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 20th January 2020 02:41 AM

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.

You have a hanging piece of cladding which would have been sliced of by the wing on the right of the missile if it was not knocked off by the body.

Moreover if the missile had hit the cladding from the left side then the left side of the cladding would have been demolished, whereas we can see it is still connected on the left.

This is just not consistent with a missile strike.

On the other hand that big hole punched through the face of the cladding is consistent with it being hit from the front.

pgimeno 20th January 2020 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959737)
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.

I already explained. The wing did not detach immediately, it was pulled by the fuselage as it penetrated.

Jack by the hedge 20th January 2020 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959514)
They are centered. 44606 is zoomed-in.

However, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're right. They are centered, but the dolly was moved between takes. What does that prove, exactly?

They are clearly not in the same location. There is no "doubt" from which to benefit unless you propose that the traffic lights have marched out into the middle of the street, in which case I urge you to re-watch the video instead of staring at those still frames.

You now propose that instead of a single portable camera setup plus a tripod, they laid a camera track in a city intersection and mounted a camera dolly on it, then fixed the camera to it using a customised pan and tilt mount which allowed the camera to be wobbled to rotate the picture a little either way to give the appearance of a handheld shot.

And you imply that somehow this allowed them to fake the video using some kind of TV magical fairy dust. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to fill in some of those missing steps, please. How did it work? What equipment did they use?

The Common Potato 20th January 2020 06:41 AM

TeeVee
 
I'm feeling generous as tomorrow is pay day. (Track IR for my flight sim!) My tenterhooks are in a cromulent state.

So, I am prepared to give Yankee451 a bit of a break and accept that most of what I personally know has come from either television programmes and those pesky books. My education was up to the grade of "Bugger, I failed my A' Levels." However, even in my sadly limited manner, I am able to look at what I see on the box or read elsewhere and compare it to what else I know. I neither automatically faithfully trust nor immediately discard new information.

I might be, but I learn, I learn.

This does raise this question: Yankee451, have to ever seen anything on teevee that you do not disbelieve, and why?

Jack by the hedge 20th January 2020 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12960018)
This does raise this question: Yankee451, have to ever seen anything on teevee that you do not disbelieve, and why?

Another interesting question is about how good video fakery was in 2001. Nowadays we see really good CGI (and a lot of mediocre CGI too) but it wasn't nearly so polished 20 years ago.

I really don't think Yankee451 comprehends the technical difficulty of achieving the effects he assumes must have been done. Video fakery was (is) good enough if the viewer was willing to suspend their disbelief, but you can still "see the joins" if you're looking for them. In this case it wouldn't be good enough to produce an impressive effect, it would be imperative to produce a flawlessly perfect effect which nobody, however technically proficient, could spot, even when they were looking for it.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, etc, but that's not good enough here: you'd get one shot, with multiple cameras and they all had to be out-of-this-world flawless.

So I think this thread deserves to be more about it's title: HOW they faked the videos, because I think the short answer is they couldn't.

GlennB 20th January 2020 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959513)
They are centered. He was TRYING to act like a rookie camera man, recall he was only practicing shooting, therefore his exaggerated wobbles should be viewed with that in mind.

They're not even centred in your original series of frames. They appear nearly centred because they're much farther away than the people and other stuff closer to the camera. It's called parallax - where the apparent position of a distant object changes very little when the viewer moves.

yankee451 20th January 2020 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12960100)
They're not even centred in your original series of frames. They appear nearly centred because they're much farther away than the people and other stuff closer to the camera. It's called parallax - where the apparent position of a distant object changes very little when the viewer moves.

Sure they are. Anyone can check for themselves.

So we have the damage evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible, and we have the photographers staging the scene.

Jack by the hedge 20th January 2020 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960121)
Sure they are. Anyone can check for themselves.

So we have the damage evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible, and we have the photographers staging the scene.

No, we don't have the photographers staging the scene. We have a shot facing down the street where the towers are in the middle of the background and later a shot of the towers as the photographer follows the first jet to its impact.

