Some are still trying to push fake planes due to POOR understanding & observational skills.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Very few people in 2001 were wandering around with video cameras of any kind unless they were a news team or filming a documentary or whatever which explains the rarity of video evidence of the first plane strike. Virtually every available camera, amateur & professional, in the general area was trained on the towers after that and they caught the 2nd strike from just about every possible angle making it the most recorded disaster ever.

All the video and still pics indicate a plane was deliberately flown into the building, there's no question over that.

Cellphone video was just emerging for general use around the time of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and much of the live video of that invasion was sent from cellphones (crappy quality but it was live at least).

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Ok...Here is a great bird's eye pic showing the building is actually in front of the tower and not beyond it:

If that is the camera position then this shot is impossible. What's that, a viewing angle of around 60 degrees? Yet the top of the second building, which is around the same height or lower, can be seen appearing higher than the first building.

I still need some more info but I am 99% sure that if you draw this out, using the height of the buildings, the distances between them, and that viewing location, that a line of sight drawn from it will completely go over the top of the second building meaning it shouldn't be in the shot at all.

With that angle I am not sure the Twin Towers should even be in the shot.

a reply to: wmd_2008

If anyone thinks a softer object can never pass through a harder object please watch and explain this.

I don't think that but I do think there should be visible deformation of the softer object, something we clearly see in this video.

Yet, in the 911 video the plane is not deformed at all but simply flies through the tower like a ghost.

I see a lot of these threads and just thought I'd add an eyewitness account from a soldier who had no reason to lie, for those who do not believe 'real' airplanes were involved on 9/11.

My dad worked in the pentagon at this time and has only told me what he saw that day once, not long after the event occurred; he has PTSD from the events that unfolded that day and has never been the same. Seeing how much it hurt him to tell the story, I never asked him to tell it again and tried not to ask too many questions at the time, despite wanting to know all of the details.

At the time, his office was located in the section that was hit by the plane. He had been called out of his office to one a couple rings further in (but still on the same side/section) by a close friend who was watching the events unfold on his TV, and he along with many other coworkers began to watch the news together. He told me that in this silence, his friend said "I think we're next" and that it gave him goosebumps. Minutes later, they heard what sounded like a plane approaching and coming closer, far too close, and then the terrible impact.

After a moment of shock, they ran towards the sound to see what had happened. Body parts were everywhere, and so were parts of an AIRPLANE. He himself saw them; he particularly mentioned seeing what appeared to be one of the wheels of the plane, but he says the parts were everywhere. The building was flooded, there were fires, the heavy doors that separated areas were jammed, and pieces of the plane and dead people surrounded him as he and many others were trying to pry open the corridor doors and get survivors and the injured out. Behind one of those doors they found a trapped woman close to being burnt alive because she wasn't strong enough to pry the door open.

My dad traveled often as part of his job, he knows what an airplane looks and sounds like. He and everyone he knows who was there that day are bewildered and angry that there are those who do not believe it was an airplane; he knows what he heard and saw. It wasn't a hologram, or whatever else it is that people seem to imagine it might be.

originally posted by: TheFridaySpecial

If that is the camera position then this shot is impossible.

The red arrow on the pic indicates the viewing direction only, not the camera location. With the obvious 'flattening' effect of a telephoto lens on the depth of field the camera's actual location was much further back.

a reply to: Pilgrum

BS. It is obvious that the camera is angled up so it cannot be very far back, it doesn't even matter though, the second building simply cannot be in the shot, the camera position is clearly way below the first building, pointing up, it is not possible for the second building to appear in the shot, since it is further away and not bigger than the first building.

Even if the camera was much further back, it still should not show the second building from a position that is lower than the first building.

So there you have it, 100% proof of a 100% fake 911 video showing what must then be a 100% fake plane.

originally posted by: TheFridaySpecial
a reply to: wmd_2008

If anyone thinks a softer object can never pass through a harder object please watch and explain this.

I don't think that but I do think there should be visible deformation of the softer object, something we clearly see in this video.

Yet, in the 911 video the plane is not deformed at all but simply flies through the tower like a ghost.

There is one VERY obvious difference between the table tennis ball video & the 9/11 videos and if you had considered it you would not have posted this reply to me, in simple terms FPS the table tennis ball video is shot at 30,000 FPS shown on top right of the video the videos shot by the public on consumer video cameras 25-29 FPS ,

You have given a PERFECT example of how people can be lead down a conspiracy path LACK of observation and understanding of what they see.

originally posted by: TheFridaySpecial
a reply to: Pilgrum

BS. It is obvious that the camera is angled up so it cannot be very far back, it doesn't even matter though, the second building simply cannot be in the shot, the camera position is clearly way below the first building, pointing up, it is not possible for the second building to appear in the shot, since it is further away and not bigger than the first building.

Even if the camera was much further back, it still should not show the second building from a position that is lower than the first building.

So there you have it, 100% proof of a 100% fake 911 video showing what must then be a 100% fake plane.

The building in the 9/11 video was in FRONT of the towers you can check if you make the effort.

Once again VERY POOR understanding of what you SEE. Red arrow palnne direction and just to SHOW the effect of focal length on an image.





Two different focal lengths pictures taken so statue appears a similar size in both or do you THINK the Church moved closer for the second image

The old building is in FRONT of the towers and the view is easy to check if YOU make the effort and I have 37+ years of photography experience so if you have any questions on the subject just ask.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Totally irrelevant, you can still use several individual frames to see that there is no deformation to the plane as it flies through the building, the only thing is that you don't see all the moments in between.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Ha, pathetic debunk attempt. Why don't you try the same thing with two objects that are about the same height, like the two buildings in that shot, instead of this straw man example using two objects that are nowhere near the same height.

Take two objects that are about the same height and make the one that is further away appear to be higher than the one that is closest, from a position that is lower than the first object.

It is simply impossible.

originally posted by: TheFridaySpecial
a reply to: wmd_2008

Totally irrelevant, you can still use several individual frames to see that there is no deformation to the plane as it flies through the building, the only thing is that you don't see all the moments in between.

Really lets show you are daft then from the link below what frames from the standard video SHOW ANY OF the details from the high speed video .

When YOU shot at THOUSANDS OF FRAMES PER SECOND and play it back MINUTE SLICES of time are recorded did that REALLY not occur to YOU

a reply to: wmd_2008

The old building is in FRONT of the towers and the view is easy to check if YOU make the effort

My argument does not contest the fact that it is front of the Twin Towers, I don't know why you think it does.

a reply to: wmd_2008

The individual frames of the normal speed video still show the plane as it was at those specific moments and there are like 3-4 frames you can take from it and they show no deformation as it flies through the building.

originally posted by: TheFridaySpecial
a reply to: wmd_2008

The individual frames of the normal speed video still show the plane as it was at those specific moments and there are like 3-4 frames you can take from it and they show no deformation as it flies through the building.

Then WHY do people doing high speed impact testing use very high FPS cameras when according to YOU all they need is 25-30 frames per second.

Find A frame in the normal speed video of the water balloon video that shows the ripple detail of the impact of the slo mo guy.

Also WHAT building do you think is wrong in the 9/11 video one of the older buildings or the North Tower which is behind the South Tower.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Then WHY do people doing high speed impact testing use very high FPS cameras when according to YOU all they need is 25-30 frames per second.

Because they can see every little detail instead of seeing only a few details. This doesn't mean that the few details visible in the frames of a normal speed video would not show a deformation.

Are you saying that the frames of a normal speed video do not show the actual situation? Then what does it show?

a reply to: wmd_2008

Also WHAT building do you think is wrong in the 9/11 video one of the older buildings or the North Tower which is behind the South Tower.

And you are talking about being daft and bad observational skills?

I have been very clear about which buildings I am talking about, you are just playing dumb because you know your "debunk" is complete BS, the same reason why you didn't actually respond to that post.

originally posted by: TheFridaySpecial
a reply to: wmd_2008

Then WHY do people doing high speed impact testing use very high FPS cameras when according to YOU all they need is 25-30 frames per second.

Because they can see every little detail instead of seeing only a few details. This doesn't mean that the few details visible in the frames of a normal speed video would not show a deformation.

Are you saying that the frames of a normal speed video do not show the actual situation? Then what does it show?

They are LOW RESOLUTION low frame rate images it's that SIMPLE if you were right would high speed cameras be needed to show REAL detail YES or NO.

So are you talking about the Towers re the image you think is impossible because the North Tower the one behind does not appear taller than the South Tower about to be impacted if you were REALLY that interested in the subject after this length of time I thought you would know which is which

a reply to: wmd_2008

So are you talking about the Towers re the image you think is impossible because the North Tower the one behind does not appear taller than the South Tower about to be impacted if you were REALLY that interested in the subject after this length of time I thought you would know which is which

No I am not talking about the Twin Towers and you know it.

I am talking about the two other buildings in the foreground of the shot, the ones that are also circled in this pic:

a reply to: wmd_2008

They are LOW RESOLUTION low frame rate images it's that SIMPLE if you were right would high speed cameras be needed to show REAL detail YES or NO.

Oh now the resolution is the problem.....the only thing high speed cameras do is show more moments in the same timeframe, this doesn't mean that the moments shown in normal speed footage are not a depiction of reality at those moments.

originally posted by: TheFridaySpecial
a reply to: wmd_2008

They are LOW RESOLUTION low frame rate images it's that SIMPLE if you were right would high speed cameras be needed to show REAL detail YES or NO.

Oh now the resolution is the problem.....the only thing high speed cameras do is show more moments in the same timeframe, this doesn't mean that the moments shown in normal speed footage are not a depiction of reality at those moments.

Still avoiding the YES or NO, here are the buildings in question as YOU seem to lazy to check things F for front R for rear





So which building is TALLER to you.