What could this Be?? 911 - Second Strike Footage... Wing Disapears

Originally posted by brianmg5
reply to post by MiMobs

 

Everyone, please do yourself a favor, grab any still of the plane with the wing gone and zoom into it. Change the contrast, You'll see the following. A sharp square of sky covering the wing. It's obvious that it's been edited. YOU CAN DO THIS YOURSELF.

CHALLENGE YOUR OWN BELIEFS LIKE ANY GOOD INVESTIGATOR!!

Or continue to live in a dream world. up to you.

As this footage was aired on 9/11... how do you suppose that could have happened???

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


It was edited after it was originally aired is one possible (if not completely blatantly obvious) example.

Do you really think this is the original un-doctored footage?

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Krog this is your thread. I would appreciate the courtesy of an actual answer. I really dont appreciate you answering my questions by simply posting a video. You told me to "watch the videos". You did not tell me.. "the answers are in these videos". I would also like to point out that posting those videos as answers proves exactly what I have been saying.

You are only regurgitating someone elses work and thoughts. Tell me your thoughts. I have posted 8 questions 10 times now. They are respectful honest questions. You should have no problem answering them.

You watch these well produced videos. They link to other well produced videos. This is basicly the MSN but in alternative form. They research the best way to get the message out. The well funded truther movements have gotten their claws into many people. They have become profitable. They are now also controlled by money.

I dont want answers from some guy with a camera in his face in a well produced video. I was asking you questions. If you dont know the answers go learn them. This is your thread and I am sure I am not the only that would appreciate some questions answered. A video with an obvious agenda is no way to answer questions between adults.

reply to post by brianmg5


Nope. He thinks it's original doctored footage, doctored to look exactly like a plane losing a wing... which makes no real sense if you think about it.......

Dot. Dot. Dot.

Originally posted by brianmg5
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

It was edited after it was originally aired is one possible (if not completely blatantly obvious) example.

No... It was aired as is with missing wing on 9/11.

Given your evidence and the fact that this was aired with missing wing on 9/11 must lead to the conclusion that the images were doctored on that day

Now why would the images be edited on the very day of the disaster... and remember there are multiple cameras all catching the same effect...

And I don't think this is the original image... that's my entire point... none of the images we have are the real deal... they have all been edited to show what the perps want you to see... there were mistakes however.

Korg..

Originally posted by MiMobs
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Krog this is your thread.

Originally posted by MiMobs
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Korg,

This is where you totally derail. Just because we dont buy the video overlay or CGI or possibly a hologram. DOES NOT mean we "believe the msm" or "accept the official story". I just see a pattern developing... The only part of 911 that believe is whether it was night or day.

One simple question...

Do you think it was a 767-200 piloted by total newbies that hit the WTC?

Korg.

Man, I swear that I am about to drown from the "pissing contest" between Korg Trinity and MiMobs, I am surprised that the mods haven't shut this thread down yet, considering the it will soon move into day 5 with no progress being made. So how long do you beat a dead horse before your ego will allow you to acknowledge that it is dead? I guess it takes longer than 5-days, eh? I am almost willing to bet that you guys are in love with each other and you are just working out some "pent up" sexual frustration. Just messing with you guys. But why don't you just call it quits and move on to something a little more productive?.. It's just a suggestion.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by brianmg5

 

Nope. He thinks it's original doctored footage, doctored to look exactly like a plane losing a wing... which makes no real sense if you think about it.......

Dot. Dot. Dot.

No.. you just don't think laterally do you. Why do you think on the day of 9/11 we have some footage where we can see the wings are edited out.... maybe because the compositing was a total crap ass job and would prove beyond shadow of a doubt that it was edited. so they try and correct the mistake... but there is always evidence of tampering and this is what the above image clearly shows.

So if you can do that the I hear you say why release it.. if it was an bad job... Well the answer is that they didn't actually have total control over what footage was going out, it was an amazing well executed job but there were mistakes.

Feed came into the nerve centre at the pentigon, the technology did the job, then the feed was sent out again with a delay. this edited feed is what the MSM got... to put out.

Korg.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Where is your evidence that this is the way it aired? Do you film this? did you see it with your own eyes?

How can you come to a firm conclusion that this is the original unaltered footage and hasn't been edited after the fact? how?

And why believe something so vehemently anyways? As a "truther" you should really lean toward the empirical process of investigation. I mean, that's what the movement is based on. Facts. You are presenting none and at the same time not being open minded to other possibilities. I think 911 was an inside job too but that doesn't mean I'm going to buy into every damn video I see.

You are suffereing form what's called Confirmation Bias. Wikipedia

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Didn't I answer this for you, already? Why are you asking him?

Do you think it was a 767-200 piloted by total newbies that hit the WTC?

They had several hundred hours each. I could teach you how to do it, with less experience.
Easily.

Originally posted by openmind444
But why don't you just call it quits and move on to something a little more productive?.. It's just a suggestion.

I would love to and have been trying to move the thread on.... If only Mimobs would answer me One simple question...

Does he think it was a 767-200 piloted by total newbies that hit the WTC?

Plenty of Anti-truth people would love to see threads like this closed....

Korg.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Didn't I answer this for you, already? Why are you asking him?

Do you think it was a 767-200 piloted by total newbies that hit the WTC?

They had several hundred hours each. I could teach you how to do it, with less experience.
Easily.

Source proof?

What about those commercial pilots that had tens of thousand of operational hours that all said it was impossible???

People like this...





yes??

Korg

reply to post by Korg Trinity


Just stop this Paul Revere attitude. You are only regurgitating other peoples information. You don't have any new and unique thoughts and or ideas.

Yes I think a passenger jet hit the WTC. I have seen all of the same videos you have. I have obviously come to a different conclusion than you have.

You are yet to answer one single question.. I am sure you want the questions to stop, but they wont.
If you will not admit openly, just say "I don't know" to the questions. We will interpret it for what it is.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


They say they can't do it... Imagine finding out that a job that you put 1000 hours into. Imagine that job was accomplished by some dirt hut terrorists with 100+ hours at the helm.

I would say it was impossible also.. If I was a spineless pilot with an inflated ego.

All they did was guide a plane into a building. How hard could it be... Controlling a plane at break neck speeds apparently can be learned in a few months by Muslim terrorists.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by Orion7911

show me where there's any real "physics" going on here, any video where the engines slide backward or sheering happening.

you people are in such denial its sad

its truly amazing that anyone with a shred of real common sense or intelligence can look at this image and say its real...yet the bizarre reality is they do.

it would be comical if it weren't so sad

edit on 29-10-2010 by Orion7911 because: (no reason given)

Explain what you mean about the engines what piece of reasoning are you using to justify your statement.

why don't you ask the poster who I was RESPONDING to.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
A video for you a soft object destroys a hard object.
www.youtube.com...

edit on 29-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

you're joking right? since when can human hands be compared to a JETliner and a concrete block to a STEEL skyscraper?

once again red herrings are DUHbunkers favorite tools

Originally posted by LifeSux
Originally posted by Orion7911
Some random .gifs of the plane:
So these are all fake then Korg? This isn't even a fraction of all of the clips that are available. If you need/want me to provide more, are links to source material, let me know!

Yep... so how can you use images that have never been proven real, to prove real planes?

PROVE they're real planes ie flight 11 and 175.

PROVE the footage hasn't been tampered with.

you're claiming its real and depicts reality... the burden is upon you and the oct to prove it. but I have yet to see any PROOF the planes and impacts are real.

We've shown evidence of fakery and physical impossibilities that have yet to be conclusively disproven.

Until you can, NRPT isn't any less absurd than RPT.

evasions to each of my questions and challenges duly noted

Originally posted by LifeSux
You can tell that the plane tilts the same way in all of the videos.

and that proves....?

Originally posted by LifeSux
In a lot of the videos you can see the lighting on the wing change.

which proves?

Originally posted by LifeSux
On all the videos that you can see the impact from the face of the towers,

LIE.

Originally posted by LifeSux
the plane enters the same.

LIE

Originally posted by LifeSux
The explosion is the same in every picture and video available.

LIE. the "face" anomaly is not captured in all footage.

Originally posted by LifeSux
If you watch the raw videos you can see the planes are real, even if you take them into Photoshop or similar.

PROVE they're RAW.

Originally posted by LifeSux
Tons upon tons of people in New York/New Jersey saw the plane and it's impact on the building.

and TONS of people contradict them not to mention several of these "eye witnesses" have been exposed as
shills and liars.

Originally posted by LifeSux
Plane parts were found on the streets/roof tops/etc etc.

and not a single part was ever forensically matched to the planes the OCT/OS claims hit the towers.

there you have it folks, the best "evidence" and arguments plane huggers can muster up

Originally posted by MiMobs

WOW the longer this thread gets... the more uninformed the posts get.
He is presenting his photos as real photos.
Contrary to your words.. It is your job to prove that they are not authentic. Possibly you have not experienced much of life. I am taken back by the lack of knowledge on how this works..
He is presenting them as accurate pictures.. You say they might not be. You have raised doubt to their authenticity. Therefore it is your job to either accept them or prove them to be fake.

sorry but the burden of proof to PROVE real planes is on those making claims that the images are proof of real planes hitting the wtc.

Whats funny is the same criterion you demand as evidence of no planes, hasn't been met by those who support RPT. But the fact there's plenty of evidence supporting Nrpt/fakery which hasn't been disproven that puts the OS into doubt, is all thats needed which shifts the burden of proof to those who support the RPT.

Originally posted by MiMobs
I think it is funny.. You believe 1 video with a wing disapearing, but fail to acknowledge a card file of videos and pictures.

I think its even funnier that you're clearly unable to grasp the basic premise and implications of what these particular videos illustrate.

Notice how the title reads it's a dub?

Just saying.

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I disagree. There are loads of other videos,showing that the wing of the plane never dissappeared.
Here is one of the proofs:
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by anjan



Am I the only one, that looks at the video and thinks the lighting is all wrong? The light of the towers seems to be coming from one way, the light of the building on the left a different way, then the lighting of the plane is different from both.