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)

Sherman Bay 10th January 2020 07:21 AM

We're still waiting, aren't we, for The Yank to tell us where the four planes and the occupants are now? Or is he claiming that none of those flights ever took off? Maybe Boston and Dulles airports don't exist?

Captain_Swoop 10th January 2020 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12949382)
Depleted Uranium is way softer than Tank Armor yet in the first gulf war it was used in A10 wart hogs against tanks because like aluminum it was Pyrophoric on impact.

It's to do with density

Dave Rogers 10th January 2020 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12949660)
It's to do with density

Depleted uranium or conspiracy theorists?

Dave

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:32 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 understand quite well. I also understand mostly hollow aluminum wings don't slice through steel skyscrapers in the real world, but if they could do so, the damage left to the building would reflect it. Something about equal and opposite reactions proves something else happened. ;-)
The damage to the building indicates small projectiles struck from the side. It doesn't indicate a large one struck from head on. This damage alone is what proves the jet impact videos are fraudulent.


http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...ectories-1.jpg

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12947529)
Along with trigonometry and both negate his beliefs.

If you had any clue about trigonometry, you'd use it to prove I'm wrong. The problem is, it proves I'm right.

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12948770)
A bunch of people have responded to, questioned Steve's presentation. They have because it simply does not make sense. Nothing will change Steve's mind.

More interesting is what happened to Steve's mind?

I wrote this for frauds like Jeff.


Quote:

Usually when confronted with this information they very quickly turn on me by questioning my motives, sanity and intelligence, but rarely do they address the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. If this was a real crime scene investigation the act of “reconstructing the crime” would be critical; every clue, no matter how small, would be collected and used as a basis for the formulation of a theory. But truthers don’t do that. They skip right to the theory and then look for supporting evidence, ignoring those clues that don’t fit, an activity known as, “cherry-picking,” not “truth-seeking.”
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12949378)
When are you going to start presenting evidence that backs your theories so far you have debunked Yourself, a plane made from aluminum hitting a steel building should produce exactly the evidence you have shown.
Thanks for nothing.

lol

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay (Post 12949640)
We're still waiting, aren't we, for The Yank to tell us where the four planes and the occupants are now? Or is he claiming that none of those flights ever took off? Maybe Boston and Dulles airports don't exist?

Occupants of what? The non existent planes? The empty offices? What do you mean?

TJM 10th January 2020 08:48 PM

Empty offices?

We've already been down this road, need I remind you.

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12948238)
Truther claims are begin with two foundations:

A. all media and government reports / accounts are false and deliberate lies... told to hide the true agenda

B. what they see in pics and vids could not possibly be caused by planes hitting buildings or the ground.

(A) is sometimes and somewhat true. We accept PR and spin and so on as normal.

(B) requires some level of technical knowledge or acceptance of what those who have it say.

Both (A) and (B) reinforce each other and create an endless loop with no way out.

In other words, let other people do your thinking for you. Do as you're told. Vote. Pay your taxes. Die. This is as good as it gets.

You guys are a crack up.

yankee451 10th January 2020 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12950397)
Empty offices?

We've already been down this road, need I remind you.

I remember. Never letting the facts interfere with your skepticism of anything that doesn't support the "official" story (read: tripe), you gnashed your teeth and pointed to information provided by the most likely suspects, as if that somehow overrides the physical evidence.

TJM 10th January 2020 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950408)
I remember.

Apparently you don't

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451
Quote:

Originally Posted by Redwood (Post 9004226)
Steve, I didn't say you and "Steve WarRan" were one and the same person. If you aren't, then you have found a soulmate. You are both at the apex of trutherism, posting Mt. Everest-sized non-sequiturs. Any other gibberish that "Steve WarRan" may have written is irrelevant. What is relevant is the particular piece of gibberish that you freely and willingly quoted. Now will you finally explain to us how does a Dun and Bradstreet listing relate to whether or not a firm had offices in the Twin Towers?, or ask your soulmate to explain it for you, or admit that the whole thing is nonsense?

Like other truthers, you make yourself look foolish by never backing down, never admitting you made a mistake. If you admit that the article by "Steve WarRan" is a giant manure pile, and that it was foolish to cite it, you will not lose one shred of credibility.


I have already admitted several mistakes and this is another. I stand corrected.

Unless you're now retracting that and introducing new evidence that supports your argument.

Then by all means, please proceed.

