IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Tags 9/11 conspiracy theories , missiles , no planes

Reply
Old 21st August 2022, 03:09 PM   #1
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,789
9/11: The Smoking Gun

The evidence discussed in this video leads directly to the most likely cause, and the most likely suspects, which is probably why it was banned almost immediately on YouTube and Facebook.

The inescapable conclusion is that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight on 9/11. How they faked the videos is irrelevant to what the physical evidence shows.

This is forensice examination of the evidence we all have access to, but to discuss it is forbidden. I have tried to do just that on this very site in the past, so I'm under no illusions as to how long this post will remain here. Watch it quickly, while you can. 14.29 minutes.

9/11: The Smoking Gun
https://vimeo.com/741646536
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 21st August 2022, 03:24 PM   #2
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Home.
Posts: 10,514
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
The evidence discussed in this video leads directly to the most likely cause, and the most likely suspects, which is probably why it was banned almost immediately on YouTube and Facebook.

The inescapable conclusion is that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight on 9/11. How they faked the videos is irrelevant to what the physical evidence shows.

This is forensice examination of the evidence we all have access to, but to discuss it is forbidden. I have tried to do just that on this very site in the past, so I'm under no illusions as to how long this post will remain here. Watch it quickly, while you can. 14.29 minutes.

9/11: The Smoking Gun
https://vimeo.com/741646536
Seems like a pointless advert to join Vimeo.
bluesjnr 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 21st August 2022, 03:40 PM   #3
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,789
Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
Seems like a pointless advert to join Vimeo.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.
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 21st August 2022, 03:42 PM   #4
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 7,996
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Be bored. Be very bored.
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.
sackett 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 21st August 2022, 05:24 PM   #5
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
The evidence discussed in this video leads directly to the most likely cause, and the most likely suspects, which is probably why it was banned almost immediately on YouTube and Facebook.

The inescapable conclusion is that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight on 9/11. How they faked the videos is irrelevant to what the physical evidence shows.

This is forensice examination of the evidence we all have access to, but to discuss it is forbidden. I have tried to do just that on this very site in the past, so I'm under no illusions as to how long this post will remain here. Watch it quickly, while you can. 14.29 minutes.

9/11: The Smoking Gun
https://vimeo.com/741646536
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
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 21st August 2022, 05:25 PM   #6
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
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 21st August 2022, 05:27 PM   #7
stanfr
Master Poster
 
stanfr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,259
I *was* bored, so I took a deep breath and watched it. I hate to use such a PIC term, but that was one of the most retarded things I've ever seen. I almost LOLd when the narrator calmly said "There probably were 1000s of witnesses who reported the cruise missiles, but they won't let us know about those reports"
I say almost, because it's really deeply sad that someone would spend hours of their precious lifetime producing this utter piece of garbage, when they could have donated that time to the local soup kitchen or something...
stanfr 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 21st August 2022, 05:33 PM   #8
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,675
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
This is forensice examination...

But is it realistice?
__________________
A z°mbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 21st August 2022, 06:00 PM   #9
Athyrio
Hipster Doofus
 
Athyrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nutsack, FL
Posts: 2,426
Another silent bombshell.
__________________
Knowledge is good.... Emil Faber
Athyrio 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 21st August 2022, 06:12 PM   #10
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 42,001
Seems like it would be monumentally easier to just hire a Muslim extremist group to hijack airliners and fly them into the towers.

The conspiracy falls apart because it's a billion times more complicated while accomplishing the same goals while leaving far, far more loose ends.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue 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 21st August 2022, 06:15 PM   #11
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,606
Originally Posted by stanfr View Post
I *was* bored, so I took a deep breath and watched it. I hate to use such a PIC term, but that was one of the most retarded things I've ever seen. I almost LOLd when the narrator calmly said "There probably were 1000s of witnesses who reported the cruise missiles, but they won't let us know about those reports"
I say almost, because it's really deeply sad that someone would spend hours of their precious lifetime producing this utter piece of garbage, when they could have donated that time to the local soup kitchen or something...
Almost all who have seen it and posted have similar thoughts. I'm not wasting my time to watch it again as it presents no evidence just a soapbox to stand and toss stupid ideas to the crowd. All those witnesses would have found a reporter to give their story. The "they" not named but surely the government and or its agencies are not named because it is all smoke and mirrors those gullible individuals like yankee451 dine on.
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 21st August 2022, 08:57 PM   #12
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,162
Anybody who thinks it's possible to have a productive, or even rational, conversation with Yankee should read this old ISF thread first. It's 70-some pages of him deriding people for believing what they saw on TV on 9/11 or in videos since, while what he calls "physical evidence" is no such thing...only his interpretation of what he sees in those videos, presented in one.

Yes, it really is that dumb.
__________________
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 21st August 2022, 09:44 PM   #13
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
For anyone here still stupid enough to think that it was missiles and not airliners that hit the towers, I'll just leave this here....


__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
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 21st August 2022, 10:22 PM   #14
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
For anyone here still stupid enough to think that it was missiles and not airliners that hit the towers, I'll just leave this here....


https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ye6lsop9n...rlay.gif?raw=1

I don't promote any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. But the above animation is about as weak as any evidence a truther could come up with. I mean, ridiculously so.

The animation clearly illustrates how once people get invested in a certain belief, their standard of evidence declines. Confirmation bias. It is not uncommon to see similar video "evidence" presented for bigfoot, tbh.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 21st August 2022 at 10:34 PM.
Warp12 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 21st August 2022, 11:19 PM   #15
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,614
Multiple cruise missiles? Were these the same cruise missiles that brought down TWA 800 and shot Societ nuclear weapons and Jewish space lasers out into outer space?
Allen773 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 22nd August 2022, 12:01 AM   #16
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I don't promote any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. But the above animation is about as weak as any evidence a truther could come up with. I mean, ridiculously so.

The animation clearly illustrates how once people get invested in a certain belief, their standard of evidence declines. Confirmation bias. It is not uncommon to see similar video "evidence" presented for bigfoot, tbh.
Wrong. Its not confirmation bias at all, and you have no ******* idea what you are talking about.

This is a correct, mathematically and trigonometrically calculated, superposition animation. The superimposed line diagram of the airliner is an accurate, to scale representation of the rear elevation of the exact model of airliner (a Boeing 767-222) that hit the South Tower. It is shown at the correct bank angle within a margin of error of ▒- 2░, calculated by careful analysis using the many videos available that show the impact of UA175 on the south face of the south tower.

You may be unaware that the animation I posted was originally posted on previous occasions specifically to debunk the OP's nonsense about the use of cruise missiles to simulate the wing impact damage because, as he claimed, the wing of an airliner would be too weak to make that damage. In effect, you have spouted off from a position of not understanding the context.

You are out of your depth here Warp12 because you are unfamiliar with both the debate and this OP.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd August 2022 at 12:10 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 22nd August 2022, 12:07 AM   #17
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Wrong. Its not confirmation bias at all, and you have no ******* idea what you are talking about.

This is a correct, mathematically and trigonometrically calculated, superimposition animation. The superimposed line diagram of the airliner is an accurate, to scale representation of the rear elevation of the exact model of airliner (a Boeing 767-222) that hit the South Tower. It is shown at the correct bank angle within a margin of error of ▒- 2░, calculated by careful analysis using the many videos available that show the impact of UA175 on the south face of the south tower.

You are out of your depth here Warp12.

There are plenty of salient points to be made about why 9/11 conspiracy theories hold no water. "Blurfoot" type animations, as presented, do not factor into this.

I mean, even suggesting such is so patently ridiculous that it makes me laugh. We don't need this sort of fanciful "evidence" to prove that jets flew into the towers.

Remember, as critical thinkers we need apply a higher standard to our analysis.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 22nd August 2022 at 12:10 AM.
Warp12 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 22nd August 2022, 12:32 AM   #18
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You may be unaware that the animation I posted was originally posted on previous occasions specifically to debunk the OP's nonsense about the use of cruise missiles to simulate the wing impact damage because, as he claimed, the wing of an airliner would be too weak to make that damage. In effect, you have spouted off from a position of not understanding the context.

Smartcooky, no offense intended. But, for a large majority of members, or viewers, they would not know this context you speak of...nor should it be assumed that they would. If you post a random animation without supporting evidence, what else should one expect?

So, since you have presented that this animation is 100% a factual representation of what occurred, can you provide the supporting evidence so that others can be equally informed?

ETA: Meaning, the evidence supporting the accuracy of the animation presented, particularly the mathematics you cited.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 22nd August 2022 at 01:36 AM.
Warp12 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 22nd August 2022, 12:36 AM   #19
BazBear
Possible Suspect
 
BazBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Stowe VT USA
Posts: 3,010
The Smoking Gun? More like The Steaming Pile.
__________________
I don't see how an article of clothing can be indecent. A person, yes. - Robert A. Heinlein
If Christ died for our sins, dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules Feiffer
If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill
BazBear 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 22nd August 2022, 02:00 AM   #20
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Smartcooky, no offense intended. But, for a large majority of members, or viewers, they would not know this context you speak of...nor should it be assumed that they would. If you post a random animation without supporting evidence, what else should one expect?
1. I suggest you do your research before you pop your head up and criticise others. At least ASK before you spout off your opinion, and before declaring someone else's actual work to be the result of "cognitive bias" (for which, by the way, you have presented no evidence)."

2. I would contest your "large majority of members, or viewers, they would not know this context" statement. The large majority would see the title of the thread and who the OP was, and steer the hell clear.

3. Those of us who dare to dip their toes into a thread such as this are fully aware of the abject nonsense we are likely to encounter from any Twoofers that might come here.

4. You may not be aware, but this thread is just a fringe reset of the OP's previous nonsensical claptrap...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=341275

... which was itself a fringe reset of his previous pile of steaming faeces...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=271571


Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
So, since you have presented that this animation is 100% a factual representation of what occurred....
I did not represent it to be "factual", I represented it to be "accurate"

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
can you provide the supporting evidence so that others can be equally informed?
I have already given you a basic outline of how I made it, but to clarify, I used photogrammetric analysis of still frames from a number of different videos, as well as photos taken just prior to impact. To do this, I researched the dimensions of the South Tower to find the known distances between the windows and between the rows of windows, and compared these with the known wingspan of a Boeing 727-200, in order to determine both the scale of the line drawing and, as accurately as possible, the bank angle of the aircraft. I repeated this several times with different images to eliminate errors as much as possible.... and yes, I did allow for the various angles and elevations the different videos and images were taken from.

Now, if you are not satisfied with that answer, tough! I'm sorry, but I am not going to waste my time doing it all over again just for your benefit, especially as I know, from your body of work, that you have already made up your mind you won't accept anything I tell you.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
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 22nd August 2022, 03:49 AM   #21
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,817
Still trying to pump this fast smell into the lift eh?

It's as stupid, ill-thought oitand I correct as it was when you first started it.

Kickstarter not raised enough I guess.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm 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 22nd August 2022, 04:43 AM   #22
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Boeing 727-200
Small correction - Boeing 767-200 series (specifically a 767-222)
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
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 22nd August 2022, 07:12 AM   #23
MBDK
Critical Thinker
 
MBDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 455
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
a large majority of members, or viewers, they would not know this context you speak of...nor should it be assumed that they would

Since the animation in smartcooky's post is headed by the point he is trying to disparage, and as that point is a direct reference to a claim made in the vimeo video in this threads lead post, the only ones who would not know the context would be those who had either not seen the video, nor ever heard of the old chestnut theory of missiles used instead of planes on 9/11. As this is in the 9/11 conspiracy thread, I find it conspicuously illogical to think the majority of readers would not know this context. IMO, your criticism is unjustified.

Thank you for the time and effort, smartcooky. I think it is a relevant and well-produced animation to rebuke the nonsense.
MBDK 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 22nd August 2022, 07:20 AM   #24
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
1. I suggest you do your research before you pop your head up and criticise others. At least ASK before you spout off your opinion, and before declaring someone else's actual work to be the result of "cognitive bias" (for which, by the way, you have presented no evidence)."

2. I would contest your "large majority of members, or viewers, they would not know this context" statement. The large majority would see the title of the thread and who the OP was, and steer the hell clear.

3. Those of us who dare to dip their toes into a thread such as this are fully aware of the abject nonsense we are likely to encounter from any Twoofers that might come here.

4. You may not be aware, but this thread is just a fringe reset of the OP's previous nonsensical claptrap...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=341275

... which was itself a fringe reset of his previous pile of steaming faeces...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=271571




I did not represent it to be "factual", I represented it to be "accurate"



I have already given you a basic outline of how I made it, but to clarify, I used photogrammetric analysis of still frames from a number of different videos, as well as photos taken just prior to impact. To do this, I researched the dimensions of the South Tower to find the known distances between the windows and between the rows of windows, and compared these with the known wingspan of a Boeing 727-200, in order to determine both the scale of the line drawing and, as accurately as possible, the bank angle of the aircraft. I repeated this several times with different images to eliminate errors as much as possible.... and yes, I did allow for the various angles and elevations the different videos and images were taken from.

Now, if you are not satisfied with that answer, tough! I'm sorry, but I am not going to waste my time doing it all over again just for your benefit, especially as I know, from your body of work, that you have already made up your mind you won't accept anything I tell you.

But what this really comes down to is, you made an animation with a line drawing, where you overlay a wire diagram of a jet in order to validate your predetermined theory. Based on a lot of fuzzy video and assumptions, it would seem.

As I say, this is no different than what 'footers do with some of their media. I had thought you would tell me that scientists at MIT had determined this, or some such thing. Instead, you have basically validated my opinion that there is confirmation bias at play. And I had no idea that you personally created the animation.

This sort of armchair analysis is not beneficial for either side of the debate, imo.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 22nd August 2022 at 07:21 AM.
Warp12 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 22nd August 2022, 08:09 AM   #25
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,606
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Multiple cruise missiles? Were these the same cruise missiles that brought down TWA 800 and shot Societ nuclear weapons and Jewish space lasers out into outer space?
That was one of my memories, several cruise missiles flying on an exact trajectory, hitting the tower in a succession of westward points. They are accurate but not that accurate i real life.
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 22nd August 2022, 12:59 PM   #26
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
But what this really comes down to is, you made an animation with a line drawing, where you overlay a wire diagram of a jet in order to validate your predetermined theory. Based on a lot of fuzzy video and assumptions, it would seem.

As I say, this is no different than what 'footers do with some of their media. I had thought you would tell me that scientists at MIT had determined this, or some such thing. Instead, you have basically validated my opinion that there is confirmation bias at play. And I had no idea that you personally created the animation.

This sort of armchair analysis is not beneficial for either side of the debate, imo.

Well you are just plain wrong. That the towers were struck by airliners is not "my theory", its not even a theory at all, its a clearly observed fact that actually needs no validation.

There is a huge difference between what you accuse me of... "overlaying a wire diagram of a jet in order to validate my predetermined theory", and what I actually did, which was to create an animation that confirms an observation (that the towers were struck by airliners), as well as to debunk someone else's preposterous theory that the wings of an airliner could not have made, and do not match, the damage pattern seen on the south tower and therefore "they" used multiple cruise missiles to fake that damage pattern.

I suggest you go read through the two threads I linked to in post #20 (because you clearly have not done so, otherwise you would not still be failing to understand the context). Making this effort will at least allow you to acquaint yourself with the substance of the debate, because at the moment, you are well and truly out of your depth here, and looking more and more like a closet 9/11 truther with every post you make.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
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 23rd August 2022, 06:09 AM   #27
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
But what this really comes down to is, you made an animation with a line drawing, where you overlay a wire diagram of a jet in order to validate your predetermined theory. Based on a lot of fuzzy video and assumptions, it would seem.

As I say, this is no different than what 'footers do with some of their media. I had thought you would tell me that scientists at MIT had determined this, or some such thing. Instead, you have basically validated my opinion that there is confirmation bias at play. And I had no idea that you personally created the animation.

This sort of armchair analysis is not beneficial for either side of the debate, imo.
"Predetermined theory"?

Do you think that a plane impacting the tower has not been proven yet? That there's no substantial evidence PROVING a plane impacted the tower?

Gamolon 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 23rd August 2022, 07:07 AM   #28
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,032
What really angers Warp12 is that they were woke cruise missiles.
sts60 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 23rd August 2022, 07:14 AM   #29
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,368
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Wrong. Its not confirmation bias at all, and you have no ******* idea what you are talking about.
I don't have the capacity to understand it, so it must be stupid and wrong.
__________________
"Stellafane! My old partner in crime!" - Kelly J
Stellafane 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 23rd August 2022, 07:59 AM   #30
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
"Predetermined theory"?

Do you think that a plane impacting the tower has not been proven yet? That there's no substantial evidence PROVING a plane impacted the tower?


Obviously you read none of the other posts where I made it clear that I don't believe in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. I just don't think that drawing a picture and overlaying it on a blurry hole in a building proves anything. Particularly, the claims of mathematical accuracy seem suspect.

I'd say I could draw a picture of Rodan and overlay it, to scale, on the same hole. It wouldn't prove that a giant reptile flew into the building, would it? We have better evidence than that, so we don't need to resort to such flimsy methods.

But hey, I'm no skeptic.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.
Warp12 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 23rd August 2022, 08:01 AM   #31
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 42,001
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I'd say I could draw a picture of Rodan and overlay it, to scale, on the same hole. It wouldn't prove that a giant reptile flew into the building, would it? We have better evidence than that, so we don't need to resort to such flimsy methods.
Rodan doesn't exist and we didn't all watch with our own eyes Rodan fly into the buildings.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue 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 23rd August 2022, 08:05 AM   #32
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Rodan doesn't exist and we didn't all watch with our own eyes Rodan fly into the buildings.

See, you get it. We have better evidence than to rely on what was presented via the sort of animation in question. In fact, no evidence was presented at all....just a random animation without supporting facts.

Don't we often scoff at this same sort of "evidence" when it is presented by truthers? I believe that has already occurred in this thread.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 23rd August 2022 at 08:21 AM.
Warp12 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 23rd August 2022, 08:42 AM   #33
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Obviously you read none of the other posts where I made it clear that I don't believe in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.
So you believe that a plane impacted the tower right? That there is an ample amount of evidence to prove this correct?

If you say yes to the second question, then how is it a "predetermined theory"?

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I just don't think that drawing a picture and overlaying it on a blurry hole in a building proves anything. Particularly, the claims of mathematical accuracy seem suspect.
It doesn't prove anything? It's part of the body of evidence that a plane impacted the tower. It helps show that a plane matches the damage pattern.[/quote]

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I'd say I could draw a picture of Rodan and overlay it, to scale, on the same hole. It wouldn't prove that a giant reptile flew into the building, would it? We have better evidence than that, so we don't need to resort to such flimsy methods.
No you can't! How ridiculous! Rodan doesn't exist. Nobody is claiming that Rodan impacted the tower.



Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
But hey, I'm no skeptic.
Obviously.
Gamolon 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 23rd August 2022, 08:45 AM   #34
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Don't we often scoff at this same sort of "evidence" when it is presented by truthers? I believe that has already occurred in this thread.
Because there is no other supporting evidence that corroborates the "evidence" we scoffed at.
Gamolon 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 23rd August 2022, 08:49 AM   #35
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
So you believe that a plane impacted the tower right? That there is an ample amount of evidence to prove this correct?

If you say yes to the second question, then how is it a "predetermined theory"?


It doesn't prove anything? It's part of the body of evidence that a plane impacted the tower. It helps show that a plane matches the damage pattern.


No you can't! How ridiculous! Rodan doesn't exist. Nobody is claiming that Rodan impacted the tower.



Obviously.

My belief is that the towers were impacted by aircraft, yes.

If someone believes a plane impacted the tower, and then draws a picture of a plane fitting in the hole...is that your standard of evidence when it is presented singularly, without supporting data? Even the person who created it stated that it was not "factual"...only "accurate". I think that means, only to scale? Or something.

It is about standards of evidence, and how that changes once we are already invested in a belief. You are free to accept whatever you like as "proof". But I suggest that the standard be applied equally.

That's all. And I won't debate it further.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 23rd August 2022 at 08:51 AM.
Warp12 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 23rd August 2022, 09:36 AM   #36
RolandRat
Graduate Poster
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 1,553
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
My belief is that the towers were impacted by aircraft, yes.

If someone believes a plane impacted the tower, and then draws a picture of a plane fitting in the hole...is that your standard of evidence when it is presented singularly, without supporting data? Even the person who created it stated that it was not "factual"...only "accurate". I think that means, only to scale? Or something.

It is about standards of evidence, and how that changes once we are already invested in a belief. You are free to accept whatever you like as "proof". But I suggest that the standard be applied equally.

That's all. And I won't debate it further.
When that animation is provided to supplement the copious amount of other evidence to support the fact that planes flew into the towers then yes, it's good enough. The animation isn't being supplied to stand alone on it's own merits.
RolandRat 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 23rd August 2022, 10:06 AM   #37
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
My belief is that the towers were impacted by aircraft, yes.
And the evidence available proves it was a plane and that it could not be anything else correct?
Gamolon 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 23rd August 2022, 10:06 AM   #38
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
When that animation is provided to supplement the copious amount of other evidence to support the fact that planes flew into the towers then yes, it's good enough. The animation isn't being supplied to stand alone on it's own merits.
Gamolon 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 23rd August 2022, 10:14 AM   #39
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
But what this really comes down to is, you made an animation with a line drawing, where you overlay a wire diagram of a jet in order to validate your predetermined theory. Based on a lot of fuzzy video and assumptions, it would seem.
If I had a video of you throwing a baseball through my window, collected the baseball from within my home that had your fingerprints on it, and had 10 witnesses stating that they saw you throw the baseball through my window, and I said "You threw a baseball through my window!", is my statement considered a theory?
Gamolon 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 23rd August 2022, 10:32 AM   #40
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,314
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
There are plenty of salient points to be made about why 9/11 conspiracy theories hold no water. "Blurfoot" type animations, as presented, do not factor into this.

I mean, even suggesting such is so patently ridiculous that it makes me laugh. We don't need this sort of fanciful "evidence" to prove that jets flew into the towers.

Remember, as critical thinkers we need apply a higher standard to our analysis.
We are dealing with child-level intellect. Cartoons work better than physics when dealing with Truthers. Both impacts are on video, with WTC-2 being filmed from dozens of angles. Yet the counter argument is that these are holograms.

Hey, if you want to waste time writing up the thousands of reasons that holograms would be physically impossible in an attempt to persuade this particular poster he's wrong, go right ahead.

I thought real skeptics work smarter, not harder. This branch of the forum is full of threads dating back over a decade full of the detailed analysis you demand. Analysis from serious experts who took the time to lay out the why's and how's of 9-11, only to be countered by Truthers with, "Nuh uh".

Most of the old Truthers have moved on. We're stuck with the nutjobs.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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

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 03:41 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.