International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

yankee451 11th January 2020 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12950958)
The problem is that the AGM-158 was still in early testing in 2001 and Lockheed couldn't get it to work consistently. Another problem is Lockheed would have noticed their handful of prototypes missing (they all have serial numbers). Then there is the problem of all of that jet fuel which neither missile carries, and it is the burning jet fuel combined with the impact from the aircraft which caused the buildings to collapse.

Plus you keep posting photos showing the damage claiming a plane couldn't have caused it yet there is aircraft wreckage in those pictures.

You fail.


Desperate men do desperate deeds. Please point to what you recognize as plane wreckage in any of the photos we all have access to.

yankee451 11th January 2020 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12950566)
But the planes did exist. Unless the conspirators have a time travel machine and went back to insert it's records in to history.
same for the occupants of the offices and planes.

And you have verified this, how?

beachnut 11th January 2020 04:08 PM

Anti-war message backed with lies about 9/11 yankee451 makes up
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950795)
...
As I said, it is the same evidence used to justify the invasion, looting and occupation of sovereign nations. I would think that you would want to be more careful about what you think justifies the murder of thousands of innocent people.

Thus you lie about 9/11, the same as the evil government to go to war in Iraq? What is it that you loved about Saddam?

As for Afghanistan, that is where camps were for terrorists, and then we had to raid a compound in Pakistan to kill the person (UBL) you are spreading lies for. Was it wise to go to Afghanistan, gee, most the west did not want the camps to remain.

You want ISIS to remain? Are you an ISIS supporter, spreading lies about the USA? Why?

You don't have evidence, you make up silly claims based on BS.

Making up idiotic lies and fantasy about 9/11 will not help stop wars. In fact, your claims are so insane (your claims are insane, about the missiles), ordinary rational people will ignore your anti-war position. Spreading lies ruins your credibility, and mocking the murder of thousands with lies pathetic.


Have you verified the planes did not exist? Why do you make up self-debunking lies?

Robin 11th January 2020 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951067)
In a normal plane crash, it would buckle and crumble,

So you agree that if a plane hit a sky scraper at 800kph it would start to buckle and crumple?
Quote:

but that's not what happened in this case is it?
As far as I can see that is exactly what happened.

You are the one claiming otherwise.
Quote:

The plane didn't deform at all as it slid effortlessly into the steel skyscraper. Nothing fell off. No part buckled, crunched or deformed.
You are basing this on the thing you call "the Purdue cartoon"?

If it shows the plane effortlessly sliding through the building intact then clearly it is inaccurate. So why do you keep mentioning it?

Forget about "the Purdue cartoon". Let's look at real evidence. The plane would have started to buckle and crumple as soon as it impacted.

yankee451 11th January 2020 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12951082)
So you agree that if a plane hit a sky scraper at 800kph it would start to buckle and crumple?


As far as I can see that is exactly what happened.

You are the one claiming otherwise.

You are basing this on the thing you call "the Purdue cartoon"?

If it shows the plane effortlessly sliding through the building intact then clearly it is inaccurate. So why do you keep mentioning it?

Forget about "the Purdue cartoon". Let's look at real evidence. The plane would have started to buckle and crumple as soon as it impacted.

I am looking at the real evidence. And by that I mean, the damage evidence. If by "real evidence" you mean, the videos of the plane impacts, please point to the timestamp on any of the videos of the plane impacts in the public domain, where you see the plane buckle.

Myriad 11th January 2020 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950516)
Neither has any of you. Neither has NIST, neither has Purdue, Wierzbicki, Bezant, et al, Nor FEMA or MIT. Not one of them has done the math to prove a jet's wing could cut through the steel columns.


Even if that were true, "neither have you" does not help your case. If that were true, we would all be in the position of having to say that we have no idea whether or not the damage to the WTC columns could or could not be caused by an airliner collision, a fleet of missiles, or anything else. (We would then have to fall back on all the other available evidence, such as eyewitnesses, radar tracks, airline records, DNA, and so forth.)

That's not what you've been claiming, though. You claim your own ability to assess the cause of the damage is superior to those whose assessments you disagree with. But you have no basis to make such a claim. You have not shown, and cannot show, your work.

Quote:

Hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to. All you base your beliefs on are the television show, and the cud chewing herd you're following.

I base my rejection of your missile hypothesis on the behavior of the fireball, which eyewitnesses and photographic evidence are in complete agreement on. Most military ordnance including missile warheads does not explode in a big ball of flame and smoke. That's characteristic of explosions of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. In Hollywood, everything from hand grenades to planets explodes that way, because that kind of explosion is easy to create, control, and photograph. But real missile (and bomb, shell, grenade, etc.) warheads explode with a flash, shockwave, and shrapnel. No big showy (and militarily of little use) ball of fire. If you think that's what missiles do, you've been fooled by Hollywood effects.

Even if you did replace a missile's regular warhead with liquid fuel to make a Hollywood explosion instead, there wouldn't be enough to make the very large fireball that was unanimously witnessed and photographed.

Either there were thousands of gallons of liquid fuel stored in the towers, or the projectiles that hit them contained thousands of gallons of liquid fuel. One of those hypotheses is both plausible and consistent with all the other evidence. The other is not.

gmanontario 11th January 2020 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12951089)
Even if that were true, "neither have you" does not help your case. If that were true, we would all be in the position of having to say that we have no idea whether or not the damage to the WTC columns could or could not be caused by an airliner collision, a fleet of missiles, or anything else. (We would then have to fall back on all the other available evidence, such as eyewitnesses, radar tracks, airline records, DNA, and so forth.)

That's not what you've been claiming, though. You claim your own ability to assess the cause of the damage is superior to those whose assessments you disagree with. But you have no basis to make such a claim. You have not shown, and cannot show, your work.




I base my rejection of your missile hypothesis on the behavior of the fireball, which eyewitnesses and photographic evidence are in complete agreement on. Most military ordnance including missile warheads does not explode in a big ball of flame and smoke. That's characteristic of explosions of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. In Hollywood, everything from hand grenades to planets explodes that way, because that kind of explosion is easy to create, control, and photograph. But real missile (and bomb, shell, grenade, etc.) warheads explode with a flash, shockwave, and shrapnel. No big showy (and militarily of little use) ball of fire. If you think that's what missiles do, you've been fooled by Hollywood effects.

Even if you did replace a missile's regular warhead with liquid fuel to make a Hollywood explosion instead, there wouldn't be enough to make the very large fireball that was unanimously witnessed and photographed.

Either there were thousands of gallons of liquid fuel stored in the towers, or the projectiles that hit them contained thousands of gallons of liquid fuel. One of those hypotheses is both plausible and consistent with all the other evidence. The other is not.

But there were eleventeen missiles all flying in formation so when they hit the towers, it looks exactly as if a plane had hit, plus each missile had special never seen before warheads and drop tanks on their wings filled with nano thermite and avgas. Those tanks were made to look like jet engines too. Their cloaking method makes all this possible.

Check and mate there skeptic. :D

yankee451 11th January 2020 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12951089)
Even if that were true, "neither have you" does not help your case. If that were true, we would all be in the position of having to say that we have no idea whether or not the damage to the WTC columns could or could not be caused by an airliner collision, a fleet of missiles, or anything else.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the lateral impact of something dense enough to have sharply bent 1/2 thick steel plate to the side. It doesn't take a physicist to understand that whatever it was that hit the cladding, it was not very big, nor very dense. All it takes is a little intellectual honesty. However in the case of starting a war, it ought to take a finite element analysis of the impacting bodies to sort out whether or not what was shown on television was possible in the real world. The opportunity to stop the invasions has passed, but not the opportunity to prove no planers wrong by demonstrating with a finite element analysis that the visible damage to the towers, was consistent with the head on impact of a mostly hollow aluminum jet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12951089)
(We would then have to fall back on all the other available evidence, such as eyewitnesses, radar tracks, airline records, DNA, and so forth.)

Would we? Well if the impact evidence indicates it was caused by the lateral impact of cruise missiles, then logically, those missiles would have been launched by the same authorities that are providing the eyewitnesses (of planes), the radar track, airline records, DNA, and so forth. Turning to the most likely suspects for evidence in support of missile impacts seems futile, if not naive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12951089)
That's not what you've been claiming, though. You claim your own ability to assess the cause of the damage is superior to those whose assessments you disagree with. But you have no basis to make such a claim. You have not shown, and cannot show, your work.

I don't claim that. I have yet to hear anyone else's assessment of the lightly bent aluminum sheeting, much less the laterally bent steel columns bent in a completely different direction than the television jet (which you are hanging your hat on) was traveling. I say all along that this is just one explanation for all the available evidence, but if I am wrong with my assessment, then there is a better explanation, that better answers all the available evidence. I have yet to hear that explanation, therefore, I can only assume I'm not wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12951089)

I base my rejection of your missile hypothesis on the behavior of the fireball, which eyewitnesses and photographic evidence are in complete agreement on. Most military ordnance including missile warheads does not explode in a big ball of flame and smoke. That's characteristic of explosions of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. In Hollywood, everything from hand grenades to planets explodes that way, because that kind of explosion is easy to create, control, and photograph. But real missile (and bomb, shell, grenade, etc.) warheads explode with a flash, shockwave, and shrapnel. No big showy (and militarily of little use) ball of fire. If you think that's what missiles do, you've been fooled by Hollywood effects.

Exactly. The gash was cut by missiles that are designed to penetrate hardened targets before (or without) detonation. Explosives that cut steel don't produce big fireballs. Big fireballs don't cut steel. As explained earlier, the gash was cut by the missiles, but the missiles were not what produced the big fireball. That erupted through a gash that was cut by the missiles ,but hidden behind the mask layer, until just before the fireball erupted. The fireball was real. The plane was not. It was just a video layer on top of another video layer, both of which (plane and undamaged tower layers) were masking the missiles as they cut the gash. After the gash was cut, the mask layer was faded away to reveal the real fireball layer erupting through a hole which some truthers noticed, appeared out of nowhere. Well that's how mask layers work. They can make things appear and disappear on video, and on 9/11, they were used to dupe the world into thinking a 767 cut through a steel skyscraper.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12951089)

Even if you did replace a missile's regular warhead with liquid fuel to make a Hollywood explosion instead, there wouldn't be enough to make the very large fireball that was unanimously witnessed and photographed.

Either there were thousands of gallons of liquid fuel stored in the towers, or the projectiles that hit them contained thousands of gallons of liquid fuel. One of those hypotheses is both plausible and consistent with all the other evidence. The other is not.


see above

yankee451 11th January 2020 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmanontario (Post 12951095)
But there were eleventeen missiles all flying in formation so when they hit the towers, it looks exactly as if a plane had hit, plus each missile had special never seen before warheads and drop tanks on their wings filled with nano thermite and avgas. Those tanks were made to look like jet engines too. Their cloaking method makes all this possible.

Check and mate there skeptic. :D

"Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building."

WNBC News

"...we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building."

Port Authority Police Officer
WNBC News

"They're shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building."

Radio Dispatch
NY Daily News

"The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building."

WTC Police Channel 07
Mercury News

"Woolworth Building! They're firing missiles from Woolworth Building!"

Police Channel
Portland Indymedia


"...there was a missile launch at the Woolworth building."

Police Officer, 09:18AM
Mailgate News

"...the police had a report that a missile had been fired at the World Trade Center from the Woolworth building."

Alan Reiss, WTC Police Desk
9-11 Commission Hearing

" There was a 'swooshing' sound, then an explosion, and it sounded really low. It was if someone, one or two floors above me, had launched a shoulder-fired missile."

Lance Cpl. Alan Reifenberg
Marine Corps News

As we pulled ‘round the corner, we stopped the rig, and a cop walked over to us and said, `I saw them shoot a missile launcher off that building, you guys better be careful up there.’

NYC Fireman
Mr.Bellers Neighborhood

AJM8125 11th January 2020 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951114)
"Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building."

WNBC News

"...we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building."

Port Authority Police Officer
WNBC News

"They're shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building."

Radio Dispatch
NY Daily News

"The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building."

WTC Police Channel 07
Mercury News

"Woolworth Building! They're firing missiles from Woolworth Building!"

Police Channel
Portland Indymedia


"...there was a missile launch at the Woolworth building."

Police Officer, 09:18AM
Mailgate News

"...the police had a report that a missile had been fired at the World Trade Center from the Woolworth building."

Alan Reiss, WTC Police Desk
9-11 Commission Hearing

" There was a 'swooshing' sound, then an explosion, and it sounded really low. It was if someone, one or two floors above me, had launched a shoulder-fired missile."

Lance Cpl. Alan Reifenberg
Marine Corps News

As we pulled ‘round the corner, we stopped the rig, and a cop walked over to us and said, `I saw them shoot a missile launcher off that building, you guys better be careful up there.’

