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)

Robin 12th January 2020 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952084)
So you're saying that a wing striking like this:

Um no. That is a badly done animation. I assume this is the thing you keep bringing up that you call the "Purdue Cartoon".

I don't know what your weird obsession with it is, but please try to forget it.

Again (and try to concentrate) if you claim it is inconsistent with an aircraft impact, we must be talking about what would happen to a real aircraft if it hit a sky scraper, not how a badly done animation would work.

yankee451 12th January 2020 07:37 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.


What don't you understand when I say that IF the videos of the 9/11 crashes were real, we would have seen some sign of plane buckling that you describe. It ought to have been there, but it was not. It did not slow down. Wings did not snap forward due to the sudden deceleration. It slid like butter into the tower.

If you think the videos do show the plane buckling due to the deceleration, please point it out.

Robin 12th January 2020 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952097)
AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades.

Can you give a link to the specification, the link I found has them at 24 inches diamater and 20 feet long. I don't this this can be what you mean.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-She...6bcd-missiles/

yankee451 12th January 2020 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12952103)
Um no. That is a badly done animation. I assume this is the thing you keep bringing up that you call the "Purdue Cartoon".

I don't know what your weird obsession with it is, but please try to forget it.

Again (and try to concentrate) if you claim it is inconsistent with an aircraft impact, we must be talking about what would happen to a real aircraft if it hit a sky scraper, not how a badly done animation would work.

It is an official scientific animation that represents what you apparently believe. The Purdue Cartoon is used to demonstrate how silly the official story is when compared to the physical damage evidence. If you don't like their cartoon, please consider then using the MIT models, or those from the NIST. The point, which ought to be abundantly evident by now, is that there is no way for the plane wing to gouge out the column without first gouging through the cladding that covered it. The fact that this is what happened though, is proof that it wasn't a plane wing that did it.

Planes are off the table. But the damage is consistent with the lateral impact of cruise missiles.

Robin 12th January 2020 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952106)
What don't you understand when I say that IF the videos of the 9/11 crashes were real, we would have seen some sign of plane buckling that you describe. It ought to have been there, but it was not. It did not slow down. Wings did not snap forward due to the sudden deceleration. It slid like butter into the tower.

If you think the videos do show the plane buckling due to the deceleration, please point it out.

You are claiming that the video evidence is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling upon impact, you show me this video evidence.

yankee451 12th January 2020 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12952109)
Can you give a link to the specification, the link I found has them at 24 inches diamater and 20 feet long. I don't this this can be what you mean.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-She...6bcd-missiles/

Hmm. Clutching at straws now. Sleep on it.

Robin 12th January 2020 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952114)
It is an official scientific animation that represents what you apparently believe.

I have never brought up that animation. I don't even know what or who "Purdue" is.

I have consistently said that the plane would begin to buckle and crumple upon impact.

So by what bizarre process of illogic did you use to come to the conclusion that an animation of a plane not buckling and crumpling as it impacts could possibly represent what I believe?

Robin 12th January 2020 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952116)
Hmm. Clutching at straws now. Sleep on it.

Again, by what bizarre process of illogic did you conclude that a request for you to confirm the model of the missile which you allege caused that damage is "clutching at straws"?

As I said before, can you please try to focus. Is this the missile you claim caused the damage or not?

yankee451 12th January 2020 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12952115)
You are claiming that the video evidence is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling upon impact, you show me this video evidence.

You lost me two pages ago.

Every video and photograph available to mankind shows there was no buckling and crumpling upon impact. You however, assume there was buckling and crumpling of the aircraft.

Good for you.

yankee451 12th January 2020 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12952119)
Again, by what bizarre process of illogic did you conclude that a request for you to confirm the model of the missile which you allege caused that damage is "clutching at straws"?

As I said before, can you please try to focus. Is this the missile you claim caused the damage or not?

You won't even admit the jet wing couldn't have possibly cut through the steel without first cutting through the cladding. I grow tired of your disingenuous antics.

Robin 12th January 2020 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952123)
You lost me two pages ago.



Every video and photograph available to mankind shows there was no buckling and crumpling upon impact. You however, assume there was buckling and crumpling of the aircraft.



Good for you.

So it shouldn't be difficult for you to give me an example.

Why can't you?

Axxman300 12th January 2020 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952106)
What don't you understand when I say that IF the videos of the 9/11 crashes were real, we would have seen some sign of plane buckling that you describe. It ought to have been there, but it was not. It did not slow down. Wings did not snap forward due to the sudden deceleration. It slid like butter into the tower.

https://media.giphy.com/media/MVgLEa...72Ne/giphy.gif


https://media.giphy.com/media/mFlAjnOvTSrIc/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/13fOmrLMOA2TzW/giphy.gif

One of these things is not like the other.

Robin 12th January 2020 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952126)
You won't even admit the jet wing couldn't have possibly cut through the steel without first cutting through the cladding. I grow tired of your disingenuous antics.

Has the column behind been cut through? I can't see that.

Elagabalus 12th January 2020 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952084)
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?


From a center-left perspective, you can clearly see that the cladding is severed. Nice try.

curious cat 12th January 2020 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952085)
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

As I said before, the whole event is so complex, we may never understand every single detail of it. There are too many variables some of them producing counterintuitive results. We would be able to explain them if we have all the data - what we don't. There are two important aspects you are systematically missing in your ranting about lateral bending of some parts of the building structure.

1) The wing fuel tanks were virtually full and at the moment foreign object became to penetrate inside them, a significant hydraulic effects started to take place. Study the details of the Concorde crash. The forces had to be enormous and we know pressure in fluids acts in all directions. Some of the bending towards the fuselage MAY be the result of this phenomenon.
2) The rotors of the engines were spinning at max revs (we can reasonably assume that) at the moment of impact and they had an enormous amount of rotational energy - which dissipated in an instant in directions perpendicular to the direction of flight. They were capable of causing enormous amount of damage and we know from precedents, pretty close to explosion of a bomb. Again, some of the damage impossible to attribute to the kinetic energy caused by mass moving forward MAY be result of the above.

So, as you see, you are missing stuff in your search for truth. You should concentrate on these instead of developing nonsensical hypothesis that belong more in the category of Sci-Fi than of real life events.

Robin 12th January 2020 10:33 PM

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

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...leftwing02.png
Same picture, I think.

Has the column under the bent out cladding been photoshopped out in the top image?

Robin 12th January 2020 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12952176)
From a center-left perspective, you can clearly see that the cladding is severed. Nice try.

Yes, it is clearly severed.

beachnut 12th January 2020 10:44 PM

Jet-Fuel fireball created by 60,000 pounds of Jet fuel make missile claim FAILED
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952097)
AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades. ...

Gee Whiz - the aircraft packed an impact equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, and was concentrated in the shape/mass of the aircraft! NOT a wasteful bast from a small warhead which was not see blowing up.

What created the jet-fuel fireball, a missile can't carry 60,000 pounds of jet fuel!

Big error, adding the insanity of missiles ruins your Anti-War message. The aircraft did the damage seen.

The best part of your fantasy, it is stuck forever in the conspiracy forum. What happen to your study? Why did you fail to prove the videos are fake, and eyewitnesses are paid government agents.

Too bad your missiles can't hold 66,000 pounds of jet fuel. Do you try to make your claims real, or trying to make them fantasy. What created the giant jet-fuel fireball? Duh

The wings are not going to fold forward, they are traveling the same speed as the aircraft, the first part of the jet is fiberglass nose, it is not going to slow down the aircraft much, then the radar, two seats, avionics, and the famous part of the "hollow aircraft. Why would the wings break off forward, the entire plane is going nearly 800 feet per second, the WTC shell can't stop it, parts are going to be ejected out the other side, it is physics, the stuff you don't use. The wings are part of the plane, not some weak part falling off. Yes, you toy plane hits the ground at 10 mph and the wings fall off, but take a look at the videos you claim are fake, that is what a plane going fast does - you have no useful knowledge of aircraft and physics.

Cosmic Yak 13th January 2020 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951619)
This question?



Scroll up. It has been answered numerous times, and linked to even more. This is what I meant by, "You aren't paying attention."

I did as you asked. I found repeated posts of a photo showing inward-bending damage, and none of outward buckling or damage, which is what I would expect if multiple missiles had exploded inside the building.
You still do not seem to have explained this apparent anomaly.
Care to try again?
By the way, how many missiles do you think were fired? I assume you have a fairly exact number.

Jack by the hedge 13th January 2020 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952095)
It's not a crime to admit you're wrong.

Shall we then consider that your much-circled piece of cladding is not still in place? You wish us to be dumbfounded that it is still there. Only true for certain values of "there".

The views from left and right suggest it's dangling between two columns and somewhat forward of the rest of the cladding. It's not at all clear how it's still attached to anything. The size of the piece hints that it came off the column to its left but maybe the column to its right (assuming that it is in fact a piece of cladding and not, say, the wing of one of those non-existent missiles). Is it perhaps dangling from one remaining point of connection to one side or the other?

At any rate, we can at least say that its location in those photos is not where it started out when the object that did the damage passed by. How it moved from its original position to its photographed position is just guesswork.

Jack by the hedge 13th January 2020 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952106)
What don't you understand when I say that IF the videos of the 9/11 crashes were real, we would have seen some sign of plane buckling that you describe. It ought to have been there, but it was not.

The air crash videos Axxman300 posted show planes travelling a lot slower than 500mph. Can you indicate what features of buckling or slowing down you detect in those videos?

Crazy Chainsaw 13th January 2020 07:32 AM

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?

Just where do you think the deicers were located on that air plane?
https://www.airspacemag.com/how-thin...icing-6660440/

Cosmic Yak 13th January 2020 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952123)
You lost me two pages ago.

Every video and photograph available to mankind shows there was no buckling and crumpling upon impact.

Just to be clear: these are the videos and photos you claim have been digitally altered, right?
Can you explain why, if there were missiles, the faked images and videos were altered to highlight this, rather than hide it?

heymatto70 13th January 2020 08:21 AM

Wouldn't, if they were missles, they have to be aimed "up" to hit where the first plane hit the WTC? There aren't a lot of spots in NYC where you could aim "down" to the 80th floor of the WTC. Wouldn't that look different from what we see in the video (where the plane is at least coming in perpendicular if not slightly tilted down)? I may be having a hard time visualizing it though (shocking, I know).

Leftus 13th January 2020 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950795)

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.

It does not look like a plane. It looks like a missile. It's 14 feet long and has a relatively small wing to body ratio. It's wingspan is roughly half it's length. A small aircraft, say a piper cub, is 24 feet long and 35 feet of wingspan. They look nothing alike. Nobody is confused by the two. And the body of a missile would not look big enough to carry a pilot. They would not be confused between a 14 foot long missile and a 200 foot long Boeing 767.

Nobody is going to confuse a piper cub and a 767. Nobody is going to confuse something much smaller for something much larger. While few people may have known what the AGM-158 looked like, including the people making it since it wasn't even flight tested until 2006, EVERYBODY knows what a 767 looks like.


Also, the general public had seen missiles. The Patriot missile system was all over the news just a few short years before. And various shots of the Tomahawks fired in the 1993 attack.

Jack by the hedge 13th January 2020 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950795)
... They look like planes

They look like cruise missiles. In 2001 people knew what cruise missiles looked like
Quote:

they are stealthy
So they don't sound like a 767's engines then.
Quote:

they can fly in formation
Invisible formation. So nobody saw.
Quote:

and with planted targeting beacons...
How many beacons do you infer were spread across a few tens of feet of the building? How did each missile discriminate it's own target designator from the others? Were they discreetly placed in the windows? In that case why did your missiles hit the columns? Presumably all of the missiles arrived at exactly the same instant otherwise their own beacon would have been destroyed by previous impacts. The sky must have got pretty crowded in the last part of the run in, don't you think? A technical tour de force and a spectacular sight, which nobody saw, despite the world's attention being on the towers after the first strike.

There is of course always a more parsimonious explanation, which is that you're wrong.

beachnut 13th January 2020 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952085)
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

How many missiles were used in your fantasy lie?


How did the fake the exact jet-fuel fireball you get from 66,000 pounds of jet fuel in the planes used on 9/11?

Why do you make up lies? Lies will not stop wars. Having congress remove funding for war stops war. You need to spend time lobbying congress, not making up lies in a CT debunking forum. We know your claims are false, and too easy to debunk. There are no missiles missing from the USAF - in your fantasy how many USAF people did it? Got any names for the giant fantasy conspiracy theories.

Robin 13th January 2020 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12952095)
LOL!!!



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

I will admit I am wrong when you show me the video instead of daft evasions like this.

So show me a video that is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling on impact.

Why is it so difficult for you to find it?

Robin 13th January 2020 01:29 PM

If Yankee451 could locate a video where the plane is not acting according to the laws of physics then he would prove his case in a moment.

I can't wait to see it.

Robin 13th January 2020 03:03 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.

Let's do a thought experiment. We have a length of square section steel and a sheet of aluminium, cut and bent so that it forms a snug sleeve around three sides of the full length of the steel.

We put it in a good strong vice with the uncovered side to the back and take a large heavy crowbar and take the strongest whack we can at the front face.

Would we have to sever the aluminium completely in order to do considerable damage on the steel bar inside?

No of course we wouldn't. Same thing applies to the column in question.

beachnut 13th January 2020 04:47 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. ...

This called a Gish Gallop, a failed attempt at you putting the burden of proving your absurd fantasy is false.

You keep asking questions which you can't answer. An aircraft hit the WTC, you deny the truth due to some Quixotic quest for world peace.

I wonder how trump got elected - after looking at the comments on your videos, I realize people are easy to fool and we are dirt dumb stupid sometimes. Not sure why you deny reality, but most who make up despicable theories about the thousand killed by 19 terrorists are doing it for the $$$, you seem to be proud to lie about 9/11 and never consider you might be wrong as you uncaringly mock the murder of thousands.

Don't bring up the wars, that is another top for politics, and I don't need you to make up lies to hate wars.

It is funny the comments on your youtube videos, you have now joined the modern yellow journalism, youtube videos of lies, misleading the clueless. Let us hope your videos don't incite some idiot to go ballistic and take action based on your lies to harm others.

After 19 years you could have earned a degree (a PhD!!!) in engineering and figured out the WTC design would stop a plane going 200 to 250 mph - but you refuse to learn about things related to science, playing the old "common sense" card of woo to make up one of the top ten dumbest claims about 9/11 - missiles is right up there with Judy's Beam Weapon insanity.

Robin 13th January 2020 06:56 PM

The only video I have found which shows an actual impact is the Evan Fairbanks video.

The time from first contact to the building until the entire plane has hit the building is about 5 hundredths of a second.

The time from when the front of the first engine contacts until both wings have entirely contacted is one hundredth of a second.

There is no time for the force of impact to have propogated to the rest of the aircraft in that time so we would not expect to see the wings fold forward or for the fuselage to have started buckling.

All crumpling, buckling and shredding will have happened exactly at the point of impact and nowhere else.

So the "airliner slicing through a building like butter" is an illusion due to the fact that forces cannot propagate back along the aircraft faster than it is flying into a building.

In fact it is not an aircraft slicing through that building, rather 120 tons of debris and aircraft fuel travelling at close to 800 kph.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-6.png?w=1024

TJM 13th January 2020 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12953313)
The only video I have found which shows an actual impact is the Evan Fairbanks video.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Robin 13th January 2020 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12953357)
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Thanks, hadn't seen that one.

So more like one sixth of a second.

curious cat 13th January 2020 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12953357)
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Looks like a number of missiles flying in close formation to me ;-).

Dave Rogers 14th January 2020 02:17 AM

Yesterday afternoon, while planting bulbs, my son pressed down a bit too hard on the steel bar sticking out of the side of the coring tool he was using to make holes for the bulbs. The 8mm steel bar promptly sheared off, snapping at the base. He was wearing imitation leather boots (he's a vegetarian) with no steel reinforcement. What I need to know is, are his feet harder than steel, or is it the plastic soles of his boots, and if it's the boots, how come he didn't break any toes? I think a more parsimonious explanation is that, as he pressed down on the tool, a cruise missile struck the bar at its base, shearing it off, but he and my wife failed to notice it because they weren't expecting anything like that to happen.

Or, y'know, maybe there's no absolute physical law saying that hard things can only be damaged by harder things. But that's just crazy talk.

Dave

bknight 14th January 2020 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12953357)
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Nope, absolutely no plane flew into WTC2 :rolleyes:

Crazy Chainsaw 14th January 2020 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12953557)
Yesterday afternoon, while planting bulbs, my son pressed down a bit too hard on the steel bar sticking out of the side of the coring tool he was using to make holes for the bulbs. The 8mm steel bar promptly sheared off, snapping at the base. He was wearing imitation leather boots (he's a vegetarian) with no steel reinforcement. What I need to know is, are his feet harder than steel, or is it the plastic soles of his boots, and if it's the boots, how come he didn't break any toes? I think a more parsimonious explanation is that, as he pressed down on the tool, a cruise missile struck the bar at its base, shearing it off, but he and my wife failed to notice it because they weren't expecting anything like that to happen.

Or, y'know, maybe there's no absolute physical law saying that hard things can only be damaged by harder things. But that's just crazy talk.

Dave

You got to watch those super secret Missles that no one ever sees they break stuff all the time.

carlitos 14th January 2020 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12953435)
Looks like a number of missiles flying in close formation to me ;-).

The sounds of the plane and everyone's shocked reactions are all part of a video filter.

gmanontario 14th January 2020 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12953557)
Yesterday afternoon, while planting bulbs, my son pressed down a bit too hard on the steel bar sticking out of the side of the coring tool he was using to make holes for the bulbs. The 8mm steel bar promptly sheared off, snapping at the base. He was wearing imitation leather boots (he's a vegetarian) with no steel reinforcement. What I need to know is, are his feet harder than steel, or is it the plastic soles of his boots, and if it's the boots, how come he didn't break any toes? I think a more parsimonious explanation is that, as he pressed down on the tool, a cruise missile struck the bar at its base, shearing it off, but he and my wife failed to notice it because they weren't expecting anything like that to happen.

Or, y'know, maybe there's no absolute physical law saying that hard things can only be damaged by harder things. But that's just crazy talk.

Dave

Did you check for thermite in the shaft?

TJM 14th January 2020 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12953557)
Yesterday afternoon, while planting bulbs, my son pressed down a bit too hard on the steel bar sticking out of the side of the coring tool he was using to make holes for the bulbs. The 8mm steel bar promptly sheared off, snapping at the base. He was wearing imitation leather boots (he's a vegetarian) with no steel reinforcement. What I need to know is, are his feet harder than steel, or is it the plastic soles of his boots, and if it's the boots, how come he didn't break any toes? I think a more parsimonious explanation is that, as he pressed down on the tool, a cruise missile struck the bar at its base, shearing it off, but he and my wife failed to notice it because they weren't expecting anything like that to happen.

Or, y'know, maybe there's no absolute physical law saying that hard things can only be damaged by harder things. But that's just crazy talk.

Dave

Same thing happened to me while trying to dig out an old tree trunk. Snapped a thick solid wood axe handle clean in two. I immediately suspected death rays from outer space, but the were no hurricanes loitering around California and nothing dustified, so I chalked it up to a shoddy tool. Next time I'll be sure to check for invisible cruise missiles.

I really do appreciate the knowledge and wisdom on display in these forums.

GlennB 14th January 2020 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12954007)
Same thing happened to me while trying to dig out an old tree trunk. Snapped a thick solid wood axe handle clean in two. I immediately suspected death rays from outer space, but the were no hurricanes loitering around California and nothing dustified, so I chalked it up to a shoddy tool. Next time I'll be sure to check for invisible cruise missiles.

Nano termites?

benthamitemetric 14th January 2020 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12954114)
Nano termites?

Since we all know that the existence of a vaguely-related patent for an unproven invention claim is the best possible proof of the existence of powerful secret government technology at the center of a massive conspiracy, I present you with "Locomotion system and method of controlling a robotic device," which, per truther logic, definitively proves that nanotermites were used on the axe handle in question, and--likely--on both JFK and the twin towers. If that weren't enough, I assume that nanotermites would contain carbon and that there was carbon found in the dust in lower manhattan after 9-11. There was likely carbon in the dust in JFK's convertible too, but of course the FBI never checked! What do you think they were hiding, if not the presence of nanotermites? I rest my case.

Axxman300 14th January 2020 04:26 PM

Hadn't though of Nanotermites killing JFK, but he did collapse into his own footprint so it must be true.

curious cat 14th January 2020 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benthamitemetric (Post 12954320)
Since we all know that the existence of a vaguely-related patent for an unproven invention claim is the best possible proof of the existence of powerful secret government technology at the center of a massive conspiracy, I present you with "Locomotion system and method of controlling a robotic device," which, per truther logic, definitively proves that nanotermites were used on the axe handle in question, and--likely--on both JFK and the twin towers. If that weren't enough, I assume that nanotermites would contain carbon and that there was carbon found in the dust in lower manhattan after 9-11. There was likely carbon in the dust in JFK's convertible too, but of course the FBI never checked! What do you think they were hiding, if not the presence of nanotermites? I rest my case.

I like the simplicity of the system. Surely it is being mass-produced somewhere in China already.

yankee451 14th January 2020 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12952466)
Just to be clear: these are the videos and photos you claim have been digitally altered, right?
Can you explain why, if there were missiles, the faked images and videos were altered to highlight this, rather than hide it?

Gosh, I don't know. Maybe the laws of physics really do change just because you saw it on television.

yankee451 14th January 2020 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12953220)
This called a Gish Gallop, a failed attempt at you putting the burden of proving your absurd fantasy is false.

Really, then nice Gish Gallop. The burden of proof is on those who think a mostly hollow aluminum jet wing is capable of gouging out a few 1/2 inch plates of steel, but could't cut through the aluminum sheeting that covered the steel. The aluminum is still there! What color is the sky in the skeptics' world.

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

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

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

yankee451 14th January 2020 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12952652)
How many missiles were used in your fantasy lie?


How did the fake the exact jet-fuel fireball you get from 66,000 pounds of jet fuel in the planes used on 9/11?

Why do you make up lies? Lies will not stop wars. Having congress remove funding for war stops war. You need to spend time lobbying congress, not making up lies in a CT debunking forum. We know your claims are false, and too easy to debunk. There are no missiles missing from the USAF - in your fantasy how many USAF people did it? Got any names for the giant fantasy conspiracy theories.

The facts don't change according to your ability to stomach them emotionally.

yankee451 14th January 2020 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heymatto70 (Post 12952516)
Wouldn't, if they were missles, they have to be aimed "up" to hit where the first plane hit the WTC? There aren't a lot of spots in NYC where you could aim "down" to the 80th floor of the WTC. Wouldn't that look different from what we see in the video (where the plane is at least coming in perpendicular if not slightly tilted down)? I may be having a hard time visualizing it though (shocking, I know).

The capabilities of the missiles are well documented.

yankee451 14th January 2020 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12952573)

There is of course always a more parsimonious explanation, which is that you're wrong.


I never claimed otherwise. However if I was wrong it should be easy to explain why the evidence doesn't support my conclusions, and better supports yours. But you don't do that. Maybe I'm not wrong.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:16 AM.

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