The Dummies Guide to "No-Planer" theory

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by PepeLapew

 

I think your arrogance misled you on my propositions. I do believe the planes hit the towers. I didn't "reply" to you directly and made my claims very general and broad, pertaining only to those who believe that infact, holograms were used. I thought claiming the contrary was enough to make my point of planes being used relevant, but I guess not.

Maybe your next thread should be "Deciphering a general response for dummies?"


Edit: Sticky S key.


Oh, and don't ever call me "dear" again. Thanks, genius.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

Well my apologies if I insulted you. Your post really read to me like you were a no-planer. But never then less, never mind dear ...... er .... I mean dudette, or ma'm or miss.

Endoskeleton.

The exoskeleton is the facades.
Yup, exoskeleton or facade, that's what I was talking about. I was not talking about the core which was irrelevant in this case.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

...I would like to suggest a little movie to you. It was made by a good friend of mine. A very nice lady too. Please watch it and let me know what you think. And if you wish, she would probably be very interested in talking with you - a first hand witness. Here's the movie in question, you will need a good connection for this:
video.google.ca...

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

PepeLapiu

What a truly great post to begin this thread: one of the very best I have seen on ATS. Long, coherent and thoroughly argued, and puts into words precisely what many of us feel.

I also have come to believe that vocal 'no planers' must be disinfo agents planted to discredit serious researchers who are trying to uncover the truth. How could you discredit serious research into 9/11 more effectively, and continue to keep the truth hidden, than to plant perpetrators of a lunatic theory unsupported by any evidence which ignores the obvious?

The same techniques are used to attempt to prevent serious study of the UFO thing: plant nutters and goof-balls with way-out beliefs linked to the phenomenon, ensure they have a public profile and so discredit the whole movement as a bunch of odd balls who should never be taken seriously.

I have seen your friend's video - all 90 minutes of it. It's a finely crafted piece of propaganda. Though it asks some good questions and explores some important issues about CDs, it's far too one-sided and is obviously designed to persuade the viewer of the author's own point of view. I know when I am being propagandized at, thank you. Maybe CD is the most likely explanation for the WTC collapse from an engineering point of view, but there is little real evidence here, selectively biassed and ill-informed quotes and no proof. Also, the muzak on the soundtrack is so damned irritating it almost ruins it. So 2/10, or 3/10 at most. Sorry - try harder, be less partial and use a bit more scientific rigor, please. Then more people might take notice. Which they should.

Originally posted by bovarcher
'Drills' my ass.

It was admitted that they were running drills for the exact same incident at the exact same locations at the exact same time as the London bombings.

Originally posted by bovarcher
You don't 'drill' with a rucksack full of high explosives, fused with a live detonator.

If you intend to make the drill go live you do.

Originally posted by bovarcher
I was in London on 7/7 and witnessed the devastation.

And you give off the indication that you know nothing of what actually happened.

Originally posted by bovarcher
Where were you?

Sitting comfortably in my home, and I still know more about it than you do.

Simply because you witnessed it doesn't mean that the official account you chose to eat up is any more factual than the alternative account.

Do your research.

Originally posted by Insolubrious


Notice the distinctive shape of the plane, you can clearly see where the wings entered.

The wings don't look like they entered to me. In fact, this photo make me believe more that the no-plane theory holds water (no pun intended).

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


I was a little unclear in my words. I meant to have that read that the hijackers got on the plane with full intent to hijack the plane but they were not in control of the hijacking or the piloting of the plane, to their suprise.

There were hijackers and there were passengers but the hijackers never flew the planes themselves. They probably had no idea they would just be getting on a plane for a final ride to put some faces to the enemy.

I did not mean to have it interpretted as the passengers were in on it. They were as unassuming as the people that lost their lives in the buildings. R.I.P. to them all.

[edit on 11/2/2007 by Spoodily]

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


I do not understand your point. What is it please?

Originally posted by PepeLapewAt the base of the towers these columns were approximately 2.5 inch thick and gradually thinning out toward the top.

Interesting. Can you source this?

I meant to have that read that the hijackers got on the plane with full intent to hijack the plane but they were not in control of the hijacking or the piloting of the plane, to their suprise.

There were hijackers and there were passengers but the terrorists never flew the planes themselves. They probably had no idea they would just be getting on a plane for a final ride to put some faces to the enemy.

