9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[DuvalHMFIC]

... and over and over again...

So much this. I designed aluminum and steel parts that were cut with a....waterjet. Our waterjet could cut through 4 inch thick steel. And from what I understand now, there are some that can cut through half a foot of steel. Even after years of working there, I would still just watch that machine and smile. It's pretty awesome.

 

[JSanderO]

Yankee.... why have any of the truthers joined a forum like the 911FreeForum and presented their technical arguments? One has Tony Szamboti... and his claims / and thinking have been demonstrated to be flawed. He still clings to his false narrative and fantasy despite being shown he was wrong.

Why is Gage over at 911FF? Or Harrit, David Chandler or John Cole or many of the other what I would call people with pseudo technical arguments all of which have been discussed in detail and shown to hold no water at all.

I don't know why anyone bothers to "debunk" but many seem to think this will change minds or prove something.

 

[yankee451]

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

For many reasons, not the least of which is mostly hollow aluminum jets cannot do what dense-metal penetrating missiles can do, and if they could do, then there would be no need for dense-metal penetrating missiles. Real planes leave parts that can be tracked. Real planes would mean real bodies, which can be identified. If the plane didn't strike dead center and only clipped a wing, there was no way to contain the crash damage, and much, much, more. Explained by the late Gerard Holmgren, here:
https://911crashtest.org/why-they-didnt-use-planes/

 

[JSanderO]

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.

You appear to not understand how a "complex system" can experience a runaway failure.

https://web.mit.edu/2.75/resources/random/How Complex Systems Fail.pdf

Because overt failure requires multiple faults, there is no isolated ‘cause’ of an accident. There are multiple contributors to accidents. Each of these is necessary insufficient in itself to create an accident. Only jointly are these causes sufficient to create an accident. Indeed, it is the linking of these causes together that creates the circumstances required for the accident. Thus, no isolation of the ‘root cause’ of an accident is possible. The evaluations based on such reasoning as ‘root cause’ do not reflect a technical understanding of the nature of failure but rather the social, cultural need to blame specific, localized forces or events for outcome.

So NO the collapse was not caused SOLELY by the plane hitting it.

Do some research on the failures of complex systems.

Buildings structures are complex systems. When they experience a local failure many underlying "failure" modes begin to surface and act synergistically.... and they can in the case of these towers... so go runaway and become total.

Both building stood after they were struck by the planes. But more failures began to manifest and overwhelm the structure.

Who cares about the "official reports"? Care about the explanations which actually describe what happened.

 

[JSanderO]

Yankee... I have maintained for a long time.... and in accordance with my crude understanding of runaway failures in complex systems.... that among the KEY contributing factors to the total collapse of these 3 buildings was the structural design.

This is not to say the collapsed BECAUSE of their "flawed" designs. But it is to say that the designs were key factors in the loss of structural integrity leading to total collapse AND "dictating" the form of the collapse in each case.

For example... I will suggest that the Empire State Building would not collapse if struct by a jumbo jet. YES it would sustain massive damage and partial collapse... but not completely collapse to the ground. Why? Because it was a different structural design.

This is something which should have been discussed. Why WAS those towers designed as they were? What was driving the engineering solutions? Was a calculus made relating to runaway collapse from something like a big jet hitting on a high floor? I believe the fuel load of a theoretical plane was not in a consideration.

Are other super talls analyzed for plane strikes? Where are the studies?

read this:

http://www.jflf.org/v/vspfiles/assets/pdf/skyscrapers.pdf

 

[yankee451]

So much this. I designed aluminum and steel parts that were cut with a....waterjet. Our waterjet could cut through 4 inch thick steel. And from what I understand now, there are some that can cut through half a foot of steel. Even after years of working there, I would still just watch that machine and smile. It's pretty awesome.

How is a water jet, which uses specialized machinery (and often abrasives added to the water) to focus its energy and the mass of the column of water onto the tiniest point possible, like a 767 that would spread its energy and mass over a wide area?

