ISF Logo   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.
Tags ground zero , Matt Nelson

Reply
Old 2nd November 2019, 09:18 AM   #241
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,873
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Haha oh dear FSM!
questionitall had half of their posts moved to AAH because of blatant, obvious, and no doubt intentional breaches of the Membership Agreement - almost like a countdown to ticking off all Rules.

And then, in one of the posts moved to AAH, q. says q. will no longer post here, only at PFFFT, where, as questionitall puts it, there is no censorship.

LOL

Is there anybody here who is NOT blocked or otherwise censored at PFFFT?
Um, what does this refer?
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 2nd November 2019, 02:56 PM   #242
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,867
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Um, what does this refer?
it's a nickname for the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum, usually said with an eyeroll.
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.
AJM8125 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 2nd November 2019, 03:23 PM   #243
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

Is there anybody here who is NOT blocked or otherwise censored at PFFFT?

I'm banned there.

I've been watching PFFFFT for a response. So far he has posted nothing.
waypastvne 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 2nd November 2019, 07:48 PM   #244
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,517
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Is there anybody here who is NOT blocked or otherwise censored at PFFFT?
Me, I think - I've never been there. Mind you, I may have been pre-banned.

Dave
I'm the same as Dave.
ozeco41 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 3rd November 2019, 09:58 PM   #245
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,291
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Me, I think - I've never been there. Mind you, I may have been pre-banned.

Dave
Balsamo can't have the truth posted at pft - questionitall has no truth, he will be able to post nonsense at pft.

Balsamo bans rational people - questionitall is safe.
__________________
"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 4th November 2019, 07:54 AM   #246
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,873
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
it's a nickname for the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum, usually said with an eyeroll.
Ah, thanks.
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 5th November 2019, 10:57 PM   #247
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 439
A reply from questionitall:

Quote:
ADDENDUM
In my previous entry I stated "Mr. Nelson has since counterclaimed that Corley's chunk of fuselage wreckage "flew dead straight for about 500' then started dropping. It made it about 700' north just over the road between the Post Office and WTC7 then drifted with the wind back to WTC5."
That was an error on my part.
In fact it was the grandstanding pathological liar and provocateur
Edited by Agatha:  Edited for rule 8
who made that statement, and I will posting my full rebuttal of why everything he's said and claimed to date is patently false in the coming days.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...#entry10814572


Edited by Agatha:  Edited response to moderated content

Last edited by Agatha; 13th November 2019 at 12:18 PM.
waypastvne 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 6th November 2019, 11:25 AM   #248
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,606
Originally Posted by questionitall View Post


snipped WOT

Hence, the fact that Corley never publically defended his credibility and reputation speaks volumes of a man with something to hide.

Snipped likewise
.
Or someone who is wise enough not to intereact with amatuer nutters.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 9th November 2019, 10:12 PM   #249
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 439
Quote:
questionitall
I will posting my full rebuttal of why everything he's said and claimed to date is patently false in the coming days.
While I'm waiting, I decided to look at some of your "proof" that this piece of debris was fake. One of your claims is the wrong fasteners were used, and posted this photo to prove it.



Knowing that you are the legendary Butt Joint Guy, who can't count two windows and look for a butt joint without screwing it up, I decided to check and see if you had counted the windows correctly this time. What I found was that you had managed to count 0 windows. Thats quiet an achievement, no wonder your a legend. You are comparing parts that can be seen through windows 4 & 5 to parts that are located inside the B767 bathroom, which as we all know, has 0 windows.

Knowing that Truthers love to make a claim and then provide us with the evidence that proves them wrong, I decided to take your photo labeled windows 5&6 and the Steficek-2001-10-18 debris photo and do a comparison.

This is what I found.




https://www.flickr.com/photos/563228...th/5857328812/

All of the fasteners inside the red boxes are Hi-lok on both planes...as they should be.

All of the fasteners inside the blue boxes are solid rivets on both planes...as they should be.

If the fasteners are not visible the line continues on to a place where they are visible.

Yellow boxes shows where the fibreglass dampener was glued on.

I do hope the above photo helps you in your divine quest to prove this piece of UA175's fuselage is fake. Maybe you should post it on your Blog.

God speed.
Edited by Agatha:  Edited for response to modded content




(PS you are not banned here you can still post you just can't call people names)



For those interested this is a Hi-lok fastener:

https://youtu.be/LAR6GsVcZSY

and this is a solid rivet.

https://youtu.be/IDbTUt3OG9s

Last edited by Agatha; 13th November 2019 at 12:17 PM. Reason: None of your business.
waypastvne 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 12th November 2019, 12:37 PM   #250
questionitall
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 10
Edited by Agatha:  Edited for rule 8

According to the NIST World Trade Center site investigators, based on their engine trajectory calculations it was estimated that the starboard engine exited World Trade Center 2 at approximately 120 mph.
As such I'm terribly perplexed with your rationale that "the last vortex leaving the building should be the one most likely dragging the part you're interested in" along with it.
So pardon me for asking but are you claiming to have proven about 19,500 cu. ft. of air from the WTC 2 aircraft passenger cabin blew Corley's [sic] Baker's chunk of alleged UA Flight 175 fuselage with multiple passenger windows in it clear through and out of WTC 2 well before, or after, the jet fuel explosion occurred?
And you're saying a Toroidal Vortex "dragged" that chunk of debris with considerably more surface area/drag 500' alongside of the Starboard engine, flaptrack and landing gear shock strut assembly with far greater mass/weight/momentum than it?
I just want to be clear on that point before I comment on your overall theories and evidence thereof at PilotsFor9/11TruthForum.

Last edited by Agatha; 13th November 2019 at 12:16 PM.
questionitall 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 12th November 2019, 12:49 PM   #251
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,665
Originally Posted by questionitall View Post
Edited by Agatha:  Edited for rule 8

According to the NIST World Trade Center site investigators, based on their engine trajectory calculations it was estimated that the starboard engine exited World Trade Center 2 at approximately 120 mph.
As such I'm terribly perplexed with your rationale that "the last vortex leaving the building should be the one most likely dragging the part you're interested in" along with it.
So pardon me for asking but are you claiming to have proven about 19,500 cu. ft. of air from the WTC 2 aircraft passenger cabin blew Corley's [sic] Baker's chunk of alleged UA Flight 175 fuselage with multiple passenger windows in it clear through and out of WTC 2 well before, or after, the jet fuel explosion occurred?
And you're saying a Toroidal Vortex "dragged" that chunk of debris with considerably more surface area/drag 500' alongside of the Starboard engine, flaptrack and landing gear shock strut assembly with far greater mass/weight/momentum than it?
I just want to be clear on that point before I comment on your overall theories and evidence thereof at PilotsFor9/11TruthForum.
Just comment here so we can follow your rationale.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman

Last edited by Agatha; 13th November 2019 at 12:16 PM.
Disbelief 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 12th November 2019, 01:47 PM   #252
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,291
Originally Posted by questionitall View Post
Edited by Agatha:  Edited for rule 8

According to the NIST World Trade Center site investigators, based on their engine trajectory calculations it was estimated that the starboard engine exited World Trade Center 2 at approximately 120 mph.
As such I'm terribly perplexed with your rationale that "the last vortex leaving the building should be the one most likely dragging the part you're interested in" along with it.
So pardon me for asking but are you claiming to have proven about 19,500 cu. ft. of air from the WTC 2 aircraft passenger cabin blew Corley's [sic] Baker's chunk of alleged UA Flight 175 fuselage with multiple passenger windows in it clear through and out of WTC 2 well before, or after, the jet fuel explosion occurred?
And you're saying a Toroidal Vortex "dragged" that chunk of debris with considerably more surface area/drag 500' alongside of the Starboard engine, flaptrack and landing gear shock strut assembly with far greater mass/weight/momentum than it?
I just want to be clear on that point before I comment on your overall theories and evidence thereof at PilotsFor9/11TruthForum.
How did the part get there in your fantasy version of 9/11 based on paranoia and zero evidence?

pilots for truth, the perfect place to post your fantasy version of 9/11, Balsamo does not allow facts and evidence, only woo for Balsamo and his pilots who claim they can't hit a 200 foot wide target. pilots for truth = pilots with no clue
__________________
"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 Agatha; 13th November 2019 at 12:16 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 12th November 2019, 10:05 PM   #253
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by questionitall View Post
Edited by Agatha:  Edited for rule 8
Edited by Agatha:  Loath as I am to remove any Monty Python references, edited as response to moderated content


Quote:
According to the NIST World Trade Center site investigators, based on their engine trajectory calculations it was estimated that the starboard engine exited World Trade Center 2 at approximately 120 mph.
As such I'm terribly perplexed with your rationale that "the last vortex leaving the building should be the one most likely dragging the part you're interested in" along with it.
Of course your terribly perplexed, somebody gave you an rational answer with evidence and now you don't know what to do.

Quote:
So pardon me for asking but are you claiming to have proven about 19,500 cu. ft. of air from the WTC 2 aircraft passenger cabin blew Corley's [sic] Baker's chunk of alleged UA Flight 175 fuselage with multiple passenger windows in it clear through and out of WTC 2 well before, or after, the jet fuel explosion occurred?
I don't claim to have proven anything. I offered an rational explanation with evidence. I am confident in that explanation.

Your use of the word "blew' suggest that you think the part was propelled. I would not use that word. Carried, dragged, pulled, sucked, followed, or tagged along for the ride is a better description of what happened. Take your choice but don't use any word that suggest it was pushed instead of pulled again.

The vortex carrying the part I tracked came out of the fire ball. It wasn't in it long. 6 frames in the Fairbanks video between the fireball igniting and the contrail clearing the fireball.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/Fairbanks_HD.html

The first vortex that came out of the building was way ahead of the fireball.
You can watch it frame by frame in the fairbanks video. Remember the vortex is ahead of the contrail.




Quote:
And you're saying a Toroidal Vortex "dragged" that chunk of debris with considerably more surface area/drag 500' alongside of the Starboard engine, flaptrack and landing gear shock strut assembly with far greater mass/weight/momentum than it?
You can map it out and measure it yourself. The shadows on the wall of WTC1 gives you a 2 dimensional view of how far ahead and above it is. The part I tracked is the line on the right.





You do know that this corner panel from WTC2 flew 1,200' landed in the street, possibly killed one person and injured another. That is about same distance the "Starboard engine, flaptrack and landing gear shock strut assembly with far greater mass/weight/momentum than it?" flew.

It really happened. Is it impossible too.




Last edited by Agatha; 13th November 2019 at 12:15 PM.
waypastvne 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 13th November 2019, 06:38 AM   #254
questionitall
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 10
Edited by Agatha:  Edited for rule 8

In post #211 you claim to have proven me wrong (about everything else apparently) by having picked-out of thin air and positively identified not one one but three pieces of fuselage flying out of WTC 2 and making it all the way out to WTC5.
Out of the two indiscernable tumbling objects seen in Joshua Good's previously edited (stabilized and cropped) video footage (you highlighted in red circles) in your humble opinion which of those is the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number (N6****)? If not Corley's [sic] Baker's larger chunk of alleged UA Flight 175 fuselage that is?!
I ask because you've yet to answer for my having demonstrated in post #179 why you're sorely mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported United Airlines Flight 175 fuselage wreckage NOT having been Photoshopped.
Do you deny my explanation of that evidence as well?
An articulate, respectful response to those questions would be greatly appreciated, sir.

Last edited by Agatha; 13th November 2019 at 12:14 PM.
questionitall 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 13th November 2019, 07:34 AM   #255
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,873
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
That is the first time I saw that video and the stills from it. Thanks for sharing.
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 13th November 2019, 11:51 AM   #256
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,291
Originally Posted by questionitall View Post
Edited by Agatha:  Edited for rule 8

In post #211 you claim to have proven me wrong (about everything else apparently) by having picked-out of thin air and positively identified not one one but three pieces of fuselage flying out of WTC 2 and making it all the way out to WTC5.
Out of the two indiscernable tumbling objects seen in Joshua Good's previously edited (stabilized and cropped) video footage (you highlighted in red circles) in your humble opinion which of those is the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number (N6****)? If not Corley's [sic] Baker's larger chunk of alleged UA Flight 175 fuselage that is?!
I ask because you've yet to answer for my having demonstrated in post #179 why you're sorely mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported United Airlines Flight 175 fuselage wreckage NOT having been Photoshopped.
Do you deny my explanation of that evidence as well?
An articulate, respectful response to those questions would be greatly appreciated, sir.
What you need to do is prove the part can't end up where it did using physics. When will you present equations and simulations which support your point? Never!

Or you need to explain what finding the part you seem to claim can't be there, got there with evidence. Got evidence? No!

I use to fly my grammar school ruler by flipping it, it would go all different direction, flying all over, ending up at different places. You claim things can't end up where they did, but offer zero evidence, zero science, zero facts - and never explain what it means. 19 terrorists were responsible for all the damage and murders on 9/11, your inability to figure out how the part got where it ended up is not going to change who did 9/11 - it only exposes your lack of knowledge of physics and flight dynamics.

There is no reason due to physics and aerodynamics that a part of the fuselage can't be shredded off in an impact equal in Kinetic Energy to 2093 pounds and end up where it did. Check with aircraft accident investigators about how this would not be unusual - you can get help from https://aviationsafety.usc.edu/cours...investigation/

Study before making unfounded claims. Good luck.
__________________
"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 Agatha; 13th November 2019 at 12:14 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 13th November 2019, 12:13 PM   #257
Agatha
Winking at the Moon
Moderator
 
Agatha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13,083
Mod Warning questionitall, will you please stop referring to ISF members as anything other than their usernames at this website unless a member has given you permission to use another name or nickname. waypastvne has made it clear that he is not "Brian Foster", so further use of this name to refer to waypastvne will be sanctioned by the mod team.
Posted By:Agatha
__________________
Why can't you be more like Agatha? - Loss Leader
Agatha 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 13th November 2019, 12:50 PM   #258
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,491
Is questionitall speaking about my debunking of Matt Nelson's initial claims of photoshopping here? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post12028859

That's what it seems to me, but I can't make sense of the post where he claims otherwise.
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 13th November 2019, 04:09 PM   #259
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,126
Originally Posted by questionitall View Post
[edit=Agatha] I ask because you've yet to answer for my having demonstrated in post #179 why you're sorely mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported United Airlines Flight 175 fuselage wreckage NOT having been Photoshopped.
Do you deny my explanation of that evidence as well?
An articulate, respectful response to those questions would be greatly appreciated, sir.
I'll be articulate: The claim that the image is Photoshopped is a lie.

I work with Photoshop every day. I loaded the image into the program and ran through the multiple filters and there is no evidence of manipulation of the image. I don't care how many times a picture has been uploaded, downloaded, shared, cut and pasted the evidence of manipulation will remain.

In fact the original photo show zero evidence of even basic enhancements to clean it up.

In conclusion: There is zero evidence of the image being altered in Photoshop.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 13th November 2019 at 04:10 PM.
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
Old 13th November 2019, 04:15 PM   #260
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Mod Warning questionitall, will you please stop referring to ISF members as anything other than their usernames at this website unless a member has given you permission to use another name or nickname. waypastvne has made it clear that he is not "Brian Foster", so further use of this name to refer to waypastvne will be sanctioned by the mod team.
Posted By:Agatha

I still want to be called Loretta.
waypastvne 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 13th November 2019, 06:18 PM   #261
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by questionitall View Post

Out of the two indiscernable tumbling objects seen in Joshua Good's previously edited (stabilized and cropped) video footage (you highlighted in red circles) in your humble opinion which of those is the smaller chunk of fuselage bearing the partial aircraft registration number (N6****)?
I don't think any of those three pieces are the part that I tracked. Those entered from the left. The part I tracked should enter from the right a few seconds later, but the camera pans left back to the explosion so it is out of frame.

I posted that GIF because you are presenting us with "No Way" evidence.

All that is necessary to counter that is to show one piece of debris landing on WTC5 and your evidence goes out the window, flies straight line for about 500', then drifts with the wind, and lands back over at the PFFFT along with all the other crap posted there.

In other words "Yes Way"


Quote:
I ask because you've yet to answer for my having demonstrated in post #179 why you're sorely mistaken about William F. Baker's [FEMA] one and only "official" photograph of purported United Airlines Flight 175 fuselage wreckage NOT having been Photoshopped.
Do you deny my explanation of that evidence as well?
I don't think anyone here understands WTF you are trying to say. So I went back to post #179 and pulled out one of the more coherent sentences you posted. I think this is what you want me to respond to:

Quote:
All of which means that regardless of the alleged metal cladding obstruction, at bare minimum the uppermost portion of said window opening should be visible in Baker's image. But that clearly isn't the case and I defy any fool at International Skeptics Forum to argue otherwise.

I took your William F Baker photo into Photoshop (Yes I admit it. I used Photoshop on this photo) and drew a red line from the bottom of the 2 to the top of the window. I then duplicated the red line and moved it over to the bottom of the N. I rotated it slightly to align it with the N. The top of window number 1 should be some where around the bottom of that red line. (there are some perspective issues, some in my favour, some in yours, if you want to argue it... That would be awesome.)



If you need help counting the window, let me know.


Loretta.


PS. I still want my Banana.
waypastvne 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 13th November 2019, 08:22 PM   #262
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by Agatha View Post
Mod Warning questionitall, will you please stop referring to ISF members as anything other than their usernames at this website unless a member has given you permission to use another name or nickname. waypastvne has made it clear that he is not "Brian Foster", so further use of this name to refer to waypastvne will be sanctioned by the mod team.
Posted By:Agatha
Now look, no one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle. Even...and I want to make this absolutely clear... even if they do say "Brian Foster"
waypastvne 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 13th November 2019, 09:12 PM   #263
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,867
Get back Loretta.
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.
AJM8125 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 27th November 2019, 01:36 PM   #264
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by questionitall View Post
Do you deny my explanation of that evidence as well?

YES!

