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)

Elagabalus 7th January 2020 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946347)
The bigger the lie the more likely it will be believed. In your case though, this is just too darned big!

Your incredulity doesn't change the evidence that proves the videos of the planes are fake.

You didn't answer his question.

beachnut 7th January 2020 04:38 PM

A lie so darn big no one believes it, the fake video one
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946347)
The bigger the lie the more likely it will be believed. In your case though, this is just too darned big!

Your incredulity doesn't change the evidence that proves the videos of the planes are fake.

You got two things wrong, and are projecting again.

Your lie of fake videos is too darn BIG, no one believes it.

Where is the evidence? in the bit bucket!

DuvalHMFIC 7th January 2020 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946347)
The bigger the lie the more likely it will be believed.

And yet no one is here believing your gigantic lies, go figure.

yankee451 7th January 2020 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12946450)
You didn't answer his question.

There wasn't a question. Had there been, the answer would have been the same. All the "witnesses" and "deaths" and pilots" and videos and photos, and bereaved family members you want to trot out don't change the damage evidence which makes them all irrelevant.

yankee451 7th January 2020 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC (Post 12946464)
And yet no one is here believing your gigantic lies, go figure.

Heh, consider the audience. Skeptic is a sort of tongue in cheek term, huh?

Axxman300 7th January 2020 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946468)
There wasn't a question. Had there been, the answer would have been the same. All the "witnesses" and "deaths" and pilots" and videos and photos, and bereaved family members you want to trot out don't change the damage evidence which makes them all irrelevant.

The damage evidence is consistent and exclusive to the impact of a 767 at high speed. Your inability and or unwillingness to understand this is your mental problem.

And your theories are so ill informed that they're just silly.

yankee451 7th January 2020 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12946476)
The damage evidence is consistent and exclusive to the impact of a 767 at high speed. Your inability and or unwillingness to understand this is your mental problem.

And your theories are so ill informed that they're just silly.

And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

curious cat 7th January 2020 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946482)
And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

Sorry for the cliche, but:

"You can lead horse to the water but you can make it drink..."

yankee451 7th January 2020 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12946501)
Sorry for the cliche, but:

"You can lead horse to the water but you can make it drink..."

Some horses can't even be led to water.

abaddon 7th January 2020 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946502)
Some horses can't even be led to water.

Obviously.

As a hypothetical, a CT believed once in a mad theory and obsessed over it.

Eventually, after much hardship and grief, the CT's family staged an intervention. Part of the result of said intervention was that the said CT would no longer indulge in such fantasies. Nor engage in such activities on the internet.

Said CT, after a brief hiatus, then covertly resumed such activities even more extremely.

What would you make of such behaviour? How should said CT's nearest and dearest respond to such a breach of such an agreement?

MattNelson 7th January 2020 06:31 PM

My PDF has 1,150 hits this month. Was one of them you, Steve? You're name is on page 23.

Shucks, now you kinda have to look at it.

Don't forget, Ace Baker said it was impossible to fake the [LIVE] NBC Chopper4 shot... so he claimed it wasn't live.

Most importantly you should focus on the engine that easily ripped through the building and flew out the corner section where there was no steel beam on that floor (p. 61). Think. How did the engine get to where it landed, still smoking hot, after hitting the building at 50 Murray St. and shedding other parts across its trajectory?

The only possible answer is that a 767 hit the WTC, just like people saw and heard ...and afterward smelled.

Finally, consider that at least 73 of the passengers on the two planes were identified by DNA from recovered remains (p. 5)... not counting 4 of the terrorists identified by DNA (p.8). Your "planted" and "fake" responses come too easily. Your best evidence seems to be bent metal in a chaotic crash. Start over and consider planes. Holmgren and Baker were musicians. Maybe listen to their music.

AJM8125 7th January 2020 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946347)
The bigger the lie the more likely it will be believed. In your case though, this is just too darned big!

Your incredulity doesn't change the evidence that proves the videos of the planes are fake.

And that's a handwave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946468)
There wasn't a question. Had there been, the answer would have been the same. All the "witnesses" and "deaths" and pilots" and videos and photos, and bereaved family members you want to trot out don't change the damage evidence which makes them all irrelevant.

Wasn't a question? Everything and everyone on that list raises literally hundreds of questions, all of which fly directly in the face of no-planer lunacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946502)
Some horses can't even be led to water.

Given your track record, It wouldn't be surprising when the horse turns out to be an aardvark.

BStrong 7th January 2020 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946482)
And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

I've had multiple concussiuons through the years but even that doesn't make your fantasy construct any more believable.

bknight 7th January 2020 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12946580)
My PDF has 1,150 hits this month. Was one of them you, Steve? You're name is on page 23.

Shucks, now you kinda have to look at it.

Don't forget, Ace Baker said it was impossible to fake the [LIVE] NBC Chopper4 shot... so he claimed it wasn't live.

Most importantly you should focus on the engine that easily ripped through the building and flew out the corner section where there was no steel beam on that floor (p. 61). Think. How did the engine get to where it landed, still smoking hot, after hitting the building at 50 Murray St. and shedding other parts across its trajectory?

The only possible answer is that a 767 hit the WTC, just like people saw and heard ...and afterward smelled.

Finally, consider that at least 73 of the passengers on the two planes were identified by DNA from recovered remains (p. 5)... not counting 4 of the terrorists identified by DNA (p.8). Your "planted" and "fake" responses come too easily. Your best evidence seems to be bent metal in a chaotic crash. Start over and consider planes. Holmgren and Baker were musicians. Maybe listen to their music.

Nice bit of evidences that would mean something to anyone with half a brain.

Robin 7th January 2020 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12945693)
I'm not sure. They'll look anywhere but at the lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel columns, which by themselves prove the videos of the planes are fraudulent.

You would need an actual argument for that, not just some pictures with arrows drawn all over it.

Axxman300 7th January 2020 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946482)
And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

You have no evidence.

Name the people involved in making the fake videos.

Name the people who put the fake videos on the air.

Name the people in charge of suppressing the truth.

You're a hick who's never been to Manhattan and then your intellectual capacity declines from there.

bruto 7th January 2020 10:10 PM

There seems a strange paradox here.

According to Yankee, all the news videos, still pictures, eyewitness accounts, amateur videos, and expert analyses, are clever and complicated fakes. An enormous conspiracy of fakery has occurred right under our very noses. Our faith in everything ought to be shaken.

And yet, his evidence is a scant few pictures, including, if I'm not mistaken, some from the same sources condemned as unreliable, and the only reason we have to believe that they are not doctored is.....faith?

AJM8125 7th January 2020 10:22 PM

^
Bingo.

Blue Mountain 7th January 2020 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain (Post 12944430)
Hey Yankee451, I notice you've completely ignored (twice!) my question about the missing aircraft and the people aboard them. There is the fact that four aircraft and 236 people suddenly went missing on September 11, 2001. There's a lot of evidence to show two of these aircraft were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York. If these aircraft were not involved with the attack, what is your explanation for what happened to them and the people who were aboard?

The story of the planes comes from the most likely suspects.

Quote:

If you’re new to 9/11 research you’re probably thinking, “What about the Planes? What about the witnesses? What about the passengers and the pilots? What about the hijackers?” The questions pile up quickly but an astute observer would deduce that if the videos of the plane impacts aren’t legitimate, then that makes moot the question of passengers, pilots, hijackers and witnesses. It also means the media are involved. If missiles were used then that means the military is involved and if that’s true then the government must have been involved too. When taken together the ramifications of the evidence of missile impacts are too overwhelming and outrageous for many people to even consider as a possibility, so they reject it sight unseen, which is of course the desired response. It is the “big lie” after all, which can summarized thus; the bigger the lie being told the more likely it is that it will be believed.

But the evidence in the impact holes doesn’t lie.
https://911crashtest.org/how-9-11-mi...lobal-slavery/

But there's a huge problem here. We have a lot of evidence two jet aircraft hit the towers (which I admit you don't accept): eyewitnesses, TV footage, DNA from the scene that matches with missing passengers, bereaved families, kids who grew up without a mother and/father, parents mourning their dead children, life insurance payouts to beneficiaries of the deceased, bits and pieces that match with the missing aircraft. If you're saying that aircraft did not impact the tower, you have to explain away all this evidence. You simply can't ignore it because it looks like to you the holes in the towers don't match up with your idea of what the holes should look like.

Only after you've satisfactorily explained what happened to the 236 missing people and the four missing aircraft can you get around to drawing up elaborate hypotheses about how the damage was done to the towers.

And don't come back to me with the line "well, those are all just media lies." 9/11 was a huge event and the media is (more accurately, are) not a monolithic entity. There were thousands, if not millions, of individual stories files by thousands of individual reporters all over the world. Is every single one of these reporters in on the scam? The idea that a shadowy organization could co-ordinate such a media misinformation campaign over twenty years without having a single whistle-blower coming forward strains credulity to the breaking point.

AJM8125 7th January 2020 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain (Post 12946814)
If you're saying that aircraft did not impact the tower, you have to explain away all this evidence. You simply can't ignore it because it looks like to you the holes in the towers don't match up with your idea of what the holes should look like.

^

And Bingo was his name-o.

Crazy Chainsaw 8th January 2020 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946482)
And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

That's because it is nonsensical not logical and Irrelevant.
A plane being composed of Aluminum covering an Aluminium steel bulkhead and wing spars that are strong enough to support the landing gear on take off and landing would easily punch though the thin steel Columns.
That makes your opinion not evidence worthless, because it is just your uneducated opinion.

yankee451 8th January 2020 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12946659)
I've had multiple concussiuons through the years but even that doesn't make your fantasy construct any more believable.

The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.

Jack by the hedge 8th January 2020 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12947154)
The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.

The fantasy of missiles which didn't exist and weren't seen and fail to explain all the other evidence of planes and their passengers does not appear to be a rational substitute.

Wolrab 8th January 2020 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12947154)
The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.

A mind that open is called a TBI by medical professionals.

DuvalHMFIC 8th January 2020 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12947154)
The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.

When should we expect you to start doing this? The third Tuesday of the month?

BStrong 8th January 2020 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12947154)
The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.

Might want to study up on kinetic energy.

beachnut 8th January 2020 09:16 AM

19 years of no physics? Enough time to earn a PhD or two
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946482)
And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

Oops, touching the evidence proves your claims are nonsesene at best.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946502)
Some horses can't even be led to water.

So true, and autobiographical.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12947154)
The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.

Knowledge of physics would kill this nonsense. Physics! - why have you banned it.


An "open mind" in this case, like an open marriage and the wife left.

Captain_Swoop 8th January 2020 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12947154)
The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.

There used to be a series on the TV called 'Time Team' it was an arcehology show.

In a few episodes they excavated crashed WW2 aircraft. One that I remember was a Douglas A-26 Invader. It flew in to the ground at full throttle after it collided with another A-26 at low altitude over England.
Another was a B-17 that went in nose first at high speed.

Both aircraft were destroyed on impact and the remains burrowed deep in to the ground. Parts from the A-26 were over 20 feet down in hard clay soil.
Why wouldn't a huge airliner at full throttle burrow in to the ground?

Axxman300 8th January 2020 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12947154)
The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.

1. Not all steel is created equal.

2. Concrete fractures with the popper amount of force.

3. Air craft, especially large aircraft will burrow into the ground at the end of a high speed dive.

None of this is speculation and there are thousands of examples of these things happening.

Fun story, in 2000 a guy jumped off the Stratosphere Hotel in Las Vegas. He landed upright in a sitting position 1,100 feet below. The impact combined with the angle caused his spine to be driven into the concrete sidewalk and his body had to be jack-hammered out.

Physics is fun.

bknight 8th January 2020 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12947514)
1. Not all steel is created equal.

2. Concrete fractures with the popper amount of force.

3. Air craft, especially large aircraft will burrow into the ground at the end of a high speed dive.

None of this is speculation and there are thousands of examples of these things happening.

Fun story, in 2000 a guy jumped off the Stratosphere Hotel in Las Vegas. He landed upright in a sitting position 1,100 feet below. The impact combined with the angle caused his spine to be driven into the concrete sidewalk and his body had to be jack-hammered out.

Physics is fun.

Along with trigonometry and both negate his beliefs.

carlitos 8th January 2020 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12947514)
Fun story, in 2000 a guy jumped off the Stratosphere Hotel in Las Vegas. He landed upright in a sitting position 1,100 feet below. The impact combined with the angle caused his spine to be driven into the concrete sidewalk and his body had to be jack-hammered out.

Physics is fun.

I jumped off the Stratosphere a couple of weeks ago. But I used a harness. It was kind of amazing.

JSanderO 8th January 2020 01:25 PM

I think a big problem that Steve has is not understanding the strength properties of the steel plate in the columns on the 94th to the 98th floors. It was 1/2" thick.

That plate being hit by a large jet at 500mph would fail in an instant.

Steel they were... but not intended to resist the lateral forces represented by the place. Don't be fooled by the OAL dimensions of the boxes... the plates up there were pretty thin.

benthamitemetric 8th January 2020 03:29 PM

I don’t think this has been posted yet, so here is an extremely detailed breakdown and analysis of the physics of the collision of the planes with the twin towers that was prepared by experts at MIT: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

There’s also at least two metabunk threads discussing this topic:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how...-4#post-216889

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/loo...l-facade.9397/

Nothing new under the sun. And trutherland has only become stupider and more intellectually stagnant as time has gone on, as yankee451 ably demonstrates.

curious cat 8th January 2020 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12947514)
...............................................

Fun story, in 2000 a guy jumped off the Stratosphere Hotel in Las Vegas. He landed upright in a sitting position 1,100 feet below. The impact combined with the angle caused his spine to be driven into the concrete sidewalk and his body had to be jack-hammered out.

Physics is fun.

I wouldn't be surprised if his injuries were fatal.

DuvalHMFIC 8th January 2020 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12947593)
I think a big problem that Steve has is not understanding the strength properties of the steel plate in the columns on the 94th to the 98th floors. It was 1/2" thick.

That plate being hit by a large jet at 500mph would fail in an instant.

Steel they were... but not intended to resist the lateral forces represented by the place. Don't be fooled by the OAL dimensions of the boxes... the plates up there were pretty thin.

Ships in the Bering Sea rupture their hulls by running into ice. The fastest these ships generally travel in ice is about 8 knots per hour (less than 10 mph.) The thickness of the hulls is usually not more than 5/8" thick-which is THICKER than the steel in the columns.

CORed 8th January 2020 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12947593)
I think a big problem that Steve has is not understanding the strength properties of the steel plate in the columns on the 94th to the 98th floors. It was 1/2" thick.

That plate being hit by a large jet at 500mph would fail in an instant.

Steel they were... but not intended to resist the lateral forces represented by the place. Don't be fooled by the OAL dimensions of the boxes... the plates up there were pretty thin.

I'm pretty sure that Steve suffers from the simplistic misconception that when objects made of two different materials collide, harder or stronger material "wins", and only the weaker or softer material is damaged. In the real world, it just doesn't work that way, especially the impact happens at a high velocity. I realize I've made this point many times, but I live in Colorado, where, in many areas of the mountains, snow avalanches are a frequent occurrence. These commonly break trees, sometimes trees that are several inches in diameter. Yes, a mass of unconsolidated snow, moving at high velocity (but considerably lower velocity than the planes on 9/11 were moving), can snap off a thick, strong tree. I don't find anything the least bit remarkable about aluminum planes moving at several hundred miles per hour breaking steel beams.

AJM8125 8th January 2020 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12947154)
The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.


N334AA went into WTC 1 at approximately 494 MPH with 92 people aboard.
N612UA went into WTC 2 at approximately 586 MPH with 65 people aboard.
N644AA went into The Pentagon at approximately 527 MPH with 64 People aboard.
N591UA went into the ground at approximately 563 MPH with 44 people aboard.

Two questions for Steve - What, in your learned opinion, should've happened to these planes upon their impacts?

What happened to the 265 people aboard the planes? Their families might like to know.

Robin 8th January 2020 08:52 PM

Fire a length of aircraft grade aluminum lengthways at 800 kph towards a length of 2cm thick construction grade steel held sideways and the aluminium would definitely win.

Robin 8th January 2020 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946482)
And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

And this is not true, your "evidence" has been dealt with over and over.

smartcooky 8th January 2020 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12946501)
"You can lead horse to the water but you can make it drink..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12946502)
Some horses can't even be led to water.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/bzq4envlul...acts.jpg?raw=1

and and no-planers can't even be led to facts!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.