Can a Boeing 767 slide cleanly into a massive steel and concrete building?

[spooked911]

This a frame by frame break-down of one of the second hit videos shown on CNN.

Who believes this video shows a real plane?

[Grateful for Hope]

1. I'm not sure n/t

[spooked911]

2. you might want to look at this

http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/vanishment/

[Grateful for Hope]

3. I admit that it does look like the plane is vanishing n/t

[sabbat hunter]

4. i voted

that it is accurate, given the fact that it is NOT sliding smoothly into the building.

[greyl]

5. and here's some very strong evidence that you are correct:

www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/175speed.html

I won't hold my breath waiting for a coherent rebuttal from the no planers.

[spooked911]

7. as I have posted here before-- that analysis is severely flawed

I gave a rather lengthy rebuttal in another thread, I've no time to look it up.

"coherent rebuttal" is of course relative; I suspect you will not see coherence in anything I say that supports the no-plane argument.

[greyl]

8. I damn sure ain't gonna waste my time looking it up.

Way to drop the ball.

*crickets*

[spooked911]

13. I said it was flawed, but I was busy. No need for you to get

snippy about it.

My rebuttal to that article is here:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/03/further-analysis-on-whether-speed-of.html

I'm sure you'll read it over carefully.

[greyl]

16. Your results show a "trend towards deceleration".

Next?

[spooked911]

51. only in one video, not in two others

and the one where there was slight slowing, the deceleration was not statisically significant

[greyl]

56. The other two are obviously fakes. nt

[spooked911]

6. depends how you define smooth. I meant that no part broke off and

there was no crumpling or explosion. That makes it relatively smooth.

[spooked911]

9. but of course, that is not what the poll question was

the option was that whether it was an accurate reflection of what actually happened on 9/11 at 9:03am-- or not

[greyl]

10. oh lord

You have 2 questions in your poll.
One is "Can a Boeing 767 slide cleanly into a massive steel and concrete building?"
The other is "Who believes the video shows a real plane?"

The first question is (mis)leading, and everyone that chooses the first option believes it is a real plane.

[spooked911]

11. clearly the post title is just to get people's attention

whereas the real poll question is the second one.

no need for you to be so difficult.

[Americus]

21. It's part of the job, spooked911. Just doing his job. That's all. n/t

n/t

[StealthyDragon]

12. Yes............

and it also proves that a 757 never hit the Pentagon.

[mirandapriestly]

14. What I've never figured out is

whether a material like aluminum can break through steel. I've asked before and OCTers have assured me that it makes no difference , the only thing that matters is the velocity, but I don't know about that. Why aren't bullets made out of aluminum, then? The engines are the only thing that seem heavy enough to really make an impact, but the nose went through first and noses are so fragile that birds will dent them and seriously damage them. I can't imagine a plane at any speed damaging a steel building like that. Also the 2nd plane was supposedly going faster, but the damage did not look any worse. So if speed is all that matters why wouldn't the damage be worse?

[dailykoff]

15. Yep

Maybe if it was a wood frame apartment building, or a glass curtain wall like most highrises have, but these walls were solid steel, so I voted no too.

[diamondsndust]

17. What I've never figured out is whether a material like aluminum

can break through steel.

I lived through hurricane andrew, right slap in the middle of ground zero in florida city, fla. I have a picture somewhere of an orange with a piece of straw pierced through it. I also saw grass stuck through wood, a 2x4 stuck through a silver palm tree, and they also had to patch a hole in the cooling tower (4 ft thick? concrete walls) at turkey point nuclear plant where a fiberglass boat went through it about 100 feet in the air. strange things happen at high speeds.

BTW: i'm not trying to debunk your theory, just trying to shed some light on this certain question.

[DoYouEverWonder]

18. Ever see a car which is made of lots of metal

hit a big tree made of wood? Usually the tree wins.

There are a lot of factors to consider when looking at the results of one object hitting another. Velocity is one. What the objects are made of is another. Whether or not the object being hit is anchored to the ground or not. The density of the object being hit.

Here's a pic of the outer wall of the WTC.



That's a lot of steel and most skyscrapers don't have outer walls that use that much steel, that close together. So in this case the object being hit has fairly thick steel attached to a massive core also constructed of steel. The steel of the core and the rest of the building for that matter is firmly attached to the ground underneath it.

So even if the plane going 500 mph managed to get through the steel of the outer walls, the planes would have been severely damaged has a result and certainly would have lost most of it's momentum once it got through the first barrier.

The second barrier was the core of the building. Here's a pic showing the construction of one corner of the core. The other 3 corners, though not pictured are pretty much the same.



Even if the plane managed to make a clean cut through the steel outer walls, by the time the parts of the plane that were still left and still moving would have been stopped by the outer beams and columns of the core.

We have a similar problem with the Pentagon, where supposedly the plane traveled through multiple concrete walls and support columns.

In all three crashes, we are expected to believe that normal passenger jets maintained their integrity and momentum even after passing through walls of steel (or in the case of the Pentagon - concrete).


One thing I would like to clarify is that in regards to the WTC, I have never been a no planer. But the more I look at these building, the less I can reconcile the OCT either.

[spooked911]

19. Exactly-- thanks.

[diamondsndust]

30. don't take me wrong here,

in no way do I believe the official story of this mis-administration. I don't believe a 767 hit the pentagon either. My reply was only to answer a specific question about velocity. The comparison of a car hitting a tree doesn't give that argument credence because the car isn't traveling at 400 - 500 mph, not to mention that the density of wood is much greater than the density of any steel, aluminum or fiberglass used to manufacture a vehicle.

Also, being an iron worker and commercial roofer for 20 plus years, I know a little bit about how buildings are erected. That being said, a plane traveling at 500 mph hitting a steel and concrete wall isn't just going to stop dead and fall out of the sky. Forward momentum is going to carry it through.

All of us here, not counting the debunkers who just want to call us all nuts and whackos, are in the same search for the TRUTH ... let's keep the search going until we find it.

PEACE!

[mirandapriestly]

40. Thanks for your helpful observations,

and professional observations. I'm not necessarily a "no planer", I just think something else might have hit the structure. We're a little defense around here from constant attacks. I guess I wish I knew.. OK at what speed can a weaker material penetrate a stronger material, etc..

[diamondsndust]

46. oh, I'm not sure about the speeds... I didn't claim to be a physics

professor or anything, just stated what I saw with my own eyes after hurricane andrew. All I know is that we had sustained winds of 219 mph for 20 mins, with gusts up to 264 mph.

When I first came to DU I saw and responded to a thread where it showed a video of the second plane that hit, with what looked like a missle underneath and showed flashes, which looked like missle strikes, just before the plane hit. Unfortunately, that thread disappeared quickly. I just learned about the "911 dungeon" a month or two ago, but havent been able to find that thread.

[mirandapriestly]

37. Yeah, but not solid steel, and

I don't think this has ever happened before.Not only did the plane cut through steel, but it disappeared for the most part. I don't have a theory, I'm just questioning it.

[Americus]

22. None of that matters w/out proof a plane crashed into the bldgs.

One of the most common techniques that OCT'er Spin Doctors use is framing the issue in terms that at most can only yield subjective opinions which can be easily defended by their side.

Speed is a non-issue/irrelevant factor unless and until it is proven that a large commercial airliner did in fact crash into the WTC. The evidence for such a crash comes pitifully short of being convincing. The better question, in my opinion, is what caused the holes in WTC1 & WTC2 that have been ascribed to large commercial airliners. The fact that the shape of the holes in both buildings are almost identical makes any claim that it happened that way as the result of coincidence as laughable as the rest of the OCT fantasy.

What caused the holes in the sides of WTC1 & 2?

[mirandapriestly]

39. Yes, I think the "plane shaped" holes are laughable too

how likely is it that both planes would make the same size & shape hole? especially when allegedly one plane was going so much faster.

[StealthyDragon]

26. the only thing that matters is the velocity

and the mass.

There is no shortage of people who would rather accept complete nonsense rather than the scientific observation at hand.

The fact that so many seemingly intelligent individuals prefer fantasy to observable fact explains completely why the neocons expected to get away with this. It's like pulling teeth.

[mirandapriestly]

38. The mass is what's not there,

Is that what you mean?

[diamondsndust]

43. video proof of a plane hitting the pentagon...

this is Dumbya's official version he received from Cheney and Rummy..





:rofl:

[mirandapriestly]

44. That's cool, where did you get it?nt

[diamondsndust]

45. I made it in animation factory ... feel free to steal it... n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

48. This is pretty funny!

I think they needed to label the parts "plane" and "pentagon" so that * could understand what he was looking at.

[StealthyDragon]

47. Something like............

85 tons............is a hell of a lot of mass.

What we saw happen is what's to be expected.

[mirandapriestly]

49. hmmkay.nt

[spooked911]

20. Reasons to think there is not a real plane in the video

1) the abnormal bulge under the starboard wing

2) the way the plane goes in without slowing, breaking, crumpling or exploding upon contact

3) the way the fragile tail section and wingtips slide through massive steel columns

4) the odd behaviour of the dust cloud that appears between the fuselage and starbaord wing in frames 5 and 6 -- it suddenly disappears in frame 7

5) early frames of the video seem to have a plane inserted on top of a panned still:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane/compare1.htm

6) apparent "rendering" mistakes when the plane passes behind a foreground building:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/03/more-evidence-that-cnn-best-angle.html

[reorg]

23. unconvincing

Hi, I have read some of these threads on the "no plane" speculation. I agree that the "eyewitnesses" probably didn't get to see very much of the planes and even if they did it is probably very hard for them to remember specifics. So all we have is the videos. But what you list as "reasons to think there is not a real plane in the video" is quite unconvincing, to say the least.


>>1) the abnormal bulge under the starboard wing<<

There has been some speculation as to what this bulge may be, none of which was based on the idea that the plane is not real. So whether or not the bulge was really there - there is no reason to believe that only a manufactured video could explain the images.


>>2) the way the plane goes in without slowing, breaking, crumpling or exploding upon contact<<

Again, there were some ideas put forward to explain the smooth entering of the plane - an explosion as evidenced by a flash, or whatever. Even if someone has a problem with the idea that a fast moving plane would easily break the steel columns, it is not necessary to assume that the only explanation would be the manufacturing of the video.


>>3) the way the fragile tail section and wingtips slide through massive steel columns<<

That is an incorrect observation. We cannot see the fragile sections "slide through massive steel columns". What we can see is a dark line, probably a cloud along the building where these fragile plane sections hit. From images taken at a later stage that do not show fractured columns at these locations it is safe to assume that the more fragile parts did in fact not enter the building at all, but were destroyed upon impact and probably split into small pieces, which is compatible with the appearance of a dark dust cloud.


>>4) the odd behaviour of the dust cloud that appears between the fuselage and starbaord wing in frames 5 and 6 -- it suddenly disappears in frame 7<<

Again, this is not what we can see. This dust cloud is indeed remarkable, IMO, since it appears where the "bulge" would have entered the building. But it does not "suddenly disappear", it clearly merges with the dust cloud from the starboard engine and there is nothing odd about that.


>>5) early frames of the video seem to have a plane inserted on top of a panned still:<<

As soon as the plane is seen, the camera perspective changes. Therefore it is very hard to determine whether or not the clouds are moving, but they actually look quite different (I compared two stills, b-0113.jpg and b-0103.jpg, and the location and appearance of the clouds differs significantly). For some reason I could not open the images from "the early frames" at the site you provided as reference (jpg error in Photoshop).


So, apart from some "rendering mistakes" in some video stills, you have cited no real reason in support of the claim that there were no real planes in the videos.

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. The better question may be - what is it?

Whether or not the objects that flew into any of the crash sites, were indeed the flights that the government claims, is also impossible to prove based on the visual evidence.

[reorg]

28. absolutely

The videos are not useful as proof for anything. Interestingly, some of the very individuals that earlier tried to convince everyone that the videos ARE proof of certain things (pod, flash, wrong colors and whatnot) now try and convince everyone that they are complete fakes. I think they should tone it down a bit and concentrate on more important stuff.

While I'm not one of those who would say these discussions "reflect badly" on "the movement" - the MSM will always find something they can ridicule, and if need be just make stuff up. But so much energy seems to be wasted on speculation that does not seem to lead anywhere.

[DoYouEverWonder]

29. Wouldn't it be possible

to dress a missile up to look like an airplane?

I just this pic up on Yahoo of a some new missile NK just developed. I thought it was a small jet at first.

[reorg]

31. I don't know

anything about missiles. The one in the picture seems to be a bit small, though.

I personally tend to believe that the planes were remote controlled - that appears to be technically feasible and no one has put forward a convincing argument against such a hypothesis.

What I pointed out in my reply to spooked is that his observations are false. Nothing in the videos (apart maybe from some "rendering" problems) suggests they are doctored. And I see no reason whatsoever to waste any more time on the "no planes" hypothesis, sorry.

[mirandapriestly]

59. That is spot on. I think that is the question

not if there was a plane, but was it the flight(s) that it was supposed to be?

[spooked911]

52. thanks for your point by point response

but all of my points were consistent with a video animation not a real plane. You hardly debunked any of my points and couldn't even debunk the rendering mistake, which is quite significant evidence. Also, you are not looking at the propoer dust cloud, so that rebuttal is meaningless.

I have listed several reasons why the image is consistent with a video animation, but you have not debunked any of these reasons. You are merely "unconvinced", which is okay. I didn't like the theory either when I first heard of it.

[reorg]

60. it is not my intention

to "debunk" anything, I don't even know what that word exactly means and I reject any comparison with those who are considered debunkers here.

You previously said you listed "reasons to think" why it is not a real plane in the video, now you say "reasons why the image is consistent with" an animation.

Well, anything may be "consistent with" an animation, if the animation is good enough. You should point out what is not consistent with an actual video but only explicable by an animation. There are several ways to explain the bulge, or explain it away. I don't see how it were better explained if the images were the result of an animation.

When In Plane Site came out, which contains this particular video, I have studied it many times. There is no dust cloud that somehow "strangely" disappears. You can definitely NOT see the fragile parts sliding through steel columns. These observations are simply wrong.

As to "liking" the idea of an animation - actually I have some sympathy for it. It fits well into the interpretation of the event as a propaganda spectacle, which I believe it was. It is certainly healthy to check every once in a while what we really do know about the events, and how we know it, other than through the media. Anything the vast majority of people only knows through a small number of badly reproduced video artifacts may somehow be falsified or completely faked, sure. But these crashes occured in a very public place. The planes at least had to look real, even if they weren't. I don't see the need for video animations, but maybe I'm just a little thick.

[mirandapriestly]

41. I used to not think about it

but now every time I see a plane in a 911 video or image, I find some anomaly or problem.

[jberryhill]

54. General Question

6) apparent "rendering" mistakes when the plane passes behind a foreground building:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/03/more-evide...

I just drop in from time to time, not having any particular obsession with this stuff, but I think you'd benefit from some background in how various video compression algorithms work.

When you have these web-posted videos, any number of compression algorithms have been applied to produce something that downloads in reasonable time. When you go frame-by-frame in these things, it's not as if you are getting the actual image plane pixel array that was picked up inside of the camera. You are getting the output from a computer program which has made a number of trade-offs among image size, image quality, motion clarity, and file size. Some of these trade-offs work within a frame, and some of them work across frames. You also have to realize that video frames are not like time-lapse photographs, in the sense that all portions of the image represent a single moment in time.

Seeing a piece of something "disappear" in favor of a static object which is in place for several frames before and after something in that area of the image changes for a single frame is not an odd video compression artifact.

[LARED]

25. I'd like to go on record stating I think

the no plane theories are spot on and I fully support them in my role here. The more nonsense like this is pushed, the more fringe 9/11 movement becomes, and the quicker people will focus on real issues that matter.

Like why did congress and the WH fail to protect the country.

[Americus]

27. In what way(s) did congress & the WH fail to protect the country?

Please, no vague generalized OCT'er kind of answer. Be straightforward. I know that might be a new experience for you, but try it, in the interest of clarity.

