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)

Wowbagger 3rd March 2020 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003840)
Sorry, but I'm not seeing any questions, however irrelevant, that haven't been answered. Perhaps you can compile a list.

Look, the document you presented to me earlier only listed one thing that could go wrong if they don't use planes. There were, in fact, MANY things that could go wrong with such a plan. I listed several possibilities, myself. (The rehearsal staff alerting everyone of what they did, the timing of the release of "live" fake footage being very tight, things going wrong with planting evidence, etc.)

Here's a question of mine, that you haven't really answered:

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

You can't merely handwave all of those issues by saying "people will do what they're told" and "they're not as independent as you think". Those aren't smart risks for an evil overlord to take. And, they don't really address the quality of that document, anyway.

And, to answer THIS question, in particular, you can't just claim "evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles". That doesn't answer MY question.

Mine is a question about the reliability of the document you presented.

Can you give us a compelling answer for that?

Cosmic Yak 4th March 2020 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007931)
Looks like poor Cosmic Yak is stuck in limbo once again.

It is noticeable, isn't it?
It's quite obvious why yankee451 is running from my questions: he simply has no answer.
His entire claim rests on the blurred photo he spams so enthusiastically. He claims that, as the outer cladding is bent, and there is no visible damage to the columns (in his interpretation), this could only have been caused by a cruise missile, bending/denting the cladding as it passed, and then going in between the columns, leaving them intact.
Now, his own information states that the gap between the columns was 14". His own information states that the missile was either 12" or 14" wide. From his own information, he has proven that the missile could not possibly have passed through that gap (even the 12" one was striking at an angle), without either getting stuck or blasting through. His own sources say it would have blasted through, leaving obvious damage. His whole claim rests on the idea that there is no visible damage. Therefore, according to his own information, there were no missiles.
I have repeatedly asked yankee451 to explain or acknowledge this, but he has ducked this every time.
This is presumably because he knows it's all over, but just doesn't want to admit it.
By the way, for sensible people who actually do answer questions, does this figure of 12 or 14" include the missile's wings, or is that just the warhead itself?

Captain_Swoop 4th March 2020 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007787)
No it wouldn't. The smoke was part of the video upon which the CGI jet was layered. This is explained in the OP.

How did they 'layer' the smoke over the CGI jet when the smoke is part of the video?

Jack by the hedge 4th March 2020 04:44 AM

So there was no real smoke.

All CGI. The event which seized the city's (and the world's) full attention in time for the second attack was not actually there to see as it only existed on TV. Not only were the live pictures faked but all the recordings and all the photos which have been released on the internet showing the vast plume of smoke are fakes. Nobody noticed that the pictures they saw on TV didn't match what they saw out of their window. Nobody at all.

We have gone a long, long way beyond the point that I believe yankee451 actually believes the story he's inventing. The only remaining puzzle is motive.

turingtest 4th March 2020 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 13009361)
So there was no real smoke.

All CGI. The event which seized the city's (and the world's) full attention in time for the second attack was not actually there to see as it only existed on TV. Not only were the live pictures faked but all the recordings and all the photos which have been released on the internet showing the vast plume of smoke are fakes. Nobody noticed that the pictures they saw on TV didn't match what they saw out of their window. Nobody at all.

We have gone a long, long way beyond the point that I believe yankee451 actually believes the story he's inventing. The only remaining puzzle is motive.

Cranks crank- it's just what they do.

JSanderO 4th March 2020 05:49 AM

The motive is understandable. Start with a basic distrust of the media and official sources. Yes they do spin and are (hidden) agenda driven.

Embrace the notion of "false flags"... so to get the US into a war footing a raison d'etre had to be created. Deny that US has antagonized groups around the world who have resorted to terrorism.

