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)

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965771)
A 767 that spreads its mass and momentum over a wide area, is like a bullet, or a water jet, which focus their mass and energy on as tiny a point as possible to achieve maximum penetration, how, exactly? I mean, you must think you understand it, so please explain it.

It's focused at point of Impact don't you know any basic physics?

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965772)
You just described how it's your theory you should at least know it.
Yep Iran would really be a great place to find that data, you only have one Earth and sound travels though it.
A bunker Buster bomb would have shown up in Iran, Russia, and China.
On seismic data.

And you would expect China and Russia to blow the whistle, why, exactly?

beachnut 24th January 2020 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965771)
A 767 that spreads its mass and momentum over a wide area, is like a bullet, or a water jet, which focus their mass and energy on as tiny a point as possible to achieve maximum penetration, how, exactly? I mean, you must think you understand it, so please explain it.

Like a ping pong ball?


A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You keep messing up physics and have no clue why you are wrong -

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965777)
It's focused at point of Impact don't you know any basic physics?

Apparently a lot more than you do. The reason no one, from MIT, to Purdue, has calculated the physics between the wing and the column, is because they know basic physics too.

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12965781)
Like a ping pong ball?


A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You keep messing up physics and have no clue why you are wrong -


No. You keep proving that few people are as indoctrinated as military people.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965774)
Controlling the opposition since 1947.

Your talking about a million bullets even if the plane breaks up each having sufficient energy to penitrate the steel. Especially given the hardness if Alumnum oxide and it's potential to Oxidize at over 2500 degrees C.

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965777)
It's focused at point of Impact don't you know any basic physics?

Let's think about this for the moment. In this interaction between a column and the wing, where would you say the impact is focused on? The flat aluminum sheeting, or the protruding steel sides?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png

Robin 24th January 2020 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965749)
You have a vivid imagination, comparing a shipping container to the WTC.

You must be confused, I didn't do that.

Now about that question you are avoiding: "How are you going with that explanation of how a cruise missile with airframe largely intact can pass through that little gap that is much too small for a cruise missile to pass through?"

beachnut 24th January 2020 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12964855)
No. This is a much clearer shot from a better perspective. It is the column cladding.


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

Big lie, your missile wing can't do what you said it could, you have messed up again and lied.

Why do you lie? Flight 175 has the KE of 2093 pounds of TNT, your missile in flight has 17 pounds of TNT, and tiny weak wings with less mass than any of the 767 wings.

You missile wings would barely scratch the WTC shell. The dents were made by a 767.

Physics wins again.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein

And it shows

your tiny wings are not thick enough to do the damage - darn

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965787)
Your talking about a million bullets even if the plane breaks up each having sufficient energy to penitrate the steel. Especially given the hardness if Alumnum oxide and it's potential to Oxidize at over 2500 degrees C.

I appreciate your need to keep muddying the waters, but it doesn't help your case.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965782)
Apparently a lot more than you do. The reason no one, from MIT, to Purdue, has calculated the physics between the wing and the column, is because they know basic physics too.

No it was simply Irrelevant in the simulation so they did a simplification, your making the same Mistake that Tony Sambozzi made in Missing jolt.
Your mistaking a simulation for a real life event you simply do not understand.
You have to know how the structure of the plane and the structure of the buildings will react based on the energies and connection points involved.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965797)
I appreciate your need to keep muddying the waters, but it doesn't help your case.

My case Is solid yours is not, you didn't even take into account impact induced heating.

beachnut 24th January 2020 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965784)
No. You keep proving that few people are as indoctrinated as military people.

You keep proving this:
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein

Your prejudice of those in the military is showing, a bias that guides your lies.

Truth remains solid, you lie about 9/11, and can't gain the knowledge to save yourself from spreading really dumb lies.


A study you can't figure out
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

Who indoctrinated you to lie, and make up the missile fantasy.


How did they fake the 66,000 pounds of jet fuel for the jet fuel fireball?

See the above video, it proves your missiles were not there

How many missiles does it take

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965792)
Let's think about this for the moment. In this interaction between a column and the wing, where would you say the impact is focused on? The flat aluminum sheeting, or the protruding steel sides?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png

False it would be dragged across not a strait line.

