Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ Alternative Theories _ What Cut The Plane Shaped Hole?

Posted by: yankee451 Jan 8 2014, 03:34 AM

In this video I examine the North Tower impact damage on 9/11, allegedly caused by American Airlines Flight 11.

The damage evidence eliminates explosives alone as being the cause, and at the same time it eliminates a Boeing 767 or a reinforced jet of any kind. It also dispenses with the hologram nonsense and pokes fun at the “mini-nuke” crowd as well as pokes a finger in the eye of the Judy Wood clique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdniGlbUw7Q

Transcript here:
http://yankee451.com/2014/01/07/cut-plane-shaped-hole-episode-one/

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 8 2014, 11:48 AM

QUOTE (yankee451 @ Jan 8 2014, 02:34 AM) *
In this video I examine the North Tower impact damage on 9/11, allegedly caused by American Airlines Flight 11.

The damage evidence eliminates explosives alone as being the cause, and at the same time it eliminates a Boeing 767 or a reinforced jet of any kind. It also dispenses with the hologram nonsense and pokes fun at the “mini-nuke” crowd as well as pokes a finger in the eye of the Judy Wood clique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdniGlbUw7Q

Transcript here:
http://yankee451.com/2014/01/07/cut-plane-shaped-hole-episode-one/


I'm looking forward to your next installments.
So far I don't see what you are seeing in total.

Bolts removed/loosened; yes.
Floors removed/altered; yes.
Elimination of holograms; yes.

I don't see directional damage from the east.
I don't see why a modified jet couldn't have caused the damage.

Posted by: ChrisPDX Jan 8 2014, 12:55 PM

QUOTE (yankee451 @ Jan 7 2014, 11:34 PM) *
In this video I examine the North Tower impact damage on 9/11, allegedly caused by American Airlines Flight 11.

The damage evidence eliminates explosives alone as being the cause, and at the same time it eliminates a Boeing 767 or a reinforced jet of any kind. It also dispenses with the hologram nonsense and pokes fun at the “mini-nuke” crowd as well as pokes a finger in the eye of the Judy Wood clique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdniGlbUw7Q

Transcript here:
http://yankee451.com/2014/01/07/cut-plane-shaped-hole-episode-one/



What are you talking about? The fuel in the wings and fuselage would act like a solid hitting the building.

It looks like a plane hit the building top me.

Anyway, we know why 911 was created. We know the official story is incorrect.

Please stop adding your non-sense on this forum. How much do you get paid for posting this garbage? Hits on your website? Perhaps this is a spare job while you are going to school?

Posted by: yankee451 Jan 8 2014, 01:33 PM

QUOTE (ChrisPDX @ Jan 8 2014, 08:55 AM) *
What are you talking about? The fuel in the wings and fuselage would act like a solid hitting the building.

It looks like a plane hit the building top me.

Anyway, we know why 911 was created. We know the official story is incorrect.

Please stop adding your non-sense on this forum. How much do you get paid for posting this garbage? Hits on your website? Perhaps this is a spare job while you are going to school?



In what fantasy land does fuel add density to aluminum?

Posted by: signalfire Jan 8 2014, 02:53 PM

You're going to have to debunk or critique Jeff Prager's work on the mini-nuke theory before you can (snarkily) eliminate mini-nukes. There's plenty of evidence that not only are these real things, but have been in use by the US government and others for decades now. A simple Wiki hunt solves that issue.

Nothing else fits the entire evidence and since Judy Wood's theory relies on 'unknown' weapons, it can't be used for much besides conjecture.

We have to explain not only the sudden and complete collapse, but the way many-ton I-beam assemblies were thrown out laterally and impaled themselves into adjacent buildings, then explain the 99 day long 'fires' and extreme heat under the piles, and the spectrographic evidence (which you say is unreliable because its from government sources) which indicates that daughter products of fission were present in the dust. The people who first looked at that evidence weren't nuclear physicists and thus didn't know what they were looking at. Once someone with the requisite training did, the implications were obvious.

I'm not all that worried about what caused the cartoonish hole in the buildings; yes, some kind of explosives likely were used, perhaps added to the slight amount of exterior damage the planes would or could have caused. Maybe the planes were really missiles and the explosives were on board.

What is perhaps more pertinent is, 'what offices were on those particular floors, and who might have had reason to kill the people working on those floors?' I'm pretty sure the locations were carefully chosen, as were the main victims, and the planes were remote controlled to come in right at those levels. Somewhere in my readings I've found reference to what businesses they were and who might have wanted them dead and the files eliminated; it might actually have been in Prager's work.

Some of these other topics, like this one, are secondary mind puzzles but not particularly pertinent to the main conclusions.

If you look at the buildings in mid-collapse, the outside aluminum cladding and extremely sturdy exterior columns are being blown out laterally several hundred feet (not gravity); the concrete floors and office contents and people are being turned into explosive hot dust (not cold like Wood states for some unknown reason) which means the residual moisture in the concrete is boiling instantaneously, an enormous amount of heat required for this and gravity certainly doesn't account for it, and finally, there's a black cloud much darker than the fire smoke roiling up from the center; this would be the heavy core beams being molecularly disintegrated; it's a mushroom cloud, just not the type we've been taught to expect but perfectly understandable from the aspect of small nukes placed in the interior core and detonated in sequence... nukes specifically calibrated to take out the building but no more than that. Millions of degrees for a millionth of a second, enough to turn beams into taffy and blow the whole thing down in about 10 seconds flat, 10 floors a second...

Only nukes explain all this and maybe just getting people to understand this would be enough to blow the doors off the problem; NYC was nuked and don't think they won't do it again when it suits them. And they won't make the same mistakes twice as far as leaving so many clues.


Posted by: yankee451 Jan 8 2014, 03:19 PM

QUOTE (signalfire @ Jan 8 2014, 10:53 AM) *
You're going to have to debunk or critique Jeff Prager's work on the mini-nuke theory before you can (snarkily) eliminate mini-nukes. There's plenty of evidence that not only are these real things, but have been in use by the US government and others for decades now. A simple Wiki hunt solves that issue.

Nothing else fits the entire evidence and since Judy Wood's theory relies on 'unknown' weapons, it can't be used for much besides conjecture.

We have to explain not only the sudden and complete collapse, but the way many-ton I-beam assemblies were thrown out laterally and impaled themselves into adjacent buildings, then explain the 99 day long 'fires' and extreme heat under the piles, and the spectrographic evidence (which you say is unreliable because its from government sources) which indicates that daughter products of fission were present in the dust. The people who first looked at that evidence weren't nuclear physicists and thus didn't know what they were looking at. Once someone with the requisite training did, the implications were obvious.

I'm not all that worried about what caused the cartoonish hole in the buildings; yes, some kind of explosives likely were used, perhaps added to the slight amount of exterior damage the planes would or could have caused. Maybe the planes were really missiles and the explosives were on board.

What is perhaps more pertinent is, 'what offices were on those particular floors, and who might have had reason to kill the people working on those floors?' I'm pretty sure the locations were carefully chosen, as were the main victims, and the planes were remote controlled to come in right at those levels. Somewhere in my readings I've found reference to what businesses they were and who might have wanted them dead and the files eliminated; it might actually have been in Prager's work.

Some of these other topics, like this one, are secondary mind puzzles but not particularly pertinent to the main conclusions.

If you look at the buildings in mid-collapse, the outside aluminum cladding and extremely sturdy exterior columns are being blown out laterally several hundred feet (not gravity); the concrete floors and office contents and people are being turned into explosive hot dust (not cold like Wood states for some unknown reason) which means the residual moisture in the concrete is boiling instantaneously, an enormous amount of heat required for this and gravity certainly doesn't account for it, and finally, there's a black cloud much darker than the fire smoke roiling up from the center; this would be the heavy core beams being molecularly disintegrated; it's a mushroom cloud, just not the type we've been taught to expect but perfectly understandable from the aspect of small nukes placed in the interior core and detonated in sequence... nukes specifically calibrated to take out the building but no more than that. Millions of degrees for a millionth of a second, enough to turn beams into taffy and blow the whole thing down in about 10 seconds flat, 10 floors a second...

