9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[yankee451]

Another one of your theories shot to hell.

You were wrong, you had the chance to admit it, but you didn't.



[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/VDdaOeI.jpg[/qimg]

All it proves is I was wrong about the timing of the photograph. The first responders had already arrived, as was pointed out to me by Mark Conlon, so I'll give you that too. Darn it, wrong again. However being wrong about the timing of the photograph and the arrival of the so called firemen, doesn't change the fact the the tiny plume of white smoke, consistent with a portable smoke generator, not with the crash of a 757, can be seen both inside, and outside the crater. Bummer for you guys. Pity you can't admit you're wrong like I can, eh?

 

[bknight]

I have.

The damage evidence that you refuse to address proves what didn't happen, as well as what probably did happen.

If I'm wrong, then surely you have a better explanation for the evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible. Ignoring it isn't an option.

Yet you ignore my post and questions, why is that ?

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]

Yet you ignore my post and questions, why is that ?

Listen to the ~38 second mark where the announcer almost said the "m" word. Are you on the north side there where the mmm...er...the plane made contact...lol

Both of the time stamps provided prove I'm right. The views do not show the actual impact of the cgi plane. They show the plane flying behind the towers followed by the fireball. But no collision. Those all came later. Next!

 

[yankee451]

Shifting the burden of proof.

No that would be those who insist what was shown on television is possible in the real world.

 

[yankee451]

Steve... Can you tell us how you started on "investigating" 9/11? Did you immediately see the TV, the official statements and what followed as something which sent up red flags for you? What seemed wrong enough to motivate your research?
++++

Speaking for me only... as an architect, a NYer and someone who actually worked for Emery Roth & Sons, the architects of the towers back in the 70s...I've been in them many times and had a business a few blocks north on Leonard St. for a number of years. I hated the design and remembered the battles about getting them built. I was surprised at how quickly they collapsed. I had no frame of reference and wanted to understand.

When the cartoons of the pancakes appeared they looked ridiculous to me. Then there was the sagging bar trusses which likewise seem.

I began my own "research" by using the www. And I came about the truther stuff like Loose Change. And another film by Sophia Small Storm?? It's a long time now. I went to an 9/11 anniversary event and there I saw some presentations, met Gage and Szambotti and suggested to them they reach out to Robertson to find out what his thoughts were about the collapse. I knew nothing about AE911T but Gage asked me to listen in on his next "Strategy" conference call with some of his members. I listened. Was not impressed. It was all about "marketing their message" and getting more signers on their petition. I heard nothing about doing building performance studies.

After I suggested to Gage he recruit some of his engineer signers to do some FEA and "reverse" engineer the collapse. He did not want to do that. He was into CD and at the time "nano thermite". I completely missed that they were not a group of engineers... but a group of volunteers hunting down signatures. I advocated they do research... this led to my being ejected and being labeled a plant of CIA spy!

After that I was motivated to come up with what seemed like a plausible explanation for how the towers collapsed. Not being an engineer, but understanding statics as an architect I fashioned a theory which I called a vertical avalanche. About that time I stumbled on the 911 Free Forum... This was populated by engineers, physicists and good thinkers who were essentially analyzing the building movements in detail... and offering explanations. Shortly after I joined the ROOSD explanation for the collapse was presented and it was much like my vertical avalanche but supported by the visuals from vids. ROOSD did not address how the plane damage turned into the ROOSD. This was the so called "initiation". This was hard to figure out because there was not film or data from inside the towers... only films/vids from the exterior... and of course the structural plans.

I believe that the initiation occurred as a result of the impact of the fires which both weakened and warped the steel members and ultimately undermined the axial capacity which led to the "ROOSD" mass forming and crashing down.

Although there is no proof of any of this... it made sense to me and my curiosity of how the towers could collapse as they did was satisfied. I don't think NIST got it correct but the mechanisms... heat we agree upon. There were lessons learned and building design of super talls has changed and does not include the Achilles heel that the twins did. I don't think the hijackers knew the towers would collapse. Hitting them with jumbos was all they needed for their political agenda.

As fantastic as the hijack story sounds... it also makes sense as no real systems were in place to prevent it or stop it while underway.

++++

Good luck with your research... but you should make it reality based. What I've read from you sounds and reads and looks like fantasy. Work with some engineers. This is way above your pay grade... and you should know that.

As I have said before, on interviews, in my posts, on my videos, and on this thread, I started out in the same place most everyone did; believing everything that I saw on the TeeVee.

The rest of your story is great, thanks.

 

[yankee451]

This is hilarious. The basis of your theory, no planes, is laughably wrong. In order to support your theory, you've created a series of threads where you present evidence which is also laughably wrong.

It's not quite about hair out of place, it's more like your arguments have no hair at all. It's like you've taken some hair you found in your shower drain and scotch taped it to your head, expecting it to grow.

Don't come crying when people point and laugh.

The joke's on you.

 

[yankee451]

Sorry, but do you mean the piece of cladding, probably from the 5th damaged column along from the left, which appears to have moved between photos posted here in the last few days? The piece I keep talking about and you're never interested enough to respond? That evidence I refuse to address?

