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 19th January 2020 04:36 PM

Steve, I am into discussions with you about the mechanics of the damage. It would be only a continuing of the farce a few of other people are participating in (nothing wrong with having fun though). I usually respond to you when I see a blatant lie concerning this forum. The point of my post were:
Did I explain sufficiently the reason why there were some sightings of missiles and can you provide any logical argument why discussion about it should continue?
Did I and a few other people address the mysterious piece of cladding or not as you say?

Robin 19th January 2020 04:48 PM

So the momentum of the wing will be directed about 12.5 degrees to the right, whatever the orientation of the wing at that point.

The cladding goes around the column on three sides and so the column can be severely damaged without completely severing the cladding.

Moreover the fireproofing material is likely to be much more compressible than either of the metals and so the cladding can be pushed back about an inch before the bulk of the force hits the steel column. Even if the cladding is not pushed back (or to the sides) any more there is still the possibility of severe damage to the column without the cladding being completely severed:

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-12.png?w=885

beachnut 19th January 2020 04:52 PM

oops, yankee451 proves no gullible people at this forum
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959188)
The bigger the lie, the easier it is for gullible people to believe.

Holy cow, your lies are the biggest! Thus we find no gullible people (save the nuts who believe CIT crazed claims of NoC) at this forum! You lost this one, BIGGER. this is funny

Lucky for those on this forum, we are not gullible, you are.

Axxman300 19th January 2020 05:40 PM

https://i.imgur.com/liAbax7.png

I fixed it for you.

yankee451 19th January 2020 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12959573)
How much time have you spent on my website, which is the only source listing the videos you claim are fake? How much time have you spent reading my airplane debris PDF? I have spent years specifically for the purpose of ruining your no planes theory... because I was a no planer for a while. Thanks to Jeff Hill and others, we now know that "No planes" was the worst thing to ever enter the realm of "9/11 Truth."

You can't handle the truth, Steve. I think you would kill yourself if you thought for one second you may be wrong about 9/11.

Not much. You don't touch the lightly damaged cladding or the progressively worse damaged steel columns, sharply bent in a completely different direction than the television jet was traveling. Although I do appreciate all the time you've spent documenting the fraudulent footage and photos. Not many have patience like that. Kudos.

MattNelson 19th January 2020 05:46 PM

The 50th photo of Flight 175 to add to the list comes from the National Park Service, shot on Ellis Island. See p. 33 of this PDF.

Quote:

Meanwhile, dozens of employees gathered at the fuel dock, the best spot on the island for viewing Lower Manhattan. They watched a second plane fly in low directly overhead, so low they could see its United Airlines logo. The fact that it was a commercial airliner struck DiPietro as odd.
(p. 63)

yankee451 19th January 2020 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12959583)
So the momentum of the wing will be directed about 12.5 degrees to the right, whatever the orientation of the wing at that point.

The cladding goes around the column on three sides and so the column can be severely damaged without completely severing the cladding.

Moreover the fireproofing material is likely to be much more compressible than either of the metals and so the cladding can be pushed back about an inch before the bulk of the force hits the steel column. Even if the cladding is not pushed back (or to the sides) any more there is still the possibility of severe damage to the column without the cladding being completely severed:

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-12.png?w=885


How do you figure? The cladding was attached to three sides of the steel column. As your image shows, three sides of the steel were gouged out, but not the back of the column. This means your jet wing was at once able to gouge out steel columns, but missed the face of only one piece of cladding, and then stopped before it completely severed the column, yet as all the videos show, nothing bounced off. Every bit of the jet slid like butter into the tower.

You clearly understand what you're looking at, but even considering the 12.5 degree angle of impact, the wing would have severed the cladding that covered the three sides of the steel, before it could slice the steel. the fact that it stopped before it completely severed the steel, and nothing bounced off on video, is evidence that the videos were fraudulent.

yankee451 19th January 2020 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12959622)
The 50th photo of Flight 175 to add to the list comes from the National Park Service, shot on Ellis Island. See p. 33 of this PDF.


(p. 63)

It doesn't change the physical evidence which indicates something else happened.

yankee451 19th January 2020 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12959614)

The jet wing would cut through the cladding before it could cut the steel.

The JASSM didn't make that hole.

Wipe your chin.

yankee451 19th January 2020 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12959576)
Steve, I am into discussions with you about the mechanics of the damage. It would be only a continuing of the farce a few of other people are participating in (nothing wrong with having fun though). I usually respond to you when I see a blatant lie concerning this forum. The point of my post were:
Did I explain sufficiently the reason why there were some sightings of missiles and can you provide any logical argument why discussion about it should continue?
Did I and a few other people address the mysterious piece of cladding or not as you say?

Yes, thank you again. Robin and you were kind enough to talk about the evidence. I will stop referring to the forum in general, or if I do, I will exclude you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1236

pgimeno 19th January 2020 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959627)
The jet wing would cut through the cladding before it could cut the steel.

