9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[Sherman Bay]

We're still waiting, aren't we, for The Yank to tell us where the four planes and the occupants are now? Or is he claiming that none of those flights ever took off? Maybe Boston and Dulles airports don't exist?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

It's to do with density

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's to do with density

Depleted uranium or conspiracy theorists?

Dave

 

[yankee451]

I think a big problem that Steve has is not understanding the strength properties of the steel plate in the columns on the 94th to the 98th floors. It was 1/2" thick.

That plate being hit by a large jet at 500mph would fail in an instant.

Steel they were... but not intended to resist the lateral forces represented by the place. Don't be fooled by the OAL dimensions of the boxes... the plates up there were pretty thin.

I understand quite well. I also understand mostly hollow aluminum wings don't slice through steel skyscrapers in the real world, but if they could do so, the damage left to the building would reflect it. Something about equal and opposite reactions proves something else happened. ;-)
The damage to the building indicates small projectiles struck from the side. It doesn't indicate a large one struck from head on. This damage alone is what proves the jet impact videos are fraudulent.

 

[yankee451]

Along with trigonometry and both negate his beliefs.

If you had any clue about trigonometry, you'd use it to prove I'm wrong. The problem is, it proves I'm right.

 

[yankee451]

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?

I wrote this for frauds like Jeff.

Usually when confronted with this information they very quickly turn on me by questioning my motives, sanity and intelligence, but rarely do they address the evidence that leads me to my conclusions. If this was a real crime scene investigation the act of “reconstructing the crime” would be critical; every clue, no matter how small, would be collected and used as a basis for the formulation of a theory. But truthers don’t do that. They skip right to the theory and then look for supporting evidence, ignoring those clues that don’t fit, an activity known as, “cherry-picking,” not “truth-seeking.”
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

 

[yankee451]

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.

lol

 

[yankee451]

We're still waiting, aren't we, for The Yank to tell us where the four planes and the occupants are now? Or is he claiming that none of those flights ever took off? Maybe Boston and Dulles airports don't exist?

Occupants of what? The non existent planes? The empty offices? What do you mean?

 

[TJM]

Empty offices?

We've already been down this road, need I remind you.

 

[yankee451]

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.

In other words, let other people do your thinking for you. Do as you're told. Vote. Pay your taxes. Die. This is as good as it gets.

You guys are a crack up.

 

[yankee451]

Empty offices?

We've already been down this road, need I remind you.

I remember. Never letting the facts interfere with your skepticism of anything that doesn't support the "official" story (read: tripe), you gnashed your teeth and pointed to information provided by the most likely suspects, as if that somehow overrides the physical evidence.

 

[TJM]

I remember.

Apparently you don't

Steve, I didn't say you and "Steve WarRan" were one and the same person. If you aren't, then you have found a soulmate. You are both at the apex of trutherism, posting Mt. Everest-sized non-sequiturs. Any other gibberish that "Steve WarRan" may have written is irrelevant. What is relevant is the particular piece of gibberish that you freely and willingly quoted. Now will you finally explain to us how does a Dun and Bradstreet listing relate to whether or not a firm had offices in the Twin Towers?, or ask your soulmate to explain it for you, or admit that the whole thing is nonsense?

Like other truthers, you make yourself look foolish by never backing down, never admitting you made a mistake. If you admit that the article by "Steve WarRan" is a giant manure pile, and that it was foolish to cite it, you will not lose one shred of credibility.

I have already admitted several mistakes and this is another. I stand corrected.

Unless you're now retracting that and introducing new evidence that supports your argument.

Then by all means, please proceed.

 

[TJM]

While I have you on the line here Steve, which original image did you grab this from? Can you post the whole image?

 

[Axxman300]

Occupants of what? The non existent planes? The empty offices? What do you mean?

Has to be a troll. Nobody is this stupid.

 

[yankee451]

I think a big problem that Steve has is not understanding the strength properties of the steel plate in the columns on the 94th to the 98th floors. It was 1/2" thick.

That plate being hit by a large jet at 500mph would fail in an instant.

Steel they were... but not intended to resist the lateral forces represented by the place. Don't be fooled by the OAL dimensions of the boxes... the plates up there were pretty thin.

Tell me again, Jeff.

According to the Purdue cartoon, the left wing tip fully penetrated the wall, yet even a barnyard animal can see the wing tip didn't fully penetrate, in fact it took a sharp turn to the right and sharply bent the more massive, much more dense, less brittle 1/2 inch-thick steel plate in a completely different direction than the jet wing, with a leading edge as sharp as a basketball, was traveling.

This part of the wing:

Struck like this:

This wing tip

was not big enough, or dense enough, or massive enough, even at 500 miles per hour, to do more than lightly bend the aluminum sheet metal that covered the steel column here:

But a few feet away it was big enough, dense enough, and massive enough to sharply bend steel columns in a complete different direction than the wing tip was traveling? And on the ninth column from the left (of both towers), the wing blew a hole in the column?

Please explain.

 

[yankee451]

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/WCSj7Skn4IhEc/giphy.gif[/qimg]

Has to be a troll. Nobody is this stupid.

When in Rome...

Be specific please.

 

[yankee451]

Friction (Edit: and possibly the nose ribs too, see http://www.flight-mechanic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/1-23.jpg). The wings move towards the plane as it penetrates and the wings don't, at least for as long as they remain connected to the plane (because the fuselage would pull them). That explains the inwards bowing of the steel columns.

I would like the whole class of clowns to pay attention to this. Friction he says, as long as the wings were still connected to the fuselage.

Well shoot, according to the official story, the wings were "completely fragmented" by the exterior wall columns as they simultaneously, sliced through them like butter. See below.

This means that by the time the engines penetrated the walls, the wing tips would no longer be attached to the rest of the plane.

Another fantasy shattered.

 

[bknight]

If you had any clue about trigonometry, you'd use it to prove I'm wrong. The problem is, it proves I'm right.

I did prove you wrong, you just won't admit that fact.

 

[yankee451]

I did prove you wrong, you just won't admit that fact.

I missed it, would you please provide the link, or repeat yourself?

 

[yankee451]

Apparently you don't



Unless you're now retracting that and introducing new evidence that supports your argument.

Then by all means, please proceed.

I miss the relevance of that.

You guys are all over the place; "Look over here. What about this hypothetical situation? You had a hair out of place six years ago."

You haven't mentioned the straw through the tree yet. Or have you? What does any of this have to do with this thread, or the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on?