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)

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 05:30 PM

And people were complaining bout how bad it smelled and many exposed were falling ill. Amazing what CGI could do in 2001.

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 05:31 PM

Duplicate.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007819)
And people were complaining bout how bad it smelled and many exposed were falling ill. Amazing what CGI could do in 2001.

Gasp, and you can verify this, how?

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 13007779)
That's pretty weak. The wind direction on the day determined the smoke direction. The smoke cast a shadow. The CGI plane passed through the real shadow. How did they generate and prerecord that, these supercompetent villains who leave nothing to chance?

The wind, and consequent direction of the smoke, had nothing to do with the CGI plane with the transparent background, and conversely. This is explained in the OP. What don't you understand?

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 05:38 PM

Oh you know, lots of documentation in the form of photos, videos, textual records. But of course, that would mean that you're wrong and that simply would not be permissible.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007828)
Oh you know, lots of documentation in the form of photos, videos, textual records. But of course, that would mean that you're wrong and that simply would not be permissible.

Really, photos that prove, " people were complaining bout how bad it smelled and many exposed were falling ill. Amazing what CGI could do in 2001."???

Do tell.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007828)
Oh you know, lots of documentation in the form of photos, videos, textual records. But of course, that would mean that you're wrong and that simply would not be permissible.

Textual records like this?


NY’s fallen heroes: More than 100 retired 9/11 cops and firefighters busted for swindling $24million in disability benefits with fake illnesses and made-up psychological trauma arising from terror attack
Retired NYPD officers, firefighters and corrections officers claimed they had PTSD and depression because of the Ground Zero clean up
Received thousands in annual disability compensation from 9/11 disability fund as a result, promising that they retired
Investigators found that they had second careers and did things that their supposed disabilities wouldn’t have allowed them to do
Cost taxpayers $21.4million dollars
Lawyers coached fraudsters on how they should talk about leaving the TV on all day and constantly napping, having trouble grooming themselves

https://911crashtest.org/new-yorks-l...rrupt-corrupt/

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 05:55 PM

There's a few documentaries floating about, Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11 would be one such. One of the books written on the subject, assuming you read books, would be Fallout: The Environmental Consequences of the World Trade Center Collapse.

A few papers and articles on the subject:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5502a1.htm

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...910-story.html

https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo...nal-report.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/wtc/

Of course, some of those are government links, but they're there for other people to read if they so wish.

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007837)
Textual records like this?


NY’s fallen heroes: More than 100 retired 9/11 cops and firefighters busted for swindling $24million in disability benefits with fake illnesses and made-up psychological trauma arising from terror attack
Retired NYPD officers, firefighters and corrections officers claimed they had PTSD and depression because of the Ground Zero clean up
Received thousands in annual disability compensation from 9/11 disability fund as a result, promising that they retired
Investigators found that they had second careers and did things that their supposed disabilities wouldn’t have allowed them to do
Cost taxpayers $21.4million dollars
Lawyers coached fraudsters on how they should talk about leaving the TV on all day and constantly napping, having trouble grooming themselves

https://911crashtest.org/new-yorks-l...rrupt-corrupt/

Nice, a self-link. Too bad you're not a trustworthy source of information.

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 06:06 PM

Looking into the actual sources regarding the fraud scheme, the scheme only involved 102 people of which some had charges dismissed, as opposed to about 60,000 actual claimants. Quite a discrepancy there.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007849)
Nice, a self-link. Too bad you're not a trustworthy source of information.

Don't take my word for anything. The facts are what they are, whether or not they agree with your tender belief system. They speak for themselves, but you'll have to do your own thinking. Can't help you there!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...#ixzz2q2aMYNmj

yankee451 2nd March 2020 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007853)
Looking into the actual sources regarding the fraud scheme, the scheme only involved 102 people of which some had charges dismissed, as opposed to about 60,000 actual claimants. Quite a discrepancy there.

And their claims prove what, exactly?

yankee451 2nd March 2020 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007847)
There's a few documentaries floating about, Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11 would be one such. One of the books written on the subject, assuming you read books, would be Fallout: The Environmental Consequences of the World Trade Center Collapse.

A few papers and articles on the subject:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5502a1.htm

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na...910-story.html

https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo...nal-report.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/wtc/

Of course, some of those are government links, but they're there for other people to read if they so wish.

Can you point to the link which explains how the laterally bent steel is consistent with a head on impact of a jet wing, please? Do any of the links discuss the fact that the "jet crashes" were not broadcast live?

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 06:18 PM

Quote:

Can you point to the link which explains how the laterally bent steel is consistent with a head on impact of a jet wing, please?
Mostly the fact that a jet wing crashed into it.

Quote:

Do any of the links discuss the fact that the "jet crashes" were not broadcast live?
Citation needed.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007868)
Mostly the fact that a jet wing crashed into it.



Citation needed.

No citation needed. You'll either have to take my word for it or verify it your yourself. Every single one of the "live" broadcasts of the alleged impact of flight 175 were from the perspective of the hole in the north tower. The North Face of the North Tower was opposite the South Face of the South Tower. The South Face of the South Tower was not broadcast on live television. It was broadcast later, after the propagandists had time to edit the footage to remove the missiles and add a plane. Explained in the OP, and many times afterwards in the last 2500 comments. Scroll back.

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 06:33 PM

Another self-cite. Got it.

Robin 2nd March 2020 06:45 PM

So, still no shred of evidence from yankee451.

Still just his personal incredulity that a piece of cladding can get severed almost all the way by a frontal collision, and some pieces of cladding that got bent a certain way?

And some half-hearted bluster to cover himself.

waypastvne 2nd March 2020 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007717)
The wind had nothing to do with the CGI.



Yes it did.



https://i.imgur.com/rWDcx5H.jpg

bruto 2nd March 2020 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007717)
The wind had nothing to do with the CGI.

Right, because everyone is too stupid to notice if the smoke goes in the wrong direction. Just draw it in with a Sharpie. Works every time.

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 07:35 PM

Looks like poor Cosmic Yak is stuck in limbo once again.

Robin 2nd March 2020 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007860)
Can you point to the link which explains how the laterally bent steel is consistent with a head on impact of a jet wing, please?

You mean these?

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...ge-4.png?w=567

That wasn't a head on collision. I am surprised that you keep on getting the towers mixed up.

Axxman300 2nd March 2020 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007880)
No citation needed. You'll either have to take my word for it or verify it your yourself. Every single one of the "live" broadcasts of the alleged impact of flight 175 were from the perspective of the hole in the north tower. The North Face of the North Tower was opposite the South Face of the South Tower. The South Face of the South Tower was not broadcast on live television. It was broadcast later, after the propagandists had time to edit the footage to remove the missiles and add a plane. Explained in the OP, and many times afterwards in the last 2500 comments. Scroll back.

The reason, as already explained, the reason the live coverage was from a limited angle was and because the networks are housed in tall buildings to the north of the WTC. They ran cameras up to the rooftops of their buildings and started filming and or used the live cameras already in place. The face of the south tower was not broadcast live because there was no live feed from that side of the building (still isn't).

It took months to edit and alter video with CGI in 2001.

Smoke is still the hardest CGI effect to pull off even today.

Axxman300 2nd March 2020 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007860)
Can you point to the link which explains how the laterally bent steel is consistent with a head on impact of a jet wing, please? Do any of the links discuss the fact that the "jet crashes" were not broadcast live?

Coward.

Your claim that the illnesses from Ground Zero were all fake just got shot down in spectacular fashion and you know it.

Grow up.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 13007914)

No it didn't. Learn how video layers and 3D animation work, and get back to me.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 13007963)
Coward.

Your claim that the illnesses from Ground Zero were all fake just got shot down in spectacular fashion and you know it.

Grow up.


Voila! The sound of a bubble breaking.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 13007961)
The reason, as already explained, the reason the live coverage was from a limited angle was and because the networks are housed in tall buildings to the north of the WTC. They ran cameras up to the rooftops of their buildings and started filming and or used the live cameras already in place. The face of the south tower was not broadcast live because there was no live feed from that side of the building (still isn't).

It took months to edit and alter video with CGI in 2001.

Smoke is still the hardest CGI effect to pull off even today.

The explosions and the smoke were real. Not so the CGI planes. Have you read the OP?

yankee451 2nd March 2020 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 13007956)
You mean these?

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...ge-4.png?w=567

That wasn't a head on collision. I am surprised that you keep on getting the towers mixed up.

Yes, those. You have yet to explain how a jet's wing which was striking from the front (don't say perpendicular for the south tower!) can gouge out three sides of a steel column, but not the aluminum sheeting that covered those three sides. Your desperation is noted!

yankee451 2nd March 2020 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007884)
Another self-cite. Got it.

Rationalization noted!

yankee451 2nd March 2020 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13007921)
Right, because everyone is too stupid to notice if the smoke goes in the wrong direction. Just draw it in with a Sharpie. Works every time.

Back to the beginning of the thread for you!

yankee451 2nd March 2020 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13007884)
Another self-cite. Got it.

Nope. And if it was, it would be a cinch to prove me wrong. But it isn't, and you can't.

waypastvne 2nd March 2020 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007975)


(don't say perpendicular for the south tower!)


Perpendicular for the south tower!

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

yankee451 2nd March 2020 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 13007989)
Perpendicular for the south tower!

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

Did I stutter?

waypastvne 2nd March 2020 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007968)
No it didn't. Learn how video layers and 3D animation work, and get back to me.

Yes it did. I see you are unable to explain how how they predicted the wind weeks before 911.

waypastvne 2nd March 2020 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007990)
Did I stutter?


No but you are starting to drool a little.

smartcooky 2nd March 2020 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007860)
Can you point to the link which explains how the laterally bent steel is consistent with a head on impact of a jet wing, please? Do any of the links discuss the fact that the "jet crashes" were not broadcast live?

Even if the planes hit head on (one did, one didn't) none of the four wings did, because they werel swept back at about 30°+ (like all modern airliners)

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007979)
Nope. And if it was, it would be a cinch to prove me wrong. But it isn't, and you can't.

Sorry, but the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim. What you provided instead was a "Well, I'm not really saying that I'm the only person saying this, but wait, yes I am." That is ipso facto a self cite. I'm not holding my breath for any physical evidence that nobody saw the planes crash in real time.

Robin 2nd March 2020 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007975)
Yes, those. You have yet to explain how a jet's wing which was striking from the front (don't say perpendicular for the south tower!) can gouge out three sides of a steel column, but not the aluminum sheeting that covered those three sides. Your desperation is noted!

You want me to explain that again???

You have yet to explain why you think that th cladding (which is not directly attached to the steel and does not touch the steel at any point) must necessarily be cut all the way through, and not just most of the way through.

Furthermore you haven't tried to explain why you think that the reason the cladding has a hole in the face and is still attached on the left hand side is because it took a direct hit from a cruise missile on the left.

How did the left hand side of the cladding survive a direct hit from the left by a cruise missile?

yankee451 2nd March 2020 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 13007992)
Yes it did. I see you are unable to explain how how they predicted the wind weeks before 911.

No it didn't. The smoke was no issue for editing the impact videos, which were not broadcast live. They had plenty of time to edit their CGI plane to include "smoke shadows" and reflected light. Besides, as explained a couple thousand posts ago, the damage evidence alone proves all the footage of the "plane" impacts are fraudulent.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 13008010)
You want me to explain that again???

You have yet to explain why you think that th cladding (which is not directly attached to the steel and does not touch the steel at any point) must necessarily be cut all the way through, and not just most of the way through.

Furthermore you haven't tried to explain why you think that the reason the cladding has a hole in the face and is still attached on the left hand side is because it took a direct hit from a cruise missile on the left.

How did the left hand side of the cladding survive a direct hit from the left by a cruise missile?

Sure, go for it. I'm working on a 3D animation that will explain it nicely, so yes please. Explain how the steel was cut on three sides, but the aluminum sheeting that covered those three sides, was only cut on two sides, but not on the side on which the mostly hollow aluminum jet wing allegedly impacted.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13008004)
Sorry, but the onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim. What you provided instead was a "Well, I'm not really saying that I'm the only person saying this, but wait, yes I am." That is ipso facto a self cite. I'm not holding my breath for any physical evidence that nobody saw the planes crash in real time.

Annnnnd now we're back to the original claim that a mostly hollow aluminum jet wing cut the steel, to which I say prove it.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:50 PM.

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