It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Dummies Guide to "No-Planer" theory

page: 1
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+29 more 
posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Ok, before I start with 9/11 and the "No-Planer" theory I want to offer you some historical background.

The JFK assassination "conspiracy theories" versus the truth

Those who were behind the JFK assassination knew very well that many would ask questions about the assassination. They knew very well that some would question the lies that were passes off as truth in the media. So in order to obfuscate their investigations, send them into a wild goose chase and discredit them, false clues were planted into the events. Those deliberate false clues were planted to promote false "conspiracy theories". For example, Oswald had a Russian wife and he had spent some time in Russia. Oswald was picked as the patsy to promote "conspiracy theories" that the Russians were behind the assassination of JFK.

Then Jack Ruby, a man with connections to the mob was picked to kill Oswald. This was done to create yet an other "conspiracy theory" with the idea that the mob was behind the assassination of JFK.

Then images of anti-Castro Cubans in Florida cheering the death of JFK were also planted into the news to promote and other "conspiracy theory" - the idea that anti-Castro Cubans were behind the assassination of JFK.

Then more rumors were circulated about the possibility that Castro himself was behind the assassination of JFK. And more and more rumors were circulated, all intended to provide more "conspiracy theories" - it was the mob, it was the Communists, it was the South American drug lords, it was Castro, and so on ......

All these "conspiracy theories" were intended to be piled up on top of the truth. So now instead of one unified truth movement, their was a wildly divided bunch of "conspiracy theories" and everyone was sent researching on a wild goose chase. But the mob, the anti-Castros, the Communists, the drug lords, the Russians, and so on, none of these organizations would have had the power to prevent the truth of JFK from coming out for the past 40 years. None of these organizations would have the power to corrupt the Warren commission.

But the goal was simple: to bury the truth under a ton of impossible, easily discredited "conspiracy theories".

The 9/11 "conspiracy theories" versus the truth.

Today, with 9/11 being a much more elaborate event then the assassination of JFK was, the planted false clues and the planted "conspiracy theories" would have to be much more subtle, complex and much more elaborate. Again, they knew ahead of time that many would question the events of 9/11. So even before 9/11, some false clues were planted to promote varying "conspiracy theories". Some of these "conspiracy theories" are promulgated by agents planted into the movement, some others are promulgated by innocent and well intended people who were fooled into accepting the false clues at face value without questioning common sense. I will not examine all of these false "conspiracy theories" here with you as it would take too long but I will address only one of them : The "No-Planer Conspiracy Theory" which was planted in the truth movement, not only to send us on a false track, but also to discredit the truth movement as it is a simply idiotic theory which should be dismissed on pure logic alone. But in order to express this pure logic I shall take you back to one of my childhood experiences.

The shed explosion

This was about 25 years ago during my teenage years back in Northern Quebec. I grew up in a "cottage country" with snowmobiling, hunting and fishy as common hobbies for all. So one evening, I was riding my snowmobile with a friend, I must have been 15-16 years old. We were riding on the frozen Lake Pressac when we saw a cottage in the distance that appeared to be going up in flame, so we set out to get closer and see for ourselves what was going on. By the time we got to near the burning cottage, the firefighting crew was already there with there hoses and along were maybe 15-20 other onlookers. Some of the onlookers were up on the road on the other side of the cottage while some were, like us, on the frozen lake riding their snowmobiles. We stuck around to witness the firefighting efforts, the firemen drilling a hole in the lake to get more water, the roof of the cottage slowly collapsing after a while and all that stuff. While the firemen made sure nobody was getting too close, we could see very well what was going on from a distance of maybe 50-80 feet away from the house.

But all of a sudden, after having been there for maybe 15-20 minutes, a shed about 25-30 feet away from the main house exploded. Well it didn't really per say explode, it was more of a sudden burst of fire. But right out of the blue, that shed was engulfed in flames and burning bright. Now, I don't know what caused that shed to catch fire like that - maybe a spark of flame traveled downwind to the shed, maybe there was some flammables stored up in the shed ..... maybe someone had deliberately set fire to it and maybe it was intentional ..... I just still don't know. But what is sure is that no snowmobile was driven into that shed. If a snowmobile had been driven into the shed, or if a missile of some sort had been thrown in there, there would have been a lot of people who were in the area who would have witnessed a snowmobile coming over and driving in, the noise of a snowmobile driving into it and also the tracks of a snowmobile leading to the shed.

There was at most 25-30 people there - at the most! If anyone had tried to claim that a snowmobile or a missile or a car had been impacted into the shed, there would have been at least 10-15 people, including my friend and I, who would have seen it and we would have rapidly exposed the snowmobile/missile/car lies.

..... (continued on next post)

[edit on 2-11-2007 by PepeLapew]




posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   
.... (continued from above)

Finally the "No-Planer conspiracy theory"

The shed fire happened some 25 years ago in a quiet part of Northern Quebec with near a town of no more then 5,000 people in contrast with New York having almost 20 million people. Most people back then didn't own video cameras ..... unlike the WTC complex scene. Today almost everyone owns a camera, or at least one out of two people own a camera, video or photo camera that is. And the Manhattan area is a great deal more populated then my childhood Lake Pressac. Many of NYC citizens would be in their high rise condos or apartments or in their offices with a direct view of the WTC complex and of the towers which were erected above all other buildings and could be seen from a great many vintage points - even from across the river!

By the time the second plane hit, there would have been countless cameras pointed towards the buildings from all angles, cameras from the mainstream news reporters but also cameras from independent freelance reporters, cameras from tourists in the area, cameras from people in their apartments with a view of the towers, cameras from people on the streets, cameras from people in their offices and even some of the very very numerous security cameras everywhere in NYC. Even Rick Siegel was at least two miles away across the river and he caught the events of 9/11. How many footages of the second plane impact exist? We don't know exactly, some might not be published, some might still be collecting dust in people's living rooms, some might still pop up on the net over the years.

So if there was no planes hitting the towers, how is it that every single video footage available show us a plane hitting the buildings? You can't drive a snowmobile into a shed in cottage country without people seeing it so how is it that we can't find a single video footage that reveals no plane hit the second tower? Surely some people would be on the opposite side of the building and would not see the plane coming in, they would only see the ensuing explosion without the plane. But of all those who were on the proper side, how is it that none of them can tell us that they saw the building explode without a plane going in? How is it that the perpetrators managed to confiscate every conceivable video of the impact and add "digital fakery" to them? How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in?

These simple logical questions can not be answered amongst many other questions, so the no-planer theorists just ignore them, they just pretend that these simple legitimate questions are irrelevant for one obscure reason or an other. And this allows them to keep promulgating their false theories. They know very well that their theories do not hold a candle to simple logic, but that's what they want. They want to create the impression that the truth movement is as illogical as these theories are, they are attempting to destroy the truth movement's credibility and bury the truth under yet an other pile of lies, "conspiracy theories", distortions, false evidences and laughable claims just as was done during the years after the JFK assassinations.

But don't try to tell them this, they will accuse you of being a disinfo agent.

The aluminum plane going in "like butter".

One of the strongest points the no-planers have is that a flimsy aluminum plane would not be able to go through a full steel building "like butter" as it did on 9/11 hence no plane hit the WTC towers.



(source: img300.imageshack.us...
and img99.imageshack.us... )

The problem with this idea of a plane going into the building like butter is that it misrepresents almost every aspect of reality and of the impact. The WTC towers were surfaced with a thin aluminum sheeting, but only a fool would take that to mean that the WTC towers were using thin aluminum sheets as a structural member. In fact, the exoskeleton of the towers was a grid of 13X13 inch steel columns which were placed 18 inch apart. At the base of the towers these columns were approximately 2.5 inch thick and gradually thinning out toward the top. At floor 80, the columns were approximately 1/2 inch thick at the very most. The columns were NOT full steel, they were hollowed out columns.


