9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[curious cat]

Steve, I am into discussions with you about the mechanics of the damage. It would be only a continuing of the farce a few of other people are participating in (nothing wrong with having fun though). I usually respond to you when I see a blatant lie concerning this forum. The point of my post were:
Did I explain sufficiently the reason why there were some sightings of missiles and can you provide any logical argument why discussion about it should continue?
Did I and a few other people address the mysterious piece of cladding or not as you say?

 

[Robin]

So the momentum of the wing will be directed about 12.5 degrees to the right, whatever the orientation of the wing at that point.

The cladding goes around the column on three sides and so the column can be severely damaged without completely severing the cladding.

Moreover the fireproofing material is likely to be much more compressible than either of the metals and so the cladding can be pushed back about an inch before the bulk of the force hits the steel column. Even if the cladding is not pushed back (or to the sides) any more there is still the possibility of severe damage to the column without the cladding being completely severed:

 

[beachnut]

oops, yankee451 proves no gullible people at this forum

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

Holy cow, your lies are the biggest! Thus we find no gullible people (save the nuts who believe CIT crazed claims of NoC) at this forum! You lost this one, BIGGER. this is funny

Lucky for those on this forum, we are not gullible, you are.

 

[Axxman300]

I fixed it for you.

 

[yankee451]

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.

Not much. You don't touch the lightly damaged cladding or the progressively worse damaged steel columns, sharply bent in a completely different direction than the television jet was traveling. Although I do appreciate all the time you've spent documenting the fraudulent footage and photos. Not many have patience like that. Kudos.

 

[MattNelson]

The 50th photo of Flight 175 to add to the list comes from the National Park Service, shot on Ellis Island. See p. 33 of this PDF.

Meanwhile, dozens of employees gathered at the fuel dock, the best spot on the island for viewing Lower Manhattan. They watched a second plane fly in low directly overhead, so low they could see its United Airlines logo. The fact that it was a commercial airliner struck DiPietro as odd.

(p. 63)

 

[yankee451]

So the momentum of the wing will be directed about 12.5 degrees to the right, whatever the orientation of the wing at that point.

The cladding goes around the column on three sides and so the column can be severely damaged without completely severing the cladding.
Moreover the fireproofing material is likely to be much more compressible than either of the metals and so the cladding can be pushed back about an inch before the bulk of the force hits the steel column. Even if the cladding is not pushed back (or to the sides) any more there is still the possibility of severe damage to the column without the cladding being completely severed:

[qimg]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/image-12.png?w=885[/qimg]

How do you figure? The cladding was attached to three sides of the steel column. As your image shows, three sides of the steel were gouged out, but not the back of the column. This means your jet wing was at once able to gouge out steel columns, but missed the face of only one piece of cladding, and then stopped before it completely severed the column, yet as all the videos show, nothing bounced off. Every bit of the jet slid like butter into the tower.

You clearly understand what you're looking at, but even considering the 12.5 degree angle of impact, the wing would have severed the cladding that covered the three sides of the steel, before it could slice the steel. the fact that it stopped before it completely severed the steel, and nothing bounced off on video, is evidence that the videos were fraudulent.

 

[yankee451]

The 50th photo of Flight 175 to add to the list comes from the National Park Service, shot on Ellis Island. See p. 33 of this PDF.


(p. 63)

It doesn't change the physical evidence which indicates something else happened.

 

[yankee451]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/liAbax7.png[/qimg]

I fixed it for you.

The jet wing would cut through the cladding before it could cut the steel.

The JASSM didn't make that hole.

Wipe your chin.

 

[yankee451]

Steve, I am into discussions with you about the mechanics of the damage. It would be only a continuing of the farce a few of other people are participating in (nothing wrong with having fun though). I usually respond to you when I see a blatant lie concerning this forum. The point of my post were:
Did I explain sufficiently the reason why there were some sightings of missiles and can you provide any logical argument why discussion about it should continue?
Did I and a few other people address the mysterious piece of cladding or not as you say?

Yes, thank you again. Robin and you were kind enough to talk about the evidence. I will stop referring to the forum in general, or if I do, I will exclude you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12959538&postcount=1236

 

[pgimeno]

The jet wing would cut through the cladding before it could cut the steel.

Not if the cladding moved sideways (as that and the others to its right did). Then it had the way clear to bend as the wing passed above it and cut the column.

In some of the others there seems to be a similar effect, but with a thinner remnant.

 

[Robin]

How do you figure? The cladding was attached to three sides of the steel column. As your image shows, three sides of the steel were gouged out, but not the back of the column. This means your jet wing was at once able to gouge out steel columns, but missed the face of only one piece of cladding, and then stopped before it completely severed the column, yet as all the videos show, nothing bounced off.

It is hanging on by the side, the face of the cladding has been punched through, as you can see if you follow the window washing track.

If a missile had hit it from the side then you would not expect that side of the cladding to survive.

With a head on collision there is the possibility of the sides surviving.

And there is still the question of how a missile can pass through that gap.

Every bit of the jet slid like butter into the tower.
/QUOTE]
I am not sure where you are getting that. Most of the jest disintegrated on impact the heavy parts punched through.

 

[yankee451]

Not if the cladding moved sideways (as that and the others to its right did). Then it had the way clear to bend as the wing passed above it and cut the column.

In some of the others there seems to be a similar effect, but with a thinner remnant.

Really. the cladding was attached to the face of the column and both sides. How do you figure it could be moved so, considering it was wrapped around the steel column, which is gouged out?

 

[yankee451]

It is hanging on by the side, the face of the cladding has been punched through, as you can see if you follow the window washing track. If a missile had hit it from the side then you would not expect that side of the cladding to survive.

With a head on collision there is the possibility of the sides surviving.

And there is still the question of how a missile can pass through that gap.
"Every bit of the jet slid like butter into the tower."

I am not sure where you are getting that. Most of the jest disintegrated on impact the heavy parts punched through.

Again, how do you figure? That's the face of the cladding there.

 

[waypastvne]

Oh look, someone else that can't address the thread, and instead, would like to point out a previous hair out of place.

View from another angle. The aluminum column cover was cut completely into. Then it dropped down and became wedged behind what could only be a large fragment of Boeing 767 wing skin.

You got another hair out of place Steve.

 

[yankee451]

It is hanging on by the side, the face of the cladding has been punched through, as you can see if you follow the window washing track.

If a missile had hit it from the side then you would not expect that side of the cladding to survive.

Look at the column to the left. And to the left of that one. Notice the progressively worse damage? That is an indication of the direction of travel of the projectile. As it penetrated deeper into the tower, it caused more and more damage to the columns. On the fifth column from the left it had penetrated deeply enough to pass behind the cladding. After that it continued on like a large bullet, deflecting off the steel, and bending and twisting columns sharply to the right.

 

[yankee451]

View from another angle. The aluminum column cover was cut completely into. Then it dropped down and became wedged behind what could only be a large fragment of Boeing 767 wing skin.



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


You got another hair out of place Steve.

Wing skin fragment? How do you know that's not the fragment of a piece of missile fuselage? Or aluminum cladding? What do the other images show?

 

[waypastvne]

What do the other images show?

A severed column cover wedged behind a fragment of 767 wing skin.

 

[Craig4]

Wing skin fragment? How do you know that's not the fragment of a piece of missile fuselage? Or aluminum cladding? What do the other images show?

Funny, you're still here. Odd.

 

[yankee451]

A severed column cover wedged behind a fragment of 767 wing skin.

So that wing tip, which isn't noticeable in any of the images i have ever seen, managed to survive, just like that aluminum cladding did, eh? The steel columns should have been made of aluminum, huh?