NYC Fireman
Mr.Bellers Neighborhood

Throw in some reports of bombs and dancing Israelis and you still have nothing.

gmanontario 11th January 2020 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951114)
"Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building."

WNBC News

"...we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building."

Port Authority Police Officer
WNBC News

"They're shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building."

Radio Dispatch
NY Daily News

"The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building."

WTC Police Channel 07
Mercury News

"Woolworth Building! They're firing missiles from Woolworth Building!"

Police Channel
Portland Indymedia


"...there was a missile launch at the Woolworth building."

Police Officer, 09:18AM
Mailgate News

"...the police had a report that a missile had been fired at the World Trade Center from the Woolworth building."

Alan Reiss, WTC Police Desk
9-11 Commission Hearing

" There was a 'swooshing' sound, then an explosion, and it sounded really low. It was if someone, one or two floors above me, had launched a shoulder-fired missile."

Lance Cpl. Alan Reifenberg
Marine Corps News

As we pulled ‘round the corner, we stopped the rig, and a cop walked over to us and said, `I saw them shoot a missile launcher off that building, you guys better be careful up there.’

NYC Fireman
Mr.Bellers Neighborhood

It's ok I believe you. Really have another double fudge cookie. Dip it in milk, you'll feel like a new man after.:D

Invisible missiles FTW! I have to wonder how a cop at ground level saw a missile launcher on top of a building. :confused:

Robin 11th January 2020 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951084)
I am looking at the real evidence. And by that I mean, the damage evidence.

Me too. But you keep bringing up this "Purdue cartoon" red herring for some reason
Quote:

If by "real evidence" you mean, the videos of the plane impacts, please point to the timestamp on any of the videos of the plane impacts in the public domain, where you see the plane buckle.
You are asking me to give evidence for something you said???

Please focus. I only pointed out the obvious fact that the plane would have started to buckle and crumple as soon as it started to impact. Can we leave your side track and agree that this is what would happen?

Also, can we agree that an aircraft wing becomes thinner and narrower towards the tips?

yankee451 11th January 2020 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12951132)
Throw in some reports of bombs and dancing Israelis and you still have nothing.

I have the damage evidence. I have eye witness reports. I have more missile evidence at Shanksville. I have the ability to admit error, unlike some of us.

AJM8125 11th January 2020 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951150)
I have the damage evidence. I have eye witness reports. I have more missile evidence at Shanksville. I have the ability to admit error, unlike some of us.

We have video evidence which you haven't proven is fake, despite of your OP

We have thousands of eyewitness who report no evidence of missiles, despite of your OP.

We have flight recorder data and radar data, despite of your OP.

None of this is in error.

curious cat 11th January 2020 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12951082)
So you agree that if a plane hit a sky scraper at 800kph it would start to buckle and crumple?


As far as I can see that is exactly what happened.

You are the one claiming otherwise.

You are basing this on the thing you call "the Purdue cartoon"?

If it shows the plane effortlessly sliding through the building intact then clearly it is inaccurate. So why do you keep mentioning it?

Forget about "the Purdue cartoon". Let's look at real evidence. The plane would have started to buckle and crumple as soon as it impacted.

I think we are arguing about details that we can never really prove without actually physically recreating the event. The whole crash sequence is so complex and has so many variables we can argue about it indefinitely. Did the plane started to crumble at the moment of impact? Hard to tell... At slower speed it would: the parts in front wouldn't have enough energy to bend/sever the supporting components of the building and would need "help" of the rest of the plane to do the job. At higher speed the mass at the very front would have enough energy to penetrate the obstacles and the rest of the plane would follow into the free space created virtually undamaged. And thee are situations somewhere in between too. Where is the "border" speed, nobody knows. Impossible to calculate without knowing exactly the distribution of every single piece of material, its structural strength etc of both the plane and the building as well. Finding out would require an enormous effort of hundreds of highly skilled people and expenditure of millions of dollars. What would be the benefits and why anybody should bother? There is an irrefutable evidence supporting the "official" story and if is there is anything what doesn't seem to match, it is only because we don't fully understand some of the fine details - and we never will. This whole dispute is totally futile feeding of the troll.

Axxman300 11th January 2020 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951110)
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the lateral impact of something dense enough to have sharply bent 1/2 thick steel plate to the side. It doesn't take a physicist to understand that whatever it was that hit the cladding, it was not very big, nor very dense. All it takes is a little intellectual honesty.

Actually it does take a rocket scientist. And a structural engineer and physicists.


