9/11: How they Faked the Videos

yankee451 said:
"Blew" as in cut through without detonating.
Click to expand...

The idiot fantasy missiles don't have enough mass and kinetic energy to do the damage of the 757. You lost due to science, videos, and eyewitnesses.

You have failed to prove the videos were faked.

Make my day, go ask the victim's families about the fake video, the fake people, the fake planes. Tell them about the insane missile fantasy.

Go contact the families, here are a few of the thousands.

John D’Allara
Vincent Gerard D’Amadeo
Jack D’Ambrosi
Mary D’Antonio
Edward A D’Atri
Michael D D’Auria
Michael Jude D’Esposito
Manuel John Da Mota
Caleb Arron Dack
Carlos S DaCosta
Joao Alberto
DaFonseca Aguiar, Jr
Thomas A Damaskinos
Jeannine Marie Damiani-Jones
Patrick W Danahy
Nana Danso
Vincent Danz
Dwight Donald Darcy
Elizabeth Ann Darling
Annette Andrea Dataram
Lawrence Davidson
Michael Allen Davidson
Scott Matthew Davidson
Titus Davidson
Niurka Davila
Clinton Davis
Wayne Terrial Davis
Anthony Richard Dawson
Calvin Dawson
Edward James Day
Jayceryll de Chavez
Jennifer De Jesus
Monique E De Jesus
Nereida De Jesus
Emerita De La Pena
Azucena Maria de la Torre
David Paul De Rubbio
Jemal Legesse De Santis
Christian Louis De Simone
Melanie Louise De Vere
William Thomas Dean
Robert J DeAngelis, Jr
Thomas Patrick DeAngelis
Tara E Debek
Anna Marjia DeBin
James V Deblase

mocking the murder of thousands, unable to grasp facts and evidence - your claims might be the sickest of all.
 
BStrong said:
You give Yank too much credit - You must have knowledge about a subject before you can lie about it.
Click to expand...

Some lie and know they are lying... (the worst kind)

Some lie and don't realize they are lying

Some are not interested in the truth despite their claim to be.

Some (many) lie about things they know nothing about

Some persist in lying even after their lies have been exposed.

Most who lie expect to get away with it.
 
yankee451 said:
Yes. Something like a JASSM can explain it nicely. The warhead is designed for punching through hardened targets with or without detonating. At an angle of attack of somewhere around 15 degrees from parallel to the tower, the wing of the missile would hit first, which is why at the far left of both towers the cladding is only lightly damaged. The progressively worse damage to the columns is explained by the warhead penetrating deeper into the tower, but it loses energy as it penetrated so what began with gouged steel columns ends up only bending them as it slows down.

A rocket sled test center can put this conclusion to the test.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Approach.jpg[/qimg]


Something like this:
https://youtu.be/5_a1foRId6M
Click to expand...

The warhead is designed to penetrate. The wing is not. There would be no reason to harden or reinforce the wing structure. In fact, it would be wiser to design it to sheer off, to lessen the drag on penetration forces. Having to push what would be a bullet at that point is far better than having to drag a useless wing deep into a target.

You really have no idea on missiles or their functions, do you? The wings, or fins, are there just to get the payload to the target. They aren't strongly attached to the missile. And, again, the JAASM wings are on hinges. They fold for shipping. They aren't more sturdy than a fully attached, airliner wing filled with fuel. As you noted, it was designed to penetrate, not give glancing blows.

You have the missile doing something it was designed to avoid, lateral impact. You have the wing doing something it wasn't designed to do, stay attached during penetration. On a missile system that wasn't actually functioning for another 6 years.
 
Leftus said:
The warhead is designed to penetrate. The wing is not. There would be no reason to harden or reinforce the wing structure. In fact, it would be wiser to design it to sheer off, to lessen the drag on penetration forces. Having to push what would be a bullet at that point is far better than having to drag a useless wing deep into a target.

You really have no idea on missiles or their functions, do you? The wings, or fins, are there just to get the payload to the target. They aren't strongly attached to the missile. And, again, the JAASM wings are on hinges. They fold for shipping. They aren't more sturdy than a fully attached, airliner wing filled with fuel. As you noted, it was designed to penetrate, not give glancing blows.

You have the missile doing something it was designed to avoid, lateral impact. You have the wing doing something it wasn't designed to do, stay attached during penetration. On a missile system that wasn't actually functioning for another 6 years.
Click to expand...

Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

first-strike.gif
 
yankee451 said:
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/first-strike.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The steel would not have been bent that way from a Missle impact at that angle, no way.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
And if you had bothered to note there is a soft rubber portion of the leading edge of
the wing known as a deicing balloon.
If the planes wing was dragged along the edge as physics of impact say it should have been that would account for that observed deformed but left piece of Aluminum.
It's your theory please provide competent Evidence of it.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain that most jets use engine bleed air for ant icing, not inflatable boots.
Narry a boot.

I'm leaving that typo!
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.
Click to expand...

You have made a big deal that there exists no live footage of the plane hitting WTC 2. However look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBciZFE8lAw
Time stamp ~1.15 and clearly see a 767 flying toward the WTC complex and then repeated at ~15:36, both were followed by a very large fireball exiting the east side of WTC 2. Now how does your untrained inaccurate mind explain away
A: How did this plane make an impossible 90 degree turn to miss the complex?
B: Where did the plane go? Including all the people inside of it?

I watched this all live on TV at the time of the accident, so don't tell me that it was fabricated.
 
yankee451 said:
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/first-strike.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I'm not the one inventing new properties for that weapon system. Why can the wings of a missile be responsible for "lightly damaged cladding" but the wings on a 767 couldn't possibly do that?

Any particular reason you avoided everything else? Besides ignorance of the weapon system?

Also, wouldn't it be easier to find any one of the 4 air frames that actually existed than invent properties of a missile system that does not exist?

Even if they built a number of one-off missiles, they were destroyed on impact. If you could find, say the fight crew, or just one of them, then you would have iron-clad proof of the conspiracy. You wouldn't even need to find them alive. A corpse would serve just fine too.
 
wow, non stop nonsense continues

yankee451 said:
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/first-strike.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The invisible missiles did it. How did they fake the image of the Flight 175 which appeared in the eyes to the brain of the many eyewitnesses.

How to you do it? Mock the murder of thousands and leave a legacy of hate of your fellow citizens murdered by saying they never existed. How embarrassing to your kids their kids.

Why is there no evidence for your claim of faked videos?
 
beachnut said:
Why is there no evidence for your claim of faked videos?
Click to expand...
This really is the most baffling part. The events of 9/11 were planned out a long time in advance. NYC and the WTC towers in particular were deliberately chosen precisely because the perpetrators knew damn well the entire world was going to have eyes and ears on lower Manhattan. The point was to broadcast a very clear message they knew would be seen and heard.

If, as yankee451 states, that was all smoke and mirrors...then we have no message and the messenger and their motivations remain unknown. Which kind of defeats the purpose of the whole enterprise.
 
beachnut said:
The invisible missiles did it. How did they fake the image of the Flight 175 which appeared in the eyes to the brain of the many eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old "eyewitness" :rolleyes: chestnut.

You see, those witnesses actually did see an invisible swarm of 14 foot-long cruise missiles but once they switched on the news, they were immediately brainwashed by the MSM and believe they saw great ******* airliners slice into the towers like a knife through butter. Nobody has spoken up after all these years for fear of ridicule, or something.

Do keep up.

Sheesh.
 
Last edited:
It is hard to tell if he is serious, or if this is just some lighthearted hobby.

He seems to find no improbability that hundreds of people, many of them experts in their fields, are complicit in a complex conspiracy involving hundreds of hours planning and co-ordination and costing millions of dollars.

That two separate airline companies have agreed to falsify their records to pretend they have lost planes. That companies that were tenants of the buildings have agreed to pretend that people died and that their employees presumably vacated the building on that day.

That military missile experts, explosive experts, transportation, etc all took part in this and that people pretended to have relatives or friends killed and have kept up the pretense ever since.

That everybody approached to help with this either agreed to help or agreed never to disclose that someone asked them to do it.

And in the twenty years since they have all kept completely quiet about it despite the money they could make blowing the plot.

This he finds easy to believe.



But he finds it impossible to believe that one piece of cladding might not have been severed all the way through when hit by a wing.
 
yankee451 said:
Ya think? I said the wings were only responsible for the lightly damaged cladding.

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/first-strike.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Problem with your cartoon is that the missiles are designed to strike head-on, and would have been launched in such a way to make that possible. The exact missile in your cartoon was having guidance problems in 2001 making even flying straight an issue.
 
yankee451 said:
Until the media broadcast the cartoon plane flying behind the towers, followed by the fireball that erupted from the opposite side of the tower, no one was sure what happened, but most of the reports were that something other than a large jet struck. The truth hurts, but it will set you free.
Click to expand...

More pathetic nonsense from a liar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom