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)

JSanderO 25th January 2020 06:15 AM

The "collision" was not a simple "interface" interaction.

Just like when you use a hose... it supplies a stream of water. The parts of the plane, its contents kept interacting... after the initial one. Both the plane parts and the bulling parts were CHANGED their geometry over time until the plane's bits had passed into the building without resistance. FEA is likely not powerful enough to model this.

TJM 25th January 2020 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966086)
Just an observation - doesn't prove anything, but a chap phoned Hezaekhani and some of the other videographers and spoke to them in a non-accusational manner. Nevertheless, their nervousness was palpable.

Oooh! I didn't see this one before. Which chap? Got any links? Spoke to them in a non-accusational manner, you say? Nervousness or was it anger at some phuktard on the internet calling him a liar?



I remember. Some Canuck twat named Jeff Hill tracked down Micheal Hezarkhani to his place of business - he is / was a diamond merchant in Los Angeles. A colossal anus and overflowing douchebag, Hill repeatedly harassed Mr. Hezarkhani over the phone until he sternly yet politely told Hill to go **** himself, or something to that affect.

Ever the towering intellect, Hill took that as proof of Mr. Hezarkhani being in on "Teh Conspiracy".

There was video of the conversation online years ago but now searches only turn up dead links or other truthers swimming in Hill's wake. Perhaps if we ask our no-planers friends nicely, one of them might pumpitout.

sts60 25th January 2020 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
Off topic but it needs to be said.

You folk will argue that 400,000 people would have had to be in on the Apollo hoax. but you can't explain why, for example, the ladies sewing the suits, or any other subcontractors would have to be in on it. They didn't.

No, not every one of the roughly 400,000 people involved in Apollo would have been able to discern a fake. Only part of that group. ETA: Plus a bunch of other people, the number varying according to your specific assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
They were making real stuff that they believed would take men to the moon and back.

If it was real, why specifically wouldn’t it work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
Not even the guys in the control room at their consoles had to be in on it. They had no way to differentiate between one of their countless simulations and the real thing.

Let me take a wild guess: you’ve never been in a simulation in the MCC, correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
Only the guys feeding the data to those consoles would have to be in on it.

Nope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
Yet, desspite pointing this out, believers continue to make the same argument.

You seem to believe Apolllo was a hoax of some sort. Why, specifically?

And what is your evidence that the vehicles and men did not perform the missions as described?

ETA: also, what is your evidence for whatever was required to be faked... being faked?

Would you like to start a thread in the parent conspiracy forum one level up from here?

pgimeno 25th January 2020 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12965953)
from Hezarkhnai here the right wing has penetrated. No damage visible.How does the wing penetrate the wall without making a hole?

http://treshombres.ca/911/Plane2.png

Why do you think that the gap created by the wing should be visible in that picture, if the spaces between WTC columns, which are similarly spaced, are not? The video is just too low resolution to make heads or tails from it.

Still, I see a darkening in the area where the wings would be.

pgimeno 25th January 2020 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
Off topic but it needs to be said.

You folk will argue that 400,000 people would have had to be in on the Apollo hoax. but you can't explain why, for example, the ladies sewing the suits, or any other subcontractors would have to be in on it. They didn't. They were making real stuff that they believed would take men to the moon and back.

Not even the guys in the control room at their consoles had to be in on it. They had no way to differentiate between one of their countless simulations and the real thing. Only the guys feeding the data to those consoles would have to be in on it.

How many are these?

How many people would it take to fake the passenger manifest which was the first lead into the identities of the hijackers?

How many people would it take to fake the videos of the airport cameras? What about the airport guy who confronted Atta? Is he in on it too? Or was that an actor? Is that actor in on it too? If so, is his face the same one that was published of Atta?

The car was found later in the parking lot. How many people did that involve?

Many people at the Pentagon worked in the cleanup. Several of them have reported seeing human remains, or a black box. Many of these remains were later matched to AA77 passengers. How many people did it take to fake all that?

Personal effects of the victims of AA11 and UA175 were identified and returned to their families. How many people does that part take?

The families of the passengers of the flight lost relatives. How many people does it take to get rid of said relatives who, according to the manifest, were in the plane?

How many people does it take to doctor all 63 videos and make them public? At least the 63 people involved who made them public, don't you agree?

How many people who saw the explosion had to be silenced in order to muffle them from speaking out and saying "that's not what I saw"?

How many people would it take to plant scattered plane parts on the streets of Manhattan, and how did they do this without being seen?

I could go on and on and on. Yes it's a hell of a lot of people that need to be involved. Just pretending that the 63 people who presented the videos are in on it, is insane. You really haven't thought this through, have you?

bknight 25th January 2020 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966171)
They didn't erase any of my other 'bunk'. Only the part where they inadvertently proved the conspiracy in question was real.

You didn't/haven't proven anything by posting links to videos describing how "it could be done". You need to prove that it was done and to do that you need to ignore all of the physical evidence. That would makes your belief incorrect.

yankee451 25th January 2020 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966248)

Of course if this is the front spar then there is the rest of the wing to come through and possible cause more damage to this column, or possibly be pulled sideways by the engine.

As I say, just one of many possible scenarios.


So if I get this right, you're saying a wing spar, which is designed for vertical loads, cut through the steel and all but one piece of cladding.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...front-spar.png

yankee451 25th January 2020 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest (Post 12966240)
He wasn't posting the video showing what the cruise missile did to prove what a jet could do- he was posting the video to demonstrate what the video could show. No wonder you guys are always so confused- you can't even follow a basic point.

My question would be- on what basis would you "expect to see debris start to fall to the ground before the explosion"? Physics? So far, all I've seen from you in that direction is that you know how to spell the word- you could at least try yankee's "slid like butter" version of it (now that's physics!).

Or maybe you have some other basis for comparison? Do you know of another instance of a video of a jet plane crashing into a skyscraper like the Towers at the speed these did?

"I would expect" would be so much better with some informed basis for the expectation.


Fortunately, for the sake of sanity, the equal and opposite reaction of the lateral impacts eliminates the head on impact of a jet.

bknight 25th January 2020 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966114)
Where's your source for that assertion? Heres one of many that contradicts your claim. Maybe it's YOU that needs to improve their research skills.

https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

OBL(UBL) in fact did not plan the 9/11 events, but he did finance the operation planned by KSM, who recruited/trained/assigned the 19 that carried out the attacks. You really need to get your facts from other places than CTs.

yankee451 25th January 2020 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966194)
There is a gap. Not big enough for a cruise missile to fit through.

How do you figure? The columns were 14 inches wide. The warheads, the AGM-86 D has a 14 inch warhead, and the AGM-158 has a 12 inch warhead. Using the known measurements of the columns, the warheads of either of these missiles could do the deed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...ndoff-missile/

yankee451 25th January 2020 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966248)
Of course if this is the front spar then there is the rest of the wing to come through and possible cause more damage to this column, or possibly be pulled sideways by the engine.

By the way, for your explanation to be correct, the official explanation must be incorrect. Why do you think the engine would "pull" the wing, when the wing was disintegrated by the steel as it penetrated it? By the time the wing tip struck, it would no longer be attached to the wing.

You are contradicting your own story.

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

beachnut 25th January 2020 10:20 AM

Crazy claims based on insane assumptions for missiles
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966338)
By the way, for your explanation to be correct, the official explanation must be incorrect. Why do you think the engine would "pull" the wing, when the wing was disintegrated by the steel as it penetrated it? By the time the wing tip struck, it would no longer be attached to the wing.

You are contradicting your own story.

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

You failed, your analysis failed... why you are off topic again

A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be


Darn, why can't you physics?

https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg

bruto 25th January 2020 10:26 AM

I could see a certain point in pointing out that a plane can't fly above a certain speed safely at sea level, but what happens if you're planning to crash it? As you careen down out of the sky, does an invisible hand come up out of the earth and say "slow down there, pilgrim?"

Regnad Kcin 25th January 2020 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966089)
And once again, for those of you with short attention spans, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not we who call BS to the claim. The original claim being, on 9/11 mostly hollow aluminum jets burrowed into the ground, bored through a concrete and brick building, and sliced through steel skyscrapers like butter.

You cling to videos and alleged witness accounts while disregarding the physical evidence which proves they're false. If you think you can prove the jets were real, then now's your chance to use the same evidence we all have access to, to prove it.

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

Just scanning the thread for a few chuckles to start the day.

The hilited bit above? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Ha Ha!

Ha!

I’ll tune in again tomorrow. Same bat-crap-crazy time, same bat-crap-crazy channel.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12966219)
You expect plane parts traveling at six hundred miles an hour to stop instantly why?

