9/11 Photos, etc.

[norman]

https://twitter.com/EretzIsrael/stat...21461660729345

[norman]

https://t.me/PepeMatter/17029

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Seeclearly (here)
Yet again Mark ,I find myself disagreeing with your proclamations of fact 🙄

You're free to disagree of course, no one is denying you that right, but that doesn't change the well-established fraudulent nature of these clips. Many of us have picked over them on this forum, inside and outside, and for more than a decade.

Posted by Seeclearly (here)
the people who don't believe the official 9/11 narrative argue w each other over relatively minute details

That's precisely what these doctored videos are designed to do. They inject fake narratives into the mix to obfuscate the real one, then watch as the debate slides into no-man's land.

They do it with UFOs, they do it with JFK, they do it with 9/11. 'Deleting' planes from the footage was a psyop. This is what gave rise to the whacky holographic planes theory -- a 'junk narrative', deliberately inserted to lead people astray. This is how the game is played, how their tricks work: It's called counter-intelligence and 'they' have been using it for years. As a primary frontline weapon it's used to muddle conspiracy theories, and tarnish (in the eyes of normies) anyone who believes in them.

Fortunately, we are not so easily duped, and I include you in that, for when you look more deeply into their tactics, and the material evidence they so artfully attempt to meddle with, you will be equipped to detect their chicanery and call it out.

The original (well-known and well documented) 'FDR Drive footage' at 4.02 in this clip. The one that was doctored (plane removed) on twitter.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ

Raw footage of the 'Chris Hopewell' footage - the same impact from a similar angle. Caution: extreme cursing.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KbVdU4z2dw4

A long track of the second plane swooping towards the south tower. The 'Kevin' clip.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=o6t31R4tI10

[Blastolabs]

Just like with the JFK assassination whomever is responsible for 9/11 made sure to have multiple in depth false explanations for what happened. They are trained to do it this way on purpose.

[norman]

https://t.me/georgenews/2239

[mountain_jim]

https://x.com/WarClandestine/status/...147649698?s=20

[Paul D.]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by Seeclearly (here)
Yet again Mark ,I find myself disagreeing with your proclamations of fact 🙄

You're free to disagree of course, no one is denying you that right, but that doesn't change the well-established fraudulent nature of these clips. Many of us have picked over them on this forum, inside and outside, and for more than a decade.

Posted by Seeclearly (here)
the people who don't believe the official 9/11 narrative argue w each other over relatively minute details

That's precisely what these doctored videos are designed to do. They inject fake narratives into the mix to obfuscate the real one, then watch as the debate slides into no-man's land.

They do it with UFOs, they do it with JFK, they do it with 9/11. 'Deleting' planes from the footage was a psyop. This is what gave rise to the whacky holographic planes theory -- a 'junk narrative', deliberately inserted to lead people astray. This is how the game is played, how their tricks work: It's called counter-intelligence and 'they' have been using it for years. As a primary frontline weapon it's used to muddle conspiracy theories, and tarnish (in the eyes of normies) anyone who believes in them.

Fortunately, we are not so easily duped, and I include you in that, for when you look more deeply into their tactics, and the material evidence they so artfully attempt to meddle with, you will be equipped to detect their chicanery and call it out.

The original (well-known and well documented) 'FDR Drive footage' at 4.02 in this clip. The one that was doctored (plane removed) on twitter.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ

Raw footage of the 'Chris Hopewell' footage - the same impact from a similar angle. Caution: extreme cursing.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=KbVdU4z2dw4

A long track of the second plane swooping towards the south tower. The 'Kevin' clip.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=o6t31R4tI10

No one could "deny me that right " actually .Please don't explain the nature of the beast to me .I am very well aware of how they roll as regards conter - Intel. & so on. In fact I subscribe to a belief in next level chicanery.
My point of view (& warning it implies a massive conspiracy ) is that 1. No planes hit the buildings it was an exocet missile or similar .

2. The buildings collapsed because of a controlled demolition because of multiple causes including exotic tech.
3.The footage of the impact was C.G.I .
4. And crucially the whole episode was "created" by the media working in tandem , i.e. they all had to release the same footage.
Now this implies as I said a massive conspiracy & believe me it shook me to the core .But I do subscribe to it.
I'm what Bill calls a generalist, & a very quick learner. How I work is intuitive & accelerated & very committed. I dive deep into something & cover a lot of ground fast & come to what I feel is the nub of the situation.
As such I 'm not so equipped at arguing the fine points .
However the site below is . They have
answers some of the questions that will occur .Such as witnesses footage e.t.c. .Their introduction "view research " gives a good summary of their take on things .
If this as been covered if it the last 10 years I apologise.
No conflict intended but I can't sit back & say nothing sometimes , though you are strengthening my self restraint frequently 🙂

https://septemberclues.org/

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Seeclearly (here)
No one could "deny me that right " actually .

