Fuck "truthers" and your ignorance. There's not one of you I'd trust to burn my fries, let alone pretend to understand physics ten years past your ditch digging education level.
Even at best, its been ten years and Bush got away with it scott free. Neener Neener ;)
@saltydog78 if this was a hoax, and the war was just for oil first off
there are trillions of dollars worth of oil in Alaska, and dakota
if we wanted oil that bad then we could get it(we spent more money on the war than we would have just mining for oil somewhere) Second off, if we wanted Iraqs resources, out of all the 1000+ nuclear war heads that america owns we could have completely leveled the whole area without a single life form living in that desert when we were done
P.S. - I also find it extremely odd and creepy that PRIOR to 9/11, in the Homeland Security report, which urged preparation of procedures following an imenent attack by "Bin Laden," there was a page that got leaked which showed an illustration of the twin towers with a large red bullzeye EXACTLY where the 2nd plane eventually hit....coincidence??
@tgballin24 YEAH! What's really creepy and odd "March 2001, Representative Mac Thornberry (R-TX) proposed a bill to create a National Homeland Security Agency"
I have to agree, I think planes really did hit both towers. But I also think we were lied to about the planes that hit the towers, as well as the other planes "hijacked" that day. There's no way in hell the plane that hit the 2nd tower was commercial...no way! I also think that the noses of the "tower" planes were filled with some kind of explosives as well as detinators to set off the other explosives which were already planted throughout the buildings.
@Steelerguy6178 So people have only ONE loved one. I have six in my two immediate families; my wife, son and daughter; my mother father and brother. Then my wife's mum, dad brother and sister, children of her brother and sister, my brother's partner and his ex ; then their children, the children of my brother and sister in law, good friends of mine and friends of my relatives who regard me as their friends as well. I might have 300 who'd regard me as a loved one! 65 times 300. 1950 loved ones.
They have a tab here that allows one to report the video as inappropriate. Although this is a heap of crap I did not take that option, as I do believe in free speech. But I repeat, this is shit. See? I believe in free speech.
For fuck's sake! The first video is taken with a very low definition camera on auto focus, plus it's not being held steadily. It constitutes NO proof of what it claims (that the plane was fabricated - "..came from nowhere..."). The plane came from below the silhouettes of the buildings to the left. The other shots are just tricks with angles. I was watching on that day (night here in Australia) and saw the whole thing from many different angles presented by different stations. It happened.
The video feed came from ONE camera - Now the CGI WAS added into the video - however the jet did hit the buildings.. This is called Redundancy, Extra layer in the system to prevent error. if the plane had missed or crashed you would STILL have seen the plane hit the building from this one Feed. This feed was sourced to the Media Mass. and if you look at the real footage of the 2nd plane hitting you would notice it almost MISSED! and the two videos DONT MATCH! DUH! Retards!
@blackArt2000 Anyways the last portion of this video shows us two cases assuming that the 2nd jet hit the WTC and that the parameters and camera angles are identical.
Case 1: Visible plane approaching the building without the backdrop ( cannot see the city)
Case 2: Everything visible except the plane and the building blows up.
Since the camera angle respects the buildings parameters, then the real footage must contain a visible city. Yet we've seen a plane in Case 1.
@saltydog78 The footage where you see the plane is CGI
But as I said, this is a redundancy layer.
All they did was take the live footage and used a digital filter to remove the (grey) jet for the CGI one.
This is why in some footage the sky colour is incorrect while they adjusted the settings. You can tell because the underbelly of the craft has a different configuration than the real photos. If the plane had missed or crashed, you would have still seen a jet hit this building.
@blackArt2000 If this were true, then there wouldn't exist live footage of the 2nd jet approaching the building with only one wing provided that we can see the city and blue sky. Furthermore, if we compare ALL live footages of the 2nd Jet approaching the WTC, then we will see that the trajectories do not match. Which tells us that the jets were digitally fabricated. Some news anchors and witnesses can verify this fact that planes never hit the WTC's. Which is the point.
@blackArt2000 That isn't true. There was only one event of the 2nd WTC exploding which anyone can verify. What we cannot verify is a Boeing Commercial Jet hitting the building.
So we have a live event and a digital fabrication implemented in the live event.
Such a fabrication is not considered as an event; it's merely imaginary and not true.
Hence the only video that doesn't contradict itself is the footage of the 2nd WTC exploding without the plane.
@saltydog78 Well that is the case, and it wasn't a standard Boeing Jet but a custom mod drone. this is why the aircraft out performed its standard settings and managed to slice through thick steel like a knife though butter. I can supply you with specs but you have friends lock so I can explain a huge amount.
@blackArt2000 I suppose that's plausible. However it's hard to accept that a drone hit the WTC by good faith. It remains plausible, but not certain. Even if a drone did hit the WTC, it wouldn't be enough to make the building jitter. So what brought the buildings down? Given that WTC's collapsed uniformly, they were demolished and that alone was sufficient for the destruction of the WTC's, not any flying aircraft; given that the charges were placed at strategic points on the steel beams.
