9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[Robin]

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.

Bumping and hilighting the part yankee451 missed.

 

[Robin]

I think I have some old roof sections in the garage and some square section steel, so if I have time I may try it out.

According to this theory as long as I cover the steel with aluminium on three sides I can't dent the steel unless I sever the aluminium all the way through. Interesting theory.

 

[turingtest]

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

And he's already insulated himself from having to confront any actual recorded witnesses with this-

Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to.

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

It's the evidentiary equivalent of Michel H's "credibility rating" in his Telepath Test thread; note that the circular argument he accuses other people of using is actually the one he makes because he so desperately needs it.

If Michael Shermer ever decides to update "Why People Believe Weird Things," yankee can be an illustrative example of the ways those weird beliefs are maintained. Yankee wants to be famous as the guy whose serious study broke the case; all he's ever actually going to achieve is fame as a serious case study.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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?

It is hard to make out quite what it is (quite aside from any daft stuff about missiles). The photos from two angles show that it's not in front of a column, and it projects quite a long way out from the wall. It's not clear how it's attached to the building but we don't know for sure what shape it is so there might be more of it sticking into the building. What it looks most like is the section of cladding from the column to its left and it's possible that it's not quite broken off at the bottom, but if it is a ragged piece of not-quite-torn-off cladding, why did it end up sticking up instead of dangling downward? Was it initially pushed in and then flung almost out again?

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

So this guy (Yankee), sees one anomaly, in one photo, and throws the baby out with the bath water. Let's throw him a bone and say this ONE column is "suspect." So we throw out EVERY other piece of evidence, and conjure up a grand conspiracy involving fake videos, fake witnesses, fake firefighters and policemen...I could go on. Because there's ONE suspect column in ONE photo. Which, ironically enough, should be one of the "faked" photos.

How braindead can people be?

And that brings us back to page 1. Why not just fly ******* airplanes into the buildings?

 

[Robin]

It is hard to make out quite what it is (quite aside from any daft stuff about missiles). The photos from two angles show that it's not in front of a column, and it projects quite a long way out from the wall. It's not clear how it's attached to the building but we don't know for sure what shape it is so there might be more of it sticking into the building. What it looks most like is the section of cladding from the column to its left and it's possible that it's not quite broken off at the bottom, but if it is a ragged piece of not-quite-torn-off cladding, why did it end up sticking up instead of dangling downward? Was it initially pushed in and then flung almost out again?

If it is a part of the cladding sticking out then it pretty much kills the cruise missile theory stone dead. Yankee451 is steadfastly ignoring that.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If it is a part of the cladding sticking out then it pretty much kills the cruise missile theory stone dead. Yankee451 is steadfastly ignoring that.

True, but can we prove it's not a cruise missile wing instead?

 

[Leftus]

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]

What leads you to believe that the wing of a missile is constructed of more sturdy material, or somehow differently, than that of an airplane?

How many missile system have you personally interacted with?

 

[Leftus]

So this guy (Yankee), sees one anomaly, in one photo, and throws the baby out with the bath water. Let's throw him a bone and say this ONE column is "suspect." So we throw out EVERY other piece of evidence, and conjure up a grand conspiracy involving fake videos, fake witnesses, fake firefighters and policemen...I could go on. Because there's ONE suspect column in ONE photo. Which, ironically enough, should be one of the "faked" photos.

How braindead can people be?

And that brings us back to page 1. Why not just fly ******* airplanes into the buildings?

Kill thousands in the towers? Not a problem. Kill a few hundred passengers and crew? We are not monsters.

 

[carlitos]

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

What about the ones who reported trains?

Nicholas Borrillo -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) on 23rd floor of North Tower:
Then we heard a rumble. We heard it and we felt the whole building shake. It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake. A train is more like it, because with the train you hear the rumbling, and it kind of like moved you around in the hall.

Paul Curran -- Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.) North Tower:
I went back and stood right in front of Eight World Trade Center right by the customs house, and the north tower was set right next to it. Not that much time went by, and all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) T]he ground started shaking like a train was coming. You looked up, and I guess -- I don't know, it was one that came down first or two? Which one?

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47] ...... I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118] You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.

 

[yankee451]

What about the ones who reported trains?

Alas, the conclusion that planes, trains and automobiles were responsible, doesn't fit the evidence as well as the lateral impact of multiple cruise missiles does.

 

[beachnut]

Alas, the conclusion that planes, trains and automobiles were responsible, doesn't fit the evidence as well as the lateral impact of multiple cruise missiles does.

Doesn't fit the evidence? that is funny
Only in your fantasy world where you can't figure out physics due to "common sense". TLAR does not always work in the real world where math and physics rule.

Stop spreading on of the top dumbest claims about 9/11, missiles did it, it does not make sense, and is a big lie.

 

[Leftus]

Alas, the conclusion that planes, trains and automobiles were responsible, doesn't fit the evidence as well as the lateral impact of multiple cruise missiles does.

Cruise missiles don't do lateral impacts. In fact, they are designed to avoid it. The targeting and flight systems are written to avoid obstacles. So now, not only do you need a missile system that didn't fully exist, and quite a few of them and all must work flawlessly, but you need a rewritten software.


And to you, this is a more likely answer than what can be visually confirmed as Boeing 767s hitting the twin towers.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I understand quite well. I also understand mostly hollow aluminum wings don't slice through steel skyscrapers in the real world...

I note the subtle connotative usage of hollow (empty, weak) and steel (strong, hard) employed to help game the argument, such as it is.

One could argue the towers were quite hollow, too.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Occupants of what? The non existent planes? The empty offices? What do you mean?

A no-planer, are we? I’ll leave this discussion right after entering it, then; I have no interest in arguing with insanity.

 

[smartcooky]

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?

Steve wouldn't know an Evil Plan if Dick Dastardly himself fell out of the sky, landed on the stool in front of his grand piano and started playing "Evil Plans are Here Again"

 

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I understand quite well. I also understand mostly hollow aluminum wings don't slice through steel skyscrapers in the real world...

Your no-plane theory has just as much to do with the real world as a Marvel comic book.

 

[smartcooky]

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

"Almost"?

 

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I understand quite well. I also understand mostly hollow aluminum wings don't slice through steel skyscrapers in the real world...

Your no-plane theory has just as much to do with the real world as a Marvel comic book.

Yep, his "mostly hollow aluminum wings don't slice through steel skyscrapers" in exactly the same way, that mostly hollow ping ping balls don't punch a hole in a table tennis bat.

oh, wait!

 

[bknight]

Yep, his "mostly hollow aluminum wings don't slice through steel skyscrapers" in exactly the same way, that mostly hollow ping ping balls don't punch a hole in a table tennis bat.

oh, wait!

New physics, Dr. Strangelove.