Plane theories OWNED, in 3 easy pictures

From the Naudet footage shown in the video below:




Now I know, a lot of people on this forum can't scrape 7 minutes of their life together to learn something new, so I have shrunk it down to just 3 photos that completely destroy plane theories showing that the footage was FABRICATED. IF THE TRUTH WAS TOLD, THERE WOULD NOT BE ALL THESE INCONSISTENCIES AND LIES.

SECONDS After the first explosion, the SECOND explosion is expanding the hole.. but it's not enough:
files.abovetopsecret.com...


OH # ADD SOME BLACK THERES NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR OUR INDESTRUCTIBLE WINGS THAT SHRED STEEL LIKE BUTTER:
files.abovetopsecret.com...


15 minutes after the 'crash' NO gashes are there:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

A jet that big full of fuel hitting a building will explode like a bomb, especially after penetrating that deep into the building. Basic chemistry at work, why do you think smoking is banned on the tarmac and in the hangar? It's a wonder the top of the building wasn't blown off, it must have been a very solidly constructed building and I say that as someone who supports research into 911.

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
A jet that big full of fuel hitting a building will explode like a bomb, especially after penetrating that deep into the building. Basic chemistry at work, why do you think smoking is banned on the tarmac and in the hangar? It's a wonder the top of the building wasn't blown off, it must have been a very solidly constructed building and I say that as someone who supports research into 911.

You didn't watch the video.


It's quite clear, that there is a MAJOR explosion, understandably since there was supposed to be a plane hitting the building. That's fine and dandy, but if the jet fuel on board explodes, it explodes at once, it doesn't just choose when it wants to blow up.

So 6 seconds later, when secondary explosions continue to shred the hole in the building that's a bit disturbing.

BUT, that's not the purpose of this thread, and I don't care if you think it was 1 or 1000 explosions, cause none of that is being debated.

What is being debated here, is that INTENTIONAL EDITING WAS DONE TO THE VIDEO TO MAKE THE HOLE APPEAR LARGER THAN IT WAS IN REALITY.

Which the 3 photos above, point out VERY clearly. Fabricated videos = fabricated event.

The evidence is here.

This seems just a bit silly, don't you think? Now, I may be no one to criticize because what I like to put forward seems ridiculous to most people. But this is obviously not right. I do not mean to personally attack you but I am a little bit concerned. I have run across a few people who have bought into some of this video fakery and no plane business. They would like to point to people like Devin Clark and others for somehow being complicit in some vast conspiracy to manipulate evidence. These are rabbit trails to distract people down false avenues of inquirey and missing the main culprit. You may be well intentioned and I do not think you made this stuff up. Please do not promote stuff like this that only makes you seem ridiculous.
Like I said, I realize how ridiculous I have to seem to people so I generally keep my opinions to myself and just present the photos so others can find these things for themselves. I have a lot of time to devote to this stuff so I do not expect normal people to have the same ability that I do, to do some real in-depth study on the subject. So, I feel it is my duty to point out some things that people should look at. Anyone who wants to know, can take a little clue and go with it and made their own determination.
As for this video you posted, this is the same sort of thing that I have been attempting to counteract for some time. Now I think this is something that is good to look at but do not take someone else's conclusion to be reliable. What these people do is not actual research, though they call it that. What it is, is taking something that seems like an anomaly and making some fantastic claim about it, while a closer examination will show an ordinary explanation.
Why would people do that? For affect, but not the right kind. The affect is for people, who hear the ones who buy into it, to think that they must be nuts. Also it wastes time that could be better used to look at the real problem.
For instance; in the video it is concentrating on some small amount of black smoke coming out of a row of windows. When you look around the corner, you see the same thing on the other side, from the same floor. It should be obvious that someone was not painting in a black line to make the hole look bigger.
There is a more important question, like why is the smoke black? Well, because it is jet fuel burning. "Why is there a secondary explosion?" the video asks. Maybe the real question should be, "Why was there a primary explosion?" To me the "secondary" explosion is more like what you would expect from a plane running into a building, black smoke and all. The real problem is, what in the world is this huge first explosion, with the white smoke? Jet fuel burns with black smoke. High explosives burn with white smoke. Find one photo of a jet fuel fire with white smoke.


[edit on 19-4-2009 by jmdewey60]

Jebus that post above me is painful, but anyway...

Yeah I made a thread about this you can find here There's some great footage of the planes wing "dissapearing" right before impact.

But I am on the fence on this one, it's a little far fetched at most, even you OP has to admit that. However there would be good reason to fake the footage seeing as how the first person just magically was filming a man-hole in downtown and just happened to look up to see the planes hit.

Anyway, good find never the less, might aswell keep bringing these things up, not that we'll ever know what happened.

~Keeper

Please use this already ongoing thread for any further comments please, this thread is now closed.

3 Videos w/more evidence of NRPT and Fakery of Gashes in First Impact

Thread closed
Sauron, Moderator