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 2nd January 2020 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12940580)
The JASSM has a wingspan of 2.7m, meaning that the body of the missile could pass through a window, leaving only the flimsy (compared to an airliner) alloy wings to damage the columns. So, each missile would need to strike a column exactly head-on and you'd need one missile per column. To cause the observed damage you'd need a swarm of them, but they'd have to strike at different times to avoid colliding with each other while in flight.

You haven't thought this through, have you? Do over!

You haven't read the article, have you?

Quote:

The best way to hit parallel columns would be from the side, otherwise if you targeted them perpendicularly, youíd at best hit one column and possibly pass between two columns, so any competent missile jockey would have targeted them from the side, and thatís what the damage indicates.

At a shallow oblique trajectory, it would be the wing of the missile that impacted first, which is why the cladding at the far left is only scored and pinched, but not severely damaged like the columns were further to the right.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

carlitos 2nd January 2020 07:41 AM

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

Disbelief 2nd January 2020 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940763)
You haven't read the article, have you?



https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

That makes no sense with your earlier claim that armor piercing was required. Wouldn't your new claim defeat this purpose?

yankee451 2nd January 2020 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disbelief (Post 12940788)
That makes no sense with your earlier claim that armor piercing was required. Wouldn't your new claim defeat this purpose?

Where did you see that? I say the missiles are designed for penetrating concrete bunkers, not armor.

Crazy Chainsaw 2nd January 2020 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940799)
Where did you see that? I say the missiles are designed for penetrating concrete bunkers, not armor.

You better study up on Pyrophoric Metals Aluminum can be used in Amour pearcing projectiles, but Tungsten works better.
The Aluminum steel main Bulkhead of the aircraft should cut though the perimeter columns like a hot knife though butter.

Disbelief 2nd January 2020 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940799)
Where did you see that? I say the missiles are designed for penetrating concrete bunkers, not armor.

Here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451
For many reasons, not the least of which is mostly hollow aluminum jets cannot do what dense-metal penetrating missiles can do, and if they could do, then there would be no need for dense-metal penetrating missiles.

You also said it when you talked about JASSMs, since they have armor piercing warheads. Why would you use a concrete buster to hit structural steel anyway?

GlennB 2nd January 2020 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940763)
You haven't read the article, have you?

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

Are you seriously suggesting that a single missile, striking at a shallow angle, could have severed all the exterior columns that were observed to be severed?

yankee451 2nd January 2020 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disbelief (Post 12940879)
Here:



You also said it when you talked about JASSMs, since they have armor piercing warheads. Why would you use a concrete buster to hit structural steel anyway?

Dense metal penetrating warheads refer to bunker busters, which are typically kinetic warheads that detonate (or not) after they have penetrated through the concrete. Armor piercing warheads are typically fitted with a shaped charge for penetration, or with a steel rod in the case of a kinetic warhead, neither of which appear to have been used on the WTC.

As for "why" - I can only assume because JASSMS were not in inventory, providing plausible deniability, they were of the right size and had the capacity to cause the damage they desired, they are stealthy, precise and look like planes. This was surely a practiced maneuver. They knew exactly what to expect from their missiles.

yankee451 2nd January 2020 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12940902)
Are you seriously suggesting that a single missile, striking at a shallow angle, could have severed all the exterior columns that were observed to be severed?

No.

GlennB 2nd January 2020 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940913)
No.

Then you'll still need multiple missiles flying in tight formation to damage the columns as observed in the time frame observed.

Disbelief 2nd January 2020 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940911)
Dense metal penetrating warheads refer to bunker busters, which are typically kinetic warheads that detonate (or not) after they have penetrated through the concrete. Armor piercing warheads are typically fitted with a shaped charge for penetration, or with a steel rod in the case of a kinetic warhead, neither of which appear to have been used on the WTC.

As for "why" - I can only assume because JASSMS were not in inventory, providing plausible deniability, they were of the right size and had the capacity to cause the damage they desired, they are stealthy, precise and look like planes. This was surely a practiced maneuver. They knew exactly what to expect from their missiles.

Dense metal penetrating warheads though, are not exclusive to bunker busters, hence the confusion in your post. No need for AP to have charges, just dense metal like DU. Case in point is your talking about JASSM, which are not bunker busters.

Dr.Sid 2nd January 2020 10:37 AM

Loonies don't scare me. People taking them seriously do.

yankee451 2nd January 2020 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12940926)
Then you'll still need multiple missiles flying in tight formation to damage the columns as observed in the time frame observed.

No tight formation needed. They didn't all need to impact simultaneously. Sequentially would suffice. It was all hidden behind the mask layer.

yankee451 2nd January 2020 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disbelief (Post 12940929)
Dense metal penetrating warheads though, are not exclusive to bunker busters, hence the confusion in your post. No need for AP to have charges, just dense metal like DU. Case in point is your talking about JASSM, which are not bunker busters.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...st-archive.png

abaddon 2nd January 2020 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12941039)
No tight formation needed. They didn't all need to impact simultaneously. Sequentially would suffice. It was all hidden behind the mask layer.

From eyewitnesses?

Besides, JASSM did not enter service until 2009 and does not have the accuracy required by your fantasy.

smartcooky 2nd January 2020 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12940911)
As for "why" - I can only assume because JASSMS were not in inventory, providing plausible deniability, they were of the right size and had the capacity to cause the damage they desired, they are stealthy, precise and look like planes. This was surely a practiced maneuver. They knew exactly what to expect from their missiles.


This is priceless!

You can't be seriously suggesting that thousands of witnesses mistook AGM-158 missiles for Boeing 757/767 airliners?


yankee451 2nd January 2020 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12941055)
From eyewitnesses?

Besides, JASSM did not enter service until 2009 and does not have the accuracy required by your fantasy.

Quote:

AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades.

The smaller AGM-158 looks like a plane and in 2001 no one had ever seen one before, but if someone had seen one it could easily have been mistaken for a small, white plane. JASSMs were being produced for testing and for the Pilot Production models in 2001, but they were not in the militaryís inventory at the time. Official production didnít begin until December of 2001, giving the authorities plausible deniability, but JASSMs used off-the-shelf technology from other tried and true missile systems so there is no question the technology was there. They look like planes, they are stealthy, they can fly in formation, and with planted targeting beacons, their margin of error would be next to zero. If the hole wasnít cut by cruise missiles such as the JASSM, it was something very similar.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

yankee451 2nd January 2020 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12941060)
This is priceless!

You can't be seriously suggesting that thousands of witnesses mistook AGM-158 missiles for Boeing 757/767 airliners?

Many people reported seeing and hearing missiles at both Shanksville and the WTC. Anyone who wasn't sure what they saw had a TV shoved in their face. But the TV, and your incredulity, don't change the impact evidence that indicates small projectiles that were at once more massive and dense in some places than they were in other places, struck from the side.

Captain_Swoop 2nd January 2020 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12941039)
No tight formation needed. They didn't all need to impact simultaneously. Sequentially would suffice. It was all hidden behind the mask layer.

How could you hide it from the thousands of people who actually watched it with their own eyes in new York?

yankee451 2nd January 2020 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12941083)
How could you hide it from the thousands of people who actually watched it with their own eyes in new York?

Quote:

Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to. There may well have been thousands of witnesses but why would the authorities tell us about them, when they were selling us planes? Even so, early-on some witnesses did report seeing and hearing missiles, as well as no planes, small planes and big planes; but only one of these options can account for the damage.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

smartcooky 2nd January 2020 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12941082)
Many people reported seeing and hearing what they thought were missiles at both Shanksville and the WTC.

FTFY

And yet miraculously, not one of them managed to get any of them on video. Hmmm!

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12941082)
Anyone who wasn't sure what they saw had a TV shoved in their face. But the TV, and your incredulity, don't change the impact evidence that indicates small projectiles that were at once more massive and dense in some places than they were in other places, struck from the side.

At and not one of the thousands of people in NYC that day, within direct line-of-sight of the WTC, saw any such thing.

Hmmm, again!


The impact evidence shows no such thing.

yankee451 2nd January 2020 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12941130)
The impact evidence shows no such thing.

Hmm. Now's your chance to explain how that massive wingtip only managed to dent aluminum sheeting before it took a hard turn to the right, increased in size substantially, and struck and sharply bent steel columns in a completely different direction than the alleged wing was traveling. Then maybe you can "fix" Purdue's misinterpretation of this same evidence. According to their cartoon, the wingtip penetrated fully.

smartcooky 2nd January 2020 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12941140)
Hmm. Now's your chance to explain how that massive wingtip only managed to dent aluminum sheeting before it took a hard turn to the right, increased in size substantially, and struck and sharply bent steel columns in a completely different direction than the alleged wing was traveling. Then maybe you can "fix" Purdue's misinterpretation of this same evidence. According to their cartoon, the wingtip penetrated fully.

This has already been explained to you... multiple times!

Here is one of them

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post12939799

In short, the wingtips are NOT massive. Compared with the rest of the wing superstructure, they are relatively weak, as in, physically smaller, of lighter construction with less hard points.

What you have done is simply ignore or handwave away the explanations, possibly because you have zero idea about aircraft construction. Some of us here are, or have been Aeronautical Engineers (I am one of those who have 20 years experience and a degree in this field).

Go away and do a course in Aeronautical Engineering, you might learn something that will inform your harebrained opinions.

Axxman300 2nd January 2020 01:38 PM

Yankee's threads are comedy gold, especially when he gets to the missiles.

https://media.giphy.com/media/KXDc2uq6AfmWk/giphy.gif

GlennB 2nd January 2020 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12941157)
Go away and do a course in Aeronautical Engineering, you might learn something that will inform your harebrained opinions.

Basic physics might be a more realistice starting point.

turingtest 2nd January 2020 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12941110)
Quote:

Quote:
Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to. There may well have been thousands of witnesses but why would the authorities tell us about them, when they were selling us planes? Even so, early-on some witnesses did report seeing and hearing missiles, as well as no planes, small planes and big planes; but only one of these options can account for the damage.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

There's no circle involved in saying that missiles would have been reported to the authorities until you complete the circle by saying the authorities to whom the missiles would have been reported are the same folks who launched them. IOW, the only one engaging in a circular argument here is you.

Captain_Swoop 2nd January 2020 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12941110)

So you are just making **** up then?

Norman Alexander 2nd January 2020 04:57 PM

One last question then I’m out.

Yankee, what evidence would you accept that would prove you wrong? Seriously, is there any level of evidence?

If nothing then go get some help.

Blue Mountain 2nd January 2020 06:40 PM

Hay, yankee541, do you have an answer this question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain
A question for yankee541.

American Airlines Flight 11 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 7:45 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 81 passengers and 11 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 175 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 8:14 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 56 passengers and 9 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Virginia, at 8:20 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 58 passengers and 8 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 93 departed Newark International Airport in New Jersey 8:42 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 33 passengers and 7 crew, bound for San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

Pray tell, in an era where thousands of flights depart and arrive successfully every day, what happened to the 236 people and four aircraft involved with these flights?


smartcooky 2nd January 2020 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12941110)

Quote:

Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to. There may well have been thousands of witnesses but why would the authorities tell us about them, when they were selling us planes? Even so, early-on some witnesses did report seeing and hearing missiles, as well as no planes, small planes and big planes; but only one of these options can account for the damage.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

Seriously? This is what you are going with?

So did CNN launch missiles? MSNBC? Fox News? NYPD? Wapo? NYT?

No-one reported seeing missiles to any news media for one, very simple reason. There weren't any missiles!

bruto 2nd January 2020 07:00 PM

I think the conspiracy theorists' view of the world is posterized. Everything is in blocks. Authorities are all one shade, bad guys another, and so forth. The idea that some authorities are not other authorities is unfathomably complex.

AJM8125 2nd January 2020 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 12941383)
I think the conspiracy theorists' view of the world is posterized. Everything is in blocks. Authorities are all one shade, bad guys another, and so forth. The idea that some authorities are not other authorities is unfathomably complex.

That's an apt profile for no-planers. Stealing it.

It amazes me, even when confronted irrefutable facts, they just argue those facts are in indeed refutable because of [insane theory], or simply ignore the people who bring them up. Like it or not, the existence of those four great ******* airliners and the thousands of people who saw them with their own eyes is irrefutable.

Right Steve?

:)

smartcooky 2nd January 2020 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 12941383)
I think the conspiracy theorists' view of the world is posterized. Everything is in blocks. Authorities are all one shade, bad guys another, and so forth. The idea that some authorities are not other authorities is unfathomably complex.

Its the same with structures such as building and aeroplanes.

Yankee thingks aeroplanes are of equal solidity all over, like a wooden cross - the wings are equally at strong all the way along their length and equally as strong as the fuselage. Anyone trying to convince him otherwise is dismissed as a sheeple or a shill (or both).

Roger Ramjets 3rd January 2020 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12941157)
What you have done is simply ignore or handwave away the explanations, possibly because you have zero idea about aircraft construction.

No, that's not it.

The real reason has nothing to do with aircraft construction or any other technical field.

Who believes in conspiracies? New research offers a theory
Quote:

"Our results clearly showed that the strongest predictor of conspiracy belief was a constellation of personality characteristics collectively referred to as 'schizotypy,' Hart said.

Hart's study also showed that conspiracists had distinct cognitive tendencies: they were more likely than nonbelievers to judge nonsensical statements as profound (a tendency known as "BS receptivity").

In turn, they were more likely to say that nonhuman objects -- triangle shapes moving around on a computer screen -- were acting intentionally.

"These people tend to be more suspicious, untrusting, eccentric, needing to feel special, with a tendency to regard the world as an inherently dangerous place," Hart said. "They are also more likely to detect meaningful patterns where they might not exist.

GlennB 3rd January 2020 12:48 AM

Well, this thread has been useful for me. I've been looking for somewhere to practice my tennis shots and have now learned that soft rubber and felt can't smash much harder glass (which takes diamond to cut it!). So I'm off to the greenhouse to bounce a few groundstrokes off it. Might take a cricket ball along too. Leather's softer than glass, right?

Jack by the hedge 3rd January 2020 05:02 AM

What are cruise missiles wings made of? Something super-hard and hefty, I imagine, so that the wing can score a deep wound into the side of an aluminium clad steel framed building as it rakes across about 60 feet of the wall at a steep angle before the core impacts and makes a bigger hole (and then continues through, punching out on the East side and finally hitting the ground somewhere beyond the East river). I wonder where all the other missile penetrators ended up. How many do you suppose there were in total?

I wonder at what point the bad guys realised it would have been infinitely easier and cheaper to just use a plane. They must be kicking themselves.

Crazy Chainsaw 3rd January 2020 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12941140)
Hmm. Now's your chance to explain how that massive wingtip only managed to dent aluminum sheeting before it took a hard turn to the right, increased in size substantially, and struck and sharply bent steel columns in a completely different direction than the alleged wing was traveling. Then maybe you can "fix" Purdue's misinterpretation of this same evidence. According to their cartoon, the wingtip penetrated fully.

When your theory violates the known Laws of physics you are the one that needs to explain why the universe took a U Turn into the crazy Zone.

Garrison 3rd January 2020 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939514)
I like jokes. That's why I'm here.

They aren't laughing with you, they're laughing at you.

JSanderO 3rd January 2020 06:11 AM

Yankee... You are obviously an intelligent person. You had doubts about the official accounts of 9/11. Nothing wrong with that. My hunch is your "quest" went awry when you didn't seek out competent technical discussions of the destruction of the towers. It seems as if underlying your entire view is that officials ALWAYS lie and lie thoroughly and totally to conceal a nefarious agenda.

I can understand those who don't trust the media for accuracy... we are constantly spun to... we are barraged with advertising and PR. We're flooded with all sorts of material which purports to be accurate.

However, there are resources where people with strong technical backgrounds have drilled down into these building collapses. They have no political agenda... but who doesn't have a political world view? Don't trust NIST... there are many other sources/resources who have explained 9/11 without resorting to FX or bizarre conspiracies. Reality follows the laws of physics and science.

If you want good sound explanations for the details... they are on the www. Be a critical thinker. Show some humility and study so that you can follow the arguments.

Your theories are so outrageous that it is not worth the effort to debate or debunk them. They are self debunking and there is nothing to be learned from your materials. Sorry.

carlitos 3rd January 2020 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12941657)
They must be kicking themselves.

That could do real damage. Leather shoes are harder than pants or ass fat; they might punch a hole into the facade.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:38 PM.

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