Quote:

However in the case of starting a war, it ought to take a finite element analysis of the impacting bodies to sort out whether or not what was shown on television was possible in the real world.
What we saw on TV and IN PERSON was the real world.

Quote:

The opportunity to stop the invasions has passed, but not the opportunity to prove no planers wrong by demonstrating with a finite element analysis that the visible damage to the towers, was consistent with the head on impact of a mostly hollow aluminum jet.
Honestly, most educated people don't feel the need to explain why something stupid didn't happen because it's obviously stupid.

Quote:

Would we? Well if the impact evidence indicates it was caused by the lateral impact of cruise missiles, then logically, those missiles would have been launched by the same authorities that are providing the eyewitnesses (of planes), the radar track, airline records, DNA, and so forth. Turning to the most likely suspects for evidence in support of missile impacts seems futile, if not naive.
But the evidence in no way suggests military ordinance, not the damage nor the wreckage. You're suggesting a US Government operation which at the minimum would have required 750,000 people to pull off.


Quote:

I don't claim that. I have yet to hear anyone else's assessment of the lightly bent aluminum sheeting, much less the laterally bent steel columns bent in a completely different direction than the television jet (which you are hanging your hat on) was traveling. I say all along that this is just one explanation for all the available evidence, but if I am wrong with my assessment, then there is a better explanation, that better answers all the available evidence. I have yet to hear that explanation, therefore, I can only assume I'm not wrong.
You've only provided one photo, what about others? What do they show?

Myriad 11th January 2020 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951110)
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the lateral impact of something dense enough to have sharply bent 1/2 thick steel plate to the side.


No, but it does take someone who can evaluate the physics. (Or, someone observing the results of the actual event.)

What density was sufficient to have sharply bent 1/2 thick (sic) steep plate to the side? What density did the impacting portions of the plane have? Which number is greater? You are fallaciously offering an Unevaluated Inequality as evidence of something.

Quote:

It doesn't take a physicist to understand that whatever it was that hit the cladding, it was not very big, nor very dense.

More Unevaluated Inequalities. It does take someone who can evaluate the physics. (Or, someone observing the results of the actual event.)

Quote:

All it takes is a little intellectual honesty. However in the case of starting a war, it ought to take a finite element analysis of the impacting bodies to sort out whether or not what was shown on television was possible in the real world.

I guess that's why after Pearl Harbor, FDR stayed up all night doing finite element analysis to figure out whether 62 pounds of high explosive could penetrate steel battleship armor, before declaring war on Japan.

Or did he not do that? And if not, why not? Could it be that some "authorities" already know the answers to such questions?

Quote:

The opportunity to stop the invasions has passed, but not the opportunity to prove no planers wrong by demonstrating with a finite element analysis that the visible damage to the towers, was consistent with the head on impact of a mostly hollow aluminum jet.

What would change in the world if no planers were proved wrong?

Quote:

Would we? Well if the impact evidence indicates...

You have not only failed to provide any impact evidence, you have denied any possibility for impact evidence even existing, since you claim no relevant calculations for evaluating your Unevaluated Inequalities have been done by anyone. There's no use discussing what evidence that doesn't exist would indicate if it did exist. Get calculating.


Quote:

I don't claim that. I have yet to hear anyone else's assessment of the lightly bent aluminum sheeting, much less the laterally bent steel columns bent in a completely different direction than the television jet (which you are hanging your hat on) was traveling. I say all along that this is just one explanation for all the available evidence, but if I am wrong with my assessment, then there is a better explanation, that better answers all the available evidence. I have yet to hear that explanation, therefore, I can only assume I'm not wrong.

My assessment is that the bent and broken aluminum sheeting, and all other features of the photographs of the damage you have exhibited, are completely consistent with the scenario of impact with a near fully fueled passenger airliner at cruising speed. Some features appear counterintuitive but they're actually familiar phenomena in ballistic-velocity collisions. Parts of the impactor deforming so as to flow through a narrower breach is one example.

You can dismiss this assessment, of course. I've done no calculations. But neither have you, so I can and do dismiss yours. Why shouldn't I?

Quote:

Exactly. The gash was cut by missiles that are designed to penetrate hardened targets before (or without) detonation. Explosives that cut steel don't produce big fireballs. Big fireballs don't cut steel. As explained earlier, the gash was cut by the missiles, but the missiles were not what produced the big fireball. That erupted through a gash that was cut by the missiles ,but hidden behind the mask layer, until just before the fireball erupted. The fireball was real. The plane was not. It was just a video layer on top of another video layer, both of which (plane and undamaged tower layers) were masking the missiles as they cut the gash. After the gash was cut, the mask layer was faded away to reveal the real fireball layer erupting through a hole which some truthers noticed, appeared out of nowhere. Well that's how mask layers work. They can make things appear and disappear on video, and on 9/11, they were used to dupe the world into thinking a 767 cut through a steel skyscraper.

Did the thousands of gallons of real liquid hydrocarbon fuel that created the real fireball also come from a video layer? If not, then where do you think they came from?

beachnut 11th January 2020 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951150)
I have the damage evidence. I have eye witness reports. I have more missile evidence at Shanksville. I have the ability to admit error, unlike some of us.

off topic again, this is about your failed claim of fake video

You have never given the energy required to break the WTC shell. I have.

A plane going 200 to 250 mph would be stopped by the WTC tower shell. A plane going 450 to 600 mph will break the WTC shell and do damage internally.

This math and physics, you offer some nonsense, an opinion based on nothing.

JSanderO 11th January 2020 07:41 PM

It's become abundantly clear that Steve is either incapable or revising his thinking or refuses to do so for some perhaps political reason.

This is the point were you simply give up and essentially ignore him. Not unlike other truthers, revising their thinking never happens. They are locked into their beliefs... and as has been noted very much like what happens to cult members and even their leaders. They have left the reservation and they are not coming back... and logic and reasoning has no impact.

If you are aware of the history of truthers you will not very little to no evolution of their thinking toward more traditional science and explanations.

It appears to me they prefer to "make up their own science/engineering etc." as a means to justify what appears to be a political agenda. All of the truthers share one common element: The media, the authorities, the government are lying and doing so to hide something which is usually a motive or a hidden agenda.

++++

Our trillion dollar national security state at least at the time of 9/11 was not "geared up" to thwart low tech "terrorism".. bombs, hijackings etc. Crimes were rarely prevented from occurring as they required surveillance and proof of a conspiracy... and when proof was in hand the charge would be conspiracy to do A, B, C... Some crimes are prevented by entrapment... or some by stopping the criminals in the act. We are told that more surveillance will prevent terrorism. That seems to be untrue based on all the incidents of terrorism around the world post 9/11.

Robin 11th January 2020 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12951155)
Impossible to calculate without knowing exactly the distribution of every single piece of material, its structural strength etc of both the plane and the building as well.

That is kinda my whole point.

beachnut 11th January 2020 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951150)
I have the damage evidence. I have eye witness reports. I have more missile evidence at Shanksville. I have the ability to admit error, unlike some of us.

another lie, you don't have a clue you are spreading lies

us? This is a skeptic forum, found on research and education, you are spreading woo, and you have no clue

Axxman300 11th January 2020 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12951219)
It's become abundantly clear that Steve is either incapable or revising his thinking or refuses to do so for some perhaps political reason.

This is the point were you simply give up and essentially ignore him. Not unlike other truthers, revising their thinking never happens. They are locked into their beliefs... and as has been noted very much like what happens to cult members and even their leaders. They have left the reservation and they are not coming back... and logic and reasoning has no impact.

If you are aware of the history of truthers you will not very little to no evolution of their thinking toward more traditional science and explanations.

It appears to me they prefer to "make up their own science/engineering etc." as a means to justify what appears to be a political agenda. All of the truthers share one common element: The media, the authorities, the government are lying and doing so to hide something which is usually a motive or a hidden agenda.

++++

Our trillion dollar national security state at least at the time of 9/11 was not "geared up" to thwart low tech "terrorism".. bombs, hijackings etc. Crimes were rarely prevented from occurring as they required surveillance and proof of a conspiracy... and when proof was in hand the charge would be conspiracy to do A, B, C... Some crimes are prevented by entrapment... or some by stopping the criminals in the act. We are told that more surveillance will prevent terrorism. That seems to be untrue based on all the incidents of terrorism around the world post 9/11.

Yup. I'm done with this thread, it will end up being merged with his other moderated thread and die the appropriate death it deserves.

Cosmic Yak 12th January 2020 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12948177)
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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950493)
Yes. Explained in detail in this thread.

Err...No. Let me say it again, in case you missed it.
I was asking for evidence like this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12948177)
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?


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950493)

If you sincerely want to know what the evidence is that leads me to the conclusion that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight as a pretext to drum up public support for long planned aggressive wars, please read this post:

Taboo Truths: The Missiles of 9/11

I did as you asked. It answered every one of my questions, apart from these:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12948177)
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?

Care to try again? Your answer has not improved your credibility, I'm afraid.

Cosmic Yak 12th January 2020 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950847)

I will freely admit to being neither an engineer, nor a military operative.
However, in my layman's view, surely, if the building had been hit by a swarm of missiles that exploded inside it, the damaged walls would be bent outwards, not inwards?

The Common Potato 12th January 2020 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950885)
And? From the street a thousand feet down, someone might think they saw a small white plane (which were reported). Anyone who insisted they saw a missile, had a TV shoved in their face.

And that is why eye-witness testimony ought not be taken as a definitive answer to much at all.

The Common Potato 12th January 2020 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950887)
No. You saw it on television, therefore you assume thousands of people saw it. But the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting, and the sharply bent steel columns, say otherwise.

Discussions about conspiracies always seem to devolve into "how can we really know anything 100%".

The answer is, of course, we can't. Not really.

Just last night I had a dream in which I had the revelation that I was in fact a white mouse dreaming I was a dolphin and that the Vogons were coming to read me some poetry, whereas in fact I am Keanu Reeves and doing my part for society by acting as a battery.

Or am I?

Captain_Swoop 12th January 2020 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951076)
And you have verified this, how?

Where are all the passengers and crew?
They were real people, they no longer exist.
Their remains and DNA were found at the sites.
Were they killed and dismembered before the crash and their body parts scattered by the conspirators?

beachnut 12th January 2020 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951061)
...
And? So what. There were more witnesses that said they saw small planes, missiles or no planes at all. Not all the witnesses can be right. The damage evidence (that you keep avoiding) can thin out which of the witness accounts match the evidence, and which match the "official story."

What does Radar say? Right, you ignore real evidence and quibble about perception. Good job. you can't figure out 9/11 given the evidence - that is Failure

No clue, the planes seen in NYC are verified by Radar! Ignore reality, embrace fantasy and lies.

You are calling thousand of people liars, as you spread lies.

Jack by the hedge 12th January 2020 05:03 AM

Perhaps we could consider yankee451's favourite bent steel column, which he identified in two photos from different angles and concludes that is bent inward and to the right.

If he argues that it was bent in this direction by a small but heavy, solid impactor, where is the corresponding hole where it punched out of the opposite side of the building?

If it takes one impactor per bent or broken column, how many missiles were there altogether and where is the pattern of exit holes for those?

I'm also interested in the mechanism used to make the fireball: what kind of device projects thousands of pounds of jet fuel out of one side of the building at 500 mph without a similar ejection in the opposite direction? If you built this system in so that it was integral to the building and the structure absorbed the impact of setting it off, might we be able to detect its use from the building's swaying toward the purported aircraft crash rather than away from it?

Crazy Chainsaw 12th January 2020 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950720)
When you're trying to make a math problem out of it, it must include the calculations of the building's construction too. It would require a finite element analysis of the impacting bodies. The wing would behave differently when striking the sharp steel knife-edges of the protruding column sides, or the flat face of the column, set-back from the protruding edges of the column sides, than it would when striking a window.This is why no one has ever done it. Because it will prove that a jet couldn't have possibly caused it. So the propaganda organs like Purdue, NIST, FEMA, MIT, et al, simply ignore the evidence. And their fawning sycophantic skeptics, dutifully follow suit.

No I only have to show that penitration of the weak steel by the much stronger steel alloy is more likely than your absurd theory. It's your theory and it is Falsified by your own evidence itself.

sts60 12th January 2020 06:21 AM

For the regulars still arguing with the OP, I’ll just borrow the words of a poster who assessed the FatFreddy88/DavidC/rocky Apollo “hoax” threads thusly:

“I think you guys spend too much time fighting with mental patients.“

Crazy Chainsaw 12th January 2020 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951150)
I have the damage evidence. I have eye witness reports. I have more missile evidence at Shanksville. I have the ability to admit error, unlike some of us.

Have you ever fired aluminum bullets into steel?

At the equivalent energy value you are proposing and what was the result of that experiment?

jimbob 12th January 2020 07:11 AM

Quote:

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

Indeed, as described by Newton:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact...e_impact_depth

Cosmic Yak 12th January 2020 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951114)
"Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building."

(Snipped for space saving)

Well, at least that's something to work with.
yankee451: is it your contention that the missiles were fired from the Woolworth Building?

yankee451 12th January 2020 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmanontario (Post 12951136)
It's ok I believe you. Really have another double fudge cookie. Dip it in milk, you'll feel like a new man after.:D

Invisible missiles FTW! I have to wonder how a cop at ground level saw a missile launcher on top of a building. :confused:

They weren't invisible to the people who reported them. Unlike the people who say they saw a plane, the damage evidence is consistent with their reports. But you saw it on television.

yankee451 12th January 2020 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12951502)
Well, at least that's something to work with.
yankee451: is it your contention that the missiles were fired from the Woolworth Building?

No.

yankee451 12th January 2020 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12951352)
I will freely admit to being neither an engineer, nor a military operative.
However, in my layman's view, surely, if the building had been hit by a swarm of missiles that exploded inside it, the damaged walls would be bent outwards, not inwards?

You aren't paying attention.

I am often accused of being an operative by truthers too. It gets confusing. My work focuses on evidence that exposes the fraud and collusion of all nations, not just the USA. The only people who would benefit from my work are genuine truth seekers.

The agenda at sites like the Skeptics and JREF is obvious; to discourage an honest assessment of facts, and the same can be said about the misnamed 9/11 Truth Movement. You are two sides of the same coin. Who benefits from the revelation that the USA launched multiple cruise missiles at sites within the USA? Who benefits from the knowledge that the leaders of the entire world's nations were and are colluding in this colossal lie, and that the global media apparatus continues to cover it up?

Truthers and trusters get bitchy when I talk about the evidence of the use of cruise missiles because it shatters their illusions.

There really is no other explanation for the lightly pinched cladding and the progressively worse damaged steel columns than what I have described.

"Like most of the 9/11 Truth Movement the goals of the enemy nations were to cover up the truth, to reinforce established authority, and by all means to prevent the role of the worlds’ media from being exposed. The myth of the independent media must be protected at all costs. Without their media to control the perception of whole populations the global house of cards would tumble. Before you know it average people who were at one time more concerned with their Facebook “likes” will unplug and start identifying who is ultimately responsible for 9/11. If they keep digging they’ll find the same people are to blame for the uber-*******-up of the world today; the richest people of all nations."
https://911crashtest.org/how-9-11-mi...lobal-slavery/

yankee451 12th January 2020 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12951317)
Yup. I'm done with this thread, it will end up being merged with his other moderated thread and die the appropriate death it deserves.

This is all I have come to expect from you guys. Predictable. And predicted.

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.”

If you’re like me and just want to follow the evidence wherever it leads then the details discussed in this post can lead directly to the most likely cause and the most likely suspects. If I’m wrong then there must be a better explanation for it and I want to hear what that is but so far the response has been silence. It is as the late Harold Pinter described how Americans react when they hear “real news” about all the atrocities committed by the USA around the world since the end of World War II:

“It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

It is this hypnosis that has kept the war on terror going strong, with both sides so entranced they will reject the evidence that can lead to the truth in favor of fantastical explanations straight out of Gene Roddenberry’s imagination. The truth is, no, planes can’t slice steel and no, buildings don’t turn to dust in the real world. For 16 years both sides (all sides) have bent over backwards to avoid the first step in any investigation; the scene of the crime, probably partly because it makes most of the truth movement’s hypotheses irrelevant, but also because of the staggering implications that accompany it.

Years ago a friend warned me that even if I did discover the truth about 9/11 nobody will give a damn, a prescient prediction. Not that I’m saying I’m right, but I have done my best to keep myself honest in my investigation, and although I am often wrong, I am also often not wrong. All I can say is, the fact that no one will address these clues is exactly what I would expect from controlled opposition if I did stumble on the right path.

Fake news is everywhere, but from what I can tell most people like it that way, Truthers included, which is a pity. The truth may hurt but it really does set you free.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

yankee451 12th January 2020 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12951383)
And that is why eye-witness testimony ought not be taken as a definitive answer to much at all.

And there it is; the television show trumps all.

yankee451 12th January 2020 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 12951451)

Newton's laws support the conclusion that the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting visible at the far left side of both holes, was caused by something much less dense and much smaller than what sharply bent steel columns to the right.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:13 PM.

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