International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

beachnut 26th January 2020 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967348)
You cite thousands of witnesses. WHere are they? Thousands were not interviewed an those that were told conflicting stories. There was one vid where the reporter on the ground said, "I didn't see a plane" then the on-air person 'corrected't them, "Ya there's a plane I saw it on the monitor".

They didn't need thousaands of crisis actors, only a few like Harley Guy and probably the CTers you mentioned. The CT community is awash in moles an people posing as truthers. Which in itself is another tell that something is up.

The stuff you do not know. Why are you unable to do reality, just like your anti-vaxx junk, you can't do physics. No wonder you can't figure out who did 9/11, and the videos are not fake.

You can't prove anything to support your lies and fantasties on 9/11.

No you make up crisis actors, an insane claim.

At least you can use the same evidence for Bigfoot. nothing


https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...n-fans.html#p2

oops, 9/11 truth failed

The truth
https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

curious cat 26th January 2020 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12967123)
Why would I? As the damage evidence (otherwise known as reality) shows, something else happened.

Where is the photo? The photo, please! I didn't see it for almost 2 days! :D

sts60 26th January 2020 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967348)
...Having been at this stuff for 15 years, I'm convinced there's no way for the average person to verify beyond doubt the official narrative. Not in 9/11, The Apollo 'landings', or any other so-called CT. What we CAN do is spot improbabiliies, contradictions and implausibilies which point to the offical narrative being a fiction...

You said you don’t want to pursue an Apollo discussion, but you keep appealing to the notion of an Apollo conspiracy. You are incorrect that the average person can’t verify the authenticity of the Apollo missions. I’ve interacted with a number of them in discussions in this and other forums. All it takes is a willingness to learn, some time, and the ability to concede that what looks funny to you might not outweigh the rest of reality.

I don’t know what “improbabilities, contradictions and implausibilies [sic]” you feel you’ve identified in the Apollo record, but the only couple of specific Apollo claims you have made so far (simulations faking an entire mission, only a few people needed to pull it off) are not close to reality, based on my direct experience on over a quarter-century in the field.

In other words, you shouldn’t be using Apollo as an indirect crutch for whatever your claims are in this thread.

Robin 26th January 2020 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12967128)
You can rationalize it all you like. Don't let me stop you.

Again, spare me your mindless evasions.

curious cat 26th January 2020 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12967414)
You said you don’t want to pursue an Apollo discussion, but you keep appealing to the notion of an Apollo conspiracy. You are incorrect that the average person can’t verify the authenticity of the Apollo missions. I’ve interacted with a number of them in discussions in this and other forums. All it takes is a willingness to learn, some time, and the ability to concede that what looks funny to you might not outweigh the rest of reality.

I don’t know what “improbabilities, contradictions and implausibilies [sic]” you feel you’ve identified in the Apollo record, but the only couple of specific Apollo claims you have made so far (simulations faking an entire mission, only a few people needed to pull it off) are not close to reality, based on my direct experience on over a quarter-century in the field.

In other words, you shouldn’t be using Apollo as an indirect crutch for whatever your claims are in this thread.

This remains me a comedy about the faked Apollo mission aired on Australian TV (can't remember the name) on the anniversary of the first moon landing. It was absolutely brilliant and made so believable, I, not really knowing what I was watching, told myself somewhere in the first third of the movie "S***... so these footages were really staged!" (I never lost my faith in the mission in bulk being real though :-)). The movie featured some real historical footages, interviews with real former astronauts and politicians - some of them knowingly participating on the joke, some not.
I started to smell a rat only when they started to talk about how Kubrick persuaded NASA to relocate the whole launching complex so that it would look better in his sunrise shots and repaint the rocket to make it more appealing. From that point I was laughing my head off for the rest of the movie. It was absolutely brilliant.
My point is, if they managed to get me (for some time anyway), it is not surprising there are people around who are swallowing this type of conspiracy theories hook line and sinker. I am sure if our two friends saw this masterpiece, they would be using it as an argument all thru this thread. Highly recommended!

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12967220)
The low resolution compressed video still you posted is isn't even good enough to see the building's wall is made up of columns.

Complaining that you can't see what you couldn't hope to see is not evidence.

It wasn't those stills that convinced me. What I would expect to see, even in low res grainy images, is a 'crash'. There was no crash-the plane went through the wall as if it wasn't there. s

beachnut 26th January 2020 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12967169)
1 - Nope, this is your assumption, all because you saw it on television. You have not confirmed your assumption. Your assumption doesn't change the damage evidence which proves something else happened, regardless of how many people you assume saw it.

2 - So what? According to the damage evidence at all sites, no planes crashed there.

3 - Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy often used in the absence of factual evidence.

4 - Prove any of them existed to begin with. The most likely suspects are the same ones who provided the "DNA" evidence. It is up to you to prove any of it is true, and then you can explain how it overrides the physical evidence which proves that even if they did exist, they didn't crash there.

5 - So what? The most likely suspects planted evidence in support of their conclusion. None of the "wreckage" changes the evidence which proves a jet wasn't responsible.

You spent time on fantasy, Radar proves you wrong. Radar, add it to the stuff you are clueless on.

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967477)
This remains me a comedy about the faked Apollo mission aired on Australian TV (can't remember the name) on the anniversary of the first moon landing. It was absolutely brilliant and made so believable, I, not really knowing what I was watching, told myself somewhere in the first third of the movie "S***... so these footages were really staged!" (I never lost my faith in the mission in bulk being real though :-)). The movie featured some real historical footages, interviews with real former astronauts and politicians - some of them knowingly participating on the joke, some not.
I started to smell a rat only when they started to talk about how Kubrick persuaded NASA to relocate the whole launching complex so that it would look better in his sunrise shots and repaint the rocket to make it more appealing. From that point I was laughing my head off for the rest of the movie. It was absolutely brilliant.
My point is, if they managed to get me (for some time anyway), it is not surprising there are people around who are swallowing this type of conspiracy theories hook line and sinker. I am sure if our two friends saw this masterpiece, they would be using it as an argument all thru this thread. Highly recommended!

There was badly faked 'interview' with 'Kubrick' that fooled a lot of grade1 truthers.But those of us who've been in the trenches long enough are no longer susceptable to such skullduggery.

curious cat 26th January 2020 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967531)
There was badly faked 'interview' with 'Kubrick' that fooled a lot of grade1 truthers.But those of us who've been in the trenches long enough are no longer susceptable to such skullduggery.

In trenches? For a long time, huh? That explains a lot. :D

pgimeno 26th January 2020 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967348)
You cite thousands of witnesses. WHere are they?

Where do I do that, exactly? In the message you quote, I mention thousands of victims.

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12967414)
You said you don’t want to pursue an Apollo discussion, but you keep appealing to the notion of an Apollo conspiracy. You are incorrect that the average person can’t verify the authenticity of the Apollo missions. I’ve interacted with a number of them in discussions in this and other forums. All it takes is a willingness to learn, some time, and the ability to concede that what looks funny to you might not outweigh the rest of reality.

I don’t know what “improbabilities, contradictions and implausibilies [sic]” you feel you’ve identified in the Apollo record, but the only couple of specific Apollo claims you have made so far (simulations faking an entire mission, only a few people needed to pull it off) are not close to reality, based on my direct experience on over a quarter-century in the field.

In other words, you shouldn’t be using Apollo as an indirect crutch for whatever your claims are in this thread.

I was arguing against the 'thousands had to be in it' argument you people asways come up with in regard to any CT. I Wwas Only using Apollo as an example. Nobody has yet explained why the people making the equipment had to know the mission was fake.

If I find a suitable example of Gene KRanz's quote I'll post it. In the book "Failure is not an Option" he allededly said that the simulations had become so realistic that the console crew wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Whether he said that or not, it stands to reason. They were looking a various data on their consoles. That data was fed to them from somewhere to simulate various aspects of the mission - the status of all the subsystems, the heart rates of the astronauts, and so on. If Kranz said, "today it's for real", how would the console operators know any different? All they see is what's on their consoles, just like they did on the many simulation runs.

smartcooky 26th January 2020 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12967414)
You said you donít want to pursue an Apollo discussion, but you keep appealing to the notion of an Apollo conspiracy. You are incorrect that the average person canít verify the authenticity of the Apollo missions. Iíve interacted with a number of them in discussions in this and other forums. All it takes is a willingness to learn, some time, and the ability to concede that what looks funny to you might not outweigh the rest of reality.

That, right there, rules out Conspiracy Theorists.

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12967320)
So get a book from the library, while there are still libraries.

If you don't believe the evidence that's available you're going to have to collect your own, and that's likely to be a lot of work.

How's a book going to help me verify the claims of 'officials'?
there's a video of a top NISt guy long after the day denying that he's ever heard of molten metal flowing in the WTC debris, depite that being shown in multiple videos and widely reported on. Am I to believe he's never heard of that? Though it's possible, it's not very plausible, in my opinion. So I'm not going to trust anything else that comes out of his mouth.

So just because something is said in a book, it doesn't bestow any extra credibility to a claim. We all have to use our own devices to sort through this world an determine who or what to believe.

It seems to me that some people inherently trust authorities and their proclamations. They are the ones tha will staunchly defend any official narrative.
Those that distrust authorities in general, like me, will naturallybview official proclamations with a great deal of skepticism.
WHatever your bent, I think it begins at an early age. I distrusted authority long before learning about CTs.d

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12967337)
So if a scientist, medical doctor, or government official makes a statement your default is to automatically disbelieve that person. But when some CT Baboon makes a claim you eat up.

No, That's not how it works I don't disbelieve an authority by default. Nor do I believe anyone claiming a CT by default. I doubt that your painting it that way fools anyone.

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12967541)
Where do I do that, exactly? In the message you quote, I mention thousands of victims.

i'm not going to look it up. I'm willing to concede I made a mistake and was referring to another poster. The word 'thousands' has mostly been associated here with 'witnesses'. I apologize for the error.

beachnut 26th January 2020 06:17 PM

FAILED fake video claims FAIL
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967606)
No, That's not how it works I don't disbelieve an authority by default. Nor do I believe anyone claiming a CT by default. I doubt that your painting it that way fools anyone.

You offer nothing of substance, and failed to show any videos are fake.

The truth remains, big time

https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

TJM 26th January 2020 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967579)
there's a video of a top NISt guy long after the day denying that he's ever heard of molten metal flowing in the WTC debris, depite that being shown in multiple videos and widely reported on. Am I to believe he's never heard of that? Though it's possible, it's not very plausible, in my opinion. So I'm not going to trust anything else that comes out of his mouth.

The claim was there was molten steel, not metal. In the video you speak of, Dr. John Gross of The NIST said: "I know of absolutely nobody, no eye witnesses who said so, who's produced it.."
[Molten steel]

That little bolded part at the tail end of the quote often gets glossed over while you truthers chase your tails over the "eyewitnesses" part.

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12967577)
That, right there, rules out Conspiracy Theorists.

au contraire - as has been pointed out many times, we all once believed the same things you do. It was a learning process to see things differently.

Your attempt to belittle those who don't share your faith in officialdom falls flat just as it does when truthers call you folks 'sheeple'. In either case, it only makes the accuser look bad, not the 'accused' and does nothing to shed light on the topic at hand.
I'm sure you know all that, so why keep doing it?

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12967611)
The claim was there was molten steel, not metal. In the video you speak of, Dr. John Gross of The NIST said: "I know of absolutely nobody, no eye witnesses who said so, who's produced it.."
[Molten steel]

That little bolded part at the tail end of the quote often gets glossed over while you truthers chase your tails over the "eyewitnesses" part.

All the same, it's unfathomable to me that he was unaware of such reports.

ETA: I didn't realize that steel is not a metal!

beachnut 26th January 2020 06:29 PM

You don't look up stuff (a fact), you make up stuff (a fact)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967608)
i'm not going to look it up. ...

Liars on the no plane fantasy crusade don't look up stuff, the make up stuff.

We are 9/11 truth,
We don't look up stuff
We make up stuff

you don't have evidence, stuck spreading baseless lies

There is nothing to debunk you have no evidence.

Going from knowing what happened on 9/11 to complete ignorance is not learning, it is regressing into ignorance. You failed

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967536)
In trenches? For a long time, huh? That explains a lot. :D

Yes, trenches. I hate to quote Alex Jones, but he's correct when he says "there's a war on for your mind". Isn't that part of the reason we spend time here arguing back and forth?

TJM 26th January 2020 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967623)
All the same, it's unfathomable to me that he was unaware of such reports.

I'm sure he was aware of people who claimed to have seen molten steel, the point is he knows of no one WHO HAS PRODUCED ANY MOLTEN STEEL.

Understand now?

smartcooky 26th January 2020 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966989)
Newton’s third law states that when two bodies interact, they apply forces to one another that are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

You can parrot the Law of Motion; pity you don't understand what it means. I quoted Jay Utah earlier, and this is an example of what he was saying...

Newton wasn't talking about objects in isolation - their mass comes into the equation.

A great example of a bullet was posted by someone earlier. A .357 magnum hollowpoint bullet has a mass of around 7 to 12 grams - if I throw it at you it will likely bounce off, and its shape will be unaffected. You will be annoyed, but largely unhurt. However, if I load it onto a cartridge, shove it in the chamber of a .357 magnum point it at you and pull the trigger, it will hit you with velocity of about 1,500 fps, it will blow right through you going completely out of shape, maybe even disintegrating on the way though. The exit hole will be much larger than the entry hole.

According to Newton's Third Law, the force your body applied to the bullet (lets call it your "equal resistive" force) was equal and opposite to the force the bullet applied to you - yet it didn't bounce off?

Have a think about why that might be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966989)
what? You couldn't figure out I meant "equal resistive", referring to Newton's 3rd law?

Given some of the really stupid things I have seen CT's post, I'm long past the point of second-guessing their grammatical errors.

Axxman300 26th January 2020 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967606)
No, That's not how it works I don't disbelieve an authority by default. Nor do I believe anyone claiming a CT by default. I doubt that your painting it that way fools anyone.

This is based on your written track record.

You spew long debunked 911-Truth claims as if they are fact while trying to advance the ludicrous claim that no planes struct the WTC or the Pentagon. To do this you ignore the FDR, the MULTIPLE radar records, and eye-witness reports of over 150,000 people in Manhattan and New Jersey not to mention the mountains of physical evidence that those planes did crash into their targets.

If you bother to read the FULL accounts of the people who say they thought they saw a small aircraft hit the building you'll notice that they were closer to the buildings which means they would have had a limited view of the sky, and all they would see is a blur before impact and the only reason they'd look up would be the sound of the jet engines. The rest of the people who saw the jumbo jets were further away with a better view of the skyline and horizon.

If you bother to read up on either alleged cruise missile used in this fantasy you'd know that they are designed to strike the target head on and not from an angle as Yankee suggests. The missile will self -correct to ensure it strikes head on. The AG-158 JASSM was not operational in 2001 because Lockheed was having problems:

Quote:

The 2,000 pound AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile) is intended to be a stealthy, inexpensive GPS/IIR (Global Positioning system/ Imaging InfraRed) guided cruise missile. It’s designed to attack well-defended targets without putting its carrier aircraft in the crosshairs of new long-range surface to air missile systems. JASSM has experienced a rocky development history, due to long-standing reliability issues. In 2005 it was threatened with cancellation following a series of poor test results. The program went through 2007 on an ongoing roller coaster of ups and downs, and by May 2009 it appeared the program was facing cancellation once again.
source: https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ssiles-014343/

So there was no way a JASSM was used.


Cruise missiles are not exotic technology. And then there is the problem with the ordinance of the warheads, they would have done more damage and four of them (as Yankee claims) would have snapped the towers in half because - unlike a 767 - those warheads are designed to pack an explosive punch:

Quote:

The JASSM Penetrator concept was a P3I to the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) to replace the baseline warhead with an advanced penetrator that meets or exceeds the objective penetration requirement specified in the JASSM Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and to add a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) seeker for adverse weather precision attack capability. The warhead concept was a 1000 pound dense or ballasted penetrator. The warhead would either be designed with a dense metal case or contain dense metal ballast for maximum penetration. The warhead would be filled with advanced insensitive explosive to compensate for the reduced charge weight. This concept used the Hard Target Smart Fuze (HTSF), an accelerometer based electronic fuze, which would allow control of the detonation point by layer counting, distance or time. The accelerometer senses G loads on the bomb due to deceleration as it penetrates through to the target. The fuze can distinguish between earth, concrete, rock and air.
Quote:

The production JASSM contains the WDU-42/B (J-1000), a 1000-pound class, penetrating warhead with 240 pounds of AFX-757. AFX-757 is an extremely insensitive explosive developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory/High Explosives Research and Development Facility, Eglin AFB, Florida. The fuze is the FMU-156/B employing a 150-gram PBXN-9 booster. The warhead includes vents in the aft closure and a proprietary Thermally Re-active Retaining ring. The retaining ring releases at approximately 290 degrees Fahrenheit. This, in combination with the vents, provides for the expulsion of the main charge, which precludes excess pressure buildup and any reaction other than burning when exposed to hazardous stimuli.
source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ions/jassm.htm

Now if you have a basic understanding of military ordinance then it should be obvious that the damage seen in both towers was NOT a cruise missile.