[LARED]

32. Pictures are worth a thousand words I'm told

[Americus]

33. We're all familiar w/the Hollywood money shot. Now answer the question.

To anyone that's never seen the Hollywood money shot image you posted, it can be a great aid in their understanding of the lengths the OCT script went to in order to make a SPECTACULAR shock and awe scene. But, it doesn't answer the question I asked.

It's a very simple question. Why won't you answer it?

[LARED]

34. OK. you want specificity

In what way(s) did congress & the WH fail to protect the country?

Four planes were hijacked. Two of them crashed into the WTC towers. One crashed into the Pentagon, And the fourth seems to have been heading to somewhere in DC. Congress and the WH has oversight over the various agencies that are to protect the USA from foreign or domestic attacks.

They failed. They failed badly.


I know most of the reasons. The reasons may be largely correct but they are not acceptable in that no one has been held accountable.

If you want to believe the image I posted is a hollywood shot, feel free. Shoot, people believe all sort of nonsense.

[Americus]

35. That's it? They failed in that they failed?

They must specialize in only teaching distraction and truth suppression at the OCT school for Spin Doctors. I'd have thought they would also teach how to appear to be substantive in defending the OCT.

Process may trump substance with the sheeple, but not with most people on this forum. Have another day.

[LARED]

36. If you don't like the answer, maybe you should ask a more

intelligent question.

[Americus]

50. Your photo proves nothing, except lack of confidence in the OCT.

You say you're an engineer. Good engineers are primarily problem solvers. Your solution to the problem of how to answer the question I asked was to post a meaningless photograph that actually undermines the OCT.

What kind of engineer would do that?

[LARED]

53. I suggested for a more intelligent question, not a

less intelligent one

[Americus]

55. If the truth were on your side I'd almost feel sorry for your situation

The heat got hot too hot in the kitchen for the OCT'er, so the OCT'er cut and ran. If it's any comfort to you, none of the other OCT Brigrade members has the nerve to answer the question, either.
That wouldn't be by design, now would it?

Here's a little softball question for you: does Wikipedia offer a degree in any of the engineering fields? Just wondering.

[Jazz2006]

61. Good luck....

the reincarnated tinhatter whom you're addressing appears to have never asked an intelligent question, not even once, if the search function here is any indication.

[mirandapriestly]

42. For a minute, I thought you'd forgotten to change

your name before posting. I'm having a hard time reconciling this statement:
"the more fringe 9/11 movement becomes, and the quicker people will focus on real issues that matter. "
with the fact that you spend a lot of time on here.
?

[spooked911]

57. Dude-- for someone who has been around as long as you

This is an incredibly naive question:
"Like why did congress and the WH fail to protect the country."

But in fact, the no plane theory can explain how they failed to protect us. Because 9/11 was an inside job, a covert operation, where plane crashes from suicidal Islamic terrorists were faked to suit the ends of people in power.

[Americus]

58. A simple answer to that incredibly naive question "lared" posed

The question "lared" asked was:

"Why did congress and the WH fail to protect the country?"

ANSWER: Because doing so would have prevented the self-attack events of 9/11 from happening.

[KJF]

62. I voted it showed a real plane

And I don't think you're getting anywhere.

[bushatbooker]

63. How does a wing pass through without damaging the wall?

You can see the right wing tip still sticking out in the upper right-hand corner. Between that and the right engine, the wall is untouched.

Impossible. These pics have been fabbed.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. The resolution is for kaka in these pictures.

You can't tell anything about the actual state of the wall after the plane's impact. The pictures are fried, not fabbed.

[DrDebug]

64. I'm changing my vote to no (I voted not sure) n/t

[bushatbooker]

65. Was that because of my post?

:P

[DrDebug]

66. No, I didn't even see that one yet

I was not sure upto now. It was the CT I'm working on which made the planes optional and I was in doubt already. The post by Spooked was strange. You have a good example as well.

No-planes, no-missiles is the hardest thing to sell, however I think we can do without. It makes everything a lot easier :b