Not if the cladding moved sideways (as that and the others to its right did). Then it had the way clear to bend as the wing passed above it and cut the column.

In some of the others there seems to be a similar effect, but with a thinner remnant.

Robin 19th January 2020 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959624)
How do you figure? The cladding was attached to three sides of the steel column. As your image shows, three sides of the steel were gouged out, but not the back of the column. This means your jet wing was at once able to gouge out steel columns, but missed the face of only one piece of cladding, and then stopped before it completely severed the column, yet as all the videos show, nothing bounced off.

It is hanging on by the side, the face of the cladding has been punched through, as you can see if you follow the window washing track.

If a missile had hit it from the side then you would not expect that side of the cladding to survive.

With a head on collision there is the possibility of the sides surviving.

And there is still the question of how a missile can pass through that gap.
[quote] Every bit of the jet slid like butter into the tower.
/QUOTE]
I am not sure where you are getting that. Most of the jest disintegrated on impact the heavy parts punched through.

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12959657)
Not if the cladding moved sideways (as that and the others to its right did). Then it had the way clear to bend as the wing passed above it and cut the column.

In some of the others there seems to be a similar effect, but with a thinner remnant.

Really. the cladding was attached to the face of the column and both sides. How do you figure it could be moved so, considering it was wrapped around the steel column, which is gouged out?

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12959677)
It is hanging on by the side, the face of the cladding has been punched through, as you can see if you follow the window washing track.

If a missile had hit it from the side then you would not expect that side of the cladding to survive.

With a head on collision there is the possibility of the sides surviving.

And there is still the question of how a missile can pass through that gap.
"Every bit of the jet slid like butter into the tower."

I am not sure where you are getting that. Most of the jest disintegrated on impact the heavy parts punched through.


Again, how do you figure? That's the face of the cladding there.

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

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

waypastvne 19th January 2020 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957092)

Oh look, someone else that can't address the thread, and instead, would like to point out a previous hair out of place.

View from another angle. The aluminum column cover was cut completely into. Then it dropped down and became wedged behind what could only be a large fragment of Boeing 767 wing skin.



https://i.imgur.com/KlNxqPR.jpg


You got another hair out of place Steve.

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12959677)
It is hanging on by the side, the face of the cladding has been punched through, as you can see if you follow the window washing track.

If a missile had hit it from the side then you would not expect that side of the cladding to survive.

Look at the column to the left. And to the left of that one. Notice the progressively worse damage? That is an indication of the direction of travel of the projectile. As it penetrated deeper into the tower, it caused more and more damage to the columns. On the fifth column from the left it had penetrated deeply enough to pass behind the cladding. After that it continued on like a large bullet, deflecting off the steel, and bending and twisting columns sharply to the right.

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 12959692)
View from another angle. The aluminum column cover was cut completely into. Then it dropped down and became wedged behind what could only be a large fragment of Boeing 767 wing skin.



https://i.imgur.com/KlNxqPR.jpg


You got another hair out of place Steve.

Wing skin fragment? How do you know that's not the fragment of a piece of missile fuselage? Or aluminum cladding? What do the other images show?

waypastvne 19th January 2020 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959697)
What do the other images show?

A severed column cover wedged behind a fragment of 767 wing skin.

Craig4 19th January 2020 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959697)
Wing skin fragment? How do you know that's not the fragment of a piece of missile fuselage? Or aluminum cladding? What do the other images show?

Funny, you're still here. Odd.

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 12959704)
A severed column cover wedged behind a fragment of 767 wing skin.

So that wing tip, which isn't noticeable in any of the images i have ever seen, managed to survive, just like that aluminum cladding did, eh? The steel columns should have been made of aluminum, huh?

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 12959709)
Funny, you're still here. Odd.

Pot, meet Kettle.

waypastvne 19th January 2020 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959710)
The steel columns should have been made of aluminum, huh?

That would have been expensive to make the towers out of 7xxx series aluminum but it is more than strong enough to do it.

pgimeno 19th January 2020 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959679)
Really. the cladding was attached to the face of the column and both sides. How do you figure it could be moved so, considering it was wrapped around the steel column, which is gouged out?

By breaking, for example. Isn't that side missing? Or by being dislodged. Something like that must have happened to the neighbouring cladding pieces.

curious cat 19th January 2020 07:50 PM

And we can discuss this into oblivion... Neither side can provide a firm evidence (based on the photographs) what exactly happened in every detail. Either side can show a few point showing damage being consistent with their theory. Gets worse. Anybody can walk in and show the damage is being consistent with a giant steel robot poking his fingers through the building. I think Godzilla would be perfectly capable of leaving the same mess behind.
The beauty of the situation is, we KNOW there wasn't a giant robot or Godzilla and there were no missiles because there is no a single piece of supporting evidence for either of these and all are just products of a wild imagination.
So, we are really stuck with what we can be absolutely sure about: 4 passenger jets were hijacked and crashed into 4 locations. The details how particular pieces of damage were caused are definitely interesting to discuss, but all the stuff is of a matter interest only. Happy to monitor :-).

yankee451 19th January 2020 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12959723)
And we can discuss this into oblivion... Neither side can provide a firm evidence (based on the photographs) what exactly happened in every detail.

Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

yankee451 19th January 2020 08:01 PM

I'm guessing that if one hadn't seen the jet impacts on television, one wouldn't even consider a plane wing was responsible for this damage.

yankee451 19th January 2020 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12959720)
By breaking, for example. Isn't that side missing? Or by being dislodged. Something like that must have happened to the neighbouring cladding pieces.

How is any of this consistent with the head on impact of a jet wing, that was not traveling in the direction of the sharply bent steel columns? Even IF the jet wing could do such a thing (in which case, there would be no need for missiles), the damage indicates something else happened.

Elagabalus 19th January 2020 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959729)
Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

No it isn't.

Regnad Kcin 19th January 2020 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959729)
Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

If you say so.

yankee451 19th January 2020 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12959753)
No it isn't.

Sure it is. The videos all show the wing sliding like butter all the way to the wing tip.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ni_CNN_GIF.gif

But as the damage shows, that's not what happened.
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

beachnut 19th January 2020 09:06 PM

Gish Gallop
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959679)
Really. the cladding was attached to the face of the column and both sides. How do you figure it could be moved so, considering it was wrapped around the steel column, which is gouged out?

excellent gish gallop - "How do you figure" - you always have the next stupid question, or delusional claim

why can't you figure out 9/11? Flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC at speed great than twice what the WTC shell could stop. When you double the speed, you quadruple the Kinetic Energy - basic physics proves your claims are fantasy at best, and lies as you persist at ignoring reality.


This is sad, the engine ejected is enough to know it was an aircraft. Radar tracked 11 and 175 to the towers - don't need TV, never did to know you are now a liar on this issue.

TV? Radar, DNA, and people who saw and recorded the planes hitting the WTC prove you to be a liar on this issue.

yankee451 19th January 2020 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12959779)
excellent gish gallop - "How do you figure" - you always have the next stupid question, or delusional claim

why can't you figure out 9/11? Flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC at speed great than twice what the WTC shell could stop. When you double the speed, you quadruple the Kinetic Energy - basic physics proves your claims are fantasy at best, and lies as you persist at ignoring reality.


This is sad, the engine ejected is enough to know it was an aircraft. Radar tracked 11 and 175 to the towers - don't need TV, never did to know you are now a liar on this issue.

TV? Radar, DNA, and people who saw and recorded the planes hitting the WTC prove you to be a liar on this issue.


It isn't a lie to notice the damage isn't consistent with what what shown on television. I could be wrong about it, but it did exist. Not a lie. In fact, your insistence that I am lying, could be considered a lie.

yankee451 19th January 2020 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12959755)
If you say so.

I do. And since you can't demonstrate otherwise, then as it is written, let it be so.

Elagabalus 19th January 2020 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959765)
Sure it is. The videos all show the wing sliding like butter all the way to the wing tip.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ni_CNN_GIF.gif

But as the damage shows, that's not what happened.
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

Why don't you let us see more of your gif? Even in it's lo-res state you can clearly see the permanent damage to the cladding et al. the aircraft has produced. It also dovetails nicely with your still photos.

Regnad Kcin 19th January 2020 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959765)
Sure it is. The videos all show the wing sliding like butter all the way to the wing tip.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ni_CNN_GIF.gif

But as the damage shows, that's not what happened.
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

I am embarrassed for you.

Regnad Kcin 19th January 2020 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959791)
I do.

Yep. And I say there’s a Starbucks on the far side of the moon. A claim no less valid than yours.

Quote:

And since you can't demonstrate otherwise, then as it is written, let it be so.
Shifting the burden of proof.

yankee451 19th January 2020 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12959800)
Yep. And I say there’s a Starbucks on the far side of the moon. A claim no less valid than yours.

Shifting the burden of proof.

Red herring fallacy.

Axxman300 19th January 2020 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959627)
The jet wing would cut through the cladding before it could cut the steel.

.

The siding is clearly displaced.


Quote:

The JASSM didn't make that hole.
No, a 767 did.

Axxman300 19th January 2020 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959729)
Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

No.

Problem #544 of your farce is that had a cruise missile clipped the side of the building as you assert it would have cartwheeled and detonated on the exterior or spun into another building.

Which you might know if you listened to anyone with military background.

Robin 20th January 2020 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959683)

Follow the window washing track from the bottom up. It leads to a big hole punched through.

Look to the left of that hole.

It is connected from the bottom to the top.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...1/image-11.png


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:16 PM.

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