If you can show me another warhead that had a limited blast that looks like jet fuel and bounces around the interior of the target busting support beams then you need to present it.

beachnut 26th January 2020 08:03 PM

this is funny
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966410)
B ecause the lighter parts hitting the steel columns are encountering an equalresistive force. ...

Look up equalresistive. That is funny

Guess what you made this was up, and what you were thinking about is not this. Electric stuff you post

The truth remains as you keep proving it...

https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

curious cat 26th January 2020 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967628)
Yes, trenches. I hate to quote Alex Jones, but he's correct when he says "there's a war on for your mind". Isn't that part of the reason we spend time here arguing back and forth?

The more I read, the more I feel sorry for you... Why didn't you tell us earlier, we are quite a compassionate bunch! On the other hand, there are people coming out of it much worse, some permanently institutionalised and treated with electric shocks (you are not, are you?) or under a supervision. You are a lucky guy, be grateful silly!

curious cat 26th January 2020 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12967727)
Look up equalresistive. That is funny

Guess what you made this was up, and what you were thinking about is not this. Electric stuff you post

The truth remains as you keep proving it...

https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

I think he invented that thing after he "couldn't see any signs of equal and opposite force" (from one of his previous posts) on the photo of the crash site. :-).

sts60 26th January 2020 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967545)
I was arguing against the 'thousands had to be in it' argument you people asways come up with in regard to any CT. I Wwas Only using Apollo as an example. Nobody has yet explained why the people making the equipment had to know the mission was fake.

If youíd like to learn something about it, we can start a separate thread up in the general conspiracy forum. But you shouldnít try to lean on this as support for your claims here when you clearly donít understand who and what would need to be involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967545)
If I find a suitable example of Gene KRanz's quote I'll post it. In the book "Failure is not an Option" he allededly said that the simulations had become so realistic that the console crew wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Whether he said that or not, it stands to reason. They were looking a various data on their consoles. That data was fed to them from somewhere to simulate various aspects of the mission - the status of all the subsystems, the heart rates of the astronauts, and so on. If Kranz said, "today it's for real", how would the console operators know any different? All they see is what's on their consoles, just like they did on the many simulation runs.

You have an alleged quote from a book. Thatís nice. I have actual experience in simulations in the MCC. More importantly, your problem is not limited to simply not understanding this particular issue, but also a very grave fallacy of limited scope.

My intent here is not to have an extensive discussion; this is the wrong forum, although Iíd be happy to discuss on a new thread up one level. Iím merely pointing out that you keep appealing to similarity with Apollo to help you with 9/11 claims, but that doesnít help you here because your Apollo claims are badly uninformed. If you want to discuss why, we can start a new thread.

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12967856)
If youíd like to learn something about it, we can start a separate thread up in the general conspiracy forum. But you shouldnít try to lean on this as support for your claims here when you clearly donít understand who and what would need to be involved.



You have an alleged quote from a book. Thatís nice. I have actual experience in simulations in the MCC. More importantly, your problem is not limited to simply not understanding this particular issue, but also a very grave fallacy of limited scope.

My intent here is not to have an extensive discussion; this is the wrong forum, although Iíd be happy to discuss on a new thread up one level. Iím merely pointing out that you keep appealing to similarity with Apollo to help you with 9/11 claims, but that doesnít help you here because your Apollo claims are badly uninformed. If you want to discuss why, we can start a new thread.

d

Great, I don't want to get into the landings either. But since you have MCC eperience, why don't you briefly enlighten me on how controllers could have known the differnence between the data they received in the simulations and what they would have received during a real mission.

I promise not to respond, so we don't get into it. I'd just like to know.

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967840)
The more I read, the more I feel sorry for you... Why didn't you tell us earlier, we are quite a compassionate bunch! On the other hand, there are people coming out of it much worse, some permanently institutionalised and treated with electric shocks (you are not, are you?) or under a supervision. You are a lucky guy, be grateful silly!

lWhy are we here then? Surely you don't expect to change my mind any more than I expect to change yours.

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12967856)
If youíd like to learn something about it, we can start a separate thread up in the general conspiracy forum. But you shouldnít try to lean on this as support for your claims here when you clearly donít understand who and what would need to be involved.



You have an alleged quote from a book. Thatís nice. I have actual experience in simulations in the MCC. More importantly, your problem is not limited to simply not understanding this particular issue, but also a very grave fallacy of limited scope.

