9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[CORed]

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?

You know, in Colorado last winter there were a whole lot of trees knocked down. The official story is that this was done by snow. That's right, "they" expect us to believe that snow broke wood. I'm calling ********. It must have been missiles.

 

[bknight]

You know, in Colorado last winter there were a whole lot of trees knocked down. The official story is that this was done by snow. That's right, "they" expect us to believe that snow broke wood. I'm calling ********. It must have been missiles.

OMG, you are falling for the dark side.

 

[yankee451]

Basic physics might be a more realistice starting point.

Basic physics is what proves the jet videos are fake. Apparently "skeptic" is an ironic name, along the same lines as "9/11 Truth Movement" is.

 

[yankee451]

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.

But we're not comparing them to the rest of the wing. They are very massive when compared to the flimsy aluminum sheeting. They could only lightly damage that sheeting before taking a hard turn to the right and becoming much bigger and much more massive as they sharply bent the more massive and less brittle steel.

 

[smartcooky]

Basic physics is what proves the jet videos are fake. Apparently "skeptic" is an ironic name, along the same lines as "9/11 Truth Movement" is.

Basic High School physics is what shows they are not faked.

To come to the conclusion that missiles did the damage to the WTC and the Pentagon and created the Shanksville impact crater, against the overwhelming, irrefutable evidence from multiple witness observations and expert technical and scientific analysis that it was in fact airliners that did so, combined with the total lack of any video and any eye witnesses who claimed to have seen missiles hit the buildings, requires a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on wilful ignorance.

 

[JSanderO]

Yankee... what do you think would happen if a 2' diameter balloon filled with air slammed into a twin tower facade column?

No damage?
Some damage?
Significant damage?

 

[yankee451]

Yankee... what do you think would happen if a 2' diameter balloon filled with air slammed into a twin tower facade column?

No damage?
Some damage?
Significant damage?

I appreciate your analogies. Thanks. They have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[yankee451]

Basic High School physics is what shows they are not faked.

To come to the conclusion that missiles did the damage to the WTC and the Pentagon and created the Shanksville impact crater, against the overwhelming, irrefutable evidence from multiple witness observations and expert technical and scientific analysis that it was in fact airliners that did so, combined with the total lack of any video and any eye witnesses who claimed to have seen missiles hit the buildings, requires a level of cognitive dissonance bordering on wilful ignorance.

Thanks for the feedback. If my conclusions are wrong, please provide a better explanation for the sharply bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting.

 

[Axxman300]

I appreciate your analogies. Thanks. They have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Translation: I don't know.

 

[yankee451]

Translation: I don't know.

Nope. The meaning was clear. A 2 foot air-filled balloon is nothing like a 767. Like the majority of the comments on this forum, his was irrelevant.

 

[BStrong]

Nope. The meaning was clear. A 2 foot air-filled balloon is nothing like a 767. Like the majority of the comments on this forum, his was irrelevant.

If there's an expert on this forum concerning irrelevancy it would be you, but projecting your failures on others isn't becoming.

 

[yankee451]

If there's an expert on this forum concerning irrelevancy it would be you, but projecting your failures on others isn't becoming.

Aw shucks, then another comment comes to prove me right. Again. And here I am focusing on the lightly damaged cladding and the sharply bent steel.

 

[TJM]

Thanks for the feedback. If my conclusions are wrong, please provide a better explanation for the sharply bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting.

Chaotic damage caused by a great ******* airliner crashing into a building.

 

[smartcooky]

But we're not comparing them to the rest of the wing.

No, YOU are not comparing them. I am.

They are very massive when compared to the flimsy aluminium sheeting.

It does not matter how massive they are in relation to what they hit, as much as it matters how fast they were going

They could only lightly damage that sheeting before taking a hard turn to the right and becoming much bigger and much more massive as they sharply bent the more massive and less brittle steel.

That is not what happened.

If my conclusions are wrong, please provide a better explanation for the sharply bent steel columns and the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting.

The exterior walls and facades of the WTC were not single, solid structures, they were assembled from individual pieces. It was the connections between the pieces that failed when the planes hit them, not the column and facade pieces themselves.


And if you refuse to believe that speed can allow a light, weak object to damage a stronger heavier object, then watch

(this is time-linked to bypass the physics and technical stuff because you wouldn't understand any of it)

https://youtu.be/I9zBGgpzl0I?t=305

 

[SpitfireIX]

It's from Purdue, so Yankee and his ilk will reject it out of hand.

 

[yankee451]

Chaotic damage caused by a great ******* airliner crashing into a building.

So chaotic practically the same damage can be seen in both towers. Lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left, followed by progressively worse damage, sharply bent steel box columns in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling, and an inward-blasting hole on the ninth column from the left, which was nowhere near where the alleged engine impacted.

This damage supports my conclusions nicely, but that of the skeptics, not so much. Hence the teeth gnashing and hand waving by the misnamed skeptics.

 

[yankee451]

The exterior walls and facades of the WTC were not single, solid structures, they were assembled from individual pieces. It was the connections between the pieces that failed when the planes hit them, not the column and facade pieces themselves.

I'm surprised to read this. You're right of course, the exterior walls were not single, solid structures.

But your claim that it was the connections that failed is easily disproved by simply examining the evidence we all have at our disposal.

Wall panel seams highlighted below:

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

So chaotic practically the same damage can be seen in both towers. Lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left, followed by progressively worse damage, sharply bent steel box columns in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling, and an inward-blasting hole on the ninth column from the left, which was nowhere near where the alleged engine impacted.

This damage supports my conclusions nicely, but that of the skeptics, not so much. Hence the teeth gnashing and hand waving by the misnamed skeptics.

Which only means your conclusion is totally worthless opinion from someone who doesn't understand basic high energy physics of plane crashes and is unable to answer simple questions on your theories.
Debunked next crazyness please this is 19 years boring.

 

[TJM]

So chaotic practically the same damage can be seen in both towers. Lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left, followed by progressively worse damage, sharply bent steel box columns in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling, and an inward-blasting hole on the ninth column from the left, which was nowhere near where the alleged engine impacted.

This damage supports my conclusions nicely, but that of the skeptics, not so much. Hence the teeth gnashing and hand waving by the misnamed skeptics.

If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

 

[yankee451]

If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

Because airliners are designed for slicing through...air. Missiles are designed to penetrate harder stuff. The evidence supports my conclusion, not yours.