The aircraft remains are either still in the possession of the FBI or have been destroyed.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=6737&vie...

Cheers!
Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

If "Northwoods" was followed closely, then the part would match with the original aircraft...

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone


Full document, including links to original, text and HTML versions at... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods


Many thanks to you and all at Pilotsfor911Truth.org and best wishes

Ps Enjoyed your recent radio interview with Michael Herzog on RBN, you pilots love chatting :-) was very constructive show too !!!

Thanks for your support Veritas... just trying to do our part ... :-)

Cheers!
Rob

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org

so leading/incriminating found at a crime scene.

What about the "magic passport" that was obviously planted at Ground Zero!

Commercial airliners struck the towers on 9/11.

commercial airliners is highly debatable.

There's still a damn good chance they would be made by Boeing.
------------------
"Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without." - Buddha
"What you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." - Gandhi
"The Sun never shined on a cause of greater worth." - Thomas Paine

The wings of those planes held the thousands of gallons of fuel so they were not "light and airy". the flashes that are observed at the point of impact were most likely caused by internal explosions that could well have helped the relatively more fragile nose cone to penetrate the buildings' façades. Pointing these things out shouldn't even be necessary since you well know that your claims of faked video are nonsense.

____

♠

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

http://infowars.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=296
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

Simulated Hijacked Aircraft Remotely Piloted Monster-Plane-as-missile Military Tanker Drone

obviously the LIVE fly portion of the 9/11 War Games being run, this one for real. Nothing but a slightly more complex version of the one of the Operation Northwoods scenarios involving a swapped drone.

There's just no WAY that plane was the originating flight 175, and so, unless there was a commakaze US Airforce Pilot at the helm, then it was a swapped drone, though it is possible to take over a flight via remote. However, that said, there are some things that are definitely WRONG with this plane, what you might call "anomalies" not the least of which is the sheer MAGNITUDE of the fireball itself (also covered in detail in that article of mine). A similar thread, though not as consise and tightly packed as that one, where I gathered the info, has recieved almost 130,000 views at letsroll.

This aspect is going to be covered at length in Dave vonKleist's upcoming release of "9/11 Ripple Effect" the sequal to "911 In Plane Site" which, according to Dave, will cause his critics to "eat crow".

I cannot WAIT for that film to be released. Any week now..

You see, the essential crux of the entire false flag psy-op involving those plane strikes and falling buildings is a type of slight of hand Occam's Razor trick along the lines of "planes hit, the buildings fell", but, if the south tower plane was NOT in fact flight 175, but something else, then down goes any possibility for a causal connection.

I do hope that people will take another look at the south tower plane, particularly in light of everything else now known regarding CD of the twin towers. After all, aside from the broad daylight explosive near free fall destruction of the buildings themselves, it's the most recorded aspect of 9/11. Why it is dismissed with the derogatory label of "pod" I have a hard time fathoming...

In my view, it is the missing piece in the physical evidence puzzle proving well beyond ANY reasonable doubt whatsoever, that 9/11 really was and could have been nothing other than, an inside job. The plane was not flight 175!

The hypothesis I've offered, is the very best analysis I think people will find anywhere on the Net regarding the south tower plane. A LOT of research went into that.
____________________________
On the 11th day, of every month.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q9nRs8cu5Y&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftruthaction...

When I tried to talk about the flights having been faked (as opposed to the planes themselves, which were real--if misrepresented as commercial flights) I ran into a lot of "well what happened to the people" and "you dishonor the victims by accusing them of faking their deaths."

I'll take a look at your articles in more detail, thanks. And thanks for letting me know about Dave's sequel. In plane site was my first 9/11 doc, ordered from TVNewsLies back in the day.

____

♠

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Firstly, the MIT group (Wierzbicki) show that the plane could definitely puncture through the exterior wall easily. You completely take the quote out of context, and you know it. In the study, they show the plane only lost 4% of its Kinetic Energy after shearing of the exterior columns. Maybe you have forgotten about the post here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/7941?page=1. I showed that this amount of energy required to peirce the exterior columns is less than about 10% of the energy required to crush the fuselage in the same post. There is absolutely no mystery except to those who have not grasped the basic physics.