(source: www.questionsquestions.net... )

The numbers in the figure above denote:
• 36 - the steel column
• 38 and 39 - fire resistant plaster
• 40 - aluminum facade
• 42 - window glass
• 43 - the window frame.

The right 2 images above represent the minimum and maximum dimensions of the steel columns. The columns became thinner towards the top of the building. The average thickness of the pieces of columns measured in the House report was less than 1/2 inch thick. We can assume the columns closer to the top to be somewhat below the average. Hardly an "immovable object" or a "full steel structure" it would seem.

.... (continued in next post)

[edit on 2-11-2007 by PepeLapew]



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 02:49 AM
link   
..... (continued from above)

Just as the towers were surfaced in aluminum, a Boeing is also surfaced with a thin 0.025 inch thick 6061-T6 aluminum skin. But again only a fool would take this to mean that the entire airplane was using thin aluminum sheets as a main structural component. The fully loaded weight of a Boeing 767-200 is 300,000 lbs including the fuel, cargo and passenger loads. The wings of the aircraft have to support this entire weight but a certain safety factor is built into those wings. As the airplane can encounter turbulences, sudden control inputs and violent air pockets, the designers incorporate a typical safety factor of 6 Gs into the airframe. That is to say the wings must resist a weight 6 times the total loaded weight of the airplane - that's 1.8 million pounds! Yes, the wings must be strong enough to resist a weight of 1.8 million pounds without collapsing. In order to achieve this strength each wing is fitted with 3 massive beams. These beams are commonly called "spars". Here we can get an idea of how massive these steel spars can be:


(source: www.boeing.com... )

We can definitely get a good idea of how massive each of these spars (or beams) were, now imagine 3 of these beams per wing:


(source: physics911.net... )

On YouTube you can witness a Boeing 777's wings being tested to destruction:
www.youtube.com...
This video gives you only a small window into the tremendous strength of a Boeing airframe and wing structure, nothing about the structure of a Boeing would inspire a "flimsy aluminum airplane". But don't tell that to the "no-planer conspiracists". they will simply tell you that you are an agent or a fool.

In addition to the shear size and strength of these steel wing spars, there is the impact damage to consider. A loaded 250,000 lbs Boeing traveling at 550 MPH would impact the building with the extreme force of over 8 billion (yes with a B) newton of force. But the no-planers just ignore these numbers and simply claim without explanations that perhaps the airplane should have merely bounced off the building.

Don't get me wrong, the no-planers might not all be deliberately trying to spread lies, some of them were simply fooled by those lies but the result is all the same - discrediting and dividing the truth movement while burying the truth under a pile of "conspiracy theories".

Conclusion

The "No-Planer conspiracy theories" are not the only lies being spread, there is also the "Missile-Pentagon theories", the "Deep Energy Weapons theories", the "David Icke lizard-men from space theories" as well as the "pod-plane theories" and various others all intended to make us look more like "conspiracy theorists" rather then serious researchers, divide the movement, and bury the truth under a large pile of "conspiracy theories" which are illogical and sometimes down right ridiculous. But be careful, even some of the theories which appear more researched, more popular and more documented are often lies or distortions, such is the case of large parts of the three Loose Change versions.

So to you, if you are a new comer to the truth movement or if you are simply trying to research further into the events of 9/11, be warned. You will find a lot of false claims and false evidence pointing to false "conspiracy theories" but do not despair, the truth is somewhere in there. You just need to be careful and think out every single evidence and fact you encounter. But make no mistakes about it, the "no-planers" do not represent the truth movement and should in no way reflect on the rest of the movement .... this goes as well for many other "conspiracy theories" planted into the movement.

Good luck and happy researching!

Cheers,
PepeLapiu



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   
excellent post Pepe would give you a WATS if i could. I would just like to add that if a WWII spitfire can penetrate the steel hull of a battleship then a boeing (much greater mass and probably speed too) shouldn't have much trouble penetrating a building.



Notice the distinctive shape of the plane, you can clearly see where the wings entered.

upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 2-11-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Great work Pepe. A star and a flag.

I wish the staff would post this as required reading before anyone could post on the 9/11 forum.

I submitted an article for the newsletter, whether it sees the light of day is unclear at this point, wherein I called these stories fairy tales and silliness. I'm sure to get flak over stating it so boldly, but it's the truth as I see it. Now I can reference the believers to this thread.

Thank you.



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Dear PepeLapew:

Bonjour!

Your newly posted thread is indeed very well written and well researched. Naturally, now comes my big objection however. You actually addressed an important point why there were no planes on 9-11. You just view it in the opposite way. Exactly because every Tom, Dick and Harry had cameras pointing at the twin towers, there should be loads of footage showing UA175 hitting the WTC-2. But guess what, there aren’t. There is not a single ‘independent’ image to be found, anywhere. ALL stills and films of UA175 are cut from the same mold reeking of (lousy) CGI trickery.

I’ve typed this so many times, my fingers are hurting. All the civilians filming that day, recorded nothing relating to airplanes. And since all the TV feeds showed Boeings, they either just scratched their heads and said ‘oh-well’ to themselves, ‘we must have missed the shot.’ Or their work is being condemned as ‘uninteresting’ and ‘irrelevant’ because it doesn’t show what everyone wants to see, the planes!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 


I'm an objector to the "No Planes" theory, but you do raise a good point. Where's all the viedo from citizens?

weird.



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
In your two videos of the plane hitting the building, you see conspiracy, I see common physics. The amount of force carried by that aluminum plane would be something so amazing you and I couldn't imagine if we weren't there or haven't seen similar scenarios in real time. What you mistake for "cutting" into the building is less "cutting" and more instantaneous breakdown of every single part of that plane.

400 miles at 255,000 pounds would completely obliterate that plane. Not even the commission report says there was any "severing" of the steel, but merely knocked off the steel's fire protectant. I also noticed how the "soft" parts of the plane don't even register because of the force, but the turbines seem to make little "puffs" of concrete residue the instant they make contact with the building. I think that in itself would have been an incredible feat of and in itself.

I guess to some people it just makes sense. To others, it's some sort of mindblowing conspiracy.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
The only anomaly that I have ever seen is a small one of logic. How does a plane embed itself completely into the world trade center, with these heavy wings slicing into it, and yet the same thing doesn't happen at the Pentagon.

It's like the wings were strong enough to rip right through everything at the WTC, and yet hardly leave a mark at the Pentagon. I haven't yet gotten that one straight in my mind.



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   
What I really do not understand. At all. Is how people just go on and make out of the blue theories. I was there. I was on the last train that went into the WTCS and let me tell you. If any of these theories are true.. they its the best entertainment I ever had ( right...). Hearing the sounds of the plans hit, or maybe there were speakers all around me, let alone hear it, it was more of a feel it.. like someone punched me in the chest.

Did our own government bring down these buildings than i am sure it will come out in the wash eventually, or maybe my father did it because he is a 32 degree SR freemason. Its just very hard for someone like me to read into this situation for more than it seems to be. We must use the Law of Parsimony.

To me, it doesn't seem very hard at all to buy a few hours at flight school ( even 17 year olds do that) buy a few plane tickets, get on board and take it over.. lock the door.. fly them into the buildings. I don't know. Maybe I am just one of those crazy realists.

[edit on 2-11-2007 by keywestjess]



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
There are videos from citizens, just search for them.
And, again, please, with the CGI!

CIA NSA ILM?...OMG!



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Did you all notice how none of the no-planers are addressing the questions I have asked? They whine about little details while trying very hard not to answer the main question I asked, namely: How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in?



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Starred Flagged.....

Good post. I wouldn'ty mind printing a copy of this out to give to a friend I work with. He is a big no planer believer. While he has a great imagination, I don't see any logical explanaiton to back it up. I also agree that this should be required reading before you post in this forum



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
In your two videos of the plane hitting the building, you see conspiracy, I see common physics.

Correction, I see physics (8 billion newtons or 1.8 billion pound-force) while you see a "conspiracy myth". It's the other way around my dear.


The amount of force carried by that aluminum plane would be something so amazing you and I couldn't imagine if we weren't there or haven't seen similar scenarios in real time.

Correction, YOU could not imagine while I could and can, see the numbers above.


What you mistake for "cutting" into the building is less "cutting" and more instantaneous breakdown of every single part of that plane.

You would be correct and judging from the videos, the plane did break down into pieces, clearly the plane lost and the building wan.


400 miles at 255,000 pounds would completely obliterate that plane.

I agree, the plane would be obliterated and and guess what? It did get obliterated! How do you imagine the plane hitting the building? Do you imagine it would have merely bounced off?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
There were so many people taking vid's and pictures that day.. I remember clearly seeing them all around the trade centre.. we watched when the first plane hit and we thought.. oh no.. thats horrible... but when the second plane hit the guy i was talking to yelled, "its an attack", he turned and ran to call his wife.. i couldn't move.. i was stuck.. watching everything... it didn't feel real.. sound was like being underwater.. the sight of it all was beyond anything i have seen before.. i still see people trying so hard to hang on to the windows to avoid the heat.. and waving shirts and things so NYFD could see them.... but the worst part that still sticks with me almost 24/7.. is the smell... i smell that day almost every hour i am awake.. and when i dream.. its right there with me.



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by tyranny22
Where's all the viedo from citizens?

weird.

I have seen at least four of them. I'll look for them and get back. Have a look on YouTube and CameraPlanet. It is also possible that many people didn't see fit to post them on the net. There is a video of my baby's first steps. Just because you can't find it on the net doesn't mean it doesn't exit, right?

[edit on 2-11-2007 by PepeLapew]



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   
pretty good thread!!!! good research, we need to get this to more people!!!!!



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
An excellent post by the OP as others have also pointed out and certainly worthy of applause and of course debate.

To 'keywestjess' I am just wondering what brought you to ATS as I notice you only registered today and have only posted in this thread?

And please don't take that question up wrong,
I fully respect what you have written and it must have been terrifying for anyone who like you was in the vicinity of the WTC complex that fateful morning.



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Pepe. the average no planer at this point would probably answer your last question like this: Advanced holographic technology, already patened and known to exist for many years, and no doubt advanced to a level in the secret labs around the nation and world that would allow for a daytime image with appropriate sound to be displayed and coordinated into the approach of the image to the setting off of charges to mimic the explosions and damage that one would exoect to see if a plane hit a building. I am not saying I am a subscriber to this; I am still on the fence for a few reasons, but lean toward the Op's position.

BUT there are many valid questions that remain and until they are dealt with satisfactorily there can be no assumptions made. One point that always gets me is the flash of light: You see it quite clearly on BOTH ' planes ' just at the moment of impact. There is on all films a brief flash of light at the front of each image, or plane, and that has to be explained. It could have been a triggering mechanism for the explosives, which theoretically at least could have been prepositioned between certain floors, with the image, or plane, being steered or directed into that area of floors, with the flash of light triggering the explosions.

It is beyond coincidental that in both Tower strikes there is that brief flash, very bright, BEFORE the nose inpacts. Something is fishy, very fishy. There are so MANY ' inexplicable anomalies ' associated with these events that the sheer number bely any thoughts of coincidence or happenstance, the odds are beyond astronomical that some quirk happened twice in a row under the same exact circumstances. So, we are left with the issue of real planes.

It sure looks like them, doesn't it? If they are holograms then whoever set up and ran this system is one slick operator..more likley though is a small group of committed radicals in key positions and with far ranging influence and resources. Since the operation was OBVIOUSLY carried out by a rouge band of militray, civilian ( corporate ), intelligence and black..deep black ops types assembling a team and pulling off the crime of the century, right under our noses. They left enough clues behind to condemn them, but no one is looking and no one is asking, at least not where it counts.

Now, if that is true, and if the technology exists to actually produce such holographic images and sounds and in broad daylight stage a totally faked event, no doubt the perpetrators would nopt hestitate to use that ability, as much or all of it would be in the very highest security range, with above top secret status and only rumors of its capabilities in the public domain. They have discussed using it to confuse battlefields and influence civilian populations as well; in one case they were talking about making it look like Allah was shown speaking to the masses and of course urging whatever the guys using the system wanted them to believe. If they can do that and be believable, they just MIGHT have the ability to pull off a hoax event like is alleged by many happened on 9-11.

Also, there are films of faint and obscured images that look like cloaked aircraft circling the Towers, and orbs as well. It is NOT beyond possible,)
although the likelihood I will leave to you ) for an operation of a VERY advanced nature was conducted, so advanced that only a handful of people could be aware of on an intimate basis. Considering the fact that many important people that fit that description were among the alleged dead on 9-11: There were an unusually high number of these types on the doomed aircraft, although a connection is not well proven yet.

Is it POSSIBLE for the planes to be holographic images? Probably YES. Is it LIKELY that this is the true answer? I leave that up to the individual to determine based on examination of the evidence at hand. The main reason most of us feel that is may be somewhat unlikley is that we are not privy to the technology that really exists: It has been said widely that the government( along with their pals in the private sector) is between 30 and 50 years ahead of what is known to the public. It makes sense: new breakthroughs need protection until they can be fully developed and exploited for whatever reasons, and the biggest secrets are the most guarded, of course.

But is it too much to believe that with all of the known evidence, taken at face value, the government, and thus the perpetrators of 9-11..meaning the cabal that actually planned and pulled off the attacks, has the ability to do such a thing? I believe they can; whether or not they did is still an issue for many, but I at least believe that they COULD do it that way, given the accepted paradigms for assuming that they have things we can hardly comprehend, much less have any personal use for unless developed for certain markets.

Anyway, to answer your question, it was all holographically staged and sound was provided and by means that are classified to the highest degrees. At least many believe that. Until the very valid questions are answered and the ' anomalies ' explained intelligently, there will remain those who are willing to go far enough to believe in technology existing that can cause the effects seen. If so, it was the boldest and most audacious act in human history: To literally fool ALL of the people ALL of the time would be a feat that any good dictatorial cabal would slaver to accomplish!!

But we CANNOT all be fooled all the time!! Some people look beyond the obvious, and beyond the doubtful, and sometimes right into the foolish, to find the answers to the questions that MUST be dealt with before any closure can happen. The cabal made a number of errors, as expected fully no doubt in an operation of this magnitude and complexity, and they stand out as beacons of hope that the truth, whatever it may be, will soon be known, and the perpetrators of these awful deeds will stand before the bar of REAL justice to answer for their crimes.

Holographs or airplanes that exhibit strange characteristics?Dozens of strange events swirling around the event and a demand that answer be given. We will soon see what the result it.



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   
pmexplorer

My Dad actually use to look over this site( i dont think he is a member)...and he showed it to me and I've been lurking without being a member for about a year or so.. very interesting. My interestes are more in the area of life after death.. ghost.. esp etc... i don't really jump over to the "alternative explinations" side of things very often.. it just gets my blood heated lol.

But yeah.. in terms of this post... i guess one has to start some where lol

[edit on 2-11-2007 by keywestjess]




top topics



 
40
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join