WTC Impacts - WTC2 Flight 175 Approach Zoom Stabilised

[Caseyestes120]

Nice!

[MultiDrPepperfreak]

@Caseyestes120 lol

[Sambuca6178]

Nice hologram! Brought to you by the Zionist Mossad video maker.

[saultrain]

I made a video on this topic. Read the description:

watch?v=5cdqGte0488

[Deniserocks100]

That's a real plane. Before you see it hit it, on the tail it has the United Airlines logo.

[evilspecter666]

blue? where you see blue?

[WUDJABEABLE]

This is UA 175

[Sept11Discovery]

SUPPORT THE SEPT 11TH, 2001 RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY PROJECT!

[99trainwreck]

to jest kurwa wojskowy samolot Ameryko obudż się jesteście manipulowani na każdym kroku!!!

[EvilKnievel1980]

according to the NTSB report about the fly level of the plane, this video is fake

[chillyrooster]

its clearly a missle

[hamiltonfan4eva]

@chillyrooster if its a missile where is the plane and passengers gone ? in the 4th dimention ? haha

[chillyrooster]

@hamiltonfan4eva THERE NEVER WAS A PLANE AND IF U LOOK AT PASASENGER LIST NO ARAB NAMES

[hamiltonfan4eva]

@chillyrooster 56 passengers (including 5 hijackers)

[chillyrooster]

@hamiltonfan4eva ur wrong show me the link thay shows it

[hamiltonfan4eva]

@chillyrooster wikipedia united flight 175

[hannah74306]

MOTHMAN ALERT MOTHMAN ALERT THATS MOTHMAN ON THAT PLANE ITS TRUE DO YOU SEE HIM

[SuperYesyesyo]

there is blue below and gery above???

i don`t get it and i am not colour blind...

[Yestrooper1]

@Stealth9331 yeah, and a 2 1/2 year old girl was also on that flight, which was her first (and last) one. She was with her parents going to see her grandparents. How sad that tghe grandparents won't ever see their granddaughter again. And there were at least 3 children (from 2 1/2-7, I believe) that were on the 4 flights that crashed. Also, babara Olsen (wife of the solicitor general at the time) was on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon. I'll have to subscribe to yor channel!

[Yestrooper1]

@Stealth9331 There were 2 celebrities on that flight as well. David Angell (creator of Frasier) and his wife, and actress Berry Berenson, wife of the late Anthony Hopkins. I'm sorryn to hear you lost your mom on that flight.

[Yestrooper1]

@Stealth9331 Was she in the towers when the planes hit?

[Yestrooper1]

@Stealth9331 And I've never heard of a missile that had wings or even that large a wingspan. And from where were they to be fired, anyway?

[florin5061]

oh god:(IM REALY SORRY THE VICTIMS)

ASKING MYSELF

how many newyorkese realy saw that planes? for the memory of victim must tu found the truth

:D i even found the information that those flight thas goverbmentsay yt was hyjacked never took off that day

air traffic controllers track down the planes never say in their own words that those plane hit twin towers.

yeah right

look high dont see what hapenned at ground

some winess hear huge explosion in basement of wtc1 before even the plane hit

[BlackCobrasTV]

the truth shall come in the future....but we need it soon and now

[SocialAssasin]

cant imagine looking out the window and seeing that big mother fucker screaming right @ you

[bertyUK]

@SocialAssasin

Yeh wiki "Stanley Praimnath"

He experienced exactly that.

[jawsflounderace]

I got here from family guy

[bertyUK]

@EternalAtman

And you're just a cunt who needs to find a job.

Unless you're muslim, probably living in Britain.

[EternalAtman]

@bertyUK Im not a cunt. I have a Job; but it doesn't matter if i have one or not. I'm not a "muslim" and I don't live in Britian. so FUCK OFF :)

[bertyUK]

@EternalAtman

YOU SHAMEFUL LITTLE CREATURE

YOU CRETINOUS LITTLE DOG

BE AWWWF WITH YOU...

[fjh1616]

The people that say this crash is fake obviously don't understand a very big thing in motion physics- Momentum. And their idea of crash physics comes from holywood. Down with this conspiracists!

[tonkiyalesha]

fake

[AngoNL035SD]

its just about money

[MJ4ever911]

0:01 you can clearly see it is a United boeing 767. It has the blue below and grey above.

[MrElculver2424]

@MJ4ever911 I don't see any blue. It looks all gray to me. Not saying it wasn't a United Airlines, but this video definitely is not clear enough to prove it is,

[MJ4ever911]

@MrElculver2424 Then just look at 0:00 if you can't see the blue down then you are colorblind or something.

[roquefortfiles]

@MrElculver2424 LOL Yeah it looks so unlike a huge 767 flying in to a building!!

I mean who could believe that?

[MrElculver2424]

@MJ4ever911 Well, I apologize. There is sort of proof. Not the actual color, but the underside. Go to Google images and type in "United Airlines 747 underside and click on the second picture in the second row, it shows the two white spots on the underside, which you can clearly see on the plane in this video at 0:07.

[MJ4ever911]

@MrElculver2424 Sorry I don't know what white spots you are talking about. :s I did look for the picture though.

[quez76]

@MJ4ever911 clearly???

[MJ4ever911]

@quez76 that's what I said....

[quez76]

@MJ4ever911 if it was clearly like you say, than it would be much clearer than that

[MJ4ever911]

@quez76 LOL can you be anymore senseless? If it's clear enough to see the plane in this video, then there would be no conspirators if there was a more clear shot of the plane... and if you don't see a plane then WTF do YOU see? a freaking giant missile with wings that looks just like a... oh... AIRPLANE

[MJ4ever911]

@quez76 LOL can you be anymore senseless? If it's clear enough to see the plane in this video, then there would be no conspirators if there was a more clear shot of the plane... and if you don't see a plane then WTF do YOU see? a freaking giant missile with wings that looks just like a... oh... AIRPLANE

[quez76]

@MJ4ever911 my point is you cannot tell its a united airline plane

[MJ4ever911]

@quez76 have you ever seen one? If you pause the video right on 0:00 you can see the United Airlines logo blurred on the tail, the blue color below the airplane and the grey above, just like United Airlines boeings 767...

[quez76]

@MJ4ever911 yes kinda, i just wish it was a bit clearer, or another clearer video

[MJ4ever911]

@quez76 There are plenty of videos that shows the plane, this one shows clearly the plane and it's kind of easy to recognize the colors

[drifter402]

@MJ4ever911 FINALLY somebody said it

[MJ4ever911]

@drifter402 hehe :p

[Honeyandmilk100]

@MJ4ever911 Yeah and then exactly at 0:03, it turned completely black with not a single cloud in the sky!!! TOTALLY FAKE.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@Honeyandmilk100 It's all animated between 0:03-0:05 when the plane mysteriously turned black it was showing animation errors on it's body and then it turned completely blue all over. It's a fake.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 Don't be ignorant. Just because you don't understand what you're seeing doesn't make it fake. Sometimes you have to dig a little deeper.

[MJ4ever911]

@Honeyandmilk100 So let me see if I get it, you are saying this plane is fake... while more than 400 new yorkers accept looking at how a plane crashed into thw WTC? hmmmmm who should we believe? you, or the 400 new yorkers?

[Honeyandmilk100]

@MJ4ever911 I am saying that you must use your own eyes and ears and other senses to discover the truth for yourself. 400? That's it? What about the other 1000's who some claimed that it was not one explosion but a series of explosions inside the building and not one report of a plane crash, now why do you think that is? So think about it for yourself, does a normal normally turn dark on a clear sunny day without reason? If u pay attent. to the latter part you'll notice an animation glitch.

[MJ4ever911]

@Honeyandmilk100 Lol, just saying random numbers won't actually make the 1000 person real. Explosions? they can be heard miles away, if there were explosions then 1400 new yorkers would admit hearing them. No report of plane crash? almost the 90% of the plane was recovered, ignoring the more than 40 videos showing a god damn plane. Have you heard something called SHADOW? Well, let me tell you they affect planes too.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@MJ4ever911 You should know that all New Yorkers heard the explosion at the site. The people especially the clerks and janitors of the tower even the firefighters admitted of hearing multiple explosions inside the building. What plane was recovered all they could find was a passport and without any bones or blood splattered on the scene? Shadows? Ha U didn't even check for the glitch on the plane in slow motion when it was dark did you? How can shadows appear on a clear sunny day? Think for once

[MJ4ever911]

@Honeyandmilk100 Lol, after cleaning up the debris of the WTC, there were not found rests of bombs or something like that. People did heard explosions from plane crashings. Can you actually manipulate more the information? People said the explosions they heard were or from the plane crashing or from the tower collapsing or from the floors falling in top of the others. I talked to a police who helped to clean the debris of the WTC and guess what? He DID NOT found nothing weird on the debris.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@MJ4ever911 Is that right? Which people exactly are you referring to claim that the explosions came from the plane? The ones inside the building who actually witnessed it or the ones outside the building who only assume at the very least that it was from the plane? Manipulate? These are actual given statements from the people who were actually there in the tower. You talked to a policeman but what about firefighters who also claim that there were explosions in the building? Think friend!

