Originally posted by videoworldwide
September Clues / (First Half) (41:45)
September Clues / (Second Half) (49:59)
I don't need to debunk these as I already have before, and they've also been debunked at the following links.
September Clues - Busted!:
video.google.com...
Debunking September Clues - A point-by-point analysis:
truthaction.org...
Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Amateur (Part 1)
The above deals with different camera angles, plain and simple. If the buildings are in different locations because cameras are in different
locations, that's proof of different camera angles, not fakery.
Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Amateur (Part 2)
One of ATS's prominent members, mister.old.school, spent $175 of his own money to obtain a high-quality digital copy of the Naudet video and
completely destroyed (Part 2) with facts. You can read about that here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It's a damn shame when members of this forum have to shell out their own money to debunk the no-plane "theory". The no-plane cult members should be
shelling out
their own money to obtain these videos and have them professionally analyzed for fakery. But they don't and they won't because
once their "theories" get debunked, their whole world comes crashing down.
Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Amateur (Part 3)
Question 1:
Do aluminum wings penetrate steel-framed buildings in your world?
The wings didn't penetrate the steel columns. The wings, like the rest of the plane, broke the connectors connecting the columns together. None of
the outer columns failed. Only the connectors connecting them together failed.
Question 2:
How was this extraordinary camera angle achieved?
The camera is obviously near the ground to be able to capture the burning WTC and the person all in the same shot.
Question 3
Makes mention of the radio being used. It doesn't matter what kind of radio it is. He's outside watching the WTC and listening to the news on the
radio.
The video then claims falsly that the tower impact reflected on the glass of the car is added in. Go into any major city with tall skyscrapers, park
about a block away, get down low in the back of the vehicle and look at the reflections of the buildings in the window. WOW what a concept.
The towers soared over a quarter mile into the sky. It's disinformation to claim that the image was added onto a windshield with no proof other than
the authors opinion. Especially when anybody can recreate the same thing by going to a big city with tall buildings, getting down low and looking at
the reflections in the glass of their own cars.
It's also disinformation when the video claims "the images are undisputably doctored", again with
zero proof and only the opinion of the
author. A reflection in a car windshield is not proof.
More disinfo follows when the video says "Every single airplane shot was forged". That means every mainstream media, independent journalist, AND
private citizens' home videos are all fake. Ask a no-planer how private citizens faked their own home videos. You'll get a kick out of their
answer.
The video goes on to look at poor-quality video that has been heavily compressed to put on the internet and then claims fakery due to the compression
and other anomalies associated with such. It's disinformation to claim fakery without any proof other than the author's opinion. Compression and
other anomalies associated with lowering the quality of video to be put on the internet is not proof of fakery. Not to mention the first video appears
to be from a VHS recorder. Anyone who has ever recorded anything onto VHS tapes knows how many artifacts and anomalies happen there.
Then at the end of Part 3, we are shown a home video and asked what the woman is so distressed about. She did see a jetliner slam into a building with
her own eyes. The man even says "What's this other jet doing?. In otherwords, he sees the jet and acknowledges it was a jet, destroying any NPT
"theories". People saw the jet and acknowledged the jet with their own eyes. Therefore it wasn't CGI'd into a live tv stream.
Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Taboo (Part 1)
The video claims that only people watching a screen mention a plane. That's false because just above in 9/11 Amateur Part 3 at the very end we see a
home video where the guy says "What's this other jet doing" and he wasn't watching tv. He was filming it with his home video camera. He and his
wife both saw the plane with their own eyes.
911 Taboo cherry-pics witnesses and then asks why they didn't see the plane. We have no idea where those witnesses were or why they can't see it.
But this is not proof of fakery.
The rest of the video just shows different camera angles, which is also not proof of fakery.
Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Taboo (Part 2)
This again claims not a single person saw the plane approaching, but that's false:
In this first video that happens to be a home video, the male in this video says "What's this other jet doing? What's this other jet doing?" as he
clearly sees the second plane right before it hits the south tower **WARNING - extreme language**:
In this next video from CNN, many people are standing together in an area as the plane passes over them. Some of them start to scream as the plane
flies by and then scream louder as the plane impacts the tower. Again, people clearly see the plane and react to it before it hits the tower:
People clearly see and hear the plane and react to it
before it hits the tower.
The rest of Part 2 deals with the author's opinions as to what he
thinks should've happened to the plane when it hit the building.
The outer columns and the floor trusses were assembled in sections:
Had the outer columns been continuous from top to bottom, we might have seen the plane crumple up against the columns. But the columns were connected
in sections by welds and bolts. The welds and bolts are what failed on the outer columns. The columns themselves did not fail.
Take a fishing pole as an example. Many fishing poles can reel in some pretty heavy fish without breaking. Now take that same fishing pole, break it
up into several parts. Then glue and tape those parts back together. Do you think that fishing pole will have anywhere near the strength as it did
before it was in pieces? Not even close.
The author's opinions as to what he thinks should have happened is not proof of fakery.
Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Taboo (Part 3)
The main aspect of this video is that planes don't penetrate steel buildings. However, we saw a plane penetrate a steel building in 1945 when a B-25
Bomber impacted the Empire State building:
And a B-25 is much smaller and slower than a 767. Not to mention, the fires from the fuel burned for almost 2 hours. Longer than the fires burned in
either WTC tower.
The author's lack of understanding of physics is not proof of fakery.
Originally posted by videoworldwide
911 Taboo (Part 4)
Part 4 again continues the physics aspect of it and then asks:
Have you ever noticed that the 175 strike videos are nearly all amateur shots? Shaky, bad focus, cheap equipment, not looking in the right
spot?
If everybody has different cameras and most "amateur" people can't afford professional expensive cameras. If all the videos were professionally
done, not shaky and in perfect focus, wouldn't that be more proof of fakery or less?
As far as "not looking in the right spot", nobody was expecting a second plane to slam into the second tower, therefore nobody was looking for
it.
Then Part 4 complains that none of the networks zoomed in on the second plane. Well, since they weren't expecting the second plane, they wouldn't be
ready to zoom in at that exact moment. This fact alone absolves the networks from any wrongdoing.
Part 4 then says "you're about to see every second of live video that is known to exist after the second strike". We're shown 5 shots out of the
40+ that actually exist. I wonder why that is?
Originally posted by videoworldwide
John Lear
John firstly falsely states several times in this video that the 767 can't fly at 500mph at 1000-feet.
When I first learned of John's statement, I was absolutely floored. I cannot believe such a seasoned pilot would would say such things. Of course a
jetliner cannot go 500mph at 1000-feet. The jet engines are not powerful enough at sea level to accelerate the plane to that velocity. But the planes
were not traveling at 1000-feet for more than a 2 or 3 seconds. A 767 can be at 500mph at 1000-feet until the speed quickly bleeds off. This can be
proven in any flight simulator.
The second plane came down from a higher altitude. When a plane is descending, it doesn't need it's engines to accelerate. It has gravity to
accelerate it. The plane easily could have coasted at 500mph from it's higher altitude right into the tower as it wasn't near sea level long enough
for much of the speed to bleed off.
John then continues about holograms, but so far, there hasn't been any evidence of us having the technology to produce holograms in direct sunlight
with sound.
Continued in the next post...
Just trying to be fair.
