drbuzz0 said:

There are far too many parts and too many individuals and records to ever hope to cover your tracks.

Not only that but a modern aircraft is more a corporation than a single entity. In some cases you will find that the airframe belongs to some Irish leasing company, each of the engines and each of the landing gears is the property of a different bank located in the Caymans, or Lichtenstein, the interiors belong to a another company, and the crew is from some other airline that the one who’s name is painted on the tail.

Over the life of an aircraft units are robbed and different ones put in as the operation demands, and upgrades are installed, and so on and so on.

Doc is right, it would be impossible to run all of these changes down, to make a switch and the ripple effect through the documentation would encompass dozens more airlines and aircraft.

First, no your comment will not be deleted. Yes, there are times when an aircraft is pulled for service for an extensive overhaul and there are also times when aircraft are grounded for safety checks or just because there is not that much demand at a given time.

However, there is a lot of documentation. Not only this, but every piece of the aircraft has a serial number from the time it is manufactured and it can all be traced. There are logs and records.

It would be an enormous task to get every single person involved and every single record involved changed to fit in. There were pieces scattered all over lower manhattan. You would be very surprised how well documented aircraft designs are. You can trace a single fragment to a single production run of a given airframe and often to a single aircraft.

There are far too many parts and too many individuals and records to ever hope to cover your tracks.

        True Patriot For Truth said:

Well, I know this comment is going to be deleted, but it’s complete bull**** that planes are always in the air. You don’t think planes sometimes need engines replaced or to be overhauled or checked for safety? Or painted? or refitted inside and out?

Why do you think there are hangers at airports.

Plus, even if it did take a long time they could have all the time they want to make a plane for this kind of thing and then pull off the old switcheroo

First you have absolutely no idea of how commercial aircraft are operated, the degree of complexity of the systems, or the way things are traced in the industry. They are not something you can file the serial numbers off of because every single part on the airframe and the engine has a FTN (Fulltime Tracking Number) which is assigned to a component when it is made and is retired when the part is destroyed. Since these parts come from all over it would be impossible to change aircraft without one of them being noticed.

        J Carlton said:

There’s just one problem with your logic. None of the four aircraft involved in 9/11 were out of service long enough to have the kind if modifications made to them needed to convert them for remote control. Remote control is easy if you have access to all the parts need to make the modifications.

Getting that access isn’t so easy as most of those components are long cycle maintainence items and don’t need to be accessed until the aircraft is undergoing a heavy rebuild where all of the things on top are replaced anyway. Here’s a link showing what it would take to modify a Boeing 757 or 767 for remote control:http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf
A commercial aircraft’s every minute is tracked in its log. If an airplane is not flying it’s not making money and that becomes expensive very quickly. An aircraft out of service long enough to have the modifications done would be noticed. With this in mind, the only possibilities left are that the pilots deliberately crashed the aircraft and their passengers into the WTC, which is highly unlikely or the planes were hijacked by Muslim Jihadis bent on suicidal destruction, which is supported by all the evidence available.

Well, I know this comment is going to be deleted, but it’s complete bull**** that planes are always in the air. You don’t think planes sometimes need engines replaced or to be overhauled or checked for safety? Or painted? or refitted inside and out? Why do you think there are hangers at airports.

Plus, even if it did take a long time they could have all the time they want to make a plane for this kind of thing and then pull off the old switcheroo

        SluthForTruth said:

Your long winded appeal to emotion proves nothing.

There is nothing better we can do to honor those who died that day than to bring the real killers to justice.

You only oppose investigation because you do not want your faith shaken in your precious government and your fragile belief in the world which would come crashing down if you opened your eyes to the obvious.

It is not worth saving people the pain of answering the tough questions if that denies justice to the victims of 9/11.

If you had any confidence in your idea that it was just 19 hijackers you would not be trying so hard to fight any independent investigation into those events.

I think a very large portion of the websites like this one are commissioned by the government to appear to be individually driven.

I am not sure if this is one of them or if it is just run by someone who has their head in the sand.

Actually, a very thorough and extremely independent investigation is currently going on.

You are part of it right now.

Information is available, theories are presented and debated, studies are published, and so on. And, all of it without spending a single taxpayer dollar. I love the internet.

        WarOnManIsReal said:

There are a lot of scholars, scientists and 911 families who support investigating it and proving the government did it.

They come out eventhough they know it puts their lives in danger.

You are safe by saying it’s not that way but you’re a coward for not standing up for what is right.

Really!

Let’s see. http://www.ae911truth.org/ says that 316 architectural and engineering professionals agree.

IF every single one of them is actually employed as an engineer, then they are part of a pool of workers in the US that is 1,510,400 people strong. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm

Well, quick calculations mean that they represent a whopping 0.0209% of the working engineering population. Do you want me to tell the other 99.979% that they are wrong, or will you get that.

If you consider only the structural engineers, that percentage shrinks even smaller.

