No Plane Hit The World Trade Center On 9/11

Originally posted by warisover
Can't you see that was one of the "staged" videos? Can't you tell that that "jet black" plane looks outta place on a clear sunny day.

Your illogical video anomalies aside, he still says "WHAT'S THIS OTHER JET DOING" before it hits the tower. He didn't see it on tv or on the internet later. He is seeing the jet with his own eyes. What part of that do you not understand?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by warisover
Can't you see that was one of the "staged" videos? Can't you tell that that "jet black" plane looks outta place on a clear sunny day.

Your illogical video anomalies aside, he still says "WHAT'S THIS OTHER JET DOING" before it hits the tower. He didn't see it on tv or on the internet later. He is seeing the jet with his own eyes. What part of that do you not understand?

Do you care to answer WHY the "plane" was jet black on a clear day? And WHY the wing disappeared before the "hit"? The rest of the plane stayed solid black how do you suppose the wing happened to disappear?

Bonez, also notice in that video that the guy who says what's this other jet doing, may have been in on the OS, notice the female only says what the hell is that, never says a plane.

reply to post by warisover


Can you explain to me how agents of whoever organised 9/11 would go about ensuring that they had every single piece of footage of the second plane strike?

reply to post by warisover

Do you care to answer WHY the "plane" was jet black on a clear day?

I no longer, even for one second, believe there is anyone who is that unable to understand videography, photography, light and shadow....but, you asked, and one day there may be someone who reads it and says to him(her)self, "Hmmmm?"

SO...what part of the airplane, from the video in question, was pointing towards the ground, and therefore in shadow? The belly, of course...(or 'bottom', or 'underside', for non-pilots).

Here, not an exact example, but illustrative:



Was in all the news, big embarrassment for the new US Administration. Was not 'faked' (though I bet they wished they had...).

THAT shot of Air Force One was taken from a bit more close-up, than the particular video of United Airlines 175.

AND...different paint schemes...UAL 175 is mostly dark blue on the fuselage belly. Underside of wings, in shadow, thus appear dark. Very, very simple to understand.

And WHY the wing disappeared before the "hit"?

This is....I haven't the words for it, whilst remaining polite.

A child should be able to understand, from that video. Nothing disappeared.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another vid, OK?

Close up, daylight, but again....video light capture, shadows, sun angle, etc, etc, etc....



Just in case two isn't convincing:



I could continue (hey, I like airplane videos!) but, the point is made.


Now....continuing this line of questioning might lead to dire consequences, because flatly refusing to accept solid evidence, when presented, is frowned upon, for a very particular reason, around here...




[edit on 16 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by warisover
Do you care to answer WHY the "plane" was jet black on a clear day?

You already asked that question before and I already answered it here.

Originally posted by warisover
And WHY the wing disappeared before the "hit"?

That's called video compression artifacts and crappy VHS video tapes.

Originally posted by warisover
also notice in that video that the guy who says what's this other jet doing, may have been in on the OS

How can you "notice" that he may have been in on the OS from this video? I may be from another planet on the other side of the universe. But I've got about as much proof as you.

Originally posted by warisover
notice the female only says what the hell is that, never says a plane

What has that got to do with anything? She could have poor eyesight. He could've been looking through binoculars. Nobody knows. And you certainly don't know and therefore you cannot come to the conclusion that there were no planes just because you don't know. Not knowing is not proof of anything.

Get some evidence and facts because all you're doing is asserting, taking things out of context, and guessing.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


I on you tube have seen proof of it being made by the goverment and here is my case.
1. Watch the video again, after the "Plane" crashes into the tower causing smoke you can see that theres small explosions at the bottom As if someone set off the explosives. also on tv they never did show survaliance futtage of the inside of the towers and i think they would have it.
2. Bush was sitting in a classroom when the second "plane" crashed into the tower and 3 months later he said "I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in when i saw on the tv the Ffirst plane crash into the tower" now nobody actuall saw the first plane crash into the tower and nor was it on the tv, so that is proof it was Faked

_____________________________________________________________

The Truth is a lie unless the Lie is the truth

reply to post by Dambem


That's not proof it was faked. That's your opinion and it's only proof in your mind. Not most of the rest of the world's.

Originally posted by Dambem
now nobody actuall saw the first plane crash into the tower and nor was it on the tv

Actually, the firefighters and the Naudet brothers that were filming them saw the first plane crash. And there were many other witnesses that were outside that saw the first plane crash if you go to the TV archive and do some real research.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by Dambem

 

That's not proof it was faked. That's your opinion and it's only proof in your mind. Not most of the rest of the world's.


I am sorry but explain the small explosion and i think i said wrong when i mean t Faked it was a wrong post and also how can you explain the small explosions that were far from the main one.

reply to post by Dambem


I have no idea what you're trying to say. Proper spelling and punctuation would help.

Bonez it seems you are falling victim to illogic yourself, it is fairly obvious that things are anomalous with many of the videos, and that is the main point, it is not up to anyone to prove this, but to ask questions as to how they look so different than ANYONES story.

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
it is fairly obvious that things are anomalous with many of the videos

It's only "fairly obvious" to those that lack the basic understanding of photography, videography, and simple physics.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by warisover

 

Can you explain to me how agents of whoever organised 9/11 would go about ensuring that they had every single piece of footage of the second plane strike?

I asked this a while ago.

The yawning silence is pretty unsurprising.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by warisover

 

Can you explain to me how agents of whoever organised 9/11 would go about ensuring that they had every single piece of footage of the second plane strike?

Every single home video was handed into either the police/fbi or the media. Those who didn't, upon seeing planes having been cgi'd on the tv, panicked and either destroyed their versions, or pretends that they were never even there that day.

Agents as you call them know that the people who have the original untampered footage, would never dare come forward with their video. Mostly through fear for their families and themselves.

Strange how since there were meant to be thousands (some here have said millions! lol) on the streets of Manhattan and yet only 44+ vids have been released?....

reply to post by thesneakiod


Sarcasm...right?

It can only be sarcasm....because no one could possibly believe what you just wrote to be actual fact?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by thesneakiod

 

Sarcasm...right?

It can only be sarcasm....because no one could possibly believe what you just wrote to be actual fact?

I just don't know anymore lol.

Ive been here long enough now to know that planes more than likely did hit the buildings.

But sometimes it's good to sit back and enjoy a theory without the fear of being scorned on, just because certain people would like to discuss it.

Seems on ATS the NPT is as welcome as a ginger stepson.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by warisover

I could continue (hey, I like airplane videos!) but, the point is made.

What point? I don't understand, what does those videos you posted have to do with the cgi plane on the other video?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by warisover

 

Can you explain to me how agents of whoever organised 9/11 would go about ensuring that they had every single piece of footage of the second plane strike?

I asked this a while ago.

The yawning silence is pretty unsurprising.

I already answered that here

Also thesneakiod did a good job explaining it below your post.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by warisover
Do you care to answer WHY the "plane" was jet black on a clear day?

You already asked that question before and I already answered it here.

That is not a very good answer. You can't say, well the buildings were green so the plane was black Ask yourself why the buildings were green and the sky's were pink on msm that morning

Originally posted by warisover
What point? I don't understand, what does those videos you posted have to do with the cgi plane on the other video?

There is no CGI plane in any videos. That's the point. You haven't shown any evidence what-so-ever of CGI planes.

A real no-plane researcher would obtain the original videos and have them analyzed by a professional studio for fakery. But they will tell you the same thing we're telling you: the videos are real.

Originally posted by warisover
I already answered that here

Actually, no you didn't. You have no proof of who turned their videos in and who didn't. Furthermore, many people made copies of their video to turn in because many people still released their own home videos to the public.

Your word is meaningless without some kind of proof to back up the claims you make. If there were CGI planes, prove it by some kind of video analysis done by professionals, not by posting bunk youtube videos created by known disinfo artists.

Originally posted by warisover
That is not a very good answer. You can't say, well the buildings were green so the plane was black

Ask yourself why the buildings were green and the sky's were pink on msm that morning

I have answered this before, but you continue to ignore the answers. No two different cameras will have the same color and contrast, ever. Anyone who knows anything about photography or videography knows this. If you have a problem understanding why, then I suggest using Google.