9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[curious cat]

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.

I "assume"? There is a difference between "assuming" and making a logical estimate based on irrefutable reality. I am plainly stating the fact. There were very few people in NY looking anywhere else but at the WTC at the moment of the second impact.

 

[yankee451]

I "assume"? There is a difference between "assuming" and making a logical estimate based on irrefutable reality. I am plainly stating the fact.

Yes. You assume. And you know what you do to yourself when you assume.

 

[yankee451]

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.

[qimg]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/image-6.png?w=1024[/qimg]

Again, not shown live, and according to Evan Fairbanks himself it flew into the building, "...like a bad special effect."

You're right about the illusion part, according to this photo, the jet couldn't even slide like butter through the aluminum sheeting that covered the column.

 

[TJM]

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.

Baloney, to put it mildly.

You're making the claim that "most people said..."

Now you're attempting to shift the goalposts and the burden of proof.

I'd be embarrassed for you, if it wasn't so god damned funny.

 

[smartcooky]

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

Television doesn't trump reality, it trumps your utter failure to have the slightest understanding of what you are looking at.

Your so-called "investigation" is what we call in our part of the world, "arse about face" you see the damage, you immediately conclude (without any supporting evidence whatsoever) that it must have been caused by missiles, and you then work backwards dismissing anything and everything that does not fit your conclusion. This is not how scientific and engineering investigations work!

 

[Axxman300]

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?

What were they in 2001?

The AGM-158 JASSM was not operational and was - at that time - unreliable due to a host of problems which kept it grounded.

The rational explanation is that a pair of 767's struck the towers. You'd have better luck advancing a theory that the hijackers were CIA or that the planes had been secretly wired with remote control override of their controls and flown into the buildings.

The idea that no planes were involved is beyond Lewis Carroll crazy.

 

[The Common Potato]

I sometimes wish that someone like yankee451 is in court, accused of a crime he didn't commit, and that several of the jury used his way of thinking. Despite all the evidence pointing towards his innocence, the jury decides that there everyone is lying and that doing so is really quite an amusing thing to do.

 

[Leftus]

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

wait, you said people didn't know what missiles were? Can they or can they not discriminate between missiles and planes?

 

[The Common Potato]

And that is why eye-witness testimony ought not be taken as a definitive answer to much at all.

And there it is; the television show trumps all.

I depend on the television and YouTube videos for absolutely everything!



Perhaps ironically, I bought these in spring 1995 then got on the internet a month or two later.

PS How do you get images not to rotate?

 

[curious cat]

This thread is addictive. I made a firm conclusion not to get involved about 20 pages ago because arguing with a cuckoo is against one of basic principles. And I got sucked in again! And can see it happening to a lot of other, otherwise ostentatiously rational people. Isn't the OP a vacuumcleaner salesman, by any chance? If not, he should consider that carrier!

 

[The Common Potato]

This thread is addictive. I made a firm conclusion not to get involved about 20 pages ago because arguing with a cuckoo is against one of basic principles. And I got sucked in again! And can see it happening to a lot of other, otherwise ostentatiously rational people. Isn't the OP a vacuumcleaner salesman, by any chance? If not, he should consider that carrier!

He's actually a shill for toupée manufacturers. I have pulled all (most of, you pedantic lot) of my hair out. Prove me wrong. I even have photos!

 

[TJM]

PS How do you get images not to rotate?

I don't know but you ought to get it sorted as it looks ripe for a cruise missile barrage.

 

[Robin]

You're right about the illusion part, according to this photo, the jet couldn't even slide like butter through the aluminum sheeting that covered the column.

Nobody said the wing could slice through the building. The wing hit the columns causing a huge dent in both the aluminium and the column behind and you can see the damage on both.

I already demonstrated that you don't have to sever the aluminium completely to make a huge dent in the column.

Now you were going to get back to me and suggest a kind of cruise missile that could pass between that aluminium and the column. How does the wing on the right side pass through for example? The wing on the left could easily slice through aluminium according to you so why couldn't the wing on the right?

Also, if you don't think either of these films are consistent with a jet liner slamming into a building at 800kph, tell me what you think would happen and how you came to that conclusion.

 

[The Common Potato]

I don't know but you ought to get it sorted as it looks ripe for a cruise missile barrage.

And a duster!

I went to school a handful of miles from Greenham Common, and Aldermaston wasn't too far away.

 

[yankee451]

Nope. You didn't. You see, the cladding covered the column on three sides. for a plane wing to so damage the column the cladding was attached to, it would first need to cut through the cladding. Back to the drawing board for you!

 

[yankee451]

Baloney, to put it mildly.

You're making the claim that "most people said..."

Now you're attempting to shift the goalposts and the burden of proof.

I'd be embarrassed for you, if it wasn't so god damned funny.

Most people reported planes, missiles and bombs. CNN did report a large jet. Knowing that videos can be faked, and witnesses are notoriously unreliable, luckily we can thin out what's fake and what's real by examining the damage evidence.

 

[The Common Potato]

Jeff,
And? So what. There were more witnesses that said they saw small planes, missiles or no planes at all. Not all the witnesses can be right. The damage evidence (that you keep avoiding) can thin out which of the witness accounts match the evidence, and which match the "official story."

wait, you said people didn't know what missiles were? Can they or can they not discriminate between missiles and planes?

It's a conundrum. Of course, some witnesses are 'righter' than others.

 

[yankee451]

I sometimes wish that someone like yankee451 is in court, accused of a crime he didn't commit, and that several of the jury used his way of thinking. Despite all the evidence pointing towards his innocence, the jury decides that there everyone is lying and that doing so is really quite an amusing thing to do.

You mean by gathering evidence at the scene of the crime and using what is learned from those clues to arrive at the most likely explanation for the series of events that could have accounted for the physical evidence as found? Yeah, a court would think that's pretty radical.

 

[The Common Potato]

Nope. You didn't. You see, the cladding covered the column on three sides. for a plane wing to so damage the column the cladding was attached to, it would first need to cut through the cladding. Back to the drawing board for you!

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/South-Tower-Close-up-with-notations-1024x640.png[/qimg]

Ah! Got it! It was one of those missiles that turns broadside on just before impact.

 

[yankee451]

Ah! Got it! It was one of those missiles that turns broadside on just before impact.

The cognitive dissonance must be excruciating.