9/11: How they Faked the Videos

JSanderO said:
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!
Click to expand...

That is a question of philosophy.

Are some weird theories posted here that are plainly bat crap nutty? Yup. And lots of them.

Can you or I or anyone point out that those theories are, in fact, bat crap nutty? Nope. Thus the MA is perforce opposed to truth or facts. It is an unfortunate consequence.

I give, for example, PeaceCrusader, long since banned. The guy was a flat out fruit loop, but it was a long long time before the mods acted to ban him. Too long. That wingnut polluted everything. Including getting other members a ban.

It seems the wingnuts are a protected class, and the rational members are an endangered species. Odd position for a skeptics forum, no?
 
yankee451 said:
According to the official story, the deeper they dug at Shanksville, the bigger the pieces they recovered. .......................
Click to expand...

Your ability to find perfectly logical things incredulous is beyond stupid. It has to be a geniality.:D
 
yankee451 said:
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!
Click to expand...

Perfectly plausible. About 10 missiles would be able to create this size of crater easily.
 
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...
Firstly, you have the plane heading in the wrong direction. You have it ploughing straight in whereas it impacted at 12.5 degrees to the right.

Secondly, the wing is not one big solid thing that it can wedge things apart, it will be disintegrating on impact.

Here is an scenario of the equal and opposite reactions of the front wing spar impacting a single column (shown in cross section) at the correct direction and wing orientation . Steel and aluminium here have approximately the correct ratio of weight, strength and flexibility.

Note the forces travel through the material in a finite time and so the metal can be breaking up as the broken wing spar bounces off
image-14.png

Animation (biggish gif):

column_strike.gif


Or:
https://youtu.be/kW0rVooIl2E
 
Last edited:
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...
Just to think that some pages ago you were saying that the aluminium of the wings was too weak. :rolleyes:

The wing spars are not like wedges; they impacted frontally, with the flat side hitting the columns. Some of the strongest parts of them did cut some columns.
[Edit: Sorry, I misunderstood because the image didn't load for me. I thought you were thinking of the wings as wedges horizontally.

As I already said, friction. For wedging the way you propose, the friction must be low so that the columns can slide outwards. Remember there are ribs, for example. Wings that are disintegrating as they penetrate are not going to just slide, they are going to have an enormous friction force.]

So there, I've shown how it's indeed physically consistent that the aluminium cladding could survive and how the wing could cause the lateral displacement of the columns; therefore your claim of impossibility is debunked.

Now you have the answer to the question in the OP: the videos weren't faked.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
The air frames of the missiles would shatter on impact, leaving the warhead to do it's thing.
Click to expand...
The starboard side of the missile has nothing to impact so it won't shatter until after that point, or perhaps simply rebound off the side.

It is still going to heading towards that piece of cladding
 
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.

None of the videos depict any crumpling or bending of the plane upon impact. The plane just goes through like a ghost. To say the crumpling happens after the plane has penetrated the exterior is beyond absurd
Likewise the claim that aluminum mere millimetres thick is stronger than 1/4 inch steel.
the videoa are laughably fake.
 
Itchy Boy said:
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.

None of the videos depict any crumpling or bending of the plane upon impact. The plane just goes through like a ghost. To say the crumpling happens after the plane has penetrated the exterior is beyond absurd
Likewise the claim that aluminum mere millimetres thick is stronger than 1/4 inch steel.
the videoa are laughably fake.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that's why the airplane wing goes right through the Aluminum. Next.
 
I was watching the Jeopardy goat tournament and playing at home I missed some easy questions. I felt pretty dumb but then I remembered this thread exists and reveled in being a genius in comparison to the op.

So thanks for that.
 
Nay_Sayer said:
I was watching the Jeopardy goat tournament and playing at home I missed some easy questions. I felt pretty dumb but then I remembered this thread exists and reveled in being a genius in comparison to the op.

So thanks for that.
Click to expand...

You see, I didn't even know that they had a Jeopardy Goat Tournament!
 
JSanderO said:
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!
Click to expand...

Indeed.
It is noticeable that he is unwilling or unable to provide any details, or any supporting evidence beyond that photo, which I assume we're all (with one obvious exception) heartily sick of seeing.
"yankee451, where were the missiles launched from?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"How many missiles were used?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Who fired them?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why was no missile debris found in the wreckage?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What software was used to fake the videos?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Who faked them?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"When was this done?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What are the names of the witnesses who changed their stories after having a TV shoved in their faces?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why are you citing witnesses who claim they saw missiles, whilst discounting part of their testimony and also ignoring your previous claim that they had all changed their testimony?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What happened to the planes, and their passengers and crew, that took off that day and never came back?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why, if the Naudet video was made by actors, has no-one from the fire department come forward to say those two men never worked there?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why, if missiles exploded inside the building, is the damage bent inwards, not outwards?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why are you using a photo you claim was altered as your only evidence?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"

As you say, dialogue seems to be somewhat pointless when confronted with this kind of delusional monomania.
That said, it is kind of fun, though! :D
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Indeed.
It is noticeable that he is unwilling or unable to provide any details, or any supporting evidence beyond that photo, which I assume we're all (with one obvious exception) heartily sick of seeing.
"yankee451, where were the missiles launched from?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"How many missiles were used?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Who fired them?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why was no missile debris found in the wreckage?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What software was used to fake the videos?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Who faked them?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"When was this done?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What are the names of the witnesses who changed their stories after having a TV shoved in their faces?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why are you citing witnesses who claim they saw missiles, whilst discounting part of their testimony and also ignoring your previous claim that they had all changed their testimony?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"What happened to the planes, and their passengers and crew, that took off that day and never came back?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why, if the Naudet video was made by actors, has no-one from the fire department come forward to say those two men never worked there?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why, if missiles exploded inside the building, is the damage bent inwards, not outwards?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"
"Why are you using a photo you claim was altered as your only evidence?"
y451: "Look at this photo!"

As you say, dialogue seems to be somewhat pointless when confronted with this kind of delusional monomania.
That said, it is kind of fun, though! :D
Click to expand...

Especially delusional given that the vital photo is from a source that the o/p constantly criticises for fakery.
 
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...
And yet there is no trace of this effect being used on the video and there is no trace of the camera moving and stopping at an index point in the way it moves. It is very clearly a handheld camera.

You're like someone trying to figure out how a magic trick was done, inferring the existence of some oververcomplicated hidden mechanism without really understanding how that would assist the magician, yet by circular logic the existence of the mechanism is evidence of the trick.

But there was no mechanism and there was no trick. You are only fooling yourself.
 
yankee451 said:
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!
Click to expand...
Remind us: Did NASA also confirm your belief that the cruise missiles your crazy idea relies on would have been able to swerve around the surrounding trees on their run in to the target?
 
A more accurate depiction of the geometry of the steel col, alum. cladding. This is not the actual details. Steel plate thickness shown as 1/2 for flanges, 1/4" for webs. Alum cladding shown 1/4" thk - likely was as thin as 1/8".

I am wondering if the insulation wasn't applied to the alum cladding U shaped and slipped over the steel and bolted to the two flanges and the outside web (through the window cleaning track grove)?
 

Attachments

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