9/11: How they Faked the Videos

Crazy Chainsaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

You get all this from the photographs, eh? So does that oxidation explain the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the steel bent sharply to the right, in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
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.
Click to expand...

According to the official story, the deeper they dug at Shanksville, the bigger the pieces they recovered. Can you provide links to the crashes you're referring to please?
 
curious cat said:
I am referring to your reference (highlighted bold) to the "impossible" plane burrowing into ground.
Click to expand...

Okay, so compare the sites.

Also, the Shanksville crater can be reproduced on a smaller scale with the oblique impacts of small projectiles at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal, and explosives. It is reproducible, and predictable, according to NASA. In other words, Cruise missiles were used at Shanksville too!
 
yankee451 said:
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]
Click to expand...
I give up. Why wouldn't they?

I'm also curious about the bodkin arrow theory. How big do you estimate it would have to be?
 
yankee451 said:
According to the official story, the deeper they dug at Shanksville, the bigger the pieces they recovered. Can you provide links to the crashes you're referring to please?
Click to expand...
So, why can't you find them? Did you fail to research the very topics needed to understand why your claims are fantasy based on massive ignorance in many areas (like physics).

Like an engine? Landing gear? Always with the Gish Gallop.

What are you talking about? Flight 93 was shredded up into thousands if not millions of pieces. No doubt they found some landing gears parts (aka large?) the deeper they dug because these parts had the most mass and took longer to stop moving (Physics).

You don't seem to have a practical knowledge of physics, and each post proves it.
 
yankee451 said:
the Shanksville crater can be reproduced on a smaller scale with the oblique impacts of small projectiles... In other words, Cruise missiles were used at Shanksville too!
Click to expand...
And not only there. I've done the calculations, and come to the conclusion that the 'stone' that chipped my windscreen at a trajectory of less than ten degrees from horizontal was actually a miniature cruise missile!
 
yankee451 said:
According to the official story, the deeper they dug at Shanksville, the bigger the pieces they recovered. Can you provide links to the crashes you're referring to please?
Click to expand...

Bigger pieces go deeper. In the case of the crashes excavated by time team it was the engine blocks and wing spars.

All episodes of time Team are available through the Channel 4 UK website.

I haven't the time or inclination to search through 96 episodes for you.

Here's a link https://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team
 
yankee451 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nope. Everyone knows the mass of the wings, the fuel, the load, the airframe. Everyone knows the mass of the building. Except you. Because you don't want to know.

yankee451 said:
But you wouldn't believe it anyway, because you saw it on the TeeVee.
Click to expand...
Would that be the TV in your imagination? Because I had no TV at the time so I couldn't possibly have seen it on the "TV".

Oh, right, part of the delusion you are foisting is that everyone is mesmerised by the TV except for you. That notion falls apart when you realise that I didn't have one at the time, doesn't it?
 
yankee451 said:
According to Newton, they would neither wedge them apart or pull them in.
Click to expand...
Wow, this conspiracy goes deeper than I thought! Isaac Newton is supposed to have died on March 20th 1727. But if he had an opinion on 9/11 we must conclude that he was either still alive in 2001, or had foreknowledge of the event - possibly even both!
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
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.
Click to expand...

No point arguing about "how long is a piece of string". No major effort required to find cases like this. A friend of mine hit a field about 1 km from the airfield by supersonic speed in his Mig 21. His widow has been presented by his left foot in a boot to bury...
But the wast percentage of catastrophic airliner disintegrations is caused by the horizontal speed after a relatively shallow ground impact and it is easy to imagine why. It is followed by a "pancake" type of crashes following a low level stall. Nosedives come distinctly third.
 
yankee451 said:
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.
Click to expand...
While riding his checkerboard-colored Martian unicorn. Don’t forget that part.
 
beachnut said:
So, why can't you find them? Did you fail to research the very topics needed to understand why your claims are fantasy based on massive ignorance in many areas (like physics).

Like an engine? Landing gear? Always with the Gish Gallop.

What are you talking about? Flight 93 was shredded up into thousands if not millions of pieces. No doubt they found some landing gears parts (aka large?) the deeper they dug because these parts had the most mass and took longer to stop moving (Physics).

You don't seem to have a practical knowledge of physics, and each post proves it.
Click to expand...

Funny, because I'd swear that equal and opposite thing proves I'm right.
 
our not a physics expert weighs in on what he can't do

yankee451 said:
Funny, because I'd swear that equal and opposite thing proves I'm right.
Click to expand...

No wonder lead bullets can't break steel, or damage big people, the lead is too soft to do damage. /Not physics

I like the ping pong ball ripping up the wooden paddle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

Physics, what you can't figure out given over 18 years.

How do missiles with much less kinetic energy than the planes used on 9/11 make a 767 shape hole and scare in the WTC? There was no high explosives used because there was no Blast. I forgot does yankee451 missiles do it kinetically or with explosives which have no blast effects. Magic missiles at the WTC, invisible magic missiles which look like 767s. wait
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
According to some people fuselage is a battering ram.
Click to expand...

No the main frame is, it's heavy duty aluminum steel, the wing tips are not.
You showed the wedge effect but you don't show the other physical reactions that would be a result of the wedge effect, the wings being forced inward at the tips.
 
yankee451 said:
You get all this from the photographs, eh? So does that oxidation explain the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the steel bent sharply to the right, in a completely different direction than the wing was traveling?
Click to expand...

Yes it shows actually how the inpact occured it was a glancing blow shortly before the forward connection on the main connection of the wing spar failed and the wings swung back into the Fuselage.
 
It seems a waste of time to do an FEA of the jet hitting the towers. Why? Because the damage appears to engineers to be exactly what such an impact would look like.

There was mutual destruction when a moving plane part hit a static part of the building. The liquids inside the plane were massively destructive, the fuel exploding was as well. Some of the heavy dense parts passed through the building passing without being stopped, but being slowed down and landing only a few blocks away.

Steve believes that something looks odd to him. He appears to not have the physics and engineering background to comprehend the crashes. His naivete has led to incredulity to a belief that we were lied to and that it was all an FX event by "the powers that be... and that every witness was an actor, none of which has leaked in 20 years. His conception is so outside of reality... it cannot be taken seriously...and lacks any affirmative evidence.

Anyone who believes the "official story" has had the wool pulled over their eyes... and lack critical thinking skills.

Oh the irony!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom