9/11: How they Faked the Videos

I'm pretty sure that Steve suffers from the simplistic misconception that when objects made of two different materials collide, harder or stronger material "wins", and only the weaker or softer material is damaged. In the real world, it just doesn't work that way, especially the impact happens at a high velocity. I realize I've made this point many times, but I live in Colorado, where, in many areas of the mountains, snow avalanches are a frequent occurrence. These commonly break trees, sometimes trees that are several inches in diameter. Yes, a mass of unconsolidated snow, moving at high velocity (but considerably lower velocity than the planes on 9/11 were moving), can snap off a thick, strong tree. I don't find anything the least bit remarkable about aluminum planes moving at several hundred miles per hour breaking steel beams.



Shortly after 00:14:28 GMT on June 30, 1908 ...

Tunguska1.jpg


... all this was done by nothing but air!
 
The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.

Have you got any evidence of missiles?
For example: pieces of debris, radar tracking of missiles, specifics about where these missiles were fired from, specifics of who fired them, whistleblower statements from anyone involved in any part of the transport, launching or clean-up operations, inventory lists showing missing missiles....anything?
I am quite happy to examine your evidence with an open mind, but all you've done so far is post some pictures from (as has been pointed out) the same sources you claim are faked, with some arrows on them. That isn't what you'd call conclusive, is it?
 
Truther claims are begin with two foundations:

A. all media and government reports / accounts are false and deliberate lies... told to hide the true agenda

B. what they see in pics and vids could not possibly be caused by planes hitting buildings or the ground.

(A) is sometimes and somewhat true. We accept PR and spin and so on as normal.

(B) requires some level of technical knowledge or acceptance of what those who have it say.

Both (A) and (B) reinforce each other and create an endless loop with no way out.
 
N334AA went into WTC 1 at approximately 494 MPH with 92 people aboard.
N612UA went into WTC 2 at approximately 586 MPH with 65 people aboard.
N644AA went into The Pentagon at approximately 527 MPH with 64 People aboard.
N591UA went into the ground at approximately 563 MPH with 44 people aboard.

Two questions for Steve - What, in your learned opinion, should've happened to these planes upon their impacts?

What happened to the 265 people aboard the planes? Their families might like to know.
There were no planes, you're not keeping up! It was missiles!

Facts negated, Yankee wins!
 
The fantasy of magical planes that cut through steel, bore through concrete, and burrow into the ground, ends when one examines the evidence with an open mind.


An open mind is necessary, but so is knowledge of the physical dynamics of moving and impacted objects and structures, and the tools (primarily mathematical) for applying that knowledge.

You have done no mathematics. What you have are what Dave Rogers calls unevaluated inequalities. You claim that the force of impact by airplane wings are less than the force required to cause the observed deformation of the wall columns, but you have not quantified either of those forces. You claim that the force of impact and detonation of a missile equals the force required to cause the observed deformation of the columns, but you have not quantified either of those forces. The creation of those forces involve speeds and masses and strengths that are well outside the range anyone is intuitively familiar with. They can only be understood and compared by careful calculation, which you have not done. You insist that x is greater than y and z is equal to y, but you cannot say what x, y, or z are.

When others who do know how to evaluate and compare x, y, and z tell you you're wrong, you reply with accusations and insults instead of calculations of your own.

That's why your ideas are unpersuasive. They fail to qualify for admission into even the openest of minds.
 
Last edited:
Have you got any evidence of missiles?

Have they even bothered to identify which missile system was used? The entry gash in the tower was massive. I guess it could have been caused by a missile if it were going sideways as they tend to not do.

I'm guessing they know less about missiles than they do about airplanes.
But that shouldn't stop them from saying it was X.
 
A bunch of people have responded to, questioned Steve's presentation. They have because it simply does not make sense. Nothing will change Steve's mind.

More interesting is what happened to Steve's mind?
 
A bunch of people have responded to, questioned Steve's presentation. They have because it simply does not make sense. Nothing will change Steve's mind.

More interesting is what happened to Steve's mind?

He did what most conspiracy minded people do-he started with a conclusion and began working backwards. Lots of bad things happen when you do that. Before long your "reasoning" becomes as succinct as the star wars sequel trilogy.

See: Earth, Flat.
 
He did what most conspiracy minded people do-he started with a conclusion and began working backwards. Lots of bad things happen when you do that. Before long your "reasoning" becomes as succinct as the star wars sequel trilogy.

See: Earth, Flat.

Classic example - Howard Donahue's conclusion that since he could duplicate LHO's shooting, LHO couldn't have fired the shots.

See also, forcing the square block of conspiracy into the round hole of reality
 
An open mind is necessary, but so is knowledge of the physical dynamics of moving and impacted objects and structures, and the tools (primarily mathematical) for applying that knowledge.

You have done no mathematics. What you have are what Dave Rogers calls unevaluated inequalities. You claim that the force of impact by airplane wings are less than the force required to cause the observed deformation of the wall columns, but you have not quantified either of those forces. You claim that the force of impact and detonation of a missile equals the force required to cause the observed deformation of the columns, but you have not quantified either of those forces. The creation of those forces involve speeds and masses and strengths that are well outside the range anyone is intuitively familiar with. They can only be understood and compared by careful calculation, which you have not done. You insist that x is greater than y and z is equal to y, but you cannot say what x, y, or z are.

When others who do know how to evaluate and compare x, y, and z tell you you're wrong, you reply with accusations and insults instead of calculations of your own.

That's why your ideas are unpersuasive. They fail to qualify for admission into even the openest of minds.

:thumbsup:

If I look back at my weird years at JREF/ISF in 25 years or so, I think Dave's Unevaluated Inequality Fallacy may be one of the few practical wisdoms with universal applicability I shall have learned here that are (I think) original to this place.
 
Classic example - Howard Donahue's conclusion that since he could duplicate LHO's shooting, LHO couldn't have fired the shots.

See also, forcing the square block of conspiracy into the round hole of reality

Conversely, I believe it was Marcus Allen, who described in a live recorded video presentation that he was unable to duplicate picture of Gene Cernan and the Earth and therefore the image was fake and Apollo was a fraud/fake. Only in the minds of CTs and individuals that really don't think about what was said and how it was said. Of course Marcus could not have frame Gene Cernan and the Earth, as he wasn't on the Moon doing the framing. But he couldn't get a frame correctly that would have been what would have been needed to take the image.
 
Classic example - Howard Donahue's conclusion that since he could duplicate LHO's shooting, LHO couldn't have fired the shots.

See also, forcing the square block of conspiracy into the round hole of reality


Foam vs. carbon-reinforced panel?

 
A bunch of people have responded to, questioned Steve's presentation. They have because it simply does not make sense. Nothing will change Steve's mind.

More interesting is what happened to Steve's mind?

One of two things:

1. He's a troll.

2. He has high-functioning Aspergers.

Either way he gets off on the attention.
 
One of two things:

1. He's a troll.

2. He has high-functioning Aspergers.

Either way he gets off on the attention.

That pretty much covers it.

Some folks that make the rounds on various sites and post this or similar nonsense seem to be attention driven or impaired.
 
And yet none of you will touch the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. The truth hurts.

When are you going to start presenting evidence that backs your theories so far you have debunked Yourself, a plane made from aluminum hitting a steel building should produce exactly the evidence you have shown.
Thanks for nothing.
 
I'm pretty sure that Steve suffers from the simplistic misconception that when objects made of two different materials collide, harder or stronger material "wins", and only the weaker or softer material is damaged. In the real world, it just doesn't work that way, especially the impact happens at a high velocity. I realize I've made this point many times, but I live in Colorado, where, in many areas of the mountains, snow avalanches are a frequent occurrence. These commonly break trees, sometimes trees that are several inches in diameter. Yes, a mass of unconsolidated snow, moving at high velocity (but considerably lower velocity than the planes on 9/11 were moving), can snap off a thick, strong tree. I don't find anything the least bit remarkable about aluminum planes moving at several hundred miles per hour breaking steel beams.

Depleted Uranium is way softer than Tank Armor yet in the first gulf war it was used in A10 wart hogs against tanks because like aluminum it was Pyrophoric on impact.
 
Foam vs. carbon-reinforced panel?


I’ve been to the Columbia Recovery Room at the Vehicle Assembly Building and seen the results of this firsthand - insulating foam vs. the ultrahard reinforced carbon-carbon leading edge of the port wing, leading to an impossible result according to the ignorant and frankly delusional OP.
 
Truther claims are begin with two foundations:

A. all media and government reports / accounts are false and deliberate lies... told to hide the true agenda

B. what they see in pics and vids could not possibly be caused by planes hitting buildings or the ground.

(A) is sometimes and somewhat true. We accept PR and spin and so on as normal.

(B) requires some level of technical knowledge or acceptance of what those who have it say.

Both (A) and (B) reinforce each other and create an endless loop with no way out.

That is true if all conspiracy theorists, including the one in the White house right now, Scary isn't it?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom