Wow! YouTube Documentary shows WTC Impact/Explosion and No Plane @ (5:40m) ?!?!

reply to post by 12.21.12


Whatever it is, CGI or not, it is very coincidental that this thing would use the same trajectory as the fake 911 plane. Could have been their way to get certain aspects into the general public. That's why they seem to have pushed the 911 and twin towers the year before it happened.

Just another one of those coincidences that keep baffling the statisticians. The odds really were stacked that day.

reply to post by AllTiedTogether


Yes well it would make more sense now that we have seen footage without a plane.
I kind of wondered why they would use a trajectory and then it occured to me...motion mapping. Thats why many witnesses said they saw a missile. If this were true there would have been cameras on the ground the same day as this video was shot in the very same exact locations it was shot on 9/11.

reply to post by 12.21.12


Very interesting theory you have. I never paid any attention to the UFO's flight path.

Also on a side note. The email responses given to Rense were really odd. They come off really strong. You're theory really deserves another thread in itself.

www.rense.com...

Barbara seemed reluctant to reply with barely a sentence, and finally the husband replies very hostile.

neither she nor i have had any alien encounters, been abducted by space. or other aliens, and we are currently not hanging out with any space aliens and to the best of my knowledge have nevr met any creatures from outer space, have never been on a flying saucer etc etc etc"

If I were in the same situation, I could see myself just saying it was fake so people would leave me alone.. would you?

It's just so weird.. its the planes flight path on 9-11 backwards.. the odds.

Has sci-fi ever released any info regarding who did the animation?

Also interesting is that Sci-fi has taken that video off of their website

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Techsnow]

reply to post by Techsnow

Her story changed after 9/11.
Yes well as I can imagine she has probably recieved death threats as a result to what she became a witness of. Thats what I would imagine.

Yes it was aired briefly on Sci-Fi prior to 9/11

[edit on 3-3-2009 by 12.21.12]

OMG, do people honestly believe that UFO BS was real...even close to real...no wonder the government is laughing at you people and can get away with ANYTHING they want. They know goofballs will say UFO's, Aliens, CGI, Holograms, MKultra, retiles, mirrors, blah blah blah...this is starting to show the true nature of why the NWO can do ANYTHING it wants...lol..

reply to post by rcwj75


oops double post

[edit on 3-3-2009 by 12.21.12]

reply to post by rcwj75


The term UFO doesn't really apply here. Yes I do believe that to pull off 9/11 would require a tremendous amount of testing and preparation.

Originally posted by rcwj75
OMG, do people honestly believe that UFO BS was real...even close to real...no wonder the government is laughing at you people and can get away with ANYTHING they want. They know goofballs will say UFO's, Aliens, CGI, Holograms, MKultra, retiles, mirrors, blah blah blah...this is starting to show the true nature of why the NWO can do ANYTHING it wants...lol..

I'm not saying that it's not possible it wasn't real. There's a lot of confusion about it still.


more info



[edit on 3-3-2009 by Techsnow]

Originally posted by Techsnow

I'm not saying that it's not possible it wasn't real. There's a lot of confusion about it still.

more info

more info

[edit on 3-3-2009 by Techsnow]

Tech my post isnt directed towards you directly..sorry...i have seen and talked to MANY who swear its real, swear there were like 50 UFO's in the sky that day, etc...along with so many other crazy theorys its nuts.

2 planes, be it full of people, or disguised as such hit those towers that day...end of story. If people WANT to debate anything they should be debating what hit the pentagon...NOW you have a debate and a lot of speculation.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
but you still get the derailers that claim that the NPT is a bad thing for the 911 cause.

Must be the 9/11 disinfo cause, because the professional research organizations and others involved in the 9/11 truth movement have taken measures to distance themselves from NPT by letting their members know that they do not support NPT.

Other websites, such as Loose Change and 9/11 Blogger have it written right in the forum rules that NPT is disinfo and anyone peddling it will be banned. Nobody in the 9/11 truth movement supports NPT and most call it disinfo from disinfo artists like the one I busted in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So the 9/11 truth movement is the foremost authority on what theories are okay and which ones are not.

That would explain why 9/11 has never been solved.

Thanks for clearing that up.

reply to post by Techsnow



Ok, one of the clips makes a good case against No Planes, which is the live clip where an anchorwoman continues to talk during the second attack. Although I must admit that is only circumstantial, the women did not even flinch at tower 2 exploding, much less an airplane impact. All of the other clips seem to be either replayed stock footage or too blurry to make out. If it's a real plane, then it's a plane that's not supposed to be there.

There is a variety of angles which all seem to fit together. The zooming and camera shakes seem to be exact, which would require a heck of a lot of work to CG in. It apppears that the cameramen made only minute movements, which would be difficult to capture by placing motion capture on the camera itself. Only some really sophisticated image recognition technology could follow the shakes that accurately.

However, during the clip at 2:13 the building seems to be completely intact until the explosion, at which time the building warps a bit. At 3:52 you can see that the right wing is almost perfectly flush with the lateral face of the building, but not enough to scrape it or physically push it out.

There still isn't a good angle of the plane where its paint would be visible.

The "debris" seems to be fallout from the explosion, rather than only plane parts.

Did somebody say "F*** my ass" after 3:00 ?? LOL

I must admit, though, that solid objects do some amazing things at 500 MPH, especially when they're heavy. However, stopping abruptly isn't one of them, unless the steel beams were just strong enough to resist the airplane. Did the plane stop in the center of the building or penetrate all the way through?

It seems like the steel beams also resisted the initial explosion (resulting in the fireball), even though the windows did not. That particular spot must have been chosen in advance so that the fireball would be visible from three of the four sides of the building. They could not make a fireball that would have been visible from all four sides, for some reason. At this point, I have no idea how planted explosives could have remained intact where the fireball went off, unless (1) the locations for the fireball and the explosives were pre-planned, (2) the explosives were shielded from that type of fire or (3) the explosives were partially-assembled beforehand and then pieced together while the building was on fire, by "suicide bombers" (ostensibly, this would have required up to 1 hour to complete).

A video of the attack on tower 1, along with other stuff:
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Techsnow
OP asked for a video of plane hitting the building that wasn't fake so here's about 50 of them all rolled into one

I think that 4:35 is one of the cleanest amateur videos and they even comment that "another f* plane hit the building."

Just in case you're serious about the original video you presented. The planes pictured in that video are of really low quality so its hard to see the detail when they hit. When the plane does hit you can clearly see debris on many higher quality videos.

The real question you should be asking is wtf hit the pentagon?

AIRPLANES DON'T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM


Every one of those are fake CGI planes and they are easy to do.

Watch this clip and you can see how it was done, very easy job.

www.youtube.com...


Watch the Fairbanks clip @ 0.44 you can clearly see the tower repair itself after the right wing is in the tower.

www.youtube.com...

In the real world this could not happen

If a real 767 would crash against the tower it would explode on inpact and it would be plane parts all over the place.

In the CGI world a plane can fly right through the steel beams and explode inside the tower.

D.Duck

[edit on 4-3-2009 by D.Duck]

reply to post by D.Duck


folks, it might be hard to believe because it interferes with your views of reality that you're comfortable with, but you were all duped.

Duckman pretty much just took all of you to school, so i hope you learned something.

Excellent post Duck.

[edit on 3/4/2009 by JPhish]

by the way, the clip in that youtube documentary that doesn't have a plane is not the original clip. The original clip had no plane as well but they added one. This is the third installment of the clip. It's not hard to remove something from a video that was never really there to begin with. It's so easy you could do it with imageready and PAINT in a few hours.

[edit on 3/4/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by D.Duck



It could be possible at 500 MPH though

Originally posted by Techsnow
OP asked for a video of plane hitting the building that wasn't fake so here's about 50 of them all rolled into one

all this compilation does is reinforce the NPT and VIDEO FAKERY camp.

Yeah, there's 50 different clips of 50 DIFFERENT LOOKING "planes" not to mention 50 different COLOR CONTRASTS and 50 DIFFERENT ANOMALIES THROUGHOUT this compil.

THANKS FOR POSTING THIS star and flag!!

we need more truther agents like you round here.

I especially love the clip at 5:50 which demonstrates the AUDIO FAKERY as the sound of the jet (dubbed in) continues even AFTER its already hit the building. doesn't take much analysis to see such blatant fakery if you use common sense.

Originally posted by Techsnow

I think that 4:35 is one of the cleanest amateur videos and they even comment that "another f* plane hit the building."

its astounding at the number of people and level of brainwashing that contributes to perpetuating the hoax. the msm and perps sure did a number on the masses.

Originally posted by Techsnow
Just in case you're serious about the original video you presented. The planes pictured in that video are of really low quality so its hard to see the detail when they hit. When the plane does hit you can clearly see debris on many higher quality videos.

the sad thing is though is how so many still use/rely on the same debunked footage thats been taken apart and dissected exposing the fakery as if its credible, authentic or un-tampered with.

if it weren't so tragic, it'd be funny.

