9/11 Planes?

[ryan22424]

Now, I found something pretty interesting today. Many of you are familiar with the terrorist attack on the twin towers on September 9, 2001, and many of you believe that this attack was involved with hijacked airlines. But this would be physically impossible. If you watch footage of the attack, you can see that the planes sort of melt into the building, then explode when they are inside. Newton's first law of motion states that "An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." Looking back to the footage, you would see that the planes have no resistance against the building, and swiftly penetrates the outside of the building. Taking in the fact that the buildings are made out of double re-enforced steel walls that are ten inches thick, the plane would have penetrated the building and exploded, but not in the same way as the footage. Commercial airlines are made with aluminum, which makes these kinds of aircraft fragile. Now, if the plane were to hit a building with as much re-enforcement as the twin towers, the body would crumple up while penetrating the mass and the wings would most likely cut off of the body rather than slicing into the building. That brings up another point; Where is the debris? If you zoom in just enough, you can see there is no debris in the explosion, and that leaves us to wonder. Were planes used in the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Upon further examination, I came upon a theory that large explosives were involved, such as nukes. Now before you say that nukes have a way too large blast radius to be used in the twin towers, the blast radius can vary. The blast radius of a nuke depends on the kiloton, usually ranging from .3 to 500 kilotons. To give some scale, a 100 megaton nuke can demolish a large city such as New York. It is possible that planes were not even involved in the attack, but rather nukes planted in different locations of the building, then detonated. I currently can't find any information that could enlighten me on why the footage was modified in the first place, so that is a mystery I can't solve at this moment. But the question remains, were planes involved in the 9/11 attack? My answer would be yes, considering the evidence. But I would like to hear your opinions, on whether you think my evidence is true, or false, that's why it's in debates after all.

[jasperb94]

I found this interesting, Personally I don't think any terrorists were involved. I believe that it was in fact our own government that was behind the attacks.
I found one part rather odd, how you noted that it is possible NO planes were involved in the twin tower attacks... I know people who were in NYC when it happened, a few who even saw the planes crash into the building, not to mention the fact there is footage of the planes crashing into the buildings (it was also on most news channels live), and all the people who were there when it happened.
Though I agree that the way they seem to melt into the building is a little odd. some type of explosives were probably used but as for a Nuke... seems a tad extreme, and don't they cause radiation that would have been noticed?

If I may ask why did you only focus on the twin tower portion of the 9/11 attacks? 9/11 consisted of 4 attacks, the Pentagon, Both Towers, and Flight 93

[ryan22424]

I found this interesting, Personally I don't think any terrorists were involved. I believe that it was in fact our own government that was behind the attacks.
I found one part rather odd, how you noted that it is possible NO planes were involved in the twin tower attacks... I know people who were in NYC when it happened, a few who even saw the planes crash into the building, not to mention the fact there is footage of the planes crashing into the buildings (it was also on most news channels live), and all the people who were there when it happened.
Though I agree that the way they seem to melt into the building is a little odd. some type of explosives were probably used but as for a Nuke... seems a tad extreme, and don't they cause radiation that would have been noticed?

If I may ask why did you only focus on the twin tower portion of the 9/11 attacks? 9/11 consisted of 4 attacks, the Pentagon, Both Towers, and Flight 93

Wait, let me do some more research, and about the nukes. Nukes are like larger portable bombs, and have much more sulfur in them, the sulfur determining the amount of kilotons. Though, the radiation does not show, in fact, and that puzzles me. It may have been a regular bomb, but to have a blast radius that large, it must have been a large one.

[ryan22424]

I'll get back to you on this one, I really need to finish the next chapter of my story.

[Sweaty]

Illuminati? 

[ryan22424]

Illuminati? 

Yes Sweaty, illuminati

[Sahaquiel_9]

well, let the conspiracy theories roll in.

[Sahaquiel_9]

Now, I found something pretty interesting today. Many of you are familiar with the terrorist attack on the twin towers on September 9, 2001, and many of you believe that this attack was involved with hijacked airlines. But this would be physically impossible. If you watch footage of the attack, you can see that the planes sort of melt into the building, then explode when they are inside. Newton's first law of motion states that "An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." Looking back to the footage, you would see that the planes have no resistance against the building, and swiftly penetrates the outside of the building. Taking in the fact that the buildings are made out of double re-enforced steel walls that are ten inches thick, the plane would have penetrated the building and exploded, but not in the same way as the footage. Commercial airlines are made with aluminum, which makes these kinds of aircraft fragile. Now, if the plane were to hit a building with as much re-enforcement as the twin towers, the body would crumple up while penetrating the mass and the wings would most likely cut off of the body rather than slicing into the building. That brings up another point; Where is the debris? If you zoom in just enough, you can see there is no debris in the explosion, and that leaves us to wonder. Were planes used in the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Upon further examination, I came upon a theory that large explosives were involved, such as nukes. Now before you say that nukes have a way too large blast radius to be used in the twin towers, the blast radius can vary. The blast radius of a nuke depends on the kiloton, usually ranging from .3 to 500 kilotons. To give some scale, a 100 megaton nuke can demolish a large city such as New York. It is possible that planes were not even involved in the attack, but rather nukes planted in different locations of the building, then detonated. I currently can't find any information that could enlighten me on why the footage was modified in the first place, so that is a mystery I can't solve at this moment. But the question remains, were planes involved in the 9/11 attack? My answer would be yes, considering the evidence. But I would like to hear your opinions, on whether you think my evidence is true, or false, that's why it's in debates after all.

1. it was September 11th (hence 9/11)
2. There's also this thing called the 2nd law of motion, which states that force equals mass times acceleration.  Planes are obviously massive.  They also go really fast (I know it's not acceleration, but it still kinda is because the earth is not flat but it's curved).  With enough mass going at a high enough speed, it can cut through a lot of stuff.

3.  Debris was not in the explosion because the plane fully went into the buildings.
4.  Nuclear bombs are COMPLETELY out of the question because if they used any kind of nuclear weapon, geiger counters would detect it and the people that survived would have radiation sickness.
5. No government (besides WWII Germany) would kill thousands of people like that.  Not even our corrupt-as-fuck government.
This argument seemed like it was quickly slapped together, no offense.

[Tenebrae]

Now, I found something pretty interesting today. Many of you are familiar with the terrorist attack on the twin towers on September 9, 2001, and many of you believe that this attack was involved with hijacked airlines. But this would be physically impossible. If you watch footage of the attack, you can see that the planes sort of melt into the building, then explode when they are inside. Newton's first law of motion states that "An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." Looking back to the footage, you would see that the planes have no resistance against the building, and swiftly penetrates the outside of the building. Taking in the fact that the buildings are made out of double re-enforced steel walls that are ten inches thick, the plane would have penetrated the building and exploded, but not in the same way as the footage. Commercial airlines are made with aluminum, which makes these kinds of aircraft fragile. Now, if the plane were to hit a building with as much re-enforcement as the twin towers, the body would crumple up while penetrating the mass and the wings would most likely cut off of the body rather than slicing into the building. That brings up another point; Where is the debris? If you zoom in just enough, you can see there is no debris in the explosion, and that leaves us to wonder. Were planes used in the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Upon further examination, I came upon a theory that large explosives were involved, such as nukes. Now before you say that nukes have a way too large blast radius to be used in the twin towers, the blast radius can vary. The blast radius of a nuke depends on the kiloton, usually ranging from .3 to 500 kilotons. To give some scale, a 100 megaton nuke can demolish a large city such as New York. It is possible that planes were not even involved in the attack, but rather nukes planted in different locations of the building, then detonated. I currently can't find any information that could enlighten me on why the footage was modified in the first place, so that is a mystery I can't solve at this moment. But the question remains, were planes involved in the 9/11 attack? My answer would be yes, considering the evidence. But I would like to hear your opinions, on whether you think my evidence is true, or false, that's why it's in debates after all.

You do realise planes travel fast. If ever you've watched car crash footage, you'd notice similar things. Planes are built aerodynamically to cut through the air, and at that speed, theres no wonder a plane would cut through a building like it did. No doubt it would've slowed considerably, but the explosion would've destroyed significant portions of the plane body, or the building would've shielded the debris from the outside. About explosives, how would the hijackers have managed to get them onto the aircraft. Security is tight at airpots. Also, planes aren't built from plain aluminium. There are alloys involved, because a lot of the time alloys are stronger than pure metals. They have to be light too, but strong.

[ryan22424]

You do realise planes travel fast. If ever you've watched car crash footage, you'd notice similar things. Planes are built aerodynamically to cut through the air, and at that speed, theres no wonder a plane would cut through a building like it did. No doubt it would've slowed considerably, but the explosion would've destroyed significant portions of the plane body, or the building would've shielded the debris from the outside. About explosives, how would the hijackers have managed to get them onto the aircraft. Security is tight at airpots. Also, planes aren't built from plain aluminium. There are alloys involved, because a lot of the time alloys are stronger than pure metals. They have to be light too, but strong.

But to travel that fast at the altitude it was at is hard to believe. Commercial airlines fly at high altitudes to reduce air density, so the plane can move at it's full speed. As the plane flies further down in height, the air density increases, which increases friction against the body and wings, in turn, slowing the plane down. The plane couldn't have been going fast enough at the altitude it was at to cut through a concrete and steel wall, 10 inches thick. As for the bombs, I said they might have snuck them into the World Trade Center buildings and planted them at different locations, and I said that I believed no planes actually crashed into the towers at all. Terrorists can be crafty about how they sneak things into buildings, and may I remind you, our security wasn't as good as it is today, considering the attack was in 2001, 13 years ago. I really didn't know they were made from alloys, but the still are pretty fragile. Considering they have thin walls, and can be crippled easily, such as just landing too hard, something would have fallen off of the plane on impact. Also, I found something new. While reviewing the footage, I stopped the tape when the plane was about to make impact. If you look closely, for a frame, the nose completely disappears. I found this interesting, and checked if it did the same thing in different angles. Sure enough, every angle you can see the nose make impact, it disappears just before it makes contact with the building. This is what led me to believe that someone modified the footage, before it got to local news stations and to the public. It doesn't make sense to me why they did, but that's what research is for. I have my theories, but right now they seem like garbage when I consider the other possibilities.