TJM 10th January 2020 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950381)

While I have you on the line here Steve, which original image did you grab this from? Can you post the whole image?

Axxman300 10th January 2020 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950392)
Occupants of what? The non existent planes? The empty offices? What do you mean?

https://media.giphy.com/media/WCSj7Skn4IhEc/giphy.gif

Has to be a troll. Nobody is this stupid.

yankee451 10th January 2020 09:22 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.


Tell me again, Jeff.

According to the Purdue cartoon, the left wing tip fully penetrated the wall, yet even a barnyard animal can see the wing tip didn't fully penetrate, in fact it took a sharp turn to the right and sharply bent the more massive, much more dense, less brittle 1/2 inch-thick steel plate in a completely different direction than the jet wing, with a leading edge as sharp as a basketball, was traveling.

This part of the wing:
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...Purdue-Gif.gif

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

This wing tip
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...0278c1d4_b.jpg

was not big enough, or dense enough, or massive enough, even at 500 miles per hour, to do more than lightly bend the aluminum sheet metal that covered the steel column here:
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...MAGED-SFRM.png
But a few feet away it was big enough, dense enough, and massive enough to sharply bend steel columns in a complete different direction than the wing tip was traveling? And on the ninth column from the left (of both towers), the wing blew a hole in the column?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rrow-burst.gif

Please explain.

yankee451 10th January 2020 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12950431)
https://media.giphy.com/media/WCSj7Skn4IhEc/giphy.gif

Has to be a troll. Nobody is this stupid.

When in Rome...

Be specific please.

yankee451 10th January 2020 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgimeno (Post 12944885)
Friction (Edit: and possibly the nose ribs too, see http://www.flight-mechanic.com/wp-co...17/07/1-23.jpg). The wings move towards the plane as it penetrates and the wings don't, at least for as long as they remain connected to the plane (because the fuselage would pull them). That explains the inwards bowing of the steel columns.


I would like the whole class of clowns to pay attention to this. Friction he says, as long as the wings were still connected to the fuselage.

Well shoot, according to the official story, the wings were "completely fragmented" by the exterior wall columns as they simultaneously, sliced through them like butter. See below.

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

This means that by the time the engines penetrated the walls, the wing tips would no longer be attached to the rest of the plane.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...05/inside1.jpg

Another fantasy shattered.

bknight 10th January 2020 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950385)
If you had any clue about trigonometry, you'd use it to prove I'm wrong. The problem is, it proves I'm right.

I did prove you wrong, you just won't admit that fact.

yankee451 10th January 2020 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12950445)
I did prove you wrong, you just won't admit that fact.

I missed it, would you please provide the link, or repeat yourself?

yankee451 10th January 2020 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12950415)
Apparently you don't



Unless you're now retracting that and introducing new evidence that supports your argument.

Then by all means, please proceed.

I miss the relevance of that.

You guys are all over the place; "Look over here. What about this hypothetical situation? You had a hair out of place six years ago."

You haven't mentioned the straw through the tree yet. Or have you? What does any of this have to do with this thread, or the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on?

beachnut 10th January 2020 09:53 PM

Cracked up theory - unable to find proof after all these years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950403)
In other words, let other people do your thinking for you. Do as you're told. Vote. Pay your taxes. Die. This is as good as it gets.

You guys are a crack up.

Lies, no one does my thinking for my, and I don't do as I am told. You got it wrong, like your claims of fantasy missiles and fake videos.

You spread lies about 9/11 and have no idea you are doing it. You make up nonsense about 9/11 and mock the murder of thousands by terrorists.

You can't explain what happen to flight 11, 175, 93 and 77, and you don't care. You ignore the people on four flights who died instantly, and make up crazy claims of fake videos.

You can't back any of your claims with physics. You have no idea what mass is when it comes to physics, or why a plane which can fly over 500 mph can break into a building.

Prove an aircraft can't break the shell of the WTC. Go ahead present proof. You can't do it. Never will.

Trump likes dumb conspiracy theories, maybe you can get him to support your fantasy mocking the murder of thousands.

wow

yankee451 10th January 2020 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12950454)

Prove an aircraft can't break the shell of the WTC. Go ahead present proof. You can't do it. Never will.

Already have. Or are you, like Purdue, insisting the plane fully penetrated the wall?

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

TJM 10th January 2020 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950452)
I miss the relevance of that.

You guys are all over the place; "Look over here. What about this hypothetical situation? You had a hair out of place six years ago."

You haven't mentioned the straw through the tree yet. Or have you? What does any of this have to do with this thread, or the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on?

Forgive me. I was trying to stop you from hacking up yet another debunked hairball of yours.

Please, you just keep on being you.

yankee451 10th January 2020 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12950461)
Forgive me. I was trying to stop you from hacking up yet another debunked hairball of yours.

Please, you just keep on being you.

You can keep bringing up my mistakes all you like. To admit one's errors builds one's credibility. You can't be right all the time, can you? Well, you can, but you should try it some time. It builds character, in addition to credibility.

Let me explain. Because I have proven I am capable of admitting error in the past, you can be confident that I will continue to do so. I have a long list of errors I have corrected. Why do you think this is a sign of weakness? To me it is a sign of honesty and integrity. I am genuinely interested in the truth. If I am exposed to new information that forces me to rethink my hypothesis, I do so. I have been at it for ten years.

If I am wrong, please demonstrate where, and I will correct the record and move on with a newfound understanding of the truth. You guys haven't evolved one bit in what, 19 years? Sheesh.

Axxman300 10th January 2020 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950435)
When in Rome...

Be specific please.

Specifically your entire theory is stupid.

yankee451 10th January 2020 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12950474)
Specifically your entire theory is stupid.

So, starting with the pinched cladding at the far left of the impact hole for example:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...d-cladding.png

Do you think it's stupid of me to point out that,
  1. The object that struck the cladding was much smaller and far less massive than a jet's wing, or
  2. that the Purdue video can't be "scientific" based on the simple fact that the jet's wing obviously did not penetrate the wall, as depicted in their cartoon?

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...Purdue-Gif.gif

If you think that's stupid, you must believe the television show overrides the physical evidence. Please explain.

TJM 10th January 2020 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950470)
I have a long list of errors I have corrected. Why do you think this is a sign of weakness?

Not because you have a long list of errors you've corrected, it's because of the short one of you being right.

Might want to work on that one.

yankee451 10th January 2020 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12948177)
Have you got any evidence of missiles?
For example: pieces of debris, radar tracking of missiles, specifics about where these missiles were fired from, specifics of who fired them, whistleblower statements from anyone involved in any part of the transport, launching or clean-up operations, inventory lists showing missing missiles....anything?
I am quite happy to examine your evidence with an open mind, but all you've done so far is post some pictures from (as has been pointed out) the same sources you claim are faked, with some arrows on them. That isn't what you'd call conclusive, is it?


Yes. Explained in detail in this thread.

The lightly damaged cladding and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns, and the inward blasting hole on the ninth column from the left of both towers. Almost identical damage that is entirely inconsistent with the head on impact of a jet, but is entirely consistent with the lateral impact of small, dense projectiles.

If I am incorrect in my assessment, then it should be no sweat for this swarm of skeptics to pick apart the evidence that leads to my conclusions, but alas, all they can do is question my sanity, motives and intelligence.

I started my investigation at the same place most of us did; believing in Osama bin Laden and his scary box cutter wielding Arab henchmen, who overcame a trillion dollar defense system and gave the Great Satan every reason to kick Islamic ass. I bought it all, magic planes included. I take issue with self proclaimed skeptics who accuse me of ignoring evidence that contradicts my conclusions, when it is because I followed the evidence that contradicted my convictions that lead me to where I am today.

If you sincerely want to know what the evidence is that leads me to the conclusion that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight as a pretext to drum up public support for long planned aggressive wars, please read this post:

Taboo Truths: The Missiles of 9/11

Axxman300 10th January 2020 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950481)
So, starting with the pinched cladding at the far left of the impact hole for example:

Do you think it's stupid of me to point out that,

I do. I'm genuinely embarrassed for you as an adult.

We know that the wing impacted there BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE PARTS OF IT IN THE WRECKAGE THROUGH THE BROKEN WINDOWS ON THAT END.

Derp.

As you continue to point out, that steel and it doesn't bend itself and an armor piercing missile would blow outward and not inward.


Quote:

[*]The object that struck the cladding was much smaller and far less massive than a jet's wing, or[*]that the Purdue video can't be "scientific" based on the simple fact that the jet's wing obviously did not penetrate the wall, as depicted in their cartoon?
Purdue's animation is just a general representation of the crash and not meant to be a accurate graphic depiction as their goal was to explain the collapse and the rest of the animation focuses on what happened on the interior where the fatal damage was done.

Quote:

If you think that's stupid, you must believe the television show overrides the physical evidence. Please explain.
The physical evidence is consistent with what we saw on TV and the hundreds of thousands of eye witnesses saw.

yankee451 10th January 2020 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12950490)
Not because you have a long list of errors you've corrected, it's because of the short one of you being right.

Might want to work on that one.

I must be fascinating to you. I am all you can talk about.

Let me direct you back to the topic at hand, in particular this cladding:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...d-cladding.png


Do you agree with Purdue, that the jet wing cut through the tower completely, or do you believe your lying eyes that the cladding isn't even severed, much less the post behind it?

Axxman300 10th January 2020 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950493)
Yes. Explained in detail in this thread.

No, you've explained nothing. You post claims and run away.

Quote:

The lightly damaged cladding and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns, and the inward blasting hole on the ninth column from the left of both towers. Almost identical damage that is entirely inconsistent with the head on impact of a jet, but is entirely consistent with the lateral impact of small, dense projectiles.
No, the damage is exclusive to the impact of a 767. The missiles you claim that were used were not operational and barely functional in 2001, and no missile in the US inventory has that much jet fuel.

Quote:

If I am incorrect in my assessment, then it should be no sweat for this swarm of skeptics to pick apart the evidence that leads to my conclusions, but alas, all they can do is question my sanity, motives and intelligence.
We have, dozens of times. You wave you hand and ignore the science.

And we question your sanity and intelligence because we have yet to see any.

Quote:

I started my investigation at the same place most of us did; believing in Osama bin Laden and his scary box cutter wielding Arab henchmen, who overcame a trillion dollar defense system and gave the Great Satan every reason to kick Islamic ass. I bought it all, magic planes included. I take issue with self proclaimed skeptics who accuse me of ignoring evidence that contradicts my conclusions, when it is because I followed the evidence that contradicted my convictions that lead me to where I am today.
There's a clear mental break down on display here.

Quote:

If you sincerely want to know what the evidence is that leads me to the conclusion that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight as a pretext to drum up public support for long planned aggressive wars, please read this post:
Don't cite yourself as an authority.

yankee451 10th January 2020 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12950496)
Purdue's animation is just a general representation of the crash and not meant to be a accurate graphic depiction as their goal was to explain the collapse and the rest of the animation focuses on what happened on the interior where the fatal damage was done.
.

Interesting, because according to them it was a scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack.
https://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/0...ffmannWTC.html

""The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow,"

You obviously don't think of it as scientific, or even as accurate.

yankee451 10th January 2020 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12950501)

Don't cite yourself as an authority.

I don't. I cite the same information we all have access to. This has nothing to do with me, so simmer down. You guys get so angry over a few pictures. Sure, they shatter your tender belief systems, but then everyone has to grow up sometime. That's not my fault.

TJM 10th January 2020 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950500)
<blather snipped>

Do you agree with Purdue, that the jet wing cut through the tower completely, or do you believe your lying eyes that the cladding isn't even severed, much less the post behind it?

I don't have to agree or disagree with Purdue. Or you.

N334AA was deliberately flown into WTC 1. This is irrefutable.

Your Photoscaped superimposed scribblings, scrawling and gifs on blurry, cropped images have exactly zero credibility.

yankee451 10th January 2020 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12950512)
I don't have to agree or disagree with Purdue. Or you.

N334AA was deliberately flown into WTC 1. This is irrefutable.

Your Photoscaped superimposed scribblings, scrawling and gifs on blurry, cropped images have exactly zero credibility.


If that was the case the evidence would support it. That you're so defensive about it, and refuse to even address the reasons to think otherwise, is a clue as to your mindset.

The photos are there for anyone to see. But none are so blind that won't see, eh?

yankee451 10th January 2020 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myriad (Post 12948578)
An open mind is necessary, but so is knowledge of the physical dynamics of moving and impacted objects and structures, and the tools (primarily mathematical) for applying that knowledge.

You have done no mathematics.


Neither has any of you. Neither has NIST, neither has Purdue, Wierzbicki, Bezant, et al, Nor FEMA or MIT. Not one of them has done the math to prove a jet's wing could cut through the steel columns.

Hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to. All you base your beliefs on are the television show, and the cud chewing herd you're following.

Elagabalus 10th January 2020 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950500)
I must be fascinating to you. I am all you can talk about.

Let me direct you back to the topic at hand, in particular this cladding:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...d-cladding.png


Do you agree with Purdue, that the jet wing cut through the tower completely, or do you believe your lying eyes that the cladding isn't even severed, much less the post behind it?

What are all those red arrows supposed to mean? The cladding is joined together every couple of feet. This is where they will fail. Your arrows show where the join line is and make little sense.

Robin 11th January 2020 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950493)
The lightly damaged cladding and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns,

So? Aircraft wings get progressively skinnier towards the tips, so this is entirely consistent with impact by an aircraft.

Quote:

and the inward blasting hole on the ninth column from the left of both towers.
The front of the aircraft had impacted first, the jets hit before the outer part of the wing.

The entire structure would be buckling, crumpling and shredding with the impact. The wing would not maintain its shape during the impact as you seem to think, so there is no reason to expect columns to be bent away from.the centre of the jet.
Quote:

Almost identical damage that is entirely inconsistent with the head on impact of a jet, but is entirely consistent with the lateral impact of small, dense projectiles.
So you claim, but a few pictures with arrows drawn on them hardly counts as adequate evidence.

What sort of missile do you think could have produced these marks?

Quote:

If I am incorrect in my assessment, then it should be no sweat for this swarm of skeptics to pick apart the evidence that leads to my conclusions, but alas, all they can do is question my sanity, motives and intelligence.
You haven't produced anything that could be considered evidence.

The claims you have produced appears to have been dealt with.

JSanderO 11th January 2020 02:49 AM

Steve, you are misunderstand the phrase or concept: "the plane penetrated into the building"

The mass of the plane's times the velocity caused a mutual destruction on impact. Not unlike in an auto accident. The momentum of the jet's parts did not disappear on impact... the destroyed parts of the plane including passengers, fuel, water, hydraulic fluid and air penetrated the build... some of it didn't... most of it did. Impacts/collisions of the moving mass of the plane stuff with the static parts of the building absorbed the kinetic energy, destroying or "breaking" the building parts as well as the integrity of the thing(s" which hit them. You seem to refuse to accept this principle. Some stuff (few) was able to pass thru the building because the path mean it didn't hit anything which could stop it.

The nose impact came a tiny fraction of a second before the wings or the tail. That impact instantly caused a re distribution of the static forces in the building around the impact. Same with the wing whose nacelle impacted first followed progressively by the wing structure until finally the wing tips impacted... and the structure and facade had already lost its integrity. You know that the facade was not homogeneous.. but components of various properties, thickness, lengths and so on mechanically fastened together.

If you want to recreate the impacts go build a realistic mock up including floor system and fly a jet loaded with fuel and water into it at 500 mph. I think you'll discover very similar damage. I don't know if an FEA can be done (beyond my expertise for sure). But theoretically it can. I suspect it requires enormous computing power.

There is plenty of evidence that even slower moving water can severely damage steel as has happened at sea many times. You saw how a ping pong ball (air) can destroy a wood in a mutual destruction. Surely you don't expect the "weaker" thing to bounce of the stronger one? It will in a low energy impact. But there will be mutual destruction at some higher level. This is "settled science"... which you seem to reject as "magic".

Captain_Swoop 11th January 2020 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950392)
Occupants of what? The non existent planes? The empty offices? What do you mean?

But the planes did exist. Unless the conspirators have a time travel machine and went back to insert it's records in to history.
same for the occupants of the offices and planes.
Did the conspiracy start decades ago so that the records of all the dead could be added to history?

Captain_Swoop 11th January 2020 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950408)
I remember. Never letting the facts interfere with your skepticism of anything that doesn't support the "official" story (read: tripe), you gnashed your teeth and pointed to information provided by the most likely suspects, as if that somehow overrides the physical evidence.

Information aboutthe victims was provided by their family and friends.
Or are they all part of it too?

pgimeno 11th January 2020 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950444)
I would like the whole class of clowns to pay attention to this. Friction he says, as long as the wings were still connected to the fuselage.

Well shoot, according to the official story, the wings were "completely fragmented" by the exterior wall columns as they simultaneously, sliced through them like butter. See below.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend that both things can be simultaneously true.

See how this ping pong ball creates a ping-poing-ball-shaped hole in the paddle while being completely shattered.

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


In the first moments of the impact, however, it's possible for the wing to have suffered the effect that I've postulated, and bent the columns.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950444)
This means that by the time the engines penetrated the walls, the wing tips would no longer be attached to the rest of the plane.

Even if that were true, it doesn't say anything about the first instants of the impact.


Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950444)
Another fantasy shattered.

See, wrong again. But feel free to keep saying no one has offered an explanation, as you have been doing ever since I offered it.

pgimeno 11th January 2020 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay (Post 12949640)
We're still waiting, aren't we, for The Yank to tell us where the four planes and the occupants are now? Or is he claiming that none of those flights ever took off? Maybe Boston and Dulles airports don't exist?

And we're also waiting for an explanation on why he puts so much faith on that picture given that he claims that all photographic and video evidence was faked. It was taken by this guy:

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 11th January 2020 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12950565)
I don't know if an FEA can be done (beyond my expertise for sure). But theoretically it can. I suspect it requires enormous computing power.

I have seen an FEA done on the steel uprights modelling the impacts on them, I will send a link when I get back to my computer.

Robin 11th January 2020 05:14 AM

The uprights are about 35 cm wide, I think, with about 40cm between them, or something of that order. The cladding is about 1cm thick.

So this alleged missile came in at an angle that it damaged the cladding only of four pillars, so it travelled about 3 metres across for 1 cm towards the building. This seems to suggest that it should just have glanced off.

But it has continued and bent each successive pillar even further than the last.

The claim that this damage is consistent with a missile having been fired is dubious to say the least.

Crazy Chainsaw 11th January 2020 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950504)
Interesting, because according to them it was a scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack.
https://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/0...ffmannWTC.html

""The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow,"

You obviously don't think of it as scientific, or even as accurate.

It was a theortical simulation, welcome to your missing Jolt Moment, the computer Technology at the time was not capable of factoring in everything some some accommodation had to be made for limited Technology.


You just became the New Tony Sambozzi here.

To even convince anyone your theory is sould is simple, Show that the strength of the softer weaker material steel was strong enough to stop the penitration of the harder stronger Aluminum Steel bulkhead of the aircraft.
Show that the momentum was not sufficient for effective penitration of the A36 Structural steel, by the harder stronger Aluminum Steel?
I will await your attempt-Failure to do so.

JSanderO 11th January 2020 07:43 AM

Steve, either doesn't understand the mechanics, doesn't believe there was even a plane to the damage or is not serious despite his claims to the contrary.

What is counter intuitive to Steve happens to be what happened in the plane building interaction that day. He refuses to believe his eyes... but not being there does not believe images, vids or eyewitness accounts, nor the physical evidence recovered from the event.

You cannot discuss or debate with someone when you can't stipulate to the facts... and the engineering mechanics.

Crazy Chainsaw 11th January 2020 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12950666)
Steve, either doesn't understand the mechanics, doesn't believe there was even a plane to the damage or is not serious despite his claims to the contrary.

What is counter intuitive to Steve happens to be what happened in the plane building interaction that day. He refuses to believe his eyes... but not being there does not believe images, vids or eyewitness accounts, nor the physical evidence recovered from the event.

You cannot discuss or debate with someone when you can't stipulate to the facts... and the engineering mechanics.

It is very simple actually check the strength of the A36 Structural steel per inch vs the strength of the Aluminum steel bulkhead of the plane. Knife though Butter.

He hasn't got a clue just living in fairytale land, he hasn't done anything to even attempted to prove himself wrong.

Crazy Chainsaw 11th January 2020 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12950516)
Neither has any of you. Neither has NIST, neither has Purdue, Wierzbicki, Bezant, et al, Nor FEMA or MIT. Not one of them has done the math to prove a jet's wing could cut through the steel columns.

Hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to. All you base your beliefs on are the television show, and the cud chewing herd you're following.

A36 steel vs 150 ton, persquare inch Aluminum steel bulkhead on the plane.
So that's 36000 pounds persquare in structural steel vs 300,000 pounds per square inch Aluminum steel.
Why would anyone need to do a caculations on a knife though butter?
Seeing that the main energy on impact would be transferred though the Main Bulkhead that adds strength and stiffness to the air frame?

yankee451 11th January 2020 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12950519)
What are all those red arrows supposed to mean? The cladding is joined together every couple of feet. This is where they will fail. Your arrows show where the join line is and make little sense.

Actually the cladding was installed in 12-foot sections with the seams near the floors, explained at this time stamp:

https://youtu.be/FiLa_CyFAIM?t=627


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:50 PM.

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