@saltydog78 Well the drone aircrafts did hit, otherwise there wouldn't have been any on the street witnesses. on the underbelly you can see the a pod which houses an awacs flight controller and DU penetrator system. GPS then Laser Guided in to the buildings. This is why Building7 was dropped because the event would have been controlled locally - as in Line of Sight - All the hardware and Systems required to hoax the event were installed there. Demo was the only quick option to remove evidence
@blackArt2000 Since the video was digitally fabricated, then your claim about the pod on the underbelly of the aircraft is patently false which makes the " drone " argument weaker. There simply was no evidence of a drone hitting the building despite the different testimonies witnesses gave. Some have seen an aircraft other haven't. Yet everyone heard and seen the explosions. So the drone wasn't necessary for the buildings to explode and collapse uniformly. Only planted explosives.
@blackArt2000 I didn't say ALL videos were fabricated. I'm merely asking that how can you boldly claim that a drone hit the building based on fabricated videos. You can't base your conclusion on something that was intentionally misleading and false. But again there exist live, raw footages that wasn't tampered with; incidentally it didn't show any type of aircraft. Who knows, you may be correct about the drone, but that wasn't necessary for the uniform collapse of the WTC.
@blackArt2000 But the raw footage doesn't have an aircraft in it. You're making claims from a patently false video. And yes I agree that explosives were in the building that caused it's collapse. As to being a multi-layered hoax is no more than saying that the fabricated video has been re-fabricated again. That would explain the different plane trajectories. Since all flight paths are different, then the only original event was the explosion of the building. No more, no less.
@saltydog78 You are referring to the footage in this example - im talking about the raw footage from the ground, but have you considered this. this 2nd camera could have been setup like the 1st camera with the CGI input.. however for one reason or another it didnt work. so the craft was filtered out. and the CGI failed. ?
@blackArt2000 Yes. There were legitimate footages from the ground with one discrepancy. Namely the "wing". One of the wings disappeared, then a second later reappeared as it was approaching the WTC. Other ground videos just show the plane flying into the building with one wing. But all together they take on different positions just before the alleged crash. There are also other ground videos showing no planes, but just explosions. These videos show no signs fabrication.
@saltydog78 Im sure there is, however there is a disinfo campaign at work on the internet,some videos have been tampered with in order to create confusion making the 911 debunker look stupid and easy dismissed.
I have come across a number of paid "non-truthers" you can tell because they only reply during US work hours and always have the same answers which they copy and paste from a prep list.
@blackArt2000 Again, it's fine if you concluded that the drone hit the WTC, but what are you basing your conclusion from? Even if the drone did hit, it wouldn't make any difference given that the explosives were already planted in the building.
@saltydog78 Well there are a number of raw videos from people camera, one had a nightshot function which sees IR - and it shows a laser been shone on the building from left to right as the plane is about to impact. if this was CGI why would they bother adding this? also you can see the DU penetrator been fired and coming out the other end on both building - they wouldnt add this into a CGI.
They wanted to create a terror attack,and blame the planes for the destruction due to fire,
@blackArt2000 I don't think such a video exists. I haven't seen it yet. If you can show me that would be great. However this "nightshot" you speak of sounds like a rendition of the actual footage...a fabrication implemented into the raw footage.
So I can understand why you think a drone hit the WTC center because the only way to back that claim up is to comfortably refer back to the fabricated videos.
@blackArt2000 That's a very interesting video. In fact I have the same clip of that specific angle but showing just one flash just before the alleged impact. Again a big contradiction to the video you showed me and the one I have, therefore neither could be true. Someone must have duplicated the flash across the facade of the building. So you again, I have your counter-example: /watch?v=i-LiBAUgoQw
@saltydog78 Again. Both videos( the one you showed me and the one I showed you in my previous comment ) cannot be true. However, I have multiple videos showing explosions just before the collapse of the building. This verify that the flashes shown in the video I sent you are merely explosions. The video you sent me is no doubt unique only because it was fabricated. Could you show me a different video containing the "Lasers" again?
@saltydog78 I was referring to the flash from the aircrafts underbelly,
of course the installed explosives would have been set to detonate in that area on impact to give a better show. if there are difference between the two they must have been enhanced or filtered to bring out other freqs of light. however the two are the same and you can see the DU penetrator in action and the flight controller
@blackArt2000 Which proves my point about the rendition of the videos of the actual footage. In both cases, the fabrication was implemented in the actual footage. Furthermore the angle of the plane in the video you just showed me contradicts the trajectory of all other videos showing the same event, therefore we can rule out the "underbelly" theory. Again is there another video showing lasers?
@blackArt2000 Here is another video which backs up my claim about explosives planted in the building. Lasers or any aircraft wasn't necessary in to bring down the building. watch?v=3v25yxRTJSc
@blackArt2000 And this is raw footage. No hoax or fabrication to this video as it can be verified. Yet the one about lasers is not so convincing. But you're entitled to believe the underbelly theory if you choose to.