B ecause the lighter parts hitting the steel columns are encountering an equalresistive force. What the mathematicians here fail to acknowledge is their calculation of the kinetic energy supposes the plane is a solid object like a brick.
ie - the plane weighs X and is travelling at velocity Y.

The engines and landing gear carry more kinetic energy than the relatively flimsy fuselage and wingtips. Yet the entire plane is 'swallowed' uniformly.

I don't buy it, and never will. I'm done trying to explain the obvious. Believe whatever you want.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 12966384)
I could see a certain point in pointing out that a plane can't fly above a certain speed safely at sea level, but what happens if you're planning to crash it? As you careen down out of the sky, does an invisible hand come up out of the earth and say "slow down there, pilgrim?"

Long shots show the plane in level flight for several miles before impact. It's not just that they can't fly safely, it's that the engines can't provide enough thrust to push the plane through the denser air. They're designed to achieve those speeds at cruising altitude where the air resistance is several times less that at sea level. But I'm not going to argue about the speed. I think some parts would bend and break if the speed was even greater than claimed.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12966396)
Just scanning the thread for a few chuckles to start the day.

The hilited bit above? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Ha Ha!

Ha!

I値l tune in again tomorrow. Same bat-crap-crazy time, same bat-crap-crazy channel.

According to your logic then, I can claim I have a 3 headed Martian in my basement, but have no burden of proof. Instead, you have the burden to prove I don't have a Martian.

beachnut 25th January 2020 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
Long shots show the plane in level flight for several miles before impact. It's not just that they can't fly safely, it's that the engines can't provide enough thrust to push the plane through the denser air. They're designed to achieve those speeds at cruising altitude where the air resistance is several times less that at sea level. But I'm not going to argue about the speed. I think some parts would bend and break if the speed was even greater than claimed.

You make this up. the engines have their most thrust at sea level and a clean 757/767 quickly accelerates at sea level well beyond Vmo. And can exceed Vd, and make it to 1.2 Vd (504 knots) in 20 to 30 seconds.

Flight 77 went from 300 knots to 483.5 knots in less than 30 seconds when the terrorist pilot set the throttles to 100 percent. Thus you are informed, you are wrong.

In addition, you can't prove a jet can't past max speeds at sea level, you will not provide the data, the thrust, and the drag equations.

You can't do physics, and you can't do aero engineering.

Flight 11 hit at Vd, a flight tested speed.
Flight 175 hit at 590, in a decent, even easier to exceed limit speeds.
Flight 77, 300 to 483.5 knots in 20 to 30 seconds at 100 percent near sea level.

What is your point?
You are so full of BS, you don't do aero and physics...

A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be


You and yankee451 can't prove a video is fake, never will

Regnad Kcin 25th January 2020 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966164)
Off topic but it needs to be said.

You folk will argue that 400,000 people would have had to be in on the Apollo hoax. but you can't explain why, for example, the ladies sewing the suits, or any other subcontractors would have to be in on it. They didn't. They were making real stuff that they believed would take men to the moon and back.

Not even the guys in the control room at their consoles had to be in on it. They had no way to differentiate between one of their countless simulations and the real thing. Only the guys feeding the data to those consoles would have to be in on it.
Yet, desspite pointing this out, believers continue to make the same argument.dd

An Apollo hoaxer? Q置elle surprise.

I知 guessing also JFK for the trifecta.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12966300)
You didn't/haven't proven anything by posting links to videos describing how "it could be done". You need to prove that it was done and to do that you need to ignore all of the physical evidence. That would makes your belief incorrect.

No, I'm pointing out the lack of physical evidence of a 'crash'. The video showing how it could be done was in response to the question of how it could be done. I didn't post it a proof of fakery. The proof, for the umpteenth time is in the lack of physics.
No doubt, even if I provided proof that would satisfy you lot that the video was faked, you would make some excuse for it so you could cling to your belief 9/11 happened as reported. d

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12966425)
An Apollo hoaxer? Q置elle surprise.

I知 guessing also JFK for the trifecta.

That and more. the world works a lot differently from what your entrenched beliefs would allow you to see.

I suppose you believe the 'magic bullet' theory. I'd like to hear your explanation of the physics involved there

beachnut 25th January 2020 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
Long shots show the plane in level flight for several miles before impact.

Which plane was level? Does not matter, the engines can accelerate the clean aircraft to 500 knots. Where is your math?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
It's not just that they can't fly safely,

So? now comes the stuff you make up based on ignorance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
it's that the engines can't provide enough thrust to push the plane through the denser air.

Proof? Got Proof? No, you made this up. Yes, the air is denser, but the thrust is at the greatest as sea level, and the plane is clean, and can go 500 knots with engines at 100 percent. You can't provide the math and aero to back your failed opinion.

Yes, the air is denser - but the engines can do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
They're designed to achieve those speeds at cruising altitude where the air resistance is several times less that at sea level.

So? Actually, the KIAS goes down at high altitude, the KTAS goes up usually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
But I'm not going to argue about the speed.

lol, you just gave an argument, but you are right, it was really an opinion, and you are not able to argue, you have no useful knowledge to make an argument on speed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966413)
I think some parts would bend and break if the speed was even greater than claimed.

So?

Not enough thrust? Flight 77, near sea level, goes from 300 knots to 483.5 in less than 30 seconds. Terrorist pilot proves you can't do Aero engineering.

No wonder you and yankee451 can't prove videos fake, you guys don't know anything about the subjects required to investigate 9/11.

sts60 25th January 2020 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12966425)
An Apollo hoaxer? Q置elle surprise.

I知 guessing also JFK for the trifecta.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966432)
That and more. the world works a lot differently from what your entrenched beliefs would allow you to see...

So, would you like to respond to my post discussing your Apollo claims? We can start a thread in the parent conspiracy forum one level up.

beachnut 25th January 2020 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966432)
That and more. the world works a lot differently from what your entrenched beliefs would allow you to see.

I suppose you believe the 'magic bullet' theory. I'd like to hear your explanation of the physics involved there

Not wonder your posts are removed at metabunk - evidence free opinions, and off topic

You can't prove any videos are fake, and know little about aero and physics

The truth = https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg


The video, is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The analysis is terrible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest (Post 12966240)
He wasn't posting the video showing what the cruise missile did to prove what a jet could do- he was posting the video to demonstrate what the video could show. No wonder you guys are always so confused- you can't even follow a basic point.

My question would be- on what basis would you "expect to see debris start to fall to the ground before the explosion"? Physics? So far, all I've seen from you in that direction is that you know how to spell the word- you could at least try yankee's "slid like butter" version of it (now that's physics!).

Or maybe you have some other basis for comparison? Do you know of another instance of a video of a jet plane crashing into a skyscraper like the Towers at the speed these did?

"I would expect" would be so much better with some informed basis for the expectation.

This is getting tiresome and repetetive. You folk don't believe the impact videos are fake. I get it. Nothing will satisfy you folk as I learned with my Metabunk experience.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 12:19 PM

ddd
Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12966440)
So, would you like to respond to my post discussing your Apollo claims? We can start a thread in the parent conspiracy forum one level up.

No thanks. Been there, done that.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966199)
As I said before, it will start to crush the cladding first, knocking it back, something like this:

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-17.png?w=320

This is based on a sweep back of 35 degrees and a direction of 12.5 degrees to the left, as in WTC2

Hence some of the cladding should have been seen to fall before the explosion.

beachnut 25th January 2020 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966462)
This is getting tiresome and repetetive. You folk don't believe the impact videos are fake. I get it. Nothing will satisfy you folk as I learned with my Metabunk experience.

Yes, because the videos are real, your claims are fantasy. You offer no evidence, you bring opinions. No proof.

Like aircraft speed, you repeat failed tag lines from 9/11 truth like a parrot, and dismiss real evidence like Radar. Claim everything is fake, and not able to prove anything.

Tiresome, it take no effort for you to make up a lie. It takes effort to do the work and find your claims are BS.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966473)
Hence some of the cladding should have been seen to fall before the explosion.

ETA: And thanks Robin for being one of the only ones here to show adult behaviour.
It's in precious short supply here.

beachnut 25th January 2020 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966477)
ETA: And thanks Robin for being one of the only ones here to show adult behaviour.
It's in precious short supply here.

Why do you spread lies and fantasy? Mocking the murder of thousands with fantasy lies - adult behavior, spreading lies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966473)
Hence some of the cladding should have been seen to fall before the explosion.