Believing one is smarter technically than they are. Lacking critical thinking and analytic skills, but creative enough to fabricate a alternate theory. Truthers are science deniers.

pgimeno 4th March 2020 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 13009290)
I have repeatedly asked yankee451 to explain or acknowledge this, but he has ducked this every time.
This is presumably because he knows it's all over, but just doesn't want to admit it.

But by avoiding to answer he can keep the illusion that the ball is still rolling.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 13009290)
By the way, for sensible people who actually do answer questions, does this figure of 12 or 14" include the missile's wings, or is that just the warhead itself?

I'd say the warhead alone without wings.

abaddon 4th March 2020 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 13009290)
By the way, for sensible people who actually do answer questions, does this figure of 12 or 14" include the missile's wings, or is that just the warhead itself?

Well, Yankee has pinballed between JDAM, JASSM, cruise missile and spooky unknown tech. Best you address that question to him.

Because nobody else has a ******** clue what he is on about.

StillSleepy 4th March 2020 02:50 PM

Funny thing too about the JASSM, the body is made of fiberglass.

Leftus 4th March 2020 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13010086)
Funny thing too about the JASSM, the body is made of fiberglass.

Well, since the flight characteristics don't match (a sideswiping cruise missile?) why should materials matter? It's not "hollow aluminum" so it's different and that is all it takes.

Besides, it was Rodan who has a history of sideswiping building and breathing fire. Fits all of the facts.

Robin 4th March 2020 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 13010122)
Besides, it was Rodan who has a history of sideswiping building and breathing fire. Fits all of the facts.

You are all deluded about what made those turtle shaped holes.

Steve 5th March 2020 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 13010377)
You are all deluded about what made those turtle shaped holes.

Gamera of course.

Leftus 5th March 2020 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13011077)
Gamera of course.

Gamera is a good guy and wouldn't kill people. Rodan, on the other hand, is a monster and would lay waste to 4 buildings and a plane in the middle of nowhere without concern in a single afternoon without even breaking a sweat. Not that they sweat.

Axxman300 5th March 2020 02:15 PM

Let's go back to March 4, 2001, the day the root of 911 CT's was born via the wonderful X-Files spin-off, The Lone Gunmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZXDqlnEnc8

The conspiracy is all laid out, how the Cold War is over and a faction within the US Gub'mint needs to stage an attack in order to go to war with some easy target. The bad guys take remote control of a 727 to crash it into...the World Trade Center.

Take note: The plane is CGI and a model. The Twin Towers are the real deal, the film crew shot the footage from a helicopter and it still gives me goosebumps today. Pay attention to the CGI because unlike movies with large budgets and plenty of time this was produced fairly quickly over a matter of weeks.

It looks great for entertainment but doesn't cut it for reality.

This is the upcoming Tom Hanks movie, Greyhound, and it features state of the art, multi-million dollar CGI work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB-yVnr63IM

It looks great but lets face it, the images are still a bit off from reality.

The idea that the footage from 911 is CGI is laughable.

bknight 5th March 2020 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 13011309)
Let's go back to March 4, 2001, the day the root of 911 CT's was born via the wonderful X-Files spin-off, The Lone Gunmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZXDqlnEnc8

The conspiracy is all laid out, how the Cold War is over and a faction within the US Gub'mint needs to stage an attack in order to go to war with some easy target. The bad guys take remote control of a 727 to crash it into...the World Trade Center.

Take note: The plane is CGI and a model. The Twin Towers are the real deal, the film crew shot the footage from a helicopter and it still gives me goosebumps today. Pay attention to the CGI because unlike movies with large budgets and plenty of time this was produced fairly quickly over a matter of weeks.

It looks great for entertainment but doesn't cut it for reality.

This is the upcoming Tom Hanks movie, Greyhound, and it features state of the art, multi-million dollar CGI work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB-yVnr63IM

It looks great but lets face it, the images are still a bit off from reality.

The idea that the footage from 911 is CGI is laughable.

Missed that series completely, maybe I was working? ;)

Leftus 5th March 2020 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 13011309)
Let's go back to March 4, 2001, the day the root of 911 CT's was born via the wonderful X-Files spin-off, The Lone Gunmen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZXDqlnEnc8

The conspiracy is all laid out, how the Cold War is over and a faction within the US Gub'mint needs to stage an attack in order to go to war with some easy target. The bad guys take remote control of a 727 to crash it into...the World Trade Center.

Take note: The plane is CGI and a model. The Twin Towers are the real deal, the film crew shot the footage from a helicopter and it still gives me goosebumps today. Pay attention to the CGI because unlike movies with large budgets and plenty of time this was produced fairly quickly over a matter of weeks.

It looks great for entertainment but doesn't cut it for reality.

This is the upcoming Tom Hanks movie, Greyhound, and it features state of the art, multi-million dollar CGI work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB-yVnr63IM

It looks great but lets face it, the images are still a bit off from reality.

The idea that the footage from 911 is CGI is laughable.

Hollywood CGI. We are talking about military grade, pentagon level CGI needed to cover up the Rodan attack. Because, as you well know from the briefings, pentagon level CGI is decades ahead of Hollywood, for some reason.

smartcooky 5th March 2020 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 13011309)
Take note: The plane is CGI and a model. The Twin Towers are the real deal, the film crew shot the footage from a helicopter and it still gives me goosebumps today. Pay attention to the CGI because unlike movies with large budgets and plenty of time this was produced fairly quickly over a matter of weeks.

It looks great for entertainment but doesn't cut it for reality.

This is the upcoming Tom Hanks movie, Greyhound, and it features state of the art, multi-million dollar CGI work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB-yVnr63IM

It looks great but lets face it, the images are still a bit off from reality.

The idea that the footage from 911 is CGI is laughable.


And this is the thing that yankee451 and his "no planes" crowd just completely fail to understand.

ANY half competent CGI, first year tech can spot even state-of-the-art CGI immediately, with just a few simple tests. Yes, it may pass the "movie-goer" test, where you see the action and are convinced by it, but CGI will NOT pass any kind of decent frame-by-frame examination, error level analysis or intersection tests and any of a half dozen or more tests that will detect things such as pixel pattern repetition, rendering errors, inconsistent microtextures and clipping will make any fakery stand out like a pair of canine's gonads.

zelda19678 6th March 2020 04:27 AM

I'm Ms Lurk-a-lot and don't post much- but is it just me who thinks that if no one replied to Yankee-he'd realise he's not getting the attention he so obviously craves, and go bother someone else? Or am I just being too simplistic? I bow down to everyones patience though. I don't have any.

Dave Rogers 6th March 2020 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zelda19678 (Post 13011874)
I'm Ms Lurk-a-lot and don't post much- but is it just me who thinks that if no one replied to Yankee-he'd realise he's not getting the attention he so obviously craves, and go bother someone else?

Some of us think of that as a service we provide, free of charge, to that someone else. If they're arguing pointlessly here, they don't have time to irritate anyone who matters.

Dave

zelda19678 6th March 2020 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 13011878)
Some of us think of that as a service we provide, free of charge, to that someone else. If they're arguing pointlessly here, they don't have time to irritate anyone who matters.

Dave

Ah, thanks- I get it now. Although I must say, I learn a lot from the replies so look very clever when someone starts spouting CT nonsense at me.

Cheers :-)

bknight 6th March 2020 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 13011878)
Some of us think of that as a service we provide, free of charge, to that someone else. If they're arguing pointlessly here, they don't have time to irritate anyone who matters.

Dave

Additionally, while yankee's believes are probably NOT going to change by debunking his/her beliefs I believe it a critical necessity to show those that may be on the fence or undecided that beliefs have no basis in science to be believed by others. :)

Jack by the hedge 6th March 2020 09:30 AM

Plus it's funny.

turingtest 6th March 2020 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 13012022)
Plus it's funny.

This too- you can think of ISF as your station for "Conspiracy Theorists Say The Darndest Things."

Jack by the hedge 6th March 2020 10:12 AM

Exactly. It's kind of a guilty pleasure. When someone comes back and back to stubbornly defend a preposterous position it has something of the appeal of a verbal Chuck Jones cartoon.

Of course one doesn't have any nagging worries about the mental health of Wile E Coyote, whereas some conspiracy theorists hereabouts over the years (present company excepted, make no doubt) do make one wonder if arguing with them is unkind.

Leftus 6th March 2020 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 13011878)
Some of us think of that as a service we provide, free of charge, to that someone else. If they're arguing pointlessly here, they don't have time to irritate anyone who matters.

Dave

Also if left unchallenged, then some lurker might be left with just one side of the story and think that maybe Yankee is on to something. He isn't. Much like religious debates, the goal is not to sway Yankee but the audience.

Yankee isn't going to be reasoned out of his unreasonable conclusions. He starts with the belief that it wasn't a plane and then has to invent more and more outlandish scenarios. While it's theoretically possible to do some CGI, we have people who were there, on the ground, in the buildings who did not experience it thousands of miles away through a TV camera. So that reality has to be disposed of as well.

One reason I go with my Rodan theory is that it's a better fit than missiles. And only a bit more unrealistic. Maybe not, the methods that Yankee is trying to sell aren't any more of a fantasy than Rodan. There are holes in the missile theory. There are none in the Rodan theory. The question of Rodan's existence is a feature, not a bug.

Axxman300 6th March 2020 11:38 AM

Another reason is to draw the CTist out long enough to expose their thought process and bias. We learn what they think they know vs what they actually know.

Plus Yankee has been kicked out of most of the 911-Truth message boards so the fact this is one of the few places he can spew his satire is sweet irony.

smartcooky 6th March 2020 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zelda19678 (Post 13011874)
I'm Ms Lurk-a-lot and don't post much- but is it just me who thinks that if no one replied to Yankee-he'd realise he's not getting the attention he so obviously craves, and go bother someone else? Or am I just being too simplistic? I bow down to everyones patience though. I don't have any.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 13011878)
Some of us think of that as a service we provide, free of charge, to that someone else. If they're arguing pointlessly here, they don't have time to irritate anyone who matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 13012160)
Another reason is to draw the CTist out long enough to expose their thought process and bias. We learn what they think they know vs what they actually know.

Plus Yankee has been kicked out of most of the 911-Truth message boards so the fact this is one of the few places he can spew his satire is sweet irony.

Not to mention that allowing him to spout his spurious claptrap unchallenged would mean that lurkers and Googlers who find this thread and others like it, might consider that we have no answers. By arguing against his BS, we help to prevent others at risk of falling down the rabbit hole, from doing so.

At one time, I was a dyed-in-the-wool, confirmed and certified, second-gunman-on-the-grassy-knoll JFK assassination conspiracy theorist. It was, among other things, a discussion board like this one that helped me to turn away from JFK conspiracy nutjobbery.


ETA: semi-ninja'd by Leftus

ETA: and bknight

smartcooky 6th March 2020 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zelda19678 (Post 13011890)
Ah, thanks- I get it now. Although I must say, I learn a lot from the replies so look very clever when someone starts spouting CT nonsense at me.

Cheers :-)


Well there you go, see? Mission accomplished

yankee451 6th March 2020 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wowbagger (Post 13009253)
Look, the document you presented to me earlier only listed one thing that could go wrong if they don't use planes. There were, in fact, MANY things that could go wrong with such a plan. I listed several possibilities, myself. (The rehearsal staff alerting everyone of what they did, the timing of the release of "live" fake footage being very tight, things going wrong with planting evidence, etc.)

Here's a question of mine, that you haven't really answered:

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

You can't merely handwave all of those issues by saying "people will do what they're told" and "they're not as independent as you think". Those aren't smart risks for an evil overlord to take. And, they don't really address the quality of that document, anyway.

And, to answer THIS question, in particular, you can't just claim "evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles". That doesn't answer MY question.

Mine is a question about the reliability of the document you presented.

Can you give us a compelling answer for that?

I didn't write the article. The evidence in the impact holes makes your complaints moot.

Leftus 6th March 2020 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13012253)
I didn't write the article. The evidence in the impact holes makes your complaints moot.

Please quit ducking the evidence those impact holes were created by Rodan. Thanks.

Jack by the hedge 6th March 2020 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13012253)
I didn't write the article. The evidence in the impact holes makes your complaints moot.

Exactly. Everything that makes your hypothesis hilariously absurd may be ignored because your ideosynchratic assessment of a grainy photo says the damage wasn't caused by a plane. Q.E.D. If it requires you to believe six impossible things before breakfast, so be it. Your photoanalytical skills are unmatched (except when you're wrong).

Leftus 6th March 2020 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13012186)
Not to mention that allowing him to spout his spurious claptrap unchallenged would mean that lurkers and Googlers who find this thread and others like it, might consider that we have no answers. By arguing against his BS, we help to prevent others at risk of falling down the rabbit hole, from doing so.

At one time, I was a dyed-in-the-wool, confirmed and certified, second-gunman-on-the-grassy-knoll JFK assassination conspiracy theorist. It was, among other things, a discussion board like this one that helped me to turn away from JFK conspiracy nutjobbery.

Also, it helps to expose how flawed the assertion is because there is never a meaningful response beyond the initial assertion. And the utter reliance on ignorance. Says it can't be an airliner and has to be a missile. Does he have any specialized knowledge on airliners or missile? Nope.

Mycroft 6th March 2020 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13012253)
I didn't write the article. The evidence in the impact holes makes your complaints moot.

I've been following along, and I disagree. The impact holes are in the shape of an airplane with wings, which stand to reason because that's what made them. You have offered no convincing evidence otherwise.

abaddon 6th March 2020 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 13012476)
I've been following along, and I disagree. The impact holes are in the shape of an airplane with wings, which stand to reason because that's what made them. You have offered no convincing evidence otherwise.

Convincing evidence? Try no evidence at all.

Robin 6th March 2020 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13012253)
The evidence in the impact holes makes your complaints moot.

Which are consistent with the impact by an airliner and nothing else that anyone has been able to plausibly suggest.

Craig4 7th March 2020 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 13008801)
Could this moth carry coconuts? If so, how many?

Depends, is it an African or European moth?

Steve 7th March 2020 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 13012515)
Which are consistent with the impact by an airliner and nothing else that anyone has been able to plausibly suggest.

There are consistent arguments above in favor of Rodan.


(Oh, plausible. OK)

bruto 7th March 2020 08:48 AM

I'm kind of coming over to the idea of a moonstruck luna moth.

Sabretooth 7th March 2020 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13008044)
Fuel added weight, but not density.

Are you suggesting that, should I throw a balloon filled with Jet-A at your head at 500 MPH, that you won't feel a thing?

Sabretooth 7th March 2020 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13008018)
No it didn't. The smoke was no issue for editing the impact videos, which were not broadcast live. They had plenty of time to edit their CGI plane to include "smoke shadows" and reflected light. Besides, as explained a couple thousand posts ago, the damage evidence alone proves all the footage of the "plane" impacts are fraudulent.

Wait, did you just say they filmed everything prior to 9/11/2001, then broadcast it that morning? From ~30 different angles? With no witnesses? With damage that is consistent from planes impacting at ~500 MPH? Using film technology that didn't (and still doesn't) exist?

The only thing you have achieved to this point is that you've documented a textbook case for cognitive dissonance.

BTW - you still haven't addressed my questions regarding the film in post #2523.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:44 AM.

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