9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[yankee451]

plans of the towers shown are incorrect and columns are seriously out of scale

And this changes the evidenced of the lateral impact of small projectiles, how?

 

[carlitos]

Oh look, you got the direction of travel of the wing wrong again.

Yup.

It isn't exact, sure. It is simply a representation of how IF a wing could slice through the steel column, it would first have to slice through the aluminum sheeting that covered it.

You can't have a broken rib if you get shot while wearing a bulletproof vest. The bullet can't break your rib if it doesn't pierce the vest.

Hell, getting hit with a baseball bat wouldn't break your arm either, unless the bat didn't slice through the skin first.

This is very helpful logic.

 

[Myriad]

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!

Why do you think that happened? Did the announcer watch the unaltered video feed and saw the missiles? Why would that be permitted, with the conspirators controlling everything and being much better off if the announcer was fooled along with everyone else? Or was the announcer watching the buildings themselves during the impact? You repeatedly imply that hardly anyone saw the impacts directly and perceived them correctly; what a coincidence if the announcer just happened to be one of those! Or was the announcer briefed: "We're going to hit the towers with missiles, but be sure to say 'plane' on the air!" That seems really stupid.

Which scenario are you imagining here?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes. I was wrong.

I ate crow about it, and other mistakes here: https://911crashtest.org/evidence-that-indicates-the-naudet-lobby-scenes-were-prerecorded/

And yet you publish the same photographs in support of your claims once again!

 

[curious cat]

And yet you publish the same photographs in support of your claims once again!

This discussion is gradually moving from "interesting" to "entertaining" and now it is approaching the stage of being entirely "idiotic".

 

[yankee451]

Yup.

You can't have a broken rib if you get shot while wearing a bulletproof vest. The bullet can't break your rib if it doesn't pierce the vest.

Hell, getting hit with a baseball bat wouldn't break your arm either, unless the bat didn't slice through the skin first.

This is very helpful logic.

no, it's like getting hit with a baseball bat, and it cuts through all your ribs but one.

 

[yankee451]

And yet you publish the same photographs in support of your claims once again!

Wrong again.

 

[yankee451]

This discussion is gradually moving from "interesting" to "entertaining" and now it is approaching the stage of being entirely "idiotic".

Maybe you should stop typing.

 

[yankee451]

Why do you think that happened? Did the announcer watch the unaltered video feed and saw the missiles? Why would that be permitted, with the conspirators controlling everything and being much better off if the announcer was fooled along with everyone else? Or was the announcer watching the buildings themselves during the impact? You repeatedly imply that hardly anyone saw the impacts directly and perceived them correctly; what a coincidence if the announcer just happened to be one of those! Or was the announcer briefed: "We're going to hit the towers with missiles, but be sure to say 'plane' on the air!" That seems really stupid.

Which scenario are you imagining here?

I don't know what he was thinking, sorry. But I do know none of the "live" shots of 175 show the actual crash.

 

[yankee451]

Those images are from "United 93", the 2006 film, if I'm not mistaken.

You're mistaken. This is what you were thinking of:

 

[Myriad]

I don't know what he was thinking, sorry. But I do know none of the "live" shots of 175 show the actual crash.

You claim to know he meant to say "missile." But how do you know it? What scenario makes it at all plausible that when he said "m..." he meant to say "missile?"

 

[Elagabalus]

I did. I'm waiting for you to explain how the jet wing cut through all the columns, and all the cladding, except for one.

The cladding is clearly severed, Steve.

 

[ProBonoShill]

You have me at a disadvantage. Whereas I have the courage of my convictions to sign my name to my beliefs, and am consequently held accountable for them, you fine people (I assume), are under no such constraints.

Your disadvantage has nothing to do with the fact you feel no shame in mocking the victims of 9/11 and are willing to express your idiotic beliefs using your real identity. It comes from your incessant lying.

Grow up and do something more constructive with your time like retaking the ninth grade physics class you obviously failed.

 

[ProBonoShill]

But I do know none of the "live" shots of 175 show the actual crash.

Another lie.

 

[beachnut]

textbook projection -

Fascinating. The gyrations. The twists and turns. The obfuscations, the parries, the outright denial. Truly the stuff of legend.

Ah, projection - your posts are the textbook example of errors in logic.


And a large does of Gish Gallop continues in your quest to spread lies and mocking the murder of thousands with fantasy claims

 

[Robin]

I did. I'm waiting for you to explain how the jet wing cut through all the columns, and all the cladding, except for one.

I have had a look and I can't find it.

I need an answer before I can explain again so that this time I know you are paying attention.

 

[bknight]

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!

Did I say that I saw the impact? No I said the airplane, not CGI as it was live, approach the WTC complex and disappear BEHIND WTC 1 and then a fireball erupts out of WTC 2,
Now answer the other questions what happened to the plane when it disappeared behind WTC 1? It never appeared again. And it wasn't as you say CGI as it was live. Go rethink your weak answers.

"m" word?

 

[yankee451]

The cladding is clearly severed, Steve.

Really?

This cladding?

Severed?

 

[yankee451]

You claim to know he meant to say "missile." But how do you know it? What scenario makes it at all plausible that when he said "m..." he meant to say "missile?"

For all we know he knew full well what was going on. Why, what do you suppose he meant so say when he articulated the MMM sound when referring to the plane?

 

[yankee451]

Your disadvantage has nothing to do with the fact you feel no shame in mocking the victims of 9/11 and are willing to express your idiotic beliefs using your real identity. It comes from your incessant lying.

Grow up and do something more constructive with your time like retaking the ninth grade physics class you obviously failed.

See the thing is the evidence I've brought to the table discredits the stories of the victims. Your outrage is misplaced. I'm not the one that lied to you, just the one that burst your bubble.

Physics proves me right, hence your penchant for relying on emotionally charged tales of faux victims.