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.

 

3 Videos w/more evidence of NRPT and Fakery of Gashes in First Impact

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I thought the windshield-reflection argument was very compelling. Any alternative theories on that?




posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by alienanderson
 


No not everyone, just a bunch of people msg'ing me and responding to this thread. He doesn't want to look at anything that challenges his belief, and if hes the proud, dedicated truther he claims to be then that does not fit.

Also, you're welcome to read through every post I have made on this site, never once have I called anyone a disinfo agent, OTHER THAN BONES. And that's just because of his continual denial to look at anything open-minded.

His answer to everything is posting pictures of plane parts. Just like the government who used "look at the plane part pictures" while defending their official pentagon stance. Well, wheres 1 of the 50 videos showing impact?

See what I mean? Ignore all logic, and throw in some plane pictures = 911 conspiracies debunked, right? That's the program bones is on.

Additionally, I am completely tired of the "its smoke" defense. You and bones have now brought it up, so once again I am wasting my time pointing out the obvious, lets look at the photo:
IMAGE

All the smoke travels uniformly up and to the left, I assume the wind was blowing in that direction.

Now lets get this straight, you and bones conclude that:

- Unlike any other area, the UNDAMAGED area (in reality) is smoking, even though no other areas exhibit this quality

- That smoke, is so thick that it appears black, rather than grey as the other smoke all around does.

- That smoke, instead of traveling up and to the left, decides to get a mind of its own and travel to the right and hover...

- Thus, its smoke and not simulated damage?


Great argument, enjoy your blinders.



[edit on 20-4-2009 by king9072]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 




Thanks for posting that video, it highlights my points BEAUTIFULLY in my above post.


ALL SMOKE IS TRAVELING UP AND TO THE LEFT. The video you post shows that clearly, it also shows what appears to be damaged area, which completely contradicts LIVE footage several minutes LATER, that shows that part of the building perfectly intact.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by purehughness
Now, I'm just wondering, no plane right? Then what? People were looking up at the sky hearing... something. I'm just wondering if a lower explosive cruise missile in conjunction with pre placed demo charges could have been the case. It would be relatively easy then for editors to alter the missile to look like a plane. But can the speed on a cruise missile be altered to mimic an airliner?


I can tell you from personal experience that planes hit both WTC towers.
I witnessed the planes hit with my own eyes. There were no missles. Big jet airlines plowed into them. I was at work that morning and saw it happen, I will never forget that day.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead

Originally posted by purehughness
Now, I'm just wondering, no plane right? Then what? People were looking up at the sky hearing... something. I'm just wondering if a lower explosive cruise missile in conjunction with pre placed demo charges could have been the case. It would be relatively easy then for editors to alter the missile to look like a plane. But can the speed on a cruise missile be altered to mimic an airliner?


I can tell you from personal experience that planes hit both WTC towers.
I witnessed the planes hit with my own eyes. There were no missles. Big jet airlines plowed into them. I was at work that morning and saw it happen, I will never forget that day.




There you have it folks, 911 has been debunked. Move along, nothing to see here... anymore.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by alienanderson
 

never once have I called anyone a disinfo agent, OTHER THAN BONES. And that's just because of his continual denial to look at anything open-minded.


I'm not going to go through your posts but I'll take your word for it and I am genuinely glad to hear that you don't throw the disinfo tag around lightly


Now lets get this straight, you and bones conclude that:

- Unlike any other area, the UNDAMAGED area (in reality) is smoking, even though no other areas exhibit this quality

- That smoke, is so thick that it appears black, rather than grey as the other smoke all around does.

- That smoke, instead of traveling up and to the left, decides to get a mind of its own and travel to the right and hover...

- Thus, its smoke and not simulated damage?

Great argument, enjoy your blinders.
[edit on 20-4-2009 by king9072]



I'm not concluding anything just stating possibilities, but I can see a hole in your argument.

The black smudge could just as well be smoke coming from a damaged window on the right hand side of the building and being sucked across and drawn up rapidly due to the fire raging in the middle of the building.

The still image you have shown does not indicate a direction of the clearly and neither does the video

Like I said, I'm not really arguing with you regarding the existence of the plane (as you may well be 100% correct).