What about the population as a whole though? I like to go here every once in a while just for fun. http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ I especially like page on the artists, entertainers and media professionals. I am sure that all that time spent waiting tables before they got their first staring role make them more then qualified to comment on the physics of the collapse.

        Elvis Oswald said:

Since you are completely sure that this video shows what happens to a plane that hits a concrete wall… and I am sure it does too… maybe you can tell me how the “plane” that hit the pentagon penetrated 3 concrete walls that were reinforced with kevlar???

I’m not sure where you dug up these supposed “troofers” who claim the video is fake. If they are real… then I pity the movement.

In’t it obvious that this video proves NOT ONLY that if a plane hit the pentagon, it disintegrated… BUT ALSO that a plane DID NOT cause the damage at the pentagon???

Newsmax posted this video and along with a gloating rant that claimed this would silence the idiots… and when I brought this up to them, they took it down.

Youre right in the respect that this video is not a perfect analog for the pentagon. This does demonstrate in a visual way how an aircraft can fragment but it does not show a situation which is comparable.

First of all, the aircraft is hitting a fixed block of high density steel reinforced concrete and it’s actually a most of the force is used to both break apart the aircraft and push the heavy block somewhat backward. By pushing backward at a slower rate a much greater mass we have conservation of most of the momentum and the rest is dissipated by the aircraft fragmenting.

The aircraft which hit the pentagon was considerably larger and hit a considerably thinner wall of concrete. Given, the pentagon is pretty strong but the walls are only so thick and do have windows and such. Armored windows in many cases, but still not comparable to several feet of reinforced concrete. When the aircraft hit no doubt it broke apart immediately but it would have also broken the concrete. The concrete is strong to compression but for “sheer” as in an impact event it is more limited.

The fact that the aircraft was in pieces does not mean it stopped at this point. Since the first wall did not stay in one piece and solid it would not be completely deflected. The total mass of the aircraft still was moving forward, along with concrete it dislodged except in as multiple pieces and not one solid aircraft. Every fragment continued forward uintil the energy was expended. In the video of the F4 most of the fragments are still going at a high rate of speed but they’re deflected sideways when they hit the wall, because it doesn’t give.

This is a bit like a fragmentation round or some penitraters like depleted uranium. When it strikes the armor it may not remain in one piece, but the cloud of aerosol and molten steel continues to move forward with the same extreme energy of the round.

Now there also needs to be an understanding of building armor. The Pentagon did have ballistic armor and armored windows with relatively good laminated glass/acrylic. However the structure was not armored for all possible attacks. If you want to make the pentagon impervious to damn near anything you have to basically put it in the center of a mountain (Actually they did that.. it’s called Raven Rock)

But all armor is going to be designed for a certain kind of threat in mind. With the Pentagon it would be the possibility of a car bomb, an attack with small arms or something like that. Kevlar, you mention, may have been used, but Kevlar is not the be-all end-all. Kevlar fabric is good ballistic material because it can deform and absorb a lot of energy without tearing and allowing a fragment through. But Kevlar fabric is not going to add structural strength. In reality, it isn’t even anchored down very well so if you push on it hard enough the whole panel will tear away as one piece.

This is the thing: The pentagon was never armored in a manner anticipating a massive amount of force from a mechanical impact. Let me use an analogy for the armored windows and paneling. Lets imagine there is a line of men with bullet proof vests guarding me.

They’re standing there shoulder to shoulder and I’m behind them. You shoot one of them in the vest. You might shoot him a bunch of times. He stays standing. He grunts and leans back, but the guy next to him grabs his shoulder to make sure he doesn’t go back too far. The bullet proof vests have protected the line of guards and I’m safe.

Now lets say you have the same setup and you have a 300 pound football player run into the guards. He breaks through and nocks a bunch over and makes it to me. The fact that they had kevlar vests does not matter.

Will you take this down… or just delete my response?

No that’s never done here. Actually I’ve made a point of that.

        Elvis Oswald said:

In’t it obvious that this video proves NOT ONLY that if a plane hit the pentagon, it disintegrated… BUT ALSO that a plane DID NOT cause the damage at the pentagon????

Since you seen to have some intelligence, I will explain. The problem with this sort of simple analysis is that it is simple. There are few things more complex than two complex structures impacting. There are so many variables involved that it cannot be modeled just by looking at tapes of other events.

So in the end this proves nothing. Don’t fall into the same intellectual traps as the troofers.

I’m not sure where you dug up these supposed “troofers” who claim the video is fake. If they are real… then I pity the movement.

In’t it obvious that this video proves NOT ONLY that if a plane hit the pentagon, it disintegrated… BUT ALSO that a plane DID NOT cause the damage at the pentagon???

Newsmax posted this video and along with a gloating rant that claimed this would silence the idiots… and when I brought this up to them, they took it down.

Will you take this down… or just delete my response?

Heh.