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)

catsmate 31st December 2019 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12938791)
This is my thinking too.

In the first place, do they really expect us to believe any place could be so nice they named it twice?

In the second place I have been to York. Why would they need a new one if the old one is still there?

Arthur Dent was similarly sceptical;
Quote:

New * York * has * gone. * No * reaction. * He'd *never * seriously * believed * it * existed * anyway.

abaddon 31st December 2019 06:01 PM

[quote=yankee451;12939544]I am capable of doing my own thinking.[quote]I see no evidence of such activity. Have you some to offer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939544)
If that makes me an expert, then so be it.

Nope. Unfounded nonsense does not an expert make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939544)
If you require an expert to do your thinking for you, then you'll have to take my word for it.

Said "not an expert".

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939544)
All the views of the "live" impact were capturing the north face of the North Tower. None of them caught the "crash." Those that do show the crash were not broadcast live.

That claim flies in the face of reality. Do you not grok reality? Why not?

yankee451 31st December 2019 06:06 PM

[quote=abaddon;12939562][quote=yankee451;12939544]I am capable of doing my own thinking.
Quote:

I see no evidence of such activity. Have you some to offer?

Nope. Unfounded nonsense does not an expert make.

Said "not an expert".

That claim flies in the face of reality. Do you not grok reality? Why not?
Digging in your heels and deferring to authority is it? Then seek out an expert that you deem worthy. Until then, we'll have to go with the conclusion that any kid who has ever run a stick against a picket fence can attest to. Any adult lacking that experience can also seek out a second opinion that better suits their fancy. Or they can take a stab at doing their own thinking, and coming up with a better explanation for it.

bknight 31st December 2019 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939544)
I am capable of doing my own thinking. If that makes me an expert, then so be it. If you require an expert to do your thinking for you, then you'll have to take my word for it.

All the views of the "live" impact were capturing the north face of the North Tower. None of them caught the "crash." Those that do show the crash were not broadcast live.

I'm not indicating that you are not capable of thinkin, however training helps one form a better picture of what happened, you don't have that, but rely on your biased viewpoint. No I'll not take your words for any description of what happened.

Yes the "live" views were from the east and north viewpoints, Other videos show the same plane hitting the tower from the south, for those that haven't seen them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
11 minute video with timestamps for ease of watching
3:39, 4:56, 5:37* best image of a plane hitting the tower, 6:28, 8:44, 9:11 ( doesn't show the plane hitting the tower as a building in in the way), 10:18.

In all views along the way, a plane approaches the tower and slams into it. You may ignore the fact that it was a plane, but prudent individuals will not agree with your view.

yankee451 31st December 2019 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12939574)
I'm not indicating that you are not capable of thinkin, however training helps one form a better picture of what happened, you don't have that, but rely on your biased viewpoint. No I'll not take your words for any description of what happened.

Yes the "live" views were from the east and north viewpoints, Other videos show the same plane hitting the tower from the south, for those that haven't seen them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
11 minute video with timestamps for ease of watching
3:39, 4:56, 5:37* best image of a plane hitting the tower, 6:28, 8:44, 9:11 ( doesn't show the plane hitting the tower as a building in in the way), 10:18.

In all views along the way, a plane approaches the tower and slams into it. You may ignore the fact that it was a plane, but prudent individuals will not agree with your view.

I mean no offense. There are very few ways to explain the damage. Prudent individuals all over the world can do as they like, but prudence doesn't change the evidence that leads me to my conclusions.

This is a wingtip from a 767.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...0278c1d4_b.jpg

We are to believe that this wingtip was only massive enough and wide enough to cause this little pinch to the aluminum cladding:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...d-cladding.png

But a few feet away it was massive enough, and big enough, to sharply bend steel columns in a different direction than the wingtip was traveling.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...t-1024x788.jpg

pgimeno 31st December 2019 08:12 PM

And here we go again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 9750631)
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 9749470)
Answer:
Not even close to the weight of the plate steel it impacted.

Wrong.
Aluminium alloys are used extensively in aircraft due to their high strength-to-weight ratio. On the other hand, pure aluminium metal is much too soft for such uses, and it does not have the high tensile strength that is needed for airplanes and helicopters.

Aluminium alloys versus types of steel
Aluminium alloys typically have an elastic modulus of about 70 GPa, which is about one-third of the elastic modulus of most kinds of steel and steel alloys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alumini...oys_properties

One third the strength is more than strong enough to break it under such conditions; there's a FEA proving it. Water can also cut through steel if thrown at a bigger speed and in a thin jet (google waterjet cutting), and it's not even a solid. The principle is the same: kinetic energy.

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



Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 9749470)
How does jet fuel add density to aluminum sheeting formed into the shape of an airfoil?

It adds density to the wing as a whole, thus increasing the mass, and with it, the kinetic energy.

Imagine yourself throwing an empty soda can to a glass. You will probably not hurt it. Now imagine yourself throwing it full. You will probably break it. Same material, different overall density.

And an airplane is much more than the sheeting. Focusing on the cover and forgetting about the structure is a lie by omission. Remember the wings must be strong enough to support the weight of the fuselage.

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...he/boeing2.jpg

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim.../13WMAZ_03.jpg

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...he/estruc1.jpg

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgim...e_fuselage.jpg

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/struct...es/image12.gif


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 9749514)
Surely you can use your math to demonstrate how the east-west bends and twists were caused by aluminum sheeting formed into the shape of a jet with 30 degree swept back wings striking in a north-south trajectory.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...row-burst1.gif

These two sheets look like they bent post-impact, due to the load. They bent east-west because it was far easier for them to bend east-west than north-south, due to their orientation and shape (a very oblong rectangle, i.e. basically, a sheet of steel with its faces pointing north and south).

However I think that parts of that picture show that the wing was pulled towards the hole by its own structure as the plane penetrated. Good catch.

"It's déjà vu all over again..."

Norman Alexander 31st December 2019 08:20 PM

The flattened, burned part was due to whatever large, hot, heavy thing was attached to the wing at that position. I cannot think what that might have been. Can you?

yankee451 31st December 2019 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander (Post 12939689)
The flattened, burned part was due to whatever large, hot, heavy thing was attached to the wing at that position. I cannot think what that might have been. Can you?

You're referring to the engine?

Loss Leader 31st December 2019 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12938558)
[*]Deploy dozens of photographers to pose as amateurs.


Name three.

curious cat 31st December 2019 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939718)
You're referring to the engine?

A spark of intelligence emerging? :D

yankee451 31st December 2019 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12939721)
A spark of intelligence emerging? :D

It is a dim light indeed.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...e-1024x653.jpg

yankee451 31st December 2019 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loss Leader (Post 12939720)
Name three.

Evan Fairbanks
Luc Courchesne
Michael Hezarkhani

Axxman300 31st December 2019 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939535)
At the far left of both impact holes, by itself the lightly damaged cladding is proof a 767's wing tip wasn't responsible.

Nope, it means the wingtip is less dense than the rest of the wing.

Quote:

A few feet away from the lightly damage aluminum sheeting are heavily damaged steel columns that were impacted from the side, in a completely different direction than the jet was traveling.
Nope, that's just how they bent on impact...unless you have data from another 767 crash into a tube frame skyscraper.

Quote:

On the ninth column from the left is an inward blasting hole, nowhere near where the alleged jet engine impacted.
You know that wing had flaps and flight control surfaces, right? They don't move by magic, they all motors, gears, and hydroponic lines not to mention internal frame work. The damage depicted is consistent with the 767's wing structure.

Quote:

Something, or some things, struck from the side.
Nope.

Quote:

Therefore what we were shown on television cannot have been responsible.
Uh huh.

Quote:

There are many more details discussed in the moderated post,
Inaccurate speculation based on zero knowledge of construction, aircraft parts, physics, and reality is not considered data.


Quote:

and of course on my site.
Your site is worthless.

Axxman300 31st December 2019 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939546)
If planes could do such things, there would be no need for missiles. Furthermore, if a plane did such a thing, the damage evidence would be consistent with it.

Oh, please, please, please educate us on what a 767 cannot do in flight.

yankee451 31st December 2019 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12939729)
Nope, it means the wingtip is less dense than the rest of the wing.

I see. So the wingtip wasn't dense enough to sever the aluminum sheeting?

yankee451 31st December 2019 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12939730)
Oh, please, please, please educate us on what a 767 cannot do in flight.

Some horses can't even be led to water, but apparently in your world, if it accelerates to the right speed, it'll cut through just about anything else.

Axxman300 31st December 2019 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12939574)
I'm not indicating that you are not capable of thinkin, however training helps one form a better picture of what happened, you don't have that, but rely on your biased viewpoint. No I'll not take your words for any description of what happened.

Yes the "live" views were from the east and north viewpoints, Other videos show the same plane hitting the tower from the south, for those that haven't seen them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
11 minute video with timestamps for ease of watching
3:39, 4:56, 5:37* best image of a plane hitting the tower, 6:28, 8:44, 9:11 ( doesn't show the plane hitting the tower as a building in in the way), 10:18.

In all views along the way, a plane approaches the tower and slams into it. You may ignore the fact that it was a plane, but prudent individuals will not agree with your view.

He can't articulate the facts because they all contradict his neurosis.

There were and are flight restrictions in place over Manhattan before and during 9-11. The TV coverage focused on the gaping hole from the first aircraft in the North Tower because that's where the action was taking place. News camera operators will always focus on the action.

Axxman300 31st December 2019 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939731)
I see. So the wingtip wasn't dense enough to sever the aluminum sheeting?

Explain what should have happened as the wing made contact with the building in detail. Explain how a 767's wing should behave upon impact with this specific structure and explain how this specific structure should have reacted to the impact.

In detail, please.

Axxman300 31st December 2019 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939735)
Some horses can't even be led to water, but apparently in your world, if it accelerates to the right speed, it'll cut through just about anything else.

Actually in my world this is true. I live on earth.

If I hit a telephone pole at 5mph with my pickup truck I get a dent in my truck with no damage to the pole. If I hit that same pole at 100mph I can snap it as my engine blows through the fire wall and crushes my lower body.

I can take a marble-sized piece of lead and throw it at a beer can and knock the can over, but if I mount that same piece of lead into a brass casing filled with Cordite and fire it from a .45 it will pass through the can, and the can will go flying.

Physics isn't just fun, it's the law.

Axxman300 31st December 2019 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939726)
Evan Fairbanks
Luc Courchesne
Michael Hezarkhani


Manhattan and NYC at large is the MEDIA CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. On any given day on just about any street in Manhattan, certainly in the East Village you are going to run into a world class photographer, just like you'll run into Playwrights, actors, fashion designers, and up until last year - Jeffrey Epstein.

The fact is that it would be harder to believe that no award winning photographers were in the area on 9-11.

Axxman300 31st December 2019 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939724)

Your "oops" is a Flap Track. Then again this whole thread is your oops.

Axxman300 31st December 2019 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939582)
We are to believe that this wingtip was only massive enough and wide enough to cause this little pinch to the aluminum cladding:

But a few feet away it was massive enough, and big enough, to sharply bend steel columns in a different direction than the wingtip was traveling.

Well yes, that's how wings work: thin at the tips and getting wider toward the body as needed for avionics. Avionics is the gadgetry inside the wings that help the plane fly. We stopped using magical elves after WWI.

Elagabalus 31st December 2019 10:32 PM

Please tell us how this was faked again.


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

Elagabalus 31st December 2019 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939724)

WRT, the engine allegedly hit here-well, they ARE kinda' big.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

yankee451 31st December 2019 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12939762)
WRT, the engine allegedly hit here-well, they ARE kinda' big.

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

So this big engine punched not one, but two holes?

yankee451 31st December 2019 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12939758)
Please tell us how this was faked again.


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

Layer masks.

Remember, his footage was not shown "live." He is a pro. Editing his shot would only take a few minutes.

He rehearsed his shot and fabricated a 2D CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background, so as to have it ready to go from the same perspective as he would capture the shock and awe explosion.

He captured footage of the undamaged towers from the same perspective.

Using layer masks he used footage of the undamaged tower as a curtain that hid the real means used to cut the hole.

By the time the fireball erupted, the hole was already cut, but hidden behind the mask layer.

The CGI plane enters the frame a split second before the fireball erupts through the real hole (still hidden behind the mask layer).

The Plane layer is just another layer on top of the mask layer.

After the plane layer melts like butter into the mask layer of the undamaged tower (accompanied by drawn-on smoke), the mask layer is removed to reveal the fireball erupting through the hole.

Easy peasy.

AJM8125 31st December 2019 11:07 PM

I wouldn't put much stock in Steve's photo interpretation skills, which more often than not have proved to be hilariously misguided, to be polite.. My personal favorite is the one which Steve mistakes a ******* tree for blast damage:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reactor drone
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 9864154)
That funnel of white smoke appears to have left a large, round, black scorch-mark almost as if a large explosive detonated there.

Do you mean the tree?



Good times, right Steve?

:dl:

yankee451 31st December 2019 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12939738)
Explain what should have happened as the wing made contact with the building in detail. Explain how a 767's wing should behave upon impact with this specific structure and explain how this specific structure should have reacted to the impact.

In detail, please.

I already did. The wingtip image shown is much more massive than the flimsy aluminum sheeting at the far left, but this massive wingtip couldn't even sever the aluminum sheeting at the far left. It was only big enough and massive enough to "pinch" the aluminum sheeting.

Loss Leader 31st December 2019 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939773)
He rehearsed his shot and fabricated a 2D CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background, so as to have it ready to go from the same perspective as he would capture the shock and awe explosion.

He captured footage of the undamaged towers from the same perspective.

Using layer masks he used footage of the undamaged tower as a curtain that hid the real means used to cut the hole.

By the time the fireball erupted, the hole was already cut, but hidden behind the mask layer.

The CGI plane enters the frame a split second before the fireball erupts through the real hole (still hidden behind the mask layer).

The Plane layer is just another layer on top of the mask layer.

After the plane layer melts like butter into the mask layer of the undamaged tower (accompanied by drawn-on smoke), the mask layer is removed to reveal the fireball erupting through the hole.

Easy peasy.


For context, the movie Avatar, widely considered to be a breakthrough in realistic computer animation, came out eight years after 9/11.

yankee451 31st December 2019 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12939774)
I wouldn't put much stock in Steve's photo interpretation skills, which more often than not have proved to be hilariously misguided, to be polite.. My personal favorite is the one which Steve mistakes a ******* tree for blast damage:



https://i.imgur.com/F1Tmi1k.jpg

Good times, right Steve?

:dl:

I remember. Like you, I am often wrong. Unlike you I admit it when I'm wrong. I am also often not wrong. I notice that makes you uncomfortable, which is why I assume you must reach for the solace of my past errors.

yankee451 31st December 2019 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loss Leader (Post 12939778)
For context, the movie Avatar, widely considered to be a breakthrough in realistic computer animation, came out eight years after 9/11.

A totally different animal compared to the old school layering they used in 2001.

Axxman300 1st January 2020 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939781)
A totally different animal compared to the old school layering they used in 2001.

The footage was on the news within a four hours of the crash. The CGI back then took weeks for workable images. And any film tech can take that footage and see it is altered...which this footage is not.

smartcooky 1st January 2020 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12939756)
Well yes, that's how wings work: thin at the tips and getting wider toward the body as needed for avionics. Avionics is the gadgetry inside the wings that help the plane fly. We stopped using magical elves after WWI.