Where is your evidence for this claim please? I never saw any.

reply to post by mattifikation


In case you have not seen the videos, the flash of light comes BEFORE the planes touch either building. It is shown clearly and unequivocally that the flashes, whatever the source, are seen BEFORE the plane nose gets to the side of the Towers. So, if it does not touch, there can be no ' spark '.

Also, the noses of aircraft do NOT have fuel in the and they would NOT emit a bright light just from impact..no way. Where do you get these notions from?

Originally posted by antsi

Originally posted by Insolubrious


Notice the distinctive shape of the plane, you can clearly see where the wings entered.

The wings don't look like they entered to me. In fact, this photo make me believe more that the no-plane theory holds water (no pun intended).

A spitfires wings were made of Canvas and metal. Light metal...


If it could penetrate the battleships armoured hull, then a modern day 767 could penatrate a facade to that of the WTC.

Originally posted by 3rdeyeA spitfires wings were made of Canvas and metal. Light metal...

If it could penetrate the battleships armoured hull, then a modern day 767 could penatrate a facade to that of the WTC.

I don't see that it fully penetrated. I looks like past the right engine hole that the wing didn't penetrate. Looks like it just left a mark where it was pulverized by the ship's hull.

Originally posted by antsi
I don't see that it fully penetrated. I looks like past the right engine hole that the wing didn't penetrate. Looks like it just left a mark where it was pulverized by the ship's hull.

To the right of the fuselage hole, where the wing marks meet the fuselage hole, The metal is bend inward, and sheared.




A spitfire is a single prop driven airplane. Its weak point, like all planes of WWII, was the Wing root where the wing attached into the fuselage. Spitfires were not strong planes. They were very manuverable, but not durable. A couple hits from a german 20mm and it was dust. If wing root penetrated, then referring to my other post, a modern day 767 could penetrate the WTC.

I have studied WWII planes for a while now. I know that plane accomplished a feat in penetrating that ship. A feat that is easier for a 767.

reply to post by bovarcher


Depends on what part you're referring to.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
excellent post Pepe would give you a WATS if i could. I would just like to add that if a WWII spitfire can penetrate the steel hull of a battleship then a boeing (much greater mass and probably speed too) shouldn't have much trouble penetrating a building.



Notice the distinctive shape of the plane, you can clearly see where the wings entered.

upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 2-11-2007 by Insolubrious]

My mistake, i knew that hole wasnt made by a spitfire...

en.wikipedia.org...

The Hinsdale was a US Navy Attack Transport ship that was attacked by Kamikaze pilots in 1945. It did not recieve that damage from a Spitfire. It was hit by a Japanese Zeke or Kate plane. Both were lighter than the spitfire, and build to take even less hits. My point still holds.

Originally posted by antsi

Originally posted by PepeLapewAt the base of the towers these columns were approximately 2.5 inch thick and gradually thinning out toward the top.

Interesting. Can you source this?

Actually, I can not source it, not from what most people would consider a "reliable source" anyway. The set of plans of the WTC towers were never released to the public so we are left to analyze the debris as best we can. But as the son of a Civil Engineering teacher and a former student of Civil Engineering myself as well as 7 years of work in steel structure construction I can absolutely agree with the idea that the columns were hollow. In fact I have NEVER seen, in a book or in real life, a full steel column. That would be too heavy and too impractical.

The source for my claim was WTC7.net which I consider an authority on the subject. I have researched to try and confirm/dispel many other claims on that web site and they all turned out to be correct. So not only is it from what I consider a reliable source, it also confirms what I would know to be true of any other steel structure.

I hope this helps, we can't have the real plans of the towers so we are left to extrapolate with common sense from time to time. But at least this should raise an important question: Why have they decided to withhold the plans from the public?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Originally posted by 3rdeye

Originally posted by Insolubrious
excellent post Pepe would give you a WATS if i could. I would just like to add that if a WWII spitfire can penetrate the steel hull of a battleship then a boeing (much greater mass and probably speed too) shouldn't have much trouble penetrating a building.



Notice the distinctive shape of the plane, you can clearly see where the wings entered.

upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 2-11-2007 by Insolubrious]

My mistake, i knew that hole wasnt made by a spitfire...

en.wikipedia.org...

The Hinsdale was a US Navy Attack Transport ship that was attacked by Kamikaze pilots in 1945. It did not recieve that damage from a Spitfire. It was hit by a Japanese Zeke or Kate plane. Both were lighter than the spitfire, and build to take even less hits. My point still holds.

It's a good point you are making with that picture. If I re-write the post on an other forum I will make sure to incorporate your picture as well..... with credit of course

Cheers,
PepeLapiu