International Skeptics Forum
Page 20 of 57 « First  <  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  >  Last »
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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)

Deadie 17th January 2020 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957689)
Yes.
No, I asked HOW.

carlitos 17th January 2020 12:50 PM
More than a decade later, there isn't any more "truth movement," but this work this still stands up.


On the Truth Movement and Irreducible Delusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.Mackey
Strong Delusion: Belief that is directly contradicted by unambiguous fact.

The Strong Delusion is, in short, a factual error. This is often supported by argument to authority and reliance on quote-mining, out-of-date, or retracted information in an attempt to justify the error. A common example is ”No Aircraft Hit the Pentagon,” which is a Strong Delusion because it is directly contradicted by extensive physical evidence.

yankee451 17th January 2020 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12957692)
No, I asked HOW.
Oops, sorry.

Logically it makes no sense for the perpetrators to use complex CGI to create a smoke plume that indicates a smoke generator was used. If they had the capability to create such fake smoke, they would have used it to create smoke that matched what they were selling, namely the impact of a 757, which ought to be lots of black smoke and fire, if memory serves.

It makes more sense that the perpetrators know most people will believe authority by virtue of their authority, and nothing else, rather than consider the authorities think we're stupid.

yankee451 17th January 2020 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12957695)
More than a decade later, there isn't any more "truth movement," but this work this still stands up.


On the Truth Movement and Irreducible Delusion
So how about those of us who started with the strong belief that what we were shown on television depicted a real event?

Robin 17th January 2020 12:57 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.
I have done nothing but address your so-called "evidence" and have great difficulty in getting you to respond to anything.

So why are you now trying to pretend your "evidence" is being ignored?

yankee451 17th January 2020 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12957709)
I have done nothing but address your so-called "evidence" and have great difficulty in getting you to respond to anything.

So why are you now trying to pretend your "evidence" is being ignored?
You haven't though. You pointed to a hole in the cladding that only supports my conclusion. You didn't explain how the 767 wing could slice through three sides of steel column, while missing the aluminum sheeting that covered those three sides. Only two of the three sides of aluminum were cut. The side the wing ought to have cut first, was only bent (and had a little hole in it), but bent in the opposite direction than the wing impacted.

Forgive me if I missed your explanation of this extraordinary event.

Robin 17th January 2020 01:02 PM
Yankee451 doesn't even seem to know what direction the plane that hit the South tower was travelling. Talk about ignoring the evidence.

yankee451 17th January 2020 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12957713)
Yankee451 doesn't even seem to know what direction the plane that hit the South tower was travelling. Talk about ignoring the evidence.
I'm sorry, but was this your explanation about why the planes that struck at allegedly different trajectories, created almost identical damage that doesn't match what we were shown on television?

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

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

Deadie 17th January 2020 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957700)
Oops, sorry.
Logically it makes no sense for the perpetrators to use complex CGI to create a smoke plume that indicates a smoke generator was used. If they had the capability to create such fake smoke, they would have used it to create smoke that matched what they were selling, namely the impact of a 757, which ought to be lots of black smoke and fire, if memory serves.
Yes, exactly. How large would these devices need to have been given the effect? How much power would have been required to operate them to give the effect we see and also presume is not CGI, however convenient it is for your argument?

A diesel powered ground thawing machine is about as physically large as a standard sedan and slightly more massive, but they need to be trucked in place, and do not produce black smoke during operation.

Presumably you have pictures of these things ejecting black exhaust, right?

yankee451 17th January 2020 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12957721)
Yes, exactly. How large would these devices need to have been given the effect? How much power would have been required to operate them to give the effect we see and also presume is not CGI, however convenient it is for your argument?

A diesel powered ground thawing machine is about as physically large as a standard sedan and slightly more massive, but they need to be trucked in place, and do not produce black smoke during operation.

Presumably you have pictures of these things ejecting black exhaust, right?
You lost me.

Elagabalus 17th January 2020 01:11 PM
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.
They just went out to Shanksville and set up a smoke machine? And no one saw them hauling it in? They didn't ask for directions or ask for permission before setting up a smoke machine out in the middle of nowhere with only a dirt road for access? Out of all the other spots they could have chosen (like the White House) they decided to put it out in Shanksville just to make it look like the plane didn't reach it's destination even though they've successfully fooled everyone about the other crashes?

Regnad Kcin 17th January 2020 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957670)
No that would be those who insist what was shown on television is possible in the real world.
Do you not know what the term “shifting the burden of proof” means?

Deadie 17th January 2020 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957722)
You lost me.
You are arguing that someone utilized a device that produced enough visible flue gasses from some sort-of combustion engine into fooling us into thinking a plane had crashed, when in fact nothing at all had happened. I am wondering what this device was or is.

yankee451 17th January 2020 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadie (Post 12957727)
You are arguing that someone utilized a device that produced enough visible flue gasses from some sort-of combustion engine into fooling us into thinking a plane had crashed, when in fact nothing at all had happened. I am wondering what this device was or is.
Seriously?
https://www.smokemachines.net/buy-smoke-machines.shtml

Robin 17th January 2020 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957710)
You haven't though. You pointed to a hole in the cladding that only supports my conclusion. You didn't explain how the 767 wing could slice through three sides of steel column, while missing the aluminum sheeting that covered those three sides. Only two of the three sides of aluminum were cut. The side the wing ought to have cut first, was only bent (and had a little hole in it), but bent in the opposite direction than the wing impacted.

Forgive me if I missed your explanation of this extraordinary event.
The side of the cladding on the left is not completely severed. Right?

Are you saying that the column could not be damaged without the cladding being cut through entirely, including the sides?

Can you respond to that question (rather than changing the question)?

And can you finally explain how a cruise missile could pass between the column and that piece of cladding without slicing it off? And give an example of a missile that you think could do this.

yankee451 17th January 2020 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12957725)
Do you not know what the term “shifting the burden of proof” means?
Actually no, I had to look it up, but all I found was a picture of some dog named "Mr. Peabody."

yankee451 17th January 2020 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12957730)
The side of the cladding on the left is not completely severed. Right?

Are you saying that the column could not be damaged without the cladding being cut through entirely, including the sides?

Can you respond to that question (rather than changing the question)?

And can you finally explain how a cruise missile could pass between the column and that piece of cladding without slicing it off? And give an example of a missile that you think could do this.
WTF? Draw me a picture.

yankee451 17th January 2020 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12957730)
The side of the cladding on the left is not completely severed. Right?

Are you saying that the column could not be damaged without the cladding being cut through entirely, including the sides?

Can you respond to that question (rather than changing the question)?

And can you finally explain how a cruise missile could pass between the column and that piece of cladding without slicing it off? And give an example of a missile that you think could do this.
How many times would you like me to do this?

Robin 17th January 2020 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957717)
I'm sorry, but was this your explanation about why the planes that struck at allegedly different trajectories, created almost identical damage that doesn't match what we were shown on television?



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



http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...flight-175.png
You were confused earlier about the direction of the plane that hit the south tower, I just wanted to get it clear.

If you have shown that the evidence of any video is inconsistent with the damage I haven't seen it.

In fact you refused to respond earlier when I asked you repeatedly which videos you were referring to.

Elagabalus 17th January 2020 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957729)
Feeble, dude.

Regnad Kcin 17th January 2020 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12957725)
Do you not know what the term “shifting the burden of proof” means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957732)
Actually no, I had to look it up, but all I found was a picture of some dog named "Mr. Peabody."
Prove it.

Robin 17th January 2020 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957736)



How many times would you like me to do this?
You suggested a couple before, but when I asked you to confirm you meant the one whose specification I linked you became evasive, probably because the ones you suggested were too large to have fit through the gap.

Tell me one that would fit.

Robin 17th January 2020 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957734)
WTF? Draw me a picture.
Please respond to the question.

Are you saying that the column could not be damaged unless the cladding is completely severed, including the sides?

Robin 17th January 2020 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957734)
WTF? Draw me a picture.
But do you see what I mean? I ask you direct clear questions and you respond with a weak evasion like "WTF? Draw me a picture"

This has been your pattern consistently.

JSanderO 17th January 2020 01:50 PM
1 Attachment(s)
plans of the towers shown are incorrect and columns are seriously out of scale

Robin 17th January 2020 02:00 PM
I will be more than happy to draw a picture when you confirm the dimensions of the cruise missile that allegedly passed through that gap without slicing the piece of cladding completely off.

Leftus 17th January 2020 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957710)
Forgive me if I missed your explanation of this extraordinary event.
What extraordinary event? The lightly damaged cladding?

Or the extraordinary even of a missile that could not pass flight checks, designed to avoid lateral contact, making lateral contact before making a hard left (without a wing) into a building with some precision formation flying (to look like a 767)?

Flying a passenger airliner into a building, much easier.

Captain_Swoop 17th January 2020 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957729)
Are they the smoke machines that were used?
They are a bit small aren't they?
Why not just light fires and let them smoke?

GlennB 17th January 2020 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12957773)
Are they the smoke machines that were used?
They are a bit small aren't they?
Why not just light fires and let them smoke?
In a big hole, with aircraft debris and human body parts strewn around the whole area.

******* madness.

Elagabalus 17th January 2020 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12957773)
Are they the smoke machines that were used?
They are a bit small aren't they?
Why not just light fires and let them smoke?
Too realistic. Then everybody would be suspicious.

Why not fake hit the White House? I mean, if everybody in the entire world but Steve is in on it, why go out to Shanksville to light some trees on fire when you can rent some smoke machines locally in D.C. and avoid all the heavy lifting?

yankee451 17th January 2020 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12957724)
They just went out to Shanksville and set up a smoke machine? And no one saw them hauling it in? They didn't ask for directions or ask for permission before setting up a smoke machine out in the middle of nowhere with only a dirt road for access? Out of all the other spots they could have chosen (like the White House) they decided to put it out in Shanksville just to make it look like the plane didn't reach it's destination even though they've successfully fooled everyone about the other crashes?
As any Halloween aficionado knows, there are hand carried smoke generators available to the general public. I'm sure the Pentagon can do better.

Captain_Swoop 17th January 2020 02:19 PM
I would like to know how a little stage smoke machine could make so much smoke?

Captain_Swoop 17th January 2020 02:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957793)
As any Halloween aficionado knows, there are hand carried smoke generators available to the general public. I'm sure the Pentagon can do better.
Can you show us a 'Pentagon' smoke machine?

Warships used to make a lot of smoke but that was done by over fuelling boilers or spraying diesel in to hot exhaust stacks, they stopped doing it when radar was invented..
Armoured vehicles still have smoke dischargers but they use phosphorous grenade launchers. They don't produce smoke that looks like anything burning

carlitos 17th January 2020 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12957795)
Can you show us a 'Pentagon' smoke machine?
Smokescreen at the Pentagon, another topic by the OP, shows what such a machine might be.

Elagabalus 17th January 2020 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by carlitos (Post 12957796)
Smokescreen at the Pentagon, another topic by the OP, shows what such a machine might be.
Thanks for that! Busted Steve! You give us a link to a handheld smoke machine in 2020 but you used a military smoke machine in your own video in 2013.

BStrong 17th January 2020 02:45 PM
The op must believe that pulling their shirt over their head and screaming "I can't hear you!" constitutes debate.

On the upside, I believe that we may have found a niche for failed sci-fi writers. -

yankee451 17th January 2020 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12957794)
I would like to know how a little stage smoke machine could make so much smoke?
That huge plume of white smoke? :D


https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...e-crater-2.jpg


Follow the smoke plume...


https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...with-arrow.jpg

Maybe something like this?

https://youtu.be/o7BGltVipP0

yankee451 17th January 2020 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12957737)
You were confused earlier about the direction of the plane that hit the south tower, I just wanted to get it clear.