The statement was made merely as a truism, not any kind of proclamation, so chill

I did at the time give close consideration to the no planes theory, and I watched and studied September Clues when it came out. But for me, in the end, it just did not add up. It would have involved such an unfathomably complex collusion to successfully pull of, involving hundreds if not thousands of people. Today's media are more than ready to bend over and do what they're told -- less so 22 years ago. I don't believe they were involved, or tipped off on what to report, not when you take into account the heretical early narrative of bombs going off, and controlled demolitions -- things on which they openly speculated.

Of CGI inserts of planes in the footage -- I've never seen or heard any evidence of that. I seriously doubt that would have gone undetected, not after all these years, and not with today's level of tech. We have all the raw footage, intact and readily available. If CGI was present, it should be very easy to prove. Personally I've not seen any proof -- but I would certainly like to if it exists.

Beyond broadcast footage there are the many thousands of witnesses, on the ground, on the Hudson, in surrounding buildings, and in the twin towers themselves, who claim they saw planes -- and there are dozens of home videos, and still photographs, showing those planes, or what do appear to be planes. We also have both the military and civilian radar tracks, for those two planes, and they match up perfectly.

Also there's physical evidence of planes at the scene.

Part of the landing gear of AA Flight 11 on the corner of West and Rector Street, adjacent to the North tower. (If i remember correctly someone on the street was killed by it when it dropped out of the sky)


Part of United Airlines 175's fuselage, Ground Zero.


More of UA175's landing gear, Park Place and Murray Street.


Not trying to 'win you over', just sharing some of the evidence, some of the findings, that have come up over the years, and on which many of us have reflected for a long time.

For me it really comes down to this basic proposition: If the purpose of September 11th was to crash two planes into the WTC, then the easiest way to achieve that most nefarious end is...really crash two planes into the WTC. That sounds to me like the most reasonable way to do it. Why mess around? Why fake it, when the real thing is well within their capacity? And why risk faking it anyway -- there are 8million potential witnesses in that city, and the whole world is watching on TV.

Always have to weigh risk versus reward, and here the risk (of faking it) outweighs that reward. Too many liabilities, too many variables, and in order to make it stick perfectly, way too many people to put your faith in.

That's my position anyway, but it refers only to what hit the World Trade Centre. What brought it down to rubble is another matter entirely. It should be plainly obvious to almost everyone that the level of destruction we saw at ground zero required far more that the kinetic impact, and resulting fires, of two airliners. On the matter of the Pentagon, what hit its western facade was quite probably not a plane, but a missile. Many questions surround, too, the object that crashed in Shanksville, identified and reported as Flight 93, which left behind a smoking crater of almost nothing at all.

There are a bunch of threads in the 9/11 section (and spanning a number of years) detailing so much of this - I can't remember all the discussions but there are a ton of them. There's a wealth of material in there.

[Paul D.]

Chill mode fully in operation Mark 😎 Thanks for your detailed reply . I hope I haven't offended you or hurt your feelings with my perhaps uncalled for frankness.
Anyway, onwards & upwards , Paul .

[Rizotto]

Does anyone remember that movie made about the 9/11 inside job, i.e. a fictional recreation of what happened. It got banned because it got too close to the truth. The trailers I saw years ago showed that the planes were remote controlled, some planes had been switched and the passengers were eliminated, etc.

I'm trying to locate that movie, surely it must have been saved somewhere. If not Netflix, where? Can anyone remember the title?

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by Seeclearly (here)
I hope I haven't offended you or hurt your feelings with my perhaps uncalled for frankness.

Not in the slightest, and I hope my initial and equal frankness was not likewise received.

I am by no professing any sort of expertise on this, or really any matters -- just a point of perception, one grounded in data as much as possible. The data in our possession for the 9/11 attacks points 100% to conspiracy, to shenanigans, and an inside job. Precisely what they did -- its every detail and nuance -- and how they pulled it off, may never be known in its entirety. There are as many holes in the 'official story' as there are questions, and indeed problems, with the theories we have come up with to fill those holes. The whole thing is one giant clusterf**k of a jigsaw puzzle!

