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)

beachnut 16th January 2020 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955860)
"Blew" as in cut through without detonating.

The idiot fantasy missiles don't have enough mass and kinetic energy to do the damage of the 757. You lost due to science, videos, and eyewitnesses.

You have failed to prove the videos were faked.

Make my day, go ask the victim's families about the fake video, the fake people, the fake planes. Tell them about the insane missile fantasy.

Go contact the families, here are a few of the thousands.

John D’Allara
Vincent Gerard D’Amadeo
Jack D’Ambrosi
Mary D’Antonio
Edward A D’Atri
Michael D D’Auria
Michael Jude D’Esposito
Manuel John Da Mota
Caleb Arron Dack
Carlos S DaCosta
Joao Alberto
DaFonseca Aguiar, Jr
Thomas A Damaskinos
Jeannine Marie Damiani-Jones
Patrick W Danahy
Nana Danso
Vincent Danz
Dwight Donald Darcy
Elizabeth Ann Darling
Annette Andrea Dataram
Lawrence Davidson
Michael Allen Davidson
Scott Matthew Davidson
Titus Davidson
Niurka Davila
Clinton Davis
Wayne Terrial Davis
Anthony Richard Dawson
Calvin Dawson
Edward James Day
Jayceryll de Chavez
Jennifer De Jesus
Monique E De Jesus
Nereida De Jesus
Emerita De La Pena
Azucena Maria de la Torre
David Paul De Rubbio
Jemal Legesse De Santis
Christian Louis De Simone
Melanie Louise De Vere
William Thomas Dean
Robert J DeAngelis, Jr
Thomas Patrick DeAngelis
Tara E Debek
Anna Marjia DeBin
James V Deblase

mocking the murder of thousands, unable to grasp facts and evidence - your claims might be the sickest of all.

BStrong 16th January 2020 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12955996)
The wing was not "mostly hollow". Why must you lie?

You give Yank too much credit - You must have knowledge about a subject before you can lie about it.

JSanderO 16th January 2020 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12956234)
You give Yank too much credit - You must have knowledge about a subject before you can lie about it.

Some lie and know they are lying... (the worst kind)

Some lie and don't realize they are lying

Some are not interested in the truth despite their claim to be.

Some (many) lie about things they know nothing about

Some persist in lying even after their lies have been exposed.

Most who lie expect to get away with it.

Leftus 16th January 2020 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955839)
Yes. Something like a JASSM can explain it nicely. The warhead is designed for punching through hardened targets with or without detonating. At an angle of attack of somewhere around 15 degrees from parallel to the tower, the wing of the missile would hit first, which is why at the far left of both towers the cladding is only lightly damaged. The progressively worse damage to the columns is explained by the warhead penetrating deeper into the tower, but it loses energy as it penetrated so what began with gouged steel columns ends up only bending them as it slows down.

A rocket sled test center can put this conclusion to the test.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...3/Approach.jpg


Something like this:
https://youtu.be/5_a1foRId6M

The warhead is designed to penetrate. The wing is not. There would be no reason to harden or reinforce the wing structure. In fact, it would be wiser to design it to sheer off, to lessen the drag on penetration forces. Having to push what would be a bullet at that point is far better than having to drag a useless wing deep into a target.

You really have no idea on missiles or their functions, do you? The wings, or fins, are there just to get the payload to the target. They aren't strongly attached to the missile. And, again, the JAASM wings are on hinges. They fold for shipping. They aren't more sturdy than a fully attached, airliner wing filled with fuel. As you noted, it was designed to penetrate, not give glancing blows.

You have the missile doing something it was designed to avoid, lateral impact. You have the wing doing something it wasn't designed to do, stay attached during penetration. On a missile system that wasn't actually functioning for another 6 years.

yankee451 16th January 2020 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12956323)
The warhead is designed to penetrate. The wing is not. There would be no reason to harden or reinforce the wing structure. In fact, it would be wiser to design it to sheer off, to lessen the drag on penetration forces. Having to push what would be a bullet at that point is far better than having to drag a useless wing deep into a target.

You really have no idea on missiles or their functions, do you? The wings, or fins, are there just to get the payload to the target. They aren't strongly attached to the missile. And, again, the JAASM wings are on hinges. They fold for shipping. They aren't more sturdy than a fully attached, airliner wing filled with fuel. As you noted, it was designed to penetrate, not give glancing blows.

You have the missile doing something it was designed to avoid, lateral impact. You have the wing doing something it wasn't designed to do, stay attached during penetration. On a missile system that wasn't actually functioning for another 6 years.

Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rst-strike.gif

Crazy Chainsaw 16th January 2020 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12956497)
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rst-strike.gif

The steel would not have been bent that way from a Missle impact at that angle, no way.

The Common Potato 16th January 2020 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw (Post 12956040)
And if you had bothered to note there is a soft rubber portion of the leading edge of
the wing known as a deicing balloon.
If the planes wing was dragged along the edge as physics of impact say it should have been that would account for that observed deformed but left piece of Aluminum.
It's your theory please provide competent Evidence of it.

I'm pretty certain that most jets use engine bleed air for ant icing, not inflatable boots.
Narry a boot.

I'm leaving that typo!

BStrong 16th January 2020 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12956497)

Comic book mentality, cartoon evidence.

The material writes itself.

bknight 16th January 2020 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12956497)
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

You have made a big deal that there exists no live footage of the plane hitting WTC 2. However look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBciZFE8lAw
Time stamp ~1.15 and clearly see a 767 flying toward the WTC complex and then repeated at ~15:36, both were followed by a very large fireball exiting the east side of WTC 2. Now how does your untrained inaccurate mind explain away
A: How did this plane make an impossible 90 degree turn to miss the complex?
B: Where did the plane go? Including all the people inside of it?

I watched this all live on TV at the time of the accident, so don't tell me that it was fabricated.

Leftus 16th January 2020 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12956497)
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rst-strike.gif

I'm not the one inventing new properties for that weapon system. Why can the wings of a missile be responsible for "lightly damaged cladding" but the wings on a 767 couldn't possibly do that?

Any particular reason you avoided everything else? Besides ignorance of the weapon system?

Also, wouldn't it be easier to find any one of the 4 air frames that actually existed than invent properties of a missile system that does not exist?

Even if they built a number of one-off missiles, they were destroyed on impact. If you could find, say the fight crew, or just one of them, then you would have iron-clad proof of the conspiracy. You wouldn't even need to find them alive. A corpse would serve just fine too.

beachnut 16th January 2020 02:23 PM

wow, non stop nonsense continues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12956497)
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rst-strike.gif

The invisible missiles did it. How did they fake the image of the Flight 175 which appeared in the eyes to the brain of the many eyewitnesses.

How to you do it? Mock the murder of thousands and leave a legacy of hate of your fellow citizens murdered by saying they never existed. How embarrassing to your kids their kids.

Why is there no evidence for your claim of faked videos?

Deadie 16th January 2020 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12956632)
Why is there no evidence for your claim of faked videos?

This really is the most baffling part. The events of 9/11 were planned out a long time in advance. NYC and the WTC towers in particular were deliberately chosen precisely because the perpetrators knew damn well the entire world was going to have eyes and ears on lower Manhattan. The point was to broadcast a very clear message they knew would be seen and heard.

If, as yankee451 states, that was all smoke and mirrors...then we have no message and the messenger and their motivations remain unknown. Which kind of defeats the purpose of the whole enterprise.

dudalb 16th January 2020 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12956567)
Comic book mentality, cartoon evidence.

The material writes itself.


That is grossly unfair to comic books.....

dudalb 16th January 2020 04:12 PM

18 years and still the same old truther crap. Never changes.

TJM 16th January 2020 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955865)
lol

Interesting that you chose to focus on that and not the part that flies directly in the face of no-planer MSM delusions.

Typical.

TJM 16th January 2020 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12956632)
The invisible missiles did it. How did they fake the image of the Flight 175 which appeared in the eyes to the brain of the many eyewitnesses.

Ah, the old "eyewitness" :rolleyes: chestnut.

You see, those witnesses actually did see an invisible swarm of 14 foot-long cruise missiles but once they switched on the news, they were immediately brainwashed by the MSM and believe they saw great ******* airliners slice into the towers like a knife through butter. Nobody has spoken up after all these years for fear of ridicule, or something.

Do keep up.

Sheesh.

Robin 16th January 2020 06:47 PM

It is hard to tell if he is serious, or if this is just some lighthearted hobby.

He seems to find no improbability that hundreds of people, many of them experts in their fields, are complicit in a complex conspiracy involving hundreds of hours planning and co-ordination and costing millions of dollars.

That two separate airline companies have agreed to falsify their records to pretend they have lost planes. That companies that were tenants of the buildings have agreed to pretend that people died and that their employees presumably vacated the building on that day.

That military missile experts, explosive experts, transportation, etc all took part in this and that people pretended to have relatives or friends killed and have kept up the pretense ever since.

That everybody approached to help with this either agreed to help or agreed never to disclose that someone asked them to do it.

And in the twenty years since they have all kept completely quiet about it despite the money they could make blowing the plot.

This he finds easy to believe.



But he finds it impossible to believe that one piece of cladding might not have been severed all the way through when hit by a wing.

Axxman300 16th January 2020 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12955820)
Different tower.

Weird...almost as if identical aircraft struck the Twin Towers leaving similar impact damage to the facade, and each tower then collapsed as a result of similar damage in nearly identical fashion.

Axxman300 16th January 2020 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12956497)
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...rst-strike.gif

Problem with your cartoon is that the missiles are designed to strike head-on, and would have been launched in such a way to make that possible. The exact missile in your cartoon was having guidance problems in 2001 making even flying straight an issue.

ProBonoShill 16th January 2020 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12955795)
Until the media broadcast the cartoon plane flying behind the towers, followed by the fireball that erupted from the opposite side of the tower, no one was sure what happened, but most of the reports were that something other than a large jet struck. The truth hurts, but it will set you free.

More pathetic nonsense from a liar.

waypastvne 16th January 2020 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939780)

Like you, I am often wrong. Unlike you I admit it when I'm wrong.



OK. Let's test that theory.

In this video

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





You make this claim:

https://i.imgur.com/lZxPhTL.png




This is a still from the video you use as proof:

https://i.imgur.com/q1W9qAu.png




You may notice in that video there is a shadow going across the impact carter.


This is a higher quality screen shot from the same video so you can see the shadows more clearly. I also added a compass rose so you can tell where north is in relation to the shadows.

https://i.imgur.com/VDdaOeI.jpg




Steve, did you know that the sun sets in the west ?

yankee451 16th January 2020 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill (Post 12956987)
More pathetic nonsense from a liar.

You have me at a disadvantage. Whereas I have the courage of my convictions to sign my name to my beliefs, and am consequently held accountable for them, you fine people (I assume), are under no such constraints.

yankee451 16th January 2020 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 12957011)
OK. Let's test that theory.

In this video

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





You make this claim:

https://i.imgur.com/lZxPhTL.png




This is a still from the video you use as proof:

https://i.imgur.com/q1W9qAu.png




You may notice in that video there is a shadow going across the impact carter.


This is a higher quality screen shot from the same video so you can see the shadows more clearly. I also added a compass rose so you can tell where north is in relation to the shadows.

https://i.imgur.com/VDdaOeI.jpg




Steve, did you know that the sun sets in the west ?

Oh look, someone else that can't address the thread, and instead, would like to point out a previous hair out of place. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread. You could call it "Steve isn't perfect!" and all you fine boys and girls who don't have the courage to use your real names and faces on the Internet can regale in your anonymous, yet cowardly, superiority.

But whatever you do don't address the evidence of missile impacts.

This, dear reader, is the post he/she/it is referring to. https://911crashtest.org/video-smoke...t-shanksville/
I'll leave it up to you whether or not a smoke machine was used at Shanksville. I look forward to hearing from you, especially if you're not too timid to admit the obvious.

https://911crashtest.org/video-smoke...t-shanksville/

Shanksville wasn't the only place! Smoke machine at the Pentagon too, but then, this post is about how (and why) they faked the videos at the WTC.
https://911crashtest.org/911-the-pentagon-smoke-screen/

It's like herding cats to try to keep you guys, gals, and algorithms, on topic.

Crazy Chainsaw 17th January 2020 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957092)
Oh look, someone else that can't address the thread, and instead, would like to point out a previous hair out of place. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread. You could call it "Steve isn't perfect!" and all you fine boys and girls who don't have the courage to use your real names and faces on the Internet can regale in your anonymous, yet cowardly, superiority.

But whatever you do don't address the evidence of missile impacts.

This, dear reader, is the post he/she/it is referring to. https://911crashtest.org/video-smoke...t-shanksville/
I'll leave it up to you whether or not a smoke machine was used at Shanksville. I look forward to hearing from you, especially if you're not too timid to admit the obvious.

https://911crashtest.org/video-smoke...t-shanksville/

Shanksville wasn't the only place! Smoke machine at the Pentagon too, but then, this post is about how (and why) they faked the videos at the WTC.
https://911crashtest.org/911-the-pentagon-smoke-screen/

It's like herding cats to try to keep you guys, gals, and algorithms, on topic.

Is there anyone on this forum who doesn't know who I Am?

Dave Rogers 17th January 2020 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12956732)
This really is the most baffling part. The events of 9/11 were planned out a long time in advance. NYC and the WTC towers in particular were deliberately chosen precisely because the perpetrators knew damn well the entire world was going to have eyes and ears on lower Manhattan. The point was to broadcast a very clear message they knew would be seen and heard.

If, as yankee451 states, that was all smoke and mirrors...then we have no message and the messenger and their motivations remain unknown. Which kind of defeats the purpose of the whole enterprise.

Yeah, it reminds me of the Dilbert cartoon where the boss wanted to install fake video cameras in the break room to stop people stealing coffee, but Dilbert pointed out that that would destroy everyone's morale, so the boss asked him to install hidden fake video cameras. The sad thing is that most 9/11 conspiracy theories are at about that level of reasoning.

Dave

DuvalHMFIC 17th January 2020 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957092)
Oh look, someone else that can't address the thread, and instead, would like to point out a previous hair out of place. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread. You could call it "Steve isn't perfect!" and all you fine boys and girls who don't have the courage to use your real names and faces on the Internet can regale in your anonymous, yet cowardly, superiority.

But whatever you do don't address the evidence of missile impacts.

This, dear reader, is the post he/she/it is referring to. https://911crashtest.org/video-smoke...t-shanksville/
I'll leave it up to you whether or not a smoke machine was used at Shanksville. I look forward to hearing from you, especially if you're not too timid to admit the obvious.

https://911crashtest.org/video-smoke...t-shanksville/

Shanksville wasn't the only place! Smoke machine at the Pentagon too, but then, this post is about how (and why) they faked the videos at the WTC.
https://911crashtest.org/911-the-pentagon-smoke-screen/

It's like herding cats to try to keep you guys, gals, and algorithms, on topic.

Smoke machines? Do you ever listen to yourself? Seriously? I'd hate to hire you to conduct a secret machine, you'd Rube Goldberg the ever loving **** out of it.

Jack by the hedge 17th January 2020 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957092)
... but then, this post is about how (and why) they faked the videos at the WTC.

Yes, that's the topic of the entire thread. The elephant in this room. Maybe that would be a simpler and less expensive project for you than devising a way to fling a 767 wing at a replica WTC wall.

How about trying to demonstrate "How they Faked the Videos" by learning how to do it yourself using 2001-era TV technology? Instead of handwaving it by claiming it must have been possible because your hypothesis requires that it must have been done, show us that it was possible.

yankee451 17th January 2020 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC (Post 12957274)
Smoke machines? Do you ever listen to yourself? Seriously? I'd hate to hire you to conduct a secret machine, you'd Rube Goldberg the ever loving **** out of it.

What you find believable has squat to do with the facts.

yankee451 17th January 2020 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12957285)
Yes, that's the topic of the entire thread. The elephant in this room. Maybe that would be a simpler and less expensive project for you than devising a way to fling a 767 wing at a replica WTC wall.

How about trying to demonstrate "How they Faked the Videos" by learning how to do it yourself using 2001-era TV technology? Instead of handwaving it by claiming it must have been possible because your hypothesis requires that it must have been done, show us that it was possible.

I have.

The damage evidence that you refuse to address proves what didn't happen, as well as what probably did happen.

If I'm wrong, then surely you have a better explanation for the evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible. Ignoring it isn't an option.

DuvalHMFIC 17th January 2020 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957304)
What you find believable has squat to do with the facts.

The irony of this post is bursting through the screen.

I've asked about 7 times in this thread and you've yet to answer....

WHY NOT FLY PLANES INTO THE BUILDINGS? Why the need for this monstrosity of a conspiracy theory, where you need like 230 stars to align to have any hope of pulling it off?

"We could hire some pilots who'd like to set their families up for life to fly planes into buildings."

"No, no, no. We're gonna use missiles that don't exist yet, fake tv footage, bribe firemen, policemen, and onlookers. Oh, and let's sneak some smoke machines in for good measure. We'll also need to bribe the folks at CNN (among other media), make up hundreds of fake passengers and their families (more bribes)."

"But we could just fly the planes into the buil-"

"That would never work, ya moron!"

:rolleyes:

DuvalHMFIC 17th January 2020 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957305)
If I'm wrong, then surely you have a better explanation for the evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible. Ignoring it isn't an option.

You have aluminum cladding....and?

Oh, that's right, you have that aluminum cladding from a supposedly fake photo.

And you have...aluminum cladding too! Let's not forget that.

And that pesky column, with the aluminum cladding.

Got it. That's literally the only "proof" you've offered in this thread-everything else has been conjecture. And even that proof has been refuted multiple times, but YOU are the one ignoring it as an option. Hell, we already have another photo which contradicts your theory, and you just cruised right past it at a cool 60 mph.

Jack by the hedge 17th January 2020 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957305)
I have.

I may have blinked.

Leftus 17th January 2020 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12956901)
Problem with your cartoon is that the missiles are designed to strike head-on, and would have been launched in such a way to make that possible. The exact missile in your cartoon was having guidance problems in 2001 making even flying straight an issue.

Designed to hit head on AND avoid hitting obstacles on the way to the target. It's not going to sideswipe a building, doubly so if the building was the target.

Jack by the hedge 17th January 2020 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957305)
The damage evidence that you refuse to address ...

Sorry, but do you mean the piece of cladding, probably from the 5th damaged column along from the left, which appears to have moved between photos posted here in the last few days? The piece I keep talking about and you're never interested enough to respond? That evidence I refuse to address?

waypastvne 17th January 2020 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12939780)

Unlike you I admit it when I'm wrong.


Another one of your theories shot to hell.

You were wrong, you had the chance to admit it, but you didn't.



https://i.imgur.com/VDdaOeI.jpg

TJM 17th January 2020 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957092)
Oh look, someone else that can't address the thread, and instead, would like to point out a previous hair out of place.

