StillDiggin is back with three strong arguments that no planes hit the World Trade Center, and an explanation - repetition and social fear - why we think we saw a plane.
I'm not as sure as StillDiggin that all the witnesses were lying, as I wonder whether repetition acted quickly that day to influence people's perceptions, and I don't want to discount those witnesses that were in position to see or hear a plane and did not. I am speaking mainly of non-media witnesses that StillDiggin does not discuss. Regardless, there were not "hundreds" or "thousands" of people that saw a plane, and there are fireman that were in a position to see a plane and/or plane debris and did not.
But maybe I'm just unwilling to accept that so many people would lie.
Regardless, the images shown by StillDiggin are incontrovertible evidence of faked videos, which means no planes.
I agree that this is the most important fact about 9/11, and that the blowing up of the towers has been proven and how it was done is not nearly as important as this issue of the planes.
I have tried to prove no planes with equations, or at least by interpreting the equations of others. StillDiggin has more qualifications to do that than me, yet says:
As an engineer, [the ghost plane picture is] what got me thinking about what would really happen if a plane were to actually strike the World Trade Center. Even with equations, I wouldn’t be able to convince most people that this image can’t possibly be real. This is why I do my best to steer clear of that and appeal to people’s common sense.
I understand better now what he is saying in his comments to my first blog post:
Reverting to my use of layman's terminology, comparing the energy that would be required to shear cleanly through those steel beams with the energy that any part of a Boeing 767 traveling at 500+mph is essentially like trying to compare the size of an elephant to the size of an atom.
When ignoring the nature of the shear and imagining that the beams were bent and torn, we can then upgrage the atom to a mosquito and perform the elephant comparison again.
Do we really need equations to prove that the elephant is bigger?
Experts use equations, and the assumptions they plug in, to deny their own common sense.
Here is a quote by MIT experts on impact engineering:
To the casual observer, it would appear that the facade of the Twin Towers did not offer any resistance at all, and that the plane's wings and fuselage slice through the exterior columns as if they were made of cardboard. . . How was it possible that the relatively weak, light, and airy airframe damaged the apparently heavy lattice of high strength steel columns? The devastating result of this encounter came as a surprise to the engineering and scientific community or at least to the present authors.
From: Wierzbicki and Teng, How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center, Int'l J. of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 601-625
Yet their article purported to prove that the wings could slice through.
Then other engineering professors purported to show that the planes could penetrate the columns, but in their model, had the delicate front of the fuselage penetrate the columns as an assumption, not a proven fact. Like Wierzbicki, they took the video evidence for granted, and found a way to "prove" what defies common sense.
Karim and Hoo Fatt, Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft Into the World Trade Center, J. of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 131, No. 10 (October 2005).
A copy is available here for fair use:
I wrote more about this phenomenon here:
I think that StillDiggin's theory of social fear may apply to these experts, and that we can't rely on experts but have to use our common sense.
Thank you StillDiggin. I've been waiting for your next article, and it's a fine one.