9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[catsmate]

This is my thinking too.

In the first place, do they really expect us to believe any place could be so nice they named it twice?

In the second place I have been to York. Why would they need a new one if the old one is still there?

Arthur Dent was similarly sceptical;

New * York * has * gone. * No * reaction. * He'd *never * seriously * believed * it * existed * anyway.

 

[abaddon]

I am capable of doing my own thinking.

I see no evidence of such activity. Have you some to offer?

If that makes me an expert, then so be it.

Nope. Unfounded nonsense does not an expert make.

If you require an expert to do your thinking for you, then you'll have to take my word for it.

Said "not an expert".

All the views of the "live" impact were capturing the north face of the North Tower. None of them caught the "crash." Those that do show the crash were not broadcast live.

That claim flies in the face of reality. Do you not grok reality? Why not?

 

[yankee451]

I am capable of doing my own thinking.

I see no evidence of such activity. Have you some to offer?

Nope. Unfounded nonsense does not an expert make.

Said "not an expert".

That claim flies in the face of reality. Do you not grok reality? Why not?

Digging in your heels and deferring to authority is it? Then seek out an expert that you deem worthy. Until then, we'll have to go with the conclusion that any kid who has ever run a stick against a picket fence can attest to. Any adult lacking that experience can also seek out a second opinion that better suits their fancy. Or they can take a stab at doing their own thinking, and coming up with a better explanation for it.

 

[bknight]

I am capable of doing my own thinking. If that makes me an expert, then so be it. If you require an expert to do your thinking for you, then you'll have to take my word for it.

All the views of the "live" impact were capturing the north face of the North Tower. None of them caught the "crash." Those that do show the crash were not broadcast live.

I'm not indicating that you are not capable of thinkin, however training helps one form a better picture of what happened, you don't have that, but rely on your biased viewpoint. No I'll not take your words for any description of what happened.

Yes the "live" views were from the east and north viewpoints, Other videos show the same plane hitting the tower from the south, for those that haven't seen them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
11 minute video with timestamps for ease of watching
3:39, 4:56, 5:37* best image of a plane hitting the tower, 6:28, 8:44, 9:11 ( doesn't show the plane hitting the tower as a building in in the way), 10:18.

In all views along the way, a plane approaches the tower and slams into it. You may ignore the fact that it was a plane, but prudent individuals will not agree with your view.

 

[yankee451]

I'm not indicating that you are not capable of thinkin, however training helps one form a better picture of what happened, you don't have that, but rely on your biased viewpoint. No I'll not take your words for any description of what happened.

Yes the "live" views were from the east and north viewpoints, Other videos show the same plane hitting the tower from the south, for those that haven't seen them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
11 minute video with timestamps for ease of watching
3:39, 4:56, 5:37* best image of a plane hitting the tower, 6:28, 8:44, 9:11 ( doesn't show the plane hitting the tower as a building in in the way), 10:18.

In all views along the way, a plane approaches the tower and slams into it. You may ignore the fact that it was a plane, but prudent individuals will not agree with your view.

I mean no offense. There are very few ways to explain the damage. Prudent individuals all over the world can do as they like, but prudence doesn't change the evidence that leads me to my conclusions.

This is a wingtip from a 767.

We are to believe that this wingtip was only massive enough and wide enough to cause this little pinch to the aluminum cladding:

But a few feet away it was massive enough, and big enough, to sharply bend steel columns in a different direction than the wingtip was traveling.

 

[pgimeno]

And here we go again.

Answer:
Not even close to the weight of the plate steel it impacted.

Wrong.

Aluminium alloys are used extensively in aircraft due to their high strength-to-weight ratio. On the other hand, pure aluminium metal is much too soft for such uses, and it does not have the high tensile strength that is needed for airplanes and helicopters.

Aluminium alloys versus types of steel
Aluminium alloys typically have an elastic modulus of about 70 GPa, which is about one-third of the elastic modulus of most kinds of steel and steel alloys.
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_alloy#Engineering_use_and_aluminium_alloys_properties

One third the strength is more than strong enough to break it under such conditions; there's a FEA proving it. Water can also cut through steel if thrown at a bigger speed and in a thin jet (google waterjet cutting), and it's not even a solid. The principle is the same: kinetic energy.

How does jet fuel add density to aluminum sheeting formed into the shape of an airfoil?

It adds density to the wing as a whole, thus increasing the mass, and with it, the kinetic energy.

Imagine yourself throwing an empty soda can to a glass. You will probably not hurt it. Now imagine yourself throwing it full. You will probably break it. Same material, different overall density.

And an airplane is much more than the sheeting. Focusing on the cover and forgetting about the structure is a lie by omission. Remember the wings must be strong enough to support the weight of the fuselage.

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/structures/images/image12.gif

Surely you can use your math to demonstrate how the east-west bends and twists were caused by aluminum sheeting formed into the shape of a jet with 30 degree swept back wings striking in a north-south trajectory.

