9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[TJM]

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

Same thing happened to me while trying to dig out an old tree trunk. Snapped a thick solid wood axe handle clean in two. I immediately suspected death rays from outer space, but the were no hurricanes loitering around California and nothing dustified, so I chalked it up to a shoddy tool. Next time I'll be sure to check for invisible cruise missiles.

I really do appreciate the knowledge and wisdom on display in these forums.

 

[GlennB]

Same thing happened to me while trying to dig out an old tree trunk. Snapped a thick solid wood axe handle clean in two. I immediately suspected death rays from outer space, but the were no hurricanes loitering around California and nothing dustified, so I chalked it up to a shoddy tool. Next time I'll be sure to check for invisible cruise missiles.

Nano termites?

 

[benthamitemetric]

Nano termites?

Since we all know that the existence of a vaguely-related patent for an unproven invention claim is the best possible proof of the existence of powerful secret government technology at the center of a massive conspiracy, I present you with "Locomotion system and method of controlling a robotic device," which, per truther logic, definitively proves that nanotermites were used on the axe handle in question, and--likely--on both JFK and the twin towers. If that weren't enough, I assume that nanotermites would contain carbon and that there was carbon found in the dust in lower manhattan after 9-11. There was likely carbon in the dust in JFK's convertible too, but of course the FBI never checked! What do you think they were hiding, if not the presence of nanotermites? I rest my case.

 

[Axxman300]

Hadn't though of Nanotermites killing JFK, but he did collapse into his own footprint so it must be true.

 

[curious cat]

Since we all know that the existence of a vaguely-related patent for an unproven invention claim is the best possible proof of the existence of powerful secret government technology at the center of a massive conspiracy, I present you with "Locomotion system and method of controlling a robotic device," which, per truther logic, definitively proves that nanotermites were used on the axe handle in question, and--likely--on both JFK and the twin towers. If that weren't enough, I assume that nanotermites would contain carbon and that there was carbon found in the dust in lower manhattan after 9-11. There was likely carbon in the dust in JFK's convertible too, but of course the FBI never checked! What do you think they were hiding, if not the presence of nanotermites? I rest my case.

I like the simplicity of the system. Surely it is being mass-produced somewhere in China already.

 

[yankee451]

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?

Gosh, I don't know. Maybe the laws of physics really do change just because you saw it on television.

 

[yankee451]

This called a Gish Gallop, a failed attempt at you putting the burden of proving your absurd fantasy is false.

Really, then nice Gish Gallop. The burden of proof is on those who think a mostly hollow aluminum jet wing is capable of gouging out a few 1/2 inch plates of steel, but could't cut through the aluminum sheeting that covered the steel. The aluminum is still there! What color is the sky in the skeptics' world.

 

[yankee451]

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.

The facts don't change according to your ability to stomach them emotionally.

 

[yankee451]

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).

The capabilities of the missiles are well documented.

 

[yankee451]

There is of course always a more parsimonious explanation, which is that you're wrong.

I never claimed otherwise. However if I was wrong it should be easy to explain why the evidence doesn't support my conclusions, and better supports yours. But you don't do that. Maybe I'm not wrong.

 

[yankee451]

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.

And yet until a TV was shoved in their faces, most people said they saw small planes, no planes (bombs), and missiles.

 

[yankee451]

It all boils down to the television show

From the look of the responses, the skeptics are only skeptical about that which they don't already agree with. They can't explain how three out of four sides of a column could be cut without cutting the aluminum sheeting that covered those three sides. Conundrum, Skeptics!

 

[Axxman300]

Really, then nice Gish Gallop. The burden of proof is on those who think a mostly hollow aluminum jet wing is capable of gouging out a few 1/2 inch plates of steel, but could't cut through the aluminum sheeting that covered the steel. The aluminum is still there! What color is the sky in the skeptics' world.

Steve, everyone has pointed out that the density of the wing of a 767 varies from the tip to where it mounts to the body due to avionics, engine, and fuel tanks. This is why they paint "No Step" signs on places along the top of the wing which can be damaged by ground crew mistakenly walking on it. The aluminum sheeting you point to is CLEARLY DAMAGED from the impact as it the steel it was mounted to. Aircraft wreckage is visible in all of the photos you've posted. The main hole in the tower is over 25 feet high, almost four times the height of either missile you claim penetrated the building, and none of the structural damage on this side had been blown outward which would be the result of a delayed detonation of 1,000 lbs of high explosive (which nobody heard).

Every point you make has been easily refuted. You fail.

 

[Axxman300]

The capabilities of the missiles are well documented.

You should look them up sometime. They don't match your claims in any way.

 

[TJM]

And yet until a TV was shoved in their faces, most people said they saw small planes, no planes (bombs), and missiles.

Prove it.

 

[curious cat]

Gosh, I don't know. Maybe the laws of physics really do change just because you saw it on television.

Why television? They may be a limited number of (some possibly confused) eye witnesses of the first impact. Who would be walking the street looking up at the high floors of WTC? A different situation with the second impact.
Virtually the whole NY was looking in that direction from all possible places and angles. And they were pointing their cameras there too. Why out of a several tens of thousand of people only a few, mostly anonymous, individuals saw something else than B767? Why nothing else but B767 has been captured on any of the photos and videos taken?
Please, check if you have taken your regular medication before you answer this question.

 

[yankee451]

Prove it.

Listen to you. If you don't believe me look up the archives of the news reports from the first explosion. I've linked to several accounts of missile reports, which you guys just wave-off, along with all the physical evidence of missile impacts. So no, you have been proven wrong about everything so far. You are in no position to demand anything of anyone.

 

[yankee451]

Why television? They may be a limited number of (some possibly confused) eye witnesses of the first impact. Who would be walking the street looking up at the high floors of WTC? A different situation with the second impact.
Virtually the whole NY was looking in that direction from all possible places and angles. And they were pointing their cameras there too. Why out of a several tens of thousand of people only a few, mostly anonymous, individuals saw something else than B767? Why nothing else but B767 has been captured on any of the photos and videos taken?
Please, check if you have taken your regular medication before you answer this question.

Okay, so maybe the laws of physics do change just because you saw it on television, AND you assume there would be thousands of witnesses. None of which addresses the impact evidence that makes your assumptions, and the television moot, but such is the logic in Skeptic Land.

 

[yankee451]

You should look them up sometime. They don't match your claims in any way.

I have. And I have explained in detail how they, or something like them, are the only rational explanation for the damage as found.

You haven't looked them up, else you wouldn't be talking smack.

What are their off the shelf, publicly advertised capabilities? Range? Waypoint capablities? Payload/Warhead options?

 

[yankee451]

Every point you make has been easily refuted. You fail.

Not true. The points I have made on this thread crush the plane hugging lunatics who still think the television trumps reality.