9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[pgimeno]

Some horses can't even be led to water, but apparently in your world, if it accelerates to the right speed, it'll cut through just about anything else.

... and over and over again...

Water can also cut through steel if thrown at a bigger speed and in a thin jet (google waterjet cutting), and it's not even a solid. The principle is the same: kinetic energy.

 

[JSanderO]

It appears to me reading Steve's words that he simply doesn't understand the physics of the event... He appears to be ignorant of the mass distribution of the wing and it's contents - motors, landing gear, tanks pumps, & frame etc. He seems to not understand the way the structure would respond the the forces of the plane's parts impacting the building's parts.

A tank of fuel is quite dense and traveling at the speed of the plane contains enormous (quantifiable) kinetic energy. While the frame of the tower was strong it was primary an axial load bearing structure and not design for the massive lateral forces applied by the plane. It was also not a homogeneous mass/structure... but was composed of individual structural and no structural items and of course large simply air. Buildings are 95% air. However even rapidly moving "air" can be enormously powerful. So thinking of the plane as a flimsy aluminum frame is to fail to understand the forces involved in the impact. The columns were staggered panelized structures with lateral spandrel connecting them with floor plates at every floor level. We observed some massive parts of the planes penetrating through the building between the floor plates and punching through the perimeter on the opposite side of the building.

To understand what you are observing your perception must be informed by technical knowledge otherwise you understanding is like a child's. The more informed one is the more accurate is their understanding of what they observe. An analogy might be the difference in understanding observing clouds by a meteorologist who has training in fluid dynamics etc. and the average person whose understanding might be limited to knowing that clouds are basically water.

I don't see Steve demonstrating the depth of understanding of the technical issues to inform his "thinking" and theories he expounds. This seems to be a common attribute of many truthers whose thinking seems to be driven by a "political" agenda.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

3. And when they collide with steel buildings, they take a hard right turn.

No the Aluminum steel composites will break where they are connected to the main Bulkhead forcing the wings to fold inward against the fuselages main Bulkhead to which they are attached. This would occur both at the Pentagon and at the towers.
The wings are only as strong as the connections to the Fuselages some disconnection and inward drag would be expected in the penitration event given the General physics.
What you are seeing is only the disunion of the planes structure as expected on Impact. This breaking of the main connection of wing to Fusalage connection is expected and logical. It causes wingtip inward dragging and is expected in the physics at the towers and and at the Pentagon.
Unless you can show that such an event would not likely occur in the event then you will have to accept the Causally Link between the failure if the wing to Fusalage joint, and the observations of damage.
The Burden of proof is on your Theory, and I would bet my life you can't falsify wing disunification with Fusalage as the causing factor in the damage you Question.

 

[JSanderO]

I am confused about the timing of the destruction of the plane and its contents. Presumably the impact of the nose would cause velocity decrease as well as crushing or the nose etc. It probably had enough kinetic energy to punch through the facade.

I am not sure I understand why the wings structures would fold back. Intuitive to my thinking is the plane's entire front profile would impact the building. If the impact slowed the fuselage why would the wings fold back? If anything they might maintain their velocity as the fuselage is crushed???

What is the structural design where the wings are? I would think (but I don't know) that wings are not simply bolted the the fuselage.

Please explain.

 

[Sherman Bay]

10 to 50 thousand crisis actors... and not one of them has spilled the beans...

Why would they? They were well paid for their silence, and loyal to the cause. Sheesh.

 

[JSanderO]

crises actors? This is pure fantasy.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If I recall the story correctly, having been alerted by news of the first crash, tens of thousands of people for miles around had a view of the second crash. What they actually saw was a fusillade of cruise missiles, arriving from multiple directions, striking with inch-perfect precision to carve a plane-shaped hole in the tower. None of them remember this because they were hypnotized by the doctored mainstream media footage into rejecting the evidence of their own eyes and believing instead that the faked videos of a plane making a plane-shaped hole were real. All photos and videos they took showing no plane have been suppressed by ... No, I forget. Maybe that was hypnotism too. Or magic.

