9/11: How they Faked the Videos

Cosmic Yak said:
Just to be clear: these are the videos and photos you claim have been digitally altered, right?
Can you explain why, if there were missiles, the faked images and videos were altered to highlight this, rather than hide it?
Click to expand...

yankee451 said:
Gosh, I don't know. Maybe the laws of physics really do change just because you saw it on television.
Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, this does not answer my question.
You claim the images and videos were altered to mask the missiles.
You are using the same images to prove that missiles were used.
Why would the Evil Them not alter the images to show damage from a plane, instead of leaving in damage that an unqualified amateur like you can easily spot?
Not much of an Evil Plan, is it?
 
yankee451 said:
And yet until a TV was shoved in their faces, most people said they saw small planes, no planes (bombs), and missiles.
Click to expand...
Citation needed. You have claimed this several times. Please list the witnesses whose testimony changed, along with evidence that 'TVs were shoved in their faces' to make this happen.

yankee451 said:
Listen to you. If you don't believe me look up the archives of the news reports from the first explosion. I've linked to several accounts of missile reports, which you guys just wave-off,
Click to expand...

You said yourself that you don't believe these witnesses.

yankee451 said:
along with all the physical evidence of missile impacts.
Click to expand...

You have yet to provide anything remotely resembling physical evidence, despite my several requests.
Arrows on a photo (which you claimed was faked anyway) are not physical evidence.
 
yankee451 said:
Most people reported planes, missiles and bombs. CNN did report a large jet. Knowing that videos can be faked, and witnesses are notoriously unreliable, luckily we can thin out what's fake and what's real by examining the damage evidence.
Click to expand...

I think you posted this photo for about 20tieth time. Neither I nor anybody else found on it anything more supporting your lunatic theory than on the first issue. Don't you think it is time to stop throwing pearls to the swines?;) I am sure there is something more convincing in your sleeve to show us.
 
yankee451 said:
Nope. You didn't. You see, the cladding covered the column on three sides. for a plane wing to so damage the column the cladding was attached to, it would first need to cut through the cladding. Back to the drawing board for you!



[qimg]https://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/South-Tower-Close-up-with-notations-1024x640.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...
So what you are saying is, that if I take a steel square section and cut and bend a sheet of aluminium to snugly fit the length of steel on three sides and then I swing a big crowbar at the front side then I would not be able to dent the steel without severing the aluminium completely? Yes?
 
yankee451 said:
And yet until a TV was shoved in their faces, most people said they saw small planes, no planes (bombs), and missiles.
Click to expand...

No 'most' people didn't.
After the first strike there was confusion as most people weren't looking and just heard it.
Many more people were looking at the WTC when the second strike happened. Thousands saw an airliner hit the tower.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Unsurprisingly, this does not answer my question.
You claim the images and videos were altered to mask the missiles.
You are using the same images to prove that missiles were used.
Why would the Evil Them not alter the images to show damage from a plane, instead of leaving in damage that an unqualified amateur like you can easily spot?
Not much of an Evil Plan, is it?
Click to expand...

Every evil genius is also an idiot, it's the law.
 
Hard to tell what the material Steve claims is alum siding weirdly displaced actually is. It actually looks different in the ellipse. But the res is so low it's really hard to read. Perhaps a slab of insulation?
 
JSanderO said:
Hard to tell what the material Steve claims is alum siding weirdly displaced actually is. It actually looks different in the ellipse. But the res is so low it's really hard to read. Perhaps a slab of insulation?
Click to expand...
I have looked at it from as many angles.as I can. My best guess is that it is a piece of the cladding with the front either severely dented or cut through and held up by the sides.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
No 'most' people didn't.
After the first strike there was confusion as most people weren't looking and just heard it.
Many more people were looking at the WTC when the second strike happened. Thousands saw an airliner hit the tower.
Click to expand...

I am sure "a few" would be a better description of the number of people who "saw" missiles. Considering the total number of witnesses, it is not surprising. If you look hard enough, I am sure you would also find a few people who saw Santa and Snow White. We all know they are real, don't we...:D
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
So what you are saying is, that if I take a steel square section and cut and bend a sheet of aluminium to snugly fit the length of steel on three sides and then I swing a big crowbar at the front side then I would not be able to dent the steel without severing the aluminium completely? Yes?
Click to expand...

And yet it turns out that my son doesn't have a big hole in the sole of his boot. Funny how so many of these truther laws of physics don't apply to everyday situations, yet absolutely, definitely must apply to the events of 9/11. It's almost as if they were making up new physics as they go along.

Dave
 
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