Esoteric knowledge and symbolism aside, there were no planes entering the WTC Towers on 911. Perhaps all the related films produced before and since were made to condition the public into acceptance of the official “planes” fantasy.

Believing the government’s fairytale of planes colliding with the Towers is the main problem w/ fully understanding 911. The media was broadcasting fake, manipulated images of planes. Superimposing a plane on 911 was done w/ Wescam technology; it provided a single “live” feed from which all the TV networks broadcast. Other videos & images started to appear in the days, weeks & months following 911. All of them have anomalies & impossibilities which can only be explained by excluding planes.

Real planes would have been a potential liability for the perps on 911. It was easier to control the outcome of the event with much less risk by using the media to broadcast fake imagery. Real jets might miss their targets, get shot down, suffer pilot or computer errors, destroy or prematurely detonate any explosives, passengers could have overtaken the hijackers, and/or the plane might not inflict enough perceived damage to make a collapse believable.

A single fact which cannot be refuted is that a hollow aluminum plane (especially fragile wings) cannot slice through steel beams and concrete without any damage to the plane. News footage showing an airliner gliding into a Tower without any resistance is a cartoon. Aluminum planes are not built for impact and crumple immediately upon contact with solid objects; even a small bird can rip through a jet’s wing.

Furthermore, a large speeding jet’s vortex trails behind it creating a highly active atmosphere which follows in its path. Had a real plane impacted a WTC Tower, real film footage would have recorded the airliner’s vortex interacting with and violently dissipating the smoke from the alleged crash and the adjacent North Tower. No vortex literally means no planes on 911 (TV fakery).

During the South Tower “impact”, fake TV footage shows a WTC Tower sealing itself around the plane during the alleged penetration. Still another too incredible to believe anomaly is the width of the plane’s purported gash didn’t match the width of a Boeing 757’s wing span. Another widely publicized video shot by Scott Myers shows the forward fuselage of the “jet” exiting the South Tower, though other shots later reveal no exit hole.

To consider the media footage showing a plane slicing thru steel and concrete as reality is ludicrous. There were no planes; only spoofed images, manipulated witnesses and falsified evidence. America please wake up; the media was a complicit partner that was in on the crime from the beginning. In fact, the TV psyop 911 couldn’t have been pulled off without the mass media’s assistance.

Actually “no planes on 911? is the only explanation that makes any sense. There are far to many disturbing questions left unanswered which only TV fakery can address.

Besides all the other impossibilities I mentioned, why are there several “hijackers” still alive; some are even suing the US government to recover their reputation and good name.

Why have so many of the purported plane “victims” not been listed in the Social Security Death Index? …and their families not claimed the death $$benefits?

Why are there missing passenger lists and zero so-called Middle Eastern hijacker names on the flight manifest?

Why in the entire history of aviation has a plane never disappeared from a crash - yet on 911, four of them did in a single day? All plane parts are numbered; not one plane part from 911 has been identified by its number.

How could supposedly inexperienced “pilots” who couldn’t even fly a Cessna…

* threaten and subdue everyone on board
* break into the locked cockpits w/ their hands
* kill all the pilots and copilots

…then navigate a large Boeing jetliner above the clouds all over several states without airport tower assistance, with nav systems & radios turned off, and fly with pinpoint accuracy into a building that they couldn’t even see?

Not to mention that a Boeing 757 can’t fly at 500+ MPH at sea level - the air is too thick. Call Boeing; even they admit that - and they have been recorded in phone conversations recently.

Exposing “no planes on 911? is probably the most important story to people beyond chemtrails, depleted uranium poisoning and nanotech genocide.

Americans are TV hypnotized, drugged up, dumbed down and so utterly dependent that in general they are incapable and disinterested in discovering how the media is adversely affecting their lives.

No planes on 911 and deception by the media is the Holy Grail of 911. It marks the beginning of an Orwellian double-speak mind-set which is now accepted as normal by the populace.

No-planes on 911 is highly important as it exposes the real perps behind this mass murder and offers justice to the thousands of people killed that day.

Without the covert deception by the media in collusion with the enemy in control of America’s military intelligence, 911 could not have happened.

The media was directly involved in 911 and together with a criminal government has helped diminish Americans’ freedoms and launch unending wars against innocent nations.

# # #

“with much thicker external and core columns on each floor going down, ”

I meant that the building got more massive and had thicker columns toward the lower floors, and was much more massive and had much thicker columns at the bottom. I don’t know the exact progression of column thickness, but some mass figures are provided here, on page 3:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/wtc_mass_and_energy.pdf

According to these figures, the 1st floor was 15 times as massive as the top 110th floor, and the 30th floor was 11 times as massive as the top floor.

Assume it was possible to knock the buildings down with planes and fires? Sure, who’s to say pigs can’t fly?

But he was not the only one to find these microspheres. The USGS found them as well in numerous places. They just didn’t bother to figure out or tell anybody how how they came to be. ( They posted them on their website and Jones found them there). Then the USGS researchers played dumb when Jones called them and asked them about it.

Even if one assumes that it was possible to knock the buildings down with planes and fires, that does not rule out that incendiaries were used as insurance to bring the buildings down.

No one ever bothered to prove that incendiaries were not used. Jones found that they had been used, just as he suspected.

“The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires.”

He ignores the core columns, which supported 60% of the building’s load even when there was no lateral wind load on the perimeter columns. These core columns had redundancy built in.

The lie that the towers were tubes with all the weight carried by the external columns was also made by MIT, here.

p. 8

“The twin towers were built as a steel tubular structural system that differed radically from other structures of that time. The external walls were built as closely spaced steel columns to perform as load bearing walls and the interior columns were located only in the core area containing the elevators. The outer walls carried the vertical loads and also provided resistance to lateral effects such as wind, earthquakes, and impact. ”

Further down on page 8, MIT says the core was “designed to share part of the gravity loads . . . [and] was designed to resist vertical loads and was not assumed to resist lateral loads. ”

MIT does not say how much of the vertical load was shared — 60% when there was no lateral load. When there was lateral load, the core would carry more vertical load, as redundantly designed.

I understand the argument that the plane impacts caused damage that disrupted load transfer (though of course Boeing 767s can’t travel 500 mph at low altitude as claimed by Firmatage). Even if some kind of collapse could be initiated, that does not explain how the much lighter upper block could hammer down through the progressively more massive building, with much thicker external and core columns on each floor going down, so that the building could be pulverized in 12-15 seconds or less.

It’s absurd, which is why we get the disngenuous “tube” argument. Sure, the design was different, but the core carried most of the load and was redundant both as to its own vertical load and in order to carry more load when the building was subjected to lateral loads.

It’s not easy to find this information on, as most structural engineers purporting to explain the “collapses” conveniently leave it out.

Therefore, I will quote this comment by someone who agrees with the official story, and is disputing whether an argument that great redundancy was built into the external columns:

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3442
“10. Trumpman asserts, “The perimeter columns essentially had enough reserve capacity to carry 200% of the WTC 1 design load. The core columns could carry 135%.” Who says so? Why? Where did he get or derive this figure? This one, I am even more uncomfortable with than #9 above. Minoru Yamasaki, the architect, stated on multiple occasions that his design was intended to have the core carry most of the vertical load, and the perimeter columns carry most of the lateral load; in other words, the perimeter columns were to handle wind loads, and the core to handle gravity loads. At worst I would expect a 60/40 distribution; keep in mind, making a column stronger to handle more load requires more column, and that means it’s heavier, and that means the column below it has to be stronger too, and is heavier too, all the way down the building. To have more reserve capacity in the perimeter than in the core makes no sense, since there is a lot more OF the perimeter than there is core, and it therefore has an inordinate effect on the design.”

The 60/40 ratio, and the lateral v. vertical load concpet, is also explained on page 1 and 8 here:

Szamboti also cites an engineering manual requiring the core columns to have a minimum safety factor of 1.67.

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

His approach is a little like walking into the classroom of a college professor, uninvited, when you are not a student, and asking the professor to debate. You won’t get the time of day from the professor. All you will get is thrown out of class.

As for the PI forum, I no longer participate since the “no planers” took it over. It’s “quality” has gone to shit. I presume you are one of the lawyers who usurped the forum.

I see today that lawsuits are going forward now for 911 victims. Some of those victims were on the planes. But the “no planers” refuse to acknowledge their existence.

The argument is apparently that I should submit a paper to Journal of 9/11 Studies. I have not, because they have not treated the issue fairly, and because I want the timely give-and-take of a forum. This fraud has gone on for 6 years, and time is of the essence.

I have long questioned editorial decisions of Journal of 9/11 Studies, as stated here.

I then specifically questioned Jones and Salter for not citing the full literature related to their argument that the plane’s deceleration was consistent with modeled loss of kinetic energy, here.

Dr. Jones largely relied on the findings of Eric Salter, and I specifically criticized them both for not addressing the NIST finding of 0% deceleration and Akron’s Karim/Hoo Fatt’s finding of much higher loss of kinetic energy than found by MIT’s Wierzbicki.

It’s important to realize that the comparison of observed deceleration to modelled kinetic energy was adopted by Salter in his paper at Journal of 9/11 Studies, and by Jones citing Salter. Therefore, the literature I said they should cite directly related to the problem as they posited it.

Subsequently, two letters were published by Journal of 9/11 Studies, by Eric Salter and Greg Jenkins.

Salter’s letter addressed only my criticism that he and Jones failed to address the NIST finding of 0% deceleration, and completely ignored my more important criticism, that they ignored the Karim/Hoo Fatt finding of much higher kinetic energy loss, which would be inconsistent even with the higher observed deceleration used by Salter.

Salter says I accused him and Jones of intellectual dishonesty, which was not true. Failing to address my main argument, which I clearly stated as my main argument, is intellectually dishonest.

Jenkins’ letter was addressed to Morgan Reynolds’ arguments, but also applied to mine.

His argument was that Reynolds failed to account for center of mass, and that it was natural for the plane’s tail not to decelerate outside the building, since the plane decelerated inside the building.

Jenkins’ letter relied on a comparison with the Sandia test, where an F-4 was dashed against a reinforced concrete wall, and the tail did not decelerate.

This has led to further development of my understanding, because the reason the tail is not decelerating in the Sandia test is because all the kinetic energy is being consumed by destruction of the plane from the nose back. This is the very problem — Jenkins treats the external columns as cardboard and says all the deformation occurs on impact with the core columns. This cannot be, even if, as you claim, some bolts popped at juncture of columns panels.

There are significant differences, such as comparative wing length/plane length ratio, that make the Sandia test not directly comparable, but in general, the Boeing 767 plane would react the same way to being dashed against the steel columns of the WTC, a much more durable material than the aluminum airframe. Jenkins has debated this issue with me, and argued that it is perfectly natural for the plane’s fuselage to penetrate the towers. My argument is that this is absurd, and that both MIT and Akron papered over this absurdity by ignoring the fuselage or assuming its penetration.

Yes, I could write a letter or paper to Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that would take time and more importantly, prevent the give-and-take available in a forum.

Also, I saw how Morgan Reynolds was prevented from publishing there by more strict review as compared to Salter. Some of their criticisms were valid, but I agree that Reynolds should not have been forced to give an “encyclopedia of proof on behalf of every proposition and conclusion.”

Salter, for example, was not required to prove any of his assertions related to the number of witnesses and what they saw, nor was he required to document which videos he claimed proved planes.

I see nothing wrong with asking them to defend their arguments in a forum where, as you know, there are some people with scientific expertise. I am just a lawyer, and am better at evaluating and interrogating proofs than making those proofs myself.

