9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[Axxman300]

It is a dim light indeed.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Engine-allegedly-hit-here-1024x653.jpg[/qimg]

Your "oops" is a Flap Track. Then again this whole thread is your oops.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

Well yes, that's how wings work: thin at the tips and getting wider toward the body as needed for avionics. Avionics is the gadgetry inside the wings that help the plane fly. We stopped using magical elves after WWI.

 

[Elagabalus]

Please tell us how this was faked again.

 

[Elagabalus]

It is a dim light indeed.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Engine-allegedly-hit-here-1024x653.jpg[/qimg]

WRT, the engine allegedly hit here-well, they ARE kinda' big.

 

[yankee451]

WRT, the engine allegedly hit here-well, they ARE kinda' big.

So this big engine punched not one, but two holes?

 

[yankee451]

Please tell us how this was faked again.

Layer masks.

Remember, his footage was not shown "live." He is a pro. Editing his shot would only take a few minutes.

He rehearsed his shot and fabricated a 2D CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background, so as to have it ready to go from the same perspective as he would capture the shock and awe explosion.

He captured footage of the undamaged towers from the same perspective.

Using layer masks he used footage of the undamaged tower as a curtain that hid the real means used to cut the hole.

By the time the fireball erupted, the hole was already cut, but hidden behind the mask layer.

The CGI plane enters the frame a split second before the fireball erupts through the real hole (still hidden behind the mask layer).

The Plane layer is just another layer on top of the mask layer.

After the plane layer melts like butter into the mask layer of the undamaged tower (accompanied by drawn-on smoke), the mask layer is removed to reveal the fireball erupting through the hole.

Easy peasy.

 

[TJM]

I wouldn't put much stock in Steve's photo interpretation skills, which more often than not have proved to be hilariously misguided, to be polite.. My personal favorite is the one which Steve mistakes a ******* tree for blast damage:

That funnel of white smoke appears to have left a large, round, black scorch-mark almost as if a large explosive detonated there.

Do you mean the tree?

[imgw=600]https://i.imgur.com/F1Tmi1k.jpg[/imgw]

Good times, right Steve?

 

[yankee451]

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.

I already did. The wingtip image shown is much more massive than the flimsy aluminum sheeting at the far left, but this massive wingtip couldn't even sever the aluminum sheeting at the far left. It was only big enough and massive enough to "pinch" the aluminum sheeting.

 

[Loss Leader]

He rehearsed his shot and fabricated a 2D CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background, so as to have it ready to go from the same perspective as he would capture the shock and awe explosion.

He captured footage of the undamaged towers from the same perspective.

Using layer masks he used footage of the undamaged tower as a curtain that hid the real means used to cut the hole.

By the time the fireball erupted, the hole was already cut, but hidden behind the mask layer.

The CGI plane enters the frame a split second before the fireball erupts through the real hole (still hidden behind the mask layer).

The Plane layer is just another layer on top of the mask layer.

After the plane layer melts like butter into the mask layer of the undamaged tower (accompanied by drawn-on smoke), the mask layer is removed to reveal the fireball erupting through the hole.

Easy peasy.

For context, the movie Avatar, widely considered to be a breakthrough in realistic computer animation, came out eight years after 9/11.

 

[yankee451]

I wouldn't put much stock in Steve's photo interpretation skills, which more often than not have proved to be hilariously misguided, to be polite.. My personal favorite is the one which Steve mistakes a ******* tree for blast damage:



[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/F1Tmi1k.jpg[/qimg]

Good times, right Steve?

I remember. Like you, I am often wrong. Unlike you I admit it when I'm wrong. I am also often not wrong. I notice that makes you uncomfortable, which is why I assume you must reach for the solace of my past errors.

 

[yankee451]

For context, the movie Avatar, widely considered to be a breakthrough in realistic computer animation, came out eight years after 9/11.

A totally different animal compared to the old school layering they used in 2001.

 

[Axxman300]

A totally different animal compared to the old school layering they used in 2001.

The footage was on the news within a four hours of the crash. The CGI back then took weeks for workable images. And any film tech can take that footage and see it is altered...which this footage is not.

 

[smartcooky]

Well yes, that's how wings work: thin at the tips and getting wider toward the body as needed for avionics. Avionics is the gadgetry inside the wings that help the plane fly. We stopped using magical elves after WWI.

Not only do the wings on an airliner like the 767-200 become wider longitudinally as you get closer to the fuselage, they also get "thicker" as the chord increases close to the fuselage. The inner parts of the wings are also more heavily constructed as they they are built to take the major strains.

1. The strain of the engine mounts. When jet engines are running at full power for takeoff, the amount of force exerted by the thrust of the engine against the wing is enormous, and

2, The strain of the the main undercarriage. This needs to be built strong enough to withstand impact of the whole 120,000 kg weight of the aircraft as the wheels touch the ground with a horizontal speed of about 140 kts, and vertical speed of 120 fpm

There are also three flap tracks in each wing (the 4th flap track is right against the fuselage)

 

[yankee451]

The footage was on the news within a four hours of the crash. The CGI back then took weeks for workable images. And any film tech can take that footage and see it is altered...which this footage is not.

Please. The video layering would be child's play for a pro.

 

[yankee451]

Not only do the wings on an airliner like the 767-200 become wider longitudinally as you get closer to the fuselage, they also get "thicker" as the chord increases close to the fuselage. The inner parts of the wings are also more heavily constructed as they they are built to take the major strains.

1. The strain of the engine mounts. When jet engines are running at full power for takeoff, the amount of force exerted by the thrust of the engine against the wing is enormous, and

2, The strain of the the main undercarriage. This needs to be built strong enough to withstand impact of the whole 120,000 kg weight of the aircraft as the wheels touch the ground with a horizontal speed of about 140 kts, and vertical speed of 120 fpm

There are also three flap tracks in each wing (the 4th flap track is right against the fuselage)

3. And when they collide with steel buildings, they take a hard right turn.

 

[smartcooky]

3. And when they collide with steel buildings, they take a hard right turn.

What are "they"?

 

[smartcooky]

Please. The video layering would be child's play for a pro.

They would have to have done all this CGI layering live... in real time... while the world watched.

I was thousands of miles away in NZ watching the breaking news on CNN when I saw the second plane hit the South Tower. People in the streets of NY saw it at the same time I did - how do you explain this?

 

[TJM]

Unlike you I admit it when I'm wrong.

Please show me the error of my ways.

 

[curious cat]

They would have to have done all this CGI layering live... in real time... while the world watched.

I was thousands of miles away in NZ watching the breaking news on CNN when I saw the second plane hit the South Tower. People in the streets of NY saw it at the same time I did - how do you explain this?

The OP is not looking for any explanations. He KNOWS what happened and nobody can take it from him. Maybe one day some progress in the mental medicine will help him... We are all wasting our time on this thread.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I already did. The wingtip image shown is much more massive than the flimsy aluminum sheeting at the far left, but this massive wingtip couldn't even sever the aluminum sheeting at the far left. It was only big enough and massive enough to "pinch" the aluminum sheeting.

Wrong. No it's not. You tripped over the doormat on the way out the door right there.

Just because a 767 wing looks consistently rugged from root to tip does not mean it is. Wing strength varies significantly along its length, and also depends on the fixtures it has connected and that it contains.

The inner wing is very strong and rigid - it will carry the load of the aircraft as it lands. But the outer wing is quite flexible and contains only fuel tanks and some flap running gear.

Aircraft wingtips for the 767 of 2001 were quite light construction, and were easily replaceable. They contained only wiring and navigation lights and aerials, and bolted onto the end of the main wing frame. They contained no load-bearing frame themselves. Their prime purpose was to cover off the end of the wing and make it somewhat aerodynamic.

But why am I telling you this? You aren't going to listen.