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)

pgimeno 6th January 2020 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943994)
Why, if a wing was that strong, wouldn't it just wedge them apart?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...T-approach.gif

Friction (Edit: and possibly the nose ribs too, see http://www.flight-mechanic.com/wp-co...17/07/1-23.jpg). The wings move towards the plane as it penetrates and the wings don't, at least for as long as they remain connected to the plane (because the fuselage would pull them). That explains the inwards bowing of the steel columns.

Nay_Sayer 6th January 2020 08:32 AM

I remember this gem. The wrongest thing ever written in the last decade (Possibly of any decade)

smartcooky 6th January 2020 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12944471)
The burden of proof is on original claimants, those that insist a jet caused the damage.

A burden that has been met multiple times, in spades.

https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12944471)
The lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel at the left of both impact holes are proof that the original claim is false.

Nope. "The lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel at the left of both impact holes" are simply proof that you don't understand the first thing about aircraft engineering and construction, and the way the towers were built.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12944471)
I have offered an alternative explanation that does fit fits my misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the evidence.

FTFY

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12944471)
If you think the evidence doesn't support my conclusion, and instead supports the conclusion that it was caused by the head on crash of a 767, please explain.

This has been explained to you by other posters and myself. You simply handwaved it away, dismissing it out of hand, so there isn't much point restating it.

You are wrong, you just don't know it, and won't accept it.

bknight 6th January 2020 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12945112)
A burden that has been met multiple times, in spades.

https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf



Nope. "The lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel at the left of both impact holes" are simply proof that you don't understand the first thing about aircraft engineering and construction, and the way the towers were built.



FTFY



This has been explained to you by other posters and myself. You simply handwaved it away, dismissing it out of hand, so there isn't much point restating it.

You are wrong, you just don't know it, and won't accept it.

In spades. ;)

carlitos 6th January 2020 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943450)
....

I have explained ad nausea......

You sure have.

Trojan 6th January 2020 12:18 PM

Occam is truely dead

carlitos 6th January 2020 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trojan (Post 12945187)
Occam is truely dead

I agree.

In Mexico, there is a saying to the effect of "there as many kinds of truth as there are kinds of bananas." I have used this sentence to describe how one's culture affects your perception. An American typically has only seen one kind of banana, and might interpret that phrase literally as saying there is one type of truth. The TruthTM. A Mexican might know several kinds of bananas, and also several kinds of truth. Depends on your point of view.

So I posit that Occam's Razor was killed by Gillette, with 6 blades and lubrication strips for your sensitive skin. I know that it's not literally "razor" but those conspiracy charts with all of the arrows vs. a straight line to the truth makes me think that this works.

sts60 6th January 2020 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943692)
Why, you don't think certain corrupt members of the police and fire departments might not want to make a few extra bucks for planting plane parts and setting a few derelict cars on fire?

I used to ride with guys who were at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, pulling pieces of airliner and airline passenger out of the building. I literally trusted them with my life. You’re absolutely delusional.

Maybe you’d like to turn the page and start a thread about your Apollo “hoax” beliefs? That would be amusing. I promise I’d come play.

BStrong 6th January 2020 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12945205)
I agree.

In Mexico, there is a saying to the effect of "there as many kinds of truth as there are kinds of bananas." I have used this sentence to describe how one's culture affects your perception. An American typically has only seen one kind of banana, and might interpret that phrase literally as saying there is one type of truth. The TruthTM. A Mexican might know several kinds of bananas, and also several kinds of truth. Depends on your point of view.

So I posit that Occam's Razor was killed by Gillette, with 6 blades and lubrication strips for your sensitive skin. I know that it's not literally "razor" but those conspiracy charts with all of the arrows vs. a straight line to the truth makes me think that this works.

This trainwreck of logic rolls like the classic example of conspiraziods - residential house fire with a fatality. Fire Marshall does their job, ME does likewise.

Final report lists electrical short as cause of fire, smoke inhalation as cause of death.

Enter the conspirazoid - "did you investigate the possibility of spontaneous human combustion? NO! conspiracy! 11!!ventry!

No planers are right in there.

As an aside. I believe that certain folks maintain membership in ISF to prevent discussion of their "theories" using the respect that they deserve.

BStrong 6th January 2020 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12945224)
I used to ride with guys who were at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, pulling pieces of airliner and airline passenger out of the building. I literally trusted them with my life. You’re absolutely delusional.

Maybe you’d like to turn the page and start a thread about your Apollo “hoax” beliefs? That would be amusing. I promise I’d come play.

You're right, but the conspirazoids generally don't care if you were a victim or a witness, unless you're on board with their delusional pov.

bknight 6th January 2020 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sts60 (Post 12945224)
I used to ride with guys who were at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, pulling pieces of airliner and airline passenger out of the building. I literally trusted them with my life. You’re absolutely delusional.

Maybe you’d like to turn the page and start a thread about your Apollo “hoax” beliefs? That would be amusing. I promise I’d come play.

Yes I'd do that also. but facts that don't support the CT's belief;) are hand waved.

Oystein 6th January 2020 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12944745)
I have a new theory that a giant walked up to the building and poked holes in it with his giant fingers, then squeezed, poked and twisted some more until he had made a pleasingly plane-shaped hole.

He then breathed fire into the hole because this kind of giant breathes fire.

I understand how this may seem ridiculous to you, but it does match the evidence that was provided. Specifically the lightly bent aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damage and sharp bends to the steel columns, and on the right column from the left of both towers, an inward blasting hole through a box column that was nowhere near where the alleged jet's engine impacted.

I can probably draw you a picture if you think that would be cool. I can't decide if he should have a hat. Do giants wear hats?

That a Giant Nomnom!

(I used to have a 33 rpm "audio book" of a children's tale with the (German) title "Der Riese Schmatzschmatz" ("Nomnom The Giant"), so named for the sounds he made while eating)

Oystein 6th January 2020 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12944870)
You know that's silly, everyone knows it was the giant Spaghetti Monster, I mean doesn't that hole look like a Giant spaghetti monster hole?

Flying Spaghetti Monster - don't ignore that Hir Noodliness is eternally Flying!

jimbob 6th January 2020 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12944745)
I have a new theory that a giant walked up to the building and poked holes in it with his giant fingers, then squeezed, poked and twisted some more until he had made a pleasingly plane-shaped hole.

He then breathed fire into the hole because this kind of giant breathes fire.

I understand how this may seem ridiculous to you, but it does match the evidence that was provided. Specifically the lightly bent aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damage and sharp bends to the steel columns, and on the right column from the left of both towers, an inward blasting hole through a box column that was nowhere near where the alleged jet's engine impacted.

I can probably draw you a picture if you think that would be cool. I can't decide if he should have a hat. Do giants wear hats?

It probably needs prawns

bruto 6th January 2020 03:19 PM

A little preliminary research suggests that while many giants wore hats (cone shaped fabric hats being favored) many went bare headed. But remember too that one of the most famous (and, according to many, literally real) giants, Goliath, is usually pictured with a helmet, which opens up a whole new set of possibilities for just what made that hole. I call this the "headbutt" theory, much more palatable than the one in question, which I suspect has its syllables reversed.

FFTR 6th January 2020 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943663)

Your sources are not very creditable. I have seen those before.

So Prager and Gage are all wrong. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Robin 6th January 2020 10:04 PM

I haven't been paying attention. Have we looked at the Gojira theory yet?

yankee451 6th January 2020 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFTR (Post 12945654)
Your sources are not very creditable. I have seen those before.

So Prager and Gage are all wrong. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

My sources are the same videos and photos we all have at our disposal, but which Gage and Prager refuse to address. Happy to help.

yankee451 6th January 2020 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12945684)
I haven't been paying attention. Have we looked at the Gojira theory yet?

I'm not sure. They'll look anywhere but at the lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel columns, which by themselves prove the videos of the planes are fraudulent.

yankee451 6th January 2020 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12944885)
Friction (Edit: and possibly the nose ribs too, see http://www.flight-mechanic.com/wp-co...17/07/1-23.jpg). The wings move towards the plane as it penetrates and the wings don't, at least for as long as they remain connected to the plane (because the fuselage would pull them). That explains the inwards bowing of the steel columns.

:jaw-dropp

smartcooky 6th January 2020 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12944771)
First Question yes.
Second Question no, the front connection of the wing spar to the fuselages will fail as it makes contact first.
3 the dragging to the right is that evidence You just don't understand the link between Connections strength and physics of impact, the Connections will determine the path of energy flows in a building or an airplane wing.

Not to mention that as debris slows from its impacts with internal structures such as beams and supporting columns, it loses energy, while the structures it strikes retain the same amount of impact resistance. This means that as the debris moves into the building, it is more and more likely to be deflected by successive impacts against those columns. ergo, parts of the wing may well defect into different directions.

Elagabalus 7th January 2020 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12945692)
My sources are the same videos and photos we all have at our disposal, but which Gage and Prager refuse to address. Happy to help.


You mean the ones that you debunked as not being real, those videos?

AJM8125 7th January 2020 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12945693)
I'm not sure. They'll look anywhere but at the lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel columns, which by themselves prove the videos of the planes are fraudulent.

N334AA.
N612UA.
N644AA.
N591UA.
Their crews.
Their passengers.
Their families.
The civilian ATCs.
The military.
The United States Government.
The First responders at The Pentagon.
The State of New York Government.
The PAPD.
The NYPD.
The FDNY.
The State of Pennsylvania Government.
The first responders at Shanksville.
Logan, Dulles, Newark, LAX and SFO airports.
And, of course, the Thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses.

Tip of the iceberg, yankee. You'll need to explain these away with something quite a bit more substantial than your characteristic handwaves and snark.

Please proceed.

curious cat 7th January 2020 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12945731)
N334AA.
N612UA.
N644AA.
N591UA.
Their crews.
Their passengers.
Their families.
The civilian ATCs.
The military.
The United States Government.
The First responders at The Pentagon.
The State of New York Government.
The PAPD.
The NYPD.
The FDNY.
The State of Pennsylvania Government.
The first responders at Shanksville.
Logan, Dulles, Newark, LAX and SFO airports.
And, of course, the Thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses.

Tip of the iceberg, yankee. You'll need to explain these away with something quite a bit more substantial than your characteristic handwaves and snark.

Please proceed.

Just the usual suspects. Find somebody credible, please!:D

Wudang 7th January 2020 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12944745)
I can probably draw you a picture if you think that would be cool. I can't decide if he should have a hat. Do giants wear hats?

I borrowed one of the more advanced books from a 9/11 truther's library and the answer is "No". Reference.

Jack by the hedge 7th January 2020 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wudang (Post 12945772)
I borrowed one of the more advanced books from a 9/11 truther's library and the answer is "No". Reference.

This fully explains why no hat was found. Slam dunk. What more proof do you need, people? It was clearly a fire-breathing giant who did it.

JSanderO 7th January 2020 04:49 AM

Why didn't "they" just put whatever bombs in the towers, blow them up, blame it on "terrorists"? Who would doubt it? They would get their wars etc?

What conspiracy people seem to do is come up with impossibly complex "shows" to explain what would be the event to start the war on terrorism and the invasions in the ME.

Terrorists had been known to use bombs for more than half a century. "They" didn't need to what Steve or Gage or others claim they did.... especially claiming that the planes were an illusion.

turingtest 7th January 2020 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12945847)
Why didn't "they" just put whatever bombs in the towers, blow them up, blame it on "terrorists"? Who would doubt it? They would get their wars etc?

What conspiracy people seem to do is come up with impossibly complex "shows" to explain what would be the event to start the war on terrorism and the invasions in the ME.

Terrorists had been known to use bombs for more than half a century. "They" didn't need to what Steve or Gage or others claim they did.... especially claiming that the planes were an illusion.

(Shrug) It's the kind of plot you come up with when you reverse-engineer history with no regard for the limits of reality. CTists like yankee aren't skeptics who honestly question the "official story" from a standpoint of doubt, they're ideologues who simply reject it in toto from a starting point of denial. Nothing wrong with ideology, or ideals; but it would be nice if the facts would determine the ideals rather than having the ideology define the facts.

GlennB 7th January 2020 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12945847)
Why didn't "they" just put whatever bombs in the towers, blow them up, blame it on "terrorists"? Who would doubt it? They would get their wars etc?

What conspiracy people seem to do is come up with impossibly complex "shows" to explain what would be the event to start the war on terrorism and the invasions in the ME.

Terrorists had been known to use bombs for more than half a century. "They" didn't need to what Steve or Gage or others claim they did.... especially claiming that the planes were an illusion.

Too dull. To be a truly special CTist you have to propose something outlandish or, ideally, utterly ridiculous. That way the ol' self-regard is maximised. Space beams, missiles, holograms all fit that bill much better than boring old real planes plus thermite.

DuvalHMFIC 7th January 2020 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12945847)
Why didn't "they" just put whatever bombs in the towers, blow them up, blame it on "terrorists"? Who would doubt it? They would get their wars etc?

What conspiracy people seem to do is come up with impossibly complex "shows" to explain what would be the event to start the war on terrorism and the invasions in the ME.

Terrorists had been known to use bombs for more than half a century. "They" didn't need to what Steve or Gage or others claim they did.... especially claiming that the planes were an illusion.

This is a point that can't be stressed enough. Let's just say the government WAS responsible for 9/11. If they achieved it the way that Yankee describes, they literally went for the highest-risk, lowest reward method to do so. If you just went the traditional bomb route, you'd actually have more deaths (no time to evacuate), you could involve A LOT less people, and the precedent to attempt to bomb the WTC was already there from 1993, so it's a very plausible story.

But no, they had to use 2001's version of photo shop, bribe lord knows how many police, firefighters, investigators, et al at not only Ground Zero, but apparently at the Pentagon as well. They had the risk of the tv stations screwing up showing the doctored footage at the wrong time...I mean literally so many things could go wrong.

The government couldn't even keep the Pat Tillman friendly fire fiasco, just a couple of years later, under wraps. This was in another country, not one of the biggest cities in the world, with next to no media. And literally only a handful of people knew the truth. And they STILL couldn't pull that conspiracy off.

JSanderO 7th January 2020 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12945872)
Too dull. To be a truly special CTist you have to propose something outlandish or, ideally, utterly ridiculous. That way the ol' self-regard is maximised. Space beams, missiles, holograms all fit that bill much better than boring old real planes plus thermite.

Maybe... but this would show the FACT that those with these "theories" have mental issues and problems with telling reality from fantasy.

I have met and spoken with some truthers and they APPEAR to be intelligent and rational. But something is not right in them they can't see the absurdity of their theories. They manage to do some sort of mental gymnastics... ,perhaps cognitive dissonance?

"In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, or participates in an action that goes against one of these three, and experiences psychological stress because of that. When two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people will do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.[1] The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new evidence (facts) perceived, wherein they will try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.[2][1]"

No amount of logic, facts or reasoning will change their minds/thinking. Most in fact avoid the facts which undermine their fantasies. However we do see some try to actually convince people.. Steve Da'ak, Gage, Jones, Harrit and all the other familiar names. What they manage to do is "fool" susceptible people.

911 Truth exhibits cult-like attributes. Of course those in cults refuse to see this and deny it when shown to them.

++++

So what to do? Point people to the rational thinking and hope they will open their minds to it. Waste of time to debate them.... They LIKE to be debated and it gives their idea a semblance of credibility and stature. WASTE OF TIME

IGNORE TRUTHERS

SpitfireIX 7th January 2020 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12944745)
I have a new theory that a giant walked up to the building and poked holes in it with his giant fingers, then squeezed, poked and twisted some more until he had made a pleasingly plane-shaped hole.

He then breathed fire into the hole because this kind of giant breathes fire.

I understand how this may seem ridiculous to you, but it does match the evidence that was provided. Specifically the lightly bent aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damage and sharp bends to the steel columns, and on the right column from the left of both towers, an inward blasting hole through a box column that was nowhere near where the alleged jet's engine impacted.

I can probably draw you a picture if you think that would be cool. I can't decide if he should have a hat. Do giants wear hats?


It was Mothra. I have irrefutable photographic evidence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3df32905de.jpg

Jack by the hedge 7th January 2020 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX (Post 12946094)
It was Mothra. I have irrefutable photographic evidence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3df32905de.jpg

Looks shopped to me. It's a very subtle mistake, but I think you'll find the light poles nearby are the wrong design for that to be the real Pentagon.

Anyway, everyone knows in 2001 Mothra was killed (again) defending Yokohama from Godzilla. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzil...All-Out_Attack

It's like they say; when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, includes a fire breathing giant.

MileHighMadness 7th January 2020 10:46 AM

Wow...another wasted life

sts60 7th January 2020 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC (Post 12945898)
This is a point that can't be stressed enough. Let's just say the government WAS responsible for 9/11. If they achieved it the way that Yankee describes, they literally went for the highest-risk, lowest reward method to do so. If you just went the traditional bomb route, you'd actually have more deaths (no time to evacuate), you could involve A LOT less people, and the precedent to attempt to bomb the WTC was already there from 1993, so it's a very plausible story.

But no, they had to use 2001's version of photo shop, bribe lord knows how many police, firefighters, investigators, et al at not only Ground Zero, but apparently at the Pentagon as well. They had the risk of the tv stations screwing up showing the doctored footage at the wrong time...I mean literally so many things could go wrong....

It’s like the Apollo hoax believers who claimed NASA blew up Challenger to prevent Christa McAuliffe from saying you can see stars in space. Yes, let’s bump her off in the most conspicuous and wasteful way imaginable... to prevent her from saying something astronauts have been saying for decades.

Just like the OP fantasy, it has the perfect CT appeal - it’s both cartoonishly overwrought and completely pointless.

smartcooky 7th January 2020 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC (Post 12945898)
The government couldn't even keep the Pat Tillman friendly fire fiasco, just a couple of years later, under wraps. This was in another country, not one of the biggest cities in the world, with next to no media. And literally only a handful of people knew the truth. And they STILL couldn't pull that conspiracy off.

When Bill Clinton was porking Monica Lewinsky, they were the only two who knew about it, yet somehow, word got out that POTUS was banging a White House intern.

bknight 7th January 2020 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12946196)
When Bill Clinton was porking Monica Lewinsky, they were the only two who knew about it, yet somehow, word got out that POTUS was banging a White House intern.

The video from cameras installed in the closet haven't been released, YET. ;)

yankee451 7th January 2020 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12945731)
N334AA.
N612UA.
N644AA.
N591UA.
Their crews.
Their passengers.
Their families.
The civilian ATCs.
The military.
The United States Government.
The First responders at The Pentagon.
The State of New York Government.
The PAPD.
The NYPD.
The FDNY.
The State of Pennsylvania Government.
The first responders at Shanksville.
Logan, Dulles, Newark, LAX and SFO airports.
And, of course, the Thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses.

Tip of the iceberg, yankee. You'll need to explain these away with something quite a bit more substantial than your characteristic handwaves and snark.

Please proceed.

The bigger the lie the more likely it will be believed. In your case though, this is just too darned big!

Your incredulity doesn't change the evidence that proves the videos of the planes are fake.

JSanderO 7th January 2020 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946347)
The bigger the lie the more likely it will be believed. In your case though, this is just too darned big!

Your incredulity doesn't change the evidence that proves the videos of the planes are fake.

No... the bigger the lie more likely it will be believed.... that is a Nazi propaganda technique and is not true... though repeating a lie for idiots can seem like the truth.

yankee451 7th January 2020 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12946371)
No... the bigger the lie more likely it will be believed.... that is a Nazi propaganda technique and is not true... though repeating a lie for idiots can seem like the truth.

They were referring to British propaganda.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.