9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[Robin]

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.

You have a hanging piece of cladding which would have been sliced of by the wing on the right of the missile if it was not knocked off by the body.

Moreover if the missile had hit the cladding from the left side then the left side of the cladding would have been demolished, whereas we can see it is still connected on the left.

This is just not consistent with a missile strike.

On the other hand that big hole punched through the face of the cladding is consistent with it being hit from the front.

 

[pgimeno]

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.

I already explained. The wing did not detach immediately, it was pulled by the fuselage as it penetrated.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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?

They are clearly not in the same location. There is no "doubt" from which to benefit unless you propose that the traffic lights have marched out into the middle of the street, in which case I urge you to re-watch the video instead of staring at those still frames.

You now propose that instead of a single portable camera setup plus a tripod, they laid a camera track in a city intersection and mounted a camera dolly on it, then fixed the camera to it using a customised pan and tilt mount which allowed the camera to be wobbled to rotate the picture a little either way to give the appearance of a handheld shot.

And you imply that somehow this allowed them to fake the video using some kind of TV magical fairy dust. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to fill in some of those missing steps, please. How did it work? What equipment did they use?

 

[The Common Potato]

TeeVee

I'm feeling generous as tomorrow is pay day. (Track IR for my flight sim!) My tenterhooks are in a cromulent state.

So, I am prepared to give Yankee451 a bit of a break and accept that most of what I personally know has come from either television programmes and those pesky books. My education was up to the grade of "Bugger, I failed my A' Levels." However, even in my sadly limited manner, I am able to look at what I see on the box or read elsewhere and compare it to what else I know. I neither automatically faithfully trust nor immediately discard new information.

I might be, but I learn, I learn.

This does raise this question: Yankee451, have to ever seen anything on teevee that you do not disbelieve, and why?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This does raise this question: Yankee451, have to ever seen anything on teevee that you do not disbelieve, and why?

Another interesting question is about how good video fakery was in 2001. Nowadays we see really good CGI (and a lot of mediocre CGI too) but it wasn't nearly so polished 20 years ago.

I really don't think Yankee451 comprehends the technical difficulty of achieving the effects he assumes must have been done. Video fakery was (is) good enough if the viewer was willing to suspend their disbelief, but you can still "see the joins" if you're looking for them. In this case it wouldn't be good enough to produce an impressive effect, it would be imperative to produce a flawlessly perfect effect which nobody, however technically proficient, could spot, even when they were looking for it.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, etc, but that's not good enough here: you'd get one shot, with multiple cameras and they all had to be out-of-this-world flawless.

So I think this thread deserves to be more about it's title: HOW they faked the videos, because I think the short answer is they couldn't.

 

[GlennB]

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.

They're not even centred in your original series of frames. They appear nearly centred because they're much farther away than the people and other stuff closer to the camera. It's called parallax - where the apparent position of a distant object changes very little when the viewer moves.

 

[yankee451]

They're not even centred in your original series of frames. They appear nearly centred because they're much farther away than the people and other stuff closer to the camera. It's called parallax - where the apparent position of a distant object changes very little when the viewer moves.

Sure they are. Anyone can check for themselves.

So we have the damage evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible, and we have the photographers staging the scene.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Sure they are. Anyone can check for themselves.

So we have the damage evidence that proves a plane wasn't responsible, and we have the photographers staging the scene.

No, we don't have the photographers staging the scene. We have a shot facing down the street where the towers are in the middle of the background and later a shot of the towers as the photographer follows the first jet to its impact.

Aside from that we just have you raising a metaphorical eyebrow and going "Hmmmm?" as archly as possible, as though that demonstrated something.

Time to flesh that out a bit or admit you have nothing but a Dunning-Kruger-style assumption that this implies tv trickery.

 

[GlennB]

Sure they are. Anyone can check for themselves.

Not centred, and the change in the traffic light position tells us the camera has moved to the left and has angled upwards. This is a perfect example of parallax in action and yet you're weaving it into something significant and ominous.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Not centred, and the change in the traffic light position tells us the camera has moved to the left and has angled upwards. This is a perfect example of parallax in action and yet you're weaving it into something significant and ominous.

You'll also notice that the verticals don't quite match because it's a handheld shot.

 

[GlennB]

You'll also notice that the verticals don't quite match because it's a handheld shot.

True.

 

[yankee451]

I already explained. The wing did not detach immediately, it was pulled by the fuselage as it penetrated.

Really.

Here are images of the damage done by birds:

So you're saying the mostly hollow fuselage "pulled" the wings inward.

This is of course, contrary to the official story, which states the wings were disintegrated by the steel, as they cut through the steel. Read the reports. Watch the Purdue video. There is no mention of any inward pulling, anywhere.

Look at the columns to the right of the one with the still-standing cladding. They were not struck on the right side and then dragged inwards, they were struck on the left side and sharply bend to the right.

None of the evidence supports an "inward pulling" that you describe.

 

[yankee451]

Not centred, and the change in the traffic light position tells us the camera has moved to the left and has angled upwards. This is a perfect example of parallax in action and yet you're weaving it into something significant and ominous.

I'll repeat what I said earlier:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
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?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12959514&postcount=1234

 

[yankee451]

This does raise this question: Yankee451, have to ever seen anything on teevee that you do not disbelieve, and why?

Among other things, for years I bought the same things you do. Planes burrowing into the ground, boring through concrete and brick buildings, and slicing steel skyscrapers. But I got over it.

 

[yankee451]

They are clearly not in the same location. There is no "doubt" from which to benefit unless you propose that the traffic lights have marched out into the middle of the street, in which case I urge you to re-watch the video instead of staring at those still frames.

You now propose that instead of a single portable camera setup plus a tripod, they laid a camera track in a city intersection and mounted a camera dolly on it, then fixed the camera to it using a customised pan and tilt mount which allowed the camera to be wobbled to rotate the picture a little either way to give the appearance of a handheld shot.

And you imply that somehow this allowed them to fake the video using some kind of TV magical fairy dust. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to fill in some of those missing steps, please. How did it work? What equipment did they use?

They are centered. One is zoomed in, the other is not. Anyone can check the video for themselves. Try exporting all the frames and comparing them, as I have. Even if the camera position was moved between takes, the constant center of the camera is evidence it was dolly or tripod mounted.

 

[yankee451]

You have a hanging piece of cladding which would have been sliced of by the wing on the right of the missile if it was not knocked off by the body. Moreover if the missile had hit the cladding from the left side then the left side of the cladding would have been demolished, whereas we can see it is still connected on the left.

This is just not consistent with a missile strike.

On the other hand that big hole punched through the face of the cladding is consistent with it being hit from the front.

The air frames of the missiles would shatter on impact, leaving the warhead to do it's thing.

 

[yankee451]

You have a hanging piece of cladding which would have been sliced of by the wing on the right of the missile if it was not knocked off by the body.

Moreover if the missile had hit the cladding from the left side then the left side of the cladding would have been demolished, whereas we can see it is still connected on the left.

As explained earlier, at an oblique impact of somewhere around 10 degrees from parallel, the wings and fuselage of the missiles would cause only light damage to the columns, but the warheads caused worse damage. The progressively deeper into the tower the damage goes, is a clue as to the angle of attack of the missile.

The wing hits the cladding and snaps off, the fuselage hits the cladding and knocks it off the column, shattering the fuselage at the same time, but the warhead gouged out the first column it hit (4th from the left) and continued to penetrate deeper into the tower, when it gouged out the second column it hit (5th from the left), but passed behind the cladding that covered it. After that, the warhead continued on but it was slowing down, as can be seen in the way the back of the columns are sharply twisted to the right, but not gouged out like the first two. This warhead likely did not detonate.

 

[pgimeno]

Really.

Here are images of the damage done by birds:

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Jet-from-DFW-damaged-by-bird-strike-near-Denver-164507476-630-620x413.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/2012.06.05_birdstrike.png[/qimg]

Yeah, the cone is weak. The sturdy part begins a bit after that.

So you're saying the mostly hollow fuselage "pulled" the wings inward.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/1281454.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, it's still the heaviest part of the plane, no matter how "mostly hollow" you want to paint it, therefore it has that ability.

This is of course, contrary to the official story, which states the wings were disintegrated by the steel, as they cut through the steel. Read the reports. Watch the Purdue video. There is no mention of any inward pulling, anywhere.

No it's not contrary. The inward pulling only had to occur for an instant before the wing began to disintegrate.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Yes, the missiles claim is a lie, there were no missiles used on 9/11. You spread lies based on you being wrong, and you are wrong. Flight 11 and 175 did it.

 

[yankee451]

Yeah, the cone is weak. The sturdy part begins a bit after that.

[qimg]http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/cache/asiana.a321.haildamage-752813.jpg[/qimg]



Yes, it's still the heaviest part of the plane, no matter how "mostly hollow" you want to paint it, therefore it has that ability.



No it's not contrary. The inward pulling only had to occur for an instant before the wing began to disintegrate.

According to the official story the wings were completely fragmented by the columns.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/wing-burst.png
This means that by the time the engines penetrated the walls, the wing tip would no longer be attached to the wing.

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/inside1.jpg

The wing tip is the weakest part, yet there are huge gouges on the 4th and 5th columns from the left, but moving to the right the damage isn't as bad.
http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/WTC2_left-side-enhanced-clo.jpg