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)

yankee451 12th January 2020 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12951613)
Back at you, yankee451. Try reading past the word 'operative' in my post, and try answering my actual question, rather than posting this irrelevant rant.


None of that has anything to do with my question.

This question?

Quote:

However, in my layman's view, surely, if the building had been hit by a swarm of missiles that exploded inside it, the damaged walls would be bent outwards, not inwards?
Scroll up. It has been answered numerous times, and linked to even more. This is what I meant by, "You aren't paying attention."

Crazy Chainsaw 12th January 2020 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951616)
So now you're thinking it was the temperatures of the impacting bodies that was responsible for the shrinking of the wing tip to about the size of a cruise missile wing, and the change of direction and sudden increase in size, mass and density of the wing?

No all that is caused by the way the wing is joined to the main Bulkhead, to allow it more Flexibility than the main air frame. The temperature though on impact would make the steel more deformable. So that a folding wing would drag along and deform the Coulmns.
Just Like in Roosd Collapse of the Twin Towers the structure, the way the Connections act determined the event.

Crazy Chainsaw 12th January 2020 10:57 AM

I will ask you just one Question if the impact creates a hinge Joing on the main Bulkhead where the wings attach, would that lessen the inpact observed, and what would be the resulting damage pattern?

Axxman300 12th January 2020 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12951352)
I will freely admit to being neither an engineer, nor a military operative.
However, in my layman's view, surely, if the building had been hit by a swarm of missiles that exploded inside it, the damaged walls would be bent outwards, not inwards?

My man, they (multiple 1000lb warheads) would have snapped the building in half. That's the short and obvious answer to why the idea of missiles is dumb.

Axxman300 12th January 2020 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12951428)
For the regulars still arguing with the OP, I’ll just borrow the words of a poster who assessed the FatFreddy88/DavidC/rocky Apollo “hoax” threads thusly:

“I think you guys spend too much time fighting with mental patients.“

Low hanging fruit has its appeal.

yankee451 12th January 2020 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12951639)
I will ask you just one Question if the impact creates a hinge Joing on the main Bulkhead where the wings attach, would that lessen the inpact observed, and what would be the resulting damage pattern?

What about frogs? Have you considered that?

turingtest 12th January 2020 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12951205)
No, but it does take someone who can evaluate the physics. (Or, someone observing the results of the actual event.)

What density was sufficient to have sharply bent 1/2 thick (sic) steep plate to the side? What density did the impacting portions of the plane have? Which number is greater? You are fallaciously offering an Unevaluated Inequality as evidence of something.




More Unevaluated Inequalities. It does take someone who can evaluate the physics. (Or, someone observing the results of the actual event.)




I guess that's why after Pearl Harbor, FDR stayed up all night doing finite element analysis to figure out whether 62 pounds of high explosive could penetrate steel battleship armor, before declaring war on Japan.

Or did he not do that? And if not, why not? Could it be that some "authorities" already know the answers to such questions?




What would change in the world if no planers were proved wrong?




You have not only failed to provide any impact evidence, you have denied any possibility for impact evidence even existing, since you claim no relevant calculations for evaluating your Unevaluated Inequalities have been done by anyone. There's no use discussing what evidence that doesn't exist would indicate if it did exist. Get calculating.





My assessment is that the bent and broken aluminum sheeting, and all other features of the photographs of the damage you have exhibited, are completely consistent with the scenario of impact with a near fully fueled passenger airliner at cruising speed. Some features appear counterintuitive but they're actually familiar phenomena in ballistic-velocity collisions. Parts of the impactor deforming so as to flow through a narrower breach is one example.

You can dismiss this assessment, of course. I've done no calculations. But neither have you, so I can and do dismiss yours. Why shouldn't I?




Did the thousands of gallons of real liquid hydrocarbon fuel that created the real fireball also come from a video layer? If not, then where do you think they came from?

Math, pffft...you are forgetting the algebraic assimilation of the evidence that occurs before the math.

BStrong 12th January 2020 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951529)
You aren't paying attention.

Claptrap snipped.

Let me take this opportunity to make an observation and throw some actual evidence into the mix - not that you'll do any better addressing it than you did with the non-answer I snipped.

Other than a throw-away comment about cops and firemen being paid to plant evidence, you (as well as every-other 9/11 truth nutter) have simply referred to the human beings that are required to participate in your fantasy construct as "they."

When one believes the John Wick series of movies are documentaries and there's a criminal mastermind around every corner it's easy to come to the "they" conclusion as the catch all for their little evil deed fantasies.

Reality is considerably different. There is a name for average folks that believe they can purchase murder on any corner - Defendant:

https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/lo...fa936b3ca.html

A Rapid City man who was convicted for seeking help to murder his late wife's doctor has been sentenced to prison.

William Thoman, 63, was sentenced Friday by Judge Jeff Connolly to 15 years in prison with 10 years suspended and nearly a year of credit for time served, said defense lawyer Ellery Grey.


This one hits a little close to home. One defendant, who was convicted, was a friends father:

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-liu-8

In June 1992, appellant met with Hiroshi Hirashima, an old friend and business partner. Appellant told Hirashima that Wei had cheated him out of $80,000. Appellant asked Hirashima if he knew anyone who could help him get his money back. Assuming that appellant wanted someone to "rough up" Wei, Hirashima told appellant that he might know of someone who could do that. After his meeting with appellant, Hirashima approached Frank Amo, who at that time was living with Hirashima's daughter Donna at Hirashima's house. Amo had previously collected money for Hirashima. Hirashima told Amo that he had a possible new collection job for him. Amo agreed to meet appellant.

Appellant took Amo and Hirashima out for dinner and told them that Wei had "ripped [him] off" and cheated him out of "millions" in the gambling business. Appellant wanted Amo to kidnap Wei, his wife and "possibly his children," extort them, and then kill them. It appeared to Amo that Hirashima already knew of the plan, and was participating with appellant in presenting it to Amo. Both appellant and Hirashima suggested that "it would be best if a White guy did the job" in order to divert attention from themselves. Hirashima said that he would have to "put . . . away" or kill anyone who learned about the plan. Amo was shocked and frightened. He agreed to help appellant and Hirashima because he "didn't want to end up dead on the beach at that point." They agreed to meet again to discuss details of the plan.


The tough talking boyfriend of his daughter went right to the feds after he got his 10K. My friend explained his father's behavior as being "in his head, he was a gangster." Unfortunately for him, but fortunately for the intended victims, he was not. Liu beat the rap, Hirashima ended up in Folsom.

I can go on and on. Google "convicted of solicitation to commit murder." if you need further evidence.

I can already hear the great conspiracy investigator's complaint - "those are common criminals not GOV.FED.CORP.CONTRACTOR.PMC trained killers!

We've got some actual evidence from that side of the street to look at as well.

The My Lai massacre is well known and well documented, but what isn't generally known is that an Army Warrant officer landed his helicopter in between the troops involved and victims to put a stop to the killing, and several enlisted and noin-coms either refused to participate or tried to stop the murders. They also acted as witnesses and reported what they saw, The Army dragged it's feet and tried and hoped it would go away - it didn't - and whether one agrees with the judicial outcome or not the truth was known about the incident.

Far less well known is this - The Tiger Force recon platoon in the 101st ABN.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Force

Tiger Force was the name of a long-range reconnaissance patrol unit[1] of the 1st Battalion (Airborne), 327th Infantry, 1st Brigade (Separate), 101st Airborne Division, which fought in the Vietnam War from May to November 1967.[2] The unit gained notoriety after investigations during the course of the war and decades afterwards revealed extensive war crimes against civilians, which numbered into the hundreds.[3]...

Sallah found that between 1971 and 1975, the Army's Criminal Investigation Command had investigated the Tiger Force unit for alleged war crimes committed between May and November 1967.[8] The documents included sworn statements from many Tiger Force veterans, which detailed war crimes allegedly committed by Tiger Force members during the Song Ve Valley and Operation Wheeler military campaigns. The statements, from both individuals who allegedly participated in the war crimes and those that did not, described war crimes such as the following:


the routine torture and execution of prisoners[9]

the routine practice of intentionally killing unarmed Vietnamese villagers including men, women, children, and elderly people[10]

the routine practice of cutting off and collecting the ears of victims[11]

the practice of wearing necklaces composed of human ears[12]

the practice of cutting off and collecting the scalps of victims[13]

incidents where soldiers would plant weapons on murdered Vietnamese villagers[14]

an incident where a young mother was drugged, raped, and then executed[15]

an incident where a soldier killed a baby and cut off his or her head after the baby's mother was killed[16]


The investigators concluded that many of the war crimes indeed took place.[17] This included the murder of former-ARVN personnel, the murder of two blind brothers, the crippled and old and the routine murder of women and children.[3] Despite this, the Army decided not to pursue any prosecutions.[18]...

After studying the documents, Sallah and fellow reporter, Mitch Weiss, located and interviewed dozens of veterans who served in Tiger Force during the period in question as well as the CID investigators who later carried out the Army's inquiry. The reporters also traveled to Vietnam and tracked down numerous residents of Song Ve Valley who identified themselves as witnesses. Sallah and Weiss reported that the war crimes were corroborated by both veterans[20] and Song Ve Valley residents.[21] The reporters also managed to track down dozens of additional investigative records not included in the National Archives.

There's more to read for interested parties, but the facts are that in this case, the criminal acts committed took place over a specific period of time and while the acts were encouraged by lower level officers and NCO's and the Army didn't start a serious inquiry until 4 years after the crimes were committed individual service members in that unit had reported the crimes to the CoC at the time - some people turned a blind eye to those reorts but the EM's and non-coms didn't.

Another example from Vietnam, Robert Rheault:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rheault

Robert Bradley Rheault /roʊ/ (October 31, 1925 – October 16, 2013) was an American colonel in the U.S. Army Special Forces who served as commander of the First Special Forces Group in Okinawa, and the Fifth Special Forces Group in Vietnam from May to July 1969.

Rheault was best known for his role as a co-conspirator and commander of the unit responsible for the 20 June 1969 execution of South Vietnam double agent Thai Khac Chuyen, who compromised intelligence agents involved in Project GAMMA operating in Vietnam and Cambodia.[1]


...

All U.S. Army Special Forces in 1969 operated under the control of 5th Special Forces Group, headquartered at Nha Trang on the southeast coast of South Vietnam. There was a close relationship with the CIA that complicated the chain of command and philosophy of rules of engagement.[6]

Colonel Rheault took command of the 5th in May 1969 and his unit was charged with seeking out leaks in a CIA-directed espionage ring as part of Project GAMMA. Rheault, along with six of his Special Forces officers and a sergeant were arrested by the U.S. military under the orders of General Creighton Abrams and threatened with charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder, arising from the alleged extrajudicial killing of Thai Khac Chuyen, a Vietnamese double agent for the Americans and the North Vietnamese.[1][7]

The investigation and court-martial, held by the U.S. Army in Vietnam, rapidly became engulfed in a firestorm of media publicity. Most of the American public and the Special Forces believed that Colonel Rheault and all involved had been made scapegoats for a matter that reflected poorly upon the Army.[8] The view that there was no wrongdoing by the soldiers was probably best stated by Rheault's 11-year-old son, Robert, Jr. who upon learning of his father's arrest said, "What is all the fuss about? I thought that was what dad was in Vietnam for ... to kill Viet Cong".[3
]


My point here with this case is that contrary to the popular fiction version of reality where "they" can get away with anything everywhere from a single murder in Dallas to 9/11, the commanding officer of the 5th Special Forces Group can't get away clean with killing an enemy operative in the middle of a war, in the war zone.

That's reality.

I can hear more complaints from folks with an MCU worldview - "That's old, that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now!"

Unfortunately for that rooting section, we've got recent examples. I bet mosr CTists are aware of part of this story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisour_Square_massacre


The Nisour Square Massacre occurred on September 16, 2007 where employees of Blackwater Security Consulting (now Academi), a private military company contracted by the US government to provide security services in Iraq, shot at Iraqi civilians, killing 17 and injuring 20 in Nisour Square, Baghdad, while escorting a U.S. embassy convoy.[1][2][3] The killings outraged Iraqis and strained relations between Iraq and the United States.[4] In 2014, four Blackwater employees were tried[5] and convicted in U.S. federal court; one of murder, and the other three of manslaughter and firearms charges.[6]

The CTists are happy, "Now that's what we're talking about!"

