Wednesday, January 16, 2008

MICHAEL LANGSTON'S RETORT TO NO-PLANERS

I like Michael Langston, and he does a great service by posting a HUGE number of pertinent audios and videos concerning 9/11 HERE. He sides firmly with the Steven Jones camp, and is dismissive of more "exotic" theories of what happened on 9/11. (In some cases, quite justifiably so.) Here he addresses those who question the use of actual airliners in bringing down the towers. I'm beginning to consider the merits of the no-plane theory, as I suspect there is much more to it than is being pushed by straw men and women like Reynolds and Wood. The following material is presented so that polite discussion on its merits may ensue.

To All You WTC No Planers

Still agree with Morgan Reynolds that aluminum planes are too soft and fragile to have easily penetrated the World Trade Center towers as shown in the videos and that the videos which show this happening are consequently faked? Do you believe in this notion of "video fakery" and that there weren't any planes that impacted the towers, in spite of the fact that people actually saw them?

Take a quick look at the following short video, which shows that even liquid WATER can cut through hard steel, if propelled with sufficient velocity, a velocity comparable to that of a fast-moving plane.

If a tiny, soft jet of fast-moving water can cut through hard steel like a knife through butter, isn't it also conceivable that the tons of aluminum and other metal parts of a fast-moving aircraft could certainly do likewise?

It's definitely something that one should consider.

3 comments:

Andy said...

I gotta say that I'm rather surprised that no one has yet chimed in on this topic. Feel free to do so.

Anonymous said...

??? "polite discussion on its merits" ???

I'm missing something. What does this phrase mean? Can you give an example? It doesn't sound like it would be fun at all.

Andy said...

Okay, then be as rude as you must. It would be interesting to have a discussion of any sort here.

My personal feeling is that Michael's video doesn't prove anything. Of course a super-concentrated, high speed jet of water could cut through metal. But it doesn't necessarily follow that flying beer-cans sailed through the towers. Were talking about the difference between a pin-point of water and something (presumably less dense) over a hundred feet wide.

Langston is merely throwing rocks at Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood here, in the perpetual Hegelian hoe-down of S. Jones vs. Fetzer.

Video fakery is something that needs to be judged clear of that particular hissy-fit. And until it is either conclusively proven or thoroughly debunked, it should remain on the table.

And as for people seeing planes hitting the buildings, I'm sure they saw something that day. Whatever they saw, I'll bet they did not see people waving to them from windows of airliners.