The Dummies Guide to "No-Planer" theory

Originally posted by bovarcher

Okay dude!..I asked you to view my video here:
www.youtube.com...

Now I know you are not a demolition expert or an engineer. I am not asking you for your professional opinion here. I just want you to tell me what does that building collapse look like to you?

PepeLapiu

Pepe

You don't have to convince me that the collapse of WTC1, 2 & 7 look like CDs. They DEFINITELY look like CDs to me. However although I am a qualified pilot, I am not a qualified structural engineer so can not speak about this issue from a position of any real knowledge and authority. I can't even do the equations without looking them up.

Okay, very well bovarcher. So we both agree that WTC-7's collapse looks a lot like a controlled demolition. I don't want to stray away from the subject and bring in the two towers at this time, at least not yet.

So you agree that WTC-7's collapse looks like a demo job. But as you and I both agree, this does not mean that it was a demo job. After all, neither of us are qualified demolition experts or engineers .... right?

But let's just go with that - WTC-7 looks like a demo job. And you and I are not the only ones who feel that way, even the journalists first reporting also thought at first that it really does look like a demo job. And well, frankly everyone I ask this question to, they all come back with the same answer. But again, none of this matters, not you, nor I, nor the reporters are demolition experts. So at this point, it should be reasonable to look to a real expert, a demolition expert would know right away if WTC-7 was a demolition job or not .... agreed?

So let's ask a demolition expert on what he thinks about WTC-7 but that demo expert must be impartial, he must not be paid by the government or have any ties with Al Queada or the CIA or any other party involved .... agreed?

Well, here is what a demolition expert thought. He was shown the videos of WTC-7 without any context, he wasn't told that the building feel down on the same day, he wasn't told anything. He was merely shown the videos and they asked him what he thought it was. Here I present to you Danny Jowenko, controlled demolition expert in Europe ...... enjoy:
www.youtube.com...

Now you have to agree that if the first observing journalists, you, me, everyone who I ever shown the video too and even a controlled demolition expert all agree that it looked like a perfect demolition job then chances are getting higher that it just might be a controlled demolition job.

Can we agree on that? Can we agree that if even a CD expert thinks it was a CD job then it might not be proof, but it at least shows that there are some chances that it could be a CD job .... agreed?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu


[edit on 4-11-2007 by PepeLapew]

Can we agree on that? Can we agree that if even a CD expert thinks it was a CD job then it might not be proof, but it at least shows that there are some chances that it could be a CD job .... agreed?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

[edit on 4-11-2007 by PepeLapew]

Yes, Pepi, agreed absolutely. I maintain on the public record that the collapse of WT1, WT2 and especially WT7 look like planned CD jobs, and probably were.

However, I qualify that statement by saying that is my OPINION. I am not a qualified structural engineer and my opinion is - to date - unsupported by any hard evidence or testimony that explosives were planted and detonated, who carried out the job, when, under whose orders and why.

WT7 in particular is very suspicious, and this by association casts suspicion on the collapse of WTC1 & 2. This should be a serious line of enquiry, and because the truth has a way of emerging over time, I am sure it eventually will. There will be hell to pay somewhere, and things do not look so good for the US Govt or the credibility of the nation in the eyes of the rest of the world. Which is going to be a big problem, to say the least.

My main frustration with ATS is the huge amount of time taken up in hundreds of different threads by stupid, irrelevant and quite frankly mad ideas about 'no planes' and so forth with no supporting evidence and - well you know the scene. This stupidity PREVENTS the truth being uncovered, by distracting researchers away from genuinely serious lines of enquiry and sidelining the whole issue in the popular imagination by association with liars, fools and lunatics. If we stick to the evidence and address the hard questions, we'll get to the truth a lot sooner.

Originally posted by bovarcher

Can we agree on that? Can we agree that if even a CD expert thinks it was a CD job then it might not be proof, but it at least shows that there are some chances that it could be a CD job .... agreed?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

[edit on 4-11-2007 by PepeLapew]

Yes, Pepi, agreed absolutely. I maintain on the public record that the collapse of WT1, WT2 and especially WT7 look like planned CD jobs, and probably were.

Very well! But let's not spread ourselves too thin by discussing the WTC-1 and WTC-2 just yet.

So we have your amateur opinion which tells us that it looked like a demolition job, we have my opinion that it looked like a demolition job and on top of that we have the expert opinion of a controlled demolition expert that it was a demolition job. Jowenko doesn't say it looks like a demolition job, he said very clearly that it is a demolition job and still to this day he claims it absolutely was a demolition job. Now, I don't know about you and I, but the word of a demo expert puts a lot of weight in the balance - I would think you agree with me on that.

Now wouldn't you agree that conventional demo jobs would be too easy to detect? There would be thousands and thousands of wires visible all over the place as every single charge needs to be hooked up to a central control point.... correct?

So IF it was a demolition job those who placed the charges would have to use remotely controlled charges which would be detonated with a radio, correct? This would eliminate the need for all sorts of wires. Of course conventional demo jobs use wiring because it is safer and cheaper then installing a radio receiver on every charge .... correct?

However, I qualify that statement by saying that is my OPINION. I am not a qualified structural engineer

Agreed here, your opinion means nothing, my opinion means nothing and Dan Rather's opinion means nothing. But the opinion of an impartial demo expert such as Danny Jowenko means something, agreed?

and my opinion is - to date - unsupported by any hard evidence or testimony that explosives were planted and detonated, who carried out the job, when, under whose orders and why.

Don't worry about all that. If there was hard evidence on paper that it was a demo job and if I had such evidence I would not live long enough to click "Send" on this message.

WT7 in particular is very suspicious, and this by association casts suspicion on the collapse of WTC1 & 2. This should be a serious line of enquiry, and because the truth has a way of emerging over time, I am sure it eventually will.

Now I really don't agree with you - the truth will not emerge all by itself. You have to look for it, you have to dig in yourself and try to find it, and only then will the truth allow you to see it for what it is. Do not wait for someone to pop up on your boob tube to suddenly reveal the truth to you. The boob tube talking heads are only interested in letting you know what their handlers want you to know.

Cheers dude,
PepeLapiu

[edit on 4-11-2007 by PepeLapew]

Originally posted by bovarcher
Do you understand the text you are quoting at such length?

Are we getting fly-by-wire aircraft systems mixed up with remote controlled aircraft?

The first, long text you have copied and pasted does NOT describe any kind of 'remote control' technology. Fly-by-wire is a technology which IS DESIGNED TO ENABLE THE PILOT TO CONTROL THE AIRCRAFT EFFECTIVELY FROM THE COCKPIT. ALL, REPEAT, ALL MODERN AIRLINERS HAVE FLY-BY-WIRE TECHNOLOGY TO ENABLE THE PILOT TO FLY THE AIRCRAFT. IT IS STANDARD.

Pointing out that small remote control aircraft exist does not get anyone anywhere. I haven't seen any evidence that remote control devices were used on any aircraft on 9/11. Because something is technically possible is not evidence that it was done. It's just an opinion, unsubstantiated by any evidence. If I missed the evidence, please be gracious enough to direct me to it.

And anyway, what does any of this have to do with holograms or the 'no planes' disinformation-troll rubbish designed to send genuine researchers down stupid, pointless blind alleys and so keep the truth from the people?

When there is a computer or any type of device between the control stick and the flaps, ailerons, rudder, etc. that relays the inputs of the pilot's controls to the parts of the airplane that actually move the plane there is the ability to remotely control the aircraft.

Whether the planes were remotely flown in real time, the target was 'painted' with a laser as in the fashion of a missile strike (the plane being the missile in this case) or the planes had GPS becons in them that put the plane on a course to automatically find the target becons in the towers, I do not know. I do know that the hijackers on board the planes were not flying the planes themselves. I'm no pilot but growing up my goal was to become military pilot (my grandfather was an airforce meteorologist that briefed pilots) and have flown a good deal of flight simulators (both in my free time and at 'Aviation Challenge': it's like space camp but for aircraft-I almost got top gun at the camp but I had an itchy trigger finger during my last dog fight). I know that the adrenaline rush those hijackers must have been on would not have helped their nerves to be confident behind the controls of an enormous airliner they have never piloted before, much less for all four planes to be piloted by inexperience pilots with any type of success. I remember shaking like a leaf from adrenaline when I toilet papered a house as a kid.

I bring this up as my point is that real, guided aircraft crashed into the twin towers and that, as I have stated in this thread, the Pentagon is where people should be focusing their hologram plane theory. The link in my signature is a 1999 Washington Post article about how the technology was already developed at Los Alamos to do large scale holograms.

I buried my grandparents (grandmother before 9-11, grandfather after 9-11) at Arlington. Arlington is across the street from the Pentagon. The side facing the gravesite is also the side that was damaged in 9-11. There is absolutely no video of a plane striking the pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery is a prime location to set up a holographic display. It is a military facility and a pass to visit a gravesite is given to immediate decendants only. You can't just walk onto Arlington Cemetery and the grounds are very secure.

