• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11: The Smoking Gun

yankee451

Master Poster
yankee451
Joined
Feb 1, 2013
Messages
2,794
The evidence discussed in this video leads directly to the most likely cause, and the most likely suspects, which is probably why it was banned almost immediately on YouTube and Facebook.

The inescapable conclusion is that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight on 9/11. How they faked the videos is irrelevant to what the physical evidence shows.

This is forensice examination of the evidence we all have access to, but to discuss it is forbidden. I have tried to do just that on this very site in the past, so I'm under no illusions as to how long this post will remain here. Watch it quickly, while you can. 14.29 minutes.

9/11: The Smoking Gun
https://vimeo.com/741646536
 
yankee451 said:
The evidence discussed in this video leads directly to the most likely cause, and the most likely suspects, which is probably why it was banned almost immediately on YouTube and Facebook.

The inescapable conclusion is that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight on 9/11. How they faked the videos is irrelevant to what the physical evidence shows.

This is forensice examination of the evidence we all have access to, but to discuss it is forbidden. I have tried to do just that on this very site in the past, so I'm under no illusions as to how long this post will remain here. Watch it quickly, while you can. 14.29 minutes.

9/11: The Smoking Gun
https://vimeo.com/741646536
Click to expand...

Seems like a pointless advert to join Vimeo.
 
yankee451 said:
The evidence discussed in this video leads directly to the most likely cause, and the most likely suspects, which is probably why it was banned almost immediately on YouTube and Facebook.

The inescapable conclusion is that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight on 9/11. How they faked the videos is irrelevant to what the physical evidence shows.

This is forensice examination of the evidence we all have access to, but to discuss it is forbidden. I have tried to do just that on this very site in the past, so I'm under no illusions as to how long this post will remain here. Watch it quickly, while you can. 14.29 minutes.

9/11: The Smoking Gun
https://vimeo.com/741646536
Click to expand...

Obi-WanLevelStupid.jpg
 
I *was* bored, so I took a deep breath and watched it. I hate to use such a PIC term, but that was one of the most retarded things I've ever seen. I almost LOLd when the narrator calmly said "There probably were 1000s of witnesses who reported the cruise missiles, but they won't let us know about those reports"
I say almost, because it's really deeply sad that someone would spend hours of their precious lifetime producing this utter piece of garbage, when they could have donated that time to the local soup kitchen or something... :mad:
 
Seems like it would be monumentally easier to just hire a Muslim extremist group to hijack airliners and fly them into the towers.

The conspiracy falls apart because it's a billion times more complicated while accomplishing the same goals while leaving far, far more loose ends.
 
stanfr said:
I *was* bored, so I took a deep breath and watched it. I hate to use such a PIC term, but that was one of the most retarded things I've ever seen. I almost LOLd when the narrator calmly said "There probably were 1000s of witnesses who reported the cruise missiles, but they won't let us know about those reports"
I say almost, because it's really deeply sad that someone would spend hours of their precious lifetime producing this utter piece of garbage, when they could have donated that time to the local soup kitchen or something... :mad:
Click to expand...

Almost all who have seen it and posted have similar thoughts. I'm not wasting my time to watch it again as it presents no evidence just a soapbox to stand and toss stupid ideas to the crowd. All those witnesses would have found a reporter to give their story. The "they" not named but surely the government and or its agencies are not named because it is all smoke and mirrors those gullible individuals like yankee451 dine on.
 
Anybody who thinks it's possible to have a productive, or even rational, conversation with Yankee should read this old ISF thread first. It's 70-some pages of him deriding people for believing what they saw on TV on 9/11 or in videos since, while what he calls "physical evidence" is no such thing...only his interpretation of what he sees in those videos, presented in one.

Yes, it really is that dumb.
 
smartcooky said:
For anyone here still stupid enough to think that it was missiles and not airliners that hit the towers, I'll just leave this here....


[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ye6lsop9nbpdg8/WTC1%20overlay.gif?raw=1[/qimg]
Click to expand...


I don't promote any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. But the above animation is about as weak as any evidence a truther could come up with. I mean, ridiculously so.

The animation clearly illustrates how once people get invested in a certain belief, their standard of evidence declines. Confirmation bias. It is not uncommon to see similar video "evidence" presented for bigfoot, tbh.
 
Last edited:
Multiple cruise missiles? Were these the same cruise missiles that brought down TWA 800 and shot Societ nuclear weapons and Jewish space lasers out into outer space?
 
Warp12 said:
I don't promote any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. But the above animation is about as weak as any evidence a truther could come up with. I mean, ridiculously so.

The animation clearly illustrates how once people get invested in a certain belief, their standard of evidence declines. Confirmation bias. It is not uncommon to see similar video "evidence" presented for bigfoot, tbh.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Its not confirmation bias at all, and you have no ******* idea what you are talking about.

This is a correct, mathematically and trigonometrically calculated, superposition animation. The superimposed line diagram of the airliner is an accurate, to scale representation of the rear elevation of the exact model of airliner (a Boeing 767-222) that hit the South Tower. It is shown at the correct bank angle within a margin of error of ±- 2°, calculated by careful analysis using the many videos available that show the impact of UA175 on the south face of the south tower.

You may be unaware that the animation I posted was originally posted on previous occasions specifically to debunk the OP's nonsense about the use of cruise missiles to simulate the wing impact damage because, as he claimed, the wing of an airliner would be too weak to make that damage. In effect, you have spouted off from a position of not understanding the context.

You are out of your depth here Warp12 because you are unfamiliar with both the debate and this OP.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Wrong. Its not confirmation bias at all, and you have no ******* idea what you are talking about.

This is a correct, mathematically and trigonometrically calculated, superimposition animation. The superimposed line diagram of the airliner is an accurate, to scale representation of the rear elevation of the exact model of airliner (a Boeing 767-222) that hit the South Tower. It is shown at the correct bank angle within a margin of error of ±- 2°, calculated by careful analysis using the many videos available that show the impact of UA175 on the south face of the south tower.

You are out of your depth here Warp12.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of salient points to be made about why 9/11 conspiracy theories hold no water. "Blurfoot" type animations, as presented, do not factor into this.

I mean, even suggesting such is so patently ridiculous that it makes me laugh. We don't need this sort of fanciful "evidence" to prove that jets flew into the towers.

Remember, as critical thinkers we need apply a higher standard to our analysis.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
You may be unaware that the animation I posted was originally posted on previous occasions specifically to debunk the OP's nonsense about the use of cruise missiles to simulate the wing impact damage because, as he claimed, the wing of an airliner would be too weak to make that damage. In effect, you have spouted off from a position of not understanding the context.
Click to expand...


Smartcooky, no offense intended. But, for a large majority of members, or viewers, they would not know this context you speak of...nor should it be assumed that they would. If you post a random animation without supporting evidence, what else should one expect?

So, since you have presented that this animation is 100% a factual representation of what occurred, can you provide the supporting evidence so that others can be equally informed?

ETA: Meaning, the evidence supporting the accuracy of the animation presented, particularly the mathematics you cited.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
Smartcooky, no offense intended. But, for a large majority of members, or viewers, they would not know this context you speak of...nor should it be assumed that they would. If you post a random animation without supporting evidence, what else should one expect?
Click to expand...

1. I suggest you do your research before you pop your head up and criticise others. At least ASK before you spout off your opinion, and before declaring someone else's actual work to be the result of "cognitive bias" (for which, by the way, you have presented no evidence)."

2. I would contest your "large majority of members, or viewers, they would not know this context" statement. The large majority would see the title of the thread and who the OP was, and steer the hell clear.

3. Those of us who dare to dip their toes into a thread such as this are fully aware of the abject nonsense we are likely to encounter from any Twoofers that might come here.

4. You may not be aware, but this thread is just a fringe reset of the OP's previous nonsensical claptrap...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275

... which was itself a fringe reset of his previous pile of steaming faeces...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271571


Warp12 said:
So, since you have presented that this animation is 100% a factual representation of what occurred....
Click to expand...

I did not represent it to be "factual", I represented it to be "accurate"

Warp12 said:
can you provide the supporting evidence so that others can be equally informed?
Click to expand...

I have already given you a basic outline of how I made it, but to clarify, I used photogrammetric analysis of still frames from a number of different videos, as well as photos taken just prior to impact. To do this, I researched the dimensions of the South Tower to find the known distances between the windows and between the rows of windows, and compared these with the known wingspan of a Boeing 727-200, in order to determine both the scale of the line drawing and, as accurately as possible, the bank angle of the aircraft. I repeated this several times with different images to eliminate errors as much as possible.... and yes, I did allow for the various angles and elevations the different videos and images were taken from.

Now, if you are not satisfied with that answer, tough! I'm sorry, but I am not going to waste my time doing it all over again just for your benefit, especially as I know, from your body of work, that you have already made up your mind you won't accept anything I tell you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom