It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Video - No real planes hit World Trade Center (Continuous Pieces)

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Originally posted by matrixNIN11
if you claim the videos used in analysis are not from the original footage, then not only is that your problem,
once again, for starters, the visual evidence such as in the 2nd video for example, is taken directly from footage from the naudet bros video. If you want to claim its not real, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

mister
No, it is not taken "directly" from the Naudet video. You are either lying about the provenance of the source material, or do not know the provenance. The close ups they show are clearly heavily blurred (to hide the pixelization) zoom-ins of a compressed digital video source. Anyone with experience in the attributes of film, uncompressed digital video, and compressed digital video will spot it immediately. I strongly urge you to show this video to any unbiased expert who works with the three formats, I guarantee you they will corroborate my observations.

Since the video you linked is:
1 -- using altered source material
2 -- is a heavily compressed digital video
...it cannot be considered definitive evidence.

If this "No Plane" theory is so important to you and the proponents of the theory, why aren't you taking the effort to use the highest-quality source footage and then present your findings in the highest quality end-format?

That's all I ask. If you show me your claims with a clear video, I will believe you.


are you actually trying to tell me the source video has been altered and intentionally blurred prior to the doc's analysis??

please tell me you're not really going to back yourself into that deep a corner.

The funny thing though is that you seem to be willing to blindly accept the OCT and footage as proof of whats been claimed it shows even though what it shows IS NOT WHAT WE SEE and contains anomalies and physical impossiblities that cannot be logically explained and proven by WHAT IS SEEN at all. The burden of PROOF to PROVE the official story that we claim the visual evidence contradicts, is NOT up to us... its up to the OCT and those who support the official story. This PROOF and evidence has NEVER been given nor can what they offer as evidence, disprove what the NRPT and video footage actually shows which again IS FAR MORE CLEAR than what they claim is shown.

so again, what i'm claiming is that the video HAS NOT BEEN ALTERED or iow their analysis is based on the original source which is ORIGINALL BLURRED.

I'm also saying that the BLURRING /compression loss etc, still shows MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND PROOF of fakery.

So iow your premise that its a heavily compressed digital video and cannot be considered definitive evidence, is false in the face of the actual video evidence that can still be seen/measured.

EOS




posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by matrixNIN11
posting a link to 43 angles of fake footage

You've been called out on some of that footage more than once by more than one person. Please tell everyone how private citizens had the technology in their homes to fake the planes on their home videos. We're still waiting for your answer.


please tell everyone why and how their footage contains fakery or the same fakery seen in other msm footage?

explain why theres footage in so-called amateur private citizen videos that are taken at almost perfectly identical angles and locations as illustrated in the video's i posted or iow, why devin clarks footage is almost a carbon copy of the footage from CNN.

explain why these alleged private citizens have connections to the media, government, are professionals in the video animation industry.

explain why many of these private citizens admit their footage was sent to the FBI before they got it back and then released it.

explain why if there were thousands of witnesses, there are only a select handful of footage from less than 1% of that witness pool.

explain why you insinuate that the technology to do such fakery wasn't available or could not be possible to have been done by "private citizens" in their homes... or that a video professional couldn't have been one of these so-called private citizens and taken his equipment "home" LOL


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
the funniest part in all this is how our resident disinfo agent bonez uses the same footage he calls unreliable and lacking, as evidence there were real planes.

You can clearly see and hear the plane in every single video.


If i can pull up video that doesn't have such sound, that alone disproves your assertion.

whatsmore if i can show evidence the sound is not consistent with the video, then your argument doesn't hold water as well.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You don't need the original videos to tell that. For someone to claim those same videos are fake, you DO need the originals. The originals then need to be taken to someone that has the equipment and the expertise to check the originals for tampering or to check to see if there were inserted images.


you have yet to show that the videos analyzed aren't from the original source,,, respectively, you also have yet to show and verify that all the videos in the 43 clips are originals and unaltered... same applies to the sound you claim is unaltered.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That's exactly what happens when someone comes out with a picture or video of a UFO. You can clearly see it's a UFO, but to verify that it's not fake, investigators obtain the original and run it through software or have it taken to a professional studio to disect it and look for evidence of fakery.