Originally posted by Techsnow
The real question you should be asking is wtf hit the pentagon?

now that the NOC has been proven, its quite simple... NOTHING.

Why do I believe that the whole thing was planned and executed by the government. For this one reason that isn't being discussed. If you take a ten foot metal I-beam and stand it on end, and drop a ton of cement on it, and throw in sme car engines to boot, the Ibeam will still be standing. First of all, when the towers fell they should have slid to either side and not straight down as if controlled. Second, the hit was to one side of the building so even if that part collapsed, it should have slid off to the side and fell from the top of the rest of the tower. It did neither. The whole thing was faked, and the towers fell by explosives.

Originally posted by JPhish
by the way, the clip in that youtube documentary that doesn't have a plane is not the original clip. The original clip had no plane as well but they added one.

let me get this straight... you're claiming the clip that doesn't have a plane is not the ORIGINAL clip, but the ORIGINAL clip also HAD NO PLANE EITHER but ADDED ONE?

huh???

are you aware of what you just stated? and have you been drinking?

you've just contradicted and agreed with yourself at the same time... or something like that LOL did i miss something? cos that has to be one of the most bizarre posts i've ever seen here.

Originally posted by JPhish
This is the third installment of the clip. It's not hard to remove something from a video that was never really there to begin with.

Please provide evidence supporting this incredible claim.

If what you say is true, you should have no problem providing the ORIGINAL CLIP you're talking about from which this DOC was taken and this CLIP you're talking about should HAVE NO PLANE THERE TO BEGIN WITH right?

This is precisely what i've been asking for... THE ORIGINAL CLIP which you say HAD NO PLANE TO BEGIN WITH??

I'll be sitting on pins and needles for your reply.

Originally posted by JPhish
It's so easy I could do it with imageready and PAINT.

You can make that statement how EASY IT IS to fake and photoshop such things, but at the same time have such a hard time accepting FAKERY, NO PLANES, CGI or that it wouldn't be easy for the most advanced military and media on the planet?

you're kidding me right?

Originally posted by Fromabove
Why do I believe that the whole thing was planned and executed by the government. For this one reason that isn't being discussed. If you take a ten foot metal I-beam and stand it on end, and drop a ton of cement on it, and throw in sme car engines to boot, the Ibeam will still be standing. First of all, when the towers fell they should have slid to either side and not straight down as if controlled. Second, the hit was to one side of the building so even if that part collapsed, it should have slid off to the side and fell from the top of the rest of the tower. It did neither. The whole thing was faked, and the towers fell by explosives.

Wow... How refreshing it is to see more and more beginning to wake up round here. The FAKERY is so blatant its incredible so many have such a hard time seeing it. But perhaps thats why so many don't because it is so obvious. There were many aspects to this conspiracy that took me many years to fully SEE and have that LIGHT BULB experience and i wonder why it took me so long. But then doc's like SC hadn't been made yet, which was what really woke me up. Prior to that I was focused on WTC7 which blew me away, but I never thought there was anything else to look at. And then SC opened pandoras box!

Then just when I thought nothing else could top the fakery, i run across the Dew and Nano nuke theory which imo is in its infancy and Judy Woods research far ahead of its time.

I'm truly looking forward to the day, and it will come, when plane-huggers, SOC supporters and those who say NO nukes or DEW, finally realize they were wrong.

reply to post by matrixNIN11


I've viewed this same clip on a large screen HD television. At first I too thought the wing was missing. The missing wing is there at approximatelty the 5:40 time frame, it simply washes out with the bacground grey color but it is still visible. There were several other people in the room I was trying to convince about the wing, but they pointed the washout to me.

Now as far as the clip before that with no plane in view, that is the first time I've ever seen that. I'm wondering if the NP'ers digitally edited the plane out on the first pass. There is no explanation of where the clip came from or how the person creating the film came into possession of the clip.

The nose out however is very suspicious and I think this is where the no planers have their best case evidence with video manipulation. There are also several other anomalies in the videos that the NPers have pointed out that have no explanation other than video manipulation prior to public consumption.

In regards to the impact, keep in mind that plastic straws can penetrate a wooden telephone pole in tornado like conditions. Who would have thought a plastic straw could do such a thing to a wooden telephone pole?? Same with aluminum impacting the towers at over 500mph.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Swing Dangler]