Except this part of the story might not make them happy:

On September 27, 2007, the New York Times reported that during the chaotic incident at Nisour Square, one member of the Blackwater security team continued to fire on civilians, despite urgent cease-fire calls from colleagues. It is unclear whether the team-member mistook the civilians for insurgents. The incident was allegedly resolved only after another Blackwater contractor pointed his weapon at the man still firing and ordered him to stop.[33]

Ooops...

How about this favorites of our fearless leader and Fox news, Clint Lorance

Clint Allen Lorance[1] (born December 13, 1984) is a former Army officer previously commissioned as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army who in August 2013 was found guilty on two counts of second-degree murder for ordering soldiers in his platoon to open fire at three men on a motorcycle in southern Afghanistan in July 2012.[2] He was confined in the United States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas until he was fully pardoned and ordered released by President Donald Trump, on November 15, 2019.[3][4]

At his trial in August 2013, nine members of his platoon testified against him.[5] Lorance never testified in the court hearings, though he did take responsibility for his men's actions. Lorance claimed three men on a motorcycle were speeding towards the platoon and ignoring commands to stop. Reports from his Platoon members state the motorcycle was 200 yards away and could not have reached their position easily[5]

Guy was in-country 3 days. His EM's and NCO's new he was bad news on day 1. As soon as the murders went down multiple members of his platoon went right to the CoC and reported the incident and stood as witnesses against him. I'm proud of those kids. They absolutely did the right thing.

That's the reality that all this "they" ******** has to overcome. There is no vast pool of professional sociopaths and psychopaths just waiting for a call from the head office to murder innocents. There is no cadre of technical experts that fall into those categories that would wire an occupied civilian building with explosives and not realize what was going on, or conveniently forget what they had done after the building comes down.

What there is are a demographic of amateurs that believe belief in and promotion of conspiravy theories rasies their social standing.

They're wrong both ways.

yankee451 12th January 2020 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12951632)
No all that is caused by the way the wing is joined to the main Bulkhead, to allow it more Flexibility than the main air frame. The temperature though on impact would make the steel more deformable. So that a folding wing would drag along and deform the Coulmns.
Just Like in Roosd Collapse of the Twin Towers the structure, the way the Connections act determined the event.

Great story, which unfortunately is not at all reflected by any of the videos or photographs ins the public domain. It is also in conflict with the NIST, which described the interaction of the wing thus:

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

Furthermore, for the wing to have "dragged" the much more massive and much less brittle steel to the right, some part of the wing MUST have impacted the RIGHT edge of the column. The below image ought to be enough to dispel that notion.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...cladding-2.png

Robin 12th January 2020 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951529)
The agenda at sites like the Skeptics and JREF is obvious; to discourage an honest assessment of facts

You don't seem much interested in assessment of the facts when they are inconvenient to you.

Robin 12th January 2020 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951787)
Furthermore, for the wing to have "dragged" the much more massive and much less brittle steel to the right, some part of the wing MUST have impacted the RIGHT edge of the column.

All it would have taken is for the wing already to have impacted the columns.

Robin 12th January 2020 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951787)
Great story, which unfortunately is not at all reflected by any of the videos or photographs ins the public domain. It is also in conflict with the NIST, which described the interaction of the wing thus:

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

Furthermore, for the wing to have "dragged" the much more massive and much less brittle steel to the right, some part of the wing MUST have impacted the RIGHT edge of the column. The below image ought to be enough to dispel that notion.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...cladding-2.png

Incidentally - is the picture above the South Tower or North Tower?

Oystein 12th January 2020 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12951702)
My man, they (multiple 1000lb warheads) would have snapped the building in half. That's the short and obvious answer to why the idea of missiles is dumb.

But multiple (say, a dozen) 1000 lb warheads would not have enough momentum (mass times velocity) to make the towers sway the way they did. But one 260,000 lb plane (260 times a 1000 lb warhead) at 450+ mph would have.

And no, the explosions of such warheads would not have added any momentum, unless a significant proportion of the warheads got ejected the opposite way at hypersonic speeds. Which obviously didn't happen (or else no one in downtown Manhattan would have retained their ear drums).

yankee451 12th January 2020 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12951789)
You don't seem much interested in assessment of the facts when they are inconvenient to you.

