A few questions to the no plane hit the wtc theorists

FIRST, let me state that im not specifically trying to use the term "no planers" in a demeaning way. my apologies in advance to those that believe this particular theory, however as my question is directed at you, i wasnt sure what else to call ya'll.

NEXTLY: let me point out that this is actually based on a post i had originally made in another thread but pulled as it was off topic even though it was in response to another post in that thread made by JohnLear, though i welcome any input by anyone else who thinks that no planes hit the WTC but have an explaination for this.

So, moving on: reply to post made by JohnLear
_____________________________________________________________

Originally posted by johnlear
[

john,
just a quick question here. IF there was in fact no plane that struck the building, and im willing to suspend my disbelief for a minute and consider your answer fairly, how did those seemingly large sections of the outter walls come to rest INSIDE the building?

i mean sure, if the areas where "they" wanted us to think the plane hit had been prepped with demo charges before hand, the debris would have to go somewhere but isnt it just a tad lucky for them that they all got sucked inside the building? and along that thought, what caused the columns to bend inwards? i know a lot of neat things to do with explosives, but bending them over like that with a fairly short span to the one above it is way above my abilities. so if someone has a good explaination, id LOVE to hear it. i like learning things.

just wondering.

thanks in advance


[edit on 17-11-2007 by Damocles]

[edit on 17-11-2007 by Damocles]

Good points damo. I'd like to see some answers to them.

reply to post by Damocles


I suppose John will get around to answering you, in the mean time I'll give it a go.

Posing as window washers a rouge demolision group planted shaped charges in the outline of an aircraft and in conjunction with supersecret holographic technology duped the city of New York and the rest of the world with the greatest special effects show in history!

lol see thats the problem i have with all this, i was really good at blowing things up...and i have no idea how explosives could have made that hole with all the debris on the inside and with the columns bent over as such.

so, being willing to admit that as good as i was theres always room to learn, i was hoping that someone who really doesnt believe there were any planes involved would have developed their theories to the piont where this could be explained to my satisfaction.

dont really think thats asking a whole lot in the grand scheme is it?

reply to post by Damocles


Damocles, to my knowledge there are maybe two or three no-planers here on ATS. Me (WITW), John Lear and possibly Craig Ranke CIT.

So I hope you don’t mind me chiming in here. Yes, I happen to think it’s entirely possible that explosives were placed on the outside of the WTC’s. So the joke about the “window washers” is not far-fetched. Prepping the twin towers (and WTC-6 and 7) would have been simple as pie. Because all the high-level administrators managing the WTC complex had to have been part of the 9-11 cabal. E. g. the likes of Larry Silverstein, Lewis Eisenberg (Chairman of the New York Port Authority), Marvin Bush (A Securacom board of directors’ member), Wirt Walker III (CEO of Securacom and Marvin Bush’s cousin), Rudy Giuliani, and so forth…

And as with any organization, people follow orders coming from the top — without questioning them whatsoever. Those bombs on the perimeter columns — inside or outside — could have been placed by anyone, in any time frame and no one would have had a clue.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Places demo charges in broad daylight?? Bwahahahahahhaaha.. Window washers... HAHAHAHAA
Just when you though you've seen it all.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
So the joke about the “window washers” is not far-fetched. Prepping the twin towers (and WTC-6 and 7) would have been simple as pie.

This window washer thing is no joke, just one of the very few probable explainations for what was witnessed if there weren't actual aircraft. Considering the difficulty of said opperation, why not just use airplanes?

Those bombs on the perimeter columns — inside or outside — could have been placed by anyone, in any time frame and no one would have had a clue.

I disagree they could have been placed by "anyone". Only proffessionals could have done it, and ones who aren't affaid of heights. And the placement would have taken days(nights). Now why do I have to imagine all the specifics when I've asked you and John for this type of story for months?

This is what’s so fascinating about the entire planes/no-planes debate. People can’t/refuse to imagine anything else other than actual passengered airplanes hitting the towers. It doesn’t matter that there isn’t ANYTHING in reality or theory to support such a suggestion — except that it was shown on television.

Of course only the fleeting parts of these crash events were shown, scenes that could be faked in an editing studio, the approach of the Boeings and the fireball impacts. Nothing was ever filmed that would have physically remained as a touchable tangible, i.e. wreckage inside or outside the buildings.

Well here’s the simple logic which ends this discussion — real planes would have left real physical parts behind. Bombs on the other hand wouldn’t leave anything other than damage (of which we observed plenty). Feel free to make your choice between these two possibilities.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

well wizard, with this particular thread im personally suspending my skepticism in order to hear thoughts on this.

where i have a problem is if you look at the picture in my OP, there are large chunks of debris inside the building. ok, as i said when a bomb goes off the debris has to go somewhere so ill just accept that it ended up inside the building if the theory is that the charges were on the outside of the building.

but, why oh why are the columns bent over at such an angle? keep in mind, ive set off a LOT of explosives, and i personally cant explain why those pretty sturdy columns would be bent as such...so for me to really give this theory of no planes any real credibility, id need a really compelling and technically sound answer to that question.

I'm not a 'no planer', even though there are some oddities that can't be explained, but you say all the outer wall went inside the building?



[edit on 24/11/2007 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK



actually, no, i didnt say all the outter walls went inside the building. what i said was that the photo (which was marked up and used as a visual aid by john lear) shows there are large sections of wall inside the building and that there are columns bent inward.

now, looking at the photo in my first post, is this inaccurate? are you saying that there are no sections of the walls inside the building and those columns are not in fact bent inwards?

if i am correct, then, my questions stand and id like to know how they all ended up as they are if there were no planes as i cant explain it based on my own personal knowledge of explosives. im trying to keep an open mind and learn something new. i feel my questions are legitimate.

EDIT TO ADD: ok i see, above in another post i said "all the debris" where i should have said "all THAT debris"


[edit on 24-11-2007 by Damocles]

I am a conspiracy theorist; I enjoy doing mental gymnastics over plausible conspiracies.

JFK? Sure, I can buy into the notion of a conspiracy. One involving the CIA, FBI, Castro, et al? Not so much. One involving the mafia? Absolutely I can.

UFOs? Absolutely, and by UFOs I mean other-world stuff, not skunkworks, human-made aircraft. In my opinion, there is just too much evidence coming from literally all points of our earth.

9-11 caused by a massive cabal of conspiracy layered upon conspiracy? I find it very, very, very difficult to believe anything other than two commercial airliners, and the subsequent damage their impact caused, brought down the towers. To me, the evidence is just flat-out overwhelming.

Mr. Lear seems like a genuinely nice guy. I am not different than most here at ATS. That is, when Mr. Lear is on the radio I can guarantee you I am either going to listen live, or catch it on Streamlink. I wouldn't think of missing what he has to say. I am also acutely aware that he offers virtually no proof outside of his spoken word. He is a masterful story teller and his theories, ideas and postulations are fascinating to listen to. That doesn't mean he is telling one shred of truth. No planes during 9-11?

((please don't misunderstand me, I DO NOT think Mr. Lear is anything other than an upstanding, intelligent, honest and kind man. Meaning; he obviously believes what he is saying, so it's true to him. That doesn't mean his belief/understanding is correct))

It has been said many times before and I hold it to be true: follow the money. I think some of the more notable truthers come to fame rather by accident. They seem to come out of nowhere (as far a a more mass audience is concerned) and enjoy quick fame within the right circles - like ours. Eventually they might make a little money, or a lot, speaking, writing, etc. Once money is introduced into the mix, it is wholly appropriate to ask questions of motivation.

In the absence of plain-sight evidence as to what brought down the towers, his conspiracy would have a lot more traction. The fact is a lot of people who have no love for the Bush administration (meaning no "vested" interested in covering up anything) have looked at this issue with open minds and concluded the impact of two large airplanes caused enough damage to bring down the towers. The "Evidence" brought forward by truthers would be really interesting if there wasn't a amazing large volume of personal testimony, audio evidence, video evidence and post mortum studies.

It seems to me that truthers rely on an overwhelming desire to believe in the worst in mankind, unmanageably large conspiracies that involve the CIA, FBI, NSA, NRO, etc, evidence that ignores important context and the willingness to go to, what I think, are really, really absurd explanations that defy any sense of reason or science.



[edit on 24-11-2007 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


ya know, any other time id agree with you totally.

But,

in this thread im trying to totally suspend my skepticism and keep my mind even more open than i try to any other time. i REALLY am interested in hearing answers to my questions and i REALLY am willing to consider those answers. ive said many times that ive done heavy demo work in the past, but ive also said that i never consider myself infallable, so im wiling to, in this thread, throw out my own opinions and consider what those that hold the no plane theories have to say. upon consideration ill then compare the answers to what i know, do some research and see if the provided answers work in reality.

IF they do, ill look at the whole thing again from the beginning and see what i come up with.

Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by ANOK

 

actually, no, i didnt say all the outter walls went inside the building.

Well you're not saying it now you've edited your post...

Anyway I'm not going to argue planes or no planes, there is plenty of other evidence that can't be refuted...Just wanted to clear up a point you made and then edited.

To me planes or no planes, it really doesn't matter either way, the towers still came down by defying physics if you go by the official story (whatever that is now)...

whoa whoa whoa whoa...hold on there sparky. i have NEVER changed one of my posts after someone pointed something out in it without acknowledging the change.

so which post did i "edit" exactly...this one? reply to post by Damocles

which i edited a few times last week when i posted it?

this one: reply to post by Damocles


which has never been edited (contact the mods to see if i did so wihtuot it saying it was edited) and which still says "all the debris"

this one: reply to post by Damocles


which i also never edited?

this one: reply to post by Damocles


which was in response to your first post in this thread, where i edited to add that i saw my grammatical error and clarified what i actually meant to say there?

or this one: reply to post by Damocles


in which i not only didnt edit it, i didnt mention debris really at all?

so are you suggesting, or even flat out saying, that i changed a post in order to be deceptive? cuz thats a load of dung and you know it. find me one instance ever where i was intentionally dishonest. because i really resent the insinuation that i AM being intentionally deceptive.

now, as to the rest of your last post, i cant really disagree. there IS a lot of evidence that cant be explained and i DO agree that the govt isnt telling us everything. but just becuase i dont agree that the govt was behind it doesnt mean im going to ever frikin lie to make a point. and id have thought you would know that.

What I can't understand is. If you know explosives as well as you say you do and discount theories about this area of conspiracy........ How is it then that you can't account for all the proffesional experts who themselves have literally not just done it and stated, but explained what it takes to use them to bring down mass buildings such as the WTC's and especially, cause the bent and moulted steel that no one can deny happened. Then, they are also able to point at all the evidence left in the aftermath that points to how it could only have been achieved - which is, without doubt, using such aids in the right places! In any case, it has also been showed that these factors alone could not have achieved the 'so-called' tradgedy of 09/11. It can actually be seen, if you look at all the footage available, that one thing was 'part & parcel to another' to achieve that whole 'masked' incident anyway. I have seen so much footage about the planes that day and my god, I was as oblivious to it as any one esle watching on that fateful day.

I was 'bought' about those enfolding moments like everyone else was, as it was brought to us by the media. (Do you realise that at 80% of the media and what they tell the world at the end of the day is controlled by a secret governmet!! Of course not, there's no way that could be happening right!?!!!) But then!......... when you look at the original footage, or even newspaper photographs of it all happening and the comments that the eye witnesses were saying from the ground., all I can say is, you would now have to have a real sight problem if you did not see that the planes that went into the WTC were not the civilian passenger airplanes that they were meant to be. For one, they were not the right colour, didn't have the markings, didn't even have passenger windows, were not the right size and as we also know now from footage, they were also carrying on it's undertow, a suspicous 'missile' looking like device.

So hey, what would you, or anyone for that matter, like to say? I would be most interested in your reply and I think so would the majority of ATS readers;.

reply to post by Damocles

Originally posted by ziggyiggy
So hey, what would you, or anyone for that matter, like to say? I would be most interested in your reply and I think so would the majority of ATS readers;.

So your convinced that demolishion is the only explaination for the collapse? What type of aircraft is not what this thread is trying to get at, how was it accomplished without aircraft is really the question here. Any thoughts on that possibilty?

...i mean sure, if the areas where "they" wanted us to think the plane hit had been prepped with demo charges before hand, the debris would have to go somewhere but isnt it just a tad lucky for them that they all got sucked inside the building?

This is the part I was referring to...Maybe I'm reading it wrong? But it looks like you mentioned debris to me, and what do you mean then by 'they all got sucked inside'?...

So I apologize, you didn't edit it I see that now, just couldn't remember what part I was referring to in the first place, so my bad on that...

[edit on 24/11/2007 by ANOK]

reply to post by ziggyiggy


well ziggy, im not real sure what your post had to do with my original post as you didnt offer anything of value in response to my questions, but as im bored tonight i thought id discuss your post.

Originally posted by ziggyiggy
What I can't understand is. If you know explosives as well as you say you do and discount theories about this area of conspiracy

well, i do know explosives as well as i claim i do, but since i disagree with most CD theorists that hardly matters. so, try this. go search for all the posts ive made in which i discuss explosives and take the data i provide and find where im wrong. because it really doesnt matter if im being honest about my claims, what matters is if what i post is factual or not. ive gone to great lengths over the last nearly 2 years to post things that could be verified by anyone should they be so inclined. so while i stand by my claims of knowledge and training, i think WHAT i post speaks for itself much louder than WHO i claim to be. i just wonder though, would you even question me about my expertise if i agreed with the CD theories? i doubt it but thats just me.

........ How is it then that you can't account for all the proffesional experts who themselves have literally not just done it and stated, but explained what it takes to use them to bring down mass buildings such as the WTC's

which professional experts are we referring to here? the engineers and professors who make up a very small minority of people who are vocal about their doubts? or do you have a list of "all" the demo experts out there that disagree with the cd theories? becuase if youre referring to demo experts ive not seen anything posted by a single person with real live demo experience thats agreed that the twin towers were the result of a CD. (the exception being the dutch guy who had gone on camera to explain why the towers werent a cd who then was approached by a group of truthers who showed him a video of wtc7 without telling him what it was and played him the clip without audio) but i guess to more directly answer the question of why i cant account for them id have to say first, its because i dont speak for anyone but myself, and secondly,probably for the same reason you cant account for "all" of the "professional experts" who DONT think it was a CD.

and especially, cause the bent and moulted steel that no one can deny happened.

well again i dont presume to speak for "anyone" or "no one" save myself, but i dont deny that there was bent steel, i mean, the buildings fell down, yeah, some steels going to get bent. i also wont disagree that there was in fact molten metal in the basements. once again i wont presume to know how that metal melted, but ill tell you this: High Explosives dont cause molten metal, leastwise not in those quantities for that length of time.

Then, they are also able to point at all the evidence left in the aftermath that points to how it could only have been achieved

maybe youd be so kind as to point to a source that has a clear, logical and technically sound theory thats laid out in an intelligent manner. all ive ever seen is a large and for the most part disjointed collection of theories that often contradict each other. much as youve done in your post here, but ill get to that in a second.

- which is, without doubt, using such aids in the right places!

which aids exactly? C4? TNT? LSC's? Thermite? Thermate? chemical cutters?
and which were the "right places" exactly? ive done some calculations based on just cutting the core columns, but they were done using the best available data since the construction documents arent released and i also just used a consistant thickness and perimeter measurements for the core columns in the core rather than recalculate to take into consideration that the columns were much thicker at the base than they were at the 66th floor. so if anything, my yeild calcs were too small.

In any case, it has also been showed that these factors alone could not have achieved the 'so-called' tradgedy of 09/11.

its been hypothesised. no one has proven anything. not nist, not fema, not the 911 commission, and certainly not anyone posing an alternative theory.

oh, and it wasnt a "so called" tragedy...it was in fact a real tragedy. just thought id point that out for ya there.

It can actually be seen, if you look at all the footage available, that one thing was 'part & parcel to another' to achieve that whole 'masked' incident anyway.

yes well that can be said for both sides of the debate now cant it?

I have seen so much footage about the planes that day and my god, I was as oblivious to it as any one esle watching on that fateful day.

id say you dont seem any less oblivious but that may be against the t&c's so ill hold that one back.

I was 'bought' about those enfolding moments like everyone else was, as it was brought to us by the media. (Do you realise that at 80% of the media and what they tell the world at the end of the day is controlled by a secret governmet!! Of course not, there's no way that could be happening right!?!!!)

yes that evil mind controlling media.

so, where is it exactly that you saw "so much" of the footage from that day?

But then!......... when you look at the original footage, or even newspaper photographs of it all happening and the comments that the eye witnesses were saying from the ground., all I can say is, you would now have to have a real sight problem if you did not see...

the same footage, newspaper photos, and reports from the eyewitnesses that came from said media thats owned by the secret govt? so, which is it? the media is evil and out to control us so we shouldnt trust them OR we can use their material to PROVE the case for an inside job?

hey, why not, i like to have my cake and also be able to eat it.

that the planes that went into the WTC were not the civilian passenger airplanes that they were meant to be.

then what EXACTLY were they? can you prove it?

For one, they were not the right colour,

can you provide 2 or more photos proving this? (from any source you personally feel is reputable?)

didn't have the markings,

can you provide 2 or more photos proving this? (from any source you personally feel is reputable?)

didn't even have passenger windows,

can you provide 2 or more photos proving this? (from any source you personally feel is reputable?)

were not the right size

can you provide 2 or more photos proving this? (from any source you personally feel is reputable?)

and as we also know now from footage,

would this be more footage from the secret govt controlled media thats out to brainwash us? or do you have a more trustworthy source?

they were also carrying on it's undertow, a suspicous 'missile' looking like device.

can you provide 2 or more photos proving this? (from any source you personally feel is reputable?)

So hey, what would you, or anyone for that matter, like to say?

anyone but hillary in 08! or did you mean about your post that was full of opinion and speculation that came with absolutly no backing facts or references?

I would be most interested in your reply and I think so would the majority of ATS readers;.

lol uh huh, you'd only be interested in what i had to say if i agreed with you.

now, do you ziggy have ANYTHING to offer as to why, if there were NO planes that hit the towers on 911, WHY the large pieces of debris that are visible in the photo ended up INSIDE the building? or why if no plane hit the tower why the columns are bent inwards?

i would be most interested in your reply and i think so would the majority of ATS readers.