The youtube presentation certainly shows an anomaly but that anomaly is not "conclusive proof of non-existing airplane" to me

Video clips on the internet are subject to distortion from the zoom as well as pixelation from compression.

For example, the famous Zapruder movie of the Kennedy Assassination when zoomed in and slowed down looks like the driver shot JFK. Did he?

Well, the movie is not high enough quality too conclude 100%

And that's my point: people see what they want to see and for you the anomaly in the naudet movie is enough proof that there was no plane (although I am guessing there are other facts that have led you this conclusion)

I must ask you though - if the black smudge was photoshopped in by persons unknown... why? Videos taken minutes later do not show this supposed fake gash so why edit it into a few frames of the naudet clip?

Unfortunately the naudet clip is taken on such a high zoom that I doubt there will ever be a version available with a high enough resolution to give 100% undeniable proof (unless they accidently release an unedited version showing something other than a plane flying into the building)



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Thanks for posting that video, it highlights my points BEAUTIFULLY in my above post.

ALL SMOKE IS TRAVELING UP AND TO THE LEFT. The video you post shows that clearly, it also shows what appears to be damaged area, which completely contradicts LIVE footage several minutes LATER, that shows that part of the building perfectly intact.


Apologies I had not realised the contents of this youtube clip before posting just now

This demonstrates that either:

1. The naudet clip and this second NBC clip were both photoshopped for a crucial few seconds
2. The anomaly is indeed thick black smoke captured by two separate cameras



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by Erasurehead

Originally posted by purehughness
Now, I'm just wondering, no plane right? Then what? People were looking up at the sky hearing... something. I'm just wondering if a lower explosive cruise missile in conjunction with pre placed demo charges could have been the case. It would be relatively easy then for editors to alter the missile to look like a plane. But can the speed on a cruise missile be altered to mimic an airliner?


I can tell you from personal experience that planes hit both WTC towers.
I witnessed the planes hit with my own eyes. There were no missles. Big jet airlines plowed into them. I was at work that morning and saw it happen, I will never forget that day.




There you have it folks, 911 has been debunked. Move along, nothing to see here... anymore.


Love the sarcasm. I guess I am just another disinfo agent huh. Tell me genius WTF did I witness that day? I saw planes as clear as day. Were you there that day or just an armchair witness?



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by Erasurehead

Originally posted by purehughness
Now, I'm just wondering, no plane right? Then what? People were looking up at the sky hearing... something. I'm just wondering if a lower explosive cruise missile in conjunction with pre placed demo charges could have been the case. It would be relatively easy then for editors to alter the missile to look like a plane. But can the speed on a cruise missile be altered to mimic an airliner?


I can tell you from personal experience that planes hit both WTC towers.
I witnessed the planes hit with my own eyes. There were no missles. Big jet airlines plowed into them. I was at work that morning and saw it happen, I will never forget that day.




There you have it folks, 911 has been debunked. Move along, nothing to see here... anymore.


Love the sarcasm. I guess I am just another disinfo agent huh. Tell me genius WTF did I witness that day? I saw planes as clear as day. Were you there that day or just an armchair witness?



I have never seen you post before really so I can't make any such claim. But I genuinely believe you think you saw a plane that day. But I also genuinely believe that your memory of that day likely isn't what actually happened.

It was demonstrated once in an experiment done to investigate experiences of witnesses of 'exciting' events. In the experiment all people had cameras on their head to capture what they could see. The people were then "accidentally" walked past what appeared to be some sort of military event going on in the desert. Because the witnesses talked to eachother during and after, when it came to telling what they saw, almost none of them matched exactly what the camera showed they seen. Some claimed they had seen the military officials pointing guns at them, but the camera showed nothing of the sort.

Their brain had created an overall plot of that day based on all information it had, mixing and changing facts as it pleased. Its a common phenomenon, and isn't any fault of the witness its just how our mind works. So I don't doubt that something odd happened to you that day, but I am sure whether you seen anything or not, what you remember is a combination of everything you seen that day. Likely a large portion of which was the MSM's video on replay all day.

It's obvious fact that people love to "be the one" who actually seen something. People lie all the time to feel more appreciated, and get it straight I am not calling you a liar, but it does happen. That's why im not so quick to just dismiss everything cause some guy said he saw a plane.

