what happened on 9/11/2001?

[Faun]

Can U say
FALSE FLAG ATTACK?

Fruitcake ... here's what you need to convince people of if you're going to sway anyone into believing your hallucinations....

You need to convince us that someone who had the ability to pull this off without airplanes, would create this master plan which relied upon a 100% success rate of acquiring 100% of every video recording the event so that they could then edit in a plane.

Capiche?

If even one video turned up without a plane in it, the entire rouse would have been exposed. The planners would have known this and would have had to formulate a plan which would have required them getting their hands on every single video. The would also needed to have a plan on how to silence 100% of the people recording the event so that no one could scream out how their video had been altered. They would have had to plan for this.

Further complicating such an outrageous plan is facing the reality that they would have expected potentially millions of eyewitnesses given the population density of the region; with an unknown number of cameras. Potentially thousands.

Do you see where this is leading?

To pull this off [successfully], they would have had to have a plan on how to get hold of every video without knowing where every video was. Whether videos were recorded from a street, a rooftop, an apartment, an office, a hotel, a boat, a car, New York, New Jersey, etc... ..... wherever. Wherever a video was recorded, they had to have a plan on how to get their hands on it.

And here's where your world crumbles ........

No such plan is possible.

And the planners would have known this.

 

[n0spam4me]

Here is what you gotta convince people of, so as to sell the 19 suicidal hijackers story:

> commercial airliners can be flown >500 mph @ <1000 ft altitude
> commercial airliners can reliably penetrate a steel box column wall and completely disappear inside, given that the deck spacing in the skyscraper was 3.6 m and the airliner body is over 5 m diameter.
> commercial airlines are capable of penetrating a military blast resistant wall, and totally disappearing inside the building leaving behind <1% of the aircraft outside the building.
> The top 15% of a skyscraper can fall down upon the lower 85% and cause the complete & total destruction of the entire skyscraper.
> Fire can cause a single point of failure in a steel frame skyscraper resulting in the building descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and keeping its shape as it descends vertically.

 

[Faun]

Here is what you gotta convince people of, so as to sell the 19 suicidal hijackers story:

> commercial airliners can be flown >500 mph @ <1000 ft altitude
> commercial airliners can reliably penetrate a steel box column wall and completely disappear inside, given that the deck spacing in the skyscraper was 3.6 m and the airliner body is over 5 m diameter.
> commercial airlines are capable of penetrating a military blast resistant wall, and totally disappearing inside the building leaving behind <1% of the aircraft outside the building.
> The top 15% of a skyscraper can fall down upon the lower 85% and cause the complete & total destruction of the entire skyscraper.
> Fire can cause a single point of failure in a steel frame skyscraper resulting in the building descending at 9.8 m/s^2 for 2.25 sec and keeping its shape as it descends vertically.

The Twin Towers were not constructed in the same fashion as a "military blast resistant wall," rendering your false premise DOA.

But back to my point ... I see you don't want to accept the reality that there is no plan possible to account for retrieving every single video made of the second plane hitting the second tower. Without a plan translates into the planes were real.

Here's more evidence. If there was no plane, which inspired every person captured in this video to look skyward ... ?



If there were no planes, what were these cameras tracking ... ?

at 0:13, 8:05, and 9:04

 

[n0spam4me]

The Twin Towers were not constructed in the same fashion as a "military blast resistant wall," rendering your false premise DOA.

When did I say "box column wall" = "blast resistant wall"?
Also, you appear to be confusing arguments about HOW it was done with definition of WHAT was done, two separate issues and speculation about what may or may not have been possible doesn't constitute a show-stopper in this case.

 

[Faun]

The Twin Towers were not constructed in the same fashion as a "military blast resistant wall," rendering your false premise DOA.

When did I say "box column wall" = "blast resistant wall"?
Also, you appear to be confusing arguments about HOW it was done with definition of WHAT was done, two separate issues and speculation about what may or may not have been possible doesn't constitute a show-stopper in this case.

I'm sorry, but weren't you the one to question ...

"commercial airlines are capable of penetrating a military blast resistant wall, and totally disappearing inside the building leaving behind <1% of the aircraft outside the building."​

That was you, right?

Now why did you avoid my question? If there were no planes, what were those cameras tracking?

 

[n0spam4me]

The Twin Towers were not constructed in the same fashion as a "military blast resistant wall," rendering your false premise DOA.

The first assertion complains that I have somehow mixed the two events that is the crash into the WTC towers & the crash at the Pentagon, when in fact no such mix-up has occurred.