Aside from that we just have you raising a metaphorical eyebrow and going "Hmmmm?" as archly as possible, as though that demonstrated something.

Time to flesh that out a bit or admit you have nothing but a Dunning-Kruger-style assumption that this implies tv trickery.

GlennB 20th January 2020 08:59 AM

2 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960121)
Sure they are. Anyone can check for themselves.

Not centred, and the change in the traffic light position tells us the camera has moved to the left and has angled upwards. This is a perfect example of parallax in action and yet you're weaving it into something significant and ominous.

Jack by the hedge 20th January 2020 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12960144)
Not centred, and the change in the traffic light position tells us the camera has moved to the left and has angled upwards. This is a perfect example of parallax in action and yet you're weaving it into something significant and ominous.

You'll also notice that the verticals don't quite match because it's a handheld shot.

GlennB 20th January 2020 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12960145)
You'll also notice that the verticals don't quite match because it's a handheld shot.

True.

yankee451 20th January 2020 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12959947)
I already explained. The wing did not detach immediately, it was pulled by the fuselage as it penetrated.

Really.

Here are images of the damage done by birds:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...30-620x413.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...birdstrike.png

So you're saying the mostly hollow fuselage "pulled" the wings inward.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...01/1281454.jpg


This is of course, contrary to the official story, which states the wings were disintegrated by the steel, as they cut through the steel. Read the reports. Watch the Purdue video. There is no mention of any inward pulling, anywhere.

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

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ts-on-WTC1.png

Look at the columns to the right of the one with the still-standing cladding. They were not struck on the right side and then dragged inwards, they were struck on the left side and sharply bend to the right.

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

None of the evidence supports an "inward pulling" that you describe.

yankee451 20th January 2020 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12960144)
Not centred, and the change in the traffic light position tells us the camera has moved to the left and has angled upwards. This is a perfect example of parallax in action and yet you're weaving it into something significant and ominous.

I'll repeat what I said earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Clearly these two frames you label 43609 and 44606 were not shot from the same position.

Look at the traffic lights in the foreground. In the first frame they are well over to the left while in the latter they are right in front of the towers, indicating that the camera position had relocated some distance to the left.

No fixed tripod location. Perhaps you could explain to use what you think the significance of a tripod was to faking this video and then factor in the significance of his not using one.
They are centered. 44606 is zoomed-in.

However, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're right. They are centered, but the dolly was moved between takes. What does that prove, exactly?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1234

yankee451 20th January 2020 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12960018)

This does raise this question: Yankee451, have to ever seen anything on teevee that you do not disbelieve, and why?

Among other things, for years I bought the same things you do. Planes burrowing into the ground, boring through concrete and brick buildings, and slicing steel skyscrapers. But I got over it.

yankee451 20th January 2020 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12960013)
They are clearly not in the same location. There is no "doubt" from which to benefit unless you propose that the traffic lights have marched out into the middle of the street, in which case I urge you to re-watch the video instead of staring at those still frames.

You now propose that instead of a single portable camera setup plus a tripod, they laid a camera track in a city intersection and mounted a camera dolly on it, then fixed the camera to it using a customised pan and tilt mount which allowed the camera to be wobbled to rotate the picture a little either way to give the appearance of a handheld shot.

And you imply that somehow this allowed them to fake the video using some kind of TV magical fairy dust. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to fill in some of those missing steps, please. How did it work? What equipment did they use?

They are centered. One is zoomed in, the other is not. Anyone can check the video for themselves. Try exporting all the frames and comparing them, as I have. Even if the camera position was moved between takes, the constant center of the camera is evidence it was dolly or tripod mounted.

yankee451 20th January 2020 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12959917)
You have a hanging piece of cladding which would have been sliced of by the wing on the right of the missile if it was not knocked off by the body.

Moreover if the missile had hit the cladding from the left side then the left side of the cladding would have been demolished, whereas we can see it is still connected on the left.

This is just not consistent with a missile strike.

On the other hand that big hole punched through the face of the cladding is consistent with it being hit from the front.

The air frames of the missiles would shatter on impact, leaving the warhead to do it's thing.

yankee451 20th January 2020 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12959917)
You have a hanging piece of cladding which would have been sliced of by the wing on the right of the missile if it was not knocked off by the body.

Moreover if the missile had hit the cladding from the left side then the left side of the cladding would have been demolished, whereas we can see it is still connected on the left.

As explained earlier, at an oblique impact of somewhere around 10 degrees from parallel, the wings and fuselage of the missiles would cause only light damage to the columns, but the warheads caused worse damage. The progressively deeper into the tower the damage goes, is a clue as to the angle of attack of the missile.

The wing hits the cladding and snaps off, the fuselage hits the cladding and knocks it off the column, shattering the fuselage at the same time, but the warhead gouged out the first column it hit (4th from the left) and continued to penetrate deeper into the tower, when it gouged out the second column it hit (5th from the left), but passed behind the cladding that covered it. After that, the warhead continued on but it was slowing down, as can be seen in the way the back of the columns are sharply twisted to the right, but not gouged out like the first two. This warhead likely did not detonate.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1536x959.png

pgimeno 20th January 2020 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960161)

Yeah, the cone is weak. The sturdy part begins a bit after that.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...age-752813.jpg


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960161)
So you're saying the mostly hollow fuselage "pulled" the wings inward.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...01/1281454.jpg

Yes, it's still the heaviest part of the plane, no matter how "mostly hollow" you want to paint it, therefore it has that ability.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960161)
This is of course, contrary to the official story, which states the wings were disintegrated by the steel, as they cut through the steel. Read the reports. Watch the Purdue video. There is no mention of any inward pulling, anywhere.

No it's not contrary. The inward pulling only had to occur for an instant before the wing began to disintegrate.

beachnut 20th January 2020 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959789)
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.

Yes, the missiles claim is a lie, there were no missiles used on 9/11. You spread lies based on you being wrong, and you are wrong. Flight 11 and 175 did it.

yankee451 20th January 2020 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12960197)
Yeah, the cone is weak. The sturdy part begins a bit after that.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...age-752813.jpg



Yes, it's still the heaviest part of the plane, no matter how "mostly hollow" you want to paint it, therefore it has that ability.



No it's not contrary. The inward pulling only had to occur for an instant before the wing began to disintegrate.


According to the official story the wings were completely fragmented by the columns.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...wing-burst.png
This means that by the time the engines penetrated the walls, the wing tip would no longer be attached to the wing.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...05/inside1.jpg

The wing tip is the weakest part, yet there are huge gouges on the 4th and 5th columns from the left, but moving to the right the damage isn't as bad.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...hanced-clo.jpg

beachnut 20th January 2020 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960205)
According to the official story the wings were completely fragmented by the columns.

http://<a href="http://yankee451.com...-burst.png</a>

This means that by the time the engines penetrated the walls, the wing tip would no longer be attached to the wing.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...05/inside1.jpg

The wing tip is the weakest part, yet there are huge gouges on the 4th and 5th columns from the left, but moving to the right the damage isn't as bad.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...hanced-clo.jpg

You keep showing how an aircraft can break the shell, scientific studies, and then make up the big dumb lie of missiles did it. Ignore science, make it up. Cool, you don't use logic, judgement based on knowledge, you make up a fantasy to fight global wars. How cute, you lie because you think the FAA, Boeing, NTSB, NYPD, FDNY, and thousands more Lie.

How sad

Regnad Kcin 20th January 2020 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959813)
Red herring fallacy.

Wow, it’s as if you don’t know what you’re talking about. This is a startling realization, if true.

You, in your seemingly infinite ability to jump to a conclusion, commit the fallacy of assertion. You have not (and can’t, so you won’t) support your positive claim, A. It’s a fantastical claim on its face, and to illustrate as much I offered a similarly over-the-top example, B. I was not directing the conversation away from A to B (therefore committing a RHF), but reminding you, slippery as you are, you don’t get to state, in so many words: “A has been proven because I’ve said so 73 (and counting) times.”

But, you do you.

Regnad Kcin 20th January 2020 10:52 AM

Oh, in case our little friend is not aware, it is against forum rules to spam a thread with the same image(s), such as the grainy close up of the impact damage and other related pics/illustrations.

Regnad Kcin 20th January 2020 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960121)
Sure they are. Anyone can check for themselves.

So we have the damage evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible, and we have the photographers staging the scene.

No, we dont have your unsupported leaps to conclusions.

Regnad Kcin 20th January 2020 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960168)
Among other things, for years I bought the same things you do. Planes burrowing into the ground, boring through concrete and brick buildings, and slicing steel skyscrapers. But I got over it.

I’ve met people who likewise found religion. Abandoning their former belief system, whatever it was, granted them no additional level of authority over those who held their religious beliefs from the start.

yankee451 20th January 2020 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12960254)
You keep showing how an aircraft can break the shell, scientific studies, and then make up the big dumb lie of missiles did it. Ignore science, make it up. Cool, you don't use logic, judgement based on knowledge, you make up a fantasy to fight global wars. How cute, you lie because you think the FAA, Boeing, NTSB, NYPD, FDNY, and thousands more Lie.

How sad

Whaa?

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


http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...MAGED-SFRM.png

yankee451 20th January 2020 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12960264)
Oh, in case our little friend is not aware, it is against forum rules to spam a thread with the same image(s), such as the grainy close up of the impact damage and other related pics/illustrations.

I'm sorry. You keep acting as if you've never seen them. I'll just link to them heretofore.

yankee451 20th January 2020 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12960265)
No, “we” don’t have your unsupported leaps to conclusions.

Your solution to contradictory evidence is to deny its existence, or to ignore it.

yankee451 20th January 2020 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12960269)
Ive met people who likewise found religion. Their former belief system, whatever it was, granted them no additional level of authority over those who held their religious beliefs from the start.

Religious zealots and plane huggers have a lot in common.

Itchy Boy 20th January 2020 12:09 PM

If a relatively fragile plane hits 14 inch steel box columns with 1/4 inch thick walls,and a spandrel that's 3/4 inch thick structural steel there would be some bending, crumpling of the plane.Pieces would break off and fall to the ground.

We see none of that in any video. Clearly those videos do not depict reality.

Who believes Pentagon eye witness Mike Walter explaining how a 150 ft wide plane could fit through a 18 ft hole? He claims he saw the wings fold back into the fuselage!

I don't need to know how the holes in the towers were made to know that the event was staged. If the event was real, then none of it would have to be staged. It'a that simple.

Oystein 20th January 2020 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960323)
If a relatively fragile plane hits 14 inch steel box columns with 1/4 inch thick walls,and a spandrel that's 3/4 inch thick structural steel

The "relatively fragile planes" were actually MORE massive, and made of STRONGER structural material (high-strength alloys) than the parts of towers they hit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960323)
there would be some bending, crumpling of the plane.

The planes DID bend and crumple (and disintegrate) completely and catastrophically - upon impact, not sooner. Almost all of that bending and crumpling took place on and inside of the buildings' surfaces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960323)
Pieces would break off and fall to the ground.

You claim, without reason or justification, that 120 tons of strong alloys travelling at 450 to 550 mph would get stopped entirely and even turned around within less than an inch. That is most insane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960323)
We see none of that in any video.

It would be most wondrous if we did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960323)
Clearly those videos do not depict reality.

Clearly your imagination does not have a handle on real world physics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960323)
Who believes Pentagon eye witness Mike Walter explaining how a 150 ft wide plane could fit through a 18 ft hole? He claims he saw the wings fold back into the fuselage!

It didn't. Problem solved. What's your point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960323)
I don't need to know how the holes in the towers were made to know that the event was staged.

What you meant to say is "I need to not understand how the holes were made to imagine something unreal about the event"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960323)
If the event was real, then none of it would have to be staged. It'a that simple.

None of it was staged. Problem solved. What's your point?

bknight 20th January 2020 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960323)
If a relatively fragile plane hits 14 inch steel box columns with 1/4 inch thick walls,and a spandrel that's 3/4 inch thick structural steel there would be some bending, crumpling of the plane.Pieces would break off and fall to the ground.

We see none of that in any video. Clearly those videos do not depict reality.

Who believes Pentagon eye witness Mike Walter explaining how a 150 ft wide plane could fit through a 18 ft hole? He claims he saw the wings fold back into the fuselage!

I don't need to know how the holes in the towers were made to know that the event was staged. If the event was real, then none of it would have to be staged. It'a that simple.

Please explain the discovery of charred bodies in burned seats their se, later ID's by DNA as passengers of the flight? How do you explain that fact during the Pentagon investigation?

BStrong 20th January 2020 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959435)
For the record, me, my sanity, my intelligence, and my family, passed and present, have nothing to do with the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles, that true believers and truthers alike, twist themselves into pretzles of denial to avoid.

Are you referring to what you consider to be evidence, or what rational individuals consider to be evidence?

So far you're a religion of one, yelling out a window.

yankee451 20th January 2020 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960323)
If a relatively fragile plane hits 14 inch steel box columns with 1/4 inch thick walls,and a spandrel that's 3/4 inch thick structural steel there would be some bending, crumpling of the plane.Pieces would break off and fall to the ground.

We see none of that in any video. Clearly those videos do not depict reality.

Who believes Pentagon eye witness Mike Walter explaining how a 150 ft wide plane could fit through a 18 ft hole? He claims he saw the wings fold back into the fuselage!

I don't need to know how the holes in the towers were made to know that the event was staged. If the event was real, then none of it would have to be staged. It'a that simple.

This

yankee451 20th January 2020 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oystein (Post 12960336)
The "relatively fragile planes" were actually MORE massive, and made of STRONGER structural material (high-strength alloys) than the parts of towers they hit.

That massive wing couldn't even cut through the aluminum sheeting.

yankee451 20th January 2020 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12960345)
Are you referring to what you consider to be evidence, or what rational individuals consider to be evidence?

So far you're a religion of one, yelling out a window.

Like I said, I could be wrong with my conclusions, but that wouldn't change the damage evidence that leads me there.

Why don't you consider the lightly damaged cladding and the progressively worse damaged steel columns, sharply bent in a different direction than the wing was traveling, do be evidence? What I think you're really trying to say is you see the evidence, but think it is consistent with what was shown on television. Is that about right?

yankee451 20th January 2020 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12960342)
Please explain the discovery of charred bodies in burned seats their se, later ID's by DNA as passengers of the flight? How do you explain that fact during the Pentagon investigation?

Considering the evidence leads to the Pentagon as one of the most likely suspects, why do you take at face value anything it has to say about the matter. Have you verified the location of where those photographs were taken? Do they negate the damage evidence that makes it obvious it wasn't caused by a plane?

abaddon 20th January 2020 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960359)
That massive wing couldn't even cut through the aluminum sheeting.

How massive was the wing?

How massive was the sheeting?

We know, you do not.

yankee451 20th January 2020 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12960384)
How massive was the wing?

How massive was the sheeting?

We know, you do not.

I don't know, and neither do you, but I know people who do. An FEA shouldn't be too tough, although more money than I can afford, that's for sure. Maybe later.

But you wouldn't believe it anyway, because you saw it on the TeeVee.

bknight 20th January 2020 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960374)
Considering the evidence leads to the Pentagon as one of the most likely suspects, why do you take at face value anything it has to say about the matter. Have you verified the location of where those photographs were taken? Do they negate the damage evidence that makes it obvious it wasn't caused by a plane?

Well there used to images on the web of a charred body in a plane seat, but that was taken down. The damage was caused by a plane as the pieces of the aircraft were all over the lawn and inside the building, how do you indicate that the damage doesn't/can't be caused by a plane?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:45 PM.

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