9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[Robin]

Notice the gouged steel behind the bent-out yet still standing cladding on fifth column from the left?
[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Warhead-gouged-through-columns-but-passed-behind-the-cladding-2.png[/qimg]

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

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/1-9-2014-1-48-16-PM.png[/qimg]

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.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WTC2_5th_column_from_left_center_right_with_circle.png[/qimg]

Again, explain why you think this photograph implies that the wing would have had to pass between the cladding and the columns. I don't see that at all.

 

[Elagabalus]

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?

How about airplane wing vs. steel cable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1998)

...flying at a speed of 540 miles per hour (870 km/h) and at an altitude of between 260 and 330 feet (80 and 100 m) in a narrow valley between the mountains... the aircraft's right wing struck the cables from underneath. The cable was severed causing the cabin from Cermis with twenty people on board to plunge over 80 metres (260 ft), leaving no survivors. The plane had wing and tail damage but was able to return to Aviano Air Base...

 

[Blue Mountain]

Yankee451,

If, as you contend, the WTC towers were not hit by aircraft, then what is your explanation for what happened to the 157 people aboard American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, and to the aircraft (N334AA and N612UA)?

The preponderance of evidence is the people died and the aircraft were destroyed when they impacted with the towers. If this is not the case, then what happened to the people and the aircraft? You can't simply handwave them away as if they never existed. They all did exist, at least up to September 11, 2001, and then they were no more.

This question is on-topic, because the topic is "How they faked the videos." We have one video of an aircraft impacting the north tower and multiple videos of an aircraft striking the south tower 17 minutes later. The videos and the missing aircraft (and the people aboard them) between provide good evidence that these aircraft hit the towers; ergo, there was nothing to fake.

 

[Axxman300]

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).

If you think about it, the choice of aircraft and launch points to guarantee fuel content was genius on the part of Al Qaeda (actual architects and engineers) to achieve the destruction of the Twin Towers. I argue that had the planes impacted on lower floors the buildings would have come down faster.

 

[TJM]

I argue that had the planes impacted on lower floors the buildings would have come down faster.

As demonstrated by 175, which hit later and lower.

 

[turingtest]

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.

Well, that explains your confusion- you don't understand the concept of "evidence," "hypothesis," or "incredulity." The fact is, your whole mountain is based on the molehill of your incredulity that an airplane could have damaged the building the way it did- your "evidence" is nothing more than your inability to grasp or accept what you're looking at in photographs. You literally do not have anything else. And every other thing you think is evidence for your "hypothesis" is something that follows from belief in it, rather than leads to it. This is the way creationists do science, among other failures in critical thought. In fact, it's the way we got into the Iraq war to begin with- our leaders believing what they needed to be true rather than what they could demonstrate to be. So- you got that going for you, a methodology that makes you about as truthful as Ken Ham or Dubya.

But you're good for a laugh- I predict this thread will go down in the same sort of dubious history as Christophera's "Realistice" thread, and for exactly the same reasons.

 

[yankee451]

Again, explain why you think this photograph implies that the wing would have had to pass between the cladding and the columns. I don't see that at all.

Of course you do. The cladding is still there. However the steel behind the cladding has been gouged out. How is this possible, unless whatever gouged out the steel column (which was BEHIND the cladding), struck the column from the side?

The television jet's wing struck the FACE of the columns.:

But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.

Do you need me to explain the construction of the towers again, so that you can understand what you're looking at, and how untenable your position is?

 

[TJM]

But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.

Can't see how anything could possibly wind up getting pushed out.

 

[Myriad]

But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.

If it was pushed out, why does the photograph clearly show it pushed in?

 

[yankee451]

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WTC2_5th_column_from_left_center_

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/y7Ty8GT.jpg[/qimg]

Can't see how anything could possibly wind up getting pushed out.

Please explain how the column could be gouged, without also gouging the aluminum cladding that covered it.

 

[Robin]

Of course you do. The cladding is still there. However the steel behind the cladding has been gouged out. How is this possible, unless whatever gouged out the steel column (which was BEHIND the cladding), struck the column from the side?

The television jet's wing struck the FACE of the columns.:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/1-9-2014-1-48-16-PM.png[/qimg]


But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WTC2_5th_column_from_left_center_right_with_circle.png[/qimg]

Do you need me to explain the construction of the towers again, so that you can understand what you're looking at, and how untenable your position is?

The missile theory looks untenable from that picture.

The aircraft collision picture looks fine. Something large and heavy hit that cladding and then bounced off sideways.

You are assuming that the fact that it bulges out now means that it could not have been hit from the front.

Have you ever seen something with metal cladding being hit from the front?

And why does it look damaged on the outside.

You need to do much better than that.

 

[TJM]

Please explain how the column could be gouged, without also gouging the aluminum cladding that covered it.

The impact and subsequent explosion of a great ******* airliner flown into an office tower at 500 MPH.

As opposed to the entire thing being a cover up which everyone else is too stupid to see, aside from a handful of nutbags who believe there weren't any planes involved.

ETA: Why did you ignore this?

But the cladding of this column was NOT cut. Nor was the cladding pushed-in, in the direction of travel of the jet. It was pushed OUT, but not severed.

If it was pushed out, why does the photograph clearly show it pushed in?

 

[Robin]

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.

Oh, and don't forget this one.

 

[yankee451]

The missile theory looks untenable from that picture.

The aircraft collision picture looks fine. Something large and heavy hit that cladding and then bounced off sideways.

You are assuming that the fact that it bulges out now means that it could not have been hit from the front.

Have you ever seen something with metal cladding being hit from the front?

And why does it look damaged on the outside.

You need to do much better than that.

I see. I am very interested in hearing your explanation about how you think the steel column behind the cladding, which is bulged out, could be so damaged by a wing striking perpendicular to the bulged out cladding.

Once again.

This cladding is not severed, even though the cladding that covered the columns to the left and right, are severed. This view is from the center-right. The column to the left of the circled and bulged-out cladding, has been gouged-out, but not severed completely:

This the same column, circled below, from a center-left perspective:

This is a closeup of the same column. Note the gouge behind the still standing cladding.

So you're saying that a wing striking like this:

...cut through the cladding of all but one column, but still managed to cut through the column behind the still-standing cladding?

 

[yankee451]

The impact and subsequent explosion of a great ******* airliner flown into an office tower at 500 MPH.

As opposed to the entire thing being a cover up which everyone else is too stupid to see, aside from a handful of nutbags who believe there weren't any planes involved.

ETA: Why did you ignore this?

I missed it, and I am not required to respond to everyone. Fifth column from the left. The cladding is pushed out.

 

[yankee451]

Oh, and don't forget this one.

Are you now saying that the photographs are too difficult to see?

 

[Robin]

Are you now saying that the photographs are too difficult to see?

Phtograph? Your claim is that there is a video that is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling on impact.

Let's see it.

 

[Robin]

And can we confirm that the missile being suggested is the AGM-158, length 4.27 metres, body width 550 mm, wingspan 2.5 metres, claimed accuracy 3 metres CEP?

 

[yankee451]

Phtograph? Your claim is that there is a video that is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling on impact.

Let's see it.

LOL!!!

You guys kill me. It's not a crime to admit you're wrong.

 

[yankee451]

And can we confirm that the missile being suggested is the AGM-158, length 4.27 metres, body width 550 mm, wingspan 2.5 metres, claimed accuracy 3 metres CEP?

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.
The best way to hit parallel columns would be from the side, otherwise if you targeted them perpendicularly, you’d at best hit one column and possibly pass between two columns, so any competent missile jockey would have targeted them from the side, and that’s what the damage indicates.

At a shallow oblique trajectory, it would be the wing of the missile that impacted first, which is why the cladding at the far left is only scored and pinched, but not severely damaged like the columns were further to the right.
https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/