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)

Elagabalus 18th January 2020 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12958490)
You guys have to understand, Steve's been banned from all of the 911-Truther sites. That's how nuts he is.

He gets to post here because he serves as comedy relief.

https://media.giphy.com/media/JyW51lx5XMDgQ/giphy.gif


Indeed.


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


Stolen with love from halleyscomet. See page 59 of the TTORWBTFAI thread.

yankee451 18th January 2020 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958511)
So how long until you start to argue that the events of that day actually occurred at nighttime when everyone was sound asleep and the apparent daytime seen in videos and photographs was the result of large CIA spotlights shining on scene? We can't be too far off.

You do understand what a circular argument is, right? The story of thousands of witnesses to an event that didn't occur, can only mean one thing; there were not thousands of witnesses.

Deadie 18th January 2020 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958515)
You do understand what a circular argument is, right? The story of thousands of witnesses to an event that didn't occur, can only mean one thing; there were not thousands of witnesses.

IN LOWER MANHATTEN AT 8:30 ON AN OTHERWISE NORMAL TUESDAY MORNING?!?!?!

Have you been to NYC ever? It's not a small new england fishing village anymore.

Elagabalus 18th January 2020 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958515)
You do understand what a circular argument is, right? The story of thousands of witnesses to an event that didn't occur, can only mean one thing; there were not thousands of witnesses.

Is that your circular argument or his?

yankee451 18th January 2020 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958517)
IN LOWER MANHATTEN AT 8:30 ON AN OTHERWISE NORMAL TUESDAY MORNING?!?!?!

Have you been to NYC ever?

They witnessed small planes, no planes, and missiles. No one ever saw a jet fly through a steel skyscraper, because, as the damage evidence indicates, something else happened.

BStrong 18th January 2020 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957860)
When in Rome...

If that's the case, I'd better address you by your Latin name..

Non Compos Mentis.

yankee451 18th January 2020 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12958520)
Is that your circular argument or his?

His.

My conclusions are based on the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damaged steel cladding that was sharply bent in a completely different direction than the CGI jet was traveling.

Deadie 18th January 2020 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958525)
His.

My conclusions are based on the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damaged steel cladding that was sharply bent in a completely different direction than the CGI jet was traveling.

And yet you cannot and will not provide any sort of calculation or even speculation as to the amount of damage a hypothetical 767 would have caused had they slammed into the sides of the WTC towers. If you cannot demonstrate this, then we are talking in circles. I asked you to do this 20 pages ago and you refused.

yankee451 18th January 2020 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958535)
And yet you cannot and will not provide any sort of calculation or even speculation as to the amount of damage a hypothetical 767 would have caused had they slammed into the sides of the WTC towers. If you cannot demonstrate this, then we are talking in circles. I asked you to do this 20 pages ago and you refused.

It's not my claim, that's on you.

MattNelson 18th January 2020 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958523)
They witnessed small planes, no planes, and missiles. No one ever saw a jet fly through a steel skyscraper, because, as the damage evidence indicates, something else happened.

If I took the time to make a video with all the large plane witnesses, would you watch it and listen? No. You would wave your hand.

I did make 2 videos in response to Ace Baker's masterpiece of disinfo "The Great American Psy-Opera." It's flash video on my website, so use Firefox and enable Flash. Watch "'What Planes?' asked Ace Baker." That scratches the surface, yet still may make your hand/arm tired.

If you aren't on any mind-altering substances, maybe you should try one.

yankee451 18th January 2020 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12958524)
If that's the case, I'd better address you by your Latin name..

Non Compos Mentis.

Quote:

Usually when confronted with this information they very quickly turn on me by questioning my motives, sanity and intelligence, but rarely do they address the evidence that leads me to my conclusions.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

Deadie 18th January 2020 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958540)
It's not my claim, that's on you.

Not when you say a 767 could not have caused the damage observed. Math is always the ultimate CT kryptonite and you are a wonderful specimen. Thank you.

beachnut 18th January 2020 01:49 PM

all talk, no evidence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958137)
Still no. As explained repeatedly already, not all of those were broadcast live. The ones that WERE broadcast live, or almost live actually, were from the perspective of the north face of the north tower. How do you figure the crash was shown live, when the alleged plane crashed into the south face of the south tower, which was not visible in the live footage. Do your research and, please, stop foaming at the mouth.

In your fantasy world how did they fake the Radar data and all the videos? Details? Nope, you make it up, and are unable to say how all the video and Radar data matches in time. You never talked to anyone who took the videos, and you keep on the BS of it was not live. All the video was live, you don't seem to understand what live means WRT the time it was recorded.

When I take a video of my grandkids, it was taken live, there is no other way to take it. When I show it to you it is video of what was live at the time the video was taken. You mean you did not see it live, but the person taking it saw it/recorded it live.

If you can contact all the people who took the video, it will be discovered it had to live, there is no other reality. All the video was live as shot, you have no valid point to claim it was not live at time shot.

Your lies fail.

Your research sucks, you are not trained investigator, you are a fantasy monger who hates his government and fails to do more than push failed ideas about 9/11.

How did the FAA and NTSB fake the Radar data? You never explained in detail how this works.

How did the FAA and NTSB match the exact time to all the video recorded live? You can't explain the details, because you made up this lie.

Do you understand all video is live when shot? You can't shot video unless you are live.

You never explained how all the video shot live/recorded matches in perspective and time if it was faked. Why can't you give details how the perspectives all match in time and space? Are you a video/photo/perspective expert? NO


Spewing lies about 9/11 will not stop wars. Spewing lies about missiles doing the damage at the WTC on 9/11 only makes people see you are spreading lies about 9/11.

Are you upset we killed UBL? Why do you apologize for 19 terrorists who murdered thousands on 9/11. Right you lie and claim no one died on 9/11. Go ahead, go up to the families and say missiles did it, tape it live/record, and show us what happens when you lie to the people who lost loved ones on 9/11.

Flight 11 and 175 flew into the WTC, you claim it was missiles, and can't produce the physics behind such a fantasy claim. You failed to do the energy of the impacts. Energy of the impacts were equal in energy to 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT. When an aircraft hits with that energy and energy concentrated the shape of the aircraft used, it does exactly the damage seen on video, and in photos. Anyone can figure out the energy, except you.

One study, which you fail to acknowledge, shows the WTC shell can stop an aircraft going 200 to 250 mph. The planes on 9/11 were going faster than what it takes to break the shell of the WTC, and you ignore science and rant about stopping wars, as you LIE and and mock the murder of thousands.

Physics exposes you as a simple liar, too busy spreading lies to do the math and physics. Too busy spreading lies to comprehend studies. Too busy spreading lies and blaming 9/11 on people you can't name, and blaming people without evidence, all in the name to stop wars.

You will not be taken seriously by rational people spreading lies about 9/11, you anti-war effort is ignored because your claims are insane.


The 19 terrorists paid for tickets to fly, and five bucks for knives.

What is the budget for your epic lies about 9/11?
How much does it cost to fake video?
Were the people killed who took the videos that were faked?
How much did all the various videos faked cost to fake and match in time and space as seen? Billions of dollars, or millions?
Who paid off all the witnesses to lie to make your sick fantasy in your mind?
How much does it cost to keep people quiet for all these years?
How do you make the FAA and NTSB fake Radar, FDRs, and more?
How do you fake the recording of the crews phone calls, and ATC tapes of the pilots being killed, and the CVR?
Who paid off the ATC controllers?
How did they fake the fires?
You lie about dust, how much does that cost to fake?
You lies about missiles, what did that cost to do?

It would be cheaper to hire UBL to recruit 19 idiots and hijack aircraft. Your sick fantasy plot you fail to detail, would cost billions, or required thousands to be killed to keep it a secret.

Do you try to use logic and evidence? NO, you look at photos and make up lies.

