9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[yankee451]

Funny, you're still here. Odd.

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

[waypastvne]

The steel columns should have been made of aluminum, huh?

That would have been expensive to make the towers out of 7xxx series aluminum but it is more than strong enough to do it.

 

[pgimeno]

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?

By breaking, for example. Isn't that side missing? Or by being dislodged. Something like that must have happened to the neighbouring cladding pieces.

 

[curious cat]

And we can discuss this into oblivion... Neither side can provide a firm evidence (based on the photographs) what exactly happened in every detail. Either side can show a few point showing damage being consistent with their theory. Gets worse. Anybody can walk in and show the damage is being consistent with a giant steel robot poking his fingers through the building. I think Godzilla would be perfectly capable of leaving the same mess behind.
The beauty of the situation is, we KNOW there wasn't a giant robot or Godzilla and there were no missiles because there is no a single piece of supporting evidence for either of these and all are just products of a wild imagination.
So, we are really stuck with what we can be absolutely sure about: 4 passenger jets were hijacked and crashed into 4 locations. The details how particular pieces of damage were caused are definitely interesting to discuss, but all the stuff is of a matter interest only. Happy to monitor .

 

[yankee451]

And we can discuss this into oblivion... Neither side can provide a firm evidence (based on the photographs) what exactly happened in every detail.

Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

 

[yankee451]

I'm guessing that if one hadn't seen the jet impacts on television, one wouldn't even consider a plane wing was responsible for this damage.

 

[yankee451]

By breaking, for example. Isn't that side missing? Or by being dislodged. Something like that must have happened to the neighbouring cladding pieces.

How is any of this consistent with the head on impact of a jet wing, that was not traveling in the direction of the sharply bent steel columns? Even IF the jet wing could do such a thing (in which case, there would be no need for missiles), the damage indicates something else happened.

 

[Elagabalus]

Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

No it isn't.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

If you say so.

 

[yankee451]

No it isn't.

Sure it is. The videos all show the wing sliding like butter all the way to the wing tip.

But as the damage shows, that's not what happened.

 

[beachnut]

Gish Gallop

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?

excellent gish gallop - "How do you figure" - you always have the next stupid question, or delusional claim

why can't you figure out 9/11? Flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC at speed great than twice what the WTC shell could stop. When you double the speed, you quadruple the Kinetic Energy - basic physics proves your claims are fantasy at best, and lies as you persist at ignoring reality.


This is sad, the engine ejected is enough to know it was an aircraft. Radar tracked 11 and 175 to the towers - don't need TV, never did to know you are now a liar on this issue.

TV? Radar, DNA, and people who saw and recorded the planes hitting the WTC prove you to be a liar on this issue.

 

[yankee451]

excellent gish gallop - "How do you figure" - you always have the next stupid question, or delusional claim

why can't you figure out 9/11? Flight 11 and 175 hit the WTC at speed great than twice what the WTC shell could stop. When you double the speed, you quadruple the Kinetic Energy - basic physics proves your claims are fantasy at best, and lies as you persist at ignoring reality.


This is sad, the engine ejected is enough to know it was an aircraft. Radar tracked 11 and 175 to the towers - don't need TV, never did to know you are now a liar on this issue.

TV? Radar, DNA, and people who saw and recorded the planes hitting the WTC prove you to be a liar on this issue.

It isn't a lie to notice the damage isn't consistent with what what shown on television. I could be wrong about it, but it did exist. Not a lie. In fact, your insistence that I am lying, could be considered a lie.

 

[yankee451]

If you say so.

I do. And since you can't demonstrate otherwise, then as it is written, let it be so.

 

[Elagabalus]

Sure it is. The videos all show the wing sliding like butter all the way to the wing tip.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2nd-hit_Hezarkhani_CNN_GIF.gif[/qimg]

But as the damage shows, that's not what happened.
[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WTC2_5th_column_from_left_center_right_with_circle.png[/qimg]

Why don't you let us see more of your gif? Even in it's lo-res state you can clearly see the permanent damage to the cladding et al. the aircraft has produced. It also dovetails nicely with your still photos.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Sure it is. The videos all show the wing sliding like butter all the way to the wing tip.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2nd-hit_Hezarkhani_CNN_GIF.gif[/qimg]

But as the damage shows, that's not what happened.
[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WTC2_5th_column_from_left_center_right_with_circle.png[/qimg]

I am embarrassed for you.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I do.

Yep. And I say there’s a Starbucks on the far side of the moon. A claim no less valid than yours.

And since you can't demonstrate otherwise, then as it is written, let it be so.

Shifting the burden of proof.

 

[yankee451]

Yep. And I say there’s a Starbucks on the far side of the moon. A claim no less valid than yours.

Shifting the burden of proof.

Red herring fallacy.

 

[Axxman300]

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

.

The siding is clearly displaced.

The JASSM didn't make that hole.

No, a 767 did.

 

[Axxman300]

Every detail isn't necessary. The lateral damage, and especially the fifth column from the left of the South Tower, is enough to discredit the videos of the jet impacts.

No.

Problem #544 of your farce is that had a cruise missile clipped the side of the building as you assert it would have cartwheeled and detonated on the exterior or spun into another building.

Which you might know if you listened to anyone with military background.

 

[Robin]

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

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WTC2_5th_column_from_left_center_right_with_circle.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/WTC2_5th_column_from_left_cladding_with_hole.png[/qimg]

Follow the window washing track from the bottom up. It leads to a big hole punched through.

Look to the left of that hole.

It is connected from the bottom to the top.