9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[The Common Potato]

yankee451,

Next time it snows go outside and throw a snowball at a window in your house. Do it with little force, some force, lots of force. Report back.

 

[yankee451]

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

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

You could be right. Alas, the evidence supports my conclusions, not yours.

 

[yankee451]

yankee451,

Next time it snows go outside and throw a snowball at a window in your house. Do it with little force, some force, lots of force. Report back.

First, you explain to me how a 767 that spreads its mass and momentum over a wide area, is like a snowball. Then you explain to me how a pane of glass is like the steel columns of the WTC.

 

[Norman Alexander]

First, you explain to me how a 767 that spreads its mass and momentum over a wide area, is like a snowball. Then you explain to me how a pane of glass is like the steel columns of the WTC.

Completely missed the point. Just go throw the snowballs, dude.

 

[yankee451]

Completely missed the point. Just go throw the snowballs, dude.

Nope, I completely got the point. A snowball thrown against a pane of glass is nothing like a 767 slicing through parallel steel box columns. Dude.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/1-9-2014-1-48-16-PM.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/pinched-cladding.png[/qimg]

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




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

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

But your thinking the impact damage looks a bit fishy does not make it impossible. And having rejected what thousands upon thousands of people saw with their own eyes, you have substituted an impossible attack with non-existent weapons and a hand wave about some kind of cover up operation which itself is quite clearly absurd and not remotely plausible.

Still you keep batting away the obvious: what did the proposers of this lunacy say when their superiors said "why don't we just use planes"?

 

[yankee451]

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

If I was caught lying in court, all of my testimony would be considered suspect. Purdue's Scientific Cartoon depicted the jet wing slicing completely through the steel. How could they have missed this evidence?

 

[Norman Alexander]

Nope, I completely got the point. A snowball thrown against a pane of glass is nothing like a 767 slicing through parallel steel box columns. Dude.

Actually it is. Soft object hits hard object at speed.

Go throw. Dood.

 

[yankee451]

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

But your thinking the impact damage looks a bit fishy does not make it impossible. And having rejected what thousands upon thousands of people saw with their own eyes, you have substituted an impossible attack with non-existent weapons and a hand wave about some kind of cover up operation which itself is quite clearly absurd and not remotely plausible.

Still you keep batting away the obvious: what did the proposers of this lunacy say when their superiors said "why don't we just use planes"?

No. The evidence doesn't change. Any explanation that also doesn't include an explanation for the dented cladding, which I contend is proof enough that it wasn't caused by a jet wing, and the sharply bent steel, is what you're referring to as hand waving.

I have explained ad nausea that if jets could do that, they probably would have used them. But because they can't do that, they chose to use what could do it. Log that in.

 

[yankee451]

Actually it is. Soft object hits hard object at speed.

Go throw. Dood.

You first. Throw a snowball against a steel box column. Really hard.

The ignorance on this board is breathtaking.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

The Twin Towers were not "Hardened Targets".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What about the eyewitnesses? People who saw the second plane. Locals, tourists, folk living miles away who had a view of Manhattan. Why do they think they saw a plane? Why do they *not* think they saw multiple missiles? How were they brainwashed so quickly, thoroughly and permanently? Have you ever heard of a brainwashing system which could do that? Anything even remotely like it? Any research which hinted such a thing might even hypothetically be developable?

 

[yankee451]

The Twin Towers were not "Hardened Targets".

Therefore, the bunker busters wouldn't need to use gravity to punch through concrete, and could instead be used to bend steel columns sharply.

 

[yankee451]

What about the eyewitnesses? People who saw the second plane. Locals, tourists, folk living miles away who had a view of Manhattan. Why do they think they saw a plane? Why do they *not* think they saw multiple missiles? How were they brainwashed so quickly, thoroughly and permanently? Have you ever heard of a brainwashing system which could do that? Anything even remotely like it? Any research which hinted such a thing might even hypothetically be developable?

What about them?

This is the only way they could create the illusion on live television, by not showing the impact. Instead they showed us a jet animation flying behind the towers, followed by the explosion. They then employed well-worn propaganda techniques and repeatedly bombarded us with footage of planes hitting the towers, to the point where we believed we saw it all “live.” But it isn’t so, explained brilliantly (albeit with terrible audio), by the late Gerard Holmgren, here, as well as in this article, “Why They Didn’t Use Planes.”

Furthermore, all the videos of the plane impacts show anomalies that indicate they are fraudulent, every one. Comparatively though, all the images and videos of the explosion (AFTER the impact) are consistent from video to video and photo to photo, which to me is another critical clue. If as the evidence indicates the videos of the plane-approaches and impacts are phony, but the videos of the explosions are real, then it stands to reason they stitched together the fake video with the real video at the point between where the last of the plane entered the building, and the point when the fireball erupted. This explains why the planes penetrated fully before they exploded. Being just a video layer of a plane it would have overlapped the live explosion layer, which would have immediately exposed the fraud. For their ruse to work the explosion had to be real. Since all eyes were on the north face of the North tower, how many “real” amateurs would have been training their cameras on the south face of the South Tower when flight 175 struck? Any real witness that caught a photo or video of the explosion would be able to verify their images with the images of the explosions in the public record, and would simply assume they missed the plane. But even if someone did see what really happened, and still didn’t get the clue that the authorities were at fault, where would that someone turn if they wanted to report it?

To the police that planted the plane parts?
To the fire department that set fire to the cars?
To the media that broadcast fraudulent video?
To the government that was about to declare war on the world?

Even if they did report the truth, why would the authorities tell we the people when they were selling us a terrorist attack?
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

 

[Dr.Sid]

You first. Throw a snowball against a steel box column. Really hard.

The ignorance on this board is breathtaking.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No. The evidence doesn't change. Any explanation that also doesn't include an explanation for the dented cladding, which I contend is proof enough that it wasn't caused by a jet wing, and the sharply bent steel, is what you're referring to as hand waving.



I have explained ad nausea that if jets could do that, they probably would have used them. But because they can't do that, they chose to use what could do it. Log that in.

And this is why you fail. You contend that the villains deliberately selected weapons to fake plane impact damage based on their expectation that the damage caused would not resemble plane damage. Can you see the flaw there?

When we eliminate the impossible what remains is that you're not as good at analysing plane crashes as you think. And that's all.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What about them?

They saw the plane. Not your fantasy.

 

[yankee451]

And this is why you fail. You contend that the villains deliberately selected weapons to fake plane impact damage based on their expectation that the damage caused would not resemble plane damage. Can you see the flaw there?

When we eliminate the impossible what remains is that you're not as good at analysing plane crashes as you think. And that's all.

I'm not failing. The reactions are a clue that I'm spot on.

 

[yankee451]

They saw the plane. Not your fantasy.

Prior to the "live" footage of 175, most of the reports were that anything BUT a large jet struck. Only one person who happened to be an executive for CNN reported seeing a large jet. Everyone else reported seeing no planes (bombs) missiles, or small planes. So I guess they were all fantasizing.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Prior to the "live" footage of 175, most of the reports were that anything BUT a large jet struck. Only one person who happened to be an executive for CNN reported seeing a large jet. Everyone else reported seeing no planes (bombs) missiles, or small planes. So I guess they were all fantasizing.

Why are you talking about TV reports? I'm talking about eyewitnesses.

How were they all brainwashed so that till this day they think they saw a plane?