Secondly, NIST shows the plane being obliterated as ‘the plane’ reaches the core. The fuselage is cut in half and concurrently obliterated into thousands of parts. A 'global side view' exists as well as an aerial 'global view' (the one posted in at the Journal of 9/11 studies: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf). I know that you know since you posted the side view on your blog (http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/05/nist-on-wtc2-impact.html) so I can only infer that the comment you made is disingenuous ---- the fuselage is NOT intact! Furthermore, there are pictures of NIST's finite element analysis of what a wing section with fuel would look like piercing the exterior columns --- the wings are partially shredded and the columns are sheared. The notion that NIST reports an intact plane reaching the core is complete and utter nonsense. Only a cursory glance at the report debunks your position. You are more than wrong --- you are completely misrepresenting this easily proven fact.

Thirdly, the letter in the Journal is not necessarily an endorsement of the impact analysis. I state clearly that I currently find no reason to reject the finite element impact analysis of a Boeing-767 with the WTC towers based upon flawed methodology, misguided assumptions, or contradictions with observation. I use their report to demonstrate a specific misconception that Reynolds and you, Ningen, have purported: little deceleration of the tail-end of the plane violates the laws of physics. It does not. The center of mass deceleration is what is important, and clearly the deceleration of the center of mass is appreciable upon impact. Furthermore, you and Reynolds were misreporting what the NIST report was alleging --- the plane did not decelerate. Clearly, NIST reports a 91% decrease in KE (70% decrease in velocity) once the tail end clears the exterior wall. You were wrong, and so was Reynolds.

Fourthly, the exterior columns where the plane 'tips' were located were not pierced. You are wrong about this. Even the NIST simulations show that the wings tips did not pierce the exterior columns, and this is consistent with observation. Why do you insist on misrepresenting the facts?

Fifthly, your comment (“But the wings are still fragile compared to the steel, and would have been ripped open, causing an explosion”) about an explosion is wholly absurd. Gasoline will not ‘explode’ unless it is spread out somewhat. From this table (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flash-point-fuels-d_937.html), you see that the ‘upper explosive’ limit is 5% for kerosene meaning that kerosene will not readily explode if the mixture is too rich (>5%). Therefore, no large instantaneous explosion concurrent with impact is expected --- the fuel must disperse so that enough oxygen is interspersed with the fuel in order for an ‘explosion’ to occur. Also, the forward momentum drove the fuel into the building --- when a fireball developed, it would have began and have been projected inside the building, not on the exterior. You are wrong again….

It is a good thing this is not baseball. Strike five for Mighty Casey and his ‘no planes’ theory.

Lastly, you never addressed my questions from a previous blog entry:

If you assume for now (until you have had more time to think about it) that the tail deceleration argument does not violate physics, what are the top 4 or 5 reasons, prioritized, which you think the no-plane theory holds? That is, what is the list of the strongest to weakest evidence that you think the theory, to date, has developed?

Given the same assumption, which points 'stand on their own' that completely substantiate the no plane theory, and which points are too weak to justify a no plane theory if left to stand on its own?

You can't just take their conclusions as given without addressing their assumptions. All you do in your your Letter is say that NIST's theory is correct and consistent with the video -- that begs the question. To that extent, I can answer your center of mass argument now -- you are basically saying all the visible deceleration occurred in the building because NIST said so.

Wrong again. YOU were the one misreporting what NIST stated in their report. YOU were the one that stated that NIST reported near zero deceleration. Now you are going to spin it and say, because I correctly interpret the NIST report, that I endorse their entire report, and that I am the one begging the question?

I show how you blatantly screwed up. That is fine, and is no crime in and of itself. However, do not misrepresent my position just because I can correctly interpret their report.

Both the NIST and MIT report show that there is a massive loss of energy before impacting the core. Both MIT and NIST show that large parts of the plane were crushed (MIT) and obliterated (NIST). The only reason there is a discrepancy between the two reports is because NIST actually ran a full finite element analysis which was capable of obliterating the modeled plane concurrently during impact. The MIT study was much more crude dealing with energy balances.

Wierzbicki said in his Internet article that the fuselage would likely be crushed against the external columns, which form a wall. The plane would have decelerated some as a result, and the impact should have been dispersed somewhat by the plug formed, in addition to the global inertia of the building surrounding the impact area.

I did not take his quote out of context. The absurdity of the video was his initial impression, because it is common sense. I made it clear that I think he has cobbled together a model that purports to explain the absurd.

