9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[yankee451]

"police that planted the plane parts..."

Talk about impossible. I made a PDF lullaby for your theory (49MB): "Airplane Debris, WTC 9/11." I posted a link and more on p. 4 of this thread with no response from you.

It was not possible for NBC Chopper4 to do a live CGI. That's why Ace Baker never considered it a live shot (8 live shots, total). That's why some no-planer troll flagged my video on the subject and got it taken down.

Will you be able to handle it when you find out you are wrong? What will you do then? Do you have any other hobbies? I recommend reading all of Robert Jordan's books before the TV show comes out on Amazon. It's about 4 million words of epic fantasy. Enjoy.

Why, you don't think certain corrupt members of the police and fire departments might not want to make a few extra bucks for planting plane parts and setting a few derelict cars on fire?

 

[TJM]

Not so fast, Steve.

First, you'll need to explain away the existence of four great ******* airliners, their passengers and crew, their families and the thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses who saw their demise. With their own eyes.

Please proceed.

One assumption on top of another. You know what you do to yourself when you assume.

Yeah, I do.

But I haven't made any assumptions.

Nice handwave though.

 

[curious cat]

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

The ignorance on this board is breathtaking.

You are missing the point a speed (the square of it, actually) is a factor. If you want to keep the proportions, after replacing a glass pane with a steel plate you have to also increase the speed of the snowball - I am afraid beyond the point anybody can throw it by hand.
Without doing much experimenting: never seen a pigeon (a small bird covered in feathers) going through a virtually bullet-proof aircraft cockpit window? Elementary, dear Watson.

 

[curious cat]

Why, you don't think certain corrupt members of the police and fire departments might not want to make a few extra bucks for planting plane parts and setting a few derelict cars on fire?

LOL! Now you are going really ridiculous

 

[bruto]

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

Said the chew toy to the dog....

“The thing about smart people is that they seem like crazy people to dumb people.”

― Stephen Hawking

Clever remark by Hawking perhaps, in context, but it's not useful as an argument. It's logically upside down. It means dumb people misidentify. It does not mean a diagnosis of craziness proves someone to be dumb. As Freud is said to have said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

 

[Axxman300]

“The thing about smart people is that they seem like crazy people to dumb people.”

― Stephen Hawking

Which is why you can't accept Al Qaeda hijacked passenger jets and flew them into buildings.

 

[Axxman300]

Why, you don't think certain corrupt members of the police and fire departments might not want to make a few extra bucks for planting plane parts and setting a few derelict cars on fire?

No.

You couldn't pay them enough to do it and keep quiet. You obviously have never met a New York cop. 23 NYPD officers were killed on 9/11. You can't kill a New York cop and get away with it. Don't believe me? Check their history, the percentage of NYPD cop-killers who are taken alive is very low. And if you don't think there were a few paranoid cops who looked into the 9-11 CT's over the past 19 years you're a fool.

Kill one NYPD officer and it's all hands on deck until the perp is on a slab. Kill 23 and it's war, and an FBI or CIA ID won't protect you.

 

[smartcooky]

Your projections are noted.

I'm not the one who is projecting

I work with a couple of engineers who might disagree with you.

Argumentum ad verecundiam

I'm happy to discuss the lightly bent cladding and the sharply bent steel with anyone, especially engineers and physicists. If my conclusions are wrong then they'll be able to provide a better one.

You have had better ones here, but like a typical CT, you merely handwave them away, or pretend they weren't posted.

Good luck finding one who isn't as threatened by the facts as you are.

Only one poster in this thread is threatened by facts; so threatened that he keeps running away from them.

That poster is not me.

False. The crash was not broadcast live. What was shown was a plane (allegedly) which flew behind the towers, followed by the explosion.

Every single "live" shot showed the NORTH FACE of the NORTH TOWER. Flight 175 allegedly flew into the SOUTH FACE of the SOUTH TOWER. Therefore, you're wrong. Still.

Not false; not at all. I don't have to be Einstein to know what happened. The plane appeared on the right side of the screen travelling left, disappeared behind the north tower, there was a massive explosion, and the plane did not reappear on the left side of the tower, only debris. You have to be a wilfully ignorant Blind Freddy to believe that the plane did not hit the tower.

If I toss an egg onto a concrete path on the other side of a wall, I hear the moment of impact but don't see it, I don't have to look over the wall to know it hit the path and is broken, and when I do look over the wall and see the broken egg on the path, that is evidence I was right.

I have explained how I imagine it was done...

FTFY

and have provided corroborating evidence to support it.

No, you have provided no evidence to support your assertions.

Your incredulity is not evidence.
Your disbelief of facts is not evidence.
A few arrows and ellipses amateurishly Photoshopped on some photos is not evidence.
Your inability to understand what you are looking at is not evidence
Your inability to understand what you have been told is not evidence

If you choose to handwave away facts, it isn't my fault.

As the damage evidence shows, the there were no witnesses to a plane crash at the WTC, nor at the Pentagon.

Damage evidence doesn't speak to witness observations

Here are some of the eye witness accounts, many from people who saw, with their own eyes, Flight 77 impact the Pentagon - people you claim don't exist

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentagon.html#p3

"AA 77 flew into the Pentagon over rolling hills and residential areas, clipping lamp posts and cars, as it maneuvered to avoid hilltops in a tight pattern, dipping its wings to line up with the Pentagon walls. It was seen by many witnesses on the whole flight into the DC area, because the TV news channels were reporting it and people looked to the skies and saw it come in."
Eyewitness reports, taken shortly after AA 77 crashed into the Pentagon, firmly hold that AA 77, with its silver body and red and blue letters and logo, hit the building.

Jet fuel was all over the Pentagon walls and inside the building, covering victims with fuel burns. Doctors told victims that they had been burned with jet fuel. Photographs taken immediately after the crash, show jet fuel fires burning over vast areas on both sides of the hole where the fuselage crashed through the walls.

Plane parts were all over the area outside the Pentagon, after the crash. They rained down on witnesses, their cars and the whole surrounding area.
Lamp Posts and other objects were clipped off as the jet flew into the Pentagon.

Sounds of a jet were reported by most eyewitnesses, as they watched the plane hit the Pentagon.
Radar tracking stations tracked AA 77 to the Pentagon and reported their sightings during flight.​

Steve Riskus
. . . I saw the plane hit the building. It did not hit the ground first. . . It did not hit the roof first. . . It hit dead center on the edge. . . I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building. . . It was not completely level, but it was not going straight down, kind of like it was landing with no gear down. . . It knocked over a few light poles on its way

Sean Boger
"I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Father Stephen McGraw
McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon.
"The traffic was very slow moving . . . I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.
"The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.
"I saw it crash into the building . . . it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. . . .
"There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows."
​

This is just a few of those interviewed, there are a few dozen more.

The assumption that there were thousands of witnesses doesn't change the damage evidence that says otherwise.

Eye witnesses don't affect the damage.

And you're ignoring all the witness accounts who claimed to have seen small planes, missiles and bombs going off. The denial is strong with this one.

If you claim there were witnesses who said this, lets hear from them. Present their accounts.

 

[GlennB]

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.

"With only a few seconds warning, Hinsdale could not evade the kamikaze; at 0600 the suicide plane crashed into her port side just above the water line and ripped into the engine room. Three explosions rocked the troop-laden transport as the kamikaze's bombs exploded deep inside her and tore the engine room apart—" kamikaze attack by a small fighter plane

 

[The Common Potato]

My point in invoking the snowball (bless His crusty icicles) was that a relatively fragile object - a frangible object - can damage a more sturdy thing, given the right conditions.

I don't think it's such a tricky concept. Having said that, I have been a lurker here for about four years and have read many of the older threads; not much has changed in trutherworld.

 

[smartcooky]

"With only a few seconds warning, Hinsdale could not evade the kamikaze; at 0600 the suicide plane crashed into her port side just above the water line and ripped into the engine room. Three explosions rocked the troop-laden transport as the kamikaze's bombs exploded deep inside her and tore the engine room apart—" kamikaze attack by a small fighter plane

Furthermore, the kamikaze plane in question was a Kawasaki Ki-61 Hien Type 3, fitted with drop tanks....

... which are made of thin aluminium alloy, yet somehow, they managed to punch a hole right through half inch thick high-tensile steel structural plating!

Gee, I wonder how that happened?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Why, you don't think certain corrupt members of the police and fire departments might not want to make a few extra bucks for planting plane parts and setting a few derelict cars on fire?

No.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's a fascinating argument that yankee451 uses to avoid talking about eyewitnesses; he doesn't think the damage looks like a plane did it, therefore there was no plane therefore there couldn't be thousands of witnesses to a plane therefore nobody was looking at the towers when the second impact happened.

And this from a guy who has conversed with eyewitnesses on these forums. The depth of denial is amazing. He just can't imagine he's mistaken about the damage, no matter how absurd the story he has to weave to explain it.

 

[JSanderO]

Yankee... your problem and your engineer friends appears to be a failure to understand the physics and material science.

A jet moving at 500mph has enormous kinetic energy. It hardly hardly matters what the material is moving with that force. The force was basically applied to the profile of the plane on the exterior of the tower.. which was at that level 1/2" and 1/4" plate, alum cladding, and glass panels.

Did you look at the demonstration posted of the ping pong ball shot right thru a ping pong paddle leaving a perfect round hole? Ping pong ball almost all air inside a plastic sphere hits a paddle of perhaps 3/4" thick hardwood.

The photos after the impact show as well as the result of some forces when structure was disturbed. I suppose this could be modeled in an FEA but no engineers or physicists have a problem of the "wound" damage given what the tower was made of, what hit it and how fast it was going.

The only person who seems to find this not possible is YOU and to make sense to YOU... you invoke all manner of things to explain it.

Like most truthers I have read... you simply do not believe what you see and you are not technically informed enough to understand what you see.

I use the analogy of clouds.

Unless you are a meteorologist who understand physics and fluid dynamics you can't explain the formation, the form, and the movement of clouds.

And this is exactly what is happening to you. You want to THINK you are smart enough, well informed enough to understand the observation. As you can't explain it with the applicable physics, you make up another explanation with "physics you think you understand".

Your explanations are so far beyond the pale that you cannot be taken seriously.

 

[pgimeno]

Did you look at the demonstration posted of the ping pong ball shot right thru a ping pong paddle leaving a perfect round hole? Ping pong ball almost all air inside a plastic sphere hits a paddle of perhaps 3/4" thick hardwood.

They tried with a steel plate too. The velocity was insufficient to punch a hole through it, but it left the steel sheet heavily dented.

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/rel...ngpong-bazooka-blasts-balls-at-mach-1.23.html

 

[JSanderO]

OK fine... but a jet is not a ping pong ball and it has many elements of high density which would do more than heavily dent the structure. You would get a mutual destruction in many situations.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

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?

They are consistent with inward dragging of the wing spars with the main Bulkhead as Dr. Steven E. Jones BYU pointed out to Dr. Judy Woods long ago, they are not consistent with Missle damage unless that Missle has simular wing construction of Aluminum steel. The large hole you Question is exactly where the landing Gear would be if the wing bent on its way in and the Landing gear moved from stowed position.
Any more dumb Questions?

 

[turingtest]

It's a fascinating argument that yankee451 uses to avoid talking about eyewitnesses; he doesn't think the damage looks like a plane did it, therefore there was no plane therefore there couldn't be thousands of witnesses to a plane therefore nobody was looking at the towers when the second impact happened.

And this from a guy who has conversed with eyewitnesses on these forums. The depth of denial is amazing. He just can't imagine he's mistaken about the damage, no matter how absurd the story he has to weave to explain it.

It's a fascinating mindset- the thing that makes it useless to talk to the really hard-core CTist is what makes them so interesting to talk about. As you say, the initial premise, based on simple, uninformed incredulity (the damage to the tower), is such a trivial thing that leads to such a disproportionate response- a conspiracy that involves faking videos, anticipating (and, apparently, neutralizing) all possible witnesses both at the time and forever afterwards, planting evidence, and who knows what all else.* And all these are assumptions that don't lead to the conclusion of conspiracy, they are necessities that follow from it. Conspiracy theory like this is a snowball that builds itself from its own inertia, forever rolling downhill because there's no place "up" for it to go.

*ETA: forgot the elephant in the room- missiles that flew in formation that would do damage that a passenger jet couldn't, but were meant to mimic the jet for anyone looking; the reason we know the jet was a fake was because the fake would never work as one.

 

[JSanderO]

I want to take this thread... which I call the Yankee syndrome to a different place.
Rather than "debunk" what appear to be rather unsupportable views of the events... hurl insults and so forth. I'd rather we discuss how this sort of thinking comes about and motivates people to go down some unorthodox paths to say the least.

People who have followed the 911 discussion for almost 2 decades have seen a slew of unorthodox thinkers that are lumped into a category call "truthers". And the prolific ones produce content and gather up followers and financial support which may extend past covering research and production costs.

I think some common "drivers" are:

Media and official sources do not convey the unvarnished truth... about almost anything. We live in a culture drowning in PR, marketing, selling, advertising, spinning, hidden agendas and deception. We hear things like NBC is own by defense contractors or have inter locking directors with MIC corps. We hear that blood sells.. and things like patriotism are summoned to support a war...good, bad or indifferent. The average consumer has a very hard time to understand what is really going down. It's true of almost any story in the news/headlines.

Most people have limited technical backgrounds to inform their thinking. And on top of that they are influenced by Hollywood productions which don't need to follow the rules of science in service to entertainment. Viewers confuse fantasy as possible and with reality. Reality seems rather boring compared to Hollywood productions. The events of 911... destruction of the towers... require more that a elementary school understanding of the world.... not even high school science can get you through 9/11. Yet most people feel comfortable in their technical ignorance because practically they don't need to understand flying to travel by air, gas engines to drive a car. We've learned to use technology built on science, physics and engineering that we don't understand... because we don't have to.

People do not TRUST authority and suspect there are always hidden agendas. And this turns out to have merit. We were lied about WMD, Gulf of Tonkin and so on. Corollary is that outsiders and "amateurs" can be correct and can be trusted. They can point to critics who turned out to be right time and again. So up pops up the "free lance" free thinker with their take on whatever. One of those whatevers is what happened on 9/11. So we see all sorts of explanations surfaced by non official "actors"... CD, directed energy weapon, mini nukes, no planes, hollow towers, crisis actors, missiles camouflaged military planes and so on.

Free lancers to be taken seriously have to present their theories with what appears to be critical thinking and science. They need to present a complete, consistent and coherent theory. This has to include who did it, how they did, as well as why they did it.

It appears to me that almost all 911 free lancers reject that a bunch of radical Islamists could do 9/11 and they were convenient scapegoats. 9/11 was a sort of MIC project... for more spending, for oil and so on. 9/11 was for money and power... more of both. Or then there are the anti zionists who believe the zionists tricked the US into wars against their enemies in the ME. Any one of these theories seems to make sense.

++++

But what are indisputable facts from the day? Even that seems to not be on solid ground if it serves the purposes of a free lancer.

If we can't agree on the facts... we can't have a discussion or learn what caused the buildings to collapse as they did. We may not be able to know every fact an detail. But we surely can and must agree on the main ones. So...

No... the towers were not empty
No... there were no nukes
No... there were no directed energy weapons
No... there was no thermite of thermate used

YES there were hijacked planes - I suppose without bodies we can't know who the hijackers were in certainty. If someone disappears and a murder is suspected they still need a body!

We can't know motives from the events. We can't know that they intended to collapse the buildings or knew that hitting them with a jet would do that. We do know it would surely cause lots of damage.

We can DERIVE who benefited from the outcome... if benefit is defined. For sure makers of military uniforms saw an uptick in their business. But it defies credulity that a uniform maker would undertake 9/11.

We should not have to argue about the basic facts of the event.

The collapses were first time events. (WTC2 was a repeat!) We don't have a prior reference. Everything that happens has a first.

++++

I don't think Yankee has shown credible and critical thinking informed by settled science. physics and engineering. A cursory read of his material reveals this.

What is concerning is that there are other Yankees and many who believe them and support them. This is very much like cult behavior. That HAS been studied.

 

[yankee451]

"With only a few seconds warning, Hinsdale could not evade the kamikaze; at 0600 the suicide plane crashed into her port side just above the water line and ripped into the engine room. Three explosions rocked the troop-laden transport as the kamikaze's bombs exploded deep inside her and tore the engine room apart—" kamikaze attack by a small fighter plane

The predictable and inevitable clutch at the Kamikaze straw.

Kamikaze planes did indeed cause considerable damage to steel hulls in WWII. Most Kamikaze planes that were used specifically for Kamikaze attack were little more than flying torpedoes, designed to puncture steel hulls. However what's clear when looking at these images is the wings didn't punch through the steel.

From Wikipedia:

"0549 in a position about 12 miles south-southeast of the southern tip of Okinawa the ship was hit amidships on the port side and two explosions at intervals of about one second were felt. Later investigation indicated that a Jap suicide plane, probably a Tony Kawasaki Ki-61 carrying three 132 lb. bombs hit the ship on the port side at the water line in the vicinity of frame 80. The ship was holed in three places: A seven foot hole in the engine room at the water line caused by the engine and fuselage to which it is believed was attached a bomb which was the first explosion, a ten inch hole in the engine room about 2 feet above the water line caused by a bomb which was later discovered as a dud, and a four foot hole in Compartment A-304-EL a crew's berthing space, caused by a bomb which was the second explosion."

The same would happen with a 767 striking the Twin Towers, except where the Kamikazes carried bombs which were massive enough to puncture the steel the 767s were presumably not so equipped. The nose of the jet is not designed for puncturing a war ship; it is designed for flying through air. Also, the towers didn't have a solid plate of steel like the hull of a ship, such that the part of the wing that impacted the box column would have behaved differently than the part that impacted a window. The part that hit the column would likely bounce off, whereas the part that missed the column would continue doing what it was doing until it met something massive enough to interrupt it.

Only the engines and possibly the landing gear would be able to puncture the columns. Like what happened with the Hinsdale, the rest would have bounced off.