside the WTC. The total size of the building only allows about 50 ft to spare, and there's the problem of the core of the building. Nearly half of the plane would have still been hanging out when the nose hit the core and the plane started smashing itself up. Or if you want to make the absurd suggestion that it also easily smashed through the core, without even enough damage to the plane to disturb it's direction enough to mess the cartoon type shape of itself, then why doesn't it also pass through the other side of the building in a similar manner?

Lets see now... the plane effortlessly punches through the wall, the wings making a shape of themselves, effortlessly punches through the core, and then, with a few feet to spare, once its completely inside the building, puts the brakes on and then blows up into nothing, with the explosion miraculously causing no extra damage to the building.

This would also mean that those razor sharp aluminium wings which sliced so easily through the flimsy construction steel would have been merrily slicing away for about 100 ft into the building, slicing the building like a loaf of bread before the plane blew up. The slice then healed itself. Perhaps the explosion put it all back into place...

This kind of thing might happen in cartoons and in the "minds" of people like Eastman, but it's notably absent from real life.

The alternative is to come to the shocking conclusion that CNN and the govt lied to us, by showing us an animation and passing it off as real. The idea that CNN and the govt might have lied (gasp ! ) is so shocking to the "minds" of people like Eastman, so offensive to their deep sense of patriotism that they prefer to believe that cartoons are real.