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

Reply
Old 11th January 2014, 05:35 PM   #321
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I asked you before, who do I need to demonstrate this to? The fact you don't like the evidence does not make it false.
To date you haven't demonstrated anything other than a refusal to discuss the topic.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You first. Start with more than just your lay person opinion.
Done. I laid out my argument in the video and the accompanying transcript in the OP.

Wading through all the sarcastic and childish posts I still have yet to see any sort of an attempt to discuss the evidence I brought forth, so I find it humorous that you use the term "layperson opinion".
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 11th January 2014, 05:37 PM   #322
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
No evidence supports any such thing. If it did you could demonstrate how the east-west damage is consistent with a mostly hollow aluminum aircraft with leading edges as sharp as a basketball traveling north-south.

Until any single one of you can demonstrate that, no we're far from done. But I get that desperate men do desperate deeds, so I fully understand why you'd rather make this about me.

You have the floor, it's clean, I just wiped it with you lot.
Pretending that we haven't already presented the evidence isn't going to advance your case.

Meanwhile, evidence to support your assertions is notably lacking.

ETA: Animated gifs with arrows are *not* evidence - they are the claim.

For example:

1. You claim that distortion of the pylons inwards towards the point of impact is inconsistent with the official story, but have provided no *evidence* that supports your assertion that the damage would be otherwise in the official version of events.

2. You claim that the aircraft could not have broken the pylons/beams, but have failed to show any calculations that support the assertion. On the contrary, other posters have provided calculations that show that the energy at the point of impact was sufficient. If, as you claim, this is not the case, where are the calculations and physical evidence of the day in error, as the score is 2-0 against what you claim?

There are other questions you have still not answered in the thread, but I'm sure you can find them easily enough.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

Last edited by Kid Eager; 11th January 2014 at 05:40 PM. Reason: accidental multi-quoting
Kid Eager 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 11th January 2014, 05:38 PM   #323
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
To date you haven't demonstrated anything other than a refusal to discuss the topic.
What have we refused to discuss?



Quote:
Done. I laid out my argument in the video and the accompanying transcript in the OP.

Wading through all the sarcastic and childish posts I still have yet to see any sort of an attempt to discuss the evidence I brought forth, so I find it humorous that you use the term "layperson opinion".
So we need to do a video? I can do the same thing you did. I think a plane did it. Prove me wrong.

Your turn. As far as I can tell we're even.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 11th January 2014 at 05:39 PM.
DGM 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 11th January 2014, 05:49 PM   #324
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What have we refused to discuss?
Everything:

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Explain to who?

You, no thanks.

(anyone else, no problem)
Originally Posted by DGM View Post

So we need to do a video? I can do the same thing you did. I think a plane did it. Prove me wrong.

Have at it, I look forward to seeing you twist yourself into a pretzel to demonstrate how the damage is consistent with the impact of a jet plane. Perhaps you can get Purdue to help. Once you get your video released I'll be happy to prove you wrong seven ways from Sunday.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Your turn. As far as I can tell we're even.
Big surprise that's as far as you can tell but you've still demonstrated squat.
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 11th January 2014, 05:51 PM   #325
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Wading through all the sarcastic and childish posts I still have yet to see any sort of an attempt to discuss the evidence I brought forth, so I find it humorous that you use the term "layperson opinion".
Far as I can tell the op offers no substantive point whatsoever. Its mostly egging on members (quite often successfully it would seem) to be snarky. And in the few cases in which an honest response to the op's query, it's been returned with more snark.

As for the topic at hand you have a burden of proof to uphold in demonstrating that the witness testimony and collective evidence (which you claim doesn't exist) proving the plane impacts is wrong. If you don't explain away anyof that then you have no case like it or not. Unfortunately it takes two people to hold a discussion and the flow of the thread so far is incompatible (and admittedly I'm not totally innocent either). The threads 9 pages too long and there's plenty of blame to go around for how it's gone so far.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 11th January 2014 at 05:53 PM.
Grizzly Bear 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 11th January 2014, 05:52 PM   #326
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post

Big surprise that's as far as you can tell but you've still demonstrated squat.
I've demonstrated as much as you. You're opinion against mine. Except, I also have proof the planes existed. You have nothing.

You're spinning your wheels and stuck in the mud.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 11th January 2014, 05:56 PM   #327
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Pretending that we haven't already presented the evidence isn't going to advance your case.

Meanwhile, evidence to support your assertions is notably lacking.

ETA: Animated gifs with arrows are *not* evidence - they are the claim.

For example:

1. You claim that distortion of the pylons inwards towards the point of impact is inconsistent with the official story, but have provided no *evidence* that supports your assertion that the damage would be otherwise in the official version of events.

2. You claim that the aircraft could not have broken the pylons/beams, but have failed to show any calculations that support the assertion. On the contrary, other posters have provided calculations that show that the energy at the point of impact was sufficient. If, as you claim, this is not the case, where are the calculations and physical evidence of the day in error, as the score is 2-0 against what you claim?
1. The video demonstrates exactly that.
2. I claim no such thing, I claim that IF the bolts in the connecting the column ends (not 'pylons' or 'beams', PAY ATTENTION!) had been snapped then BOTH ends of the connecting columns would be damaged. That you demand "calculations" is laughable considering none of the calculations you've ever used as proof of the official story prove anything except the dishonesty of the authors.

Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
There are other questions you have still not answered in the thread, but I'm sure you can find them easily enough.
Name one, if you can.
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 11th January 2014, 05:57 PM   #328
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Far as I can tell the op offers no substantive point whatsoever. Its mostly egging on members (quite often successfully it would seem) to be snarky. And in the few cases in which an honest response to the op's query, it's been returned with more snark.

As for the topic at hand you have a burden of proof to uphold in demonstrating that the witness testimony and collective evidence (which you claim doesn't exist) proving the plane impacts is wrong. If you don't explain away anyof that then you have no case like it or not. Unfortunately it takes two people to hold a discussion and the flow of the thread so far is incompatible (and admittedly I'm not totally innocent either). The threads 9 pages too long and there's plenty of blame to go around for how it's gone so far.
The hypocrisy is endless.
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 11th January 2014, 05:58 PM   #329
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I've demonstrated as much as you. You're opinion against mine. Except, I also have proof the planes existed. You have nothing.

You're spinning your wheels and stuck in the mud.
So "nu uh!" is the length and breadth of the debate I can expect on an ironically-named educational forum?

Last edited by yankee451; 11th January 2014 at 06:08 PM.
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 11th January 2014, 05:59 PM   #330
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
1. The video demonstrates exactly that.
2. I claim no such thing, I claim that IF the bolts in the connecting the column ends (not 'pylons' or 'beams', PAY ATTENTION!) had been snapped then BOTH ends of the connecting columns would be damaged. That you demand "calculations" is laughable considering none of the calculations you've ever used as proof of the official story prove anything except the dishonesty of the authors.



Name one, if you can.
1. What was the speed of the aircraft when it impacted the building?
2. What direction were the wings going at the time of impact?
3. What direction were the wings going after impact?
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 11th January 2014, 06:05 PM   #331
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Let's look at what he got:

Quote:
In conclusion:
With the far left “pinch” in the column cladding we have evidence of physical impact, eliminating explosives alone, which simultaneously eliminates holograms.
Bravo, you debunk what only a moron would believe and showed an impact.
Quote:
The size of the pinch on the left compared to the gash on the right eliminates a Boeing 767.
Except it's exactly the same size. Your proof is that you don't think it looks right.
Quote:
With the shattered and “popped-out” column we have evidence of a detonation as well as of loosened bolts.
That's your fantasy. There is no evidence of this.
Quote:
With the inward-bending big wall panels we have evidence of removed bolts and floors.
Again, your fantasy. The fact you can see these things makes you look stupid.
Quote:
With the big pile of debris we have evidence of a heavily reinforced floor likely intended to display the wall debris while masking the empty towers and missing plane parts behind it. This floor also gave Edna Cintron a stage on which to perform her magic.
No, we have the remains of a building. I thought you said this stuff was removed.
Quote:
And then we have all the directional damage that proves whatever caused it came from the east, eliminating explosives as well as a jet of any kind.
So you think it was "something else" helped along by "something".

What part of this is "demonstrating"?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 11th January 2014 at 06:08 PM.
DGM 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 11th January 2014, 06:13 PM   #332
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
So "nu uh!" is the length and breadth of the debate I can expect on an ironically-named educational forum?
In this case it's called rising to meet the challenge.

I think "nu uh" covers this.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 11th January 2014, 06:17 PM   #333
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
So "nu uh!" is the length and breadth of the debate I can expect on an ironically-named educational forum?
Why are you here, you are anti-education, you call it indoctrination. You spread lies about 911 and your evidence is bad fiction.

You have fantasy, how do you debate fantasy?
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 11th January 2014, 06:20 PM   #334
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
In this case it's called rising to meet the challenge.

I think "nu uh" covers this.
Actually it is overkill.

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 11th January 2014, 06:21 PM   #335
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post

You have fantasy, how do you debate fantasy?
"nu uh" pretty much covers it.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 11th January 2014, 06:34 PM   #336
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Yeah, just sheared right off without damaging the column ends they were attached to, something that only happens in cartoons.


How thick do you think the butt plates at the ends of the perimeter columns were?
Reactor drone 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 11th January 2014, 06:42 PM   #337
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
How thick do you think the butt plates at the ends of the perimeter columns were?
The question is bogus. He only claims the ends weren't damaged. "Nu uh" fits well here.

Don't play his game.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 11th January 2014 at 06:43 PM.
DGM 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 11th January 2014, 06:43 PM   #338
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
1. What was the speed of the aircraft when it impacted the building?
2. What direction were the wings going at the time of impact?
3. What direction were the wings going after impact?
The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it.

IF you claim one did, you'll have to demonstrate what the NIST, R. Mackey, MIT, Puirdue, et al could not.
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 11th January 2014, 06:44 PM   #339
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it.

IF you claim one did, you'll have to demonstrate what the NIST, R. Mackey, MIT, Puirdue, et al could not.
Nu uh!
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 11th January 2014, 06:45 PM   #340
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
How thick do you think the butt plates at the ends of the perimeter columns were?
Allegedly the same thickness for each connecting column, with 12 bolts between them. Now, can you explain why only one half of the equation was damaged?
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 11th January 2014, 06:47 PM   #341
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by DGM View Post

Don't play his game.
Yeah, rational argument will give the place a bad name.
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 11th January 2014, 06:47 PM   #342
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
The hypocrisy is endless.
I fail to see the hypocrisy in pointing out that the prima fascia of your argument relies on denying that the plane as described even existed and that thousands of people on the ground in the immediate vicinity saw little more than a hologram or some kind of covered special effect. Since you prove neither, you have the reason as to why I don't give the no plane theory you're pushing my undivided attention. If you ever get to that point I'll be ready to discuss. But it's rather impossible when you respond the same way as many of the peers you're directing the above "critique" to.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 11th January 2014 at 06:51 PM.
Grizzly Bear 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 11th January 2014, 06:49 PM   #343
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Yeah, rational argument will give the place a bad name.
Rising to the argument. I think everyone looking sees this.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 11th January 2014, 06:54 PM   #344
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
Quote:
Yeah, just sheared right off without damaging the column ends they were attached to, something that only happens in cartoons.
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Allegedly the same thickness for each connecting column, with 12 bolts between them. Now, can you explain why only one half of the equation was damaged?
First you claim they broke without any damage and now you claim one side was damaged (the part you can see) and the other part (that you can't) wasn't.

Try to keep your story straight.
Reactor drone 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 11th January 2014, 06:54 PM   #345
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Yeah, rational argument will give the place a bad name.
No rational arguments here at yankee451 headquarters for fantasy.
http://yankee451.com/2014/01/07/cut-...e-episode-one/
Told you. This yankee451.com is pure nonsense, from anti-government rant to silly missiles on 911. Bad fiction. You could use "Bad Fiction" as your movie company, an intro for your fantasy.
http://911crashtest.org/faq/
Fantasy.
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 11th January 2014, 07:01 PM   #346
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Allegedly the same thickness for each connecting column, with 12 bolts between them. Now, can you explain why only one half of the equation was damaged?
I'll bet that the condition you refer to is at the top section of a panel... the columns project about 48" above the floor and the 52" spandrel is there. The top of those panels in that location would be much stiffer and the impact above ripped the columns and destroyed the floor as a more or less direct hit in that location.

You fail to recognize that the impact was not a uniform blunt "thing" hitting a another uniform flat thing... they were both complex and represented a range of stiffness/density/resistance and so forth.

You show a certain obsession with detail and miss the over larger principles of mechanics in play.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 07:17 PM   #347
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
I'll bet that the condition you refer to is at the top section of a panel... the columns project about 48" above the floor and the 52" spandrel is there.
Ohh...the documents may say 52 but the spandrels say 48. There are these new fangled measuring tools you can use to measure distances in photographs. Science, try it, you'll like it.

Besides, you bet wrong. I clearly highlight the half dozen seams with only one half of the connections damaged, some top, some bottom. You really should watch the video.

Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
The top of those panels in that location would be much stiffer and the impact above ripped the columns and destroyed the floor as a more or less direct hit in that location.

You fail to recognize that the impact was not a uniform blunt "thing" hitting a another uniform flat thing... they were both complex and represented a range of stiffness/density/resistance and so forth.

You show a certain obsession with detail and miss the over larger principles of mechanics in play.
You failed to examine the evidence. Why?
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo.../07/Seams7.png

Last edited by LashL; 13th January 2014 at 07:26 PM. Reason: To change oversized image to a link as the size was disruptive.
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 11th January 2014, 07:20 PM   #348
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
And all those conditions confirm the condition I noted.. I am not wrong. You've highlighted exactly what I said in words! Check the stagger pattern... you'll see.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2014, 07:31 PM   #349
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
And all those conditions confirm the condition I noted.. I am not wrong. You've highlighted exactly what I said in words!
No you didn't.

What we are seeing highlighted in the image are seams that prove the bolts were removed prior to impact. Only one half of the connecting panels were damaged. We see a spandrel plate shattered and directly below it we see the telltale three straight column ends. This is exactly opposite what you said in words.
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 11th January 2014, 07:32 PM   #350
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Check the stagger pattern... you'll see.
I have, in fact I can put it together piece by piece, view it from multiple angles, compare it to videos and photos from the same angles, and take it apart again.

You'll see.
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 11th January 2014, 07:33 PM   #351
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
No you didn't.

What we are seeing highlighted in the image are seams that prove the bolts were removed prior to impact. Only one half of the connecting panels were damaged. We see a spandrel plate shattered and directly below it we see the telltale three straight column ends. This is exactly opposite what you said in words.
'
When is the wing test?

The engineer you hired, what did he say about your fantasy before he left?
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 11th January 2014, 07:33 PM   #352
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Yeah I see that. You know what I also saw? Planes hit the towers.

None of the mindless babble you've presented as "evidence" even comes close to countering that.

Hell maybe the images you've seen were made by that same magical hologram machine that made the planes.

Why exactly should we believe anything you show us? Faking a grainy internet photo would be infinitely easier then faking a plane hitting a tower.
__________________
"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.

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 11th January 2014 at 07:37 PM.
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 11th January 2014, 07:40 PM   #353
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Yeah I see that. You know what I also saw? Planes hit the towers.

None of the mindless babble you've presented as "evidence" even comes close to countering that.

Hell maybe the images you've seen were made by that same magical hologram machine that made the planes.

Why exactly should we believe anything you show us? Faking a grainy internet photo would be infinitely easier then faking a plane hitting a tower.
The hole is plane shaped. That prooooves it wasn't a plane. There is no way a plane could make a plane shaped hole. Or something.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 11th January 2014, 07:50 PM   #354
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Perhaps you can get Purdue to help. Once you get your video released I'll be happy to prove you wrong seven ways from Sunday.
Your post seems to me to suggest you have issues with the Purdue Finite Elements Analysis (FEA) simulation video. Prior experience suggests asking you questions is like pissing up a rope, but would you please give me one or two reasons why you doubt the results of that analysis?
Jrrarglblarg 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 11th January 2014, 07:54 PM   #355
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Pretending that we haven't already presented the evidence isn't going to advance your case.

Meanwhile, evidence to support your assertions is notably lacking.

ETA: Animated gifs with arrows are *not* evidence - they are the claim.

For example:

1. You claim that distortion of the pylons inwards towards the point of impact is inconsistent with the official story, but have provided no *evidence* that supports your assertion that the damage would be otherwise in the official version of events.

2. You claim that the aircraft could not have broken the pylons/beams, but have failed to show any calculations that support the assertion. On the contrary, other posters have provided calculations that show that the energy at the point of impact was sufficient. If, as you claim, this is not the case, where are the calculations and physical evidence of the day in error, as the score is 2-0 against what you claim?

There are other questions you have still not answered in the thread, but I'm sure you can find them easily enough.
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
1. The video demonstrates exactly that.
2. I claim no such thing, I claim that IF the bolts in the connecting the column ends (not 'pylons' or 'beams', PAY ATTENTION!) had been snapped then BOTH ends of the connecting columns would be damaged. That you demand "calculations" is laughable considering none of the calculations you've ever used as proof of the official story prove anything except the dishonesty of the authors.

Name one, if you can.
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
1. What was the speed of the aircraft when it impacted the building?
2. What direction were the wings going at the time of impact?
3. What direction were the wings going after impact?
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it.

IF you claim one did, you'll have to demonstrate what the NIST, R. Mackey, MIT, Puirdue, et al could not.
The questions were asked, the answers evaded

"The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it." is an assertion that is not supported by anything.

In your opinion, the damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it, but there is nothing to back this up:
  1. that both ends of the connecting columns need to be damaged
  2. that both ends of the connecting columns were not damaged, where there is an evidenced need for them to be damaged
  3. that the absence of aforesaid damage conclusively excludes damage by an aircraft impact
  4. that an alternative explanation has stronger specific evidence than that supporting the aircraft impact scenario

On a more basic point, nothing has been presented to explain why the physics of an aircraft impact is insufficient to cause the damage observed. Several posters have provided you with calculations that support the damage.

If these are wrong, what is wrong with them and why?
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

Last edited by Kid Eager; 11th January 2014 at 08:04 PM. Reason: indenting
Kid Eager 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 11th January 2014, 08:12 PM   #356
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it
Nope. Your subjective and unsystematic hog-tied amateur interpretation of a limited dataset is not "proof" of anything.

Over 20 (maybe as many as 30) different videos have surfaced of the second 9/11 impact. These videos were taken at distances ranging from a few hundred feet from the tower to nearly 5 miles away, and range all around the compass. Here is one collection of them.

In this collection is a video shot from a nearby building looking up at the impact, (02:12 to 02:25) with another building between the tower and the camera. You want to compare the mass of the plane to the mass of the building? In that video you can clearly see the building flex to screen-right when the mass of the airplane hit the central column. Somewhere out there is a longer version of that clip showing the WTC oscillating for nearly 5 minutes after the impact. Do the math on the timing of that the motion of the building begins at a time AFTER the initial impact, consistent with the impact velocity of the plane reaching the building core.

Also in that same clip you can see the debris ejecta leave the building. The debris leaves two smoke trails, one spiralling and one not. The spiralling smoke trail originates at the corner of the building, and you can see this in nearly every video. That smoke trail is the right wing engine punching through the building, falling a thousand feet while travelling at about 450mph (I've done the math -- if you don't believe me do it yourself) and ending up at the intersection of Church and Murray. The other tail leads to a nearby rooftop where a chunk of fuselage more than 100'square was later found.

The videos are consistent.

The debris ejecta is consistent.

The "Pinocchio's nose" aka "hole that wasn't there" is consistent (both in timing and placement) with the air column of the fuselage exiting the building along with the fuel from the center tanks, which then explodes in a fuel-air fireball.

Your Nope Lamer fantasy only works if you toss out 9 tenths of the information. That's not science. That's lying to yourself and others.
Jrrarglblarg 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 11th January 2014, 08:25 PM   #357
Iamme
Philosopher
 
Iamme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,215
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it.

IF you claim one did, you'll have to demonstrate what the NIST, R. Mackey, MIT, Puirdue, et al could not.
What would you say if private individuals, with no ties to the govt, took pictures or videos of a plane going into one of the towers?
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit.
Iamme 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 11th January 2014, 08:33 PM   #358
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
No evidence supports any such thing. If it did you could demonstrate how the east-west damage is consistent with a mostly hollow aluminum aircraft with leading edges as sharp as a basketball traveling north-south.

Until any single one of you can demonstrate that, no we're far from done. But I get that desperate men do desperate deeds, so I fully understand why you'd rather make this about me.

You have the floor, it's clean, I just wiped it with you lot.
Oh, dear: The only way you can pretend there is "no evidence" is to ignore the questions that so obviously intimidate you. Just for grins--how fast was the leading edge of the wing or either one of the 767s that was observed to impact either one fo the towers, at the pint either one was observed to impact the tower if impacted? Do remember that speed is a scalar.

And remember that that is just the first step...until you begin to deal with actual reality, "we" are, in fact, done.
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 11th January 2014, 08:34 PM   #359
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
To date you haven't demonstrated anything other than a refusal to discuss the topic.



Done. I laid out my argument in the video and the accompanying transcript in the OP.

Wading through all the sarcastic and childish posts I still have yet to see any sort of an attempt to discuss the evidence I brought forth, so I find it humorous that you use the term "layperson opinion".
...leading edge speed?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle 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 11th January 2014, 08:38 PM   #360
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it.
Okay. You know what proves a jet did it? A jet hitting the flippin' tower.

I mean seriously this is beyond the pale. Planes... hit... the.... towers. Tens of thousands of people saw it happen in real life. Millions saw it live on television.

This is beyond wrong into full scale reality denial.
__________________
"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
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 10:21 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.