@saltydog78 well this is why a new investigation is needed taking in account all new data. bottom line is mass murder was committed on the streets of NYC and 1000 people have died since due to medial problems. If the US mass are as Patriotic as they claim they should hold the Gov Accountable, one thing is for sure is that these building were brought down with explosives - not office fires! the logic of such a claim would offend a 14 year old intelligence! however seems to have been accepted?
@blackArt2000 So if the plane had missed or crashed, would we still witness the jet hitting the building? Since the building exploded without the collision of any commercial jet(s), then it would be impossible to see the jet hit the WTC.
@saltydog78 The footage where you see the plane is CGI
But as I said, this is a redundancy layer.
All they did was take the live footage and used a digital filter to remove the (grey) jet for the CGI one.
This is why in some footage the sky colour is incorrect while they adjusted the settings. You can tell because the underbelly of the craft has a different configuration than the real photos. If the plane had missed or crashed, you would have still seen a jet hit this building.
I am sure all the culprits would go down as the biggest evils in human history,when the 9/11 conspiracy would unfold by coming generations:).so as the pearl harbour and Jfk Assasination:).
@blackArt2000 Listen, I have watched the EXPERTS that investigated the ENTIRE Ground Zero tragedy. You make me think of someone trying to say they saw a space alien. Move along to something you know something about...if can be rational enough to do so. Don't bother me again about this rediculous post. Maybe you could talk to the wives of the heros on the planes and find out where their husbands went..?!
@Steelerguy6178 the misspelled words are actually my version of a dumb sarcstic joke like urs anyway. I think you make me sick talking shit saying shit that u dont know that my friends dont exist or faked deaths mocking my pain. Fuck you! What do u think of course 300 hundred people knew someone on those planes what u know people have more than one or two relitves or friends! u dont cuz u have no life.
3rd june 2010 British Airways has apologised after a photograph in a staff magazine showed a frequent flyer boarding pass in the name of Osama Bin Laden.
The image appeared on the front page of LHR News and was meant to promote the benefits of online check-in.
It showed a passenger holding up an iPhone displaying a boarding pass in the name Bin Laden/Osama, seat 07-C.
what the hell is this crap? how can ANYONE think this was a hoax. Everyone in the world saw this live on TV. So you are saying CNN, BBC and every other tv station are sharing in this conspiracy of yours? You people who believe this sort of shit are idiots... although i do not agree with what W did as a result, this actually happened...jeez!
I see a plane on both? It's just the one is harder to see, most likely from the angle of the sun and a gray plane? The one was taken from below which made the plane a shadow and the other was taken from above/level which made it blend in better?
Reagan, Bush #1, Clinton & Obama are all left handed, in a right handed world. Maybe this is why it feels like America is Bizarro World, & after 20 years of lefty presidents Bush #2 seemed LOST IN SPACE, & now Obama is Grounding. There are 51 English language definitions for the use of "GROUNDING" Talk about "LOST IN TRANSLATION",
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You conspiricy people are stupid. youll never sucseed and you probably live on the computer. Were any of you in New York when it happened? Did you see people jumping from their windows? or see the planes. If you think America is bad then who is good?
well i think america is bad ... here is the only thing i need to say to you people that think 911 was not an inside job ... THE VERY FACT THAT THE BUILDINGS WENT DOWN MEANS IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!!!!!!! ... i'm sorry to break it to you.
@Catstalker666 actually it does because the only way building falls down at freefall speed is to blow out the floors below them in a timely manner hence planted bombs or explosives.
no u are wrong your theory defies the theory of gravity and physics. The towers collapsed because of the weight on top. There was so much pressure and the fire had melted the metal and it went beyond the beam's elastic limit. Therefore collapsing in on itself from it's own wheight. When you watch the video of the collapse and see the windows blowing out is also pressure.
so ur trying to defy Isaac Newton's theory of physics ok u keep telling urself that. I bet u said that cuz u have no idea what i am talking about it is 5th grade science. Do the reaserch yourself scientificly instead of ur comic books.
@jjsonson first how does it break the theories u conspiracy theorists never come up with any proof. You just say something and never say evidance all i am asking is for evidance to back your theory. tell me how it breaks his theories. There were 22 gallons of jet fuel extrimly famible then u have computers desks and papers also verry flamible.
It caused the beams to melt, pressure from above pushed the already burnt and twisted beams to their limits known as the elastic limits. Then gravity took over and the buildings went in a free fall. The windows that were blown out and looked like bombs was pressure that was being compressed and blew out the windows. Now please what is ur scientific evidence? and dont say "ur wrong because that is not right." also i barely watch tv. I saw and survived both attacks so dont say any dumb shit.
