The Government is smart enough to pull off, the biggest conspiracy in the world to date, but forgot to put the background in on a video. hahahahahahaha my god, please, tell me your joking.
And the government was not smart enough to pull off this.That is the whole point..and why experts from many different fields of study have banded together against this fairy tale.
The EVENING NEWS is also zoomed in 2x. and another fact, The Evening News has cleared the background so much, that you can't even see the land behind the buildings which you can clearly see on the Live feed, is the land mass behind the towers fake aswell????
1:18, the background has been cleared up, in the first live picture, the plane is nearly the same colour as the background. The news clears up video's all the time, to see what the naked eye can't, just a little bit of info for you, a good enough camera lense can actually pick up what the naked eye can't see. obviouse.
I don't know where to start...Let me get this right. You think on the clear sunny morning of sept 11 with the high quality news cameras, your vision was so blurred or not capabe of seeing the immense background of NYC? Were they using cameras from Kmart? That's the funniest one I've heard so far. Thanx for that...
@muzicmaker2001 You are not the smartest person are you, a thousand camera's caught the planes flying, from 1000 different angles, "The video we are talking about is the one above brainiac" and i am saying that the camera in the video you are showing does not have a clear shot because it is so far away, and the most rediculas comment i have ever heard was you saying,"if the plane was polverized before entry then why didn't it drop to the ground in a fire ball: oh my god.
You are talking about this clip? Really? I had no idea. The perspectives, angles, height of the camera view of both clips are near identical. That is obvious. So, pulverized aluminum should enter a steel building? Please do yourself a favor and look up other plane vs; buildings crashes. You can start with the B-25 bomber vs. the Empire State building. The engines entered and the rest of the plane (yes, wait for it) rained down onto the streets.
Here's some more education for ya. Another plane vs. building. See the pile of burning plane wreckage on the lawn OUTSIDE the building? What do you think that means?
@muzicmaker2001 also, how close do you think the police helicopters would let the news camera helicopters get?? not very close, so no, thank you for making me laugh. I've smashed your elevator theory on the head and if you want to debate about that i'll smash you out of the park with it, you ruin the 9/11 truth movements hard work on the smoking gun of 9/11, the "WTC & "thermitic" theories because OS believers see this bullshit and think you are all like this, just flat out dumb.
I see you removed another comment, this time your own. Why? Now you're saying the shots are the same one with the background erased? I'm just trying to understand your opinion.
Do you think the shots are the same footage modified, or two different shots from similar perspective? The video says they're the same footage modified, do you agree? If you don't know that's an acceptable answer too, it just seems like you're avoiding giving a straight answer.
@muzicmaker2001 - "They are two views shot from the same perspective"
I took this to mean you believe they are different pieces of footage, sorry if I was wrong. Maybe you just don't know and are reluctant to admit that. I'm really just trying to understand your opinion on this. Obviously you don't want me to, and that's cool. Talk to you later.
@muzicmaker2001 - I would love to accept your opinion no matter what it is, I just don't understand it. You won't say one shot or two. You're being purposely vague, like usual.
You either:
1. Think they are the same footage, modified.
2. Think they are different pieces of footage from similar perspectives.
3. Don't know.
If you want me to understand you'll write a number. You won't, because you don't want to take a definite position on this.
Once more, its the exact same perspective, angle, height, etc at the exact same point in time. With that, one shot shows a plane (image inserted), one shot does not. Its not that complicated.
@muzicmaker2001 - Ok, so you think it's the same footage with the background erased. Thanks for (kind of) clearing it up. I don't know why you're so reluctant to just say what you mean.
They are two views shot from the same perspective and same moment in time. All you need to do is look at the amount of roof shown in both shots to determine if the angles are simliar. The overall point? It is impossible to "hide" an aircraft of those dimensions in either shot.
Nothing to be confused about. It's possible to place one anywhere in the building but why would you place one or more near the top which is, after all, the premise that you are promoting. Why not place your charges at the bottom which would be equally effective and equally attribrutable to terrorists
If you plan the impacts and want to make it appear as if the the building collapsed at the impact hole, you plant charges there. And there's also evidence that the plane-shaped hole was created with pre-planted explosives.
@muzicmaker2001 Very interesting but again ...why, when charges at the bottom of the building would do a similar job. Why all these elaborate points.(to go wrong). You say "plan the impacts and plant charges there" Now, bearing in mind that i was on the corner of Broadway and Trinity and saw something that was not a missile fly into the tower, how do you ensure your pilot hits where your charges are? And surely pre planted explosives would not give a hole that went inwards.
Once more, the charges/explosives were planted at the top to appear as if the collapse started at the impacted region. Charges planted at the bottom of the building would not accomplish this. And with our technology, it is very easy to aim a missile or plane-shaped missile into any target.
@muzicmaker2001 Once again, Why bugger about with the top if you wanted to bring the building down when you can do it from the bottom.
Also again, I and others saw a plane impact the building, it was not a missile. And ten years ago computer technology was not up to the standards required to mask off to the standard that would be required to pull off a deception such as is suggested,.
Why do I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round? Here we go again. No planes hit the Towers. To make it seem like the collapse started where the imaginary plane hit, it must start at the impact zone. And its very interesting how you didn't bring the fact that you saw the planes earlier like maybe your first comment?
@muzicmaker2001 Don't you follow your own pages, like No 20 where 3 days ago I answered a bloke who was saying he was near the tower (in Rectory) and you were calling him a planted liar. I said there that I was on Broadway and Trinity.. You really should keep up. As , up till now, we had not mentioned a guided missile or plane, it did not need mentioning. So thats 2 of us who were seeing things(according to you).
Yes, I remember. And like him, you seem to be on a campaign to prove you saw the planes and the OV. If you really saw the planes, you wouldn't have to prove it to anyone.
@muzicmaker2001 I wasn't aware I was trying to prove anything , and reading his entries I don't think he was .Now, seeing that you make the same remark to me as you did to him (more or less) I can only conclude that you you do not have a real answer to the fact that people saw what you say wasn't there. You put an argument foreward without any apparent thought that you may be contradicted and anyone doing so has an agenda of some sort. Please...get a life.
Pardon me, but I have heard so many people on here that claim to have seen the planes and then later to see them on some sort of a campaign on multiple pages related to YT defending the OV. No offense, but if you don't have proof on seeing the planes, let's just pretend that we are two random people on YT where direct evidence is more defining and powerful than trust in each other's word.
Very weird that you JUST joined this page after discussing people that claim to have seen the planes. Defeat? Two people claim to have seen the planes. Both are from out of the country and both have no evidence of this at all. Do you call that a win?
@muzicmaker2001 Nothing weird about it. I am clearing my "inbox" and to do so I go through every thing that I have partaken in, which means looking at page after page in case I wish to keep anything "ongoing".. After I made last nights comment, I deleated you and now here you are, back again.
I call it a situation where a person has seen something so needs no proof they they saw it against a person who didn't see something trying (and failing) to prove why he didn't see it when others did....
If your idea of a defeat is having a random person on YT state they he saw something with no backing evidence whatsoever, then yes, I am defeated. And is this some sort of a game to you where someone wins?
@muzicmaker2001 Now, in the process of clearing my box, I notice that I am being discussed, what do think I'm going to do? Ignore it?
You keep saying I have no proof. To show how silly your remark is try this.....did you watch any July 4th Fireworks in ,Say, 2005?. You did! Prove it. Or did you celebrate at the New Millenium ....prove it.
You quote your "evidence" over 20 pages. No, you quote half baked theories, ideas and speculation.
In the process of clearing yor inbox? You noticed you were being discussed? Noone sent you a message from this page? Do you have ESP? Or is it clearing your inbox and what you have partaken in? Wasn't the comment that you removed the first message you have left here ever? Again, very weird.
@muzicmaker2001 Oh, you have access to my PERSONAL messages do you? I have recieved comments from more than a few people mentioning pages that I might be interested in(mistakenly as it happens) No 4 was one.
@muzicmaker2001 Do you really think YOU are fooling anyone with this? 20 pages of total Bullshit. If the event wasn't so tragic my friend, your deductions would be laughable.
But you have the right to express them so ....have fun.
@TheGreatGollum Anyway we are off out for dinner so catch ya somewhere.
@Musikmaker.....I will leave you to your conspiritorial life style. Best of luck convincing people that they are all hallucinating. I knew the US has a drug problem but really!!!!!!
@muzicmaker2001 ..one iota of proof in any one. I cannot prove that I saw what I saw, I don't suppose that Gollum chap can, but I can say that my recollections are backed up by Video's, Photos, Sound, A city poulation, other eye witnesses ATC recordings, Radar records, Black box recordings, corpses, wreckage.
You have what? Certainly no "direct evidence" (As you put it)
Again, this is weird. If you actually saw a plane, why would need to present other evidence proofing what you saw like you're selling it? There are alot of shills from other countries planted on YT to defend the 911 lie.
@muzicmaker2001 Excuse me but you are loosing it. I keep saying that i am not out to prove anything to anyone. YOU are the one who keeps saying "prove it" , "What proof do you have" "Prove that you saw it" ad infinitum, ad nauseum. And no, I don' t think is is a game with winners and loosers, but when I notice a concerted attempt to promote what you are promoting , knowing in MY mind what MY eys saw, I am going to challenge you on it
@muzicmaker2001 Excuse me but you are loosing it. I keep saying that i am not out to prove anything to anyone. YOU are the one who keeps saying "prove it" , "What proof do you have" "Prove that you saw it" ad infinitum, ad nauseum. And no, I don' t think is is a game with winners and loosers, but when I notice a concerted attempt to promote what you are promoting , knowing in ...cont
@muzicmaker2001....MY mind what MY eyes saw , then I am going to challenge you on it.
You are obsessed with conspiricy. You've called me a planted liar, (again I ask planted by whom) Someone else mentions that he saw what I saw.....and you go off on a tirade against him. "very wierd that I should join....", Why.?...Planted shills from other countries???? In your own words...what PROOF have you.
Unconfirmed statements on YT?........what all 20 pages?
@muzicmaker2001....MY mind what MY eyes saw , then I am going to challenge you on it.
You are obsessed with conspiricy. You've called me a planted liar, (again I ask planted by whom) Someone else mentions that he saw what I saw.....and you go off on a tirade against him. "very wierd that I should join....", Why.?...Planted shills from other countries???? In your own words...what PROOF have you?.
You also talk about unsubstantiated statements on YT. i.e The statement from myself and Gollum. 2 individuals making the same statement for the simple reason that they saw the same thing. I take it you dont include 20 pages from one individual trying to sell an illusion in the same manner that he accuses everyone else of doing should they disagree.
@muzicmaker2001 "And there's also evidence that the plane-shaped hole was created with pre-planted explosives."
They must be magical explosives that pull things towards them, because the columns are clearly pushed inwards.
"And with our technology, it is very easy to aim a missile or plane-shaped missile into any target."
But you don't think a missile hit. Or you do. Or you don't. Or you do. Hard to keep up with the flip flopping, much like your opinion on this footage.
Im trying to be open-minded and I'm looking into almost every angle of 2nd hit. And I still am not conviced whether the second plane hit or it was just an explosion, or it was a missile. It's still very hard to say.
Only the ones involved can answer your question about the passengers or terrorists. At this point, I don't have real proof that most of the passengers were even real. But, there was an engine that was found 3 blocks away. I'm just using logic here, but it went thru the two steel walls of the WTC, traveled 3 blocks, fell about 1000 ft and slammed onto the street below. t was found fairly intact with no real damage to it or the street. Here it is..
Normally, demolition explosives are not planted on people's desks, computers or on top of the water coolers. They are planted in the inner infrastructure of a building. But, I agree. That was funny.
@muzicmaker2001 But how would they be able to get in and do that...if you read my other messages youd also see that i wrote were i said the "2nd" explosion guess thats really just the fire breaking from inside the building to the outside in search of oxygen causing a large fireball. Plus all the materials being burned inside the building, the fuel, etc. Plus that the steel in the building was basically a small steel pole in the middle of concrete makes the possibility of what happened on 9-11
@64notorious extremely possible. What i truely believe is that we had knowledge of what could have possibly gone down and that certain branches such as bush and cheney and those assholes prevented any action by us so that those event could take place to act like a reichstag fire or pearl harbor incident. Now we were able to invade iraq and those countries for oil........i honestly believe our government just let it happen rather than us purposely causing an inside job. Sounds more reasonable IMO
The perps could've planted explosives in the WTC before 911. The building support were 47 massive steel box columns and a massive steel cage around the building. The plane supposedly crashed into office buildings. So, the office contents (desks, computers, carpets) caused the explosions? There were more than two explosions in the Towers.
@muzicmaker2001 You are correct about demolition charges not being placed in those places. They are also not normally placed near the top of a building but nearer the base which , when you think of it, would have been a more efficient, certain and less complicated way to bring the towers down, to say nothing of an easier option when placing such charges......or does that simple premise negate your theory
@muzicmaker2001 Yes, it was rather funny. You will notice that none of it showed a demolition charge at the top of a building only, but then.... it's not an NIST authorised release is it.
@muzicmaker2001 Following the impact I, like many others , got out of the area by going to the waterfront , where there was an armada of ferries, tugs, yachts etc taking people off owing to the bridges being closed (I presume)
@existenceisfake haha not at all, once the videos where edited, news networks would just pass on the news, they won't analize it closely to see if it's true and then release it would they? it obviously takes quite a bit of work to realize there where no planes, think about it your eyes see a misile hit the towers, and the whole world talks about planes you will think they where planes without a question, a missile is not an everyday thing to see in the sky to recognize quickly is it?
HELLO!!!!!!! Can someone answer my question? How many people would be involved if the no plane theory was right? Include in your answer passengers, pilots, relatives, airport employees, witnesses on the ground, the people working in WTC, policemen, firefighters etc etc. HOW MANY PEOPLE? Round it to the nearest hundred
@Espmell passengers, pilots, relatives, airport employees, witnesses on the ground, the people working in WTC, policemen, firefighters, dont have to be "actors" they were trying to make sense of what they saw, and if you hear "planes, terrorism, attack, wtc" on the news you sort of make you mind up.
1:33 they're both shit quality videos, so no one can make any conclusions. the 2 clips in this whole part 4 video is shot from different heights and altitudes so theres not much to argue about
Beware of disinfo agents like this that are only here to keep the 911 lie alive. Physics, logic and common sense are not required when you have a hidden agenda, huh?
ROFL!! I guess they are not required either when survivors talk of hitting the deck while the plane approaches right in front of them or can be seen from 30 differing angles (all doctored certainly!!) plowing through the building. Or phone conversations with people on the plane while watching live on TV as it hits (surely the guy is lying!!!) Or debris and aircraft remnants thrown blocks away
No, there is no logic or common sense in any of that.
@muzicmaker2001 What does it prove? The horse has left the barn dude THE WHOLE WORLD SAW THIS LIVE what is the point on getting hung up on 15 people? and what position of yours does it strengthen? Your argument is a MOOT POINT!! The last time i checked the NTSB does not conduct investigations in to plane crashes that "Sorta" happened. Go to their site and read all about it.
So tell me smart guy how all this "no plane" business was done? Oh BTW i work in graphics so be prepared!!
Wait a minute. You can even produce 15 witnesses out of the approx. 8 million people that live in NYC? Really? Yes, I see you have a boatload of evidence proving the planes...actually nothing but your words...
Why is it up to me to convince you? Do you really REALLY have that hard a time watching 20 different angles of this event happening live. Shot from every day peoples apartments and home video cameras, on the street, at work, SHOWING EXACTLY the same moment. Yeah it all looks so phony and faked doesn't it?
20 different angles? That's incorrect. There were only a handful of shots of the plane shown live on 911. The majority of the shots were shown after 911. If you're going to defend this lie, please get your facts straight, ok? But, when all shots are analyzed, the flight paths obviously conflict.
@muzicmaker2001 Are you really that stupid? Do you HONESTLY look at all these video images from ALL OVER THE CITY!! on that day Do you seriously look at them and go,. "Well that's fake" ... I think you have a few screws loose if you do.
And YAAA!! 20 different angles and that is conservative. We just watched a documentary on this last night and there were EASILY 8 angles i had never seen. Oh,!! and NO ONE in the room was going,.. "well that looks fake" and we are all intelligent people
You obvious have no idea what you're talking so..as you were with your campaign for truth, right? Wait, the official story is already the accepted truth. So, you are for...?
No i have no clue what i am talking about I am completely incapable as is the rest of the world of watching a full sized jet liner smash in to a building at full power and seeing a rain of debris and fire ball 400 feet high,.. i am completely incapable of believing that.
You must be some kind of genius dude in seeing things no one else can. Amazing really. I will tell you what I am for. Making fun of idiots like yourself who believe this crap. That's the only reason!!
Suuuuure. Airtraffic control who had the plane from takeoff, and tracked it all the way to the WTC have NO CLUE what they are doing. Total professionals,.. no clue,.. they had no idea what plane they were following. Watching it power dive at full throttle, calling out the altitudes as it went. The last altitude so low they thought the next one would be the water or the ground. Then watching as it slams the tower.
They have no fucking clue how to do their job. right?
Let's try this again. Post 15 witnesses recorded live on 911 with no connection to the government or media. Preferably, normal folks walking by. Ask yourself this: Why is this so hard to do with 8 million people in NYC?
Ridiculous!!!! i have seen TONS of GOOD!! documentaries with everyday average people video taping from their apartments when the second plane hits. I am sorry if you think the planes are fake you either have to be stevie wonder or an idiot, plane and simple. I work in graphics and you have NO clue what you are talking about. There is NOTHING fishy going on with ANY of the images ESPECIALLY video
Let me know when you can post 15 witnesses? Ok, since you are having trouble with 15, how about just 10? 10 witnesses. Pretty funny. All talk and no evidence...
@muzicmaker2001... no physics doesnt lie... but this is complete bullshit... are you guys seriously trying to tell me that this is an international conspiracy to kill thousands of people all for the sake of a war?
I have no idea what the motive was, but I do know about the evidence and it is very clear. Do you really believe that an aluminum plane can impact and enter a steel framed building without ever changing its shape and with no damage? if you do, enjoy the ride and good luck to you..
The simplest way to tell if they are the same shot, perspective, angle is to look at the amount shown with the North Tower in bothclips. They match almost perfectly...
Both shots (frame 1:40) show the Towers at the exact same perspective, but you think the plane is hidden on the otherside of the building in one shot? Really? Is this some sort of magic?
The "missile" might be a bird. But a missile which could cause such a big explosion (wit fuel, it needs to transport all that fuel!) has to be much bigger, and for sure it couldn't go down that steep... Especially not a tomahawk which has terrain following capability but no thrust-vector-control to make it that agile.
Plus, if it had been an A2A missile, it had needed a radar/infrared target
It's amazing how often all these different camera angles never match up like they should. Everything is showing something just a hair different. If it were a real plane then there would be no room for debate. But OBVIOUSLY there is plenty of room. Why do SO MANY of the angles show different things? Why is the plane NOT EVEN SEEN in what looks to be two different shots of the same angle???
In frame 1:51 the rooftops of the towers in each camera angle look the same when broken down into pixels. If the angles WERE from drasticly different angles then how would the towers appear identical? Some kind of visual manipulation is very obvious, but who is behind it? I want to see the original VHS recordings from the physical tapes themselves so I can do my OWN homework!!!!
What Families? No One Showed Up to the Airports to Claim Family Members at the Time,,No One was Expecting these Flights,,there were people who went to the Airport to see if people were waiting for news of the incomming flights..those flights never existed,,and in Fact one the Jets are still in poperation today. You Know these Family Members Personally?? No didn't think so.
The first video shown with the " Oh..." that's a well debunked no plane theory video. It's been doctored. You can tell because of the quality. That's a helicopter, from a major network. Look how blurry it is. That's not why it's been debunked. But it's something that should be noticed when looking for the "truth".
welp it took me so fucking long to debunk this one lol no not really the two videos u showed of the live and evening show wernt even the same angle you fuck head... the tower is at diffrent vertical angle... so lets move to part 5 this is fun becuase ur such an idiot
are you blind seriously you can see the left side of the building in one angle and not in the other u can see alot of the roof in shot one and no roof in shot 2. the colors are diffrent and the hellicopters are obviously not at the same altitude with each other. and im not talking about where the buildings are positioned. you cant call me a moron when the entire conspiracy comunity denies all of these no plane claims lol and yet u still try to make it work lol. NEXT
the buildings are in the exact same location and angle. it's this simple. in one shot, you can see a plane, in another no plane. where did the 767 go? ..idiots...uhhh!!!
ha, there 2 diff angles one vid shows it being silver and the other shows it as black... hmm lets think about that one cam is filming lower and the other from higher hince planes have shadows on there underside. i see a sky in 1 and a town in the other and i see the roof in 1 and not in the other lets see what makes this happen ohh yeah camera angle and altitude your so stupid go feed ur 5 cats you lonely crazy bitch im guessing ur in ur 30s and live alone. correct i know i am lol
simple question, where did the plane go? the massive 767 should be visible on ALL shots. it's not mighty mouse, ok? and why did the backdrop change? hmm, must be shadows also? damn those shadows!! and you seem to be here with me on yt, so go feed your 6 cats and two hamsters also....lol
ahaha i knew u had a shit load of animals thats a classic case of conspiracy theoriest that believe everything they hear... and u just proved yourself wrong lol maybe theres a diffrent backdrop because its a fucking diffrent angle lookin up and the other is looking down like ive been saying hahaha you dumb lol and its funny
yes, the whole background (buildings, water, bridge, sky..lol) just up and dissapeared because of shadows. yes, that happens all of the time...lol. it's called cgi implanting idiot. go learn something soon
wtfthats not even what i said lol your fucking imbarrasingly dumb bitch. read that again and then think of something to say ITSA DIFFRENT ANGLE i didnt say shit about shadows except in 1 angle it is looking down on the plane (making it silver) and 1 is lookin pretty much sideway considering the plane hit at an angle it was seeing the underside SHADOWS on plane think about where the plane was coming from and then think of the sun position might be to complicated for u though sun rises in the east
uhh, frame 1:24 comparing the backdrop and missing backdrop are the exact same perspectives genius. also, there is nothing that i know of (nuclear bomb??) that would cause the backdrop to just disspear like that...except cgi..you were lied to...get your cry out of your system and deal with it
genius, i was talking about the entire backdrop missing (water, bridge, sky)? ya know, in frame 1:26 of this video? but, let's visit your clip. here it is with the video enhanced.
watch?v=gKvTep2cdF8
what do you see? a 757? mighty mouse? a missile? red hot...
You can't 'enhance' video to bring out details that aren't there. Go outside and film a plane going near 500mph at 1000 feet from 5 miles away, then tell me what detail you get.
Fuzzy youtube video of a plane going 500mph from 5 miles away.
When things explode they make big holes.
Now you explain why no one saw a missile over the most populated city in the world. Holograms, mass hypnosis?
Where are all the videos of a missile, there were plenty of people filming that caught a plane. Where did the passengers go. What about the ATC data? What made the plane noise? What kind of missile makes plane shaped holes?
problems with your logic. these aren't different angles frame 1:22. and different angles won't cause the entire background to dissapear genius or cause it to get washed by some weird looking purple colors. it was a crystal clear morning with blue skies on 911. use your head and spell it with me ......CGI.
I shoot and composite video for a living, along with teaching it at a University. What do you do?
New theory. The towers were dismantled the night before, and replaced with holograms. Everybody in Manhattan was moved to Jersey. No planes, missiles, witnesses, nothing.
alrighty, here we go again. first someone you knew saw the planes and now you're a camerman. save your resume for a job interview. it doesn't matter if you're mr.kodak himself. there is no logicial reason for the water, buildings, bridge, and sky in the background to disappear. FYI: these are normal news tv station cameras kodak.
If you're too stupid to recognize that one of the videos was taken from much lower, and only shows sky in the background, then I can't help you. Good luck dipshit.
they are both taken from choppers. look at the amount of roof shown on th north tower in both clips. the same. therefore, they are the same angles genius. now, look the impact explosion and what's shown directly behind it. and again, it was clear morning on 911. it looks like london during heavy fog. it only takes a brain....
So something, with wings, crashed into the towers and made a 767 sized hole. There are live videos of the event, all show a plane. There are over 40 videos from civilians, directly turned in to the media. Not one person who took video claims, "there used to be a missile, and after I gave it to CNN, they changed it to a plane." Witnesses in the videos comment on the plane.
ther are only a handful of "live" shots of the plane shown on 911. the majority were shown after 911. most of civilians as you call them were in on it. this is why they can't answer basic questions like were they were when they took the shots. explosives created the plane shaped hole. check it out..
Adding a pre-rendered plane into a dynamic shot like helicopter footage in real time is impossible. I know this from experience, you have no idea what you're talking about.
What is your proof that the civilians are in on it? You have none. They answer questions just fine, prove me wrong.
Explosives don't pull things towards them, how did all of the columns in the plane hole get bent inwards? Explosives don't do that.
Haha, of those five videos, two weren't even chopper shots. After zooming and cropping, of course things line up, because they are all videos of a real event.
Hezarkhani doesn't answer those jackass questions because of rude twoofers like your dumb ass harassing him over and over. Normal adults have lives, families, jobs. You've ignored this four times...what do you do for a living? I'm guessing you work in the fast food industry.
proof read your posts. you think two shots weren't from choppers but they magical line up with actual chopper shots? did the "civilians" grow wings? funny civilians answered questions just fine? remember that? what does having a job have to do with stating where you were when you took the shot? bs..you somehow avoided the audio differences in supposedly the same clip from Hezarkhani? here's more on that. obvious editing to anyone with a brain...funny stuff
You must be seriously fucking retarded.The first and third shots were from buildings dumbass, that's why they show sky in the background, because they're looking up. Helicopters show ground, because they're looking down.
There is no such thing as a still helicopter shot.
The fourth shot is obviously not a helicopter either, it's lower than the rooftops. I'm starting to think you're joking, nobody is this stupid.
all (5) shots show the same amount of ROOF (north tower) and have the same width. you do know that the wtcs were the tallest buildings in nyc? roof? this also means they were all taken at the same angle and appox. distance in a very small time window. use your head. you avoided the audio differences in Hezarkhani's shot once more? most shills avoid this because it can be explained logically...once more?
Watch the video, it's clearly not a helicopter shot, the anchors even say it. At 8:30 they cut to their helicopter, it even has a little picture of a helicopter in the upper right.
Even you can't argue with this, you are wrong, just admit it.
There is no denying that you were wrong. The first angle is not a helicopter.
you are proving the clips fake with your own logic and don't even know it. lol. how can one clip from a chopper match up perfectly in angle, width and the amount of roof shown with a shot taken from where? a lower building? if it's a lower building shot, how is the roof shown in the same perspective as the chopper shot? hint: the chopper is above the building. the lower building is not. and its 3 times now avoiding the audio inconsistencies in Hezarkhani's shot? can you address this wth logic?
If you admit you were wrong, and the first angle is from the WB11 metro cam, and then they cut to a chopper shot, I will continue. It's not that big of a deal, everybody is wrong sometimes.
simple. how would the shots from a chopper (above the Towers) and shots from a lower building (or ground level??) have the same perspective? this is simple common sense that you are not grasping. also, you can't explain the audio issues? your avoidance is obviously an excuse. only shills react like this...
You said over and over that the shot was from a helicopter, and it obviously isn't. Now, if you want to be taken seriously and have a discussion, you have to be able to admit when you are wrong.
If you admit you were wrong, I will explain the perspective and the audio to you. Until you do that, we can't move on.
this is not a game. see my last response and explain it logically. and obviously, there is no explanation for different audio from supposedly the same clip unless it was edited. again, it only takes a brain.
That's what I thought. You have been proven wrong, and you can't admit it.
How can I keep this up with you when you can't admit a mistake? It proves that you aren't interested in truth, you just want to promote your dipshit theories regardless of accuracy.
"WTC 7 theory"
86Blessed86 2 weeks ago
The Government is smart enough to pull off, the biggest conspiracy in the world to date, but forgot to put the background in on a video. hahahahahahaha my god, please, tell me your joking.
86Blessed86 3 weeks ago
@86Blessed86
And the government was not smart enough to pull off this.That is the whole point..and why experts from many different fields of study have banded together against this fairy tale.
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
The EVENING NEWS is also zoomed in 2x. and another fact, The Evening News has cleared the background so much, that you can't even see the land behind the buildings which you can clearly see on the Live feed, is the land mass behind the towers fake aswell????
86Blessed86 3 weeks ago
1:18, the background has been cleared up, in the first live picture, the plane is nearly the same colour as the background. The news clears up video's all the time, to see what the naked eye can't, just a little bit of info for you, a good enough camera lense can actually pick up what the naked eye can't see. obviouse.
86Blessed86 3 weeks ago
@86Blessed86
I don't know where to start...Let me get this right. You think on the clear sunny morning of sept 11 with the high quality news cameras, your vision was so blurred or not capabe of seeing the immense background of NYC? Were they using cameras from Kmart? That's the funniest one I've heard so far. Thanx for that...
muzicmaker2001 3 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 You are not the smartest person are you, a thousand camera's caught the planes flying, from 1000 different angles, "The video we are talking about is the one above brainiac" and i am saying that the camera in the video you are showing does not have a clear shot because it is so far away, and the most rediculas comment i have ever heard was you saying,"if the plane was polverized before entry then why didn't it drop to the ground in a fire ball: oh my god.
86Blessed86 2 weeks ago
@86Blessed86
You are talking about this clip? Really? I had no idea. The perspectives, angles, height of the camera view of both clips are near identical. That is obvious. So, pulverized aluminum should enter a steel building? Please do yourself a favor and look up other plane vs; buildings crashes. You can start with the B-25 bomber vs. the Empire State building. The engines entered and the rest of the plane (yes, wait for it) rained down onto the streets.
muzicmaker2001 2 weeks ago
@86Blessed86
Here's some more education for ya. Another plane vs. building. See the pile of burning plane wreckage on the lawn OUTSIDE the building? What do you think that means?
watch?v=9ZKf0s4aqkU
muzicmaker2001 2 weeks ago
@muzicmaker2001 also, how close do you think the police helicopters would let the news camera helicopters get?? not very close, so no, thank you for making me laugh. I've smashed your elevator theory on the head and if you want to debate about that i'll smash you out of the park with it, you ruin the 9/11 truth movements hard work on the smoking gun of 9/11, the "WTC & "thermitic" theories because OS believers see this bullshit and think you are all like this, just flat out dumb.
86Blessed86 2 weeks ago
I see you removed another comment, this time your own. Why? Now you're saying the shots are the same one with the background erased? I'm just trying to understand your opinion.
Do you think the shots are the same footage modified, or two different shots from similar perspective? The video says they're the same footage modified, do you agree? If you don't know that's an acceptable answer too, it just seems like you're avoiding giving a straight answer.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
Yes, useless repeats removed. See my previous post.
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 - "They are two views shot from the same perspective"
I took this to mean you believe they are different pieces of footage, sorry if I was wrong. Maybe you just don't know and are reluctant to admit that. I'm really just trying to understand your opinion on this. Obviously you don't want me to, and that's cool. Talk to you later.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
I have stated my opinion multiple times now. For some reason, you fail to accept it.
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 - I would love to accept your opinion no matter what it is, I just don't understand it. You won't say one shot or two. You're being purposely vague, like usual.
You either:
1. Think they are the same footage, modified.
2. Think they are different pieces of footage from similar perspectives.
3. Don't know.
If you want me to understand you'll write a number. You won't, because you don't want to take a definite position on this.
"in either shot."
So, two shots? Right?
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
Once more, its the exact same perspective, angle, height, etc at the exact same point in time. With that, one shot shows a plane (image inserted), one shot does not. Its not that complicated.
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 - Ok, so you think it's the same footage with the background erased. Thanks for (kind of) clearing it up. I don't know why you're so reluctant to just say what you mean.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
LOL. Ok.
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@nobraintheory
They are two views shot from the same perspective and same moment in time. All you need to do is look at the amount of roof shown in both shots to determine if the angles are simliar. The overall point? It is impossible to "hide" an aircraft of those dimensions in either shot.
muzicmaker2001 3 months ago
@BiggussDikkus + flight 93
voodoowichdoctor 4 months ago
Nothing to be confused about. It's possible to place one anywhere in the building but why would you place one or more near the top which is, after all, the premise that you are promoting. Why not place your charges at the bottom which would be equally effective and equally attribrutable to terrorists
TheGreatGollum 6 months ago
@TheGreatGollum
If you plan the impacts and want to make it appear as if the the building collapsed at the impact hole, you plant charges there. And there's also evidence that the plane-shaped hole was created with pre-planted explosives.
watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Very interesting but again ...why, when charges at the bottom of the building would do a similar job. Why all these elaborate points.(to go wrong). You say "plan the impacts and plant charges there" Now, bearing in mind that i was on the corner of Broadway and Trinity and saw something that was not a missile fly into the tower, how do you ensure your pilot hits where your charges are? And surely pre planted explosives would not give a hole that went inwards.
