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)

yankee451 29th January 2020 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turingtest (Post 12971301)
"The evidence" being no more than your interpretation of a picture- everything else is a fog you've blown to obscure just how little you actually have.

No outrage here, faux or otherwise- I'm doing the same thing you are, gassing on the internet. The difference between us is that I haven't convinced myself that I'm a stalwart proponent of some world-important truth that (conveniently) I can't do any more with than to argue about on the internet.

If you could provide a better interpretation, that didn't rely on ignoring said evidence, I'm betting you would.

Robin 29th January 2020 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12971448)
If you could provide a better interpretation, that didn't rely on ignoring said evidence, I'm betting you would.

Better interpretation has been provided over and over again.

When I asked you to tell me why you thought that the cladding would have to be severed completely rather than mostly severed you point blank refused to answer, over and over again.

So you have not told us why you think the cladding would have to be severed all the way through rather than most of the way through.

So all we have from you is your assertion that, for reasons you can't explain, you think that it would have to be severed all the way .

That is pretty much the definition of argument from incredulity from you.

You still have to opportunity to explain why you think the cladding would have to be severed all the way through rather than most of the way through.

yankee451 29th January 2020 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12971451)
Better interpretation has been provided over and over again.

When I asked you to tell me why you thought that the cladding would have to be severed completely rather than mostly severed you point blank refused to answer, over and over again.

So you have not told us why you think the cladding would have to be severed all the way through rather than most of the way through.

So all we have from you is your assertion that, for reasons you can't explain, you think that it would have to be severed all the way .

That is pretty much the definition of argument from incredulity from you.

You still have to opportunity to explain why you think the cladding would have to be severed all the way through rather than most of the way through.

Robin, I appreciate your ability to deny what's before your eyes and behave as if the cladding was somehow not cut while the steel it was wrapped around, was cut, but your explanation isn't consistent with the evidence.

curious cat 29th January 2020 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12971541)
Robin, I appreciate your ability to deny what's before your eyes and behave as if the cladding was somehow not cut while the steel it was wrapped around, was cut, but your explanation isn't consistent with the evidence.

While having mountains of perfectly irrefutable evidence for the planes, the only "evidence" this piece of metal provides is:
"During a chaotic event like this it is normal something what is hard to explain happens sometimes."
I am sure we all be laughing our heads off if we one day find that perfectly natural and benign explanation we are missing due to our limited understanding to this complex process.
For god's sake, forget that stupid strip of aluminium. Mental institutions are full of people who were trying to get to the bottom of things much less complicated than this. :D

beachnut 29th January 2020 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12971232)
Hmm. Of course your reaction would be counted on. It is the big lie, after all.

Projection.

Your video is self debunking claptrap

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

Robin 29th January 2020 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12971541)
Robin, I appreciate your ability to deny what's before your eyes and behave as if the cladding was somehow not cut while the steel it was wrapped around, was cut, but your explanation isn't consistent with the evidence.

I appreciate your ability to continuously misrepresent what I say no matter how many times I correct you.

How you get "not cut" out of "severed almost all the way through" I don't know. Well, yes, I do know, it is plain old fashioned lying. It shows you have absolutely no belief in any of the nonsense you are saying.

Now, again, I know that honesty is very difficult for you, but try.

You are claiming that in a frontal collision the cladding, which is not directly attached to the steel column and does not touch it, would have to be entirely severed rather than almost entirely severed.

Tell me why you think this.

Elagabalus 29th January 2020 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12971032)
With compartmentalization, very few people would know the whole story. That's the way the military works. Remember the Manhattan project?


https://savingplaces.org/stories/sec...istorical-park


That's really a bad example. Everyone knows about the Manhattan Project. And even being a big project run by the Government they left behind pieces of evidence.

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/...project-leaks/

You see, unlike you, this guy actually did some research and was able to piece together how Little Boy and Fat Man were put together.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...15/atomic-john

bruto 29th January 2020 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12971129)
What if you are compensating for your inability to form a coherent argument by resorting to ridicule?

If it were ridicule then you might have a point. What if you're missing the point? I guess we'd be right about where we are now.

