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)

Axxman300 23rd January 2020 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12963625)
All truthers believe that the US gov, the media which they call the MSM, academicians etc. are part of a conspiracy to fee everyone a narrative which does not represent real world truth. Ostensibly these false narratives are used because some "deep state" has an agenda which rational people would not accept.

Anyone who accepts any official narrative about any topic is simply a victim of brain washing... or an agent of the deep state perpetrating the fake narrative. Those in "control" are capable of all manner of technical skills much like producing a movie.. which the so called "sheeple" accept as reality.

The so called conspiracists are incapable of critical thinking, usually lacking scientific of technical backgrounds and can't explain who the reality "show" we all believe was created. They constantly point to some detail as being scientifically or technically impossible and so there must be a dark hidden explanation.

Some conspiricists will attempt to win followers with what is essentially flawed or junk science. To the naive it sounds like the real deal. This applies to people like Gage, Jones, Harrit, Woods, Praeger, Fetzer, Szamboti, Cole, Kevin Ryan and Steve Da'ak tp name a few. They come with little to nothing and expect people who don't accept their (made up out of whole cloth) narrative to prove THEM wrong. They ALWAYS switch the burden of proof, always use junk science/engineering and lack critical thinking and a broad technical background. What they all share in common is the belief that we are constantly lied to about almost everything.

Most of them avoid encounters with technical people who can easily refute their nonsense, instead prefer to make their false claims to gullible and largely technically challenged people. They love to trot out "resumes" of their associates while dismissing those of anyone who disputes their ridiculous claims.

They most certainly are not interested in the truth about the world, or discovering it using science. We've come to understand the 9/11 Truth is nothing but 9/11 lies, naivete and stupidity.

But why are they doing what they do if it's not "science"? Some to profit and massage their egos, others because they dislike many of the things in the world of fact. They resent marketing and PR and hidden agendas and see them everywhere they look... so there is an element of paranoia on top of their distrust for "authority". You can't be a "truther" or conspiracy believer unless you reject a commonly held world view.

This is a mass and individual psychology problem not a technical one.

That's a solid take on the larger issue of CTists.

As a reformed CTist I can add to it.

Quote:

Anyone who accepts any official narrative about any topic is simply a victim of brain washing... or an agent of the deep state perpetrating the fake narrative. Those in "control" are capable of all manner of technical skills much like producing a movie.. which the so called "sheeple" accept as reality.
This surfaced with the JFK Assassination with Time Magazine buying the Zapruder Film. Time was owned by Henry Luce, who's name was a dog-whistle to the radical left which found its wings in the mid-1960's. Obviously Luce, a staunch anti-Communist who favored a US Invasion of Cuba, was trying to hide the evidence of a conspiracy. And because it was Time Magazine the masses never questioned rumors of a conspiracy thanks to Time. From there CTists wove a web of interconnected cabals out to control mankind.

Almost all CT's post Pearl Harbor can be traced back to the JFK CT's.

Quote:

The so called conspiracists are incapable of critical thinking, usually lacking scientific of technical backgrounds and can't explain who the reality "show" we all believe was created. They constantly point to some detail as being scientifically or technically impossible and so there must be a dark hidden explanation.
Critical thinking is often insular. Most CT's are capable of functioning in society and many even have jobs requiring solid judgement, and this leads to an air of infallibility; I'm right about A,B,C, therefore I must be right about X,Y,Z. And yes, there are just stupid people out there whom the internet has given the equivalent of a megaphone to spread their stupidity among other stupid people (Qanon and Alex Jones are current examples, Mark Lane and John Burch are older pre-internet examples). The proof is that every side of the political spectrum is susceptible to CT's almost at any time. It always comes down to prejudice: The Clintons are Evil, George Bush+Skull & Bones = New World Order! The CIA did bad things in the 1950's and 60's so they still must be up to no good, etc. etc.

This forum was once had James Randi's name and I think he had the best way to deal with CTists by doing simple magic tricks to illustrate that you can't trust your eyes and you think the trick works vs how it really works are often different.

Quote:

They come with little to nothing and expect people who don't accept their (made up out of whole cloth) narrative to prove THEM wrong. They ALWAYS switch the burden of proof, always use junk science/engineering and lack critical thinking and a broad technical background. What they all share in common is the belief that we are constantly lied to about almost everything.
Most important is that they become an insulated collective wherein cherry-picked facts become dogma to the exclusion of the full bodies of evidence. With both the JFK and now the 9-11 CT's their believers now cite other CTists as authorities on the subject (just as Steve continues to cite himself on this thread). The assumption being that the "Official Story" is a lie even while often citing parts of it to craft their fictions. With 9-11 AND the JFK the state and federal officials were WAY BEHIND THE PRESS in chasing down witnesses to get stories.

TIME Magazine's 9/11 issue came out the following week in 2001 and 90% of the facts were already there.

Quote:

They most certainly are not interested in the truth about the world, or discovering it using science. We've come to understand the 9/11 Truth is nothing but 9/11 lies, naivete and stupidity.
Agreed. As a reformed CTist I'm offended by the sheer stupidity of the 9-11 CTists. If you're going to waste my time at least give me a plausible story.

Quote:

This is a mass and individual psychology problem not a technical one.
You win the prize.

bknight 23rd January 2020 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12964305)
That's a solid take on the larger issue of CTists.

As a reformed CTist I can add to it.



This surfaced with the JFK Assassination with Time Magazine buying the Zapruder Film. Time was owned by Henry Luce, who's name was a dog-whistle to the radical left which found its wings in the mid-1960's. Obviously Luce, a staunch anti-Communist who favored a US Invasion of Cuba, was trying to hide the evidence of a conspiracy. And because it was Time Magazine the masses never questioned rumors of a conspiracy thanks to Time. From there CTists wove a web of interconnected cabals out to control mankind.

Almost all CT's post Pearl Harbor can be traced back to the JFK CT's.



Critical thinking is often insular. Most CT's are capable of functioning in society and many even have jobs requiring solid judgement, and this leads to an air of infallibility; I'm right about A,B,C, therefore I must be right about X,Y,Z. And yes, there are just stupid people out there whom the internet has given the equivalent of a megaphone to spread their stupidity among other stupid people (Qanon and Alex Jones are current examples, Mark Lane and John Burch are older pre-internet examples). The proof is that every side of the political spectrum is susceptible to CT's almost at any time. It always comes down to prejudice: The Clintons are Evil, George Bush+Skull & Bones = New World Order! The CIA did bad things in the 1950's and 60's so they still must be up to no good, etc. etc.

This forum was once had James Randi's name and I think he had the best way to deal with CTists by doing simple magic tricks to illustrate that you can't trust your eyes and you think the trick works vs how it really works are often different.



Most important is that they become an insulated collective wherein cherry-picked facts become dogma to the exclusion of the full bodies of evidence. With both the JFK and now the 9-11 CT's their believers now cite other CTists as authorities on the subject (just as Steve continues to cite himself on this thread). The assumption being that the "Official Story" is a lie even while often citing parts of it to craft their fictions. With 9-11 AND the JFK the state and federal officials were WAY BEHIND THE PRESS in chasing down witnesses to get stories.

TIME Magazine's 9/11 issue came out the following week in 2001 and 90% of the facts were already there.



Agreed. As a reformed CTist I'm offended by the sheer stupidity of the 9-11 CTists. If you're going to waste my time at least give me a plausible story.



You win the prize.

I would like to add my two cents. I believe that all CTs, other than trolls, feel they are smarter than the rest of the "sheeple" and have figured out the bogus story that the big bad government(s) presents is fake and they figured it out all by themselves, or with help from other CTs.

Robin 23rd January 2020 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12963625)
This is a mass and individual psychology problem not a technical one.

Psychology problems are ultimately technical ones.

curious cat 23rd January 2020 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12963713)
It wasn't at sea level.
Why can't it fly at that speed?

