WTC No Plane Truth (Part 17)

[Mozartmostly]

you should credit the orginal source of some of these parts to your series. . . was this taken from 911 media mind control series ?

Still, the truth is not copyrighted ever. Get the word out, thanks for uploading your research and others, it does not matter. just pointing it out though :0

[muzicmaker2001]

@Mozartmostly

I just added it in my description. Peace.

[koolbossjock]

Slowly but surely people and recorded evidence are putting the puzzle together.And YES,,,They had all the time in the world to plan this.They just did not decide to do this the same day it happened.

[diane189444]

Worked for the NYSE. I saw the planes. I know what I saw I heard my people on that floor and others yelling I had to tell a girl on the phone someone will be right there to get her no one was able to get up there but I wanted to give her hope. I saw the planes don't tell someone that was there it did not happened or no planes went into our building. WTC 7 went down at four PM. NO plane truth is not truth I was there.

[TheGodKingOfMusic]

while an interesting theory, its seems very unlikely. i dont think the government can pull this off and cut off all loose ends and get away with it. u'd think that just ONE thing would have gone wrong or ONE person would step forward had they planned this whole attack. another thing im pretty sure there were more than a few people recording the towers that day then whats on this video. u'd think SOMEONE would post a video showing absolutely no plane or black smudges prior to the explosion

[muzicmaker2001]

@TheGodKingOfMusic

All of the evidence is actually captured on the "real" videos of the planes...

watch?v=IObpyT4oRKk

[xNAJAFx]

"another live picture"

holy crap!

[KelvongKlein]

just imagine the wtc front steel wallings and the wings tips made of aluminum was merged swifly with no resistance to the building, just like a cartoon movie. there should be at least we can see from the clip that wing tips will not go inside the building or bounced back to the air some parts of it. man this is absurd really absurd!!

[translationwiz]

I'd like to know....how a plane w/aluminum wings just cuts through every single steel beam it came into contact with. just disappear like that into the building w/o even a corner of the wing breaking off and falling onto the ground ? Don't the ov-er's...ever question THAT? This event was just so full of weird things happening. I enjoyed the serbo-slavic accent on the Natl. Guardsman. That was a nice touch. Be real weird if he was German. U know w/the Reichstag thing and all.

Sad day.....

[zenoist2]

@translationwiz the pentagon was even weirder.

The wings vanished there at the walls then magically reappeared to cut through everything,

The magnificent hollow aluminum nose cone punched straight through 3 layers of reinforced concrete but the engines just disintegrated.

The tail plane vanished on impact too>it didnt reappear on the other side though to cause mass destruction.

[timmartin1987]

@translationwiz

The wings just cut through everything due to a well known law of physics call inertia. They were going 500 mph. They wre going to cut through whatever was in their way. And the reason the wings didn't just break off is because the wings are swept backwards. it allows the airplane to penetrate air with less resistance. They same is true for concrete . stabbing cheese with the sharp edge of a knife, then with the tip. which one goes in easier? Same principle.

[muzicmaker2001]

@timmartin1987

Actually, physics (Newton's Third Law of Motion) tells us that the scenario should be the same if a steel (or concrete) wall slammed into a resting aluminum plane at 500 mph. Obviously, the plane would be crushed. But, none of that explains how five different chopper camera views showed the Towers in the exact same perspective in the very small time window of 17 mins...shown in this clip,

[concussedcarneous]

the two guys in the end...

[Spazmaztic]

Even though I believe this theory is BS. These videos are well made, and to me, this video does have compelling evidence. But as someone else put it, it would be very difficult to keep this a total secret, with all the people in NYC.

[muzicmaker2001]

@Spazmaztic

" with all the people in NYC."

And where are all these witnesses? i mean, the average citizens?

[Spazmaztic]

@muzicmaker2001 Yes. From my experience, people walk everywhere in Manhattan. And it being early morning, alot of people would go to work. I believe that more than a few people would come forward and say it was a missile. Just sayin.

[muzicmaker2001]

@Spazmaztic

How about the other side? Where are the people that saw a plane?

[s88fifo]

LMAO, another livepicture.

[f0rumrr]

Looks like a police helicoper??? I dont think someone would mistake a Jetliner for a helicopter. Just more proof not that many people actually say a plane.

