A Real Airliner Crash versus the 9/11 Story

A Real Airliner Crash versus the 9/11 Story
Morgan Reynolds – April 13, 2010
The official story, also endorsed by the lame stream media and 9/11 “truthers,” is that four airliners crashed on 9/11 despite a distinct lack of verifiable aircraft wreckage and other impossibilities. By contrast, consider what the recent Polish airliner crash site near Smolensk Russia killing all 96 aboard looked like

And how come the wings of the Polish airplane were ripped off by trees and power lines? No wings were torn asunder on 9/11 despite the enormous strength of the steel/concrete construction of the WTC towers and flight AA77 supposedly hit five light poles approaching the Pentagon at 500+ mph 20 feet off the ground (impossible physics!) with no damage whatever to the plane

This entry was posted in 911. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to A Real Airliner Crash versus the 9/11 Story

  1. Lonnie Starr says:

    I’m pretty sure that commercial aircraft, do not have the strength to withstand the forces, generated by supersonic flight. If that is so, then that is something that can be compared to the forces of these planes hitting buildings. My guess is that the forces they’d encounter would be far superior to those of supersonic flight. How these planes supposedly maintained their structural integrity, all the way through some 167 feet of solid resistance, vertical steel columns and horizontal concrete floors, etc., is a mystery that begs an answer.

    • There is no mystery because there were no airliner crashes! You have simply provided another proof for that conclusion, namely, since civilian airliners like the Boeing 767 and 757 are not built to survive supersonic speeds (their airframes would shake themselves apart under such conditions), a proposition reinforced by high air resistance near sea level if such a speed were somehow attained by these lumbering buses, how could such fragile aircraft penetrate eight floors of steel and concrete weighing many thousands of tons and disappear without losing a flap or panel? It is ridiculous on its face but for those who need expert affirmation we can look to engineer Joe Keith, pilot John Lear and many others. Hell, even sleaze-ball Boeing representatives would have to affirm if we could get them under oath in a court of law.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Even more puzzling is that of 400 tons of aircraft lost on that day, over land, less than three tons of debris are recovered, while flight 800 crashed at sea, and recovery was almost complete, and from deep cold waters too boot. Go figure.

        • Just one engine (JT9D or CF6) from a Boeing 767 weighs 4.5 tons.
          But how can you back up your claim that “less than three tons of debris are recovered”? No verified evidence from crashed planes has ever been produced. Why? There were no plane crashes. Simple. It’s rubbish to believe there is genuine plane debris. So to clarify: where can we find support for your claim that less than three tons of fabricated debris was recovered?

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          (there was no reply button on your response so:
          “Morgan Reynolds says:
          December 28, 2011 at 2:48 pm

          Just one engine (JT9D or CF6) from a Boeing 767 weighs 4.5 tons.
          But how can you back up your claim that “less than three tons of debris are recovered”? No verified evidence from crashed planes has ever been produced. Why? There were no plane crashes. Simple. It’s rubbish to believe there is genuine plane debris. So to clarify: where can we find support for your claim that less than three tons of fabricated debris was recovered?”
          You stated it correctly: “fabricated” debris. The jet engine spindle found on Murry and Church streets was confirmed not to have come from either plane. Same with the landing gear. This, even though the “live video” of that day, purports to show this jet engine passing through the South Tower headed for Murry and Church. Thus, that engine part should have been very identifiable with that jet. That it wasn’t means the jet wasn’t there, why else create fake evidence? Same goes for the videos, why fake any of them if there is a true crash that’s been filmed?

          In any event, nothing aligns as it should, not the “calls from the planes” nor the rades data nor the speeds.

          On Pilots for truth we read that wings have their greatest strength focus against up and down wards forces, forces from other directions, not so much, even telephone cables can rip off wings because they apply lateral forces which wings are not designed to withstand.
          Even a low speed crash in New Jersey, where the nose of the craft merely punched a hole in a building, the lateral force exerted on the wings were enough to take both of them off.

          I’ve joined several technical boards, but the administrators there are advising me that no one on them, has the expertise sufficient to do impact analysis. So I’m searching for a way to simply the problem, I think it may be to just start by dealing with what should happen to the wings by millisecond time slices. I think that when the nose touches the buildings, the forces are so great that the wings detach immediately and begin to rotate. Remember the planes struck the building at off center angles. Meaning that the forces were unequally distributed to begin with, and only get more so as the plane rotates into the building, and as the buildings resistance increases, as the plane contacts the concrete flooring.

          My guess is that the planes should have totally fragmented before they got a third of the way into the buildings. Which is why I came to believe that there weren’t any planes.

  2. zonsb says:

    None of the 911 physics websites — websites dedicated to explaining the physics of the twin towers and Pentagon — I’ve read address the physics of the plane impacts into the south tower or north tower.
    I have seen no explanation from a physicist showing the laws of physics that allow for any of the four planes to have crashed according to the available evidence.

  3. Obwon says:

    “Whatever it takes to keep me safe”, thought Melvin, as he bent over for homeland security, to insert the probe for the fourth time today.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      That was in contrast to a world, people born in the last 20 years or so, will never know!
      I’m from an age when you could run out to the airport, buy your ticket for cash, and run to the boarding gate, arriving their out of breath, but in time to board and no one thought anything of it. There were coin operated lockers in train, bus stations and at the airports, you could store things in them and they’d remain there until you got back to retrieve them.

      Now people talk about 9-11, but they don’t read much of the necessary details of what had to be overcome to produce it. If they did, they’d be very suspicious, because none of those things are there. For example, did you know that the radar data and the 911 commission report say that the WTC strike planes, flew at many mph over their design capabilities? Okay, put that aside for a second and try to think: what kind of noise would such planes have made, flying at less than 2,000 feet with both engines going full bore?
      I live under the JFK take off pattern. I’ll tell you that the roar is deafening and fearsome!
      You cannot possibly ignore it, nor can there be any question about what it is.
      Now, compare what happened when Air Force One did a low overfly off shore of
      Manhattan. It prompted plenty of calls by concerned citizens. But, a 911 skyjacked aircraft, supposedly breaking the sound barrier, all the way down the west side of Manhattan, did not raise even a peep! No one heard anything, thus there were none of the expected wave of calls to 911 and other expected places. Curious no?

      google 911 pilots for truth, and spend a few days reading what registered and licensed airline pilots, with thousands of hours flying heavy jets, have to say about the matter.
      True, some of their ideas are “partisan”, but you can easily figure out what is from what isn’t, because there are other professional opinions to weight them against.

      The idea that 911 was an “inside job”, is not going to go away. It, will in fact, grow with each passing day, because there are so many critical questions that need to be answered, before it can even begin to subside. But, until those questions are answered, the “cover up” and/or “suppression” of evidence, will cloud Americas collective judgement, making WWIII a distinct possibility in then next decade or two.
      Probably not while the economy keeps consumption of resources in check. But when consumption picks back up, is when we’re going to experience greater international friction with foreign competitors. If our premises are false, trying to reach compromises, will be like trying to get a religious leader to compromise on his or her articles of faith.
      In short, it won’t happen, much to everyone’s distress.


  4. Obwon says:

    Time to take on the 911 planes.

    I read a posting by a scientist who said that the planes could not have entered the
    WTC towers whole, his reasoning was something like this:
    If you throw an egg at a brick wall, it smashes against it. But consider what
    happens in this process. Let’s say that the brick wall has a certain amount of
    strength. That requires a certain amount of force to get through it.

    Now, if we say that X is the amount of force, the egg needs to get through the
    wall, then we can give the egg that amount of force, and hit the wall with it…
    What happens?

    Well, he says, the egg smashes again, here’s what he says is why:

    When the egg hits the wall, with the energy required to penetrate it.
    It can only do so, if all of it’s mass remains concentrated in the area of impact.
    But, since the shell of the egg, is not strong enough resist the forces being
    exerted on it, it breaks and releases the energy containing mass. Which then
    allows the energy containing mass to spread that energy over a wider area.
    Which dissipates the energy against a larger area with increased resistance.

    Thus, the aluminum shell of the aircraft, can’t be expected to tolerate the forces
    of impact, and will therefore allow the energized mass it contains to spread.

    I’m no scientist but it does make some sense. I just wish he’d given the figures,
    etc., so that others could have a look see and tell us what they think.

    I also read something about the forces expected to be acting on the craft and
    the resistance the tower walls should have provided, but again, all narrative
    and no figures. So, I thought I’d post here, in the hope that someone might
    be inspired to do a more detailed work up.
    What I’m looking for is a “time sliced” detailed workup, using approximate forces and the activities of the materials involved based on their strengths and energy, in a progression in thousandths of a second starting with impact.


    • Steve says:

      Obwon, You could take your question to one or more university website forums and see if any physics students will do the calculations.

      • Obwon says:

        Yes, thanks, I will, after all the more the merrier as they say. I’d like to see competing models.
        Feel free to copy it to where ever yourself as well, I can’t cover them all obviously. Results are all that matters.

        Thanks again, Steve

  5. metalfist616 says:

    hi mr reynolds. how r u?

    once in a while i check back you site. like now… nice changes!

    well, to answer you questions in this post. becaouse the polish plane wasnt just a ghost plane


    yes i know, its that simple. just read the latest comments on my no plane videos. you propably remember the site

    best wishes mart-kos

  6. Steve says:

    There’s the 911 truth movement. Which has been compromised — probably from day one as a counter intelligence program or controlled opposition. I suggest the 911 CSI movement. 911 Crime Scene Investigation Movement.

    A real investigation has got to explain the evidence. Starting with what plane evidence? Most 911 truthers don’t want to hear that the reality is that an honest investigation starts with invalidating the OGCT at the point of alleged plane crashes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.