Cost of 9/11 by 19 terrorists
Room and board
Airline tickets
Flight training
Knives
Most likely less than 500,000 dollars

Cost of your fantasy version, most likely over a 1,000,000,000, Billions.


Things that debunk your demented fantasy of missiles.
1. Video
2. RADAR
3. Eye witnesses you failed to interview
4. No missiles missing or ordered to do your sick fantasy
5. Two Jet Fuel fireballs, exactly like what you get in a ~500 knot impact with 60,000 pounds of jet fuel. This alone debunks your missile fantasy.
6. Jet engine found exactly where it would be after running through the WTC tower.
7. Personal items of people on Flt 11 and 175.
8. DNA from people on the aircraft and in the towers
9. No missile parts found, no engines, no debris.
... everything debunks your lies of missiles and fake video.

Better stick with Bigfoot, you can use the same evidence you have for 9/11, nothing but fantasy.

Shot before a live audience on 9/11. The issue of "live", is BS. I think you got problems with live, which does not help your sick fantasy.

You get banned at blogs and forums because you post nonsense which is based on fantasy, NOT Evidence. You offer BS comments about photos, and what can't happen and you are not an expert, and can't back up your claims with evidence, logic, and science.

What is the purpose of showing the F-4 Crash test into a concrete structure designed to protect a Nuke Reactor, or something needing maximum protection. There is no comparing the F-4 impact to the impact of 757s at the WTC to help your fantasy missile lie. The F-4 crash is great for showing what happens in a high speed impact of an aircraft to show how an aircraft is destroyed and does not look like the landing accidents and other aircraft accidents as slow speed below 250 knots. Similar outcomes from high speed impacts with ground seen in USAF accident reports, leave little trace of what looks like an aircraft.

One of the major problems in your education, is lack of physics. You have a failed idea aluminum aircraft at not worthy of being called mass. You completely ignore the large hole in the WTC where the engines keep going smashing the WTC shell, and the landing gear (one of the strongest object in the aircraft) also broke into the WTC.

The mass of the aircraft which broke the WTC was the "hollow fuselage", engines, landing gear, people, luggage, mail, fuel, engine oil, hydraulic fluid, instruments, radios, and all the other things on the aircraft. The mass of the 757 and contents is what broke the WTC shell at over 500 mph. What is that, over 800 feet a second? The WTC is 207 feet wide, and the aircraft can transverse that distance in ~.26 second, but a little longer when hitting the WTC. Imagine 800 feet per second, go, and in a second the entire plane is 800 feet away. The energy involved does not double with speed, it quadruples. This physics law is what you fail to consider, but your grandkids might take physics and see you spread lies, big dumb lies.

All you do is talk, offering no evidence. No physics, only fantasy and lies.

Crazy Chainsaw 18th January 2020 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958487)
If they could do what you think they can do, then they wouldn't have faked it "wrong." Logically then, it indicates exactly what it appears to indicate; that something at once small and not very dense struck from the side, and as it traveled deeper into the tower, it became more dense and much bigger.

The Oxidation effect on the Aluminum had to have been faked it shows a large Aluminum object impacted it hard enough to cause an Oxidation event.
If they faked the white flashes caused by oxidation of aluminum dust in air then your evidence is faked as well!

yankee451 18th January 2020 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12958544)
Not when you say a 767 could not have caused the damage observed. Math is always the ultimate CT kryptonite and you are a wonderful specimen. Thank you.

Once again, this is on you. No one has provided the math to prove a plane could to it. Ever. You are basing your entire conclusion on the television show, which the evidence I keep pointing to, proves didn't happen. If you want to make a math problem out of it, have at it. You'll be the first.

yankee451 18th January 2020 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12958548)
The Oxidation effect on the Aluminum had to have been faked it shows a large Aluminum object impacted it hard enough to cause an Oxidation event.
If they faked the white flashes caused by oxidation of aluminum dust in air then your evidence is faked as well!

The impact evidence proves the videos were faked. Using them as proof of something is a circular argument.

BStrong 18th January 2020 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958542)

Sorry NCM, the no planes theory is not based on reality, it's based on poorly written science fiction.

Kind of like an aspiring painter that can't paint the human form.

BStrong 18th January 2020 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958554)
The impact evidence proves the videos were faked. Using them as proof of something is a circular argument.

Talk about projection.

You're whole premise is circular logic.

yankee451 18th January 2020 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12958557)
Sorry NCM, the no planes theory is not based on reality, it's based on poorly written science fiction.

Kind of like an aspiring painter that can't paint the human form.

Funny, because from what I can tell, it's been kicking Skeptic butt.

yankee451 18th January 2020 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12958558)
Talk about projection.

You're whole premise is circular logic.

How do you figure?

If a plane could do this, you would try to explain it.

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

Elagabalus 18th January 2020 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958560)
How do you figure?

If a plane could do this, you would try to explain it.

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

The plane actually flew into the building. That's how I would explain it. It even made a plane shaped hole.

yankee451 18th January 2020 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12958567)
The plane actually flew into the building. That's how I would explain it. It even made a plane shaped hole.

Once again, dear reader, the Television trumps common sense, as well as the physical evidence. So strong is the mind control tool called Television.

pgimeno 18th January 2020 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957700)
Logically it makes no sense for the perpetrators to...

:i:

Start with "shoot missiles and fake videos when they could just fly planes into the buildings".

Go on with "try and convince thousands of people of collaborating in a huge mass murder".

Continue with "expect that NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE be filming at the time of the 2nd impact" (lest the missiles or the explosion without a plane be caught on camera).

I could go on, but it's insane enough just with that for starters

Elagabalus 18th January 2020 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958568)
Once again, dear reader, the Television trumps common sense, as well as the physical evidence. So strong is the mind control tool called Television.


Smh. What about the people filming with handheld video cameras? Did they film something that wasn't there and then the G-men showed up at their doorstep and took their film away? And then replaced it with CGI? Your theory is just silly.

BStrong 18th January 2020 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958559)
Funny, because from what I can tell, it's been kicking Skeptic butt.

Comedy Gold:

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


The sad thing is that you actually your believe what you're posting, and it's sadder still that in your pov is that a plan of action conceived by religious fundamentalists and carried out by 19 disposable humans can't be true but a fantasy construct based in science fiction and (at a minimum) of thousands is true.

I met one of your intellectual cousins irl last year:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=340162

What is it with CTists in general and 9/11 wingnuts in particular that they must always reject reality for fantasy? Are their perceptions so delusional that they require a fantasy of their own creation ?

yankee451 18th January 2020 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12958584)
Smh. What about the people filming with handheld video cameras? Did they film something that wasn't there and then the G-men showed up at their doorstep and took their film away? And then replaced it with CGI? Your theory is just silly.

Quote:

Any real witness that caught a photo or video of the explosion would be able to verify their images with the images of the explosions in the public record, and would simply assume they missed the plane. But even if someone did see what really happened, and still didn’t get the clue that the authorities were at fault, where would that someone turn if they wanted to report it? To the police that planted the plane parts? To the fire department that set fire to the cars? To the media that broadcast fraudulent video? To the government that was about to declare war on the world? Even if they did report the truth, why would the authorities tell we the people when they were selling us a terrorist attack?
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

yankee451 18th January 2020 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12958586)
Comedy Gold:

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


The sad thing is that you actually your believe what you're posting, and it's sadder still that in your pov is that a plan of action conceived by religious fundamentalists and carried out by 19 disposable humans can't be true but a fantasy construct based in science fiction and (at a minimum) of thousands is true.

I met one of your intellectual cousins irl last year:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=340162
.

What is it with CTists in general and 9/11 wingnuts in particular that they must always reject reality for fantasy? Are their perceptions so delusional that they require a fantasy of their own creation ?


Yes, and you actually believe what you saw on television, simply because you saw it on television. That doesn't bode well for the gene pool

Elagabalus 18th January 2020 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12958524)
If that's the case, I'd better address you by your Latin name..

