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.
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
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!!"
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
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.
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.