International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

Robin 18th January 2020 01:23 AM

Such a simple question too.

Do you think:

a) The steel column could be damaged somewhat without the cladding being completely severed or;
b) The steel column could not be damaged at all unless the cladding was completely severed.

It also seems too have a rather obvious answer.

curious cat 18th January 2020 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958118)
I use my real name and face because I mean what I say. The only people I have a beef with already know everything there is to know about me. I don't have a problem with people who live in fear and think using a pseudonym will protect them, however naive that is, but I have no patience for ad hominem fallacies slung by people who hide behind anonymity. I wasn't asking them to "show themselves" as much as I was mocking them for slinging mud from the shadows.

The skeptics have been wrong about so many things, from which tower they're looking at, to whether the south face of the south tower is visible when looking at the north face of the north tower. They don't admit they're wrong because they don't have to. They won't have to face friends, family and co-workers for their mistakes. They can say anything they want without having to admit error. And they do. Often. Just read the thread. I suspect there would be fewer blowhards here if they proudly signed their names to their screed.

Exactly the answer I expected from the smartest and most honest man in the universe. :-)

JSanderO 18th January 2020 07:02 AM

It's pretty clear that Steve is not going to change his beliefs. His arguments/positions are so weird and essentially unsupported by any science... he will not get any traction on this site or with the public.

Numerous vids were posted to the WTC2 strike and all show exactly the same event and smoke. It defies credulity to think they were all FX scams by the perps who according to his theory... controlled or are the USG, the media, UA, AA... witnesses and so on. Just orchestrate such a complex conspiracy is not possible... let alone come up with it.

If the objective of the perps was to start a war and blame it on radical Islamists... planting bombs would work and probably easier to smuggle in a set off than the special effects show. There would be evidence of bombs and it could be pinned on whomever.

Steve's theory is so crazy... and no one here is taking it seriously. It's a waste of time... except to see the critical thinking from members.

yankee451 18th January 2020 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12958177)
Exactly the answer I expected from the smartest and most honest man in the universe. :-)

So sayeth some nameless, faceless, nonentity.

yankee451 18th January 2020 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12958265)
It's pretty clear that Steve is not going to change his beliefs. His arguments/positions are so weird and essentially unsupported by any science... he will not get any traction on this site or with the public.

Numerous vids were posted to the WTC2 strike and all show exactly the same event and smoke. It defies credulity to think they were all FX scams by the perps who according to his theory... controlled or are the USG, the media, UA, AA... witnesses and so on. Just orchestrate such a complex conspiracy is not possible... let alone come up with it.

If the objective of the perps was to start a war and blame it on radical Islamists... planting bombs would work and probably easier to smuggle in a set off than the special effects show. There would be evidence of bombs and it could be pinned on whomever.

Steve's theory is so crazy... and no one here is taking it seriously. It's a waste of time... except to see the critical thinking from members.

You're still ignoring the evidence that proves planes didn't do it.

yankee451 18th January 2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12958149)
Such a simple question too.

Do you think:

a) The steel column could be damaged somewhat without the cladding being completely severed or;
b) The steel column could not be damaged at all unless the cladding was completely severed.

It also seems too have a rather obvious answer.

The answer is, false dichotomy.

JSanderO 18th January 2020 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958311)
You're still ignoring the evidence that proves planes didn't do it.

The evidence I see strongly supports that jumbos hit the towers.

You point out something which looks inconsistent to YOU. But it's not inconsistent with the disintegration that a plane crash could do. You cant throw out everything because ONE thing baffles you.

yankee451 18th January 2020 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12958314)
The evidence I see strongly supports that jumbos hit the towers.

You point out something which looks inconsistent to YOU. But it's not inconsistent with the disintegration that a plane crash could do. You cant throw out everything because ONE thing baffles you.


I keep pointing out evidence that any honest investigator would conclude eliminates planes from the list of possibilities.

abaddon 18th January 2020 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958316)
I keep pointing out evidence that any honest investigator would conclude eliminates planes from the list of possibilities.

No, you don't. You point out things you cannot understand and make a crazy leap to "missiles" despites the simple fact that no missiles are capable of such precision then or now. Thus you rely on some heretofore unknown technological solution that you pull directly from your fundament. This is no different than the claims of the insane Judy Wood with her space beams.

sts60 18th January 2020 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12958314)
The evidence I see strongly supports that jumbos hit the towers.

You point out something which looks inconsistent to YOU. But it's not inconsistent with the disintegration that a plane crash could do. You cant throw out everything because ONE thing baffles you.

Well, I believe he once said he believed the Apollo landings were phony. Apollo hoax believers in general have a very similar M.O.: see something they donít understand, declare it an ďanomalyĒ, and pronounce the whole thing fake - with no good explanation for the evidence, and no evidence for the methods of alleged fakery, and certainly no sane explanation for how such a gigantic conspiracy makes any sense in the first place.

Iíd enjoy seeing Yankee451 develop his Apollo views here, but heís shown no inclination to do so.

yankee451 18th January 2020 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12958322)
No, you don't. You point out things you cannot understand and make a crazy leap to "missiles" despites the simple fact that no missiles are capable of such precision then or now. Thus you rely on some heretofore unknown technological solution that you pull directly from your fundament. This is no different than the claims of the insane Judy Wood with her space beams.

Nope, still wrong. As explained already, I started my investigation believing everything I was shown on television.

Back in the first gulf war they bragged about putting bombs and missiles through windows and down chimneys. Ten years later, do you think they ditched that technology, or do you think they refined it?

yankee451 18th January 2020 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12958329)
Well, I believe he once said he believed the Apollo landings were phony. Apollo hoax believers in general have a very similar M.O.: see something they donít understand, declare it an ďanomalyĒ, and pronounce the whole thing fake - with no good explanation for the evidence, and no evidence for the methods of alleged fakery, and certainly no sane explanation for how such a gigantic conspiracy makes any sense in the first place.

Iíd enjoy seeing Yankee451 develop his Apollo views here, but heís shown no inclination to do so.

Red herrings abound. Focus, focus...

MattNelson 18th January 2020 09:35 AM

FYI, people, there are 63 videos showing Flight 175. I've been collecting them for about 10 years.

There are more than 49 photos of the 2nd plane, too. I've recently added 3 new ones. Another was just found that hasn't been added.

Let's talk about the 2nd plane, Steve. Was it missiles cloaked in a hologram?

yankee451 18th January 2020 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958337)
FYI, people, there are 63 videos showing Flight 175. I've been collecting them for about 10 years.

There are more than 49 photos of the 2nd plane, too. I've recently added 3 new ones. Another was just found that hasn't been added.

Let's talk about the 2nd plane, Steve. Was it missiles cloaked in a hologram?

More red herrings. I've explained my position thoroughly already. How many of those videos were shown almost-live (considering the ~17 second broadcast delay)?

beachnut 18th January 2020 09:38 AM

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.

projection and failing to realize flight 175 was on Radar at the exact time it is seen on video

the foaming at the mouth is projection, and your post are a mini Gish Gallop

Are you now saying there were aircraft and people lasing the target. Please explain how the smart missiles work. You don't do science.

Why do Radar tracks of 11 and 175 end at the WTC? Now you have the FAA and NTSB in on your demented fantasy mocking the murder of thousands. This is not foaming at the mouth, it is typing the truth, something you and trump can't do. You could be a bigger liar than the president, but you lies are limited to one subject. Do windmills cause cancer in your fantasy world like trumps? (oops, a mini gish gallop)

yankee451 18th January 2020 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12958340)
projection and failing to realize flight 175 was on Radar at the exact time it is seen on video

the foaming at the mouth is projection, and your post are a mini Gish Gallop

Are you now saying there were aircraft and people lasing the target. Please explain how the smart missiles work. You don't do science.

Why do Radar tracks of 11 and 175 end at the WTC? Now you have the FAA and NTSB in on your demented fantasy mocking the murder of thousands. This is not foaming at the mouth, it is typing the truth, something you and trump can't do. You could be a bigger liar than the president, but you lies are limited to one subject. Do windmills cause cancer in your fantasy world like trumps? (oops, a mini gish gallop)

They were selling us planes, but launched missiles. All radar data can be faked, as you, an alleged pilot, already know. Considering the most likely suspects are the people who provided the alleged radar data, why do you think it has merit? Why do you think radar data from the most likely suspects overrides the physical evidence that discredits it?

MattNelson 18th January 2020 09:49 AM

Prove the NBC Chopper4 video wasn't live. Ace Baker would be interested.

MattNelson 18th January 2020 09:53 AM

So... no hologram, then?

MattNelson 18th January 2020 09:54 AM

You gotta hate that smoking engine. Just don't think about it.

yankee451 18th January 2020 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958347)
Prove the NBC Chopper4 video wasn't live. Ace Baker would be interested.

Hi Matt, well met.

I never said it wasn't live. Ace Baker could't care less.

What I did say, in the op, and numerous times in this thread, and on video, and in interviews, is that the view of the live shots did not show the crash, because the perspectives of the live (almost) shots were from the north side of the north tower. They were filming the hole in the North Tower when the explosion occurred in the south side of the South Tower, therefore, the crash itself was not captured live. What was captured live was a CGI plane flying "behind" the towers, followed by an explosion from the opposite side of the tower that the networks were showing us.

Please try to log it in.

Steve De'ak

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958352)
So... no hologram, then?

No. Holograms don't bend steel.

Please don't confuse me with whatever preconceptions you might have about so called truthers.

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958354)
You gotta hate that smoking engine. Just don't think about it.

I don't know what you mean.

MattNelson 18th January 2020 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958357)
Hi Matt, well met.

I never said it wasn't live. Ace Baker could't care less.

What I did say, in the op, and numerous times in this thread, and on video, and in interviews, is that the view of the live shots did not show the crash, because the perspectives of the live (almost) shots were from the north side of the north tower. They were filming the hole in the North Tower when the explosion occurred in the south side of the South Tower, therefore, the crash itself was not captured live. What was captured live was a CGI plane flying "behind" the towers, followed by an explosion from the opposite side of the tower that the networks were showing us.

Please try to log it in.

Steve De'ak

The Chopper4 video was impossible to fake live according to Ace Baker. The camera was moving. The background was too varied. Are you a video production expert? Impossible. Like your missiles.

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958364)
The Chopper4 video was impossible to fake live according to Ace Baker. The camera was moving. The background was too varied. Are you a video production expert? Impossible. Like your missiles.

Matt,

Perhaps you should talk to Ace about it.

It doesn't take a video production expert to figure it out. I am not an expert at anything. I have never claimed otherwise. But it isn't about me, is it? If, as the evidence indicates, missiles were launched, then there are very few ways to have masked them on "live" television. Only one that I can tell.

The fact that none of you will address the merits of my argument, nor explain how the evidence doesn't support my conclusion as well as it supports yours, is just more validation that I'm on the right track. It also is an indication that "the truth" is not high on the priority list of the so called Skeptics.

Steve

MattNelson 18th January 2020 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958363)
I don't know what you mean.

The most complete discussion on the plane engines anywhere is found in my PDF. Again:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/Airp...s_WTC_9-11.pdf

Smoking hot engine parts photographed in the street 4 minutes after the 2nd impact were not shot out of the tower by a cannon. Agreed?

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958372)
The most complete discussion on the plane engines anywhere is found in my PDF. Again:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/Airp...s_WTC_9-11.pdf

Smoking hot engine parts photographed in the street 4 minutes after the 2nd impact were not shot out of the tower by a cannon. Agreed?

Agreed. How does that engine, which was likely planted by operatives dressed as police (or corrupt law enforcement themselves), change the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles? Wouldn't the most likely suspects have thought ahead about planting evidence? Or does that only happen in the movies?

MattNelson 18th January 2020 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958369)
Matt,

Perhaps you should talk to Ace about it.

It doesn't take a video production expert to figure it out. I am not an expert at anything. I have never claimed otherwise. But it isn't about me, is it? If, as the evidence indicates, missiles were launched, then there are very few ways to have masked them on "live" television. Only one that I can tell.

The fact that none of you will address the merits of my argument, nor explain how the evidence doesn't support my conclusion as well as it supports yours, is just more validation that I'm on the right track. It also is an indication that "the truth" is not high on the priority list of the so called Skeptics.

Steve

A video production expert couldn't figure it out, Steve. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

You said "merits." That was awesome.

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958378)
A video production expert couldn't figure it out, Steve. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

You said "merits." That was awesome.

Then find an expert to do your thinking for you.

MattNelson 18th January 2020 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958375)
Agreed. How does that engine, which was likely planted by operatives dressed as police (or corrupt law enforcement themselves), change the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles? Wouldn't the most likely suspects have thought ahead about planting evidence? Or does that only happen in the movies?

The engine was clearly not planted. What now?

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958378)
A video production expert couldn't figure it out, Steve. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

You said "merits." That was awesome.

Please try to address that awesomeness by the way. Until you can explain how the evidence does not support my conclusions, and can provide a better explanation for it, I win. All your gyrations, ad hominems, false dichotomies, red herrings, appeals to authority, and whatever other excuses you can come up with, won't change that.

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958381)
The engine was clearly not planted. What now?

Says Matt! So if it wasn't planted, how is it consistent with the physical evidence?

MattNelson 18th January 2020 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958384)
Says Matt! So if it wasn't planted, how is it consistent with the physical evidence?

You mean how is it consistent with your harebrained take on the physical evidence.

Watch Church St. seconds after the engine hits the building 50 Murray St. -- smoke and dust everywhere. At vrt 0:55 in this clip -- the Gedeon Naudet 2nd plane impact video.

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

yankee451 18th January 2020 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958393)
You mean how is it consistent with your harebrained take on the physical evidence.

Watch Church St. seconds after the engine hits the building 50 Murray St. -- smoke and dust everywhere. At vrt 0:55 in this clip -- the Gedeon Naudet 2nd plane impact video.

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

Golly. You're citing Naudet. Still.

I can see this is a waste of time.

Jules Naudet's First Plane Shot Was Staged

More Proof the Naudet Video was Staged

MattNelson 18th January 2020 11:02 AM

Harebrained. LOL

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/images/BunnyVortex.gif

Yes, I made this gif.

beachnut 18th January 2020 11:02 AM

Claims fake Radar, but can't explain how to fake it - wowzer
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958345)
They were selling us planes, but launched missiles. All radar data can be faked, as you, an alleged pilot, already know. Considering the most likely suspects are the people who provided the alleged radar data, why do you think it has merit? Why do you think radar data from the most likely suspects overrides the physical evidence that discredits it?

Nope, the Radar data is also backed up by video. Making up lies again are you. Yes.

I have an ATP, and it can be verified at the FAA, and has been by other failed 9/11 truth, and 9/11 fantasy authors who post woo like you.

FAA and NTSB Radar data is verified by the very videos you claim are fake but fail to provide evidence how it was done. The eyewitnesses also verify video and Radar.

Have you tried to make up a list of all the people needed to fake the things you made up?

What is sad, you believe this can happen, which means you would do this if you could, fake stuff to support or get your way.

The is no way you can explain how the Radar data is faked, you don't have the technical expertise to explain any of your sick fantasy claims mocking the murder of thousands. It is amazing how you spew this poppycock and have no evidence.

The planted engine is a big clue how failed your claims are. This is the Gish Gallop, you claim missiles, then say the engine is planted, etc, etc, etc, - all without evidence, or explaining the logistical nightmare you invented, adding more people to the fantasy.

Who did 9/11 in yankee451 demented fantasy...
USAF
USAF contractors
Boeing
American Airlines
United Airlines
FAA
NTSB
NTSB contractors
FAA contractors and sub contractors
ATC
ATC controllers
Government, the deep state which exist only in the minds of CTers
ABC
NBC
OMG, FOX news the propaganda minister of trump
CBS
CNN
NPR
Pentagon
WTC staff
NYPD
FDNY
the list goes on
Fake survivors
Fake survivor families and friends
And more
Private citizens with video cameras/phones
Thousand of Americans faked 9/11 according to yankee451 who can't do physics to save him from fantasy so stupid it burns - your burnt

MattNelson 18th January 2020 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958394)
Golly. You're citing Naudet. Still.

I can see this is a waste of time.

Oh, come on man! Bring the smoke machine theories! They're more fun than the "fake" mountain of video evidence you have teetering over you.

BTW, I love your equation for determining what is a waste of time. (= anything with video/images proving you wrong)

Crazy Chainsaw 18th January 2020 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958375)
Agreed. How does that engine, which was likely planted by operatives dressed as police (or corrupt law enforcement themselves), change the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles? Wouldn't the most likely suspects have thought ahead about planting evidence? Or does that only happen in the movies?

What about the oxidation flashes on contact with the buildings that couldn't be faked?

sts60 18th January 2020 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958334)
Red herrings abound. Focus, focus...

I’m merely noting a similarity in approach, not addressing any specific claim you’ve made here. You have plenty of playmates in this thread. But if you’d like to start a thread to talk about your belief that Apollo was faked, I’ll be happy to talk with you there.

ETA: I believe you had made that claim (Apollo being a hoax) on this forum some time ago. If I misremember, please disregard with my apologies.

Deadie 18th January 2020 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12958400)
Oh, come on man! Bring the smoke machine theories! They're more fun than the "fake" mountain of video evidence you have teetering over you.

He already did and then posted a link to where you can buy handheld smoke machines online. Then he speculated that the pentagon has better ones.

As you can see, this is an iron-clad argument. :rolleyes:

yankee451 18th January 2020 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12958405)
What about the oxidation flashes on contact with the buildings that couldn't be faked?

Easily faked.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:21 PM.

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