• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

9/11: The Smoking Gun

Fonebone said:
Correct-

The contents of the link pithed* me off and made me angry !

Samuel Johnson's Dictionary


*pith- 4. Energy; cogency; fulness of sentiment; closeness and vigour of thought and stile.

https://www.definitions.net/definition/PITH
Click to expand...

So...Actual engineering discussions using physical evidence, applied physics, and quality research offends you?

Why should anyone take you seriously on any level?

I ask based on the body of your posts on this forum which lack any basis in reality, and demonstrate a vast lack of fundamental knowledge of the most basic, and easily researchable facts of how things work.

I readily admit most the majority of the two NIST reports are over my head, intellectually, and educationally. But I can read the "Conclusion" chapters just fine, and it is there the "Truth" jumps off the page. I have no problem letting smarter people figure things out, and I'm certainly not so stupid as to question their findings based on two years of college with a major in Marine Geology.

Choosing ignorance is nothing to be proud of.
 
After years away from here, I popped in on a nostalgic whim. Some things really never change...wow.

Steve, get a new hobby, mate.

"True believers can't get past the television show"

Proceeds to bang on about a movie.

Exquisite, Sir...thanks for the laugh and maybe you shouldn't watch too many movies, it's bad for you 😉
 
School of Hard Knocks presents fantasy from steve

yankee451 said:
Dropping by to check out the comments. As usual, the true believers can't get past the television show. So, for those of you who are critical thinking-challenged:

Have you ever seen the movie of the bank heist where the criminals put a photo of the bank vault in front of the security camera to dupe the guards into thinking the vault is okay, while it’s being robbed? The wily criminals simply hide their vault-cracking activities behind a photograph of a pristine vault. It works every time (at least in Hollywood). Shows like Hudson Hawk, Speed, and Mission Impossible, old and new, have used this camera-spoofing technique.
https://911crashtest.org/pulling-the-wool-over-the-eyes-of-the-world/
Click to expand...

The old School of Hard Knocks left out physics.

The evidence free missile delusion... a most insane claim.

Don't try to join reality, it sucks - (do your grandkids know you posts insane claims about 9/11, mocking the murder of thousands? )

How did the evil government fake what people saw? Radar data? How many evil government people are in your delusional version of 9/11 to fake the whole event?

How many families have you contacted in person to tell them their loved ones did not die, but were faked out of life? Why are you spreading the dumbest lies about 9/11?
 
yankee451 said:
Dropping by to check out the comments. As usual, the true believers can't get past the television show. So, for those of you who are critical thinking-challenged:

Have you ever seen the movie of the bank heist where the criminals put a photo of the bank vault in front of the security camera to dupe the guards into thinking the vault is okay, while it’s being robbed? The wily criminals simply hide their vault-cracking activities behind a photograph of a pristine vault. It works every time (at least in Hollywood). Shows like Hudson Hawk, Speed, and Mission Impossible, old and new, have used this camera-spoofing technique.
https://911crashtest.org/pulling-the-wool-over-the-eyes-of-the-world/
Click to expand...


Your reference correctly mentions why the fake photo in front of a camera will most likely not work. However, when it drools over the supposed reliability of a proposed "slice and dice" scenario, it fails miserably, just as YOUR critical thinking has in its assessment. The inserted CGI miraculously matches the EXACT spots and destruction pattern where the planes hit, including the blowout from the portions of the building away from the impact site. Even the best simulations cannot predict the precise shapes and configurations of these well-documented after-effects. Your amateurish pretense of a credible scenario is NOT a critical evaluation, nor a plausible method for deception. It is a comic-book narrative for a childish fantasy with no basis in reality.
 
Bump :Addressed to Yankee451
Greetings Yankee - Fonebone here.
Your "smoking Gun " thread is one year and a few days old and the views are approaching twenty five thousand. Time for an update if you have uncovered
additional evidence. Thanks -Fonebone
 
Fonebone said:
Evidence in addition to the evidence submitted in the thread OP
video.
https://vimeo.com/741646536
Click to expand...

As an example of poor image analysis, in the video of U 175 crashing into the south tower. IIRC the wing has "entered into the tower, or words to that effect, but where is the hole/damage? When the video was stopped the wing completely cover the damage/hole. What nonsense to say there was no damage. The wings beginning to break open as the video from Purdue shows of AA 11 and the inferno begins, no mystery here and no phantom missile, just jet fuel combusting.
 
bknight said:
As an example of poor image analysis, in the video of U 175 crashing into the south tower. IIRC the wing has "entered into the tower, or words to that effect, but where is the hole/damage? When the video was stopped the wing completely cover the damage/hole. What nonsense to say there was no damage. The wings beginning to break open as the video from Purdue shows of AA 11 and the inferno begins, no mystery here and no phantom missile, just jet fuel combusting.
Click to expand...

Continuing with the above example after a second or two the pane disappears into the building and lo and behold a hole in the building, how curious a plane with a lot of momentum has created a hole in a building. The momentum was sufficient to destroy building I beams made of steel. It's all physics, not rocket science nor dilutional beliefs of missiles.
 
Fonebone said:
Bump :Addressed to Yankee451
Greetings Yankee - Fonebone here.
Your "smoking Gun " thread is one year and a few days old and the views are approaching twenty five thousand. Time for an update if you have uncovered
additional evidence. Thanks -Fonebone
Click to expand...

It's been almost 22 years but you believe that some manner of newly discovered evidence of a vast and incredibly complex and complicated conspiracy will magically appear.
That is textbook dusional thinking.

Oh and Yankee....love the use of fictional stories as some sort of proof of concept. Next up, a Scooby-Doo reference? Maybe Thor himself will appear, or perhaps Micheal Keaton in his Batman suit....but the 1989 Batman cut it was da bomb.
 
Re: the cloaked missile that hits the building. If it passes THROUGH the structure and is visible exiting it on the other side, then the missile did not explode inside the building.
 
Guys... there's something to be said for dealing with 'low-hanging fruit'... Steve is best ignored.
 
jaydeehess said:
Re: the cloaked missile that hits the building. If it passes THROUGH the structure and is visible exiting it on the other side, then the missile did not explode inside the building.
Click to expand...


This is a cameo of the AGM86D missile.









Fonebone said:
Image of the alleged missile:



Another image of the same missile
AGM-86D


One of the many munition payloads of this delivery systems is a FAE thermobaric Napalm and Napalm2 incendiary warhead.
F.A.E. = Fuel Air Explosive.
Napalm is a FAE is a Naphthalene & palm oil that creates a Fireball with a petroleum thick black mushroom smoke cloud. Naphalm2 is a
chemical exothermic payload replacement for Napalm and produces a whitish tan-gray smoke mushroom cloud
Click to expand...


This is the missile suspect...
An AGM-86D cruise missile.
 
jaydeehess said:
Re: the cloaked missile that hits the building. If it passes THROUGH the structure and is visible exiting it on the other side, then the missile did not explode inside the building.
Click to expand...


--And--
this post outlines the missile path thru the WTC2 south wall and
the missile nose as it exits the North wall at the North-East bevel.
NOSE IN -
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7443177#post7443177




NOSE OUT -

Note the nose shaped shadow cast horizontally on the partially sun-lit north wall as the missile nose exits.

 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
--And--
this post outlines the missile path thru the WTC2 south wall and
the missile nose as it exits the North wall at the North-East bevel.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7443177#post7443177
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814c9c36a3c2530.jpg[/qimg]


Note the nose shaped shadow cast horizontally on the partially sun-lit north wall as the missile nose exits.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814cf7347f0da62.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You do know the entire attack is on video from multiple angles, right? And how does a sane person ignore the 767?

Why don't you explain to us heathens how a 767 loaded with jet fuel, flying over 400mph is different than a cruise missile.
 
Fonebone said:
...This is the missile suspect...
An AGM-86D cruise missile.
Click to expand...

With a Napalm FAE warhead, you said?

Steve d'Eak's theory is that the missiles (plural) flew in on a path almost parallel to the South face of the South tower, so each missile would hit, and break or bend, multiple columns.

Do you DISAGREE with that theory?

Because it doesn't seem to make much sense - when would any warhead explode in a scenario where one missle does the same damage to multiple columns?

Don't discuss this with me, by the way. Fight your differences with Steve out with Steve.
I am sure you can both see very clearly how the other is obviously wrong, lying, a part of controlled opposition.
 
Fonebone said:
--And--
this post outlines the missile path thru the WTC2 south wall and
the missile nose as it exits the North wall at the North-East bevel.
NOSE IN -
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7443177#post7443177
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814c9c36a3c2530.jpg[/qimg]



NOSE OUT -

Note the nose shaped shadow cast horizontally on the partially sun-lit north wall as the missile nose exits.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814cf7347f0da62.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Can you explain why the "NOSE OUT" in that image, and its shadow, are two orders of magnitude larger than the nose of the AGM86D missile shown in the photo in your previous post?
 
Myriad said:
Can you explain why the "NOSE OUT" in that image, and its shadow, are two orders of magnitude larger than the nose of the AGM86D missile shown in the photo in your previous post?
Click to expand...

There are several explanations:

  1. The missile grew while it was inside the building.
  2. Actually more missiles were shot, including a huge cruise missile, but with a tiny warhead that did very little damage, but it had to be huge just because.
  3. The huge missile was actually shot from inside the building in that direction as the other one penetrated.
  4. There was no missile, it was a plane and that is not the nose. No, no, forget I said that, that's not possible.
 
Wow, I can't believe it's been a year.

(*Looks in forum*)

Wow, I can't believe someone's still trying to pitch cruise missiles. At least it's back to the Twin Towers instead of "cruise missile at the Pentagon", but still...
 
Oystein said:
With a Napalm FAE warhead, you said?
Click to expand...
Correction... I stated the AGM-86D was capable of carrying any
of multiple flavors of warheads, including incendiary payloads
such as Napalm and Napalm2. The evidence proves the incendiaries
deployed on both WTC missiles were Napalm2 warheads.


Steve d'Eak's theory is that the missiles (plural) flew in on a path almost parallel to the South face of the South tower, so each missile would hit, and break or bend, multiple columns.
Click to expand...
Steve De'ak's video clearly outlines his theories on the two cruise missiles
striking the two WTC towers.
https://911crashtest.org/what-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole-take-2/


Do you DISAGREE with that theory?
Click to expand...
My theories are delineated in this post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13974952#post13974952


Because it doesn't seem to make much sense - when would any warhead explode in a scenario where one missle does the same damage to multiple columns?
Click to expand...
Ask Steve...


Don't discuss this with me, by the way. Fight your differences with Steve out with Steve.
Click to expand...
Steve is MIA-... how about you and I discuss the evidence I post.

I am sure you can both see very clearly how the other is obviously wrong, lying, a part of controlled opposition.
Click to expand...

If Steve joins the thread he can participate. Meanwhile, I discuss with you and others.

Edited by jimbob: 
the quote tags had been messed up, I believe it was inadvertent, so have edited them
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve said:
Here I am. And I think your opinions on this topic are stark raving bonkers.
Click to expand...


Dick Oliver---WNYW reporter New York City

Live on the CNN television speaking with Jim Ryan on the morning of 9/11/2001. 9:03 EDT

Youtube keeps deleting the Clip but truth-seekers keep re-posting it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDT7RHDeX64
[excerpt]
Some people said that "they thought they saw a missile....." [/excerpt]
 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
Dick Oliver---WNYW reporter New York City

Live on the CNN television speaking with Jim Ryan on the morning of 9/11/2001. 9:03 EDT

Youtube keeps deleting the Clip but truth-seekers keep re-posting it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDT7RHDeX64
[excerpt]
Some people said that "they thought they saw a missile....." [/excerpt]
Click to expand...

The fact that other some persons also have opinions that are stark raving bonkers does not change my position one jot.
 
Fonebone said:
Dick Oliver---WNYW reporter New York City

Live on the CNN television speaking with Jim Ryan on the morning of 9/11/2001. 9:03 EDT

Youtube keeps deleting the Clip but truth-seekers keep re-posting it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDT7RHDeX64
[excerpt]
Some people said that "they thought they saw a missile....." [/excerpt]
Click to expand...

Is that the selfsame Dick Oliver who was with a camera man and a rolling video cam next to City Hall which recorded the sound of an approaching PLANE and a single crash sound and they sait it sounded like a plane, and seconds later they filmed the plane-shaped hole? That Dick Oliver? Urr, yes. Indeed. That Dick Oliver.
 
Fonebone said:
--And--

This is the exit hole created in the North-East bevel wall by
the missile as it exited.

[qimg]https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j394/xfonebonex1/wtc2Noseexithole.jpg?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds[/qimg]">
Click to expand...

Let's see: An airplane shape heads toward the building and then a missile pokes its nose out??? When viewing the video, it looks like a bunch of compressed air being forced out of the building, not a plane nor a missile. And you have never commented on the plane entering the building was CGId onto the video with no hole or damage being visible. That is because the plane is in front of the hole/damage, moments later when the plane clears the face of the building, the damage appears shaped more or less like a plane, not a missile.
 
jaydeehess said:
No, just no. If the missile exploded inside the building then the "nosecone" did not exit . Besides I thought this missile was cloaked by a Klingon cloaking device.
Click to expand...

The Missle would have also have to have had the same Aluminum steel frame work and mass as the Planes wings, remember the wing tips do not Contain any Fuel so are Built lighter and have less Impacting mass than the interior of the wings.
Simple explanation is the wing tips being lighter built with much less mass collapsed and the interior structure was dragged along the outer wall, of perimeter Columns.
This is as much a Smoking Gun as the Flyash Microspheres used in the Flux Coating of welding rods used to weld the Columns together, or the LeClade paint used to paint the buildings it's another Nothing Burger a total misunderstanding of the physics of the Planes impact.
 
JSanderO said:
Heard a radio talking head claim the collapse was caused by crappy insulation associated with a Gotti family contractor.
Click to expand...


Does that "radio talking-head" have a name? That statement is a blatent antisamnitic slur and
this "talking-head should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. You
practice your craft in New York City i believe. Name the radio station's call letters as well.
You should be ashamed to post this garbage statement to
a public forum with no evidence to back the "talking dimwit's" asinine tripe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom