Take the 2-minute tour ×
Skeptics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for scientific skepticism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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.

share|improve this question

We're looking for long answers that provide some explanation and context. Don't just give a one-line answer; explain why your answer is right, ideally with citations. Answers that don't include explanations may be removed.

    
According to our Privileges section, 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 6 at 0:09
    
(as allowed by privileges but omitted by Skliwz, relevant/minor info): no plane crashed into "3rd tower" Building 7 which collapsed –  vzn Mar 7 at 17:00
    
I think, as others mentioned, there are barely doubts that a plane crashed into the WTC. The old conspiracy question is, who actually did it, and was the impact that big? –  aIKid Mar 10 at 6:53
add comment

4 Answers 4

up vote 71 down vote accepted

Yes: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm

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.

share|improve this answer
21  
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 5 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 6 at 5:32
8  
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 6 at 17:07
2  
@Oddthinking This is a reference to the impact depth approxmation I think. It applies only to projectiles travelling at high velocities :) –  Vincent Malgrat Mar 7 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 7 at 14:17
show 7 more comments

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.

share|improve this answer
4  
@BleedingFingers They've had 12.5 years. –  Articuno Mar 6 at 5:42
1  
@Articuno what if they have all been "silenced" </tin-foil hat day> –  ratchet freak Mar 6 at 8:54
3  
@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 6 at 14:41
22  
+1 for "so clearly untrue it is offensive" –  sds Mar 6 at 18:17
3  
@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 8 at 13:12
show 4 more comments

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.

share|improve this answer
2  
+1 for turning the "video evidence is unreliable" argument back on the conspiracy theorists. –  Jeff Gohlke Mar 9 at 4:23
add comment

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...

share|improve this answer
1  
What proof do we have they actually were live footage and not concocted videos purport as live? –  Bleeding Fingers Mar 6 at 5:32
11  
@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. –  Articuno Mar 6 at 5:41
    
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" ???!!! –  jaskey13 Mar 6 at 23:25
1  
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 –  jaskey13 Mar 6 at 23:43
    
@jaskey13 more like the Truman show for BleedingFingers... –  BigHomie Mar 8 at 15:34
show 2 more comments

protected by Sklivvz Mar 6 at 0:07

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.