9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[beachnut]

Cracked up theory - unable to find proof after all these years

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.

Lies, no one does my thinking for my, and I don't do as I am told. You got it wrong, like your claims of fantasy missiles and fake videos.

You spread lies about 9/11 and have no idea you are doing it. You make up nonsense about 9/11 and mock the murder of thousands by terrorists.

You can't explain what happen to flight 11, 175, 93 and 77, and you don't care. You ignore the people on four flights who died instantly, and make up crazy claims of fake videos.

You can't back any of your claims with physics. You have no idea what mass is when it comes to physics, or why a plane which can fly over 500 mph can break into a building.

Prove an aircraft can't break the shell of the WTC. Go ahead present proof. You can't do it. Never will.

Trump likes dumb conspiracy theories, maybe you can get him to support your fantasy mocking the murder of thousands.

wow

 

[yankee451]

Prove an aircraft can't break the shell of the WTC. Go ahead present proof. You can't do it. Never will.

Already have. Or are you, like Purdue, insisting the plane fully penetrated the wall?

 

[TJM]

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?

Forgive me. I was trying to stop you from hacking up yet another debunked hairball of yours.

Please, you just keep on being you.

 

[yankee451]

Forgive me. I was trying to stop you from hacking up yet another debunked hairball of yours.

Please, you just keep on being you.

You can keep bringing up my mistakes all you like. To admit one's errors builds one's credibility. You can't be right all the time, can you? Well, you can, but you should try it some time. It builds character, in addition to credibility.

Let me explain. Because I have proven I am capable of admitting error in the past, you can be confident that I will continue to do so. I have a long list of errors I have corrected. Why do you think this is a sign of weakness? To me it is a sign of honesty and integrity. I am genuinely interested in the truth. If I am exposed to new information that forces me to rethink my hypothesis, I do so. I have been at it for ten years.

If I am wrong, please demonstrate where, and I will correct the record and move on with a newfound understanding of the truth. You guys haven't evolved one bit in what, 19 years? Sheesh.

 

[Axxman300]

When in Rome...

Be specific please.

Specifically your entire theory is stupid.

 

[yankee451]

Specifically your entire theory is stupid.

So, starting with the pinched cladding at the far left of the impact hole for example:

Do you think it's stupid of me to point out that,

1. The object that struck the cladding was much smaller and far less massive than a jet's wing, or
2. that the Purdue video can't be "scientific" based on the simple fact that the jet's wing obviously did not penetrate the wall, as depicted in their cartoon?

If you think that's stupid, you must believe the television show overrides the physical evidence. Please explain.

 

[TJM]

I have a long list of errors I have corrected. Why do you think this is a sign of weakness?

Not because you have a long list of errors you've corrected, it's because of the short one of you being right.

Might want to work on that one.

 

[yankee451]

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?

Yes. Explained in detail in this thread.

The lightly damaged cladding and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns, and the inward blasting hole on the ninth column from the left of both towers. Almost identical damage that is entirely inconsistent with the head on impact of a jet, but is entirely consistent with the lateral impact of small, dense projectiles.

If I am incorrect in my assessment, then it should be no sweat for this swarm of skeptics to pick apart the evidence that leads to my conclusions, but alas, all they can do is question my sanity, motives and intelligence.

I started my investigation at the same place most of us did; believing in Osama bin Laden and his scary box cutter wielding Arab henchmen, who overcame a trillion dollar defense system and gave the Great Satan every reason to kick Islamic ass. I bought it all, magic planes included. I take issue with self proclaimed skeptics who accuse me of ignoring evidence that contradicts my conclusions, when it is because I followed the evidence that contradicted my convictions that lead me to where I am today.

If you sincerely want to know what the evidence is that leads me to the conclusion that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight as a pretext to drum up public support for long planned aggressive wars, please read this post:

Taboo Truths: The Missiles of 9/11

 

[Axxman300]

So, starting with the pinched cladding at the far left of the impact hole for example:

Do you think it's stupid of me to point out that,

I do. I'm genuinely embarrassed for you as an adult.