To obtain maximum penetration, bullets, water jets, darts, arrows, etc - focus their energy on a tiny point of impact. Bullets are often jacketed with dense metal to maintain the bullet integrity longer, thereby achieving maximum penetration. For a water jet to work the integrity of the column of water must be maintained, so as to focus the mass and energy of the water onto the tiniest point possible. To achieve this the jeweled nozzle of the water jet must be very close to the material. Too far away and the mass of the column of water is lost, resulting in lost cutting power.

Please explain why you think a water jet is a valid analogy.

 

[yankee451]

Who cares about the "official reports"? Care about the explanations which actually describe what happened.

O' the IRONY!

 

[theprestige]

Real planes leave parts that can be tracked.

This has been done.

Real planes would mean real bodies, which can be identified.

This has been done.

If the plane didn't strike dead center and only clipped a wing, there was no way to contain the crash damage, and much, much, more.

Did you see how much damage was caused? These aren 't people who wanted to contain anything. A plane clipping the WTC and crashing across downtown Manhattan doesn't seem like a problem that would need solving.

 

[yankee451]

This has been done. This has been done.
Did you see how much damage was caused? These aren 't people who wanted to contain anything. A plane clipping the WTC and crashing across downtown Manhattan doesn't seem like a problem that would need solving.

You might have missed this part:

 

[FFTR]

O' the IRONY!

Jeff Prager states in his book that WTC 1,2,7 were all nuked and no nanothermite was used. Gage says WTC 1,27 were brought down by CD with the use of nanothermite, no nukes. Which one is not telling the truth?

Shouldn't any explanation stand on its own merits? After all these years I have yet to find the one concise alternative explanation that is proven. Even the conspiracy group can't agree with what happened and how.

 

[yankee451]

This has been done. This has been done.
Did you see how much damage was caused? These aren 't people who wanted to contain anything. A plane clipping the WTC and crashing across downtown Manhattan doesn't seem like a problem that would need solving.

I did see the damage, did you? They didn't miss. If you can believe what you're told they hit three bulls eyes with those lumbering jets.

All sites provide clues as to what happened. There was only one series of events that resulted in the evidence as found.

If what we are told was true, then the damage evidence would be consistent with it: something cut the holes in the towers, but the damage evidence is more consistent with the lateral impacts of small projectiles than the head on impacts of large ones.

Something, or someone, cut down street lights. Something blew a hole in the brick and concrete facade of the Pentagon. Something damaged a forest of reinforced concrete pillars. Something blew a circular exit hole in the C ring. Something collapsed the roof. The damage evidence is not consistent with the impact of a jet, but it is consistent with an explosive on the surface of the facade, followed by secondary interior explosives for the columns, and then a large Rapid Wall Breaching kit for the "punch out" hole in the C ring. Even with military-grade smoke machines to embellish the carnage, the damage to the Pentagon wasn't impressive enough. Still more explosives had to be used to collapse the roof.

Something cut that odd shaped crater in Shanksville. Predictable and reproducible are hallmarks of the scientific method. The Shanksville crater is more consistent with the impact of missiles at trajectories of less than ten degrees from horizontal, than it is with the crash of a jet.

 

[JSanderO]

Yankee... the "damage" caused by the liquids on board the plane... fuel, water principally is not that there was a focused force like a water jet... it is the mass x velocity of the liquids contained in the numerous tanks.

Water is over 60# / cu ft.

What sort of destruction would a mass of 60#/sf travelling at 500 mph do to a steel column made of steel less than 1/2" thick plates. Steel's density is less than 500#/cu ft.?

No the liquid would not simply bounce off and disperse without doing massive damage.

Even ocean waves can do massive damage breaking on a steel ship.

 

[yankee451]

Jeff Prager states in his book that WTC 1,2,7 were all nuked and no nanothermite was used. Gage says WTC 1,27 were brought down by CD with the use of nanothermite, no nukes. Which one is not telling the truth?

Shouldn't any explanation stand on its own merits? After all these years I have yet to find the one concise alternative explanation that is proven. Even the conspiracy group can't agree with what happened and how.

Agreed.

What am I to make of so called truthers who refuse to address the merits of a given hypothesis? I have been in touch with Gage for many years, along with Bollyn, Duff, Fetzer, Shack (Hytten), and many others. If there was ever any interest in reaching a consensus on which hypotheses has the most merit, you wouldn't know it by talking with that bunch.

Truthers think that the act of challenging the official story is enough, that at least we all agree the official story is a lie. However the vast array of truther hypotheses (nukes, DEW, holograms, reinforced planes, thermite, etc) is a clue that we're being played like a fiddle. Not all of the truther hypotheses can be right. That means most truther hypotheses are wrong. There can be only one right answer; there was only one series of events that resulted in the evidence as found at each of the 9/11 sites. Isn't it curious that almost two decades have passed without any serious discussion of this evidence by the aforementioned and ironically-named truthers?

 

[GlennB]

That means most truther hypotheses are wrong. There can be only one right answer; there was only one series of events that resulted in the evidence as found at each of the 9/11 sites. Isn't it curious that almost two decades have passed without any serious discussion of this evidence by the aforementioned and ironically-named truthers?

Where were these missiles launched from? What kind of missiles were they?

Are there any reports of incoming missiles being spotted by the public? If not, why not?

 

[yankee451]

Where were these missiles launched from? What kind of missiles were they?

Are there any reports of incoming missiles being spotted by the public? If not, why not?

Air launched air to surface standoff missiles, such as the JASSM or something very much like it.

Yes, there were reports of missiles being seen and heard at the WTC and at Shanksville.

 

[JSanderO]

Yankee.. I would not call the official "story" a lie. I am not which account and who is the official presenting that story you are referencing.

I am not an engineer but I find the NIST explanation possible, but flawed and so it's not accurate but not a lie.

I think most of the elements of the "official story" are not lies:

Planes were hijacked by arab radicals and flown into chosen targets. One plane did not make it to a target.

The plane strikes caused massive damage but it was the heat from the subsequent unfought fires which was the undoing. Bldg 7 collapse largely from unfought fires.

We had no means to stop the hijacked planes in the air. We still don't today.

There were exploding "things" in the burning buildings...but they were no "explosive devices" such as bombs.

The FDNY surveying WTC7 determined that it was in danger of collapse in the afternoon. They were correct. As there was nothing FDNY could do to stabilize the building they suspended their survey. All occupants had left the building.

The official story served to support an agenda that the GWB administration had to finish off Sadam.

 

[bknight]

I mean no offense. There are very few ways to explain the damage. Prudent individuals all over the world can do as they like, but prudence doesn't change the evidence that leads me to my conclusions.

This is a wingtip from a 767.
[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/4525350604_020278c1d4_b.jpg[/qimg]

We are to believe that this wingtip was only massive enough and wide enough to cause this little pinch to the aluminum cladding:
[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/pinched-cladding.png[/qimg]

But a few feet away it was massive enough, and big enough, to sharply bend steel columns in a different direction than the wingtip was traveling.

[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/flattened-and-bent-to-the-right-1024x788.jpg[/qimg]

Now what you didn't calculate is the length of the wing tip to the engine. The wing span is 156.1 feet but the wings are slanted by 31.5 degrees. Using trigonometry you then calculate that the wing length would be 66.54 feet, but the fuselage takes up 14.5 feet. So the length of a wing is 52.64 feet (rounded). From the centerline of the fuselage to the center of the engine is 25.667 feet at that same angle so that calculates 14 feet from edge of plane to center engine and 38 feet (rounded) from wing tip to center line engine.
Now the outside columns are 3.33 feet center to center and 9 columns would be 30 feet. Now the engine will impact the building at the same angle and this calculates to 32 feet.
right were it should impact the building as the image you presented shows.
So you are wrong in your assertion that the ninth column is "no where near the engine"

 

[yankee451]

Yankee.. I would not call the official "story" a lie. I am not which account and who is the official presenting that story you are referencing.

I am not an engineer but I find the NIST explanation possible, but flawed and so it's not accurate but not a lie.

I think most of the elements of the "official story" are not lies:

Planes were hijacked by arab radicals and flown into chosen targets. One plane did not make it to a target.

The plane strikes caused massive damage but it was the heat from the subsequent unfought fires which was the undoing. Bldg 7 collapse largely from unfought fires.

We had no means to stop the hijacked planes in the air. We still don't today.

There were exploding "things" in the burning buildings...but they were no "explosive devices" such as bombs.

The FDNY surveying WTC7 determined that it was in danger of collapse in the afternoon. They were correct. As there was nothing FDNY could do to stabilize the building they suspended their survey. All occupants had left the building.

The official story served to support an agenda that the GWB administration had to finish off Sadam.

Sounds more like a true believer than a truther, but that's just one man's opinion.

 

[Deadie]

If planes did do the deed, then the damage evidence would be consistent with it.

So how on earth are you ascertaining whether the damage should be consistent with one cause or another...

Regarding the calculations of the the force of these alleged airplanes, no I haven't

...without calculating the forces involved?

If your entire position rests upon the idea that airplanes could not possibly have done the damage we see, then it should be a priority for you to perform even a rough estimation with the not-so-difficult math to point out an obvious discrepancy.

 

[MattNelson]

Full article here.

How they spoofed the “live” shots of flight 175:

1. Rehearse the handful of perspectives of flight 175 that will be broadcast live. (There were 8 live cameras [my website].)
2. The fireball will erupt from the south face of the South Tower. (Every image will show the core of an airplane engine flying out in perfect time.)
3. The rehearsed perspectives were from the north face of the North Tower (opposite the fireball). (Don't forget the western perspective from the chopper whose occupants saw the plane approaching.)
4. By design these rehearsed “live” perspectives will fail to capture the crash of the alleged plane. (See the geography of lower Manhattan. Notice the towers are on the southern end.)
5. Create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match each of the rehearsed shots. (This was technically impossible for NBC Chopper4, which is why video expert Ace Baker never mentioned it as a live shot.)
6. On the big day: from the same rehearsed perspectives, capture video footage of the fireball that erupted from the south face of the South Tower.
7. Live television is never live; there is always a broadcast delay to prevent unwanted content from airing. Utilizing the broadcast delay of how ever many seconds were necessary, (So how did all 8 time their CGI perfectly as the TV news choppers moved around?)
8. overlay the CGI animations onto the live videos of the fireball. (3 cameras were in moving helicopters. How was this done? Answer (given in the voice of the Dude Lebowski): It wasn't, man.)
9. Flatten the video layers of the CGI planes and the live fireball.
10. Release the merged video layers as “live.”

How they spoofed the “amateur” videos (not live):

1. Deploy dozens of photographers to pose as amateurs.
2. Rehearse each of their perspectives and create a CGI animation of a jet with a transparent background to match.
3. The first fireball erupts from the north face of the North Tower.
4. 18 minutes until the next fireball.
5. All the live network broadcasts are capturing videos of the hole in the north face of the North Tower.
6. Dozens of “amateur” cameras are capturing videos of the south face of the South Tower.
7. The second fireball erupts, this time from the south face of the South Tower.
8. The Networks broadcast live videos showing what looks like a plane crashing into the towers; the world is horrified.
9. Each of the “amateur” photographers edits their respective video, removing what really cut the hole in the South Tower and adding a plane.
10. The propaganda organs release these videos periodically over the following days, weeks, months and years.

Planes crashed into the towers, Steve. We have the plane parts and bodies/DNA (49MB PDF, including details on the engines). Give it up and move on with your life.