As anyone can see who reads the thread, that is not true in the least.

yankee451 12th January 2020 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12951805)
All it would have taken is for the wing already to have impacted the columns.

So the wing some how managed to gouge out the steel column behind the cladding, but not the cladding that covered the steel. Check.

yankee451 12th January 2020 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12951814)
But multiple (say, a dozen) 1000 lb warheads would not have enough momentum (mass times velocity) to make the towers sway the way they did. But one 260,000 lb plane (260 times a 1000 lb warhead) at 450+ mph would have.

And no, the explosions of such warheads would not have added any momentum, unless a significant proportion of the warheads got ejected the opposite way at hypersonic speeds. Which obviously didn't happen (or else no one in downtown Manhattan would have retained their ear drums).

Argument from incredulity noted. Unfortunately the evidence supports my conclusion nicely, but not yours. Hence the need to ignore the evidence, while attacking the messenger. These are not the actions of an intellectually honest individual.

As explained before, since the authorities are the most likely suspects, why would you think they would report witness accounts of missile impacts?

BStrong 12th January 2020 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951829)
Argument from incredulity noted. Unfortunately the evidence supports my conclusion nicely, but not yours. Hence the need to ignore the evidence, while attacking the messenger. These are not the actions of an intellectually honest individual.

As explained before, since the authorities are the most likely suspects, why would you think they would report witness accounts of missile impacts?

Who are these authorities you assert carried out the attacks? Who did the grunt work? Your theory is like ****** science fiction writing. You forget that every story is ultimately about humans, not science.

Robin 12th January 2020 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951821)
So the wing some how managed to gouge out the steel column behind the cladding, but not the cladding that covered the steel. Check.

Where do you say that has happened?

Robin 12th January 2020 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951820)
As anyone can see who reads the thread, that is not true in the least.

It took about three or four posts to get you to admit the simple fact that the aircraft would be buckling and crumpling as soon as you hit. The first time I said that you said "You are making things up".

Why the need for that kind of dust kicking?

BStrong 12th January 2020 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12951862)
It took about three or four posts to get you to admit the simple fact that the aircraft would be buckling and crumpling as soon as you hit. The first time I said that you said "You are making things up".

Why the need for that kind of dust kicking?

When you have the law on your side, pound the law.

When you have the facts on your sider, pound the facts.

If you have nothing, pound on the table.

The poster must have a repetitive motion injury at this point.

Robin 12th January 2020 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951821)
So the wing some how managed to gouge out the steel column behind the cladding, but not the cladding that covered the steel. Check.

Again, please point out on the picture where you say that the column is bent to the right but the cladding is intact.

Elagabalus 12th January 2020 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951829)
Argument from incredulity noted. Unfortunately the evidence supports my conclusion nicely, but not yours. Hence the need to ignore the evidence, while attacking the messenger. These are not the actions of an intellectually honest individual.

As explained before, since the authorities are the most likely suspects, why would you think they would report witness accounts of missile impacts?

Your theory relies on the witness accounts of missile impacts of which there are none (witness accounts)?

turingtest 12th January 2020 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951829)
Argument from incredulity noted. Unfortunately the evidence supports my conclusion nicely, but not yours. Hence the need to ignore the evidence, while attacking the messenger. These are not the actions of an intellectually honest individual.

As explained before, since the authorities are the most likely suspects, why would you think they would report witness accounts of missile impacts?

OMG, the irony here...:rolleyes:

yankee451 12th January 2020 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest (Post 12951874)
OMG, the irony here...:rolleyes:

I can understand your confusion, however my incredulity of the official story is based on the evidence of the lateral impacts of small projectiles. Your incredulity is based on your steadfast belief that the teevee would never lie to you about matters of such grave importance. Unlike your incredulity about my hypothesis, my incredulity is based on the physical evidence, which doesn't change, despite your incredulity.

yankee451 12th January 2020 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12951862)
It took about three or four posts to get you to admit the simple fact that the aircraft would be buckling and crumpling as soon as you hit. The first time I said that you said "You are making things up".

Why the need for that kind of dust kicking?

Your paraphrasing skills are lacking. I said in a real crash yes, the plane would buckle, but that isn't what we're talking about here. This was not a real crash, which is why ZERO buckling and crumpling can be seen in any of the videos (unlike what one would expect to see in a real crash). Log that in.

Robin 12th January 2020 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951882)
Your paraphrasing skills are lacking. I said in a real crash yes, the plane would buckle, but that isn't what we're talking about here. This was not a real crash, which is why ZERO buckling and crumpling can be seen in any of the videos (unlike what one would expect to see in a real crash). Log that in.

Are you saying the damage is inconsistent with a real crash?

If so then we need to consider the damage in light of what would happen in a real crash. Why is that difficult to understand?

And if you know of any video that shows anything at all inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling as it impacts the building feel free to share.

I wasn't aware that there were any close up high-frame rate high resolution videos of this available.

yankee451 12th January 2020 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12951860)
Where do you say that has happened?

Notice the gouged steel behind the bent-out yet still standing cladding on fifth column from the left?
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...cladding-2.png

The cladding is bulged OUT, but still there, yet the the plane wing would have struck like this:

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

I'm sure you can see that the CLADDING would have been the FIRST part of the column for the plane wing to have gouged out, had the plane wing been responsible. The evidence fits my conclusion that this damage was caused by the lateral impact of missile warheads measuring around 12" wide, and weighing around 900 lbs.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

TJM 12th January 2020 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951882)
This was not a real crash, which is why ZERO buckling and crumpling can be seen in any of the videos (unlike what one would expect to see in a real crash). Log that in.

What other examples of great ******* airliners being deliberately flown into office buildings and exploding do we have to compare with?

How, he asks with no expectation of an answer, would you have expected AA 11 and UA 175 to behave in 500 and 600 MPH collisions?

Crazy Chainsaw 12th January 2020 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951787)
Great story, which unfortunately is not at all reflected by any of the videos or photographs ins the public domain. It is also in conflict with the NIST, which described the interaction of the wing thus:

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

Furthermore, for the wing to have "dragged" the much more massive and much less brittle steel to the right, some part of the wing MUST have impacted the RIGHT edge of the column. The below image ought to be enough to dispel that notion.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...cladding-2.png

I care how Nist described the wing impact Why?
Also the perimeter columns can not be said to be more massive.

If you do so you must caculate the total mass.
Brittleness is Irelevent it's tensile strength that counts as well as hardness and heat energy.

BStrong 12th January 2020 03:32 PM

Oh, the running of the goalposts, ignoring pertinent fats and the projection of inadequacy are strong in this one.

I particularly enjoy watching an internet investigator of conspiracies digging their hole to nowhere.

Robin 12th January 2020 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951900)
Notice the gouged steel behind the bent-out yet still standing cladding on fifth column from the left?
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...cladding-2.png

The cladding is bulged OUT, but still there, yet the the plane wing would have struck like this:

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

I'm sure you can see that the CLADDING would have been the FIRST part of the column for the plane wing to have gouged out, had the plane wing been responsible. The evidence fits my conclusion that this damage was caused by the lateral impact of missile warheads measuring around 12" wide, and weighing around 900 lbs.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

Again, explain why you think this photograph implies that the wing would have had to pass between the cladding and the columns. I don't see that at all.

Elagabalus 12th January 2020 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12951905)
What other examples of great ******* airliners being deliberately flown into office buildings and exploding do we have to compare with?

How, he asks with no expectation of an answer, would you have expected AA 11 and UA 175 to behave in 500 and 600 MPH collisions?

How about airplane wing vs. steel cable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavale...disaster_(1998)

Quote:

...flying at a speed of 540 miles per hour (870 km/h) and at an altitude of between 260 and 330 feet (80 and 100 m) in a narrow valley between the mountains... the aircraft's right wing struck the cables from underneath. The cable was severed causing the cabin from Cermis with twenty people on board to plunge over 80 metres (260 ft), leaving no survivors. The plane had wing and tail damage but was able to return to Aviano Air Base...

Blue Mountain 12th January 2020 04:14 PM

Yankee451,

If, as you contend, the WTC towers were not hit by aircraft, then what is your explanation for what happened to the 157 people aboard American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, and to the aircraft (N334AA and N612UA)?

The preponderance of evidence is the people died and the aircraft were destroyed when they impacted with the towers. If this is not the case, then what happened to the people and the aircraft? You can't simply handwave them away as if they never existed. They all did exist, at least up to September 11, 2001, and then they were no more.

This question is on-topic, because the topic is "How they faked the videos." We have one video of an aircraft impacting the north tower and multiple videos of an aircraft striking the south tower 17 minutes later. The videos and the missing aircraft (and the people aboard them) between provide good evidence that these aircraft hit the towers; ergo, there was nothing to fake.

Axxman300 12th January 2020 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12951814)
But multiple (say, a dozen) 1000 lb warheads would not have enough momentum (mass times velocity) to make the towers sway the way they did. But one 260,000 lb plane (260 times a 1000 lb warhead) at 450+ mph would have.

And no, the explosions of such warheads would not have added any momentum, unless a significant proportion of the warheads got ejected the opposite way at hypersonic speeds. Which obviously didn't happen (or else no one in downtown Manhattan would have retained their ear drums).

If you think about it, the choice of aircraft and launch points to guarantee fuel content was genius on the part of Al Qaeda (actual architects and engineers) to achieve the destruction of the Twin Towers. I argue that had the planes impacted on lower floors the buildings would have come down faster.

TJM 12th January 2020 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12951977)
I argue that had the planes impacted on lower floors the buildings would have come down faster.

As demonstrated by 175, which hit later and lower.

turingtest 12th January 2020 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951876)
I can understand your confusion, however my incredulity of the official story is based on the evidence of the lateral impacts of small projectiles. Your incredulity is based on your steadfast belief that the teevee would never lie to you about matters of such grave importance. Unlike your incredulity about my hypothesis, my incredulity is based on the physical evidence, which doesn't change, despite your incredulity.

Well, that explains your confusion- you don't understand the concept of "evidence," "hypothesis," or "incredulity." The fact is, your whole mountain is based on the molehill of your incredulity that an airplane could have damaged the building the way it did- your "evidence" is nothing more than your inability to grasp or accept what you're looking at in photographs. You literally do not have anything else. And every other thing you think is evidence for your "hypothesis" is something that follows from belief in it, rather than leads to it. This is the way creationists do science, among other failures in critical thought. In fact, it's the way we got into the Iraq war to begin with- our leaders believing what they needed to be true rather than what they could demonstrate to be. So- you got that going for you, a methodology that makes you about as truthful as Ken Ham or Dubya.

But you're good for a laugh- I predict this thread will go down in the same sort of dubious history as Christophera's "Realistice" thread, and for exactly the same reasons.

yankee451 12th January 2020 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12951958)
Again, explain why you think this photograph implies that the wing would have had to pass between the cladding and the columns. I don't see that at all.

Of course you do. The cladding is still there. However the steel behind the cladding has been gouged out. How is this possible, unless whatever gouged out the steel column (which was BEHIND the cladding), struck the column from the side?

The television jet's wing struck the FACE of the columns.:

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


But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

Do you need me to explain the construction of the towers again, so that you can understand what you're looking at, and how untenable your position is?

TJM 12th January 2020 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952037)

But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.


https://i.imgur.com/y7Ty8GT.jpg

Can't see how anything could possibly wind up getting pushed out.

:rolleyes:

Myriad 12th January 2020 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952037)
But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.


If it was pushed out, why does the photograph clearly show it pushed in?

yankee451 12th January 2020 06:33 PM

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WTC2_5th_column_from_left_center_
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12952049)
https://i.imgur.com/y7Ty8GT.jpg

Can't see how anything could possibly wind up getting pushed out.

:rolleyes:


Please explain how the column could be gouged, without also gouging the aluminum cladding that covered it.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...cladding-2.png

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

Robin 12th January 2020 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952037)
Of course you do. The cladding is still there. However the steel behind the cladding has been gouged out. How is this possible, unless whatever gouged out the steel column (which was BEHIND the cladding), struck the column from the side?

The television jet's wing struck the FACE of the columns.:

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


But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

Do you need me to explain the construction of the towers again, so that you can understand what you're looking at, and how untenable your position is?

The missile theory looks untenable from that picture.

The aircraft collision picture looks fine. Something large and heavy hit that cladding and then bounced off sideways.

You are assuming that the fact that it bulges out now means that it could not have been hit from the front.

Have you ever seen something with metal cladding being hit from the front?

And why does it look damaged on the outside.

You need to do much better than that.

TJM 12th January 2020 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952057)
Please explain how the column could be gouged, without also gouging the aluminum cladding that covered it.

The impact and subsequent explosion of a great ******* airliner flown into an office tower at 500 MPH.

As opposed to the entire thing being a cover up which everyone else is too stupid to see, aside from a handful of nutbags who believe there weren't any planes involved.

ETA: Why did you ignore this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952037)
But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.


If it was pushed out, why does the photograph clearly show it pushed in?


Robin 12th January 2020 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12951896)
And if you know of any video that shows anything at all inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling as it impacts the building feel free to share.

I wasn't aware that there were any close up high-frame rate high resolution videos of this available.

Oh, and don't forget this one.

yankee451 12th January 2020 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12952058)
The missile theory looks untenable from that picture.

The aircraft collision picture looks fine. Something large and heavy hit that cladding and then bounced off sideways.

You are assuming that the fact that it bulges out now means that it could not have been hit from the front.

Have you ever seen something with metal cladding being hit from the front?

And why does it look damaged on the outside.

You need to do much better than that.

I see. I am very interested in hearing your explanation about how you think the steel column behind the cladding, which is bulged out, could be so damaged by a wing striking perpendicular to the bulged out cladding.

Once again.

This cladding is not severed, even though the cladding that covered the columns to the left and right, are severed. This view is from the center-right. The column to the left of the circled and bulged-out cladding, has been gouged-out, but not severed completely:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png


This the same column, circled below, from a center-left perspective:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...e-1024x768.png

This is a closeup of the same column. Note the gouge behind the still standing cladding.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...cladding-2.png

So you're saying that a wing striking like this:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...Purdue-Gif.gif

...cut through the cladding of all but one column, but still managed to cut through the column behind the still-standing cladding?

yankee451 12th January 2020 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12952067)
The impact and subsequent explosion of a great ******* airliner flown into an office tower at 500 MPH.

As opposed to the entire thing being a cover up which everyone else is too stupid to see, aside from a handful of nutbags who believe there weren't any planes involved.

ETA: Why did you ignore this?


I missed it, and I am not required to respond to everyone. Fifth column from the left. The cladding is pushed out.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...leftwing02.png

yankee451 12th January 2020 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12952076)
Oh, and don't forget this one.

Are you now saying that the photographs are too difficult to see?

Robin 12th January 2020 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952087)
Are you now saying that the photographs are too difficult to see?

Phtograph? Your claim is that there is a video that is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling on impact.

Let's see it.

Robin 12th January 2020 07:27 PM

And can we confirm that the missile being suggested is the AGM-158, length 4.27 metres, body width 550 mm, wingspan 2.5 metres, claimed accuracy 3 metres CEP?

yankee451 12th January 2020 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12952093)
Phtograph? Your claim is that there is a video that is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling on impact.

Let's see it.

LOL!!!

You guys kill me. It's not a crime to admit you're wrong.

yankee451 12th January 2020 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12952094)
And can we confirm that the missile being suggested is the AGM-158, length 4.27 metres, body width 550 mm, wingspan 2.5 metres, claimed accuracy 3 metres CEP?

AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades.

The smaller AGM-158 looks like a plane and in 2001 no one had ever seen one before, but if someone had seen one it could easily have been mistaken for a small, white plane. JASSMs were being produced for testing and for the Pilot Production models in 2001, but they were not in the military’s inventory at the time. Official production didn’t begin until December of 2001, giving the authorities plausible deniability, but JASSMs used off-the-shelf technology from other tried and true missile systems so there is no question the technology was there. They look like planes, they are stealthy, they can fly in formation, and with planted targeting beacons, their margin of error would be next to zero. If the hole wasn’t cut by cruise missiles such as the JASSM, it was something very similar.

The best way to hit parallel columns would be from the side, otherwise if you targeted them perpendicularly, you’d at best hit one column and possibly pass between two columns, so any competent missile jockey would have targeted them from the side, and that’s what the damage indicates.

At a shallow oblique trajectory, it would be the wing of the missile that impacted first, which is why the cladding at the far left is only scored and pinched, but not severely damaged like the columns were further to the right.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:37 AM.

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