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

[Orangutan]

The interior was the toughest part of the building, with a huge lattice of steel beams. The air-craft did Jack S to that inner core having already been pulverized smashing into and through the outer beams.

As for the fuel/fire being inside, read my lips - steel buildings act as a heat sink - if the inner core was hot, so was the outer shell, they were directly connected by floor beams.

For the huge inner core to come anywhere near the 800c needed to even begin softening steel for any length of time then the beam she's holding would be a minimum of 100 degrees centrigrade or more.

There simply wasn't the massive heat source that's claimed - the fires were a sooty remnant of earlier, most of the fuel, especially in one tower, has gone up in a fireball within the first few seconds, certainly the first minute.

Yet over an hour later, with the fires just a few pockets, even the smoke fading, people scrambling around over and holding onto the steel beams - it melted?

Before you give me the NIST 'pancake theory', NIST themselves have already rejected it. That only leaves heat.

WHAT heat? There's nowhere near enough heat to destroy that inner core, which was the main weightbearing part of the building. The outer beams were for stiffness against wind, for weight it was the inner core, much sturdier beams.

They would not have been seriously damaged by the flying confetti that used to be a plane splattering against them. The heat could not do it.

These building were designed to withstand an airliner strike because they were close to airports and the Empire State had been hit by a wartime bomber (and didn't collapse).

You simply cannot claim huge masses of heat energy that destroyed that core - when someone's standing there holding onto the steel it was connected to. All the steel in the building would get slightly warm, as it was interconnected and would conduct the heat away from the source. There was no massive inferno like has happened in other steel buildings, some of which have blazed for over 24 hours over multiple stories but didn't collapse.

Quite simply the aircraft did no great structural damage to those buildings, not could the short fire that cooled enough for people to walk over the wreckage. WTC 7 wasn't even hit by an aircraft yet also collapsed like a wet noodle.

Note the Marriot Hotel, same design building, was hit by hundreds of tons of debris from a huge height. It only suffered local damage where hit, including a huge scoop out the builing but no collapse.

Pancake doesn't work, heat doesn't work, impact only damaged the outer beams.

The next question should be 'any signs of demolition charges, such as bright flashes, puffs of smoke and debris, perhaps thermit residue and steel molten long after the event?

Yes, there were.


O.

[Nono]

Well, O, this has been argued at tremendous length by people far more qualified than me, and possibly even than you. From what I've seen, the consensus seems to lie squarely with the oh-yes-it-could-have-happened crowd.

The WTC was designed to withstand a 707 strike, I believe. Not that large an aircraft. Did they consider the effect of burning fuel, or just the energy of impact?

And the Empire State was hit by a B-26? Gosh, and it didn't fall down immediatley? Astounding!!

Anyway, what do you think did happen? Let's see how plausible that is.

[Clarence]

the NIST reports that 80% of the fuel was exploded outside the building

[Compugasm]

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.

What is even more annoying, is trolls Like CB_Brooklyn that make the rounds of messageboards, and post the same crap everywhere. You're clogging up my internet, STOP IT.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Orangutan The interior was the toughest part of the building, with a huge lattice of steel beams. The air-craft did Jack S to that inner core having already been pulverized smashing into and through the outer beams.

Oh bullocks. It even sent a goddamn fireball down the elevator shaft that blew out the windows on the first floor.

Oh wait, my bad, that must have been part of the "controlled demolition" even if the building didn't start to collapse from the ground.

[tivodan1116]

"Controlled demolition" is an asinine theory.

Do you know how many man-hours it takes to plot a controlled demolition? How many people would need to be involved, and not one has come forward in 7 years? How about all the people working there "uh, don't mind us ma'am, we're just planting these massive explosive charges under your desk for safe keeping, and by the way, those guy wires strung about all over the place are just for looks."


Completely obvious to me is the fact that no one who supports a controlled demolition theory has ever been within 100 miles of one, or they would see how silly their "theory" is.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: tivodan1116 "Controlled demolition" is an asinine theory. Do you know how many man-hours it takes to plot a controlled demolition? How many people would need to be involved, and not one has come forward in 7 years? How about all the people working there "uh, don't mind us ma'am, we're just planting these massive explosive charges under your desk for safe keeping, and by the way, those guy wires strung about all over the place are just for looks." Completely obvious to me is the fact that no one who supports a controlled demolition theory has ever been within 100 miles of one, or they would see how silly their "theory" is.

My personal favorite part of the "Controlled Demolition" Theory is how they don't account for the several story fireball from the planes. You know, because giant fireballs and preset explosives usually go so well together.

[another day]

See the major harmful part of these ultra ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theories is that they devalue and draw attention away from either what might have been a real 9/11 conspiracy or simply all the other shit the us government actually DID do.

I'm starting to think South Park wasn't far off with their scenario that the 9/11 government conspiracy theory is itself a government conspiracy.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: another day See the major harmful part of these ultra ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theories is that they devalue and draw attention away from either what might have been a real 9/11 conspiracy or simply all the other shit the us government actually DID do. I'm starting to think South Park wasn't far off with their scenario that the 9/11 government conspiracy theory is itself a government conspiracy.

If you follow through with the South Park rationale for that - that the government created the 9/11 conspiracy in the hopes that we wouldn't find out how bumbling and inept they really are in handling stuff like terrorism - then I'm with you.

[RealRockingham]

OK, I'm not the first to poin this out, nut its as simple as this: If the US had wanted a terrorist attack to serve as a Casus Belli, they would have selected the most efficient plausible method, and maneuvered Al-Quaida, directly or indirectly, to launch a strike. What I find MOST unlikely about 9-11 is the claim that the governemtn was unable to do anything to protect even the PENTAGON! So, IMO(short for "in my opinion") it is likely that the US prodded terrorists to launch the strike, and did nothing to stop it even if they could. That would be the simplest avenue for them to go down.

[Nono]

I agree with Rocky, and with tivo, Chaos and day. The controlled-demolition theory -- in addition to the prohibitive practical difficulties and risks -- is, as a colleague of mine would put it, like going down your trouser leg to get up your ass.

Personally I believe that 911 may have been made possible by from little more than early examples of the Busheviks' limitless incompetence.
But what continues to stink to high heaven about it is the cui bono aspect: it put them exactly where they wanted to get -- in Iraq.

But assuming that they were behind it in some way -- if only by facilitating the matter for Osama (as Rocky suggests) -- then the best way to deflect scrutiny is to put out a bunch of perfectly loony theories like missiles, holograms and God-knows-what-else.

[Nono]

Just an example of the risks involved in demolition, the second plane damned near missed. It was in a tight turn with a pretty acute bank angle, which suggests that the pilot didn't have his approach totally under control.

He could easily have missed and (why not?) lost enough height in that steep turn to hit something completely different. Then they'd have had to sneak up and take all those explosives back out, eh?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: RealRockingham What I find MOST unlikely about 9-11 is the claim that the governemtn was unable to do anything to protect even the PENTAGON!

Were you ever there before 9/11? It's not some big military fort. It's basically an office building. They had no more power to protect it than to protect any of the other hundreds of office buildings and potential targets in Washington DC. They had an extremely short time during which to mount any kind of defense - not nearly enough. It's not unlikely at all, it's completely likely.

Quote by: Nono Just an example of the risks involved in demolition, the second plane damned near missed. It was in a tight turn with a pretty acute bank angle, which suggests that the pilot didn't have his approach totally under control. He could easily have missed and (why not?) lost enough height in that steep turn to hit something completely different. Then they'd have had to sneak up and take all those explosives back out, eh?

Yeah but if you agree with the OP, there was no plane, so they could make the secret holographic projection anything they wanted, especially when they dumped hallucinogens on the people that were watching live via chemtrails, and there wouldn't be any explosives to take out, just a satellite in space that didn't need to fire. What do you have to say to that? HUH? HUH? HUH?????

[CB_Brooklyn]

The childish ad hominem's in here are really amazing. It reveals much about those who make them.

[Compugasm]

Hey, if you can't take the heat, get out of the tower.

[CB_Brooklyn]

Quote by: Compugasm Hey, if you can't take the heat, get out of the tower.

Yeah... I should find a board with more mature-minded people.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn Yeah... I should find a board with more mature-minded people.

Umm, you already troll pretty much every message board that hasn't banned you.

And I don't see a single ad-hominem against you here. Against your ridiculous, stupid, moronic, nonsensical theory of the 9/11 attacks? Sure, we're attacking that - as we should. But I don't see anyone attacking you.

[CB_Brooklyn]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Umm, you already troll pretty much every message board that hasn't banned you. And I don't see a single ad-hominem against you here. Against your ridiculous, stupid, moronic, nonsensical theory of the 9/11 attacks? Sure, we're attacking that - as we should. But I don't see anyone attacking you.

It's people like you who give debate boards a bad name. You, and others like you, are full of insults and obnoxious comments. Your insults and obnoxious comments reveal a lot about the type of person you really are.

[Halofan48]

I'll let the mods judge if insults are being thrown around. And if there are, cut it out.

For the laser and plane theory.

1. We didn't possess the technology to create a laser powerful enough to destroy the world trade centers. The ones we have today can only make about a 1 foot hole at close range, and are large in size, so large they'd easily be noticed.

2. We didn't possess the technology to make said holograms of planes impacting the side of the towers. We still don't.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: CB_Brooklyn Yeah... I should find a board with more mature-minded people.

You demand respect, but don't deserve it from anyone. Like, this is the first community ever that you've debated this topic on. I'd post what I found, but frankly hoaksters and charlatans don't deserve the attention, name recognition, or backlinks you seek from this community.