9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[yankee451]

I want to take this thread... which I call the Yankee syndrome to a different place.

I bet.

 

[SpitfireIX]

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?

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/North-Tower-Gash2-1024x629.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Fully-Penetrated-1024x576.png[/qimg]

Mr. Randi, I want my million dollars.

The illustration of the exact damage is irrelevant to the results. The point is that those exterior columns had zero load-bearing capability after the impact. Qualified structural engineers and other knowledgeable people understand this, but you clearly don't. Fail.

Further, if you want to dismiss the supersonic ping pong ball video, you need to explain how and why it was faked, and why no credible critics have claimed it was.

Finally, there are a lot of similar videos on YouTube, including one from Mythbusters; are they all fake, too?

 

[yankee451]

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

Projection noted. If you had a leg to stand on you'd explain how the pinched aluminum sheeting at the far left of the impact hole is consistent with the impact of a massive wing tip from a 767. If you weren't talking out your backside, you'd explain how the laterally bent steel columns are consistent with the head on impact of a jet wing, as described by the NIST. But you don't do that.

According to the NIST, it was the fuel in the wing that gave it the mass necessary to burst through the columns. How much fuel is in the wing tip of a 767?

 

[yankee451]

Mr. Randi, I want my million dollars.

The illustration of the exact damage is irrelevant to the results. The point is that those exterior columns had zero load-bearing capability after the impact. Qualified structural engineers and other knowledgeable people understand this, but you clearly don't. Fail.

Further, if you want to dismiss the supersonic ping pong ball video, you need to explain how and why it was faked, and why no credible critics have claimed it was.

Finally, there are a lot of similar videos on YouTube, including one from Mythbusters; are they all fake, too?

Good luck comparing a ping pong ball to a 767.

I have a better idea, let's do our own version of Mythbusters. Mount a real 767 wing on a rocket sled and collide it at 550+ MPH into steel box columns built to the specifications of the WTC.

9/11 Crash Test

 

[JSanderO]

Yankee that is not necessary. This can be modeled.

All the tables used for structural design do not require actual physical destruction testing.

The columns were subject to axial loads and lateral loads in the static building. As soon as one column was destroyed the loads found new paths... they were redistributed to non damaged parts. There was some buckling likely and that can explain some movement normal to the axial loads.

Regardless the towels collapsed not because the facade was damaged.. but because the core failed in several ways. There was a collapse of the core, which caused the floor plates to collapse and that less to a runaway avalanche of floor materials bypassing the columns. Columns came down when they lost bracing and lateral support from Euler buckling.

 

[yankee451]

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?

So a wing spar, that is meant for horizontal loads (not for head on impacts into steel box columns), DRAGGED the steel to the right?

Why, if a wing was that strong, wouldn't it just wedge them apart?

One way to decide would be by examining the damage to the tower. Is there evidence of the impact of a massive wing spar on the right corners of the columns? Nope.

 

[yankee451]

Yankee that is not necessary. This can be modeled.

All the tables used for structural design do not require actual physical destruction testing.

Yep. And I know people who have accurate models of the towers but refuse to model the impact of the wings, I assume because they know it will prove a jet didn't do it.

By the way, no one has accurately modeled that - not MIT, Purdue, NIST, FEMA, etc. Hasn't been done, because they can't prove a lie.

 

[yankee451]

LOL! Now you are going really ridiculous

NY’s fallen heroes: More than 100 retired 9/11 cops and firefighters busted for swindling $24million in disability benefits with fake illnesses and made-up psychological trauma arising from terror attack
Retired NYPD officers, firefighters and corrections officers claimed they had PTSD and depression because of the Ground Zero clean up
Received thousands in annual disability compensation from 9/11 disability fund as a result, promising that they retired
Investigators found that they had second careers and did things that their supposed disabilities wouldn’t have allowed them to do
Cost taxpayers $21.4million dollars
Lawyers coached fraudsters on how they should talk about leaving the TV on all day and constantly napping, having trouble grooming themselves

https://911crashtest.org/new-yorks-lamest-corrupt-corrupt/

 

[SpitfireIX]

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Kamikaze-Hinsdale-Damage-300x223.jpg[/qimg]

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.

No. You simply pulled this claim out of an orifice in a flailing attempt to explain away evidence that strongly tends to disprove your assertion. The vast majority of kamikaze^WP attacks were made by conventional aircraft. The US Navy estimated that approximately 3200 kamikaze pilots died, but only 755 of the rocket-powered Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka^WP were built, and not all of these were expended. Other purpose-built suicide aircraft were in various stages of development when the war ended (including an improved Ohka), but none were used operationally. Further, the Ohka was constructed mostly of wood, and had no special armor-penetrating features. Fail.

However what's clear when looking at these images is the wings didn't punch through the steel.

That wasn't smartcooky's point. Why don't you address the point he made, rather than the point you wish he'd made.

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.

No. The 767s that hit the WTC towers had at least 30 times the kinetic energy of the aircraft that caused the damage in the photo. Further, to reiterate, your claim that kamikaze aircraft were specially designed to penetrate armor is simply wrong. Fail.

 

[JSanderO]

Yep. And I know people who have accurate models of the towers but refuse to model the impact of the wings, I assume because they know it will prove a jet didn't do it.

By the way, no one has accurately modeled that - not MIT, Purdue, NIST, FEMA, etc. Hasn't been done, because they can't prove a lie.

NOOOOOOOOOO you are projecting.