@Catstalker666 yea and all the thousands of bolts and joints fell apart simutaneously floor by floor for a perfect collapse. GET REAL. youre full of shit or just a brainwashed government youtube disinformant. GO BACK TO SCHOOL DUMMY and get a real job asshole.
Ok u need to go back to school to think that a bunch of bolts can hold up a real building and u dont need to curse it makes people less likely to belive ur argument i just schooled u so dont tell me to go back to school besides i am in school u do realize u just got outsmarted by a sixteen year old u should get real and ur talking with a person who witnessed the attacks so dont tell me i am brainwashed when i saw it and knew people on the planes.
you need a lot more than bolts to hold up a building besides the all burned. And dont call me an asshole when i lost people on the planes and try and convince me the plane is fabricated.
@cirqueclimbing i hate to break it to u but thaat is the dumbest argument i have ever heard the problem with conspiracy theorists is they bring up no argument or facts to proove their point. And theynare so far in their own world when someone demonstrates more facts they ignore it.
I happen to know what a bad gov. is as my grandparents grew up in Nazi Germany if said one thing bad about der furer u would dissaper in the night u say tons of shit nothing happens to u.
The most horrific hoax of all time, well put together at first but finally the truth is beginningto prevail. Remeber, i got the afternoon off work though..
Salty Dog - this is great - where did you get undoctored footage (1.08 to 1.28) from ? - I have only found it in this vid & your other one (whatyoutubedeleted fabricated plane) - truly amazing - I will show this to all my friends
...and after the aliens blew up the WTC they all ate PB&J sandwhiches!!!!!!! It's true, I saw it happen!!!!! Get a grip you dumbasses.
outlawracer2229 1 month ago
Leslie Raphael. Serendipity.li
Youtube: Dimitry Khalezov, and his banned book on Amazon: The Third Truth
Inigo37 1 month ago
@TheDeparted112570 Leslie Raphael. Serendipity.li
Only a GIANT STUPID believe the sooooo phatetic oficial version.
Inigo37 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck "truthers" and your ignorance. There's not one of you I'd trust to burn my fries, let alone pretend to understand physics ten years past your ditch digging education level.
Even at best, its been ten years and Bush got away with it scott free. Neener Neener ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
@TheDeparted112570 Define "hardcore truther" And why is an investigation on 9/11 considered a worldview?
saltydog78 8 months ago
@saltydog78
agreed.....even if i believe the official story...theres definitly more going on than we know about
lonewolf2379 8 months ago
@saltydog78 if this was a hoax, and the war was just for oil first off
there are trillions of dollars worth of oil in Alaska, and dakota
if we wanted oil that bad then we could get it(we spent more money on the war than we would have just mining for oil somewhere) Second off, if we wanted Iraqs resources, out of all the 1000+ nuclear war heads that america owns we could have completely leveled the whole area without a single life form living in that desert when we were done
redghost105 4 months ago
Dumbest video ive ever seen on youtube
TheCrisisKings 10 months ago
P.S. - I also find it extremely odd and creepy that PRIOR to 9/11, in the Homeland Security report, which urged preparation of procedures following an imenent attack by "Bin Laden," there was a page that got leaked which showed an illustration of the twin towers with a large red bullzeye EXACTLY where the 2nd plane eventually hit....coincidence??
tgballin24 11 months ago
@tgballin24 YEAH! What's really creepy and odd "March 2001, Representative Mac Thornberry (R-TX) proposed a bill to create a National Homeland Security Agency"
BadBunnyRides 4 months ago
@tgballin24 Do you have this documents? I would like to see
Inigo37 1 month ago
I have to agree, I think planes really did hit both towers. But I also think we were lied to about the planes that hit the towers, as well as the other planes "hijacked" that day. There's no way in hell the plane that hit the 2nd tower was commercial...no way! I also think that the noses of the "tower" planes were filled with some kind of explosives as well as detinators to set off the other explosives which were already planted throughout the buildings.
tgballin24 11 months ago
@Steelerguy6178 So people have only ONE loved one. I have six in my two immediate families; my wife, son and daughter; my mother father and brother. Then my wife's mum, dad brother and sister, children of her brother and sister, my brother's partner and his ex ; then their children, the children of my brother and sister in law, good friends of mine and friends of my relatives who regard me as their friends as well. I might have 300 who'd regard me as a loved one! 65 times 300. 1950 loved ones.
wtw88 11 months ago
They have a tab here that allows one to report the video as inappropriate. Although this is a heap of crap I did not take that option, as I do believe in free speech. But I repeat, this is shit. See? I believe in free speech.
wtw88 11 months ago
For fuck's sake! The first video is taken with a very low definition camera on auto focus, plus it's not being held steadily. It constitutes NO proof of what it claims (that the plane was fabricated - "..came from nowhere..."). The plane came from below the silhouettes of the buildings to the left. The other shots are just tricks with angles. I was watching on that day (night here in Australia) and saw the whole thing from many different angles presented by different stations. It happened.
wtw88 11 months ago
didnt people see the plane hit the building with their own eyes? Im as skeptical as anyone but no plane?? really? Sorry but even i cant buy this.
zedizdead1 1 year ago
Well I Pulled the trigger and the gun set go
The shot gun over in Mexico
Honey let me be your salty dog
existenceisfake 1 year ago
the first video is total 100% proof that 9/11 = INSIDE JOB
kobesaa 1 year ago
move along people.... only the CIA/mossad would post such a blatantly stupid truther video. typical attempt to discredit truthers.
allin1readerwriter 1 year ago
@iverson246 and your stupid for believing that plane fuel can melt buildings and make them fall like it looks demolition.
taregass 1 year ago
The video feed came from ONE camera - Now the CGI WAS added into the video - however the jet did hit the buildings.. This is called Redundancy, Extra layer in the system to prevent error. if the plane had missed or crashed you would STILL have seen the plane hit the building from this one Feed. This feed was sourced to the Media Mass. and if you look at the real footage of the 2nd plane hitting you would notice it almost MISSED! and the two videos DONT MATCH! DUH! Retards!
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 Anyways the last portion of this video shows us two cases assuming that the 2nd jet hit the WTC and that the parameters and camera angles are identical.
Case 1: Visible plane approaching the building without the backdrop ( cannot see the city)
Case 2: Everything visible except the plane and the building blows up.
Since the camera angle respects the buildings parameters, then the real footage must contain a visible city. Yet we've seen a plane in Case 1.
** contradiction **
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 The footage where you see the plane is CGI
But as I said, this is a redundancy layer.
All they did was take the live footage and used a digital filter to remove the (grey) jet for the CGI one.
This is why in some footage the sky colour is incorrect while they adjusted the settings. You can tell because the underbelly of the craft has a different configuration than the real photos. If the plane had missed or crashed, you would have still seen a jet hit this building.
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 If this were true, then there wouldn't exist live footage of the 2nd jet approaching the building with only one wing provided that we can see the city and blue sky. Furthermore, if we compare ALL live footages of the 2nd Jet approaching the WTC, then we will see that the trajectories do not match. Which tells us that the jets were digitally fabricated. Some news anchors and witnesses can verify this fact that planes never hit the WTC's. Which is the point.
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 there were two events in sync, the Live event and the digital event (backup system)
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 That isn't true. There was only one event of the 2nd WTC exploding which anyone can verify. What we cannot verify is a Boeing Commercial Jet hitting the building.
So we have a live event and a digital fabrication implemented in the live event.
Such a fabrication is not considered as an event; it's merely imaginary and not true.
Hence the only video that doesn't contradict itself is the footage of the 2nd WTC exploding without the plane.
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 Well that is the case, and it wasn't a standard Boeing Jet but a custom mod drone. this is why the aircraft out performed its standard settings and managed to slice through thick steel like a knife though butter. I can supply you with specs but you have friends lock so I can explain a huge amount.
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 I suppose that's plausible. However it's hard to accept that a drone hit the WTC by good faith. It remains plausible, but not certain. Even if a drone did hit the WTC, it wouldn't be enough to make the building jitter. So what brought the buildings down? Given that WTC's collapsed uniformly, they were demolished and that alone was sufficient for the destruction of the WTC's, not any flying aircraft; given that the charges were placed at strategic points on the steel beams.
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 Well the drone aircrafts did hit, otherwise there wouldn't have been any on the street witnesses. on the underbelly you can see the a pod which houses an awacs flight controller and DU penetrator system. GPS then Laser Guided in to the buildings. This is why Building7 was dropped because the event would have been controlled locally - as in Line of Sight - All the hardware and Systems required to hoax the event were installed there. Demo was the only quick option to remove evidence
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 Since the video was digitally fabricated, then your claim about the pod on the underbelly of the aircraft is patently false which makes the " drone " argument weaker. There simply was no evidence of a drone hitting the building despite the different testimonies witnesses gave. Some have seen an aircraft other haven't. Yet everyone heard and seen the explosions. So the drone wasn't necessary for the buildings to explode and collapse uniformly. Only planted explosives.
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 so if all the video was fabricated.. why didn't they paste in a normal spec boeing instead of one which is ISNT a boeing?
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 I didn't say ALL videos were fabricated. I'm merely asking that how can you boldly claim that a drone hit the building based on fabricated videos. You can't base your conclusion on something that was intentionally misleading and false. But again there exist live, raw footages that wasn't tampered with; incidentally it didn't show any type of aircraft. Who knows, you may be correct about the drone, but that wasn't necessary for the uniform collapse of the WTC.
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 because I am taking the examples from raw footage and not the media footage. and the enlarged photos of the 2nd jets underbelly.
however the plane itself didnt drop the towers - explosives in the core did that.
911 was a multi layered hoax using advanced tech - very well thought out and exploited
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 But the raw footage doesn't have an aircraft in it. You're making claims from a patently false video. And yes I agree that explosives were in the building that caused it's collapse. As to being a multi-layered hoax is no more than saying that the fabricated video has been re-fabricated again. That would explain the different plane trajectories. Since all flight paths are different, then the only original event was the explosion of the building. No more, no less.
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 You are referring to the footage in this example - im talking about the raw footage from the ground, but have you considered this. this 2nd camera could have been setup like the 1st camera with the CGI input.. however for one reason or another it didnt work. so the craft was filtered out. and the CGI failed. ?
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 Yes. There were legitimate footages from the ground with one discrepancy. Namely the "wing". One of the wings disappeared, then a second later reappeared as it was approaching the WTC. Other ground videos just show the plane flying into the building with one wing. But all together they take on different positions just before the alleged crash. There are also other ground videos showing no planes, but just explosions. These videos show no signs fabrication.
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 Im sure there is, however there is a disinfo campaign at work on the internet,some videos have been tampered with in order to create confusion making the 911 debunker look stupid and easy dismissed.
I have come across a number of paid "non-truthers" you can tell because they only reply during US work hours and always have the same answers which they copy and paste from a prep list.
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 Again, it's fine if you concluded that the drone hit the WTC, but what are you basing your conclusion from? Even if the drone did hit, it wouldn't make any difference given that the explosives were already planted in the building.
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 Well there are a number of raw videos from people camera, one had a nightshot function which sees IR - and it shows a laser been shone on the building from left to right as the plane is about to impact. if this was CGI why would they bother adding this? also you can see the DU penetrator been fired and coming out the other end on both building - they wouldnt add this into a CGI.
They wanted to create a terror attack,and blame the planes for the destruction due to fire,
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 I don't think such a video exists. I haven't seen it yet. If you can show me that would be great. However this "nightshot" you speak of sounds like a rendition of the actual footage...a fabrication implemented into the raw footage.
So I can understand why you think a drone hit the WTC center because the only way to back that claim up is to comfortably refer back to the fabricated videos.
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 yeah sure, here it is.
/watch?v=dr4BJ89Df5Q
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 That's a very interesting video. In fact I have the same clip of that specific angle but showing just one flash just before the alleged impact. Again a big contradiction to the video you showed me and the one I have, therefore neither could be true. Someone must have duplicated the flash across the facade of the building. So you again, I have your counter-example: /watch?v=i-LiBAUgoQw
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 Again. Both videos( the one you showed me and the one I showed you in my previous comment ) cannot be true. However, I have multiple videos showing explosions just before the collapse of the building. This verify that the flashes shown in the video I sent you are merely explosions. The video you sent me is no doubt unique only because it was fabricated. Could you show me a different video containing the "Lasers" again?
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 I was referring to the flash from the aircrafts underbelly,
of course the installed explosives would have been set to detonate in that area on impact to give a better show. if there are difference between the two they must have been enhanced or filtered to bring out other freqs of light. however the two are the same and you can see the DU penetrator in action and the flight controller
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 Which proves my point about the rendition of the videos of the actual footage. In both cases, the fabrication was implemented in the actual footage. Furthermore the angle of the plane in the video you just showed me contradicts the trajectory of all other videos showing the same event, therefore we can rule out the "underbelly" theory. Again is there another video showing lasers?
saltydog78 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 Here is another video which backs up my claim about explosives planted in the building. Lasers or any aircraft wasn't necessary in to bring down the building. watch?v=3v25yxRTJSc
saltydog78 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 And this is raw footage. No hoax or fabrication to this video as it can be verified. Yet the one about lasers is not so convincing. But you're entitled to believe the underbelly theory if you choose to.
saltydog78 1 year ago
@saltydog78 well this is why a new investigation is needed taking in account all new data. bottom line is mass murder was committed on the streets of NYC and 1000 people have died since due to medial problems. If the US mass are as Patriotic as they claim they should hold the Gov Accountable, one thing is for sure is that these building were brought down with explosives - not office fires! the logic of such a claim would offend a 14 year old intelligence! however seems to have been accepted?
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000
what a dumb puppet. office fires LOL
An airplane hit the building, not an office fire. you have richard gage cum in your brain? Or you worshipping Obama too much.
taledarkside 2 months ago
@blackArt2000 So if the plane had missed or crashed, would we still witness the jet hitting the building? Since the building exploded without the collision of any commercial jet(s), then it would be impossible to see the jet hit the WTC.
saltydog78 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saltydog78 The footage where you see the plane is CGI
But as I said, this is a redundancy layer.
All they did was take the live footage and used a digital filter to remove the (grey) jet for the CGI one.