Non Compos Mentis.


Or scemo.

Robin 18th January 2020 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958497)
We all have access to the same information. That doesn't change. That you refuse to use the same photographs of the impact holes we all have access to to explain how they do not support my conclusions, and instead, better support yours, tells me you aren't interested in an honest debate. Instead you offer one evasion after another, ending with a false dichotomy.

I am using the same photographs as well you know.

So much for your alleged "honesty"

DGM 18th January 2020 03:57 PM

Wow............this is still going on. :rolleyes:

yankee451 18th January 2020 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12958621)
I am using the same photographs as well you know.

So much for your alleged "honesty"

When I am treated with respect I return it in kind. If not, bummer for you.

BStrong 18th January 2020 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958604)
Yes, and you actually believe what you saw on television, simply because you saw it on television. That doesn't bode well for the gene pool

I believe what I saw because after having been around in various places since the 1970's and having lived in garden spots like Lebanon and Saudi in the early 1980's and having almost become a grease spot from what we now call IED's .

I know that there are folks that are happy to kill and die for their religious delusion.

I also know and have posted in this thread a detailed account of crimes committed by U.S. service members where other service members came forward to report the crimes and in some cases threatened to stop the actors from continuing the crimes with violence.

You live in a science fiction world where this is an inexhaustible pool of socio & psychopaths that will simple salute and bend to the work when ordered by "They" That. Is. Not. The. Real. World.

The world isn't a comic book. You may have a comic book universe in your head but the world doesn't begin to work the way you assert - you are stating flat out that a plan involving religious idiots and hijacking is too incredible to believe and some up with the cluster **** of a no-plane theory? The P.G & E. CTist in the thread I started was an Icke fanboy - which nut job have you hitched your wagon to? Maybe you're just a lone wolf CTist.

yankee451 18th January 2020 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12958647)
I believe what I saw because after having been around in various places since the 1970's and having lived in garden spots like Lebanon and Saudi in the early 1980's and having almost become a grease spot from what we now call IED's .

I know that there are folks that are happy to kill and die for their religious delusion.

I also know and have posted in this thread a detailed account of crimes committed by U.S. service members where other service members came forward to report the crimes and in some cases threatened to stop the actors from continuing the crimes with violence.

You live in a science fiction world where this is an inexhaustible pool of socio & psychopaths that will simple salute and bend to the work when ordered by "They" That. Is. Not. The. Real. World.

The world isn't a comic book. You may have a comic book universe in your head but the world doesn't begin to work the way you assert - you are stating flat out that a plan involving religious idiots and hijacking is too incredible to believe and some up with the cluster **** of a no-plane theory? The P.G & E. CTist in the thread I started was an Icke fanboy - which nut job have you hitched your wagon to? Maybe you're just a lone wolf CTist.

Few people are as indoctrinated as military people.

BStrong 18th January 2020 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958641)
When I am treated with respect I return it in kind. If not, bummer for you.

It's your comic book theory that won't get any respect.

Crazy Chainsaw 18th January 2020 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958554)
The impact evidence proves the videos were faked. Using them as proof of something is a circular argument.

False the impact evidence shows a large object caused an Aluminum oxidation event so they are consistent with the videos until you explain in your theory how that occured.

BStrong 18th January 2020 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958649)
Few people are as indoctrinated as military people.

Stereotypes aren't your friend.

Watch the series "Leavenworth" for a look inside how the real world works: It does'nt feature superheros so you might need to watch it more than once to get it.

https://www.starz.com/us/en/series/4...sodes?season=1

“Leavenworth” is based on the controversial true story of Clint Lorance, a former lieutenant serving a 19-year sentence for murder at the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth.

Fresh screwy Lt. orders troops to fire on unarmed civilians, two casualties, what happens next? His platoon immediately reported the incident, testified at trial, LT convicted of murder, later the numb-nuts-in-chief pardons him and two other service members.

He was guilty as hell, but the platoon Sgt. and the EM's did the right thing..

pgimeno 18th January 2020 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958600)
But even if someone did see what really happened, and still didn’t get the clue that the authorities were at fault, where would that someone turn if they wanted to report it? To the police that planted the plane parts? To the fire department that set fire to the cars? To the media that broadcast fraudulent video? To the government that was about to declare war on the world? Even if they did report the truth, why would the authorities tell we the people when they were selling us a terrorist attack?

To the public on the internet, where they can do it anonymously?

No such thing has happened after 18 years. Don't you expect someone by now would have already screamed foul? Especially given that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are known worldwide?

Keep digging.

beachnut 18th January 2020 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958649)
Few people are as indoctrinated as military people.

so you don't want people to swear to support and defend the Constitution? Why are you unpatriotic to those who faithfully serve?

And you have been in the military? I doubt it.

Yes, we are indoctrinated, and here is what we are indoctrinated with...
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

What is your oath of office,... to lie and mock the murder of thousands?

I was on active duty on 9/11. It appears you are bias against your fellow Americans who serve in the US Military. Why is that?

Axxman300 18th January 2020 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGM (Post 12958630)
Wow............this is still going on. :rolleyes:

Low hanging fruit is fun.:thumbsup:

yankee451 18th January 2020 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12958672)
To the public on the internet, where they can do it anonymously?

No such thing has happened after 18 years. Don't you expect someone by now would have already screamed foul? Especially given that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are known worldwide?

Keep digging.

Read what you're commenting on again.

Axxman300 18th January 2020 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12958567)
The plane actually flew into the building. That's how I would explain it. It even made a plane shaped hole.

2 identical planes flew into two identical buildings leaving identical impact scars on the exterior. I'm no scientist but I think this one's a slam-dunk.

yankee451 18th January 2020 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12958677)
so you don't want people to swear to support and defend the Constitution? Why are you unpatriotic to those who faithfully serve?

And you have been in the military? I doubt it.

Yes, we are indoctrinated, and here is what we are indoctrinated with...
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

What is your oath of office,... to lie and mock the murder of thousands?

I was on active duty on 9/11. It appears you are bias against your fellow Americans who serve in the US Military. Why is that?

Like I said...

yankee451 18th January 2020 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12958689)
2 identical planes flew into two identical buildings leaving identical impact scars on the exterior. I'm no scientist but I think this one's a slam-dunk.

According to the television. But not according to the photographs. Hmm...

Axxman300 18th January 2020 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958696)
According to the television. But not according to the photographs. Hmm...

This based on the photographs including the ones you post.

yankee451 18th January 2020 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12958701)
This based on the photographs including the ones you post.

30 pages later, I must have missed your explanation. The floor is yours.

Crazy Chainsaw 18th January 2020 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958715)
30 pages later, I must have missed your explanation. The floor is yours.

Small Question for you, if I tossed a coin in the air, and shot a 22 bullet into it would it go though the coin and what would the resulting impact damage be?

curious cat 18th January 2020 06:05 PM

I am getting sucked in again - against all of my principles of not getting in disputes with people undeniably certifiable ;-). This is not an attempt to convince the OP about anything. I do can identify the border between "feasible" and "futile" :-). I am doing this purely as a mental exercise in logic.
So, we have an irrefutable evidence a plane hit the building. There is a whole mountain of evidence supporting it. We know which plane it was, we know who was in control, we know how they got aboard, we can explain virtually all what happened during and after the impact. Any attempt to dispute this evidence is ridiculous and destined for failure.
The only "serious" piece of "evidence" conflicting the above is a piece of aluminium cladding that seems to defy the straight logic. So, let's try just a straight logic to explain what we see. It is like watching a magic show. For a hour or so you are watching stuff you KNOW is entirely impossible. But is is happening, right? Yes, because you are missing the background of the tricks.
So, we know the cladding wasn't in its original position when the column behind it has been severed. I agree with the OP on that point. All the analogies with broken bones etc are valid in general, but they don't really fit to the exact situation we are having here. So, a sequence of events is becoming to emerge: the first part of the wing damaged the cladding and cause the top end to disconnect from the structure. The next part pushed the cladding aside (possible due a hydraulic action in the fuel tank) and it starts falling down pivoting around its bottom attachment. The wing comes apart (possibly again due to the hydraulic action) at the point of the column on the right, leaving it and our cladding now in front of it relatively undamaged, while the other columns were being severed. The tail section of the wing has arrived containing whatever part has "drilled" the circular hole in the column on the right, giving a glancing blow to our cladding bending it back up (the bend near the bottom of it supports this part) and moving it back left to its original position.
Possible? Yes. Likely? No. But have you ever heard about people winning first division in lottery twice in a row? Possible? Yes. Likely? No. Did it happen? Yes.
What I am presenting is probably only one of the possible scenarios and there may be others - similarly unlikely but plausible explanations. Every each of them will be many times more probable than the sick fantasy the OP is trying to sell us. There is no point whatsoever trying to find some truth in these.

turingtest 18th January 2020 06:20 PM

My hat is off to anyone who tries, but...if you're seriously arguing with a guy who is either not quite bright enough to properly understand the concept of "circular argument," or not honest enough to properly apply it, you're wasting your time. If, OTOH, you're arguing with him only because it's as good a way for you to pass the time as it is for him, and you don't expect anything more from it than some entertainment, carry on; just don't lose the proper perspective.

For myself, I can only say that I've never seen a better example of the typical CTist "anti-consilience" approach. Yankee's entire premise, his "physical evidence," is a few photographs of the building and his personal, uninformed incredulity that an airplane could have done it- that's it, he has nothing else. And every other bit of evidence- eyewitnesses, video, actual physical evidence such as airplane parts and passenger DNA found in the wreckage, the absence of the airplanes and those passengers afterward, etc.,- is made to conform to that deliberately narrowed viewpoint; his "explanations" for all those things are nothing more than necessary rationalizations, handwaves at all evidence that contradicts one bit rather than examining the one bit in light of all the others. So, congratulations, yankee- you may not agree with your fellow CTists on the details, but you're exactly like them in your broad methodology.

One other thing- you are, in fact, making a positive claim- that the damage to the building is inconsistent with having been done by an airplane in a way that is testable by a simplistic, brute-force experiment involving running a wing into a mock-up of the building (which is a silly way to test the proposition, but we'll go with it for the sake of an entertaining argument). So, a couple of questions-

1) What parameters are you setting to establish whether or not the damage done in your test effectively reproduces that done on the actual building? What's the basis for comparison? Just that one bit of cladding? Will you claim that, if that's not replicated, the test is successful (from your POV)? Surely you at least understand that a chaotic event like flying a plane into a building can't be so exactly reproduced as to duplicate the same outcome twice? If a baseball player knocks a ball out of the park, nicking a light pole on the way out and then breaking a car's windshield in the parking lot- would you claim that no baseball could have done the damage to the pole or car on the basis that no test could exactly replicate the trajectory it took to do that damage?

2) Since you're making another positive claim- that it was missiles that did that damage- are you willing to test that the same way? Will you, at some point, test for what you say did do the damage as well as for what you say didn't, by putting a missile analog through the same building mock-up, with the same criteria that, if that cladding damage isn't exactly replicated, it shows that it couldn't have been a missile that did it? In fact, it seems to me that you would want to do this test first, since it would (by your standards) establish positively what you can only otherwise claim by a negative.

njslim 18th January 2020 06:34 PM

Wow............this is still going on.

There is no time limit on mental illness ………...

ProBonoShill 18th January 2020 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958036)
See the thing is the evidence I've brought to the table discredits the stories of the victims. Your outrage is misplaced. I'm not the one that lied to you, just the one that burst your bubble.

Physics proves me right, hence your penchant for relying on emotionally charged tales of faux victims.

The moronic drivel you post isn't evidence Skippy.

Oh and the victims can't tell stories cause they're dead. But since in your delusional world you believe them to be alive and living among us, please prove it.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:58 AM.

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