All we can really do is take the info we do have and to the best of our ability make tangible deductions with that info. For instance, just on this one issue of planes, we can, I believe, reasonably deduce that the passengers of those flights were not onboard when they hit the towers.

We know at one point a few passengers (specially selected?) and flight attendants, used mobile phone to call in to airline control centres and loved ones. But how, when the signal range of mobile phones could not even remotely reach the altitudes at which these calls were 'officially' made?

They had to be on the ground to make these calls, or the radar tracks (both military and civilian) are way off. We don't have enough data to make an informed deduction as to where the planes (and thus passengers) really were, we can only speculate, which is just another word for 'guess'. My 'guess' is the passengers were deplaned, in secret, as per Rebekah Roth's testimony, and were at that time (in the flight) at a hidden location on the ground. They were then forced, maybe at gunpoint, to read from a script and seed the narrative of a terrorist/hijacking event.

Consider this one big red flag! 🚩

One key piece of phone evidence was the call made by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles, onboard Flight 93. At 9:47 she called her husband and left him a message saying the plane had been hijacked. This is a recording of that call:

48secs

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4jYYRJbdiXc

Listen to the whispered words she speaks just before end.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=D640vW3K0IA

It's a Frame!

Hard to be sure for certain, but it sure sounds to me that that is what she said. It's a frame -- said off-script, we can assume, right before hanging up. When you apply the context of a 'frame', a frame-up, being framed...pretty damning if you ask me.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
...

I did at the time give close consideration to the no planes theory, and I watched and studied September Clues when it came out. But for me, in the end, it just did not add up. It would have involved such an unfathomably complex collusion to successfully pull of, involving hundreds if not thousands of people. Today's media are more than ready to bend over and do what they're told -- less so 22 years ago. I don't believe they were involved, or tipped off on what to report, not when you take into account the heretical early narrative of bombs going off, and controlled demolitions -- things on which they openly speculated.

Of CGI inserts of planes in the footage -- I've never seen or heard any evidence of that. I seriously doubt that would have gone undetected, not after all these years, and not with today's level of tech. We have all the raw footage, intact and readily available. If CGI was present, it should be very easy to prove. Personally I've not seen any proof -- but I would certainly like to if it exists.

...

When I went back to school as an adult, to get a Computer Science degree, I took a couple of semesters of Computer Graphics, which was all 3-D animation (and 3-D wire frame modeling and texturing.) I also bought animation software and worked with it. One of the coolest new features that was added to animation software at that time was "collision detection physics" and somewhat realistic physics of objects making contact.

There is footage (I'll try to find it and link or attach it) that was broadcast of the second jet hitting the second tower - supposedly shot from a news helicopter. That footage is "fake"; it's a composite of a jet and a building intersecting without any physics of collision. The building shows no ripple, no change at all in its surface as the jet inexplicably is swallowed by the building. The jet also does not distort at all.

This video was really the only thing that lent credence - to me - of the "no planes" theory, but based on everything else I could watch, the no planes theory is wrong. With the "pod" attached to the belly of that plane, discussed by many researchers including Kevin Ryan, I do think the planes were military drones, so "no commercial aircraft" may well be true, but not "no planes."

I assume that this composited video was created (before 9/11) to create a strong emotional impact - more terrifying than the ground-based footage, and insurance that they would have at least one powerful video to display.


=====================


Before posting the above, I decided to do a search for the video. I can't find it. Even more interestingly, note the Wikipedia entry result of my search using Startpage.

Then, I went to that Wikipedia page (an astounding pile of bullsh!t), and did a search for the word "composite", but see that they are not referring to the same video I saw, ignoring or obfuscating the notion that there is a video that is definitely a video composite. Maybe Tintin has already saved the video in question in the Avalon library? Or else, can anyone find it?

[norman]

Tore Says - Nine Eleven, Hidden Truths and Covered Realities

The Plan

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=38MnkZ5lH8Q

1hr 47 min

[norman]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

. . . I did at the time give close consideration to the no planes theory . . .

The strongest case for 'No Planes', in my view, is that experts agree that the planes could not have cut through the very strong steel frame of the building and leave those almost comical plane-profile shaped cuts in the structure.

That implies that carefully placed explosives were used to create those cuts in the structure, to look like that.

That, then implies that the planes would have to hit the building in EXACTLY the right place and at exactly the right angle. I find that impossible to believe was really achievable.

I therefore have to come up with an explanation for how they made it look so accurate. That takes me right into the fake/not real plane zone of thinking. They somehow manged to make whatever we saw as a plane hit the pre planned spot, exactly.

Of course, if I believe those planes really could cut the steel frame of the building almost like butter, that's different, but I don't.

There's the problem.

[Tintin]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)
...

I did at the time give close consideration to the no planes theory, and I watched and studied September Clues when it came out. But for me, in the end, it just did not add up. It would have involved such an unfathomably complex collusion to successfully pull of, involving hundreds if not thousands of people. Today's media are more than ready to bend over and do what they're told -- less so 22 years ago. I don't believe they were involved, or tipped off on what to report, not when you take into account the heretical early narrative of bombs going off, and controlled demolitions -- things on which they openly speculated.

Of CGI inserts of planes in the footage -- I've never seen or heard any evidence of that. I seriously doubt that would have gone undetected, not after all these years, and not with today's level of tech. We have all the raw footage, intact and readily available. If CGI was present, it should be very easy to prove. Personally I've not seen any proof -- but I would certainly like to if it exists.

...

When I went back to school as an adult, to get a Computer Science degree, I took a couple of semesters of Computer Graphics, which was all 3-D animation (and 3-D wire frame modeling and texturing.) I also bought animation software and worked with it. One of the coolest new features that was added to animation software at that time was "collision detection physics" and somewhat realistic physics of objects making contact.

There is footage (I'll try to find it and link or attach it) that was broadcast of the second jet hitting the second tower - supposedly shot from a news helicopter. That footage is "fake"; it's a composite of a jet and a building intersecting without any physics of collision. The building shows no ripple, no change at all in its surface as the jet inexplicably is swallowed by the building. The jet also does not distort at all.

This video was really the only thing that lent credence - to me - of the "no planes" theory, but based on everything else I could watch, the no planes theory is wrong. With the "pod" attached to the belly of that plane, discussed by many researchers including Kevin Ryan, I do think the planes were military drones, so "no commercial aircraft" may well be true, but not "no planes."

I assume that this composited video was created (before 9/11) to create a strong emotional impact - more terrifying than the ground-based footage, and insurance that they would have at least one powerful video to display.


=====================


Before posting the above, I decided to do a search for the video. I can't find it. Even more interestingly, note the Attachment 51812 Wikipedia entry result of my search using Startpage.

Then, I went to that Wikipedia page (an astounding pile of bullsh!t), and did a search for the word "composite", but see that they are not referring to the same video I saw, ignoring or obfuscating the notion that there is a video that is definitely a video composite. Maybe Tintin has already saved the video in question in the Avalon library? Or else, can anyone find it?

Dennis: this video made by Alex 'Ace' Baker contains the footage you may well be looking for. I think Chapter 7 ("The Key") is what you may be after. (Fox Chopper 5). The whole presentation covering a whole bunch of material is a whopping 4 hours long so you may want to skip chunks of it to get to the 'meat'. (His own music is a bit cheesy in my view and can be skipped). I'll expand more on this in the next few days. Suffice to say, for me, he makes a compelling and intelligent case for "No planes hitting WTC." It was made in 2011 and I'd watched and absorbed this into my researches in 2013.

He's (or was) a musician based in southern California and having had extensive video production experience on his portfolio I do think makes him worthy of a listen here. He uses an 'actor' to present his script, but does also appear periodically throughout the film.

NOTE: the 9/11 directory in the library is perhaps not as fat as it could be but I have made every effort to try and find from my own extensive personal library material that I deem to be the better material. Certain film has been left out such as 'In Plain Sight', which I had seen, but just passed off as a massive decoy.

Alex 'Ace' Baker's case: https://avalonlibrary.net/911/BAKER%...%20PsyOps2.pdf

Also I highly recommend "9/10 The Final Hours" (at duration 1 and a half hours) covering goings on in NYC the day before, and the early hours of Tuesday, September 11th: it's a remarkably reflective and moving documentary.

Watch every moment right through to the end

The Great American Psy-Opera - from about 02:20:00 in for the composite material?

[Tintin]

Although not all the indexed library material for the 9/11 directory on this .PDF - it has all been indexed though - this will give those curious some idea of what is in there, in this searchable document (CTRL + F).

Link: https://avalonlibrary.net/Tintin/Geo...compressed.pdf

[lake]

This may have been posted before so please forgive if it has!

I found this interesting .... It is from January 2000 and is an article from the Independent and states that even back then they could insert 'things' into live TV!



The article is archived here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080420...en-728236.html

The full text of the article is:

When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen

Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering

Monday, 24 January 2000

Viewers tuning into American broadcaster CBS's recent news coverage of the millennium celebrations in New York witnessed a televisual sleight of hand which enabled CBS to alter the reality of what they saw. Using "virtual imaging" technology, the broadcaster seamlessly adjusted live video images to include an apparently real promotion for itself in Times Square. The move has sparked debate about the ethics of using advances in broadcast technology to alter reality without telling viewers that what they are seeing isn't really there.

While it's little surprise that advances in TV technology enable broadcasters to better manipulate existing images and create new ones, what is surprising is that this was done during a live broadcast and in a news programme. The CBS evening news coverage involved replacing the logo of rival network NBC with the CBS logo on a large video screen in Times Square. NBC was "outraged" by the use of the technology, and even CBS's evening news presenter, Dan Rather, admitted it was a "mistake".

The technology to do this comes from the defence industry where, following the end of the Cold War, a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.

The system CBS used was developed by a United States company called Princeton Video Images (PVI). Other players in this field include Symah Vision - part of French defence to media group Lagadere; Israel-based Orad Hi Tech Systems, and SciDex, another Israeli firm with offices in Europe and the US. Each system, while similar, has its differences. None of the companies will publicly discuss how their's works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast.

"The prime use of our system is to insert promotional images into live coverage, or as a post-production application for pre-recorded (TV) shows - for example, to insert branded goods into the action that weren't really there, for product placement," Denny Wilkinson, PVI's chief executive officer, explains. "Advertising, however, has by far and away the biggest potential for this. It's where the money is."

The use of this technology is already becoming familiar in sports coverage. A number of international sports organisers have recognised the potential to generate more advertising revenue by - in effect - re-selling the same perimeter advertising billboards at their stadia. Through virtual imaging, different advertisers' brands can be seen in different countries that take the live broadcast feed.

A number of European broadcasters including Sky TV have already run "virtual advertising" trials. Mexican broadcasters, meanwhile, have fully embraced virtual imaging systems. And different sports - notably Formula 1 - now acknowledge the potential to deal with restrictions on tobacco advertising in certain countries by replacing cigarette branding in some territories with other images.

The use of this technology for editorial purposes however is more contentious. Already, other media owners - notably newspapers - have had to deal with concerns about digitally manipulating photographic images used in news pages. The Mirror's doctoring of photographs of the Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed holidaying together was perhaps the highest profile example.

Now concern is being voiced over TV viewers believing they can see something which is not actually there. Which is why it is hard to find anyone in UK broadcasting ready to admit that they - like CBS - are considering the potential of this technology beyond advertising. Sky, however, sees the technology's use as a way of enhancing "the look" of its sports coverage. "We use the ORAD system for a combination of editorial and promotional use," explains Phil Madge, Sky TV studio graphics supervisor "We are using it now to build virtual screens which hang down from the roof of various football stadia to highlight upcoming events, pre-recorded footage and Sky Sports promotions."

Sky purchased the system at the start of the current football season, although it had run a number of trials previously, Madge adds. It has been used less for virtual advertising due to a combination of Independent Television Commission restriction and Football Association concerns. However, it was also used by Sky News to create a virtual studio for the channel's millennium coverage.

"There is great potential to use virtual imaging in other ways but it remains a tool whose biggest advantage is for live broadcasting," Madge says. "There are obvious advantages in virtual studios as you don't need a physical set, just a blue screen against which the presenter is shot and a three-D computer model. You can change it over very quickly - there's no need to shift scenery. The downside is it can look quite computer `graphicsy', and a bit naff."

CBS's problems arise from the fact that its use of the PVI system went one step further than "enhancing" the look of its presentation: it tampered with the reality of an actual event it was depicting in a news show, raising the spectre of TV news reporters reporting "live" from around the world when they're actually far closer to home. The broadcaster - which has also used virtual imaging to modify the New York cityscape - defended itself by insisting: "CBS News' internal standards prohibit digital manipulation or other faking of news footage."

