Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths

[CB_Brooklyn]

Quote by: another day Isn't it fascinating how every pimply faced teenager suddenly becomes an expert on physics and engineering after watching Loose Change. I'm tired of hearing ridiculous speculation about how such and such is not possible given the laws of physics. You'd have to be an EXPERT in many fields to make such a judgement. Any sort of rudimentary "formulas" you've cooked up to prove that it's physically impossible are undoubtedly missing dozens of little intricacies that factor into such a huge and complicated event. I for one am not entirely convinced there wasn't a conspiracy of sorts. But why all this ridiculous speculation about holograms and missiles and jet planes when it's completely unnecessary for your argument? If the government wanted those two towers to come down in a terrorist attack that appeared to be planes crashing into buildings, they would have just crashed the planes into the buildings. Straightforward. If anything I think the government may have had a hand in aiding an already motivated terrorist cell to commit this, without said terrorist cell having knowledge that they were being directly aided by the us government (which would probably dissuade them from "helping").

That's completely unscientific and completely illogical. If this and if that.

All one needs is basic understanding of physics. Newton's Laws proves no planes hit the towers.

[CB_Brooklyn]

Quote by: Orangutan False, the 1st aircraft was not shown live, only spotty footage gathered later, the 2nd impact was not shown on TV until the next day (which makes Bush a liar as he claimed to have watched it on TV that day). However it is indeed pretty bloody obvious that planes hit the building. Some of the footage gathered for the first strike shows people looking up in surprise at the low-flying plane then gasping in shock at the impact. Any kind of 'hologram' would have to look like a plane, fly like a plane, sound like a plane and impact the building like a plane - why not just use a plane like they planned in Operation Northwoods? Easier, no? They were using remote controlled airlliners as part of the "drills" that took place that day, hardly beyond the realms of imagination that they could control those planes if need be. I'll look at the links, just for giggles and as I've only just posted that people should be more open-minded to such things - but Occam's razor suggests yes a conspiracy but no, not holograms or other such stuff. As for molten steel being fake, nope, just too much evidence it was real. Heck you own link lists some evidence and offers nothing more than vague and rather silly questions. Well I looked at the link and there's nothing convincing there. There just isn't. O.

There molten metal was a carefully planned PSYOPS. There was no molten metal, as the temperature was not that hot. The link I gave in the article (to another article I wrote) shows how the mm evidence was fabricated.

Here is the first "plane strike". Where's the plane? If It's Not a Whatzit, It's a Flying Pig


Planes did not hit the towers. There were no hijackings on 9/11, and no plane crashes.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: cb Planes did not hit the towers. There were no hijackings on 9/11, and no plane crashes.

Still haven't responded to my post. Rather more level headed then my friend's posts.

[Orangutan]

There molten metal was a carefully planned PSYOPS.

Why? The presence of such (and at least one lab test confirming the presence of thermite byproducts) strongly suggests thermite demolition charges in addition to the plane's impact. That in turn strongly suggests "inside" help.

In short the evidence is rather damning to the government, especially when one considers the WTC towers were a white elephant that if anything people were wondering how to get rid of them - yet Silverstein purchased them and heavily insured them shortly before 9/11.

I think there's a very strong case to be made that at higher levels in the US government the attacks were allowed to take place and the towers demolished to enhance the dramatic impact of the exact type of event they wanted.

There is no logical point in creating fake molten metal evidence that actually undermines the government story. You're right that the official story could not possibly have generated such temperatures, so it would be pointless to fake it.

In Operation Northwoods real airliners using already available remote control technology were to be used, and that was decades ago. Using real airliners in fake terrorism can thus be considered SOP for the US government. One the day in question they were using such things as part of a drill.

It's known Germany was somewhat peeved to discover Boeing airliners they purchased had built-in remote control facilities - and disabled them.

So we know, for a fact, that the US government is willing to create fake terrorism, that they can, have done and do fit airliners with remote control systems that can over-ride any hijacker - and that such systems were not used that day, at least not to prevent the impacts.

The possibility that they did the opposite, actually used such a system to fake such an attack is easily justifiable, especially as they had all those that should have responded chasing their own tails and unsure what was a drill and what was real life.

However to suggest that they ignored all that readily available technology and instead used some ultra-high tech hologram system to create that which looked like a plane from all angles, sounded like a plane, produced a debris and fireball cloud like a real plane... just doesn't make sense.

Real aircraft and demolition charges would be easy, pretty much foolproof and with little evidence. It would however raise issues such as the alleged hijackers turning up alive, not being on the passenger lists or airport CCTV, and possibly thermite-damaged steel remaining despite the massive hi-speed destruction of crime scene evidence. There might also be sightings of molten steel after the event, video evidence of demolition charges etc - all of which have occurred and a lot more to boot.

So yes, the government may have turned a blind eye to allow it to happen, they may have facilitated it, they may have even faked the whole thing - but there's just no logical reason why they'd used holograms and pretend there was molten metal.

I've long held the view that those who promote loony-toon theories and silliness such as space beam weapons, nukes, holograms, missiles fired from the planes or other such gumpth do so with the deliberate intention of making the entire effort to get to the truth look silly, to discredit it in the eyes of those who haven't really looked.

They never will do when pushing such garbage at them and frustrating as it may be, I don't blame people for not taking 9/11 sceptism seriously in the face of such crap.

What next, aliens did it?

The official story has more holes than Swiss cheese and is blatantly fake when you look at it - but holograms and the like are even sillier.

What evidence do you have for holograms? Ziltch.

The official story is fake, we know that, so what are they hiding and why are they hiding it? Who benefits? What was the intention? Those questions matter - if it was a martian flying a hologram that fired a space-beam weapon is just distracting and discrediting bollox.


O.

[Chaossaber314]

There molten metal was a carefully planned PSYOPS.

Are you serious? Molten steel would be an issue but there are plenty of metals that melt at much lower temperatures. Hell you can watch a fire melt aluminum in your own fireplace or backyard bonfire. Here's a far fetched idea; if someone saw molten metal and just used the term "steel" why are they suddenly an expert in molten steel? Could they possibly... gee I don't know... just used one metal as a catch all from what it looked like at the time? I highly doubt any the first responders willing decided to go run down, get a sample, test it, and go... "Gee, that's steel!".

Furthermore don't bring Stephen Jones into this. The man has never cited where he got his samples specifically, who he got them from, nor any corroborating evidence to indicate that the samples he supposedly tested (which even that term has been called into question) were even from ground zero.

If random anonymous person "A" sends me a bunch of igneous rock and volcanic ash and tells me he retrieved it from ground zero, this isn't exactly credible evidence that there's a volcano at the former location of the Twin Towers.

[Orangutan]

Hell you can watch a fire melt aluminum in your own fireplace or backyard bonfire.

Yeah but that turns silver and runny, not with the same color spectrum and doesn't show up as significant hotspots on satellite photos.

As for the sample tested, as I recall all that was needed was dust from the area, you don't actually need a girder to play with to detect thermite; you certainly don't need to pick up a blob of molten metal with your bare hands and lick it or whatever silliness you're suggesting.


O.

[CB_Brooklyn]

Quote by: Winter wind My boss saw a plane hit the buildings. My cousin saw the planes hit the buildings. The planes hit the buildings. (Unless they secretly work for the government as well...) And to the argument that they were brainwashed. If they were, I would hear "At first I thought it was some kind of massive laser, but now I realize it must have been the planes." Instead I hear "I saw a plane fly right into the building." However, I have no opinion on the concept that the United States had a hand in the attacks, though I find it unlikely that the United States government would have the guts.

How do you know they didn't see projections? If they swear they saw planes hit the towers, it must have been a projection, cause aluminum planes cannot cut steel beams as seen at the WTC:

[Orangutan]

I'd have thought Americans, with their penchant for firearms, would be familiar with the effects of high speed?

A soft lead 6mm air-rifle pellet, presuming a reasonably powerful rifle, can easily penetrate through 3mm of mild steel. All it takes is velocity, say around 500mph, such as the speed of an airliner...

Can an aluminium bullet, caliber best defined as "Boeing Airliner" cut through steel beams? Erm, yes.

Would it then be utterly disintergrated and basicaly in shredded bits? You betcha.

Could it then carry on and slice through or significantly damage the much denser steel beam core? No, by that time it was aluminium confetti and wouldn't do a damn thing.



O.

[CB_Brooklyn]

See here: WTC Molten Metal: Fact or Fiction?

[CB_Brooklyn]

Quote by: Orangutan I'd have thought Americans, with their penchant for firearms, would be familiar with the effects of high speed? A soft lead 6mm air-rifle pellet, presuming a reasonably powerful rifle, can easily penetrate through 3mm of mild steel. All it takes is velocity, say around 500mph, such as the speed of an airliner... Can an aluminium bullet, caliber best defined as "Boeing Airliner" cut through steel beams? Erm, yes. Would it then be utterly disintergrated and basicaly in shredded bits? You betcha. Could it then carry on and slice through or significantly damage the much denser steel beam core? No, by that time it was aluminium confetti and wouldn't do a damn thing. O.

Commercial airliners don't turn to confetti when crashing into a building. And even if they did, they wouldn't cut steel beams. It's either one or the other (confetti or cut beams), but not both. In reality however, neither would happen. A real airliner would crash against a building, not effortlessly glide through like in the FOX 5 video.

[CB_Brooklyn]

when an aluminum plane contacts a steel building, there will be resistance. The plane will crumble/crush/twist and the fuel-filled wings would explode on impact.

Next time you're on an airplane, note how your coffee shakes when the plane encounters turbulence. Now imagine what a mesh of steel beams would do!

[Orangutan]

High speed is the very force that keeps the plane in the air, being surprised at it bumping on turbulence is like being surprised that your car bumps over a bumpy road.

It's either one or the other (confetti or cut beams),

No, first one, then the other, ie at first it would slice through and into, disintergrating as it went, losing both energy and structural shape - just like a bullet.

Back to the air rifle comparison, get yourself a pump-up air rifle, give it just a few pumps and shoot a glass bottle. The bottle doesn't break but the pellet is flattened like a coin. Now give it a few more pumps, the bottle shatters, the pellet is even more deformed, and not a smooth disc either.

Now give it a lot more pumps - this time you punch a neat round hole in one side of the bottle, while blowing out the back of the bottle. If you can find the remains the pellet is in tiny fragments.

Increase the power even more and you get a neat hole at the front and a neat but larger hole in the back of the bottle - and if you could find the shredded pellet it would like stringy dust.

My point is that glass is much much harder and tougher than lead - but hit glass with enough speed and you'll slice into it - destroying the pellet in the process.

Aluminium wings are tough, much tougher than lead. An aluminium bullet weighing over a hundred tons travelling around the same speed as a medium powered air rifle pellet, ie around 600 feet per second, would slice a steel beam like butter.

It could only pull that trick once though, as the plane would be destroyed and fragmented going through the first set of beams.

Frankly you're arguing against the photographic evidence right in front of your face.

It penetrated neatly, disintergrated and burning fragments spewed out the windows at the back, leaving the inner steel core intact. That's exactly what I'd expect to happen, that fits all normal behavior.

What is wrong is the idea that the massive inner core would then melt in the heat of a choked, sooty hydrocarbon fire, collapse and flatten the rest of the weight-bearing inner core below. THAT doesn't make any logical sense and suggests it had some help.

If anything being deformed it should have fallen away from the inner core and reduced the weight, not somehow crush it at the rate of gravity. That defies physics.

If it were a pre-planned demolition you'd expect the tell-tale signs, beams cut at a 45 degree angle into truck-sized lengths, with flashes and popping noises below, gushing molten steel a moment before the collapse, traces of thermite in the rubble debris and lingering molten steel that wouldn't cool down with water sprayed on it. Those again are exactly what we have seen.

I see no logical reason to consider the idea they somehow faked a real plane impact and demolition charges with a hologram.


O.

[CB_Brooklyn]

Come on, you're not comparing steel beams to glass, are you? Let's use some common sense here! Glass can easily break. Try shooting that lead bullet to a steel beam! I bet you won't even make a dent.

The towers did not "collapse" from explosives. They were pulverized with Directed Energy Weapons.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn That's completely unscientific and completely illogical. If this and if that. All one needs is basic understanding of physics. Newton's Laws proves no planes hit the towers.

Let me say this in the nicest way possible: Your understanding of physics is somewhere between a rock and my 3-year-old son.

Prove to me, using only Newton's 3 laws, that no planes hit the towers. Which of the three does such a situation violate? I'm waiting.

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn How do you know they didn't see projections?

Because the technology does not exist for thousands of people to see three-dimensional projections AND for those projections to be filmable AND for the thousands of people it would take to set up such a system to keep quiet about it.

If they swear they saw planes hit the towers, it must have been a projection, cause aluminum planes cannot cut steel beams as seen at the WTC:

Ridiculous. Absolutely asinine.

You claim to be some physics guru and yet you do not understand that Force (momentum) is a function of mass TIMES ACCELERATION.

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn Commercial airliners don't turn to confetti when crashing into a building.

LOL... Any proof of this? I didn't think so. You have proof of nothing. You're just a troll with an absolutely preposterous theory based on nothing but your own fantasy world.

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn when an aluminum plane contacts a steel building, there will be resistance. The plane will crumble/crush/twist and the fuel-filled wings would explode on impact.

Which is exactly what I saw happen. Try again.

[Clarence]

Commercial airliners don't turn to confetti when crashing into a building.

when an aluminum plane contacts a steel building, there will be resistance. The plane will crumble/crush/twist and the fuel-filled wings would explode on impact.

quotes from the same person. Planes hit the towers.

[CB_Brooklyn]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Let me say this in the nicest way possible: Your understanding of physics is somewhere between a rock and my 3-year-old son.

If that's the case, how come I'm the one backed by Issac Newton's Laws, while you're backed by propaganda from CNN and FOX?

Quote by: tivodan1116 Prove to me, using only Newton's 3 laws, that no planes hit the towers. Which of the three does such a situation violate? I'm waiting.

I'll explain using Newton's 3rd Law:

Newton's 3rd Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


Twin Tower: Steel Columns / Concrete Floor Slabs

Wide-body Commercial Airliner: Plastic Nosecone / Aluminum Shell

Plane will receive same force as tower receives.

Steel/concrete stronger than plastic/aluminum.

Plane will receive more damage than tower.


Based on the above, the following "nose-out" video from FOX 5 is NOT physically possible, not unless you're living in videogame land:

Quote by: tivodan1116 Because the technology does not exist for thousands of people to see three-dimensional projections AND for those projections to be filmable AND for the thousands of people it would take to set up such a system to keep quiet about it.

You obviously didn't even read my article. If you did you'd know about the military's "super secret hologram program" and reported in the Washington Post in 1999. This program, btw, was specifically designed for psychological operations (PSYOPS.)

I didn't say the projections were filmed.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Ridiculous. Absolutely asinine. You claim to be some physics guru and yet you do not understand that Force (momentum) is a function of mass TIMES ACCELERATION.

And you think Newton's Laws can be broken?? LOL!

Quote by: tivodan1116 LOL... Any proof of this? I didn't think so. You have proof of nothing. You're just a troll with an absolutely preposterous theory based on nothing but your own fantasy world.

Nope... you're the one living in a fantasy world! LOL!

Quote by: tivodan1116 Which is exactly what I saw happen. Try again.

You must be imagining things....

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn Come on, you're not comparing steel beams to glass, are you? Let's use some common sense here! Glass can easily break. Try shooting that lead bullet to a steel beam! I bet you won't even make a dent. The towers did not "collapse" from explosives. They were pulverized with Directed Energy Weapons.

You're joking, or high, or both. It took almost 9 months to clean up the huge piles of debris left after the collapse of WTC, as shown by this article. You see what I did there? I presented a point, and then I backed it up with evidence. You should try it sometime.

[CB_Brooklyn]

Quote by: tivodan1116 You're joking, or high, or both. It took almost 9 months to clean up the huge piles of debris left after the collapse of WTC, as shown by this article. You see what I did there? I presented a point, and then I backed it up with evidence. You should try it sometime.

You're joking, or high, or both. Your posts proves me right. USATODAY said it took nine months, yet the photographic/video/etc evidence shows it took about 10 seconds for each tower.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn If that's the case, how come I'm the one backed by Issac Newton's Laws, while you're backed by propaganda from CNN and FOX?

You're not. You're a troll backed by nothing.

I'll explain using Newton's 3rd Law: Newton's 3rd Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Twin Tower: Steel Columns / Concrete Floor Slabs Wide-body Commercial Airliner: Plastic Nosecone / Aluminum Shell Plane will receive same force as tower receives. Steel/concrete stronger than plastic/aluminum. Plane will receive more damage than tower. Based on the above, the following "nose-out" video from FOX 5 is NOT physically possible, not unless you're living in videogame land:

Wrong. As I said, your understanding of physics is below child-like.

An object with sufficient momentum and proper shape can pierce through what seems to be a stronger object - hence why a bullet can pierce a steel plate.

Furthermore, the nose of the plane wasn't hitting solid steel. The nose could have easily slipped through the building to the other side and merely grazed off of any columns in the middle if it didn't directly impact them.

Have you ever even been to WTC? I don't think you had before 9/11 or you'd see how plainly idiotic your argument is.

[quote]You obviously didn't even read my article. If you did you'd know about the military's "super secret hologram program" and reported in the Washington Post in 1999. This program, btw, was specifically designed for psychological operations (PSYOPS.)

I did. Your article contained no evidence of anything that actually worked. It was 100% your own lunar ramblings with no evidence.

And you think Newton's Laws can be broken?? LOL!

No, but you do, which is why you think a space-based magical energy beam can destroy WTC, and yet the platform to create such a beam can still be small enough to be hidden from amateur astronomers, or anyone with the naked eye, for that matter.

LOL... What a joke.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn You're joking, or high, or both. Your posts proves me right. USATODAY said it took nine months, yet the photographic/video/etc evidence shows it took about 10 seconds for each tower.

I was there. It took 9 months. Call me a liar, please.