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)

GlennB 20th January 2020 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12960402)
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?

D'uh, keep up (with yankee logic)!

The fact that it "can't have been a plane" means that trucks were touring around the Penthouse lawn scattering plane debris. The rest was down to explosives and faked DNA evidence.

Simples.

beachnut 20th January 2020 01:31 PM

joke? teasing yankee451? or more woo
 
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.

I see physics and you have never met. Darn, why did the engine hit and enter the building, the fragile engine? lol, and the landing gear, the fragile landing gear? You are joking right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12960323)
We see none of that in any video. Clearly those videos do not depict reality.

Wait, how is a low speed video going to catch crushing of an 800 foot per second plane with the Kinetic energy of 2,000 pound bomb going to catch the crushing of 175 when parts like the wings were crushed and dented the WTC shell in less than 1/60 of a second? Explain who you catch an event which happens during a frame of video, and the video is not panning with the accident event? Have you heard of the Nyquist theory? No? Why not? Right science is not used by 9/11 truth.


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!

The wings did not fold back they left big dents in the Pentagon facade, as seen in photos. Check it out. Eyewitnesses are not needed to know Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Some 9/11 truth nuts ignore the evidence and quibble about eyewitnesses, which is a big error, aka fail.

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. If the event was real, then none of it would have to be staged. It'a that simple.

Did you forget to get your vaccination for woo?

bknight 20th January 2020 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12960412)
D'uh, keep up (with yankee logic illogical beliefs)!

Simples.

FTFY as he shows no logic and he keeps repeating the same things over and over hoping that repetitive sentences will win over someone, or make them correct.

pgimeno 20th January 2020 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960205)
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.

In the instant of the impact, however, this inward pulling could happen, before the fragmentation began.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960205)
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

Maybe there was something heavy there. I'm not that familiar with the construction of the 767 wings.

Jack by the hedge 20th January 2020 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960164)
I'll repeat what I said earlier:



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

There was no dolly. There was no tripod. There is nothing but your imagination seeing sinister forces at work in one camera shot from before the crash which happens to have the towers in the middle of the background.

If, as I guess you mean to imply, there had been some kind of mechanical stop used to allow the camera to be swung back to point exactly at the towers again, why don't we see a jolt as the camera reaches the stop? Why isn't it pointing in *precisely* the same direction as before? Why don't the verticals align? Why do they wobble? Why would a competent camera operator need such a setup to find the towers again anyway?

You have a hatful of nothin' here.

Captain_Swoop 20th January 2020 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12958696)
According to the television. But not according to the photographs. Hmm...

Not to mention thousands of eye witnesses

curious cat 20th January 2020 02:28 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.

Hooray! Steve has a supporter, the show will continue! :D

Captain_Swoop 20th January 2020 02:44 PM

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.

So why bother with a tripod?

Captain_Swoop 20th January 2020 02:45 PM

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?

Do you know what a dolly is and how or why it is used?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

GlennB 20th January 2020 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12960484)
Do you know what a dolly is and how or why it is used?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I have to suspect that he has no clue or is just trying to deceive (though he seems to be deceiving only himself). Anybody watching the Naudet video must conclude that the camera is hand held. It's all over the place.

yankee451 20th January 2020 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12960402)
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?

Like the other sites, the damage left is not consistent with it.

curious cat 20th January 2020 02:54 PM

2 Attachment(s)
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.

Plane nosediving into ground is a relatively rare event, but still, without doing much research... Note the Lockerbie jet disintegrated in the air and the hole has been made only by some major part. Tell me which one...
On the left: Ethiopian 302
On the right: Lockerbie

yankee451 20th January 2020 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12960438)
In the instant of the impact, however, this inward pulling could happen, before the fragmentation began.



Maybe there was something heavy there. I'm not that familiar with the construction of the 767 wings.

Equal and opposite reactions happen instantly. If the wings were that strong that they could pull the steel columns inward, why wouldn't they just wedge them apart like a big bodkin arrow?
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...T-approach.gif

yankee451 20th January 2020 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12960497)
Plane nosediving into ground is a relatively rare event, but still, without doing much research... Note the Lockerbie jet disintegrated in the air and the hole has been made only by some major part. Tell me which one...
On the left: Ethiopian 302
On the right: Lockerbie

Ok. You're referring to Shanksville now?

Captain_Swoop 20th January 2020 02:59 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?

Do you think the bodies of the passengers were strapped in to seats and burned at the Pentagon or was it done somewhere else earlier?

Crazy Chainsaw 20th January 2020 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960369)
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?

Showing the damage to a fiberglass radar dome on front of the Plane pretty much Guarantees you are.

yankee451 20th January 2020 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12960481)
So why bother with a tripod?

So he could capture footage of the undamaged tower, and use it as a mask layer to hide what really cut the hole. And he had to have the center position saved on the dolly in order to be able to spin around and still be centered.

Crazy Chainsaw 20th January 2020 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960499)
Equal and opposite reactions happen instantly. If the wings were that strong that they could pull the steel columns inward, why wouldn't they just wedge them apart like a big bodkin arrow?
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...T-approach.gif

No the steel is softer more meltable than the Aluminum steel alloy the steel also does not have as hard of a coating as did the Aluminum, also the steel would not have produced much Oxidation reaction.

yankee451 20th January 2020 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12960509)
Showing the damage to a fiberglass radar dome on front of the Plane pretty much Guarantees you are.

According to some people fuselage is a battering ram.

Captain_Swoop 20th January 2020 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12960497)
Plane nosediving into ground is a relatively rare event, but still, without doing much research... Note the Lockerbie jet disintegrated in the air and the hole has been made only by some major part. Tell me which one...
On the left: Ethiopian 302
On the right: Lockerbie

I posted a few days ago about the 'Time Team' excavations of crashed WW2 aircraft in the K that had buried themselves deep in the ground.
Parts of one of them, a Douglas A-26 Invader that went in nose first were over 20ft below the surface..
Another a B-17 that met a similar fate left hardly any trace on the surface apart from small fragments and a crater when the crash scene was reached. Its remains were also deep in the ground.
It's not rare or unusual for an aircraft going in fast and steep.

curious cat 20th January 2020 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960501)
Ok. You're referring to Shanksville now?

I am referring to your reference (highlighted bold) to the "impossible" plane burrowing into ground.

yankee451 20th January 2020 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12960518)
No the steel is softer more meltable than the Aluminum steel alloy the steel also does not have as hard of a coating as did the Aluminum, also the steel would not have produced much Oxidation reaction.

You get all this from the photographs, eh? So does that oxidation explain the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the steel bent sharply to the right, in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling?

yankee451 20th January 2020 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12960522)
I posted a few days ago about the 'Time Team' excavations of crashed WW2 aircraft in the K that had buried themselves deep in the ground.
Parts of one of them, a Douglas A-26 Invader that went in nose first were over 20ft below the surface..
Another a B-17 that met a similar fate left hardly any trace on the surface apart from small fragments and a crater when the crash scene was reached. Its remains were also deep in the ground.
It's not rare or unusual for an aircraft going in fast and steep.

According to the official story, the deeper they dug at Shanksville, the bigger the pieces they recovered. Can you provide links to the crashes you're referring to please?

yankee451 20th January 2020 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12960523)
I am referring to your reference (highlighted bold) to the "impossible" plane burrowing into ground.

Okay, so compare the sites.

Also, the Shanksville crater can be reproduced on a smaller scale with the oblique impacts of small projectiles at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal, and explosives. It is reproducible, and predictable, according to NASA. In other words, Cruise missiles were used at Shanksville too!

Roger Ramjets 20th January 2020 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960499)
Equal and opposite reactions happen instantly. If the wings were that strong that they could pull the steel columns inward, why wouldn't they just wedge them apart like a big bodkin arrow?
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...T-approach.gif

I give up. Why wouldn't they?

I'm also curious about the bodkin arrow theory. How big do you estimate it would have to be?

yankee451 20th January 2020 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets (Post 12960542)
I give up. Why wouldn't they?

I'm also curious about the bodkin arrow theory. How big do you estimate it would have to be?

According to Newton, they would neither wedge them apart or pull them in.

beachnut 20th January 2020 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960526)
According to the official story, the deeper they dug at Shanksville, the bigger the pieces they recovered. Can you provide links to the crashes you're referring to please?

So, why can't you find them? Did you fail to research the very topics needed to understand why your claims are fantasy based on massive ignorance in many areas (like physics).

Like an engine? Landing gear? Always with the Gish Gallop.

What are you talking about? Flight 93 was shredded up into thousands if not millions of pieces. No doubt they found some landing gears parts (aka large?) the deeper they dug because these parts had the most mass and took longer to stop moving (Physics).

You don't seem to have a practical knowledge of physics, and each post proves it.

Roger Ramjets 20th January 2020 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960540)
the Shanksville crater can be reproduced on a smaller scale with the oblique impacts of small projectiles... In other words, Cruise missiles were used at Shanksville too!

And not only there. I've done the calculations, and come to the conclusion that the 'stone' that chipped my windscreen at a trajectory of less than ten degrees from horizontal was actually a miniature cruise missile!

Captain_Swoop 20th January 2020 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960526)
According to the official story, the deeper they dug at Shanksville, the bigger the pieces they recovered. Can you provide links to the crashes you're referring to please?

Bigger pieces go deeper. In the case of the crashes excavated by time team it was the engine blocks and wing spars.

All episodes of time Team are available through the Channel 4 UK website.

I haven't the time or inclination to search through 96 episodes for you.

Here's a link https://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team

abaddon 20th January 2020 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960398)
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.

Nope. Everyone knows the mass of the wings, the fuel, the load, the airframe. Everyone knows the mass of the building. Except you. Because you don't want to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960398)
But you wouldn't believe it anyway, because you saw it on the TeeVee.

Would that be the TV in your imagination? Because I had no TV at the time so I couldn't possibly have seen it on the "TV".

Oh, right, part of the delusion you are foisting is that everyone is mesmerised by the TV except for you. That notion falls apart when you realise that I didn't have one at the time, doesn't it?

Roger Ramjets 20th January 2020 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960544)
According to Newton, they would neither wedge them apart or pull them in.

Wow, this conspiracy goes deeper than I thought! Isaac Newton is supposed to have died on March 20th 1727. But if he had an opinion on 9/11 we must conclude that he was either still alive in 2001, or had foreknowledge of the event - possibly even both!

curious cat 20th January 2020 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12960522)
I posted a few days ago about the 'Time Team' excavations of crashed WW2 aircraft in the K that had buried themselves deep in the ground.
Parts of one of them, a Douglas A-26 Invader that went in nose first were over 20ft below the surface..
Another a B-17 that met a similar fate left hardly any trace on the surface apart from small fragments and a crater when the crash scene was reached. Its remains were also deep in the ground.
It's not rare or unusual for an aircraft going in fast and steep.

No point arguing about "how long is a piece of string". No major effort required to find cases like this. A friend of mine hit a field about 1 km from the airfield by supersonic speed in his Mig 21. His widow has been presented by his left foot in a boot to bury...
But the wast percentage of catastrophic airliner disintegrations is caused by the horizontal speed after a relatively shallow ground impact and it is easy to imagine why. It is followed by a "pancake" type of crashes following a low level stall. Nosedives come distinctly third.

Regnad Kcin 20th January 2020 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960510)
So he could capture footage of the undamaged tower, and use it as a mask layer to hide what really cut the hole. And he had to have the center position saved on the dolly in order to be able to spin around and still be centered.

While riding his checkerboard-colored Martian unicorn. Donít forget that part.

yankee451 20th January 2020 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12960545)
So, why can't you find them? Did you fail to research the very topics needed to understand why your claims are fantasy based on massive ignorance in many areas (like physics).

Like an engine? Landing gear? Always with the Gish Gallop.

What are you talking about? Flight 93 was shredded up into thousands if not millions of pieces. No doubt they found some landing gears parts (aka large?) the deeper they dug because these parts had the most mass and took longer to stop moving (Physics).

You don't seem to have a practical knowledge of physics, and each post proves it.

Funny, because I'd swear that equal and opposite thing proves I'm right.

curious cat 20th January 2020 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960587)
Funny, because I'd swear that equal and opposite thing proves I'm right.

Funny, I can't find anything in Beachnut's post conflicting with "that equal and opposite thing" :D

beachnut 20th January 2020 04:23 PM

our not a physics expert weighs in on what he can't do
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960587)
Funny, because I'd swear that equal and opposite thing proves I'm right.

No wonder lead bullets can't break steel, or damage big people, the lead is too soft to do damage. /Not physics

I like the ping pong ball ripping up the wooden paddle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

Physics, what you can't figure out given over 18 years.

How do missiles with much less kinetic energy than the planes used on 9/11 make a 767 shape hole and scare in the WTC? There was no high explosives used because there was no Blast. I forgot does yankee451 missiles do it kinetically or with explosives which have no blast effects. Magic missiles at the WTC, invisible magic missiles which look like 767s. wait

abaddon 20th January 2020 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12960481)
So why bother with a tripod?

It is likely the same tripod as the TV I didn't have and never existed. Fantasy can be whatever one wants.

Crazy Chainsaw 20th January 2020 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960519)
According to some people fuselage is a battering ram.

No the main frame is, it's heavy duty aluminum steel, the wing tips are not.
You showed the wedge effect but you don't show the other physical reactions that would be a result of the wedge effect, the wings being forced inward at the tips.

Crazy Chainsaw 20th January 2020 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12960524)
You get all this from the photographs, eh? So does that oxidation explain the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the steel bent sharply to the right, in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling?

Yes it shows actually how the inpact occured it was a glancing blow shortly before the forward connection on the main connection of the wing spar failed and the wings swung back into the Fuselage.

JSanderO 20th January 2020 05:53 PM

It seems a waste of time to do an FEA of the jet hitting the towers. Why? Because the damage appears to engineers to be exactly what such an impact would look like.

There was mutual destruction when a moving plane part hit a static part of the building. The liquids inside the plane were massively destructive, the fuel exploding was as well. Some of the heavy dense parts passed through the building passing without being stopped, but being slowed down and landing only a few blocks away.

Steve believes that something looks odd to him. He appears to not have the physics and engineering background to comprehend the crashes. His naivete has led to incredulity to a belief that we were lied to and that it was all an FX event by "the powers that be... and that every witness was an actor, none of which has leaked in 20 years. His conception is so outside of reality... it cannot be taken seriously...and lacks any affirmative evidence.

Anyone who believes the "official story" has had the wool pulled over their eyes... and lack critical thinking skills.

Oh the irony!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:23 AM.

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