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12965793)
You must be confused, I didn't do that.

Now about that question you are avoiding: "How are you going with that explanation of how a cruise missile with airframe largely intact can pass through that little gap that is much too small for a cruise missile to pass through?"

It wasn't intact. You are distracting the thread with another red herring.
You say there is a gap behind the still standing cladding, but you have yet to explain how a wing could create the gap without cutting the cladding. The "gap" is easily explained with missile warhead, but not with a plane wing. Desperate men do desperate deeds.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965807)
It wasn't intact. You are distracting the thread with another red herring.
You say there is a gap behind the still standing cladding, but you have yet to explain how a wing could create the gap without cutting the cladding. The "gap" is easily explained with missile warhead, but not with a plane wing. Desperate men do desperate deeds.

Your asuming the Cladding is cut and not fractured you can't determine the difference without close examination the impact of the fuel would have fractured Caldding. Your Guessing.

beachnut 24th January 2020 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965807)
It wasn't intact. You are distracting the thread with another red herring.
You say there is a gap behind the still standing cladding, but you have yet to explain how a wing could create the gap without cutting the cladding. The "gap" is easily explained with missile warhead, but not with a plane wing. Desperate men do desperate deeds.

Off topic!

Why? You have no clue there was no warhead explosion on 9/11. A warhead can't make the break in the WTC, a 767 did, not a missile.

How does your missile carry 66,000 pounds of jet fuel? It would take over 30 missiles. No missiles seen on 9/11

Are you missiles invisible and magic?

You keep forgetting your thread failed long ago when you posted your terrible analysis of the video!


A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You failed, the thread failed when you posted your analysis

yankee451 24th January 2020 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965804)
False it would be dragged across not a strait line.

Depends on which "jet" you're taking about. Different angles of impact, but very similar "wrong' damage in the same place. The left wingtip. Do you think the NIST was accurate with their model?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...wing-burst.png

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965819)
Depends on which "jet" you're taking about. Different angles of impact, but very similar "wrong' damage in the same place. The left wingtip. Do you think the NIST was accurate with their model?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...wing-burst.png

For a strait on Impact yes not for a glancing angled Blow.
In a glancing angled Blow the wing would not penitrate, because the structure would cause the wing joint to be destroyed and the wing to hinge in toward the Fuselage.
Everything will have an equal and opposite reaction.

Itchy Boy 24th January 2020 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12965657)
Well for example you say that in impact videos you see no visible impact.

I responded that in four or so frames of lossy video of a distant plane colliding with a building you wouldn't expect to see visible shattering.

I gave a number of reasons for this and gave an example of a high frame rate video of a missile, where the airframe and wings would shatter on impact but you don't see the shattering.

Now if you are the truth teller and I am the truth denier then you could respond to that point.

But you didn't. You just went back to saying that you couldn't see any visible shattering.

I didn't see the distant plane and none of your missile videos showed the impact from an angle similar to Hezarkhani's, so they didn't show anything either. I didn't say Hez's vidwo showed no visible 'imact'. I said the impact shows no visible crash physics. Unlike your videos, thwe 'impact of the 2nd plANe at WTC is clearly visible.What is not visible is any damage to the plane or the building. I'll try to post a pic if I can figure out how.s

beachnut 24th January 2020 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965866)
I didn't see the distant plane and none of your missile videos showed the impact from an angle similar to Hezarkhani's, so they didn't show anything either. I didn't say Hez's vidwo showed no visible 'imact'. I said the impact shows no visible crash physics. Unlike your videos, thwe 'impact of the 2nd plANe at WTC is clearly visible.What is not visible is any damage to the plane or the building. I'll try to post a pic if I can figure out how.s

Because you are not an aircraft crash investigator, and can't do physics.

A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You keep messing up physics and have no clue why you are wrong -

the thread is about video, one you can't prove is fake, and in your case the same boat as yankee451 - https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

You can't do physics, don't understand Radar, and ignore witnesses.

