64

I was looking through the questions tagged 9-11 and noticed the no-planes theory isn't on here. So:

Were there planes that crashed into the WTC? Some examples of notable claims asserting otherwise are here , here, and here.

Another article elaborates, and claims the following: (note: these are scattered throughout the article)

The first to notice that American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11

Edward Hendrie has published the data tables for both of these alleged flights, where it turns out that the BTS subsequently revised their tables with partial data in order to cover up their absence.

Even more surprisingly, however, Pilots has also determined that United Flight 175 was in the air in the vicinity of Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was purportedly crashing into the South Tower in New York City. This may come as quite a shock to those who watched as it entered the South Tower on television. Indeed, when an FBI official was asked why the NTSB, for the first time in its history, had not investigated any of these four crashes, he replied that it wasn’t necessary “because we saw them on television”. Well, we didn’t see the Shanksville crash or the Pentagon crash on TV, which leaves us wondering what we did see on television on 9/11.

The footage of the South Tower hit exemplifies several anomalies, including a Boeing 767 flying at an impossible speed, an impossible entry into the building (in violation of Newton’s laws), and even passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air—which is impossible, unless this 500,000 ton, steel and concrete building posed no more resistance to its trajectory in flight than air. Some have claimed that this was a “special plane” that could fly faster than a standard Boeing 767, but no real plane could violate Newton’s laws.

Community
  • 1
ike
  • 4,950
  • 1
  • 20
  • 52
  • According to our [Privileges section](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/privileges/comment), you should only use comments to request clarification from the author or leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving this post. Please review the **When shouldn't I comment?** section and act appropriately in the future. – Sklivvz Mar 06 '14 at 00:09
  • 1
    (as allowed by privileges but omitted by Skliwz, relevant/minor info): no plane crashed into "3rd tower" [Building 7](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1368/on-911-was-building-7-destroyed-in-a-controlled-explosion) which collapsed – vzn Mar 07 '14 at 17:00

4 Answers4

92

Yes: National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, CyberCemetery:

The first to notice that American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly on 9/11

There is no evidence to support this claim.

Pilots has also determined that United Flight 175 was in the air in the vicinity of Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, PA, at the time it was purportedly crashing into the South Tower in New York City.

There is no evidence to support this claim. They say "Pilots has also determined". How? Via what evidence? This is not disclosed.

The footage of the South Tower hit exemplifies several anomalies including a Boeing 767 flying at an impossible speed

It was travelling at approximately 513 knots, not impossible.

an impossible entry into the building (in violation of Newton's laws)

They don't describe at all what makes the claimed entry impossible or a violation of physics, so this is not worth debunking.

and even passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air—which is impossible

The frame rate of video does not yield the resolution necessary to notice all rates of deceleration.

The aircraft decelerated from 513 knots to a speed close to 0 knots. Some debris had enough momentum to be carried through the building and was ejected for several blocks surrounding the tower.

unless this 500,000 ton, steel and concrete building posed no more resistance to its trajectory in flight than air

The aircraft was not stopped by a 500,000 ton, steel and concrete building. It was stopped by the structure of up to three floors of that building.

Mark Rogers
  • 11,324
  • 11
  • 55
  • 71
  • 37
    And planes aren't exactly that strong. If the front stops suddenly, the structure of the plane is more likely to crumple and show minimal difference in tail speed until it is already inside the building. – AlbeyAmakiir Mar 05 '14 at 21:58
  • 5
    Indeed, the only thing stopping the airplane is the actual parts of the building that got hit. The concrete was only used in floor decking 2.5" thick. The steel was only on the outside of the structure (nothing between the perimiter and core was structural), and a large amount of the what the plane hit was actually glass. – Gabe Mar 06 '14 at 05:32
  • @Gabe Glass, furniture, cubicle walls and people. – Shadur Mar 06 '14 at 07:56
  • 13
    I come from the depths of StackExchange to tell you...the physical laws of impact depth predict a standard of 1 object length for impact depth, so it's not surprising that the Boeing's impact depth is approximately that much. – Zibbobz Mar 06 '14 at 17:07
  • @Zibbobz: Would you like to bring a reference with you to support that? When I drop buttered toast on my kitchen floor, I make a mess, but I don't leave a huge dent in the floor, the size of a piece of bread. – Oddthinking Mar 07 '14 at 10:02
  • 8
    @Oddthinking This is a reference to the [impact depth approxmation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_depth) I think. It applies only to projectiles travelling at high velocities :) – Vincent Malgrat Mar 07 '14 at 13:00
  • 1
    @VincentMalgrat Exactly what I was thinking of. And I would wager a commercial airliner would be considered a fairly high-velocity object. – Zibbobz Mar 07 '14 at 14:17
  • 1
    @zibbobz not buttered toasts though :> – Vincent Malgrat Mar 07 '14 at 14:30
  • 2
    @VincentMalgrat Maybe if you had an industrial strength auto-buttering toaster... – Zibbobz Mar 07 '14 at 14:46
  • 1
    @Zibbobz I think that's *maximum* impact depth, and assumes that the object isn't still being accelerated (presumably the jet engines stopped working fairly quickly when the plane impacted, but they didn't do so instantly) – Shadur Mar 11 '14 at 12:23
  • @Shadur True, but you have to remember the plane was not build for building penetration, nor was the building made to absorb an airplane. True there is hallow space in the building, and the cylindrical shape of the plane should be considered, but so too should the wings of the plane and the infastructure of the building itself. That paints a fairly complex picture. – Zibbobz Mar 11 '14 at 13:19
  • 4
    @Zibbobz and most of the conspiracy theories base their 'strong evidence' on incredibly simplified and shallow notions of how they think things *should* work. – Shadur Mar 11 '14 at 15:04
90