HAHAHA!! a UFO IS A UFO and termed that because its UNIDENTIFIED.

are you actually trying to tell me that we know the details of a true UFO?

ROTFLMFAO

You're comparing apples and ONIONS.

the OCT claims the videos SHOW flight 11 and 175 etc etc etc.

WE KNOW *WHAT* THESE VIDEOS ARE SUPPOSED TO SHOW AND WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT. WE KNOW what a BOEING 767 is supposed to LOOK LIKE!

WE ALSO KNOW WHAT NEWTONIAN LAWS STATE AND WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SEEING on these videos of the impacts.

the video evidence shows everything BUT what we're supposed see and what we're told we're seeing.

thats the primary issue and problem... and your conundrum.

so now that you backed yourself into another corner, i can't wait to see what new tactics you have to get yourself out without looking foolish.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'm pretty sure that not a single NPT cult member has obtained any video from the original source and had it taken to a professional studio to run it through the software and check for fakery. THAT's what needs to be done to say tv fakery is fact and until then, it's disinfo with your OPINIONS only, period.


and its that OPINION about what needs to be done in this case that makes your argument so fallacious as it proves or disproves nothing.


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
and then that was debunked right here

That's not a debunk. That's you going "ha ha ha, lol lol lol", attacking and giving your opinions. I see nothing scientific, verifiable or tangible there.


since there's nothing scientific, verifiable or tangible in what i'm debunking, i didn't need to offer any more than what i presented.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Originally posted by matrixNIN11
your argument doesn't even remotely explain or disprove the totality of the evidence they and other docs present,,, nor can it account for and be used to dismiss all the hundreds of different anomalies and contradictions that occur throughout the OCT/ footage.

In fact, it does.
If all you (or the theory proponents such as Nico Haupt and the "Webfairy") rely upon is poor footage as your source material (heavily compressed streaming digital video) then anomalies will be the norm in anything you view, not the exception.


and as i said and you still haven't addressed or proven wrong, that STILL has no bearing on much of the evidence that clearly shows FAKERY.

you still continue to ignore several issues and the context of what i've presented.


Originally posted by mister.old.school
I've repeated asked you for links to videos that support your claims that do not make use of these types of poor source files. This is because every single streaming Flash video (FLV) is a visual compromise so that the file size of the streaming content will be efficient and useable. As a result, as I've been stressing, no FLV video can be considered a reliable source for pixel-level examination.


one doesn't have to examine down to the PIXEL level in order to see certain fakery and anomalies... you still don't seem to be able to comprehend that or you're just intentionally denying and ignoring it because it doesn't conform to your theory.


you can't have that many coincidences, "LOSSES" or physical impossibilities including miraculous anomalies or suspension of physics and newtonian laws that day ONLY,

See above. Yes you can if your "evidence" is all from a compromise format with dubious quality issues.


see above,... no you can't.


Anyone with half the brain of an ANT, doesn't have to rely off of the QUALITY as you're talking about, to SEE the OBVIOUS FAKERY in ALL the videos and footage etc

It's an extraordinary claim you, Nico Haupt, the Webfairy, and all the other no-plane proponents are making. Anyone with half a brain would demand the best-possible evidence to consider the claim. Why is it that the no-plane proponents, don't themselves have half a brain and put forth a significant effort to get the best possible source material?


MOST of the SOURCE footage USED to sell the OCT, *is* itself from compressed and/or altered video.

so its those pushing the OCT who are responsible for the quality thats been analyzed.

but again, your argument about not being clear video so its not proof, relies on the premise that this video isnt from the original source, was altered, or isn't clear enough to show evidence of fakery.

