5 No-planer Claims Refuted

This is for anyone who still thinks the no-plane theories have any credibility. Please consider this my public statement about no-plane theories: They have no merit and are all wrong.

The plane does decelerate:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/single/?p=454389&t=747312

No "TV Fakery":

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/LetterAddedtoACriticalReviewofWTC_...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/h/NPTrebuttal.pdf

http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6jS2Ah22us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Jahg9fxM4

Impossible speed? No:

http://911blogger.com/node/20232

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L978nIT-AY4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUpKL4d-wRk

Can planes penetrate steel structures? Yes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQTBP7vbXNI

There were reliable witnesses to the crashes:

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-planes-theory-rip.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu-OZOQXHwI

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• 9/11
• september
• 11th
• 2001
• WTC
• World
• Trade
• Center
• Twin
• Towers
• flight
• 175
• 11
• 77
• 93
• no
• plane
• no-planer
• path
• controlled
• demolition
• thermite
• thermate
• nanothermite

[poznanski666]

one more person posts the pumpkin through a car door dosent know that a car door is no more a few mm thick most car doors arent even made out of steel cars would be so heavy if they were made with steel like the towers people obviously dont know density

[citizenfor911truth1]

@poznanski666

So you believe that a pumpkin is stronger than a car door?

[poznanski666]

@citizenfor911truth1 in the case of the car yes because the pumpkin is thicker than the car doors steel and a pumpkin isnt hollow either, and that car door isnt double walled thick steel thin sheet metal

[poznanski666]

for aluminum to bend steel it has to be 3 times as thick, the walls of a 767 are .06 in the walls of the towers were .25 in anyone with a decent knowledge of crash physics knows a soft material cannot penetrate a rigid material, there were planes just not commercial airliners, explosives were used to simulate the impact wholes thats why the aluminum cladding of the building is bend outwards but the steel is bent inwards

[winston2015]

ARE PEOPLE INSANE? Doesn't it matter that thousands of NY'rs watched live while these planes plowed into the buildings.. I guess not.

The whole No Planes helps sideline the truth!

I wouldnt even pay attention to anyone making such a spurious and absurd claim. Same thing with the Pentagon. -stick to where the evidence is strongest: demolition in lower Manhattan (something that could only be dismissed by someone not looking at the facts. Otherwise you are harming the struggle for 9-11 Truth!

[citizenfor911truth1]

@poznanski666

The first plane shown was going at about 438 mph. watch?v=A-tVBCX8yDQ

[poznanski666]

@superfuzz they post vids of planes going 100mph close to the ground and say its evidence planes can fly 500mph near the ground the shills are retarted 

[tombqnyc]

screw off the towers were hit ny planes

downtown nyc here you hick-ass dolts

wake up

and do not troll

you psychos

truth does not equal your crap

[sanluisskywatch]

There are different videos showing the planes approaching at different altitudes.

That alone is proof that the video was faked.

Also, the impossible flight speeds at sea-level are a tell tale give away.

[Matu1]

@DeepSpace8an

Did you watched the video at all? You are talking like robot and repeating what has been answered in this same video!! Btw your statement that "the side of the wtc was not a concrete block" only proves that the plane was able to go trough the side in to the building because it was not specially designed to resist it like that concrete block was. Yes we are being lied to, 9/11 was an inside job but there is alot of disinformation out there, keep your focus.