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)

beachnut 31st January 2020 04:20 PM

Insane no planer Gerard Holmgren used to support insane missile fantasy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Apparently what you think is possible, and what was actually done, are different things.

If planes could do it, then missiles wouldn't be needed. If planes did do it, then the damage would be consistent with it. Since in the real world planes can't do such things, they were limited to what weapons could accomplish it.

They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:

Why They Didn't Use Planes

It gets worse, the terrorists were real pilots, and it is easy to fly heavy jets. Flying is easy, landing and takeoff harder, landing and taking off in bad weather harder, and flying the weather (can't see out) hardest when doing a complex approach procedure.

You posted the dumbest essay on why planes that were used, were not used. Only super gullible people would believe this claptrap you posttest from Gerard Holmgren. His paper is a string of idiotic nonsense.

Gerard Holmgren seems to be insane. His claims and fantasy are insane.

For people like Gerard Holmgren who can't do physics to figure out the 767 did do the damage at the WTC, all that remains is delusional evidence free rant and baseless speculation based on ignorance of the subjects needed to comprehend the Complex Plot, ...
Complex Plot
1. Take planes
2. Crash planes

I thought your ideas were crazy, Gerard Holmgren is worse, he has no clue the WTC collapsed as they did, and has no clue how easy it is to fly a jet.

Your missiles don't have enough kinetic energy for the thin wings to do what you claim the winges did.

Your video analysis is bad.

You failed at the second post, and now quibble with insane paper by Gerard Holmgren, a failed 9/11 truth nut.


Gerard requested in 2007 the removal of all his 9/11 articles from the web. Oops, he got sane before he died. Now idiots have republished his fantasy work.

curious cat 31st January 2020 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Apparently what you think is possible, and what was actually done, are different things.

If planes could do it, then missiles wouldn't be needed. If planes did do it, then the damage would be consistent with it. Since in the real world planes can't do such things, they were limited to what weapons could accomplish it.

They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:

Why They Didn't Use Planes

I am surprised the perps didn't use the services of the genius who wrote this lunatic pamphlet! He is the one with a perfect plan! :D

One lapse of logic that hit me particularly hard:
They wouldn't use remote controlled planes because rescue workers etc could find and recognise the revealing parts. Well... obviously the same people are supposed to be stupid enough not to identify parts of a missile! There is more, too many to list.

JSanderO 31st January 2020 05:49 PM

They used planes.. nothing suspicious about the impact damage.
Case closed

Robin 31st January 2020 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Apparently what you think is possible, and what was actually done, are different things.

If planes could do it, then missiles wouldn't be needed. If planes did do it, then the damage would be consistent with it.

And the damage is consistent with a collision by an airliner.

Robin 31st January 2020 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)

They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:

Why They Didn't Use Planes

OK, lets see:

Quote:

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots
2) Remote control them.
The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this
list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of
such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.
Big evasion right here.

Apparently it is easier to fool the whole world than it is to fool a handful of Islamic fanatics. Who knew?

TJM 31st January 2020 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:<link to steaming pile deleted by BS filter>

Aside from all the other glaring inaccuracies and omissions which are always at the forefront of any no-planer hallucinatory scribblings, This one is special because it dosen't simply glance over the population of one of the world's largest cities - it ignores it entirely. During the height of the morning commute, no less.

Millions of eyes cast skyward, watching WTC 1 burn. Millions. Sure, not all were in position to see 175 crash and the vast majority did not get a reporter's mic shoved in their faces.

But to make no mention of them at all?

Thanks for the laugh.

Axxman300 31st January 2020 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Apparently what you think is possible, and what was actually done, are different things.

You need to reverse this. What is actually possible is what happened (hijacked planes crashed into the WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville), and what YOU think happened (fake video, cruise missiles, fake witnesses, smoke machines, no dead bodies) is something you have made no competent effort to prove.

Quote:

If planes could do it, then missiles wouldn't be needed.
Planes did do it. Cruise missiles would have looked entirely different and sounded entirely different.

Quote:

If planes did do it, then the damage would be consistent with it.
The damage is exclusive to 767's. Two identical buildings, two mostly identical impact scars on the facade, and two identical results (collapse). 400,000 pounds of aircraft and fuel moving at 450mph was more than enough to do the damage.

Quote:

Since in the real world planes can't do such things
You've shown nothing to support this statement.

Quote:

, they were limited to what weapons could accomplish it.
In the real world - no.

Quote:

They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:

Why They Didn't Use Planes
Oh good, you link to a nutjob whose other intellectual works include: Darwin's theory - a giant hoax / Gerard Holmgren and A case against reproductive technology / Gerard Holmgren and Colin Goodwin

He says this:

Quote:

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

A 767 is more maneuverable than a cruise missile (for the most part), and all that was required was to fly into two tall buildings - which was done. Those airframes are pushed to their limits during testing and the 767, while not an F-15, was more than suited (and perfect) for the job.

He follows that with this:

Quote:

[IWhatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes. ][/i]
He needs to explain this. How are the mechanics of a cruise missile's guidance system different than the autopilot on the Boeing? And remeber, we're talking remote control - not automation - so it would be the same as if the pilot was in the cockpit meaning any in-flight corrections could be made manually.

Holmgren didn't do his homework.

The rest of his assessment is twaddle.

Robin 31st January 2020 07:21 PM

Apparently the reason they didn't use planes is that it is easy enough to get hundreds of ordinary Americans to commit an act of fanaticism and never breathe a word about it for the rest of their lives, but it would be monstrously difficult to convince a handful of fanatics to commit an act of fanaticism.

Axxman300 31st January 2020 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12973895)
Apparently the reason they didn't use planes is that it is easy enough to get hundreds of ordinary Americans to commit an act of fanaticism and never breathe a word about it for the rest of their lives, but it would be monstrously difficult to convince a handful of fanatics to commit an act of fanaticism.

What I love about No-Planers is their total disconnect with reality.

They establish a separate reality wherein physics doesn't work and (in this case) the US Government or elements therein performed flawlessly by anticipating every contingency...

...except for framing Iraqi's, Pakistanis, or Iranians as the hijackers, or at least some of the hijackers, but for some reason let the Egyptian and Saudi hijackers be identified.

Oh, and then forgetting to plant WMD's to find in Iraq so we could have CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, and Fox News reporters stand in front of the facility on live TV and tell the world how the US saved them from Saddam.

But other than that it was a masterpiece...:thumbsup:

Regnad Kcin 31st January 2020 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Apparently what you think is possible, and what was actually done, are different things.

If planes could do it, then missiles wouldn't be needed. If planes did do it, then the damage would be consistent with it. Since in the real world planes can't do such things, they were limited to what weapons could accomplish it.

They didn't use planes for a host of reasons, explained here:

Why They Didn't Use Planes

I really miss when Cracker Jack boxes contained an actual little toy. Any one else feel the same?

Axxman300 31st January 2020 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12973940)
I really miss when Cracker Jack boxes contained an actual little toy. Any one else feel the same?

I liked the plastic cowboy.

smartcooky 31st January 2020 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12973428)
I can see where you are coming from. My first computer was an Amstrad 1640. Mr Sir Lord Sugar is an (((entrepreneur))). Such is the evil that I was given a 30MB HDD for the price of a 20MB drive. There is no stopping these people. It all makes sense, now.

O...M...G...!!!! That was an MFM hard Drive...

Let me guess, it was about the same size as an Apple ][+ double height 5¼" FDD?

GlennB 1st February 2020 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12973745)
I am surprised the perps didn't use the services of the genius who wrote this lunatic pamphlet! He is the one with a perfect plan! :D

One lapse of logic that hit me particularly hard:
They wouldn't use remote controlled planes because rescue workers etc could find and recognise the revealing parts. Well... obviously the same people are supposed to be stupid enough not to identify parts of a missile! There is more, too many to list.

There's more ... if they didn't use planes then the rescue workers would fail to find ordinary plane parts in the wreckage. Yet they did.

If they can be threatened/corrupted into planting fake parts why can't they be threatened/corrupted into not revealing parts related to remote control?

The latter sounds an awful lot easier. What a crock.

turingtest 1st February 2020 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12973932)
What I love about No-Planers is their total disconnect with reality.

They establish a separate reality wherein physics doesn't work and (in this case) the US Government or elements therein performed flawlessly by anticipating every contingency...

...except for framing Iraqi's, Pakistanis, or Iranians as the hijackers, or at least some of the hijackers, but for some reason let the Egyptian and Saudi hijackers be identified.

Oh, and then forgetting to plant WMD's to find in Iraq so we could have CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, and Fox News reporters stand in front of the facility on live TV and tell the world how the US saved them from Saddam.