So then why did his report state something entirely different? The published report states that only 4% of the aircrafts energy was required to pierce the exterior columns, and this same amount of energy accounts for only ~10% of crushing of the fuselage. You must be misinterpreting something, because he clearly states that only about 10% of the fuselage would have been crushed upon piercing the exterior columns based upon energy balance. This is a clear conclusion.

Karim and Hoo Fatt, also with unrealistic assumptions, showed that the plane lost 46% of its kinetic energy in perforating the columns. They consulted with Wierzbicki on the article, and they specifically say he only considered the energy lost at the portion of a wing impacting one column. I recognize that his article seems to suggest that he added that figure up for all columns.

There is no ‘suggestion’ about it --- He clearly multiplies the number of sheared columns by the energy required to shear one column (in 2 places). This is not up for debate, regardless of what Hoo Fatt states --- the equation is clearly shown in the MIT report.

Look at the other diagrams posted by NIST -- one of them shows the fuselage directly impacting a floor. <a href="http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/05/nist-on-wtc2-impact.html" title="http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/05/nist-on-wtc2-impact.html">http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/05/nist-on-wtc2-impact.html</a> Even if it did not hit head on, it would hit two floors off center. The columns are backed by floors that would disperse energy. How can you and NIST argue that the aluminum fuselage would perforate this wall?

Why are you trying to position my arguments in alignment with NIST? I make no such claims. I have only corrected your blatant misinterpretation of the report (as well as Reynold’s misconceptions). This does not make me an apologist for the OCT. It makes you and Reynolds promoters of misinformation who can not interpret the written English language (albeit slightly technical).

MIT, NIST, and Hoo Fatt show that the plane can pierce the exterior walls. I gave you the MIT energy arguments. They are simple and easy to understand. NIST gave you a FEA with pictures, but the physics is hidden within the cartoon. Please try to understand the MIT report and the energy arguments --- it is the simplest way to demonstrate that a plane can easily pierce the exterior columns.

It's absurd. Karim and Hoo Fatt assumed it through on the baseless assumption that it is of higher mass than the external columns, I assume focusing only on the mass of the portion actually hit and not accounting for global inertia.

Wierzibicki also says that the Sander situation is not comparable, yet you continue to say it proves something. The plane in Sandia decelerated 100% outside the concrete wall.

You missed the point. The Sandia deceleration is 100% outside the concrete wall AND THE TAIL SHOWS NO DECELERATION! This is not a difficult concept. If a plane (F-4 Phantom) impacts an incredibly solid object (giant concrete slab) where no observable deceleration occurs, what do you think would happen to an impact into a much less rigid object like….. hmmmm…. say for instance… ¼” steel plate where the plane’s energy can easily shear the plate steel? Do you think you would see deceleration then?

Why would the fuel not disperse on impact, both around the point of impact and into the building? (I'm not denying that some perforation of the external wall would not occur.)

It takes time for the fuel to spread out. The ‘explosion’ would not be instantaneous. The momentum of the plane and fuel was moving forward. Everywhere the plane carried fuel and impacted the building, the exterior columns were breached and little debris bounced off the building. The fuel was carried into the building.

Read the article by Gordon Ross just posted at Journal of 9/11 Studies. Materials do matter. So does global inertia -- why is Wierzbicki assuming that none of the energy is dispersed through the columns, as in a projectile impact?

Of course materials matter. Wierzbicki outlines his reasons for assuming that the global inertia of the beams is not activated appreciably in the MIT report. Did you need me to summarize it?

The NIST theory you are endorsing sounds a lot like his analogy of a car driving through a truck to hit a wall.

The car would not act like a projectile moving at 1/10th the velocity of the plane (60MPH), and the truck does not weigh 250,000 tons, and it is not made of ¼” plate steel. Other than that, your analogy makes perfect sense……

In fact, the MIT study clearly states that a car impacting ‘a wall’ does not normally act like a projectile since the beams are usually bent and not sheared. This is typical in assessing the crashworthiness of buildings.

The videos show the wing tips going in. I'm not arguing that this is physical.

No, the videos do not show the wingtips going in. You can not tell if sections of the wing tips are being obliterated or not. Since the columns were not sheared, the wings must have been obliterated. The volume of the section of wings which impacted the exterior columns would be *much* less than 5% of the entire plane (I'm just being conservative here --- it is probably much less than 1%). This would be very little visible debris.

I will be collecting your comments and responding in more detail later, and will try to list arguments as you suggest.

OK. Please respond to the questions I posted. Thanks.