Next, Pay VERY close attention to what the videos of the alleged "FLT175" actually show. The alleged airliner penetrates the skyscraper wall as would a ghost in a B movie. so WHY should we accept this sort of thing as actual documentation of anything. You speculate about how difficult it would be to fake the videos, however, the fact of what the videos show totally discredits them as a source of documentary evidence about "FLT175".

 

[Capstone]

. . .The alleged airliner penetrates the skyscraper wall as would a ghost in a B movie. ...

When assessing a projectile's ability to penetrate a given target, it's important to understand the dynamics of kinetic energy in deference to the projectile's momentum and sectional density. It's also necessary to assess the target's relative mass, density and elasticity, in conjunction with other factors, including the heat of fusion. It's a complicated equation that's way beyond my personal scope of knowledge, but I've heard of things like pumpkins and high-pressure water jets penetrating thin sheets of steel (such as that used for automotive body parts), which would seem to indicate that a projectile's lower density in relation to that of its target isn't necessarily the deciding factor in the physics of penetration.

Something to think about from a fellow "Twoofer".

 

[Faun]

The Twin Towers were not constructed in the same fashion as a "military blast resistant wall," rendering your false premise DOA.

The first assertion complains that I have somehow mixed the two events that is the crash into the WTC towers & the crash at the Pentagon, when in fact no such mix-up has occurred.

Next, Pay VERY close attention to what the videos of the alleged "FLT175" actually show. The alleged airliner penetrates the skyscraper wall as would a ghost in a B movie. so WHY should we accept this sort of thing as actual documentation of anything. You speculate about how difficult it would be to fake the videos, however, the fact of what the videos show totally discredits them as a source of documentary evidence about "FLT175".

And yet, since that's exactly how it happened, it is possible. Don't forget, your "no planes" nonsense is easily debunked. It is not possible to obtain every single video of the plane flying into the south tower. And it certainly isn't the sort of thing anyone would risk their entire operation on.

 

[deep_space]

again arguments from incredulity about HOW it was done, side-stepping the obvious WHAT was done.

 

[Faun]

again arguments from incredulity about HOW it was done, side-stepping the obvious WHAT was done.

Speaking to the 'no planes" nonsense ... since the HOW was not possible, the WHAT is nothing but the demented imagination of the Truther.

 

[Capstone]

again arguments from incredulity about HOW it was done, side-stepping the obvious WHAT was done.

Generally speaking here, what's most telling about the OCT apologists' tired appeal to incredulity is their selective use of it, never applying it to the aspects of the officially reported events of 9/11/01 that most vociferously call for it (E.G. physical impossibilities, entire bodies of evidence that stand in direct opposition to the official narrative, ETC.). Apparently their incredulity is reserved mainly for notions like, "Too many people would had to have been in-the-know!" ... and "It's totally ludicrous that none of those hypothetical participants (in maybe the worst atrocity ever committed by man, with an indirect death toll that's still rising more than 13 years later) have yet stepped out from the shadows to claim responsibility for their respective roles in it!". Yes, truly incredible that!

 

[daws101]

Can U say
FALSE FLAG ATTACK?

you could and do frequently... but it's false..

 

[daws101]

The Twin Towers were not constructed in the same fashion as a "military blast resistant wall," rendering your false premise DOA.

When did I say "box column wall" = "blast resistant wall"?
Also, you appear to be confusing arguments about HOW it was done with definition of WHAT was done, two separate issues and speculation about what may or may not have been possible doesn't constitute a show-stopper in this case.

in fact you are splitting hairs they are not two separate issues but it's cause and effect, a concept that eludes you...

 

[daws101]

again arguments from incredulity about HOW it was done, side-stepping the obvious WHAT was done.

yours is an argument based on misperception....

 

[daws101]

again arguments from incredulity about HOW it was done, side-stepping the obvious WHAT was done.

Generally speaking here, what's most telling about the OCT apologists' tired appeal to incredulity is their selective use of it, never applying it to the aspects of the officially reported events of 9/11/01 that most vociferously call for it (E.G. physical impossibilities, entire bodies of evidence that stand in direct opposition to the official narrative, ETC.). Apparently their incredulity is reserved mainly for notions like, "Too many people would had to have been in-the-know!" ... and "It's totally ludicrous that none of those hypothetical participants (in maybe the worst atrocity ever committed by man, with an indirect death toll that's still rising more than 13 years later) have yet stepped out from the shadows to claim responsibility for their respective roles in it!". Yes, truly incredible that!

the shit getting deep.
never is just shorthand for extremely unlikely...given the evidence.
there is no alternative body of evidence...no credible one anyway.