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)

curious cat 15th January 2020 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955842)
................. I'm surprised it was damaged as little as it was, considering a 900 lb warhead just blew a big hole in the steel that cladding was covering.

Wouldn't be more accurate to say "The damage is too little to be consistent with the explosion of a 900 lb warhead?" :D

yankee451 15th January 2020 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12955852)
Wouldn't be more accurate to say "The damage is too little to be consistent with the explosion of a 900 lb warhead?" :D

"Blew" as in cut through without detonating.

Elagabalus 15th January 2020 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955538)
I see. So you think the photographs of all the damage evidence was doctored to make it look like the lateral impact of small projectiles, rather than what they were showing on television. Your logic gives me chills.

That's exactly what we wanted you to think, Steve.

curious cat 15th January 2020 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955860)
"Blew" as in cut through without detonating.

Whatever :-). But without going in semantics, doesn't "surprises me" mean something like "appears to be inconsistent with..."?

yankee451 15th January 2020 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12955837)
Doesn't matter.

lol

yankee451 15th January 2020 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12955864)
Whatever :-). But without going in semantics, doesn't "surprises me" mean something like "appears to be inconsistent with..."?

If you bothered to read the thread, or any of the links I provided, you wouldn't be so confused.

curious cat 15th January 2020 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955866)
If you bothered to read the thread, or any of the links I provided, you wouldn't be so confused.

I don't think reading this thread is the best recipe for treating confusion :-).

Robin 16th January 2020 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12955834)

Light bits the aluminium sides, dark bit, the hole between.

You can see the window cleaning track leading right up to that hole from underneath, and continuing above.

JSanderO 16th January 2020 03:24 AM

Consider the fact that the cladding was applied after the steel panels were in place. I suspect the insulation was part of the cladding AND the joints of the cladding did not align with the steel. This may mean that the alum panel saw some different forces from the steel. Panels could have sprung (out) in some cases not be severed.

But a few odd sections of alum does not render the plane hitting the tower as fantasy... especially in light of the vast amount of what appears to be evidence that a jumbo hit the tower.

There were very few eye witnesses to AA11, but there were tens of thousands to UA175... and it was captured on multiple cameras from many locations.

Steve is tilting at windmills here... and is not and should not be taken seriously.

Jack by the hedge 16th January 2020 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12955827)
Here is the full damage for the tower in question:

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...outh.jpg?w=800

Here is a close up of the loose cladding:

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...ge-4.png?w=567

That's interesting.

In the first photo, the oft-circled piece of cladding is in front of the 5th column along from the wingtip impression. That photo appears to have been taken from a position to the left of the other one, as you can see the west side of the tower.

In the photo yankee451 posted several times also taken from a position to the left, the cladding is further to the right, not covering column 5 at all and closer to column 6.

Did the cladding move? Which photo was taken first, I wonder. Is the cladding perhaps dangling from some connection we can't make out, like a piece of window frame, and gradually slipping?

abaddon 16th January 2020 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955771)
Wow. So this means the steel wasn't bent sharply in a completely different direction than the mostly hollow aluminum wing was traveling.

The wing was not "mostly hollow". Why must you lie?

Regnad Kcin 16th January 2020 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12955801)
I think this is getting out of hands. I was following with a mild amusement this clowns insulting members of this forum left right and centre, but there is no way to be amused by his outrageous attitude to the victims of this tragedy and their families. If there is a vote to ban him from this forum, you have both my hands up. I am sure such a decision would't cause any grief or damage.

Of course.

But that’s the pathology. Everything must succumb to the ego and its righteousness; that which threatens it must be dismissed, often with extreme prejudice. So take pity.

Then again, it could just be a chain-yanking poe.

Robin 16th January 2020 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955771)
Wow. So this means the steel wasn't bent sharply in a completely different direction than the mostly hollow aluminum wing was traveling.

Different direction? This is the South Tower we are talking about, right?

Jack by the hedge 16th January 2020 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12956001)
… Then again, it could just be a chain-yanking poe.

My thoughts did turn to whether driving traffic to one's website might be a reason to stoutly defend an absurd claim, but the tiny audience here surely make that explanation implausible.

Crazy Chainsaw 16th January 2020 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955866)
If you bothered to read the thread, or any of the links I provided, you wouldn't be so confused.

And if you had bothered to note there is a soft rubber portion of the leading edge of
the wing known as a deicing balloon.
If the planes wing was dragged along the edge as physics of impact say it should have been that would account for that observed deformed but left piece of Aluminum.
It's your theory please provide competent Evidence of it.

Oystein 16th January 2020 07:41 AM

Quote:

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

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

Dave

Midgets with saws. I have kept telling y'all for years, but no one pays attention :boggled:

Blue Mountain 16th January 2020 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain (Post 12955614)
He's actually studiously avoided answering the question ever since I first asked it way back in post 179.

Hey yankee451, If the aircraft N334AA and N612UA did not hit the WTC towers on September 11, 2001, what happened to the airframes and to the people who were aboard the flights? The people and the aircraft existed at 8:30 AM EST that day, but by 9:30 AM they were no more. What happened to them?

I see, so that means the lightly bent cladding and the gouged and sharply bend steel columns are consistent with the head on impact of a jet. I get it.

I see some words here, but they bear no relation whatsoever to the question I asked.

Please try again.

Are you saying the airframes are myth along with with the people that were in them?

Dave Rogers 16th January 2020 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12956126)
Midgets with saws. I have kept telling y'all for years, but no one pays attention :boggled:

My son certainly doesn't, so that's probably why he didn't see them.

Dave

GlennB 16th January 2020 08:08 AM

More weird mechanics -

I was clearing junk from around the garden and found a thin, pretty rotten piece of wood, maybe 18" long. Propped it against a breeze block, thinking that one good stamp would easily break the wood and I can chuck it in the wood stove.

The breeze block shattered. My foot hurts a little but no great damage done.

Such a thing is clearly impossible, so I reckon I must have taken some reality-altering drugs.

Leftus 16th January 2020 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955519)
I see. So this changes the evidence of the lateral impact of cruise missiles, how? Perhaps thousands of people did report seeing missiles, but why would the media tell us about it when they were selling us planes? Like all my questions you don't need to answer.

Cruise missiles don't do lateral impacts. They aren't designed that way. They are designed to avoid those very things.

Why do you think that the wing on those missiles, held on by hinges BTW, would hold together better than a wing on an airliner? The wings aren't welded on to survive multiple flights. Missiles are a one shot item. They don't get to be re-used. The hinges are constructed to maintain flight for a few hours, tops.

So were the missiles, which didn't exist, specially constructed, reinforced, programmed by some unknown parties or do you think they were off the shelf?

Do you have any actual working knowledge of the weapon system in question? It doesn't sound like it.

beachnut 16th January 2020 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955860)
"Blew" as in cut through without detonating.

The idiot fantasy missiles don't have enough mass and kinetic energy to do the damage of the 757. You lost due to science, videos, and eyewitnesses.

You have failed to prove the videos were faked.

Make my day, go ask the victim's families about the fake video, the fake people, the fake planes. Tell them about the insane missile fantasy.

Go contact the families, here are a few of the thousands.

John D’Allara
Vincent Gerard D’Amadeo
Jack D’Ambrosi
Mary D’Antonio
Edward A D’Atri
Michael D D’Auria
Michael Jude D’Esposito
Manuel John Da Mota
Caleb Arron Dack
Carlos S DaCosta
Joao Alberto
DaFonseca Aguiar, Jr
Thomas A Damaskinos
Jeannine Marie Damiani-Jones
Patrick W Danahy
Nana Danso
Vincent Danz
Dwight Donald Darcy
Elizabeth Ann Darling
Annette Andrea Dataram
Lawrence Davidson
Michael Allen Davidson
Scott Matthew Davidson
Titus Davidson
Niurka Davila
Clinton Davis
Wayne Terrial Davis
Anthony Richard Dawson
Calvin Dawson
Edward James Day
Jayceryll de Chavez
Jennifer De Jesus
Monique E De Jesus
Nereida De Jesus
Emerita De La Pena
Azucena Maria de la Torre
David Paul De Rubbio
Jemal Legesse De Santis
Christian Louis De Simone
Melanie Louise De Vere
William Thomas Dean
Robert J DeAngelis, Jr
Thomas Patrick DeAngelis
Tara E Debek
Anna Marjia DeBin
James V Deblase

mocking the murder of thousands, unable to grasp facts and evidence - your claims might be the sickest of all.

BStrong 16th January 2020 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12955996)
The wing was not "mostly hollow". Why must you lie?

You give Yank too much credit - You must have knowledge about a subject before you can lie about it.

JSanderO 16th January 2020 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12956234)
You give Yank too much credit - You must have knowledge about a subject before you can lie about it.

Some lie and know they are lying... (the worst kind)

Some lie and don't realize they are lying

Some are not interested in the truth despite their claim to be.

Some (many) lie about things they know nothing about

Some persist in lying even after their lies have been exposed.

Most who lie expect to get away with it.

Leftus 16th January 2020 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955839)
Yes. Something like a JASSM can explain it nicely. The warhead is designed for punching through hardened targets with or without detonating. At an angle of attack of somewhere around 15 degrees from parallel to the tower, the wing of the missile would hit first, which is why at the far left of both towers the cladding is only lightly damaged. The progressively worse damage to the columns is explained by the warhead penetrating deeper into the tower, but it loses energy as it penetrated so what began with gouged steel columns ends up only bending them as it slows down.

A rocket sled test center can put this conclusion to the test.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...3/Approach.jpg


Something like this:
https://youtu.be/5_a1foRId6M

The warhead is designed to penetrate. The wing is not. There would be no reason to harden or reinforce the wing structure. In fact, it would be wiser to design it to sheer off, to lessen the drag on penetration forces. Having to push what would be a bullet at that point is far better than having to drag a useless wing deep into a target.

You really have no idea on missiles or their functions, do you? The wings, or fins, are there just to get the payload to the target. They aren't strongly attached to the missile. And, again, the JAASM wings are on hinges. They fold for shipping. They aren't more sturdy than a fully attached, airliner wing filled with fuel. As you noted, it was designed to penetrate, not give glancing blows.

You have the missile doing something it was designed to avoid, lateral impact. You have the wing doing something it wasn't designed to do, stay attached during penetration. On a missile system that wasn't actually functioning for another 6 years.

yankee451 16th January 2020 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12956323)
The warhead is designed to penetrate. The wing is not. There would be no reason to harden or reinforce the wing structure. In fact, it would be wiser to design it to sheer off, to lessen the drag on penetration forces. Having to push what would be a bullet at that point is far better than having to drag a useless wing deep into a target.

You really have no idea on missiles or their functions, do you? The wings, or fins, are there just to get the payload to the target. They aren't strongly attached to the missile. And, again, the JAASM wings are on hinges. They fold for shipping. They aren't more sturdy than a fully attached, airliner wing filled with fuel. As you noted, it was designed to penetrate, not give glancing blows.

You have the missile doing something it was designed to avoid, lateral impact. You have the wing doing something it wasn't designed to do, stay attached during penetration. On a missile system that wasn't actually functioning for another 6 years.

Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rst-strike.gif

Crazy Chainsaw 16th January 2020 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12956497)
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rst-strike.gif

The steel would not have been bent that way from a Missle impact at that angle, no way.

The Common Potato 16th January 2020 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12956040)
And if you had bothered to note there is a soft rubber portion of the leading edge of
the wing known as a deicing balloon.
If the planes wing was dragged along the edge as physics of impact say it should have been that would account for that observed deformed but left piece of Aluminum.
It's your theory please provide competent Evidence of it.

I'm pretty certain that most jets use engine bleed air for ant icing, not inflatable boots.
Narry a boot.

I'm leaving that typo!

BStrong 16th January 2020 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12956497)

Comic book mentality, cartoon evidence.

The material writes itself.

bknight 16th January 2020 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12956497)
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

You have made a big deal that there exists no live footage of the plane hitting WTC 2. However look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBciZFE8lAw
Time stamp ~1.15 and clearly see a 767 flying toward the WTC complex and then repeated at ~15:36, both were followed by a very large fireball exiting the east side of WTC 2. Now how does your untrained inaccurate mind explain away
A: How did this plane make an impossible 90 degree turn to miss the complex?
B: Where did the plane go? Including all the people inside of it?

I watched this all live on TV at the time of the accident, so don't tell me that it was fabricated.

Leftus 16th January 2020 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12956497)
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rst-strike.gif

I'm not the one inventing new properties for that weapon system. Why can the wings of a missile be responsible for "lightly damaged cladding" but the wings on a 767 couldn't possibly do that?

Any particular reason you avoided everything else? Besides ignorance of the weapon system?

Also, wouldn't it be easier to find any one of the 4 air frames that actually existed than invent properties of a missile system that does not exist?

Even if they built a number of one-off missiles, they were destroyed on impact. If you could find, say the fight crew, or just one of them, then you would have iron-clad proof of the conspiracy. You wouldn't even need to find them alive. A corpse would serve just fine too.

beachnut 16th January 2020 02:23 PM

wow, non stop nonsense continues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12956497)
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rst-strike.gif

The invisible missiles did it. How did they fake the image of the Flight 175 which appeared in the eyes to the brain of the many eyewitnesses.

How to you do it? Mock the murder of thousands and leave a legacy of hate of your fellow citizens murdered by saying they never existed. How embarrassing to your kids their kids.

Why is there no evidence for your claim of faked videos?

Deadie 16th January 2020 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12956632)
Why is there no evidence for your claim of faked videos?

This really is the most baffling part. The events of 9/11 were planned out a long time in advance. NYC and the WTC towers in particular were deliberately chosen precisely because the perpetrators knew damn well the entire world was going to have eyes and ears on lower Manhattan. The point was to broadcast a very clear message they knew would be seen and heard.

If, as yankee451 states, that was all smoke and mirrors...then we have no message and the messenger and their motivations remain unknown. Which kind of defeats the purpose of the whole enterprise.

dudalb 16th January 2020 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12956567)
Comic book mentality, cartoon evidence.

The material writes itself.


That is grossly unfair to comic books.....

dudalb 16th January 2020 04:12 PM

18 years and still the same old truther crap. Never changes.

TJM 16th January 2020 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955865)
lol

Interesting that you chose to focus on that and not the part that flies directly in the face of no-planer MSM delusions.

Typical.

TJM 16th January 2020 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12956632)
The invisible missiles did it. How did they fake the image of the Flight 175 which appeared in the eyes to the brain of the many eyewitnesses.

Ah, the old "eyewitness" :rolleyes: chestnut.

You see, those witnesses actually did see an invisible swarm of 14 foot-long cruise missiles but once they switched on the news, they were immediately brainwashed by the MSM and believe they saw great ******* airliners slice into the towers like a knife through butter. Nobody has spoken up after all these years for fear of ridicule, or something.

Do keep up.

Sheesh.

Robin 16th January 2020 06:47 PM

It is hard to tell if he is serious, or if this is just some lighthearted hobby.

He seems to find no improbability that hundreds of people, many of them experts in their fields, are complicit in a complex conspiracy involving hundreds of hours planning and co-ordination and costing millions of dollars.

That two separate airline companies have agreed to falsify their records to pretend they have lost planes. That companies that were tenants of the buildings have agreed to pretend that people died and that their employees presumably vacated the building on that day.

That military missile experts, explosive experts, transportation, etc all took part in this and that people pretended to have relatives or friends killed and have kept up the pretense ever since.

That everybody approached to help with this either agreed to help or agreed never to disclose that someone asked them to do it.

And in the twenty years since they have all kept completely quiet about it despite the money they could make blowing the plot.

This he finds easy to believe.



But he finds it impossible to believe that one piece of cladding might not have been severed all the way through when hit by a wing.

Axxman300 16th January 2020 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12955820)
Different tower.

Weird...almost as if identical aircraft struck the Twin Towers leaving similar impact damage to the facade, and each tower then collapsed as a result of similar damage in nearly identical fashion.

Axxman300 16th January 2020 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12956497)
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rst-strike.gif

Problem with your cartoon is that the missiles are designed to strike head-on, and would have been launched in such a way to make that possible. The exact missile in your cartoon was having guidance problems in 2001 making even flying straight an issue.

ProBonoShill 16th January 2020 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955795)
Until the media broadcast the cartoon plane flying behind the towers, followed by the fireball that erupted from the opposite side of the tower, no one was sure what happened, but most of the reports were that something other than a large jet struck. The truth hurts, but it will set you free.

More pathetic nonsense from a liar.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:55 AM.

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