9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[Robin]

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

Um no. That is a badly done animation. I assume this is the thing you keep bringing up that you call the "Purdue Cartoon".

I don't know what your weird obsession with it is, but please try to forget it.

Again (and try to concentrate) if you claim it is inconsistent with an aircraft impact, we must be talking about what would happen to a real aircraft if it hit a sky scraper, not how a badly done animation would work.

 

[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.

What don't you understand when I say that IF the videos of the 9/11 crashes were real, we would have seen some sign of plane buckling that you describe. It ought to have been there, but it was not. It did not slow down. Wings did not snap forward due to the sudden deceleration. It slid like butter into the tower.

If you think the videos do show the plane buckling due to the deceleration, please point it out.

 

[Robin]

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

Can you give a link to the specification, the link I found has them at 24 inches diamater and 20 feet long. I don't this this can be what you mean.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104612/agm-86bcd-missiles/

 

[yankee451]

Um no. That is a badly done animation. I assume this is the thing you keep bringing up that you call the "Purdue Cartoon".

I don't know what your weird obsession with it is, but please try to forget it.

Again (and try to concentrate) if you claim it is inconsistent with an aircraft impact, we must be talking about what would happen to a real aircraft if it hit a sky scraper, not how a badly done animation would work.

It is an official scientific animation that represents what you apparently believe. The Purdue Cartoon is used to demonstrate how silly the official story is when compared to the physical damage evidence. If you don't like their cartoon, please consider then using the MIT models, or those from the NIST. The point, which ought to be abundantly evident by now, is that there is no way for the plane wing to gouge out the column without first gouging through the cladding that covered it. The fact that this is what happened though, is proof that it wasn't a plane wing that did it.

Planes are off the table. But the damage is consistent with the lateral impact of cruise missiles.

 

[Robin]

What don't you understand when I say that IF the videos of the 9/11 crashes were real, we would have seen some sign of plane buckling that you describe. It ought to have been there, but it was not. It did not slow down. Wings did not snap forward due to the sudden deceleration. It slid like butter into the tower.

If you think the videos do show the plane buckling due to the deceleration, please point it out.

You are claiming that the video evidence is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling upon impact, you show me this video evidence.

 

[yankee451]

Can you give a link to the specification, the link I found has them at 24 inches diamater and 20 feet long. I don't this this can be what you mean.

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104612/agm-86bcd-missiles/

Hmm. Clutching at straws now. Sleep on it.

 

[Robin]

It is an official scientific animation that represents what you apparently believe.

I have never brought up that animation. I don't even know what or who "Purdue" is.

I have consistently said that the plane would begin to buckle and crumple upon impact.

So by what bizarre process of illogic did you use to come to the conclusion that an animation of a plane not buckling and crumpling as it impacts could possibly represent what I believe?

 

[Robin]

Hmm. Clutching at straws now. Sleep on it.

Again, by what bizarre process of illogic did you conclude that a request for you to confirm the model of the missile which you allege caused that damage is "clutching at straws"?

As I said before, can you please try to focus. Is this the missile you claim caused the damage or not?

 

[yankee451]

You are claiming that the video evidence is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling upon impact, you show me this video evidence.

You lost me two pages ago.

Every video and photograph available to mankind shows there was no buckling and crumpling upon impact. You however, assume there was buckling and crumpling of the aircraft.

Good for you.

 

[yankee451]

Again, by what bizarre process of illogic did you conclude that a request for you to confirm the model of the missile which you allege caused that damage is "clutching at straws"?

As I said before, can you please try to focus. Is this the missile you claim caused the damage or not?

You won't even admit the jet wing couldn't have possibly cut through the steel without first cutting through the cladding. I grow tired of your disingenuous antics.

 

[Robin]

You lost me two pages ago.



Every video and photograph available to mankind shows there was no buckling and crumpling upon impact. You however, assume there was buckling and crumpling of the aircraft.



Good for you.

So it shouldn't be difficult for you to give me an example.

Why can't you?

 

[Axxman300]

What don't you understand when I say that IF the videos of the 9/11 crashes were real, we would have seen some sign of plane buckling that you describe. It ought to have been there, but it was not. It did not slow down. Wings did not snap forward due to the sudden deceleration. It slid like butter into the tower.

One of these things is not like the other.

 

[Robin]

You won't even admit the jet wing couldn't have possibly cut through the steel without first cutting through the cladding. I grow tired of your disingenuous antics.

Has the column behind been cut through? I can't see that.

 

[Elagabalus]

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:

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


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

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WTC2_5th_column_from_left_cladding_with_hole-1024x768.png[/qimg]

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

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

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

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Purdue-Gif.gif[/qimg]

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

From a center-left perspective, you can clearly see that the cladding is severed. Nice try.

 

[curious cat]

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

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WTC2leftwing02.png[/qimg]

As I said before, the whole event is so complex, we may never understand every single detail of it. There are too many variables some of them producing counterintuitive results. We would be able to explain them if we have all the data - what we don't. There are two important aspects you are systematically missing in your ranting about lateral bending of some parts of the building structure.

1) The wing fuel tanks were virtually full and at the moment foreign object became to penetrate inside them, a significant hydraulic effects started to take place. Study the details of the Concorde crash. The forces had to be enormous and we know pressure in fluids acts in all directions. Some of the bending towards the fuselage MAY be the result of this phenomenon.
2) The rotors of the engines were spinning at max revs (we can reasonably assume that) at the moment of impact and they had an enormous amount of rotational energy - which dissipated in an instant in directions perpendicular to the direction of flight. They were capable of causing enormous amount of damage and we know from precedents, pretty close to explosion of a bomb. Again, some of the damage impossible to attribute to the kinetic energy caused by mass moving forward MAY be result of the above.

So, as you see, you are missing stuff in your search for truth. You should concentrate on these instead of developing nonsensical hypothesis that belong more in the category of Sci-Fi than of real life events.

 

[Robin]

Same picture, I think.

Has the column under the bent out cladding been photoshopped out in the top image?

 

[Robin]

From a center-left perspective, you can clearly see that the cladding is severed. Nice try.

Yes, it is clearly severed.

 

[beachnut]

Jet-Fuel fireball created by 60,000 pounds of Jet fuel make missile claim FAILED

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

Gee Whiz - the aircraft packed an impact equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, and was concentrated in the shape/mass of the aircraft! NOT a wasteful bast from a small warhead which was not see blowing up.

What created the jet-fuel fireball, a missile can't carry 60,000 pounds of jet fuel!

Big error, adding the insanity of missiles ruins your Anti-War message. The aircraft did the damage seen.

The best part of your fantasy, it is stuck forever in the conspiracy forum. What happen to your study? Why did you fail to prove the videos are fake, and eyewitnesses are paid government agents.

Too bad your missiles can't hold 66,000 pounds of jet fuel. Do you try to make your claims real, or trying to make them fantasy. What created the giant jet-fuel fireball? Duh

The wings are not going to fold forward, they are traveling the same speed as the aircraft, the first part of the jet is fiberglass nose, it is not going to slow down the aircraft much, then the radar, two seats, avionics, and the famous part of the "hollow aircraft. Why would the wings break off forward, the entire plane is going nearly 800 feet per second, the WTC shell can't stop it, parts are going to be ejected out the other side, it is physics, the stuff you don't use. The wings are part of the plane, not some weak part falling off. Yes, you toy plane hits the ground at 10 mph and the wings fall off, but take a look at the videos you claim are fake, that is what a plane going fast does - you have no useful knowledge of aircraft and physics.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

This question?



Scroll up. It has been answered numerous times, and linked to even more. This is what I meant by, "You aren't paying attention."

I did as you asked. I found repeated posts of a photo showing inward-bending damage, and none of outward buckling or damage, which is what I would expect if multiple missiles had exploded inside the building.
You still do not seem to have explained this apparent anomaly.
Care to try again?
By the way, how many missiles do you think were fired? I assume you have a fairly exact number.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's not a crime to admit you're wrong.

Shall we then consider that your much-circled piece of cladding is not still in place? You wish us to be dumbfounded that it is still there. Only true for certain values of "there".

The views from left and right suggest it's dangling between two columns and somewhat forward of the rest of the cladding. It's not at all clear how it's still attached to anything. The size of the piece hints that it came off the column to its left but maybe the column to its right (assuming that it is in fact a piece of cladding and not, say, the wing of one of those non-existent missiles). Is it perhaps dangling from one remaining point of connection to one side or the other?

At any rate, we can at least say that its location in those photos is not where it started out when the object that did the damage passed by. How it moved from its original position to its photographed position is just guesswork.