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)

curious cat 14th January 2020 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954587)
Okay, so maybe the laws of physics do change just because you saw it on television, AND you assume there would be thousands of witnesses. None of which addresses the impact evidence that makes your assumptions, and the television moot, but such is the logic in Skeptic Land.

I "assume"? There is a difference between "assuming" and making a logical estimate based on irrefutable reality. I am plainly stating the fact. There were very few people in NY looking anywhere else but at the WTC at the moment of the second impact.

yankee451 14th January 2020 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12954591)
I "assume"? There is a difference between "assuming" and making a logical estimate based on irrefutable reality. I am plainly stating the fact.


Yes. You assume. And you know what you do to yourself when you assume.

yankee451 14th January 2020 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12953313)
The only video I have found which shows an actual impact is the Evan Fairbanks video.

The time from first contact to the building until the entire plane has hit the building is about 5 hundredths of a second.

The time from when the front of the first engine contacts until both wings have entirely contacted is one hundredth of a second.

There is no time for the force of impact to have propogated to the rest of the aircraft in that time so we would not expect to see the wings fold forward or for the fuselage to have started buckling.

All crumpling, buckling and shredding will have happened exactly at the point of impact and nowhere else.

So the "airliner slicing through a building like butter" is an illusion due to the fact that forces cannot propagate back along the aircraft faster than it is flying into a building.

In fact it is not an aircraft slicing through that building, rather 120 tons of debris and aircraft fuel travelling at close to 800 kph.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-6.png?w=1024

Again, not shown live, and according to Evan Fairbanks himself it flew into the building, "...like a bad special effect."

You're right about the illusion part, according to this photo, the jet couldn't even slide like butter through the aluminum sheeting that covered the column.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

TJM 14th January 2020 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954586)
Listen to you. If you don't believe me look up the archives of the news reports from the first explosion. I've linked to several accounts of missile reports, which you guys just wave-off, along with all the physical evidence of missile impacts. So no, you have been proven wrong about everything so far. You are in no position to demand anything of anyone.

Baloney, to put it mildly.

You're making the claim that "most people said..."

Now you're attempting to shift the goalposts and the burden of proof.

I'd be embarrassed for you, if it wasn't so god damned funny.

smartcooky 14th January 2020 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954590)
Not true. The points I have made on this thread crush the plane hugging lunatics who still think the television trumps reality.

Television doesn't trump reality, it trumps your utter failure to have the slightest understanding of what you are looking at.

Your so-called "investigation" is what we call in our part of the world, "arse about face" you see the damage, you immediately conclude (without any supporting evidence whatsoever) that it must have been caused by missiles, and you then work backwards dismissing anything and everything that does not fit your conclusion. This is not how scientific and engineering investigations work!

Axxman300 14th January 2020 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954589)
I have. And I have explained in detail how they, or something like them, are the only rational explanation for the damage as found.

You haven't looked them up, else you wouldn't be talking smack.

What are their off the shelf, publicly advertised capabilities? Range? Waypoint capablities? Payload/Warhead options?

What were they in 2001?

The AGM-158 JASSM was not operational and was - at that time - unreliable due to a host of problems which kept it grounded.

The rational explanation is that a pair of 767's struck the towers. You'd have better luck advancing a theory that the hijackers were CIA or that the planes had been secretly wired with remote control override of their controls and flown into the buildings.

The idea that no planes were involved is beyond Lewis Carroll crazy.

The Common Potato 15th January 2020 12:09 AM

I sometimes wish that someone like yankee451 is in court, accused of a crime he didn't commit, and that several of the jury used his way of thinking. Despite all the evidence pointing towards his innocence, the jury decides that there everyone is lying and that doing so is really quite an amusing thing to do.

Leftus 15th January 2020 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954558)
And yet until a TV was shoved in their faces, most people said they saw small planes, no planes (bombs), and missiles.

wait, you said people didn't know what missiles were? Can they or can they not discriminate between missiles and planes?

The Common Potato 15th January 2020 12:39 AM

2 Attachment(s)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951544)
And there it is; the television show trumps all.

I depend on the television and YouTube videos for absolutely everything!

Attachment 41333

Perhaps ironically, I bought these in spring 1995 then got on the internet a month or two later.

PS How do you get images not to rotate?

curious cat 15th January 2020 12:47 AM

This thread is addictive. I made a firm conclusion not to get involved about 20 pages ago because arguing with a cuckoo is against one of basic principles. And I got sucked in again! And can see it happening to a lot of other, otherwise ostentatiously rational people. Isn't the OP a vacuumcleaner salesman, by any chance? If not, he should consider that carrier!

The Common Potato 15th January 2020 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12954650)
This thread is addictive. I made a firm conclusion not to get involved about 20 pages ago because arguing with a cuckoo is against one of basic principles. And I got sucked in again! And can see it happening to a lot of other, otherwise ostentatiously rational people. Isn't the OP a vacuumcleaner salesman, by any chance? If not, he should consider that carrier!

He's actually a shill for toupée manufacturers. I have pulled all (most of, you pedantic lot) of my hair out. Prove me wrong. I even have photos!

TJM 15th January 2020 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12954647)
PS How do you get images not to rotate?

I don't know but you ought to get it sorted as it looks ripe for a cruise missile barrage.

Robin 15th January 2020 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954607)
You're right about the illusion part, according to this photo, the jet couldn't even slide like butter through the aluminum sheeting that covered the column.

Nobody said the wing could slice through the building. The wing hit the columns causing a huge dent in both the aluminium and the column behind and you can see the damage on both.

I already demonstrated that you don't have to sever the aluminium completely to make a huge dent in the column.

Now you were going to get back to me and suggest a kind of cruise missile that could pass between that aluminium and the column. How does the wing on the right side pass through for example? The wing on the left could easily slice through aluminium according to you so why couldn't the wing on the right?

Also, if you don't think either of these films are consistent with a jet liner slamming into a building at 800kph, tell me what you think would happen and how you came to that conclusion.

The Common Potato 15th January 2020 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12954657)
I don't know but you ought to get it sorted as it looks ripe for a cruise missile barrage.

And a duster!

I went to school a handful of miles from Greenham Common, and Aldermaston wasn't too far away. :boxedin:

yankee451 15th January 2020 01:37 AM

[quote=Robin;1295466
I already demonstrated that you don't have to sever the aluminium completely to make a huge dent in the column.
[/QUOTE]

Nope. You didn't. You see, the cladding covered the column on three sides. for a plane wing to so damage the column the cladding was attached to, it would first need to cut through the cladding. Back to the drawing board for you!

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png

yankee451 15th January 2020 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12954623)
Baloney, to put it mildly.

You're making the claim that "most people said..."

Now you're attempting to shift the goalposts and the burden of proof.

I'd be embarrassed for you, if it wasn't so god damned funny.

Most people reported planes, missiles and bombs. CNN did report a large jet. Knowing that videos can be faked, and witnesses are notoriously unreliable, luckily we can thin out what's fake and what's real by examining the damage evidence.

The Common Potato 15th January 2020 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951061)

Jeff,
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."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12954636)
wait, you said people didn't know what missiles were? Can they or can they not discriminate between missiles and planes?

It's a conundrum. Of course, some witnesses are 'righter' than others.

yankee451 15th January 2020 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12954634)
I sometimes wish that someone like yankee451 is in court, accused of a crime he didn't commit, and that several of the jury used his way of thinking. Despite all the evidence pointing towards his innocence, the jury decides that there everyone is lying and that doing so is really quite an amusing thing to do.

You mean by gathering evidence at the scene of the crime and using what is learned from those clues to arrive at the most likely explanation for the series of events that could have accounted for the physical evidence as found? Yeah, a court would think that's pretty radical.

The Common Potato 15th January 2020 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954671)
Nope. You didn't. You see, the cladding covered the column on three sides. for a plane wing to so damage the column the cladding was attached to, it would first need to cut through the cladding. Back to the drawing board for you!

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png

Ah! Got it! It was one of those missiles that turns broadside on just before impact.

yankee451 15th January 2020 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12954685)
Ah! Got it! It was one of those missiles that turns broadside on just before impact.

The cognitive dissonance must be excruciating.

The Common Potato 15th January 2020 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954684)
You mean by gathering evidence at the scene of the crime and using what is learned from those clues to arrive at the most likely explanation for the series of events that could have accounted for the physical evidence as found? Yeah, a court would think that's pretty radical.

Nah! Broadmoor for you, laddie.

yankee451 15th January 2020 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12954683)
It's a conundrum. Of course, some witnesses are 'righter' than others.

Yes, those that reported small planes, missiles and bombs might have been onto something.

MetalPig 15th January 2020 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954671)
for a plane wing to so damage the column the cladding was attached to, it would first need to cut through the cladding. Back to the drawing board for you!

I once broke a bone without damaging the skin first. Must have been missiles.

Cosmic Yak 15th January 2020 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12952466)
Just to be clear: these are the videos and photos you claim have been digitally altered, right?
Can you explain why, if there were missiles, the faked images and videos were altered to highlight this, rather than hide it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954545)
Gosh, I don't know. Maybe the laws of physics really do change just because you saw it on television.

Unsurprisingly, this does not answer my question.
You claim the images and videos were altered to mask the missiles.
You are using the same images to prove that missiles were used.
Why would the Evil Them not alter the images to show damage from a plane, instead of leaving in damage that an unqualified amateur like you can easily spot?
Not much of an Evil Plan, is it?

Cosmic Yak 15th January 2020 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954558)
And yet until a TV was shoved in their faces, most people said they saw small planes, no planes (bombs), and missiles.

Citation needed. You have claimed this several times. Please list the witnesses whose testimony changed, along with evidence that 'TVs were shoved in their faces' to make this happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954586)
Listen to you. If you don't believe me look up the archives of the news reports from the first explosion. I've linked to several accounts of missile reports, which you guys just wave-off,

You said yourself that you don't believe these witnesses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954586)
along with all the physical evidence of missile impacts.

