9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[The Common Potato]

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.

Nah! Broadmoor for you, laddie.

 

[yankee451]

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

Yes, those that reported small planes, missiles and bombs might have been onto something.

 

[MetalPig]

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!

I once broke a bone without damaging the skin first. Must have been missiles.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

Unsurprisingly, this does not answer my question.
You claim the images and videos were altered to mask the missiles.
You are using the same images to prove that missiles were used.
Why would the Evil Them not alter the images to show damage from a plane, instead of leaving in damage that an unqualified amateur like you can easily spot?
Not much of an Evil Plan, is it?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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

Citation needed. You have claimed this several times. Please list the witnesses whose testimony changed, along with evidence that 'TVs were shoved in their faces' to make this happen.

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,

You said yourself that you don't believe these witnesses.

along with all the physical evidence of missile impacts.

You have yet to provide anything remotely resembling physical evidence, despite my several requests.
Arrows on a photo (which you claimed was faked anyway) are not physical evidence.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

Have you done that yourself?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Prove it.

Ah, but he's carefully avoided having to do that by claiming that it's the unrecorded witness accounts that refer to small planes. It's the evidentiary equivalent of "the lurkers support me in e-mail".

Dave

 

[curious cat]

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.

I think you posted this photo for about 20tieth time. Neither I nor anybody else found on it anything more supporting your lunatic theory than on the first issue. Don't you think it is time to stop throwing pearls to the swines? I am sure there is something more convincing in your sleeve to show us.

 

[The Common Potato]

I pressed all the buttons but not necessarily in the right order. (Yes, I know I shortened the IRS alignment time.) For my next trick, I'll learn how to launch a missile!

Start up and take off
On my way

(It looks better on three monitors.)

 

[The Common Potato]

Slightly NSFW

My evidence is considerably more convincing than yankee451's photo.

 

[Robin]

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]

So what you are saying is, that if I take a steel square section and cut and bend a sheet of aluminium to snugly fit the length of steel on three sides and then I swing a big crowbar at the front side then I would not be able to dent the steel without severing the aluminium completely? Yes?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The capabilities of the missiles are well documented.

Yes, they seem to be whatever you need to make your story work.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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

No 'most' people didn't.
After the first strike there was confusion as most people weren't looking and just heard it.
Many more people were looking at the WTC when the second strike happened. Thousands saw an airliner hit the tower.

 

[abaddon]

The capabilities of the missiles are well documented.

Yes, they are. And that documentation demonstrates that your claims are nonsense.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Unsurprisingly, this does not answer my question.
You claim the images and videos were altered to mask the missiles.
You are using the same images to prove that missiles were used.
Why would the Evil Them not alter the images to show damage from a plane, instead of leaving in damage that an unqualified amateur like you can easily spot?
Not much of an Evil Plan, is it?

Every evil genius is also an idiot, it's the law.

 

[JSanderO]

Hard to tell what the material Steve claims is alum siding weirdly displaced actually is. It actually looks different in the ellipse. But the res is so low it's really hard to read. Perhaps a slab of insulation?

 

[Robin]

Hard to tell what the material Steve claims is alum siding weirdly displaced actually is. It actually looks different in the ellipse. But the res is so low it's really hard to read. Perhaps a slab of insulation?

I have looked at it from as many angles.as I can. My best guess is that it is a piece of the cladding with the front either severely dented or cut through and held up by the sides.

 

[curious cat]

No 'most' people didn't.
After the first strike there was confusion as most people weren't looking and just heard it.
Many more people were looking at the WTC when the second strike happened. Thousands saw an airliner hit the tower.

I am sure "a few" would be a better description of the number of people who "saw" missiles. Considering the total number of witnesses, it is not surprising. If you look hard enough, I am sure you would also find a few people who saw Santa and Snow White. We all know they are real, don't we...

 

[Dave Rogers]

So what you are saying is, that if I take a steel square section and cut and bend a sheet of aluminium to snugly fit the length of steel on three sides and then I swing a big crowbar at the front side then I would not be able to dent the steel without severing the aluminium completely? Yes?

And yet it turns out that my son doesn't have a big hole in the sole of his boot. Funny how so many of these truther laws of physics don't apply to everyday situations, yet absolutely, definitely must apply to the events of 9/11. It's almost as if they were making up new physics as they go along.

Dave

 

[Robin]

Nope. You didn't. You see, the cladding covered the column on three sides.

Yep, and I covered cladding on three sides. You either didn't read or you ignored.