Only nukes explain all this and maybe just getting people to understand this would be enough to blow the doors off the problem; NYC was nuked and don't think they won't do it again when it suits them. And they won't make the same mistakes twice as far as leaving so many clues.


Unclear weapons did not cut the gash. Nuf said.



Posted by: yankee451 Jan 8 2014, 04:36 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 8 2014, 07:48 AM) *
I'm looking forward to your next installments.
So far I don't see what you are seeing in total.

Bolts removed/loosened; yes.
Floors removed/altered; yes.
Elimination of holograms; yes.

I don't see directional damage from the east.
I don't see why a modified jet couldn't have caused the damage.


I showed the directional damage in the video, columns bent right-to-left (east to west) are not consistent with a jet traveling south.

Posted by: realitycheck77 Jan 8 2014, 05:00 PM

I really like the tasteless, callous remark about 911 victim Edna Cintron. That really adds credibility to your 'analysis', an analysis which I am sure you went to all that trouble to produce in order to get justice for the 911 victims.


Posted by: yankee451 Jan 8 2014, 06:29 PM

QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 8 2014, 01:00 PM) *
I really like the tasteless, callous remark about 911 victim Edna Cintron. That really adds credibility to your 'analysis', an analysis which I am sure you went to all that trouble to produce in order to get justice for the 911 victims.


I'm really moved by your faux outrage.

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 8 2014, 10:47 PM

Good post signalfire. I'm in agreement with almost everything you said.

QUOTE (signalfire @ Jan 8 2014, 01:53 PM) *
You're going to have to debunk or critique Jeff Prager's work on the mini-nuke theory before you can (snarkily) eliminate mini-nukes. There's plenty of evidence that not only are these real things, but have been in use by the US government and others for decades now.


Correct.

QUOTE
We have to explain not only the sudden and complete collapse, but the way many-ton I-beam assemblies were thrown out laterally and impaled themselves into adjacent buildings,


Yes, sudden collapse and I-beams flying laterally.

QUOTE
then explain the 99 day long 'fires' and extreme heat under the piles,


This one is huge! I can think of only one explanation and it sure isn't jet fuel fires. blink.gif

QUOTE
I'm not all that worried about what caused the cartoonish hole in the buildings; yes, some kind of explosives likely were used, perhaps added to the slight amount of exterior damage the planes would or could have caused. Maybe the planes were really missiles and the explosives were on board.


Right. It might be fun to figure that puzzle out, but the big picture is much much more important.

QUOTE
What is perhaps more pertinent is, 'what offices were on those particular floors, and who might have had reason to kill the people working on those floors?' I'm pretty sure the locations were carefully chosen, as were the main victims, and the planes were remote controlled to come in right at those levels. Somewhere in my readings I've found reference to what businesses they were and who might have wanted them dead and the files eliminated;


I don't think this is too important either.
Getting a handle on exactly who were in the towers on 9/11 is very tricky.
Officials were declaring 90%+ occupancy rate for the towers shortly before 9/11.
Those numbers don't jive at all with the WTC1/2 tenancy spreadsheets.

Maybe they targeted workers above the strike zone, but not the strike zone itself.
The strike zone had to be prepped. Beams loosened/removed, floors taken apart etc. explosives planted etc.
That's difficult to do with tenants around.
There were many empty floors/offices in the towers.

QUOTE
Some of these other topics, like this one, are secondary mind puzzles but not particularly pertinent to the main conclusions.


This is exactly how I feel too. Maximum effort should be spent on rallying the troops to bring about an inquiry rather than figuring out a small piece of the puzzle.

QUOTE
If you look at the buildings in mid-collapse, the outside aluminum cladding and extremely sturdy exterior columns are being blown out laterally several hundred feet (not gravity); the concrete floors and office contents and people are being turned into explosive hot dust ...

Only nukes explain all this and maybe just getting people to understand this would be enough to blow the doors off the problem; NYC was nuked and don't think they won't do it again when it suits them. And they won't make the same mistakes twice as far as leaving so many clues.


Exactly.

