9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[Jack by the hedge]

Using a photograph taken from below and to the right, how did you differentiate between parts bent inwards and parts bent to the right?

Also could you be a bit more specific about which steel columns you believe are bent to the right? You do love your slogan about the plane wing "taking a sharp turn to the right" but I don't seem to be seeing whatever you think you're seeing.

I'd also be curious to know whether you have considered the accuracy that would have been required to make a missile hit exactly the right spot to carve a wing-shaped groove across the face of the building. If it was raking across at a very steep angle then mere inches error to the left or right would have resulted in a "wing" impression which was several feet too long or too short. Is such precision even possible? Was it possible in 2001?

 

[yankee451]

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.

The same simple questions cannot be answered by you in support of your theory, whatever that is. The lateral bends to the steel and the lightly damaged cladding are consistent with the lateral impact of cruise missiles, not the head on impact of a jet. If you could turn to physics to support your conclusion you would. But you don't. What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. But it isn't. Why is that?

 

[yankee451]

Using a photograph taken from below and to the right, how did you differentiate between parts bent inwards and parts bent to the right?

Also could you be a bit more specific about which steel columns you believe are bent to the right? You do love your slogan about the plane wing "taking a sharp turn to the right" but I don't seem to be seeing whatever you think you're seeing.

I'd also be curious to know whether you have considered the accuracy that would have been required to make a missile hit exactly the right spot to carve a wing-shaped groove across the face of the building. If it was raking across at a very steep angle then mere inches error to the left or right would have resulted in a "wing" impression which was several feet too long or too short. Is such precision even possible? Was it possible in 2001?

Hehe, the inevitable denial that the columns are bend to the right, rears it's head.

 

[TJM]

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

I didn't ask about what supports your conclusion, I asked If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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

How did the attack's planners manage to persuade their masters that it was smarter to fire a fusillade of cruise missiles at Manhattan's tallest buildings rather than just crash planes? It sounds insane. Not figuratively insane; literally mad. What reassurance did they offer? Nobody will notice? We can suppress all the photos and videos? And what reason did they give? That planes were no good because they wouldn't make the right sort of holes? But the whole plan was to make *exactly* the kind of holes planes would make. So clearly the sane option was to use planes. What sort of loony would propose this plan and what sort of loony would let them try?

 

[yankee451]

I didn't ask about what supports your conclusion, I asked If two missiles can produce practically the same damage, why can't two great ******* airliners?

You mean, IF airliners were designed for penetrating hardened targets (like missiles ARE), then why wouldn't they have produced the same damage? Well IF that was the case (it ISN'T), then I guess to be able to create the same damage they would have to have impacted at the same angle of attack, speed, and trajectory. Which they didn't.

 

[yankee451]

How did the attack's planners manage to persuade their masters that it was smarter to fire a fusillade of cruise missiles at Manhattan's tallest buildings rather than just crash planes? It sounds insane. Not figuratively insane; literally mad. What reassurance did they offer? Nobody will notice? We can suppress all the photos and videos? And what reason did they give? That planes were no good because they wouldn't make the right sort of holes? But the whole plan was to make *exactly* the kind of holes planes would make. So clearly the sane option was to use planes. What sort of loony would propose this plan and what sort of loony would let them try?

Maybe they considered using a weapon that was capable of causing the damage, knowing that the majority of the cud-chewing herd will think whatever the television tells them to think.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Hehe, the inevitable denial that the columns are bend to the right, rears it's head.



[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Column-sides-1024x634.jpg[/qimg]



[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/left-side-dents1.jpg[/qimg]



[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/closeup-left-side.jpg[/qimg]



[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/center-right.jpg[/qimg]



[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/center-left.jpg[/qimg]

Your photos seem to indicate one particular steel column bent in the direction the plane was going when it struck the tower. Nothing very surprising there.

If you propose it was actually hit by a cruise missile, what direction was it travelling in? The same, or steeply raking from the side?