If you have shown that the evidence of any video is inconsistent with the damage I haven't seen it.

In fact you refused to respond earlier when I asked you repeatedly which videos you were referring to.
Fascinating. The gyrations. The twists and turns. The obfuscations, the parries, the outright denial. Truly the stuff of legend.

yankee451 17th January 2020 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12957746)
Please respond to the question.

Are you saying that the column could not be damaged unless the cladding is completely severed, including the sides?
You're a shrewd one, aren't you. You figured that out from this image, right?

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...1-1024x912.png

You've been dancing around explaining how a wing could cut through the steel without severing the cladding for a while now.

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

yankee451 17th January 2020 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12957813)
The op must believe that pulling their shirt over their head and screaming "I can't hear you!" constitutes debate.

On the upside, I believe that we may have found a niche for failed sci-fi writers. -
When in Rome...

TJM 17th January 2020 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957854)
That huge plume of white smoke? :D


https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...e-crater-2.jpg


Follow the smoke plume...


https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...with-arrow.jpg

Maybe something like this?

https://youtu.be/o7BGltVipP0
Those images are from "United 93", the 2006 film, if I'm not mistaken.

Robin 17th January 2020 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957856)
Fascinating. The gyrations. The twists and turns. The obfuscations, the parries, the outright denial. Truly the stuff of legend.
You are talking about yourself here, right?

Robin 17th January 2020 03:58 PM
[quote=yankee451;12957859



You've been dancing around explaining how a wing could cut through the steel without severing the cladding for a while now.

[/QUOTE]

I am not sure how many ways I could explain it.

I even offered a demonstration.

You are dancing around answering the question about whether you think that the steel column could could not be damaged unless the aluminium cladding were severed completely including the sides.

I have been asking for days, why can't you answer?

yankee451 17th January 2020 04:02 PM
I was reminded of Gettysburg when I saw the WTC damage.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...5c05bdaa4b.jpg

yankee451 17th January 2020 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12957870)
I am not sure how many ways I could explain it.

I even offered a demonstration.

You are dancing around answering the question about whether you think that the steel column could could not be damaged unless the aluminium cladding were severed completely including the sides.

I have been asking for days, why can't you answer?
I must have missed it. Indulge me.

Robin 17th January 2020 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957859)
You're a shrewd one, aren't you. You figured that out from this image, right?
Oh look, you got the direction of travel of the wing wrong again.

Robin 17th January 2020 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12957875)
I must have missed it. Indulge me.
You missed the question? It is right there in the post you quoted.

Why can't you answer it?

yankee451 17th January 2020 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12957861)
Those images are from "United 93", the 2006 film, if I'm not mistaken.
Yes. I was wrong.

I ate crow about it, and other mistakes here: https://911crashtest.org/evidence-th...e-prerecorded/

Quote:
This is just another in a long string of stupid mistakes that I have made since I began researching this stuff. I once even thought the tree in front of the Pentagon was a blast hole from a missile, and said so on JREF. I included images from the MOVIE about Shanksville in my Shanksville missile video not realizing that they were not the real crater. I once thought the windows on the West side of WTC1 were "tiny" and that the whole wall was reconfigured. I once thought the towers turned to dust in mid-air, that the fires were so intense they melted steel and concrete, etc., etc., ad nausea. You name it, I have researched it and often fallen for it but thankfully I am not in this to be "right," only to find the "truth."

yankee451 17th January 2020 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12957882)
You missed the question? It is right there in the post you quoted.

Why can't you answer it?
I did. I'm waiting for you to explain how the jet wing cut through all the columns, and all the cladding, except for one.

yankee451 17th January 2020 04:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12957877)
Oh look, you got the direction of travel of the wing wrong again.
It isn't exact, sure. It is simply a representation of how IF a wing could slice through the steel column, it would first have to slice through the aluminum sheeting that covered it.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:40 PM.
Page 20 of 57 « First  <  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  >  Last »
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

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