My intent here is not to have an extensive discussion; this is the wrong forum, although Iíd be happy to discuss on a new thread up one level. Iím merely pointing out that you keep appealing to similarity with Apollo to help you with 9/11 claims, but that doesnít help you here because your Apollo claims are badly uninformed. If you want to discuss why, we can start a new thread.

I'm not leaning on Apollo to support any claims about 9/11. I'm only trying to point out that the 'thousands had to be in on it'argument is specious. That is all.So let's drop it.

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12967709)
This is based on your written track record.

.

Well, you drew the wrong conclusion.

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12967674)
You can parrot the Law of Motion; pity you don't understand what it means. I quoted Jay Utah earlier, and this is an example of what he was saying...

Newton wasn't talking about objects in isolation - their mass comes into the equation.

A great example of a bullet was posted by someone earlier. A .357 magnum hollowpoint bullet has a mass of around 7 to 12 grams - if I throw it at you it will likely bounce off, and its shape will be unaffected. You will be annoyed, but largely unhurt. However, if I load it onto a cartridge, shove it in the chamber of a .357 magnum point it at you and pull the trigger, it will hit you with velocity of about 1,500 fps, it will blow right through you going completely out of shape, maybe even disintegrating on the way though. The exit hole will be much larger than the entry hole.

According to Newton's Third Law, the force your body applied to the bullet (lets call it your "equal resistive" force) was equal and opposite to the force the bullet applied to you - yet it didn't bounce off?

Have a think about why that might be?



Given some of the really stupid things I have seen CT's post, I'm long past the point of second-guessing their grammatical errors.

Density. Your bullet analogy isn't relevant since the difference in density between a bullet and flesh is far greater than the difference in density between a plane and the steel columns.

Since you mention exit holes, can you show an image of an exit hole in WTC2 that's big enough to allow for whatever that is protruding from the side opposite the impact?

beachnut 26th January 2020 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967876)
Density. Your bullet analogy isn't relevant since the difference in density between a bullet and flesh is far greater than the difference in density between a plane and the steel columns.

Since you mention exit holes, can you show an image of an exit hole in WTC2 that's big enough to allow for whatever that is protruding from the side opposite the impact?

you really have no clue what physics is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

oops, density, you have no clue

Itchy Boy 26th January 2020 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12967840)
The more I read, the more I feel sorry for you... Why didn't you tell us earlier, we are quite a compassionate bunch! On the other hand, there are people coming out of it much worse, some permanently institutionalised and treated with electric shocks (you are not, are you?) or under a supervision. You are a lucky guy, be grateful silly!

You could have answered my question instead of posting that tripe.

Axxman300 26th January 2020 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967873)
Well, you drew the wrong conclusion.

Case in point: I gave you a detailed response on why the missiles are not a realistic cause of the damage and you've ignored it.

So I'll sit here and wait for you to prove to us that the World Trade Center's original twin towers were actually destroyed and are not actually still there under holographic cloak.

Again, I'm only playing by the standard of proof set by you and Yankee.

beachnut 26th January 2020 11:45 PM

failed physics of 9/11 truth no planers
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966410)
... are encountering an equalresistive force. ...

proof physics is not in your toolbox - did you look it up yet?

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12967887)
Case in point: I gave you a detailed response on why the missiles are not a realistic cause of the damage and you've ignored it.

So I'll sit here and wait for you to prove to us that the World Trade Center's original twin towers were actually destroyed and are not actually still there under holographic cloak.

Again, I'm only playing by the standard of proof set by you and Yankee.

you're addressing the wrong guy.i'm not saying the missiles caused the damage. and I couldn't care less what you think my standard of proof is.
ETA:You're making the orginal claim that the towers are still there under a cloak. So the first burden of proof is yours.

Elagabalus 27th January 2020 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967876)
Density. Your bullet analogy isn't relevant since the difference in density between a bullet and flesh is far greater than the difference in density between a plane and the steel columns.

Since you mention exit holes, can you show an image of an exit hole in WTC2 that's big enough to allow for whatever that is protruding from the side opposite the impact?

Learning can be fun.

https://youtu.be/_nq_-ldfUh0?t=329

curious cat 27th January 2020 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967865)
lWhy are we here then? Surely you don't expect to change my mind any more than I expect to change yours.

Myself? For fun, I said it before. If I should be taking this discussion with you seriously, it probably wouldn't be covered by Medicare :-).


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.