9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[smartcooky]

Many people reported seeing and hearing what they thought were missiles at both Shanksville and the WTC.

FTFY

And yet miraculously, not one of them managed to get any of them on video. Hmmm!

Anyone who wasn't sure what they saw had a TV shoved in their face. But the TV, and your incredulity, don't change the impact evidence that indicates small projectiles that were at once more massive and dense in some places than they were in other places, struck from the side.

At and not one of the thousands of people in NYC that day, within direct line-of-sight of the WTC, saw any such thing.

Hmmm, again!


The impact evidence shows no such thing.

 

[yankee451]

The impact evidence shows no such thing.

Hmm. Now's your chance to explain how that massive wingtip only managed to dent aluminum sheeting before it took a hard turn to the right, increased in size substantially, and struck and sharply bent steel columns in a completely different direction than the alleged wing was traveling. Then maybe you can "fix" Purdue's misinterpretation of this same evidence. According to their cartoon, the wingtip penetrated fully.

 

[smartcooky]

Hmm. Now's your chance to explain how that massive wingtip only managed to dent aluminum sheeting before it took a hard turn to the right, increased in size substantially, and struck and sharply bent steel columns in a completely different direction than the alleged wing was traveling. Then maybe you can "fix" Purdue's misinterpretation of this same evidence. According to their cartoon, the wingtip penetrated fully.

This has already been explained to you... multiple times!

Here is one of them

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12939799#post12939799

In short, the wingtips are NOT massive. Compared with the rest of the wing superstructure, they are relatively weak, as in, physically smaller, of lighter construction with less hard points.

What you have done is simply ignore or handwave away the explanations, possibly because you have zero idea about aircraft construction. Some of us here are, or have been Aeronautical Engineers (I am one of those who have 20 years experience and a degree in this field).

Go away and do a course in Aeronautical Engineering, you might learn something that will inform your harebrained opinions.

 

[Axxman300]

Yankee's threads are comedy gold, especially when he gets to the missiles.

 

[GlennB]

Go away and do a course in Aeronautical Engineering, you might learn something that will inform your harebrained opinions.

Basic physics might be a more realistice starting point.

 

[turingtest]

Quote:
Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to. There may well have been thousands of witnesses but why would the authorities tell us about them, when they were selling us planes? Even so, early-on some witnesses did report seeing and hearing missiles, as well as no planes, small planes and big planes; but only one of these options can account for the damage.

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

There's no circle involved in saying that missiles would have been reported to the authorities until you complete the circle by saying the authorities to whom the missiles would have been reported are the same folks who launched them. IOW, the only one engaging in a circular argument here is you.

 

[Andy_Ross]

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

So you are just making **** up then?

 

[Norman Alexander]

One last question then I’m out.

Yankee, what evidence would you accept that would prove you wrong? Seriously, is there any level of evidence?

If nothing then go get some help.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Hay, yankee541, do you have an answer this question?

A question for yankee541.

American Airlines Flight 11 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 7:45 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 81 passengers and 11 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 175 departed Logan International Airport in Boston at 8:14 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 56 passengers and 9 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Virginia, at 8:20 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 58 passengers and 8 crew, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

United Airlines Flight 93 departed Newark International Airport in New Jersey 8:42 AM EST on September 11, 2001 with 33 passengers and 7 crew, bound for San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco. The aircraft, passengers, and crew never reached their intended destination.

Pray tell, in an era where thousands of flights depart and arrive successfully every day, what happened to the 236 people and four aircraft involved with these flights?

 

[smartcooky]

Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to. There may well have been thousands of witnesses but why would the authorities tell us about them, when they were selling us planes? Even so, early-on some witnesses did report seeing and hearing missiles, as well as no planes, small planes and big planes; but only one of these options can account for the damage.

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

Seriously? This is what you are going with?

So did CNN launch missiles? MSNBC? Fox News? NYPD? Wapo? NYT?

No-one reported seeing missiles to any news media for one, very simple reason. There weren't any missiles!

 

[bruto]

I think the conspiracy theorists' view of the world is posterized. Everything is in blocks. Authorities are all one shade, bad guys another, and so forth. The idea that some authorities are not other authorities is unfathomably complex.

 

[TJM]

I think the conspiracy theorists' view of the world is posterized. Everything is in blocks. Authorities are all one shade, bad guys another, and so forth. The idea that some authorities are not other authorities is unfathomably complex.

That's an apt profile for no-planers. Stealing it.

It amazes me, even when confronted irrefutable facts, they just argue those facts are in indeed refutable because of [insane theory], or simply ignore the people who bring them up. Like it or not, the existence of those four great ******* airliners and the thousands of people who saw them with their own eyes is irrefutable.

Right Steve?

 

[smartcooky]

I think the conspiracy theorists' view of the world is posterized. Everything is in blocks. Authorities are all one shade, bad guys another, and so forth. The idea that some authorities are not other authorities is unfathomably complex.

Its the same with structures such as building and aeroplanes.

Yankee thingks aeroplanes are of equal solidity all over, like a wooden cross - the wings are equally at strong all the way along their length and equally as strong as the fuselage. Anyone trying to convince him otherwise is dismissed as a sheeple or a shill (or both).

 

[Roger Ramjets]

What you have done is simply ignore or handwave away the explanations, possibly because you have zero idea about aircraft construction.

No, that's not it.

The real reason has nothing to do with aircraft construction or any other technical field.

Who believes in conspiracies? New research offers a theory

"Our results clearly showed that the strongest predictor of conspiracy belief was a constellation of personality characteristics collectively referred to as 'schizotypy,' Hart said.

Hart's study also showed that conspiracists had distinct cognitive tendencies: they were more likely than nonbelievers to judge nonsensical statements as profound (a tendency known as "BS receptivity").

In turn, they were more likely to say that nonhuman objects -- triangle shapes moving around on a computer screen -- were acting intentionally.

"These people tend to be more suspicious, untrusting, eccentric, needing to feel special, with a tendency to regard the world as an inherently dangerous place," Hart said. "They are also more likely to detect meaningful patterns where they might not exist.

 

[GlennB]

Well, this thread has been useful for me. I've been looking for somewhere to practice my tennis shots and have now learned that soft rubber and felt can't smash much harder glass (which takes diamond to cut it!). So I'm off to the greenhouse to bounce a few groundstrokes off it. Might take a cricket ball along too. Leather's softer than glass, right?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What are cruise missiles wings made of? Something super-hard and hefty, I imagine, so that the wing can score a deep wound into the side of an aluminium clad steel framed building as it rakes across about 60 feet of the wall at a steep angle before the core impacts and makes a bigger hole (and then continues through, punching out on the East side and finally hitting the ground somewhere beyond the East river). I wonder where all the other missile penetrators ended up. How many do you suppose there were in total?

I wonder at what point the bad guys realised it would have been infinitely easier and cheaper to just use a plane. They must be kicking themselves.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Hmm. Now's your chance to explain how that massive wingtip only managed to dent aluminum sheeting before it took a hard turn to the right, increased in size substantially, and struck and sharply bent steel columns in a completely different direction than the alleged wing was traveling. Then maybe you can "fix" Purdue's misinterpretation of this same evidence. According to their cartoon, the wingtip penetrated fully.

When your theory violates the known Laws of physics you are the one that needs to explain why the universe took a U Turn into the crazy Zone.

 

[Garrison]

I like jokes. That's why I'm here.

They aren't laughing with you, they're laughing at you.

 

[JSanderO]

Yankee... You are obviously an intelligent person. You had doubts about the official accounts of 9/11. Nothing wrong with that. My hunch is your "quest" went awry when you didn't seek out competent technical discussions of the destruction of the towers. It seems as if underlying your entire view is that officials ALWAYS lie and lie thoroughly and totally to conceal a nefarious agenda.

I can understand those who don't trust the media for accuracy... we are constantly spun to... we are barraged with advertising and PR. We're flooded with all sorts of material which purports to be accurate.

However, there are resources where people with strong technical backgrounds have drilled down into these building collapses. They have no political agenda... but who doesn't have a political world view? Don't trust NIST... there are many other sources/resources who have explained 9/11 without resorting to FX or bizarre conspiracies. Reality follows the laws of physics and science.

If you want good sound explanations for the details... they are on the www. Be a critical thinker. Show some humility and study so that you can follow the arguments.

Your theories are so outrageous that it is not worth the effort to debate or debunk them. They are self debunking and there is nothing to be learned from your materials. Sorry.

 

[carlitos]

They must be kicking themselves.

That could do real damage. Leather shoes are harder than pants or ass fat; they might punch a hole into the facade.