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 The plane turned "black" because it went into the shadow of the thick smoke from tower 1. You still have to employ deductive reasoning when you use your eyes.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain You're the one who is not seeing properly with your eyes my friend. If you look at the video carefully you'll see that the sunlight is coming from the right hand side of the plane not the top why because it was 9:00 ish in the morning not 12 noon where the sun is at top. And if the smoke really was that thick why did sunlight come on the plane before it hit the tower? That's not scientifically possible, unless, it's a fake. Try to see with your own eyes my friend and learn the truth.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 I didn't expect you to concede. In fact, you're mind is most likely cemented on this topic, but the wind was blowing the smoke directly south. The second plane approached from the south and banked directly under the smoke. Watch:

watch?v=wv6fkregGxI

Why would all that smoke not cast a shadow? True the sun was at a south-easterly angle, but as the plane got closer to the source it would at some point enter the shadow, which it did briefly. The proof is on tape. 

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain The proof is in the tape. A plane doesn't normally go that dark not even in thunderstorm clouds as I've seen. This is completely dark as if it's going through a tunnel. Like I said in the previous comment before the plane hit the tower sunlight was clearly visible before impact. Also notice that there was a slight glitch on the plane when it went dark. Real planes don't do that only computer animation errors do.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 "A plane doesn't normally go that dark not even in thunderstorm clouds as I've seen". You don't understand video. Digital video has a very limited exposure range(roughly 5.5 stops--film has an exposure range of approximately 14 stops, and the human eye is much better than film). When the plane enters the shadow, the bright blue sky acts as back-light causing the plane to be seen in silhouette.Video amplifies this unless the exposure is adjusted for the shadow.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain Well excuse me if the camera was also not giving enough exposure to the buildings below the plane which in fact were completely covered in sunlight and not by any shadow. Also see watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM to find out why the plane's different angles show something else, like the plane coming from a descending height in 1 video when the other shows it's coming in a straight path. Another animation error. The planes speed is slow or fast before impact. check it.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 The camera does not "give exposure". Exposure is adjusted by lens aperture (or by a neutral density filter). You cannot deduce from the video that the buildings which appear "below the plane" were actually directly below it. They aren't. And even if they were, the sun was at an angle, not directly overhead so altitude affects where the shadow hits.

RE: the flight path--it's about depth and perspective. There are no contradictions. Watch:

watch?v=-K-WjsHa_2k

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain No contradictions? Did you not see the different angles from where the plane comes from? Also in those videos the plane was greatly below the smoke and not directly under it where it was completely covered in darkness. That's impossible and if you see these properties elsewhere you'll know what I'm talking about.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 Well, I didn't expect you to be able to comprehend it. It takes a bit more analytical and abstract reasoning to be able to put it all together in your head, as well as an understanding of camera optics and perspective.

So let me get this straight, you think someone went to the trouble of adding a CGI plane to the video, but didn't bother to use a realistic model and used some cheap 2-D all-black graphics? Or do you buy the sci-fi "hologram theory"?

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain I expect you to put a little further analysis and look at every last detail of all the angle shots of the second air strike, physics, properties and then sum up your conclusion. That is how a real scientific and realistic approach is done. I'm just saying look at everything and you will see there's something wrong.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 The lack of analysis has come up short on your end, not mine. You didn't understand what you saw in the above video. You asked, "does a plane normally turn dark on a clear sunny day without reason?", yet failed to account for the large plume of black smoke overhead.

RE: the flight path, you have also come up short, not understanding what you see. Your own confusion does not make it "fake". Don't believe nonsense and don't draw conclusions from ignorance.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain First of all, I took into account of the sun's reflecting position which is not over the plume of smoke, second it's just smoke not clouds but even if it was it would never engulf the entire plane where it would be completely BLACK in case you didn't see that, it logical sense. I told you to analyze the paths of the other footages and see that they are all coming from different angles. All you have to do is see with your eyes and make sense out of it.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 Yes the plane would be BLACK when back-lit by the bright blue sky. It's video. That's what happens. Look up exposure latitude. So how do you account for the plane turning black? Someone went to all that trouble and used some cheap black CGI graphics? Was it a soft-ware glitch? If so, why would they not re-render the image before printing it to tape. That makes more sense to you than shadow?

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain Yes the plane would be BLACK when back-lit by the bright blue sky? THE SUN WAS COMING FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION YOU FOOL then it would've been back-lit by the bright blue sky. Read what you're writing please

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 The sun is behind the cameraman, but it lights up the whole sky. The plane is back-lit by the sky, not the sun. I don't think you know enough about light and camera optics to understand.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain I know enough that it doesn't turn the plane completely back while the other objects appear fine. Also I've seen pictures of backlit on google image and all of them had the sun behind them. The plane cannot be backlit by the sky with the sun not behind it. Also see other videos where there is no shadow on the plane and comes from a different direction every time.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 You're simply 100% wrong. The other objects you see are not in the shadow. The PLANE is in the shadow. Anything reflecting light can create backlight and video has a very low tolerance for it (little exposure latitude). If you have ever video taped someone from inside while they are standing in front of a window on a sunny day, you will see the same effect, regardless of where the sun is.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain The other objects you see are not in the shadow? That's exactly what I said! I've even video taped people using a camera and found no such thing because it's scientifically impossible. And as I told a backlit can only be created if the sun is behind the object and not otherwise. The sun was coming exactly from the direction the camera was filming the plane so how could there be a backlit then? IT CAN'T!

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 The plane only looks like it's at different angles because you're looking at it on a 2 dimensional screen, not accounting for depth. There are no contradictions.

watch?v=Q4vqOPXxwGo

watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain Look at the videos you've sent me, they show that the plane is coming from the other side and not a straight path or did that blank out from your head?

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 No they show ONE flight path. Never mind. You're not going to get it.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain Look at the video for crying out loud and notice how in the other videos the planes is not covered by a shadow. It's there just look at it please.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 The plane is in shadow in all the videos, but it only appears "black" when the camera is at the right angle and the plane is back-lit by the sky. Other camera angles would have different exposure settings.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain No it is not check out /watch?v=4q5nE-k0tUQ, also noticed that shen the plane has made contact from behind the building where its shady, the plane catches light. How's that even possible when in watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM it remained completely dark even when it was under the plume of smoke. You have not seen all the videos my friend that's why you writing immediately as I write to you without even thinking.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 Thank you for proving my point. Forgot about that clip, watch the extended version: watch?v=gb3F8paYOTE . Where do you see the sun when he pans the sky? You don't. You can only see it's bright glow BEHIND THE SMOKE, demonstrating that both the plane and the camera person are in the shadow of the smoke.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 The sun is behind the smoke. It would not be completely dark because of reflected ambient light. Have you ever been in the shade on a sunny day? It's not dark in there. You simply don't understand light, optics, or perspective enough to get it. I can tell you little to NO experience with photography or video.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 Only the right half of the plane emerges into the sunlight a fraction of a second before impact. This can be seen in all videos which have the right wing in view just before impact. I've seen them all.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain The one you sent me had more sunlight than this one because is this one it received sunlight more lately than the one you sent me. Also noticed that in the video you sent me the building has no shadow of the plane upon impact. How is that possible? It's not because it fake.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 Forget it. You're unable to understand.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain Fine then I won't force you friend. Be that way as you may but know this, the truth is in the video

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain Another question of the video you've sent me was that the plane was already dark before it came into the path of the smoke and none of the buildings not even those under the plane had the shadow of the smoke, another scientific error. Use your eyes carefully my friend and see what is wrong.

[saultrain]

@Honeyandmilk100 The Naka Nathaniel footage didn't catch the plane as early as the Park Foreman, plus he was further away and looks like was using an inferior camera. You can tell Foreman was using a higher-end 3 CCD camera.

[Honeyandmilk100]

@saultrain Who cares if your far away. If the entire lens is affected then the darkness should have also been seen on the buildings but it wasn't, it was completely colored in black instead of being covered in darkness like we see on rainy days.

[Xendrius]

@MJ4ever911 No it is not, there is clearer footage taken underneath and it is fully grey expect the tail section, this is a drone they used to similate hijackings with on 911.

[wllmdnldsn]

when u look up high at plane it looks smaller than it really is. But the man who saw it coming to him said it was a very big plane

[MJ4ever911]

oh no it is a missile with wings and its painted as a United Airlines so we believe it was an airplane!! ..... conspiracy idiots -.-'

[travelsonic]

@femr2 Yeah, the sun reflecting off of the paint.

[cosmicpreachers2]

good footage

watch?v=SUN0xEOp5kY

[jessicafischerqueen]

lol conspiracy retards

[bigbopper993]

How can anyone possibly buy into this being a real crash,,,,,,,when there is not an instantaneous explosion,,,,,,if it was real there would have been an explosion right on the impact wall,,,,,,,,not a half second delay and then an explosion 3/4 of the way across the adjacent wall,,,,,,,give me a break,,,,,,,,how stupid are people to believe that crap???

[bajesus666]

@bigbopper993 the aircraft fuselage was torn open after it entered the building, releasing fuel, then being ignited by a spark

[bigbopper993]

@bajesus666 Yo man,,,,,,look at the other angles of this supposed airliner crash,,,,,,,and watch a hollow aluminum fuselage,,,,,,,,,slide undamaged through massive steel box girders,,,this is an impossibility in our physical world,,,,,,,,the steel would have sliced right through any aluminum,,,,leaving pieces on the impact wall to fall to the ground,,,,the fact that there was none of that type of crash physics,,,,,,,,is a tell tale sign ,,,,that this was not a real crash of aluminum into steel

[bajesus666]

@bigbopper993 watch full videos, what do you think all that debris falling to the ground is?? strawberries???

[911letsroll]

and im sure if this were any other instance, other than 9/11. you would belive it was a united airlines plane. but because it relates to 9/11 it must be a drone. right??

[femr2]

The link above should help answer your question.

[911letsroll]

there is no evidence what so ever of a drone aircraft.

[femr2]

the911forum. freeforums. org/nist-s-ua175-impact-simula­tion-wrong-t181. html

[MrClayton174]

@femr2 my best friend lisa was on that flight!!and if u say this shit is fake fuck u!!!! she was very much real! she changed my diapers when i was a baby she was like a sister to me u fucker!

[Xendrius]

@911letsroll No evidence that it was a drone aircraft? There is 100 times more evidence for drone aircraft than passenger plane, for every person on 9/11 you show me that said they saw an airliner hit the WTC, I'll show you 10 that said it was a grey, markless, logos, grey military plane, I have the witnesses live on my channel. You fool.

[Xendrius]

@911letsroll There is no evidence whatsoever of a commercial aircraft, I got 10 amature witnesses from 9/11 saying it was no commercial plane, and 7 of them said it was a military plane with no windows, and we also have close up footage by rob howard, the plane is fully grey underneath, ua flight 175 is not.

[MJ4ever911]

@Xendrius Lol wtf? they found the 90% of the plane, and you are still ignoring that? I have talked to more than 50 conspiracy theroist, and by far you are the worst. I can't talk with you if you don't actually face the facts and just keep poping fake information.

[Xendrius]

@MJ4ever911 You believe anything do you? Everything was reduced to fine dust and indestructible engines and black boxes were not found but 90% of small pieces of aluminum parts were?

Show me your 90% pieces. I want evidence.

[MJ4ever911]

@Xendrius I do not believe anything, but I'm not an skeptic unlike you... you can't actually face NOTHING, I do believe a cop who saw how the WTC collapsed and hours later helped to clean the debris of the building and denied the existence of any explosive. Unlike you I have talked to witness and that's more valuable than anything you say.../watch?v=oSWjgqpxE3w it shows some of the parts of the plane... I mean what can I expect from a person who doesn't believe in his own eyes?

[Xendrius]

@MJ4ever911 HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, man you truly are stupid, "talked to a cop he denied existance of explosives", is he a microscope? I don't care who you talked to AFTER the official story was sold, I care what people on the day of 9/11 say, I got 10 witnesses from 911 saying the planes were military planes.

I don't care about those afterplanted "airliner" parts, I care what we have video footage for.

And the proof of explosives is the pyroclastic clouds and pools of molten metal.

[MJ4ever911]

@Xendrius Yeah well I have at least 20 who says there were commercial planes. I mean how idiot can you be? A friend lost his dad that day, he was on the first plane and what you are saying is that he never had a dad? His dad was a creation of the government and a fake passanger? Or maybe he was just kidnaped and killed later? You are a complete imbecile that don't believe what his eyes sees... what can I expect from you? 10 years and people still believe 9/11 was not an inside job.... keep it up

[Xendrius]

@MJ4ever911 Show me the video footage you moron, I aint stupid, I know the planes were drones as WE HAVE VIDEO FOOTAGE OF A PLANE WITH A SPLIT IN ITS MIDDLE, A POD ATTACHED, AND FULLY GREY BELLY.

