Ultimate 911 No Planer PROOF Page - Help Debunk

reply to post by nwodeath


Prove it.

How do you know its fake? Because you say so?

Originally posted by MKULTRA

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
one question. What is the white dot on the building just in front of the airplane?


www.freedomdomain.com...

Could it be the nosetip of the airplane that is shadowed out by the building?

I don't think a shadow would cause a flash like that. Also, I slowed down the video that was just posted for me to review and found that bright flash in it. I took caption photos and I will do something with them to show everyone as soon as my work is done. People like me, who have a life and aren't paid to be online spreading disinfo, have to work also, to survive. So, when I have time in the next few days, I will show my analysis of this video. I did find the exact same flash at the nose before entry into the building.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by nwodeath

 

Prove it.

How do you know its fake? Because you say so?

No, I actually analyzed it. As best as I could without having the original. But I did find some interesting stuff that PROVES the video is fake, like all the rest.

If you want to insist I am wrong. Fine. But I did find convincing proof that the video is another faked one.

I hear you. I'm in the same situation. I've got more important things to do in my life then spend hours on something that I can't control. From a completely untrained observer, I wonder if that flash is the very tip of the nose of the supposed airplane. Or it could be a bomb planted inside the building that was timed incorrectly. Hell, you might be 100% on the mark. Either way, it happened 8 years ago and I can't get sidetracked too much by history-- otherwise I will miss the windows of opportunity to avoid going through the same thing again. Since 9/11, I've considered the 'inside job' argument and definitely agree that the public isn't being told all of the facts. I definitely agree that the media cannot be trusted, and, the patriot media is largely composed of different flocks of sheep. I suppose the only thing I can do for myself is to insulate myself against further propaganda, and do things that will ensure I'll be able to survive in life without chasing the next fake news story.

Either way, I wish you the best of luck with your campaign to find the truth about 9/11/01

reply to post by nwodeath


You don't know its fake, because you don't know what its supposed to look like. You haven't filmed anything from the fence and you still are avoiding my point.

The point is that the Military could or would never take a chance that someone WOULD HAVE FILMED IT FROM SUCH AN ANGLE SHOWING THEIR SUPPOSED DECEPTION.

The point that with All of the Camera's that day, the Military can't control all the footage because random people throughout the city would be filming the event.


You are not a film expert and have allowed Internet People who have been debunked openly in debate on TV to convince you.

reply to post by MKULTRA


You will see a flash very similar near the NOSE in this TEST CRASH-after 3:40 approx with the WTC you see slightly earlier due to the static and the steel conducting, this wall was concrete yet we still see that very quick "flash"





[edit on 22-10-2009 by talisman]

I slowed this down. There is a flash on this, BUT, the flash comes from the explosion and occurs after the rocket penetrates the concrete. I can show the saved photo in my analysis later.

reply to post by nwodeath


It's an F4, not a rocket.

Also, are you SURE it's not CGI too?

reply to post by nwodeath


That is due to one wall being concrete the other is Steel. The plane on 9/11 was a passenger jet flying through open Air. The flash is not an explosion since it is a "quick"flash and then is not there in both cases.

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by nwodeath

 

It's an F4, not a rocket.

Also, are you SURE it's not CGI too?

Rocket was a generalization, since it was shooting toward an object. I should have been more exact. If you ever leave people something to pick on, they will, instead of focusing on the facts and truth.

I don't see this as being CGI, since the explosion looks normal, and nothing in the video is distorted, or obscured, or rendered, or overtly scrubbed in some way.

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by nwodeath

 

That is due to one wall being concrete the other is Steel. The plane on 9/11 was a passenger jet flying through open Air. The flash is not an explosion since it is a "quick"flash and then is not there in both cases.

I don't know what your trying to say here. The flash in the video you posted is an explosion, not a video effect. The flash in the other, the WTC is a video artifact of some kind, likely created somehow during the animation process.

If everyone is talking about this flash:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aea17f07c17e.jpg[/atsimg]


and the similar one at the north tower, that flash is caused from the oxygen in the forward oxygen tank being ignited. Weedwhacker has a schematic of the inside of a passenger jet and the flash comes from the exact location that the oxygen tank resides.

That is even more proof of planes as why would they add such a tiny detail like an oxygen tank exploding on both planes into the CGI?

I'll be standing by to see what kind of disinfo the no-planers will make up to explain away this fact.

Notice that in the real world, the flash is from the ignition of oxygen from the compromised oxygen tanks. In the no-planer disinfo fantasy land, this is what we get:

The flash in the other, the WTC is a video artifact of some kind, likely created somehow during the animation process.

Wow! Where do they get this stuff from?

How much do they pay you to come on here and spread disinfo?

reply to post by nwodeath


I was going to ask you the same thing, nwo...

So, since the one plane was shooting toward the Pentagon, was that a rocket? Since the planes were shooting toward the WTC towers, were those rockets too?

[edit on 22-10-2009 by gavron]

Listen to them argue.
You're a disinfo agent.
No you are.
No you are.
You are and your mom dresses you funny.
Wow! No end in sight.

So looking for pics of the smoke loops I think I found something. I don't believe I have ever heard this particular point covered before so maybe I can provide some new information to start a whole new battery of arguments.
I am putting all the pieces together right now but I WILL POST TONIGHT.
Unlike most here, I repeat, I do not have an agenda. I will settle for the truth no matter what it is. Even if it turns out everything I have ever suggested is wrong. I am posting for the purpose of being debunked. If there is a flaw in my logic or evidence, please point it out. If there is not ????????
Back in a few hours

Originally posted by nwodeath
Rocket was a generalization, since it was shooting toward an object. I should have been more exact. If you ever leave people something to pick on, they will, instead of focusing on the facts and truth.

Great! One less person to worry about bringing up Rumsfeld's comments about a "missile" hitting the building.

We're making progress, folks. Glacial, but its progress.

reply to post by nwodeath


I consider the flash to be static discharge and I don't see an "explosion" with the fighter jet right at that point, it comes after. The flash just makes a quick and fast appearance very similar to the WTC plane flash.

If anything that proves that this was a real piece of footage.


I see no evidence that the video's posted here were "fakes" and I see no reason to assume the military would have its hand on every single piece of amateur footage that was taken all over New York and beyond. They simply don't have enough hands to do so.

If the Military did that, why didn't they plant WMD's in Iraq? I mean, if they could control *ALL* of New York City and its millions of people who might be filming or taking pictures. Of course--You don't believe that do you?

Originally posted by nwodeath
How much do they pay you to come on here and spread disinfo?

Is that all you got? Seriously?

You can't provide any scientific or professional analysis for your no-plane "theories", so all you can do is attack. It's not surprising as you have nothing left to do but attack. Why you continue to waste space and bandwidth while continuously making yourself look like a complete fool is beyond me.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I have noticed this trait a lot with No Planers. Some of the worst threads here in terms of attacks and arguments have in the past been started by various "No Planers"

They know full well that the theory is next to impossible.

What really irritates me the most, is that in a lot of the work, they are not even giving you honest analysis. They make errors that seem very intentional.

They also must take the Entire City of New York for fools. New York is the furthest from being "foolish"

With a city like New York, you better make damn sure what is on the news matches what the people saw with their eyes!!