Yankee451 alone is immune to this hypnotism.

 

[yankee451]

They would have to have done all this CGI layering live... in real time... while the world watched.

I was thousands of miles away in NZ watching the breaking news on CNN when I saw the second plane hit the South Tower. People in the streets of NY saw it at the same time I did - how do you explain this?

Actually, no. You didn't see any crash live. As explained in the OP, none of the "live" shots show the crash. You saw what you thought was a plane flying behind the towers, and an explosion coming from the opposite side. The crash was hidden from the "live" footage. Those videos that do show a plane sliding like butter into the building, were not shown live.

 

[yankee451]

... and over and over again...

Keep ignoring the evidence, and I'll keep reminding you.

 

[yankee451]

The OP is not looking for any explanations. He KNOWS what happened and nobody can take it from him. Maybe one day some progress in the mental medicine will help him... We are all wasting our time on this thread.

In the posts you won't read, I state clearly that if I'm wrong, then there is a better explanation for the damage evidence that leads me to my conclusions. Alas, no skeptics can offer a better explanation. They resort to ridicule and redirection.

 

[yankee451]

I am confused about the timing of the destruction of the plane and its contents.

I don't doubt it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Actually, no. You didn't see any crash live. As explained in the OP, none of the "live" shots show the crash. You saw what you thought was a plane flying behind the towers, and an explosion coming from the opposite side. The crash was hidden from the "live" footage. Those videos that do show a plane sliding like butter into the building, were not shown live.

Thousands of people in NY watched it happen with their own eyes.

 

[yankee451]

... and over and over again...

Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Water can also cut through steel if thrown at a bigger speed and in a thin jet (google waterjet cutting), and it's not even a solid. The principle is the same: kinetic energy.

Repeating again since it didn't sink in the last time.

Yes, water can be used to cut steel. When most folks hear this they have no problem believing a plane could slice a building in half. The key they're missing is pressure. Water can only cut steel with the right pressure, and often only with abrasives added to the water.

“A waterjet is a tool used in machine shops to cut metal parts with a (very) high-pressure stream of water. As amazing as it sounds, if you get water flowing fast enough it can actually cut metal.

Think of a waterjet as something with about 30 times the pressure of the power washer wand at your local car wash. Power washing at car washes is an everyday example of a dirt film being "cut" off the body, wheels and tires of an automobile.

The key to cutting metal with water is to keep the spray coherent. Waterjets are able to cut because the spray is channeled through a very narrow jeweled nozzle at a very high pressure to keep the spray coherent. Unlike metal cutters, a waterjet never gets dull and it cannot overheat. “
Source

As stated in the link above, it takes specialized machinery and very high pressure to cut steel with water, but to use it as a reason to believe an aluminum wing can do so too, smacks of desperation. We're comparing apples to bananas here, but even so the reason a water jet can do such a thing is due to its focusing all its energy on a tiny area, like a bullet might do. With enough velocity a bullet will puncture steel because like the water jet, the energy of the projectile is focused on a very small point, with the mass and velocity of the bullet (or column of water) overcoming the mass of the steel at the point of impact.

So tell me, how is a water jet, which focuses its energy on a tiny impact point, like a 767 which would spread its energy over a wide impact area.

 

[yankee451]

crises actors? This is pure fantasy.

Why? Do you think you deserve the truth to be handed to you on a silver screen, simply because you're clever enough to operate a remote control? If you uncritically swallow what you're being served, you deserve to be lied to.

 

[yankee451]

It appears to me reading Steve's words that he simply doesn't understand the physics of the event... He appears to be ignorant of the mass distribution of the wing and it's contents - motors, landing gear, tanks pumps, & frame etc. He seems to not understand the way the structure would respond the the forces of the plane's parts impacting the building's parts.