Itchy Boy has a point - to some degree... Max speed of these planes is limited by their aerodynamics. Exceed the design speed substantially, and the plane can virtually fall apart. The speed over the ground which in still air and at sea level equals TAS (true airspeed) is irrelevant. The limiting speed is IAS, indicated airspeed, which determines the aerodynamic effects. It changes with density of the surrounding air and for that reason plane can travel faster at high altitude (less dense air, smaller aerodynamic effects) than at sea level.
The planes involved in the 9/11 attack were impacting at very low altitude - for all practical purposes at sea level - and the Pentagon plane (and I believe at least one of the WTC planes) did exceed its Vne (velocity never exceed). It apparently stayed within its safety margin though because it reached its target in one piece.

Robin 23rd January 2020 03:14 PM

Incidentally, I have had now had time to look at the Purdue University animation and it is not, as I had previously thought, a poor animation. It is actually pretty good.

It doesn't show the plane slipping effortlessly into the building as yankee451 suggested, but disintegrating on impact and the debris passing through.

Elagabalus 23rd January 2020 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12963738)
Because he doesn't believe it can without any facts. Reminds me of some thoughts I picked up when dealing with Moon landing hoaxers:

If I don't understand something, then it must be fake.
If I can't explain something, then it must be fake.

And there might be many more.

Something I feel to be true will always be true (to me) if I never bother to look it up.

yankee451 23rd January 2020 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12964405)
Incidentally, I have had now had time to look at the Purdue University animation and it is not, as I had previously thought, a poor animation. It is actually pretty good.

It doesn't show the plane slipping effortlessly into the building as yankee451 suggested, but disintegrating on impact and the debris passing through.

Really, so how did they depict the interaction between the left wingtip and the first 9 columns from the left, where the wingtip slid like butter into the building in its entirety? Considering the physical evidence shows something else happened, would you say that was "pretty good?"

beachnut 23rd January 2020 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964465)
Really, so how did they depict the interaction between the left wingtip and the first 9 columns from the left, where the wingtip slid like butter into the building in its entirety? Considering the physical evidence shows something else happened, would you say that was "pretty good?"

Have your grandkids found out you are pushing fantasy lies on the Internet yet?

Butter, is that the tech term you got from the failed school of hard knocks, where common sense stands for fantasy based on nonsense, and physics is banned.

Yes, simulations are pretty good.

Gee whiz common sense expert, the WTC towers' shell broke and let 175 and 11 in. Not sure how you can stop a jet engine from breaking the shell at 590 mph, when the shell can't stop a plane going 256 knots.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Too bad your school of hard knocks banned physics and logical thinking, sometime, common sense is wrong. In your case that is always and forever.

yankee451 23rd January 2020 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12964477)
Have your grandkids found out you are pushing fantasy lies on the Internet yet?

Butter, is that the tech term you got for the failed school of hard knocks, where common sense stands for fantasy based on nonsense, and physics is banned.

Yes, simulations are pretty good.

Gee whiz common sense expert, the WTC towers' shell broke and let 175 and 11 in. Not sure how you can stop a jet engine from breaking the shell at 590 mph, when the shell can't stop a plane going 256 knots.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Too bad your school of hard knocks banned physics and logical thinking, sometime, common sense is wrong. In your case that is always and forever.

My grand-kids can think for themselves. Unlike some.

beachnut 23rd January 2020 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964479)
... Unlike some.

Wait till they see the fantasy lie of missiles. And then they see the videos you say are fake. They will see all the different videos, and know you spread lies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
Prove this video is fake.
Include real analysis, not the BS you keep posting.
Show your work.

If you can't produce proof, retract your lies now.

yankee451 23rd January 2020 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12964477)
Yes, simulations are pretty good.


The Purdue cartoon showed the jet sliding like butter through the exterior wall columns, all the way down to the wingtips. It didn't start disintegrating until it passed through the walls columns.

Yet the actual damage shows no such thing happened. The wingtip did not fully penetrate the wall as they depicted. How could they have missed this evidence? How could you?

yankee451 23rd January 2020 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12964482)
Wait till they see the fantasy lie of missiles. And then they see the videos you say are fake. They will see all the different videos, and know you spread lies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
Prove this video is fake.
Include real analysis, not the BS you keep posting.
Show your work.

If you can't produce proof, retract your lies now.

Red herring. Prove to me you exist and that I should care.

beachnut 23rd January 2020 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964483)
The Purdue cartoon showed the jet sliding like butter through the exterior wall columns, all the way down to the wingtips. It didn't start disintegrating until it passed through the walls columns.

Yet the actual damage shows no such thing happened. The wingtip did not fully penetrate the wall as they depicted. How could they have missed this evidence? How could you?

You don't do physics and engineering. Saying butter is enough to expose your ignorance of science.

How can you make up lies and you can't produce proof of fake videos. You failed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
Why can't you prove this is fake? Oh, you are not qualified to do more than make up fantasy, and mock the murder of thousands.

beachnut 23rd January 2020 04:29 PM

FAILED, yankee451 can't prove his claim, never will
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964484)
Red herring. Prove to me you exist and that I should care.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
Says video is fake, has no proof.

beachnut 23rd January 2020 04:35 PM

Keep forgetting yankee451 claims are lies and fantasy - not
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964484)
Red herring. Prove to me you exist and that I should care.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29
What you thinky about study

I forgot the missiles stuff and fake videos are lies : impossible to prove.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

Video not fake, it matches in time and space Radar data and other videos where 175 is seen dropping into NYC with souls on board.

yankee451 23rd January 2020 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12964488)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
Says video is fake, has no proof.

This is the proof. Pity you don't have the courage to expose yourself so that your grand kids can bask in your glory.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png

yankee451 23rd January 2020 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12964493)
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29
What you thinky about study

I forgot the missiles stuff and fake videos are lies : impossible to prove.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

Video not fake, it matches in time and space Radar data and other videos where 175 is seen dropping into NYC with souls on board.

But not the physical evidence. Pathetic.

Deadie 23rd January 2020 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12964482)
Prove this video is fake.
Include real analysis, not the BS you keep posting.
Show your work.

Honestly, I would really enjoy a CTer doing a sincere and genuine frame-by-frame video analysis. Someone with even a modest understanding of video editing and physics.

It almost pains me to say that 9/11 truthers almost force me to give a bit more respect to ufologists and even bigfoot "researchers". Some of them have actually put their money where their mouth is on occasion. Hell, even flat-earthers have gone into the field to perform experiments. Real effort matters. 9/11 truthers are LAZY.

beachnut 23rd January 2020 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964495)
This is the proof. Pity you don't have the courage to expose yourself so that your grand kids can bask in your glory.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png

My grandkids laugh at your failed claims, and play fortnite with me, they "carry me", got me first place finish. They like the fact I was a pilot and engineer, and helped them build their first computers. Great frame rates on fortnite. You pretend to be an engineer, I am an engineer. You mock the murder of thousands with lies, I served my country for 28 years and was on active duty on 9/11 - you make up lies about 9/11.

You posted proof of a 767 hitting the WTC again.

The topic is fake videos, and how they did it, and you post prove the videos were real.

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29
This is study showing why the 767s could break the WTC shell. Doubt you will understand based on your lie of missiles and lies of fake video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

Oops, you have failed to show your study where you prove this video is fake.

yankee451 23rd January 2020 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12964502)
Honestly, I would really enjoy a CTer doing a sincere and genuine frame-by-frame video analysis. Someone with even a modest understanding of video editing and physics.

It almost pains me to say that 9/11 truthers almost force me to give a bit more respect to ufologists and even bigfoot "researchers". Some of them have actually put their money where their mouth is on occasion. Hell, even flat-earthers have gone into the field to perform experiments. Real effort matters. 9/11 truthers are LAZY.

Some frame by frame analysis of the Hezarkhani footage here:

https://youtu.be/2Gpr-jtWCNc

Ask and you shall receive. Now I would like to see the same from you fine boyznberries. Show me your analysis of how the head on jet impact created the lateral bends to the steel.

beachnut 23rd January 2020 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12964502)
Honestly, I would really enjoy a CTer doing a sincere and genuine frame-by-frame video analysis. Someone with even a modest understanding of video editing and physics.

It almost pains me to say that 9/11 truthers almost force me to give a bit more respect to ufologists and even bigfoot "researchers". Some of them have actually put their money where their mouth is on occasion. Hell, even flat-earthers have gone into the field to perform experiments. Real effort matters. 9/11 truthers are LAZY.

At least flat earther are not mocking the murder of others with lies. And ironically when deriving the EoM for flight, you can consider the earth flat.

Same with UFO, and Bigfoot - not mocking the murder of thousands.

beachnut 23rd January 2020 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964510)
Some frame by frame analysis of the Hezarkhani footage here:

https://youtu.be/2Gpr-jtWCNc

Ask and you shall receive. Now I would like to see the same from you fine boyznberries. Show me your analysis of how the head on jet impact created the lateral bends to the steel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

OOPs, you used a fictional movie to back up your failed work. That was funny.

Nope, you see you made up BS statement after BS statement. You made up lies and failed to prove anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
Video stands as real because it matches in time and space the Radar data.

You are a liar, the face is blurred because a plane hit at 590 mph, with the energy of 2093 pounds of TNT.

You are the worse video analyst. You proved you are bad.

Video proved real by yankee451, he has no clue how to work with video.

Robin 23rd January 2020 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964465)
Really, so how did they depict the interaction between the left wingtip and the first 9 columns from the left, where the wingtip slid like butter into the building in its entirety? Considering the physical evidence shows something else happened, would you say that was "pretty good?"

It is not sliding in like butter. It is shattering as it goes.

Robin 23rd January 2020 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964510)
Some frame by frame analysis of the Hezarkhani footage here:

https://youtu.be/2Gpr-jtWCNc

Ask and you shall receive. Now I would like to see the same from you fine boyznberries. Show me your analysis of how the head on jet impact created the lateral bends to the steel.

You need to nominate some steel column which, in your opinion, is bent the wrong way and I can tell you.

Elagabalus 23rd January 2020 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12964524)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

OOPs, you used a fictional movie to back up your failed work. That was funny.

Nope, you see you made up BS statement after BS statement. You made up lies and failed to prove anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
Video stands as real because it matches in time and space the Radar data.

You are a liar, the face is blurred because a plane hit at 590 mph, with the energy of 2093 pounds of TNT.

You are the worse video analyst. You proved you are bad.

Video proved real by yankee451, he has no clue how to work with video.

But ... he found 15 frames where the image is still!

Out of how many frames, yankee451? What was the shutter speed of the video camera?

Beachnut is right. You are a horrible video analyst.

Deadie 23rd January 2020 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964510)
Some frame by frame analysis of the Hezarkhani footage here:

https://youtu.be/2Gpr-jtWCNc

Ask and you shall receive. Now I would like to see the same from you fine boyznberries. Show me your analysis of how the head on jet impact created the lateral bends to the steel.

This is a 3 and half minute video of assertion and vague speculation. Not an detailed explanation or demonstration.

yankee451 23rd January 2020 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12964539)
You need to nominate some steel column which, in your opinion, is bent the wrong way and I can tell you.

Oh. Is that what I need to do.

yankee451 23rd January 2020 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12964547)
This is a 3 and half minute video of assertion and vague speculation. Not an detailed explanation or demonstration.

So sayeth he/she/it (can't tell), that hasn't demonstrated anything, ever.

pgimeno 23rd January 2020 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964495)
This is the proof. Pity you don't have the courage to expose yourself so that your grand kids can bask in your glory.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png

You keep posting that image. I don't think it proves what you think it proves.

Since I'm a firm believer in Oystein's Midgets with Saws theory, here's my annotated version:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...s-1024x640.jpg

Your image and my image have the same degree of credibility and explain the evidence equally well.

Anyway, I have already established that the damage can indeed be produced by a 767, which... well... sets the credibility of both images to zero.

beachnut 23rd January 2020 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964510)
Some frame by frame analysis of the Hezarkhani footage here:

https://youtu.be/2Gpr-jtWCNc

Ask and you shall receive. Now I would like to see the same from you fine boyznberries. Show me your analysis of how the head on jet impact created the lateral bends to the steel.

We don't have to prove a 767 did it, a 767 did it. You will never prove the videos are fake.

You labeled wrong, it is not "news and politics", it is "fantasy and fiction". Or better, really "bad video analysis".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

Compare your version with the better one, and if you were are real video expert/analyst, you would get the original and avoid the facebook up load versions - need help getting the real video? If you were a video analyst, you would know all the videos are real.

What is 360 vs 1080 - you messed up, and you don't know why. Your work is bad, my grandkids could help you.

Robin 23rd January 2020 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964554)
Oh. Is that what I need to do.

Oh. Am I supposed to guess what you are talking about?

So far you have mentioned some cladding which you think is pulled the wrong way.

Oh and a piece of cladding which has not been severed all the way through and you think, for reasons you haven't stated, that it would necessarily be severed all the way through.

Axxman300 23rd January 2020 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12964362)
I would like to add my two cents. I believe that all CTs, other than trolls, feel they are smarter than the rest of the "sheeple" and have figured out the bogus story that the big bad government(s) presents is fake and they figured it out all by themselves, or with help from other CTs.

Definitely true. The CTists knows the "truth" and this makes them special and or superior to the masses.

yankee451 23rd January 2020 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12964560)
You keep posting that image.

And you keep avoiding it. Predicable. And predicted.

Axxman300 23rd January 2020 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964495)
This is the proof. Pity you don't have the courage to expose yourself so that your grand kids can bask in your glory.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png

Fixed it for you.

https://i.imgur.com/kEy9JxK.png

Robin 23rd January 2020 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964578)
And you keep avoiding it. Predicable. And predicted.

Somehow yankee451 appears to have missed every single thing we have said about this image.

yankee451 23rd January 2020 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12964536)
It is not sliding in like butter. It is shattering as it goes.

Well your description doesn't seem to give it the justice it deserves, nor how it is depicted on television or on the Purdue cartoon, but that aside, I missed where you explained how the cartoon illustrates an accurate depiction of the damage to the first nine columns from the left. Anyone can see the wing tip didn't penetrate fully, as depicted in the cartoon. River in Egypt, much?

yankee451 23rd January 2020 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12964580)
Somehow yankee451 appears to have missed every single thing we have said about this image.

I have yet to see one honest assessment.

Robin 23rd January 2020 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964582)
Well your description doesn't seem to give it the justice it deserves, nor how it is depicted on television or on the Purdue cartoon, but that aside, I missed where you explained how the cartoon illustrates an accurate depiction of the damage to the first nine columns from the left. Anyone can see the wing tip didn't penetrate fully, as depicted in the cartoon. River in Egypt, much?

It shows it penetrating the cladding. It is not perfect at a granular level, but it is not supposed to be.

yankee451 23rd January 2020 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12964587)
It shows it penetrating the cladding. It is not perfect at a granular level, but it is not supposed to be.

Not perfect at a granular level? So the plane wing that was at once so dense it could sharply bend steel columns in a completely different direction than it was traveling, couldn't sever the cladding that was wrapped around the column it severed.

Don't look now but I think that cladding is flipping you the bird.

Shalamar 23rd January 2020 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12964560)
You keep posting that image. I don't think it proves what you think it proves.

Since I'm a firm believer in Oystein's Midgets with Saws theory, here's my annotated version:

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...s-1024x640.jpg

Your image and my image have the same degree of credibility and explain the evidence equally well.

Anyway, I have already established that the damage can indeed be produced by a 767, which... well... sets the credibility of both images to zero.

Ok. I give in.

I admit it.

I did it. All of it.

I used high powered holographic machines scattered around NYC to give the illusion of the planes flying into the towers. A carry the one error in the software caused the planes to 'enter' the towers before disintegrating.

The damage was caused by vibranium tipped missiles that exploded to cause the great damage. The cladding was carefully pre-cut (and hidden by the holographic machinery)

All the people in the planes were secretly taken to Tahiti (it's a magical place) where they live their lives in abject comfort.

I was worried about the damage to towers, so weeks leading up to the 'attack', explosives were placed under the guise of 'running cables for IT'. No one bothers you if you have a laptop, and a cart full of screwdrivers and cables.

I knew the camera at the pentagon was crap, so that was a straight missile.

The fourth missile went off course, and it had to be prematurely grounded, and exploded. , The vibranium warhead was why it was able to penetrate the ground so easily.

Any questions?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:39 AM.

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