9/11: How they Faked the Videos

beachnut said:
so you don't want people to swear to support and defend the Constitution? Why are you unpatriotic to those who faithfully serve?

And you have been in the military? I doubt it.

Yes, we are indoctrinated, and here is what we are indoctrinated with...
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

What is your oath of office,... to lie and mock the murder of thousands?

I was on active duty on 9/11. It appears you are bias against your fellow Americans who serve in the US Military. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Like I said...
 
Axxman300 said:
2 identical planes flew into two identical buildings leaving identical impact scars on the exterior. I'm no scientist but I think this one's a slam-dunk.
Click to expand...

According to the television. But not according to the photographs. Hmm...
 
I am getting sucked in again - against all of my principles of not getting in disputes with people undeniably certifiable ;-). This is not an attempt to convince the OP about anything. I do can identify the border between "feasible" and "futile" :-). I am doing this purely as a mental exercise in logic.
So, we have an irrefutable evidence a plane hit the building. There is a whole mountain of evidence supporting it. We know which plane it was, we know who was in control, we know how they got aboard, we can explain virtually all what happened during and after the impact. Any attempt to dispute this evidence is ridiculous and destined for failure.
The only "serious" piece of "evidence" conflicting the above is a piece of aluminium cladding that seems to defy the straight logic. So, let's try just a straight logic to explain what we see. It is like watching a magic show. For a hour or so you are watching stuff you KNOW is entirely impossible. But is is happening, right? Yes, because you are missing the background of the tricks.
So, we know the cladding wasn't in its original position when the column behind it has been severed. I agree with the OP on that point. All the analogies with broken bones etc are valid in general, but they don't really fit to the exact situation we are having here. So, a sequence of events is becoming to emerge: the first part of the wing damaged the cladding and cause the top end to disconnect from the structure. The next part pushed the cladding aside (possible due a hydraulic action in the fuel tank) and it starts falling down pivoting around its bottom attachment. The wing comes apart (possibly again due to the hydraulic action) at the point of the column on the right, leaving it and our cladding now in front of it relatively undamaged, while the other columns were being severed. The tail section of the wing has arrived containing whatever part has "drilled" the circular hole in the column on the right, giving a glancing blow to our cladding bending it back up (the bend near the bottom of it supports this part) and moving it back left to its original position.
Possible? Yes. Likely? No. But have you ever heard about people winning first division in lottery twice in a row? Possible? Yes. Likely? No. Did it happen? Yes.
What I am presenting is probably only one of the possible scenarios and there may be others - similarly unlikely but plausible explanations. Every each of them will be many times more probable than the sick fantasy the OP is trying to sell us. There is no point whatsoever trying to find some truth in these.
 
Last edited:
My hat is off to anyone who tries, but...if you're seriously arguing with a guy who is either not quite bright enough to properly understand the concept of "circular argument," or not honest enough to properly apply it, you're wasting your time. If, OTOH, you're arguing with him only because it's as good a way for you to pass the time as it is for him, and you don't expect anything more from it than some entertainment, carry on; just don't lose the proper perspective.

For myself, I can only say that I've never seen a better example of the typical CTist "anti-consilience" approach. Yankee's entire premise, his "physical evidence," is a few photographs of the building and his personal, uninformed incredulity that an airplane could have done it- that's it, he has nothing else. And every other bit of evidence- eyewitnesses, video, actual physical evidence such as airplane parts and passenger DNA found in the wreckage, the absence of the airplanes and those passengers afterward, etc.,- is made to conform to that deliberately narrowed viewpoint; his "explanations" for all those things are nothing more than necessary rationalizations, handwaves at all evidence that contradicts one bit rather than examining the one bit in light of all the others. So, congratulations, yankee- you may not agree with your fellow CTists on the details, but you're exactly like them in your broad methodology.

One other thing- you are, in fact, making a positive claim- that the damage to the building is inconsistent with having been done by an airplane in a way that is testable by a simplistic, brute-force experiment involving running a wing into a mock-up of the building (which is a silly way to test the proposition, but we'll go with it for the sake of an entertaining argument). So, a couple of questions-

1) What parameters are you setting to establish whether or not the damage done in your test effectively reproduces that done on the actual building? What's the basis for comparison? Just that one bit of cladding? Will you claim that, if that's not replicated, the test is successful (from your POV)? Surely you at least understand that a chaotic event like flying a plane into a building can't be so exactly reproduced as to duplicate the same outcome twice? If a baseball player knocks a ball out of the park, nicking a light pole on the way out and then breaking a car's windshield in the parking lot- would you claim that no baseball could have done the damage to the pole or car on the basis that no test could exactly replicate the trajectory it took to do that damage?

2) Since you're making another positive claim- that it was missiles that did that damage- are you willing to test that the same way? Will you, at some point, test for what you say did do the damage as well as for what you say didn't, by putting a missile analog through the same building mock-up, with the same criteria that, if that cladding damage isn't exactly replicated, it shows that it couldn't have been a missile that did it? In fact, it seems to me that you would want to do this test first, since it would (by your standards) establish positively what you can only otherwise claim by a negative.
 
Wow............this is still going on.

There is no time limit on mental illness ………...
 
yankee451 said:
See the thing is the evidence I've brought to the table discredits the stories of the victims. Your outrage is misplaced. I'm not the one that lied to you, just the one that burst your bubble.

Physics proves me right, hence your penchant for relying on emotionally charged tales of faux victims.
Click to expand...

The moronic drivel you post isn't evidence Skippy.

Oh and the victims can't tell stories cause they're dead. But since in your delusional world you believe them to be alive and living among us, please prove it.
 
turingtest said:
My hat is off to anyone who tries, but...if you're seriously arguing with a guy who is either not quite bright enough to properly understand the concept of "circular argument," or not honest enough to properly apply it, you're wasting your time. If, OTOH, you're arguing with him only because it's as good a way for you to pass the time as it is for him, and you don't expect anything more from it than some entertainment, carry on; just don't lose the proper perspective.

For myself, I can only say that I've never seen a better example of the typical CTist "anti-consilience" approach. Yankee's entire premise, his "physical evidence," is a few photographs of the building and his personal, uninformed incredulity that an airplane could have done it- that's it, he has nothing else. And every other bit of evidence- eyewitnesses, video, actual physical evidence such as airplane parts and passenger DNA found in the wreckage, the absence of the airplanes and those passengers afterward, etc.,- is made to conform to that deliberately narrowed viewpoint; his "explanations" for all those things are nothing more than necessary rationalizations, handwaves at all evidence that contradicts one bit rather than examining the one bit in light of all the others. So, congratulations, yankee- you may not agree with your fellow CTists on the details, but you're exactly like them in your broad methodology.

One other thing- you are, in fact, making a positive claim- that the damage to the building is inconsistent with having been done by an airplane in a way that is testable by a simplistic, brute-force experiment involving running a wing into a mock-up of the building (which is a silly way to test the proposition, but we'll go with it for the sake of an entertaining argument). So, a couple of questions-

1) What parameters are you setting to establish whether or not the damage done in your test effectively reproduces that done on the actual building? What's the basis for comparison? Just that one bit of cladding? Will you claim that, if that's not replicated, the test is successful (from your POV)? Surely you at least understand that a chaotic event like flying a plane into a building can't be so exactly reproduced as to duplicate the same outcome twice? If a baseball player knocks a ball out of the park, nicking a light pole on the way out and then breaking a car's windshield in the parking lot- would you claim that no baseball could have done the damage to the pole or car on the basis that no test could exactly replicate the trajectory it took to do that damage?

2) Since you're making another positive claim- that it was missiles that did that damage- are you willing to test that the same way? Will you, at some point, test for what you say did do the damage as well as for what you say didn't, by putting a missile analog through the same building mock-up, with the same criteria that, if that cladding damage isn't exactly replicated, it shows that it couldn't have been a missile that did it? In fact, it seems to me that you would want to do this test first, since it would (by your standards) establish positively what you can only otherwise claim by a negative.
Click to expand...

Everything you say applies to you fine fellows.

1. If/when the test ever occurs, the parameters will be agreed upon in advance by all concerned parties. Even a simple FEA on the interaction between the massive wing tip and the flimsy cladding should suffice.

2. Any tests would be done ad transparently and as accurately as possible.
 
yankee451 said:
I guess this is a red herring fallacy.


My dear mother passed away in November, 2018. You can Google my name, Steve De'ak, and learn all you'd like to know about me and my relatives. You'd get along with Christopher Bollyn, who has done the same. Is this why you don't use your real name and face on the Internet? So that you can say anything you want without fear of repercussions?
Click to expand...

Cool story bro.

Tell us Steve, if 9/11 was an inside jobby job why is the CIA allowing you to spew your nonsense all over the interwebs? How come they haven't come calling and eliminated you? I mean you're such a smart guy, exposing the ruthless government and their murder of almost 3000 people, why haven't they taken you and your buddy Feltzer out yet? Please explain.
 
yankee451 said:
Like I said...
Click to expand...
You are the indoctrinated one. Indoctrinated in woo. Did you try to join the military and not make it?

Is this why you make up lies about missiles?

Stopping wars by spreading lies. Are you upset the taliban was beat up, UBL is dead, or was Saddam your buddy?

The videos are real, they show 757's breaking the shell of the WTC, which physics can explain, and you can't.

Bigfoot uses the same method you use, fantasy - except your fantasy is mocking the murder of thousands.
 
yankee451 said:
Still no. As explained repeatedly already, not all of those were broadcast live. The ones that WERE broadcast live, or almost live actually, were from the perspective of the north face of the north tower. How do you figure the crash was shown live, when the alleged plane crashed into the south face of the south tower, which was not visible in the live footage. Do your research and, please, stop foaming at the mouth.
Click to expand...

Evidence please.

Footage of the plane crash from 18 separate sources.

Where's you missile footage Steve? Don't have any? How sad.
 
yankee451 said:
His.

My conclusions are based on the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damaged steel cladding that was sharply bent in a completely different direction than the CGI jet was traveling.
Click to expand...

Physics fail!

Why do you suck at science so bad?
 
yankee451 said:
Hell yes. The original claim was that a jet cut through a steel building, which the EVIDENCE proves didn't happen. The burden of proof is on the original claimant.
Click to expand...
Well, no. The impact and resultant cascade of physical events (not “a jet cut through a steel building”) is the null hypothesis, supported by an untold amount of witness testimony, physical evidence, and subsequent research and analysis. In short, it is the commonly-accepted understanding of the thing. Any challenge to it, including yours, therefore has the burden.

I'm just a guy calling BS to it, and providing extraordinary evidence to boot. You guys suck at this.
Click to expand...
No, a couple of photos as well as a stream of outlandish assertions & claims is hardly evidence, much less that which could be considered extraordinary.

And call B.S. all you like; it makes no difference to, really, anyone.
 
yankee451 said:
I use my real name and face because I mean what I say. The only people I have a beef with already know everything there is to know about me. I don't have a problem with people who live in fear and think using a pseudonym will protect them, however naive that is, but I have no patience for ad hominem fallacies slung by people who hide behind anonymity. I wasn't asking them to "show themselves" as much as I was mocking them for slinging mud from the shadows.

The skeptics have been wrong about so many things, from which tower they're looking at, to whether the south face of the south tower is visible when looking at the north face of the north tower. They don't admit they're wrong because they don't have to. They won't have to face friends, family and co-workers for their mistakes. They can say anything they want without having to admit error. And they do. Often. Just read the thread. I suspect there would be fewer blowhards here if they proudly signed their names to their screed.
Click to expand...
Pointing out the flaws in 2+2=banana is valid whether the person doing so is anonymous or known to be the king of Siam. By the same token, the person positing fruit-based math is not granted an extra measure of credibility simply because their identity is known, unless of course their credentials/knowledge/skill set can be shown to be relevant. Even then, a specific position and its supporting information should be our concern.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
They were selling us planes, but launched missiles.
Click to expand...
Who is “they?” Be specific. Also, please provide evidence of these launched missiles.

All radar data can be faked, as you, an alleged pilot, already know.
Click to expand...
If you are alleging phony radar data, please provide proof.

Considering the most likely suspects are the people who provided the alleged radar data, why do you think it has merit?
Click to expand...
Who are these “most likely suspects?” Names and agencies, please. Also, shifting the burden of proof.

Why do you think radar data from the most likely suspects overrides the physical evidence that discredits it?
Click to expand...
Assuming facts not in evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom