NO PLANES NO PASSENGERS They Fooled Us Once

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: GR8BENWA®
Date: Nov 6, 2007 3:52 AM


NO PLANES NO PASSENGERS They Fooled Us Once
----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Zarina Jada-Zakori, Psy.D.
Date: Nov 5, 2007 10:54 PM




See mom, No planes





How does GW put it? "Fool me once, shame on me...uh..shame me.. you're not going to shame me again." Whatever.

Well GW - You fooled us once, shame on you, but you are not going to fool us twice, then it would be shame on me!

Source: http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html

BTS Data reveal no Passenger Planes Destroyed on 9/11

If the subject were not so controversial, one might assume that a very powerful blow to the story of four hijacked airplanes on 9/11 would be Holmgren’s discovery that two of the four flights connected to that day’s events did not exist and the other two alleged participating aircraft were not destroyed until four years later. As Holmgren writes, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) keeps detailed records of flight times, tail numbers, taxi out times, wheels off times, and so on for every scheduled flight from a U.S. airport, in part for liability insurance considerations. Holmgren found that the original BTS records of take offs that day did not list flights for AA77 (Pentagon crash) and AA11 (North Tower, the first hit).[18]

Of the first hit on the WTC North Tower at 8:46, Holmgren notes that when one looks closely at the video (which wasn’t broadcast until 16 hours later "when the official story of four large planes had already been put into the public’s mind") all one can see is "a brief flash and then the explosion." Holmgren claims that whatever the object is, it "is certainly not a Boeing 767 or any kind of large passenger jet." The object is "way too small. It dive bombs into the tower in a manner which would appear to [be] impossible for a large airliner." Although, he writes, "the natural tendency is to think it is just too fast to see on the video…a frame by frame enlarged analysis…shows a very strange looking object, or possibly several objects flying in close formation. A pulsating blob or group of blobs is probably the best description."[19]

Holmgren argues that the passenger lists seem to be fabricated "because there are impossible contradictions between the lists published by different media outlets…." Nor, he claims, are there any reliable witnesses to support a large jet of the first strike. "All early reports say that it was a small plane or missile," and others who say they simply didn’t see any plane. According to Holmgren, the first strike became a "large plane after people saw the second strike live on TV, leading to the assumption that the first strike had been the same thing," and after American Airlines declared that it had lost AA11 in the crash.

The Illusion -- Live on TV?!

Holmgren then deconstructs the "the South Tower strike – the second hit, the one shown live on TV" and acknowledges that superficially it certainly appears to be a large jet." Yet, he argues, "a close examination reveals that it is not a real plane." To support this assertion Holmgren provides a score of links to the work of researchers Rosalee Grable (aka Webfairy), Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, Ivan Amato[20] and his own supporting articles.[21]

Holmgren finds that the plane shown on TV is not real because it "shows impossible physical characteristics and behavior." The argument that I find most convincing and easiest to understand is his claim that one can see in a frame-by-frame analysis that the alleged plane "passes through the wall like a ghost without making a hole and without breaking off any parts." Holmgren concludes that the plane is "simply a cartoon, which has been animated into the footage."[22]

According to Holmgren, despite popular misconceptions that many real time videos of the plane striking the South Tower exist, there was only one live video of this plane and that video did not show it hitting the building, but rather it shows the plane passing behind the building "giving the impression that it impacted the hidden face," an effect easily achieved "with commercially available real time animation technology. The other videos, which seem… to show the plane actually hitting the building did not appear until hours later."

Holmgren makes short work of flight UA 93, the one alleged to have crashed in Shanksville, PA. This was also "a bona fide flight, but the plane –N591UA – was also still registered as valid for more than four years after Sept 11…The alleged crash site in Pennsylvania shows absolutely no evidence of a plane crash."

To drive home his point that no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks, Holmgren makes much of the lack of evidence of any wreckage of any of the four planes. He suggests that if real planes had crashed, it would be an easy matter for the government to produce some portion of the tons of normally identifiable wreckage.

Likewise Morgan Reynolds finds that the most obvious defect of the official story is an absence or near absence of conventional airplane wreckage.

Government could have ended controversy over planes long ago by allowing independent investigators to examine part numbers and compare them to each plane’s maintenance logbook. This did not happen following the 9/11 crashes. Government has not produced a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration.

Of the two Boeing 767’s, which vanished into the Twin Towers, Reynolds asks:

How could two large wide-bodied aluminum jetliners penetrate massive steel towers and disappear with no deceleration visible, no plane wreckage visible in gashes and none knocked to the ground below the impact zone?

Reynolds finds a "stunning lack of evidence" that "no confirmed debris exists from two alleged 767 high speed crashes into skyscrapers within 17 minutes of each other. Furthermore Reynolds finds that

physics rejects any theory that posits an invincible airplane (a plane remaining intact after an abrupt collision with a steel skyscraper) that also disintegrates (flimsy) in the next instant in the same general physical environment (temperature, etc.)…. (my emphasis)

Another problem says Reynolds is that the maximum spread across the north tower hole is 126 feet and the south tower is only 103 feet, opening insufficient to accommodate a 767 wingspan of 156 feet." "Wings with momentum do not "fold back onto themselves" in order to slip through an undersized hole along with the fuselage." Summing up this line of argument, Reynolds writes:

defenders of the 767 theory want their cake and eat it too: supposedly powerful 767s easily penetrated steel walls and floors yet identically crumbled within a fraction of a second and vanished inside despite huge fuselage length and wingspan ¾ the length of a tower wall. Both 767s were never seen again from any side of either tower, a dazzling combination of imposing strength and fragility within a tenth of a second.