New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Is piacenza and BS the same individual? The mannerisms seems very similar and the tone and accusations are very similar also.




posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
ok Taking in account the Newton's third law there is only one explanation: Missile with depleted uranium or CGI nothing else. I think that the POD its actually the missile. I have also another theory which would explain everything else and I will post it soon.
The plane no plane its not even that important to me, there are things that are really unexplainable much more than this theory. Soon I will post it. My only problem is that I am trying to do not to have ppl like the chimp or the general coming up and saying this is just ridicolous without giving any reasons or adding anything to the discussion. I will actually pay 100% guaranteed (100USD will do?) one person that will prove either way my theory even if its false. But that is next week so stay tuned.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
By the way I am watching part 3 and its reaaally interesting I think a little hard to debunk but hey.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
ok Taking in account the Newton's third law there is only one explanation: Missile with depleted uranium or CGI nothing else. I think that the POD its actually the missile. I have also another theory which would explain everything else and I will post it soon.


Er, what does "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" have to do with whether you need a missile or not?

And we are talking penetrating steel under compression here, in a large builidng, not armor plating on a tank, you shouldn't need DU to penetrate it.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza


I believe you are basing that image composite, at least in part, on this digital video capture on StillDiggin's website --

(Please correct me if I am wrong)

The composite appears to have applied quite a bit of blur effect to achieve the desired shape in order to fit the presupposed theory. As we know, we cannot place too much reliance on the accuracy of compressed digital video. The very act of compression introduces mosaic artifacts to varying degrees, dependent on the method used for compression (and anything uploaded to YouTube or any other similar service is compressed, yet again).

But let's examine this image in closer detail. Here is a 600% zoom on the are in question. As we can see, this shape is surrounded by a great deal of compression artifacts and pixelization. However, after zooming in on the unfiltered shape (no blur), we can see that the pixels do indeed imply more of a ejected smoke plume, than fuselage --

Granted, the shape is fuselage-like, but but this source imagery is not enough.

Again I stress the need for diligent reliance on high-quality source material as the basis for theories that result in claims as fantastic as presented in these threads.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
hmm weird I thought the fuselage was made of aluminium.
Have you seen pictures of what happened when a bird hits the nosecone of a plane at high speed? It happens because the law of phisycs are respected while a plane flies. I guess that when it hits a few tons of steel those laws are not common sense anymore.
Have you guys watched all the parts of this documentary?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
hmm weird I thought the fuselage was made of aluminium.
Have you seen pictures of what happened when a bird hits the nosecone of a plane at high speed? It happens because the law of phisycs are respected while a plane flies. I guess that when it hits a few tons of steel those laws are not common sense anymore.


So, now a bird hitting a plane in the air is somehow comparable to a plane hitting a steel structure? Bird's bones are mainly hollow, not to mention the fact that mostly they are squishy.

So tell me, master of physics, what should happen when a plane hits a building at high speed?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
piacenza

I just finished watching part 2. The analysis is very poor. For example, the film talks about the 'dark plane' vs the 'white plane', in other words why is the plane white or brighter then in the other film.

Take notice of the poor analysis, because it is common in these films.

Notice the WTC itself looks brigher and White in the one film and darker in the other!

Does that now prove the WTC is a CGI effect??

[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
please watch part3.
When a plane hits a building I guess it explodes? it deformes? For sure it does not come out from the other side intact. Am I missing something here? I mean you are actually telling me I am right am I correct?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:48 PM
link   
piacenza

your assuming to much. You are looking at films of very poor quality and someone is comparing different camera angles, forgetting that film is 2 dimensional.

You assume that since the 'fuselage' came out the other side of the tower that it can't be a real plane but CGI, even though for that to be true that would mean 2 different CGI people made the same exact mistake from different angles.

Your better off assuming the plane was a much stronger plane disguised before jumping to conclusions.

Also one thing at a time, look at what I said just about the dark plane vs white plane, it is clear that the WTC itself appears as such, so if this is true then the Towers accordingly would be part of this.

That is why these films are using poor judgement.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
Am I missing something here?

Would you be so kind as to comment on the information I presented in this post?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Thank you.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I would like you to watch this video where you get a much better view of the nose cone:

youtube.com...
You cando the same analisy and it will be much much much better.
Thnx



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
please watch part3.
When a plane hits a building I guess it explodes? it deformes? For sure it does not come out from the other side intact. Am I missing something here? I mean you are actually telling me I am right am I correct?


Tell me then, where I can find a picture of the entire plane coming out of the other side, which clearly shows a whole plane. None exists, because yes it deforms and explodes, but wreckage still comes out the other side. And frankly the picture of the so called 'nosecone' is just ejected material from the force of the crash and explosion.

In part 3 that reporter says about solid concrete taking the wings off of the plane etc, and then the video shows footage of the WTC impact. Kind of irrelevant seeing as the two are completely different structures. The WTC had steel outer layer, as opposed to solid concrete, which was probably hardened against attack.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PartChimp

Some who claim that reptoids piloted the planes in to the building via remote control have a more valid theory than yours because, there were, unequivocally, planes that made contact with the towers in Manhattan on 9/11.


I missed that theory.

Anyway BS thanks for the link and the film it certainly raises questions. I do believe something hit the towers but what I don't know. The more I look into it the more I realize there are a few holes that don't "fit".

Wouldn't the nose be destroyed on impact anyway? It seemed to go thru the building as if it were made of cardboard.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by lee anoma]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
I would like you to watch this video where you get a much better view of the nose cone:

I will.

But I would very much appreciate the benefit of your response to my post.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Here is a picture of a 767





compare with....






Question is, and I have asked this before.

What part of the plane is that? To me I don't think it is exactly the Fuselage but that doesn't leave us with much else.

recall the POD theory




It could very well be the underside. But nothing is conclusive. Before jumping to any conclusions one could assume disguised plane rather then CGI.



[edit on 7-6-2007 by talisman]



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by piacenza
I would like you to watch this video where you get a much better view of the nose cone:
youtube.com...


So then let's do our best to examine yet another multiple-generation compressed video.

As we can see, there are so many compression artifacts, we cannot be sure what is represented.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
mister.old.school

Actually at one point in the sequence you put up there it could look like the engine. The artifacts could be creating a 'false' shape.

It is something coming through and as I have shown in another thread a b-25 bomber had an engine go right through the empire state building and out the other side, and that plane was only travelling at 200mph.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Okay this seems stupid to me to argue the point of "NO PLANES". IF there were no planes that hit, what happened to the pilots, crew and passengers!!!???

It's so simple, no planes means no people, therefore theory proven.

YES planes means REAL people were on those aircraft and you have a paper trail, human trail to follow i.e. Families, Addresses, phone numbers, jobs, friends etc. Come on bsreg you can't ignore THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE! Puh-lease put it to rest with the wild imagination. And yes I work for the DIA,CIA, DoD, FBI, DHS, take your pick.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
ok chillout
www.livevideo.com... heres a link to all 4 of the video's, the 3rd one really caught my eye and the backdrop change made my jaw drop. I suggest everyone takes a look at all 4 on the link i provided. Something's not right in any of the video clips they contradict each other when shown with a close eye as shownin these clips. I never believed in the no plane theory, but im open to it now after seeing all 4 parts. Great movie, lets stop the pickering and investigate it further!





top topics
 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join