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)

sts60 27th January 2020 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967864)
Great, I don't want to get into the landings either. But since you have MCC eperience, why don't you briefly enlighten me on how controllers could have known the differnence between the data they received in the simulations and what they would have received during a real mission.

I promise not to respond, so we don't get into it. I'd just like to know.

Briefly, the data is realistic enough to allow the operators to monitor and respond, but while it’s enough to sell the temporary experience, it’s not enough to overcome all the differences with reality for a weeklong mission (let alone the physical realities of tracking). And in any case, simulations needed to be paused, restarted, and “green-carded” - basically, “pretend you saw this on your screen so we can proceed”.

But, far more importantly - and here’s the limited scope fallacy in action - this ignores the staggeringly vast and detailed Apollo record, as well as that of numerous other programs and scientific investigations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967870)
I'm not leaning on Apollo to support any claims about 9/11. I'm only trying to point out that the 'thousands had to be in on it'argument is specious. That is all.So let's drop it.

Every time you mention Apollo in claiming how many people should or should have not been required for a hoax, that’s exactly what you’re doing. The problem is, you undercut yourself by demonstrating that your certainty of how things should be is way off in another field.

smartcooky 27th January 2020 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968323)
I was waiting to see what mental contortions you lot would resort to to protect your world view. The picture of the plane swallowed hole isn't just in my head, it's in the videos. And it's not about the density of the building as a whole, only the wall.

Failed again!

This not what I see in the videos at all... its what you have convinced yourself that you see!

bknight 27th January 2020 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968355)
Hogwash, or as you lot like to say, 'Gish Gallup'. Prove your assertion. You know full well that he fireball only begins after the entire plane has disappeared into the building.dd
Using the video frame rate or resolution as an excuse doesn't cut it. You're going to have to be a lot more creative to continue believing the videos aren't fake.

And how creative are you? Trotting out CT beliefs that aren't supported by physics. Yes the frame rate is very important, because most of the destruction is done in less than one second. Get a grip on reality. Learn some science.

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12968309)
Yes. And the same applies to Iran and Iraq. Saddam Hussein bravely took one for the team. (Even though we don't actually know who the team is. But it's obviously very big and very sinister.) Anyway, Saddam not only knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but he knew the US government did it themselves and he went to his death breathing not a word of this terrible secret, protecting the US government right to the end. What a guy.

What good would it do when he would only suffer the same ridicule and disbelief that is heaped on posters here, even when you 'debunkers's prove yourselves wrong, as has happened here?

Jack by the hedge 27th January 2020 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968359)
See my reply to bknight. The picture quality argument falls flat. the quality is good enough to see bits falling to the ground AFTER the explosion. Did the video quality improve in the time between impact and fireball?

It appears you read my post but did not comprehend it. One very common artefact of digital video compression is that small details are not rendered while large parts of the picture are busily changing. A typical example would be a picture which blurs when stuff moves but sharpens quickly when things stay still. This is very basic stuff yet you seem unaware of it.

Jack by the hedge 27th January 2020 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968372)
What good would it do when he would only suffer the same ridicule and disbelief that is heaped on posters here, even when you 'debunkers's prove yourselves wrong, as has happened here?

Yeah, that must be it. Might as well let himself be hanged to protect GWB. Why even try? Who'd believe him?

This is all super-convincing. I'm now totally sold on the idea that China, Russia, Iran and Iraq all knew the US government did it but they all kept quiet about it because... Something.

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12968075)
No, it reinforces that and your lack of understanding of video.

you're going to have to reach a whole lot farther than that lameness.d

beachnut 27th January 2020 11:20 AM

Video analysis fail, "frame rate" foils liars again
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967950)
I expect to see damage to the plane upon impact, similar to what beachnut's ping pong video shows. I owe beachnut a 'thank you' for proving that the plane impact videos are fake.

Have you proved Radar is fake? Bragging about not knowing why we see the ping pong ball break up, and the plane also breaking up but you don't see it is a matter of knowing video. You don't know physics, and you don't have clue why you fail to see a plane breaking up on slow speed low resolution video. So you keep spreading lies based on your ignorance of video and physics. You post proves your ignorance on these subjects.

There were parts all over. But you like to make up stuff you can't prove.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo
Just like the ping pong ball putting hole in the paddle, it breaks the handle, as we see the plane entered the WTC and broke off sections of the exterior.