We know that the wing impacted there BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE PARTS OF IT IN THE WRECKAGE THROUGH THE BROKEN WINDOWS ON THAT END.

Derp.

As you continue to point out, that steel and it doesn't bend itself and an armor piercing missile would blow outward and not inward.

[*]The object that struck the cladding was much smaller and far less massive than a jet's wing, or
[*]that the Purdue video can't be "scientific" based on the simple fact that the jet's wing obviously did not penetrate the wall, as depicted in their cartoon?

Purdue's animation is just a general representation of the crash and not meant to be a accurate graphic depiction as their goal was to explain the collapse and the rest of the animation focuses on what happened on the interior where the fatal damage was done.

If you think that's stupid, you must believe the television show overrides the physical evidence. Please explain.

The physical evidence is consistent with what we saw on TV and the hundreds of thousands of eye witnesses saw.

 

[yankee451]

Not because you have a long list of errors you've corrected, it's because of the short one of you being right.

Might want to work on that one.

I must be fascinating to you. I am all you can talk about.

Let me direct you back to the topic at hand, in particular this cladding:

Do you agree with Purdue, that the jet wing cut through the tower completely, or do you believe your lying eyes that the cladding isn't even severed, much less the post behind it?

 

[Axxman300]

Yes. Explained in detail in this thread.

No, you've explained nothing. You post claims and run away.

The lightly damaged cladding and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns, and the inward blasting hole on the ninth column from the left of both towers. Almost identical damage that is entirely inconsistent with the head on impact of a jet, but is entirely consistent with the lateral impact of small, dense projectiles.

No, the damage is exclusive to the impact of a 767. The missiles you claim that were used were not operational and barely functional in 2001, and no missile in the US inventory has that much jet fuel.

If I am incorrect in my assessment, then it should be no sweat for this swarm of skeptics to pick apart the evidence that leads to my conclusions, but alas, all they can do is question my sanity, motives and intelligence.

We have, dozens of times. You wave you hand and ignore the science.

And we question your sanity and intelligence because we have yet to see any.

I started my investigation at the same place most of us did; believing in Osama bin Laden and his scary box cutter wielding Arab henchmen, who overcame a trillion dollar defense system and gave the Great Satan every reason to kick Islamic ass. I bought it all, magic planes included. I take issue with self proclaimed skeptics who accuse me of ignoring evidence that contradicts my conclusions, when it is because I followed the evidence that contradicted my convictions that lead me to where I am today.

There's a clear mental break down on display here.

If you sincerely want to know what the evidence is that leads me to the conclusion that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight as a pretext to drum up public support for long planned aggressive wars, please read this post:

Don't cite yourself as an authority.

 

[yankee451]

Purdue's animation is just a general representation of the crash and not meant to be a accurate graphic depiction as their goal was to explain the collapse and the rest of the animation focuses on what happened on the interior where the fatal damage was done.
.

Interesting, because according to them it was a scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack.
https://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

""The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow,"

You obviously don't think of it as scientific, or even as accurate.

 

[yankee451]

Don't cite yourself as an authority.

I don't. I cite the same information we all have access to. This has nothing to do with me, so simmer down. You guys get so angry over a few pictures. Sure, they shatter your tender belief systems, but then everyone has to grow up sometime. That's not my fault.

 

[TJM]

<blather snipped>

Do you agree with Purdue, that the jet wing cut through the tower completely, or do you believe your lying eyes that the cladding isn't even severed, much less the post behind it?

I don't have to agree or disagree with Purdue. Or you.

N334AA was deliberately flown into WTC 1. This is irrefutable.

Your Photoscaped superimposed scribblings, scrawling and gifs on blurry, cropped images have exactly zero credibility.

 

[yankee451]

I don't have to agree or disagree with Purdue. Or you.

N334AA was deliberately flown into WTC 1. This is irrefutable.

Your Photoscaped superimposed scribblings, scrawling and gifs on blurry, cropped images have exactly zero credibility.

If that was the case the evidence would support it. That you're so defensive about it, and refuse to even address the reasons to think otherwise, is a clue as to your mindset.

The photos are there for anyone to see. But none are so blind that won't see, eh?

 

[yankee451]

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.

Neither has any of you. Neither has NIST, neither has Purdue, Wierzbicki, Bezant, et al, Nor FEMA or MIT. Not one of them has done the math to prove a jet's wing could cut through the steel columns.

Hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to. All you base your beliefs on are the television show, and the cud chewing herd you're following.

 

[Elagabalus]

I must be fascinating to you. I am all you can talk about.

Let me direct you back to the topic at hand, in particular this cladding:

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


Do you agree with Purdue, that the jet wing cut through the tower completely, or do you believe your lying eyes that the cladding isn't even severed, much less the post behind it?

What are all those red arrows supposed to mean? The cladding is joined together every couple of feet. This is where they will fail. Your arrows show where the join line is and make little sense.

 

[Robin]

The lightly damaged cladding and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns,

So? Aircraft wings get progressively skinnier towards the tips, so this is entirely consistent with impact by an aircraft.

and the inward blasting hole on the ninth column from the left of both towers.

The front of the aircraft had impacted first, the jets hit before the outer part of the wing.

The entire structure would be buckling, crumpling and shredding with the impact. The wing would not maintain its shape during the impact as you seem to think, so there is no reason to expect columns to be bent away from.the centre of the jet.

Almost identical damage that is entirely inconsistent with the head on impact of a jet, but is entirely consistent with the lateral impact of small, dense projectiles.

So you claim, but a few pictures with arrows drawn on them hardly counts as adequate evidence.

What sort of missile do you think could have produced these marks?

If I am incorrect in my assessment, then it should be no sweat for this swarm of skeptics to pick apart the evidence that leads to my conclusions, but alas, all they can do is question my sanity, motives and intelligence.

You haven't produced anything that could be considered evidence.

The claims you have produced appears to have been dealt with.

 

[JSanderO]

Steve, you are misunderstand the phrase or concept: "the plane penetrated into the building"

The mass of the plane's times the velocity caused a mutual destruction on impact. Not unlike in an auto accident. The momentum of the jet's parts did not disappear on impact... the destroyed parts of the plane including passengers, fuel, water, hydraulic fluid and air penetrated the build... some of it didn't... most of it did. Impacts/collisions of the moving mass of the plane stuff with the static parts of the building absorbed the kinetic energy, destroying or "breaking" the building parts as well as the integrity of the thing(s" which hit them. You seem to refuse to accept this principle. Some stuff (few) was able to pass thru the building because the path mean it didn't hit anything which could stop it.

The nose impact came a tiny fraction of a second before the wings or the tail. That impact instantly caused a re distribution of the static forces in the building around the impact. Same with the wing whose nacelle impacted first followed progressively by the wing structure until finally the wing tips impacted... and the structure and facade had already lost its integrity. You know that the facade was not homogeneous.. but components of various properties, thickness, lengths and so on mechanically fastened together.

If you want to recreate the impacts go build a realistic mock up including floor system and fly a jet loaded with fuel and water into it at 500 mph. I think you'll discover very similar damage. I don't know if an FEA can be done (beyond my expertise for sure). But theoretically it can. I suspect it requires enormous computing power.

There is plenty of evidence that even slower moving water can severely damage steel as has happened at sea many times. You saw how a ping pong ball (air) can destroy a wood in a mutual destruction. Surely you don't expect the "weaker" thing to bounce of the stronger one? It will in a low energy impact. But there will be mutual destruction at some higher level. This is "settled science"... which you seem to reject as "magic".

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

But the planes did exist. Unless the conspirators have a time travel machine and went back to insert it's records in to history.
same for the occupants of the offices and planes.
Did the conspiracy start decades ago so that the records of all the dead could be added to history?