Proof that no planes were used on 9/11

THE PROOF THAT NO REAL PLANES WERE USED ON 9/11

THE PROOF THAT NO REAL PLANES WERE USED ON 9/11

1. We’re supposed to believe that both planes were entirely inside the towers, with no pieces showing. A Boeing 767 is 156 feet wide and 159 feet long. The distance from: the outer perimeter of the North Tower at the alleged point of contact by AA Flight 11, to: the central 47 massive inner core beams that are cross-braced is 60 feet. http://imageshack.com/a/img841/2150/yhvg.jpg The distance from: the outer surface of the South Tower at the alleged point of contact by UA Flight 175, to: the core structure of that building was 37 feet. The differential in length in relation to the North Tower with respect to plane length and a building length that is measured in terms of the distance to the core structure is about 99 feet. The differential length for the South Tower is approximately 122 feet. A 767 is 159 feet long so most of the plane has got to be outside of the tower in both cases since there is simply no room for the entire length of the plane to crumple into. http://imageshack.com/a/img849/5691/ru9a.jpg Why didn’t we see 99 feet of AA Flight 11 sticking out of the North Tower or broken off, crumpled up, and/or crumbling to the ground below? Why didn’t we see 122 feet of UA Flight 175 sticking out of the South Tower or crumpled up, and/or crumbling to the WTC plaza below?

There is no plane or plane wreckage at all to be seen in the hole of either tower in any video or photos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D55l4afJeMc http://imageshack.com/a/img854/6377/4xhq.jpg Of course, there are no planes to be seen in the holes of either tower or on the street below because there were no real planes.

We would expect a sharp deceleration as the plane crumpled to fit into the 60 feet of space (North Tower, Flight 11) and 35 feet of space (South Tower, Flight 175) from the perimeter to the central steel core. Instead, in the videos, both planes enter the towers entirely at uniform motion.

The Plane Does Not Fit

A Boeing 767 is 156 feet wide. The width of the hole in the South Tower was 106 feet wide and the width of the hole in the North Tower was 125 feet wide. 50 feet of the Boeing 767 that allegedly struck the South Tower cannot fit into the size of the hole that is in the North Tower…a hole that was supposedly created by a Boeing 767 with a wingspan of 156 feet. 31 feet of the Boeing 767 that is said to have hit the North Tower cannot fit into the size of the hole that is in the North Tower…a hole that was supposedly created by a Boeing 767 with a wingspan of 156 feet. Some people may say that the wings of the Boeings merely folded back as the aluminum portion of the wings came in contact with the exterior steel columns. However we can see this is not what happens in the videos. Even so the aluminum wings would not neatly fold back they would be torn off.

torsion

We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories

WTC South Tower to Plane: So You Think You Can Take Me?

2. Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” High school physics states that the force an airplane exerts on a building is the same as the force a building exerts on an airplane. Let’s apply Newton’s Third Law to Flight 175. In the 9/11 story, Flight 175 strikes the South Tower at 450 m.p.h. Now imagine that the South Tower moved at 450 m.p.h. and struck a stationary Flight 175. We would not expect that Flight 175 would be undamaged. We would not expect that it would simply disappear into the South Tower. Any video that shows an aluminum airplane with a fibreglass nose cone gliding through a steel and concrete building violates Newton’s Laws of Motion.

175diagram

The above diagram shows that Flight 175 was intersecting with eight (8) floors that consisted of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external support columns at the other, where each floor was covered with 4-8” of concrete, representing an acre of concrete apiece and posing enormous horizontal resistance to any airplane’s penetration into the building.

In the impact videos, notably the Hezarkhani, Luc Courchesne, Spiegel TV and Evan Fairbanks videos we see what we are told is a plane cartoonishly pass through the steel face of the tower like a ghost. As the alleged plane makes contact with the tower there is no bending, buckling or breaking of the plane. No wings breaking or other parts of the plane breaking apart. This is impossible. It is cartoon physics. It melts into the side of the tower like a knife through butter. http://imageshack.com/a/img850/7038/rma9.gif A passenger jet is a hollow aluminum and plastic tube which is highly vulnerable to impacts with flying birds. http://imageshack.com/a/img89/3552/u9a4.jpg The “plane” we are told is Flight 175 is depicted as being simultaneously both half in the South Tower and still completely intact, a pair of buildings made with 200,000 tons of steel each. http://imageshack.com/a/img191/2404/hmxt.jpg When the tip of the plane’s fuselage hits the steel exterior of the South Tower the fuselage should be breaking up. http://imageshack.com/a/img713/3572/e7m.gif That would cause the wings to break off.

From the holes left in both towers after “impact” we are supposed to believe the wings sliced clean through the 14 inch steel beams but this is simply impossible. The fragile mostly hollow aluminum wings would not slice through all the 14 inch steel box columns of the WTC towers and leave a Wylie Coyote style hole. http://imageshack.com/a/img607/1741/a68j.jpg An airplane wing can be sliced in half by a wooden telephone pole:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zt1oTYhcgo Aluminum plane wings will not cut through 14 inch steel regardless of speed and weight. Not only is it impossible for the wings to have cut through the steel columns but it is absolutely impossible for the fragile wing tips to have also cut through the steel columns.

Impossible Wing Tip

Oh how they must laugh at us

Any Questions

The wings would break off immediately upon contact and the plane would explode. It would not enter the tower and then explode.http://imageshack.com/a/img823/7325/7qav.jpg The plane would simply be obliterated to pieces by the 14 inch steel box columns and the steel and concrete floor trusses before it got anywhere near the inside of the tower.

Flight 175 vs F4 Phantom

Newton’s First Law of Motion: “A body remains at rest or in motion with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.” The plane did not slow down as it made contact with the tower. How can the plane fly at the same speed through the steel/concrete face of the tower as it did through the air? This is impossible. The “plane” also violates Newton’s First Law.

Half in half out

steel-concrete-aluminum-plastic

plane - cartoon cutouts

911 North Tower The Hole That Wasn't There

knifethroughbutter

3. There are NO verified airplane parts. Apart from one or two props placed there like a bit of tire and a bit of engine…parts that didn’t even match a Boeing 767 and like the laughable bit of engine on the Pentagon lawn there were no real plane parts or debris to be seen and no black boxes were ever found at ground zero. http://imageshack.com/a/img191/9174/ozo2.jpg In reality, if a plane had hit the tower it would have crushed up like a car hitting a wall and its wings would have broken off and the majority of the plane would have fallen to the street below. The street below would have been littered with plane debris and the charred remains of the passengers yet it wasn’t because there was no plane.

What 9/11 Should Have Looked Like

4. FAA Regulation 121 requires a comprehensive investigation of all crashes of scheduled commercial flights yet there are no official crash reports on the 4 incidents because there were no planes.

5. Experienced commercial and military pilots have stated that the speed and manoeuvres of the planes that hit the World Trade Center are impossible to have happened. They state they could not replicate the alleged flights themselves. Two experienced pilots using flight simulators on the morning of 9/11 could not hit towers at 500 mph in six attempts. In reality a 767 fly can not fly that fast at sea level. Pilots For 9/11 Truth state that the speed and sharp manoeuvres would have resulted in the plane breaking up from the stress on the aircraft frame due to the the speed and air pressure. It would be extremely difficult for the pilot to actually hit the tower even if the wings didn’t break off due to the stress. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Presents: “9/11 intercepted”

John Lear, one of America’s most distinguished pilots, has written an affidavit about the impossible speed of the plane in the videos and has observed that the absence of strobe lights on the top and bottom of the fuselage indicates we are viewing a fake plane.

9/11 Affidavit By John Lear, Son Of Learjet Inventor: http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/911-affidavit-by-john-lear-son-of.html

6. In all of the footage the alleged planes hitting the twin towers clearly do not look real. The planes have a computer generated appearance. In the different footage we see the planes changing shape and color, missing wings, are featureless and blurred. Pilot John Lear made the observation that the plane has no strobe lights. The plane also casts no shadow. http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

No Left Wing

Luc Courchesne Missing Left Wing

Wing Completely Vanishes

This is a still from the Hezarkhani video showing a digital composite plane on the top and the original “plane” from the Hezarkhani video underneath. The digital composite plane looks more realistic but it still looks computer generated.

Digital composite compared with Hezarkhani

7. MISSING WINGS:

In the Luc Courchesne footage we see the left wing disappear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVaC5SH_B6ohttp://imageshack.com/a/img69/53/jop7.png

The left wing also disappears on the Shizzzham footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjaYDQA1LQM

Again in the Gamma Press footage we see the left wing disappear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52CNM9nx9whttp://imageshack.com/a/img856/4994/vzxx.jpg

The left wing disappears in the PAX TV footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kuv-RQhtN_U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL_x9NsxJlg

The right wing is seen to disappear for a fraction of a second in the Pavel Hlava footage: http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/15a.JPGPause at 1.45: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf4wmoaMj5U

In the Naudet Brothers footage the right wing tip is missing: http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/17a.JPGhttp://imageshack.com/a/img854/4421/8db.gif

8. Lack of Wake Vortex at WTC. There is no wake vortex to be seen in the smoke and explosion after “impact”. The wake vortex is the strong rotating vortex of air left by an aircraft that persists for around a minute or more. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw8ZvGEsc8chttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7Wc6r26ZlU

9. According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.

Although flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS. The flight that was labelled flight 11 by air traffic control was 10 miles from Manhattan at 8:46am. If flights AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then there are only two planes, not four, to be accounted for. Investigators who have checked the tail numbers for the planes which departed as UA 93 and UA 175 on 9/11 (namely N591UA and N612UA respectively) believe that these planes are still in service. If so, and if AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then the number of Boeing 757s and 767s destroyed on 9/11 was not four, as the US government maintains, but rather zero.

Both UA 175, plane number N612UA and UA 93, plane number N591UA, were “still registered and valid more than 4 years after [their] alleged destruction.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth, have confirmed that United 175 received a message at least twenty minutes after it allegedly crashed into the World Trade Center.  This proves that the flight never smashed into the Center but instead flew for some time that day, a point advanced in the book ‘Planes Without Passengers: The Faked Hijackings of 9/11’. http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/key-theory-of-planes-without-passengers-proven-to-be-true.html

In the second edition of ‘Planes Without Passengers: The Faked Hijackings of 9/11’ Dean T. Hartwell confirms the conclusion of the first book that no hijackings took place that day and puts together a more complete theory: Only two planes of the four planes alleged to be connected with the 9/11 plot actually flew on that day. And the passengers were not people who paid a ticket to go from one place to another. They were instead agents connected to the plot who were chosen to help cover up the crime. This theory is based primarily upon two facts: (1) the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), which maintains information on all commercial flights in the United States, in its original form stated clearly that while United 175 and United 93 were scheduled and flew, American 11 and American 77 did not and (2) ACARS, a system much like electronic mail and GPS, shows that United 175 and United 93 were flying over the Midwestern part of the United States long after their supposed “crashes” on the east coast. Agents pretending to be passengers were seen at the Cleveland Hopkins Airport late that morning. They walked toward a NASA building to make calls to the media to straighten out an impression many had that the Internet reported that United 93 had landed in Cleveland. History should not be a lie agreed upon by the media, the politicians and others of influence. History must give us the most likely events based on the available information. This book aims to be a part of history we may not want to believe, but we should believe because it weighs the facts in an objective manner.

10. Witnesses exist who saw the South Tower explode but never saw a plane. Very few people in New York’s business district actually had a decent view of the South Tower of the WTC. Only a few thousand people at most would have been able to see the South Tower explode. Few people reported hearing and seeing planes. Most testimonies of those who did are inconsistent with that of a wide-body commercial airliner hitting a building at 800 feet altitude, full throttle. Meanwhile, it was a simple matter for the TV networks to keep the eyewitnesses who didn’t see a plane off the air. A very small percentage of the approximately 500 First Responders at the WTC reported seeing commercial airliners. An even smaller number reported hearing them. There was no audio of ‘Flight 175′ striking the South Tower. This is true even though there were about a dozen videos of the event said to be obtained from lucky amateurs. A jet plane takeoff at 300 feet altitude is 10 times louder than a rock concert:http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99405.htm

David Handschuh was ideally positioned to see the second plane impact, the actual impact of the plane on the building. He took a photo of the moment of the strike, or to be precise of the moment after the strike:

David Handschuh 911 South Tower

These are his words:

“I was underneath it. I was looking at the tower. I had my camera in my hand. I heard the noise. I never saw the airplane. . . . I was less than a hundred yards away from the building. I was standing on West St.” Note that Mr. Handschuh says: “I was looking at the tower.”

It is a myth and media propaganda that thousands of people actually saw the plane. Many in the vicinity heard an explosion and then were told by the controlled media it was a plane. Very few people in New York’s business district actually had a decent view of the South Tower of the WTC. Only a few thousand people at most would have been able to see the South Tower explode. There are witnesses who saw the South Tower explode but did not see a plane strike the tower.

Gregory-Murad-locations

11. Going in Search of Planes in NYC: Andrew Johnson’s 9/11 Plane Witness Study

The words “plane, jet, airplane, aircraft” were found in 426 accounts, 1770 times. The final account Sample Size was used for the “Witnesses to a plane” study was 291. A few of those who simply described seeing the impacts on TV were left out, but some were included – the main focus of the study was on those who were close to where the 2nd impact happened.

16 witnesses reported seeing the 1st plane before impact and 16 witnesses reported hearing the 1st plane before impact but only 1 witness reported clearly seeing and hearing plane 1 before impact.

I managed to establish that at least 96 witnesses were near the WTC (with ½ a mile) at the time of the 2nd impact and a further 21 witnesses were inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact. This gave a total of 117 witnesses who were near or inside the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact.

  • Only 19 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing plane 2 before impact and, as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 20%.
  • Only 20 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 21%.
  • Only 8 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing and hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 8.3%.
  • Of those witnesses inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact, only 2 reported hearing the plane (none saw it). As a percentage of the total of those inside WTC, this was 9.5%.
  • There were 117 witnesses inside or near the WTC and 291 witnesses in the total sample I used. The percentages given below, then, are therefore based on the number 291 – 117 giving a total of 174.
  • There were 33 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported seeing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 19%.
  • There were 2 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported hearing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 1.1%

12. 9/11 Flight 175 Radar Data 3D Analysis by Richard D Hall

Researcher Richard D Hall has “mapped” as many of the flight 175 plane crash videos as he could onto/into a 3D-model of Manhattan. This analysis was published on 21 May 2012 and revealed that 26 clips of the flight 175 crash did indeed appear to match the Radar Data supplied by the NTSB (but there was a discrepancy of about 1400 feet/430 metres with the 84 RADES Radar Data). This tended to rule out the idea of “simple video fakery” – which is what most other “no planers” argue. It seemed to bring us to the point of realisation that “another” technology had been used – one which created the image of planes in the sky – which really could be filmed/video’d. This also explains one of the fundamental difficulties with the “only video fakery” position – some witnesses did report seeing a plane – though there were sufficient variations in their accounts to suggest that there could have been issues with viewing the projected image from certain locations. One of the curious things is the “disappearing wings” observed in some clips – this should not happen with CGI!

Richard D Hall concluded: ‘The videos were real and the plane was fake – not a fake video of a real plane as some have alleged.’

Note: since this video has been circulating a possible explanation for the difference in the two flight paths (Daniel R. Bower & RADES) has been suggested. The RADES radar system was much further away from the towers, the distance is significant enough to create a fixed system error in the radar readings. This could account for why the RADES path seems over 1000 feet out of position. However, all the other observations in this film are still unexplained. I.E. The speed and impact dynamics are both impossible, therefore we were not seeing a plane in any of the videos. My current thinking on this is there may have been a solid object, probably a small missile at the centre of the “illusion”, with an image of a Boeing 767 being projected around it. The speed recorded is consistent with several types of missile in use in 2001, one being the Tomahawk missile. The size, speed and range of the Tomahawk all match the observed circumstances, they can be launched from a submarine. The speed is definitely not consistent with a Boeing 767. An energy weapon may have been used to created the “wing holes” shortly after impact as was seen in the first tower impact.

Watch the analysis here:

9 or 11 “Clues” about Simon Shack and a 3D-Analysis of Flight 175

What Hit the 2nd Tower?

13. Most people in the 9/11 Truth community accept that no planes were used at the Pentagon and Shanksville; the evidence shows no real planes were used for the towers either.

Pentagon surveillance could not have missed the plane

911 Shanksville

14. In conclusion we can be 100% certain the planes were not real. Apart from defying the laws of physics with impossible crash dynamics the planes do not even look real. The question is: are the planes digital composites (CGI) inserted into real video or is it a 3D projected image using advanced technology not known to the public? Richard D Hall’s 3D radar data analysis has confirmed that the trajectory of the “planes” in all the videos match up with the radar data. If video fakery was used i.e the planes were digital composites, the question can be asked why would they go to the trouble of making sure all the “plane” videos match up with the radar data but do such a poor job of rendering the planes which look like poor quality CGI, Why does the wing momentarily disappear in six different videos? This is a still from the Hezarkhani video showing a digital composite plane on the top and the original “plane” from the Hezarkhani video underneath: http://imageshack.com/a/img198/7545/n16q.jpg The digital composite plane looks more realistic. Here is a video showing how easy it is to create a digital composite plane and insert it into real video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds Here is another example of a digital composite plane inserted into the Evan Fairbanks video: http://imageshack.com/a/img834/7263/qsm.gif Why would they create such poor quality CGI planes that look different in different videos? If the planes were a digital composite it should look the same in every video. Based on Richard D Hall’s radar data analysis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5DgFcpsxes), the witness testimony and the fact the left wing disappears in 4 videos and the right wing in 2 videos the evidence points to the plane being a 3D projection. Richard D Hall believes there may have been a solid object, probably a small missile at the centre of the “illusion”, with an image of a Boeing 767 being projected around it.

15. Advanced “Hologram” Technology?

“The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.”

http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/volume4/chap03/b5_6.htm

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?us_military_general_topic_areas=us_military_weaponizationOfSpace&timeline=us_military_tmln

This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 pertaining to military psychological operations (PSYOPS).

Washington Post

“When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing”

By William M. Arkin

February 1, 1999

A few notable quotes (emphasis added):

According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.

…washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The “Holographic Projector” is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to “project information power from space … for special operations deception missions.”

16. Video: Conclusive Evidence the 9/11 Planes were NOT REAL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *