No Planes Theory takes hold on David Icke Forum

[my left bollock]

[TmcMistress]

I have now hit my tolerance level for stupid BS today. Thanks, mlb.

[marky 54]

[ian neal]

What's so hard about planting a engine?

Quite a lot actually.

It would need to match the plane it supposedly came from (down to the serial numbers). Its location would need to indicate it had impacted the ground from a great height. Transporting and placing it in position is fraught with dangers. And so on.

As it happens some people have dug into this to see if the debris evidence holds up. I'm not saying Jon Carlson's analysis is accurate or not, but let's not pretend that planting such evidence is without risks or would be easy. It wouldn't be.

http://www.rense.com/general64/wth.htm Jon Carlson

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t4960 4.html

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/34746-debunking-9-11-kill ing-me-4.html#post607387 Challenge to his analysis

Just like we shouldn't pretend that creating the damage to the towers to make it look like a plane had entered would be easy or without major risks.

Or co-ordinating as the mainstream media to engage in TV fakery would be easy or without major risks.

Jon Carlson's approach in the article makes sense to me. Don't focus on speculating about 'what really happened'. Instead if you believe there were no planes, focus on proving that the physical evidence cannot be consistent with the official story, that that engine could not possibly have come from the plane it was meant to have. Demand the engine and other plane debris is released for independent analysis, etc.

[chek]

[ian neal]

Great, so more hard evidence that the authorities are further complicit in the cover-up and obstruction of the investigation and the media is complicit in failing to adequately report this.

This is real evidence

[gruts]

[Indubitably]

Gruts writes -

do you seriously believe that the external columns on 4 of the occupied floors of the wtc could be rigged with expolsives without anybody noticing? sounds totally implausible to me....

and how could the perps have been sure that the explosives they planted would produce the desired size and shape of impact hole?

and how were the "small charges" positioned in order to create plane shaped holes, while simultaneously bending steel girders inwards?

and how did they also propel large amounts of debris at high speed in the same direction as the "fake" plane?

and if you watch videos of the second impact carefully (eg the 8 slo-mo frames in the video posted by andrew johnson in the "One for the no planers" thread) you'll see that there is almost no noticeable sign of an explosion at the impact site until after the plane has fully entered the building. so how did the explosives create the hole without actually exploding until it had already been created?

and where did all the jetfuel that is seen crashing through the windows of the adjacent and opposite sides of the south tower before exploding into a fireball, come from?

and how it did acquire the necessary momentum in the required direction?

can you provide a credible explanation of these hitherto unexplained aspects of the NPT scenario?

and do you seriously believe they faked the smoke?

Indubitably wrote:
Not a single person survived from floors of any tower from which 'jumpers' jumped. This strongly suggests doors to those floors were locked shortly after the gash was created.

please explain....

Indubitably wrote:
There was no escape. Why else would a person try to climb down the side of a tower block such as WTC (hundreds of feet above ground level) unless they had no other option ? These 'jumpers' jumped because they were being pursued by some very real and immediate threat to their individual lives on those floors. And that threat was definitely NOT great heat, since we see clearly survivors temporarily stood at the great 'gash' before the tower collapsed. Nor were the glass windows of these floors melted by great heat. This again proves beyond doubt that the cause of the jumpers jumping to their deaths WAS an immediate threat to their lives (whether from gas or some other deadly source) - a threat that existed on floors that had already been locked so they could not escape.

the "immediate threat" to their lives was presumably from smoke....

Indubitably wrote:
Had a single one of these people on those floors managed to survive they would have confirmed that -

1. No plane entered either tower of the WTC
2. The exits on the floors of these 'jumpers' had been blocked/locked
3. Their colleagues were being killed at the time when such a hypothetical survivor was forced to jump from the building

you seem to have adopted the ususal NPT "if I imagine that something is true then it must be" approach. this is pure speculation on your part.

in summary, your explanation of how the impact holes and other effects of the impact were created is ludicrous.

in another thread, I've seen you go on and on about the need to prove things with "mathematics and science", so I await your mathematical and scientific explanation of the above.

In reply -

1. Yes, I seriously believe the external columns on 4 of the occupied floors at the 'gash' area were rigged with explosives - especially since we know for a fact 'maintenance work' was carried out in the days leading up to 9/11/2001.

2. The loosening of cladding bolts etc. or fixtures/welds etc. is no great challenge. Nor the insertion of a false internal wall once that was done. Nor even, perhaps, the cutting of steel columns and bending them inwards with jacks.

None of this is 'rocket science'. It took time. Sure. But it was intended to create a 'hole' of just the sort we see. Such work could easily have been hidden from view to the unsuspecting occupants who arrived back to work on those floors. The charges were probably not large.

You ask 'how could the perps have been sure that the explosives they planted would produce the desired size and shape of impact hole?'

Well, that's the whole point. Scientifically, aircraft wings are made of fibreglass covered with aluminum. They contain fuel. That's not (scientifically) good enough to pierce structural steel, is it ? Not even the first layer. The idea that the 'plane' carved out a 'print' of itself in such a situation is unscientific and always has been. The idea that aircraft wings entered the building, again, is scientifically absurd. They would have been sheared off at the moment of impact. So, scientifically, a rough outline of an aluminum plane would not be created by any plane in such a crash scene. The wings would crumple and fall to the ground. (We have a similar kind of nonsense scenario at Shanksville, where the outline of a 'plane' is presented as having dived straight in to the ground). In both cases we are asked to ignore science and accept nonsense.

The rough outline of a plane certainly could have been made by work that took place on those floors prior to 9/11/2001.

I've always been puzzled by reports of missiles being fired from the Woolworth Building (there are many such reports) but have no firm ideas on whether they (or the explosions in the walls of those floors) was the real cause of the bent steel that we see at the gash. Of course I do not know. It's an interesting problem.

It's not my wish to insult anyone. But I must ask if you believe the pictures of plane debris on the roof of Building 5 WTC entered the South Tower having bent those steel reinforcements, travelled through the floor, entered the central reinforced cage of the tower, travelled through it, and finally pierced the other side of the building, to fly next and land on the roof of WTC 5, in such a way that entire lengths of aluminium plane survived recognisably intact. This, to me, is one of the most absurd theories of them all. I believe all such plane wreckage was planted.

My heart goes out to those poor people who, on those floors, did what people would normally NEVER do - jump to their certain deaths from hundreds of feet above ground level. This begs an explanation. In virtually any situation these people must surely have tried to force open the doors to their floors, by battering them with desks or whatever they could find. The stand for a long time, clearly able to breathe, their clothes not burning and in no physical distress. And then they often try to climb down the building. This is so extraordinary that I can only suppose they were in mortal danger to do such things on all floors from which they did so. That the normal exits were blocked seems, to me, very very likely.

That they were in some way under immediate mortal threat seems also, to me, a plain fact.

I do hope that we, as members of the truth movement, can have the courage to consider (out of respect for those dear people) the threat they were under when they did what they did.

Regards

[TmcMistress]

[gruts]

[Indubitably]

You ask to demonstrate mathematically that it's impossible for real 767's to cause the impact damage to the WTC.

Well, it's a simple fact that planes are lightweight constructions whose chief component is fibreglass and aluminium. Right ? Fibreglass is not noted for its ability to pierce reinforced steel colums. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary ? Nor are hollow aluminium structures able to cut steel reinforced columns. Those are two scientifically plain facts that have no contadiction in science. Hope you accept them.

The third fact is this - there is no recorded case in the whole of aviation where a plane has entered a steel framed building. Hope you accept that fact also.

The fourth fact is this - detailed analysis of the various videos of a 'plane' hitting the WTC South differ greatly with one another as to the supposed speed of the same 'plane'.

The fifth fact is this (and once again it's a scientific fact), the WTC South consisted of giant steel columns in a cage that supported the outside structure. The structure of the tower was, scientifically, purposedly designed to withstand any such plane collision. Scientific fact. Want the documentary evidence ?

The sixth scientific fact is that even if a plane somehow penetrated the first wall of steel it would have collided with the central column of steel where the elevators of the central section are located. To suggest that the 'plane' would still have been able to enter the central cage is ridiculous. For, as you see, the plane did not re-emerge from the tower. It was halted. Since it was halted it had no momentum to pierce steel reinforcement.

The seventh scientific fact is that even if the 'plane' had sliced through these two walls of steel it would still have been only half way through the structure. It would have needed to do exactly the same, even before it left the other side of the tower. But it no longer had such momentum.

The eighth scientific fact is that the wings of a plane contain fuel. The fuel is actually nothing more than modified kerosene. That fuel would have ignited moments after the collision and cannot be the source of later events.

The ninth scientific fact is that kerosene burns hundreds of degrees lower than the melting point of steel.

The tenth scientific fact is that the ball of fire erupting from the South Tower must have consumed virtually all the fuel if it really came from a plane.

The eleventh scientific fact is that the wings of a plane would have been sliced off at the moment of impact. A fact that plane huggers just can't seem to appreciate. But the videos show the opposite.

The twelfth scientific fact is the photograph produced in the FEMA report of plane debris on the roof of WTC 5 . This is supposed to have come from a hole made by itself in the other side of the South Tower. But no hole is given on the back of the tower for the ejection of such long sections in the South Tower.

The thirteenth scientific fact is that background and other details of the city landscape are often obscured or edited out of 'plane' footage.

The fourteenth scientic fact is that the various 'plane' videos differ considerably from one another in respect of the supposed flight path taken by the 'plane'. Only mentally defective people can overlook this fact.

And finally (though I and others can easily list dozens of others) there is no scientific fact that 'plane huggers' can produce for real planes at the WTC. Plane huggers need to go to school.

In total, the message is simple - forums such as this are the breeding grounds for people whose minds are simply not interested in facts.

The proof of all this is the case now under examination. You will be waiting for a long time before anyone defends the the 'plane' videos under question. Why ? Well, they are fake videos.

Welcome back to reality.

p.s. The artistic impression of a 'plane' slicing through the tower is nonsense. Follow the fragments. It clearly shows bits of plane that are nothing but aluminium/fibreglass continuing to slice through steel sections without change to their shape. This is laughable. And yet this same video cartoon is used to support the plane wreckage on the roof of WTC 5 !!!

It's farcical.

[gruts]

[alwun]

here's a crude quasi-mathematical diagram:

Take three groups.

group A believes in the OCT completely in total. A large group

group B believes in some of the OCT, but not all of it.

Then there is a much smaller group.

group C believes in none of it at all. A small, but disquieting presence.(as demonstrated by the sometimes hysterical opposition shown toward this non-believer group C.)

This group is scorned, ridiculed and the butt of many an offensive remark.

There's traces of a familiar pattern to it all, do you not think?.

cheers Al..

[chek]

[chek]

[Indubitably]

The greatness of reality is that it stands in a happy relationship with truth. The two things are complementary. Truth is the creator of that which we know as reality.

Video and photographic analysis is of course governed by the laws of science.

As far as 'getting what we deserve' for holding one view or the other, no, we get so much better than any of us actually deserve. That's simply the grace of God.

Our attitude towards truth matters more than anything else. As the wise man says to the destroyer, 'See to it that you do not hurt the oil and the wine'.

[gruts]

[alwun]

chek,

I would ask you please don't put your words in my mouth. I don't know where they've been, for a start. (re your fallacious, unwarranted and impertinent interference with the post above.)

Otherwise,.. I'd say the posts begin to almost prove my point.

cheers Al...

[chek]

[chek]

[gruts]

[gruts]

[gruts]

[chek]

[John White]

[gruts]

lol - sidlittle's back! and this time he's....

....still sheepishly repeating killtown's lies like a malfunctioning robot. I wonder if he's worked out the difference between "north" and "east" yet?

and perhaps you should introduce him to the "stop lying killtown" thread....

[my left bollock]

What does David Icke have to say about NPT?

[gruts]

he thinks the lizards did it - using planes....