Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
The air crash videos Axxman300 posted show planes travelling a lot slower than 500mph. Can you indicate what features of buckling or slowing down you detect in those videos?
9/11: How they Faked the Videos
- Thread starter yankee451
- Start date
The air crash videos Axxman300 posted show planes travelling a lot slower than 500mph. Can you indicate what features of buckling or slowing down you detect in those videos?
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Just where do you think the deicers were located on that air plane?
https://www.airspacemag.com/how-things-work/electro-mechanical-deicing-6660440/
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Just to be clear: these are the videos and photos you claim have been digitally altered, right?
Can you explain why, if there were missiles, the faked images and videos were altered to highlight this, rather than hide it?
heymatto70
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2016
- Messages
- 182
Wouldn't, if they were missles, they have to be aimed "up" to hit where the first plane hit the WTC? There aren't a lot of spots in NYC where you could aim "down" to the 80th floor of the WTC. Wouldn't that look different from what we see in the video (where the plane is at least coming in perpendicular if not slightly tilted down)? I may be having a hard time visualizing it though (shocking, I know).
It does not look like a plane. It looks like a missile. It's 14 feet long and has a relatively small wing to body ratio. It's wingspan is roughly half it's length. A small aircraft, say a piper cub, is 24 feet long and 35 feet of wingspan. They look nothing alike. Nobody is confused by the two. And the body of a missile would not look big enough to carry a pilot. They would not be confused between a 14 foot long missile and a 200 foot long Boeing 767.
Nobody is going to confuse a piper cub and a 767. Nobody is going to confuse something much smaller for something much larger. While few people may have known what the AGM-158 looked like, including the people making it since it wasn't even flight tested until 2006, EVERYBODY knows what a 767 looks like.
Also, the general public had seen missiles. The Patriot missile system was all over the news just a few short years before. And various shots of the Tomahawks fired in the 1993 attack.
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
They look like cruise missiles. In 2001 people knew what cruise missiles looked like
So they don't sound like a 767's engines then.
Invisible formation. So nobody saw.
How many beacons do you infer were spread across a few tens of feet of the building? How did each missile discriminate it's own target designator from the others? Were they discreetly placed in the windows? In that case why did your missiles hit the columns? Presumably all of the missiles arrived at exactly the same instant otherwise their own beacon would have been destroyed by previous impacts. The sky must have got pretty crowded in the last part of the run in, don't you think? A technical tour de force and a spectacular sight, which nobody saw, despite the world's attention being on the towers after the first strike.
There is of course always a more parsimonious explanation, which is that you're wrong.
How many missiles were used in your fantasy lie?
How did the fake the exact jet-fuel fireball you get from 66,000 pounds of jet fuel in the planes used on 9/11?
Why do you make up lies? Lies will not stop wars. Having congress remove funding for war stops war. You need to spend time lobbying congress, not making up lies in a CT debunking forum. We know your claims are false, and too easy to debunk. There are no missiles missing from the USAF - in your fantasy how many USAF people did it? Got any names for the giant fantasy conspiracy theories.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
I will admit I am wrong when you show me the video instead of daft evasions like this.
So show me a video that is inconsistent with the plane buckling and crumpling on impact.
Why is it so difficult for you to find it?
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
Let's do a thought experiment. We have a length of square section steel and a sheet of aluminium, cut and bent so that it forms a snug sleeve around three sides of the full length of the steel.
We put it in a good strong vice with the uncovered side to the back and take a large heavy crowbar and take the strongest whack we can at the front face.
Would we have to sever the aluminium completely in order to do considerable damage on the steel bar inside?
No of course we wouldn't. Same thing applies to the column in question.
This called a Gish Gallop, a failed attempt at you putting the burden of proving your absurd fantasy is false.
You keep asking questions which you can't answer. An aircraft hit the WTC, you deny the truth due to some Quixotic quest for world peace.
I wonder how trump got elected - after looking at the comments on your videos, I realize people are easy to fool and we are dirt dumb stupid sometimes. Not sure why you deny reality, but most who make up despicable theories about the thousand killed by 19 terrorists are doing it for the $$$, you seem to be proud to lie about 9/11 and never consider you might be wrong as you uncaringly mock the murder of thousands.
Don't bring up the wars, that is another top for politics, and I don't need you to make up lies to hate wars.
It is funny the comments on your youtube videos, you have now joined the modern yellow journalism, youtube videos of lies, misleading the clueless. Let us hope your videos don't incite some idiot to go ballistic and take action based on your lies to harm others.
After 19 years you could have earned a degree (a PhD!!!) in engineering and figured out the WTC design would stop a plane going 200 to 250 mph - but you refuse to learn about things related to science, playing the old "common sense" card of woo to make up one of the top ten dumbest claims about 9/11 - missiles is right up there with Judy's Beam Weapon insanity.
Last edited:
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
The only video I have found which shows an actual impact is the Evan Fairbanks video.
The time from first contact to the building until the entire plane has hit the building is about 5 hundredths of a second.
The time from when the front of the first engine contacts until both wings have entirely contacted is one hundredth of a second.
There is no time for the force of impact to have propogated to the rest of the aircraft in that time so we would not expect to see the wings fold forward or for the fuselage to have started buckling.
All crumpling, buckling and shredding will have happened exactly at the point of impact and nowhere else.
So the "airliner slicing through a building like butter" is an illusion due to the fact that forces cannot propagate back along the aircraft faster than it is flying into a building.
In fact it is not an aircraft slicing through that building, rather 120 tons of debris and aircraft fuel travelling at close to 800 kph.
The time from first contact to the building until the entire plane has hit the building is about 5 hundredths of a second.
The time from when the front of the first engine contacts until both wings have entirely contacted is one hundredth of a second.
There is no time for the force of impact to have propogated to the rest of the aircraft in that time so we would not expect to see the wings fold forward or for the fuselage to have started buckling.
All crumpling, buckling and shredding will have happened exactly at the point of impact and nowhere else.
So the "airliner slicing through a building like butter" is an illusion due to the fact that forces cannot propagate back along the aircraft faster than it is flying into a building.
In fact it is not an aircraft slicing through that building, rather 120 tons of debris and aircraft fuel travelling at close to 800 kph.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
Last edited:
curious cat
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2019
- Messages
- 373
Looks like a number of missiles flying in close formation to me ;-).
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Yesterday afternoon, while planting bulbs, my son pressed down a bit too hard on the steel bar sticking out of the side of the coring tool he was using to make holes for the bulbs. The 8mm steel bar promptly sheared off, snapping at the base. He was wearing imitation leather boots (he's a vegetarian) with no steel reinforcement. What I need to know is, are his feet harder than steel, or is it the plastic soles of his boots, and if it's the boots, how come he didn't break any toes? I think a more parsimonious explanation is that, as he pressed down on the tool, a cruise missile struck the bar at its base, shearing it off, but he and my wife failed to notice it because they weren't expecting anything like that to happen.
Or, y'know, maybe there's no absolute physical law saying that hard things can only be damaged by harder things. But that's just crazy talk.
Dave
Or, y'know, maybe there's no absolute physical law saying that hard things can only be damaged by harder things. But that's just crazy talk.
Dave
bknight
Master Poster
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
You got to watch those super secret Missles that no one ever sees they break stuff all the time.
The sounds of the plane and everyone's shocked reactions are all part of a video filter.
gmanontario
Muse
Did you check for thermite in the shaft?