The topic about video, and now it is done because you and yankee451 can't prove they are fake. You never will, yet you will continue posting off topic tripe to support evidence free lies you can't explain.

Itchy Boy 24th January 2020 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12964912)
" So what is the best way to deal with conspiracy theorists, especially those who are not easily dissuaded? Researchers call it the million-dollar question. The first step is to avoid belittling them, Swami says. Diminishing deeply rooted beliefs may backfire, fueling propagators and their followers to shun mainstream explanations even more. “The problem with condemning conspiracy theories is that it plays into the conspiracy theorist’s mind,” he says. “It would entrench their beliefs.” "

https://time.com/5541411/conspiracy-...tic-terrorism/

SHAME

That's a crock of feces. The best way to deal with them is how Metabunk dealt with me a few years ago.
After a lot of back and forth, one of their people, with the intention of proving my assertion wrong, created and posted a diagram that unbeknownst to him at the time, not only supported, but proved my assertion. s(This was about a different event- not 9/11).

When they realized what they had done, his post and all related posts were deleted from the thread. Not only at Metabunk, but as far as I could tell, also deleted from the Waybackmachine.

It was a clear demonstration of what I've said - that you truth deniers can NEVER, under any circumstances concede that a CT is actually true or your reason for being evaporates. Nevertheless, in the end, the stinking liars declared the matter 'debunked'.

beachnut 24th January 2020 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965902)
That's a crock of feces. The best way to deal with them is how Metabunk dealt with me a few years ago.
After a lot of back and forth, one of their people, with the intention of proving my assertion wrong, created and posted a diagram that unbeknownst to him at the time, not only supported, but proved my assertion. s(This was about a different event- not 9/11).

When they realized what they had done, his post and all related posts were deleted from the thread. Not only at Metabunk, but as far as I could tell, also deleted from the Waybackmachine.

It was a clear demonstration of what I've said - that you truth deniers can NEVER, under any circumstances concede that a CT is actually true or your reason for being evaporates. Nevertheless, in the end, the stinking liars declared the matter 'debunked'.

You offer BS, no evidence, thus you can't debunk anything, you spread bunk.

Yes you posts are void of evidence, thus you can't post at Metabunk, all your junk is BS.

You got it backwards, you have to prove your claim, not the other way around. Like this topic, you can't prove any videos are fake, and never will - you don't have evidence.

All your claims are bunk.

Axxman300 24th January 2020 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965774)
Controlling the opposition since 1947.

They wish.

Axxman300 24th January 2020 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965771)
A 767 that spreads its mass and momentum over a wide area, is like a bullet, or a water jet, which focus their mass and energy on as tiny a point as possible to achieve maximum penetration, how, exactly? I mean, you must think you understand it, so please explain it.

I think people missed this one.

yankee451 24th January 2020 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12965917)
I think people missed this one.

I'm sure they're trying to.

How about the protruding sides of the columns. Wouldn't you say the mass and momentum of the wing was focused on a small point of impact when the rounded edge of the wing struck the sharp, laterally braced protruding steel sides of the columns, as it allegedly impacted them sequentially, one sharp side at a time?

yankee451 24th January 2020 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12965913)
They wish.

That only happens in the movies, huh?

yankee451 24th January 2020 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12965825)
For a strait on Impact yes not for a glancing angled Blow.
In a glancing angled Blow the wing would not penitrate, because the structure would cause the wing joint to be destroyed and the wing to hinge in toward the Fuselage.
Everything will have an equal and opposite reaction.

Yes, and according to you, despite the fact that one jet struck head-on, and the other one "dragged" the steel to the side, both towers show nearly identical damage in the same place, the left wing tip.

The physical evidence shows something small and not very dense struck the first columns to the left, but as it traveled to the right (equal and opposite!!!!), it became much more dense and much more massive, sharply bending steel columns in a completely different direction than the television jets were allegedly traveling. Either you don't understand equal and opposite reactions, or you are maintaining the jet wings that couldn't even slice all the aluminum sheeting, also changed direction.

The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965933)
Yes, and according to you, despite the fact that one jet struck head-on, and the other one "dragged" the steel to the side, both towers show nearly identical damage in the same place, the left wing tip.