Posted by: SlackerSlayer Jan 9 2014, 12:44 AM

QUOTE (signalfire @ Jan 6 2014, 05:53 PM) *
You're going to have to debunk or critique Jeff Prager's work on the mini-nuke theory before you can (snarkily) eliminate mini-nukes. There's plenty of evidence that not only are these real things, but have been in use by the US government and others for decades now. A simple Wiki hunt solves that issue.


The problem with the mini nukes (sic) story is the Many, with a capital M explosions taking place all over and all throughout their terror act. The traces of radiation came from all of those "EXIT" signs on every floor at every corner and every doorway, or a sign pointing you to one. If you look up what is the common raw material they put in those signs, you will be looking at your debris particles, same substance Tritium.


U.S. NRC Fact Sheet on Tritium EXIT Signs

h ttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-tritium.h tml
(I have placed a space on each end after those h's to prevent any problems posting url's. to go there just remove the two spaces 1 near each end)



QUOTE
Nothing else fits the entire evidence and since Judy Wood's theory relies on 'unknown' weapons, it can't be used for much besides conjecture.



That space beam is said to have to remain on the intended target ,and does not work in her theory as a sweeper weapon. And of course with no discernible influence on the exterior. Her best claim to the space beam is that final column that stood for a few moments after total collapse, then "turned to dust" as she claims. It just fell straight down, no magical flip to dust mode. Straight down. She must not have seen the other video from the other angle that shown that clearly.

At least accept her for being apart of those speaking up that our Government did take part.
We all have that in common whether you think it was a hologram or space beams, real planes or switched planes. WE all know the governments claims are the guilty covering for their own act.
The open in our face obstruction of justice kind of proves their role, doesn't it. Tell me in what other crime(s) has the Prosecutor been absent, and the cops were the only ones pointing fingers at someone they have it in for. Where was anything commonly known as justice in those years after?

QUOTE
We have to explain not only the sudden and complete collapse, but the way many-ton I-beam assemblies were thrown out laterally and impaled themselves into adjacent buildings, then explain the 99 day long 'fires' and extreme heat under the piles, and the spectrographic evidence (which you say is unreliable because its from government sources) which indicates that daughter products of fission were present in the dust. The people who first looked at that evidence weren't nuclear physicists and thus didn't know what they were looking at. Once someone with the requisite training did, the implications were obvious.


Those "daughter products of fission" were present thanks to the EXIT signs. You should stop asking about the Tritium, seriously. The heat came from demolitions devices. That other 'non looked for officially' but found in most samples is what did those pools of metal. It came from elemental materials resulting from a thermate type compound.


QUOTE
I'm not all that worried about what caused the cartoonish hole in the buildings; yes, some kind of explosives likely were used, perhaps added to the slight amount of exterior damage the planes would or could have caused. Maybe the planes were really missiles and the explosives were on board.


The planes carved out that shape. They had to break through one wall that had two or three at most horizontal four inch floors. It would slice through the plane, but the plane would keep moving around the slice point. Kinetic energy, the weight of the fuel and the stronger support members of the planes interior frame easily entered that space. Show me anywhere else that an "explosion" drew all of the materials towards the cause of the "explosion". I use the quotes because it has a specific meaning here. Outward forces. The kinetic energy of two flights knocked the holes in the walls. But which planes were they? I've still never heard of any confirmation where a CFM46 is attached to, and was it that model or a different model they found?


Just keep the focus not on the specific points we can get trapped into. Focus on the trials that need to be held. Investigate in an official capacity, open to the public at every hearing like they really want to find the right somebody is guilty.



Posted by: yankee451 Jan 9 2014, 02:34 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 8 2014, 06:47 PM) *
Good post signalfire. I'm in agreement with almost everything you said.



Correct.



Yes, sudden collapse and I-beams flying laterally.



This one is huge! I can think of only one explanation and it sure isn't jet fuel fires. blink.gif



Right. It might be fun to figure that puzzle out, but the big picture is much much more important.



I don't think this is too important either.
Getting a handle on exactly who were in the towers on 9/11 is very tricky.
Officials were declaring 90%+ occupancy rate for the towers shortly before 9/11.
Those numbers don't jive at all with the WTC1/2 tenancy spreadsheets.

