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)

smartcooky 8th January 2020 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CORed (Post 12947920)
I'm pretty sure that Steve suffers from the simplistic misconception that when objects made of two different materials collide, harder or stronger material "wins", and only the weaker or softer material is damaged. In the real world, it just doesn't work that way, especially the impact happens at a high velocity. I realize I've made this point many times, but I live in Colorado, where, in many areas of the mountains, snow avalanches are a frequent occurrence. These commonly break trees, sometimes trees that are several inches in diameter. Yes, a mass of unconsolidated snow, moving at high velocity (but considerably lower velocity than the planes on 9/11 were moving), can snap off a thick, strong tree. I don't find anything the least bit remarkable about aluminum planes moving at several hundred miles per hour breaking steel beams.



Shortly after 00:14:28 GMT on June 30, 1908 ...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ktrge6s1x...ska1.jpg?raw=1

... all this was done by nothing but air!

Cosmic Yak 9th January 2020 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12947154)
The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.

Have you got any evidence of missiles?
For example: pieces of debris, radar tracking of missiles, specifics about where these missiles were fired from, specifics of who fired them, whistleblower statements from anyone involved in any part of the transport, launching or clean-up operations, inventory lists showing missing missiles....anything?
I am quite happy to examine your evidence with an open mind, but all you've done so far is post some pictures from (as has been pointed out) the same sources you claim are faked, with some arrows on them. That isn't what you'd call conclusive, is it?

JSanderO 9th January 2020 04:05 AM

Truther claims are begin with two foundations:

A. all media and government reports / accounts are false and deliberate lies... told to hide the true agenda

B. what they see in pics and vids could not possibly be caused by planes hitting buildings or the ground.

(A) is sometimes and somewhat true. We accept PR and spin and so on as normal.

(B) requires some level of technical knowledge or acceptance of what those who have it say.

Both (A) and (B) reinforce each other and create an endless loop with no way out.

DuvalHMFIC 9th January 2020 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12948015)
N334AA went into WTC 1 at approximately 494 MPH with 92 people aboard.
N612UA went into WTC 2 at approximately 586 MPH with 65 people aboard.
N644AA went into The Pentagon at approximately 527 MPH with 64 People aboard.
N591UA went into the ground at approximately 563 MPH with 44 people aboard.

Two questions for Steve - What, in your learned opinion, should've happened to these planes upon their impacts?

What happened to the 265 people aboard the planes? Their families might like to know.

There were no planes, you're not keeping up! It was missiles!

Facts negated, Yankee wins!

The Common Potato 9th January 2020 06:42 AM

You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead. :boxedin:

bknight 9th January 2020 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12948333)
You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead. :boxedin:

Bahaha :)

Myriad 9th January 2020 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12947154)
The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.


An open mind is necessary, but so is knowledge of the physical dynamics of moving and impacted objects and structures, and the tools (primarily mathematical) for applying that knowledge.

You have done no mathematics. What you have are what Dave Rogers calls unevaluated inequalities. You claim that the force of impact by airplane wings are less than the force required to cause the observed deformation of the wall columns, but you have not quantified either of those forces. You claim that the force of impact and detonation of a missile equals the force required to cause the observed deformation of the columns, but you have not quantified either of those forces. The creation of those forces involve speeds and masses and strengths that are well outside the range anyone is intuitively familiar with. They can only be understood and compared by careful calculation, which you have not done. You insist that x is greater than y and z is equal to y, but you cannot say what x, y, or z are.

When others who do know how to evaluate and compare x, y, and z tell you you're wrong, you reply with accusations and insults instead of calculations of your own.

That's why your ideas are unpersuasive. They fail to qualify for admission into even the openest of minds.

Leftus 9th January 2020 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12948177)
Have you got any evidence of missiles?

Have they even bothered to identify which missile system was used? The entry gash in the tower was massive. I guess it could have been caused by a missile if it were going sideways as they tend to not do.

I'm guessing they know less about missiles than they do about airplanes.
But that shouldn't stop them from saying it was X.

JSanderO 9th January 2020 12:22 PM

A bunch of people have responded to, questioned Steve's presentation. They have because it simply does not make sense. Nothing will change Steve's mind.

More interesting is what happened to Steve's mind?

DuvalHMFIC 9th January 2020 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12948770)
A bunch of people have responded to, questioned Steve's presentation. They have because it simply does not make sense. Nothing will change Steve's mind.

More interesting is what happened to Steve's mind?

He did what most conspiracy minded people do-he started with a conclusion and began working backwards. Lots of bad things happen when you do that. Before long your "reasoning" becomes as succinct as the star wars sequel trilogy.

See: Earth, Flat.

BStrong 9th January 2020 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC (Post 12948847)
He did what most conspiracy minded people do-he started with a conclusion and began working backwards. Lots of bad things happen when you do that. Before long your "reasoning" becomes as succinct as the star wars sequel trilogy.

See: Earth, Flat.

Classic example - Howard Donahue's conclusion that since he could duplicate LHO's shooting, LHO couldn't have fired the shots.

See also, forcing the square block of conspiracy into the round hole of reality

Oystein 9th January 2020 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12948578)
An open mind is necessary, but so is knowledge of the physical dynamics of moving and impacted objects and structures, and the tools (primarily mathematical) for applying that knowledge.

You have done no mathematics. What you have are what Dave Rogers calls unevaluated inequalities. You claim that the force of impact by airplane wings are less than the force required to cause the observed deformation of the wall columns, but you have not quantified either of those forces. You claim that the force of impact and detonation of a missile equals the force required to cause the observed deformation of the columns, but you have not quantified either of those forces. The creation of those forces involve speeds and masses and strengths that are well outside the range anyone is intuitively familiar with. They can only be understood and compared by careful calculation, which you have not done. You insist that x is greater than y and z is equal to y, but you cannot say what x, y, or z are.

When others who do know how to evaluate and compare x, y, and z tell you you're wrong, you reply with accusations and insults instead of calculations of your own.

That's why your ideas are unpersuasive. They fail to qualify for admission into even the openest of minds.

:thumbsup:

If I look back at my weird years at JREF/ISF in 25 years or so, I think Dave's Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy may be one of the few practical wisdoms with universal applicability I shall have learned here that are (I think) original to this place.

bknight 9th January 2020 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12948880)
Classic example - Howard Donahue's conclusion that since he could duplicate LHO's shooting, LHO couldn't have fired the shots.

See also, forcing the square block of conspiracy into the round hole of reality

Conversely, I believe it was Marcus Allen, who described in a live recorded video presentation that he was unable to duplicate picture of Gene Cernan and the Earth and therefore the image was fake and Apollo was a fraud/fake. Only in the minds of CTs and individuals that really don't think about what was said and how it was said. Of course Marcus could not have frame Gene Cernan and the Earth, as he wasn't on the Moon doing the framing. But he couldn't get a frame correctly that would have been what would have been needed to take the image.

Elagabalus 9th January 2020 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12948880)
Classic example - Howard Donahue's conclusion that since he could duplicate LHO's shooting, LHO couldn't have fired the shots.

See also, forcing the square block of conspiracy into the round hole of reality


Foam vs. carbon-reinforced panel?

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

Axxman300 9th January 2020 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12948770)
A bunch of people have responded to, questioned Steve's presentation. They have because it simply does not make sense. Nothing will change Steve's mind.

More interesting is what happened to Steve's mind?

One of two things:

1. He's a troll.

2. He has high-functioning Aspergers.

Either way he gets off on the attention.

BStrong 9th January 2020 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12949056)
One of two things:

1. He's a troll.

2. He has high-functioning Aspergers.

Either way he gets off on the attention.

That pretty much covers it.

Some folks that make the rounds on various sites and post this or similar nonsense seem to be attention driven or impaired.

Crazy Chainsaw 9th January 2020 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946482)
And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

When are you going to start presenting evidence that backs your theories so far you have debunked Yourself, a plane made from aluminum hitting a steel building should produce exactly the evidence you have shown.
Thanks for nothing.

Crazy Chainsaw 9th January 2020 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CORed (Post 12947920)
I'm pretty sure that Steve suffers from the simplistic misconception that when objects made of two different materials collide, harder or stronger material "wins", and only the weaker or softer material is damaged. In the real world, it just doesn't work that way, especially the impact happens at a high velocity. I realize I've made this point many times, but I live in Colorado, where, in many areas of the mountains, snow avalanches are a frequent occurrence. These commonly break trees, sometimes trees that are several inches in diameter. Yes, a mass of unconsolidated snow, moving at high velocity (but considerably lower velocity than the planes on 9/11 were moving), can snap off a thick, strong tree. I don't find anything the least bit remarkable about aluminum planes moving at several hundred miles per hour breaking steel beams.

Depleted Uranium is way softer than Tank Armor yet in the first gulf war it was used in A10 wart hogs against tanks because like aluminum it was Pyrophoric on impact.

sts60 9th January 2020 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12948997)
Foam vs. carbon-reinforced panel?

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

I’ve been to the Columbia Recovery Room at the Vehicle Assembly Building and seen the results of this firsthand - insulating foam vs. the ultrahard reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge of the port wing, leading to an impossible result according to the ignorant and frankly delusional OP.

Crazy Chainsaw 10th January 2020 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12948238)
Truther claims are begin with two foundations:

A. all media and government reports / accounts are false and deliberate lies... told to hide the true agenda

B. what they see in pics and vids could not possibly be caused by planes hitting buildings or the ground.

(A) is sometimes and somewhat true. We accept PR and spin and so on as normal.

(B) requires some level of technical knowledge or acceptance of what those who have it say.

Both (A) and (B) reinforce each other and create an endless loop with no way out.

That is true if all conspiracy theorists, including the one in the White house right now, Scary isn't it?

Sherman Bay 10th January 2020 07:21 AM

We're still waiting, aren't we, for The Yank to tell us where the four planes and the occupants are now? Or is he claiming that none of those flights ever took off? Maybe Boston and Dulles airports don't exist?

Captain_Swoop 10th January 2020 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12949382)
Depleted Uranium is way softer than Tank Armor yet in the first gulf war it was used in A10 wart hogs against tanks because like aluminum it was Pyrophoric on impact.

It's to do with density

Dave Rogers 10th January 2020 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12949660)
It's to do with density

Depleted uranium or conspiracy theorists?

Dave

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12947593)
I think a big problem that Steve has is not understanding the strength properties of the steel plate in the columns on the 94th to the 98th floors. It was 1/2" thick.

That plate being hit by a large jet at 500mph would fail in an instant.

Steel they were... but not intended to resist the lateral forces represented by the place. Don't be fooled by the OAL dimensions of the boxes... the plates up there were pretty thin.

I understand quite well. I also understand mostly hollow aluminum wings don't slice through steel skyscrapers in the real world, but if they could do so, the damage left to the building would reflect it. Something about equal and opposite reactions proves something else happened. ;-)
The damage to the building indicates small projectiles struck from the side. It doesn't indicate a large one struck from head on. This damage alone is what proves the jet impact videos are fraudulent.


http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ectories-1.jpg

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12947529)
Along with trigonometry and both negate his beliefs.

If you had any clue about trigonometry, you'd use it to prove I'm wrong. The problem is, it proves I'm right.

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12948770)
A bunch of people have responded to, questioned Steve's presentation. They have because it simply does not make sense. Nothing will change Steve's mind.

More interesting is what happened to Steve's mind?

I wrote this for frauds like Jeff.


Quote:

Usually when confronted with this information they very quickly turn on me by questioning my motives, sanity and intelligence, but rarely do they address the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. If this was a real crime scene investigation the act of “reconstructing the crime” would be critical; every clue, no matter how small, would be collected and used as a basis for the formulation of a theory. But truthers don’t do that. They skip right to the theory and then look for supporting evidence, ignoring those clues that don’t fit, an activity known as, “cherry-picking,” not “truth-seeking.”
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12949378)
When are you going to start presenting evidence that backs your theories so far you have debunked Yourself, a plane made from aluminum hitting a steel building should produce exactly the evidence you have shown.
Thanks for nothing.

lol

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay (Post 12949640)
We're still waiting, aren't we, for The Yank to tell us where the four planes and the occupants are now? Or is he claiming that none of those flights ever took off? Maybe Boston and Dulles airports don't exist?

Occupants of what? The non existent planes? The empty offices? What do you mean?

AJM8125 10th January 2020 08:48 PM

Empty offices?

We've already been down this road, need I remind you.

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12948238)
Truther claims are begin with two foundations:

A. all media and government reports / accounts are false and deliberate lies... told to hide the true agenda

B. what they see in pics and vids could not possibly be caused by planes hitting buildings or the ground.

(A) is sometimes and somewhat true. We accept PR and spin and so on as normal.

(B) requires some level of technical knowledge or acceptance of what those who have it say.

Both (A) and (B) reinforce each other and create an endless loop with no way out.

In other words, let other people do your thinking for you. Do as you're told. Vote. Pay your taxes. Die. This is as good as it gets.

You guys are a crack up.

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12950397)
Empty offices?

We've already been down this road, need I remind you.

I remember. Never letting the facts interfere with your skepticism of anything that doesn't support the "official" story (read: tripe), you gnashed your teeth and pointed to information provided by the most likely suspects, as if that somehow overrides the physical evidence.

AJM8125 10th January 2020 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950408)
I remember.

Apparently you don't

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451
Quote:

Originally Posted by Redwood (Post 9004226)
Steve, I didn't say you and "Steve WarRan" were one and the same person. If you aren't, then you have found a soulmate. You are both at the apex of trutherism, posting Mt. Everest-sized non-sequiturs. Any other gibberish that "Steve WarRan" may have written is irrelevant. What is relevant is the particular piece of gibberish that you freely and willingly quoted. Now will you finally explain to us how does a Dun and Bradstreet listing relate to whether or not a firm had offices in the Twin Towers?, or ask your soulmate to explain it for you, or admit that the whole thing is nonsense?

Like other truthers, you make yourself look foolish by never backing down, never admitting you made a mistake. If you admit that the article by "Steve WarRan" is a giant manure pile, and that it was foolish to cite it, you will not lose one shred of credibility.


I have already admitted several mistakes and this is another. I stand corrected.

Unless you're now retracting that and introducing new evidence that supports your argument.

Then by all means, please proceed.

AJM8125 10th January 2020 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950381)

While I have you on the line here Steve, which original image did you grab this from? Can you post the whole image?

Axxman300 10th January 2020 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950392)
Occupants of what? The non existent planes? The empty offices? What do you mean?

https://media.giphy.com/media/WCSj7Skn4IhEc/giphy.gif

Has to be a troll. Nobody is this stupid.

yankee451 10th January 2020 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12947593)
I think a big problem that Steve has is not understanding the strength properties of the steel plate in the columns on the 94th to the 98th floors. It was 1/2" thick.

That plate being hit by a large jet at 500mph would fail in an instant.

Steel they were... but not intended to resist the lateral forces represented by the place. Don't be fooled by the OAL dimensions of the boxes... the plates up there were pretty thin.


Tell me again, Jeff.

According to the Purdue cartoon, the left wing tip fully penetrated the wall, yet even a barnyard animal can see the wing tip didn't fully penetrate, in fact it took a sharp turn to the right and sharply bent the more massive, much more dense, less brittle 1/2 inch-thick steel plate in a completely different direction than the jet wing, with a leading edge as sharp as a basketball, was traveling.

This part of the wing:
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...Purdue-Gif.gif

Struck like this:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png

This wing tip
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...0278c1d4_b.jpg

was not big enough, or dense enough, or massive enough, even at 500 miles per hour, to do more than lightly bend the aluminum sheet metal that covered the steel column here:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...MAGED-SFRM.png
But a few feet away it was big enough, dense enough, and massive enough to sharply bend steel columns in a complete different direction than the wing tip was traveling? And on the ninth column from the left (of both towers), the wing blew a hole in the column?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rrow-burst.gif

Please explain.

yankee451 10th January 2020 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12950431)
https://media.giphy.com/media/WCSj7Skn4IhEc/giphy.gif

Has to be a troll. Nobody is this stupid.

When in Rome...

Be specific please.

yankee451 10th January 2020 09:44 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.


I would like the whole class of clowns to pay attention to this. Friction he says, as long as the wings were still connected to the fuselage.

Well shoot, according to the official story, the wings were "completely fragmented" by the exterior wall columns as they simultaneously, sliced through them like butter. See below.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...wall_small.png

This means that by the time the engines penetrated the walls, the wing tips would no longer be attached to the rest of the plane.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...05/inside1.jpg

Another fantasy shattered.

bknight 10th January 2020 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950385)
If you had any clue about trigonometry, you'd use it to prove I'm wrong. The problem is, it proves I'm right.

I did prove you wrong, you just won't admit that fact.

yankee451 10th January 2020 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12950445)
I did prove you wrong, you just won't admit that fact.

I missed it, would you please provide the link, or repeat yourself?

yankee451 10th January 2020 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12950415)
Apparently you don't



Unless you're now retracting that and introducing new evidence that supports your argument.

Then by all means, please proceed.

I miss the relevance of that.

You guys are all over the place; "Look over here. What about this hypothetical situation? You had a hair out of place six years ago."

You haven't mentioned the straw through the tree yet. Or have you? What does any of this have to do with this thread, or the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:34 PM.

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