Furthermore, though I say NPT in my posts, I am not a complete no planer, I have no idea if substitute planes were used or it was a missile. What I am sure is that the film has been fabricated, and that's undebatable.

So why, why did they bother to fabricate it?


But how does an airliner hull less than 2mm thick shred the hardened steel exterior columns like it's slicing through butter?

Planes explode into bits outward when hitting concrete, letalone steel.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
If someone disagrees with you it does not make them a disinfo agent

You're exactly correct. The disinfo artists don't even know what "disinfo" means. A disinfo artist or agent is someone who peddles false information and perpetrates it as truth and fact. Kinda like the black smoke coming out of the windows. The disinfo artists have stated that this smoke is actually some magical and obvious painting or drawing in of part of the hole. All while not realizing that not only would somebody not even come close to making it that obvious, but it's only their OPINION since they haven't obtained the original source video from the Naudet brothers to have it analyzed to confirm or deny their allegations.

They will never obtain the originals because they would rather be right and have no evidence to prove their claims, than have the original video from the Naudet brothers and be proven wrong.



Originally posted by king9072
your efforts in this movement are completely bogus...

I don't know what movement you think you're a part of, but you're most assuredly NOT part of the 9/11 TRUTH movement. See, we in the 9/11 truth movement deal with FACTS and TRUTH. And not one single 9/11 truth organization supports or accepts NPT. Some have went as far as publicly calling it disinfo and even banned the discussion of NPT from their forums. Why? Because there's no truth and no facts in the NPT disinfo.



Originally posted by king9072
11seconds to 15 seconds after the crash they add in black to stretch the hole even further

Opinion and conjecture only as they have not obtained the original to confirm or deny if it was really added in.



Originally posted by GenRadek
Yeah it looks like a line of smoke coming from those windows. oops.

Oops = PWNT. Now that the "black line" has been proven to be smoke, if they continue to peddle it as something "being drawn in", it will be purposeful disinfo as usual coming from these guys.



Originally posted by king9072
That smoke, instead of traveling up and to the left, decides to get a mind of its own and travel to the right and hover...

Get a cigarette, light it up and blow it to the right. OMG the smoke moved to the right!!! It must've been drawn on the cigarette!

IT'S SMOKE!!!! It will move any way the wind blows it!!! Unbelievable...



Originally posted by king9072
What I am sure is that the film has been fabricated, and that's undebatable.

It is debatable and will continue to be until you obtain the originals, have them analyzed to prove one way or another whether your claims have any merit. Until then, you have opinion and conjecture only.



Originally posted by king9072
But how does an airliner hull less than 2mm thick shred the hardened steel exterior columns like it's slicing through butter?

The steel columns were not shredded. The connectors that connected the steel columns are what failed allowing the columns to be moved out of the way and allow the planes to enter. It would be more "credible" of you to research some of this stuff before you make such claims.

On a final note, this is what the disinfo artists do when their disinfo gets debunked:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

After their disinfo gets debunked, they have nothing left but to attack their debunker because they can't stick to the topic and provide actual facts. You'll notice that djeminy's post that was quoted was actually deleted. It's sad really when people lower themselves down to this after their false information gets debunked and everyone can see through all the lies.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Bonez, thank you for being one of the few voices of sanity on here, and actually knowing what you are talking about. It is sad that people like you are getting shouted down in the Turth movement, and the whole idea of 9/11 conspiracy gets auto-dumped in the "loon bin", thus not getting taken seriously.

Anyone who is familiar with COINTELLIPRO and other similar projects would notice the similarities in the No Plane Theories/Hollogram/Fake media tapes and COINTELLIPRO's operations in the past. Their purpose was to spread BS, betrayal, and dissent amongst movements and ideologies so that said movements would fall apart from infighting or become completely marginalized.

I do not believe that the NPT guys on here are themselves deliberate disinfo, but the ones who originally disseminated these ideas on the net and elsewhere to be picked up and spread were.

Sanity is not statistical, and common sense is a very alienating concept it seems.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Originally posted by alienanderson
If someone disagrees with you it does not make them a disinfo agent
You're exactly correct. The disinfo artists don't even know what "disinfo" means. A disinfo artist or agent is someone who peddles false information and perpetrates it as truth and fact.


so iow, you're a disinfo agent



Originally posted by _BoneZ_ it's only their OPINION since they haven't obtained the original source video from the Naudet brothers to have it analyzed to confirm or deny their allegations. They will never obtain the originals because they would rather be right and have no evidence to prove their claims, than have the original video from the Naudet brothers and be proven wrong.


your argument relies on false logic and premise that the naudet video being analyzed, is not as clear or clear enough as the original naudet video
is or would be.

