International Skeptics Forum
Page 51 of 57 « First  <  41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  > 
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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 27th February 2020 03:19 PM
I just did, the questions on the previous page are in list format.

yankee451 27th February 2020 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13003853)
I just did, the questions on the previous page are in list format.
There are very few questions on the previous page. Most of the comments are not questions, but nonsense. Every question I see has been answered.

Cosmic Yak 27th February 2020 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003840)
Sorry, but I'm not seeing any questions, however irrelevant, that haven't been answered. Perhaps you can compile a list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003847)
It all looks the same to me. Answered a thousand comments ago. Please indulge me with a list.
My pleasure. Asked repeatedly, never answered.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12977164)
Asserted without evidence.



Oh, I don't know. Maybe they could set up their own website, and then go on skeptics' forums? No, that's too crazy. No-one would think of doing that. :rolleyes:


Which nations do you claim are 'owned' by this group?



Been asked before, but where are these resources? Where are these armies and navies based?


Not quiet enough, apparently, as you seem to know all about them.
How do you know what you claim you know? Where did you get this information?



The 'sheeple factor' is an invention of conspiracy theorists. No such thing actually exists. Plenty of people have spoken out against oppressive regimes, and this is still going on today. Tibet, Iran and Hong Kong are some obvious examples.
That said, perhaps they are scared. Have you contacted any of them?



Apart from you, that is. And all the other truthers, whose theories you may reject, but who are still speaking out. How strange. It's almost as if that's yet another unfounded assertion.
Oh, wait- it is.



Please quote a qualified expert in this CGI technology, saying that what you are claiming was at least technically possible in 2001. Otherwise, this is yet another unsupported assertion.




Well, it seems that unqualified amateurs like you can differentiate missile damage from plane damage, so perhaps it's not so hard.



So they faked a method that was totally impossible, in order to construct a plausible scenario to cover their real actions.
Ridiculous.
Any luck with that explanation about the relative sizes of the missiles and the gaps, yet? Still waiting...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12979922)
You have already said that you don't believe those witnesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12979925)
So what we have, in yankee451's scenario, is the Global Power Structure firing missiles from its own military, against another military it owns, to drum up justification, which it repeatedly didn't use, for invading a country it already controls. When this failed, they concocted a huge and elaborate plot to fake a terrorist attack, using missiles they couldn't possibly conceal, and a cover story that could never be plausible, to drum up public support that they didn't need, to try again to invade a country they already controlled.

yankee451: Do you really believe this is the world we live in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12990984)
Oh, he's around all right. He's just hiding from the hard questions.



Oh, one more question: on your website, you say that people on this forum are lying.
Can you quote the posts you believe, or even better, have proven, to be lies? Again, it seems a little Sir-Robinny to run away and then make accusations like that from a safe distance.

I await your detailed answers with unfounded optimism.

smartcooky 27th February 2020 03:28 PM
Just checking in to see if Steve is still pushing his inane, thoroughly debunked garbage.

Yep!

ETA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 13003860)
I await your detailed answers with unfounded optimism.

"It was an act of the purest optimism to have posed the question in the first place"
- J. Cleese

Blue Mountain 27th February 2020 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003780)
For the record, the skeptics have had their say, but they are at a loss for words. Anyone can read the thread for themselves.
I'm reminded of the anecdote about a pigeon playing chess. And in case it's not obvious, in my view yankee451 is the pigeon, and the forum is the chessboard.

yankee451 27th February 2020 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain (Post 13003873)
I'm reminded of the anecdote about a pigeon playing chess. And in case it's not obvious, in my view yankee451 is the pigeon, and the forum is the chessboard.
Perspective is a marvelous thing. I see a flock of pigeons.

Birds of a feather, herd together!

beachnut 27th February 2020 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003874)
Perspective is a marvelous thing. I see a flock of pigeons.

Birds of a feather, herd together!
There is only one who is pushing the lie of missiles, it is you. You lie about 9/11 and have no evidence to back your claims.

You don't care if you are spreading lies about the murder of thousands of fellow Americans killed by followers of UBL. You don't care you are spreading lies.

Why did you skip learning physics? Why do you lie about the murder of thousands of your fellow citizens?

smartcooky 27th February 2020 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003874)
Perspective is a marvelous thing.

It certainly is.

From my marvellous perspective (and while I don't wish to speak for others, I think it is safe to say that the other skeptics here will agree)...

1. You have completely failed to provide any verifiable, robust, incontrovertible evidence in support of your spurious claims.

2. You have repeatedly refused to answer, and/or studiously avoided answering any questions that challenge your spurious claims.

3. You have side-stepped, handwaved away or simply dismissed out of hand any evidence that contradicts your spurious claims.

4. You have dismissed out of hand, without explanation, any and all alternative interpretations of what little evidence you have provided.

In short, you have got nothing, you never had it, and you will never have it.

StillSleepy 27th February 2020 05:01 PM
So I disappeared for over an hour and all Yankee has accomplished towards answering the questions he said he would is... (checks notes) ... a single taunt?

Captain_Swoop 27th February 2020 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003780)
For the record, the skeptics have had their say, but they are at a loss for words. Anyone can read the thread for themselves.
If they tried from the start hey would die laughing at your attempts.

StillSleepy 27th February 2020 06:25 PM
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

yankee451 27th February 2020 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 13003860)
My pleasure. Asked repeatedly, never answered.













I await your detailed answers with unfounded optimism.
How many times would you like me to answer these same questions?

yankee451 27th February 2020 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13003967)
So I disappeared for over an hour and all Yankee has accomplished towards answering the questions he said he would is... (checks notes) ... a single taunt?
Again, how many times would you like the same irrelevant questions answered?

StillSleepy 27th February 2020 06:51 PM
You haven't answered them yet.

Steve 27th February 2020 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13004083)
How many times would you like me to answer these same questions?
Cosmic Yak will have his own answer, but I would like to see you answer them once.

CY was able to quickly link to his list of questions. Can you provide a similar link to your list of answers?

Steve 27th February 2020 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13003872)
Just checking in to see if Steve is still pushing his inane, thoroughly debunked garbage.

Yep!

ETA


"It was an act of the purest optimism to have posed the question in the first place"
- J. Cleese
I really wish you wouldn’t do that.

Axxman300 27th February 2020 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003808)
Your questions (most of which were irrelevant and didn't address the physical evidence about which this thread is based) have been answered ad nausea. Scroll back.
You have no physical evidence.

You have ONE picture in which you've made an interpretation of what you see. You have not posted any other photos of the damage from other angles to support your claim.

This combined with you blatant inability to grasp facts and embrace fantasy leaves you with nothing but a sad fairy tale.

You have no missile parts or reports of missile parts.
You have no USAF flight logs wherein an F-15 or B-1B took off with a cruise missiles only to return without them.
You have no log of unaccounted for missiles or any ordinance.
You no recent interviews with eye-witnesses making claims of missiles or small planes, only from 2001 and those are worthless.

All you have is a claim that missiles were used because, in your view, a 767 is incapable of causing the damage to the WTC. A claim not supported by science or the real world facts. In other words - you have nothing.

Robin 28th February 2020 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003808)
Your questions (most of which were irrelevant and didn't address the physical evidence about which this thread is based) have been answered ad nausea. Scroll back.
It certainly gets boring waiting for you to provide any evidence, physical or otherwise.

When do you think that you will get around to presenting any?

Or are you still going to base the whole thing on your personal incredulity about a piece of cladding that got severed nearly all the way through and a few others that got bent a certain way?

JSanderO 28th February 2020 03:53 AM
way long past the time for Steve. He is essentially a doubting Thomas and effectively nothing more than a troll. He is not making any effort at rigor or integrity. He should be ignored. Close the thread.

Jack by the hedge 28th February 2020 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13004083)
How many times would you like me to answer these same questions?
Once without resorting to whataboutery. That would be ideal.

You have a photo which you interpret as excluding a plane. We disagree with your interpretation.

You have an alternative explanation which you reckon explains the photo, but it conflicts with just about every other thing know about the event.

So there we are; either a) it wasn't a plane or b) your interpretation is wrong.

When confronted with reasons to regard a) as utterly incredible and therefore b) as highly probable, your "answer" is essentially just "what about the photo?". Simply put, you are wrong about the photo.

beachnut 28th February 2020 06:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12938558)
Full article here.

How they spoofed the “live” shots of flight 175:
  1. Rehearse the handful of perspectives of flight 175 that will be broadcast live.
  2. The fireball will erupt from the south face of the South Tower.
  3. The rehearsed perspectives were from the north face of the North Tower (opposite the fireball).
  4. By design these rehearsed “live” perspectives will fail to capture the crash of the alleged plane.
  5. Create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match each of the rehearsed shots.
  6. On the big day: from the same rehearsed perspectives, capture video footage of the fireball that erupted from the south face of the South Tower.
  7. Live television is never live; there is always a broadcast delay to prevent unwanted content from airing. Utilizing the broadcast delay of how ever many seconds were necessary,
  8. overlay the CGI animations onto the live videos of the fireball.
  9. Flatten the video layers of the CGI planes and the live fireball.
  10. Release the merged video layers as “live.”


How they spoofed the “amateur” videos (not live):
  1. Deploy dozens of photographers to pose as amateurs.
  2. Rehearse each of their perspectives and create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match.
  3. The first fireball erupts from the north face of the North Tower.
  4. 18 minutes until the next fireball.
  5. All the live network broadcasts are capturing videos of the hole in the north face of the North Tower.
  6. Dozens of “amateur” cameras are capturing videos of the south face of the South Tower.
  7. The second fireball erupts, this time from the south face of the South Tower.
  8. The Networks broadcast live videos showing what looks like a plane crashing into the towers; the world is horrified.
  9. Each of the “amateur” photographers edits their respective video, removing what really cut the hole in the South Tower and adding a plane.
  10. The propaganda organs release these videos periodically over the following days, weeks, months and years.
And this is your reality, a fantasy based on hate of the USA, your fellow citizens.

Who is they? Got some names you can round up in your paranoid world of woo.

You failed to prove any video was fake, and failed to prove any of your claims.

Steve 28th February 2020 09:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 13004506)
way long past the time for yankee451 Steve. He is essentially a doubting Thomas and effectively nothing more than a troll. He is not making any effort at rigor or integrity. He should be ignored. Close the thread.
Corrected.

Sabretooth 28th February 2020 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12938558)
Full article here.

How they spoofed the “live” shots of flight 175:
[snipped]
How they spoofed the “amateur” videos (not live):
[snipped]
You need to calm yourself over here...let's just look at this logically from a technology standpoint, shall we:

CGI video tech your talking about here was in it's infancy in 2000-2001. For example; with the unlimited resources of ILM and Lucasfilm, the thousands of man-hours logged by hundreds of professionals, you still have products that are obviously computer generated. All of this during the time period before, during, and after the time period of 9/11.

Now, for your hypothesis to be true or (at the very least) relevant, we have to consider that the video editing technology that you propose existed prior to 9/11/2001 was at a mastery level that was magnitudes better than the world's best CGI film production outfits.

Now consider, that if thousands of hours of production is needed by hundreds of techs to produce well-crafted (but clearly CGI) video, then surely the ultra-realistic videos produced for 9/11/2001 took several YEARS to put in the can ...suggesting that production started in the 1990's somewhere (if not sooner).

This creates other questions that maybe you could address:
  • When was the script drafted? Finalized?
  • When was casting call? Was the call printed in any known periodicals?
  • When did filming start?
  • When did filming wrap?
  • What film production/editing company was commissioned?
  • What CGI editing software was used/created?
  • With all these hundreds (thousands?) of people committed to writing, scripting, testing, casting, building, filming, editing, printing, etc...how do you surmise that absolutely zero individuals have come forward with evidence of being involved in such a huge and ground-breaking film project?

Looking forward to your insight on these matters.

waypastvne 28th February 2020 11:40 AM
How did they predict the wind wile setting up the CGI. As UA175 approached it was in the shadow of the smoke. Just before impact it came into the sunlight. They would need to know exactly where the smoke would be before they " 5. Create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match each of the rehearsed shots."

Leftus 28th February 2020 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003652)
Wow.
So you draw the line at faking your own death? Others, fine, whatever. But your own is too far?

Leftus 28th February 2020 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003840)
Sorry, but I'm not seeing any questions, however irrelevant, that haven't been answered. Perhaps you can compile a list.
With zero practical knowledge, or any specific knowledge, how do you know how a missile would perform?

bknight 28th February 2020 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 13004855)
How did they predict the wind wile setting up the CGI. As UA175 approached it was in the shadow of the smoke. Just before impact it came into the sunlight. They would need to know exactly where the smoke would be before they " 5. Create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match each of the rehearsed shots."
You actually expect him to explain his fantasy in detail? LOL

BStrong 28th February 2020 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003808)
Your questions (most of which were irrelevant and didn't address the physical evidence about which this thread is based) have been answered ad nausea. Scroll back.
I see we can add Latin fluency as another area of your (non) expertise.

bknight 28th February 2020 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 13004891)
I see we can add Latin fluency as another area of your (non) expertise.
Good catch. ;)

Axxman300 28th February 2020 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 13004891)
I see we can add Latin fluency as another area of your (non) expertise.
Careful or he'll issue an alltomato.:boxedin:

StillSleepy 28th February 2020 06:59 PM
Or worse, taunt us a second time.

smartcooky 28th February 2020 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth (Post 13004752)
Now, for your hypothesis to be true or (at the very least) relevant, we have to consider that the video editing technology that you propose existed prior to 9/11/2001 was at a mastery level that was magnitudes better than the world's best CGI film production outfits.

Now consider, that if thousands of hours of production is needed by hundreds of techs to produce well-crafted (but clearly CGI) video, then surely the ultra-realistic videos produced for 9/11/2001 took several YEARS to put in the can ...suggesting that production started in the 1990's somewhere (if not sooner).
Even of you stick with contemporaneous sci-fi films, with absolute state-of-the-art CGI for that time..

Supernova (2000)
Red Planet (2000)
Pitch Black (2000)
Sunshine (2000)

The CGI in these movies is obvious.

Even in the movie Sully, which was made in 2015 - way greater state of the art CGI, you can still tell its CGI.

Athyrio 28th February 2020 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13003780)
For the record, the skeptics have had their say, but they are at a loss for words. Anyone can read the thread for themselves.
Beginning to sound like a 1916 Cumberland College football coach in a post-game interview who just got beat by a score of 222-0.

Regnad Kcin 28th February 2020 08:49 PM
Yeah?! Well, did those movies have a television shoved in their faces? Huh, did they?!?!

Athyrio 28th February 2020 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939519)
Why, look at that. Still moderated. The truth hurts.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=271571

The truth hurts? I link to it and find your initial videos “not found”.

Did the truth hurt you or something?

bruto 28th February 2020 10:51 PM
I think, though, that our yankee friend has hit upon a pretty useful technique for arguing, though I suspect he has been influenced by the national news of late: just say something so stupid that people are dumfounded, and then run around dancing and say "see, see, they couldn't find an answer!"

Yankee, there really is a difference between awestruck and gobsmacked.

beachnut 1st March 2020 08:00 AM
yankee451 failed to prove videos were faked, never will

yankee451 analysis failed to include science, no clue why he can't succeed

https://i.imgflip.com/3n5i10.jpg

https://i.imgflip.com/3n5gzs.jpg

Cosmic Yak 1st March 2020 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13004083)
How many times would you like me to answer these same questions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillSleepy (Post 13004086)
You haven't answered them yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve (Post 13004088)
Cosmic Yak will have his own answer, but I would like to see you answer them once.

CY was able to quickly link to his list of questions. Can you provide a similar link to your list of answers?
Nice to see I'm not the only one who appears to have missed yankee451's answers to my numerous, and oft-repeated, questions.
As StillSleepy and Steve have said, all you need to do is answer them once. Do please link to the answers you claim to have already given.
I remain as unfoundedly optimistic as ever. :D
(Thanks, SmartCooky for the John Cleese quote. I do wish he would stop copying me. I get little enough credit for my humble attempts at wit here as it is, without having him come and steal my thunder).

smartcooky 1st March 2020 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13005429)
I think, though, that our yankee friend has hit upon a pretty useful technique for arguing, though I suspect he has been influenced by the national news of late: just say something so stupid that people are dumfounded, and then run around dancing and say "see, see, they couldn't find an answer!"

Yankee, there really is a difference between awestruck and gobsmacked.
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. A philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." Bertolt Brecht

(IIRC, someone on this forum has this in their signature)

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 09:54 AM
Well if you want to peddle a conspiracy theory, you have to learn how to make yourself look large and intimidating when cornered and scurry off in the confusion, like a frilled lizard. Except a frilled lizard has a backbone.

Allen773 2nd March 2020 12:41 PM
Who’s “They” in the thread title?

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 01:03 PM
Hasn't really been stated explicitly, in direct context it's agencies like the CIA, which he considers to be under the control of a vague Global Power StructureTM that controls the government.

To be fair, I wouldn't put it past the GPS to take over the world, they're masters of misdirection. After their recent period of explosive growth around the world they have driven the road atlas to near extinction and seem to only be limited by access to their favored prey, electricity and lost tourists.

Leftus 2nd March 2020 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen773 (Post 13007507)
Who’s “They” in the thread title?
Them. Same organization, different department.

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

yankee451 2nd March 2020 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 13004855)
How did they predict the wind wile setting up the CGI. As UA175 approached it was in the shadow of the smoke. Just before impact it came into the sunlight. They would need to know exactly where the smoke would be before they " 5. Create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match each of the rehearsed shots."
The wind had nothing to do with the CGI.

smartcooky 2nd March 2020 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007717)
The wind had nothing to do with the CGI.
But the smoke would have to be taken into account, and the direction the smoke is blown in is determined by the direction of __________ (insert correct answer here)

Jack by the hedge 2nd March 2020 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 13007717)
The wind had nothing to do with the CGI.
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?

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13007758)
But the smoke would have to be taken into account, and the direction the smoke is blown in is determined by the direction of _Yankee's talking_.
We called him Gusty at the Academy.

StillSleepy 2nd March 2020 05:06 PM
Also, why wouldn't wind matter if you're trying to make decent CGI?

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13007758)
But the smoke would have to be taken into account, and the direction the smoke is blown in is determined by the direction of __________ (insert correct answer here)

No it wouldn't. The smoke was part of the video upon which the CGI jet was layered. This is explained in the OP.

yankee451 2nd March 2020 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen773 (Post 13007507)
Who’s “They” in the thread title?
You'll figure it out.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 AM.
Page 51 of 57 « First  <  41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  > 
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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