Maybe they targeted workers above the strike zone, but not the strike zone itself.
The strike zone had to be prepped. Beams loosened/removed, floors taken apart etc. explosives planted etc.
That's difficult to do with tenants around.
There were many empty floors/offices in the towers.



This is exactly how I feel too. Maximum effort should be spent on rallying the troops to bring about an inquiry rather than figuring out a small piece of the puzzle.



Exactly.



Good grief.

No, I don't have to debunk anything regarding unclear weapons. They're a red-herring. If you want to prove the existence of mini unclear weapons, have at it, but the video, and this thread are about What Cut The Plane Shaped Hole.

Now if you're claiming mini unclear weapons did it, well, that's the horse of a different color.

Posted by: yankee451 Jan 9 2014, 02:35 AM

QUOTE (SlackerSlayer @ Jan 8 2014, 08:44 PM) *
The problem with the mini nukes (sic) story is the Many, with a capital M explosions taking place all over and all throughout their terror act. The traces of radiation came from all of those "EXIT" signs on every floor at every corner and every doorway, or a sign pointing you to one. If you look up what is the common raw material they put in those signs, you will be looking at your debris particles, same substance Tritium.


U.S. NRC Fact Sheet on Tritium EXIT Signs

h ttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-tritium.h tml
(I have placed a space on each end after those h's to prevent any problems posting url's. to go there just remove the two spaces 1 near each end)






That space beam is said to have to remain on the intended target ,and does not work in her theory as a sweeper weapon. And of course with no discernible influence on the exterior. Her best claim to the space beam is that final column that stood for a few moments after total collapse, then "turned to dust" as she claims. It just fell straight down, no magical flip to dust mode. Straight down. She must not have seen the other video from the other angle that shown that clearly.

At least accept her for being apart of those speaking up that our Government did take part.
We all have that in common whether you think it was a hologram or space beams, real planes or switched planes. WE all know the governments claims are the guilty covering for their own act.
The open in our face obstruction of justice kind of proves their role, doesn't it. Tell me in what other crime(s) has the Prosecutor been absent, and the cops were the only ones pointing fingers at someone they have it in for. Where was anything commonly known as justice in those years after?



Those "daughter products of fission" were present thanks to the EXIT signs. You should stop asking about the Tritium, seriously. The heat came from demolitions devices. That other 'non looked for officially' but found in most samples is what did those pools of metal. It came from elemental materials resulting from a thermate type compound.




The planes carved out that shape. They had to break through one wall that had two or three at most horizontal four inch floors. It would slice through the plane, but the plane would keep moving around the slice point. Kinetic energy, the weight of the fuel and the stronger support members of the planes interior frame easily entered that space. Show me anywhere else that an "explosion" drew all of the materials towards the cause of the "explosion". I use the quotes because it has a specific meaning here. Outward forces. The kinetic energy of two flights knocked the holes in the walls. But which planes were they? I've still never heard of any confirmation where a CFM46 is attached to, and was it that model or a different model they found?


Just keep the focus not on the specific points we can get trapped into. Focus on the trials that need to be held. Investigate in an official capacity, open to the public at every hearing like they really want to find the right somebody is guilty.


If the planes cut the shape, then surely you can explain how the east-west damage is consistent with a jet traveling north-south.

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 9 2014, 12:29 PM

QUOTE (yankee451 @ Jan 9 2014, 01:35 AM) *
If the planes cut the shape, then surely you can explain how the east-west damage is consistent with a jet traveling north-south.



Sorry, looking at the photos and your video I simply don't see any east-west damage.
For every beam that is slanting towards the west there is another slanting towards the east.
They all seem pretty random.

I also don't see anything significant about the left side 'pinch'.

As you pointed out, the part of the wing that would impact first would be that closest to the fuselage.
When this occurred it is reasonable to assume that the wing broke off to some extent from the fuselage.
By the time the wing's tip struck the face it had much less of an impact (literally and figuratively).
Thus, just a pinch and a column cover removed as the wing buckled and slid through towards the fuselage.





Posted by: yankee451 Jan 9 2014, 07:05 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 9 2014, 08:29 AM) *
Sorry, looking at the photos and your video I simply don't see any east-west damage.
For every beam that is slanting towards the west there is another slanting towards the east.
They all seem pretty random.

I also don't see anything significant about the left side 'pinch'.

As you pointed out, the part of the wing that would impact first would be that closest to the fuselage.
When this occurred it is reasonable to assume that the wing broke off to some extent from the fuselage.
By the time the wing's tip struck the face it had much less of an impact (literally and figuratively).
Thus, just a pinch and a column cover removed as the wing buckled and slid through towards the fuselage.


And yet none of this was demonstrated in the NIST report or in Purdue's allegedly scientific model.
Anyone who's ever run a stick along a picket fence can see the side of column impact. Perhaps you're predisposed to picture plane damage.
Here are a couple other views showing westward bends:



Right side closeup shows the columns bent to the right (hey, check out those windows!)





Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 9 2014, 10:50 PM

Oh my, with all due respect, I was expecting some blockbuster evidence. Instead all I can see is pie-in-the-sky photo interpretations.

"Dent on left side photo"
A couple of columns dented on left side; check.

Reduced 44% image:
First red lines have nothing below them!
Second red lines have a column cover to the right..BUT...
2nd and 3rd column covers are bent to the
left, 7th cover to the left, 8th to the right.

Reduced 68% image:
3rd column bent to the left, 11th column to the left.

Very unconvincing evidence, to say the least.




Posted by: yankee451 Jan 10 2014, 12:51 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 9 2014, 06:50 PM) *
Oh my, with all due respect, I was expecting some blockbuster evidence. Instead all I can see is pie-in-the-sky photo interpretations.

"Dent on left side photo"
A couple of columns dented on left side; check.

Reduced 44% image:
First red lines have nothing below them!
Second red lines have a column cover to the right..BUT...
2nd and 3rd column covers are bent to the
left, 7th cover to the left, 8th to the right.

Reduced 68% image:
3rd column bent to the left, 11th column to the left.

Very unconvincing evidence, to say the least.


I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find you're unconvinced. I would think on a forum dedicated to planes and nothing but planes, that learning that the physical evidence is entirely inconsistent with the trajectory of the "plane", thereby disproving the story would be embraced with open arms!

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 10 2014, 05:21 PM

QUOTE (yankee451 @ Jan 10 2014, 11:51 AM) *
I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find you're unconvinced. I would think on a forum dedicated to planes and nothing but planes, that learning that the physical evidence is entirely inconsistent with the trajectory of the "plane", thereby disproving the story would be embraced with open arms!


So far, you haven't shown any convincing evidence that is inconsistent with the trajectory of the "plane".

I'm looking forward to your next installments however.
Maybe they will have some convincing evidence.

Posted by: yankee451 Jan 18 2014, 11:35 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 10 2014, 01:21 PM) *
So far, you haven't shown any convincing evidence that is inconsistent with the trajectory of the "plane".

I'm looking forward to your next installments however.
Maybe they will have some convincing evidence.


Well considering every single ironically-named report from the likes of MIT, Purdue, Wierzbicki, FEMA, NIST, etc. only proved they they COULDN'T prove anything, your definition of what evidence is considered "convincing" differs from mine.

Here's the updated video link; Jeffrey Orling provided a convincing argument that the steel wasn't 1/4 inch at the impact levels but that it was in fact 1/2 inch thick, prompting me to replace the video but also making your position more untenable and less convincing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPZNQTj2hNg

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 18 2014, 05:33 PM

QUOTE (yankee451 @ Jan 18 2014, 10:35 AM) *
Here's the updated video link; Jeffrey Orling provided a convincing argument that the steel wasn't 1/4 inch at the impact levels but that it was in fact 1/2 inch thick, prompting me to replace the video but also making your position more untenable and less convincing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPZNQTj2hNg


-Physical impact? Yes.
-Explosives alone eliminated? Yes.
-Holograms eliminated? Yes.
-Gash sizes differ on left and right sides, therefore no 767? No. Why does left and right damage have to be completely symmetrical, especially since the plane was angled.
-Popped up column, evidence of detonation? No! Haphazard things do occur with this type of impact.
-Loosened bolts? Yes.
-Removed bolts and floors? Yes.
-Re-inforced floor with pile of debris? No, not a lot of debris. Possibly reinforced, but not convincing evidence.
-Directional damage from east, eliminating explosives and any kind of jet? No! Can't see any convincing directional damage.


