9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[ProBonoShill]

The bigger the lie, the easier it is for gullible people to believe.

You're telling multiple whoppers and no one seems to be believing you. Why is that?

Must be sad to suck at science and communication so badly.

 

[yankee451]

1. Hilarious! Address what: your non-credentialed interpretation, which is clearly insane?
2. And home video, photographs, witnesses, DNA, tons of plane parts... all of which you refuse to address except with an arrow to #1.

People saw the plane. You are nuts.

Some people saw missiles. Some people didn't see any planes. Some people saw small white planes. Some people say they saw a jumbo jet slide like butter into the building. But not all of them can be right, can they? What does the impact evidence indicate actually happened?

I may be wrong in my interpretation of the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns, but at least I have addressed it. The fact that you wont, and continue to attack me personally, tells me the truth isn't high on your priority list.

 

[yankee451]

You're telling multiple whoppers and no one seems to be believing you. Why is that?

Must be sad to suck at science and communication so badly.

If I had the command of all the world's media, I'm betting you'd buy anything and everything I have to say.

 

[ProBonoShill]

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/VDFoGg3JN1N4s/giphy.gif[/qimg]

Again it's simple: He's either a dedicated troll or mentally ill.

This is not about misunderstanding science this is something else. His claims are:

No planes truck the buildings.
Missiles struck the buildings.
CD was used to finish the job.
The Twin Towers were - in fact - empty of people.
There are no victims of the attacks of 9/11/2001.
All of the footage of the planes striking the towers is fake.
All of the eye-witness testimony are lies.
Smoke machines at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

This is not a guy arguing about how far up the chain of the Saudi Royal Family the AQ funding angle goes, this is not remote controlled commercial jets, this is not LIHOP, this is not dancing Israelis. This is the single dumbest 911-CT ever foisted on the internet, and in a way that's an achievement on its own. Even the 911-Truth message boards have banned him because he makes them look crazy(er).

But it's the only thread in town and there are many smart people (not Steve) posting good explanations here so it's not a complete waste of time.

At first I thought since his musings are so insane he must be a poe, but sadly I think he enjoys mocking the deaths of thousands, such a sad and pathetic existence.

 

[yankee451]

No that was in reference to the other idiocy in your post.

Now are you going to answer the question or keep running away like a coward?

Why hasn't the CIA murdered you yet? According to you they killed almost three thousand people, what's one more?

Think about it.

If I'm right, if they whacked me in my sleep they would only attract attention to my work.

If I'm wrong, then there is no reason to stop me.

Either way the best choice for the men in black is to ignore me. It is in their best interests to let the useful idiots of the world do their work for them.

 

[ProBonoShill]

If I had the command of all the world's media, I'm betting you'd buy anything and everything I have to say.

Nah, you suck at communication, you haven't even convinced a single person here. What an utter failure you are! Try harder man!

 

[BStrong]

[/HILITE]

Think about it.

If I'm right, if they whacked me in my sleep they would only attract attention to my work.

If I'm wrong, then there is no reason to stop me.

Either way the best choice for the men in black is to ignore me. It is in their best interests to let the useful idiots of the world do their work for them.

1. Finest example of delusions of grandeur yet posted - in your fantasy, "they" killed thousands on 9/11 and hundreds of thousand down range but "they" wouldn't dare to kill you.

2. That's true.

 

[ProBonoShill]

[/HILITE]

Think about it.

If I'm right, if they whacked me in my sleep they would only attract attention to my work.

If I'm wrong, then there is no reason to stop me.

Either way the best choice for the men in black is to ignore me. It is in their best interests to let the useful idiots of the world do their work for them.

Why would they whack you in your sleep? I'm disappointed, with your vivid imagine you can come up with something better than that.

You dying by car accident, drug overdose, street robbery isn't going to attract attention, how come you're still alive? I guess like everyone else, the CIA doesn't really care what you have to say.

What a massive failure you've been, all that time spent on worthless garbage. You're going to die and people will just point and laugh at your insane ideas, I feel bad for you.

 

[Robin]

Bandwagon.

Following the crowd doesn't make the crowd right.

These are the facts:

Something small but not very dense struck at the far left. As it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more dense.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/South-Tower-Close-up-with-notations-1024x640.png[/qimg]

You keep saying that the cladding is cut on both sides and intact in the middle. This is clearly not the case, just follow the window cleaning track. It leads to a hole in the cladding. The cladding is attached on the left, either by a thin strip of aluminium, or perhaps the fireproofing material.

 

[yankee451]

1. Finest example of delusions of grandeur yet posted - in your fantasy, "they" killed thousands on 9/11 and hundreds of thousand down range but "they" wouldn't dare to kill you.

2. That's true.

Your paraphrasing skills are lacking.

I said it is in their best interests to ignore me. Furthermore, it is also in their best interests to promote idiocy.

 

[GlennB]

Clearly these two frames you label 43609 and 44606 were not shot from the same position.

Look at the traffic lights in the foreground. In the first frame they are well over to the left while in the latter they are right in front of the towers, indicating that the camera position had relocated some distance to the left.

No fixed tripod location. Perhaps you could explain to use what you think the significance of a tripod was to faking this video and then factor in the significance of his not using one.

Oops! My confident prediction - yankee will ignore your post.

 

[curious cat]

Some people saw missiles. Some people didn't see any planes. Some people saw small white planes. Some people say they saw a jumbo jet slide like butter into the building. But not all of them can be right, can they? What does the impact evidence indicate actually happened?
.......................................

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12954762#post12954762

And "nobody addressed the piece of cladding?"

I believe there were quite a few posts.
What is this? A strawberry pie?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12958730#post12958730

 

[yankee451]

No. The pre-crash shots from low level are pretty steady but wobble enough to be handheld. The crash footage is very clearly handheld as the picture doesn't just pan, tilt and zoom, it also rotates as the camera wobbles.

Your "explanations" for how it was done may seem plausible to you, but only because you don't understand what a technical feat you are proposing.

Instead of trying to buy a 767 wing to crash test, buy some 20 year old pro video equipment and try to prove to the world that it's actually possible to fake the videos in whatever way you reckon it was done. Old pre-high-definition tech will be dirt cheap as nobody wants it any more. In fact you probably need to get a move on as such obsolete equipment is getting hard to find these days.

They are centered. He was TRYING to act like a rookie camera man, recall he was only practicing shooting, therefore his exaggerated wobbles should be viewed with that in mind.

 

[yankee451]

Clearly these two frames you label 43609 and 44606 were not shot from the same position.

Look at the traffic lights in the foreground. In the first frame they are well over to the left while in the latter they are right in front of the towers, indicating that the camera position had relocated some distance to the left.

No fixed tripod location. Perhaps you could explain to use what you think the significance of a tripod was to faking this video and then factor in the significance of his not using one.

They are centered. 44606 is zoomed-in.

However, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're right. They are centered, but the dolly was moved between takes. What does that prove, exactly?

 

[yankee451]

You keep saying that the cladding is cut on both sides and intact in the middle. This is clearly not the case, just follow the window cleaning track. It leads to a hole in the cladding. The cladding is attached on the left, either by a thin strip of aluminium, or perhaps the fireproofing material.

[qimg]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/image-11.png?w=861[/qimg]

Thanks, Robin. I appreciate that. I'll get back to you.

Steve

 

[yankee451]

I am getting sucked in again - against all of my principles of not getting in disputes with people undeniably certifiable ;-). This is not an attempt to convince the OP about anything. I do can identify the border between "feasible" and "futile" . I am doing this purely as a mental exercise in logic.
So, we have an irrefutable evidence a plane hit the building. There is a whole mountain of evidence supporting it. We know which plane it was, we know who was in control, we know how they got aboard, we can explain virtually all what happened during and after the impact. Any attempt to dispute this evidence is ridiculous and destined for failure.
The only "serious" piece of "evidence" conflicting the above is a piece of aluminium cladding that seems to defy the straight logic. So, let's try just a straight logic to explain what we see. It is like watching a magic show. For a hour or so you are watching stuff you KNOW is entirely impossible. But is is happening, right? Yes, because you are missing the background of the tricks.
So, we know the cladding wasn't in its original position when the column behind it has been severed. I agree with the OP on that point. All the analogies with broken bones etc are valid in general, but they don't really fit to the exact situation we are having here. So, a sequence of events is becoming to emerge: the first part of the wing damaged the cladding and cause the top end to disconnect from the structure. The next part pushed the cladding aside (possible due a hydraulic action in the fuel tank) and it starts falling down pivoting around its bottom attachment. The wing comes apart (possibly again due to the hydraulic action) at the point of the column on the right, leaving it and our cladding now in front of it relatively undamaged, while the other columns were being severed. The tail section of the wing has arrived containing whatever part has "drilled" the circular hole in the column on the right, giving a glancing blow to our cladding bending it back up (the bend near the bottom of it supports this part) and moving it back left to its original position.
Possible? Yes. Likely? No. But have you ever heard about people winning first division in lottery twice in a row? Possible? Yes. Likely? No. Did it happen? Yes.
What I am presenting is probably only one of the possible scenarios and there may be others - similarly unlikely but plausible explanations. Every each of them will be many times more probable than the sick fantasy the OP is trying to sell us. There is no point whatsoever trying to find some truth in these.

Really. Well thank you for that.

So the cladding wasn't severed, even though the steel behind it was completely gouged-out (front, sides and middle). The cladding that covered the columns to the left and right of the still-standing cladding, was severed. But not this one, it was pushed in the opposite direction the wing was traveling. But there was a hole in it.

How can that one piece of cladding with the hole in it, still be standing (hole or not), considering the wing would have impacted head-on in a wedge motion, slicing from the inside out, impacting one sharp column edge at a time, first striking at the wing root, and finally at the wing tip (which would no longer even be attached to the wing at that point)?

This is for illustrative purposes:

 

[JSanderO]

The cladding have been dislodged by the NOSE impacting the structure. The spandrels would allow forces to move LATERALLY across the face. The impact of the nose or another LEADING surface.... could have caused this lateral force. This may not be like a knife plunging into butter which is how many conceived of the structure of the tower. It was structural matrix/grid DESIGNED to move forces laterally.

Think on that.

 

[yankee451]

The cladding have been dislodged by the NOSE impacting the structure. The spandrels would allow forces to move LATERALLY across the face. The impact of the nose or another LEADING surface.... could have caused this lateral force. This may not be like a knife plunging into butter which is how many conceived of the structure of the tower. It was structural matrix/grid DESIGNED to move forces laterally.

Think on that.[/QUOTE]


Why would I? It isn't at all consistent with what the damage shows actually happened.

 

[yankee451]

You keep saying that the cladding is cut on both sides and intact in the middle. This is clearly not the case, just follow the window cleaning track. It leads to a hole in the cladding. The cladding is attached on the left, either by a thin strip of aluminium, or perhaps the fireproofing material.

[qimg]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/image-11.png?w=861[/qimg]

Yes, because as you can see, it cut through both sides of the column. The cladding was attached to both sides of the column, which were no longer there. You can see the severed sides of the column in the photo, but not the face. Hence, the face of the column was also gouged-out. But the cladding remains standing, albeit with a hole in it.

 

[MattNelson]

Some people saw missiles. Some people didn't see any planes. Some people saw small white planes. Some people say they saw a jumbo jet slide like butter into the building. But not all of them can be right, can they? What does the impact evidence indicate actually happened?

I may be wrong in my interpretation of the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns, but at least I have addressed it. The fact that you wont, and continue to attack me personally, tells me the truth isn't high on your priority list.

How much time have you spent on my website, which is the only source listing the videos you claim are fake? How much time have you spent reading my airplane debris PDF? I have spent years specifically for the purpose of ruining your no planes theory... because I was a no planer for a while. Thanks to Jeff Hill and others, we now know that "No planes" was the worst thing to ever enter the realm of "9/11 Truth."

You can't handle the truth, Steve. I think you would kill yourself if you thought for one second you may be wrong about 9/11.