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)

StillSleepy 5th February 2020 04:32 PM

What makes you think she saw missiles?

Axxman300 5th February 2020 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12979458)
Well, It would have been a federal installation. Could have gotten the radars and launcher system from Hayward, and a quick call down to Barstow for the ordnance. But, yes, that would have worked too. I do remember stories back in the day they put quad 50 cals on the HPIR, but I think the recoil would have compromised targeting effectiveness over time.

Time line would have worked, since it was being deprecated at the time of need. As we were switching to a Stinger platform. More missiles!
But a cannon system would be better for building protection. Missiles, while cool, are really for range. Also, as a missile trained AA guy I'd go with what I know. I'm fairly certain that I'd have to replace every window for a number of floors if they gave me my missile of choice (HAWK). It breaks the sound barrier in a hurry.

My point is that I've actual experience with missiles and am kinda familiar with how they work and how they could work. The notion that a missile would sideswipe a building is so ludicrous to anyone who knows anything is all but self debunking. They just don't work that way. And making them to work that way would be a challenge. Could one still in the design / shake out phase do it? No way. It would have to be already a solid product to be altered to work out of spec. Since it's not working in spec, this is a problem.

Missiles are cool. I'm just budget conscious. I think you'd have better luck with missiles in Oakland anyway because they hit what they're aimed at.

Wowbagger 5th February 2020 04:49 PM

yankee451, please properly address the concerns I had back in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2321

I want to know more specifics as to why the document leaves out so many possible things that could go wrong with faking the planes.

You attempted to address the ones I came up with, individually, by merely assuming everyone is a sheeple, and would "do as their told", etc. This is not an answer I find satisfying, because a criminal master mind wouldn't be so stupid as to assume that.

By why can't the document you linked to address those points? It seems like whoever wrote it didn't think very deeply about what would be involved in faking plane crashes.

yankee451 5th February 2020 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wowbagger (Post 12979526)
yankee451, please properly address the concerns I had back in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2321

I want to know more specifics as to why the document leaves out so many possible things that could go wrong with faking the planes.

You attempted to address the ones I came up with, individually, by merely assuming everyone is a sheeple, and would "do as their told", etc. This is not an answer I find satisfying, because a criminal master mind wouldn't be so stupid as to assume that.

By why can't the document you linked to address those points? It seems like whoever wrote it didn't think very deeply about what would be involved in faking plane crashes.

I don't know, I didn't write it. Aside from witnesses reporting what really happened (missiles), what concerns do you have?

Wowbagger 5th February 2020 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12979533)
I don't know, I didn't write it. Aside from witnesses reporting what really happened (missiles), what concerns do you have?

The concerns I had were the ones I listed in the post. You did respond to the individual ones, but in a very generic "people will do what they're told" manner, which I doubt a real criminal mastermind would count on.

If the report doesn't cover all of those concerns, and possibly others, how are we supposed to trust it?

turingtest 5th February 2020 06:47 PM

People who were privy to the truth won't come forward because

1) they're too dumb to know what they should know;
2) they're robots who are incapable of doing anything but following orders;
3) they're afraid to go against the crowd, are afraid of the ridicule, and know they won't be believed.

And yet...none of these thing apply to Our Hero, yankee- he can't be fooled, won't follow orders, and is brave enough to dare the ridicule. The very idea that anyone else might be just as smart or brave would ruin the plot, which is, really, nothing more than the usual CT fantasy which has them at its heroic center.

There's a certain vein of preening self-righteousness that runs deep within the CT psyche- with some CTists, it runs a little closer to the surface.

bknight 5th February 2020 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12979533)
I don't know, I didn't write it. Aside from witnesses reporting what really happened (missiles), what concerns do you have?

What about those that saw and reported an airplane?

beachnut 5th February 2020 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12979533)
I don't know, I didn't write it. Aside from witnesses reporting what really happened (missiles), what concerns do you have?

Oops, evidence for witnesses reporting missiles is simile.

yankee451 5th February 2020 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wowbagger (Post 12979571)
The concerns I had were the ones I listed in the post. You did respond to the individual ones, but in a very generic "people will do what they're told" manner, which I doubt a real criminal mastermind would count on.

If the report doesn't cover all of those concerns, and possibly others, how are we supposed to trust it?

It's unfortunate you didn't like my answers. How does that change the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles?

yankee451 5th February 2020 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest (Post 12979648)
People who were privy to the truth won't come forward because

1) they're too dumb to know what they should know;
2) they're robots who are incapable of doing anything but following orders;
3) they're afraid to go against the crowd, are afraid of the ridicule, and know they won't be believed.

And yet...none of these thing apply to Our Hero, yankee- he can't be fooled, won't follow orders, and is brave enough to dare the ridicule. The very idea that anyone else might be just as smart or brave would ruin the plot, which is, really, nothing more than the usual CT fantasy which has them at its heroic center.

There's a certain vein of preening self-righteousness that runs deep within the CT psyche- with some CTists, it runs a little closer to the surface.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me who you would tell that would get the word out for ya!

yankee451 5th February 2020 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12979649)
What about those that saw and reported an airplane?

People saw and reported missiles. Small planes. Bombs. Big plane.

Not everyone can be right. The damage evidence supports missiles. But the television showed a large plane.

smartcooky 5th February 2020 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12979799)
People saw and reported missiles.

Name them!

TJM 5th February 2020 10:48 PM

Y'all gonna have to give Steve credit here; He's gone and found photographic "evidence" of something there's nothing to compare it to, so he can dig his heels in and say missile until the cows come home.

If one looks back at his previous attempts at posting blurry screen grabs as proof of the ebil cabal - The blast damage at the pentagon that turned out to be a ******* tree, Jimmy Grillo's broken nose, the problems he has with distance and scale with regard to jumpers from the towers, the "smoke machine" that turned out to be a burning piece of construction equipment which AA 77 hit at the pentagon - There's probably more but those come immediately to mind.

But this is a different strategy and he's getting good mileage from it.

Feed if you want, I'm through here.

ozeco41 6th February 2020 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12979830)
But this is a different strategy and he's getting good mileage from it.

Most trolls are getting easy bites these days - it has been a long time since we saw a serious truther claim worthy of debate.

And - starved for something serious to respond to - many debunkers who should know better feed the trolls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12979830)
Feed if you want, I'm through here.

Good move.

beachnut 6th February 2020 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozeco41 (Post 12979875)
... serious truther ...

Pretty much an oxymoron.

Robin 6th February 2020 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12979794)
It's unfortunate you didn't like my answers. How does that change the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles?

If you ever find any evidence of lateral impact of small projectiles, be sure to let us know.

Jack by the hedge 6th February 2020 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12979794)
It's unfortunate you didn't like my answers. How does that change the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles?

It helps by putting it in perspective. We can see that your version of events is an opinion based on considering one tiny aspect of the evidence with an inexpert eye. And we can see that, even though that version directly conflicts with every other thing we know about that day, and would have produced dramatically different evidence which was not found including witness reports of multiple missile fusillades, and it would have required the perpetrators to carry out tasks it would be impossible to conceal (planting aircraft parts) or impossible to do (suppressing every real photo or video or witness account of a fusillade of missiles) you handwave away the entire thing because you reckon some bent metal looks a bit fishy and you have a hare-brained alternative explanation.

You're like a hunter minutely examining a paw print with a magnifying glass and deciding that some details of the fur impression are unusual and it's probably not one print but five superimposed antelope prints, while the lion is standing right behind you and everyone else is running and yelling about the lion they saw. And heard. And photographed.

Jack by the hedge 6th February 2020 01:33 AM

Of course we should not discount the possibility that the Global Power Structure has genetically engineered antelopes which walk in each others footprints to produce an effect a bit like a lion's paw print. Or cunning cruise missiles which rake inch-perfect damage across the side of a building to make wing impressions the exact length of 767 wings. Or that yankee451 is wrong.

Cosmic Yak 6th February 2020 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12979533)
I don't know, I didn't write it. Aside from witnesses reporting what really happened (missiles), what concerns do you have?

You have already said that you don't believe those witnesses.

Cosmic Yak 6th February 2020 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12979191)
Every time Iraq fired a missile at one of the planes enforcing the No-Fly Zone they risked an invasion. People forget that. And they shot at our planes for ten years. Clinton could have used an incident to invade Iraq during his impeachment but he didn't. Early in 2001 George W Bush made noise about going after Saddam after an incident in the No-Fly Zone and his father dragged him to Camp David along with James Baker and some of Bush Sr.'s olf NSC to explain that invading Iraq was a stupid idea. That shut him up until fall of 2001 when W's NSC - a bunch of 911 Truthers - decided Iraq was ultimately, but secretly behind the attack in some way.

Bottom Line: 911 Truth kills.

So what we have, in yankee451's scenario, is the Global Power Structure firing missiles from its own military, against another military it owns, to drum up justification, which it repeatedly didn't use, for invading a country it already controls. When this failed, they concocted a huge and elaborate plot to fake a terrorist attack, using missiles they couldn't possibly conceal, and a cover story that could never be plausible, to drum up public support that they didn't need, to try again to invade a country they already controlled.

yankee451: Do you really believe this is the world we live in?

JSanderO 6th February 2020 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozeco41 (Post 12979875)
Most trolls are getting easy bites these days - it has been a long time since we saw a serious truther claim worthy of debate.

And - starved for something serious to respond to - many debunkers who should know better feed the trolls.


Good move.

There are discussions to be had... but those discussions need to stipulate to the evidence, observations and 'known/accepted" facts/science. This is too high a bar for most truthers and Steve has demonstrated this in spades.

pgimeno 6th February 2020 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12979068)
Not only do you have to generate thousands of dead people, who never existed before, and you can't use real pictures since someone would notice good ol' Bob, who you went to HS with now listed as a passenger or stock trader under an assumed name, and then hire multiple thousands of actors to fill the roles of husbands, wives, kids of Good ol' Bob and not have them recognized as the relatives of someone who is still alive.

Also, skilled enough actors to fake grief, but no so they haven't been in any production found in IMDB, and never will. Or a playbill anywhere near Broadway. And then pay them enough, or dupe them hard enough that they won't let out a peep, even anonymously on the internet.

Seems legit. Much easier than just killing a few random thousand people.

IIRC forum member DGM lost a coworker. Is DGM an actor?

pgimeno 6th February 2020 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12979794)
It's unfortunate you didn't like my answers. How does that change the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles?

Every time you're given a rational explanation for how the damage in your pictures could have been caused by planes, you just ignore it, even though you have admitted yourself that if the plane could do that, there was no need for missiles.

In other words, the very basis for your claims has been debunked and your only reaction is to plug your ears and keep parroting your nonsense.

No wonder you're not taken seriously. You're not serious yourself.

smartcooky 6th February 2020 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12979191)
Every time Iraq fired a missile at one of the planes enforcing the No-Fly Zone they risked an invasion. People forget that. And they shot at our planes for ten years. Clinton could have used an incident to invade Iraq during his impeachment but he didn't. Early in 2001 George W Bush made noise about going after Saddam after an incident in the No-Fly Zone and his father dragged him to Camp David along with James Baker and some of Bush Sr.'s olf NSC to explain that invading Iraq was a stupid idea. That shut him up until fall of 2001 when W's NSC - a bunch of 911 Truthers - decided Iraq was ultimately, but secretly behind the attack in some way.

Bottom Line: 911 Truth kills.


He didn't even need that much... all he needed was this irrefutable piece of evidence

Wowbagger 6th February 2020 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12979794)
It's unfortunate you didn't like my answers. How does that change the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles?

It looks like evidence of a very large projectile, to me.

You haven't come up with convincing evidence otherwise, yet.

bknight 6th February 2020 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12979799)
People saw and reported missiles. Small planes. Bombs. Big plane.

Not everyone can be right. The damage evidence supports missiles. But the television showed a large plane.

No you are wrong, the damage supports being hit with a large airplane.

Jack by the hedge 6th February 2020 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12979956)
IIRC forum member DGM lost a coworker. Is DGM an actor?

In the case of Operation Mincemeat, "The man who never was" British intelligence officers created a fictional identity for the body they would drop in the sea off Spain with a brief case of fake secret plans. Any German spy checking discreetly into the imaginary Major's background would have found the ticket stubs in his pocket were from a real show, the angry bank manager's letter was from a real bank manager etc.

Of course there was a limit to what a spy in enemy territory in wartime could do to research an officer of Marines, so the fiction did not run very deep. The bank manager and a purported family lawyer were persuaded to write realistic letters but could not have produced any corroborating evidence of a bank account or indeed of a family.

No such restrictions apply to journalists researching 9/11 victims. Anyone claiming the victims are all fake simply has to pick one at random and delve into their life. Who are their family? Employers? Friends? Colleagues? Doctor? Dentist? Lawyer? Who has their medical records? Where did they get their car repaired? Where did they go to school? Who were their classmates? Who were their teachers? Do any of those people say "I don't know who that is. Who are you talking about"?

You don't need to research 3000 people. You just need to choose one and pick at some trivial detail. The Global Power Structure's legions of henchmen had the task of creating 3000 flawless life stories, with an army of actors and sheaves of documentation for each one. You just have to go one tiny step beyond the level they faked to bring the whole edifice down.

Either a) nobody ever tried or b) it's a stupid claim.

It's b.

Leftus 6th February 2020 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12979799)
People saw and reported missiles. Small planes. Bombs. Big plane.

Not everyone can be right. The damage evidence supports missiles. But the television showed a large plane.

Some could argue that the evidence supports pterodactyls, or Mothra. It would only matter if such things could happen. Missiles don't work as you described. But since you know nothing about this, you continue to make bald assertions that they do.

The damage evidence supports a single strike by a single Boeing 767, one per tower. It's confirmed by all sorts of physical and visual evidence.

It wasn't Godzilla either. He doesn't work this side of the Atlantic. Can't get the correct Visa. Purpose of visit: destroy Manhattan. Denied!

Leftus 6th February 2020 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12979956)
IIRC forum member DGM lost a coworker. Is DGM an actor?

We don't use forum names at the annual Government Shill conventions. Also, sworn to secrecy and can't say. Already said too much!

Leftus 6th February 2020 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12979914)
Or cunning cruise missiles which rake inch-perfect damage across the side of a building to make wing impressions the exact length of 767 wings. Or that yankee451 is wrong.

To do that, you would need some sort of intelligence. Clearly this was the work of Rodan or Mothra or both since I've got 2 towers to cover. You could take Yankees entire theory, swap missile for either one of the two, and the core assertion remains untouched. That fuel air fireball? A portal back to their dimension.

Steve 6th February 2020 09:07 AM

A request, people. Could you please refrain from referring to yankee451 as "Steve"? I am Steve here and I find it quite annoying.

thanks, Steve

Jack by the hedge 6th February 2020 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12980241)
To do that, you would need some sort of intelligence. Clearly this was the work of Rodan or Mothra or both since I've got 2 towers to cover. You could take Yankees entire theory, swap missile for either one of the two, and the core assertion remains untouched. That fuel air fireball? A portal back to their dimension.

Doesn't one of them emit some kind of telepathic or hypnotic ray too? Maybe I misremember but that would be super useful in making witnesses forget what they really saw.

Hmm. This is a serious challenge to my fire breathing giant hypothesis.

Leftus 6th February 2020 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12980448)
Doesn't one of them emit some kind of telepathic or hypnotic ray too? Maybe I misremember but that would be super useful in making witnesses forget what they really saw.

Hmm. This is a serious challenge to my fire breathing giant hypothesis.

Not sure why that would matter, and it kinda misses the point. We can simply assert that Mothra has that ability, and therefor it does. Much like a sideswiping missile, we aren't bound to what actually exists, just make something up to fit our scenario.

Mycroft 6th February 2020 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12977993)
Where did he assume that?

I can't find that assumption anywhere in what he wrote.

Sorry, that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

BStrong 6th February 2020 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12976800)
Evidently the industry isnít as independent as you think it is. It was a military operation run from the top of the global power structure. Who would you blow the whistle to if you had a change of heart? These are people who own nations. They have armies and navies, unlimited resources and intelligence services. They all keep quiet about their nefarious activities, but letís say 9/11 was somehow different. Who would you turn to if you wanted to blow the whistle?

If anyone doubts my observation that Y451 is basing their theory on comic books and bad science fiction the above is proof positive.

Elagabalus 6th February 2020 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12980818)
If anyone doubts my observation that Y451 is basing their theory on comic books and bad science fiction the above is proof positive.

Global power structure (GPS). Fill in the dots, sheeple.

StillSleepy 6th February 2020 01:53 PM

Unlimited resources on a finite Earth, and nobody to blow the whistle to. Why is yankee making so much noise again? Is he supposed to be like the Kauaʻi ʻōʻō, singing for another that will never come? Or is he boasting of the discovery of a politically-flavored perpetual motion machine that is conveniently unable to be measured in any real capacity? Perhaps he is defiantly ranting against his pantheon of cold, uncaring god-kings? Or maybe he finds personal meaning and comfort in contrarianism towards cruel nature and her fundamental laws?
Rhetorical questions aside, as with many firmly held and discrete-from-reality conspiracy beliefs this seems to provide a somewhat philosophical window into the ways of religion.

carlitos 6th February 2020 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12979799)
People saw and reported missiles. Small planes. Bombs. Big plane.

Still forgetting about the trains, I see.


https://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

StillSleepy 6th February 2020 02:23 PM

And the automobiles.

There's a version with automobiles, right?

BStrong 6th February 2020 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12980855)
Global power structure (GPS). Fill in the dots, sheeple.

Conspiraspeak for "insert ******** here."


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:53 AM.

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