A tank of fuel is quite dense and traveling at the speed of the plane contains enormous (quantifiable) kinetic energy. While the frame of the tower was strong it was primary an axial load bearing structure and not design for the massive lateral forces applied by the plane. It was also not a homogeneous mass/structure... but was composed of individual structural and no structural items and of course large simply air. Buildings are 95% air. However even rapidly moving "air" can be enormously powerful. So thinking of the plane as a flimsy aluminum frame is to fail to understand the forces involved in the impact. The columns were staggered panelized structures with lateral spandrel connecting them with floor plates at every floor level. We observed some massive parts of the planes penetrating through the building between the floor plates and punching through the perimeter on the opposite side of the building.

To understand what you are observing your perception must be informed by technical knowledge otherwise you understanding is like a child's. The more informed one is the more accurate is their understanding of what they observe. An analogy might be the difference in understanding observing clouds by a meteorologist who has training in fluid dynamics etc. and the average person whose understanding might be limited to knowing that clouds are basically water.

I don't see Steve demonstrating the depth of understanding of the technical issues to inform his "thinking" and theories he expounds. This seems to be a common attribute of many truthers whose thinking seems to be driven by a "political" agenda.

Yawn. Evolve.

 

[JSanderO]

Why? Do you think you deserve the truth to be handed to you on a silver screen, simply because you're clever enough to operate a remote control? If you uncritically swallow what you're being served, you deserve to be lied to.

Please don't assume I "swallow uncritically what we are being served". All anyone can do is use their knowledge, training, experience to evaluate what they see, hear, experience, read and so on.

The WTC events were for many, including me a first a mystery. Although I am an architect, have actually worked on those buildings (minor stuff) and been in them many times... I had no frame of reference to understand how they came down.

The first public explanations in the media made little sense to me and didn't match what I observed. I spent a fair amount of time and energy looking for answers to satisfy my curiosity. I even attended 911 truth "events" where numerous presentations were made for a while. I thought that AE911T should have made a huge effort to reach out to the engineers of the towers and the engineering community before advancing their CD theory... and trying to get others to doubt anything that didn't come from a "truther source". I even tried to work with AE911T. I learned exactly what they were about and how uninterested they were in actually understanding how they likely came down. I read all the doubting thomases on 911 blogger, Pilotsfor911T and so on. I listened, read, observed and after several years decided that the truth movement showed only ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

I found an online resource with some excellent technical discussions where I learned of a explanation which matched my own hunch about the twins... that they were a vertical avalanche... my description. The meme was called ROOSD and was based on observations and understand of the attributes of the unique structure of the twin towers. What wasn't address and perhaps the last hurdle to understanding is how the collapse was initiated... how was the "ROOSD" driving mass "created" or freed from the structural matrix. This is not something we can observe as it's inside the top of the towers. We can only theorize the steps that led from static and stable to dynamic and unstable. It seems like the considerations would be fire (impact of heat), mech damage and the structural design again. One can "model" a chain of events but one can't prove (or disprove) it is the actual description.

Crisis actors, planted devices, false flags and the like make no sense at all. Some of the "theories" are so over the top they are not worthy of more than a passing consideration... direct energy weapons, hollow towers, mini nukes and CD... including all versions of thermite.

In the end the most basic explanations make the most sense and ring true to me. And this is NOT the NIST explanation... despite their using fire/heat and mech damage as the driver. My sense is NIST ignored how key the structural design was to the collapse of the 3 buildings.

I don't care what you think about my thoughts on the topic. My curiosity and "research" was only to satisfy my curiosity. I am not here to prove, to debunk, to publish, to lecture or make any sort of presentations to influence any one else. I accomplished what I set out to do. I learned a lot from others smarter than me. And I learned nothing from those who lack critical thinking skills and technical background... who seem driven by what I call a political agenda.

 

[Deadie]

Alas, no skeptics can offer a better explanation. They resort to ridicule and redirection.

Better explanations have been offered up for the entire rainbow of slightly different 9/11 conspiracies. CTs simply do not accept them. They dig their heels in deeper and create even more convoluted and absurd narratives.

I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to just fly actual airplanes into the buildings? Of course not.

So tell me, how is a water jet, which focuses its energy on a tiny impact point, like a 767 which would spread its energy over a wide impact area.

Have you actually calculated the amount of force these airplanes flying at speed would have over their frontal cross-section?

 

[yankee451]

Please don't assume I "swallow uncritically what we are being served". All anyone can do is use their knowledge, training, experience to evaluate what they see, hear, experience, read and so on.

The WTC events were for many, including me a first. Although I am an architect, have actually worked on those buildings (minor stuff) and been in them many times... I had no frame of reference to understand how they came down.

The first public explanations in the media made little sense to me and didn't match what I observed. I spent a fair amount of time and energy looking for answers to satisfy my curiosity. I even attended 911 truth "events" where numerous presentations were made for a while. I thought that AE911T should have made a huge effort to reach out to the engineers of the towers and the engineering community before advancing their CD theory... and trying to get others to doubt anything that didn't come from a "truther source". I even tried to work with AE911T. I learned exactly what they were about and how uninterested they were in actually understanding how they likely came down. I read all the doubting thomases on 911 blogger, Pilotsfor911T and so on. I listened, read, observed and after several years decided that the truth movement showed only ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

I found an online resource with some excellent technical discussions where I learned of a explanation which matched my own hunch about the twins... that they were a vertical avalanche... my description. The meme was called ROOSD and was based on observations and understand of the attributes of the unique structure of the twin towers. What wasn't address and perhaps the last hurdle to understanding is how the collapse was initiated... how was the "ROOSD" driving mass "created" or freed from the structural matrix. This is not something we can observe as it's inside the top of the towers. We can only theorize the steps that led from static and stable to dynamic and unstable. It seems like the considerations would be fire (impact of heat), mech damage and the structural design again. One can "model" a chain of events but one can't prove (or disprove) it is the actual description.

Crisis actors, planted devices, false flags and the like make no sense at all. Some of the "theories" are so over the top they are not worthy of more than a passing consideration... direct energy weapons, hollow towers, mini nukes and CD... including all versions of thermite.

In the end the most basic explanations make the most sense and ring true to me. And this is NOT the NIST explanation... despite their using fire/heat and mech damage as the driver. My sense is NIST ignored how key the structural design was to the collapse of the 3 buildings.

I don't care what you think about my thoughts on the topic. My curiosity and "research" was only to satisfy my curiosity. I am not here to prove, to debunk, to publish, to lecture or make any sort of presentations to influence any one else. I accomplished what I set out to do. I learned a lot from others smarter than me. And I learned nothing from those who lack critical thinking skills and technical background... who seem driven by what I call a political agenda.

Good stuff. An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[yankee451]

Better explanations have been offered up for the entire rainbow of slightly different 9/11 conspiracies. CTs simply do not accept them. They dig their heels in deeper and create even more convoluted and absurd narratives.

I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to just fly actual airplanes into the buildings? Of course not.


Have you actually calculated the amount of force these airplanes flying at speed would have over their frontal cross-section?

Not true. The truth movement stalwarts, whom we're all familiar with, won't touch certain clues either. They have a lot in common with the skeptics.

As I have said numerous times, if planes could do the deed there would be no need for missiles. If planes did do the deed, then the damage evidence would be consistent with it.

Regarding the calculations of the the force of these alleged airplanes, no I haven't, but I have read every one of the official story reports on the matter (which are often cited as proof of something), and notice that neither have they. Anyone who is trying to make a math problem out of this must also calculate the actual shape and structure of the impacting wall columns, which has not been done. So back at you.

 

[theprestige]

Good stuff. An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Why wouldn't they just crash planes into buildings? Seems like a much simpler solution.