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)

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’s your time, after all; if you don’t 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 “in 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

yankee451 25th January 2020 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear (Post 12966656)
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.

Name them.

Regnad Kcin 25th January 2020 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966849)
Name them.

Peter for one. Also Margaret, I think.

curious cat 25th January 2020 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966849)
Name them.

No need. GB states a number representing a (low) reasonable estimate under given circumstances. We discussed it before.
If you have one or two people who say they saw something else than the thousands mentioned, you'd better name them :-).

yankee451 25th January 2020 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12966865)
No need. GB states a number representing a (low) reasonable estimate under given circumstances. We discussed it before.
If you have one or two people who say they saw something else than the thousands mentioned, you'd better name them :-).

Circular logic. You assume there were thousands of people to witness what you saw on television, therefore what you saw on television occurred.

curious cat 25th January 2020 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966891)
Circular logic. You assume there were thousands of people to witness what you saw on television, therefore what you saw on television occurred.

Not circular logic, a circular discussion - familiar to every psychiatrist.

Robin 25th January 2020 10:27 PM

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

How am I contradicting my own story?

You do know what the words "or" and "possibly" mean, don't you? If not, please consult a dictionary.

yankee451 25th January 2020 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear (Post 12966656)
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.

You guys are like case studies for the logical fallacies sites.

Quote:

Argumentum ad Populum (Literally "Argument to the People"): Using an appeal to popular assent, often by arousing the feelings and enthusiasm of the multitude rather than building an argument. It is a favorite device with the propagandist, the demagogue, and the advertiser. An example of this type of argument is Shakespeare's version of Mark Antony's funeral oration for Julius Caesar. There are three basic approaches:

(1) Bandwagon Approach: “Everybody is doing it.” This argumentum ad populum asserts that, since the majority of people believes an argument or chooses a particular course of action, the argument must be true, or the course of action must be followed, or the decision must be the best choice. For instance, “85% of consumers purchase IBM computers rather than Macintosh; all those people can’t be wrong. IBM must make the best computers.” Popular acceptance of any argument does not prove it to be valid, nor does popular use of any product necessarily prove it is the best one. After all, 85% of people may once have thought planet earth was flat, but that majority's belief didn't mean the earth really was flat when they believed it! Keep this in mind, and remember that everybody should avoid this type of logical fallacy.
(2) Patriotic Approach: "Draping oneself in the flag." This argument asserts that a certain stance is true or correct because it is somehow patriotic, and that those who disagree are unpatriotic. It overlaps with pathos and argumentum ad hominem to a certain extent. The best way to spot it is to look for emotionally charged terms like Americanism, rugged individualism, motherhood, patriotism, godless communism, etc. A true American would never use this approach. And a truly free man will exercise his American right to drink beer, since beer belongs in this great country of ours.This approach is unworthy of a good citizen.

(3) Snob Approach: This type of argumentum ad populum doesn’t assert “everybody is doing it,” but rather that “all the best people are doing it.” For instance, “Any true intellectual would recognize the necessity for studying logical fallacies.” The implication is that anyone who fails to recognize the truth of the author’s assertion is not an intellectual, and thus the reader had best recognize that necessity.

In all three of these examples, the rhetorician does not supply evidence that an argument is true; he merely makes assertions about people who agree or disagree with the argument. For Christian students in religious schools like Carson-Newman, we might add a fourth category, "Covering Oneself in the Cross." This argument asserts that a certain political or denominational stance is true or correct because it is somehow "Christian," and that anyone who disagrees is behaving in an "un-Christian" or "godless" manner. (It is similar to the patriotic approach except it substitutes a gloss of piety instead of patriotism.) Examples include the various "Christian Voting Guides" that appear near election time, many of them published by non-Church related organizations with hidden financial/political agendas, or the stereotypical crooked used-car salesman who keeps a pair of bibles on his dashboard in order to win the trust of those he would fleece. Keep in mind Moliere's question in Tartuffe: "Is not a face quite different than a mask?" Is not the appearance of Christianity quite different than actual Christianity? Christians should beware of such manipulation since they are especially vulnerable to it.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html

Elagabalus 25th January 2020 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966901)
You guys are like case studies for the logical fallacies sites.