Given your participation at Progressive Independent, I think you would agree it is a high-quality forum. Salter, Jones, and Jenkins should have no problem defending their arguments in the give and take of that forum, unless, as I think, their arguments are spurious.

Your comments sound so familiar. Calling a scientist out for a “debate” is not the way science advances in this age. You do research. You write a paper and submit it for review. You should do the same. If Salter, Jones, or Jenkins think your paper needs to be critically reviewed, they will do so if they think it merits their attention. If they don’t think it does or they don’t have the time, someone else will.

The invitation, and description of the debate to date, is described here.

Here is where I was in June of 2002:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00053.htm

I just want to make it clear that I am not saying that real people did nt get on real planes that day. I have no idea what happened to those people. An example: Peter Hanson was reported to have called his father frm UAL175 at 9:00 am. At that time, New York air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia says UAL175 was in a 10,000 feet per minute dive toward New York, and says this would have caused “unbelievable” forces on people in the back Hanson reports jerkiness, but nothing like this. He also said he thought the plane was heading toward Chicago. So the call could very well be real, and from UAL175 — that doesn’t mean the plane was where it was said to be.

The crash physics and the flight limitations of a Boeing 767 make the videos physical impossibilities. Some say that means the plane was not a stock 767. Perhaps, but that does not account for the crash physics. This issue is not going away, and it is certainly not a “delusion.”

Eric Salter on the Journal of 911 Studies does an excellent job of debunking the “no planers.” The “no planers” strictly rely on video for their conclusions and Salter explains why their conclusions are misguided.

Jerry Lobdill, Dr. Crockett Grabe, Kevin Ryan (co-editor with Jones), Tony Szambotti, Gordon Ross and Craig T. Furlong have all written excellent articles for the Journal. I particularly like the Gordon Ross and Craig T. Furlong article on the seismic data. The Lamont-Doherty Observatory (Columbia University’s seismic observatory 20 miles from ground zero) seismic data confirms what a number of eyewitnesses have said; i.e. that there were explosions even before the planes hit. Curiously observatories from near the Pentagon show now seismic activity corresponding to the Pentagon plane strike which also points to explosive devises in the WTC’s. If anything the Pentagon strike which was just above ground level on a cementous building should have created a mush stronger seismic wave than the plane strikes at the towers. But the Pentagon plane strike never registered.

By the way you might reconsider your thinking about Kevin Ryan. This guy is very straight up and was the whistle-blower at Underwriter’s Laboratories. Ryan blew the whistle when NIST and UL attempted to cover-up UL’s test results which clearly demonstrated that the steel would not weaken when subjected to jet fuel fires for over two hours. His complaints and his refusal to shut-up cost him his job at UL.

I shy distantly away from the theory of “no planes” on 9-11, but I do not feel derisive toward the people drawn to such a theory.

That professor Stephen Jones draws so much flak and invective from adherents to the “official” 9-11 theory suggests to me that maybe he is on the right track. My understanding of science, however, is that a scientist does not conclusively prove something, but rather disproves something. Jones’ research (which I have not studied deeply) on the surface, seems to point to the WTC’s being taken down by controlled demolition.

I have been a “911 truther” from day one and have followed the movement in great earnest ever since. For the uninitiated, or for those that have not followed the movement closely, the 911 truth movement has gravitated into two distinct camps.

In the 911 truth movement there are those that believe there were “no planes” and those who believe the official story about the planes is in essence correct. I am of the second camp. My personal view is that those who believe there were “no planes” are self-deluded and/or government disinformationists who prey upon the truly naive. The “no planers,” as the rest of us derisively call them, are the ones who always get interviewed because they are so easy to debunk and so downright delusional. They seriously undermine the real science supporting the 911 truth movement.

Those of us who are in the 911 truth movement who are not “no planers” believe that The World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition and do so based upon genuine science. This newly published science about controlled demolition is what my email referred to.

Professor Stephen Jones (now retired), a PhD in Physics, who was at Lawrence Livermore for many years, and whose specialty is metal catalized fusion, has now proven conclusively that the WTC’s were taken down by controlled demolition. He did it with science. His paper proving it came out May 15, 2007.