Whaaa?

 

[Deadie]

However being wrong about the timing of the photograph and the arrival of the so called firemen, doesn't change the fact the the tiny plume of white smoke, consistent with a portable smoke generator, not with the crash of a 757, can be seen both inside, and outside the crater. Bummer for you guys. Pity you can't admit you're wrong like I can, eh?

This "portable smoke generator" may have been complex CGI fakery. How have you ruled that out?

How much power would be required to operate such a machine and how was it supplied? Why did no one notice such a useless machine mysteriously performing nonsensical work in and around a 'purported' aircraft crash debris field? No one ever asked why there was a device or multiple devices uselessly exhausting visible particulate matter into the atmosphere in the direct vicinity of a an aircraft crash site?

 

[yankee451]

Sorry, but do you mean the piece of cladding, probably from the 5th damaged column along from the left, which appears to have moved between photos posted here in the last few days? The piece I keep talking about and you're never interested enough to respond? That evidence I refuse to address?

Is this what you're referring to?

 

[yankee451]

This "portable smoke generator" may have been complex CGI fakery. How have you ruled that out?
How much power would be required to operate such a machine and how was it supplied? Why did no one notice such a useless machine mysteriously performing nonsensical work in and around a 'purported' aircraft crash debris field? No one ever asked why there was a device or multiple devices uselessly exhausting visible particulate matter into the atmosphere in the direct vicinity of a an aircraft crash site?

Yes.

 

[Deadie]

Yes.

No, I asked HOW.

 

[carlitos]

More than a decade later, there isn't any more "truth movement," but this work this still stands up.


On the Truth Movement and Irreducible Delusion

Strong Delusion: Belief that is directly contradicted by unambiguous fact.

The Strong Delusion is, in short, a factual error. This is often supported by argument to authority and reliance on quote-mining, out-of-date, or retracted information in an attempt to justify the error. A common example is ”No Aircraft Hit the Pentagon,” which is a Strong Delusion because it is directly contradicted by extensive physical evidence.

 

[yankee451]

No, I asked HOW.

Oops, sorry.

Logically it makes no sense for the perpetrators to use complex CGI to create a smoke plume that indicates a smoke generator was used. If they had the capability to create such fake smoke, they would have used it to create smoke that matched what they were selling, namely the impact of a 757, which ought to be lots of black smoke and fire, if memory serves.

It makes more sense that the perpetrators know most people will believe authority by virtue of their authority, and nothing else, rather than consider the authorities think we're stupid.

 

[yankee451]

More than a decade later, there isn't any more "truth movement," but this work this still stands up.


On the Truth Movement and Irreducible Delusion

So how about those of us who started with the strong belief that what we were shown on television depicted a real event?

 

[Robin]

I have.



The damage evidence that you refuse to address proves what didn't happen, as well as what probably did happen.



If I'm wrong, then surely you have a better explanation for the evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible. Ignoring it isn't an option.

I have done nothing but address your so-called "evidence" and have great difficulty in getting you to respond to anything.

So why are you now trying to pretend your "evidence" is being ignored?

 

[yankee451]

I have done nothing but address your so-called "evidence" and have great difficulty in getting you to respond to anything.

So why are you now trying to pretend your "evidence" is being ignored?

You haven't though. You pointed to a hole in the cladding that only supports my conclusion. You didn't explain how the 767 wing could slice through three sides of steel column, while missing the aluminum sheeting that covered those three sides. Only two of the three sides of aluminum were cut. The side the wing ought to have cut first, was only bent (and had a little hole in it), but bent in the opposite direction than the wing impacted.

Forgive me if I missed your explanation of this extraordinary event.

 

[Robin]

Yankee451 doesn't even seem to know what direction the plane that hit the South tower was travelling. Talk about ignoring the evidence.

 

[yankee451]

Yankee451 doesn't even seem to know what direction the plane that hit the South tower was travelling. Talk about ignoring the evidence.

I'm sorry, but was this your explanation about why the planes that struck at allegedly different trajectories, created almost identical damage that doesn't match what we were shown on television?

 

[Deadie]

Oops, sorry.
Logically it makes no sense for the perpetrators to use complex CGI to create a smoke plume that indicates a smoke generator was used. If they had the capability to create such fake smoke, they would have used it to create smoke that matched what they were selling, namely the impact of a 757, which ought to be lots of black smoke and fire, if memory serves.

Yes, exactly. How large would these devices need to have been given the effect? How much power would have been required to operate them to give the effect we see and also presume is not CGI, however convenient it is for your argument?

A diesel powered ground thawing machine is about as physically large as a standard sedan and slightly more massive, but they need to be trucked in place, and do not produce black smoke during operation.

Presumably you have pictures of these things ejecting black exhaust, right?

 

[yankee451]

Yes, exactly. How large would these devices need to have been given the effect? How much power would have been required to operate them to give the effect we see and also presume is not CGI, however convenient it is for your argument?

A diesel powered ground thawing machine is about as physically large as a standard sedan and slightly more massive, but they need to be trucked in place, and do not produce black smoke during operation.

Presumably you have pictures of these things ejecting black exhaust, right?

You lost me.