Models and time motion FEA of the plane impacts have not been done because I presume that the damage was not mysterious and looks consistent with what people expected.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Good luck comparing a ping pong ball to a 767.

If you weren't laboring under the twin handicaps of ignorance and willful blindness, you'd understand that the point of the experiment is to demonstrate that a softer object with sufficient kinetic energy can penetrate a harder object.

I have a better idea, let's do our own version of Mythbusters. Mount a real 767 wing on a rocket sled and collide it at 550+ MPH into steel box columns built to the specifications of the WTC.

9/11 Crash Test

The experiment will not be accurate if the wing doesn't have the proper kinetic energy, which requires not only velocity, but also mass.

So, Yankee, if it's so obvious that 767s didn't cause the damage, why aren't experts in Cuba, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran proclaiming that the US government staged the September 11 attacks?

 

[yankee451]

No. You simply pulled this claim out of an orifice in a flailing attempt to explain away evidence that strongly tends to disprove your assertion. The vast majority of kamikaze^WP attacks were made by conventional aircraft. The US Navy estimated that approximately 3200 Kamikaze pilots died, but only 755 of the rocket-powered Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka^WP were built, and not all of these were expended. Other purpose-built suicide aircraft were in various stages of development when the war ended (including an improved Ohka), but none were used operationally. Further, the Ohka was constructed mostly of wood, and had no special armor-penetrating features. Fail.

You say potato, I say spud.

Kamikaze aircraft were essentially pilot-guided explosive missiles, purpose-built or converted from conventional aircraft. Pilots would attempt to crash their aircraft into enemy ships in what was called a "Body Attack" (体当たり; 体当り, taiatari) in planes laden with some combination of explosives, bombs, torpedoes and full fuel tanks; accuracy was much better than a conventional attack, and the payload larger. A kamikaze could sustain damage which would disable a conventional attacker and still achieve its objective. The goal of crippling or destroying large numbers of Allied ships, particularly aircraft carriers, was considered to justify sacrificing pilots and aircraft.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

 

[yankee451]

Models and time motion FEA of the plane impacts have not been done because I presume that the damage was not mysterious and looks consistent with what people expected.

Or, as I have explained, to do so would disprove what they were trying to prove.

 

[yankee451]

If you weren't laboring under the twin handicaps of ignorance and willful blindness, you'd understand that the point of the experiment is to demonstrate that a softer object with sufficient kinetic energy can penetrate a harder object.




The experiment will not be accurate if the wing doesn't have the proper kinetic energy, which requires not only velocity, but also mass.

So, Yankee, if it's so obvious that 767s didn't cause the damage, why aren't experts in Cuba, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran proclaiming that the US government staged the September 11 attacks?

Exactly.

Evidently the technology was there for a warhead that can account for the physical evidence at the scene of the crime; the means as it were. The motive was to apparently terrify the public into supporting long-planned aggressive wars, while destroying the white-elephants known as the WTC. The opportunity was at any time they pleased, but they chose 9/11, 2001. Who are “they?” Well ask yourself who had the means, motive and opportunity? Who controls the US airspace? Who controls the US missile arsenal? Who controls the media? Who has spent the last 16 years invading the world? Obviously 9/11 was run from the pinnacle of US power, but it wasn’t just a US operation. The US wouldn’t have attempted such a ruse without first ensuring other nations wouldn’t blow the whistle on them, especially the “enemy” nations that allegedly have every reason to do so. Nations like Iraq, China, Russia, North Korea, Libya, and Iran have their own critical thinkers who are well aware that in reality, mostly hollow aluminum jets can’t bore through concrete structures, burrow into the ground or slice through steel skyscrapers, and they would be the first people to recognize missile damage when they see it. But they all played along. That doesn’t mean everyone is involved but it does mean very smart people all over the world were duped just like the rest of us. These would also be the first people to know that if the leaders of all the world’s governments, media, military and academia were proclaiming planes can do such a thing, they would have no place to turn even if they wanted to blow the whistle. 9/11 is proof the New World Order is just the Old World Order with better graphics, and in case you haven’t noticed, the Old World Order was all about slavery.

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

 

[smartcooky]

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.<polite snip>

You can add the Internet to all that

One of our best informed and respected posters here, Jay Utah, has a saying.... "Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed."

Prior to the Internet, conspiracy theorists were essentially restricted to barking at the moon, ranting on Speaker's Corner and distributing their hand typed single figure circulation newsletters of stupid to their tiny echo chambers of local nutjobs. The Internet has given them reach. Now, any idiot can make a blog and spread their garbage to like-minded nutcases the world over.

 

[JSanderO]

Or, as I have explained, to do so would disprove what they were trying to prove.

you are projecting your bias...

 

[smartcooky]

NOOOOOOOOOO you are projecting.

Models and time motion FEA of the plane impacts have not been done because I presume that the damage was not mysterious and looks consistent with what people expected.

Well, models of the plane impacts in fact have been done - by Purdue... thats the same Purdue from the ping pong experiments we discussed earlier

https://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

 

[TJM]

That wasn't smartcooky's point. Why don't you address the point he made, rather than the point you wish he'd made.

Because that's the kind of dishonesty no-planers and con artists resort to when confronted by facts which cut through their delusions or schemes.

 

[Oystein]

“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."

Has anyone checked whether this is actually a Stephen Hawking quote?
My Google-foo finds it attributed to Hawkins a million times, but I have yet to see a source.
Wikiquote does not have it.

 

[yankee451]

you are projecting your bias...

Everyone is biased. It is important to recognize one's own bias.