Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-NoPlaneTheory* Myths

[DONTEATUS]

Seriously is right those planes were not just slipped into WTC`s by hokeus pokeus! Get real ! It happend and now some have lost there minds. DONTEATUS

[turbonium]

UNDECIDED... HMMMMM...

You might want to take a good look at some of the vids they passed off as real my friend, its painfully obvious this stuff is bad animation.

impossible moving bridge, SPINNING WTC,

Random thing in the sky(among many random things in the sky).

Some things to think about

And for all those that think the "no-plane" theory is insane...

i didnt...

As for the last clip - supposedly showing the area where Flt. 93 crashed - I fully agree with you. The photos don't show any evidence of the plane, either.

The other clips are also dubious.

I was specifically referring to videos of the second plane hitting the tower, which I find peculiar in how the entire plane seems to "sink" entirely into the building.

But the problem is that these videos can't be used to falsify the official 9/11 story, whereas the physical evidence can.

[DONTEATUS]

did I just read that last post right? turbo? are you saying that the 9/11 hits to our country was a fake? SAD what country are you from turbo?

Edited March 11, 2008 by DONTEATUS

[Zaus]

WOW LOOK AT THE RESPONSE!!!

Now Im "an anti-american brainwashed propaganda machine?!?"

Thank you, im really happy you've all decided to not even bother to read what the LINK on the FIRST PAGE explains...

This is real. Planes to not sink into buildings like a bad video-game... and have crappy CGI explosives. BTW did you know the american government is completely overcome by satanism?

I prefer the term "Counter-Propaganda" or "Anti-Propaganda".

[Cr33p]

September - 11 - 2001... Brought to you buy Peter Jackson in association with Weta Digital...

Zaus, the cheese has officially slid off your cracker.

[Zaus]

Ofcourse it has, it was the cheese of american propaganda(which is fatty, not healthy, and full of lies).

[Cr33p]

Nope, dairy and full of calcium. Which is good for your bones!

[DONTEATUS]

get the number of the truck that hit Zaus we may find BinLadork! you know hes covering all the loose ends he left over here!DONTEATUS

[flyingswan]

How does that entire building collapse to the ground in a manner of seconds from a few fires inside of it? If fires can cause buildings to collapse like that then I think there would be a lot more examples of it happening. You can clearly see something gives way in the middle (from that top piece dropping) and then the whole thing just caves in. It doesn't make sense.

It seems to make sense to structural engineers:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-...lsanz-Nov07.pdf

[LoveSuxLoveIsWar]

WOW LOOK AT THE RESPONSE!!!

Now Im "an anti-american brainwashed propaganda machine?!?"

Thank you, im really happy you've all decided to not even bother to read what the LINK on the FIRST PAGE explains...

This is real. Planes to not sink into buildings like a bad video-game... and have crappy CGI explosives. BTW did you know the american government is completely overcome by satanism?

I prefer the term "Counter-Propaganda" or "Anti-Propaganda".

Unlike some (assuming) I have read up on both sides for years and years and still CANNOT be persuaded to EVER believe that no planes hit. What is so hard to believe about it?! Sure there may be inconsistencies/anomalies with the official story, but NOTHING like you're claiming. I think that you're so caught up in all of the other things wrong with the 'official' story that you're starting to believe every crazy theory that has been put in front of you. Idiocy has got to be involved.

Edited March 12, 2008 by LoveSuxLoveIsWar

[*Quinn*]

It seems to make sense to structural engineers:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-...lsanz-Nov07.pdf

Without having read it word for word yet, it seems the article explains how the failure of column 79 could have caused such a collapse. I haven't really seen them say what it was that would have made that column collapse however.

In other words, if it was a controlled demolition, they could simply be saying why doing x, y and z under such a scenario would make the demolition a success.

It goes back to whether I am to believe that fires or whatever it was that was happening in the building should be enough to cause what happened to happen. The fact that the building collapsed means there is going to be a reason for it whether it was intentional or not. Explaining the reason however, which is what the article seems to do, doesn't explain what caused that sequence of events to happen.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Left Field

[Zaus]

Unlike some (assuming) I have read up on both sides for years and years and you still CANNOT be persuade to EVER believe that no planes hit. What is so hard to believe about it?! Sure there may be inconsistencies/anomalies with the official story, but NOTHING like you're claiming. I think that you're so caught up in all of the other things wrong with the 'official' story that you're starting to believe every crazy theory that has been put in front of you. Idiocy has got to be involved.

Thats why you believe a passport can be found and used as evidence after an explosion said passport was in, and the passport was for someone who was still alive after they put his mug shot there for you to hate.

He is alive to this day... im going to point something out here, im going to show you how Fed america propaganda is...

i give you mass media inconsistencies

Also, why after all such planning would they go out on a drunken binge yelling about how they were going to "commit terrorist acts against the US" with striper's and all that.

Why risk the entire plan when you know you have 70 virgins waiting for you?

Edited March 12, 2008 by Zaus

[Q24]

Without having read it word for word yet, it seems the article explains how the failure of column 79 could have caused such a collapse. I haven't really seen them say what it was that would have made that column collapse however.

The article doesn't even do that much. The failure of column 79 explains the initial penthouse movement but there is no reasonable explanation of how the full building collapse progressed from there.

In other words, if it was a controlled demolition, they could simply be saying why doing x, y and z under such a scenario would make the demolition a success.

It goes back to whether I am to believe that fires or whatever it was that was happening in the building should be enough to cause what happened to happen. The fact that the building collapsed means there is going to be a reason for it whether it was intentional or not. Explaining the reason however, which is what the article seems to do, doesn't explain what caused that sequence of events to happen.

Exactly, all very well put - this comes back to the official story's method of fitting figures to the preconceived conclusion that damage/fire caused the collapses. Obviously no one taught those supporting the official story that the study should lead to the conclusion.

Hey Zaus Have you got around to those questions yet? I really want to understand the 'no planes' theory.

[Zaus]

i did answer them, in an exhausted state and screwed up the quoting, then editted it. its on page 2.

I remember the first crashes looking really stupid... and then all the sudden they preferred to use other video's instead(probly because they really underestimate us, and they are practically right is the amazing thing)

Do those sound like people you would trust? and what about the guy live at the end... thats creepy!

Are you ready to take yet another step? it only gets creepier... Especially with Bohemian Club and Skull and Bones, and the many other secret societies that have undeniable evidence of their existence, even in the mass media. Now, we have a direct satanic connection within and probably running our government. The love of money is the root of all evil anyone? Anyway, 9/11 was something more than just a faked "sacrifice", it was the opening of a door of consciousness, or as i think it is unconciousness. This is why it is so prevalent in the dollar bills... and that is why noone believes that money would have anything to do with it, even in the face of above mentioned.

The bible also, again revelations is given no relevance even though it speaks of the times we are obviously living in, why? why you ask?

by design. It's a little thing called "manifest destiny". A religion can get people to destroy their only chance at spirituality, get them to go to war, whatever, because it is based out of blind faith. The "system" we have here is based on practically the same message of blind faith in authority and what you see on TV.

The subliminal side however... is a really creepy topic. If it is there from the moment you come into the world, how can you have anything relative to base a guestamate at how far off the world is than it should be? Again, if it was dangled in your face constantly, why would you think it was anything more than what you habitually use it for?

EDIT: i will go more into this when im not exhausted

Edited March 13, 2008 by Zaus

[flyingswan]

Without having read it word for word yet, it seems the article explains how the failure of column 79 could have caused such a collapse. I haven't really seen them say what it was that would have made that column collapse however.

In other words, if it was a controlled demolition, they could simply be saying why doing x, y and z under such a scenario would make the demolition a success.

It goes back to whether I am to believe that fires or whatever it was that was happening in the building should be enough to cause what happened to happen. The fact that the building collapsed means there is going to be a reason for it whether it was intentional or not. Explaining the reason however, which is what the article seems to do, doesn't explain what caused that sequence of events to happen.

What it does is undermine the argument that because the collapse looked like a controlled demolition, that must therefore be what it was. Instead, it presents a mechanism of collapse which involves a single point of failure. Something that requires multiple simultaneous failures - like a normal CD - is much harder to explain away than something that requires just one failure. Remember that the building had been on fire for over five hours when it collapsed, and steel fireproofing is not designed to protect for that long a period.

[Q24]

i did answer them, in an exhausted state and screwed up the quoting, then editted it. its on page 2.

So you did, sorry I missed your editting.

The plane did NOT react AT ALL... this is obviously impossible!!!

It was the cores which carried most of the building weight with the external columns being lighter and the facia being aluminium cladding. Although, as you say, equal forces should be acting on the airliner and Tower, due to the completely different construction of each, there is no reason they should react equally to it. In this case it is apparent the exterior columns were simply not strong enough to absorb the airliner impacts and so were severed. I do think the airliners reacted with the Towers upon impact and debris can be seen in videos though most was obscured by the explosions.

But really, im guessing judy wood and DR. Reynolds are plants too, put there to forward the debate on "directed energy weapons" and the "no plane theory"

However, i believe it was a cruise missile that hit the WTC towers, then it was blown to pieces in a controlled demolition.

Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds use these unbelievable no plane and directed energy weapon theories to discredit genuine evidence that the truth movement have uncovered – they are disinformation agents, no doubt.

Why would the perpetrators of 9/11 use cruise missiles when it is quite feasible for them to use airliners? There is far less chance of thousands of witnesses reporting a cruise missile that way. If they crash airliners into the Towers, the work is done without going to the extreme lengths of TV fakery and hundreds of actors.

1 You must read here...

I have had a read of the thread and see the TV fakery idea got slated there. I stopped reading at page 4, as by then the theory has been utterly debunked. The videos posted on the thread, supposedly showing anomalies, seem to be either camera tricks due to perspective or in cases, deliberate editing by those spreading disinformation.

2 They made the amateur footage... with (FAKE)witness reactions!

i have only seen 2 vids that i would call genuine authentic. The "plane" looks like a cruise missile.

3 In fact there is! the problem however is that 800 million people saw it on TV, the brainwashing tool of the government.

If 1000 people DIDNT SEE A PLANE

they would be arguing with (atleast)800 million who did...

I would be interested to see just one piece of video footage showing the impacts but no airliners.

4 How did the cut shapes appear so clean??? Did you know the fuel tanks for jumbo jetliners are kept in their wings? They would have exploded on contact.

The fuel tanks did explode – that’s what caused the massive fireball. What I want to know is how explosives or a cruise missile could ‘cut out’ plane shapes in the Towers.

5 To my knowledge they "cut the transponder's" and they could not be tracked by air traffic control. This of course makes no sense but i do remember they were doing military exercises dealing with plane hijackings and alot of people were confused. not knowing whether it was real or exercise, this is a fact and the audio clip can be found.

Switching off the airliner transpoders would mean information such as identification and altitude ceased to be transmitted. This does not stop air traffic control from tracking the airliners on radar… which they did, right up to the Towers.

I agree there were military exercises that caused some confusion due to coinciding with the attacks. These exercises involved ‘phantom’ blips being added to military radar screens but this would not affect civilian air traffic control. The exercises were likely intended to give the flights as much time as possible, ensuring no interception took place.

[Zaus]

I would be interested to see just one piece of video footage showing the impacts but no airliners.

tired... cant focus.

[Q24]

tired... cant focus.

Thanks - well that is interesting, Zaus.

I did some digging and found the

impacting the Tower. Right then, one of them has been tampered with, but which one? So I did some more investigation.

I found

from ABC News, CBS News, WNYW-TV (Channel 5, New York), WNBC-TV (Channel 4, New York), NY1 (New York One, All News), Fox News Channel, WCBS-TV (Channel 2, New York), WPIX-TV (Channel 11, New York) showing the impact of Flight 175 into the South Tower.

I found amateur footage of the South Tower impact

,

, here and four angles here. All show the airliner. I think there is more amateur footage that I have seen as well as these.

I found many eyewitnesses accounts from normal people on the street. Some describe a small plane, some describe a large plane, some say it appeared to be a military plane. Eyewitness accounts of the same event are notoriously diverse but one thing for sure is they all saw a plane. In addition the 9/11 oral histories give accounts of many firefighters and EMTs who saw an airliner impact the South Tower.

As well as the above, I found that the impact holes fit very well with the dimensions of a Boeing 767. I found photographs of airliner fuselage debris and a landing gear section at the WTC site, also confirmed by eyewitness accounts in the oral histories above. I found air traffic control recordings released by the NTSB to show airliners approaching the Towers.

Ok, that’s enough investigation for now. It’s make your mind up time. Either...

1. Every news station was in on the conspiracy, sending out pre-edited footage disguised as live feed. Every amateur video sent to news agencies was also edited to include airliners before release and it was hoped not too many others would release footage independently. Hundreds of actors were hired to perform in these videos and, along with firefighters, release statements pretending to have seen a plane. An as yet unidentified technology cut remarkably accurate plane shapes in the Towers, airliner debris was planted at the WTC site and air traffic recordings faked.

   Or...

2. The video showing no plane was photoshopped.

I... don’t know what else to say.

We could talk about how people like Dylan Avery and Steven Jones were expanding the 9/11 truth movement very well, long before the likes of Morgan Reynolds and Nico Haupt started spreading disinformation.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Q24

[turbonium]

did I just read that last post right? turbo? are you saying that the 9/11 hits to our country was a fake?

No.

There are problems with the lack of evidence for Flt. 77 (supposedly hitting the Pentagon) and Flt. 93 (supposedly crashing in Shanksville). And there are many other serious questions which the official 9/11 account has not validly answered.

[Czero 101]

did I just read that last post right? turbo? are you saying that the 9/11 hits to our country was a fake?

No.

There are problems with the lack of evidence for Flt. 77 (supposedly hitting the Pentagon) and Flt. 93 (supposedly crashing in Shanksville). And there are many other serious questions which the official 9/11 account has not validly answered.

Really? So this part of your post:

I was specifically referring to videos of the second plane hitting the tower, which I find peculiar in how the entire plane seems to "sink" entirely into the building.

doesn't imply that you have doubts about the second plane actually hitting the tower?

What would you expect a plane weighing about 200,000+ pounds, traveling roughly 300 - 400 or more miles per hour to do when it hits a building? Simply bounce off?

Cz

Edited March 17, 2008 by Czero 101

[turbonium]

I was asked...

"are you saying that the 9/11 hits to our country was a fake?"

I replied...

No.

There are problems with the lack of evidence for Flt. 77 (supposedly hitting the Pentagon) and Flt. 93 (supposedly crashing in Shanksville). And there are many other serious questions which the official 9/11 account has not validly answered.

Really? So this part of your post:

"I was specifically referring to videos of the second plane hitting the tower, which I find peculiar in how the entire plane seems to "sink" entirely into the building."

doesn't imply that you have doubts about the second plane actually hitting the tower?

Yes, it does imply that I have doubts. I didn't say I'm convinced that "the 9/11 hits to our country was a fake".

What would you expect a plane weighing about 200,000+ pounds, traveling roughly 300 - 400 or more miles per hour to do when it hits a building? Simply bounce off?

Hardly.

But do you expect it to completely dissolve into the building, fully intact?

The planes may be flying at 450+ mph at impact, but that doesn't mean they're going to slice right through steel columns and 4+ floors, each floor consisting of a 4" thick concrete slab on top of corrugated steel decking.

The nose of the plane is a thin aluminum shell. I find it strange that it could puncture right through the outer steel columns and spandrels, and then slice through a 4" thick concrete slab for at least 160 feet (the length of a 767).

It's even more puzzling to me that the wings are just as effective at slicing right through tons of steel and concrete fully intact.

Imo, this issue isn't really relevant to proving the official 9/11 account is false, which is why I haven't spent much time looking into it. But it is very odd, nonetheless.

[Zaus]

The truth is usually stranger than fiction is it not?

[NigelTM]

The planes may be flying at 450+ mph at impact, but that doesn't mean they're going to slice right through steel columns and 4+ floors, each floor consisting of a 4" thick concrete slab on top of corrugated steel decking.

The nose of the plane is a thin aluminum shell. I find it strange that it could puncture right through the outer steel columns and spandrels, and then slice through a 4" thick concrete slab for at least 160 feet (the length of a 767).

It's even more puzzling to me that the wings are just as effective at slicing right through tons of steel and concrete fully intact.

Imo, this issue isn't really relevant to proving the official 9/11 account is false, which is why I haven't spent much time looking into it. But it is very odd, nonetheless.

While I'm not a physicist, I don't really see it as all that odd. The plane acted like a hollow bullet, so it was completely destroyed on impact. Consider the mass of the plane(s) and the force involved. Why wouldn't both plane and building be obliterated? With an object as large as an airliner, and the speed it was going, I would've been more surprised had it not torn the building apart (and that goes for both WTC towers).

[turbonium]

While I'm not a physicist, I don't really see it as all that odd. The plane acted like a hollow bullet, so it was completely destroyed on impact. Consider the mass of the plane(s) and the force involved. Why wouldn't both plane and building be obliterated? With an object as large as an airliner, and the speed it was going, I would've been more surprised had it not torn the building apart (and that goes for both WTC towers).

You say the plane "was completely destroyed on impact" - but if you watch the videos, you'll see that the plane virtually "sinks" right into the building, completely intact.

In other words, the building seems to offer no resistance at all to the plane impact. Why was there no crumpling of the nose at impact? How could the wings slice right through the steel and concrete slabs without shearing off or smashing to pieces? The building seemed to "gulp it up whole".

Weird.

[Q24]

You say the plane "was completely destroyed on impact" - but if you watch the videos, you'll see that the plane virtually "sinks" right into the building, completely intact.

In other words, the building seems to offer no resistance at all to the plane impact. Why was there no crumpling of the nose at impact? How could the wings slice right through the steel and concrete slabs without shearing off or smashing to pieces? The building seemed to "gulp it up whole".

Weird.

Turbs, if you are questioning the presence of airliners at the WTC, what do you make of all the evidence saying otherwise that I posted further up this page? Zaus, who I was replying to, doesn't seem to want to discuss it.