ROFL.

they are taking from the NAUDET video. and the clarity of the so-called original will show the same thing because it is the SAME THING.

jeezus! these people are in such denial its sad.

oh wait, they're probably agents. i keep forgetting that... i'm not sure which is worse though.


Originally posted by king9072
See, we in the 9/11 truth movement deal with FACTS and TRUTH. And not one single 9/11 truth organization supports or accepts NPT. Some have went as far as publicly calling it disinfo and even banned the discussion of NPT from their forums. Why? Because there's no truth and no facts in the NPT disinfo.


which is an old argument thats been repeatedly debunked.

Peddling a debunked argument won't make your argument any less debunked or true bonez. sorry.


Originally posted by GenRadek
Yeah it looks like a line of smoke coming from those windows. oops.
Oops = PWNT. Now that the "black line" has been proven to be smoke, if they continue to peddle it as something "being drawn in", it will be purposeful disinfo as usual coming from these guys.


by no means has it ever been disproven to be smoke. especially when the characteristics of smoke don't behave like that.


Originally posted by king9072
That smoke, instead of traveling up and to the left, decides to get a mind of its own and travel to the right and hover...
Get a cigarette, light it up and blow it to the right. OMG the smoke moved to the right!!! It must've been drawn on the cigarette!

IT'S SMOKE!!!! It will move any way the wind blows it!!! Unbelievable...


except smoke doesn't have geometrical shapes, nor does it disappear as it did, and nor it blow the opposite way all the other smoke is blowing. Yeah sure, another coincidence that day... one of the "smoke" plumes decides to defy more physical laws.




Originally posted by _BoneZ_It is debatable and will continue to be until you obtain the originals, have them analyzed to prove one way or another whether your claims have any merit. Until then, you have opinion and conjecture only.


ONCE AGAIN, THE ORIGINALS AREN'T NEEDED TO PROVE CERTAIN ANOMALIES IN THESE VIDS. There's more than enough clarity for one to see the fakery going on.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
On a final note, this is what the disinfo artists do when their disinfo gets debunked:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


no where do i see that poster getting anything remotely similar to a debunking, mr disinfo agent.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I believe that planes hit the twin towers on 9/11. Its ridiculous to assume that the planes hitting the towers were some sort of "mass hallucination" that affected every single person in downtown NY on that day. Its also ridiculous that the government would launch missiles or small planes into the buildings on the hopes that everyone would mass-hallucinate and not come forward in large numbers questioning the evidence.

However, the OP videos do provide compelling evidence proving that these eyewitness videos were indeed doctored, most damning of all was the Naudet footage. It's almost painfully obvious that the photographer knew the plane was going to hit the towers, he pans over and focuses on the world trade tower at the EXACT SAME TIME the plane was coming into view. Unless he has the gift of foresight I don't think it would be humanly possible to react so quickly.

The really sad part is, here we have compelling evidence of pre-knowledge and doctoring of the videos, yet people are pushing it as "absolute proof that planes didn't hit the towers", which is stupid. If anything, the videos only prove that the filmmaker was put in place that day to film the plane hitting, and the fact that he doctored it to exaggerate the damage further proves that he was set up there by someone.

Much respect, OP, for bringing these videos to light. Although I wouldn't be too quick to draw conclusions from them, these guys were definitely planted on the scene for one reason or another.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Wow!!

Folks, the gist of this thread seem to hinge on questionable videos from, among others, Simon Shack...I'm referring to the one called 'Amateur Video, Part 2' or something like that....we all know the one, iven if I don't have the exact title. In it, Mr. Shack is the one manipulating and faking the original footage, for his own agenda (money??). There are unadulterateds versions of the Naudet brothers' original footage out there ---WITH the soundtrack intact, so that the sound of the approaching jet can clearly be heard. The time delay of the visual impact, and the arriving sound is clearly obvious. *edit* for drwizard...in the Naudet footage, when you hear it, the firefighters hear something, and look up. The cameraman sees this, hears as well, and pans around about 90 degrees, and pans up....because everyone is looking up!! IF he had been expecting it, he would have been ready for a quick pan up, iinstead of the full slew around, AND up that you see.

My point is...some people seem to be fooled, which is the intention of snake-oil salesmen since before Barnum and Bailey's time.

This is the fault of the Internet. The source of all videos needs to be rigorously investigated. I see those who post on utube that manipulate, edit, alter as needed to 'prove' their pet point....or, to sell their altered 'proofs'.....

[edit on 4/20/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
So I am just curious as to how did they manage to push the exterior columns inward like that? I mean what type of magic explosive causes things to behave backward? I see beams, debris, columns, impact marks, that are the length of the wingspan of the 767, now I wonder how the heck did they manage to do all that with explosives from the inside? Just answer this question please.


uhhh maybe because something hit from the outside?


don't you know what the NRPT is really about?



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson
Originally posted by king9072
Get over yourself mr. disinfo, you're busted. And everyone here knows it, your a fraud and your efforts in this movement are completely bogus so you can snuggle up.

Speak for yourself king... just for the record, not everyone thinks bonez is a disinfo agent


right, people that don't have common sense, don't do enough research and are disinfo agents, wouldn't think he's a disinfo agent



Originally posted by alienanderson
What seems obvious to you (manipulation of video evidence = no planes) is not the same for everyone.


with all due respect, thats more proof right there you haven't done enough research or even looked at all the videos in totality/context, or even understand the real NRPT.


Originally posted by alienanderson
If someone disagrees with you it does not make them a disinfo agent


if they behave like bonez, the odds they are, are very high.


Originally posted by alienanderson
You may well be right and I have to agree that the naudet clip does look like it has been manipulated in this youtube presentation


Well at least you're more honest, open-minded, objective and have more common sense than bonez and his minions.



Originally posted by alienanderson
However i am keeping an open mind on the matter


and thats what separates you from the category of true disinfo agents that bonez is apart of.


Originally posted by alienanderson
There may be an explanation for this that does not involve video trickery


not really... but feel free to offer an intelligent argument that better explains fakery thats clearly seen.

to this day, no one has ever been able to do that.


Originally posted by alienanderson
For example: the 2nd explosion ripping the side of WTC could have been from the jet fuel or another source, it does not necessarily indicate pre-placed charges. The black gash could be smoke coming out from the hole in the building created by a PLANE


so jet fuel ignites in a perfectly diagonal and symmetrical manner?

have you bother to examine the CUTS that were allegedy made by the wing and fuselage?

have you even noticed how they're perfectly symmetrical? you don't find anything suspect or inconsistent with what such an impact might do? Would such a chaotic plane impact create the type of symmetrical cuts that a blow torch or cutting charges can do?

do you need video evidence of what i'm talking about?

if you don't know what i'm talking about or haven't seen it, then you haven't done enough research.

As its been explained, "You have a lot in common with 'conspiracy theory' debunkers, who also rely on suggesting alternative theories which MIGHT explain the events. For example, they say that the collapse of WTC 7 could be explained quite easily by an exploding diesel tank, that the top-down gravitational collapse of a steel-framed building could be caused by localised fires, that an aircraft's wings could fold up to allow it to pass through a small hole, and that an aircraft could bury itself in an disused mineshaft. These explanations can sound plausible if you don't bother to check whether they're supported by the evidence.

Even if you did manage to debunk the magical smoke and inconsistent explosions or gash anomalies etc, you'd still have to debunk the other two dozen arguments for NPT, and there are tons and many much more obvious than that.

Unless you're willing to verify whether your explanation is consistent with the evidence, your theory is pure conjecture and your speculation is worthless.

All you've done is construct a theoretical explanation while totally disregarding the known facts.

You're idea of debunking a theory is to say it MIGHT have been something else.

like the debunkers who construct a theoretical model to prove that a global pancake collapse was inevitable after a building was hit by an aircraft. Their theory can only be made to work if they ignore the actual evidence."




[edit on 21-4-2009 by matrixNIN11]



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sliick
Alright, I've had enough of this argument. Here is my two cents...

