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.
Reply
Old Yesterday, 03:22 PM   #1401
The Common Potato
Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 186
Planes can perform wonderful manoeuvres. https://tinyurl.com/y2t63z5a I hope that is a suitable analogy!
The Common Potato 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 Yesterday, 03:27 PM   #1402
Deadie
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by The Common Potato View Post
Planes can perform wonderful manoeuvres. https://tinyurl.com/y2t63z5a I hope that is a suitable analogy!
Maneuverability of the craft aside, that is amazing artistry and craftsmanship on the part of the pilot.
Deadie 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 Yesterday, 03:58 PM   #1403
The Common Potato
Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by Deadie View Post
Maneuverability of the craft aside, that is amazing artistry and craftsmanship on the part of the pilot.
But you should hear what his mates call wife calls him!

Last edited by The Common Potato; Yesterday at 04:27 PM.
The Common Potato 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 Yesterday, 04:37 PM   #1404
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,259
As we near 40 pages let's recap:

Steve thinks all video footage of the planes crashing into the WTC is CGI and that all eye-witness testimony is fabricated (all 500,000 people).

His "proof" is a photograph of aluminum siding that was knocked askew but seemingly not cut through (although the photos he's posted show just that) and thus supports his left-field thesis that the wings of a 767 are "too fragile" to penetrate the structure.

He supposes that a new cruise missile (up to four for each tower) was used in combination with CD to bring down the towers.

He also claims that the towers were empty on 9-11 and that there were ZERO victims killed in the attack.

All of this done to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq and our wandering of the desert hunting down terrorist cells and blasting them back to Allah. As will all "No-Planers" there is no basic concept of physics too simple that they cannot fail to grasp and everyone needs to shut up for they are smarter than us all. There is no real-world example sensible people can present that they cannot dismiss with a wave of their tiny hands.

Before the buffoonery continues here are the facts:

On 9-11-2001, four commercial jetliners were hijacked by Al Qaeda operatives to be used as missiles and were flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon with the final jet crashing in Shanksville during a passenger takeover.

We would discover that the pilots had trained to fly at US flight schools and that the FBI and CIA had lived down to their worst natures to fail to share intelligence that - might -have stopped the attacks. We also discovered that Al Qaeda received money from Saudi Arabians.

The United States with NATO then attacked and invaded Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and the bulk of Al Qaeda had their bases. Two years later the Bush Administration would use 9-11 and the threat of potential terrorism to invade Iraq and put Saddam Hussein at the end of a rope.

While the invasion of Afghanistan (but not our unending presence) was justified the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Iraq was invaded because key members of the Bush Administration refused to believe that Al Qaeda could have pulled off the attacks without a state sponsor who wasn't Saudi Arabia, and since Iraq competed with Iran to sponsor terrorist groups throughout the Middle East they seemed like an obvious target.
In the months leading up to the Iraqi invasion VP Cheney would visits Langley multiple times for direct briefings with the CTC (CIA's Counter Terror Center) and was told that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq on any meaningful level. What did the VP do? He had the White House NSC spin up a sub group at CIA called "The Office of Special Plans" who took the lead on the Iraq/Al Qaeda connection and through their cherry-picking would put together the flimsy case the United States would use to justify the war.

In short: THE UNITED STATES INVADED IRAQ BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF 9-11 TRUTHERS WITHIN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

And that's why I'm happy to take part in this silly debate with an unknowing war criminal.
__________________
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
Old Yesterday, 06:04 PM   #1405
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I doubt... but don't know when or to what the exterior insulation was applied.

It was sprayed onto the steel. You can see it being applied here.






Last edited by waypastvne; Yesterday at 06:27 PM.
waypastvne 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 Yesterday, 07:37 PM   #1406
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,160
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
And yet there is no trace of this effect being used on the video and there is no trace of the camera moving and stopping at an index point in the way it moves. It is very clearly a handheld camera.

You're like someone trying to figure out how a magic trick was done, inferring the existence of some oververcomplicated hidden mechanism without really understanding how that would assist the magician, yet by circular logic the existence of the mechanism is evidence of the trick.

But there was no mechanism and there was no trick. You are only fooling yourself.

I don't think yankee451 has ever watched it as a video. He's only seen it as a collection of stills. That's why he thinks the camera isn't handheld. And the cameraman is working for the man so there's that.
Elagabalus 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 Yesterday, 07:48 PM   #1407
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,337
Here is a film of the construction process, for those interested. This is the second part and shows the outer column lattices being put into place and the aluminium cladding being attached:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCbu3CvD3h8
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:01 PM   #1408
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,337
Yes, a spray on. Blaze Shield D specified, but no information on what was actually used.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:35 PM   #1409
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 9,586
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Some things just need to be replied to while I'm working.

Please explain how a baseball is like a 767, and how a window pane is like a steel skyscraper.
And that, dear friends, tells you all you need to know.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:38 PM   #1410
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,993
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What I know for a fact is that the videos of the plane hitting the South Tower do not depict reality.
Please cite other examples of high-speed impacts of large airliners flown into office towers for comparison.

Thanks in advance.
__________________


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 Yesterday, 10:45 PM   #1411
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post

Likewise the claim that aluminum mere millimetres thick is stronger than 1/4 inch steel.
This is a fragment of lower wing skin from one of the planes that hit the twin towers. The orange line shows it's location on the wing.




This close up gives us an idea of it's thickness. The rivet holes are most likely 1/4" or at least 3/16". This is from outboard wing near the aileron. The inboard wing skins would be thicker.




The alloy of this aluminum is 2324 T39 it has a guaranteed minimum ultimate tensile strength of 68900 psi.

A36 steel has a ultimate tensile strength of 58,00080,000 psi

http://www.matweb.com/search/datashe...c4f654d&ckck=1

These are the Real World Facts.
waypastvne 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 Today, 01:35 AM   #1412
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,121
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Indeed.
It is noticeable that he is unwilling or unable to provide any details, or any supporting evidence beyond that photo, which I assume we're all (with one obvious exception) heartily sick of seeing.
"yankee451, where were the missiles launched from?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"How many missiles were used?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Who fired them?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why was no missile debris found in the wreckage?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What software was used to fake the videos?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Who faked them?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"When was this done?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What are the names of the witnesses who changed their stories after having a TV shoved in their faces?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why are you citing witnesses who claim they saw missiles, whilst discounting part of their testimony and also ignoring your previous claim that they had all changed their testimony?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What happened to the planes, and their passengers and crew, that took off that day and never came back?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why, if the Naudet video was made by actors, has no-one from the fire department come forward to say those two men never worked there?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why, if missiles exploded inside the building, is the damage bent inwards, not outwards?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why are you using a photo you claim was altered as your only evidence?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"

As you say, dialogue seems to be somewhat pointless when confronted with this kind of delusional monomania.
That said, it is kind of fun, though!
Especially delusional given that the vital photo is from a source that the o/p constantly criticises for fakery.
Yeah, I kind of had that covered, but thanks for agreeing anyway.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 05:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.