9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[yankee451]

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

Yes, and with parallel columns the mostly hollow fuselage would not damage a column it didn't hit, as evidenced by every video of the crashes in the public domain, as well as in the Purdue cartoon.

The entire structure would be buckling, crumpling and shredding with the impact.

Now you're just making things up. There was no buckling visible in any of the videos, including the Purdue cartoon.

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.

You're still making things up. I have never said the wing would maintain its shape. I have said just the opposite. Anyone can scroll back on this thread, or click any of my links, to check for themselves.

And I have never said I expected the columns to be wedged away from the center. I have said that IF the jet was a super-duper reinforced jet that was (somehow) at once dense enough to slice steel, but still light enough to fly, it might behave like a bodkin arrow, wedging apart columns. Either way, the bends on the left sides of the column (but not on the right side) is a clue that it wasn't caused by a head on impact of a 30 degree swept back wing anyway. It is a moot point that continues to ignore the lightly bent aluminum sheeting, and the sharply bent steel columns.

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

It is the same evidence that was used to justify almost two decades of war.

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

AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades.

The smaller AGM-158 looks like a plane and in 2001 no one had ever seen one before, but if someone had seen one it could easily have been mistaken for a small, white plane. JASSMs were being produced for testing and for the Pilot Production models in 2001, but they were not in the military’s inventory at the time. Official production didn’t begin until December of 2001, giving the authorities plausible deniability, but JASSMs used off-the-shelf technology from other tried and true missile systems so there is no question the technology was there. They look like planes, they are stealthy, they can fly in formation, and with planted targeting beacons, their margin of error would be next to zero. If the hole wasn’t cut by cruise missiles such as the JASSM, it was something very similar.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

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

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

As I said, it is the same evidence used to justify the invasion, looting and occupation of sovereign nations. I would think that you would want to be more careful about what you think justifies the murder of thousands of innocent people.

 

[yankee451]

You are aware that it did not strike at a perfect 90 degree angle relative to the side of the building, right? The forward momentum of the plane was not directed perfectly inward.

I see. So that explains the tiny pinch at the far left and the progressively worse damaged steel columns, bent in a completely different direction than the television jet was traveling.

 

[TJM]

You are aware that it did not strike at a perfect 90 degree angle relative to the side of the building, right? The forward momentum of the plane was not directed perfectly inward.

No, see, Steve drew some lines and arrows on some fuzzy crops and that trumps everything - The victims, the planes, the hundres of thousands of eyewitnesses, radar, cvr data, fdr data, every letter agency involved in the response, recovery and investigations, and so on.

Just admit defeat already, Steve's about to blow the lid off this thing.

 

[yankee451]

No, see, Steve drew some lines and arrows on some fuzzy crops and that trumps everything - The victims, the planes, the hundres of thousands of eyewitnesses, radar, cvr data, fdr data, every letter agency involved in the response, recovery and investigations, and so on.

Just admit defeat already, Steve's about to blow the lid off this thing.

I will, just as soon as any single one of you can show a modicum of integrity and provide a better explanation for the evidence that leads me to my conclusion. You've got plenty of examples to choose from where I have been wrong and publicly ate crow.If I'm wrong I'll admit it. So what's stopping you now?

 

[beachnut]

FAILED

I will, just as soon as any single one of you can show a modicum of integrity and provide a better explanation for the evidence that leads me to my conclusion. You've got plenty of examples to choose from where I have been wrong and publicly ate crow.If I'm wrong I'll admit it. So what's stopping you now?

You are wrong, the videos were not faked, and you failed to provide evidence to make your point.

FAILED

And now you have no clue what the topic is. ( yankee451 will now gish gallop away)

 

[TJM]

I will, just as soon as any single one of you can show a modicum of integrity and provide a better explanation for the evidence that leads me to my conclusion. You've got plenty of examples to choose from where I have been wrong and publicly ate crow.If I'm wrong I'll admit it. So what's stopping you now?

I did already.

A great ******* airliner flew into WTC 1 and exploded.

 

[GlennB]

I will, just as soon as any single one of you can show a modicum of integrity and provide a better explanation for the evidence that leads me to my conclusion. You've got plenty of examples to choose from where I have been wrong and publicly ate crow.If I'm wrong I'll admit it. So what's stopping you now?

That makes no sense. Why don't you just blow the lid off it now?

It's almost as if the attention you're getting is your motivation, and you don't give a **** about the truth.

 

[yankee451]

I did already.

A great ******* airliner flew into WTC 1 and exploded.

Is that like, "Because I said so! <stomps foot>?"

 

[yankee451]

You are wrong, the videos were not faked, and you failed to provide evidence to make your point.

FAILED

And now you have no clue what the topic is. ( yankee451 will now gish gallop away)

How quickly you forget:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12950459&postcount=522

 

[yankee451]

That makes no sense. Why don't you just blow the lid off it now?

It's almost as if the attention you're getting is your motivation, and you don't give a **** about the truth.

The projection is strong with this one.

Notice how they twist themselves into pretzels of denial to avoid addressing the evidence that proves all the videos of the jet impacts are fraudulent.

 

[TJM]

Is that like, "Because I said so! <stomps foot>?"

No, it's because it's the truth and that's irrefutable.

 

[yankee451]

No, it's because it's the truth and that's irrefutable.

Okay, so that's that!

 

[pgimeno]

The "sway" was based on the television show. The title of this thread is "How they faked the videos." Fake video is fake video. The damage evidence I have been discussing trumps the fake videos, which some people think included a building "sway." All the official story witnesses, all the "amateur" videos, all the flight paths, all the flight recorders in the world, don't change the evidence that proves they are all BS.

And this is "evidence" that you have obtained FROM A PHOTOGRAPH PUBLISHED BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY.

O' the irony.

O'yea.

What Jeff continually does is defer to authority, the same authority that insists planes were used (despite the evidence to the contrary), the same authority that broadcast the fraudulent videos, the same authorities that provided the fraudulent flight paths, the same authorities that have been invading the world ever since.

And the same authority that PUBLISHES THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU USE.

Can you explain why you trust these photographs?

 

[beachnut]

FAILED fake video claims FAIL

How quickly you forget:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12950459&postcount=522

wow, where is your Pulitzer Prize for this fantasy lie of fake videos?

Right you never knew you have no evidence, only FAILED analysis based on BS.

How many years have you wasted talking when you need physics and engineering to figure out your fantasy is BS.

Where is your proof the videos are fake, you are off topic and doing the Gish Gallop

Why do you spread lies and ignore thousands killed by 19 terrorists who figured out how to use hijacking as a ploy for mass murder? It appears the terrorists figured out 9/11 before you. You are not smarter than a terrorist who kills due to hate.

Why have you failed to notify the newspapers and others? Because you are spreading idiotic lies and failed conspiracy theories.

 

[yankee451]

And this is "evidence" that you have obtained FROM A PHOTOGRAPH PUBLISHED BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY.



O'yea.



And the same authority that PUBLISHES THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU USE.

Can you explain why you trust these photographs?

Well of course they did. They were trying to sell the story that planes cut the holes in the towers. That would be difficult to achieve without releasing footage and photographs of the damage. There is no reason to believe any of the photographs of the damage left by the alleged plane impact are fraudulent, as the damage is consistent from video to video, and photo to photo. If you are suggesting that ALL of the photographs of the damage are fraudulent, well that's a valid point, considering all of the videos of the jet impacts are as well. But logically, if the perpetrators could fake the photographs of the damage any way they wanted to, then they would have done so in a way that supported what they were selling on television. They would have bent the steel in their fake photographs in the same direction as the fake plane was traveling. They would not have faked the photographs by inserting laterally bent columns and lightly damaged aluminum sheeting, which contradicts what they were trying to sell.

The same can be said for the claim that the holes were cut by precision explosives, and not the lateral impact of multiple small cruise missiles; if the perpetrators could do with their precision explosives what these people think they can do, they would certainly not have bent the steel in a direction that contradicts what they were selling on television. Therefore, the damage evidence indicates exactly what it appears to indicate.

The perpetrators knew they could control the opposition by directing the attention of 'truthers' away from this evidence by giving notoriety to the truthers pushing nukes, and holograms, and DEW, and Israelis, and reinforced planes,etc. - ANYTHING but the impact evidence. And the proof is in the pudding. Whenever I bring up the discussion of the evidence that proves the holes were not cut by planes, the reaction has been to ignore it.

 

[yankee451]

wow, where is your Pulitzer Prize for this fantasy lie of fake videos?

Right you never knew you have no evidence, only FAILED analysis based on BS.

How many years have you wasted talking when you need physics and engineering to figure out your fantasy is BS.

Where is your proof the videos are fake, you are off topic and doing the Gish Gallop

Why do you spread lies and ignore thousands killed by 19 terrorists who figured out how to use hijacking as a ploy for mass murder? It appears the terrorists figured out 9/11 before you. You are not smarter than a terrorist who kills due to hate.

Why have you failed to notify the newspapers and others? Because you are spreading idiotic lies and failed conspiracy theories.

I repeat:

 

[beachnut]

Fake video not proved, big Boeing Jet hole debunks lies of yankee451

I repeat:

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/pinched-cladding.png[/qimg]

you keep showing a photo of the aircraft impact and it broke the WTC shell because the Kinetic Energy was more than the shell could stop.

Physics wins again. Why do you keep debunking yourself showing a photo with a big Boeing Jet hole in it, and pointing out BS?

FAILED again to prove fake videos, and showed a Boeing Jet hole in the WTC. Big Fail, sad fantasy for you.

Why do you lie about 9/11?

 

[BStrong]

Snipped nonsense So the propaganda organs like Purdue, NIST, FEMA, MIT, et al, simply ignore the evidence. And their fawning sycophantic skeptics, dutifully follow suit.

And the fact resistant humans with no experience in the subject matter will produce their youtube video analysis for their fellow know-nothings until the earth stops spinning.

 

[beachnut]

How quickly you forget:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12950459&postcount=522

Physics prove you wrong again.
[ytold]Wc-zmb3jAgo&feature=emb_logo[/ytold]
Will you use this video to prove your fantasy? That is funny.
BTW, there are many part on the Boeing jet which are as strong or stronger than anything in the WTC shell, but go ahead ignore the landing gear, and engines. And it seems you have no clue what mass is.


[ytold]au-vMfRuYMg[/ytold]
You can't grasp what mass is, and why a plane with enough energy (speed) can break the WTC shell. No clue for you.

When we fly the plane is in the air, we are not going exactly stright relative to the ground (aka the WTC towers), thus the direction individual parts hit the WTC at are not straight on unless there is zero wind and the pilot is perfectly balanced in yaw, roll, and pitch. You have no clue what flying a plane is about, and no clue why the impact might be different from left to right.

I can fly my plane in a slip, or skid, and you have no clue what the flight parameters were on the planes when they impacted. Were the wings rolling? When we pull gs in flight and roll at the same time, the g force on the wing rolling up is greater than the wing rolling down. If the plane is not in coordinated flight, then the impact will not be uniform. Don't forget the heading, pitch, roll and yaw. Good luck being able to use common sense when flight dynamics and physics are required - you are so far behind it hurts to think about how dumb your claims are and the lack of effort you have spent make up dumbed down lies about 9/11.

What is your expertise? So far the only proof of what you are an expert in is making up wild stories about 9/11.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I will, just as soon as any single one of you can show a modicum of integrity and provide a better explanation for the evidence that leads me to my conclusion. You've got plenty of examples to choose from where I have been wrong and publicly ate crow.If I'm wrong I'll admit it. So what's stopping you now?

Yes, large aircraft were flown in to the towers at high speed as witnessed by thousands of people.