I've already presented a more than logical and reasonable argument how and where thats false.

you have yet to show exactly how my argument and logic are wrong.



As a video professional myself, I have access to high resolution source material through several accounts with footage houses. The HD-quality Naudet DVD is available for order from three of the sources, with usage costs ranging from $175 to $1,800 depending on intended finished product. In addition, a wide range of other professional and amateur videos and photos of the day are available for similar fees -- exceptional quality source material is readily available. You source a YouTube video here that makes several incorrect claims either on purpose, or because the author of the video does not understand the nature of his source material. I will provide high-res frame-by-frame comparisons to see if the claims are based on either a misunderstanding, or manipulation (blurring) of a source digital video.


if you say so.



Now again, you can try to argue that such anomalies like the GHOSTING and wings disappearing is due to compression loss or low frame rate, but there's far more LOSS occurring that low res, frame rate or compression loss CANNOT account for!

The three most important things to understand about streaming digital video are:

The end result is a video that looks fairly decent to the human eye at 100% resolution and normal speed, but which will break down once we zoom-in and slow it down. This is the primary cause of what appears to be lost detail in the source videos used by the no-plane video creators.

As you can see, if all your source video is this type of format, nothing can be trusted.


uh huh. i see.... sure.

too bad that same standard, expectation, logic and argument isn't applied to those in the MSM, GOVERNMENT and RPT pushing the OCT and footage they use as a basis for their LIES.

interesting double standards and hypocrisy.

makes me sick.




[edit on 19-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by daersoulkeeper
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


is the OP a complete idiot? WTF?! REAL PEOPLE ON THE GROUND SAW THE PLANES HIT, it WAS NOT JUST A VIDEO the world saw. (one of them being a good friend of mine who has a high rise apartment, after first plane hit he went to his balcony and saw the other plane hit)

what else do we KNOW,,,entire families of people WHO WERE ON THE PLANES ALL DIED......they all boarded that fli
ght, all the families knew it, all the families died...


except FACTS AND EVIDENCE CONTRADICT WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND WERE TOLD TO BELIEVE.



i just can't believe some people, its conspiracy crazy's like you who give the real truthers a bad name.


the fact you blindly trust and accept what the OCT has told you without showing any understanding or acknowledgement of the counter-evidence exposing serious problems with the passenger STORY, is truly sad and shows one reason contributing to why the PERPS still haven't been brought to justice.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Planes arent designed to punch holes in steel plates as they are made to be light weight and carry passengers, not payloads.

The planes didn't punch holes through any steel plates. The planes didn't even cause the steel columns to fail. The planes did cause the connectors to fail that connected the perimeter columns together.


So how do you explain this image Bonez? If it's just connection failures why are there columns sliced right through the middle of the outerwall sections as depicted in the below image? It's doesn't look like simple connection failures to me. The wings have left diagonal cut outs through the columns, not just the connections.




posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
are you actually trying to tell me the source video has been altered and intentionally blurred prior to the doc's analysis??

Yes, and I will soon show you how.

The source video was a capture/download of an online streaming digital video -- it has therefore been unavoidably altered because of the codec and compression attributes I previously described. Whenever compressed digital video is used, there has been an alteration from the original.

Additionally, as I previously explained, it appears as though individual frames have been blurred so as to avoid the obvious pixillation (from pixel averaging) of the source. Another clue of alteration.

I've given you ample links so that you may understand the realities of streaming online digital video. I urge you to familiarize yourself with the readily accessible information. It matters.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
one doesn't have to examine down to the PIXEL level in order to see certain fakery and anomalies...

You're correct there. One doesn't have to if one is either a disinfo artist that doesn't care about real truth, or if one has such a closed and gullible mind as to believe such things, or maybe a little of both.

You and the few in the NPT disinfo cult may not need such an examination for you to blindly believe such nonsense. But for you to proclaim everything as fact when you have no facts, is the very definition of disinfo.

Or are you scared????
You know dang well that if you were to get the originals and have them professionally examined, the whole entire NPT disinfo cult would vanish in an instant.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
those pushing the OCT who are responsible for the quality thats been analyzed

We're responsible for the quality that YOU'VE analyzed?
Do you honestly hear yourself? Sweet baby Jesus, I'm talking to a kool-aid kid.

In any investigation anywhere on Earth in history that deals with video or photos, YOU have to obtain the originals to examine them for fakery. YOU'RE making the claim the videos are fake, YOU have to obtain the originals and YOU have to have them professionally examined or YOU have nothing but OPINION and DISINFO.



Originally posted by matrixNIN11
and shows one reason contributing to why the PERPS still haven't been brought to justice.

No, one of the reasons is because the NPT disinfo cult has given the MSM ammunition to discredit the real 9/11 truth. Thank you NPT disinfo cult!




Originally posted by matrixNIN11
except FACTS AND EVIDENCE CONTRADICT WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND WERE TOLD TO BELIEVE.

Can someone please tell me why he keeps typing this over and over and OVER in all these threads, but doesn't have any actual facts or evidence?

Anyone?

Beuller?


Get the originals, get them examined, or get lost.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
So how do you explain this image Bonez? It's doesn't look like simple connection failures to me.

That's because you see the image, but you're not LOOKING and understanding the image. And secondly, the colored drawing is totally inaccurate.

If you look at the image of the hole, it shows 4 floor trusses that are damaged. The drawing only shows 2. If you look at the image of the hole where the left wing hit, you will see that the last 8 steel columns where the wing tip impacted are all still intact and only the aluminum siding is damaged. If you find the other image of this hole, you can see the columns where the right wing tip impacted are also intact.

Only the strongest part of the wings that hold the heavy engines, caused the connectors to fail in those locations.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


There are plenty more examples:



You will see in this the south tower steel has been cut in the above picture.



Left wing damage, the hole on the far right is where the engine went in.



WTC1 hit you can clearly see from the diagram columns have been cut by the wings. What do you make of these?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Ermmmm.....thanks, Insolubriious, you have just PROVEN that a B767 impacted the side of the WTC Tower, based especially on the diagram shown as "Figure 6-3".

Please note: The massive engines, and the Main Spar that is the majority of the strength of the wing....those are strong and dense components.

They show the majority of damage, as compared to the relatively less robust outer wingtips, and top of the Vertical Fin.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Ermmmm.....thanks, Insolubriious, you have just PROVEN that a B767 impacted the side of the WTC Tower, based especially on the diagram shown as "Figure 6-3".




On the contrary, the damage is inconsistant with a B767 crashing into the WTC. The diagram proves the wing shape aside from the engines made diagonal cut outs through the steel walls. That's just like cartoon physics, you know the one..



meep meep!



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ermmmm.....thanks, Insolubriious, you have just PROVEN that a B767 impacted the side of the WTC Tower, based especially on the diagram shown as "Figure 6-3".

Yeah, but matrix will be along soon to say that it isn't proof of anything and that explosives could've made the hole to look exactly like a plane hit. Ignoring the fact that unless the explosives were placed on the outside for all to see, the explosives would've blown the building OUT, not sucked chunks of the building IN like the images show.

Disinfo artists are so predictable. They are running out of material. Maybe that's why matrix keeps typing the same thing over and over again in every post and capitalizing every other word.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
The diagram proves the wing shape aside from the engines made diagonal cut outs through the steel walls.

Then you must need glasses or a bigger monitor because the diagram and the picture both show the last 8 columns where the wing hit are all intact:






posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Cute....but are you being intentionally obtuse?

I refer you to the red dot on 'Figure 6-3' that is denoting the left wingtip. Please note how there is minimal damage, as expected, and no structural impact on the steel. Same with the tip of the Vertical Fin.

