ALTERNATIVE THEORIES V: The Build-a-bear Workshop

[MyFinalRest]

Easily broken apart? We're not talking about kicking it with a nice shiny boot.. a plane flew into it at hundreds of miles per hour ffs

And like i said.. Once the support beams were damaged, you know.. the things holding those floors up.. they would have lost a lot of structural integrity.

But planes are made out of thin and delicate lightweight materials. They are designed to fly, not be wrecking balls.

And once the "support beams" (btw, what the hell are you talking about? There were perimeter columns, floor trusses, spandrel plates, the core structure and a final "hat trusses" at the top, all of which contributed to holding up the floors) were taken out, there was still an abundance of structural members to maintain the building's integrity.

After the intitial blasts that created the "plane hole" by severing perimeter columns and spndrel plates, there was no doubt some sagging of the structure, and supposing there was a hot enough fire there could have been - at best - some partial collapsing of the outer part of the structure on the affected sides.

 

[freddy47]

That's the winner there freddy. I've explained this earlier.

The plane itself was not the means of destruction, but a guiding device. It was the only way to achieve a "guided missile" effect then, when conventionally dropped bombs were highly inaccurate. The plane itself lacked the penetrative and destructive power, but the bombs it carried did. The piloted plane was simply used to direct and deliver the bombs, not to be used as much of a weapon itself. Sometimes they overloaded the kamikazes so much with bombs that pilots had difficulty controlling them. They weren't all that effective anyway.


I find it impressive that the poorly trained 911 hijackers got a 75% accuracy rate with such large and less agile aircraft. (really we should call it 100% because the heoric efforts of Mossad gay phone sex operator Mark Bingham prevented the other guys from even getting a chance to show their stuff.)

But the reason why none of it makes any damned sense is becuase there were no planes. After this much discussion and thought, you'd think that the "No Planer" would be a "No Brainer"...drumroll please!

Umm actually you are mistaken. Towards the end of the war when the Japanese were literally running out of munitions they were basically just filling up fighter planes with extra fuel making them nothing more than guided fire bombs. There were occasions where these planes did indeed penetrate multiple decks on destroyers and carriers sometimes going deep enough to ignite the magazines of these warships. I don't know if you know anything about warship design but the magazines are placed deep within the warships so they wouldn't get hit by shells easily. So these planes had to have penetrated the multiple armored decks to get at the magazine. The bombs that were sometimes attached to these planes wouldn't have been dropped and would have had to depend on the speed and penetrative power of the plane alone.

If you look at the old videos of kamikazes hitting hitting ships you will find that it looks remarkably similar to the impacts of the planes on 911. Unless you think those videos were edited too which I guess in your mind is quite possible.

 

[MyFinalRest]

^source? I'm sure they found some sort of bomb to strap on the plane. It was the least one could do for a guy about to sacrifice his life.

U.S. carriers, with their wooden flight decks, appeared to suffer more damage from kamikaze hits than the reinforced steel-decked carriers from the British Pacific Fleet.

The British were able to clear the flight deck and resume flight operations in just hours, while their American counterparts took a few days or even months, as observed by a USN liaison officer on HMS Indefatigable who commented: "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms."”

 

[freddy47]

This is the USS Columbia after being hit by a kamikaze. What happened here was the plane penetrated the upper decks and the plane AND the bombs exploded inside the ship.

Edit: Apparently the plane penetrated two decks before exploding with its bombs.

 

[MyFinalRest]

^too late on that post. Besides the info you claim is not verified by that old grainy photo.

 

[freddy47]

^The USS Columbia was not a carrier it was a cruiser designed for ship to ship combat which means it didn't have wooden decks like the carriers.

Also I didn't say they never used bombs I said it got harder for them to find bombs towards the end of the war because they were simply running out of munitions.

 

[freddy47]

^too late on that post. Besides the info you claim is not verified by that old grainy photo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Columbia_(CL-56)

The ship survived the attack though so your argument about kamikazes not being that effective still stands.

These are the armor stats of the Cleveland class cruiser to which the USS Columbia belonged.

Armor:

Belt:3.25-5 in
Deck:2 in
Turrets:1.5-6 in
Barbettes: 6 in
Conning Tower:2.25-5 in

So the plane penetrated (depending on where it hit) anywhere from 2 inches of steel armor to around 5 or six inches.

 

[MyFinalRest]

^source? You still can't verify your claims that there was pentration prior to bombs exploding with that photo. Bombs are go off completely on initial impact unless they are "bunker buster" types that contain elements that are delayed.

I have no doubt that bombs can chew through a steel deck or even steel coulumns on the wtc, but flaming kerosene or petrofuels and thin-skinned aluminum aircraft - I don't think so.

 

[freddy47]

^lol any way you can deny it you will try man what a joke.

You can't verify that the plane DIDN'T penetrate two decks before exploding now can you? Your argument is getting tired and old. It needs to retire.

The caption didn't read that the plane exploded first and then the bombs penetrated two decks did it?

The caption reads the plane AND its bomb meaning BOTH you retard. Get over it.

 

[MyFinalRest]

You can't verify that the plane DIDN'T penetrate two decks before exploding now can you? Your argument is getting tired and old.

You can't verify that it did, and considering that old-fashioned drop bombs were designed to blow at first impact, I'd guess the odds are in my favor. U mad bro?

 

[freddy47]

Read the caption again. It say very clearly that the plane AND its bomb exploded after penetrating two decks. I think you're the one who can't read.

You just can't admit when you're wrong MFR which is ok, whatever, you can hold on to whatever dark conspiracy fantasy you want. Doesn't change a thing.

 

[panic in paradise]

i voted no, just fer the record.

MFR, would you go into downtown Manhattan and tell the passers by, that they are delusional, and there were no planes?

 

[freddy47]

You can't verify that it did, and considering that old-fashioned drop bombs were designed to blow at first impact, I'd guess the odds are in my favor. U mad bro?

So the bomb would have exploded first while the plane penetrated two decks by itself? Sure ok I can live with that lol. In the end all you've managed to prove is that a plane made out of aluminum managed to penetrate at least 2 inches of steel. LMAO

 

[freddy47]

The kamikaze hits Columbia at 1729. The plane and its bomb penetrated two decks before exploding, killing 13 and wounding 44.

Let us analyze these two sentences shall we? The first sentence says when the plane hit we can both agree right?

The second sentence "The plane and its bomb PENETRATED TWO DECKS before exploding..."

I don't know about you but the sentence is pretty clear to me. Both the plane and its bombs got through two decks BEFORE exploding. It doesn't say oh well the bomb exploded first or the plane got crushed while its bombs went two decks in before exploding. It quite clearly states the plane AND its bomb got through several inches of steel armor before exploding and killing multiple sailors. I mean is it unclear to anyone else besides MFR? I don't think so.

 

[freddy47]

Seriously though is that sentence unclear to anyone else? Because to me it is pretty obvious what it is saying.

 

[MyFinalRest]

i voted no, just fer the record.

MFR, would you go into downtown Manhattan and tell the passers by, that they are delusional, and there were no planes?

Coming from someone who posts some far out New-age rigarmarole everyday in P&S, I'll take that as a compliment. However, I was curious who the 9th vote was. Shit, have you ever been to Manhatten? One thing I didn't care for about the place was not being able to see the sky or even get a little sunshine in face.

 

[panic in paradise]

Coming from someone who posts some far out New-age rigarmarole everyday in P&S, I'll take that as a compliment. However, I was curious who the 9th vote was. Shit, have you ever been to Manhatten? One thing I didn't care for about the place was not being able to see the sky or even get a little sunshine in face.

yes i have been to Manhattan, and i looked like a tourist walking around looking up at the skyscrapers, which were visible, and so was the blue sky. i also visited the site where the trade centers were.

_________
BTW: there is nothing 'new age' about Christianity Hinduism or Buddhism.

 

[freddy47]

"The plane and its bomb PENETRATED TWO DECKS before exploding..."

Seriously MFR what part of this sentence is confusing to you? How is it unclear that both the plane and bomb got through steel to explode inside the ship?

I await your bullshit response as always with bated breath.

 

[freddy47]

I have no doubt that bombs can chew through a steel deck or even steel coulumns on the wtc, but flaming kerosene or petrofuels and thin-skinned aluminum aircraft - I don't think so.

Obviously in this case you thought wrong.

 

[MyFinalRest]

BTW: there is nothing 'new age' about Christianity Hinduism or Buddhism.

In that part of Manhatten visibility is limited, and there are several witnesses who claim to have seen nothing but an explosion and not a plane crash. I have posted links to them previously.

New age interpretation of old age mythology. I've never seen conclusive proof that any God or gods exist.