You can't explain what caused the impact hole in your fantasy world of woo. Was it explosives? Sorry, there were no blast from explosives. No one suffered from an explosion. The jet fuel fireball, how did it occur in your plane free fantasy based on your ignorance of physics, video, and by ignoring the facts, witnesses, Radar, and reality in general.

There is damage to the plane, but you have no clue what the difference between 30,000 frames per second and 24/30/60 frames per second is.

Flight 175 going 865 f/s (feet per second for the physics/math challenged) at impact.
The mass of flight 175 after entering the WTC shell was still traveling over 560 f/s.

In less than a quarter second the 767 is gone, broken up and parts going all over inside the WTC. Less than 15 frames to see 160 foot long aircraft break up at a distance where there are less than 400 pixels for the entire aircraft. And you can't see it break up. You can't grasp this limitation of video, and there is more you don't know.

You can't see 20 or so pixels of the wing break up against the WTC shell, but I can because I know the limitations of what I see due to the limitations of the video. You don't know your limitations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SLb05HMNKI

And you don't have a clue

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 11:22 AM

"When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest." -Anonymous

ETA: When a 'debunker' discovers he is mistaken, he's still right.

Leftus 27th January 2020 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968372)
What good would it do when he would only suffer the same ridicule and disbelief that is heaped on posters here, even when you 'debunkers's prove yourselves wrong, as has happened here?

That must have been his exact thoughts as the platform swung and he was at the end of the rope, "whatever will the people on the internet think?"


Some minor ridicule vs. being hanged. Seriously, who could survive the former?

TJM 27th January 2020 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968380)
you're going to have to reach a whole lot farther than that lameness.d

Aren't you the one who believes a low resolution compressed YouTube video that was shot on a camcorder should show details comparable to a high resolution video shot on a high speed camera?

Talk about lameness.

smartcooky 27th January 2020 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968387)
"When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest." -Anonymous

ETA: When a 'debunker' discovers he is mistaken, he's still right.

You haven't ceased to be honest, you never were. You have been dishonest from the start.

None of us debunkers, i.e. sane, reasonable thinking people who undertstand what they are looking at, have discovered anything (except perhaps how dishonest no-planers are). What we know is that the towers and the Pentagon were hit by airliners travelling at high velocities, and we know this because...

- the passengers and the hijackers are seen embarking on the airliners and are now missing
- the airliners were seen taking off but no longer exist
- the airliners were tracked on ATC radar
- hundreds of people under the flight paths saw the airliners in the places where the radar put them at the time
- dozens of videos of the airliners' impacts were taken from multiple angles
- thousands of witnesses saw the airliners' impacts from multiple angles
- there are mountains of physical evidence such as airliner plane parts (many of them directly traceable back to those very same missing planes), jet fuel residue and passenger DNA

In short, the evidence that airliners impacted the towers and the Pentagon is utterly overwhelming. The evidence that missiles hit those buildings is nada, zilch, zippo, bupkis.

Anyway, you and Yankee451 are a waste of time and space. Both of you have fallen so far down the rabbit hole that you are irretrievable - a lost cause.

Jack by the hedge 27th January 2020 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12968431)
You haven't ceased to be honest, you never were. You have been dishonest from the start.

None of us debunkers, i.e. sane, reasonable thinking people who undertstand what they are looking at, have discovered anything (except perhaps how dishonest no-planers are). What we know is that the towers and the Pentagon were hit by airliners travelling at high velocities, and we know this because...

- the passengers and the hijackers are seen embarking on the airliners and are now missing
- the airliners were seen taking off but no longer exist
- the airliners were tracked on ATC radar
- hundreds of people under the flight paths saw the airliners in the places where the radar put them at the time
- dozens of videos of the airliners' impacts were taken from multiple angles
- thousands of witnesses saw the airliners' impacts from multiple angles
- there are mountains of physical evidence such as airliner plane parts (many of them directly traceable back to those very same missing planes), jet fuel residue and passenger DNA

In short, the evidence that airliners impacted the towers and the Pentagon is utterly overwhelming. The evidence that missiles hit those buildings is nada, zilch, zippo, bupkis.

Anyway, you and Yankee451 are a waste of time and space. Both of you have fallen so far down the rabbit hole that you are irretrievable - a lost cause.

The thing which impresses me most about the evil plotters is not that they managed to create dozens of fake videos but they somehow managed to suppress all the real videos. And photos. And eyewitnesses.

How on earth did the Men In Black find everyone who grabbed a video camera that day? Or did they just kill everyone within 15 miles with some kind of neutron bomb and replace them all with replicants?

It's clearly a lot of work. Mighty impressive.

abaddon 27th January 2020 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968359)
See my reply to bknight. The picture quality argument falls flat. the quality is good enough to see bits falling to the ground AFTER the explosion. Did the video quality improve in the time between impact and fireball?

Is it? OK, bless us with your wisdom. Given the poor resolution of the videos you use, calculate the size of the smallest piece of debris which can be resolved. Show your calculations.

You have no idea how to do that, do you?

smartcooky 27th January 2020 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12968461)
The thing which impresses me most about the evil plotters is not that they managed to create dozens of fake videos but they somehow managed to suppress all the real videos. And photos. And eyewitnesses.

How on earth did the Men In Black find everyone who grabbed a video camera that day? Or did they just kill everyone within 15 miles with some kind of neutron bomb and replace them all with replicants?

It's clearly a lot of work. Mighty impressive.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/z64sq9i37v...yzer.jpg?raw=1

Standard issue for all MiB agents

GlennB 27th January 2020 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12968483)
Is it? OK, bless us with your wisdom. Given the poor resolution of the videos you use, calculate the size of the smallest piece of debris which can be resolved. Show your calculations.

You have no idea how to do that, do you?

In a rational world this should be rather a telling question. I wonder what the response will be?

smartcooky 27th January 2020 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12968483)
Is it? OK, bless us with your wisdom. Given the poor resolution of the videos you use, calculate the size of the smallest piece of debris which can be resolved. Show your calculations.

You have no idea how to do that, do you?

Oooh, I can do that!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ou5s8itnfh...20Me.jpg?raw=1

bknight 27th January 2020 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12968497)

You are obviously DQ because you have knowledge. ;)

smartcooky 27th January 2020 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12968526)
You are obviously DQ because you have knowledge. ;)


Yeah, and it didn't come from Google..

When I acquired that knowledge, "Network" was a movie starring Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch, William Holden and Robert Duvall, a "troll" was an ugly, Scandinavian dwarf that ate goats and scared children, and "internet" was a word that had not yet been invented (it was still called "ARPANET")

And Google... that was a number; a one with a hundred zeros after it - spelled "googol"

PS: and trolls are still ugly

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12968483)
Is it? OK, bless us with your wisdom. Given the poor resolution of the videos you use, calculate the size of the smallest piece of debris which can be resolved. Show your calculations.

You have no idea how to do that, do you?

The resolution is good enough to make out pieces of paper flying out of the building, most of which are probably less than 12 inches square.

smartcooky 27th January 2020 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968569)
The resolution is good enough to make out pieces of paper flying out of the building, most of which are probably less than 12 inches square.


Nah, that does not answer the question. I thought you would fail

Itchy Boy 27th January 2020 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12968570)
Nah, that doe not answer the question. I thought you would fail

Whether or not I can make the calculations, the resolution is good enough to see what we need to see. So I don't have to make the effort just to humour people for whom no answer is good enough and will never admit they're wrong. Because, as I've said before- to admit you're wrong about something like this will remove this site's reason for being and your reason for being here. It's never going to happen no matter what proof I could present.

beachnut 27th January 2020 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968580)
Whether or not I can make the calculations, the resolution is good enough to see what we need to see. So I don't have to make the effort just to humour people for whom no answer is good enough to shake their deeply held beliefs.

Go ahead, prove what the video should look like with math. Prove it.

Darn you don't do math. Guess your claim remains BS, just talk based on paranoia of the deep state in your fantasy version of 9/11, reality, and the world.

No proof of fake videos, only talk based on ignorance.

curious cat 27th January 2020 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12967966)
Regardless, in each case, we seer real crash physics - the ball breaks in in your MB vid, pieces even bounce backwards. Fake plane videos proven! Well done gentlemen.

After me clarifying my (insignificant for this case anyway) mistake with the water and further explaining the mechanics of the disintegration of the ball it may be time to retract your thanks to us, don't you think?
BTW: I know you don't.:D

Robin 27th January 2020 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968387)
"When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or cease to be honest." -Anonymous

ETA: When a 'debunker' discovers he is mistaken, he's still right.

Let's get that in perspective by quoting your earlier words:

Quote:

besides, showing what a cruise missile does to 'prove' what a jumbo jet would do, makes no sense to me.
And yet you see sense in using a ping-pong ball to prove what a jumbo jet would do?

Me, I say that the shattering of the airframe of a 767 is more like the shattering of the airframe of a cruise missile than it is the shattering of a ping-pong ball.

You apparently are saying that the shattering of the airframe of a 767 is more like the shattering of a ping-pong ball than it is the shattering of the airframe of a cruise missile.

I think you would have to list your points of comparison between a 767 and a ping-pong ball.

If you can convince me that a 767 is more like a ping pong ball than a cruise missile, I will happily admit I am wrong.

If not then I will still have to go with the idea that the shattering of the airframe of the cruise missile where you can't see any visible wing or airframe debris bouncing off (although we know that the debris must be there) is the more valid comparison.

Robin 27th January 2020 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968569)
The resolution is good enough to make out pieces of paper flying out of the building, most of which are probably less than 12 inches square.

Just out of interest, can you point out one of these pieces of paper, I have just frame-by-framed through the whole thing and can't see any.

Robin 27th January 2020 03:12 PM

Oh, and just to pass the time, can someone tell me what this is?

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...-23.png?w=1024

abaddon 27th January 2020 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12968486)


The game is up. Yankee has discovered that aircraft wings only experience vertical loads and no other. Who knew?

abaddon 27th January 2020 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12968683)
Oh, and just to pass the time, can someone tell me what this is?

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...-23.png?w=1024

A big grey rectangle?

No idea?

smartcooky 27th January 2020 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968580)
Whether or not I can make the calculations, the resolution is good enough to see what we need to see.

No, it isn't

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968580)
So I don't have to make the effort just to humour people for whom no answer is good enough

That's just a cop out. You don't make the effort because you are incapable of grasping grade school science and mathematics

You don't even know where to start

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968580)
and will never admit they're wrong. Because, as I've said before- to admit you're wrong about something like this will remove this site's reason for being and your reason for being here. It's never going to happen no matter what proof I could present.

I will always admit that I am wrong, when I am wrong

So far, nether you nor yankee451 have presented anything that even remotely begins to come close to overturning established fact.

The only fact here is that you are both incapable of of understand basic physics and maths, and frankly, I think you are both incapable of learning anything. In order to learn, you have to WANT to understand. All you want to do is wallow in your single-minded, narrowly focussed conspirational echo chambers.

smartcooky 27th January 2020 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12968683)
Oh, and just to pass the time, can someone tell me what this is?

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...-23.png?w=1024

A scan of an 18% grey card?

Robin 27th January 2020 03:26 PM

Oh come on, you can do better with a nice clear picture like that.

curious cat 27th January 2020 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968569)
The resolution is good enough to make out pieces of paper flying out of the building, most of which are probably less than 12 inches square.

...and moving by speed of about 0.5 m/s.
I know this fact is more about digital compression and frame rate, but it still puts in question the value of your observation.

abaddon 27th January 2020 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12968702)
Oh come on, you can do better with a nice clear picture like that.

Either you are being ironic or you do not realise we see a big grey square of nothing. One way or the other, this thread is so out there, how could we tell?


Given your contribs to date, you get the benefit of the doubt for me but, good grief, it is becoming hard to tell crank from irony.

Let us be honest. MJ has his crank scenario. Yankee has an entirely different scenario. Yet somehow they support each other. Because what?

At this point, one cannot further boil this kettle. Irony is no longer appropriate. Nor is mockery. Nor are mere facts. We have hit max loon and when that happens in any scenario, time to walk away.

One merely needs to take a step back and observe the claims made. Yankee's and MJ's claims cannot be reconciled. (well unless one appeals to magic). They care not a whit.

They will align right up to the point at which they consider they have defeated all opposition. Then they will turn on each other.

This has all happened before and this will all happen again.

Robin 27th January 2020 03:52 PM

Ironic? Moi?

The resolution is good enough to see what we need to see. I think that there may be a piece of paper there at the bottom right.

Robin 27th January 2020 03:59 PM

Basically I have stopped the Hezarkhani video at the moment of impact and grabbed a large section of the picture just above the plane.

So what we are looking at is a series of aluminium clad columns about 40 cm wide and windows in between that are 50 cm wide.

I just wanted to get the "resolution is good enough to see what we need to see" claim in context.

abaddon 27th January 2020 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12968737)
Ironic? Moi?

The resolution is good enough to see what we need to see. I think that there may be a piece of paper there at the bottom right.

I am sufficiently gifted in years to have little patience with this dance. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Else, I have little enough time to waste on cryptic BS. Life is short, and most of mine is in the past.

Robin 27th January 2020 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon (Post 12968744)
I am sufficiently gifted in years to have little patience with this dance. Say what you mean and mean what you say.



Else, I have little enough time to waste on cryptic BS. Life is short, and most of mine is in the past.

I don't see anything cryptic about the question. I showed a photograph and asked if anyone could tell me what it was.

Robin 27th January 2020 04:18 PM

And perhaps the video posted on YouTube as the raw video is not the clearest. If there is clearer video of this to be found, I will be happy to have a look.

BStrong 27th January 2020 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12968743)
Basically I have stopped the Hezarkhani video at the moment of impact and grabbed a large section of the picture just above the plane.

So what we are looking at is a series of aluminium clad columns about 40 cm wide and windows in between that are 50 cm wide.

I just wanted to get the "resolution is good enough to see what we need to see" claim in context.

If the parry in question was involved in this discussion in good faith, you'd be on the right track.

You're not on the right track.

No-planers are bot reality based.

Robin 27th January 2020 05:24 PM

Oh, I see the paper.

You can see the paper when it is zoomed in and when it is zoomed in you can also see the individual columns.

When it is zoomed back out again to where it was when the impact occurred, you can't see them any more.

pgimeno 27th January 2020 05:35 PM

I got what the picture was pretty much immediately. Not because I distinguished any details, but because I guessed your intentions :)

A bit of GIMPing (a little crop + Normalize) revealed squares typical of compression artifacts:


Blue Mountain 27th January 2020 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12968757)
I don't see anything cryptic about the question. I showed a photograph and asked if anyone could tell me what it was.

It's a picture of an elephant in a dust storm. Not sure what that has to do with 9/11, though. :)

bruto 27th January 2020 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12968683)
Oh, and just to pass the time, can someone tell me what this is?

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...-23.png?w=1024

It's obvious enough, isn't it? Wake up. It's all there in black and white. The fake media have blinded you to its subtle, entropic perfection.

Regnad Kcin 27th January 2020 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968580)
Whether or not I can make the calculations, the resolution is good enough to see what we need to see. So I don't have to make the effort just to humour people for whom no answer is good enough and will never admit they're wrong. Because, as I've said before- to admit you're wrong about something like this will remove this site's reason for being and your reason for being here. It's never going to happen no matter what proof I could present.

Say, what model Dodge do you drive?

TJM 27th January 2020 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12968916)
Say, what model Dodge do you drive?

A no-planer with access to a motor vehicle? Like I don't have enough nightmares.

The Common Potato 28th January 2020 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12968352)
And a US Grand Prix where the low data rate link back to the UK produced bizarre effects such as distant cars passing behind lighting poles but seeming to disappear behind each pole before popping out of the other side like something from a Chuck Jones cartoon.

You've totally lost it. Grand Prix cars don't overtake anything and won't until 2021. FACT!

Roll on 13:00, Friday, 13 March. :dc_biggrin:

Robin 28th January 2020 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968323)
I was waiting to see what mental contortions you lot would resort to to protect your world view.

I am not sure why you think this is a world view. What is it to me whether there were planes or not?

It is just that any reasonable analysis the evidence says that there were planes.

Cosmic Yak 28th January 2020 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12968334)
Get a dictionary and look up the difference between 'distrust' and 'disbelieve'.

OK.
To demonstrate that you are not merely engaging in semantic quibbling, I'd like to ask you something:
In the context of 9/11, can you point to an example of a claim or a piece of information from an authority that you initially distrusted, where that distrust did not translate into disbelief, and you ended up accepting it?

JSanderO 28th January 2020 07:39 AM

I was shocked that the towers can down so quickly and completely. And then 7wtc. Being an architect didn't do much for understanding what I saw.

I did not for a instant think it was an FX display. But I can't explain how everything I see "works".

The first explanations were pancakes and then sagging trusses... They seemed incomplete and did not make sense.

The truther types decided that what they saw was not "natural or normal" and there for the explanations were covering something up... an "inside job".

Other people studied the images and vids and use physics and engineering to work out what was possibly happening. NIST's work was not bad but unsatisfying to me. The ROOSD (by an name) seemed to identify how a long span open office structure would collapse as we saw. It made sense.

I realized without sufficient REAL TIME data there will be no definitive explanation for the collapses. All will be educated guesses... some better than others.

Over time I have learned and accepted the technical work explaining what happened. And over time the truther positions appeared more and more unfounded. Steve's is completely untenable.

There will be no new official investigation. And if there was it would reveal nothing new.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:10 PM.

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