Matrix is right, none of the pieces can be id'ed by serial numbers. However, everyone else who saw the planes hit (including myself) are correct as well.
Reason: The plane was NOT a commercial airliner. Hence the gray pieces you see in the wonderfully linked pictures of airplane parts. It was military grade and made.

Matrix and the video is right on a couple of things... The wings did NOT shear off.
Reason: BOTH towers were built to withstand a single crash no problem. The designer believed it was capable of withstanding MULTIPLE crashes....


Yes there were small explosions on higher floors and a LARGE explosion on the south face below the impact.
Reason: The plane was coming in at a dive. Not by much, but enough to knock out a few floors. It's possible the explosion could have exited the south face a few stories below. Also, the building had multiple diesel generators for the operation and maintenance of the building. Those can explode as well (hmm go figure).

Now, the claim Matrix and the video make is that the plane is 'edited in' means nothing.


where exactly did I or the video specifically claim that? please provide a quote and in context, where I or the vid said that.



Originally posted by Sliick
If the plane had been 'edited' into the frames, it's one of the best I have ever seen.


Unlike the second impact, In the naudet video I believe the object seen probably has not been altered nor any cgi plane inserted.


Originally posted by Sliick
The plane matches the camera vibrations, scale, and blur. Hell even the reflection off the plane is accurate.


and i tend to agree.

quite a different scale to the object that appears far less contrived than the videos and objects in the second impact.


Originally posted by Sliick
Oh, and the nose in nose out thing... it's friggin smoke. That's why it changes shape


merely your OPINION which ignores all the other anomalies and evidence (including the fade to black) that its not just smoke.



Originally posted by Sliick
No planers make me laugh. They think everything is fake. Therefore, they must be fake as well.


whats funny is that you've just shown everyone proof that you're biased and clueless as to what NRPT is about or what NRPTists believe.

so what does your opinion prove or disprove about anything you claim about nprt?



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
I can tell you from personal experience that planes hit both WTC towers.
I witnessed the planes hit with my own eyes. There were no missles. Big jet airlines plowed into them. I was at work that morning and saw it happen, I will never forget that day.


so you claim without any proof whatsoever.

as the NRPTists have said...

-You are anonymous
-Your story has not been verified
-Your story contains inconsistencies with other witnesses
-Your exact location has not been made known
-Your PoV has not been made known

...therefore you are NOT a genuine witness to a 'plane crash'."

please come back when you're ready to present some real evidence to your claim. Until then, join the rest in the disinfo camp.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Thanks for posting that video, it highlights my points BEAUTIFULLY in my above post.

ALL SMOKE IS TRAVELING UP AND TO THE LEFT. The video you post shows that clearly, it also shows what appears to be damaged area, which completely contradicts LIVE footage several minutes LATER, that shows that part of the building perfectly intact.


Apologies I had not realised the contents of this youtube clip before posting just now

This demonstrates that either:

1. The naudet clip and this second NBC clip were both photoshopped for a crucial few seconds
2. The anomaly is indeed thick black smoke captured by two separate cameras


1. the naudet vid is the only vid that shows all the gash fakery the best
2. the anomaly/gash in question in the other video, is not smoke...if anything its a shadow...
3. the vid above is far more compressed and unclear than most others and not verified at all.



posted on Apr, 21 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by Erasurehead

Originally posted by purehughness
Now, I'm just wondering, no plane right? Then what? People were looking up at the sky hearing... something. I'm just wondering if a lower explosive cruise missile in conjunction with pre placed demo charges could have been the case. It would be relatively easy then for editors to alter the missile to look like a plane. But can the speed on a cruise missile be altered to mimic an airliner?


I can tell you from personal experience that planes hit both WTC towers.
I witnessed the planes hit with my own eyes. There were no missles. Big jet airlines plowed into them. I was at work that morning and saw it happen, I will never forget that day.




There you have it folks, 911 has been debunked. Move along, nothing to see here... anymore.


Love the sarcasm. I guess I am just another disinfo agent huh. Tell me genius WTF did I witness that day? I saw planes as clear as day. Were you there that day or just an armchair witness?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

-You are anonymous
-Your story has not been verified
-Your story contains inconsistencies with other witnesses
-Your exact location has not been made known
-Your PoV has not been made known

...therefore you are NOT a genuine witness to a 'plane crash'."



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join