Looking forward to hearing about what you think caused the physical impact and also, how you will explain away the captured video images of planes, especially since you don't buy the hologram and CGI theories.




Posted by: Hsaive Jan 18 2014, 06:23 PM

No cartoon impression hole on the Pentagon impact, but wing holes on the Towers passes test without question (except us). Endless lies and no DoJ pilotfly.gif .

Posted by: NP1Mike Jan 18 2014, 07:18 PM

QUOTE (Hsaive @ Jan 18 2014, 05:23 PM) *
No cartoon impression hole on the Pentagon impact, but wing holes on the Towers passes test without question (except us). Endless lies and no DoJ pilotfly.gif .



Sure on the face of it, it doesn't seem to 'make sense'.

But if a plane never struck the Pentagon, why should the 'impact hole' be at all similar to the WTC towers?


Posted by: EagleEye Jan 18 2014, 10:12 PM

QUOTE (realitycheck77 @ Jan 8 2014, 01:00 PM) *
I really like the tasteless, callous remark about 911 victim Edna Cintron. That really adds credibility to your 'analysis', an analysis which I am sure you went to all that trouble to produce in order to get justice for the 911 victims.


Agree, the work of the disinfo artists is pathetic and disgraceful, and does nothing to add value or contribute to the 9/11 truth movement as the movement of the truth.

This kind of "analysis" and feeding of the honey pot doesn't belong here, or anywhere.


Posted by: yankee451 Jan 25 2014, 11:57 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 18 2014, 01:33 PM) *
-Physical impact? Yes.
-Explosives alone eliminated? Yes.
-Holograms eliminated? Yes.
-Gash sizes differ on left and right sides, therefore no 767? No. Why does left and right damage have to be completely symmetrical, especially since the plane was angled.
-Popped up column, evidence of detonation? No! Haphazard things do occur with this type of impact.
-Loosened bolts? Yes.
-Removed bolts and floors? Yes.
-Re-inforced floor with pile of debris? No, not a lot of debris. Possibly reinforced, but not convincing evidence.
-Directional damage from east, eliminating explosives and any kind of jet? No! Can't see any convincing directional damage.


Looking forward to hearing about what you think caused the physical impact and also, how you will explain away the captured video images of planes, especially since you don't buy the hologram and CGI theories.


What is the thickness of the a 767 wing tip, from top skin to bottom skin, from about 18 inches from the tip to the very end? Measurements please. Anyone?

Posted by: yankee451 Feb 1 2014, 11:16 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 18 2014, 01:33 PM) *
-Physical impact? Yes.
-Explosives alone eliminated? Yes.
-Holograms eliminated? Yes.
-Gash sizes differ on left and right sides, therefore no 767? No. Why does left and right damage have to be completely symmetrical, especially since the plane was angled.
-Popped up column, evidence of detonation? No! Haphazard things do occur with this type of impact.
-Loosened bolts? Yes.
-Removed bolts and floors? Yes.
-Re-inforced floor with pile of debris? No, not a lot of debris. Possibly reinforced, but not convincing evidence.
-Directional damage from east, eliminating explosives and any kind of jet? No! Can't see any convincing directional damage.


Looking forward to hearing about what you think caused the physical impact and also, how you will explain away the captured video images of planes, especially since you don't buy the hologram and CGI theories.


"Can't see any convincing directional damage". Can't or won't?

Holograms and "CGI" don't cut steel in the real world, why would you think they do?

Posted by: yankee451 Feb 1 2014, 11:18 AM

QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 18 2014, 06:12 PM) *
Agree, the work of the disinfo artists is pathetic and disgraceful, and does nothing to add value or contribute to the 9/11 truth movement as the movement of the truth.

This kind of "analysis" and feeding of the honey pot doesn't belong here, or anywhere.


I'm betting you wouldn't know a "disinfo" artist if they said boo to your face.

Posted by: yankee451 Feb 1 2014, 11:20 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Jan 18 2014, 03:18 PM) *
Sure on the face of it, it doesn't seem to 'make sense'.

But if a plane never struck the Pentagon, why should the 'impact hole' be at all similar to the WTC towers?


Why would the wings fold back at the Pentagon, whereas at the other three "jets" all made wing gashes?

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 2 2014, 01:24 AM

QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 1 2014, 10:16 AM) *
"Can't see any convincing directional damage". Can't or won't?

Holograms and "CGI" don't cut steel in the real world, why would you think they do?



I would love to see directional damage. I just can't see it however.
And I'm looking for it too!

Hey, I'm not in the hologram/CGI camp! I never was.

I'm a modified planer + modified WTC tower guy.
Very simple.


Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 2 2014, 01:27 AM

QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 1 2014, 10:20 AM) *
Why would the wings fold back at the Pentagon, whereas at the other three "jets" all made wing gashes?



It's funny how people make all kinds of strange assumptions on the part of others. smile.gif

Wings folding back at the Pentagon? Huh?
I've heard of that weird idea, but I never in a million years would subscribe to it.

I'm a 'no plane hit the Pentagon' guy.
That means no folding wings, etc. etc.

Posted by: yankee451 Feb 4 2014, 11:32 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 1 2014, 09:27 PM) *
It's funny how people make all kinds of strange assumptions on the part of others. smile.gif

Wings folding back at the Pentagon? Huh?
I've heard of that weird idea, but I never in a million years would subscribe to it.

I'm a 'no plane hit the Pentagon' guy.
That means no folding wings, etc. etc.


No, you're a Judy Wood guy, meaning you have no idea what happened at the Pentagon, not to mention the WTC and Shanksville.

Posted by: yankee451 Feb 4 2014, 11:48 AM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 1 2014, 09:24 PM) *
I'm a modified planer + modified WTC tower guy.
Very simple.


I see. Modified planes were used at the WTC, eh? Modified how? Please explain how a modified jet can be dense enough to slice steel and still be light enough and aerodynamic enough to fly.



Can you tell me the thicknesses of the wing tips of these modified jets?

Can you demonstrate how the damage evidence of a modified Southbound jet caused the damage to the North Tower?





How is the damage to the South Tower consistent with a modified Southbound jet?



Note how similar damage is to both towers. Modified jet you say? Please explain.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/9-columns.jpg
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/9-columns-2.jpg

Posted by: paulmichael Feb 4 2014, 06:48 PM

QUOTE (yankee451 @ Jan 8 2014, 02:34 AM) *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdniGlbUw7Q


What happened to this video?

Youtube says: "This video is unavailable. Sorry about that."

P.M.

Posted by: NP1Mike Feb 4 2014, 07:30 PM

QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 4 2014, 10:32 AM) *
No, you're a Judy Wood guy, meaning you have no idea what happened at the Pentagon, not to mention the WTC and Shanksville.



There you go again Steve.
Can you please point to any post I have made here where I say I am in Judy's camp?

I respect Judy, as I do all truthers, who are allowed to have their own point of view.
I may not agree with all her views, but I certainly respect her.

Posted by: yankee451 Mar 7 2014, 12:30 PM

QUOTE (NP1Mike @ Feb 4 2014, 03:30 PM) *
There you go again Steve.
Can you please point to any post I have made here where I say I am in Judy's camp?

I respect Judy, as I do all truthers, who are allowed to have their own point of view.
I may not agree with all her views, but I certainly respect her.


I mistakenly thought you were a Judy Wood supporter after reading some of your earlier posts, but I stand corrected.

To say you respect "all truthers" ignores the fact that were it not for the red-herrings, dead-ends and absurd "theories" from most of the so called truth movement 9/11 could have been solved in the first year. I do not respect all truthers, especially Judy Wood.

Posted by: yankee451 Mar 7 2014, 12:31 PM

QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 4 2014, 02:48 PM) *
What happened to this video?

Youtube says: "This video is unavailable. Sorry about that."

P.M.


Sorry, I made some changes to the video and had to upload it to YouTube again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPZNQTj2hNg


Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)