9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[beachnut]

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

[qimg][qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/wing-burst.png[/qimg][/qimg]

This means that by the time the engines penetrated the walls, the wing tip would no longer be attached to the wing.

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

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.
[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/WTC2_left-side-enhanced-clo.jpg[/qimg]

You keep showing how an aircraft can break the shell, scientific studies, and then make up the big dumb lie of missiles did it. Ignore science, make it up. Cool, you don't use logic, judgement based on knowledge, you make up a fantasy to fight global wars. How cute, you lie because you think the FAA, Boeing, NTSB, NYPD, FDNY, and thousands more Lie.

How sad

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Red herring fallacy.

Wow, it’s as if you don’t know what you’re talking about. This is a startling realization, if true.

You, in your seemingly infinite ability to jump to a conclusion, commit the fallacy of assertion. You have not (and can’t, so you won’t) support your positive claim, A. It’s a fantastical claim on its face, and to illustrate as much I offered a similarly over-the-top example, B. I was not directing the conversation away from A to B (therefore committing a RHF), but reminding you, slippery as you are, you don’t get to state, in so many words: “A has been proven because I’ve said so 73 (and counting) times.”

But, you do you.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Oh, in case our little friend is not aware, it is against forum rules to spam a thread with the same image(s), such as the grainy close up of the impact damage and other related pics/illustrations.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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 your unsupported leaps to conclusions.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

I’ve met people who likewise found religion. Abandoning their former belief system, whatever it was, granted them no additional level of authority over those who held their religious beliefs from the start.

 

[yankee451]

You keep showing how an aircraft can break the shell, scientific studies, and then make up the big dumb lie of missiles did it. Ignore science, make it up. Cool, you don't use logic, judgement based on knowledge, you make up a fantasy to fight global wars. How cute, you lie because you think the FAA, Boeing, NTSB, NYPD, FDNY, and thousands more Lie.

How sad

Whaa?

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


http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/DAMAGED-SFRM.png

 

[yankee451]

Oh, in case our little friend is not aware, it is against forum rules to spam a thread with the same image(s), such as the grainy close up of the impact damage and other related pics/illustrations.

I'm sorry. You keep acting as if you've never seen them. I'll just link to them heretofore.

 

[yankee451]

No, “we” don’t have your unsupported leaps to conclusions.

Your solution to contradictory evidence is to deny its existence, or to ignore it.

 

[yankee451]

I’ve met people who likewise found religion. Their former belief system, whatever it was, granted them no additional level of authority over those who held their religious beliefs from the start.

Religious zealots and plane huggers have a lot in common.

 

[Itchy Boy]

If a relatively fragile plane hits 14 inch steel box columns with 1/4 inch thick walls,and a spandrel that's 3/4 inch thick structural steel there would be some bending, crumpling of the plane.Pieces would break off and fall to the ground.

We see none of that in any video. Clearly those videos do not depict reality.

Who believes Pentagon eye witness Mike Walter explaining how a 150 ft wide plane could fit through a 18 ft hole? He claims he saw the wings fold back into the fuselage!

I don't need to know how the holes in the towers were made to know that the event was staged. If the event was real, then none of it would have to be staged. It'a that simple.

 

[Oystein]

If a relatively fragile plane hits 14 inch steel box columns with 1/4 inch thick walls,and a spandrel that's 3/4 inch thick structural steel

The "relatively fragile planes" were actually MORE massive, and made of STRONGER structural material (high-strength alloys) than the parts of towers they hit.

there would be some bending, crumpling of the plane.

The planes DID bend and crumple (and disintegrate) completely and catastrophically - upon impact, not sooner. Almost all of that bending and crumpling took place on and inside of the buildings' surfaces.

Pieces would break off and fall to the ground.

You claim, without reason or justification, that 120 tons of strong alloys travelling at 450 to 550 mph would get stopped entirely and even turned around within less than an inch. That is most insane.

We see none of that in any video.

It would be most wondrous if we did.

Clearly those videos do not depict reality.

Clearly your imagination does not have a handle on real world physics.

Who believes Pentagon eye witness Mike Walter explaining how a 150 ft wide plane could fit through a 18 ft hole? He claims he saw the wings fold back into the fuselage!

It didn't. Problem solved. What's your point?

I don't need to know how the holes in the towers were made to know that the event was staged.

What you meant to say is "I need to not understand how the holes were made to imagine something unreal about the event"

If the event was real, then none of it would have to be staged. It'a that simple.

None of it was staged. Problem solved. What's your point?

 

[bknight]

If a relatively fragile plane hits 14 inch steel box columns with 1/4 inch thick walls,and a spandrel that's 3/4 inch thick structural steel there would be some bending, crumpling of the plane.Pieces would break off and fall to the ground.

We see none of that in any video. Clearly those videos do not depict reality.

Who believes Pentagon eye witness Mike Walter explaining how a 150 ft wide plane could fit through a 18 ft hole? He claims he saw the wings fold back into the fuselage!

I don't need to know how the holes in the towers were made to know that the event was staged. If the event was real, then none of it would have to be staged. It'a that simple.

Please explain the discovery of charred bodies in burned seats their se, later ID's by DNA as passengers of the flight? How do you explain that fact during the Pentagon investigation?

 

[BStrong]

For the record, me, my sanity, my intelligence, and my family, passed and present, have nothing to do with the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles, that true believers and truthers alike, twist themselves into pretzles of denial to avoid.

Are you referring to what you consider to be evidence, or what rational individuals consider to be evidence?

So far you're a religion of one, yelling out a window.

 

[yankee451]

If a relatively fragile plane hits 14 inch steel box columns with 1/4 inch thick walls,and a spandrel that's 3/4 inch thick structural steel there would be some bending, crumpling of the plane.Pieces would break off and fall to the ground.

We see none of that in any video. Clearly those videos do not depict reality.

Who believes Pentagon eye witness Mike Walter explaining how a 150 ft wide plane could fit through a 18 ft hole? He claims he saw the wings fold back into the fuselage!

I don't need to know how the holes in the towers were made to know that the event was staged. If the event was real, then none of it would have to be staged. It'a that simple.

This

 

[yankee451]

The "relatively fragile planes" were actually MORE massive, and made of STRONGER structural material (high-strength alloys) than the parts of towers they hit.

That massive wing couldn't even cut through the aluminum sheeting.

 

[yankee451]

Are you referring to what you consider to be evidence, or what rational individuals consider to be evidence?

So far you're a religion of one, yelling out a window.

Like I said, I could be wrong with my conclusions, but that wouldn't change the damage evidence that leads me there.

Why don't you consider the lightly damaged cladding and the progressively worse damaged steel columns, sharply bent in a different direction than the wing was traveling, do be evidence? What I think you're really trying to say is you see the evidence, but think it is consistent with what was shown on television. Is that about right?

 

[yankee451]

Please explain the discovery of charred bodies in burned seats their se, later ID's by DNA as passengers of the flight? How do you explain that fact during the Pentagon investigation?

Considering the evidence leads to the Pentagon as one of the most likely suspects, why do you take at face value anything it has to say about the matter. Have you verified the location of where those photographs were taken? Do they negate the damage evidence that makes it obvious it wasn't caused by a plane?

 

[abaddon]

That massive wing couldn't even cut through the aluminum sheeting.

How massive was the wing?

How massive was the sheeting?

We know, you do not.

 

[yankee451]

How massive was the wing?

How massive was the sheeting?

We know, you do not.

I don't know, and neither do you, but I know people who do. An FEA shouldn't be too tough, although more money than I can afford, that's for sure. Maybe later.

But you wouldn't believe it anyway, because you saw it on the TeeVee.

 

[bknight]

Considering the evidence leads to the Pentagon as one of the most likely suspects, why do you take at face value anything it has to say about the matter. Have you verified the location of where those photographs were taken? Do they negate the damage evidence that makes it obvious it wasn't caused by a plane?

Well there used to images on the web of a charred body in a plane seat, but that was taken down. The damage was caused by a plane as the pieces of the aircraft were all over the lawn and inside the building, how do you indicate that the damage doesn't/can't be caused by a plane?