No Planes Theories on 9/11

thecommander

murphaph wrote: »

Well I guess I'm another one of the "nutters" who believes the whole thing was a con. The Reichstag here in Berlin was burned down by the Nazis and blamed on the communists in the early 30's. It helped secure Adolf Hitler as leader of this country. Adolf Hitler himself said the "bigger the lie, the more people will believe it". If Adolf Hitler had access to video editing software, would he have used it for propaganda purposes? Hell yes he would. So why do people find it so hard to believe that it could be used to perpetuate a lie in this day and age.

9/11 was and is the biggest lie ever told IMO.

So Hitler lied, therefor 911 is a lie?

Undergod

Q: How do you get millions of people to believe that two of the most iconic buildings were destroyed as a result of a plane fliyng into them?

Please post answers below, correct replies will recieve a thumbs up.

thecommander

Undergod wrote: »

Q: How do you get millions of people to believe that two of the most iconic buildings were destroyed as a result of a plane fliyng into them?

Please post answers below, correct replies will recieve a thumbs up.

Loaded. You're assuming that they weren't destroyed by planes, when all the evidence points that they were. Also 000s of people saw it happen.

Undergod

thecommander wrote: »

Loaded. You're assuming that they weren't destroyed by planes, when all the evidence points that they were. Also 000s of people saw it happen.

Am I? Think about it.

EDIT: To put it another way, I'm not assuming that. The question was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

King Mob

Undergod wrote: »

Q: How do you get millions of people to believe that two of the most iconic buildings were destroyed as a result of a plane fliyng into them?

Please post answers below, correct replies will recieve a thumbs up.

I know! I know!

Is it fly planes into the buildings?

murphaph

thecommander wrote: »

So Hitler lied, therefor 911 is a lie?

No.
Hitler lied AND 9/11 is a lie. Thought that was pretty clear from my post.

passive

I support the "no planes in pearl harbour attack" theory too.

Not sure how I feel about the "no boats" one though... That's a bit out there.

Overheal

No Planes in Pearl Harbor. Riiiiight.

The only thing I feel may have been a true conspiracy in 9/11 was the case for Thermite. And possibly the no plane theory at the Pentagon. But Planes were definitely used at the WTC

murphaph

I'm not sure myself about the whole planes/no planes thing at WTC but one thing is known-the Pentagon was one of the most video surveilled buildings in the world and we are led to believe that the best footage they had was from a carpark barrier that shows absolutely NO PLANE, just an explosion.

We are also led to believe that the plane was almost completely vapourised or turned into tiny pieces with all 4 planes. I think most of us have seen what usually happens with a plane crash or bombing-large fragments usually remain and can be pieced together. They managed to find a large proportion of TWA800 at the bottom of the ocean and reconstruct it, but no reconstructions were possible with ANY of the planes on 9/11? Bit odd at the very least.

Suffice to say, there are enough unanswered questions (and why was the 9/11 commission so late in being established and so poorly funded, even compared to enquiries into trivial things like Cinton's blowjob?) to leave me believeing the days events were orchestrated not by a bunch of islamic terrorists who apparently weren't very good pilots, but rather by a domestic source.

Do the people who believe it was Al Qaeda have any doubt in their minds about that? The only people to benefit from 9/11 have been the US military industry, including the likes of Haliburton. Osama Bin Laden was a relatively free man before it, if he's even alive now he's living in a cave somewhere. Hardly a benefit. Sadam Hussein is dead. Did he benefit from 9/11? Who had the real motive?

Undergod

King Mob wrote: »

I know! I know!

Is it fly planes into the buildings?

And the award goes to... Mob!

meglome

murphaph wrote: »

I'm not sure myself about the whole planes/no planes thing at WTC but one thing is known-the Pentagon was one of the most video surveilled buildings in the world and we are led to believe that the best footage they had was from a carpark barrier that shows absolutely NO PLANE, just an explosion.

