reply to post by D.Duck
Scott Meyer’s video is the best you could come up with? What could possibly be fake about just 10 video frames of jetliner? It is riddled with
problems. For the sake of brevity, I will present only some of the problems that should raise suspicions for those seriously interested in
researching 911, until I run out of characters.
First off, he just HAPPENS to set up a camera on a tripod for this shot, framing in WTC2 more so than filming the main attraction, the WTC1 fire, and
just ACCIDENTALLY captured Flight 175. Why would you bother setting up a tripod? The normal reaction to a spectacular news event would be grab the
camera, and start shooting, zoom in & out, pan around somewhat to record more than one single, solitary view? …and why not run to a location
without a building blocking the view?
There are 2 versions of the video, a double exposure for special effects and a clean shot for NIST’s sharper still photos. The double exposure is
supposed to simulate a blur to dramatize speed. At a “conservative” estimate of 545mph, that is over 770 feet/second or 25 feet/frame. Both
Flight 175s would be very fuzzy. Both are fakes. (…and to whom it may concern, if you try to say digital cameras are super highspeed and don’t
blur, you’ve never used one or are fibbing, to put it mildly).
clean NIST footage
The double exposure cannot be explained as “interlacing” because under magnification, every other line of EACH wing would be clear sky, but all
lines appear as solid metal, not clear sky. Note the buildings are not double exposed, just the plane. The bottom line, how can anyone accept that
there are two distinct videos produced by one camera of one event, and say they’re both real? There both faked.
Take a look at the belly of that “767-222 fuselage.” That is not a United Airlines jet, it isn’t a Boeing 767 passenger liner, and it isn’t
even a standard 767 cargo plane. It is a custom built fuselage, for military more than likely. There are those who will deny the obvious, so judge
for yourself. There are extensive studies on that fuselage and “pod.” Google it up.
One of the more obvious anomalies that gets overlooked is that the “explosions” are supposed to be simply BLACK SMOKE from jet fuel. The south
wall that was supposedly “impacted” should’ve been drenched with fuel (and a few hundred tons of plane components) and virtually all that BLACK
SMOKE would be billowing off from the impact, not the north side. The clouds showing up initially are the WHITE combustion products from explosive
charges planted along 3 walls, ejecting much faster than smoke would. That should be as clear as black and white. The black billowing smoke from
hydrocarbons from the staged pyrotechnics follows momentarily. They had to fake this impossible catastrophe to sell the world on jet fuel brought the
towers down, and WTC7, too. Real aircraft couldn’t do it.
At full throttle, there should be a very noticeable dark exhaust trailing. Pixel planes did not leave any hint of exhaust.
Dduck pointed out the Meyers’ and the Fairbanks’ video explosions do not jive with impact images. You can evaluate that yourself
. I just want to point out, the shots in positions like Evan Fairbanks
originally had the “flash” to coordinate explosion with the pasted plane images to locate the center of the explosion and at what frame the
blowout starts. The “flashes” were very real signals on the building and always precede the exp
[edit on 27-6-2009 by jrnsr]
[edit on 27-6-2009 by jrnsr]