Here is how he did it. He was suspicious of several things that made him believe all three towers were taken down by controlled demolition. First it was WTC7 that looked like a controlled demolition and which was never hit by a plane. Then there were reports of sulfur being found in some of the steels. Then there were videos showing several streams of molten metal pouring from the towers prior to collapse. There was the fact that all towers came down at near free fall speed. There was also the huge very high dust cloud that was full of pulverized concrete and rose high in the air suggesting high heat and explosive power. These things and a few others all pointed to controlled demolition. But all of these factors still could be dismissed, and often are, by those who support the official theory.

So Jones wasn’t satisfied. After giving a talk and having written a paper about his suspicions and theories, he asked for anyone who might have saved dust from the WTC’s collapse to contact him. He wanted to test the dust to see if there were any tell tale signs of controlled demolition in the dust. Shortly after he made the request, a woman, who lived only a hundred yards from the WTC on the fourth floor of an apartment building, got in contact with him and brought him dust samples which she had kept.

Jones tested the dust with two electron microprobe methods called WDS and X-EDS. He first observed that the dust contained microspheres of iron. some of the microspheres are visible to the naked eye, but many are so small as to require electronmicroscopy to see them. Microspheres of iron are only made by melted steel or iron when it “freezes” in the air, proving that the dust was full of iron particles made from melted steel.

The official story recognizes and is based upon the fact that jet fuel does not get hot enough to melt steel. Consequently, the official story claims that the steel did not melt but it didn’t have to; the official story claims the steel only had to get hot enough to weaken. But Jones found proof in the dust that something got hot enough to melt the steel. And he proved what it was with X-EDS testing.

His X-EDS testing proved that the dust had the telltale signature of thermate, a chemical used in the demolition industry to cut steel.

Jones’ analysis of the dust proved high temperature cutter charges had been used to melt the steel, cut the steel, and that after it had been cut, the melted steel sparks had frozen in the air creating microspheres. He further proved the cutter charges were thermate.

You can read Jones’ full report here:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

And his presentation on the subject can be viewed on Youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsp3DPTmiN0

His micropshere write-up begins on page 77 of the Journal which corresponds to page 22 of this pdf file.

It is of note that neither the 911 Commission nor NIST ever bothered to check the dust for proof of arson or for incendiaries. The tests Jones used are the very ones normally used to determine whether there has been arson or incendiaries when either are suspected in a building fire or explosion.

It is also of note that traditional media chooses not to interview Jones and other scientists who have written papers for the Journal of 911 Studies. These are genuine scientists solving the mysteries of 911.

For their articles and letters see:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Apparently, the last thing the traditional media wants the population to hear about is a scientist who knows his stuff, or group of scientists who know their stuff.

But Jones’ article is circulating all over the academic world. So are other articles in the Journal of 911 Studies. More are forthcoming. I have received an email from a retired PhD professor of metallurgical engineering who is submitting a paper to be published in the Journal of 911 Studies. It is presently being reviewed prior to publication. He has told me privately that his initial calculations showed that steel would have had to be heated for about 14 hours to weaken significantly at jet fuel temperatures.

There is also a very fine paper published in the Journal concerning the seismic data. This paper proves the seismic data indicate that explosions went off in the buildings 9 seconds and 14 seconds prior to the plane hits.

These scientific papers will keep coming. Jones has promised more. It may not be long before the scientific community reaches critical mass about controlled demolition of the towers. We shall see what happens then. Maybe even Chomsky will have to reconsider if someone can pull him away from the “no planers” long enough to show him the controlled demolition proof.

Malooga — I’m on the same page as you are in regards to chomsky. Reading his books at the age of 20 is what set me other path towards radical politics; however, I don’t agree with his position on 9/11 or his advocacy of a two-state solution in palestine. Regardless of his genius he is still human–all too human. He openly asks for people to not worship him as some infallible hero. Despite this I idolized him for a long time as well. Now I just look at him as an Anti-hero.

