Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954587)

Okay, so maybe the laws of physics do change just because you saw it on television, AND you assume there would be thousands of witnesses. None of which addresses the impact evidence that makes your assumptions, and the television moot, but such is the logic in Skeptic Land.

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12954591)

I "assume"? There is a difference between "assuming" and making a logical estimate based on irrefutable reality. I am plainly stating the fact.

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12953313)

The only video I have found which shows an actual impact is the Evan Fairbanks video.

The time from first contact to the building until the entire plane has hit the building is about 5 hundredths of a second.

The time from when the front of the first engine contacts until both wings have entirely contacted is one hundredth of a second.

There is no time for the force of impact to have propogated to the rest of the aircraft in that time so we would not expect to see the wings fold forward or for the fuselage to have started buckling.

All crumpling, buckling and shredding will have happened exactly at the point of impact and nowhere else.

So the "airliner slicing through a building like butter" is an illusion due to the fact that forces cannot propagate back along the aircraft faster than it is flying into a building.

In fact it is not an aircraft slicing through that building, rather 120 tons of debris and aircraft fuel travelling at close to 800 kph.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-6.png?w=1024

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954586)

Listen to you. If you don't believe me look up the archives of the news reports from the first explosion. I've linked to several accounts of missile reports, which you guys just wave-off, along with all the physical evidence of missile impacts. So no, you have been proven wrong about everything so far. You are in no position to demand anything of anyone.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954590)

Not true. The points I have made on this thread crush the plane hugging lunatics who still think the television trumps reality.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954589)

I have. And I have explained in detail how they, or something like them, are the only rational explanation for the damage as found.

You haven't looked them up, else you wouldn't be talking smack.

What are their off the shelf, publicly advertised capabilities? Range? Waypoint capablities? Payload/Warhead options?

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954558)

And yet until a TV was shoved in their faces, most people said they saw small planes, no planes (bombs), and missiles.

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12951383)

And that is why eye-witness testimony ought not be taken as a definitive answer to much at all.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951544)

And there it is; the television show trumps all.

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12954650)

This thread is addictive. I made a firm conclusion not to get involved about 20 pages ago because arguing with a cuckoo is against one of basic principles. And I got sucked in again! And can see it happening to a lot of other, otherwise ostentatiously rational people. Isn't the OP a vacuumcleaner salesman, by any chance? If not, he should consider that carrier!

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12954647)

PS How do you get images not to rotate?

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954607)

You're right about the illusion part, according to this photo, the jet couldn't even slide like butter through the aluminum sheeting that covered the column.

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12954657)

I don't know but you ought to get it sorted as it looks ripe for a cruise missile barrage.

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12954623)

Baloney, to put it mildly.

You're making the claim that "most people said..."

Now you're attempting to shift the goalposts and the burden of proof.

I'd be embarrassed for you, if it wasn't so god damned funny.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12951061)

Jeff,
And? So what. There were more witnesses that said they saw small planes, missiles or no planes at all. Not all the witnesses can be right. The damage evidence (that you keep avoiding) can thin out which of the witness accounts match the evidence, and which match the "official story."

Originally Posted by Leftus (Post 12954636)

wait, you said people didn't know what missiles were? Can they or can they not discriminate between missiles and planes?

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12954634)

I sometimes wish that someone like yankee451 is in court, accused of a crime he didn't commit, and that several of the jury used his way of thinking. Despite all the evidence pointing towards his innocence, the jury decides that there everyone is lying and that doing so is really quite an amusing thing to do.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954671)

Nope. You didn't. You see, the cladding covered the column on three sides. for a plane wing to so damage the column the cladding was attached to, it would first need to cut through the cladding. Back to the drawing board for you!

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

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12954685)

Ah! Got it! It was one of those missiles that turns broadside on just before impact.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954684)

You mean by gathering evidence at the scene of the crime and using what is learned from those clues to arrive at the most likely explanation for the series of events that could have accounted for the physical evidence as found? Yeah, a court would think that's pretty radical.

Originally Posted by The Common Potato (Post 12954683)

It's a conundrum. Of course, some witnesses are 'righter' than others.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954671)

for a plane wing to so damage the column the cladding was attached to, it would first need to cut through the cladding. Back to the drawing board for you!

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12952466)

Just to be clear: these are the videos and photos you claim have been digitally altered, right?
Can you explain why, if there were missiles, the faked images and videos were altered to highlight this, rather than hide it?

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954545)

Gosh, I don't know. Maybe the laws of physics really do change just because you saw it on television.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954558)

And yet until a TV was shoved in their faces, most people said they saw small planes, no planes (bombs), and missiles.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954586)

Listen to you. If you don't believe me look up the archives of the news reports from the first explosion. I've linked to several accounts of missile reports, which you guys just wave-off,

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954586)

along with all the physical evidence of missile impacts.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954684)

You mean by gathering evidence at the scene of the crime and using what is learned from those clues to arrive at the most likely explanation for the series of events that could have accounted for the physical evidence as found? Yeah, a court would think that's pretty radical.

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12954569)

Prove it.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954679)

Most people reported planes, missiles and bombs. CNN did report a large jet. Knowing that videos can be faked, and witnesses are notoriously unreliable, luckily we can thin out what's fake and what's real by examining the damage evidence.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954671)

Nope. You didn't. You see, the cladding covered the column on three sides. for a plane wing to so damage the column the cladding was attached to, it would first need to cut through the cladding. Back to the drawing board for you!



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

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954552)

The capabilities of the missiles are well documented.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954558)

And yet until a TV was shoved in their faces, most people said they saw small planes, no planes (bombs), and missiles.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954552)

The capabilities of the missiles are well documented.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak (Post 12954702)

Unsurprisingly, this does not answer my question.
You claim the images and videos were altered to mask the missiles.
You are using the same images to prove that missiles were used.
Why would the Evil Them not alter the images to show damage from a plane, instead of leaving in damage that an unqualified amateur like you can easily spot?
Not much of an Evil Plan, is it?

Originally Posted by JSanderO (Post 12954753)

Hard to tell what the material Steve claims is alum siding weirdly displaced actually is. It actually looks different in the ellipse. But the res is so low it's really hard to read. Perhaps a slab of insulation?

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12954736)

No 'most' people didn't.
After the first strike there was confusion as most people weren't looking and just heard it.
Many more people were looking at the WTC when the second strike happened. Thousands saw an airliner hit the tower.

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12954725)

So what you are saying is, that if I take a steel square section and cut and bend a sheet of aluminium to snugly fit the length of steel on three sides and then I swing a big crowbar at the front side then I would not be able to dent the steel without severing the aluminium completely? Yes?

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12954671)

Nope. You didn't. You see, the cladding covered the column on three sides.