SHOW me that footage.

9/11 wasnt planned over night, they made sure those 4 planes disappeared together with the people, thats why they had a hijack exercise, probably took over the planes by remote, and then had the fake calls made.

They did exactly what they planned to do in operation northwoods.

[MJ4ever911]

@Xendrius Lol you have VIDEO FOOTAGE OF A PLANE WITH A SPLIT IN ITS MIDDLE, A POD ATTACHED, AND FULLY GREY BELLY.... well great, the world knows at least 46 videos that shows commercial planes crashing into a building. You have to be an idiot to don't recognize the difference between a commercial and a military plane. You don't worry, because you are an idiot. so there's no need to see this difference. Hey you should fight for the Death Star truth. I think it was an inside job planed by D Vader.

[Xendrius]

@MJ4ever911 Yes, HQ video footage of many different angles on my channel, and people have eyes, Mark Birnbach said on 911 it was DEFINETELY no airliner, and that it had no windows, and he was asked again in 2004 and it said he stands by his statement, he worked for FOX at the time. And when I say I have the amature footage to prove it was a military plane, I mean it, footage comparision of a military plane and the plane on 911 shown in the same vid.

[MJ4ever911]

@Xendrius Jennifer Bodner, Richard and Cathy Brown, Ted Campanello, Dana Carey, Peter Collins, Carl Cunneff, Greg Dubinsky... And many other civilian witnesses saw commercial planes hitting they building, oh and guess what? They stand their statement.

[Xendrius]

@MJ4ever911 I said I want video footage of them saying it, right now 100% of the real amature video footage where people talk about the planes, they say it was no airliner. Seriously how ignorant can you be?

I said I want footage, I was able to get hold of 10 people saying it and recorded on that day, imagine how many more have not been recorded. I dont care about those who were paid later to say it was a airliner.

The video footage proves it was anything but an airliner.

[MJ4ever911]

@Xendrius 911myths(dot)com/index(dot)php­/The_Flights

What's the point of giving you information? Whatever it is you will say it's fake... it is funny how all what I say seems to be fake or orchestrated and you are the only one who holds the truth XD

In fact, one thing that I have noticed . . . is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid.”

You are a big lame.

[BoiJoe94]

I can see the UA logo on the tail.

[RuffleTheTeacher]

Well, you shouldn't go pissing off the other children with your "thinking and logic".... how dare you!

...will do.

[RuffleTheTeacher]

Ahhh! It is shadow and return from dark to light... not a flash of ignition of some sort.

The shadow is from the plane flying below the smoke cloud. Now, weather or not the sun would have been high enough to produce this effect is unknown. But this would be a reasonable conclusion for the shadow.

[femr2]

There's still some odd optical behaviour, but I agree that the smoke is the primary cause of the shadowing. Well worth watching the clip in slow-mo offline.

[MTStingray]

Thanks!

Oh, I did think of one possible thing that could have made the plane dark for a period of time. The smoke coming out of the first hit tower could have created a large enough shadow to cover the plane. Just an observation I made, but I still think it's unlikely that smoke created that look.

[femr2]

Well it's a very sensible suggestion, that I have to say is more than probably the actual cause, given the SE wind direction.

I'll get around to adding the smoke in my models, and see in what region the aircraft would become shadowed by it, but I think you hit the nail on the head.

[MTStingray]

I agree, it appears to have been edited out at that part to keep us from knowing something. Someone will say that it becomes dark because it rolls a little to the left, making it darker for the camera. But take the tail wing into account. If the plane rolled slightly to the left, we would still see a portion of the side of the tail wing, because of how much higher it is than the fusalage. However, you can tell it's edited out too, along with the whole fusalage. Someones keeping us out.

[onlycooler1021]

maybe its some kind of failed Hologram...

[electrique527]

Is it just me, or is the plane not touching the columns in the centre at all? Maybe the left engine touched it, but the right engine doesnt leave the building, so those did not have much energy at all ... ?

[johnnyblaze213]

Keep doing what you're doing...

[uheardmebitch]

it looks less like a 767 than my middle leg

[johnnyblaze213]

Wow... You posted this 1 minute ago and it's already saying "This video is no longer available"... wtf

[femr2]

Give it another whirl. It is probably still processing. YT also does that when your connection is a bit slow.

[onlycooler1021]

Nice footage. Do you know why the "plane" becomes black @ 0:04 ? you can also see

very clear that the planes just glides into the building without damaging it, it explodes when it is fully dissapeared into the building very strange...