The Dummies Guide to "9/11 No-Planer Theory"

[PepeLapiu]

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.

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 non-affiliated 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: http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5541/spiegelxl1.gif
and http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8506/cnnkz3.gif )

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: http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/WTC767images/col-dimensions-smal l.gif )

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.

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: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/photorelease/q2/020620g.jpg )

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: http://physics911.net/images/wing.gif )

On YouTube you can witness a Boeing 777's wings being tested to destruction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uo0C01Fwb8
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 (or 1.8 billion pound-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

[telecasterisation]

[PepeLapiu]

I find you a bit harsh. I can not provide an example of rearward stress for the wings as they would not be designed for that kind of load. My pictures and math were simply an attempt (a suscessful one too) to demonstrate that the wings were more then "flimsy aluminum sheets")

If you want a more palatable example of what kind of impact a Boeing 767 would create, that'd be about 1.8 billion pound-force

And while we are on the subject, the columns of the building were designed to take a downward stress, not a lateral one. So I did not show how much vertical compression the columns could take as that would not be representative of the horizontal impact they could take. There too I was only attempting to dispel the claim that the building was made of full steel columns.

[gruts]

thanks for the info - but I hope you're prepared for the possibility that some posters will respond to your very detailed and reasoned comments with something along the lines of "this is garbage and you're a shill" before running back to killtown's forum....

[PepeLapiu]

[gruts]

yes - I first saw it on killtown's npt sockpuppet forum (I have a look over there occasionally but always feel really dirty afterwards)

killtown's double standards no longer surprise me though....

[chek]

[PepeLapiu]

[telecasterisation]

[chek]

[telecasterisation]

[chek]

[telecasterisation]

[chek]

[PepeLapiu]

I thought I would add a quote from a reply on an other forum:

[chek]

[Killtown]

[PepeLapiu]

[Killtown]

[PepeLapiu]

KILLTOWN, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

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?

[Killtown]

[PepeLapiu]

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

[PepeLapiu]

[telecasterisation]

[Roadrunner]

That's really great !!! So interesting.

Can you point us to a good computer simulation of the plane's disintegration within the tower ? You see, I have a problem. Every one that I've seen shows bits of plane surviving the steelwork several rows in. And I am sure you don't believe that.

So which simulation do you recommend ?

If the plane hit square on, then, of course, the two wings touched at the same time. That would have had huge results immediately. Yes ? If not, one of the wings would have touched first. Can you clarify this point ?

Thanks

[Roadrunner]

So the critics of no planes, having been beaten time after time by the laws of science, by fair and honest debate, now include in their ranks people who threaten the lives of others.

What more is there to say ? The media perps are accomplices to the crimes of 9/11/2001. They are sick individuals. And they should be arrested and imprisoned. Period.

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

[PepeLapiu]

[Mark Gobell]

PepeLapiu hi.

Do you have an answer to my questions please ?