 

[TJM]

You mean,<evasive BS snipped>

Not what I mean at all.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Maybe they considered using a weapon that was capable of causing the damage, knowing that the majority of the cud-chewing herd will think whatever the television tells them to think.

Have you considered that wouldn't be a sufficiently persuasive argument to make other than a dribbling imbecile give it the go-ahead?

Have you got an argument that actual grownups might swallow?

 

[yankee451]

Your photos seem to indicate one particular steel column bent in the direction the plane was going when it struck the tower. Nothing very surprising there.

If you propose it was actually hit by a cruise missile, what direction was it travelling in? The same, or steeply raking from the side?

Something like this:

https://youtu.be/zXE9u33pRTA

https://youtu.be/E0Rf_sS42U8

https://youtu.be/5_a1foRId6M

 

[yankee451]

Have you considered that wouldn't be a sufficiently persuasive argument to make other than a dribbling imbecile give it the go-ahead?

Have you got an argument that actual grownups might swallow?

Only that the lightly damaged cladding at the far left, followed by the progressively worse damaged steel columns, sharply bent in a completely different direction than the aluminum wing of a 767 would have been traveling, have got you reduced to attacking my intelligence, as if that somehow changes the damage evidence.

 

[yankee451]

Not what I mean at all.

Then please explain how the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting at the far left of both impact holes, could possibly have been caused by a wingtip like this impacting at 500 plus miles per hour:

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes, it impacted at 500 plus miles an hour

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So if the column was bent by a missile flying in from the left at a steep angle, why is it bent inward so much too? Makes no sense.

Such things are relative I guess; it makes no sense but it's not in the same league as a "plan" which involves shooting a fusillade of missiles at one of Manhattan's tallest buildings, waiting to give everyone time to gather to look then firing another fusillade at the neighbouring building, before declaring that it was actually two planes and assuming nobody would notice and nobody would be filming it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Only that the lightly damaged cladding at the far left, followed by the progressively worse damaged steel columns, sharply bent in a completely different direction than the aluminum wing of a 767 would have been traveling, have got you reduced to attacking my intelligence, as if that somehow changes the damage evidence.

They're not bent in a completely different direction. And it's interesting that you think I'm attacking *your* intelligence when in fact I'm saying how stupid the people who attempted such a plan would have to be.

Seriously, can you imagine any possible presentation of this hare-brained plot which would result in the leaders saying "Yup, that could work" rather than "What *exactly* do we do about the ten thousand people who see the missiles?"?

 

[yankee451]

Yes, it impacted at 500 plus miles an hour

Either that's some seriously strong aluminum sheeting, or something a lot smaller than a 767 wing hit here.

 

[yankee451]

So if the column was bent by a missile flying in from the left at a steep angle, why is it bent inward so much too? Makes no sense.

Such things are relative I guess; it makes no sense but it's not in the same league as a "plan" which involves shooting a fusillade of missiles at one of Manhattan's tallest buildings, waiting to give everyone time to gather to look then firing another fusillade at the neighbouring building, before declaring that it was actually two planes and assuming nobody would notice and nobody would be filming it.

Your incredulity is noted. Multiple trajectories indicate multiple projectiles.

 

[yankee451]

They're not bent in a completely different direction. And it's interesting that you think I'm attacking *your* intelligence when in fact I'm saying how stupid the people who attempted such a plan would have to be.

Unfortunately the facts don't support your beliefs. The people who did this knew full well that most of us won't believe anything that doesn't agree with the T.V. They aren't stupid.

Seriously, can you imagine any possible presentation of this hare-brained plot which would result in the leaders saying "Yup, that could work" rather than "What *exactly* do we do about the ten thousand people who see the missiles?"?

It isn't a matter of what you find believable, it is a matter of what the facts support.

"The truth doesn't change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally." ~ Flanner O'Connor

 

[Andy_Ross]

You are ******* insane. Get help!

Unless this is one giant Poe whivh is the only charitable explanation for it all.