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

[CB_Brooklyn]

Quote by: tivodan1116 You're not. You're a troll backed by nothing. 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. 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. 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.

You're making a total idiot out of yourself with your childish ad hominems. Obviously you're cornered and namecalling is all you have.

I presented the evidence based on physical laws.

[Orangutan]

Come on, you're not comparing steel beams to glass, are you?

Yes, to make the point that such a lead pellet is completely flattened and distorted against the much harder glass. However hit it fast enough and that same soft lump of lead will punch a neat clean pellet shaped and pellet sized hole through the glass.

Let's use some common sense here! Glass can easily break.

Really? Stand a milk or wine bottle up, stand back and throw a .22 air rifle pellet at it, see if it breaks? No? OK, try a catapault? You still won't break it, the pellet's too soft, the glass too hard.

At best you'll slightly deform the pellet, you might even knock the bottle over but you won't break it.

Use a similar sized pebble and yes, you'll crack the glass, as the pebble is as hard as the glass itself.

Now stick the same soft lead pellet in a 600fps air rifle - you get a neat bullet hole.

As for not being able to penetrate steel, I've seen a .45 sink a bullet into a cast iron engine block.

It's irrelevant that steel is tougher than aluminium, hit it with sufficent velocity and the steel will yield. You can actually buy aluminium bullets which are specifically designed for high penetration:

Centurion Ordnance, Inc.

It seems to me you're simply discounting the velocity factor. An airliner travelling at 500mph doesn't look fast because it's such a huge great thing far away but 500mph is over 700 feet per second, which is indeed the typical muzzle velocity of a .22 spring air rifle. We're not talking about a tiny 15 grain pellet, we're talking tons of aluminium.

If you double the speed of something it becomes 4 times harder to stop it. An airliner at motorway speeds of 70mph would mangle such girders let alone at 500mph.

Seriously dude, give it some thought.


O.

[Orangutan]

And what's with the 'self-healing' stuff? You show a close-up where very evidently there was no 'healing' involved. You've taken the low pixel range of a poor recording and read into it something that a higher resolution image shows never occurred.

What IS weird about the images of the cartoony entrance hole is that in at least one shot a woman is standing at the hole, clutching onto a steel girder. That clearly defies the official story, as one of the reasons (large) steel-framed buildings usually shrug off the effects of fires is that the steel framework acts as a massive heat sink, conducting and aborbing the heat of a localised fire.

That's why steel feels cold to the touch, it instantly conducts heat away from your hand, while wood, a poor conductor, feels warm as it reflects the heat back and only absorbs heat at the surface.

How did the 'raging inferno' die down enough for her to walk through it between superheated beams, and actually grab hold of a beam - yet the heat was so intense it allegedly buckled the massive inner core?

Or did they in their hologram trickery create a realistic looking hole with a realistic looking woman that proves the fakery of the official story? And if so, why?

There is considerable evidence of an inside job or at least a fake official story, you seem to be trying hard to deny or discredit evidence of such fakery whilst pushing a truly loony and unbelievable fantasy?

Are you after the truth or trying to hide it?


O.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Orangutan 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.

Then you really haven't read Stephen Jones' work because he repeatedly sites an unnamed individual who delivered him "samples" from ground zero.

[another day]

Hahahahaha... wow this kid (cb_brooklyn) is such a perfect example of what I was talking about. A rudimentary understanding of a couple physics laws and he thinks he can accurately analyze and then dismiss such a complex event as this.

[Chaossaber314]

I like the fact that he uses a basic law regarding contrasting forces and fails to even mention the explosion.

Even better, I like the image that keeps getting posted that refers to Nuclear explosions and Volcanic eruptions like they are even comparable in any facet.

[another day]

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.

Yeah, right, they have the technology to pulverize a 1/4 mile tall building into pure vapour in a matter of seconds. And your the one saying the official story somehow violates known laws of physics? If the rubble didn't exist and the tower was "pulverized by a direct energy weapon" then where did that material go? Are you suggesting it was somehow turned into pure powder that simply floated off into the air?

Honestly, who put all this shit in your head?

[ShadowFox]

I'm going to say somethings you may not want to hear, CB, but you should know them. When something is moving at a high velocity and impacts a stationary target, damage will be inflicted to both the projectile and the target.

As for the rubble, things get compacted pretty easily you know. The Twin towers weren't a complete solid mass. There was space in between floors. Also, theres stuff you can find on the internet and history channel about something below the tower that was made before the towers construction. Can't remember where though.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn You're making a total idiot out of yourself with your childish ad hominems. Obviously you're cornered and namecalling is all you have. I presented the evidence based on physical laws.

So I take it you have no response to any of my points then?

Good, I didn't think so.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn If they swear they saw planes hit the towers, it must have been a projection

I've avoided these 9/11 threads, but I'm actually glad I read this one. It goes way beyond denying the official story, to the whole event never happend. I don't know what is funnier. The PSYOPS, or destructo beams. That's great. I once saw Lance Burton make the Statue of Liberty disappear, why hasn't he been questioned about his involvement?

[Chaossaber314]

It's so hard to explain this theory to other people.

I had to talk about it with my friends.

"So there's a new 9/11 conspiracy?"
"Oh yeah? What is it this time?"
"A laser."
"A laser?"
"Yeah, like some Command and Conquer sh*t."
"And the planes?"
"Oh they weren't really there."
"What were they?"
"Holograms."
"Holograms?"
"Yes, Holograms."
"Well alright then."

[ShadowFox]

"Yeah, like some Command and Conquer sh*t."

Maybe this is where the theory originated from

What's next? Did the government pay the Locust to destroy the buildings? (Gears of War Enemies are locust.)
Or was it the Geth using their AI technology to destroy it? (Mass Effect Enemy)

[Tycoon]

Or was it the Geth using their AI technology to destroy it? (Mass Effect Enemy)

Oh dear. Please tell me you don't play Mass Effect.

[Chaossaber314]

I'll go with the more realistic answer. It was the Sith.

[ShadowFox]

I'll go with the more realistic answer. It was the Sith.

OF COURSE! Why didn't I see before. The sith used the force to bring down the world trade centers!!!!

[Orangutan]

Well there you go CB, your job is done. You can go troll somewhere else now.


O.

[Nono]

Peter Garrison, an editor of Flying magazine:

"An airliner may appear massive and solid, but in fact it's an extremely thin hollow shell of low density. The familiar object that it most closely resembles is an aluminum drink can. The mass of the primary structure of an airliner's fuselage is equivalent to that of a few automobiles. Wing skins are thicker than fuselage skins, but even wings are not nearly as massive as they look. Hence the weird site of a huge airplane vanishing into the side of the World Trade Center."

[Nono]

Quote by: Orangutan What IS weird about the images of the cartoony entrance hole is that in at least one shot a woman is standing at the hole, clutching onto a steel girder. That clearly defies the official story, as one of the reasons (large) steel-framed buildings usually shrug off the effects of fires is that the steel framework acts as a massive heat sink, conducting and aborbing the heat of a localised fire.

O has kindly sent me a link for that photo: http://www.911-strike.com/VTS_01_3001.jpg

One can see through clear air far back into the structure. Yet there's ample photographic evidence that fire and thick black smoke filled the breaches on both buildings until the things collapsed.
So where's the smoke?

And here's a question: What kind of person (not driven by heat and imminent asphyxiation) is goint to venture out to the edge like that many hundreds of feet up?

You know what I think? This photo is a fake. Or more probably it's a figure standing in the wreckage, say a month after the event. There must be many such post-911 photos of the wreckage.

[Orangutan]

Yet there's ample photographic evidence that fire and thick black smoke filled the breaches on both buildings until the things collapsed. So where's the smoke?

What? A major point of us "truthers" is that the fires had died down by the time of the collapses. Yes, that's illogical. There's tape recordings of firemen stating that there were only a few pockets of flame left and they could be knocked out with a single hose.

What kind of person (not driven by heat and imminent asphyxiation) is goint to venture out to the edge like that many hundreds of feet up?

Somebody trying to get attention, seeing as she was trapped in a mangled building hundreds of feet up?

You know, like waving for help?

You know what I think? This photo is a fake.

Perhaps you'd prefer the video of her waving?

Edna Cintron's Last Stand

Scroll down that page for another pic of the same woman from a different angle.

What is "fake" is the idea she had just strolled through some blazing furnace capable of destroying the massive inner core of that building.

Most of the fires were out.


O.

[Nono]

OK, I stand corrected on the 'smoke-everywhere' claim. But I don't see your point. One can still see fires burning in the interior of the building, which is sort of the essential ingredient in making the building come down. After all, the fires themselves don't necessarily have to continue until the thing starts to fall. They merely have to burn long enough to soften the steel and thus allow gravity to bring about a buckling process.

I have no problem imagining that most of the aircraft's fuel had been propelled by intertia into the interior and that whatever combustibles left out where she's standing had long since been consumed, if that part had ever burned at all. It's what happened in the interior that made the thing collapse, not what happened out there.