9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[Robin]

Furthermore, for the wing to have "dragged" the much more massive and much less brittle steel to the right, some part of the wing MUST have impacted the RIGHT edge of the column.

All it would have taken is for the wing already to have impacted the columns.

 

[Robin]

Great story, which unfortunately is not at all reflected by any of the videos or photographs ins the public domain. It is also in conflict with the NIST, which described the interaction of the wing thus:

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

Furthermore, for the wing to have "dragged" the much more massive and much less brittle steel to the right, some part of the wing MUST have impacted the RIGHT edge of the column. The below image ought to be enough to dispel that notion.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Warhead-gouged-through-columns-but-passed-behind-the-cladding-2.png[/qimg]

Incidentally - is the picture above the South Tower or North Tower?

 

[Oystein]

My man, they (multiple 1000lb warheads) would have snapped the building in half. That's the short and obvious answer to why the idea of missiles is dumb.

But multiple (say, a dozen) 1000 lb warheads would not have enough momentum (mass times velocity) to make the towers sway the way they did. But one 260,000 lb plane (260 times a 1000 lb warhead) at 450+ mph would have.

And no, the explosions of such warheads would not have added any momentum, unless a significant proportion of the warheads got ejected the opposite way at hypersonic speeds. Which obviously didn't happen (or else no one in downtown Manhattan would have retained their ear drums).

 

[yankee451]

You don't seem much interested in assessment of the facts when they are inconvenient to you.

As anyone can see who reads the thread, that is not true in the least.

 

[yankee451]

All it would have taken is for the wing already to have impacted the columns.

So the wing some how managed to gouge out the steel column behind the cladding, but not the cladding that covered the steel. Check.

 

[yankee451]

But multiple (say, a dozen) 1000 lb warheads would not have enough momentum (mass times velocity) to make the towers sway the way they did. But one 260,000 lb plane (260 times a 1000 lb warhead) at 450+ mph would have.

And no, the explosions of such warheads would not have added any momentum, unless a significant proportion of the warheads got ejected the opposite way at hypersonic speeds. Which obviously didn't happen (or else no one in downtown Manhattan would have retained their ear drums).

Argument from incredulity noted. Unfortunately the evidence supports my conclusion nicely, but not yours. Hence the need to ignore the evidence, while attacking the messenger. These are not the actions of an intellectually honest individual.

As explained before, since the authorities are the most likely suspects, why would you think they would report witness accounts of missile impacts?

 

[BStrong]

Argument from incredulity noted. Unfortunately the evidence supports my conclusion nicely, but not yours. Hence the need to ignore the evidence, while attacking the messenger. These are not the actions of an intellectually honest individual.

As explained before, since the authorities are the most likely suspects, why would you think they would report witness accounts of missile impacts?

Who are these authorities you assert carried out the attacks? Who did the grunt work? Your theory is like ****** science fiction writing. You forget that every story is ultimately about humans, not science.

 

[Robin]

So the wing some how managed to gouge out the steel column behind the cladding, but not the cladding that covered the steel. Check.

Where do you say that has happened?

 

[Robin]

As anyone can see who reads the thread, that is not true in the least.

It took about three or four posts to get you to admit the simple fact that the aircraft would be buckling and crumpling as soon as you hit. The first time I said that you said "You are making things up".

Why the need for that kind of dust kicking?

 

[BStrong]

It took about three or four posts to get you to admit the simple fact that the aircraft would be buckling and crumpling as soon as you hit. The first time I said that you said "You are making things up".

Why the need for that kind of dust kicking?

When you have the law on your side, pound the law.

When you have the facts on your sider, pound the facts.

If you have nothing, pound on the table.

The poster must have a repetitive motion injury at this point.

 

[Robin]

So the wing some how managed to gouge out the steel column behind the cladding, but not the cladding that covered the steel. Check.

Again, please point out on the picture where you say that the column is bent to the right but the cladding is intact.

 

[Elagabalus]

Argument from incredulity noted. Unfortunately the evidence supports my conclusion nicely, but not yours. Hence the need to ignore the evidence, while attacking the messenger. These are not the actions of an intellectually honest individual.

As explained before, since the authorities are the most likely suspects, why would you think they would report witness accounts of missile impacts?

Your theory relies on the witness accounts of missile impacts of which there are none (witness accounts)?

 

[turingtest]

Argument from incredulity noted. Unfortunately the evidence supports my conclusion nicely, but not yours. Hence the need to ignore the evidence, while attacking the messenger. These are not the actions of an intellectually honest individual.

As explained before, since the authorities are the most likely suspects, why would you think they would report witness accounts of missile impacts?

OMG, the irony here...

 

[yankee451]

OMG, the irony here...

I can understand your confusion, however my incredulity of the official story is based on the evidence of the lateral impacts of small projectiles. Your incredulity is based on your steadfast belief that the teevee would never lie to you about matters of such grave importance. Unlike your incredulity about my hypothesis, my incredulity is based on the physical evidence, which doesn't change, despite your incredulity.

 

[yankee451]

It took about three or four posts to get you to admit the simple fact that the aircraft would be buckling and crumpling as soon as you hit. The first time I said that you said "You are making things up".

Why the need for that kind of dust kicking?

Your paraphrasing skills are lacking. I said in a real crash yes, the plane would buckle, but that isn't what we're talking about here. This was not a real crash, which is why ZERO buckling and crumpling can be seen in any of the videos (unlike what one would expect to see in a real crash). Log that in.

 

[Robin]

Your paraphrasing skills are lacking. I said in a real crash yes, the plane would buckle, but that isn't what we're talking about here. This was not a real crash, which is why ZERO buckling and crumpling can be seen in any of the videos (unlike what one would expect to see in a real crash). Log that in.

Are you saying the damage is inconsistent with a real crash?

If so then we need to consider the damage in light of what would happen in a real crash. Why is that difficult to understand?

And if you know of any video that shows anything at all inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling as it impacts the building feel free to share.

I wasn't aware that there were any close up high-frame rate high resolution videos of this available.

 

[yankee451]

Where do you say that has happened?

Notice the gouged steel behind the bent-out yet still standing cladding on fifth column from the left?

The cladding is bulged OUT, but still there, yet the the plane wing would have struck like this:

I'm sure you can see that the CLADDING would have been the FIRST part of the column for the plane wing to have gouged out, had the plane wing been responsible. The evidence fits my conclusion that this damage was caused by the lateral impact of missile warheads measuring around 12" wide, and weighing around 900 lbs.

 

[TJM]

This was not a real crash, which is why ZERO buckling and crumpling can be seen in any of the videos (unlike what one would expect to see in a real crash). Log that in.

What other examples of great ******* airliners being deliberately flown into office buildings and exploding do we have to compare with?

How, he asks with no expectation of an answer, would you have expected AA 11 and UA 175 to behave in 500 and 600 MPH collisions?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Great story, which unfortunately is not at all reflected by any of the videos or photographs ins the public domain. It is also in conflict with the NIST, which described the interaction of the wing thus:

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

Furthermore, for the wing to have "dragged" the much more massive and much less brittle steel to the right, some part of the wing MUST have impacted the RIGHT edge of the column. The below image ought to be enough to dispel that notion.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Warhead-gouged-through-columns-but-passed-behind-the-cladding-2.png[/qimg]

I care how Nist described the wing impact Why?
Also the perimeter columns can not be said to be more massive.

If you do so you must caculate the total mass.
Brittleness is Irelevent it's tensile strength that counts as well as hardness and heat energy.

 

[BStrong]

Oh, the running of the goalposts, ignoring pertinent fats and the projection of inadequacy are strong in this one.

I particularly enjoy watching an internet investigator of conspiracies digging their hole to nowhere.