[SWEP2AOTC2002]

Siiiigh

Here we are 8 years and counting and no one has taken all of this "valuable evidence" to a court room Why doesnt Charlie Sheen stop "blowing" his money on hookers and coke and get a lawyer to take on the airlines for being complicit in covering up 9/11

Whats wrong? Afraid this evidence wont stand up against facts physics and expert testimony?

[seeknthetruth]

Can you earn your government check somewhere else? Damn!!!

[Mindcrime1994]

You are a Moron Dumbass,,you go earn your government check somewhere else freak.

[godsfiddler]

I have wondered why the "planes" as they left the bldgs were not on fire and still had their wings intact.

[matti1080]

Fuck and kill despunkers

[911TruthMatters]

You want to fuck and kill people who disagree with you? This is why the world hates truthers.

[matti1080]

yes, fuck you and fuck your bullshit.

The meaning of agree means nothing.

ITS NOT AN OPINION PINHEAD

The world dont hate truthers motherfuker and now move along PINHEAD.

I dont need your shit

[911TruthMatters]

Oh go back to sucking cock for a living, and wipe that truther spunk off yer chin.

[SWEP2AOTC2002]

No fuck you toofers FUCK YOU

[roonalwazlib]

But muzik, you forgot to mention that the gash is back again at 1:55 in this video. How can this be? Those CIA special effects goons must have drawn it in for some of the hand held camera footage (like the Naudet brothers film) but forgotten to do so for others. Enjoy ambling through life with mental retardation.

[seeknthetruth]

Another idiot is born....

[Mesina2]

Last clip is really hard evidence.

[sillybuttons44]

You got 5 shots from one direction? Whoop de doo. I'll bet theres 5 shots from most directions in a straight line. There were hundreds of cameras on this at the time from all over the city. There will be lots of instances where you can draw a straight line from the towers through 5 or more points where filming of the incident took place.

[muzicmaker2001]

5 shots from the EXACT same angle supposedly from news choppers in the air. Now, throw in the fact that the North Tower had already been struck and there was only 17 minutes before the South Tower impact. The window of time for all 5 choppers to get the shot from the exact same angle is near impossible...

[sillybuttons44]

No. The cameras are not in the exact same angle. I totally disagree that they are. These are all from different angles and distances. At distance a large difference between viewing points shows very slight differences in the angle of the object being viewed. Stand a mile from Everest and take a photo. Then move 500 yards left or right and take another photo. The mountain will look the same in both shots but the foreground will change.

[muzicmaker2001]

First, the diff. shots are superimposed onto one another (frames 1:07, 1:30) and fit perfectly. Next, the width of the Tower from the diff. shots is measured. The widths are the same. Pretty straight forward. And last, the 17 minute window. BTW, why are all shots as still as a rock? These were supposedly from choppers. It's all common sense from here.

[dangerouslytalented]

They do not fit perfectly. There is the kind of fuzziness you get when you superimpose a stereograph photo, which is exactly what it is, two pictures taken from an angle of less than a degree.

[PhuqueU]

This is a great video.

A few more equally good on Youtube are...

"WTC No Plane Theory (Part 5)"

"WTC No Plane Theory (Part 3)"

"WTC No Plane Theory (Part 4)"

[dangerouslytalented]

The REASON they dont want to talk to truthers, is that they are SICK of having you truthers tell people that the whole thing is fake, and therefore implying that THEY are ACCOMPLICES TO MASS MURDERS.

[dangerouslytalented]

The difference between the angles is miniscule. Some of the cameras were closer to the buildings. They line up, but not quite. When superimposed, you can sort of see a double image, such as when you can see a stereo image without the glasses

The "black spot" is either debris from tower One or somebody jumping.

And it is no coincidence that all those five cameras lined up. The best view of the WTC was DOWN THE STREET.

[muzicmaker2001]

The diff. shots of the Towers line up perfectly. The amount of rooftop of the North Tower shown can be use as a "measuring gauge." It is statistically impossible to have all five viewpoints line up unless all the cameramen/choppers were on top of each other. The black spot seems to merge with or go inside the Tower itself. Obviously, not debris. Also, it is much too big to be a person jumping (from in between the Towers???). That's just ridiculous.

[dangerouslytalented]

It is NOT statistically impossible. THEY LINE UP WITH THE STREET! In a concrete canyon like Manhattan, the only way they could get a good angle was to get up to the side of the roof and shoot, and all the rooves line up, as the streets on Manhattan are laid out in a grid pattern. Your own video shows the line perfectly, and that it lines up right with the street. It is no coincidence. And that dot may not be a person, it could be rubble. A lot of stuff was falling that day.