How do you know it did not fall? You keep making up reasons to support a fantasy and offer no evidence, and ignore evidence.

Axxman300 25th January 2020 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966477)
ETA: And thanks Robin for being one of the only ones here to show adult behaviour.
It's in precious short supply here.

We're still waiting for you and Yankee to prove the WTC was, in fact, destroyed.

I'm sorry but if we have to play by your rules you two need to prove that the Twin Towers are in fact gone and not hidden by a Reptilian cloaking device.

Then you need to prove than anyone in Afghanistan and Iraq has died and that those wars were not filmed by Jerry Bruckheimer.

Your rules, I'm making the claim that these things are now the truth...Prove me wrong.:D

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12966501)
We're still waiting for you and Yankee to prove the WTC was, in fact, destroyed.

I'm sorry but if we have to play by your rules you two need to prove that the Twin Towers are in fact gone and not hidden by a Reptilian cloaking device.

Then you need to prove than anyone in Afghanistan and Iraq has died and that those wars were not filmed by Jerry Bruckheimer.

Your rules, I'm making the claim that these things are now the truth...Prove me wrong.:D

Grow up!

sts60 25th January 2020 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12966440)
So, would you like to respond to my post discussing your Apollo claims? We can start a thread in the parent conspiracy forum one level up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966465)
No thanks. Been there, done that.

Well, it痴 your time, after all; if you don稚 want to use some of it to defend your Apollo claims, fine, but those claims remain unsupported. I will only note that your characterization of the controllers on console not being able to tell a faked mission from simulations bears no resemblance to reality. Nor does your characterization of who would be required to be 妬n on it.

Grizzly Bear 25th January 2020 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966076)
Actually, we dso. And we understand how your ilk will use any excuse to deny the obvious. You think the videos are real - I think they're fake. Bottom line - neither of us can prove our belief 100%. SO we'll just have to leave it a that.

Well there are millions of people who saw the attacks on live coverage world wide, thousands of people who witnessed the attacks directly, thousands who were injured as a direct or indirect result of attacks, and thousands of people who died in the attacks who had some level of communication before their deaths providing insight regarding their nature.

Forget that video footage was captured from every angle by thousands of people with camcorders and news outlets, you have limitless numbers of other impasses to your narrative, but the best argument I've seen you come up with to refute that is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966076)
...we understand how your ilk will use any excuse to deny the obvious. You think the videos are real - I think they're fake. Bottom line - neither of us can prove our belief 100%.

Which doesn't pass the smell test. I've seen this video fakery argument pressed for 15 years. It hasn't changed in the slightest.

smartcooky 25th January 2020 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966410)
Because the lighter parts hitting the steel columns are encountering an equalresistive force.

What is an "equalresistive force" (other than a bogus pseudo-physics thing you just made up)?

"resistive force" is usually drag or friction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966410)
What the mathematicians here fail to acknowledge is their calculation of the kinetic energy supposes the plane is a solid object like a brick.

What you fail to acknowledge is that you suppose the building is a solid object like a brick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966410)
ie - the plane weighs X and is travelling at velocity Y.

In Physics we talk about the mass of an object not its weight, and speed is a scalar variable, not a vector. Also, we use SI units. The correct terminology would be

...the plane has a mass of m and is moving at velocity v

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966410)
The engines and landing gear carry more kinetic energy than the relatively flimsy fuselage and wingtips. Yet the entire plane is 'swallowed' uniformly.

At the speed these aircraft were travelling, and with the relative hollowness of the building (these kinds of buildings are over 90% air) that is exactly what I would expect to see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966410)
I don't buy it, and never will. I'm done trying to explain the obvious. Believe whatever you want.

Your ignorance of physics and mathematics, and your personal incredulity are not evidence.

Itchy Boy 25th January 2020 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear (Post 12966532)
Well there are millions of people who saw the attacks on live coverage world wide, thousands of people who witnessed the attacks directly, thousands who were injured as a direct or indirect result of attacks, and thousands of people who died in the attacks who had some level of communication before their deaths providing insight regarding their nature.

Forget that video footage was captured from every angle by thousands of people with camcorders and news outlets, you have limitless numbers of other impasses to your narrative, but the best argument I've seen you come up with to refute that is:



Which doesn't pass the smell test. I've seen this video fakery argument pressed for 15 years. It hasn't changed in the slightest.

SO, what you're saying is, "we all saw it on TV, so that proves it must be real."

Elagabalus 25th January 2020 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966089)
And once again, for those of you with short attention spans, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not we who call BS to the claim. The original claim being, on 9/11 mostly hollow aluminum jets burrowed into the ground, bored through a concrete and brick building, and sliced through steel skyscrapers like butter.

You cling to videos and alleged witness accounts while disregarding the physical evidence which proves they're false. If you think you can prove the jets were real, then now's your chance to use the same evidence we all have access to, to prove it.

The mostly hollow spaces in the aluminum jet's wings are filled with jet fuel.

With all the tech involved, and their ability to warp minds, why didn't the PTB simply just hire Osama bin Laden? Or make the terrorists think that they were talking to Osama bin Laden? Maybe they could have substituted a fake Osama bin Laden for a real one? Or bought some planes and had them painted up in United Airlines/American Airlines livery at Area 51?

All much easier than your implausible scenario.

beachnut 25th January 2020 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966572)
SO, what you're saying is, "we all saw it on TV, so that proves it must be real."

The thread is about proving the video is fake. When thousands of people saw it live, how did they fake it? You offer no proof, you repeat "saw it on TV", and think you presented evidence.

On 9/11, yes, it proves planes. Then you confirm the planes with Radar, and gee, which aircraft in the USA did not land at an airport.

This is so easy, it is amazing you can't grasp reality, and have to make up lies.

Can you prove any video was fake in real time, or after recorded? NO

BStrong 25th January 2020 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966410)
snipped

The engines and landing gear carry more kinetic energy than the relatively flimsy fuselage and wingtips.
Yet the entire plane is 'swallowed' uniformly.

snipped again

How do it know?

Grizzly Bear 25th January 2020 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966572)
SO, what you're saying is, "we all saw it on TV, so that proves it must be real."

Thousands saw the attacks in person, or were directly impacted by it in other forms. You apparently forget that one significant problem with your case.

curious cat 25th January 2020 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966410)
B ecause the lighter parts hitting the steel columns are encountering an equalresistive force. What the mathematicians here fail to acknowledge is their calculation of the kinetic energy supposes the plane is a solid object like a brick.
ie - the plane weighs X and is travelling at velocity Y.

The engines and landing gear carry more kinetic energy than the relatively flimsy fuselage and wingtips. Yet the entire plane is 'swallowed' uniformly.

I don't buy it, and never will. I'm done trying to explain the obvious. Believe whatever you want.

I am ignoring the technically illiterate gibberish above and concentrating only on the blatant nonsense contradicting the evidence:

There was nothing uniform about individual parts of the plane penetrating the building. One of the engines has been found a few streets away from the impact. It obviously broke of its pod (as it is designed to do) and continued thru the building much faster than the rest of the plane and exited on the other side still with enough speed to cover a few hundred meters. Other parts of lower density either stayed trapped in the building or fell down much closer.
All exactly like anybody with a basic knowledge of highschool physic would anticipate. But we know you are not one of them...

Robin 25th January 2020 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966302)
So if I get this right, you're saying a wing spar, which is designed for vertical loads, cut through the steel and all but one piece of cladding.



https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...front-spar.png

If I was saying that I would have written that.

I am saying what I [i]actually wrote[/quote].

That large piece of aircraft grade aluminium alloy that you showed, travelling at 800 kph carries quite a good deal of kinetic energy. I know that comes as a surprise to a mo-planer, but it is true.

The fact that it breaks upon impact doesn't change the fact that this energy has been transferred to the column.

So, even after the spar has snapped and the remaining pieces have bounced off or travelled on past, the column continues.fracturing.

The cladding, a separate piece of metal with different properties and not directly attached to the column will behave differently under that impact.

There is no necessary reason why the cladding will be severed, although it probably will.

Robin 25th January 2020 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966333)
How do you figure? The columns were 14 inches wide. The warheads, the AGM-86 D has a 14 inch warhead, and the AGM-158 has a 12 inch warhead. Using the known measurements of the columns, the warheads of either of these missiles could do the deed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...ndoff-missile/

So what has happened to the starboard side of the airframe and the starboard wing, which have not impacted anything yet and therefore have not shattered so far?

Axxman300 25th January 2020 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966506)
Grow up!

So you can't prove the WTC was destroyed?

smartcooky 25th January 2020 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966089)
And once again, for those of you with short attention spans, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not we who call BS to the claim. The original claim being, on 9/11 mostly hollow aluminum jets burrowed into the ground, bored through a concrete and brick building, and sliced through steel skyscrapers like butter.

You cling to videos and alleged witness accounts while disregarding the physical evidence which proves they're false. If you think you can prove the jets were real, then now's your chance to use the same evidence we all have access to, to prove it.


https://www.logicalfallacies.org/

Err no, - attempting to reverse the burden of proof is a staple of Conspiracy theorists when they have been cornered. That is not how burden of proof works.

That four aeroplanes were hijacked by terrorists and three of them were flown into buildings is an established fact. This fact is supported by, among other things

1. First hand observations by thousands of witnesses who saw the planes fly into the buildings
2. Four planes took off from airports on 9/11 but never arrived at their destinations
3. Some of the passengers on those aircraft were able to make phone calls to news agencies and loved ones
4. All of the passengers on those planes have disappeared, and the DNA of many of them has been identified at the crash sites
5. All of the aircraft wreckage at all four crash sites were only from the missing airliners.

All of the above amounts to what is known as"consilience". You claim that these airliners did not exist and that it was missiles that impacted the Pentagon, the Towers and the crash site at Stoney Creek. The burden of proof is on you to account for all of the above. This amounts to more that just saying "it was all faked". You have to show HOW it was faked, WHO did the faking.

If you think the aircraft wreckage was planted, how was it planted without a single witness seeing anything, and where did the wreckage originally come from?

If you think the passengers' DNA evidence was faked, who faked it and how did they do that without the regular DNA technicians knowing about it?

Where are the missing passengers?

Where are the missing planes?

Robin 25th January 2020 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966426)
No, I'm pointing out the lack of physical evidence of a 'crash'. The video showing how it could be done was in response to the question of how it could be done. I didn't post it a proof of fakery. The proof, for the umpteenth time is in the lack of physics.

No doubt, even if I provided proof that would satisfy you lot that the video was faked, you would make some excuse for it so you could cling to your belief 9/11 happened as reported. d

Neither you nor yankee451 have posted any physics in support of your contentions.

Show me the physics of what you think we should have seen in lossy video of a distant object.

I can see nothing in any of the videos that is inconsistent with the physics of a plane crash.

Regnad Kcin 25th January 2020 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966420)
According to your logic then, I can claim I have a 3 headed Martian in my basement, but have no burden of proof. Instead, you have the burden to prove I don't have a Martian.

Well no, that’s not my logic.

There has long been an investigative and scientific consensus on the various aspects of 9/11. The findings are not arbitrary or based on say so but supported by all manner of evidence and analysis. Since this is so, it is considered the null. Any challenge to parts or all of the null therefore takes on the burden of proof.

Ferraris are made at the Ferrari factory in Maranello, Italy. It’s well established to be true; it’s the null. If anyone wants to claim that they’re actually screwed together inside the laundromat behind Marge Butler’s of Kalamazoo, the burden of proof is theirs.

The current, conventional wisdom re: Martians, three-headed or otherwise, is that they don’t exist. As well, two hijacked jetliners were crashed into the twin towers. Claim otherwise? Support your claim.

waypastvne 25th January 2020 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12966473)
Hence some of the cladding should have been seen to fall before the explosion.


Did you know that in Earths gravitational field objects accelerate downwards at 32' per second per second. So a falling object will travel downward 16' in 1 second.

The whole plane minus a few parts was inside the building in .2 seconds. The wings only took .04 seconds to penetrate the building.


So how far should these panels have fallen before the explosion. Show us the math.

waypastvne 25th January 2020 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12965792)

Let's think about this for the moment.


I corrected this image for you. No need to thank me. Feel free to use it any time you have the need to post more of your stupid drivel.


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







Well that kinda explains your bent flanges and the cladding wedged behind the wing skin fragment on WTC2 doesn't it.

yankee451 25th January 2020 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 12966833)
I corrected this image for you. No need to thank me. Feel free to use it any time you have the need to post more of your stupid drivel.


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







Well that kinda explains your bent flanges and the cladding wedged behind the wing skin fragment on WTC2 doesn't it.

Thanks, whereas one jet "dragged" the steel to the right, the other didn't, yet both left almost identical damage.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ectories-1.jpg


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 PM.

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