Of course, my thousands of hours in the B767-200 and -400, plus in their cousin the B757-200 and -300 count for nothing in terms of my experience.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


I forgot to add to my post above that if you make a claim that the steel columns were all cut by the wings, but the diagram and picture both show otherwise, that's spreading disinfo. No real shocker there though as that's all NPT'ers know how to do.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Originally posted by matrixNIN11
are you actually trying to tell me the source video has been altered and intentionally blurred prior to the doc's analysis??

Yes, and I will soon show you how.


Oooooooo, i can't wait


Originally posted by mister.old.school
The source video was a capture/download of an online streaming digital video -- it has therefore been unavoidably altered because of the codec and compression attributes I previously described. Whenever compressed digital video is used, there has been an alteration from the original.

Additionally, as I previously explained, it appears as though individual frames have been blurred so as to avoid the obvious pixillation (from pixel averaging) of the source. Another clue of alteration.

I've given you ample links so that you may understand the realities of streaming online digital video. I urge you to familiarize yourself with the readily accessible information. It matters.


dude... the SOURCE VIDEOs you're talking about are purported to be from the MSM as well as from AMATEUR vids which again are what the OCT, gov, media and anti-CT's have used as a basis to support their bs argument and LIE there WERE PLANES... even worse than just planes, they try to claim it shows FLIGHTS 11 and 175.


Do you not understand that?

So for you to dismiss the analysis done by docs like SC in the way you are and using the logic you are, actually further validates NRPT and SC et al.

Do you also not understand that either?

oh, and Fyi... I've shown how your logic and premise is false and borderline irrelevant.... IOW, it *DOESN'T* matter.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
dude... the SOURCE VIDEOs you're talking about are purported to be from the MSM as well as from AMATEUR vids which...

The purpose of the demonstration will be to show how the assumptions of the "no plane" crowd are based upon improper analysis.




I've shown how your logic and premise is false and borderline irrelevant.... IOW, it *DOESN'T* matter.

Just because you say a thing, does not make it so.

You're acting like the character George Costanza from the sitcom "Seinfeld," who is famous for saying, "It's not a lie if you believe it."

I've shown you the problem with the entirety of the source material used by Nico Haupt, Webfairy, and the others. Clearly you're unable to accept the reality of the medium in which your evidence resides, as it will invalidate your fabricated belief system.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Of course, my thousands of hours in the B767-200 and -400, plus in their cousin the B757-200 and -300 count for nothing in terms of my experience.

How many of your thousands of hours of experience did you spend crashing those B7*7 planes into buildings?

How are you more qualified, than most other people, to know what the damage pattern should look like when a B7*7 hits a WTC tower?



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by matrixNIN11
one doesn't have to examine down to the PIXEL level in order to see certain fakery and anomalies

You're correct there. One doesn't have to if one is either a disinfo artist that doesn't care about real truth, or if one has such a closed and gullible mind as to believe such things, or maybe a little of both.


your response *still* doesn't remotely address or disprove what i explained...in fact you've completely ignored the context and cherry-picked what you've attempted to answer but failed miserably.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You and the few in the NPT disinfo cult may not need such an examination for you to blindly believe such nonsense. But for you to proclaim everything as fact when you have no facts, is the very definition of disinfo.


I must say its quite interesting to watch a professional disinfo agent at work where you're able to fabricate non-existent issues, use twisted logic,
and use circular arguments. You make nonsense sound sensical.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Or are you scared????
You know dang well that if you were to get the originals and have them professionally examined, the whole entire NPT disinfo cult would vanish in an instant.


I don't need the "originals" in order to disprove you or prove NPRT.

One only needs to analyze the footage that the OCT claims is proof of
real planes and the rest of their fantasy.

Its the only so-called live footage thats ever been released by DESIGN. But whats been released is more than sufficient to prove the existence of fakery since your pathetic Pixelization and compression issues argument, cannot be used to dismiss all the problems, evidence and anomalies the docs reveal.
I've already presented a detailed explanation showing exactly how and where your argument is flawed and illogical. And anyone with eyes can see there's not remotely enough resolution loss to obscure the fakery.

But then again, you have YET to offer any logical intelligent counter-argument showing EXACTLY how and where what I, SC and others have explained, is wrong. All you post are ad homs, video's containing fakery that you claim are supposedly not credible even though you use it as proof of planes etc, and mindless drivel about how you've debunked something using a debunked link.

its almost as pathetic as watching a dog try to catch its tail.

woof woof bonez!


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by matrixNIN11
those pushing the OCT who are responsible for the quality thats been analyzed

We're responsible for the quality that YOU'VE analyzed?
Do you honestly hear yourself? Sweet baby Jesus, I'm talking to a kool-aid kid.


yeah, it is quite comical you don't seem to understand that i'm talking about the ORIGINAL OCT crew ie FBI, CIA, GOV, MSM etc. responsible for disseminating the footage and creating it.

Why pray tell hasn't the MEDIA or GOV released a single piece of official footage thats in the hi res quality you're talking about and should be very easy to find? Why has this footage been TAKEN DOWN or suppressed?

if this hi res quality and so-called ORIGINAL SOURCE footage is so important to you and others, where is it?

Why? because doing so would further expose with even more clarity that the video's have been faked and/or contains fakery.

You claim there's thousands of witnesses and suggest there's tons of footage that SHOWS REAL PLANES Bla Bla Bla! Where is this footage then bonez?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
In any investigation anywhere on Earth in history that deals with video or photos, YOU have to obtain the originals to examine them for fakery.


NOT IN THIS CASE PAL. But in any OFFICIAL STORY especially such as 911, there should be CLEAR VIDEO EVIDENCE to support that story, right?

So WHERE IS THIS FOOTAGE Bonez?

If you nor the perps you defend in the government who created the OFFICAL STORY can produce this alleged ORIGINAL FOOTAGE and can only USE the footage that SC has analyzed as the basis for their story, then either it doesn't exist, or what exists is in fact WHAT THEY'VE RELEASED to support the official story and even YOU are using to support your arguments.

Its hilarious you don't even realize by using any of the video's out there to prove your case which you claim aren't reliable, you're actually VALIDATING it as credible.

so thanks for your validation



Originally posted by _BoneZ_
YOU'RE making the claim the videos are fake, YOU have to obtain the originals and YOU have to have them professionally examined or YOU have nothing but OPINION and DISINFO.


see above. You're entire argument is now obsolete.

pack it up son.


Originally posted by matrixNIN11
except FACTS AND EVIDENCE CONTRADICT WHAT YOU BELIEVE AND WERE TOLD TO BELIEVE
Can someone please tell me why he keeps typing this over and over and OVER in all these threads, but doesn't have any actual facts or evidence?

Anyone?

Beuller?


the only evidence and facts I or anyone needs to prove fakery which i've repeatedly posted, are all right here:

www.youtube.com...

you look so foolish arguing it proves nothing.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Get the originals, get them examined, or get lost.


YES bonez, good idea. Its your only hope to save face.

but then you still lose either way.

if you don't find the "originals" you claim need to be found, then it proves they don't exist and then you have to explain where the videos came from that the gov, media and oct supporters are using as a basis for what they claim proves REAL PLANES etc.

If they're found, then we'll all finally see even clearer evidence of the fakery.

nice little hole you've dug for yourself to bury your BONE, bonez. Bow wow





[edit on 19-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
if you don't find the "originals" you claim need to be found, then it proves they don't exist


As I previously mentioned, nearly all stock footage houses have several HD videos that include the planes on September 11th, 2001. Hundreds, if not thousands, of hours are available for anyone able to pay a small fee that typically begins at $75.00 for downloadable 1080 versions, and $150 for DVDs. Over the past two days, I've identified 114 different video products that can be ordered... ranging in duration from 15 minutes to a set of five DVDs with 15 hours of 9/11 footage.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join