[muzicmaker2001]

These shots were supposedly taken by news choppers? All occupying the same air space? Not likely and very dangerous.

Again, look closely. The dot merges with the colors of the Towers. Probably due to superimposing the graphic of a plane image into the shot.

[dangerouslytalented]

what, all of these ones? Maybe one. but most of them would have been taken from buildings, and the news choppers would be positioning themselves over the streets anyway, because the streets of Manhattan are straight, and therefore provide the clearest view.

[muzicmaker2001]

From my research, all were from choppers. Correct me if I'm wrong. But, think for a sec about both scenarios. If all were from choppers, the shots are impossible because they all can't be in the same place at relatively the same time. Now, even if ONE was not taken from a chopper, how is it possible that someone from inside "what" building (where you can see the roof of the Towers???) took the exact angle of a shot from a moving chopper? Think about it. Both scenarios are impossible...

[dangerouslytalented]

They are not exactly the same angle. They are similar angles, with a few degrees difference, as one would expect when they are all shooting down the same street. They shot from balconies and rooves, looking down the street. They went as high as possible to get the best shot. Vantage points from that direction were plentiful, considering how many tall buildings with balconies and accessible rooves there are in New York...

[muzicmaker2001]

They are the EXACT same angle. Otherwise, the superimposed fit of the diff. views would not match in frames; 1:06, 1:28 and 1:50. Shot from balconies? Now, you're just making stuff up. Again, you can see the roof of the North Tower. And the North Tower was the tallest buidling in NYC up until 2001.

[dangerouslytalented]

They do not fit exactly. They have the kind of blurring that you get when you superimpose two stereograph images, becuse they are from different angles.

[muzicmaker2001]

Blur? Logic: I don't know if you saw the dotted line with arrows measuring the width of the WTC at diff views (frame 1:28)? But, the width of the Towers should change when the angle of viewing point changes (height, proximity, etc). The width is exactly the same in all views. As I stated earlier, the bottom line is that the angle of the views shouldn't be anywhere near the same unless they were taken from the same location (same airspace?). The North Tower has an antenna on the ROOFTOP. See it?

[dangerouslytalented]

There is less than a degree of difference in the angles. Not enough to make a vast difference.Not enough to make much difference at all. The The cameras were all hundreds of metres away from the actual buildings.

And of COURSE you can see the antennas. They are built ON the roof, but are not flush with it.

[muzicmaker2001]

"There is less than a degree of difference in the angles."

So, are you now saying the angles are the same within less than a degree of difference? You're confusing me. And, how exactly did you come with this? Calculation?

"The cameras were all hundreds of metres away from the actual buildings"

And how do you know this? It's hilarious how come up with your strange ideas without any backing evidence at all. And, you can see the antenna and the roof. So, you can see the top of the Tower..

[dangerouslytalented]

The cameras would have had to be hundreds of metres away to get a picture that was that wide. The lens used were plainly not fisheye, the pictures are zoomed in. Therefore, they were shot from far away. Hundreds of metres. Your own diagrams even point to this. And did you even look at the diagram on skyscraperpage? You can plainly see that in any side on angle shot, you will see the part of the roof that bevels inwards, and not the actual roof itself.

[muzicmaker2001]

I looked at the diagram, but have you looked at actual photographs/video of the North Tower? That is the roof. You can see the antenna emerging from the roof. This is not that complicated. But, the point you're missing is:

1. All shots is high in the air (chopper, tall building?)

2. The angles of the diff. view are too close to each other and this is impossible.

Therefore, it is fake. Simple...

[dangerouslytalented]

These shots were taken uphill from the WTC. The WTC was built on reclaimed, sea level land. The rest of Manhattan is uphill. And wasnt the top of WTC1 leaning?

And the shots are NOT too close to each other. The difference is less than a degree, yes, but at the distances that we are talking about,"less than a degree" is twenty, thirty, forty metres to each side, as well as up and down, and a couple of kilometres forward or back, to get pretty much the same angle, with very little difference.

[muzicmaker2001]

Uphill? Funny. Here's a shot from Chopper 4 from NBC. Look familiar? See the roof clearly and smoke coming off it? Yes, this is WAY uphill in a chopper. The funniest part is I think you actually believe what you're saying....

watch?v=8fexsGtYGRw

A comparison:

watch?v=t9GYaUQyUxY

[muzicmaker2001]

No comment on the chopper view?

[dangerouslytalented]

Where would the best view for a helicopter be? RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. THROUGH THE CONCRETE CANYON.

Oh, by the way, you know how far some of those cameras were? When one of them zooms out as one of the towers falls, you can see the Empire State Building as it is zooming out, in between the camera and the WTC. Some of the cameras were NOT EVEN ON MANHATTAN ISLAND!

[muzicmaker2001]

I have no idea what your point is here, but you now disagree with this statement?

"They shot from balconies and rooves, looking down the street. They went as high as possible to get the best shot"

You agree that the perspective of all of the shots are very close and they could not from a chopper and at the same time, roof? Exact same perspective below:

watch?v=SpDy7OWra1Q

[dangerouslytalented]

No, I am pointing out that at such vast distances, the perspective will not alter much even if you move hundreds of metres left or right, or even up and down.

[dangerouslytalented]

Look at the diagram of the WTC on skyscraperpage. com. You can see very clearly that the top of the WTC was kind of beveled back and had a vast assortment of broadcasting equipment. That is not the rooftop that you can see there, that is the beveled area and the broadcasting equipment, which can be seen at lower angles.

[TheOrgystheband]

If you have 5 camera shots from 5 Choppers in a LINE from the furthest chopper to the towers( the choppers would have to be at different distances for obvious reasons) Wouldn't you be able to see in the shots when they zoom out the other choppers? And since when does a news chopper shoot from 25+ Km away? why wouldnt they fly closer?

[dangerouslytalented]

You can see some other helicopters in other shots. And they could not get closer because they were told to keep away because the skies of lower Manhattan had suddenly become VERY UNSAFE. (hijacked airliners mean anything to you) Plus they had mere minutes between the first crash and second crash to get into the air and fly towards the crash zone. So most did not have time to get much closer.

[Mindcrime1994]

Finaaly someone who talks sense.

[CirianGrey]

Good series of vids! I've kinda always believed it was a conspiracy of some kind, forged by members of the Bush administration and his corporate entourage. We can only know who actually DID this, if we look at what companies and people got rich by attacking the Arab countries. Connecting the dots based on known facts is advised here!

[986sire238]

thank you for that gathering of footage and data. one thing, when i saw the footage streaming on tv on 911, they showed no plane as you've inicated. it was so conflicting that it made my head spin. lol

gr8 job!!

[roonalwazlib]

If you didn't see a plane in any of the video footage taken that day you're either blind or you weren't paying attention.

[Reactordrone]

people may also like to read about the no plane idiocy at

questionsquestions net /WTC/review

[Reactordrone]

I don't think it's surprising that several shots are taken form the streetline that looks towards the towers,where would you go to get a shot of them?

0.54 spot the difference?You mean the different heights of the cameras?One looking down ,one looking up.

You may also want to look at the smoke in your comparisons,that shows the degree of lookup/down angle much better than the view of the towers.

Oh and the black spot is the plane crossing the area visible between the towers.

[muzicmaker2001]

It's not surprising that 5 shots are taken from exactly the same location (exact same perspective, angle)? It is interesting to note that are no shots of Flight 175 from any reporter (ground level) that I can find. But, there are tons from amateurs.

The amount of roof shown never changes between all five shots. If you were looking up, you wouldn't be able to see the roof.

The blk spot actually melts/merges (0:38) into the Tower and is the result of a bad graphic image, not a plane.

[thelamb777]

Right after that woman gave that answer at Boeing airport about the sustainable speed at an altitude of 700 feet, you could've timed the video implanted planes using the rate formula...But this was a fantastic job...This makes me so angry...And whenever I tell this to people in school, they tell me I'm crazy...Angers me so much...

[roonalwazlib]

That's b/c you are crazy. And stupid to boot. You deserve to be ostracized by your friends. What a fantastic job musicmoron has done placing stupid/irrelevant text statements all over 9/11 video footage. Great work musicmoron. The ingrates are filing in line behind you.

[roonalwazlib]

Spot on reactordrone. That's exactly what the "mysterious" black spot is. Any normal person knows that. Only problem is you're trying to use logic and facts on twoofers. Twoofers don't respond to logical arguments in kind. They repeatedly thumb down logical comments in an attempt to censor them (common practice among libtards). They also complain to youtube about anti-twoofer videos which embarrass them when those videos use copyrighted music in an effort to get the sound pulled.

[1oct1]

It is our job to question those we elect.

It is there job to answer. So many unanswered questions...