This is why in some footage the sky colour is incorrect while they adjusted the settings. You can tell because the underbelly of the craft has a different configuration than the real photos. If the plane had missed or crashed, you would have still seen a jet hit this building.
blackArt2000 1 year ago
149PCE lol big words
littlegino10 1 year ago
Conspiracy theorists are diagnosible paranoics
149PCE 1 year ago
@149PCE Err....... Nope
blackArt2000 1 year ago
I am sure all the culprits would go down as the biggest evils in human history,when the 9/11 conspiracy would unfold by coming generations:).so as the pearl harbour and Jfk Assasination:).
salllu 1 year ago
I don't get it. What are you trying to show here?
existenceisfake 1 year ago
Comment removed
149PCE 1 year ago
Whoa man you know the same ball is shown on september clues... Man i need a fucking drink!!!!
offthahook08 1 year ago
whodunnit? bush dunnit.
8fl0z 1 year ago
Oh...I guess the people on the planes were not real. And, the people that witnessed it were dreaming! Man... you are messed up!
RivertownWorker 1 year ago
@RivertownWorker
You are Messed up!
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 Nothing better to say...I assume?
RivertownWorker 1 year ago
@RivertownWorker your very messed up if you really think Jet A fuel can melt / weaken anything of that nature.
How hot does it burn again? LOL
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@RivertownWorker Its not that Simple
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 pretty interesting theory, but could we see your proof?
saltydog78 1 year ago
@blackArt2000 Listen, I have watched the EXPERTS that investigated the ENTIRE Ground Zero tragedy. You make me think of someone trying to say they saw a space alien. Move along to something you know something about...if can be rational enough to do so. Don't bother me again about this rediculous post. Maybe you could talk to the wives of the heros on the planes and find out where their husbands went..?!
RivertownWorker 1 year ago
@RivertownWorker Err you mean the NIST experts? err then you dont know anything!
By the way! why dont you find out who was on the planes and who they worked for?
you will be in for a surprise!
blackArt2000 1 year ago
@Steelerguy6178 the misspelled words are actually my version of a dumb sarcstic joke like urs anyway. I think you make me sick talking shit saying shit that u dont know that my friends dont exist or faked deaths mocking my pain. Fuck you! What do u think of course 300 hundred people knew someone on those planes what u know people have more than one or two relitves or friends! u dont cuz u have no life.
Catstalker666 1 year ago
@Steelerguy6178 u obviosly have no life mr madden Penis. and your statement makes no sence.
Catstalker666 1 year ago
wtf? how is this NOT real?
EatGanon 1 year ago
3rd june 2010 British Airways has apologised after a photograph in a staff magazine showed a frequent flyer boarding pass in the name of Osama Bin Laden.
The image appeared on the front page of LHR News and was meant to promote the benefits of online check-in.
It showed a passenger holding up an iPhone displaying a boarding pass in the name Bin Laden/Osama, seat 07-C.
aifammafiaaifam 1 year ago
what the hell is this crap? how can ANYONE think this was a hoax. Everyone in the world saw this live on TV. So you are saying CNN, BBC and every other tv station are sharing in this conspiracy of yours? You people who believe this sort of shit are idiots... although i do not agree with what W did as a result, this actually happened...jeez!
RATIO3533 1 year ago
I see a plane on both? It's just the one is harder to see, most likely from the angle of the sun and a gray plane? The one was taken from below which made the plane a shadow and the other was taken from above/level which made it blend in better?
xXXRHPXXx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The 4 stages of subversion - "How To Brainwash A Nation"
1) Demoralization
2) Destabilization
3) Crisis
4) Normalization
**must watch -
/watch?v=zeMZGGQ0ERk
peace and blessings
canadakim1 1 year ago
Reagan, Bush #1, Clinton & Obama are all left handed, in a right handed world. Maybe this is why it feels like America is Bizarro World, & after 20 years of lefty presidents Bush #2 seemed LOST IN SPACE, & now Obama is Grounding. There are 51 English language definitions for the use of "GROUNDING" Talk about "LOST IN TRANSLATION",
CaptainNensho 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You conspiricy people are stupid. youll never sucseed and you probably live on the computer. Were any of you in New York when it happened? Did you see people jumping from their windows? or see the planes. If you think America is bad then who is good?
Catstalker666 2 years ago
i donot think america is bad but please look ate the film. above is perfectly clear sky. and they other ther are clouds and stuff. just makes sence.
sneakervincent 1 year ago
well i think america is bad ... here is the only thing i need to say to you people that think 911 was not an inside job ... THE VERY FACT THAT THE BUILDINGS WENT DOWN MEANS IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!!!!!!! ... i'm sorry to break it to you.
cirqueclimbing 1 year ago
if a building collapses what makes you think it is a controlled demolishion
Catstalker666 1 year ago
@Catstalker666 when it falls straight down at freefall speed into its own footprint.
jjsonson 1 year ago
@jjsonson that doesnt proov there were bombs it proves the building collapsed
Catstalker666 1 year ago
@Catstalker666 actually it does because the only way building falls down at freefall speed is to blow out the floors below them in a timely manner hence planted bombs or explosives.
jjsonson 1 year ago
no u are wrong your theory defies the theory of gravity and physics. The towers collapsed because of the weight on top. There was so much pressure and the fire had melted the metal and it went beyond the beam's elastic limit. Therefore collapsing in on itself from it's own wheight. When you watch the video of the collapse and see the windows blowing out is also pressure.