However, a CBS spokeswoman admitted that virtual insertion technology is yet to be covered by the broadcaster's guidelines. But Dan Rather, for one, thinks it should be. "At the very least we should have pointed out to viewers we were doing it,'' he told the New York Times. "I did not grasp the possible ethical implications of this and that was wrong on my part.''

CBS is not the only broadcaster to use this technology in news broadcasts. Rival ABC recently included a report on Congress by a reporter wearing an overcoat in front of what to viewers seemed to be the US Capitol. The entire report was taped in a studio.

UK programme makers, however, doubt virtual imaging technology requires guidelines any different to the ones they already have relating to editorial balance, accuracy and fairness. "Any form of factual programme-making involves some form of editing of events. It's not hard to present the same situation in a number of different ways," one documentary maker explains. "But it is up to the integrity of the programme-maker to do so with integrity in a way that is both responsible and accurate. The same approach must apply to any production method."

It is a view which seems to be shared by the ITC, whose guidelines relate to the use of virtual imaging by advertisers - none specifically relate to editorial use. "It is an issue that crosses a number of regulatory areas - it could be a matter of inaccuracy, or undue prominence, or fairness. If it arose, we would have to consider each case on its own merits," a spokeswoman says.

Trouble is, for the time being at least, the onus is on the viewer to draw any example of tampering with reality to the attention of the regulator which then would investigate retrospectively. Assuming, that is, that they realise what they are seeing isn't real.

This is a video of the second plane .... might include the one wanted:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JemXB3i01Ek

This video is 43 angles of the 2nd plane hitting:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM

This video seems to show no plane .... it is the Scott Myers video?


Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/pqIyhzMLVlYR/


This is the same as the above video .... but with a plane!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=6RVQwBH9UYc

Images taken from the 2 videos at as near the same point as I could:

No Plane



With Plane




So one of the videos and one of the images are fake?

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Posted by norman (here)
The strongest case for 'No Planes', in my view, is that experts agree that the planes could not have cut through the very strong steel frame of the building and leave those almost comical plane-profile shaped cuts in the structure.

I sort of agree, on initial inspection. Aluminium versus steel should not do this amount of damage. But...neither should a speck of dust versus a window, but propelled with enough velocity it would smash right through it.

Not presenting an argument here (really), just playing devil's advocate with a little of my own research (some of which posted back here). This is of course up for debate, and I myself still debate it (with myself). But here it is ---

A typical Boeing 757 (UA175 that hit the South Tower) weighs upwards of a 100tons. According to this paper from MIT, the kinetic energy of that impact is calculated as follows:

E_South =½ MV₀²=3658MJ

3,658MJ megajoules (one megajoule equals 1 million joules).

From the same paper, this illustration below shows the basic orientation of the aircraft (in this case Flight 11) and the structure that it contacted.



In rudimentary terms, each plane, travelling at ~500mph, struck a prefabricated steel lattice structure containing mostly fresh air, with a force of three and a half thousand megajoules of energy.




Of significant importance is first barrier it contacted -- the external steel columns. Though made of steel they were hollow fabrications of medium grade A36 construction steel, approximately 10mm thick at the height of the building they were struck (the steel was thicker at lower floors), meaning they would not have put up quite the amount of resistance many believe.

cross-section of steel columns


It's a matter of "rigid vs. deformable body mechanics", as the paper states.

A sticking point for many is the thin, flimsy wing-tips that supposedly, by themselves, sliced through the steel columns like a knife through butter. As pictured below.




But when you superimpose the outline of the plane over the hole (south tower), a different profile is presented.



The slice-hole does not extend to the wing tips. The paper concludes:

...the length of the damage area was approximately 31m, which is shorter than the wing span which is 47.57m. Therefore, it can be concluded that the extreme portion of the wings didn’t cut through the columns but is actually deflected themselves.

The slice-holes extend little further than the portion of the wing that holds the two engines -- the largest, heaviest and most sturdy component of each wing.

The engines, I think it can be fairly deduced, carried the bulk of the energy that carved these holes. The exposed tips of the wing, upon impact with the steel columns, did not cut a gash right through them, but plastically deformed (concertinaed) and travelled into the building as might be expected.

Personally, it doesn't stretch my imagination to believe what we saw occur on 9/11 -- two jetliners slamming into two towers, and creating two plane-shaped holes -- happened indeed as we saw it.