I also don't think someone that uses the word 'stupid' in a discussion to describe someone else's viewpoint deserves anything graciously. I apologize but I will not be responding to your replies any longer as I don't feel there is any possibility of a constructive discourse.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123Also, aside from the video and photo evidence, there are the thousands of eyewitness' which would be impossible to fake.

There are only a few videos that show the second plane hitting the building, you mostly just see different clips of them.

As far as witnesses go like those at the Pentagon they could not agree on what they saw and their testimony would not hold up in court.

Sorry, I was specifically referring to the WTC witnesses and there are quite a few videos and photos in addition to the witnesses.

Not sure if you know it pepe, but that asshat killtown has plastered your personal info across his front page.


Jasn

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123Also, aside from the video and photo evidence, there are the thousands of eyewitness' which would be impossible to fake.

There are only a few videos that show the second plane hitting the building, you mostly just see different clips of them.

As far as witnesses go like those at the Pentagon they could not agree on what they saw and their testimony would not hold up in court.

Read up a few posts from this your post above and you'll see that someone has quite a bit more then "a few" videos on their hard drive. I have seen more then "a few" videos myself and no they weren't clips of the same video.

reply to post by Spoodily


Hi Spoodily

Thanks for your post, and the time and care taken.

First off, nothing meant personally. Talking about the ideas, some of which acquire a life of their own and soon the most outlandish and improbable weirdness becomes respectable and attracts serious argument. But I suppose that's partly what ATS is for, and why we participate. Anyway apologies if I did not express the meaning as eloquently and diplomatically as intended. It was not a comment on the people, but the ideas.

I don't buy into the MIHOP agenda I'm afraid. I've looked at it from many perspectives (maybe not all - who has?) and it seems to me that hijacked, piloted aircraft is the closest fit with the facts as known and with the available evidence.

There is no problem per se with a pilot, even a not very experienced one, flying an aircraft under full control into a static vertical structure presenting a target 1,362 ft high and x 208ft wide. It would be easy. I could do it, and if you've had basic pilot training and can control an aircraft in flight, and done some sim. time, you could do it too. Assuming, of course, suicidal and murderous intent, and passionate belief that your God wanted you to do that. And appropriate planning, training and preparation.

In 1944-45, thousands of Japanese teenagers were trained to fly for a couple of hours sitting in a wooden box with a broom handle as a control column. They then flew piston-engined aircraft, with no electronic avionics, torque from the rotating prop and everything operated manually, into US warships in shallow dives at up to 450 kts. (the Ohka rocket planes flew at >600 kts).

The largest US naval aircraft carriers in 1945 were 910ft long with 105ft beam, so less than half the size of WTC1 & 2. The kamikaze had to fly at these horizontal targets (far harder to hit than a vertical structure for a number of reasons), which were taking violent evasive action at >25 kts on the sea, whilst being fired at by up to 130 separate anti-aircraft guns.

The result? In the Battle of Okinawa alone, more than 250 allied warships (20% of the force was Brit/Australian) were struck by Kamikaze, many by more than one and some by several. 34 ships were completely destroyed forcing abandonment, or sunk.

Hitting a stationary vertical building with an airliner at 450 kts plus, when NOT being fired at by AA, is ridiculously easy compared to what those poorly-trained Kamikaze did. So to suggest that the 9/11 hijackers would not be able to fly into a stationary building under cockpit control is just silly.

Alternative theories are just not necessary to explain what happened, and talk of laser-guided planes and so on makes no sense to me. Apart from making the whole op far more complex and risky, why bother if the pilots were suicidally motivated and capable, which they obviously were? And where is the evidence for all this? Have you contacted AA? What do they think about a team of people fitting out their aircraft with all this laser technology in order to guide it into a building in September 2001? Didn't the regular maintenance crew notice anything????


It looks to me like AA#77 hit The Pentagon, due to the sheer number of eyewitnesses in Washington who have gone on the record as having seen it (some saw it actually hit the building), all the 757-200 debris recovered from the site, including the black box and the identified remains of most of the crew, passengers and luggage. You might for example look at this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

if you've not seen it already.

If I ever see any evidence that it wasn't a plane, I might be persuaded. No eyewitness on 9/11 saw a 'missile'. Then you have to demonstrate exactly what happened to AA#77, and how all the passenger & luggage remains ended up inside the Pentagon within an hour of the hijack. For a start.

Best wishes

[edit on 4/11/2007 by bovarcher]

killtowns site is pretty much a joke. I'm not sure where he learned basic logics skills but I hope he didn't pay for that education as it would have been a major waste of money.

Originally posted by SimiusDei
Not sure if you know it pepe, but that asshat killtown has plastered your personal info across his front page.


Jasn

Thanx, I thought he was an idiot and now I know.

Originally posted by jfj123
Read up a few posts from this your post above and you'll see that someone has quite a bit more then "a few" videos on their hard drive. I have seen more then "a few" videos myself and no they weren't clips of the same video.

And even if ther are several they still do not show what flights are in the videos.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Read up a few posts from this your post above and you'll see that someone has quite a bit more then "a few" videos on their hard drive. I have seen more then "a few" videos myself and no they weren't clips of the same video.

And even if there are several they still do not show what flights are in the videos.

Ah! Ain't it great! The no-planers first claim that there are very few videos of the #175 crash and this is evidence that no planes were used. Then when I confirm that tons and tons of videos, from mainstream media, independent media and amateur all show a plane then the no-planer story suddenly changes to the idea that there was a plane there but just not a 767.

Of course there is no evidence to support you ridiculous claims, all that is relevant is that you keep on spewing your ridiculous unsupported theories.

Please, tell me, what's you position? Do you believe there were no planes there? Do you believe there was a plane there but not just a 767? Or do you believe it was a 767? And what evidence do you have to support your claims?

[edit on 5-11-2007 by PepeLapew]

A point that was brought up that makes a go point for no planes is how where they able to crash 767's into the towers without destroying any of the critically placed bombs or thermite that they had rigged to blow up the towers?

I guess that question only goes to conventional demolition proponents.

Originally posted by SimiusDei
Not sure if you know it pepe, but that asshat killtown has plastered your personal info across his front page.

Jasn

Is this true? It would be a shame because he has done some great research.

However, you make your self look ignorant by calling him juvenile names.

First I have to apologize, I have not read this entire thread, only skimmed through it.

I have No answers or theories, only questions, sorry.

The OP began by saying that many people with many cameras filmed this event, and all film show planes, therefore the 'no plane' theory is somewhat suspect, is that more or less correct?

I see people saying "do a search". In short, HUNT for all of the civilian and non civilian films and pictures.

Later in the thread I see someone (I believe it was the OP) state that there are '30 or 40' different videos of a plane hitting the towers, is this correct? But I do not see links to the '30 or 40' different videos...

My question becomes this:

Has anyone made a list of ALL of the videos and images that are available for this event? A 'Project Blue Book' sort of thing. In short, has anyone actually done the Math? Is it '30' or is it '40' videos of planes hitting the towers? Or is it just '29'? Or perhaps '41'?

In my short time here both the staff and the members have been quite kind and patient with me. I cannot vouch for them, but I would think that such a project would sit well with the staff. I'm sure the world at large would greatly appreciate it.

In fact, I'm rather surprised that such a list is not easily found. After all of this time, why should we have to HUNT for the data? Hasn't it already been compiled somewhere? And if so, where should we look?

I myself do not have the time for such a project but perhaps there is someone (or some group) here willing to undertake it? Someone who can detach themselves from the emotions of this very emotional event and compile an Honest list of images and films.

I am not a 'planner' or 'no planner', but rather a 'numbers' person. 'Lots', 'Tons', 'Many', 'A Few', and even '30 to 40' or 'Hundreds' just doesn't mean anything to me other than the person making the claim was simply too lazy to do the actual math.

I have found that it is very easy to argue with 'some vague guesstamit' and very hard to argue with Math.

I would think that an exhaustive list of all the images / videos would at the very least shed some light on this issue and very probably end the matter conclusively.

My apologies if I have spoken out of place and I thank you for your time.

Originally posted by antsi

Originally posted by SimiusDei
Not sure if you know it pepe, but that asshat killtown has plastered your personal info across his front page.

Jasn

Is this true? It would be a shame because he has done some great research.

However, you make your self look ignorant by calling him juvenile names.

He did some good work but that's until he went off the deep end into the no-planer crap. But I tell you what, go to his website and find me one single piece of research that he did to back up his no-planer claims and bring it back on this thread. I will tear that evidence apart like you won't believe and show you what kind of fraud he is. Go on, find me his best evidence of no-planer crap claims.

Killtown is not a serious researcher, he is a dumbass wrapped up in his ridiculous no-planer claims.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

[edit on 5-11-2007 by PepeLapew]

Originally posted by daystrom
First I have to apologize, I have not read this entire thread, only skimmed through it.

I have No answers or theories, only questions, sorry.

The OP began by saying that many people with many cameras filmed this event, and all film show planes, therefore the 'no plane' theory is somewhat suspect, is that more or less correct?

That's correct. All the videos I have and all the videos released on the net show clearly a plane the size and shape of a 767 hit the tower. No video anywhere reveal that a plane didn't hit the towers, no video with a view of the impacted side reveal that the building exploded without a plane impacting.

I see people saying "do a search". In short, HUNT for all of the civilian and non civilian films and pictures.

Or you could send me a self stamped envelope big enough to contain a DVD and i will burn those videos for you and send them back to you for free. My address is on jackass Killtown's site still. You can use that address.
Or you could go to the Conspiracy Central site and download the file which contains all the videos I am talking about. But you will need to find out which file that is and you will need to get yourself a BitTorrent client to download that file.

Later in the thread I see someone (I believe it was the OP) state that there are '30 or 40' different videos of a plane hitting the towers, is this correct? But I do not see links to the '30 or 40' different videos...

They are all on my hard drive. Again I would be happy to send you a copy of all those files if you just send me a self stamped envelope.

My question becomes this:

Has anyone made a list of ALL of the videos and images that are available for this event? A 'Project Blue Book' sort of thing. In short, has anyone actually done the Math?

Yes, do a search on the Conspiracy Central web site and you should find it there.

Is it '30' or is it '40' videos of planes hitting the towers? Or is it just '29'? Or perhaps '41'?

Currently I have over 109 videos of the #175 impact alone. But some of these only show the explosion as the camera turns around to see what's happening. And some of those are duplicate videos. I said 30-40 videos but it's probably more. I don't feel like counting them all. I also have a compilation of all the videos of WTC-7's collapse and a compilation of the towers collapsing as well.
But that's a total of over 7.21 GB of videos. If you want all of them it will require two DVDs so I would ask you to send me 2$ to cover the cost of the DVDs ..... I think it's fair.

In fact, I'm rather surprised that such a list is not easily found. After all of this time, why should we have to HUNT for the data? Hasn't it already been compiled somewhere? And if so, where should we look?

Conspiracy Central and you will need a fast connection and a BitTorrent client. There you will find page after page of videos you can download. All about "conspiracies"

I hope this helps.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

[edit on 5-11-2007 by PepeLapew]

Originally posted by antsi
A point that was brought up that makes a go point for no planes is how where they able to crash 767's into the towers without destroying any of the critically placed bombs or thermite that they had rigged to blow up the towers?

I guess that question only goes to conventional demolition proponents.

Many explosives do not detonate only due to fire. For example you can throw C-4 in fire and it will not detonate, other explosives work the same way. Some require an electric current to detonate and some other require a chemical reaction to detonate. And whatever beams and columns that were impacted by the plane would not need to be demolished a second time, so the explosives strapped onto them would not be needed anymore .... see what I mean/

But never the less, look on YouTube for the hot molten steel dribbling off the building a minute before collapse. That molten steel could have been caused by some thermate which detonated too soon due to fire .... does that make sense?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

reply to post by bovarcher

Bovarcher, I remember you asking me for some peer reviewed documents in regards to 9/11. Firstly the NIST report was NOT a peer reviewed document and even a blow joe like me can debunk several parts of it. But here is a good peer reviewed document by Prof. Jones about thermates in the WTC complex:
www.journalof911studies.com...

This paper WAS peer reviewed, enjoy.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Sorry I've been away but I really went though alot of different views regarding 911 and put them together with my own accounts of that day.. when i was there. What is also really cool is that I just also saw the falling of the old Sands hotel in AC nj so I used that to go along with some of the vids.

First off. I am sorry. I cannot see anything that cannot be explained away by using a realistic mind. I knew the no plan theory is out the window. why? i saw them, i heard them, smelled them, felt them hit.

For building 7. I see no expolosives that are similar to any building that has been taken down.. if this building's structure was strong and true.. there would have had to be dozens of tiny but yet loud and heard explosions on every floor... there aren't any....

Even though i have come to this conclusion.. i am sure there are people who are going to say... ahhh well. you were fooled by a super dooper weapon that lets you think you see things and feel things and smell things and and its really beyond my simple understanding. OR.. they used super secret hot buringing ultra quiet explosions to bring down seven... these excuses make me feel even more that what i was apart of was as simple.. and deadly as it seemed to be. In the begining there were theories that were put out.. then debunked.. but the theoriest just go ahead and make something else up that is so false it is un able to be proven. When you cannot prove something to have happened... it did not happen. So.. in about 5 years i am sure the theories might also include a super secret invisible godzilla type monster made my George Bush.......