This is hilarious. The basis of your theory, no planes, is laughably wrong. In order to support your theory, you've created a series of threads where you present evidence which is also laughably wrong.

It's not quite about hair out of place, it's more like your arguments have no hair at all. It's like you've taken some hair you found in your shower drain and scotch taped it to your head, expecting it to grow.

Don't come crying when people point and laugh.

JSanderO 17th January 2020 08:23 AM

Steve... Can you tell us how you started on "investigating" 9/11?

Did you immediately see the TV, the official statements and what followed as something which sent up red flags for you?

What seemed wrong enough to motivate your research?

++++

Speaking for me only... as an architect, a NYer and someone who actually worked for Emery Roth & Sons, the architects of the towers back in the 70s...I've been in them many times and had a business a few blocks north on Leonard St. for a number of years. I hated the design and remembered the battles about getting them built. I was surprised at how quickly they collapsed. I had no frame of reference and wanted to understand.

When the cartoons of the pancakes appeared they looked ridiculous to me. Then there was the sagging bar trusses which likewise seem.

I began my own "research" by using the www. And I came about the truther stuff like Loose Change. And another film by Sophia Small Storm?? It's a long time now. I went to an 9/11 anniversary event and there I saw some presentations, met Gage and Szambotti and suggested to them they reach out to Robertson to find out what his thoughts were about the collapse. I knew nothing about AE911T but Gage asked me to listen in on his next "Strategy" conference call with some of his members. I listened. Was not impressed. It was all about "marketing their message" and getting more signers on their petition. I heard nothing about doing building performance studies.

After I suggested to Gage he recruit some of his engineer signers to do some FEA and "reverse" engineer the collapse. He did not want to do that. He was into CD and at the time "nano thermite". I completely missed that they were not a group of engineers... but a group of volunteers hunting down signatures. I advocated they do research... this led to my being ejected and being labeled a plant of CIA spy!

After that I was motivated to come up with what seemed like a plausible explanation for how the towers collapsed. Not being an engineer, but understanding statics as an architect I fashioned a theory which I called a vertical avalanche. About that time I stumbled on the 911 Free Forum... This was populated by engineers, physicists and good thinkers who were essentially analyzing the building movements in detail... and offering explanations. Shortly after I joined the ROOSD explanation for the collapse was presented and it was much like my vertical avalanche but supported by the visuals from vids. ROOSD did not address how the plane damage turned into the ROOSD. This was the so called "initiation". This was hard to figure out because there was not film or data from inside the towers... only films/vids from the exterior... and of course the structural plans.

I believe that the initiation occurred as a result of the impact of the fires which both weakened and warped the steel members and ultimately undermined the axial capacity which led to the "ROOSD" mass forming and crashing down.

Although there is no proof of any of this... it made sense to me and my curiosity of how the towers could collapse as they did was satisfied. I don't think NIST got it correct but the mechanisms... heat we agree upon. There were lessons learned and building design of super talls has changed and does not include the Achilles heel that the twins did. I don't think the hijackers knew the towers would collapse. Hitting them with jumbos was all they needed for their political agenda.

As fantastic as the hijack story sounds... it also makes sense as no real systems were in place to prevent it or stop it while underway.

++++

Good luck with your research... but you should make it reality based. What I've read from you sounds and reads and looks like fantasy. Work with some engineers. This is way above your pay grade... and you should know that.

Crazy Chainsaw 17th January 2020 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957305)
I have.

The damage evidence that you refuse to address proves what didn't happen, as well as what probably did happen.

If I'm wrong, then surely you have a better explanation for the evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible. Ignoring it isn't an option.

And all that Evidence is explained by the wing dragging across the steel in the real event, not by a fantasy missle strike.

BStrong 17th January 2020 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12956736)
That is grossly unfair to comic books.....

I don't hold Stan Lee responsible for acts of stupidity committed by Spiderman fans.

Regnad Kcin 17th January 2020 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957305)
I have.

The damage evidence that you refuse to address proves what didn't happen, as well as what probably did happen.

If I'm wrong, then surely you have a better explanation for the evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible. Ignoring it isn't an option.

Shifting the burden of proof.

yankee451 17th January 2020 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waypastvne (Post 12957359)
Another one of your theories shot to hell.

You were wrong, you had the chance to admit it, but you didn't.



https://i.imgur.com/VDdaOeI.jpg

All it proves is I was wrong about the timing of the photograph. The first responders had already arrived, as was pointed out to me by Mark Conlon, so I'll give you that too. Darn it, wrong again. However being wrong about the timing of the photograph and the arrival of the so called firemen, doesn't change the fact the the tiny plume of white smoke, consistent with a portable smoke generator, not with the crash of a 757, can be seen both inside, and outside the crater. Bummer for you guys. Pity you can't admit you're wrong like I can, eh?

bknight 17th January 2020 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957305)
I have.

The damage evidence that you refuse to address proves what didn't happen, as well as what probably did happen.

If I'm wrong, then surely you have a better explanation for the evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible. Ignoring it isn't an option.

Yet you ignore my post and questions, why is that ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12956576)
You have made a big deal that there exists no live footage of the plane hitting WTC 2. However look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBciZFE8lAw
Time stamp ~1.15 and clearly see a 767 flying toward the WTC complex and then repeated at ~15:36, both were followed by a very large fireball exiting the east side of WTC 2. Now how does your untrained inaccurate mind explain away
A: How did this plane make an impossible 90 degree turn to miss the complex?
B: Where did the plane go? Including all the people inside of it?

I watched this all live on TV at the time of the accident, so don't tell me that it was fabricated.


yankee451 17th January 2020 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12957656)
Yet you ignore my post and questions, why is that ?

Listen to the ~38 second mark where the announcer almost said the "m" word. Are you on the north side there where the mmm...er...the plane made contact...lol

Both of the time stamps provided prove I'm right. The views do not show the actual impact of the cgi plane. They show the plane flying behind the towers followed by the fireball. But no collision. Those all came later. Next!

yankee451 17th January 2020 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12957557)
Shifting the burden of proof.

No that would be those who insist what was shown on television is possible in the real world.

yankee451 17th January 2020 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12957383)
Steve... Can you tell us how you started on "investigating" 9/11?

Did you immediately see the TV, the official statements and what followed as something which sent up red flags for you?

What seemed wrong enough to motivate your research?


++++

Speaking for me only... as an architect, a NYer and someone who actually worked for Emery Roth & Sons, the architects of the towers back in the 70s...I've been in them many times and had a business a few blocks north on Leonard St. for a number of years. I hated the design and remembered the battles about getting them built. I was surprised at how quickly they collapsed. I had no frame of reference and wanted to understand.

When the cartoons of the pancakes appeared they looked ridiculous to me. Then there was the sagging bar trusses which likewise seem.

I began my own "research" by using the www. And I came about the truther stuff like Loose Change. And another film by Sophia Small Storm?? It's a long time now. I went to an 9/11 anniversary event and there I saw some presentations, met Gage and Szambotti and suggested to them they reach out to Robertson to find out what his thoughts were about the collapse. I knew nothing about AE911T but Gage asked me to listen in on his next "Strategy" conference call with some of his members. I listened. Was not impressed. It was all about "marketing their message" and getting more signers on their petition. I heard nothing about doing building performance studies.

After I suggested to Gage he recruit some of his engineer signers to do some FEA and "reverse" engineer the collapse. He did not want to do that. He was into CD and at the time "nano thermite". I completely missed that they were not a group of engineers... but a group of volunteers hunting down signatures. I advocated they do research... this led to my being ejected and being labeled a plant of CIA spy!

After that I was motivated to come up with what seemed like a plausible explanation for how the towers collapsed. Not being an engineer, but understanding statics as an architect I fashioned a theory which I called a vertical avalanche. About that time I stumbled on the 911 Free Forum... This was populated by engineers, physicists and good thinkers who were essentially analyzing the building movements in detail... and offering explanations. Shortly after I joined the ROOSD explanation for the collapse was presented and it was much like my vertical avalanche but supported by the visuals from vids. ROOSD did not address how the plane damage turned into the ROOSD. This was the so called "initiation". This was hard to figure out because there was not film or data from inside the towers... only films/vids from the exterior... and of course the structural plans.

I believe that the initiation occurred as a result of the impact of the fires which both weakened and warped the steel members and ultimately undermined the axial capacity which led to the "ROOSD" mass forming and crashing down.

Although there is no proof of any of this... it made sense to me and my curiosity of how the towers could collapse as they did was satisfied. I don't think NIST got it correct but the mechanisms... heat we agree upon. There were lessons learned and building design of super talls has changed and does not include the Achilles heel that the twins did. I don't think the hijackers knew the towers would collapse. Hitting them with jumbos was all they needed for their political agenda.

As fantastic as the hijack story sounds... it also makes sense as no real systems were in place to prevent it or stop it while underway.

++++

Good luck with your research... but you should make it reality based. What I've read from you sounds and reads and looks like fantasy. Work with some engineers. This is way above your pay grade... and you should know that.

As I have said before, on interviews, in my posts, on my videos, and on this thread, I started out in the same place most everyone did; believing everything that I saw on the TeeVee.

The rest of your story is great, thanks.

yankee451 17th January 2020 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12957364)
This is hilarious. The basis of your theory, no planes, is laughably wrong. In order to support your theory, you've created a series of threads where you present evidence which is also laughably wrong.

It's not quite about hair out of place, it's more like your arguments have no hair at all. It's like you've taken some hair you found in your shower drain and scotch taped it to your head, expecting it to grow.

Don't come crying when people point and laugh.

The joke's on you.

yankee451 17th January 2020 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12957352)
Sorry, but do you mean the piece of cladding, probably from the 5th damaged column along from the left, which appears to have moved between photos posted here in the last few days? The piece I keep talking about and you're never interested enough to respond? That evidence I refuse to address?

Whaaa?

Deadie 17th January 2020 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957651)
However being wrong about the timing of the photograph and the arrival of the so called firemen, doesn't change the fact the the tiny plume of white smoke, consistent with a portable smoke generator, not with the crash of a 757, can be seen both inside, and outside the crater. Bummer for you guys. Pity you can't admit you're wrong like I can, eh?

This "portable smoke generator" may have been complex CGI fakery. How have you ruled that out?

How much power would be required to operate such a machine and how was it supplied? Why did no one notice such a useless machine mysteriously performing nonsensical work in and around a 'purported' aircraft crash debris field? No one ever asked why there was a device or multiple devices uselessly exhausting visible particulate matter into the atmosphere in the direct vicinity of a an aircraft crash site?

yankee451 17th January 2020 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12957352)
Sorry, but do you mean the piece of cladding, probably from the 5th damaged column along from the left, which appears to have moved between photos posted here in the last few days? The piece I keep talking about and you're never interested enough to respond? That evidence I refuse to address?

Is this what you're referring to?



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

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...e-1024x768.png

yankee451 17th January 2020 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12957683)
This "portable smoke generator" may have been complex CGI fakery. How have you ruled that out?

How much power would be required to operate such a machine and how was it supplied? Why did no one notice such a useless machine mysteriously performing nonsensical work in and around a 'purported' aircraft crash debris field? No one ever asked why there was a device or multiple devices uselessly exhausting visible particulate matter into the atmosphere in the direct vicinity of a an aircraft crash site?


Yes.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 PM.

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