The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

This clip shows the plane's nose magically appear - perfectly intact - from the other side of the tower!!

Watch at the 10:00 mark. Freeze it at 10:09.

www.youtube.com...

Do you see the nose coming out of the tower, on the opposite side?

This is a CGI effect, most likely.

Are you going to ignore/excuse this fantasy, or man up?

a reply to: turbonium1

No. They only claimed to find evidence of the planes.

Parts of the wreckage you dismiss are whole engines and other parts that are on display. Parts witnessed in the streets on 9/11, photographed on 9/11 before building collapse, recovered, and now on display. Parts you have no explanation how they got there. Also with no explanation how thousands of pounds of explosives and fuel would be staged for your hologram fantasy in the towers to simulate 250,000 pound jets with 8,000 gallons of fuel impacting the towers resulting in seismic events.

You have no credible stance? You only have your opinion? You have no forensic evidence one camera angle of the 18 camera angles showing flight 175 was manipulated to create CGI effects? Who are “they” by the way?

This clip shows the plane's nose magically appear - perfectly intact - from the other side of the tower!!

In one video from who knows what the YouTube channel did to the video from one of 18 known angles of flight 175 to make such claims? From the misinterpretations of grainy low def 2000’s video of a high speed event of wreckage wrapped in building material and shockwave while ignoring 17 other camera angles of flight 175? Did “they CGI” the 17 other shots of flight 175 hitting the towers? Why just the one video?

18 Views of "Plane Impact" in South Tower | World Trade Center (+ HD DOWNLOAD)
m.youtube.com...

A better view of flight 175 impact than you YouTube reference of “CGI”.

2nd Plane Hitting South Tower (Chris Hopewell)
m.youtube.com...

One reason it looks like the jet dissolves, you really cannot take something shot at 30 FPS and then magically convert it to 320 FPS? A jet going 590 miles per hour equals 865 feet per second which results in a change of position of 28 feet between frames. That is 28 feet of movement missing from the recording between each frame.

Who other than the truth movement is claiming a nose cone from flight 175 video? Found in all 18 camera angles of flight 175?



Some accounts by “they”. First Responders on 9/11.

sites.google.com...

Church and Vesey. We were coming across and we walked down. We had to go down to the command center. We carried all our tools, the bottles, everything, and as we're walking down, part of the plane engine was sitting right in the street, still burning. I said, look, this is the plane. FDNY firefighter Paul Hyland


Once we started taking off, I guess 30 feet in front of us, there was a lady on the ground by the curb and she was just waving her arms. That's all she could wave. Her legs were crushed. Apparently she got hit by part of the landing gear, one of the tires of the airplane. There was a large tire next to her. FDNY EMT Orlando Martinez


...we started making our way to NYU Downtown Hospital, Beekman, to drop off our first set of patients when we got flagged down for another lady who got hit by the landing gear of the first plane. FDNY EMT Frank Puma


We just passed a compact car where the engine was running and the door was open, which looked to me like the driver had escaped, but from the back seat to the trunk was crushed by a jet engine. We started going up West Street. I believe that's when Smitty ran over the part of the plane, but he did that to avoid the bodies because there were obviously bodies in the street. FDNY firefighter Michael Hazel


There was a car that we drove by that the driver's door and the passenger door were open, and there was a plane motor on the back half of the car. Two inches more, and both these guys would have been dead too. That was their ticket. It was amazing. The car was actually cut right in half with this motor, right there back of the front seat. I sat there in amazement. FDNY firefighter Richard Saulle


"A section of the landing gear proved to me that this was a commercial airliner." PAPD Det. Sgt. Raymond Dilena Source


A tremendous fireball, flaming debris, pieces of the airplane, fuselage, landing gear, pieces of the building. ...We started running down one of the little side streets, Courtlandt or Dey. There were people dead in the street that obviously you couldn't help them. There was flaming debris coming down all over. It was just a matter of who got hit with the debris. FDNY Captain Michael Donovan


Right behind us on the southeast corner of West and Rector was a landing gear assembly from an aircraft lying against the curb and some scaffolding. PAPD Det. Edward Rapp Source


As we approached West Broadway, a NYPD lieutenant told us we could not proceed due to aircraft parts blocking the road. PAPD Det. Robert Fuchs Sourc

More accounts of they...

archive.nytimes.com...

The Sept. 11 Records
A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them.

The oral histories of dispatch transmissions are transcribed verbatim. They have have not been edited to omit coarse language.

The very real wreckage of WTC jets kills your hologram fantasy derived from not understanding the limitations of video. Wreckage that is attested to by scores of first responders, photographed before building collapse, recovered from roof tops, recovered from WTC rubble, documented, and is now on display.

Just keep killing your own credibility with your impossible fantasies......

a reply to: turbonium1

Yes, I recognize that the YouTube channel you referenced my have manipulated one of the 18 camera angles of flight 175 hitting the tower, and you don’t understand the limitations of video that has 29 feet of movement missing between frames.

Can you man up that the jet wreckage from the WTC is very real, attested to by first responders, was more than your false narrative of just dust, was photographed in place, recovered, and is now on display. And you have no explanation for the wreckage the was ejected from the towers, and was documented injuring people on 9/11. Your hologram fantasy creates more unsolvable problems than answers.

sites.google.com...

Once we started taking off, I guess 30 feet in front of us, there was a lady on the ground by the curb and she was just waving her arms. That's all she could wave. Her legs were crushed. Apparently she got hit by part of the landing gear, one of the tires of the airplane. There was a large tire next to her. FDNY EMT Orlando Martinez


...we started making our way to NYU Downtown Hospital, Beekman, to drop off our first set of patients when we got flagged down for another lady who got hit by the landing gear of the first plane. FDNY EMT Frank Puma


We just passed a compact car where the engine was running and the door was open, which looked to me like the driver had escaped, but from the back seat to the trunk was crushed by a jet engine. We started going up West Street. I believe that's when Smitty ran over the part of the plane, but he did that to avoid the bodies because there were obviously bodies in the street. FDNY firefighter Michael Hazel

Sorry you are killing your own credibility......

a reply to: turbonium1

Prove it's the nose cone only people on your side think that 25-29 fps video shows anything meaningful in an impact or explosive situation.

Here someone as scientifically challenge should be able to see the difference on this.

25fps v 1000fps



If you can't see the difference there is something wrong with you.

originally posted by: neutronflux
One reason it looks like the jet dissolves, you really cannot take something shot at 30 FPS and then magically convert it to 320 FPS? A jet going 590 miles per hour equals 865 feet per second which results in a change of position of 28 feet between frames. That is 28 feet of movement missing from the recording between each frame.

Who other than the truth movement is claiming a nose cone from flight 175 video? Found in all 18 camera angles of flight 175?

First of all, who else has, or has not, made the same claim - about the 'magical nose', or about anything else - is not relevant. It is about whether or not the claim is valid, and nothing else.

You're trying to hide behind excuses. As usual.

The evidence is very clear. We see the nose of this 'plane' come out the other side of the building, perfectly intact.

As for why no other footage shows a nose, it is explained in the same video.

This was live footage, taken from a TV news helicopter, by an expert in CGI. His website bragged about using 'real-time' CGI effects, even!

That explains why they couldn't edit out the 'indestructible nose' before anyone saw it on TV.

The purpose of showing it live on TV? To convince us it was real. They couldn't have faked live footage!

This footage is obviously a complete fake, of course. The 'nose' proves it, without a doubt.

It is proof, alone, that 9/11 was a set-up, all along.

But we have other videos to confirm it is fake, of course.


A nose doesn't appear on the other side of a building, no matter what the 'frame rate' is.

Same as a wall won't be perfectly intact after a plane drives through it, no matter what the frame rate was.

I know you're desperate for excuses, but this is simply ridiculous.

originally posted by: turbonium1
This clip shows the plane's nose magically appear - perfectly intact - from the other side of the tower!!

Watch at the 10:00 mark. Freeze it at 10:09.

www.youtube.com...

Do you see the nose coming out of the tower, on the opposite side?

This is a CGI effect, most likely.

Are you going to ignore/excuse this fantasy, or man up?

