No planes hit the Twin Towers?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by D.Duck
Get me ONE real picture or video of UA Flight 175 hitting the tower.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37ed35119fa9.gif[/atsimg]

Any questions?

Second line.

Line that up with the fairbanks shot and see if the fireball match. It does not.

D.Duck

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]

[edit on 1-7-2009 by jrnsr]

well, I believe there is a video of plane parts on the ground... not sure what it was called ... it was a fireman describing walking around and what he saw... I know... spare me... but I have seen it and it was compelling testimony. but then that would mean there was a jet... so, I want to hear this under oath... we have audio and visual on the planes.. at least 50 people... and just about every statement they took contained bombs going off all over the place. Yet, Not One Explosion made it into the 911 OMMISSION REPORT ... you know they are lucky we are all Americans here... otherwise we would have already started gorilla warfare against this authority ... it shows we can all be civil on our way to the slaughter house... how lovely ... they took us over by killing 3200 + 4000 + 1.2 million IRAQIs and I dont know how many Afghans ... I dont recall a number.
and we are still calm and collective ... great ... because I tell you a some of the Yahoo's around here ... these Yahoo's are in love with this land in an obsessive way and dont care to much for politians - death row inmate was just slightly higher in the latest "The South Will Rise Again" polls.
They tried to play off McVie as a Yahoo didnt they... I got to listen to that Nickles interview... Ive heard about it but havent heard it yet.
it sounded like They worked for the FBI .. ./? to rob banks.... ../? ok, something is not right here... has anyone a link to it...?

anyway, I still do not see anything out of the normal around here... the only really noticible difference is Money is getting really hard to come by. and the Corporations are tightning up for the long haul... so you had better to...

Originally posted by D.Duck
The only thing that would penetrate WTC is a missile.
D.Duck

Here is the hands down proof that MISSILES entered the Towers. This is the 2nd hit. YouTube- 9/11: Remembering the Jumpers [Edit 1]

www.youtube.com...

alternative site
technorati.com...

Please go to frame 17 - 23. If anyone with a rational mind who continues to hold to the notion of commercial airliners having hit the Twin Towers after watching this video is in terminal denial and there's no hope for them. Best to walk away from people such as this and devote your and time effort to more fruitful projects. TRUTH is what matters here -NOT arguments with the intransigence of the ignorant.

Watch the frames 17 - 23 at regular speed first then view it a frame at a time - do it again and again OK



[edit on 10-7-2010 by Vitruvian]

Just out of curiosity, if no planes hit the towers...what was I watching on the CNN live broadcast when the second plane hit?

I mean, sure, I can accept the idea that something fishy happened, but I witnessed the second plane crashing with my own eyes on what was purportedly a live broadcast of the events, as they were happening, on CNN that morning.

- Fry

Originally posted by Vitruvian
Here is the hands down proof that MISSILES entered the Towers. This is the 2nd hit. YouTube- 9/11: Remembering the Jumpers [Edit 1]

www.youtube.com...

alternative site
technorati.com...

This is not proof of a missile. The above is proof of people falling/jumping to their deaths.

Ok guys, we need to bring down the WTC.
Why not fly planes into it, then used charged explosions to bring it down? Brilliant!
No wait, I've got a better idea, let's spend billions of dollars trying to fake a plane flying into the building, then try to photoshop everyone else who take pictures and videos of it, then we'll also try to silence the witnesses, oh and let's make sure we can edit it on CNN live footage too.
My god, you are a genius!

reply to post by Vitruvian


Huh???

Here is the hands down proof that MISSILES entered the Towers.

Thanks for that YouTube video. Chilling; but a tribute to the tragedy of those who had to choose between dying a horrible, painful burning death, or a quick and relatively painless end by jumping.

HOWEVER....there was NO evidence of any missiles!!!!


Did you not notice, at the end of that video?

THIS link to a website, to refute "9/11 quackery"???

Here's what was written in the red text box at the end:

"A special link for 9/11 conspiracy theorists (and other quackery); A guide to critical thinking @

www.connexions.org...

[edit on 10 July 2010 by weedwhacker]