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)

CORed 3rd January 2020 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12941569)
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?

You know, in Colorado last winter there were a whole lot of trees knocked down. The official story is that this was done by snow. That's right, "they" expect us to believe that snow broke wood. I'm calling ********. It must have been missiles.

bknight 3rd January 2020 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CORed (Post 12941994)
You know, in Colorado last winter there were a whole lot of trees knocked down. The official story is that this was done by snow. That's right, "they" expect us to believe that snow broke wood. I'm calling ********. It must have been missiles.

OMG, you are falling for the dark side. ;)

yankee451 4th January 2020 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 12941198)
Basic physics might be a more realistice starting point.

Basic physics is what proves the jet videos are fake. Apparently "skeptic" is an ironic name, along the same lines as "9/11 Truth Movement" is.

yankee451 4th January 2020 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12941157)
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.

But we're not comparing them to the rest of the wing. They are very massive when compared to the flimsy aluminum sheeting. They could only lightly damage that sheeting before taking a hard turn to the right and becoming much bigger and much more massive as they sharply bent the more massive and less brittle steel.

smartcooky 4th January 2020 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943061)
Basic physics is what proves the jet videos are fake. Apparently "skeptic" is an ironic name, along the same lines as "9/11 Truth Movement" is.

Basic High School physics is what shows they are not faked.

To come to the conclusion that missiles did the damage to the WTC and the Pentagon and created the Shanksville impact crater, against the overwhelming, irrefutable evidence from multiple witness observations and expert technical and scientific analysis that it was in fact airliners that did so, combined with the total lack of any video and any eye witnesses who claimed to have seen missiles hit the buildings, requires a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on wilful ignorance.

JSanderO 4th January 2020 12:46 PM

Yankee... what do you think would happen if a 2' diameter balloon filled with air slammed into a twin tower facade column?

No damage?
Some damage?
Significant damage?

yankee451 4th January 2020 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12943091)
Yankee... what do you think would happen if a 2' diameter balloon filled with air slammed into a twin tower facade column?

No damage?
Some damage?
Significant damage?

I appreciate your analogies. Thanks. They have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

yankee451 4th January 2020 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12943076)
Basic High School physics is what shows they are not faked.

To come to the conclusion that missiles did the damage to the WTC and the Pentagon and created the Shanksville impact crater, against the overwhelming, irrefutable evidence from multiple witness observations and expert technical and scientific analysis that it was in fact airliners that did so, combined with the total lack of any video and any eye witnesses who claimed to have seen missiles hit the buildings, requires a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on wilful ignorance.

Thanks for the feedback. If my conclusions are wrong, please provide a better explanation for the sharply bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x634.jpg

Axxman300 4th January 2020 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943107)
I appreciate your analogies. Thanks. They have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Translation: I don't know.

yankee451 4th January 2020 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12943117)
Translation: I don't know.

Nope. The meaning was clear. A 2 foot air-filled balloon is nothing like a 767. Like the majority of the comments on this forum, his was irrelevant.

BStrong 4th January 2020 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943130)
Nope. The meaning was clear. A 2 foot air-filled balloon is nothing like a 767. Like the majority of the comments on this forum, his was irrelevant.

If there's an expert on this forum concerning irrelevancy it would be you, but projecting your failures on others isn't becoming.

yankee451 4th January 2020 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12943138)
If there's an expert on this forum concerning irrelevancy it would be you, but projecting your failures on others isn't becoming.

Aw shucks, then another comment comes to prove me right. Again. And here I am focusing on the lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel.

AJM8125 4th January 2020 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943109)
Thanks for the feedback. If my conclusions are wrong, please provide a better explanation for the sharply bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting.

Chaotic damage caused by a great ******* airliner crashing into a building.

smartcooky 4th January 2020 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943069)
But we're not comparing them to the rest of the wing.

No, YOU are not comparing them. I am.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943069)
They are very massive when compared to the flimsy aluminium sheeting.

It does not matter how massive they are in relation to what they hit, as much as it matters how fast they were going

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943069)
They could only lightly damage that sheeting before taking a hard turn to the right and becoming much bigger and much more massive as they sharply bent the more massive and less brittle steel.

That is not what happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943109)
If my conclusions are wrong, please provide a better explanation for the sharply bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting.


The exterior walls and facades of the WTC were not single, solid structures, they were assembled from individual pieces. It was the connections between the pieces that failed when the planes hit them, not the column and facade pieces themselves.


And if you refuse to believe that speed can allow a light, weak object to damage a stronger heavier object, then watch

(this is time-linked to bypass the physics and technical stuff because you wouldn't understand any of it)

https://youtu.be/I9zBGgpzl0I?t=305

SpitfireIX 4th January 2020 02:42 PM

It's from Purdue, so Yankee and his ilk will reject it out of hand. :rolleyes:

yankee451 4th January 2020 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12943149)
Chaotic damage caused by a great ******* airliner crashing into a building.

So chaotic practically the same damage can be seen in both towers. Lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left, followed by progressively worse damage, sharply bent steel box columns in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling, and an inward-blasting hole on the ninth column from the left, which was nowhere near where the alleged engine impacted.

This damage supports my conclusions nicely, but that of the skeptics, not so much. Hence the teeth gnashing and hand waving by the misnamed skeptics.

yankee451 4th January 2020 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12943151)
The exterior walls and facades of the WTC were not single, solid structures, they were assembled from individual pieces. It was the connections between the pieces that failed when the planes hit them, not the column and facade pieces themselves.

I'm surprised to read this. You're right of course, the exterior walls were not single, solid structures.

But your claim that it was the connections that failed is easily disproved by simply examining the evidence we all have at our disposal.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...1-1024x617.png

Wall panel seams highlighted below:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo.../07/Seams7.png

Crazy Chainsaw 4th January 2020 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943213)
So chaotic practically the same damage can be seen in both towers. Lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left, followed by progressively worse damage, sharply bent steel box columns in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling, and an inward-blasting hole on the ninth column from the left, which was nowhere near where the alleged engine impacted.

This damage supports my conclusions nicely, but that of the skeptics, not so much. Hence the teeth gnashing and hand waving by the misnamed skeptics.

Which only means your conclusion is totally worthless opinion from someone who doesn't understand basic high energy physics of plane crashes and is unable to answer simple questions on your theories.
Debunked next crazyness please this is 19 years boring.

AJM8125 4th January 2020 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943213)
So chaotic practically the same damage can be seen in both towers. Lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left, followed by progressively worse damage, sharply bent steel box columns in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling, and an inward-blasting hole on the ninth column from the left, which was nowhere near where the alleged engine impacted.

This damage supports my conclusions nicely, but that of the skeptics, not so much. Hence the teeth gnashing and hand waving by the misnamed skeptics.

If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

yankee451 4th January 2020 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12943230)
If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

Because airliners are designed for slicing through...air. Missiles are designed to penetrate harder stuff. The evidence supports my conclusion, not yours.

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 03:51 PM

Using a photograph taken from below and to the right, how did you differentiate between parts bent inwards and parts bent to the right?

Also could you be a bit more specific about which steel columns you believe are bent to the right? You do love your slogan about the plane wing "taking a sharp turn to the right" but I don't seem to be seeing whatever you think you're seeing.

I'd also be curious to know whether you have considered the accuracy that would have been required to make a missile hit exactly the right spot to carve a wing-shaped groove across the face of the building. If it was raking across at a very steep angle then mere inches error to the left or right would have resulted in a "wing" impression which was several feet too long or too short. Is such precision even possible? Was it possible in 2001?

yankee451 4th January 2020 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12943229)
Which only means your conclusion is totally worthless opinion from someone who doesn't understand basic high energy physics of plane crashes and is unable to answer simple questions on your theories.
Debunked next crazyness please this is 19 years boring.

The same simple questions cannot be answered by you in support of your theory, whatever that is. The lateral bends to the steel and the lightly damaged cladding are consistent with the lateral impact of cruise missiles, not the head on impact of a jet. If you could turn to physics to support your conclusion you would. But you don't. What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. But it isn't. Why is that?

yankee451 4th January 2020 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943284)
Using a photograph taken from below and to the right, how did you differentiate between parts bent inwards and parts bent to the right?

Also could you be a bit more specific about which steel columns you believe are bent to the right? You do love your slogan about the plane wing "taking a sharp turn to the right" but I don't seem to be seeing whatever you think you're seeing.

I'd also be curious to know whether you have considered the accuracy that would have been required to make a missile hit exactly the right spot to carve a wing-shaped groove across the face of the building. If it was raking across at a very steep angle then mere inches error to the left or right would have resulted in a "wing" impression which was several feet too long or too short. Is such precision even possible? Was it possible in 2001?


Hehe, the inevitable denial that the columns are bend to the right, rears it's head.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x634.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ide-dents1.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...-left-side.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...nter-right.jpg

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...enter-left.jpg

AJM8125 4th January 2020 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943280)
Because airliners are designed for slicing through...air. Missiles are designed to penetrate harder stuff. The evidence supports my conclusion, not yours.

I didn't ask about what supports your conclusion, I asked If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943280)
Because airliners are designed for slicing through...air. Missiles are designed to penetrate harder stuff. The evidence supports my conclusion, not yours.

How did the attack's planners manage to persuade their masters that it was smarter to fire a fusillade of cruise missiles at Manhattan's tallest buildings rather than just crash planes? It sounds insane. Not figuratively insane; literally mad. What reassurance did they offer? Nobody will notice? We can suppress all the photos and videos? And what reason did they give? That planes were no good because they wouldn't make the right sort of holes? But the whole plan was to make *exactly* the kind of holes planes would make. So clearly the sane option was to use planes. What sort of loony would propose this plan and what sort of loony would let them try?

yankee451 4th January 2020 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12943292)
I didn't ask about what supports your conclusion, I asked If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

You mean, IF airliners were designed for penetrating hardened targets (like missiles ARE), then why wouldn't they have produced the same damage? Well IF that was the case (it ISN'T), then I guess to be able to create the same damage they would have to have impacted at the same angle of attack, speed, and trajectory. Which they didn't.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...flight-175.png

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo.../approach1.png

yankee451 4th January 2020 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943295)
How did the attack's planners manage to persuade their masters that it was smarter to fire a fusillade of cruise missiles at Manhattan's tallest buildings rather than just crash planes? It sounds insane. Not figuratively insane; literally mad. What reassurance did they offer? Nobody will notice? We can suppress all the photos and videos? And what reason did they give? That planes were no good because they wouldn't make the right sort of holes? But the whole plan was to make *exactly* the kind of holes planes would make. So clearly the sane option was to use planes. What sort of loony would propose this plan and what sort of loony would let them try?

Maybe they considered using a weapon that was capable of causing the damage, knowing that the majority of the cud-chewing herd will think whatever the television tells them to think.

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 04:14 PM

Your photos seem to indicate one particular steel column bent in the direction the plane was going when it struck the tower. Nothing very surprising there.

If you propose it was actually hit by a cruise missile, what direction was it travelling in? The same, or steeply raking from the side?

AJM8125 4th January 2020 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943301)
You mean,<evasive BS snipped>

Not what I mean at all.

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943302)
Maybe they considered using a weapon that was capable of causing the damage, knowing that the majority of the cud-chewing herd will think whatever the television tells them to think.

Have you considered that wouldn't be a sufficiently persuasive argument to make other than a dribbling imbecile give it the go-ahead?

Have you got an argument that actual grownups might swallow?

yankee451 4th January 2020 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943307)
Your photos seem to indicate one particular steel column bent in the direction the plane was going when it struck the tower. Nothing very surprising there.

If you propose it was actually hit by a cruise missile, what direction was it travelling in? The same, or steeply raking from the side?

Something like this:

https://youtu.be/zXE9u33pRTA

https://youtu.be/E0Rf_sS42U8

https://youtu.be/5_a1foRId6M

yankee451 4th January 2020 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943311)
Have you considered that wouldn't be a sufficiently persuasive argument to make other than a dribbling imbecile give it the go-ahead?

Have you got an argument that actual grownups might swallow?

Only that the lightly damaged cladding at the far left, followed by the progressively worse damaged steel columns, sharply bent in a completely different direction than the aluminum wing of a 767 would have been traveling, have got you reduced to attacking my intelligence, as if that somehow changes the damage evidence.

yankee451 4th January 2020 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12943310)
Not what I mean at all.

Then please explain how the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left of both impact holes, could possibly have been caused by a wingtip like this impacting at 500 plus miles per hour:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...0278c1d4_b.jpg

Captain_Swoop 4th January 2020 04:33 PM

Yes, it impacted at 500 plus miles an hour

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 04:38 PM

So if the column was bent by a missile flying in from the left at a steep angle, why is it bent inward so much too? Makes no sense.

Such things are relative I guess; it makes no sense but it's not in the same league as a "plan" which involves shooting a fusillade of missiles at one of Manhattan's tallest buildings, waiting to give everyone time to gather to look then firing another fusillade at the neighbouring building, before declaring that it was actually two planes and assuming nobody would notice and nobody would be filming it.

Jack by the hedge 4th January 2020 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12943317)
Only that the lightly damaged cladding at the far left, followed by the progressively worse damaged steel columns, sharply bent in a completely different direction than the aluminum wing of a 767 would have been traveling, have got you reduced to attacking my intelligence, as if that somehow changes the damage evidence.

They're not bent in a completely different direction. And it's interesting that you think I'm attacking *your* intelligence when in fact I'm saying how stupid the people who attempted such a plan would have to be.

Seriously, can you imagine any possible presentation of this hare-brained plot which would result in the leaders saying "Yup, that could work" rather than "What *exactly* do we do about the ten thousand people who see the missiles?"?

yankee451 4th January 2020 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12943326)
Yes, it impacted at 500 plus miles an hour

Either that's some seriously strong aluminum sheeting, or something a lot smaller than a 767 wing hit here.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...MAGED-SFRM.png

yankee451 4th January 2020 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943338)
So if the column was bent by a missile flying in from the left at a steep angle, why is it bent inward so much too? Makes no sense.

Such things are relative I guess; it makes no sense but it's not in the same league as a "plan" which involves shooting a fusillade of missiles at one of Manhattan's tallest buildings, waiting to give everyone time to gather to look then firing another fusillade at the neighbouring building, before declaring that it was actually two planes and assuming nobody would notice and nobody would be filming it.

Your incredulity is noted. Multiple trajectories indicate multiple projectiles.

yankee451 4th January 2020 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943347)
They're not bent in a completely different direction. And it's interesting that you think I'm attacking *your* intelligence when in fact I'm saying how stupid the people who attempted such a plan would have to be.

Unfortunately the facts don't support your beliefs. The people who did this knew full well that most of us won't believe anything that doesn't agree with the T.V. They aren't stupid.

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

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rner-first.png

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ide-dents1.jpg


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12943347)

Seriously, can you imagine any possible presentation of this hare-brained plot which would result in the leaders saying "Yup, that could work" rather than "What *exactly* do we do about the ten thousand people who see the missiles?"?

It isn't a matter of what you find believable, it is a matter of what the facts support.

"The truth doesn't change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally." ~ Flanner O'Connor

Captain_Swoop 4th January 2020 05:28 PM

You are ******* insane. Get help!

Unless this is one giant Poe whivh is the only charitable explanation for it all.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:54 PM.

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