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 12th January 2020, 03:58 PM   #681
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Notice the gouged steel behind the bent-out yet still standing cladding on fifth column from the left?
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...cladding-2.png

The cladding is bulged OUT, but still there, yet the the plane wing would have struck like this:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png

I'm sure you can see that the CLADDING would have been the FIRST part of the column for the plane wing to have gouged out, had the plane wing been responsible. The evidence fits my conclusion that this damage was caused by the lateral impact of missile warheads measuring around 12" wide, and weighing around 900 lbs.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png
Again, explain why you think this photograph implies that the wing would have had to pass between the cladding and the columns. I don't see that at all.
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 04:01 PM   #682
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,826
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
What other examples of great ******* airliners being deliberately flown into office buildings and exploding do we have to compare with?

How, he asks with no expectation of an answer, would you have expected AA 11 and UA 175 to behave in 500 and 600 MPH collisions?
How about airplane wing vs. steel cable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavale...disaster_(1998)

Quote:
...flying at a speed of 540 miles per hour (870 km/h) and at an altitude of between 260 and 330 feet (80 and 100 m) in a narrow valley between the mountains... the aircraft's right wing struck the cables from underneath. The cable was severed causing the cabin from Cermis with twenty people on board to plunge over 80 metres (260 ft), leaving no survivors. The plane had wing and tail damage but was able to return to Aviano Air Base...
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 12th January 2020, 04:14 PM   #683
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,055
Yankee451,

If, as you contend, the WTC towers were not hit by aircraft, then what is your explanation for what happened to the 157 people aboard American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, and to the aircraft (N334AA and N612UA)?

The preponderance of evidence is the people died and the aircraft were destroyed when they impacted with the towers. If this is not the case, then what happened to the people and the aircraft? You can't simply handwave them away as if they never existed. They all did exist, at least up to September 11, 2001, and then they were no more.

This question is on-topic, because the topic is "How they faked the videos." We have one video of an aircraft impacting the north tower and multiple videos of an aircraft striking the south tower 17 minutes later. The videos and the missing aircraft (and the people aboard them) between provide good evidence that these aircraft hit the towers; ergo, there was nothing to fake.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.

Last edited by Blue Mountain; 12th January 2020 at 04:17 PM.
Blue Mountain 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 January 2020, 04:32 PM   #684
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
But multiple (say, a dozen) 1000 lb warheads would not have enough momentum (mass times velocity) to make the towers sway the way they did. But one 260,000 lb plane (260 times a 1000 lb warhead) at 450+ mph would have.

And no, the explosions of such warheads would not have added any momentum, unless a significant proportion of the warheads got ejected the opposite way at hypersonic speeds. Which obviously didn't happen (or else no one in downtown Manhattan would have retained their ear drums).
If you think about it, the choice of aircraft and launch points to guarantee fuel content was genius on the part of Al Qaeda (actual architects and engineers) to achieve the destruction of the Twin Towers. I argue that had the planes impacted on lower floors the buildings would have come down faster.
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 04:36 PM   #685
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,179
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I argue that had the planes impacted on lower floors the buildings would have come down faster.
As demonstrated by 175, which hit later and lower.
__________________


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 12th January 2020, 04:53 PM   #686
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 4,094
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I can understand your confusion, however my incredulity of the official story is based on the evidence of the lateral impacts of small projectiles. Your incredulity is based on your steadfast belief that the teevee would never lie to you about matters of such grave importance. Unlike your incredulity about my hypothesis, my incredulity is based on the physical evidence, which doesn't change, despite your incredulity.
Well, that explains your confusion- you don't understand the concept of "evidence," "hypothesis," or "incredulity." The fact is, your whole mountain is based on the molehill of your incredulity that an airplane could have damaged the building the way it did- your "evidence" is nothing more than your inability to grasp or accept what you're looking at in photographs. You literally do not have anything else. And every other thing you think is evidence for your "hypothesis" is something that follows from belief in it, rather than leads to it. This is the way creationists do science, among other failures in critical thought. In fact, it's the way we got into the Iraq war to begin with- our leaders believing what they needed to be true rather than what they could demonstrate to be. So- you got that going for you, a methodology that makes you about as truthful as Ken Ham or Dubya.

But you're good for a laugh- I predict this thread will go down in the same sort of dubious history as Christophera's "Realistice" thread, and for exactly the same reasons.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2020, 05:54 PM   #687
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Again, explain why you think this photograph implies that the wing would have had to pass between the cladding and the columns. I don't see that at all.
Of course you do. The cladding is still there. However the steel behind the cladding has been gouged out. How is this possible, unless whatever gouged out the steel column (which was BEHIND the cladding), struck the column from the side?

The television jet's wing struck the FACE of the columns.:




But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.



Do you need me to explain the construction of the towers again, so that you can understand what you're looking at, and how untenable your position is?

Last edited by yankee451; 12th January 2020 at 05:56 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 12th January 2020, 06:24 PM   #688
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,179
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post

But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.



Can't see how anything could possibly wind up getting pushed out.

__________________


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 12th January 2020, 06:26 PM   #689
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 16,302
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.

If it was pushed out, why does the photograph clearly show it pushed in?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2020, 06:33 PM   #690
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,765
https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WTC2_5th_column_from_left_center_

Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
https://i.imgur.com/y7Ty8GT.jpg

Can't see how anything could possibly wind up getting pushed out.


Please explain how the column could be gouged, without also gouging the aluminum cladding that covered it.



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 12th January 2020, 06:33 PM   #691
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Of course you do. The cladding is still there. However the steel behind the cladding has been gouged out. How is this possible, unless whatever gouged out the steel column (which was BEHIND the cladding), struck the column from the side?

The television jet's wing struck the FACE of the columns.:

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...1-48-16-PM.png


But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png

Do you need me to explain the construction of the towers again, so that you can understand what you're looking at, and how untenable your position is?
The missile theory looks untenable from that picture.

The aircraft collision picture looks fine. Something large and heavy hit that cladding and then bounced off sideways.

You are assuming that the fact that it bulges out now means that it could not have been hit from the front.

Have you ever seen something with metal cladding being hit from the front?

And why does it look damaged on the outside.

You need to do much better than that.
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 06:49 PM   #692
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,179
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Please explain how the column could be gouged, without also gouging the aluminum cladding that covered it.
The impact and subsequent explosion of a great ******* airliner flown into an office tower at 500 MPH.

As opposed to the entire thing being a cover up which everyone else is too stupid to see, aside from a handful of nutbags who believe there weren't any planes involved.

ETA: Why did you ignore this?

Originally Posted by Myriad
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.

If it was pushed out, why does the photograph clearly show it pushed in?
__________________


The better you get, the harder you work.

Last edited by AJM8125; 12th January 2020 at 06:51 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 12th January 2020, 07:00 PM   #693
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
And if you know of any video that shows anything at all inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling as it impacts the building feel free to share.

I wasn't aware that there were any close up high-frame rate high resolution videos of this available.
Oh, and don't forget this one.
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 07:15 PM   #694
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
The missile theory looks untenable from that picture.

The aircraft collision picture looks fine. Something large and heavy hit that cladding and then bounced off sideways.

You are assuming that the fact that it bulges out now means that it could not have been hit from the front.

Have you ever seen something with metal cladding being hit from the front?

And why does it look damaged on the outside.

You need to do much better than that.
I see. I am very interested in hearing your explanation about how you think the steel column behind the cladding, which is bulged out, could be so damaged by a wing striking perpendicular to the bulged out cladding.

Once again.

This cladding is not severed, even though the cladding that covered the columns to the left and right, are severed. This view is from the center-right. The column to the left of the circled and bulged-out cladding, has been gouged-out, but not severed completely:




This the same column, circled below, from a center-left perspective:



This is a closeup of the same column. Note the gouge behind the still standing cladding.



So you're saying that a wing striking like this:



...cut through the cladding of all but one column, but still managed to cut through the column behind the still-standing cladding?

Last edited by yankee451; 12th January 2020 at 07:25 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 12th January 2020, 07:18 PM   #695
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
The impact and subsequent explosion of a great ******* airliner flown into an office tower at 500 MPH.

As opposed to the entire thing being a cover up which everyone else is too stupid to see, aside from a handful of nutbags who believe there weren't any planes involved.

ETA: Why did you ignore this?

I missed it, and I am not required to respond to everyone. Fifth column from the left. The cladding is pushed out.

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 12th January 2020, 07:21 PM   #696
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Oh, and don't forget this one.
Are you now saying that the photographs are too difficult to 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 12th January 2020, 07:25 PM   #697
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Are you now saying that the photographs are too difficult to see?
Phtograph? Your claim is that there is a video that is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling on impact.

Let's see it.
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 07:27 PM   #698
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
And can we confirm that the missile being suggested is the AGM-158, length 4.27 metres, body width 550 mm, wingspan 2.5 metres, claimed accuracy 3 metres CEP?
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 07:27 PM   #699
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Phtograph? Your claim is that there is a video that is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling on impact.

Let's see it.
LOL!!!

You guys kill me. It's not a crime to admit you're wrong.
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 12th January 2020, 07:29 PM   #700
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
And can we confirm that the missile being suggested is the AGM-158, length 4.27 metres, body width 550 mm, wingspan 2.5 metres, claimed accuracy 3 metres CEP?
AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades.

The smaller AGM-158 looks like a plane and in 2001 no one had ever seen one before, but if someone had seen one it could easily have been mistaken for a small, white plane. JASSMs were being produced for testing and for the Pilot Production models in 2001, but they were not in the militaryís inventory at the time. Official production didnít begin until December of 2001, giving the authorities plausible deniability, but JASSMs used off-the-shelf technology from other tried and true missile systems so there is no question the technology was there. They look like planes, they are stealthy, they can fly in formation, and with planted targeting beacons, their margin of error would be next to zero. If the hole wasnít cut by cruise missiles such as the JASSM, it was something very similar.

The best way to hit parallel columns would be from the side, otherwise if you targeted them perpendicularly, youíd at best hit one column and possibly pass between two columns, so any competent missile jockey would have targeted them from the side, and thatís what the damage indicates.

At a shallow oblique trajectory, it would be the wing of the missile that impacted first, which is why the cladding at the far left is only scored and pinched, but not severely damaged like the columns were further to the right.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-...e-shaped-hole/
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 12th January 2020, 07:35 PM   #701
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
So you're saying that a wing striking like this:
Um no. That is a badly done animation. I assume this is the thing you keep bringing up that you call the "Purdue Cartoon".

I don't know what your weird obsession with it is, but please try to forget it.

Again (and try to concentrate) if you claim it is inconsistent with an aircraft impact, we must be talking about what would happen to a real aircraft if it hit a sky scraper, not how a badly done animation would work.
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 07:37 PM   #702
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Phtograph? Your claim is that there is a video that is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling on impact.

Let's see it.

What don't you understand when I say that IF the videos of the 9/11 crashes were real, we would have seen some sign of plane buckling that you describe. It ought to have been there, but it was not. It did not slow down. Wings did not snap forward due to the sudden deceleration. It slid like butter into the tower.

If you think the videos do show the plane buckling due to the deceleration, please point it out.
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 12th January 2020, 07:39 PM   #703
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades.
Can you give a link to the specification, the link I found has them at 24 inches diamater and 20 feet long. I don't this this can be what you mean.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-She...6bcd-missiles/
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 07:47 PM   #704
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Um no. That is a badly done animation. I assume this is the thing you keep bringing up that you call the "Purdue Cartoon".

I don't know what your weird obsession with it is, but please try to forget it.

Again (and try to concentrate) if you claim it is inconsistent with an aircraft impact, we must be talking about what would happen to a real aircraft if it hit a sky scraper, not how a badly done animation would work.
It is an official scientific animation that represents what you apparently believe. The Purdue Cartoon is used to demonstrate how silly the official story is when compared to the physical damage evidence. If you don't like their cartoon, please consider then using the MIT models, or those from the NIST. The point, which ought to be abundantly evident by now, is that there is no way for the plane wing to gouge out the column without first gouging through the cladding that covered it. The fact that this is what happened though, is proof that it wasn't a plane wing that did it.

Planes are off the table. But the damage is consistent with the lateral impact of cruise missiles.
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 12th January 2020, 07:47 PM   #705
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
What don't you understand when I say that IF the videos of the 9/11 crashes were real, we would have seen some sign of plane buckling that you describe. It ought to have been there, but it was not. It did not slow down. Wings did not snap forward due to the sudden deceleration. It slid like butter into the tower.

If you think the videos do show the plane buckling due to the deceleration, please point it out.
You are claiming that the video evidence is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling upon impact, you show me this video evidence.
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 07:49 PM   #706
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Can you give a link to the specification, the link I found has them at 24 inches diamater and 20 feet long. I don't this this can be what you mean.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-She...6bcd-missiles/
Hmm. Clutching at straws now. Sleep on it.
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 12th January 2020, 07:52 PM   #707
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
It is an official scientific animation that represents what you apparently believe.
I have never brought up that animation. I don't even know what or who "Purdue" is.

I have consistently said that the plane would begin to buckle and crumple upon impact.

So by what bizarre process of illogic did you use to come to the conclusion that an animation of a plane not buckling and crumpling as it impacts could possibly represent what I believe?
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 07:54 PM   #708
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Hmm. Clutching at straws now. Sleep on it.
Again, by what bizarre process of illogic did you conclude that a request for you to confirm the model of the missile which you allege caused that damage is "clutching at straws"?

As I said before, can you please try to focus. Is this the missile you claim caused the damage or not?
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 07:56 PM   #709
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
You are claiming that the video evidence is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling upon impact, you show me this video evidence.
You lost me two pages ago.

Every video and photograph available to mankind shows there was no buckling and crumpling upon impact. You however, assume there was buckling and crumpling of the aircraft.

Good for you.
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 12th January 2020, 07:59 PM   #710
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,765
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Again, by what bizarre process of illogic did you conclude that a request for you to confirm the model of the missile which you allege caused that damage is "clutching at straws"?

As I said before, can you please try to focus. Is this the missile you claim caused the damage or not?
You won't even admit the jet wing couldn't have possibly cut through the steel without first cutting through the cladding. I grow tired of your disingenuous antics.
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 12th January 2020, 09:02 PM   #711
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
You lost me two pages ago.



Every video and photograph available to mankind shows there was no buckling and crumpling upon impact. You however, assume there was buckling and crumpling of the aircraft.



Good for you.
So it shouldn't be difficult for you to give me an example.

Why can't you?
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 09:02 PM   #712
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
What don't you understand when I say that IF the videos of the 9/11 crashes were real, we would have seen some sign of plane buckling that you describe. It ought to have been there, but it was not. It did not slow down. Wings did not snap forward due to the sudden deceleration. It slid like butter into the tower.







One of these things is not like the other.
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 09:04 PM   #713
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
You won't even admit the jet wing couldn't have possibly cut through the steel without first cutting through the cladding. I grow tired of your disingenuous antics.
Has the column behind been cut through? I can't see that.
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 09:12 PM   #714
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,826
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I see. I am very interested in hearing your explanation about how you think the steel column behind the cladding, which is bulged out, could be so damaged by a wing striking perpendicular to the bulged out cladding.

Once again.

This cladding is not severed, even though the cladding that covered the columns to the left and right, are severed. This view is from the center-right. The column to the left of the circled and bulged-out cladding, has been gouged-out, but not severed completely:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...ith_circle.png


This the same column, circled below, from a center-left perspective:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...e-1024x768.png

This is a closeup of the same column. Note the gouge behind the still standing cladding.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...cladding-2.png

So you're saying that a wing striking like this:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...Purdue-Gif.gif

...cut through the cladding of all but one column, but still managed to cut through the column behind the still-standing cladding?

From a center-left perspective, you can clearly see that the cladding is severed. Nice try.
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 12th January 2020, 10:01 PM   #715
curious cat
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 370
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I missed it, and I am not required to respond to everyone. Fifth column from the left. The cladding is pushed out.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...leftwing02.png
As I said before, the whole event is so complex, we may never understand every single detail of it. There are too many variables some of them producing counterintuitive results. We would be able to explain them if we have all the data - what we don't. There are two important aspects you are systematically missing in your ranting about lateral bending of some parts of the building structure.

1) The wing fuel tanks were virtually full and at the moment foreign object became to penetrate inside them, a significant hydraulic effects started to take place. Study the details of the Concorde crash. The forces had to be enormous and we know pressure in fluids acts in all directions. Some of the bending towards the fuselage MAY be the result of this phenomenon.
2) The rotors of the engines were spinning at max revs (we can reasonably assume that) at the moment of impact and they had an enormous amount of rotational energy - which dissipated in an instant in directions perpendicular to the direction of flight. They were capable of causing enormous amount of damage and we know from precedents, pretty close to explosion of a bomb. Again, some of the damage impossible to attribute to the kinetic energy caused by mass moving forward MAY be result of the above.

So, as you see, you are missing stuff in your search for truth. You should concentrate on these instead of developing nonsensical hypothesis that belong more in the category of Sci-Fi than of real life events.

Last edited by curious cat; 12th January 2020 at 10:13 PM.
curious cat 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 January 2020, 10:33 PM   #716
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017



Same picture, I think.

Has the column under the bent out cladding been photoshopped out in the top image?
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 10:41 PM   #717
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,017
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
From a center-left perspective, you can clearly see that the cladding is severed. Nice try.
Yes, it is clearly severed.
__________________
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 12th January 2020, 10:44 PM   #718
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,646
Jet-Fuel fireball created by 60,000 pounds of Jet fuel make missile claim FAILED

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades. ...
Gee Whiz - the aircraft packed an impact equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, and was concentrated in the shape/mass of the aircraft! NOT a wasteful bast from a small warhead which was not see blowing up.

What created the jet-fuel fireball, a missile can't carry 60,000 pounds of jet fuel!

Big error, adding the insanity of missiles ruins your Anti-War message. The aircraft did the damage seen.

The best part of your fantasy, it is stuck forever in the conspiracy forum. What happen to your study? Why did you fail to prove the videos are fake, and eyewitnesses are paid government agents.

Too bad your missiles can't hold 66,000 pounds of jet fuel. Do you try to make your claims real, or trying to make them fantasy. What created the giant jet-fuel fireball? Duh

The wings are not going to fold forward, they are traveling the same speed as the aircraft, the first part of the jet is fiberglass nose, it is not going to slow down the aircraft much, then the radar, two seats, avionics, and the famous part of the "hollow aircraft. Why would the wings break off forward, the entire plane is going nearly 800 feet per second, the WTC shell can't stop it, parts are going to be ejected out the other side, it is physics, the stuff you don't use. The wings are part of the plane, not some weak part falling off. Yes, you toy plane hits the ground at 10 mph and the wings fall off, but take a look at the videos you claim are fake, that is what a plane going fast does - you have no useful knowledge of aircraft and physics.
__________________
"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 beachnut; 12th January 2020 at 10:49 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 January 2020, 02:15 AM   #719
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: 3,347
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
This question?



Scroll up. It has been answered numerous times, and linked to even more. This is what I meant by, "You aren't paying attention."
I did as you asked. I found repeated posts of a photo showing inward-bending damage, and none of outward buckling or damage, which is what I would expect if multiple missiles had exploded inside the building.
You still do not seem to have explained this apparent anomaly.
Care to try again?
By the way, how many missiles do you think were fired? I assume you have a fairly exact number.
__________________
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
Old 13th January 2020, 06:34 AM   #720
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,311
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
It's not a crime to admit you're wrong.
Shall we then consider that your much-circled piece of cladding is not still in place? You wish us to be dumbfounded that it is still there. Only true for certain values of "there".

The views from left and right suggest it's dangling between two columns and somewhat forward of the rest of the cladding. It's not at all clear how it's still attached to anything. The size of the piece hints that it came off the column to its left but maybe the column to its right (assuming that it is in fact a piece of cladding and not, say, the wing of one of those non-existent missiles). Is it perhaps dangling from one remaining point of connection to one side or the other?

At any rate, we can at least say that its location in those photos is not where it started out when the object that did the damage passed by. How it moved from its original position to its photographed position is just guesswork.
Jack by the hedge 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 07:52 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.