The physical evidence shows something small and not very dense struck the first columns to the left, but as it traveled to the right (equal and opposite!!!!), it became much more dense and much more massive, sharply bending steel columns in a completely different direction than the television jets were allegedly traveling. Either you don't understand equal and opposite reactions, or you are maintaining the jet wings that couldn't even slice all the aluminum sheeting, also changed direction.

The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable.

It takes very little energy to been that steel your first mistake is not realizing that.

MattNelson 24th January 2020 08:06 PM

"How they Faked the Videos"

Still waiting. 63 collected here.

How did they fake the NBC Chopper4 live shot? Video production expert Ace Baker said it could not have been done. You are not a video production expert, so you cannot answer.

How did Robert Cumins fake his 2 Fuji film negatives of the plane he shot from 14 miles away? I have 50 photos of the 2nd plane. You can't answer this question.

How did the smoking hot plane engine smash into the building at 50 Murray St. and drop parts (all matching a Boeing 767) along its trajectory, including atop 5 WTC, Vesey St., and the Federal Building? Plane parts PDF here (49 MB, 86 pages). You have no answers to these questions.

TJM 24th January 2020 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965377)
Many witnesses reported hearing no sound.

Name them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965377)
I lived under a flight path for Pearson International Airport(Toronto) and was amazed on several occasions to hear surprisingly little sound from low flying jets. So the 'sound' argument is a weak one.

Really. I live near SFO departures and hear planes roaring overhead frequently. So frequently that I can usually tell by the sound of the engines what type of plane it is - CRJ, 7-4, 767/757, Airbus types - Airbus seems quieter than Boeings.

So you're making **** up again. No worries, making **** up is no-planer 101. It's expected of you.

Crazy Chainsaw 24th January 2020 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965933)
Yes, and according to you, despite the fact that one jet struck head-on, and the other one "dragged" the steel to the side, both towers show nearly identical damage in the same place, the left wing tip.

The physical evidence shows something small and not very dense struck the first columns to the left, but as it traveled to the right (equal and opposite!!!!), it became much more dense and much more massive, sharply bending steel columns in a completely different direction than the television jets were allegedly traveling. Either you don't understand equal and opposite reactions, or you are maintaining the jet wings that couldn't even slice all the aluminum sheeting, also changed direction.

The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable.

I understand that equal and opposite doesn't have to Apply to your theory the way you want it too because you want your theory to be true.
I have no Axe to grind so I look at the evidence as is not how I wanted to to view it.

Itchy Boy 24th January 2020 08:15 PM

from Hezarkhnai here the right wing has penetrated. No damage visible.How does the wing penetrate the wall without making a hole?

http://treshombres.ca/911/Plane2.png

beachnut 24th January 2020 08:19 PM

unable to prove videos are fake, a gish gallop of failed claims continues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965927)
I'm sure they're trying to.

How about the protruding sides of the columns. Wouldn't you say the mass and momentum of the wing was focused on a small point of impact when the rounded edge of the wing struck the sharp, laterally braced protruding steel sides of the columns, as it allegedly impacted them sequentially, one sharp side at a time?

You don't know the topic?
A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

You failed, the thread failed when you posted your analysis

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965928)
That only happens in the movies, huh?

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be
Your movie with a movie used to support your failed analysis

I like that movie, you like fiction, and lies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965933)
Yes, and according to you, despite the fact that one jet struck head-on, and the other one "dragged" the steel to the side, both towers show nearly identical damage in the same place, the left wing tip.

The physical evidence shows something small and not very dense struck the first columns to the left, but as it traveled to the right (equal and opposite!!!!), it became much more dense and much more massive, sharply bending steel columns in a completely different direction than the television jets were allegedly traveling. Either you don't understand equal and opposite reactions, or you are maintaining the jet wings that couldn't even slice all the aluminum sheeting, also changed direction.

The cognitive dissonance must be unbearable.

Projection again.

The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
You failed to prove it wrong. Thread is complete save your gish gallop of lies

beachnut 24th January 2020 08:21 PM

Failed again to produce evidence of fake video? What now
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965953)
from Hezarkhnai here's the plane half way into the building. No damage visible.

http://treshombres.ca/911/Plane1.png

Why are you 9/11 truth false claimers so darn bad at photos and video

resize the photo, or remove it please.

BTW, add halfway to things you can't do

This why you get booted from metabunk, you offer no evidence, just bunk

You failed to prove the video fake again.

You have no clue what halfway is.
Plus you can't do photo interpretation and have no clue your photo is not valid, there were not that many pixels, you messed up and have no clue what you are doing - why your posts at metabunk were bunk.

https://i.imgflip.com/3n5gzs.jpg

My meme is higher resolution than yours, and you don't know why.

Itchy Boy 24th January 2020 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12965959)
Why are you 9/11 truth false claimers so darn bad at photos and video

resize the photo, or remove it please.

BTW, add halfway to things you can't do

This why you get booted from metabunk, you offer no evidence, just bunk

You failed to prove the video fake again.

How's the size noq? Still rtoo big? I'll resize again if needed. Why don't you chastise me for typos too, when it's all you've got?

I didn't get booted from metabunk. They simply deleted the posts where THEY proved my assertion and were unable to refute my evidence. Dishonest of them, wouldn't you say?

TJM 24th January 2020 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965953)
from Hezarkhnai here the right wing has penetrated. No damage visible.How does the wing penetrate the wall without making a hole?

http://treshombres.ca/911/Plane2.png

A low-resulotion compressed 240p screen grab from a freakin youtube constitutes evidence in your mind?

Little wonder your confusion.

yankee451 24th January 2020 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12965943)
"How they Faked the Videos"

Still waiting. 63 collected here.

How did they fake the NBC Chopper4 live shot? Video production expert Ace Baker said it could not have been done. You are not a video production expert, so you cannot answer.

How did Robert Cumins fake his 2 Fuji film negatives of the plane he shot from 14 miles away? I have 50 photos of the 2nd plane. You can't answer this question.

How did the smoking hot plane engine smash into the building at 50 Murray St. and drop parts (all matching a Boeing 767) along its trajectory, including atop 5 WTC, Vesey St., and the Federal Building? Plane parts PDF here (49 MB, 86 pages). You have no answers to these questions.

Actually it has been answered a number of times in the last 1600 posts.

And it is in the OP.

beachnut 24th January 2020 08:48 PM

how did you get more pixels than the real video?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965971)
How's the size noq? Still rtoo big? I'll resize again if needed. Why don't you chastise me for typos too, when it's all you've got?

I didn't get booted from metabunk. They simply deleted the posts where THEY proved my assertion and were unable to refute my evidence. Dishonest of them, wouldn't you say?

I did not say you were booted, your posts were not up to evidence standards, aka BS, and bunk - go ahead post this claptrap, it is bunk, and you don't know why.

https://i.imgflip.com/3n5i10.jpg

Why is your photo so low resolution?

You don't understand your photo is not that big in the first place, but you sized it too big, and the page goes off the side. Your photo is bad, like your claims.

Why would you expect to see anything from this far away.
https://i.imgflip.com/3n5i10.jpg
That is all the pixels there are.

How can a low speed video show damage that is happening in microseconds. Do you know anything about video? No

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI
you failed to prove any videos are fake, and never will

yankee451 24th January 2020 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12965972)
A low-resulotion compressed 240p screen grab from a freakin youtube constitutes evidence in your mind?

Little wonder your confusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
from Hezarkhnai here the right wing has penetrated. No damage visible.How does the wing penetrate the wall without making a hole?

http://treshombres.ca/911/Plane2.png
A low-resulotion compressed 240p screen grab from a freakin youtube constitutes evidence in your mind?

Little wonder your confusion.
The self healing walls are a telltale sign of a mask layer.

The CGI plane was layered over footage of the undamaged tower and both were hung like a curtain in front of the "actual" footage of the missile impacts. The CGI jet melted into the undamaged tower layer, which explains the self-healing wall, because it was just another layer masking the real footage. After the missiles cut the hole in the real tower, the mask layers were removed to reveal the shock and awe fireball erupting through the hole.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 AM.

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