You have yet to provide anything remotely resembling physical evidence, despite my several requests.
Arrows on a photo (which you claimed was faked anyway) are not physical evidence.

Cosmic Yak 15th January 2020 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954684)
You mean by gathering evidence at the scene of the crime and using what is learned from those clues to arrive at the most likely explanation for the series of events that could have accounted for the physical evidence as found? Yeah, a court would think that's pretty radical.

Have you done that yourself?

Dave Rogers 15th January 2020 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12954569)
Prove it.

Ah, but he's carefully avoided having to do that by claiming that it's the unrecorded witness accounts that refer to small planes. It's the evidentiary equivalent of "the lurkers support me in e-mail".

Dave

curious cat 15th January 2020 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954679)
Most people reported planes, missiles and bombs. CNN did report a large jet. Knowing that videos can be faked, and witnesses are notoriously unreliable, luckily we can thin out what's fake and what's real by examining the damage evidence.

I think you posted this photo for about 20tieth time. Neither I nor anybody else found on it anything more supporting your lunatic theory than on the first issue. Don't you think it is time to stop throwing pearls to the swines?;) I am sure there is something more convincing in your sleeve to show us.

The Common Potato 15th January 2020 03:07 AM

I pressed all the buttons but not necessarily in the right order. (Yes, I know I shortened the IRS alignment time.) For my next trick, I'll learn how to launch a missile!

Start up and take off
On my way

(It looks better on three monitors.)

The Common Potato 15th January 2020 03:17 AM

Slightly NSFW

My evidence is considerably more convincing than yankee451's photo.
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

Robin 15th January 2020 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954671)
Nope. You didn't. You see, the cladding covered the column on three sides. for a plane wing to so damage the column the cladding was attached to, it would first need to cut through the cladding. Back to the drawing board for you!



https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png

So what you are saying is, that if I take a steel square section and cut and bend a sheet of aluminium to snugly fit the length of steel on three sides and then I swing a big crowbar at the front side then I would not be able to dent the steel without severing the aluminium completely? Yes?

Captain_Swoop 15th January 2020 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954552)
The capabilities of the missiles are well documented.

Yes, they seem to be whatever you need to make your story work.

Captain_Swoop 15th January 2020 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954558)
And yet until a TV was shoved in their faces, most people said they saw small planes, no planes (bombs), and missiles.

No 'most' people didn't.
After the first strike there was confusion as most people weren't looking and just heard it.
Many more people were looking at the WTC when the second strike happened. Thousands saw an airliner hit the tower.

abaddon 15th January 2020 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954552)
The capabilities of the missiles are well documented.

Yes, they are. And that documentation demonstrates that your claims are nonsense.

Captain_Swoop 15th January 2020 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12954702)
Unsurprisingly, this does not answer my question.
You claim the images and videos were altered to mask the missiles.
You are using the same images to prove that missiles were used.
Why would the Evil Them not alter the images to show damage from a plane, instead of leaving in damage that an unqualified amateur like you can easily spot?
Not much of an Evil Plan, is it?

Every evil genius is also an idiot, it's the law.

JSanderO 15th January 2020 04:05 AM

Hard to tell what the material Steve claims is alum siding weirdly displaced actually is. It actually looks different in the ellipse. But the res is so low it's really hard to read. Perhaps a slab of insulation?

Robin 15th January 2020 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12954753)
Hard to tell what the material Steve claims is alum siding weirdly displaced actually is. It actually looks different in the ellipse. But the res is so low it's really hard to read. Perhaps a slab of insulation?

I have looked at it from as many angles.as I can. My best guess is that it is a piece of the cladding with the front either severely dented or cut through and held up by the sides.

curious cat 15th January 2020 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12954736)
No 'most' people didn't.
After the first strike there was confusion as most people weren't looking and just heard it.
Many more people were looking at the WTC when the second strike happened. Thousands saw an airliner hit the tower.

I am sure "a few" would be a better description of the number of people who "saw" missiles. Considering the total number of witnesses, it is not surprising. If you look hard enough, I am sure you would also find a few people who saw Santa and Snow White. We all know they are real, don't we...:D

Dave Rogers 15th January 2020 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12954725)
So what you are saying is, that if I take a steel square section and cut and bend a sheet of aluminium to snugly fit the length of steel on three sides and then I swing a big crowbar at the front side then I would not be able to dent the steel without severing the aluminium completely? Yes?

And yet it turns out that my son doesn't have a big hole in the sole of his boot. Funny how so many of these truther laws of physics don't apply to everyday situations, yet absolutely, definitely must apply to the events of 9/11. It's almost as if they were making up new physics as they go along.

Dave

Robin 15th January 2020 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954671)
Nope. You didn't. You see, the cladding covered the column on three sides.

Yep, and I covered cladding on three sides. You either didn't read or you ignored.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.