The Dummies Guide to "No-Planer" theory

Originally posted by eyewitness86
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.

Triggering mechanism? Sounds like quite a complex setup there.

Well let's examine this...

Is there anything, anything at all, maybe much simpler that could possible explain the flashes of light?

Hmm... I wonder if there could possibly be a type of device affixed to the underbelly of an airliner, one that would emit brief flashes of bright light, light that when close enough could be reflected off the windows in front of it and even reflected back on the shiny underbelly of the plane?

Is it possible that airliners are required to have anti-collision light systems, including a flashing or rotating strobe beacon underneath them??

Surely not, as this would easily explain the flashes and reflections, and quickly disprove the obvious triggering mechanism for explosives these planes surely had on board! You know the ones I'm guessing the pilots had to be able to trigger milliseconds before impact, which is quite a feat indeed!

/usr/bin/sarcasm_mode -off

Now, if that is true, and if the technology exists to actually produce such holographic images and sounds

It's the sounds part that puts this theory to bed. You can argue until the cows come home (lol) about the existence of holograms and whatnot. Even if that were possible reproducing the sounds of an airliner romping through Manhattan would be a logistical nightmare, there's just no easy way to install and test several stadium sized sound systems that could even come close to producing the sound of a jet in an OPEN AIR ENVIRONMENT.

Although if someone were able to find the live sound engineers who were on site operating the boards, and maybe the shop/shops that rented out several truckloads of gear, or the contractors who ran the electricity required for several hundred-thousand+ watt sound systems, or the people who rigged them up, or the drivers who brought the gear and their respective trucking companies, or the guys who designed the whole operation and figured out how to simulate doppler shift on such a large scale using directional speaker cones in an open air environment, or video or pictures of any part of this operation being setup and torn down, well then I would say you then have some proof of holograms without having to see the projectors.

The OP has one MAJOR flaw....

You talk about the jet "slicing through like a hot knife through butter" and then go and explain the strength of the wings. The wings did not slice through like butter, the nose of the jet did.

If you watch the videos, you can clearly see the perfectly in tact nose of the jet pass through the entire WTC. Now, please tell me what the nose of the jet is made of...

...im pretty sure it is made of fiberglass or carbon fiber. I can even find pictures of birds that have crashed into the nose of a 757 and put holes in it... yet it smashed through steel and retained its strength on 9/11??

Why did you ignore the nose of the jet? Does that hurt your theory?


Also, it is a FACT that every single footage known to the population has been in the hands of FBI. The very second someone tries to show a NEW video about 9/11, the FBI confiscates it. Don't believe me? RESEARCH!!!


Also, forget about the "sounds" as it is very possible that a jet powered missile was used... jet powered missiles don't have FAA sound regulations so it will be LOUD! hint hint


[edit on 2-11-2007 by tenplusone]

Originally posted by PepeLapew
I was not talking about the core which was irrelevant in this case.

Your context in bold describes the "steel" core "columns", which you incorrectly call an exoskeleton.

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.

Do you actually understand this? Or was it lifted from a website?

Originally posted by tenplusone
The OP has one MAJOR flaw....

You talk about the jet "slicing through like a hot knife through butter" and then go and explain the strength of the wings.

Yup... he's already had a reply about that.

Originally posted by tenplusone
The OP has one MAJOR flaw....

You talk about the jet "slicing through like a hot knife through butter" and then go and explain the strength of the wings. The wings did not slice through like butter, the nose of the jet did.

If you watch the videos, you can clearly see the perfectly in tact nose of the jet pass through the entire WTC. Now, please tell me what the nose of the jet is made of...

...im pretty sure it is made of fiberglass or carbon fiber. I can even find pictures of birds that have crashed into the nose of a 757 and put holes in it... yet it smashed through steel and retained its strength on 9/11??

Why did you ignore the nose of the jet? Does that hurt your theory?

[edit on 2-11-2007 by tenplusone]

For one, no you do not see the nose intact coming out of the other side. What people did was use low quality versions of video footage where there is the most pixilation anything will look the same coming out of the other side. But if one uses high quality video where there isn't as much pixilation, then it becomes clear that it's not the same object coming out. That doesn't dismiss it being the nose. But the claim is based on looking at the nose before it enters and comparing the shape coming out. This comes from a 911 cult film called September Clues. An explanation of it can be found in this fvideo:

video.google.com...

"Also, it is a FACT that every single footage known to the population has been in the hands of FBI. The very second someone tries to show a NEW video about 9/11, the FBI confiscates it. Don't believe me? RESEARCH!!!"

Care to back this claim up?

"Also, forget about the "sounds" as it is very possible that a jet powered missile was used... jet powered missiles don't have FAA sound regulations so it will be LOUD! hint hint"

100% conjecture. There is no evidence of this. You have already decided that there were no planes (or the ones reported) and are coming up with something to fit that story. As opposed to having some evidence of some jet powered missiles and using that to determine there were no planes.

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by PepeLapew
I was not talking about the core which was irrelevant in this case.

Your context in bold describes the "steel" core "columns", which you incorrectly call an exoskeleton.

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.

Do you actually understand this? Or was it lifted from a website?

I understand it fully. It's you the one who thinks I am talking about the core columns. I am not, I am talking about the columns which were placed around the exterior 4 walls of the building. I am talking about the outside walls of the building, not the core. The outside walls were also made of a series of columns, hence the use of the word "exoskeleton" as in "exterior skeleton".

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Originally posted by NGC2736
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.

That one is relatively easy to answer. Scroll up to the OP's description of how the Trade Center towers' external shells were built of hollow steel beams.

The Pentagon's external 'shell' is made of reinforced concrete.

So, you have two different sets of construction materials, and two entirely different schemes of construction. It shouldn't come as any surprise that impacts by broadly similar objects produced widely different results. It's also rather misleading to say that there was 'hardly a mark' left on the Pentagon. We can disagree on the size of the hole punched in the wall, but there's not much doubt that there was a hole of some size punched through the external wall...that's a fairly considerable mark.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
I understand it fully. It's you the one who thinks I am talking about the core columns. I am not, I am talking about the columns which were placed around the exterior 4 walls of the building.

AFAIK there were no columns on the exterior walls of the building - only the facades. Unless to you, columns = facades. In which case, you refered to them as "steel" and "aluminium" in the same paragraph.

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


Yes, and I agree to a point. But I too have viewed the pictures. An official impact site shows remarkably little damage to the surrounding structure, and it SEEMS inconsistent with a larg jet striking the area.

Remember how those wings were so strong that they sliced through the skin of the WTC? Then those same wings should have left their mark on the Pentagon. And I can find no evidence of this.

Forget the fairy tales; I'm not into the "far out" ideas. I'm more grounded than that. But you can't have it both ways. If the wings were structurally so strong that they went through the WTC like a hot knife through butter, then why do the official pictures of the Pentagon strike show no sign of this type of "wing damage."

I'm not advancing any of the far out theories on 9/11. But to an observant person, two distinctly different signatures are left. You cannot just say that it must be so because we are told it is so.

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


I just saw your post. I can agree to a point. BUT, the overall width of the wings and the overall width of the damage to the facade of the pentagon do not seem to match the signature one would expect from a large airliner.

Still, please understand, I am not advocating that no plane hit. I am simply pointing out the oddities that surround this.

reply to post by PepeLapew


Read my Sig. Do you know what XY means? Still a "dude."

Originally posted by SteveR
AFAIK there were no columns on the exterior walls of the building - only the facades. Unless to you, columns = facades. In which case, you refered to them as "steel" and "aluminium" in the same paragraph.

Holy shiit! Does anyone here understand anything?
The building was a giant block in appearance. There was the roof of it and there was 4 sides. You can call those sides, facades or exterior wall or Snoopy for all I care. There was four giant walls to the outside of the building, each wall was about 200 feet wide by 1300 feet tall. Do we all understand what we are talking about now? Are we on the same page?

Those exterior walls, or facades as you may wish to call them, were made up of an intense grid of interconnected columns. Each columns were about 14x14 inch and they were made of steel, the thickness of the steel varied as it was thicker near the base and got thinner at the top. But you could not see the steel columns because they were covered with an insulating foam and surfaced with a thin aluminum sheeting.

Just like your house dude, the walls of the house are made of wood studs (which could also be called columns as well). But you likely don't see the wood studs, they are covered up by other things like brick ot stucco or vnyl siding or drywall on the inside.

Never the less, your house walls are a wood structure and the tower outside walls (or faces or facades) were a steel columns structure.

Why did I know that people would start to argue on the little details and completely avoid the question I asked? Here is the question again but I know nobody will attempt to answer it: How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in?


Cheers,
PepeLapiu

and to ask another question.

Why on earth wouldn't they have done some CGI on the Pentagon? Why leave that one out?

