9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[GlennB]

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?

D'uh, keep up (with yankee logic)!

The fact that it "can't have been a plane" means that trucks were touring around the Penthouse lawn scattering plane debris. The rest was down to explosives and faked DNA evidence.

Simples.

 

[beachnut]

joke? teasing yankee451? or more woo

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.

I see physics and you have never met. Darn, why did the engine hit and enter the building, the fragile engine? lol, and the landing gear, the fragile landing gear? You are joking right?

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

Wait, how is a low speed video going to catch crushing of an 800 foot per second plane with the Kinetic energy of 2,000 pound bomb going to catch the crushing of 175 when parts like the wings were crushed and dented the WTC shell in less than 1/60 of a second? Explain who you catch an event which happens during a frame of video, and the video is not panning with the accident event? Have you heard of the Nyquist theory? No? Why not? Right science is not used by 9/11 truth.

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!

The wings did not fold back they left big dents in the Pentagon facade, as seen in photos. Check it out. Eyewitnesses are not needed to know Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Some 9/11 truth nuts ignore the evidence and quibble about eyewitnesses, which is a big error, aka fail.

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.

Did you forget to get your vaccination for woo?

 

[bknight]

D'uh, keep up (with yankee logic illogical beliefs)!

Simples.

FTFY as he shows no logic and he keeps repeating the same things over and over hoping that repetitive sentences will win over someone, or make them correct.

 

[pgimeno]

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

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

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

In the instant of the impact, however, this inward pulling could happen, before the fragmentation began.

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]

Maybe there was something heavy there. I'm not that familiar with the construction of the 767 wings.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'll repeat what I said earlier:



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

There was no dolly. There was no tripod. There is nothing but your imagination seeing sinister forces at work in one camera shot from before the crash which happens to have the towers in the middle of the background.

If, as I guess you mean to imply, there had been some kind of mechanical stop used to allow the camera to be swung back to point exactly at the towers again, why don't we see a jolt as the camera reaches the stop? Why isn't it pointing in *precisely* the same direction as before? Why don't the verticals align? Why do they wobble? Why would a competent camera operator need such a setup to find the towers again anyway?

You have a hatful of nothin' here.

 

[Andy_Ross]

According to the television. But not according to the photographs. Hmm...

Not to mention thousands of eye witnesses

 

[curious cat]

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.

Hooray! Steve has a supporter, the show will continue!

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

So why bother with a tripod?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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?

Do you know what a dolly is and how or why it is used?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[GlennB]

Do you know what a dolly is and how or why it is used?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I have to suspect that he has no clue or is just trying to deceive (though he seems to be deceiving only himself). Anybody watching the Naudet video must conclude that the camera is hand held. It's all over the place.

 

[yankee451]

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?

Like the other sites, the damage left is not consistent with it.

 

[curious cat]

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.

Plane nosediving into ground is a relatively rare event, but still, without doing much research... Note the Lockerbie jet disintegrated in the air and the hole has been made only by some major part. Tell me which one...
On the left: Ethiopian 302
On the right: Lockerbie

 

[yankee451]

In the instant of the impact, however, this inward pulling could happen, before the fragmentation began.



Maybe there was something heavy there. I'm not that familiar with the construction of the 767 wings.

Equal and opposite reactions happen instantly. If the wings were that strong that they could pull the steel columns inward, why wouldn't they just wedge them apart like a big bodkin arrow?

 

[yankee451]

Plane nosediving into ground is a relatively rare event, but still, without doing much research... Note the Lockerbie jet disintegrated in the air and the hole has been made only by some major part. Tell me which one...
On the left: Ethiopian 302
On the right: Lockerbie

Ok. You're referring to Shanksville now?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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?

Do you think the bodies of the passengers were strapped in to seats and burned at the Pentagon or was it done somewhere else earlier?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

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?

Showing the damage to a fiberglass radar dome on front of the Plane pretty much Guarantees you are.

 

[yankee451]

So why bother with a tripod?

So he could capture footage of the undamaged tower, and use it as a mask layer to hide what really cut the hole. And he had to have the center position saved on the dolly in order to be able to spin around and still be centered.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Equal and opposite reactions happen instantly. If the wings were that strong that they could pull the steel columns inward, why wouldn't they just wedge them apart like a big bodkin arrow?
[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/animated-MIT-approach.gif[/qimg]

No the steel is softer more meltable than the Aluminum steel alloy the steel also does not have as hard of a coating as did the Aluminum, also the steel would not have produced much Oxidation reaction.

 

[yankee451]

Showing the damage to a fiberglass radar dome on front of the Plane pretty much Guarantees you are.

According to some people fuselage is a battering ram.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Plane nosediving into ground is a relatively rare event, but still, without doing much research... Note the Lockerbie jet disintegrated in the air and the hole has been made only by some major part. Tell me which one...
On the left: Ethiopian 302
On the right: Lockerbie

I posted a few days ago about the 'Time Team' excavations of crashed WW2 aircraft in the K that had buried themselves deep in the ground.
Parts of one of them, a Douglas A-26 Invader that went in nose first were over 20ft below the surface..
Another a B-17 that met a similar fate left hardly any trace on the surface apart from small fragments and a crater when the crash scene was reached. Its remains were also deep in the ground.
It's not rare or unusual for an aircraft going in fast and steep.