We are also led to believe that the plane was almost completely vapourised or turned into tiny pieces with all 4 planes. I think most of us have seen what usually happens with a plane crash or bombing-large fragments usually remain and can be pieced together. They managed to find a large proportion of TWA800 at the bottom of the ocean and reconstruct it, but no reconstructions were possible with ANY of the planes on 9/11? Bit odd at the very least.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055532869

You seem to have strong opinions on 911 so take a read of the linked thread and you can explain to us how we're wrong. Most of if is about the Pentagon and goes into the fine details. I'd love to hear your input.

uncleoswald

murphaph wrote: »

one thing is known-the Pentagon was one of the most video surveilled buildings in the world and we are led to believe that the best footage they had was from a carpark barrier that shows absolutely NO PLANE, just an explosion.

I wonder if there was footage of the Pentagon plane would people claim it was faked....

meglome

uncleoswald wrote: »

I wonder if there was footage of the Pentagon plane would people claim it was faked....

You don't have to wonder. Considering there are claiming the twin towers were not hit by planes and thousands of people saw these planes.

thecommander

uncleoswald wrote: »

I wonder if there was footage of the Pentagon plane would people claim it was faked....

Of course. Especially if it was released now, there would be claims it took them this long to fabricate etc and make sure there was no holes in it.

feoil

meglome wrote: »

To inflict a lot of damage?

Indeed, not enough however, to cause the collapse of a steel frame building. One requires other means for that.

thecommander

feoil wrote: »

Indeed, not enough however, to cause the collapse of a steel frame building. One requires other means for that.

Like? Bearing in mind all of the other options that have been discussed.

Penn

feoil wrote: »

Indeed, not enough however, to cause the collapse of a steel frame building. One requires other means for that.

Like a combination of damage from the plane, steel members being damaged and the load transferring to other steel members thereby overloading them, and fire from the jet fuel weakening steel members perhaps?

I don't see why people refuse to acknowledge this. It is entirely possible for the combination of these three factors to cause the collapse of the towers and it is the most logical answer

humanji

murphaph wrote: »

I'm not sure myself about the whole planes/no planes thing at WTC but one thing is known-the Pentagon was one of the most video surveilled buildings in the world and we are led to believe that the best footage they had was from a carpark barrier that shows absolutely NO PLANE, just an explosion.

We are also led to believe that the plane was almost completely vapourised or turned into tiny pieces with all 4 planes. I think most of us have seen what usually happens with a plane crash or bombing-large fragments usually remain and can be pieced together. They managed to find a large proportion of TWA800 at the bottom of the ocean and reconstruct it, but no reconstructions were possible with ANY of the planes on 9/11? Bit odd at the very least.

Suffice to say, there are enough unanswered questions (and why was the 9/11 commission so late in being established and so poorly funded, even compared to enquiries into trivial things like Cinton's blowjob?) to leave me believeing the days events were orchestrated not by a bunch of islamic terrorists who apparently weren't very good pilots, but rather by a domestic source.

Do the people who believe it was Al Qaeda have any doubt in their minds about that? The only people to benefit from 9/11 have been the US military industry, including the likes of Haliburton. Osama Bin Laden was a relatively free man before it, if he's even alive now he's living in a cave somewhere. Hardly a benefit. Sadam Hussein is dead. Did he benefit from 9/11? Who had the real motive?

Out of curiosity, why does the fact that there are unanswered questions lead you automatically to believe that it was a domestic source? I mean, does it not make more sense to say "There are unanswered questions. Therefore I don't have all the information. Therefore I can't come to a valid conclusion."?

That's how I see it, anyway. From the evidence presented it would seem that the most likely culprit was Al Qaeda. And so far I've not really seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.

From the other questions you asked, they're a bit leading. There was a war, so of course the US military industry benefited. Does that mean they are behind it? No, it simply means they benefited, like they would from any war (and they still make a hell of a profit during peace time too). Sadam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 except, it would seem, to be an unlucky scape goat when Bush was becoming unpopular.

As for Bin Laden, well of course he benefited. He spread fear around the world. He made people second guess their every move in case they were killed in a terrorist threat. He won the war on terror because the rest of the world is still shìtting itself. He's one of the best known people in modern history and will probably go down in history too. Everyone knows about his organisation. Hell, if he is behind it all, he's even got people second guessing their own governments. He's gained more than anyone else ever will from 9/11.

murphaph

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Like a combination of damage from the plane, steel members being damaged and the load transferring to other steel members thereby overloading them, and fire from the jet fuel weakening steel members perhaps?

I don't see why people refuse to acknowledge this. It is entirely possible for the combination of these three factors to cause the collapse of the towers and it is the most logical answer

NIST changed its own story on what caused the actual collapse because they struggled to find a reasonable explanation.

They struggled because they know the uncontrolled burn temp of jet A1 fuel and they know the melting point of steel. The two are far apart. And that assumes that enough fireproofing was blown off enough steel to even exose it to the full temperature of an uncontrolled jet A1 fuel fire...and the temp is still too low to have an effect.

And then there's WTC 7 which had NO AIRCRAFT FUEL WHATSOEVER inside it yet this 43 storey skyscraper (only looked small because it was beside the twin towers!) collapsed into its own footprint through fire, we are told. Up until that day, no steel framed skyscraper in history had collapsed through fire. On that day, three of them did. Other buildings suffered much worse damage from fallling debris than WTC 7 yet they didn't collapse. WTC 7 is the most damning evidence of all.

King Mob

Wow standard fare this.

murphaph wrote: »

NIST changed its own story on what caused the actual collapse because they struggled to find a reasonable explanation.

Yes I'd imagine it would be because they kept getting evidence.

murphaph wrote: »

They struggled because they know the uncontrolled burn temp of jet A1 fuel and they know the melting point of steel. The two are far apart. And that assumes that enough fireproofing was blown off enough steel to even exose it to the full temperature of an uncontrolled jet A1 fuel fire...and the temp is still too low to have an effect.

No steel wouldn't melt at that temperature. However that's not what the report claims. At the temperature the fires were at steel loses more than 50% of it's strength.
So yea it would have a very large effect.

http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

murphaph wrote: »

And then there's WTC 7 which had NO AIRCRAFT FUEL WHATSOEVER inside it yet this 43 storey skyscraper (only looked small because it was beside the twin towers!) collapsed into its own footprint through fire,

But it had lots of combustible materials in the offices.

Also it didn't fall on it's own footprint. several buildings were damaged by it's collapse.
http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/barclay.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

murphaph wrote: »

we are told. Up until that day, no steel framed skyscraper in history had collapsed through fire. On that day, three of them did. Other buildings suffered much worse damage from fallling debris than WTC 7 yet they didn't collapse. WTC 7 is the most damning evidence of all.

Actually that's not quite true.
Can you show one example of a similar size building in comparable circumstances that didn't collapse?

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Maybe you look it the discussions here before shooting off the same tired debunked arguments.

polishpaddy

Look how much energy you've all put into this silly theory.
The only thing these absurd theories does is, is it keeps you from the truth.

meglome

polishpaddy wrote: »

Look how much energy you've all put into this silly theory.
The only thing these absurd theories does is, is it keeps you from the truth.

What truth is that?

6th

On topic folks.

murphaph

King Mob wrote: »

But it had lots of combustible materials in the offices.

Also it didn't fall on it's own footprint. several buildings were damaged by it's collapse..

Given the size of this skyscraper, very little damage was done to surrounding buildings. It fell vertically down (implying a near simultaneous collapse of the vertical members) and looked to at least one dutch controlled demolition expert like, erm, a controlled demolition.

King Mob wrote: »

Actually that's not quite true.
Can you show one example of a similar size building in comparable circumstances that didn't collapse?.

Empire State building ablaze after being hit by a Boeing B25 in 1945. Arguably worse than a few desks and chairs in WTC7. In any case, the reason given for the steel losing structural integrity in WTC 1 and 2 was the explosion blowing the fireproofing off the beams and trusses. There was no massive explosion in building 7 because no plane hit it. No massive explosion = little or no fireproofing blown from the steel yet we are to believe that the office furniture burned with such ferocity that it penetrated the fireproofing and all the vertical members gave way within a second of each other?

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe you look it the discussions here before shooting off the same tired debunked arguments.

I don't believe they have been even addressed. Why did the 9/11 commission not investigate WTC 7 AT ALL? A 43 storey building worth millions of dollars collapses due to a terrorist attack and it's not even mentioned in this 'investigation'-isn't that a little odd?

Less of the patronism please. I'm not a conspiracy theorist in general, hence I don't visit this forum very often. I ust believe that 9/11 was a big lie perpetuated on the world. You are entitled to believe I am a crackpot lunatic and if I'm wrong I'll be delighted as I don't really want to believe what I believe.

A Primal Nut

If this conspiracy was true, so many people in new york would have to be complicit, and hence know about it, as to nearly make having a conspiracy pointless.:p

Still, at least he didn't try to fold a one dollar note.

polishpaddy

If i put up a site saying something far-fetched and made a nice video on it, I would succeed in waistting many, many hours of your time. Certain curious people like to read outlandish claims and they're the people this type of decoy would satisfy very well.

Keep looking up the likes of "there were no planes" and "it was a missile not a plane" that hit this or that. Facts are what you need not silly childish you tube videos.

6th

paddy, this is a CT discussion forum ... for discussing CTs.

polishpaddy

I'm well aware of that thats why i've been posting in here for many many months....
Ct doesn't give you the go ahead to not be taken seriously.Try being serious and logical for 1 minute. You can still have a ct discussion without sounding like an idiot.

6th

And you can discuss a CT without calling people idiots.

King Mob

murphaph wrote: »

Given the size of this skyscraper, very little damage was done to surrounding buildings. It fell vertically down (implying a near simultaneous collapse of the vertical members) and looked to at least one dutch controlled demolition expert like, erm, a controlled demolition.

Except it only superficially looks like a demolition.
It lacks many of the signs of a controlled, like the rapid series of explosions on every floor followed by the immediate collapse of the building.

murphaph wrote: »

Empire State building ablaze after being hit by a Boeing B25 in 1945. Arguably worse than a few desks and chairs in WTC7.

Not the same thing at all.
The Empire state building has a complete different structure than the twin towers and WTC7.
The plane that crashed was also a lot smaller was traveling at a slower speed and had less fuel. And that fuel wasn't jet fuel.
So that example is no where close to comparable.

murphaph wrote: »

In any case, the reason given for the steel losing structural integrity in WTC 1 and 2 was the explosion blowing the fireproofing off the beams and trusses.

The NIST didn't claim the fireproofing was blow off in WTC7

murphaph wrote: »

There was no massive explosion in building 7 because no plane hit it. No massive explosion = little or no fireproofing blown from the steel yet we are to believe that the office furniture burned with such ferocity that it penetrated the fireproofing and all the vertical members gave way within a second of each other?

No a plane didn't hit it. But two huge skyscrapers collapsed right next to it showering the area in debris.

murphaph wrote: »

I don't believe they have been even addressed. Why did the 9/11 commission not investigate WTC 7 AT ALL? A 43 storey building worth millions of dollars collapses due to a terrorist attack and it's not even mentioned in this 'investigation'-isn't that a little odd?

Less of the patronism please. I'm not a conspiracy theorist in general, hence I don't visit this forum very often. I ust believe that 9/11 was a big lie perpetuated on the world. You are entitled to believe I am a crackpot lunatic and if I'm wrong I'll be delighted as I don't really want to believe what I believe.

I didn't call you a nutjob.
But these exact claims have been discussed before at length on this forum.
You should read them.