What caused such critical destruction to the floor structures (which led to the collapse) and the core columns (the strongest part of the building)...that is another matter. A secondary event almost certainly was involved, meaning surgically deployed explosives, the cutting of load-bearing structural beams, and/or maybe energy weapons -- something at any rate to cause critical failure to bring those towers down to rubble, which two planes (blamed on Al-Qaeda) could not do by themselves.

That in my opinion is the real crux of the conspiracy.

[jaybee]

Posted by Mark (Star Mariner) (here)

Posted by norman (here)
The strongest case for 'No Planes', in my view, is that experts agree that the planes could not have cut through the very strong steel frame of the building and leave those almost comical plane-profile shaped cuts in the structure.

I sort of agree, on initial inspection. Aluminium versus steel should not do this amount of damage. But...neither should a speck of dust versus a window, but propelled with enough velocity it would smash right through it.

{post snipped see #38 above..}

A thought occurred to me .... could depleted uranium have been put on the planes (flight 11 and flight 175) to inflict the unexpected extent of damage to the buildings...? At first I thought could the planes have been doctored with DU... ? in preparation - and a quick search turned this up (this was only about an hour ago so I haven't looked into it in any depth and I don't know if the subject of DU and the 9/11 planes has come up before or not...)

Depleted uranium in the ballasts of the airplanes that caused 9/11 explain the diseases in NYC after the attacks

and then this....

Boeing Use of Depleted Uranium Counterweights in Aircraft.

so maybe it could be either/or both..... a 'normal' amount of DU in the planes or extra added for 9/11... ???


edit to clarify... I don't think that the impact of DU loaded planes alone could have caused the complete collapse of the Towers - I think some kind of DEW (or other advanced tech) followed to finished the job...with a controlled demolition --they were very sturdy buildings -

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Tintin (here)
...

The Great American Psy-Opera - from about 02:20:00 in for the composite material?

Thank you, Tintin! Yes, indeed, Tintin, that is the video clip (at 2:28:21) that I was talking about, film credit to Michael Hezarkhani. I did not remember the next clip (2:28:38), a ground view by Evan Fairbanks, showing the same thing. That made me want to look at Fairbanks' video some more, and at 6:44 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz6_8WAIGb4, another version of the "same" video, shows again the lack of physics interaction between the jet and building exterior and a jet that simply is swallowed by the building. It also clearly shows explosions blowing outwards and ejecting chunks of the building, after the jet was swallowed and after the explosives went off.

Norman's right: the Hezarkhani video does pose a very difficult to stage matchup of explosives and the jet outline, and I would think it would be even harder to match-up a holographic projection and the comical jet footprint. A drone jet could have triggered sensors placed on/in the building, to trigger specific charges to make the jet-shaped hole, but the lack of physics says the jet is not a physical object in the videos. A holographic jet couldn't set off specific explosives to make the shape. It's not really visually and physics-wise consistent with a drone jet or a holographic jet.

I looked again at the Hezarkhani video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TcIFrgaiYM at 0:34 and note the initial puffs of smoke (from an explosion that hasn't happened yet!) are moving outwards rather than being sucked inwards into the vacuum created by an object moving at hundreds of miles an hour. The initial puffs of smoke are fuzzy and contain no ejected debris, then, a second later, there is an explosion and smoke and debris are ejected.

I try to think how I would create such video effects. As a video editor, I'd take a shot of the jet-shaped hole as a starting point, line up the jet footage with the hole, and add the puffs of smoke to try to make it look more realistic than just a composite of a jet and a building intersecting with no physics. The same video(s) without the puffs of smoke would have given away the reality of composite footage. Real footage of a real jet hitting a real building would have shown the jet breaking to pieces as it hit, as well as the building surface distorting. The initial puffs of smoke are a composited video layer or were manually drawn. What makes natural smoke? Hydrocarbon substances raised to their vapor point, not aluminum, steel, and glass intersecting. This is instantaneous smoke before there is any fire and before any hydrocarbon substance could have reached the smoke point/vapor point, as well as the initial smoke traveling in the wrong direction, disobeying physics. I'd bet my life that these are composite videos.

I'm not sure by the end of the day on 9/11 how many people had seen these (carefully constructed) video clips on TV and that imprinted the "memory" of seeing a jet in person. "No planes" is easily mocked and dismissed, and so even now it feels like it is a very bad way, psychologically, to attack the official narrative. That doesn't mean it's not true. A physical object may have hit the buildings, but not in these videos.