Cosmic Yak 30th January 2020 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12970341)
Great to have you back, yankee451.
Now you're here, perhaps you could address this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12967974)
This is a great example of how so many CT-ists are so desperate to refute any and all questioning of their pet theories that they forget what they were actually arguing for.
yankee451: You said there were holes big enough for a missile to pass through. I noticed that a 14-inch-wide missile could not pass through a 14-inch-wide hole without getting jammed.
You responded with a link explaining how a missile would not need a hole, because it could blast its own way through.
You are therefore arguing against yourself, and also inadvertently destroying your whole theory.
Please highlight the 'clean exit hole' your own link says the missile would make, and then explain why you have been arguing that a missile passed through a hole, thus proving that it was a missile and not a plane, when your own link says that won't happen.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12971109)
I can read. I can think. I don't need an expert to do these things for me. If you have a problem with the conclusions reached by the evidence brought to the table, you're welcome to use the same evidence to explain how it fits your conclusion better than mine. If you need to find an expert to explain it, go for it.

I have done this, repeatedly, using the evidence you yourself brought to the table.
You have ignored all of my posts.
Why are you running, yankee451?

Leftus 30th January 2020 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wowbagger (Post 12971237)
Extras in movies don't see the scenes they were filmed for used in an actual terrorist attack later on.

You think ALL of the several hundreds of people in on the rehearsals would go: "That's funny. Those exact camera angles we rehearsed several days ago are being used to film the buildings burning today. Nope, that's not suspicious, at all."


My brother was an "extra" in the Angels in the Outfield movie when they were filming in Oakland. OK, he was one of the many thousands in the stands. No camera was ever really pointed at him. But here is what he would know:

1 - There was a game of baseball being "played".
2 - The Oakland park was dressed up to look like Anaheim.
3 - It wasn't baseball season.
4 - The Angels were involved. And another team which I don't remember.

To make the assumption that the extras there to provide reactions, which is largely what he was there for, know nothing about what is being filmed is just another item to add to the list Yankee knows nothing at all about but inserts himself as an expert.

pgimeno 30th January 2020 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12971216)
Extras in movies don't know squat either, this would be no different.

But then they see the movie, and see how it all fits together. And when they realize that they have helped a mass murder to happen, they will be enraged and speak up. And they know they aren't alone, because they were with other extras, so it's more likely that they will be believed. And that hasn't happened.

pgimeno 30th January 2020 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12971400)

Good analysis. Furthermore, let me note that the angle of the remaining fuselage between the two pictures above is substantially different.

What Itchy Boy failed to realize is what kind of scale we're talking about here. If the front of the wing crumples and gets destroyed, the back of it is still several metres away from it, and you can't expect to be able to discern significant deformation with that resolution.

Jack by the hedge 30th January 2020 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12971243)
Arguments from incredulity noted.

They're not arguments from incredulity when they're pointing out reasons why what you're proposing is obviously absurd.

There is one detail which you think looks fishy and for which you think you have a better explanation.

But then, stepping back just a tad, your proposed explanation conflicts with every other thing we know about the event and requires the use of technology which did not exist and requires its perpetrators to believe they could perform obviously unachievable tasks, such as preventing anyone from photographing or reporting they saw what the perps were doing in broad daylight after they got everyone's attention with the first crash.

These are arguments from reality. It's waaaaaay over here. You may need to borrow a telescope even to see it from wherever you are.

yankee451 30th January 2020 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12971914)
Good analysis. Furthermore, let me note that the angle of the remaining fuselage between the two pictures above is substantially different.

What Itchy Boy failed to realize is what kind of scale we're talking about here. If the front of the wing crumples and gets destroyed, the back of it is still several metres away from it, and you can't expect to be able to discern significant deformation with that resolution.

Video layers and drawn on smoke.

Elagabalus 30th January 2020 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12972409)
Video layers and drawn on smoke.

Alien Lizard Men™.

Your move.

GlennB 30th January 2020 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12972409)
Video layers and drawn on smoke.

You need psychiatric help or an A+ in your psychology BSc project on how to test the patience of strangers on the internet by bombarding them with relentless irrationality.

yankee451 30th January 2020 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12971658)
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Great to have you back, yankee451.
Now you're here, perhaps you could address this:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
This is a great example of how so many CT-ists are so desperate to refute any and all questioning of their pet theories that they forget what they were actually arguing for.
yankee451: You said there were holes big enough for a missile to pass through. I noticed that a 14-inch-wide missile could not pass through a 14-inch-wide hole without getting jammed.
You responded with a link explaining how a missile would not need a hole, because it could blast its own way through.
You are therefore arguing against yourself, and also inadvertently destroying your whole theory.
Please highlight the 'clean exit hole' your own link says the missile would make, and then explain why you have been arguing that a missile passed through a hole, thus proving that it was a missile and not a plane, when your own link says that won't happen.
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I can read. I can think. I don't need an expert to do these things for me. If you have a problem with the conclusions reached by the evidence brought to the table, you're welcome to use the same evidence to explain how it fits your conclusion better than mine. If you need to find an expert to explain it, go for it.
I have done this, repeatedly, using the evidence you yourself brought to the table.
You have ignored all of my posts.
Why are you running, yankee451?


How can I ignore you and simultaneously respond? Why would you think the missile would jam? Why would you think the wing could cut the steel, but neglect to cut the aluminum cladding that covered it?

yankee451 30th January 2020 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12972415)
Alien Lizard Men™.

Your move.

You might want to start your own thread for that, this one is about how the videos were faked. It is explained in the OP. Have you read it?

Wowbagger 30th January 2020 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12972409)
Video layers and drawn on smoke.

Forget the nitty gritty details, for a sec....

There would need to be TEAMS of artists making these layers all look realistic and consistent, and several LEVELS of TV producers to make sure it got out on time, to be considered "live" TV. That's already hundreds of people who would know something nefarious is going on.

It's NOT impossible for that to happen. But, I think it's simply stupid.

The challenge I have for you, is to explain how faking airplane collisions to this level is SMARTER than getting far fewer people to hijack real planes.

JSanderO 30th January 2020 05:07 PM

why not use bombs and blame it in the "arabs"???? forget the plans and the FX KISS

Axxman300 30th January 2020 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12971914)
Good analysis. Furthermore, let me note that the angle of the remaining fuselage between the two pictures above is substantially different.

What Itchy Boy failed to realize is what kind of scale we're talking about here. If the front of the wing crumples and gets destroyed, the back of it is still several metres away from it, and you can't expect to be able to discern significant deformation with that resolution.

Thanks.

I had to pull those images from the lone "high resolution" video on Youtube and because I only have Photoshop Elements I had to fight the program to get all of that up. I have four more frames wherein you can see dust from collapsing cement floors billow out of the rear (main entry hole) and the side of the tower just before the fuel ignites.

However it's very clear that the plane's fuselage and wings buckle as they slam into the building.

I also felt like a sleaze ball for even having to do that. There are people on that plane and people in the impact zone. I can't image the depths of sociopathy one must sink to in order to become a No-Planer.

Axxman300 30th January 2020 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12972532)
why not use bombs and blame it in the "arabs"???? forget the plans and the FX KISS

Because half the fun is dreaming up the elaborate, complicated scheme necessary to the pet CT to be real. Who cares if it would work?:thumbsup:

Axxman300 30th January 2020 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12972409)
Video layers and drawn on smoke.

There is no smoke in any of the frames I've posted.

Do your homework.

curious cat 30th January 2020 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12972532)
why not use bombs and blame it in the "arabs"???? forget the plans and the FX KISS

You've been caught using plain logic again!:D

Wowbagger 30th January 2020 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12972532)
why not use bombs and blame it in the "arabs"???? forget the plans and the FX KISS

They tried that once, and it didn't work as well as they hoped.

Grizzly Bear 30th January 2020 06:57 PM

One very important concept that the ping ball analogy misses (if applied to the real life event) is that material strength, uniformity, and stiffness are very very different when expanded from the scale of a little ball paddle and an air filled ball.

Dynamics of surface area, structural attributes, and kinetic energy applications expand exponentially when applied at the scale of a ...... sky scraper.... and a passenger air liner... for one. If the ones portraying this "fakery" are relying on the analogy of a small scale analogy to explain the dynamics of a full scale event.... it is missing the very important fine print about the limits of application

curious cat 30th January 2020 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear (Post 12972645)
One very important concept that the ping ball analogy misses (if applied to the real life event) is that material strength, uniformity, and stiffness are very very different when expanded from the scale of a little ball paddle and an air filled ball.

Dynamics of surface area, structural attributes, and kinetic energy applications expand exponentially when applied at the scale of a ...... sky scraper.... and a passenger air liner... for one. If the ones portraying this "fakery" are relying on the analogy of a small scale analogy to explain the dynamics of a full scale event.... it is missing the very important fine print about the limits of application

While you are obviously right, I'd say the pingpong ball analogy demonstrated the points we wanted with an acceptable accuracy. That includes the possibility of the fuselage exploding under the right circumstances. In the case of WTC the destroyed front of the fuselage hasn't been sufficiently sealed (unlike with the pingpong ball), so it hasn't happened. It probably did happen to Swisair 111 hitting water in a nosedive at high speed. The plane disintegrated into estimated 5 million pieces what I find rather hard to imagine as a sole result of a rapid deceleration. Don't worry, I know water can be hard. I had my share of diving from 10 m tower and have 2 fused vertebrae to prove it ;-)). But I would more tend to believe water filling the fuselage through the destroyed front at high speed acted like a piston compressing the air in the back to the point of explosion. In fact, I find harder to imagine this DIDN'T happen, than that it did.

Regnad Kcin 30th January 2020 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12972433)
You might want to start your own thread for that, this one is about how the videos were faked. It is explained in the OP. Have you read it?

”Explained.”

Snort.

AJM8125 30th January 2020 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12972433)
It is explained in the OP. Have you read it?

OP read.

Blown out of the water by post #2.

Axxman300 30th January 2020 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12972702)
OP read.

Blown out of the water by post #2.

I know. Talk about a colossal lack of knowledge of NYC.

NBC's headquarters are at 30 Rockefeller Center, CBS's HQ (Blackrock) is at 51 W 52nd St, ABC is over at 77 W 66th St #13 (furthest away), and Fox News is at 1211 Avenue of the Americas. I don't know about ABC and Fox but CBC and NBC are 4 miles away and it was no problem to put cameras on their rooftops to film.

All of them are north of 1 World Trade Center.

South of the WTC is the Hudson Rover, and scenic Bayonne New Jersey.

Not many places to mount a high resolution camera without a good reason (like knowing there would be a second plane which would strike from the south).

Cosmic Yak 31st January 2020 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12967974)
This is a great example of how so many CT-ists are so desperate to refute any and all questioning of their pet theories that they forget what they were actually arguing for.
yankee451: You said there were holes big enough for a missile to pass through. I noticed that a 14-inch-wide missile could not pass through a 14-inch-wide hole without getting jammed.
You responded with a link explaining how a missile would not need a hole, because it could blast its own way through.
You are therefore arguing against yourself, and also inadvertently destroying your whole theory.
Please highlight the 'clean exit hole' your own link says the missile would make, and then explain why you have been arguing that a missile passed through a hole, thus proving that it was a missile and not a plane, when your own link says that won't happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12972431)
How can I ignore you and simultaneously respond? Why would you think the missile would jam?

Once again, using your own figures: the gap is 14 inches. The missile is 14 inches wide. It cannot pass through the gap without jamming.
You explained this by quoting a source that said it would blast through, leaving a missile-shaped hole. This, according you the photo you keep using, did not happen.
Therefore there was no missile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12972431)
Why would you think the wing could cut the steel, but neglect to cut the aluminum cladding that covered it?

Perhaps you missed the entire Burden of Proof conversation. To remind you: your claim is missiles, therefore the BoP rests on you. I do not have to answer that question.
Your own sources disprove missiles. You need either to disown your sources, or admit your theory is wrong.

curious cat 31st January 2020 01:15 AM

deleted

curious cat 31st January 2020 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12971400)

Thanks for the photo (sorry, originally by Axman). The stream of fuel pointing backwards confirms a "hydraulic action in all directions". In one of my earlier posts I suspected it to be responsible for some bits and pieces being bent in directions not consistent with a frontal impact that OP is using for his "missile theory". Again, there may be other explanations too.

smartcooky 31st January 2020 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wowbagger (Post 12972519)
Forget the nitty gritty details, for a sec....

There would need to be TEAMS of artists making these layers all look realistic and consistent, and several LEVELS of TV producers to make sure it got out on time, to be considered "live" TV. That's already hundreds of people who would know something nefarious is going on.

It's NOT impossible for that to happen. But, I think it's simply stupid.

The challenge I have for you, is to explain how faking airplane collisions to this level is SMARTER than getting far fewer people to hijack real planes.


THIS!

In the 1997 movie, Titanic, there was a scene where they morphed the sunken wreck of the foredeck of the ship into the floating brand new RMS Titanic on the surface in Southampton dock...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


''..that clip was only 7 seconds long, a little shorter that the actual clip which was more like 12 seconds long (although the actual morph transition frames, a single viewpoint fluid motion tracking shot from left to right across about 45°) occupied only 3 to 4 seconds.

That one shot took a team of dozens of compositors and digital artists over 600 hours to make. Yankee would have us believe that dozens of videos from dozens of angles, all much longer than the Titanic 3-4 sec clip, were prepared and distributed within seconds of the impact.

Ain't happening.

The Common Potato 31st January 2020 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12972867)
THIS!

Ain't happening.

"Secret military tech," will be the answer.

smartcooky 31st January 2020 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12972900)
"Secret military tech," will be the answer.

In my lengthy military experience, I have found that the "tech" in the military has often lagged behind that in the private sector. For example, in the 1970s civilian airliners were routinely using inertial navigation systems - our C-130Ks were still using an AN/APN70 LORAN-C !! (Oh, and so were the US Navy and USAF C-130s)

Jack by the hedge 31st January 2020 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12972409)
Video layers and drawn on smoke.

This explanation satisfies you, and only you, because you have no grasp whatever of the challenge you are proposing.

It has a similar absurdity to your imagining that wing damage could be faked with missiles flying in from either side and raking across the face of the building. Although this falls apart immediately as the missiles did not exist, imagine if they had: Consider for a moment the accuracy and precision required to avoid making "wing" impressions which were a few feet too long or too short, or were offset from each other, or at the wrong dihedral angle.

Perhaps you could estimate a suitable accuracy spec for your missiles and then see if anyone has ever made such a thing. Perhaps you prefer to avoid trying.

Cosmic Yak 31st January 2020 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12972848)
Once again, using your own figures: the gap is 14 inches. The missile is 14 inches wide. It cannot pass through the gap without jamming.
You explained this by quoting a source that said it would blast through, leaving a missile-shaped hole. This, according you the photo you keep using, did not happen.
Therefore there was no missile.



Perhaps you missed the entire Burden of Proof conversation. To remind you: your claim is missiles, therefore the BoP rests on you. I do not have to answer that question.
Your own sources disprove missiles. You need either to disown your sources, or admit your theory is wrong.

Just to add to this: I believe that yankee451 is saying the missiles struck at an angle? Is that correct?
If it is, then there's no way either size (14" or 12" could have passed through the gap without either getting stuck or blasting a visible hole into the structure.
I've had a quick skim, and it does look like this is the claim.

Jack by the hedge 31st January 2020 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12972950)
Just to add to this: I believe that yankee451 is saying the missiles struck at an angle? Is that correct?
If it is, then there's no way either size (14" or 12" could have passed through the gap without either getting stuck or blasting a visible hole into the structure.
I've had a quick skim, and it does look like this is the claim.

Yes. His fantasy version is that missiles scored across the face of the building from either side at a shallow angle, gouging deeper as they headed toward the middle. Plus some other number of missiles as required to fill in the big holes for engines and the fuselage.

Mere inches of lateral error in the point of impact would have made feet of error in the length of the wing impression created. And it's not at all clear how a "wing" missile could carve a wing-thick hole while an "engine" missile somehow made a giant engine sized hole rather than punching another wing-thick hole.

Leftus 31st January 2020 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12972920)
In my lengthy military experience, I have found that the "tech" in the military has often lagged behind that in the private sector. For example, in the 1970s civilian airliners were routinely using inertial navigation systems - our C-130Ks were still using an AN/APN70 LORAN-C !! (Oh, and so were the US Navy and USAF C-130s)

Dude, he has conjecture based on years of assumptions! That beats your actual experience.

But yes. The missile system I worked on was transitioning from tube based to solid state back in the late 80s, early 90's. The main reasons for this was that tubes worked, it was battle tested, and those logistic lines are long.

In my current experience working for the federal government, we are working with state of the art 1960's tech trying to upgrade it into, hopefully, early 2000s software.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:54 PM.

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