Consdemo - actually when someone claims something counter to the laws of physics the “onus” is on them. Sorry, I’ve heard that pathetic stance so many times and it is truly assbackwards. At level you are correct in that no one has “proven” who-done-it. But you are incorrect in that people haven’t already disproven the official conspiracy theory. They have. If you’re too much of an unwilling ideologue to look at the empirical evidence then you have no grounds for even taking a position in the matter.

“Simply claiming the collapse of the towers was contrary to science doesn’t make it so.”

That implies that people are simply making claims. They’re not. I suppose if you wanted a substantive debate you’d not be building strawmen.

“It often doesn’t do much good to argue facts with conspiracy theorists because they tend to reflexively reject anything that doesn’t fit with their predetermined conclusion.”

That’s again completely backwards and pathetic. I highly, highly doubt the moment the planes hit the twin towers the majority of people who are now in the movement concluded it was an inside job. It was only after hearing the government’s explanation that people began to look at the facts and see they don’t match up. So if anything you in fact are starting with a conclusion you didn’t even come to and then trying to justify it.

“he claims a technology that didn’t even exist on 9/11/2001 (voice-morphing) was what victims’ families heard when they thought they were talking to their loved ones just before they died on 9/11. In other words, he simply makes up a claim to fit what he wants to believe.”

Actually the pentagon, thanks to the military-industrial complex, is in possession of technology long before itis made known to the public. again you obivous don’t know alot about how our state-planned economy works.

Hue Longer John Silver —”his doesn’t mean that the ironic example presented by skunk flushes the baby too…that is handled elsewhere”

Wow by implication I’m a skunk huh? For what? Being educationed? That makes about as much sense as your god-awful metaphor. Don’t belittle me for knowing things you don’t you intellectual midget.

I want to say one last thing to Joshua Frank:

You say this is diversionary, and that we’ll never prove that “Bush did it.” First, I’m not convinced Bush did it, though he’s obviously gone along with it. But this is not necessarily about proving who exactly did it — it’s about proving that it was done so that the American people are not subjected to this kind of psychological operation again.

If you knew that faked planes were broadcast on 9/11 — which you can see for yourself — are you really saying that this is not important and is diversionary? A loaded mind weapon is sitting in every house in America, used in support of very destructive policies and actions, and that’s not important?

18 pages of Screw Loose Change and 911ConspiracySmasher and more goodness for your reading pleasure:
http://www.google.com/search?q=consdemo++site:blogspot.com

So what great cause do people like him have that compels them to make thousands of posts attacking what he likes to call “twoofers”? These people are everywhere. Simply mention 9/11 and they’ll be there. Truthers at least have a cause they believe in. I’ll ask again, what do you think the great cause of these distractors like ConsDemo is?

You’re all replying to him now, rather than having a more intelligent conversation. Just wanted to make you all aware of that. Sad that it is impossible to have a civil discussion without their presence. But I guess that’s the downside to a free and open internet discussion.

“Do believers actually suppose that the government (or I) listens in to everyone’s pillow talk? ”

Dr. Papau also suggests he is the only one that could use the technology he developed.

But collecting voice samples of many people in the time after they made reservations on the flight is quite an undertaking, and as I said, I’m not arguing this was done.

But Revolutionary91 raises a fair question:

“Why develop voice morphing technology in the first place. I cant think of a wholesome use for it. He is developing technology to allow us to impersonate each other, its a gift for criminals.”

Arkin’s discussion of video morphing is part of my theory, as are the capacities discussed in these articles:

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/01-4NRwinter/16-19.pdf

and here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89861

Kim, you are trying to have it both ways. You have written a puff piece on a book that claims it was an “inside job.” Sorry, the evidence is not equal here, there is none on the conspiracy side and ample that Al Qaeda did it.

James Brown, I’m sure people like Nancy Pelosi and Patrick Leahy would be surprised to learn they are “Dixiecrats.”