TheGreatGollum 6 months ago
@TheGreatGollum
Once more, the charges/explosives were planted at the top to appear as if the collapse started at the impacted region. Charges planted at the bottom of the building would not accomplish this. And with our technology, it is very easy to aim a missile or plane-shaped missile into any target.
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Once again, Why bugger about with the top if you wanted to bring the building down when you can do it from the bottom.
Also again, I and others saw a plane impact the building, it was not a missile. And ten years ago computer technology was not up to the standards required to mask off to the standard that would be required to pull off a deception such as is suggested,.
TheGreatGollum 6 months ago
@TheGreatGollum
Why do I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round? Here we go again. No planes hit the Towers. To make it seem like the collapse started where the imaginary plane hit, it must start at the impact zone. And its very interesting how you didn't bring the fact that you saw the planes earlier like maybe your first comment?
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Don't you follow your own pages, like No 20 where 3 days ago I answered a bloke who was saying he was near the tower (in Rectory) and you were calling him a planted liar. I said there that I was on Broadway and Trinity.. You really should keep up. As , up till now, we had not mentioned a guided missile or plane, it did not need mentioning. So thats 2 of us who were seeing things(according to you).
It's late here, I'm away. We will continue this..
I
TheGreatGollum 6 months ago
@TheGreatGollum \
Yes, I remember. And like him, you seem to be on a campaign to prove you saw the planes and the OV. If you really saw the planes, you wouldn't have to prove it to anyone.
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 I wasn't aware I was trying to prove anything , and reading his entries I don't think he was .Now, seeing that you make the same remark to me as you did to him (more or less) I can only conclude that you you do not have a real answer to the fact that people saw what you say wasn't there. You put an argument foreward without any apparent thought that you may be contradicted and anyone doing so has an agenda of some sort. Please...get a life.
TheGreatGollum 6 months ago
@TheGreatGollum
Pardon me, but I have heard so many people on here that claim to have seen the planes and then later to see them on some sort of a campaign on multiple pages related to YT defending the OV. No offense, but if you don't have proof on seeing the planes, let's just pretend that we are two random people on YT where direct evidence is more defining and powerful than trust in each other's word.
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
Comment removed
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
Comment removed
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner
Very weird that you JUST joined this page after discussing people that claim to have seen the planes. Defeat? Two people claim to have seen the planes. Both are from out of the country and both have no evidence of this at all. Do you call that a win?
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Nothing weird about it. I am clearing my "inbox" and to do so I go through every thing that I have partaken in, which means looking at page after page in case I wish to keep anything "ongoing".. After I made last nights comment, I deleated you and now here you are, back again.
I call it a situation where a person has seen something so needs no proof they they saw it against a person who didn't see something trying (and failing) to prove why he didn't see it when others did....
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner
If your idea of a defeat is having a random person on YT state they he saw something with no backing evidence whatsoever, then yes, I am defeated. And is this some sort of a game to you where someone wins?
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Now, in the process of clearing my box, I notice that I am being discussed, what do think I'm going to do? Ignore it?
You keep saying I have no proof. To show how silly your remark is try this.....did you watch any July 4th Fireworks in ,Say, 2005?. You did! Prove it. Or did you celebrate at the New Millenium ....prove it.
You quote your "evidence" over 20 pages. No, you quote half baked theories, ideas and speculation.
There is not .....
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner
In the process of clearing yor inbox? You noticed you were being discussed? Noone sent you a message from this page? Do you have ESP? Or is it clearing your inbox and what you have partaken in? Wasn't the comment that you removed the first message you have left here ever? Again, very weird.
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Oh, you have access to my PERSONAL messages do you? I have recieved comments from more than a few people mentioning pages that I might be interested in(mistakenly as it happens) No 4 was one.
You know you really are paranoid arn't you.
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner and @TheGreatGollum
Oh, a personal PM? LOL. I've been on here for awhile now. Do you really think you are fooling anyone with this, but good luck anyway.
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 About time you got a life then.
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Do you really think YOU are fooling anyone with this? 20 pages of total Bullshit. If the event wasn't so tragic my friend, your deductions would be laughable.
But you have the right to express them so ....have fun.
Regards from Gibralter.
TheGreatGollum 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 I sent a PM to Mariner saying that he might be interested in our argument.
TheGreatGollum 6 months ago
@TheGreatGollum Thank you Gollum, but be carefull or we will be accused of being a conspiricy LOL
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheGreatGollum Thank you Gollum, but be carefull or we will be accused of being a conspiricy LOL
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner Yeah, you are probably right.
TheGreatGollum 6 months ago
@TheGreatGollum Anyway we are off out for dinner so catch ya somewhere.
@Musikmaker.....I will leave you to your conspiritorial life style. Best of luck convincing people that they are all hallucinating. I knew the US has a drug problem but really!!!!!!
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 ..one iota of proof in any one. I cannot prove that I saw what I saw, I don't suppose that Gollum chap can, but I can say that my recollections are backed up by Video's, Photos, Sound, A city poulation, other eye witnesses ATC recordings, Radar records, Black box recordings, corpses, wreckage.
You have what? Certainly no "direct evidence" (As you put it)
And what does nationality have to do with it?
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner
Again, this is weird. If you actually saw a plane, why would need to present other evidence proofing what you saw like you're selling it? There are alot of shills from other countries planted on YT to defend the 911 lie.
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Excuse me but you are loosing it. I keep saying that i am not out to prove anything to anyone. YOU are the one who keeps saying "prove it" , "What proof do you have" "Prove that you saw it" ad infinitum, ad nauseum. And no, I don' t think is is a game with winners and loosers, but when I notice a concerted attempt to promote what you are promoting , knowing in MY mind what MY eys saw, I am going to challenge you on it
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Excuse me but you are loosing it. I keep saying that i am not out to prove anything to anyone. YOU are the one who keeps saying "prove it" , "What proof do you have" "Prove that you saw it" ad infinitum, ad nauseum. And no, I don' t think is is a game with winners and loosers, but when I notice a concerted attempt to promote what you are promoting , knowing in ...cont
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001....MY mind what MY eyes saw , then I am going to challenge you on it.
You are obsessed with conspiricy. You've called me a planted liar, (again I ask planted by whom) Someone else mentions that he saw what I saw.....and you go off on a tirade against him. "very wierd that I should join....", Why.?...Planted shills from other countries???? In your own words...what PROOF have you.
Unconfirmed statements on YT?........what all 20 pages?
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001....MY mind what MY eyes saw , then I am going to challenge you on it.
You are obsessed with conspiricy. You've called me a planted liar, (again I ask planted by whom) Someone else mentions that he saw what I saw.....and you go off on a tirade against him. "very wierd that I should join....", Why.?...Planted shills from other countries???? In your own words...what PROOF have you?.
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
You also talk about unsubstantiated statements on YT. i.e The statement from myself and Gollum. 2 individuals making the same statement for the simple reason that they saw the same thing. I take it you dont include 20 pages from one individual trying to sell an illusion in the same manner that he accuses everyone else of doing should they disagree.
SuperAncientmariner 6 months ago
@SuperAncientmariner
Well, good luck making your case on the other 911 pages.
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "And there's also evidence that the plane-shaped hole was created with pre-planted explosives."
They must be magical explosives that pull things towards them, because the columns are clearly pushed inwards.
"And with our technology, it is very easy to aim a missile or plane-shaped missile into any target."
But you don't think a missile hit. Or you do. Or you don't. Or you do. Hard to keep up with the flip flopping, much like your opinion on this footage.
nobraintheory 3 months ago
at :53 your pointing at nothing you fucking idiot
64notorious 6 months ago
watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM
Im trying to be open-minded and I'm looking into almost every angle of 2nd hit. And I still am not conviced whether the second plane hit or it was just an explosion, or it was a missile. It's still very hard to say.
MrFoxSpartan 6 months ago
Umm hey can i ask one thing about this theory?
if it was missle. how did it make such a plane like hole?
minker11 6 months ago
@minker11
Pre-planted explosives..
watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Ok that could be possible but heres another thing that makes me doubt this very much.
What happened to all the people that were supposedly on the plane? and the terrorists?
and what about plane parts crashing on the ground?
This is simply out of curiosity.
minker11 6 months ago
@minker11
Only the ones involved can answer your question about the passengers or terrorists. At this point, I don't have real proof that most of the passengers were even real. But, there was an engine that was found 3 blocks away. I'm just using logic here, but it went thru the two steel walls of the WTC, traveled 3 blocks, fell about 1000 ft and slammed onto the street below. t was found fairly intact with no real damage to it or the street. Here it is..
watch?v=c7Jo8vpeekU
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Pre-planted explosives in areas where hundreds of people are working? Ha nice bull
64notorious 6 months ago
@64notorious
Normally, demolition explosives are not planted on people's desks, computers or on top of the water coolers. They are planted in the inner infrastructure of a building. But, I agree. That was funny.
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 But how would they be able to get in and do that...if you read my other messages youd also see that i wrote were i said the "2nd" explosion guess thats really just the fire breaking from inside the building to the outside in search of oxygen causing a large fireball. Plus all the materials being burned inside the building, the fuel, etc. Plus that the steel in the building was basically a small steel pole in the middle of concrete makes the possibility of what happened on 9-11
64notorious 6 months ago
@64notorious extremely possible. What i truely believe is that we had knowledge of what could have possibly gone down and that certain branches such as bush and cheney and those assholes prevented any action by us so that those event could take place to act like a reichstag fire or pearl harbor incident. Now we were able to invade iraq and those countries for oil........i honestly believe our government just let it happen rather than us purposely causing an inside job. Sounds more reasonable IMO
64notorious 6 months ago
@64notorious
The perps could've planted explosives in the WTC before 911. The building support were 47 massive steel box columns and a massive steel cage around the building. The plane supposedly crashed into office buildings. So, the office contents (desks, computers, carpets) caused the explosions? There were more than two explosions in the Towers.
watch?v=n593Hth8h9M
watch?v=F7B_9TXCPX4
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@64notorious
And why is a plane missing in one the shots in the above video? Just an illusion? I think more researched is needed here.
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 You are correct about demolition charges not being placed in those places. They are also not normally placed near the top of a building but nearer the base which , when you think of it, would have been a more efficient, certain and less complicated way to bring the towers down, to say nothing of an easier option when placing such charges......or does that simple premise negate your theory
TheGreatGollum 6 months ago
@TheGreatGollum
You're gonna love this...
watch?v=b813ITCwU70
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Yes, it was rather funny. You will notice that none of it showed a demolition charge at the top of a building only, but then.... it's not an NIST authorised release is it.
TheGreatGollum 6 months ago
@TheGreatGollum
I'm confused. You don't think its possible to place a demo charge at any location in a building?
muzicmaker2001 6 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Following the impact I, like many others , got out of the area by going to the waterfront , where there was an armada of ferries, tugs, yachts etc taking people off owing to the bridges being closed (I presume)
TheGreatGollum 6 months ago
OMG A CONSPIRACY! YOU'RE RIGHT!
Now go hide in your hole and leave the rest of us alone
TeamBlackster 8 months ago
@existenceisfake haha not at all, once the videos where edited, news networks would just pass on the news, they won't analize it closely to see if it's true and then release it would they? it obviously takes quite a bit of work to realize there where no planes, think about it your eyes see a misile hit the towers, and the whole world talks about planes you will think they where planes without a question, a missile is not an everyday thing to see in the sky to recognize quickly is it?
eduardoobregon 10 months ago
HELLO!!!!!!! Can someone answer my question? How many people would be involved if the no plane theory was right? Include in your answer passengers, pilots, relatives, airport employees, witnesses on the ground, the people working in WTC, policemen, firefighters etc etc. HOW MANY PEOPLE? Round it to the nearest hundred
Espmell 1 year ago
@Espmell passengers, pilots, relatives, airport employees, witnesses on the ground, the people working in WTC, policemen, firefighters, dont have to be "actors" they were trying to make sense of what they saw, and if you hear "planes, terrorism, attack, wtc" on the news you sort of make you mind up.
eduardoobregon 10 months ago
1:33 they're both shit quality videos, so no one can make any conclusions. the 2 clips in this whole part 4 video is shot from different heights and altitudes so theres not much to argue about
TheGodKingOfMusic 1 year ago
@TheGodKingOfMusic
A 767's wingspan is approx 75% of the width of the Towers. It would be very hard to hide a plane of these dimensions even in a poor quality video.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago 19
Of all the idiotic ridiculous stupid conspiracy theories put out there by the (ahem) Truth movement
The "no planes" thing has GOT to be at the top of the list for sheer and complete idiocy.
Truly stunning!!
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@roquefortfiles
Beware of disinfo agents like this that are only here to keep the 911 lie alive. Physics, logic and common sense are not required when you have a hidden agenda, huh?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
ROFL!! I guess they are not required either when survivors talk of hitting the deck while the plane approaches right in front of them or can be seen from 30 differing angles (all doctored certainly!!) plowing through the building. Or phone conversations with people on the plane while watching live on TV as it hits (surely the guy is lying!!!) Or debris and aircraft remnants thrown blocks away
No, there is no logic or common sense in any of that.
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@roquefortfiles
Still stands: Just 15 witnesses of the WTC planes recorded live on 911 with no connection to the media or the government? I wait patiently...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 What does it prove? The horse has left the barn dude THE WHOLE WORLD SAW THIS LIVE what is the point on getting hung up on 15 people? and what position of yours does it strengthen? Your argument is a MOOT POINT!! The last time i checked the NTSB does not conduct investigations in to plane crashes that "Sorta" happened. Go to their site and read all about it.
So tell me smart guy how all this "no plane" business was done? Oh BTW i work in graphics so be prepared!!
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@roquefortfiles
Wait a minute. You can even produce 15 witnesses out of the approx. 8 million people that live in NYC? Really? Yes, I see you have a boatload of evidence proving the planes...actually nothing but your words...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
Why is it up to me to convince you? Do you really REALLY have that hard a time watching 20 different angles of this event happening live. Shot from every day peoples apartments and home video cameras, on the street, at work, SHOWING EXACTLY the same moment. Yeah it all looks so phony and faked doesn't it?
Grab a brain moron!!
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@roquefortfiles
20 different angles? That's incorrect. There were only a handful of shots of the plane shown live on 911. The majority of the shots were shown after 911. If you're going to defend this lie, please get your facts straight, ok? But, when all shots are analyzed, the flight paths obviously conflict.
watch?v=QRpcIZBSAfU
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Are you really that stupid? Do you HONESTLY look at all these video images from ALL OVER THE CITY!! on that day Do you seriously look at them and go,. "Well that's fake" ... I think you have a few screws loose if you do.
And YAAA!! 20 different angles and that is conservative. We just watched a documentary on this last night and there were EASILY 8 angles i had never seen. Oh,!! and NO ONE in the room was going,.. "well that looks fake" and we are all intelligent people
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@roquefortfiles
You obvious have no idea what you're talking so..as you were with your campaign for truth, right? Wait, the official story is already the accepted truth. So, you are for...?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
No i have no clue what i am talking about I am completely incapable as is the rest of the world of watching a full sized jet liner smash in to a building at full power and seeing a rain of debris and fire ball 400 feet high,.. i am completely incapable of believing that.
You must be some kind of genius dude in seeing things no one else can. Amazing really. I will tell you what I am for. Making fun of idiots like yourself who believe this crap. That's the only reason!!
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@roquefortfiles
Can you just post 15 witnesses of the planes? Just to keep everything fair, here's witnesses that didn't see a plane on 911.
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
Your move?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
Suuuuure. Airtraffic control who had the plane from takeoff, and tracked it all the way to the WTC have NO CLUE what they are doing. Total professionals,.. no clue,.. they had no idea what plane they were following. Watching it power dive at full throttle, calling out the altitudes as it went. The last altitude so low they thought the next one would be the water or the ground. Then watching as it slams the tower.