They do it in a major populace when everyone would see what really occured and they decide not do it when no one was looking at the Pentagon>>??

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by PepeLapew

 

Read my Sig. Do you know what XY means? Still a "dude."

Well, I am done guessing. Your post most definitely looked to me like you were a no-planer and as I re-read it again I still find it to be a no-planer's kind of a post. Maybe you were trying to be sarcastic, maybe not. How am I suppose to guess your sarcasm from reading words on a page?

As for your gender, your avatar shows a little gurl, if ya won't wanna be mistaken for a girl don't show us the picture of a girl as your avatar.

And no, I don't know what XY means. Am I supposed to know what XY means? Will you say I am an idiot for not knowing that?

And thanx for derailing the thread with all sorts of unimportant stuff.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Well, I am done here. All that people want to talk about is pods under planes, CGI at the pentagon, sex of the posters, meaning of two letters, meaning of the words wall, column, and facade.

And the no-planers, either they push the stoopit idea of holograms to answer my question or they imagine ridiculous ways to not answer my question.

So I will ask it again here but watch how long it will take to ignore the question and go back to pods and holograms and definitions of the letter XY and other frivolous stuff.

How did they manage to make sure that nobody catches the building on video exploding without a plane going in?


[edit on 2-11-2007 by PepeLapew]

reply to post by PepeLapew


Understood, thank you.

You'll find that the word "columns" here on ATS typically means the giant internal columns at the center of the building.

From your initial posts and a little common sense, I think everyone can agree a 767 was able to puncture the building's facades.

That being said, the information you've provided does not cover all of the no-planer's claims, but you are half way there.

I can attempt to answer the question but it's just my view (we all have those don't we)

What better way to simulate planes crashing into buildings than to use real planes and real buildings? No complex hitech equipment is required in this scenario apart from planes and buildings and the devastation looks as real as it can get.

I hear often that the buildings fell the 'wrong' way which leads me to ask what is the 'right' way for them to fall? Perhaps everyone has a different expectation in that regard.

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by PepeLapew

 

Understood, thank you.

You'll find that the word "columns" here on ATS typically means the giant internal columns at the center of the building.

From your initial posts and a little common sense, I think everyone can agree a 767 was able to puncture the building's facades.

That being said, the information you've provided does not cover all of the no-planer's claims, but you are half way there.

I'm sorry for my temper. I get a bit edgy when discussing the dumb no-planer theories. My sincere apologies to ya!

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I can attempt to answer the question but it's just my view (we all have those don't we)

What better way to simulate planes crashing into buildings than to use real planes and real buildings? No complex hitech equipment is required in this scenario apart from planes and buildings and the devastation looks as real as it can get.

Scenario #1
I get a Chevy truck and I drive it into your house. I wedge a 2x4 stud on the gas pedal and that's the end of it. I don't need an other 10 people to be in on it, I don't need a fancy smancy holograms machine or a bunch of photoshopped videos. But after I crash that truck into your house I plant some fake evidence on the lawn to derail the investigation and just plain screw with people's minds - I leave some fake Hinda Civic parts on the lawn and I claim that in some of the videos there was bad acting and a frame or two skipped therefore it could not have been a Chevy truck.

Scenario #2
I hire a crew to install and coordinate a bunch of holograms machines around your house and I pay off every single cameraman in town to fake the videos. I don't drive anything into your house but instead I blow up a hole in your house the size of a Chevy truck. Of course, there might be 10 neighbors of yours watching the whole thing but I hope that none of them has a camera to film the whole thing. Then of course I have to scrap my pick-up truck to make it look like it was a pick-up truck. I also hire a crew of people to install invisible speakers all over your neighborhood.

Of course, I hope that none of the neighbors will film the no-truck hoax and I hope that none of the hoaxter cameramen will blow the whistle and I hope that none of the hoaxter sound crew men will blow the whistle and I hope that people will not find my Chevy truck. Any of these things go wrong and I will get exposed. Should the holograms or the photoshopped truck not hit the house at the precise time the hole gets blown then all is ruined.


I don't know about you but I am getting a pick-up truck and a 2x4 .....

BTW, understand that nobody here is going to drive an actual truck in anyone's house, it was just a figure of speech.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Scenario #1 doesn't require any real magic, just a good example of 'leger de main' to get enough witnesses to question what they saw and form groups that go off on tangents. Takes the focus off the 'real' culprits wherever they may be