Do you get upset when no one believes in your silly theory yankee451?

http://mark-conlon.blogspot.com/2017...t-michael.html

And this trait in no way reminds me of the current occupier of the White House, L. Ron Hubbard or any other cult leader/wannabe who insists that it's my way or the highway. :rolleyes:

yankee451 25th January 2020 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966684)
If I was saying that I would have written that.

I am saying what I actually wrote.

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.

And what you actually wrote means that the spar gouged out most of a steel column (but not all of it), but somehow managed to miss the aluminum sheeting that covered that part of the column it was able to damage. What you describe is not reflected in any of the videos or photographs. It is also contradicted by the official organs like Purdue, MIT and the NIST.

yankee451 25th January 2020 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12966903)
Do you get upset when no one believes in your silly theory yankee451?

http://mark-conlon.blogspot.com/2017...t-michael.html

And this trait in no way reminds me of the current occupier of the White House, L. Ron Hubbard or any other cult leader/wannabe who insists that it's my way or the highway. :rolleyes:

Your opinions are yours alone. That you think you speak for others doesn't surprise me.

yankee451 25th January 2020 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966900)
How am I contradicting my own story?

You do know what the words "or" and "possibly" mean, don't you? If not, please consult a dictionary.

Well it's possible frogs could have done it too, I guess.

Elagabalus 25th January 2020 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966904)
And what you actually wrote means that the spar gouged out most of a steel column (but not all of it), but somehow managed to miss the aluminum sheeting that covered that part of the column it was able to damage. What you describe is not reflected in any of the videos or photographs. It is also contradicted by the official organs like Purdue, MIT and the NIST.

It is what it is, dude. Deal with it (or continue to go off for the next 14 pages about a detail that is entirely your own speculation about how a piece of cladding should behave).

I wonder if this person was confused about a missile or a plane?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_...er_11_survivor)

yankee451 25th January 2020 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12966735)
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.

You first.

You claim a jet wing cut the steel and created the damage as found. I say hogwash, as anyone can see with their own two eyes. So now that you've brought up physics, I want to see the math. Show me the physics of the interaction between the wing and the wall columns. You can even use someone else's math if you want to.

yankee451 25th January 2020 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12966908)
It is what it is, dude. Deal with it (or continue to go off for the next 14 pages about a detail that is entirely your own speculation about how a piece of cladding should behave).

I wonder if this person was confused about a missile or a plane?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_...er_11_survivor)


I'm looking for the wing that didn't penetrate the wall, but which the television, and Purdue, said did penetrate. What was it the propaganda organs said? "In one side and out the other," "like a bad special effect."

yankee451 25th January 2020 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12966908)
It is what it is, dude. Deal with it (or continue to go off for the next 14 pages about a detail that is entirely your own speculation about how a piece of cladding should behave).

I wonder if this person was confused about a missile or a plane?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_...er_11_survivor)

Oh, gasp - look, a witness.

Elagabalus 25th January 2020 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966914)
Oh, gasp - look, a witness.

A witness and survivor. Did you interview him?

Elagabalus 25th January 2020 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966913)
I'm looking for the wing that didn't penetrate the wall, but which the television, and Purdue, said did penetrate. What was it the propaganda organs said? "In one side and out the other," "like a bad special effect."

Why would you be looking for that when the television, Purdue and the Michael Hezarkhani's video are all in agreement? Ever hear of chaotic motion?

Axxman300 25th January 2020 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966847)
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

I'm still waiting for your proof that the World Trade Center was destroyed. This picture is Photoshopped.

Just playing by your rules.

yankee451 25th January 2020 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12966920)
Why would you be looking for that when the television, Purdue and the Michael Hezarkhani's video are all in agreement? Ever hear of chaotic motion?

I would expect that which didn't penetrate to fall off.

I would like to see the math that explains how the wing could not sever the cladding, but still gouge out the steel the cladding was wrapped around.

Robin 25th January 2020 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12966904)
And what you actually wrote means that the spar gouged out most of a steel column (but not all of it), but somehow managed to miss the aluminum sheeting that covered that part of the column it was able to damage

You are claiming that I said it misses the cladding?

When I obviously said and diagrammed that it impacted the cladding, crumpled it, pushed it back but wouldn't necessarily sever it completely?

Again you are lying about what I said.

I guess it bears out the old adage that the person who boasts of his own honesty is usually the most dishonest person in the room


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:33 PM.

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