Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12939268)

Ok, this is a legitimate and fair point and I apologize to anyone confused about my bad attempt at humor.

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12939289)

This subforum isn't only to discuss the serious event, it's to discuss the often-amusing misadventures of conspiracy theorists.

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12939285)

Here's my take on this, I see nothing humorous concerning this event and I take it to heart that people attempting to defend a position of fraud/hoax during the events of 9/11 should be dealt with severely.

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12939285)

And your apology is accepted by me, but such apologies should never have been made or accepted in the first place.

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12938970)

So all the airplane pieces that are in the museum are CGIed?? :jaw-dropp

The CTs really need to look at evidence not fantasy beliefs. ;)

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12939384)

But how can you prove that these pieces really came from a plane, does this look like a plane to you?

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12939390)

Not a plane but a piece of an airplane fuselage.

Originally Posted by CORed (Post 12939109)

I have been to New York. It certainly appeared to be a real place. OTOH, I did a lot of my "traveling" there on what appeared to be an underground rail system. While on these alleged trains, I spent a lot of time in the dark, and it was pretty difficult to tell what direction I was traveling, how fast I was going, etc., and the stations all looked pretty much the same until I went up the stairs to the outside world, so I can't completely rule out the possibility that it was all an extremely complex hoax, with tens of thousand of stage hands rearranging the sets while I was supposedly traveling on the "underground trains".

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12939480)

Manhattan is obviously a Reptilian hologram. It's not a real island, it's a massive alien spaceship. All of those bridges and tunnels are just gateways into a giant matrix where everyone is sedated and plugged into a Reptilian computer and have no knowledge that they are being probed and are having their DNA extracted in order to recreate humanity in a distant galaxy.

Seriously, why do you think the Indians sold it so damned cheap?

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12939491)

Probably cause they weren't actually Indians, given they weren't in India.

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12938804)

And what do you think of all the forensic evidence from the planes?

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12939285)

Here's my take on this, I see nothing humorous concerning this event and I take it to heart that people attempting to defend a position of fraud/hoax during the events of 9/11 should be dealt with severely.

And your apology is accepted by me, but such apologies should never have been made or accepted in the first place.

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid (Post 12939457)

It's green. You know what else is green ? Military stuff. It's clearly a misille.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939501)

How does that change the evidence in the impact holes? (It doesn't). It has been five years but the evidence that makes the plane parts moot hasn't changed a bit. Neither has this forum's steadfast refusal to address it.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12939507)

I agree but in the case of Yankee the most severe reaction which gets the most mileage is ridicule. I'm sure you've read his other threads, when anyone attempts to debate him on the liquid merits of his claims he blows smoke, moves the goal posts, and accuses us of either being CIA shills or mindless fools.

Making jokes at his expense on the other hand gets to him.

We're not talking about remote controlled aircraft and plastic explosives with this guy, we're talking hardcore No Planes/No Twin Towers/No dead bodies. How can you debate these concepts with a straight face?

I don't think 9-11 was funny but Yankee's OP along with his other intellectually inbred posts are a laugh riot. Okay, maybe I should feel sorry for him because he's suffering from some neurological impairment or possibly sun-downing but without evidence for those situations I have to take him at face value. I spend almost half my life as a CTist myself, I have been in meetings where much crazier theories have been advanced by people who are otherwise sane who work in good professions.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12939384)

But how can you prove that these pieces really came from a plane, does this look like a plane to you?

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939501)

How does that change the evidence in the impact holes? (It doesn't). It has been five years but the evidence that makes the plane parts moot hasn't changed a bit. Neither has this forum's steadfast refusal to address it.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12939470)

For anyone wondering about the providence of the piece, it was on display in the NYPD Museum's 9/11 exhibit in 2008.

Here's the display it was in. And yes they are my own photos from my trip there.

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12939520)

For the benefit of everyone list the evidence that makes the plane parts moot.
Don't post links your page(s), just list the evidence.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939526)

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ectories-1.jpg

Danced about ad nasea here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=271571

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12939215)

Right, in the middle of a collapsing building(s) someone is going to go out and plant evidence. Because you posted this I assume you may believe this fantasy, but in the real world how is this to be accomplished without anyone noticing? Or why hasn't a whistle blower and come forth proclaiming responsibility for planting anything?
Oh wait I know the government death squads. LOL :jaw-dropp

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12939528)

And what is the point you are trying to make? No links, just words here.

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12939530)

It is sad how you are underestimating the perpetrators of this crime, silly...
Don't you know THEY have superhuman powers, unlimited resources at their disposal:D

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939535)

At the far left of both impact holes, by itself the lightly damaged cladding is proof a 767's wing tip wasn't responsible.

A few feet away from the lightly damage aluminum sheeting are heavily damaged steel columns that they were impacted from the side, in a completely different direction than the jet was traveling.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939536)

Yes. They can make very smart people believe impossible things.

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12939540)

You are of course a forensic damage expert that can differentiate how/why damage occurs as the plane impacts the, please list your qualifications and training.
Please show a graphic to prove your allegation

You know there was live TV for all to see a plane approaching the south tower other views show the airplane slamming into the tower. Where do you claim that a that it could not be responsible.

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12939543)

Wouldn't it be easier to just crash planes into things, if that's the impression they were trying to create?

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12938791)

This is my thinking too.

In the first place, do they really expect us to believe any place could be so nice they named it twice?

In the second place I have been to York. Why would they need a new one if the old one is still there?

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939544)

If that makes me an expert, then so be it.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939544)

If you require an expert to do your thinking for you, then you'll have to take my word for it.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939544)

All the views of the "live" impact were capturing the north face of the North Tower. None of them caught the "crash." Those that do show the crash were not broadcast live.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939544)

I am capable of doing my own thinking. If that makes me an expert, then so be it. If you require an expert to do your thinking for you, then you'll have to take my word for it.

All the views of the "live" impact were capturing the north face of the North Tower. None of them caught the "crash." Those that do show the crash were not broadcast live.

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12939574)

I'm not indicating that you are not capable of thinkin, however training helps one form a better picture of what happened, you don't have that, but rely on your biased viewpoint. No I'll not take your words for any description of what happened.

Yes the "live" views were from the east and north viewpoints, Other videos show the same plane hitting the tower from the south, for those that haven't seen them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
11 minute video with timestamps for ease of watching
3:39, 4:56, 5:37* best image of a plane hitting the tower, 6:28, 8:44, 9:11 ( doesn't show the plane hitting the tower as a building in in the way), 10:18.

In all views along the way, a plane approaches the tower and slams into it. You may ignore the fact that it was a plane, but prudent individuals will not agree with your view.

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 9750631)

Wrong.

Aluminium alloys are used extensively in aircraft due to their high strength-to-weight ratio. On the other hand, pure aluminium metal is much too soft for such uses, and it does not have the high tensile strength that is needed for airplanes and helicopters.

Aluminium alloys versus types of steel
Aluminium alloys typically have an elastic modulus of about 70 GPa, which is about one-third of the elastic modulus of most kinds of steel and steel alloys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alumini...oys_properties

One third the strength is more than strong enough to break it under such conditions; there's a FEA proving it. Water can also cut through steel if thrown at a bigger speed and in a thin jet (google waterjet cutting), and it's not even a solid. The principle is the same: kinetic energy.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

It adds density to the wing as a whole, thus increasing the mass, and with it, the kinetic energy.

Imagine yourself throwing an empty soda can to a glass. You will probably not hurt it. Now imagine yourself throwing it full. You will probably break it. Same material, different overall density.

And an airplane is much more than the sheeting. Focusing on the cover and forgetting about the structure is a lie by omission. Remember the wings must be strong enough to support the weight of the fuselage.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...he/boeing2.jpg

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim.../13WMAZ_03.jpg

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...he/estruc1.jpg

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...e_fuselage.jpg

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/struct...es/image12.gif


These two sheets look like they bent post-impact, due to the load. They bent east-west because it was far easier for them to bend east-west than north-south, due to their orientation and shape (a very oblong rectangle, i.e. basically, a sheet of steel with its faces pointing north and south).

However I think that parts of that picture show that the wing was pulled towards the hole by its own structure as the plane penetrated. Good catch.

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 12939689)

The flattened, burned part was due to whatever large, hot, heavy thing was attached to the wing at that position. I cannot think what that might have been. Can you?

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12938558)

[*]Deploy dozens of photographers to pose as amateurs.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939718)

You're referring to the engine?

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12939721)

A spark of intelligence emerging? :D

Originally Posted by Loss Leader (Post 12939720)

Name three.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939535)

At the far left of both impact holes, by itself the lightly damaged cladding is proof a 767's wing tip wasn't responsible.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939546)

If planes could do such things, there would be no need for missiles. Furthermore, if a plane did such a thing, the damage evidence would be consistent with it.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12939729)

Nope, it means the wingtip is less dense than the rest of the wing.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12939730)

Oh, please, please, please educate us on what a 767 cannot do in flight.

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12939574)

I'm not indicating that you are not capable of thinkin, however training helps one form a better picture of what happened, you don't have that, but rely on your biased viewpoint. No I'll not take your words for any description of what happened.

Yes the "live" views were from the east and north viewpoints, Other videos show the same plane hitting the tower from the south, for those that haven't seen them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
11 minute video with timestamps for ease of watching
3:39, 4:56, 5:37* best image of a plane hitting the tower, 6:28, 8:44, 9:11 ( doesn't show the plane hitting the tower as a building in in the way), 10:18.

In all views along the way, a plane approaches the tower and slams into it. You may ignore the fact that it was a plane, but prudent individuals will not agree with your view.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939731)

I see. So the wingtip wasn't dense enough to sever the aluminum sheeting?

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939735)

Some horses can't even be led to water, but apparently in your world, if it accelerates to the right speed, it'll cut through just about anything else.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939726)

Evan Fairbanks
Luc Courchesne
Michael Hezarkhani