I agree, it has to do with the planes being filmed at 2 different angles further apart then most of us realize.

Even if GWB appeared on National T.V. saying it was an inside job, some here would say that it was fake and maybe it was a double or he was back on coke or alcohol....

If you are not even to "entertain" the posibility of fakery or give decent explanations about the videos.... dont rant, just ignore the poster and go on with your merry lives....

BTW, I wonder what John Lear would say about this...

Originally posted by piacenza
hey Ahabstar can you please adjust the prospective of the planes in the first 2 videos?
More than the no plane theory I am interested in the different angle approach of the plane in the first 2 videos of the thread.

This is an example but the other 2 videos I believe that are more significant in proving manipulation.
Something like this:


Can you make something like this with the prospective ajdusted?

Sorry for taking so long to reply, this video (removed from the quote to save bandwidth) is a good example of advancing an agenda with post-production tricks. Here you have multiple videos remixed into a single composite with text, pauses and a soundtrack that sounds like a poorly done European Techno-pop. The result is a visual confusion that starts making early 80’s music videos look good, Cyndi Lauper’s Girls Just Want to Have Fun comes to mind here with the video ball effect, but I digress.

Reading through the thread I see that you can now see the plane in the second half of the dual video and claim it to be a missile from its size. Rough guess on distance but I would say that the plane is about 1-1.5 miles from the camera in the helicopter. Naturally the plane would be tiny. From that range a cruise missile would be difficult if not impossible to view. A cruise missile is only 21feet long and 2.5 feet-4 feet diameter depending on the model. If what you see is a missile it would have to be about half the size of a Saturn V rocket from that range.

To your question of merging the two videos, yes I could do that. But I won’t do it; because in order to make things clear and make sense visually it would require removing elements (the buildings) in one, layering after making every element in one transparent, or leaving everything solid and have a blurry mess. Doing any of those things would take hours of uncompensated work that an objective viewer can already see and could lead to people speculating crazy ideas when viewed out of context. Just like the guy that made a quick gif with the plane removed as an example of “look, no plane at now” even though he stated exactly what he did and was forced to explain it again. Can do it, yes. Will do it, no.