We don't need the video evidence. Even without the footage from many angles, there is a plethora of eye-witness accounts testifying that a plane hit the South Tower.

Here's a small sample.

At that time Chief Ganci was behind me and he thought there was another explosion in the north tower and that's when I turned around and said Chief, listen, there is a second plane that hit the other tower. He was like no no no no, we have another explosion. I said no, Chief, I witnessed it. I watched the plane hit the other tower. He is like are you sure. I said Chief, I'm 100 hundred percent positive I watched the second plane hit the other tower. FDNY firefighter Scott Holowach

"I just happened to raise my head watching the Statue of Liberty and as I watched I saw this giant aircraft... coming in slow motion towards me -- eye level, eye contact. And I just froze."

At some point after our arrival and after we had moved to the west side of West Street, I heard a loud roar of a jet, looked up and saw the second plane impact the south tower. At that point it was clear to me it was a terrorist attack. We stepped over small airplane aviation parts, on Vesey, continued west, continued looking at the building. FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro

At that time, I started walking towards Engine 3. Engine 3 drove south to the south pedestrian bridge to make a U turn to come back and as I'm walking towards the Engine to find out what Lieutenant Walsh wanted us to do, I heard the sound of a jet plane. I looked up and saw it pretty close and I was like holy shit. What's going on with the with the flight patterns. All of a sudden, the wings turned and it dove right into the building and it was screwed up.

Upon that time I heard a plane roar. I had my window down and on my side we saw a plane flying very low come right across us and with a loud, you know, the engines revved up, and I had mentioned to him, I had no idea that it was heading towards that way, and I just said like where is this guy going, you know, he was extremely low, not realizing it was another plane heading towards the World Trade, and we saw it struck the building, we saw a big mushroom of flame, of fire coming up, and it was like disbelief, and he had gotten on the radio and notified the dispatcher another plane had struck the World Trade Center. FDNY firefighter Stephen Zasa

"While assisting a female burn victim, I observed PO Rivero look up towards the WTC tower #2. At this time the undersigned heard the sound of jet engines and observed an aircraft with a blue color tail fly directly into the south face of WTC Tower #2. Following the impact an enormous explosion occurred causing debris to begin to fall down all around the WTC complex." PAPD PO James Hall Source (pg. 5)

Eye-witnesses are not the most reliable source of evidence, but here they consistently corroborate the video, with no significant contingent of witnesses making counter-claims, so the "no plane" theory isn't sustainable, and falls into the "so clearly untrue it is offensive" category.

Community
  • 1
Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • What if no contingent witnesses were not given the chance to make it to the surface? Realize back then we didn't have the social media we have today. – Bleeding Fingers Mar 06 '14 at 05:29
  • 10
    @BleedingFingers They've had 12.5 years. –  Mar 06 '14 at 05:42
  • 1
    @Articuno what if they have all been "silenced" – ratchet freak Mar 06 '14 at 08:54
  • 6
    @BleedingFingers: It's late and the double negatives are doing my head in. :-( I think the answer is: Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, if the theory would predict evidence to exist. – Oddthinking Mar 06 '14 at 14:41
  • Sorry about the double negative. I noticed it after 5mins had passed. Well, I don't want to get into that kind of discussion in the comments. But if there were a chat room for this I would have presented my argument against that. – Bleeding Fingers Mar 06 '14 at 17:57
  • 8
    @BleedingFingers - the world did not begin with "social media"! There were 1000's of eye-witnesses. Where did all the "deniers" disappear to?! _so clearly untrue it is offensive_ - it's not offensive, it's just plain **stupid.** There are questions that have been raised about what sort planes actually hit (some of them serious questions which fit in with some of your scheduling anomalies, etc), and if there were also explosive charges in the building that helped with the collapse (remote...) but **nobody** questions that planes hit the towers unless they have a screw (or several) loose. – Vector Mar 08 '14 at 13:12
  • 3
    @comeAndGo I don't know about you, but such blatant stupidity is certainly offensive to me. – thumbtackthief Mar 11 '14 at 14:26
  • 8
    To me the offensiveness comes from a cavalier attitude to the deaths of thousands of people. I find it disrespectful to wantonly abuse their memories (and the duty to learn from their deaths to prevent others) - especially for such minor political gain. This is clearly a personal opinion, not a scientific fact; I respect that other people may quite reasonably not perceive it as offensive, and that offensiveness is a weak argument against facts. We are straying off topic. Let's take further discussion to chat. – Oddthinking Mar 13 '14 at 00:41
  • @Oddthinking, The strength of using eyewitnesses as evidence decreases as time passes. In just another 80 years, the claims of such "eyewitnesses" will be held [with scrutiny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism). – Pacerier Sep 22 '15 at 03:47
  • @Pacerier: I am not clear on your point. Taking a eyewitness testimony 80 years after the event, and what you will hear is untrustworthy. But that is different to reading a contemporary eye-witness testimony, 80 years later. (Coincidentally, I witnessed a theft just about 60 minutes ago, and I already don't trust my memory of it - which is why I wrote down notes very soon afterwards.) – Oddthinking Sep 22 '15 at 07:15
  • @Oddthinking, I mean we can verify these statements now by calling up the eyewitnesses first-hand if necessary. But in [the next era](https://www.google.com/search?q=long+now), the evidence to the claim that these statements are not fabricated will get [weaker and weaker](http://english.stackexchange.com/a/18280/8278) as time passes. – Pacerier Oct 01 '15 at 16:49
33

The footage of the South Tower hit exemplifies several anomalies, including a Boeing 767 flying at an impossible speed, an impossible entry into the building

There is ample documentation and physical evidence of aircraft parts at and near the WTC site in the day after crash that seem improbable without there having been an impact.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/aircraft.html

Others have mentioned that the speed was not impossible for a 767.

(in violation of Newton’s laws), and even passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air—which is impossible,

This is more consistent with video abnormalities than with an impact not occurring. There is plenty of video of wheels seeming to move backwards as the vehicle moves forward, in violation of newton's laws. When using video as evidence you need to take into account the limits of that technology.

unless this 500,000 ton, steel and concrete building posed no more resistance to its trajectory in flight than air. Some have claimed that this was a “special plane” that could fly faster than a standard Boeing 767, but no real plane could violate Newton’s laws.

All of the physical evidence matches the types of aircraft and is consistent with a impact. The fact that much of the aircraft was turned into 100 micron powder is consistent with an impact as described in the official record. I can assure that F=MA and that the F of impact was sufficient for the plane to enter the building as in the official record, with much of the mass turning into a powder.

They provide no evidence of a special plane nor a reason why it might have violated Newton’s laws.

sal
  • 604
  • 4
  • 6
  • 7
    +1 for turning the "video evidence is unreliable" argument back on the conspiracy theorists. – asteri Mar 09 '14 at 04:23
  • As for 100 micron powder and an aircraft not bouncing off a glass facade, I couldn't help but remember [this](https://youtu.be/U4wDqSnBJ-k?t=66) angle of that infamous F-4 crash test. That's a F-4 fighter plane (much more compact than a 767 which is to a large part empty space) crashing into a solid block of concrete... and not slowing down much before it's... 100 micron powder. ;-) – DevSolar May 02 '19 at 14:34
15

Live footage from multiple sources clearly show an object hitting the 2nd tower... in several the silhouette of a plane is readily visible... Here is a good compilation of LIVE feeds with the network identified: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMQWzdc175A... All I can say is this shouldn't even be debatable anymore...

  • 1
    What proof do we have they actually were live footage and not concocted videos purport as live? – Bleeding Fingers Mar 06 '14 at 05:32
  • 14
    @BleedingFingers We don't have proof, but we have *evidence* in the form of eyewitness testimony in oddthinking's answer, physical evidence in debris, radar tracks from air traffic control, and a lack of evidence supporting your proposed alternative. –  Mar 06 '14 at 05:41
  • 5
    Also I was watching live tv when it happened... But then again maybe I'm working for a shadow system that controls the world... as is all of the world's media (including the internet) and everything you see is just a complex orchestrated lie- just like the myriad live 9/11 newscasts... Wait do you work for the government? Is this the "Matrix" ???!!! –  Mar 06 '14 at 23:25
  • 2
    And finally @BleedingFingers- what is your standard of "proof" Even in the most ideological and pristine settings of mathematical logic "proof" requires existence axioms... In the case of whole number arithmetic (math) there are 9 of them known as the Peano Axioms... In the case of 9/11 we assume other humans can collectedly experience and give testimony to reality... you can refute the axioms if you wish but you need the support of the majority of human experience to do so ie the rest of the world better see that 1+2=4 or you're just going to be plain flat out WRONG –  Mar 06 '14 at 23:43
  • @jaskey13 more like the Truman show for BleedingFingers... – MDMoore313 Mar 08 '14 at 15:34
  • @MDMoore313 well it was irrefutable until he figured it out right? –  Mar 11 '14 at 03:18
  • @jaskey13 this is true – MDMoore313 Mar 11 '14 at 11:47