Ok its not the same object it an engine of the plane its a column its air...
Now this remind me of a thread on why the US deserved 911. Now I am not so sure that the US society actually deserved it. It is obvious that it did not do any good to ppl like you. You could have taken the worst thing that ever happened in human history and turn it to the most positive one. I really hope you have an agenda otherwise I would not be able to described what I think about you without being banned. If you have an agenda I applaud you and you have my respects ,if not...

*scratches head* What? I just answered your question in a yes or no manner. I was hoping you would do the same for mine.

First time ever and I hope my last I will click on the ignore button.
Bye bye chimp.

Well, his failure to answer the question is ample proof that i don't think dear piacenza knows what to believe. Further proof that there are enough holes in this theory to bring it down for the sham that it is.

piacenza

Chimp is asking a very vaild question here. I don't agree with everything he says, but it is a very valid question. Do you honestly think 2 different CGI people made the same exact mistake from different viewing angles??

Also, at this point wouldn't it be more logical to assume the plane was a military JET made to look civilian as in "OPERATION NORTHWOODS" style.

I don't believe this, but it is far more likely.

Now in regards to 9/11.

How do you know it took place at all? Using your logic.

piacenza...

The real explosion around the 'fake' nose cone - how did it get there?

Once we can agree that the object in question is the same I will answer your questions.
Is the object the same yes or no?

Ps: about the explosions.
You probabbly missed a few thread of mines in which you can see intermittent flashes going on and off on point of impact. The famous flash it is actually a bomb. On the impact of the second plane there is another VERY clear Explosion going off in the other Building. Right at impact. So explosions yes they are totally real.

Originally posted by piacenza
Once we can agree that the object in question is the same I will answer your questions.
Is the object the same yes or no?

Well yes, it's the same piece of ejected material form the WC tower, not the nosecone, as that would make no sense, if it's in more than one picture I think we can agree it's not a CGI error. And of course, it only seems to be in one frame of the original footage which was then blacked out? if it was an animation error, wouldn't it be in the next .28 seconds of film? Well, if it is, you have proof that at least one thing was faked. If it isn't, it is entirely down to pixelation and coincidental shaping of dust and explosion.

Originally posted by piacenza On the impact of the second plane there is another VERY clear Explosion going off in the other Building. Right at impact. So explosions yes they are totally real.

So can I summarise your view thus:

No plane crashed into WTC2. Explosives were pre-planted. They were detonated to coincide with faked 'live' TV images of a 'plane' approcahing and impacting the building. The real explosion on the face opposite to that of impact lined up perfectly with the protruding 'fake' nose cone such that the origin of the explosion can be seen to appear from the root of the nose cone.

Is this an accurate assessment of your position?

BSRegistration..............

That is really fascinating! I haven't paid much attention to the no plane theory before but had never discounted it either. I must say I am interested now though.

Just a comment in case the maker of this film is monitoring this thread:

I found that some of the comments that was added to the video flashed on and off the screen too fast. I could barely read them that fast and had to keep going back to read and digest to see what I was suppose to be looking for in the subsequent shot. I suggest you let some of the more complicated comments linger a bit longer.

It might not be apparent that you are going to fast because you are so familiar with your assertations, but for a newbi to the "no plane" theory, I found the comments too fast to read and digest.

Just a suggestion, as some may not take the time to keep going back to re-read what was being said and not understand your point.

I'm looking forward to part 2 !

Originally posted by piacenza

Could you please help me understand the provenance of this image?

I'd like to see the two sources used to create this composite.

Thank you.

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by piacenza

Could you please help me understand the provenance of this image?

I'd like to see the two sources used to create this composite.

Thank you.

Would you agree that if those pics are real this is the same object?

Originally posted by piacenzaI will find the video with the flashes its very very interesting.

Be aware that I view pretty much everything that's posted here and elsewhere, whether I agree with it at first or not. I don't need to review anything here in order to establish what I'm trying to establish.

Is it your view that the explosion that appears on the opposite side to that of the impact originates precisely around the root of a faked CGI nose cone?

Originally posted by piacenza
Would you agree that if those pics are real this is the same object?

As presented, I'm unable to determine what is represented in this image, and if it is "real" or not. If we can see and compare the source imagery used to create the composite, it would help a great deal. Otherwise, it does nothing for the debate.

I am asking you to concentrate first on the explosion on the other tower while the 2nd plane hits. On the top right of the other tower the once already attacked. This is very important because it shows that explosives were preplanted exactly where the so called plane should have hit. Glad you already read the post about the Flashes, so what do you think about it?

Originally posted by piacenza
I am asking you to concentrate first on the explosion on the other tower while the 2nd plane hits. On the top right of the other tower the once already attacked. This is very important because it shows that explosives were preplanted exactly where the so called plane should have hit. Glad you already read the post about the Flashes, so what do you think about it?

I know what you're referring to apparently in an effort to trying to avoid addressing the question. I'll answer you first so that we can move on to you answering me.

Yes I saw the flashes. I thought they were interesting. I even contributed to the thread by posting a video from one of your earlier threads showing the impact from a different angle which also included some curious flashes.

Now my turn.



In the above image, you can see what you believe is a CGI 'nose out' having an effect upon the shape of the explosion. In fact, if you go back to the footage, you can see the explosion begin precisely at the point this allegedly fake nose cone emerges from the building. This interplay between fake and real is unreasonable. Either they are both fake or they are both real.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by coughymachine]