Catstalker666 1 year ago
Comment removed
Catstalker666 1 year ago
@Catstalker666 you keep tellin yourself that
jjsonson 1 year ago
so ur trying to defy Isaac Newton's theory of physics ok u keep telling urself that. I bet u said that cuz u have no idea what i am talking about it is 5th grade science. Do the reaserch yourself scientificly instead of ur comic books.
Catstalker666 1 year ago
@Catstalker666 well you clearly must still be in 4th grade. 9/11 breaks all 3 of newtons laws. do yourself some research and get off the god dam TV.
jjsonson 1 year ago
@jjsonson first how does it break the theories u conspiracy theorists never come up with any proof. You just say something and never say evidance all i am asking is for evidance to back your theory. tell me how it breaks his theories. There were 22 gallons of jet fuel extrimly famible then u have computers desks and papers also verry flamible.
Catstalker666 1 year ago
It caused the beams to melt, pressure from above pushed the already burnt and twisted beams to their limits known as the elastic limits. Then gravity took over and the buildings went in a free fall. The windows that were blown out and looked like bombs was pressure that was being compressed and blew out the windows. Now please what is ur scientific evidence? and dont say "ur wrong because that is not right." also i barely watch tv. I saw and survived both attacks so dont say any dumb shit.
Catstalker666 1 year ago
@Catstalker666 yea and all the thousands of bolts and joints fell apart simutaneously floor by floor for a perfect collapse. GET REAL. youre full of shit or just a brainwashed government youtube disinformant. GO BACK TO SCHOOL DUMMY and get a real job asshole.
jjsonson 1 year ago
Ok u need to go back to school to think that a bunch of bolts can hold up a real building and u dont need to curse it makes people less likely to belive ur argument i just schooled u so dont tell me to go back to school besides i am in school u do realize u just got outsmarted by a sixteen year old u should get real and ur talking with a person who witnessed the attacks so dont tell me i am brainwashed when i saw it and knew people on the planes.
Catstalker666 1 year ago
you need a lot more than bolts to hold up a building besides the all burned. And dont call me an asshole when i lost people on the planes and try and convince me the plane is fabricated.
Catstalker666 1 year ago
@Catstalker666 here ya go dipshit
watch?v=B9BLCE4ykWA
jjsonson 1 year ago
@cirqueclimbing i hate to break it to u but thaat is the dumbest argument i have ever heard the problem with conspiracy theorists is they bring up no argument or facts to proove their point. And theynare so far in their own world when someone demonstrates more facts they ignore it.
Catstalker666 1 year ago
I happen to know what a bad gov. is as my grandparents grew up in Nazi Germany if said one thing bad about der furer u would dissaper in the night u say tons of shit nothing happens to u.
Catstalker666 1 year ago
Comment removed
Catstalker666 1 year ago
Don't waste your time here. Watch "Blueprint for Truth" or anything by David Ray Griffin. Of course the planes were real.
niverent 2 years ago
The most horrific hoax of all time, well put together at first but finally the truth is beginningto prevail. Remeber, i got the afternoon off work though..
theholeway1 2 years ago
Anyone who believes 911 was a hoax or government conspiracy is a fukkin idiot...
nonfatcat 2 years ago
Whoever believe that 911 was done by Muslims is biggest ignorant
pluaboect 2 years ago
Your mom
combatcorrespondent 2 years ago
Salty Dog - this is great - where did you get undoctored footage (1.08 to 1.28) from ? - I have only found it in this vid & your other one (whatyoutubedeleted fabricated plane) - truly amazing - I will show this to all my friends
tphomer69 2 years ago 2
watch at the crack between the towers....the plane disappears! telllme the planes arent a hoax
droideka23 2 years ago
The planes were not a hoax.
9/11 was an inside job but those planes were not a hoax.
Gazeboman 2 years ago
The planes ARE a hoax.
It was an x-wing fighter from the forest moon Endor!
Wicket was the pilot!
ctcole77 2 years ago
You two are fuckin retarded. jesus lol
shane1v 2 years ago
so sad ;(
hnfnhchhgdfri7ku 2 years ago
In the first video, the plane came from NOWHERE lol! Media is as much responsible for this as the people who did this heinous act!
taimurdar 2 years ago 5
yep, watch 9/11 smoke screen
saltydog78 2 years ago
watch 9/11 smokescreen
saltydog78 2 years ago
@taimurdar I saw the plane. What do you mean it appeared from nowhere? Get glasses.
johnhall77 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Interesting well presented video.
It's strange seeing two video clips at different angles of the world trade center towers.
One with a plane crashing into the tower with an explosion and another of the same explosion in the same tower BUT without any plane.
It's clear that 9/11 is riddled with full of lies,it was most certainly a demolition job.
Most of what we think is true is actually false.
efilorpnagev 3 years ago