OK your turn.
waypastvne 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 6th December 2019, 07:39 PM   #265
questionitall
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 10
OK Loretta,
I'm sick and tired of playing your confidence game, and particularly so when this websites hypocritical Moderators condemn me for violating the Membership rules #0, #8, #10, and #12, as they turn a blind eye to you and your ISF cronies habitually breaking the same rules with absolute impunity. Which is the least of my reasons for giving up trying to explain why your admittedly falsifying (Photoshopping) Misleading Evidence in support of your fool's errand more than justifies my NOT taking anything you say seriously. All of which is precisely why Rob Balsamo first warned me about you on January 13, 2011, by saying "I have actually ran into "waypastvne" on some forums and challenged his pictures... he ran.", and that's why he bannished you. Because in my estimation you
Edited by Agatha:  Edited for breach rule 0 and rule 12
warp and distort real facts by Photoshopping video footage and photographs to create an impression in the minds of those who observe them as true and genuine through the power of suggestion - opposed to meeting the burden of proof.
As for your latest slipshod analysis of Baker's [FEMA] specious photograph in post #261 the skinny naked truth of your deception and intellectually myopic "perspective", is as follows:
[1] In actuality photographs show the margin/distance between the AFT aircraft registration number and the top of the underlying passenger windows on UA Flight 175 is approximately three quarters the height/vertical dimension of those markings, give or take.
[2] The portion of fuselage bearing the remnants of the number 2 in Baker's [FEMA] specious photograph has been torn away from the window frame on the larger chunk of fuselage and it's clearly flared up and jutting out to the right. In other words that feature is deformed and has a completely different angle of incidence to the portion of fuselage below the N & 6. As evidenced by the identical wreckage and layout in Gary Steficek's photograph (Release_38, 42A0367 – G33D1, WTCI-95-I-GMS-multiple, Steficek-2001-10-18, 100MSDCF, DSC00478).
[3] Aside from the aformentioned deformation the portion of fuselage below the N & 6 on the smaller chunk of fuselage, and the bulk of the wreckage on its right, is lying relatively flat (horizontal) in relation to the rooftop. As evidenced by the identical wreckage and layout in Gary Steficek's photograph (Release_38, 42A0367 – G33D1, WTCI-95-I-GMS-multiple, Steficek-2001-10-18, 100MSDCF, DSC00478).
[4] The smaller piece of fuselage on the left is further away from the camera lens, and both pieces of fuselage were photographed from an angle. As evidenced by the identical wreckage and layout in Gary Steficek's photograph (Release_38, 42A0367 – G33D1, WTCI-95-I-GMS-multiple, Steficek-2001-10-18, 100MSDCF, DSC00478).
All of which means the arbitrary red line you drew (Photoshopped) under the N & 6 should be considerably shorter than the arbitrary red line you drew (Photoshopped) under the 2, so as to properly reflect the actual margin/distance between the the N & 6 and the top of the underlying passenger windows. Hence, the top of the window opening on the smaller piece of fuselage should be visible, but not according to you (the so-called "expert in digital art").
With that being the case I'd further explain in simpletons terms why you're flat-out wrong about Baker's [FEMA] specious photograph not having been surreptitiously Photoshopped with unedited video and photograhs of my own to prove otherwise, but I'm not allowed to hyperlink anything to my posts here now am I?! And because of your gutless ISF cronies whined about me to this websites Moderators they censor (delete) my comments, so why bother. All of which is precisely why I'll continue posting my refutations of everything you've claimed to date, yet failed to prove, at PF9/11TF.
And with that said good bye and good riddance to the lot of you.

Mod Info You can put links in your posts when you have 15 posts. Report any posts that you think breaks the rules by clicking the exclamation mark contained within a triangle on the bottom left of a post.
Posted By:Agatha

Last edited by Agatha; 7th December 2019 at 08:32 AM.
questionitall 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 6th December 2019, 08:17 PM   #266
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,867
Originally Posted by questionitall View Post
OK Loretta,<snip>
<snip>

Otherwise, farewell.


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited to delete reference to call-out thread.
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.

Last edited by Loss Leader; 6th December 2019 at 08:31 PM.
AJM8125 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 6th December 2019, 09:20 PM   #267
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by questionitall View Post
OK Loretta,

Just for fun I did the same length line comparison on this photo. This is the results.




Not photoshopped.

Last edited by waypastvne; 6th December 2019 at 09:24 PM.
waypastvne 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 7th December 2019, 08:04 AM   #268
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,873
Originally Posted by questionitall View Post
<snip></snip>
And with that said good bye and good riddance to the lot of you.
Aside from the personal attacks, we would appreciate links to your image descriptions instead of wasting time finding them. No you don't have to add links as you don't have the post count to enable that feature, but you can do this:
image dot com.
Get over the theatrics and just leave without telling us you're leaving.
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 7th December 2019, 08:06 AM   #269
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,873
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
Just for fun I did the same length line comparison on this photo. This is the results.

https://i.imgur.com/GpvAp48.png


Not photoshopped.
Yes the image was changed, just say so as yo have done in the past.
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 7th December 2019, 04:38 PM   #270
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,126
Why Photoshop parts? Why not just pack in a bunch of real aircraft parts when you're wiring the building with your sooper seekreht silent/non-residue-leaving explosives?
__________________
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

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 12:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.