Hey man, i think if you are trying to refute something as documented as 9/11, you may need something more convincing than, "This is a CGI effect, most likely", can you maybe link to which studio did the CGI or what effect they used or the method of projecting it into the sky, then i guess someone had to blow the tower at the correct time to match with the CGI, if you believe that is what happened, that your choice

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: turbonium1

Prove it's the nose cone only people on your side think that 25-29 fps video shows anything meaningful in an impact or explosive situation.

Here someone as scientifically challenge should be able to see the difference on this.

25fps v 1000fps

If you can't see the difference there is something wrong with you.

If you can't see the difference between the footage of this plane is at normal speed, while the footage you've shown here is at a slower/faster than normal speed....then there is something wrong with you!

I suggest you read about an issue, instead of babbling nonsense.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

originally posted by: turbonium1
This clip shows the plane's nose magically appear - perfectly intact - from the other side of the tower!!

Watch at the 10:00 mark. Freeze it at 10:09.

www.youtube.com...

Do you see the nose coming out of the tower, on the opposite side?

This is a CGI effect, most likely.

Are you going to ignore/excuse this fantasy, or man up?

Hey man, i think if you are trying to refute something as documented as 9/11, you may need something more convincing than, "This is a CGI effect, most likely", can you maybe link to which studio did the CGI or what effect they used or the method of projecting it into the sky, then i guess someone had to blow the tower at the correct time to match with the CGI, if you believe that is what happened, that your choice

If you believe the nose of a plane could smash through a building and pop out from the other side, perfectly intact, that is your choice, too.


You should read their documents, because you'll find that the evidence does not even support their 'conclusions'. The steel itself proved that, beyond a doubt.

I choose reality. Maybe you will keep choosing to believe in a fantasy.

a reply to: turbonium1

If you believe the nose of a plane could smash through a building and pop out from the other side, perfectly intact, that is your choice, too.

Below are 18 views of flight 175 hitting the tower?

Which one shows the CGI nose cone again?

911 • 18 Views of Flight 175 Striking the South Tower
m.youtube.com...

Or is the item only visible in you referenced propaganda piece?

a reply to: turbonium1

I choose reality. Maybe you will keep choosing to believe in a fantasy.

Funny and ironic from an individual that creates fantasy from impossible technology? Can’t explain how a hologram would caused an inward explosion equal to a 250,000 pound jet carrying 8,000 gallons of fuel resulting in measurable seismic activity 25 miles away? The explosion resulting in jet wreckage in the streets and on roof tops. The aftermath documented in photos, documented injuries of people being struck by jet and building wreckage, and first responders’s accounts. The wreckage recovered, and placed on display. Then you have the DNA and personal effects of people aboard flight 175? Which you tried to falsely claim was only dust samples when engines, IDs, and bone fragments were recovered.

Just keep killing your credibility.....

a reply to: turbonium1

One major problem they couldn't do realtime CGI back then , also the bird footage I linked to was to show that at standard fps the videos where taken at by people all around the city would be if the NTSC system 29.97 fps or 25 fps on a PAL system camcorder, you will not see the finer details of the impact at those speeds also the resolution of the cameras back then was not even HD quality.

You see to be so backward when it comes to any subject dealing with science especially physics and optics

a reply to: turbonium1

Total and UTTER BULL COOKIES here is a link



Look how DARK a location is needed for this to work show one real example of a jet sized hologram or anything like that working in BRIGHT SUNLIGHT.

It may work under the bridge you live under but not in the REAL daylight world.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Or the lab full of modern equipment to suspend one small and still image? I guess the military had magic in 2001?

Note: using the term still in the context the image didn’t race across town over buildings of various height at speeds of 500 feet per second?

It fairly certain now 9/11 was an intelligence operation. We got certain people identified who worked for Saudi Arabia in the United States meeting 9/11 hijackers and providing funding for housing transport food. They were identified some of them in 29 pages of the classified section of the 9/11 Commission final report. This report downplayed their role. The leading agent who ran an FBI task force of 400 officers looking into the 9/11 attack has now stated the 9/11 commission mislead the American public about his findings that enough, in my opinion, to open up the investigation again. We know the Saudis who met the 9/1 hijackers were not low-level guys they were diplomats and spies attached to embassies inside the USA. So whatever way you look at it there's no denying 9/11 is a conspiracy.

Then you got to wonder if Saudis officials were known to help hijackers to carry out attacks who else could be involved? Did the deep network of US intelligence not know what was being planned? Did they do surveillance on these people? Do these surveillance video records exist somewhere in an archive? Did any Americans collude with the Saudis pre 9/11 and aware of this operation?

For me, the best evidence for 9/11 dark operation is WTC7 and Flight 93.

NIST has denied things that people witnessed and saw a molten liquid that potentially could contain steel and Iron. They never tested this liquid to see. NIST openly admits they never tested for explosives or residue of explosives ever. NIST denied Freefall occurred and they were forced to correct that statement after it was pointed out to them that was incorrect so they did another estimate the building fell 2.25 seconds at freefall in stage 2 of the collapse. Freefall, as many people are surely aware, cannot occur in a building with structural resistance. So whatever happened the support steel columns were removed before the stage 2 collapsed occurred as the floors came down and met no resistance on the way down. NIST also has never corrected their conclusion about the shear stud connections of girder 79 and column 44 they have been shown to be false on that.

Flight 93 none of the plane wings engines tail seating was ever found they found a crater that very suspicious.

a reply to: Jesushere

Flight 93 none of the plane wings engines tail seating was ever found they found a crater that very suspicious.

Really?


1000s of pieces of wreckage was recovered, actually most of the plane was recovered but it was in 1000s of pieces with the largest being about 6 feet long from the fuselage.

a reply to: Jesushere

You?

molten liquid that potentially could contain steel and Iron.

When was the pile ever hot enough to support liquid steel?

NIST openly admits they never tested for explosives or residue of explosives ever.

To what purpose? There is no video, audio, or seismic evidence indicating detentions with the power to cut steel? With the 19,000 human remains recovered, 6000 thousand that could fit in a test tube, no signs of blasting cap fragments, no signs of detonation devices, no signs of a CD wiring systems. And there was supposed to be a floor to floor CD system? No demolitions shrapnel recovered from the streets, near by buildings, not from the injured, and not with the human remains? None of the items were present that are normally tested for explosive residue? That leaves randomly testing 1,000,000 tons of buildings with rubble buried in a smoldering toxic pile being constantly sprayed with water and exposed to the weather up to 90 days? How would testing for explosives be meaningful in any way. For thermite, metallurgy shows the steel was no worked on by explosives.

a reply to: Jesushere

You

NIST denied Freefall occurred and they were forced to correct that statement after it was pointed out to them that was incorrect so they did another estimate the building fell 2.25 seconds at freefall in stage 2 of the collapse.

How was NIST forced.

Are you referring to WTC 7 with the collapse of the penthouse showing WTC 7 was internally collapsing several seconds before the facade even stated to fall? The free fall you refer to is measured from one pixel on one side of the facade which reached the rate of free fall mid collapse of the facade, not the building as a whole. Then the facade slowed down after reaching the rate of free fall. Your fantasy is explosives were only planted mid facade? From a build that collapsed in near silence?

a reply to: Jesushere

NIST also has never corrected their conclusion about the shear stud connections of girder 79 and column 44 they have been shown to be false on that.

Correct what to what reason?

Whole discussions on WTC 7

could-girder-a2001-possibly-have-got-past-the-side-plate-on-column-79.t9069/
www.metabunk.org...

wtc7-penthouse-falling-window-wave.t9398/
www.metabunk.org...


how-buckling-led-to-free-fall-acceleration-for-part-of-wtc7s-collapse.t8270/
www.metabunk.org...

wtc7-is-ae911s-and-nists-focus-on-a2001-justified-if-it-was-not-key-in-nists-global-model.t9427/
www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: Jesushere

Ok tells us at what point the collapse of WTC7 started I bet you get it wrong

InhaleExhale Really show me photograph evidence then I don't want read text about it I want the evidence this occurred. I saw the video posted online that day and all that visible is a crater with smoke coming out of it.