yankee451
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,794
Desperate men do desperate deeds. Please point to what you recognize as plane wreckage in any of the photos we all have access to.
9/11: How they Faked the Videos
- Thread starter yankee451
- Start date
Desperate men do desperate deeds. Please point to what you recognize as plane wreckage in any of the photos we all have access to.
yankee451
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,794
And you have verified this, how?
Anti-war message backed with lies about 9/11 yankee451 makes up
As for Afghanistan, that is where camps were for terrorists, and then we had to raid a compound in Pakistan to kill the person (UBL) you are spreading lies for. Was it wise to go to Afghanistan, gee, most the west did not want the camps to remain.
You want ISIS to remain? Are you an ISIS supporter, spreading lies about the USA? Why?
You don't have evidence, you make up silly claims based on BS.
Making up idiotic lies and fantasy about 9/11 will not help stop wars. In fact, your claims are so insane (your claims are insane, about the missiles), ordinary rational people will ignore your anti-war position. Spreading lies ruins your credibility, and mocking the murder of thousands with lies pathetic.
Have you verified the planes did not exist? Why do you make up self-debunking lies?
Thus you lie about 9/11, the same as the evil government to go to war in Iraq? What is it that you loved about Saddam?
As for Afghanistan, that is where camps were for terrorists, and then we had to raid a compound in Pakistan to kill the person (UBL) you are spreading lies for. Was it wise to go to Afghanistan, gee, most the west did not want the camps to remain.
You want ISIS to remain? Are you an ISIS supporter, spreading lies about the USA? Why?
You don't have evidence, you make up silly claims based on BS.
Making up idiotic lies and fantasy about 9/11 will not help stop wars. In fact, your claims are so insane (your claims are insane, about the missiles), ordinary rational people will ignore your anti-war position. Spreading lies ruins your credibility, and mocking the murder of thousands with lies pathetic.
Have you verified the planes did not exist? Why do you make up self-debunking lies?
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
So you agree that if a plane hit a sky scraper at 800kph it would start to buckle and crumple?
As far as I can see that is exactly what happened.
You are the one claiming otherwise.
You are basing this on the thing you call "the Purdue cartoon"?
If it shows the plane effortlessly sliding through the building intact then clearly it is inaccurate. So why do you keep mentioning it?
Forget about "the Purdue cartoon". Let's look at real evidence. The plane would have started to buckle and crumple as soon as it impacted.
yankee451
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,794
I am looking at the real evidence. And by that I mean, the damage evidence. If by "real evidence" you mean, the videos of the plane impacts, please point to the timestamp on any of the videos of the plane impacts in the public domain, where you see the plane buckle.
Even if that were true, "neither have you" does not help your case. If that were true, we would all be in the position of having to say that we have no idea whether or not the damage to the WTC columns could or could not be caused by an airliner collision, a fleet of missiles, or anything else. (We would then have to fall back on all the other available evidence, such as eyewitnesses, radar tracks, airline records, DNA, and so forth.)
That's not what you've been claiming, though. You claim your own ability to assess the cause of the damage is superior to those whose assessments you disagree with. But you have no basis to make such a claim. You have not shown, and cannot show, your work.
I base my rejection of your missile hypothesis on the behavior of the fireball, which eyewitnesses and photographic evidence are in complete agreement on. Most military ordnance including missile warheads does not explode in a big ball of flame and smoke. That's characteristic of explosions of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. In Hollywood, everything from hand grenades to planets explodes that way, because that kind of explosion is easy to create, control, and photograph. But real missile (and bomb, shell, grenade, etc.) warheads explode with a flash, shockwave, and shrapnel. No big showy (and militarily of little use) ball of fire. If you think that's what missiles do, you've been fooled by Hollywood effects.
Even if you did replace a missile's regular warhead with liquid fuel to make a Hollywood explosion instead, there wouldn't be enough to make the very large fireball that was unanimously witnessed and photographed.
Either there were thousands of gallons of liquid fuel stored in the towers, or the projectiles that hit them contained thousands of gallons of liquid fuel. One of those hypotheses is both plausible and consistent with all the other evidence. The other is not.
gmanontario
Muse
But there were eleventeen missiles all flying in formation so when they hit the towers, it looks exactly as if a plane had hit, plus each missile had special never seen before warheads and drop tanks on their wings filled with nano thermite and avgas. Those tanks were made to look like jet engines too. Their cloaking method makes all this possible.
Check and mate there skeptic.
Last edited:
yankee451
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,794
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the lateral impact of something dense enough to have sharply bent 1/2 thick steel plate to the side. It doesn't take a physicist to understand that whatever it was that hit the cladding, it was not very big, nor very dense. All it takes is a little intellectual honesty. However in the case of starting a war, it ought to take a finite element analysis of the impacting bodies to sort out whether or not what was shown on television was possible in the real world. The opportunity to stop the invasions has passed, but not the opportunity to prove no planers wrong by demonstrating with a finite element analysis that the visible damage to the towers, was consistent with the head on impact of a mostly hollow aluminum jet.
Would we? Well if the impact evidence indicates it was caused by the lateral impact of cruise missiles, then logically, those missiles would have been launched by the same authorities that are providing the eyewitnesses (of planes), the radar track, airline records, DNA, and so forth. Turning to the most likely suspects for evidence in support of missile impacts seems futile, if not naive.
I don't claim that. I have yet to hear anyone else's assessment of the lightly bent aluminum sheeting, much less the laterally bent steel columns bent in a completely different direction than the television jet (which you are hanging your hat on) was traveling. I say all along that this is just one explanation for all the available evidence, but if I am wrong with my assessment, then there is a better explanation, that better answers all the available evidence. I have yet to hear that explanation, therefore, I can only assume I'm not wrong.
Exactly. The gash was cut by missiles that are designed to penetrate hardened targets before (or without) detonation. Explosives that cut steel don't produce big fireballs. Big fireballs don't cut steel. As explained earlier, the gash was cut by the missiles, but the missiles were not what produced the big fireball. That erupted through a gash that was cut by the missiles ,but hidden behind the mask layer, until just before the fireball erupted. The fireball was real. The plane was not. It was just a video layer on top of another video layer, both of which (plane and undamaged tower layers) were masking the missiles as they cut the gash. After the gash was cut, the mask layer was faded away to reveal the real fireball layer erupting through a hole which some truthers noticed, appeared out of nowhere. Well that's how mask layers work. They can make things appear and disappear on video, and on 9/11, they were used to dupe the world into thinking a 767 cut through a steel skyscraper.
see above
Last edited:
yankee451
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,794
But there were eleventeen missiles all flying in formation so when they hit the towers, it looks exactly as if a plane had hit, plus each missile had special never seen before warheads and drop tanks on their wings filled with nano thermite and avgas. Those tanks were made to look like jet engines too. Their cloaking method makes all this possible.
Check and mate there skeptic.
"Someone had fired missiles at the World Trade Center's north tower from atop the nearby Woolworth Building."
WNBC News
"...we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building."
Port Authority Police Officer
WNBC News
"They're shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building."
Radio Dispatch
NY Daily News
"The first one they think was a guy shooting the missiles off the Woolworth Building."
WTC Police Channel 07
Mercury News
"Woolworth Building! They're firing missiles from Woolworth Building!"
Police Channel
Portland Indymedia
"...there was a missile launch at the Woolworth building."
Police Officer, 09:18AM
Mailgate News
"...the police had a report that a missile had been fired at the World Trade Center from the Woolworth building."
Alan Reiss, WTC Police Desk
9-11 Commission Hearing
" There was a 'swooshing' sound, then an explosion, and it sounded really low. It was if someone, one or two floors above me, had launched a shoulder-fired missile."
Lance Cpl. Alan Reifenberg
Marine Corps News
As we pulled ‘round the corner, we stopped the rig, and a cop walked over to us and said, `I saw them shoot a missile launcher off that building, you guys better be careful up there.’
NYC Fireman
Mr.Bellers Neighborhood
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Throw in some reports of bombs and dancing Israelis and you still have nothing.
Last edited:
gmanontario
Muse
It's ok I believe you. Really have another double fudge cookie. Dip it in milk, you'll feel like a new man after.
Invisible missiles FTW! I have to wonder how a cop at ground level saw a missile launcher on top of a building.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
Me too. But you keep bringing up this "Purdue cartoon" red herring for some reason
You are asking me to give evidence for something you said???
Please focus. I only pointed out the obvious fact that the plane would have started to buckle and crumple as soon as it started to impact. Can we leave your side track and agree that this is what would happen?
Also, can we agree that an aircraft wing becomes thinner and narrower towards the tips?
yankee451
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2013
- Messages
- 2,794
I have the damage evidence. I have eye witness reports. I have more missile evidence at Shanksville. I have the ability to admit error, unlike some of us.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
We have video evidence which you haven't proven is fake, despite of your OP
We have thousands of eyewitness who report no evidence of missiles, despite of your OP.
We have flight recorder data and radar data, despite of your OP.
None of this is in error.
curious cat
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2019
- Messages
- 373
I think we are arguing about details that we can never really prove without actually physically recreating the event. The whole crash sequence is so complex and has so many variables we can argue about it indefinitely. Did the plane started to crumble at the moment of impact? Hard to tell... At slower speed it would: the parts in front wouldn't have enough energy to bend/sever the supporting components of the building and would need "help" of the rest of the plane to do the job. At higher speed the mass at the very front would have enough energy to penetrate the obstacles and the rest of the plane would follow into the free space created virtually undamaged. And thee are situations somewhere in between too. Where is the "border" speed, nobody knows. Impossible to calculate without knowing exactly the distribution of every single piece of material, its structural strength etc of both the plane and the building as well. Finding out would require an enormous effort of hundreds of highly skilled people and expenditure of millions of dollars. What would be the benefits and why anybody should bother? There is an irrefutable evidence supporting the "official" story and if is there is anything what doesn't seem to match, it is only because we don't fully understand some of the fine details - and we never will. This whole dispute is totally futile feeding of the troll.
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Actually it does take a rocket scientist. And a structural engineer and physicists.
What we saw on TV and IN PERSON was the real world.
Honestly, most educated people don't feel the need to explain why something stupid didn't happen because it's obviously stupid.
But the evidence in no way suggests military ordinance, not the damage nor the wreckage. You're suggesting a US Government operation which at the minimum would have required 750,000 people to pull off.
You've only provided one photo, what about others? What do they show?
No, but it does take someone who can evaluate the physics. (Or, someone observing the results of the actual event.)
What density was sufficient to have sharply bent 1/2 thick (sic) steep plate to the side? What density did the impacting portions of the plane have? Which number is greater? You are fallaciously offering an Unevaluated Inequality as evidence of something.
More Unevaluated Inequalities. It does take someone who can evaluate the physics. (Or, someone observing the results of the actual event.)
I guess that's why after Pearl Harbor, FDR stayed up all night doing finite element analysis to figure out whether 62 pounds of high explosive could penetrate steel battleship armor, before declaring war on Japan.
Or did he not do that? And if not, why not? Could it be that some "authorities" already know the answers to such questions?
What would change in the world if no planers were proved wrong?
You have not only failed to provide any impact evidence, you have denied any possibility for impact evidence even existing, since you claim no relevant calculations for evaluating your Unevaluated Inequalities have been done by anyone. There's no use discussing what evidence that doesn't exist would indicate if it did exist. Get calculating.
My assessment is that the bent and broken aluminum sheeting, and all other features of the photographs of the damage you have exhibited, are completely consistent with the scenario of impact with a near fully fueled passenger airliner at cruising speed. Some features appear counterintuitive but they're actually familiar phenomena in ballistic-velocity collisions. Parts of the impactor deforming so as to flow through a narrower breach is one example.
You can dismiss this assessment, of course. I've done no calculations. But neither have you, so I can and do dismiss yours. Why shouldn't I?
Did the thousands of gallons of real liquid hydrocarbon fuel that created the real fireball also come from a video layer? If not, then where do you think they came from?
off topic again, this is about your failed claim of fake video
You have never given the energy required to break the WTC shell. I have.
A plane going 200 to 250 mph would be stopped by the WTC tower shell. A plane going 450 to 600 mph will break the WTC shell and do damage internally.
This math and physics, you offer some nonsense, an opinion based on nothing.
It's become abundantly clear that Steve is either incapable or revising his thinking or refuses to do so for some perhaps political reason.
This is the point were you simply give up and essentially ignore him. Not unlike other truthers, revising their thinking never happens. They are locked into their beliefs... and as has been noted very much like what happens to cult members and even their leaders. They have left the reservation and they are not coming back... and logic and reasoning has no impact.
If you are aware of the history of truthers you will not very little to no evolution of their thinking toward more traditional science and explanations.
It appears to me they prefer to "make up their own science/engineering etc." as a means to justify what appears to be a political agenda. All of the truthers share one common element: The media, the authorities, the government are lying and doing so to hide something which is usually a motive or a hidden agenda.
++++
Our trillion dollar national security state at least at the time of 9/11 was not "geared up" to thwart low tech "terrorism".. bombs, hijackings etc. Crimes were rarely prevented from occurring as they required surveillance and proof of a conspiracy... and when proof was in hand the charge would be conspiracy to do A, B, C... Some crimes are prevented by entrapment... or some by stopping the criminals in the act. We are told that more surveillance will prevent terrorism. That seems to be untrue based on all the incidents of terrorism around the world post 9/11.
This is the point were you simply give up and essentially ignore him. Not unlike other truthers, revising their thinking never happens. They are locked into their beliefs... and as has been noted very much like what happens to cult members and even their leaders. They have left the reservation and they are not coming back... and logic and reasoning has no impact.
If you are aware of the history of truthers you will not very little to no evolution of their thinking toward more traditional science and explanations.
It appears to me they prefer to "make up their own science/engineering etc." as a means to justify what appears to be a political agenda. All of the truthers share one common element: The media, the authorities, the government are lying and doing so to hide something which is usually a motive or a hidden agenda.
++++
Our trillion dollar national security state at least at the time of 9/11 was not "geared up" to thwart low tech "terrorism".. bombs, hijackings etc. Crimes were rarely prevented from occurring as they required surveillance and proof of a conspiracy... and when proof was in hand the charge would be conspiracy to do A, B, C... Some crimes are prevented by entrapment... or some by stopping the criminals in the act. We are told that more surveillance will prevent terrorism. That seems to be untrue based on all the incidents of terrorism around the world post 9/11.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
That is kinda my whole point.