IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th January 2020, 01:08 AM   #1841
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
Finally a proof aliens are real! Nobody will convince me this guy is a human being - even a certifiable one.
This has to be work of SOMETHING from another universe, maybe even another dimension. We have it all wrong, they are here among us and posting on Skeptics Forum!
Ok, smartipants, explain why the people sewing the suits or building the LEM had to know the landings would be faked. Make it good.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 01:11 AM   #1842
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,832
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Ok, smartipants, explain why the people sewing the suits or building the LEM had to know the landings would be faked. Make it good.
You can't show videos are fake, so you switch to moon landing denier.

so you found an error in logic, but we did land on the moon - thus being wrong, still wins, we landed on the moon.

In your case being wrong, you remain wrong... irony

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
It was years ago, I can't remember his name, but he was polite. It was nervousness that turned into anger when it got to the tough questions.
But he never implied they were lying..he was just 'asking questions'.

If their videos were real, there would be no reason to react as they did.

He also called some aircraft experts who told him jumbo jets can't fly at the speeds claimed at sea level.d
The 757 and 767 can fly at the speeds, seen, nothing stops them from going fast as sea level. And you can't show why they can't.

Flight 175 was 590 mph, on video and Radar, proves the planes can go that fast.

I flew my jet over Vmo at 300 to 500 feet with old J-57 engines. Jet engines have the most thrust at sea level, who knew... me

what is your point? Oh, there are those who lie, or don't know...

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
... OK. I think ww're done. ...
Yes, you are done, you can't prove any videos are fake. And Radar proves 175 and 11 hit the WTC.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 25th January 2020 at 01:19 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 01:24 AM   #1843
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I said before, none of those videos was at an angle to really see anythingd.
I've seen the 9/11 videos at various resolution. What I posted was what I happened to have on hand. I too wish they were clearer, but regardless, I would expect to see debris start tofall to the ground before the explosion which only happend after the entire plane disappeared.

besides, showing what a cruise missile does to 'prove' what a jumbo jet would do, makes no sense to me.
f
Certainly we would expect there to be debris starting to fall to the ground. The question is, would we expect to see it at this distance and at this resolution?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 02:09 AM   #1844
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 16,757
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The 757 and 767 can fly at the speeds, seen, nothing stops them from going fast as sea level. And you can't show why they can't.

Flight 175 was 590 mph, on video and Radar, proves the planes can go that fast.

I flew my jet over Vmo at 300 to 500 feet with old J-57 engines. Jet engines have the most thrust at sea level, who knew... me

what is your point? Oh, there are those who lie, or don't know...
He's mistakenly believing that aircraft cannot fly at high speeds at low altitude, because he has heard somewhere in one of his 9/11 twoofer echo chambers that for they cannot achieve high mach numbers at low altitude.

His knowledge of aviation and aeronautical engineering is limited. He doesn't understand that the reason for this is the sound speed gradient is negative with increasing altitude up to about 36,000 feet.

An aircraft flying at sea level, at barometric pressure of 1013.25 mbar, ambient 20ーC at 767 mph is doing close to Mach 1.0
The same aircraft doing the same speed at an altitude of 30,000 feet is doing Mach 1.13 because the speed of sound has dropped to 678 mph
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 25th January 2020 at 02:16 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 02:24 AM   #1845
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
It wasn't intact.
Largely intact, as I said. The starboard side of the airframe hasn't hit anything yet, the wing would still be there.
Quote:
You are distracting the thread with another red herring.
Questioning how the physical evidence fits your theory is a red herring?
Quote:
You say there is a gap behind the still standing cladding,
There is a gap. Not big enough for a cruise missile to fit through.
Quote:
but you have yet to explain how a wing could create the gap without cutting the cladding.
I have explained, I have drawn diagrams, I have made animations. You haven't responded to or even acknowledged any of it, which is your right. But don't pretend I didn't say it.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 02:31 AM   #1846
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Let's think about this for the moment. In this interaction between a column and the wing, where would you say the impact is focused on? The flat aluminum sheeting, or the protruding steel sides?

As I said before, it will start to crush the cladding first, knocking it back, something like this:



This is based on a sweep back of 35 degrees and a direction of 12.5 degrees to the left, as in WTC2
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 04:03 AM   #1847
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,465
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
There are many versions of the video. None show any visible damage until after the plane has...ummm... 'penetrated'. No shattered bits visibly fall to the ground until after the explosion. The steel box columns and 3/4 inch thick spandrels backed by 60 ft of steel and concrete flooring, backed in turn by the massive core columns- hit the plane with the kinetic engergy of 2000+ pounds of TNT. I expect to see a severely damaged aircraft if the video was a depiction of a real event.
You expect plane parts traveling at six hundred miles an hour to stop instantly why?
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 04:33 AM   #1848
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,088
The two planes hit the towers at different angles and seemed to cause similar destruction of the facade. In WTC2 the planes's trajectory was partially through the open office space, and landing hear punched through the northeast corner. AA11's engine was found to the south on Church Street. Other parts from the planes were recovered.

Not all of the plane's parts were destroyed in the collisions.

Denial of the planes hitting the towers is delusional.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 05:40 AM   #1849
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 4,674
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Again, it hasn't penetrated anything, except as debris.

You say there is no damage visible, but I can't imagine why you think you would see any damage at that resolution.

Earlier I posted several frames of a cruise missile hitting concrete. You couldn't see any damage there, even though it was closer and higher frame rate

Yet we know that the airframe and wings of that cruise missile must have been shattering as it hit the concrete.
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I said before, none of those videos was at an angle to really see anythingd.
I've seen the 9/11 videos at various resolution. What I posted was what I happened to have on hand. I too wish they were clearer, but regardless, I would expect to see debris start tofall to the ground before the explosion which only happend after the entire plane disappeared.

besides, showing what a cruise missile does to 'prove' what a jumbo jet would do, makes no sense to me.
f
He wasn't posting the video showing what the cruise missile did to prove what a jet could do- he was posting the video to demonstrate what the video could show. No wonder you guys are always so confused- you can't even follow a basic point.

My question would be- on what basis would you "expect to see debris start to fall to the ground before the explosion"? Physics? So far, all I've seen from you in that direction is that you know how to spell the word- you could at least try yankee's "slid like butter" version of it (now that's physics!).

Or maybe you have some other basis for comparison? Do you know of another instance of a video of a jet plane crashing into a skyscraper like the Towers at the speed these did?

"I would expect" would be so much better with some informed basis for the expectation.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 06:07 AM   #1850
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
As I said before, it will start to crush the cladding first, knocking it back, something like this:



This is based on a sweep back of 35 degrees and a direction of 12.5 degrees to the left, as in WTC2
In one of many possible scenarios, the structural element of the wing that impacted bends of hits the other side of the steel.



Breaks, bounces off



However the force has been transmitted to the steel and travels through it causing fractures:



Causing the column to break apart:



Of course if this is the front spar then there is the rest of the wing to come through and possible cause more damage to this column, or possibly be pulled sideways by the engine.

As I say, just one of many possible scenarios.

The idea that there is some simple formula which can tell us exactly what would happen when a jet crashes into a skyscraper is basically wrong. We can know in general what would happen, but the idea that we can know that all columns are going to get bent in particular ways or that every single piece of cladding must necessarily get completely severed not even leaving one side attached, that is a non-starter.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 06:15 AM   #1851
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,088
The "collision" was not a simple "interface" interaction.

Just like when you use a hose... it supplies a stream of water. The parts of the plane, its contents kept interacting... after the initial one. Both the plane parts and the bulling parts were CHANGED their geometry over time until the plane's bits had passed into the building without resistance. FEA is likely not powerful enough to model this.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 07:04 AM   #1852
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,636
Originally Posted by Elagabalus
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Just an observation - doesn't prove anything, but a chap phoned Hezaekhani and some of the other videographers and spoke to them in a non-accusational manner. Nevertheless, their nervousness was palpable.
Oooh! I didn't see this one before. Which chap? Got any links? Spoke to them in a non-accusational manner, you say? Nervousness or was it anger at some phuktard on the internet calling him a liar?


I remember. Some Canuck twat named Jeff Hill tracked down Micheal Hezarkhani to his place of business - he is / was a diamond merchant in Los Angeles. A colossal anus and overflowing douchebag, Hill repeatedly harassed Mr. Hezarkhani over the phone until he sternly yet politely told Hill to go **** himself, or something to that affect.

Ever the towering intellect, Hill took that as proof of Mr. Hezarkhani being in on "Teh Conspiracy".

There was video of the conversation online years ago but now searches only turn up dead links or other truthers swimming in Hill's wake. Perhaps if we ask our no-planers friends nicely, one of them might pumpitout.
__________________


Laughing my ass off as Trump's brown shirts are rounded up, one by one.

Last edited by TJM; 25th January 2020 at 07:05 AM.
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 07:04 AM   #1853
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,696
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Off topic but it needs to be said.

You folk will argue that 400,000 people would have had to be in on the Apollo hoax. but you can't explain why, for example, the ladies sewing the suits, or any other subcontractors would have to be in on it. They didn't.
No, not every one of the roughly 400,000 people involved in Apollo would have been able to discern a fake. Only part of that group. ETA: Plus a bunch of other people, the number varying according to your specific assertions.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
They were making real stuff that they believed would take men to the moon and back.
If it was real, why specifically wouldn’t it work?

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Not even the guys in the control room at their consoles had to be in on it. They had no way to differentiate between one of their countless simulations and the real thing.
Let me take a wild guess: you’ve never been in a simulation in the MCC, correct?

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Only the guys feeding the data to those consoles would have to be in on it.
Nope.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Yet, desspite pointing this out, believers continue to make the same argument.
You seem to believe Apolllo was a hoax of some sort. Why, specifically?

And what is your evidence that the vehicles and men did not perform the missions as described?

ETA: also, what is your evidence for whatever was required to be faked... being faked?

Would you like to start a thread in the parent conspiracy forum one level up from here?

Last edited by sts60; 25th January 2020 at 07:35 AM.
sts60 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 07:45 AM   #1854
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,641
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
from Hezarkhnai here the right wing has penetrated. No damage visible.How does the wing penetrate the wall without making a hole?

http://treshombres.ca/911/Plane2.png
Why do you think that the gap created by the wing should be visible in that picture, if the spaces between WTC columns, which are similarly spaced, are not? The video is just too low resolution to make heads or tails from it.

Still, I see a darkening in the area where the wings would be.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 07:50 AM   #1855
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,641
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Off topic but it needs to be said.

You folk will argue that 400,000 people would have had to be in on the Apollo hoax. but you can't explain why, for example, the ladies sewing the suits, or any other subcontractors would have to be in on it. They didn't. They were making real stuff that they believed would take men to the moon and back.

Not even the guys in the control room at their consoles had to be in on it. They had no way to differentiate between one of their countless simulations and the real thing. Only the guys feeding the data to those consoles would have to be in on it.
How many are these?

How many people would it take to fake the passenger manifest which was the first lead into the identities of the hijackers?

How many people would it take to fake the videos of the airport cameras? What about the airport guy who confronted Atta? Is he in on it too? Or was that an actor? Is that actor in on it too? If so, is his face the same one that was published of Atta?

The car was found later in the parking lot. How many people did that involve?

Many people at the Pentagon worked in the cleanup. Several of them have reported seeing human remains, or a black box. Many of these remains were later matched to AA77 passengers. How many people did it take to fake all that?

Personal effects of the victims of AA11 and UA175 were identified and returned to their families. How many people does that part take?

The families of the passengers of the flight lost relatives. How many people does it take to get rid of said relatives who, according to the manifest, were in the plane?

How many people does it take to doctor all 63 videos and make them public? At least the 63 people involved who made them public, don't you agree?

How many people who saw the explosion had to be silenced in order to muffle them from speaking out and saying "that's not what I saw"?

How many people would it take to plant scattered plane parts on the streets of Manhattan, and how did they do this without being seen?

I could go on and on and on. Yes it's a hell of a lot of people that need to be involved. Just pretending that the 63 people who presented the videos are in on it, is insane. You really haven't thought this through, have you?

Last edited by pgimeno; 25th January 2020 at 07:54 AM.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 08:22 AM   #1856
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,359
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
They didn't erase any of my other 'bunk'. Only the part where they inadvertently proved the conspiracy in question was real.
You didn't/haven't proven anything by posting links to videos describing how "it could be done". You need to prove that it was done and to do that you need to ignore all of the physical evidence. That would makes your belief incorrect.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 08:22 AM   #1857
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,774
Originally Posted by Robin View Post

Of course if this is the front spar then there is the rest of the wing to come through and possible cause more damage to this column, or possibly be pulled sideways by the engine.

As I say, just one of many possible scenarios.

So if I get this right, you're saying a wing spar, which is designed for vertical loads, cut through the steel and all but one piece of cladding.

yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 08:25 AM   #1858
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,774
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
He wasn't posting the video showing what the cruise missile did to prove what a jet could do- he was posting the video to demonstrate what the video could show. No wonder you guys are always so confused- you can't even follow a basic point.

My question would be- on what basis would you "expect to see debris start to fall to the ground before the explosion"? Physics? So far, all I've seen from you in that direction is that you know how to spell the word- you could at least try yankee's "slid like butter" version of it (now that's physics!).

Or maybe you have some other basis for comparison? Do you know of another instance of a video of a jet plane crashing into a skyscraper like the Towers at the speed these did?

"I would expect" would be so much better with some informed basis for the expectation.

Fortunately, for the sake of sanity, the equal and opposite reaction of the lateral impacts eliminates the head on impact of a jet.
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 08:37 AM   #1859
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,359
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Where's your source for that assertion? Heres one of many that contradicts your claim. Maybe it's YOU that needs to improve their research skills.

https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
OBL(UBL) in fact did not plan the 9/11 events, but he did finance the operation planned by KSM, who recruited/trained/assigned the 19 that carried out the attacks. You really need to get your facts from other places than CTs.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 09:00 AM   #1860
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,774
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
There is a gap. Not big enough for a cruise missile to fit through.
How do you figure? The columns were 14 inches wide. The warheads, the AGM-86 D has a 14 inch warhead, and the AGM-158 has a 12 inch warhead. Using the known measurements of the columns, the warheads of either of these missiles could do the deed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...ndoff-missile/

Last edited by yankee451; 25th January 2020 at 09:02 AM.
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 09:06 AM   #1861
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,774
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Of course if this is the front spar then there is the rest of the wing to come through and possible cause more damage to this column, or possibly be pulled sideways by the engine.
By the way, for your explanation to be correct, the official explanation must be incorrect. Why do you think the engine would "pull" the wing, when the wing was disintegrated by the steel as it penetrated it? By the time the wing tip struck, it would no longer be attached to the wing.

You are contradicting your own story.

yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 10:20 AM   #1862
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,832
Crazy claims based on insane assumptions for missiles

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
By the way, for your explanation to be correct, the official explanation must be incorrect. Why do you think the engine would "pull" the wing, when the wing was disintegrated by the steel as it penetrated it? By the time the wing tip struck, it would no longer be attached to the wing.

You are contradicting your own story.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ighlighted.png
You failed, your analysis failed... why you are off topic again

A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be


Darn, why can't you physics?

https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 10:26 AM   #1863
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 27,675
I could see a certain point in pointing out that a plane can't fly above a certain speed safely at sea level, but what happens if you're planning to crash it? As you careen down out of the sky, does an invisible hand come up out of the earth and say "slow down there, pilgrim?"
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 10:37 AM   #1864
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,238
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
And once again, for those of you with short attention spans, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not we who call BS to the claim. The original claim being, on 9/11 mostly hollow aluminum jets burrowed into the ground, bored through a concrete and brick building, and sliced through steel skyscrapers like butter.

You cling to videos and alleged witness accounts while disregarding the physical evidence which proves they're false. If you think you can prove the jets were real, then now's your chance to use the same evidence we all have access to, to prove it.

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/
Just scanning the thread for a few chuckles to start the day.

The hilited bit above? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Ha Ha!

Ha!

I’ll tune in again tomorrow. Same bat-crap-crazy time, same bat-crap-crazy channel.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

Last edited by Regnad Kcin; 25th January 2020 at 10:55 AM.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 11:03 AM   #1865
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
You expect plane parts traveling at six hundred miles an hour to stop instantly why?
B ecause the lighter parts hitting the steel columns are encountering an equalresistive force. What the mathematicians here fail to acknowledge is their calculation of the kinetic energy supposes the plane is a solid object like a brick.
ie - the plane weighs X and is travelling at velocity Y.

The engines and landing gear carry more kinetic energy than the relatively flimsy fuselage and wingtips. Yet the entire plane is 'swallowed' uniformly.

I don't buy it, and never will. I'm done trying to explain the obvious. Believe whatever you want.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 11:09 AM   #1866
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I could see a certain point in pointing out that a plane can't fly above a certain speed safely at sea level, but what happens if you're planning to crash it? As you careen down out of the sky, does an invisible hand come up out of the earth and say "slow down there, pilgrim?"
Long shots show the plane in level flight for several miles before impact. It's not just that they can't fly safely, it's that the engines can't provide enough thrust to push the plane through the denser air. They're designed to achieve those speeds at cruising altitude where the air resistance is several times less that at sea level. But I'm not going to argue about the speed. I think some parts would bend and break if the speed was even greater than claimed.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 11:16 AM   #1867
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
Just scanning the thread for a few chuckles to start the day.

The hilited bit above? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Ha Ha!

Ha!

I値l tune in again tomorrow. Same bat-crap-crazy time, same bat-crap-crazy channel.
According to your logic then, I can claim I have a 3 headed Martian in my basement, but have no burden of proof. Instead, you have the burden to prove I don't have a Martian.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 11:20 AM   #1868
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,832
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Long shots show the plane in level flight for several miles before impact. It's not just that they can't fly safely, it's that the engines can't provide enough thrust to push the plane through the denser air. They're designed to achieve those speeds at cruising altitude where the air resistance is several times less that at sea level. But I'm not going to argue about the speed. I think some parts would bend and break if the speed was even greater than claimed.
You make this up. the engines have their most thrust at sea level and a clean 757/767 quickly accelerates at sea level well beyond Vmo. And can exceed Vd, and make it to 1.2 Vd (504 knots) in 20 to 30 seconds.

Flight 77 went from 300 knots to 483.5 knots in less than 30 seconds when the terrorist pilot set the throttles to 100 percent. Thus you are informed, you are wrong.

In addition, you can't prove a jet can't past max speeds at sea level, you will not provide the data, the thrust, and the drag equations.

You can't do physics, and you can't do aero engineering.

Flight 11 hit at Vd, a flight tested speed.
Flight 175 hit at 590, in a decent, even easier to exceed limit speeds.
Flight 77, 300 to 483.5 knots in 20 to 30 seconds at 100 percent near sea level.

What is your point?
You are so full of BS, you don't do aero and physics...

A study you can't figure out because it has physics, science and math.
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1...3A10%281066%29

Physic you can't grasp, which involves mass and velocity, and the resulting Kinetic Energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo


The video that is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The video that is real bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be


You and yankee451 can't prove a video is fake, never will
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 11:28 AM   #1869
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,238
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Off topic but it needs to be said.

You folk will argue that 400,000 people would have had to be in on the Apollo hoax. but you can't explain why, for example, the ladies sewing the suits, or any other subcontractors would have to be in on it. They didn't. They were making real stuff that they believed would take men to the moon and back.

Not even the guys in the control room at their consoles had to be in on it. They had no way to differentiate between one of their countless simulations and the real thing. Only the guys feeding the data to those consoles would have to be in on it.
Yet, desspite pointing this out, believers continue to make the same argument.dd
An Apollo hoaxer? Q置elle surprise.

I知 guessing also JFK for the trifecta.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 11:29 AM   #1870
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
You didn't/haven't proven anything by posting links to videos describing how "it could be done". You need to prove that it was done and to do that you need to ignore all of the physical evidence. That would makes your belief incorrect.
No, I'm pointing out the lack of physical evidence of a 'crash'. The video showing how it could be done was in response to the question of how it could be done. I didn't post it a proof of fakery. The proof, for the umpteenth time is in the lack of physics.
No doubt, even if I provided proof that would satisfy you lot that the video was faked, you would make some excuse for it so you could cling to your belief 9/11 happened as reported. d
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 11:33 AM   #1871
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
An Apollo hoaxer? Q置elle surprise.

I知 guessing also JFK for the trifecta.
That and more. the world works a lot differently from what your entrenched beliefs would allow you to see.

I suppose you believe the 'magic bullet' theory. I'd like to hear your explanation of the physics involved there
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 11:36 AM   #1872
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,832
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Long shots show the plane in level flight for several miles before impact.
Which plane was level? Does not matter, the engines can accelerate the clean aircraft to 500 knots. Where is your math?

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
It's not just that they can't fly safely,
So? now comes the stuff you make up based on ignorance.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
it's that the engines can't provide enough thrust to push the plane through the denser air.
Proof? Got Proof? No, you made this up. Yes, the air is denser, but the thrust is at the greatest as sea level, and the plane is clean, and can go 500 knots with engines at 100 percent. You can't provide the math and aero to back your failed opinion.

Yes, the air is denser - but the engines can do it.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
They're designed to achieve those speeds at cruising altitude where the air resistance is several times less that at sea level.
So? Actually, the KIAS goes down at high altitude, the KTAS goes up usually.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
But I'm not going to argue about the speed.
lol, you just gave an argument, but you are right, it was really an opinion, and you are not able to argue, you have no useful knowledge to make an argument on speed.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I think some parts would bend and break if the speed was even greater than claimed.
So?

Not enough thrust? Flight 77, near sea level, goes from 300 knots to 483.5 in less than 30 seconds. Terrorist pilot proves you can't do Aero engineering.

No wonder you and yankee451 can't prove videos fake, you guys don't know anything about the subjects required to investigate 9/11.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 11:45 AM   #1873
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,696
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
An Apollo hoaxer? Q置elle surprise.

I知 guessing also JFK for the trifecta.
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
That and more. the world works a lot differently from what your entrenched beliefs would allow you to see...
So, would you like to respond to my post discussing your Apollo claims? We can start a thread in the parent conspiracy forum one level up.
sts60 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 12:07 PM   #1874
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,832
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
That and more. the world works a lot differently from what your entrenched beliefs would allow you to see.

I suppose you believe the 'magic bullet' theory. I'd like to hear your explanation of the physics involved there
Not wonder your posts are removed at metabunk - evidence free opinions, and off topic

You can't prove any videos are fake, and know little about aero and physics

The truth = https://i.imgflip.com/3n4p9r.jpg


The video, is real
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDEczx-8xZI

The analysis is terrible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gpr...ature=youtu.be
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 25th January 2020 at 12:08 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 12:16 PM   #1875
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
He wasn't posting the video showing what the cruise missile did to prove what a jet could do- he was posting the video to demonstrate what the video could show. No wonder you guys are always so confused- you can't even follow a basic point.

My question would be- on what basis would you "expect to see debris start to fall to the ground before the explosion"? Physics? So far, all I've seen from you in that direction is that you know how to spell the word- you could at least try yankee's "slid like butter" version of it (now that's physics!).

Or maybe you have some other basis for comparison? Do you know of another instance of a video of a jet plane crashing into a skyscraper like the Towers at the speed these did?

"I would expect" would be so much better with some informed basis for the expectation.
This is getting tiresome and repetetive. You folk don't believe the impact videos are fake. I get it. Nothing will satisfy you folk as I learned with my Metabunk experience.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 12:19 PM   #1876
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
ddd
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
So, would you like to respond to my post discussing your Apollo claims? We can start a thread in the parent conspiracy forum one level up.
No thanks. Been there, done that.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Itchy Boy; 25th January 2020 at 12:24 PM. Reason: sp
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 12:28 PM   #1877
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
As I said before, it will start to crush the cladding first, knocking it back, something like this:

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-17.png?w=320

This is based on a sweep back of 35 degrees and a direction of 12.5 degrees to the left, as in WTC2
Hence some of the cladding should have been seen to fall before the explosion.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 12:29 PM   #1878
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,832
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
This is getting tiresome and repetetive. You folk don't believe the impact videos are fake. I get it. Nothing will satisfy you folk as I learned with my Metabunk experience.
Yes, because the videos are real, your claims are fantasy. You offer no evidence, you bring opinions. No proof.

Like aircraft speed, you repeat failed tag lines from 9/11 truth like a parrot, and dismiss real evidence like Radar. Claim everything is fake, and not able to prove anything.

Tiresome, it take no effort for you to make up a lie. It takes effort to do the work and find your claims are BS.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 12:30 PM   #1879
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Hence some of the cladding should have been seen to fall before the explosion.
ETA: And thanks Robin for being one of the only ones here to show adult behaviour.
It's in precious short supply here.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th January 2020, 12:32 PM   #1880
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,832
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
ETA: And thanks Robin for being one of the only ones here to show adult behaviour.
It's in precious short supply here.
Why do you spread lies and fantasy? Mocking the murder of thousands with fantasy lies - adult behavior, spreading lies.

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Hence some of the cladding should have been seen to fall before the explosion.
How do you know it did not fall? You keep making up reasons to support a fantasy and offer no evidence, and ignore evidence.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.