Not only do the wings on an airliner like the 767-200 become wider longitudinally as you get closer to the fuselage, they also get "thicker" as the chord increases close to the fuselage. The inner parts of the wings are also more heavily constructed as they they are built to take the major strains.

1. The strain of the engine mounts. When jet engines are running at full power for takeoff, the amount of force exerted by the thrust of the engine against the wing is enormous, and

2, The strain of the the main undercarriage. This needs to be built strong enough to withstand impact of the whole 120,000 kg weight of the aircraft as the wheels touch the ground with a horizontal speed of about 140 kts, and vertical speed of 120 fpm

There are also three flap tracks in each wing (the 4th flap track is right against the fuselage)

yankee451 1st January 2020 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12939796)
The footage was on the news within a four hours of the crash. The CGI back then took weeks for workable images. And any film tech can take that footage and see it is altered...which this footage is not.

Please. The video layering would be child's play for a pro.

yankee451 1st January 2020 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12939799)
Not only do the wings on an airliner like the 767-200 become wider longitudinally as you get closer to the fuselage, they also get "thicker" as the chord increases close to the fuselage. The inner parts of the wings are also more heavily constructed as they they are built to take the major strains.

1. The strain of the engine mounts. When jet engines are running at full power for takeoff, the amount of force exerted by the thrust of the engine against the wing is enormous, and

2, The strain of the the main undercarriage. This needs to be built strong enough to withstand impact of the whole 120,000 kg weight of the aircraft as the wheels touch the ground with a horizontal speed of about 140 kts, and vertical speed of 120 fpm

There are also three flap tracks in each wing (the 4th flap track is right against the fuselage)


3. And when they collide with steel buildings, they take a hard right turn.

smartcooky 1st January 2020 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939801)
3. And when they collide with steel buildings, they take a hard right turn.

What are "they"?

smartcooky 1st January 2020 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939800)
Please. The video layering would be child's play for a pro.

They would have to have done all this CGI layering live... in real time... while the world watched.

I was thousands of miles away in NZ watching the breaking news on CNN when I saw the second plane hit the South Tower. People in the streets of NY saw it at the same time I did - how do you explain this?

AJM8125 1st January 2020 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939780)
Unlike you I admit it when I'm wrong.

Please show me the error of my ways.

curious cat 1st January 2020 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12939809)
They would have to have done all this CGI layering live... in real time... while the world watched.

I was thousands of miles away in NZ watching the breaking news on CNN when I saw the second plane hit the South Tower. People in the streets of NY saw it at the same time I did - how do you explain this?

The OP is not looking for any explanations. He KNOWS what happened and nobody can take it from him. Maybe one day some progress in the mental medicine will help him... We are all wasting our time on this thread.

Norman Alexander 1st January 2020 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939776)
I already did. The wingtip image shown is much more massive than the flimsy aluminum sheeting at the far left, but this massive wingtip couldn't even sever the aluminum sheeting at the far left. It was only big enough and massive enough to "pinch" the aluminum sheeting.

Wrong. No it's not. You tripped over the doormat on the way out the door right there.

Just because a 767 wing looks consistently rugged from root to tip does not mean it is. Wing strength varies significantly along its length, and also depends on the fixtures it has connected and that it contains.

The inner wing is very strong and rigid - it will carry the load of the aircraft as it lands. But the outer wing is quite flexible and contains only fuel tanks and some flap running gear.

Aircraft wingtips for the 767 of 2001 were quite light construction, and were easily replaceable. They contained only wiring and navigation lights and aerials, and bolted onto the end of the main wing frame. They contained no load-bearing frame themselves. Their prime purpose was to cover off the end of the wing and make it somewhat aerodynamic.

But why am I telling you this? You aren't going to listen. :rolleyes:


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:51 PM.

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