Hotel CCTV Video of 9/11 Pentagon Explosion... And NO Plane!

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by karen61560

 

Because the footage is fake.

This is the false premise that results in cluesforum claiming that victims never existed and things like satellites are not real.

It's absolute nonsense, and the only evidence you've shown to back up your claim should not convince a five year old. How do you even propose that these videos were faked in 2001? Have you seen movie CGI? You realise how many thousands of man hours every single scene takes up? To fake videos on this scale would need tens of thousands of employees for a good couple of years. The cost would be insane, yet cluesforum would have you believe that the vast majority of photos and videos on the internet are fake based on absolutely no experience nor knowledge.

But to alter them takes much shorter! Just delay the live broadcast and play a rerun of the original edited version. Get it? It is called *playback*....even my vcr and dvd player can do that.

reply to post by exponent

How do you even propose that these videos were faked in 2001? Have you seen movie CGI? You realise how many thousands of man hours every single scene takes up? To fake videos on this scale would need tens of thousands of employees for a good couple of years. The cost would be insane, yet cluesforum would have you believe that the vast majority of photos and videos on the internet are fake based on absolutely no experience nor knowledge.

That's why it's done so sloppy and and why it's so obviously fake. Like I said, the vid I posted proves they are fake, and there is much more proof.

And I don't believe everything on cluesforum, but the 911 stuff is undeniable.

A 5 year old kid can see it's fake.

reply to post by WoodSpirit

you are grasping at straws let it go man let it go

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
standing inside a 747 jet turbine INSIDE!! not kneecap height lol

What has a 747 got to do with anything?

turbines dont come up to people kneecaps just look at them, they are GIANT

Before you embarrass yourself any more, have a look at the different types of turbines in a RB-211 engine...
www.aerospaceweb.org...

but def. not a freakin 747 engine

Again, why mention a 747? You seem very confused.

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
That's why it's done so sloppy and and why it's so obviously fake. Like I said, the vid I posted proves they are fake, and there is much more proof.

But that's not what cheap CGI looks like. It doesn't look like low quality TV, it looks like low quality CGI.

Have you ever even worked with CGI professionally? Can you show me how exactly these mistakes would be made through cheap and sloppy work?

And I don't believe everything on cluesforum, but the 911 stuff is undeniable.

A 5 year old kid can see it's fake.

A 5 year old kid also thinks Santa is real, so lets not use them as the ultimate arbiter of truth. The fact is that cluesforum is based soley around demanding pictures are fake and extrapolating the results from there. They have little to no professional experience and the same people who make the claims you believe in also claim the ISS doesn't exist.

That doesn't worry you?

Originally posted by RP2SticksOfDynamite
If you look very carefully in full screem mode there appears to be a white plane coming in low from the left. Yes?

Honestly, it could very well be a plane.

It could also have been a rocket. It is too hard to tell.

What is interesting also (solely to throw fuel on the fire of debate), is that large truck(?) that comes into the frame just before we see the object flashing by prior to the explosion.. What was that truck hauling???

Just some thoughts and observations. Take it for what it's worth.

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by WoodSpirit

 

you are grasping at straws

let it go man let it go

Laugh it up bruv, you mean nothing, facts are facts, and the reality is that the footage was faked.

The proof has been presented multiple times.(wtc no plane).

reply to post by exponent


I posted a vid multiple times by now and it is undeniable, and it is not made by cluesforum and it doesn't even matter who made it.

Watch the vid, if you wanna judge.

A 5 year old kid also thinks Santa is real, so lets not use them as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Let's not use it in your initial comment to me then.

Originally posted by exponent
No clear footage was taken. Does this mean no plane hit the pentagon?

Probably yes! Much like the lack of wmd from iraq, and the trumped up charges of iran developing nukes.

So they could secure and investigate it. You realise that the footage was also released right?

I have only seen a 3-5 frame per second unbelievably bad quality video. CCTV videos are infinitely better than the worlds most secure building?

Plenty, would they be stupid enough to pretend that a missile was a plane to thousands of staff and first responders? Of course not.

A plane or missle strike only takes several seconds to impact the pentagon. People that were paying attention could barely make out what they saw or they are too scared to talk. Either way there is no credible video footage of what hit the pentagon.

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by exponent

 

I posted a vid multiple times by now and it is undeniable, and it is not made by cluesforum and it doesn't even matter who made it.

Watch the vid, if you wanna judge.

I watched the video and I have seen September Clues and hundreds of other videos. It's not remotely convincing. Is this really all that was needed to convince you?

Can you show me this sort of low quality CGI in any cheap TV show? in anything else at all?

What do you say to the fact that you have thrown in with people who use identical logic and identical sources of information in order to claim that satellites don't exist, that space travel is a scam etc, that satellite communication is actually bounced radio waves off the atmosphere etc. This would scare the hell out of me, it doesn't bother you?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Probably yes! Much like the lack of wmd from iraq, and the trumped up charges of iran developing nukes.

So is this an admission that you don't care about the facts, and that you only care about a high quality video?

I have only seen a 3-5 frame per second unbelievably bad quality video. CCTV videos are infinitely better than the worlds most secure building?

CCTV videos are as low as 1 frame per second in extremely poor quality. I take it you've never actually worked with CCTV?

A plane or missle strike only takes several seconds to impact the pentagon. People that were paying attention could barely make out what they saw or they are too scared to talk. Either way there is no credible video footage of what hit the pentagon.

You're right, it took several seconds to impact. Then several months to clear up. You don't think some employees of the US Military might notice that this was a missile? It's an incredible plan you're proposing, fake an attack on the people potentially most qualified to notice the attack was faked.

Of course apparently everywhere else they used planes, but didn't here, why? Who knows, you tell me.

reply to post by exponent


No it doesn't bother me what some person on some site thinks about a certain subject, when my own eyes are looking at proof of a conspiracy for another subject, that happens to be on that site too, and I'm not interested in your psychology.

You have not watched the video, which is not made by cluesforum, otherwise you would have mentioned the different points in it that prove that the footage is fake. Please debunk some of the points.

Can you show me this sort of low quality CGI in any cheap TV show? in anything else at all?

I don't know how this even relates to the points made.

Maybe I should make screenshots of the whole 45 min vid, accompany them with comments and post them so that it is impossible to act like there is no proof of 911 video fakery.

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
Maybe I should make screenshots of the whole 45 min vid, accompany them with comments and post them so that it is impossible to act like there is no proof of 911 video fakery.

edit on 28-11-2012 by WoodSpirit because: (no reason given)

With respect, this is the correct thing to be doing. You're putting in no effort of your own here, you've linked a video and now you expect me to spend more than an hour writing up notes and producing a post to debunk it all for you.

Producing a list of points and relevant images and clips would be very useful.

As a measure of good faith, I'll happily 'debunk' any single section you wish out of the video. I'm not about to spend an hour watching it again though. I've seen every 'fake planes', 'cgi planes', 'military tanker plane' video repeated 100 times already.

reply to post by exponent


The point is that it is about WTC and maybe off topic, and I can't start a new thread here.

Also, it just needs to be watched.

With respect, this is the correct thing to be doing. You're putting in no effort of your own here, you've linked a video and now you expect me to spend more than an hour writing up notes and producing a post to debunk it all for you.

I'm actually putting in quite some effort.

You didn't sound like you actually watched the vid, and still don't.

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by exponent

 

The point is that it is about WTC and maybe off topic, and I can't start a new thread here.

Also, it just needs to be watched.

I'm happy to start the thread on your behalf, please select the strongest claim in the video, whichever you feel is absolutely certain and I will look at it.

My point about other cluesforum members is that if they make these inferences from exactly the same logic and same sources of information, why do you not agree with them? Can you show that satellites really do exist? Does that mean their logic for thinking they don't are wrong?

Originally posted by exponent

You're right, it took several seconds to impact. Then several months to clear up. You don't think some employees of the US Military might notice that this was a missile? It's an incredible plan you're proposing, fake an attack on the people potentially most qualified to notice the attack was faked.

Of course apparently everywhere else they used planes, but didn't here, why? Who knows, you tell me.

You actually think any military expert would have access to the videos? Without a security clearance and without any need to know? Apparently your knowledge of the military is very limited!

The rest of your response post was meaningless deflection, hence why I ignore.

Why the hell would the FEDs go around the area and confiscate EVERY cctv footage, NEVER releasing it back to the owners? If you have nothing to hide then surely you play fair. The footage was private property before the feds got their dirty hands on it.

I could go on and dig holes in the make believe planes that struck the pentagon, but it seems members in this thread lack common sense complelty or are just too naive to have an intelligent conversation with. The government is their savior!

reply to post by exponent

My point about other cluesforum members is that if they make these inferences from exactly the same logic and same sources of information, why do you not agree with them? Can you show that satellites really do exist? Does that mean their logic for thinking they don't are wrong?

Why are you repeating this again, I alread said that it doesn't matter what people on cluesforum think, if I can see the proof for 911 fakery with my own eyes. It's not just on cluesforum.

Why are you asking me about satelites? I already said that your pshychological tricks are not appreciated.

I think I'll find another way to make this thread happen, thank you very much.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
You actually think any military expert would have access to the videos? Without a security clearance and without any need to know? Apparently your knowledge of the military is very limited!

Not the videos, the site. The Pentagon isn't exactly short of military personnel.

The rest of your response post was meaningless deflection, hence why I ignore.

You repeat the same questions after ignoring answers. That's not deflection, that's ignorance.

Why the hell would the FEDs go around the area and confiscate EVERY cctv footage, NEVER releasing it back to the owners? If you have nothing to hide then surely you play fair. The footage was private property before the feds got their dirty hands on it.

You mean the videos on youtube? What videos are you talking about that were never released back to their owners?

I could go on and dig holes in the make believe planes that struck the pentagon, but it seems members in this thread lack common sense complelty or are just too naive to have an intelligent conversation with. The government is their savior!

Insulting is prohibited in this forum. Please read my answers.

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
Why are you repeating this again, I alread said that it doesn't matter what people on cluesforum think, if I can see the proof for 911 fakery with my own eyes. It's not just on cluesforum.

I'm asking you because you aren't answering my questions. Why are you using the same logic but then denying the same conclusions?

Why are you asking me about satelites? I already said that your pshychological tricks are not appreciated.

There are no 'psychological tricks', please grow up. I'm asking you a question because you are drawing a ridiculous conclusion from no evidence whatsoever.

I think I'll find another way to make this thread happen, thank you very much.

You can't even name a single strong part of this video? Come on man that's ridiculous.

Originally posted by WoodSpirit
reply to post by karen61560

 

Because the footage is fake.

I don't see a reason to fake the footage, if there actually were planes that hit the towers.

Exactly.

I'm glad this is a thread about looking really carefully at so called airplane crash videos, because what I'm going to say next will fit right in.

It's like some magic show in Vegas.

Here we all are in the theater and the magician is cutting up his lovely assistant. Half the people turn to the other half of the people and say like: "OMG can you believe he cut that lovely girl in half!!"

Right? Amazing.

I mean, that's what it 'looks like' etc.

But did he? No.

I looked really carefully at the Naudet 'Fireman's Video' and I discovered that what it actually shows on really close inspection is that no 767 crashed in there.

That's what it shows. NO, wait, stop and listen to me. That IS what it shows. Anyone can look at it closely themselves and determine this very thing.

After you look at it closely a few times study this diagram I created, it explains why the Naudet video clearly shows why no 767 crashed in there:



Now again the video clearly shows no 767 crashed in there (see graphic). That's what it shows.

So now, here's the thing, if that's what the video clearly shows and you still believe that a 767 actually did crash into the North Tower, then you need to explain in a reasonable and coherent manner why the video doesn't actually show that.

As noted above, why would the video be faked if a real plane crashed in there? Indeed.

So either no real 767 crashed in there OR the Naudet video is doctored, made up, and or 'faked'. But again, why would it be? Right?

In fact - IT BETTER NOT BE.

But it has been put forward as a record of the event so I can only assume that it is meant to be taken just as that.

Well OK.

When we take it as just that and look at it really really closely, it actually debunks the evidence it claims to represent!

As for the Pentagon, on that reenactment animation (posted earlier) there is a smoke trail... but as I already noted elsewhere last year, NO PENTAGON EYE WITNESS mentions a smoke trail... NOT ONE.

Now why is that?

Let's say you were in your business near a highway, or driving down a 4 lane highway, and in the adjacent lane or 2 lanes over, or maybe over on the other side coming the other way there is a speeding car with its engine on fire. Later after the car crashes into a flower shop or whatever, into Wendy's let's say, the authorities get out and interview 100 or so people about what they saw. What do you think are the odds of NONE of them mentioning that the engine was smoking?

Here's what I think happened.

Someone released that gate cam video and on it there is a kind of smoke trail... later, the reenactment animation gets made and on it there is a prominent smoke trail... but remember, no eye witness mentions a smoke trail.

I think the animation was created to cover the release of the gate cam's smoke trail...

These computer reenactment video animations are worse than when computers do voting machines, casinos or lottery draws.

There is one done by Purdue University of the North Tower hit. It depicts how a 767 would impact the face of the North Tower etc. And it does so correctly. It does so in the same way I explain in my graphic. The wings are angled back and would cut the tower face progressively out from the fuselage to the wing tips IN THAT ORDER.

Only problem with the Purdue animation is that it does NOT match the Naudet video of the 'crash' shot on the day!

One day I was watching a Call of Duty type computer animation of the Osama bin Laden raid on CNN. It was surreal. There was Wolf Blitzer doing a voice over of the raid using little animated soldiers!! I thought: "What is this, oh they've really gone too far with this..."

The North Tower 'plane' crash was used for blame, for shock and awe and for a little thing called "misdirection". Nobody wanted anyone thinking that the building was wired from the inside, so they had to then, like the magician, make something 'look like' something else entirely.


Cheers