They have no fucking clue how to do their job. right?
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@roquefortfiles
Let's try this again. Post 15 witnesses recorded live on 911 with no connection to the government or media. Preferably, normal folks walking by. Ask yourself this: Why is this so hard to do with 8 million people in NYC?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
Ridiculous!!!! i have seen TONS of GOOD!! documentaries with everyday average people video taping from their apartments when the second plane hits. I am sorry if you think the planes are fake you either have to be stevie wonder or an idiot, plane and simple. I work in graphics and you have NO clue what you are talking about. There is NOTHING fishy going on with ANY of the images ESPECIALLY video
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
@roquefortfiles
Let me know when you can post 15 witnesses? Ok, since you are having trouble with 15, how about just 10? 10 witnesses. Pretty funny. All talk and no evidence...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001...
i can remember this day very well... i was off school...
i was watching midday tv, and it was on EVERY channel, are you telling me that this is a WORLDWIDE conspiracy?
timothyp2009 1 year ago
@timothyp2009
Physics doesn't lie..at least before or after 911.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001... no physics doesnt lie... but this is complete bullshit... are you guys seriously trying to tell me that this is an international conspiracy to kill thousands of people all for the sake of a war?
O.o
crack job
timothyp2009 1 year ago
@timothyp2009
I have no idea what the motive was, but I do know about the evidence and it is very clear. Do you really believe that an aluminum plane can impact and enter a steel framed building without ever changing its shape and with no damage? if you do, enjoy the ride and good luck to you..
watch?v=IObpyT4oRKk
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@timothyp2009 it doesnt have to be an international conspiracy, and if you read a little bit of history, its happened before, many, many times.
eduardoobregon 10 months ago
@roquefortfiles omg, what if they disguised a missile as a plane :O and filled it with c4 and semtex and all this kind of crap!
jokes.
but in all seriousness, this guy is a WHACK JOB.
timothyp2009 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 dont worry about it... just sheep asleep... dont waste your time kid.. good vid!
rayho0d 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
The simplest way to tell if they are the same shot, perspective, angle is to look at the amount shown with the North Tower in bothclips. They match almost perfectly...
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
STUPID .
Get help before you do suicide
1club33315 1 year ago
I believe that in your earlier videos, you show the plane coming in very level, the plane could be hidden on the otherside of the building..
Spazmaztic 1 year ago
@Spazmaztic
Both shots (frame 1:40) show the Towers at the exact same perspective, but you think the plane is hidden on the otherside of the building in one shot? Really? Is this some sort of magic?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
The "missile" might be a bird. But a missile which could cause such a big explosion (wit fuel, it needs to transport all that fuel!) has to be much bigger, and for sure it couldn't go down that steep... Especially not a tomahawk which has terrain following capability but no thrust-vector-control to make it that agile.
Plus, if it had been an A2A missile, it had needed a radar/infrared target
95predator 1 year ago
It's amazing how often all these different camera angles never match up like they should. Everything is showing something just a hair different. If it were a real plane then there would be no room for debate. But OBVIOUSLY there is plenty of room. Why do SO MANY of the angles show different things? Why is the plane NOT EVEN SEEN in what looks to be two different shots of the same angle???
EnkiSvohden 1 year ago
In frame 1:51 the rooftops of the towers in each camera angle look the same when broken down into pixels. If the angles WERE from drasticly different angles then how would the towers appear identical? Some kind of visual manipulation is very obvious, but who is behind it? I want to see the original VHS recordings from the physical tapes themselves so I can do my OWN homework!!!!
EnkiSvohden 1 year ago 2
the news guy says 10 am ,. when in fact i woke up at 9 :12 that day and saw this. all over the news .
GMELECTRONICS365 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The claim of no plane hit TwinTowers is
----------- DISINFORMATION --------------
to discredit, divide and to redicule the truthers.
Be careful, a new strategy of infowar has begun.
MegaFuckNWO 2 years ago
thnks mindcrime just needed to clarify that to beleive this 100% , but mann im happy i live in canada cus there fucked overthere..
ShootEmUpSteve 2 years ago
the only thing i have against this is how do u explain all the families who lost loved ones in the planes?
ShootEmUpSteve 2 years ago
What Families? No One Showed Up to the Airports to Claim Family Members at the Time,,No One was Expecting these Flights,,there were people who went to the Airport to see if people were waiting for news of the incomming flights..those flights never existed,,and in Fact one the Jets are still in poperation today. You Know these Family Members Personally?? No didn't think so.
Mindcrime1994 2 years ago
The first video shown with the " Oh..." that's a well debunked no plane theory video. It's been doctored. You can tell because of the quality. That's a helicopter, from a major network. Look how blurry it is. That's not why it's been debunked. But it's something that should be noticed when looking for the "truth".
Lasereyes22 2 years ago
Can you post the undoctured video?
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
ZombieDisinfo
TrutherD1 2 years ago 6
there were no Planes,,the rest of YOU are Zombies
Mindcrime1994 2 years ago
welp it took me so fucking long to debunk this one lol no not really the two videos u showed of the live and evening show wernt even the same angle you fuck head... the tower is at diffrent vertical angle... so lets move to part 5 this is fun becuase ur such an idiot
IeatMsPacMan 2 years ago
mr. lenscrafters these are the EXACT same angles. the south tower is to the left and behind the north in all shots moron.
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
are you blind seriously you can see the left side of the building in one angle and not in the other u can see alot of the roof in shot one and no roof in shot 2. the colors are diffrent and the hellicopters are obviously not at the same altitude with each other. and im not talking about where the buildings are positioned. you cant call me a moron when the entire conspiracy comunity denies all of these no plane claims lol and yet u still try to make it work lol. NEXT
IeatMsPacMan 2 years ago
the buildings are in the exact same location and angle. it's this simple. in one shot, you can see a plane, in another no plane. where did the 767 go? ..idiots...uhhh!!!
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
ha, there 2 diff angles one vid shows it being silver and the other shows it as black... hmm lets think about that one cam is filming lower and the other from higher hince planes have shadows on there underside. i see a sky in 1 and a town in the other and i see the roof in 1 and not in the other lets see what makes this happen ohh yeah camera angle and altitude your so stupid go feed ur 5 cats you lonely crazy bitch im guessing ur in ur 30s and live alone. correct i know i am lol
IeatMsPacMan 2 years ago
simple question, where did the plane go? the massive 767 should be visible on ALL shots. it's not mighty mouse, ok? and why did the backdrop change? hmm, must be shadows also? damn those shadows!! and you seem to be here with me on yt, so go feed your 6 cats and two hamsters also....lol
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
ahaha i knew u had a shit load of animals thats a classic case of conspiracy theoriest that believe everything they hear... and u just proved yourself wrong lol maybe theres a diffrent backdrop because its a fucking diffrent angle lookin up and the other is looking down like ive been saying hahaha you dumb lol and its funny
IeatMsPacMan 2 years ago
yes, the whole background (buildings, water, bridge, sky..lol) just up and dissapeared because of shadows. yes, that happens all of the time...lol. it's called cgi implanting idiot. go learn something soon
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
wtfthats not even what i said lol your fucking imbarrasingly dumb bitch. read that again and then think of something to say ITSA DIFFRENT ANGLE i didnt say shit about shadows except in 1 angle it is looking down on the plane (making it silver) and 1 is lookin pretty much sideway considering the plane hit at an angle it was seeing the underside SHADOWS on plane think about where the plane was coming from and then think of the sun position might be to complicated for u though sun rises in the east
IeatMsPacMan 2 years ago
uhh, frame 1:24 comparing the backdrop and missing backdrop are the exact same perspectives genius. also, there is nothing that i know of (nuclear bomb??) that would cause the backdrop to just disspear like that...except cgi..you were lied to...get your cry out of your system and deal with it
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
CGI implanting, hahaha! Absolutely no one in the industry uses that term, only dipshits who don't know what they're talking about.
Miko5000 2 years ago
shills comment, but never have a valid explanation for any of this...
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
Here's a valid explanation, although you will probably ignore this. It's from a truther, who is admitting he is wrong about this very shot.
/watch?v=ymf30rN4Mxo
Bad quality video mixed with internet compression.
Miko5000 2 years ago
genius, i was talking about the entire backdrop missing (water, bridge, sky)? ya know, in frame 1:26 of this video? but, let's visit your clip. here it is with the video enhanced.
watch?v=gKvTep2cdF8
what do you see? a 757? mighty mouse? a missile? red hot...
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
You can't 'enhance' video to bring out details that aren't there. Go outside and film a plane going near 500mph at 1000 feet from 5 miles away, then tell me what detail you get.
Miko5000 2 years ago
explain the missing backdrop (frame 1:26)
explain the missile (frame 2:00) and in the video I just posted
eplain the size of the blob vs. the hole (frame 2:40)
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
Different angle.
Fuzzy youtube video of a plane going 500mph from 5 miles away.
When things explode they make big holes.
Now you explain why no one saw a missile over the most populated city in the world. Holograms, mass hypnosis?
Where are all the videos of a missile, there were plenty of people filming that caught a plane. Where did the passengers go. What about the ATC data? What made the plane noise? What kind of missile makes plane shaped holes?
Miko5000 2 years ago
you're funny. a different angle doesn't cause the ENTIRE background to dissapear. possibly magician david copperfield was there and made it dissapear?
Fuzzy yt clip showing a missile. is it a fly?
anyone with a set of working eyes can see that's not a plane.
where are the thousands of witnesses of the planes?
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
Yes, different angles can change the entire background.
Go film a plane from 5 miles away, I'll bet you won't.
In Manhattan, prove that there aren't.
Miko5000 2 years ago
problems with your logic. these aren't different angles frame 1:22. and different angles won't cause the entire background to dissapear genius or cause it to get washed by some weird looking purple colors. it was a crystal clear morning with blue skies on 911. use your head and spell it with me ......CGI.
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
I shoot and composite video for a living, along with teaching it at a University. What do you do?
New theory. The towers were dismantled the night before, and replaced with holograms. Everybody in Manhattan was moved to Jersey. No planes, missiles, witnesses, nothing.
Miko5000 2 years ago
alrighty, here we go again. first someone you knew saw the planes and now you're a camerman. save your resume for a job interview. it doesn't matter if you're mr.kodak himself. there is no logicial reason for the water, buildings, bridge, and sky in the background to disappear. FYI: these are normal news tv station cameras kodak.
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
If you're too stupid to recognize that one of the videos was taken from much lower, and only shows sky in the background, then I can't help you. Good luck dipshit.
Miko5000 2 years ago
they are both taken from choppers. look at the amount of roof shown on th north tower in both clips. the same. therefore, they are the same angles genius. now, look the impact explosion and what's shown directly behind it. and again, it was clear morning on 911. it looks like london during heavy fog. it only takes a brain....
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
Please answer one question, I've asked you multiple times. What pushed the steel columns inward inside the plane hole?
Miko5000 2 years ago
something crashing into the Towers. next
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
So something, with wings, crashed into the towers and made a 767 sized hole. There are live videos of the event, all show a plane. There are over 40 videos from civilians, directly turned in to the media. Not one person who took video claims, "there used to be a missile, and after I gave it to CNN, they changed it to a plane." Witnesses in the videos comment on the plane.
What is so hard to understand?
Miko5000 2 years ago
ther are only a handful of "live" shots of the plane shown on 911. the majority were shown after 911. most of civilians as you call them were in on it. this is why they can't answer basic questions like were they were when they took the shots. explosives created the plane shaped hole. check it out..
watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
Adding a pre-rendered plane into a dynamic shot like helicopter footage in real time is impossible. I know this from experience, you have no idea what you're talking about.
What is your proof that the civilians are in on it? You have none. They answer questions just fine, prove me wrong.
Explosives don't pull things towards them, how did all of the columns in the plane hole get bent inwards? Explosives don't do that.
Miko5000 2 years ago
it's time to start using your head here, ok? here's a video showing 5 diff. chopper shots all from the same angle in a very small window of time.
watch?v=NnhDqOJh_28
here's an illustration of the Hezarkhani (CNN footage) anomalies and how he avoids simple questions
watch?v=1K7KpxnTpk0
again, something hit the Towers, explosives did the rest..
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
Haha, of those five videos, two weren't even chopper shots. After zooming and cropping, of course things line up, because they are all videos of a real event.
Hezarkhani doesn't answer those jackass questions because of rude twoofers like your dumb ass harassing him over and over. Normal adults have lives, families, jobs. You've ignored this four times...what do you do for a living? I'm guessing you work in the fast food industry.
Miko5000 2 years ago
proof read your posts. you think two shots weren't from choppers but they magical line up with actual chopper shots? did the "civilians" grow wings? funny civilians answered questions just fine? remember that? what does having a job have to do with stating where you were when you took the shot? bs..you somehow avoided the audio differences in supposedly the same clip from Hezarkhani? here's more on that. obvious editing to anyone with a brain...funny stuff
watch?v=X5i07-kHgww
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
You must be seriously fucking retarded.The first and third shots were from buildings dumbass, that's why they show sky in the background, because they're looking up. Helicopters show ground, because they're looking down.
There is no such thing as a still helicopter shot.
The fourth shot is obviously not a helicopter either, it's lower than the rooftops. I'm starting to think you're joking, nobody is this stupid.
Why are you ashamed to tell me what you do?
Miko5000 2 years ago
all (5) shots show the same amount of ROOF (north tower) and have the same width. you do know that the wtcs were the tallest buildings in nyc? roof? this also means they were all taken at the same angle and appox. distance in a very small time window. use your head. you avoided the audio differences in Hezarkhani's shot once more? most shills avoid this because it can be explained logically...once more?
watch?v=X5i07-kHgww
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
Here's the WB11 shot from the rooftop cam, at the end it cuts to their heli shot, notice the helicopter logo in the top right?
Now, if you want to keep going with this, admit you were wrong.
Miko5000 2 years ago
I am starting to feel bad about debating this with you because you might be mentally challenged...
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
watch?v=cHcNc5QNCfQ
Watch the video, it's clearly not a helicopter shot, the anchors even say it. At 8:30 they cut to their helicopter, it even has a little picture of a helicopter in the upper right.
Even you can't argue with this, you are wrong, just admit it.
There is no denying that you were wrong. The first angle is not a helicopter.
Miko5000 2 years ago
you are proving the clips fake with your own logic and don't even know it. lol. how can one clip from a chopper match up perfectly in angle, width and the amount of roof shown with a shot taken from where? a lower building? if it's a lower building shot, how is the roof shown in the same perspective as the chopper shot? hint: the chopper is above the building. the lower building is not. and its 3 times now avoiding the audio inconsistencies in Hezarkhani's shot? can you address this wth logic?
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
Hahaha. One thing at a time.
If you admit you were wrong, and the first angle is from the WB11 metro cam, and then they cut to a chopper shot, I will continue. It's not that big of a deal, everybody is wrong sometimes.
Just type the words "I was wrong."
Miko5000 2 years ago
@seeknthetruth
He can't address it because it is yet another smoking gun...seek on dude
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
@muzicmaker2001
i hear ya. every time a shill gets owned, a truther gets his wings...lol
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
You're lying to people. The shot on the right in the split screen is the WB11/WPIX shot from the Empire State Building.
Just search WB11 911 on here. Here's a link.
watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ&feature=related
They cut back and forth to this camera all day, the angle never changed once, because it's a fixed camera.
Owned.
Miko5000 2 years ago
simple. how would the shots from a chopper (above the Towers) and shots from a lower building (or ground level??) have the same perspective? this is simple common sense that you are not grasping. also, you can't explain the audio issues? your avoidance is obviously an excuse. only shills react like this...
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
You said over and over that the shot was from a helicopter, and it obviously isn't. Now, if you want to be taken seriously and have a discussion, you have to be able to admit when you are wrong.
If you admit you were wrong, I will explain the perspective and the audio to you. Until you do that, we can't move on.
Miko5000 2 years ago
this is not a game. see my last response and explain it logically. and obviously, there is no explanation for different audio from supposedly the same clip unless it was edited. again, it only takes a brain.
seeknthetruth 2 years ago
That's what I thought. You have been proven wrong, and you can't admit it.
How can I keep this up with you when you can't admit a mistake? It proves that you aren't interested in truth, you just want to promote your dipshit theories regardless of accuracy.
Long story short, you can't be trusted.
Conversation over.
Miko5000 2 years ago