But other than that it was a masterpiece...:thumbsup:

The whole thing is a massive logic fail. Let's don't forget that the reason yankee says he knows it was missiles is because the damage couldn't have been done by a plane. So he's effectively proposing a conspiracy that imposed a fake that couldn't have worked as one; this is the kind of conspiracy that would only be logical to someone who needs to see one, and any dumb-ass conspiracy is better than none at all.

Wowbagger 1st February 2020 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)

From that article:

Quote:

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what
could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario
poses the smallest risk.
Okay....

Quote:

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to
tell the story. What could go wrong?
1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.
Importantly, this document only lists one thing that could go wrong if they don't use planes. There are, in fact, MANY things that could go wrong:

2) The people who did the CG artistry would show the world how they did it. If they couldn't take home the actual work files, they could re-create them if they are really that talented. (And, many in the industry are freakin' show-offs, you know!)

3) The staff of the TV production companies could alert everyone else that they were instructed to rehearse, then fake the disaster. There are thousands upon thousands of them, you know.

4) The timing of releasing the faked footage would be extremely tight, for something that needs to be rushed out in perfect visual order. Workflows and pipelines would need to be extremely refined and optimized across many departments for something like that to happen. A LOT could go wrong in that chain, to throw the whole thing off.

5) They would need to insert fake plane parts into the wreckage without being noticed, after the buildings came down, for clean up crew to find; adding another complication.

6) What if the volunteer staff of the clean up crew starts finding missile fragments? You have to clean up the mess, to remove all of those, before you have people cleaning up the mess!

7) You have to fake the identities of ALL of the passengers who were killed, and hire actors to play their distraught friends, family members, and co-workers. Without arousing any suspicion.

Etc. I think others on this thread could come up with even more.

Quote:

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets....

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no
survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them
off before they do talk.
This makes no sense to me.

Why would the perps care if any passengers survived, to tell the world what they saw?! They saw their plane being hijacked... which is exactly the story the perps wanted to convey!


The REAL problem with using planes is that the passengers might protest, and take the hijackers down before the plane reaches their target... which did happen to one of them, in fact.

But, that was only after the first three crashed into their targets. Before that, it was plausible for the passengers to think that the hijackers weren't on a suicide mission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12973669)
Since in the real world planes can't do such things, they were limited to what weapons could accomplish it.

You're trying to tell me that planes colliding into buildings couldn't possibly cause that amount of damage to buildings?!

yankee451 1st February 2020 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12973855)
And the damage is consistent with a collision by an airliner.

Nope. The two circled pieces of cladding below expose that lie.

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

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...d-cladding.png

yankee451 1st February 2020 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12973887)

A 767 is more maneuverable than a cruise missile (for the most part),

Citation please.

For perspective, at this timestamp can be seen how quickly a JASSM turns.


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

yankee451 1st February 2020 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest (Post 12974146)
The whole thing is a massive logic fail. Let's don't forget that the reason yankee says he knows it was missiles is because the damage couldn't have been done by a plane. So he's effectively proposing a conspiracy that imposed a fake that couldn't have worked as one; this is the kind of conspiracy that would only be logical to someone who needs to see one, and any dumb-ass conspiracy is better than none at all.

Actually, your paraphrasing skills are lacking.

I arrived at cruise missiles as the most likely suspect based on the physical evidence that indicates something very small and not very massive struck at the far left of both towers, but as it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more massive.

The logic fail happens when you fine people ignore the physical evidence, in favor of what you saw on television.

Safe-Keeper 1st February 2020 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12972867)
THIS!

In the 1997 movie, Titanic, there was a scene where they morphed the sunken wreck of the foredeck of the ship into the floating brand new RMS Titanic on the surface in Southampton dock...

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


''..that clip was only 7 seconds long, a little shorter that the actual clip which was more like 12 seconds long (although the actual morph transition frames, a single viewpoint fluid motion tracking shot from left to right across about 45°) occupied only 3 to 4 seconds.

That one shot took a team of dozens of compositors and digital artists over 600 hours to make. Yankee would have us believe that dozens of videos from dozens of angles, all much longer than the Titanic 3-4 sec clip, were prepared and distributed within seconds of the impact.

Ain't happening.

So it's like the controlled demolition theory, which seems to imagine some bundles of dynamite sticks hidden in closets around the skyscrapers
like in a Warner Brothers cartoon.

GlennB 1st February 2020 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974231)
Actually, your paraphrasing skills are lacking.

I arrived at cruise missiles as the most likely suspect based on the physical evidence that indicates something very small and not very massive struck at the far left of both towers, but as it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more massive.

The logic fail happens when you fine people ignore the physical evidence, in favor of what you saw on television.

:jaw-dropp

yankee451 1st February 2020 09:51 AM

JASSM turning

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

beachnut 1st February 2020 09:53 AM

failed to prove any video was fake - end of thread at the second post
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974227)
Citation please.

Prove it is not. You failed to prove the videos are fake and now think the thin wing of a cruise missile can gouge the WTC shell, like the 767 did.

The missile has a tiny kinetic energy of 17 pounds of TNT, the 767 had 2,093 pounds of TNT. The wings of the 767 are more massive than the whole cruise missile. There was no explosion from explosives at impact. I suspect you were not in combat to experience explosions from explosives.

Your fantasy fails due to physics, you don't do physics.

yankee451 1st February 2020 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12974243)
:jaw-dropp

I know. The idea that a jet wing could change direction, and size and density is absurd. Obviously something that was smaller and less dense in some places than it was in others, struck from the side.

yankee451 1st February 2020 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12974248)
Prove it is not. You failed to prove the videos are fake and now think the thin wing of a cruise missile can gouge the WTC shell, like the 767 did.

The missile has a tiny kinetic energy of 17 pounds of TNT, the 767 had 2,093 pounds of TNT. The wings of the 767 are more massive than the whole cruise missile. There was no explosion from explosives at impact. I suspect you were not in combat to experience explosions from explosives.

Your fantasy fails due to physics, you don't do physics.

I didn't say they are. He did. I simply asked for a citation in support of his claim, and provided an example of a JASSM turning sharply to the right.

turingtest 1st February 2020 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974231)
Actually, your paraphrasing skills are lacking.

I arrived at cruise missiles as the most likely suspect based on the physical evidence that indicates something very small and not very massive struck at the far left of both towers, but as it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more massive.

The logic fail happens when you fine people ignore the physical evidence, in favor of what you saw on television.

And? How does that change the logic fail? You're still proposing a conspiracy that used a fake that, according to your "physical evidence," could never have worked as a fake. You're trying too hard to be the Fearless Internet Detective and proposing a conspiracy that could never have passed even the most elementary detection. Surely people who had the god-like powers you attribute to them of faking all the videos, even live, to show something that wasn't there could have faked the photos to show the correct damage to perpetuate the pretense? Then they wouldn't have had to worry about Scooby and you kids ripping the mask off.

bknight 1st February 2020 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974231)
Actually, your paraphrasing skills are lacking.

I arrived at cruise missiles as the most likely suspect based on the physical evidence that indicates something very small and not very massive struck at the far left of both towers, but as it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more massive.

The logic fail happens when you fine people ignore the physical evidence, in favor of what you saw on television.

So you think it grows in mass? Pretend you know something about physics, tell me how this occurs?

bknight 1st February 2020 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974250)
I know. The idea that a jet wing could change direction, and size and density is absurd. Obviously something that was smaller and less dense in some places than it was in others, struck from the side.

Oh but it does all of that as it transfers its KE to the building. The wing disintegrates and releases the mass of the fuel, just like Axxman300 showed us in his screen shots. Learn physics before posting nonsense like this.

Regnad Kcin 1st February 2020 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974220)

My favorite Beatle would have to be Ringo. Who's yours, gang?

GlennB 1st February 2020 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12974285)
My favorite Beatle would have to be Ringo. Who's yours, gang?

George, no question.

GlennB 1st February 2020 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12974263)
So you think it grows in mass? Pretend you know something about physics, tell me how this occurs?

yankee451 don't need no stinkin' physics! He just needs to post the same 2 photos endlessly.

abaddon 1st February 2020 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12970527)
No masters or apprentices here. I assume you're referring to the way Itchy Boy has made mincemeat out of the so called Skeptics.

He also thinks your madcap idea is nuts. How do you account for that?

Jack by the hedge 1st February 2020 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974220)

I disagree.

You haven't produced any satisfactory explanation for why those pieces could not end up where they are after a plane crash.

Please belay your fake astonishment. You have made no satisfactory case despite repeating your slogans a thousand times.

The piece hanging off the South tower (presuming it really is a piece of cladding) is suspended from the structure at some point or points, but which points these are is far from clear. Your repeated garbage that it can't have got there as a result of a plane crash because something something butter is not improved by repetition.

So your habit of relying upon it to handwave away multiple practical objections to your obviously absurdly impractical version of events is not persuasive, to understate it severely.

TJM 1st February 2020 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12974285)
My favorite Beatle would have to be Ringo. Who's yours, gang?

Oh please.

Four young men who could barely play their instruments are going to start a revolution. Those were merely CGI images and a few million screaming teenage girl crisis actors. Want more?

Just ask anyone, ANYONE, if they ever saw the "Beatles" play a live show that WASN'T on teevee.

Go ahead skeptics, I'll wait.

waypastvne 1st February 2020 12:38 PM

I never got to see the Beatles, But I did get to see the Rutles when the played Melbourne in 67. I must admit when they played "I must be in love" I screamed like a little girl.

I can guarantee they were real..

Out of Dirk Stig Barry and Nasty. Dirk was my favourite.

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

Axxman300 1st February 2020 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974252)
I didn't say they are. He did. I simply asked for a citation in support of his claim, and provided an example of a JASSM turning sharply to the right.

We're using your standard of evidence. I'm working on my own CT website where my informed sources are talking frogs. Chicks dig talking frogs.

curious cat 1st February 2020 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12974297)
I disagree.

You haven't produced any satisfactory explanation for why those pieces could not end up where they are after a plane crash.

Please belay your fake astonishment. You have made no satisfactory case despite repeating your slogans a thousand times.

The piece hanging off the South tower (presuming it really is a piece of cladding) is suspended from the structure at some point or points, but which points these are is far from clear. Your repeated garbage that it can't have got there as a result of a plane crash because something something butter is not improved by repetition.

So your habit of relying upon it to handwave away multiple practical objections to your obviously absurdly impractical version of events is not persuasive, to understate it severely.

The fact is (and Yankee is trying to exploit it to the last bit), we can't reliably explain the oddly bent bits and pieces either. We do know there were no missiles though...
Some analogy with stage magic: There are hundreds of magic tricks only the creator knows the secret of (Pen and Teller "Fool Us"). There will be 2 types of people watching them. The first type accepts he is missing something and will live with it. The other type will try to prove witchcraft is real...

pgimeno 1st February 2020 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974231)
I arrived at cruise missiles as the most likely suspect based on the physical evidence that indicates something very small and not very massive struck at the far left of both towers, but as it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more massive.

You've just described an airliner wing.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974246)
JASSM turning

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

If your intention was to show how different the JASSM behaves with respect to what we saw in the WTC, congratulations, you have succeeded.

smartcooky 1st February 2020 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974231)
...the physical evidence that indicates something very small and not very massive struck at the far left of both towers, but as it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more massive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12974506)
You've just described an airliner wing.

Correct, a port (left) airliner wing to be precise!

curious cat 1st February 2020 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12974535)
Correct, a starboard airliner wing to be precise!

A port side, actually. What about sticking to the old-fashioned LEFT and RIGHT?:)

smartcooky 1st February 2020 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12974550)
A port side, actually. What about sticking to the old-fashioned LEFT and RIGHT?:)


Correct, and corrected

Captain_Swoop 1st February 2020 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellbound (Post 12973351)
Just to second others on military tech:

It tends to be more robust (hardened against EMP or radiation) and more reliable compared to similar civilian versions, but not more advanced (and often less except a few specific areas).

For example, the Army was still using Windows XP when Windows 10 came out. It was tested, the configuration was hardened and customized a LOT more than you’d see civilian side, but it was old. Similar on the hardware: older, but well-tested.

Computers were my main specialty, but you see the same in other equipment too. Heck, the premier example of the military’s “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mindset is probably the M-2 (which ain’t broke, it does the breaking :) )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the 80's we were still using Air Warning Radar on RN ships that had their roots in the e1950's

Captain_Swoop 1st February 2020 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12974285)
My favorite Beatle would have to be Ringo. Who's yours, gang?

George of course.
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 1st February 2020 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12974588)
George of course.
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

And favourite Beatles song, that Merseyside classic, Stairway to Heaven.

https://youtu.be/3WfoccRna6I

smartcooky 1st February 2020 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12974584)
In the 80's we were still using Air Warning Radar on RN ships that had their roots in the e1950's


In the early 1970s. I learned diagnostics and electronic fault finding on the RT82 - AN/APX25, an L-Band IFF transponder manufactured by Stewart-Warner which was basically a 1953 upgrade of the earlier model AN/APX6 - introduced into service in the latter part of World War II

APX 25 was used in

F-86 Sabre
RC-130A Hercules
B-50 Superfortress
B-52 Stratofortress
B-66 Destroyer
C-121 Constellation
C-97 Stratofreighter
F-89 Scorpion
F-100 Super Sabre
F-101 Voodoo
F-102 Delta Dagger
T-28 Trojan
T-33 Shooting Star
T-37 Tweet
T-38 Talon

Some of these aircraft were still in service as late as the 1980s WITH the APX25s still fitted...

... so yeah, just because you tag technology "military" doesn't automatically make it the most advanced.

Cosmic Yak 2nd February 2020 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12972848)
Once again, using your own figures: the gap is 14 inches. The missile is 14 inches wide. It cannot pass through the gap without jamming.
You explained this by quoting a source that said it would blast through, leaving a missile-shaped hole. This, according you the photo you keep using, did not happen.
Therefore there was no missile.



Perhaps you missed the entire Burden of Proof conversation. To remind you: your claim is missiles, therefore the BoP rests on you. I do not have to answer that question.
Your own sources disprove missiles. You need either to disown your sources, or admit your theory is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12967974)
This is a great example of how so many CT-ists are so desperate to refute any and all questioning of their pet theories that they forget what they were actually arguing for.
yankee451: You said there were holes big enough for a missile to pass through. I noticed that a 14-inch-wide missile could not pass through a 14-inch-wide hole without getting jammed.
You responded with a link explaining how a missile would not need a hole, because it could blast its own way through.
You are therefore arguing against yourself, and also inadvertently destroying your whole theory.
Please highlight the 'clean exit hole' your own link says the missile would make, and then explain why you have been arguing that a missile passed through a hole, thus proving that it was a missile and not a plane, when your own link says that won't happen.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12972950)
Just to add to this: I believe that yankee451 is saying the missiles struck at an angle? Is that correct?
If it is, then there's no way either size (14" or 12" could have passed through the gap without either getting stuck or blasting a visible hole into the structure.
I've had a quick skim, and it does look like this is the claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12972984)
Yes. His fantasy version is that missiles scored across the face of the building from either side at a shallow angle, gouging deeper as they headed toward the middle. Plus some other number of missiles as required to fill in the big holes for engines and the fuselage.

Mere inches of lateral error in the point of impact would have made feet of error in the length of the wing impression created. And it's not at all clear how a "wing" missile could carve a wing-thick hole while an "engine" missile somehow made a giant engine sized hole rather than punching another wing-thick hole.

Therefore, even if it was a 12" missile, it was hitting at an angle, and therefore could not have passed cleanly through the gap, as yankee451 claims it did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12974231)

The logic fail happens when you fine people ignore the physical evidence, in favor of what you saw on television.

yankee451, I am going to keep posting this until you stop running away and reply.
I have shown how, using your own sources, your theory is wrong.
You keep asking us to discuss the evidence. I am doing just that. Why are you so unwilling to discuss it?

yankee451 2nd February 2020 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12974506)
You've just described an airliner wing.

Nope, if a jet wing had done it, the damage would be consistent with it.

How thick is a wing spar on a 767? How thick is the wing tip?


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

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...d-cladding.png

yankee451 2nd February 2020 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12974829)
Therefore, even if it was a 12" missile, it was hitting at an angle, and therefore could not have passed cleanly through the gap, as yankee451 claims it did.



yankee451, I am going to keep posting this until you stop running away and reply.
I have shown how, using your own sources, your theory is wrong.
You keep asking us to discuss the evidence. I am doing just that. Why are you so unwilling to discuss it?


How many times would you like me to repeat it?

yankee451 2nd February 2020 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12974535)
Correct, a port (left) airliner wing to be precise!

That's fascinating. However the laterally bent steel is proof a wing striking head on didn't do it. Not to mention that pesky cladding that the "wing" was no match for.

yankee451 2nd February 2020 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12974291)
He also thinks your madcap idea is nuts. How do you account for that?

If anyone has a better explanation for the laterally bent steel and the lightly damaged cladding then I'm all ears.

bknight 2nd February 2020 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12975022)
That's fascinating. However the laterally bent steel is proof a wing striking head on didn't do it. Not to mention that pesky cladding that the "wing" was no match for.

Your immature image analysis leads you to incorrect conclusions. the damage is perfectly consistent with an airplane chasing into the tower(s).


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:06 PM.

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