These two sheets look like they bent post-impact, due to the load. They bent east-west because it was far easier for them to bend east-west than north-south, due to their orientation and shape (a very oblong rectangle, i.e. basically, a sheet of steel with its faces pointing north and south).

However I think that parts of that picture show that the wing was pulled towards the hole by its own structure as the plane penetrated. Good catch.

"It's déjà vu all over again..."

 

[Norman Alexander]

The flattened, burned part was due to whatever large, hot, heavy thing was attached to the wing at that position. I cannot think what that might have been. Can you?

 

[yankee451]

The flattened, burned part was due to whatever large, hot, heavy thing was attached to the wing at that position. I cannot think what that might have been. Can you?

You're referring to the engine?

 

[Loss Leader]

[*]Deploy dozens of photographers to pose as amateurs.

Name three.

 

[curious cat]

You're referring to the engine?

A spark of intelligence emerging?

 

[yankee451]

A spark of intelligence emerging?

It is a dim light indeed.

 

[yankee451]

Name three.

Evan Fairbanks
Luc Courchesne
Michael Hezarkhani

 

[Axxman300]

At the far left of both impact holes, by itself the lightly damaged cladding is proof a 767's wing tip wasn't responsible.

Nope, it means the wingtip is less dense than the rest of the wing.

A few feet away from the lightly damage aluminum sheeting are heavily damaged steel columns that were impacted from the side, in a completely different direction than the jet was traveling.

Nope, that's just how they bent on impact...unless you have data from another 767 crash into a tube frame skyscraper.

On the ninth column from the left is an inward blasting hole, nowhere near where the alleged jet engine impacted.

You know that wing had flaps and flight control surfaces, right? They don't move by magic, they all motors, gears, and hydroponic lines not to mention internal frame work. The damage depicted is consistent with the 767's wing structure.

Something, or some things, struck from the side.

Nope.

Therefore what we were shown on television cannot have been responsible.

Uh huh.

There are many more details discussed in the moderated post,

Inaccurate speculation based on zero knowledge of construction, aircraft parts, physics, and reality is not considered data.

and of course on my site.

Your site is worthless.

 

[Axxman300]

If planes could do such things, there would be no need for missiles. Furthermore, if a plane did such a thing, the damage evidence would be consistent with it.

Oh, please, please, please educate us on what a 767 cannot do in flight.

 

[yankee451]

Nope, it means the wingtip is less dense than the rest of the wing.

I see. So the wingtip wasn't dense enough to sever the aluminum sheeting?

 

[yankee451]

Oh, please, please, please educate us on what a 767 cannot do in flight.

Some horses can't even be led to water, but apparently in your world, if it accelerates to the right speed, it'll cut through just about anything else.

 

[Axxman300]

I'm not indicating that you are not capable of thinkin, however training helps one form a better picture of what happened, you don't have that, but rely on your biased viewpoint. No I'll not take your words for any description of what happened.

Yes the "live" views were from the east and north viewpoints, Other videos show the same plane hitting the tower from the south, for those that haven't seen them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
11 minute video with timestamps for ease of watching
3:39, 4:56, 5:37* best image of a plane hitting the tower, 6:28, 8:44, 9:11 ( doesn't show the plane hitting the tower as a building in in the way), 10:18.

In all views along the way, a plane approaches the tower and slams into it. You may ignore the fact that it was a plane, but prudent individuals will not agree with your view.

He can't articulate the facts because they all contradict his neurosis.

There were and are flight restrictions in place over Manhattan before and during 9-11. The TV coverage focused on the gaping hole from the first aircraft in the North Tower because that's where the action was taking place. News camera operators will always focus on the action.

 

[Axxman300]

I see. So the wingtip wasn't dense enough to sever the aluminum sheeting?

Explain what should have happened as the wing made contact with the building in detail. Explain how a 767's wing should behave upon impact with this specific structure and explain how this specific structure should have reacted to the impact.

In detail, please.

 

[Axxman300]

Some horses can't even be led to water, but apparently in your world, if it accelerates to the right speed, it'll cut through just about anything else.

Actually in my world this is true. I live on earth.

If I hit a telephone pole at 5mph with my pickup truck I get a dent in my truck with no damage to the pole. If I hit that same pole at 100mph I can snap it as my engine blows through the fire wall and crushes my lower body.

I can take a marble-sized piece of lead and throw it at a beer can and knock the can over, but if I mount that same piece of lead into a brass casing filled with Cordite and fire it from a .45 it will pass through the can, and the can will go flying.

Physics isn't just fun, it's the law.

 

[Axxman300]

Evan Fairbanks
Luc Courchesne
Michael Hezarkhani

Manhattan and NYC at large is the MEDIA CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. On any given day on just about any street in Manhattan, certainly in the East Village you are going to run into a world class photographer, just like you'll run into Playwrights, actors, fashion designers, and up until last year - Jeffrey Epstein.

The fact is that it would be harder to believe that no award winning photographers were in the area on 9-11.