Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959320)

What goes around comes around. But no, I said you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 12959319)

He's clearly not using a tripod. The first pic the camera is at waist level with the firemen then he goes even lower (about ankle height) for the next two pics. The last pic he has the camera at about head height (on his shoulder?) and has panned the camera upward.

And even if he was using a tripod, it wouldn't matter. The camera isn't on lock down, you see. He's still panning around and changing the camera's viewing angle in each shot which rules out your realtime CGI nonsense.

And besides, he said he wasn't using a tripod. Maybe you should start with that. I hope you didn't send him any angry letters demanding him to just tell the truth.

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12959324)

That is calling me a liar as you can't weasel out of that assessment.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959331)

I prefer to think you're just mistaken, if not somewhat belligerent.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959327)

You've never used a tripod, have you. They can be raised or lowered as needed. A dolly would explain it even better. He was centered. The level of the camera is irrelevant. A hand held camera cannot be centered for hundreds of frames like that - even a couple frames of no movement is very difficult.

He had saved the center position on the dolly, as evidenced by the hundreds of frames he captured on center prior to the gas sequence. He did so, so that he could easily spin around and, boom!, he's on center.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959312)

And? You can trot out all the amateur videos you like. They don't change the damage evidence that proves a plane didn't cut the hole.

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill (Post 12958784)

Cool story bro.

Tell us Steve, if 9/11 was an inside jobby job why is the CIA allowing you to spew your nonsense all over the interwebs? How come they haven't come calling and eliminated you? I mean you're such a smart guy, exposing the ruthless government and their murder of almost 3000 people, why haven't they taken you and your buddy Feltzer out yet? Please explain.

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12959382)

PHOTOS, STEVE.

Be careful out there if you go for a walk today. You may get hit by a bus if you don't look where you're going.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html

• ANALYSIS & INFO - 45 Angles - 49 PHOTOS OF THE 2ND PLANE •

- 45 photographers in alphabetical order - I still have 1 or 2 to add to the list.

Robert Clark, Robert Cumins, Kelly Guenther, and Ski Shields all took 2 photos of the plane. They were snapped in quick succession because the photographers saw the plane... like so many people.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959404)

But they will NOT address the evidence that proves all the jet impact videos and photos are fraudulent.

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12959418)

Because you haven't presented any evidence.

You've scribbled lines on blurry crops of larger images.

Sorry about your mom, been there. That's a tough one.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959396)

Still doesn't change the damage evidence that proves they're full of it. Why do you refuse to address the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns that were gouged out and sharply bent in a completely different direction than the television jet (that you are hanging your hat on) was traveling.

Videos and photographs of jets doing impossible things are only proof of fraud.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959327)

You've never used a tripod, have you. They can be raised or lowered as needed. A dolly would explain it even better. He was centered. The level of the camera is irrelevant. A hand held camera cannot be centered for hundreds of frames like that - even a couple frames of no movement is very difficult.

He had saved the center position on the dolly, as evidenced by the hundreds of frames he captured on center prior to the gas sequence. He did so, so that he could easily spin around and, boom!, he's on center.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959173)

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x581.png

Last frame before impact:

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...r-1024x576.png

He was using a tripod.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959395)

The death of my mother is a cool story. I would never say that about anybody's mother. I doubt you would if you used your real name.

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill (Post 12958769)

The moronic drivel you post isn't evidence Skippy.

Oh and the victims can't tell stories cause they're dead. But since in your delusional world you believe them to be alive and living among us, please prove it.

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill (Post 12958797)

Evidence please.

Footage of the plane crash from 18 separate sources.

Where's you missile footage Steve? Don't have any? How sad.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959435)

For the record, me, my sanity, my intelligence, and my family, passed and present, have nothing to do with the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles, that true believers and truthers alike, twist themselves into pretzles of denial to avoid.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959302)

The truth hurts. Badly.

You're wrong. Surely you own the DVD and can check for yourself.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959435)

For the record, me, my sanity, my intelligence, ... have nothing to do with the evidence ... d.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959188)

The bigger the lie, the easier it is for gullible people to believe.

Originally Posted by MattNelson (Post 12959437)

1. Hilarious! Address what: your non-credentialed interpretation, which is clearly insane?
2. And home video, photographs, witnesses, DNA, tons of plane parts... all of which you refuse to address except with an arrow to #1.

People saw the plane. You are nuts.

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill (Post 12959487)

You're telling multiple whoppers and no one seems to be believing you. Why is that?

Must be sad to suck at science and communication so badly.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12958839)

https://media.giphy.com/media/VDFoGg3JN1N4s/giphy.gif

Again it's simple: He's either a dedicated troll or mentally ill.

This is not about misunderstanding science this is something else. His claims are:

No planes truck the buildings.
Missiles struck the buildings.
CD was used to finish the job.
The Twin Towers were - in fact - empty of people.
There are no victims of the attacks of 9/11/2001.
All of the footage of the planes striking the towers is fake.
All of the eye-witness testimony are lies.
Smoke machines at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

This is not a guy arguing about how far up the chain of the Saudi Royal Family the AQ funding angle goes, this is not remote controlled commercial jets, this is not LIHOP, this is not dancing Israelis. This is the single dumbest 911-CT ever foisted on the internet, and in a way that's an achievement on its own. Even the 911-Truth message boards have banned him because he makes them look crazy(er).

But it's the only thread in town and there are many smart people (not Steve) posting good explanations here so it's not a complete waste of time.

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill (Post 12959473)

No that was in reference to the other idiocy in your post.

Now are you going to answer the question or keep running away like a coward?

Why hasn't the CIA murdered you yet? According to you they killed almost three thousand people, what's one more?

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959489)

If I had the command of all the world's media, I'm betting you'd buy anything and everything I have to say.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959493)

[/hilite]

Think about it.

If I'm right, if they whacked me in my sleep they would only attract attention to my work.

If I'm wrong, then there is no reason to stop me.

Either way the best choice for the men in black is to ignore me. It is in their best interests to let the useful idiots of the world do their work for them.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959493)

[/hilite]

Think about it.

If I'm right, if they whacked me in my sleep they would only attract attention to my work.

If I'm wrong, then there is no reason to stop me.

Either way the best choice for the men in black is to ignore me. It is in their best interests to let the useful idiots of the world do their work for them.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959191)

Bandwagon.

Following the crowd doesn't make the crowd right.

These are the facts:

Something small but not very dense struck at the far left. As it traveled to the right, it became much bigger and much more dense.

https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/...s-1024x640.png

Originally Posted by BStrong (Post 12959498)

1. Finest example of delusions of grandeur yet posted - in your fantasy, "they" killed thousands on 9/11 and hundreds of thousand down range but "they" wouldn't dare to kill you.

2. That's true.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12959456)

Clearly these two frames you label 43609 and 44606 were not shot from the same position.

Look at the traffic lights in the foreground. In the first frame they are well over to the left while in the latter they are right in front of the towers, indicating that the camera position had relocated some distance to the left.

No fixed tripod location. Perhaps you could explain to use what you think the significance of a tripod was to faking this video and then factor in the significance of his not using one.

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959488)

Some people saw missiles. Some people didn't see any planes. Some people saw small white planes. Some people say they saw a jumbo jet slide like butter into the building. But not all of them can be right, can they? What does the impact evidence indicate actually happened?
.......................................

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12959440)

No. The pre-crash shots from low level are pretty steady but wobble enough to be handheld. The crash footage is very clearly handheld as the picture doesn't just pan, tilt and zoom, it also rotates as the camera wobbles.

Your "explanations" for how it was done may seem plausible to you, but only because you don't understand what a technical feat you are proposing.

Instead of trying to buy a 767 wing to crash test, buy some 20 year old pro video equipment and try to prove to the world that it's actually possible to fake the videos in whatever way you reckon it was done. Old pre-high-definition tech will be dirt cheap as nobody wants it any more. In fact you probably need to get a move on as such obsolete equipment is getting hard to find these days.

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12959456)

Clearly these two frames you label 43609 and 44606 were not shot from the same position.

Look at the traffic lights in the foreground. In the first frame they are well over to the left while in the latter they are right in front of the towers, indicating that the camera position had relocated some distance to the left.

No fixed tripod location. Perhaps you could explain to use what you think the significance of a tripod was to faking this video and then factor in the significance of his not using one.

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12959504)

You keep saying that the cladding is cut on both sides and intact in the middle. This is clearly not the case, just follow the window cleaning track. It leads to a hole in the cladding. The cladding is attached on the left, either by a thin strip of aluminium, or perhaps the fireproofing material.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-11.png?w=861

Originally Posted by curious cat (Post 12958730)

I am getting sucked in again - against all of my principles of not getting in disputes with people undeniably certifiable ;-). This is not an attempt to convince the OP about anything. I do can identify the border between "feasible" and "futile" :-). I am doing this purely as a mental exercise in logic.
So, we have an irrefutable evidence a plane hit the building. There is a whole mountain of evidence supporting it. We know which plane it was, we know who was in control, we know how they got aboard, we can explain virtually all what happened during and after the impact. Any attempt to dispute this evidence is ridiculous and destined for failure.
The only "serious" piece of "evidence" conflicting the above is a piece of aluminium cladding that seems to defy the straight logic. So, let's try just a straight logic to explain what we see. It is like watching a magic show. For a hour or so you are watching stuff you KNOW is entirely impossible. But is is happening, right? Yes, because you are missing the background of the tricks.
So, we know the cladding wasn't in its original position when the column behind it has been severed. I agree with the OP on that point. All the analogies with broken bones etc are valid in general, but they don't really fit to the exact situation we are having here. So, a sequence of events is becoming to emerge: the first part of the wing damaged the cladding and cause the top end to disconnect from the structure. The next part pushed the cladding aside (possible due a hydraulic action in the fuel tank) and it starts falling down pivoting around its bottom attachment. The wing comes apart (possibly again due to the hydraulic action) at the point of the column on the right, leaving it and our cladding now in front of it relatively undamaged, while the other columns were being severed. The tail section of the wing has arrived containing whatever part has "drilled" the circular hole in the column on the right, giving a glancing blow to our cladding bending it back up (the bend near the bottom of it supports this part) and moving it back left to its original position.
Possible? Yes. Likely? No. But have you ever heard about people winning first division in lottery twice in a row? Possible? Yes. Likely? No. Did it happen? Yes.
What I am presenting is probably only one of the possible scenarios and there may be others - similarly unlikely but plausible explanations. Every each of them will be many times more probable than the sick fantasy the OP is trying to sell us. There is no point whatsoever trying to find some truth in these.

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12959504)

You keep saying that the cladding is cut on both sides and intact in the middle. This is clearly not the case, just follow the window cleaning track. It leads to a hole in the cladding. The cladding is attached on the left, either by a thin strip of aluminium, or perhaps the fireproofing material.

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...e-11.png?w=861

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12959488)

Some people saw missiles. Some people didn't see any planes. Some people saw small white planes. Some people say they saw a jumbo jet slide like butter into the building. But not all of them can be right, can they? What does the impact evidence indicate actually happened?

I may be wrong in my interpretation of the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse-damaged steel columns, but at least I have addressed it. The fact that you wont, and continue to attack me personally, tells me the truth isn't high on your priority list.