So, after the missile hit, when they created the rest of the plane shaped holes with explosives that somehow weren't affected by the missile strike, how did the explosives pull those columns inward to their breaking point?
Watch clip below and note how the plane-shaped hole is created AFTER the "plane" enters the building. My opinion: The exact location of the impact strike and explosives were planned before-hand. The impact pulled the columns inward.
The impact of "whatever" struck the building pulled the columns inward. From the video clip I just posted, there were intact columns after the "plane image" had entered the building. We then see an explosion which creates the plane shaped hole. By hole, I mean there are no columns there, blown in or out.
@muzicmaker2001 "The impact of "whatever" struck the building pulled the columns inward."
Again, you mean pushed, not pulled, right? Impacts don't pull things.
"From the video clip I just posted, there were intact columns"
In the clip you posted, the arrow isn't even pointing to the hole. There were 8 intact columns to the right of the hole until the building fell. You can see this easily.
@muzicmaker2001 Hey dipshit, check out this video, at 1:39. You can clearly see what you're calling a 'gash,' which is in reality smoke pouring out of the window, blown to our left by the strong wind. You can see it clearly, as you can see when the smoke clears that it's not a hole, the columns are still intact. Well, there goes another twooftard theory. Don't bother replying unless it's to say you admit you were wrong. Buh bye.
Uhh, nobrain. Did you notice the wind direction? I can help. Its away from the gash. But, somehow, this "rogue" smoke decided to go in the opposite direction of the wind? And this smoke just happened to be in a narrow shape sort of like a black moustache. Hmm. A completely different shape (and color) from the rest of the smoke cloud? Was this a joke? Keep the laughs coming. Please think before you post. And I shouldn't bother posting on MY own page? More laughs..thanx
Yes every bit of smoke on the impact face is blowing to our left. The wind is blowing from WNW. Did you miss that in the video? Should the smoke have gone towards the wind? Opposite of all the other smoke on the same face? Um...
"And this smoke just happened to be in a narrow shape sort of like a black moustache."
? Is this a new theory? The 911 twoof mustache theory? Cool!
@muzicmaker2001 "Hmm, can I get back to you with this one? "
Sure, take your time. Watch the video and think about it. Then tell me, in the video I posted what direction is the wind blowing on the impact face? Left, or... right? You won't answer this, because you avoid specifics at all costs. It's the whole premise of being a twoofer. You really can't see any other black smoke in the video? Weird.
I do like your 911 mustache theory though, I hadn't heard that one yet.
The video is right above us, remember? And there's no need to watch it again or think about it anymore. First, I love how the smoke moves against the obvious direction of the wind. But wait, there’s more. And then this “smoke” fails to acknowledge the force of the wind and stays in that position for about a couple of seconds. Brilliant!! That is enough for me. Thanks for your input though..
@muzicmaker2001 - I told you you wouldn't answer a simple question. You're as predictable as you are ignorant.
"First, I love how the smoke moves against the obvious direction of the wind."
What? All of the smoke on the North face is CLEARLY moving to the left. This is undeniable, even for a reality challenged moron like you. Ask ten random strangers to watch the video, 10 out of 10 will answer the same way. I can't even believe you're acting like you can't see it.
Yes. Of the 39 people that voted on this clip, only 8 agree with you, right? So, I think its time to move on to the next 911 clip where the majority disagrees with you also...
@muzicmaker2001 "Of the 39 people that voted on this clip, only 8 agree with you, right?"
Those people weren't voting on whether the smoke was going left or right. You and I both know that. You're the ONLY ONE who watches this clip and think the smoke is going right. The only one. All of the smoke on the impact face is clearly going to the left. Even you know this, but for some reason you can't admit it. It's ok.
The video above is crap quality, as are all your videos. It's like you rely on the blurriness to obscure detail. Kind of like your vague posts, where you can't answer whether the smoke is going left or right, or if two clips are the same footage modified. You refuse to take a stand.
/watch?v=tVo9JorURws&feature=r%C2%ADelated
In this clip, at 1:39, you really can't tell that your 'evil mustache gash' is smoke? Really?
They show me a picture of a building with a gash, and then they show me another picture of a buliding with a gash, and then they ask me, "where did the gash go?" Wha? Is this some kind of a joke?
What a profoundly stupid video. This is what UFO nuts do. They blow up videos to the point of grainy blurriness, then analyse 'details'. It's more of an analysis of video artifacts than of any object.
To answer your question, it looks like a shadow, although it could also be a superficial gash in the aluminum cladding. The damaged cladding above might have slipped down with time and increasing stress to 'close the gash'.
Or it could just be a video artifact. I'm voting for that!!
TO MANY things happened for the FIRST time in the history of construction and Physics on 911,the useless governments story was poorly planned,as usual.
This is the internet. There is no way to prove your statement. There are so many people that lie on here just to defend the 911 lie. Wreckage doesn't prove anything unless it is verified. The location and condition of the engine found actually points to a cover-up. Also, experts have analyzed the engine and stated that it's not from a 767.
@muzicmaker2001. Ok I understand that but I know that I personally have seen plane wreckage from that day along with building, car an clothing remains
There is no official verification of any of the wreckage from any of the planes involved on 911. Here's a supposed engine from Flight 11.
watch?v=c7Jo8vpeekU
Ok, it went thru two steel walls of the WTC, traveled 3 blocks, fell 1000 ft and slammed onto the street below. It was found fairly intact with no apparent damage to it or the street below. Time to use your head? Its all about confirmation, not just blindly believing you see on TV in which you are doing.
I could not determine what technical issues you refer to, that supports the 9/11 conspiracy theories. However you have shown to be incompetent in supporting or documenting your videos.
Is there some one else in your 9/11 Conspiracy Organization that can intelligently explain events for the rest of the World?
@muzicmaker2001. What part of I KNOW PEOPLE THAT WHERE THERE didn't you get??? Everything from citizens, to firefighters, to emt's so I guess there all wrong to then
I have posed this question many times to debunkers with no response. Post just 15 witnesses of the WTC planes recorded live on 911 with no connection to the media or government. This would be your normal citizens walking by. With an approx population of 9 million people in NYC, this should be easy enough. Good luck. Here's people that didn't see a plane. This is called proof..not just me talking, ok?
@muzicmaker2001. First off you just made yourself sound even stupider by saying that, but incase you didn't know manhattan on a beautiful morning around rush hour obviously there's going to be thousands of people around, an no I don't believe everything I see on tv but I know what I watched happen live on tv an on top of that I know people that were there, so your telling me that they didn't see it either??
I wasn't looking for your opinion, I was looking for actual proof? Everything you see on TV is not real, ok? And I don't think "stupider" is a word Einstein.
Ya umm that's not proof dumbass, so how do you explain the thousands of people that watched it happen? Like I said were you there? Or even watch the plane hit on tv?
Using the same logic, where's the proof that thousands of people watched it happened. Only in your mind? And do you believe everything you see on TV? It seems you do. You seem to have a big problem with simple logic. Maybe its time to go back to the Nascar or WWE pages?
No life my friend, like seriously don't you have anything better to do with your time then this?? Oh and dis respect the lives lost on that day? Get a new hobby!!
I have no life but you are here again? And asking questions about events that don't make logical sense is not disrespecting anyone. That's just ignorance. Try again.
Honestly!!! What kind of fucking total complete moron listens to and believes this crap? How much of a lobotomy does one need to see a passenger jet hit a building on live television. Shot by 100 press photographers. And then spend their time looking at crappy compressed videos which drop frames left and right and put together 18 part videos proclaiming... "NO PLANE THEORY!!"
To the idiot who put this together. Dude you aint joining Mensa any time soon. Trust me.
@muzicmaker2001 Oh hey you again. Yawn!! Trust me!!? I have friends in New York who witnessed this as it happened. Are you another of these "No Plane" Whacks? The only thing i have to say to you is that i feel sorry for you.
1. As with all of the planes involved on 911, none of the wreckage has been officially verified to be from the registered flights
2.Post just 15 witnesses (out of 9 million people in NYC) recorded LIVE on 911 with no connection to the media or government that saw the WTC planes. At this point, most shills...errr..debunkers will make excuses but will continue to rant.
@muzicmaker2001 LOL!!! like WTF???!!! What is it like having a sub par IQ? Oh yeah!! Every single person that day was a government plant paid to witness the planes and then tow the party line. I can only say i feel very sorry for you. The level of rampant paranoia you show is fairly startling. But then that is normal for you truthers ain't it? Concerned about the pages i visit? I would be more concerned about the clinical paranoia you exhibit. Its quite sad really.
You've tried on other 911 pages with no luck, huh? Why not give this one a try? An official verification of any wreckage and 15 witnesses recorded live on 911 with no connection to the media or government?
@muzicmaker2001 ROFL!!!! Tried?? like WTF!!!?? Dude you are so lame it's beyond belief. What kind of a brain has an inability to look at 50 odd randomly shot videos of this event and somehow have a "Problem" with what you are looking at. ?? Its a couple notches past pathetic. Its really sad actually. Don't bother me anymore!! You're a fucking idiot!!!
Just repeating ROFL, LOL, Yawn and WTF are not exactly the evidence I was looking for? And didn't you come to my page with yet another desperate attempt to spread lies?
@muzicmaker2001 If nothing you are incredibly entertaining, i will give you that. Evidence you were looking for??? OMG!!. Desperate attempt to spread lies??? LOL!!! I am sorry!!! NO ONE!!! I MEAN NO ONE!!! is this stupid. You have got to be kidding me!!!?? Do you honestly spend your time pushing this "NO PLANE" agenda??? I guess people like Dave Bottiglia (air traffic controller following 175) have no fucking clue what they are doing eh??
As I just showed, you tour multiple 911 pages spreading disinfo. Try this bs somewhere else. It's not working here, ok? Or you could actually provide some evidence? Crazy, huh?
@muzicmaker2001 Crazy huh? Spreading disinfo??? LOL!! (You're amazing!!) I don't know what level of lobotomy you and your mental midgets of the Truth movement currently operate under. PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE???? Are you fucking kidding me? I am not the fool who discredits Hundreds of randomly shot videos from that day. If you want to talk about 'DISINFO" perhaps you need to start by looking in the mirror. Who are you kidding pal?
@muzicmaker2001 LOL!!! Yeah I am well aware of what i post. Evidence?????!!! What kind of brain looks at 50 odd randomly shot videos of this event and somehow cant pull....PLANE.. CRASH out of it?? You have got to be kidding me. You're the only one showing up to the party in a costume
wiki/File:WtcUA175debris.jpg
Its so easy to get 767 wreckage on to the sub roof top of surrounding buildings isn't it? That was an easy plant.
A photo of debris proves what exactly. Try this. The official verification of ANY of the wreckage from ANY of the four planes? 911 shills are hilarious and pathetic...that's you.
@muzicmaker2001 Shill??!!!! Like WTF!! Yeah I am on Cheney's payroll. I work for the CIA. Why are you people so threatened by someone calling you out on all of your fucking retarded bullshit?? And you know it is. Give me a fucking break man what kind of a lobotomized human being are you. ??? If you want to call that Shill or your favorite.. "DISINFO AGENT" Go right ahead. I know what reality is. Do you?
With all of the other 911 pages you visited daily, how do you even have time for this? This is a very busy campaign you are on here defending 911 on YT, huh?
Dude you are a fucking idiot, thousands of people that day saw the planes hit those towers an thousands lost there lives as a result of it... Were you there? Did you watch it happen live, or atleast live on tv? I'm willing to bet not. So instead of your accusations about what happent that on one of the most horrible days in americas history you just keep your beliefs to your self.
I'm not surprised by your response. As has always proved consistent with no-planers--the "theory" cannot be refuted, because any evidence to the contrary can (and will) simply be dismissed as fake (which, by a scientific definition, is no theory at all). It's exactly like trying to argue against religion--there's always the out that "God wills it that way". I guess I could wade through hours of footage for clips that meet your EXACT criteria--but what a waste of time--you are beyond reasoning.
If the person is not seen talking, how do we know they are even there? These are called a voice overs. They will take any footage from 911 and implant someone's voice in it possibly discussing how they saw the planes, smelled jet fuel, how they heard no explosions, etc. These are used as video tools in a desperate attempt to refute the conspiracy theory. They are all over YT as you just discovered.
"If the person is not seen talking, how do we know they are even there?"
Add if the person IS shown--then he/she is an actor right? Weren't they all actors-the witnesses being shown on TV describing what they saw? Either way, the "fakery theory" prevails. Your challenge is meaningless. You simply dismiss ALL audio evidence (as possible voice actors) if you can't SEE the person talking? Ridiculous, but expected.
Just 15 witnesses of the WTC planes recorded live on 911 with no connection to the media or government. I thought it was obvious that the witnesses should be seen talking. But it seems we have more witnesses of explosions heard and felt in the Towers than those who saw the planes? How can this be? Simple. The explosions are real and the planes are fake.
How about this--find just ONE amateur video clip of what really happened, i.e., someone with a CLEAR shot of the explosion with camera in a position to have captured the incoming plane, but with no plane in the shot. We have over 50 clips showing a plane, none showing what "really" happened. Mega-compressed, ultra low resolution clips don't count.
@muzicmaker2001 HA HA! It's a resolution problem. But you can see the wings and engine in the close-up just as it moves behind the building. Nice try though.
I thought you were going to say it was due to smoke again. Ok here's the reality. A 767 has a wingspan of approx. 150 ft. The width of Towers was approx. 200 ft. That ball doesn't have a wingspan of even 100 ft when compared to the Tower's width. Wait. That ball doesn't even have wings. LOL. Hilarious. Desperation strikes again..
@muzicmaker2001 I am kind of partial to the NO BRAIN theory!! The one that afflicts the "TRUTH" movement. The symptoms include seeing 767's with no wings and missing engines, heck!! even missing planes replaced by holograms. Posting lousy compressed videos and having an inability to discern dropped frames for missing plane parts!!
There is not much anyone can do to help the NO BRAINERS. If you see one offer assistance. They need it.
" I guess I could wade through hours of footage for clips that meet your EXACT criteria"
Here are the witnesses that did not see a plane again. Use the same criteria. Either thier face should shown talking or their name should be given. Go ahead..
Anybody who actually believes that there were no planes on 9/11 and that the gashes in the buildings were faked are delusional, completely out of touch with reality nutjobs. In fact to claim that there were no planes is so ridiculous its laughable!
A shadow usually follows the general size, shape and movement of the object being cast. That thin "moustache" looking gash does not follow the smoke and fire.
roquefortfiles stated: "How much of an idiot does a person have to be to see this event video taped and photographed from probably over 60 different locations and angles by all manner of random New Yorkers"
60 different locations? No, that is incorrect. There is only one known clip of Flight 11. With Flight 175, there's just more than a dozen clips and most are shown in the clip below. Compare the flight paths, they don't comply with each other.
@muzicmaker2001, Why don't you explain to me how tons of jet fuel managed to end up on multiple floors at the WTC, which by the way was the cause of the resulting fires? Or better yet explain how aircraft parts like an engine and other pieces of airplane wreckage ended up on the streets near the WTC? See the problem with your idiotic claims is that people on the streets of manhatten saw the planes hit those buildings with their own eyes and not on a tv screen.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@muzicmaker2001, The jet fuel ignited multiple floors which reached temps as high as 1000c, it wouldn't have mattered if the jet fuel burned off quickly because the fire still managed to burn hot enough to significantly weaken the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where the floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2.
Did you measure the temp (1000C) of the jet fuel yurself? Otherwise, how do you know this? And again, which version do you believe?
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC (480ºF). Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC (1110ºF)." (p 140)-NIST
@muzicmaker2001, If you want to continue making a total fool of yourself by claiming that there were no planes on 9/11 then go ahead! I can't argue with someone as out of touch with reality as you are!
Engine-I think this is the engine you are refering to?
watch?v=c7Jo8vpeekU
Let's examine the scenario, ok? This engine went thru two steel walls of the WTC, traveled 3 blocks, fell 800-1000 feet and slammed onto the street below. It was found fairly intact with no significant damage to the street below or the engine itself. How do you feel about logic?
@muzicmaker2001, "A tremendous fireball, flaming debris, pieces of airplane, fuselage, landing gear, pieces of the building. We started running down one of the little side streets, Courtlandt or Dey". FDNY Captain Michael Donavan.
"As we approached West Broadway, a NYPD lieutenant told us we could not proceed due to aircraft parts blocking the road" PAPD Det. Robert Fuchs.
"Various pieces of the plane were falling on the street" FDNY Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick
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!!
..come on.... You havent heard of building immune system? Thats how they built them back in the day. They just dont make em like they used to. A gash....ffft. No problem. Building heals itself. Nowadays? Buildings just collapse b/c they SEE other buildings collapse. Like wtc 7(cuz it was built much later.) IF it wasn't for those bombs inside the twin towers. that entire opening would've been closed up w/in hours- by the buildings own structural immune system.
The majority of the clips posted on my page are just raw video evidence. So, the videos are lies? Again, I can't take you seriously due to your obvious agenda.
I thought i was crazy but i to have started to notice the little black drones that fly by around the time of the strikes. Hell you can even see a laser from a few angles of the second hit.
NO ONE in the right mind would think something that quiet would be a jet liner going 500 mph. WE can hear them when they at 20k feet when they going that fast. IT WOULD BE SO INCDREDIBLLY LOUD. SO LOUD. Its just so funny how people cant understand that.
I still can't believe most people don't see and hear the reconnaissance drone fly by after all these years. Wow, I didn't know AL QUAEDA owned a fleet of recon drones.
You idiots! May you all be cursed for not standing up for those who died and going after the real killers.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If anybody DOESN'T believe that planes really hit the buildings, THEIR heads were and still ARE in the sand. STUPIDITY is what your spreading. Just kill yourselves, and eliminate your stupid genes from the gene pool. Do the rest of us, living in REALITY, a favor.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Q: Parts of the building's exterior framework are still there, where there should be nothing.
A: An airplane has struts and voids in the wings, just like the walls in your house. The building's exterior is steel, and wings are aluminum. The Struts are fairly strong, and could knock out framework in the building. The most of the wing is sheet aluminum, and very weak. The steel building would tear the wings to shreds, literally.
uhh, hold up. i thought u said he did react? and obviously, u haven't watched the impacts. the aluminum planes enter the steel building like hot knife thru butter. ur an idiot..
@seeknthetruth , was a cruise missile my friend. Alex Jones did a great piece with a leading architect from Texas who describes the building in detail. Very fascinating listening to this guy talk. Anyway, long story short, he describes how the plane would have bounced off the side of the building. Aluminum going into steel, not vice versa! Besides, it was a bunker buster type missile. Most sources think a JSSAM missile. They are incredible.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Are you lost in your own imagination? Your head is crosswired and duct taped together. You've been hosed worse than anyone that "believes" planes were really there. "Still intact after impact" and "explosion" are words you used, like the guy who didn't turn around to see the plane. Watch in order. The guy isn't seen turning around, because he's behind a FIREMAN! The plane hits, and there is a FIREBALL, and a HOLE shaped like a fuckin plane.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The idea that there weren't even planes hitting the buildings is fabricated worse than the 9/11 report. You all are retarded. How could a CGI plane be edited into live feeds from news reports, and ALL PERSONAL recorders there at the time? HOW? There's NO WAY! That's how. It would be easier to really hit a building with a plane than it would be to explain to the Port Authority guard on duty WHY some MF is carrying thousands of lbs of explosives to the 87th floor.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The hole that was "drawn into" the video was a FLAMING FIREBALL just before it was a "hole". If any of you really need to know what happened that day, GO TO FUCKIN NEW YORK AND ASK SOMEONE. GET OFF THE COMPUTER. This guy filming the shot COULD NOT HAVE EDITED this. You all are neck deep in stupid. You eat stupid flakes and wash 'em down with a big ol' glass of Dumbfuck juice first thing every morning if you really believe this is fake. All the cameras there that day saw the SAME FUCKIN THING!!!!
A flaming fireball? Hardly. This clip below explains the "1st plane crash" in more depth. Note how the plane shaped hole is formed; sections of the building are still intact after impact and disappear with the explosion (pre-planed charges). Welcome to reality..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@muzicmaker2001 Really? I need someone else to describe it to me? Didn't you see it for yourself? Better yet, are you going to try to tell the people that were there that they are wrong? Are you off your medication? I watched it LIVE on TV, as well as did MILLIONS of other Americans, and your arguement is totally ridiculous. Even if it was an inside job, HOW IN THE HELL would someone FAKE THIS? Plane hits, *BLAM*. Easy.
@muzicmaker2001 The "gash" is smoke. It's too bad you tv fakery Shack disciples don't actually do any real investigating yourselves--just taking you master's word as truth. If you're too slow to surmise that it's probably black smoke coming from a hole seen in all the other footage (since it makes NO sense to add a photo-shopped "gash" to ONE clip and not any of the others)--here's an idea--why not look for a closer angle of the "gash" filmed at the same time? Try this one:
Yes, the clip you posted is a clear attempt to cover up the original error, but the damage is already done. But using simple logic: In the above clip, note how a massive cloud of smoke flows with the wind direction from right to left. Was this "gash looking smoke" some sort of rogue smoke that traveled against the wind? Let me know.. And here's another error in audio editing with the famous Hezarkhani shot. Your explanation?
@muzicmaker2001 The clip I posted is closer, higher resolution footage of the same occurrence of black smoke billowing from a hole at the edge of the tower. It's obviously smoke. You suggest by saying the wind blows from "right to left" that it's blowing in an easterly direction.The angle is deceptive. The wind was blowing to the south that day, directly over the south tower--making it perfectly logical that smoke coming from the west side of the impact hole would be carried back into the hole.
Yes, before 911, smoke actually followed the normal wind direction. The wind direction is easily determined by following the bigger smoke cloud. But, here's some questions. Why is this "smoke" a completely different color (black) than the other smoke and in the shape of a narrow gash? Also, in this video clip, the plane impact damage appears AFTER the impact. How is this possible?
@muzicmaker2001 Smoke can change color for many reasons depending on what's burning, the amount of oxygen available, and how much moisture is present. If there were sprinkler systems that came on, the smoke would turn white from water vapor.
Big fires can cause all kinds of funky drafts since they consume so much oxygen. Wind direction is only one factor. Regardless--it makes no sense that "they" would create a fake gash on ONE video clip, ignoring all others. Smoke makes much more sense.
You speak as if you were actually there? The gash seems to be created to compensate for the wingspan of the plane as was the preplanted explosives that went off after impact. There were many mistakes made the perps on 911 and this happened to be one of them. It's near impossible to fake a plane crash without an actual plane involved (Pentagon, Shanksville, WTCs). Thus, the conspiracy and the people here paid to defend the OV. Welcome.
@muzicmaker2001 You're delusional--a genuine "true believer" of the religious ilk. The Jim Huibregtse clip shows exactly what happened as clear as can be, yet you still deny, dodge and weave. Do you ever admit it when shown to be mistaken? The "gash" cover-up theory is preposterous. Complete nonsense. Look up "confirmation bias", then sit for awhile in a quiet place and contemplate.
I'm having a hard time trusting someone with an obvious agenda to defend the 911 lie. See a pattern to all of your pages visited or is it just a coincidence? You disinfo agents crack me up. Don't you that the fact that you have to be here only opens the door further to a cover-up?
911 AMATEUR
Rooftop view of 2nd plane hitting South Tower, loud boom...
Naudet tape black gash on WTC tower exposed.
Analysis of "Ball" Footage on NBC - Richard D Hall
@muzicmaker2001 Also--it makes sense that there would be a draft being sucked into the impact hole since the fire from the explosion would be sucking up oxygen.
@muzicmaker2001 What does the Hezarkhani clip have to do with this video?
If CNN edited the audio for replay, I guess you have proof that the audio was edited. Does that prove that the original clip is fake? What if it was an unintentional error? The networks were rushing to air numerous clips as they became available, you would expect some errors in editing. Why would they air both versions if they were trying to deceive the public? When you find some genuine proof of fakery, let us know.
"at does the Hezarkhani clip have to do with this video?"
Its called editing. Yes, CNN edited the audio in a live clip and Hezarkhani came into the studio to add his voice several different ways in several places. That makes perfect sense. Please stop.
In the Hezarkhani clip, he says different things at different times in the supposed same video. This obviously means there are different versions of the same video (re-recording). And can you tell me why would you edit this clip at all?
@muzicmaker2001 It's the same audio--just a few seconds were cut out--sounds like they edited out the word "shit". The OMG is the same except it's cut off. A seamless sounding audio edit of that sort is simple with so much chaotic noise--cut out a piece, and then cross-fade at the cut. Why would they do it? Who knows. Perhaps it's just because of the "shit". As I said this proves nothing except that the audio was edited. It doesn't prove the original video is fake. Nothing fake about it.
I don't take anything you say seriously. This is just entertainment. All disinfo agents know for a fact that every aspect of the official version is true. So, from the start, there is a problem. How could they possibly know this? Back to reality: There is no reason for CNN (or Hezarkhani) to make 3 different edits of the same clip. Good luck on your campaign to defend the 911 lie.
@muzicmaker2001 I've never said anything about the "official version" of 9/11--not one reference. Why do you presume to know what I believe? Do you always see everything as so black and white? That's a "True Believer" symptom (look it up). I'm saying if you have something to prove--then prove it. A video clip that has had the audio edited, doesn't PROVE the original clip is fake. Is it suspicious? That would be subjective depending on one's bias. But the fact is--you DON'T KNOW.
The official version is that two planes hit the WTCs and that is what you are defending, right? And you are incorrect. The facts are: "WE" DON'T KNOW.
@muzicmaker2001 That's one part of the official story--the part filmed by over 50 camera's, captured by numerous still cameras, and seen by many witnesses. Yes I am defending that fact. I've yet to see ONE credible piece of evidence demonstrating fake planes or video "fakery"--not ONE. It's all misunderstandings, misinterpretations, video compression artifacts, parallax, perspective distortion, etc. The no-planes theory is nonsense. Simon Shack is its most idiotic proponent.
First, there are only just more than a dozen video shots of Flight 175. There is only one known shot of Flight 11 from the Naudet Bros. Next, the flight paths of Flight 175 do not match with the many "witness" shots.
@muzicmaker2001 Wrong--since the release of the NIST FOIA Cumulus Database, there are over 50 known different camera angles. Before that there were over 40. See them all at
911conspiracy dot tv/2nd_hit dot html.
The flight paths are consistent if you know what you're looking at:
watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ
watch?v=-K-WjsHa_2k
You're witness challenge is absurd. Watch "102 Minutes that Changed America" to see/hear just a FEW of the many witnesses filmed.
It doesn't seem weird at all that more shots of the planes are coming out. Funny. So, last questions. If you're not a disinfo agent, why do you care if anyone believes the conspiracy? Why do you travel multiple 911 YT pages on your campaign? It should be obvious that you are not changing anything here so what's your motive? The reality is people are now using thier heads and waking up to the truth and new footage (NIST) is not going to change anything.
The straight line approach vs. the decline approach vs. the lower angle all from the same plane? Also, the news chopper/elevated shots. All show the Towers in the EXACT same perspective. The clip below shows five DIFFERENT shots of Flight 175 overlayed onto one another and they fit perfectly. For this to be possible, all choppers/cameras had to be in the exact same position in the 17 minute time window between the first impact and second.
On the "Matrix" shot--it's a complete misunderstanding of the laws of perspective.The farther you are from an object--the less it will appear to change in perspective as you move.All those "matrix" angles were filmed from at least two or more miles away and zoomed-in.It's fallacious to look only at the towers to "match" perspectives". Differences in parallax are too subtle to notice. You have to also take into account objects in the foreground and background to determine angle.
LOL. Five shots showing the exact same perspective. This is not that complicated. This means five cameras were in relatively the same location in the 17 minute window between the first and second impact. And noting that the top of the Tower is visible, all shots must be from a chopper or higher elevation. Ok, five choppers in the same location in 17 minutes (or) one shot made to look like five shots? Obviously, its the latter.
For example--I have thoroughly refuted your (Shack's) assertion that the two NBC clips shown in "WTC No Plane Theory (Part 4)" are from the exact same angle (Matrix). See why here:
watch?v=32uRDI0-wGc
watch?v=lgY4Qsch8M8
Yet I know you will find a way to rationalize away Shack's obvious error.
'I have thoroughly refuted your (Shack's) assertion"
Actually, you have not. Note how the same amount of roof top is shown in all "matrix' clips. This is evident because the "white knob" on the right side of the roof is clearly visible and it is not smoke. It seems all anomalies can be explained by smoke? LOL. Here's chopper footage showing the EXACT perspective as all matrix shots and your supposed Empire State footage.
Cool. That is the same response I get from all disinfo agents. But I've heard them claim that hundreds, thousands, even millions of people witnessed the WTC planes, but all have absolutely no evidence to back any of that up. Here's some witnesses recorded live on 911...but they didn't see a plane. How do you miss a massive low flying 767 in NYC (Air Force One flyover??)? You don't.
@muzicmaker2001 "but all have absolutely no evidence to back any of that up" Here's a few clips: watch?v=gIWOtQGumhQ watch?v=l07sjL1lmUY watch?v=UVJUM4sL4h8 watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o watch?v=4RwY9R5KTA8 watch?v=g9JerQC9Sl0 (towards end of clip) watch?v=hxqXaa3K09w watch?v=ksYBQZ_jqFY watch?v=sFSfWVfOLN0 watch?v=mIGRuKepHak watch?v=DIJNXf4yRT4 watch?v=AI_0Yo5t2Zo
1. The clips must either show the person's face talking when describing the plane (David Vogler clips, Ed Peterman clips, NYU dorm room, "Not an American Airlines", Mike Toole, 102 Minutes That Changed America ) or their name in the clip. Otherwise, it could just be a simple voice over in which I've seen many on YT.
I have posed this question to many disinfo agents like yourself and none have responded. Find just 15 valid witnesses recorded live on 911 of the WTC planes with no connection to the media or government. Just your average folks walking by. With nearly 9 million people in NYC and this being one of if not the worst attack on US soil, this should be an easy task, right?
"what plane?" is right. considering the time when the fdny react, you would think that the guy in the blue shirt should react to a low flying plane coming straight at him, but he doesn't even flinch.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It's only TOTALLY OBVIOUS that EVERYONE didn't turn around until the plane was AUDIBLE, and at THAT POINT, he was BEHIND THE FIREMAN! HE MAY VERY WELL HAVE FELL DOWN THE MANHOLE, WHO KNOWS! When everyone else reacted, he was OUT OF VIEW! yOU CONSPIRACY THEORISTS are retarded! Isn't there a big fuckin hole, and footage of a PLANE HITTING THE FUCKIN building? I can't believe I'm even responding to this retarded BULLSHIT! If you watch this video, don't you see a FUCKIN PLANE? What's wrong with you?
Anyone who believes aeroplanes brought down the twin towers has their head in the sand. How many people saw planes hit the towers? Why aren't they on the web in all their might complaining? One thing is for sure. A lot of innocent people were murdered that day, and it wasn't by Ossma Bin Laden.
Well, my cousin's wife was supposed to be working on the first plane that hit the towers and she was, at the last minute, and yes, her co workers all died on that plane. Everyone who saw them were interviewed by news media all over the place at the time. I'm sure they don't spend hours on the net anymore, because they actually have lives to live now, jobs to go to, families to raise, etc. And the attack wasn't by one person. It was by a group of people.
The big question is how do you miss (see? hear?) a massive 767 when you're directly under the Towers? Can you find just 15 witnesses (no connection to the media/government) recorded live on 911 that DID see the WTC planes? This should be an easy task considering that thousands people saw the planes, right?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Same old TIRED videos of cherry picked quotes
Unreliable sources 1/2 truths and outright lies
BUT if you eel so strongly about this SHIT you call evidence I suggest that you take it to the Manhattan courthouse where Khalid Sheik Mohammad is going to be tried and present it as evidence for his defense
Im sure he will get off despite having admitted his masterminding of 9/11 thanks to your "evidence of an inside job"
You haven't watched all videos by the Naudet bros. My cousin's wife was supposed to be a stewardess on the first one. That was her normal, daily flight, from Boston to LA. Her flight was changed at the last minute. She lost co workers and friends that day. As for them not spending all their time on here complaining, many haven't even HEARD of this stupid theory. The rest have real lives to live and unlike those who spend all of their time on here,they actually have productive things to do
Naudet´s video was staged: Leslie Raphael, Serendipity.li
Inigo37 5 days ago
The planes was TOTALLY REAL, like the full plenty of bombs towers and the three nuclear underground explosions that cause the pulverize the towers.
Inigo37 2 weeks ago
You are still peddling your snake oil Twofer theories, Muzak.
Have you gotten any buyers?
nevillechamberlain1 1 month ago
So, after the missile hit, when they created the rest of the plane shaped holes with explosives that somehow weren't affected by the missile strike, how did the explosives pull those columns inward to their breaking point?
nobraintheory 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@nobraintheory
Watch clip below and note how the plane-shaped hole is created AFTER the "plane" enters the building. My opinion: The exact location of the impact strike and explosives were planned before-hand. The impact pulled the columns inward.
watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 "The impact pulled the columns inward."
The impact of the plane? I suppose you mean the impact of the missile, and 'pushed' the columns inward, not pulled. Anyway, you said:
"the plane-shaped hole is created AFTER the "plane" enters the building"
But you also said:
"The impact pulled the columns inward."
Can't have it both ways. The broken, pushed in columns, are the hole. Explosives after impact would push the columns out. This is silly...
nobraintheory 1 month ago
@nobraintheory
The impact of "whatever" struck the building pulled the columns inward. From the video clip I just posted, there were intact columns after the "plane image" had entered the building. We then see an explosion which creates the plane shaped hole. By hole, I mean there are no columns there, blown in or out.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "The impact of "whatever" struck the building pulled the columns inward."
Again, you mean pushed, not pulled, right? Impacts don't pull things.
"From the video clip I just posted, there were intact columns"
In the clip you posted, the arrow isn't even pointing to the hole. There were 8 intact columns to the right of the hole until the building fell. You can see this easily.
Where did the hole go?
/watch?v=_0qWJI5WxFk
watch?v=a8sawu1L2ok&feature=related
nobraintheory 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 Hey dipshit, check out this video, at 1:39. You can clearly see what you're calling a 'gash,' which is in reality smoke pouring out of the window, blown to our left by the strong wind. You can see it clearly, as you can see when the smoke clears that it's not a hole, the columns are still intact. Well, there goes another twooftard theory. Don't bother replying unless it's to say you admit you were wrong. Buh bye.
/watch?v=tVo9JorURws&feature=related
nobraintheory 1 month ago
@nobraintheory
Uhh, nobrain. Did you notice the wind direction? I can help. Its away from the gash. But, somehow, this "rogue" smoke decided to go in the opposite direction of the wind? And this smoke just happened to be in a narrow shape sort of like a black moustache. Hmm. A completely different shape (and color) from the rest of the smoke cloud? Was this a joke? Keep the laughs coming. Please think before you post. And I shouldn't bother posting on MY own page? More laughs..thanx
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 - "Did you notice the wind direction?"
Yes every bit of smoke on the impact face is blowing to our left. The wind is blowing from WNW. Did you miss that in the video? Should the smoke have gone towards the wind? Opposite of all the other smoke on the same face? Um...
"And this smoke just happened to be in a narrow shape sort of like a black moustache."
? Is this a new theory? The 911 twoof mustache theory? Cool!
nobraintheory 1 month ago
@nobraintheory
"Should the smoke have gone towards the wind? "
Hmm, can I get back to you with this one? Funny stuff. Desperate and hilarious all at the same time...as always.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 "Hmm, can I get back to you with this one? "
Sure, take your time. Watch the video and think about it. Then tell me, in the video I posted what direction is the wind blowing on the impact face? Left, or... right? You won't answer this, because you avoid specifics at all costs. It's the whole premise of being a twoofer. You really can't see any other black smoke in the video? Weird.
I do like your 911 mustache theory though, I hadn't heard that one yet.
nobraintheory 1 month ago
@nobraintheory
The video is right above us, remember? And there's no need to watch it again or think about it anymore. First, I love how the smoke moves against the obvious direction of the wind. But wait, there’s more. And then this “smoke” fails to acknowledge the force of the wind and stays in that position for about a couple of seconds. Brilliant!! That is enough for me. Thanks for your input though..
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 - I told you you wouldn't answer a simple question. You're as predictable as you are ignorant.
"First, I love how the smoke moves against the obvious direction of the wind."
What? All of the smoke on the North face is CLEARLY moving to the left. This is undeniable, even for a reality challenged moron like you. Ask ten random strangers to watch the video, 10 out of 10 will answer the same way. I can't even believe you're acting like you can't see it.
nobraintheory 1 month ago
@nobraintheory
Yes. Of the 39 people that voted on this clip, only 8 agree with you, right? So, I think its time to move on to the next 911 clip where the majority disagrees with you also...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@muzicmaker2001 "Of the 39 people that voted on this clip, only 8 agree with you, right?"
Those people weren't voting on whether the smoke was going left or right. You and I both know that. You're the ONLY ONE who watches this clip and think the smoke is going right. The only one. All of the smoke on the impact face is clearly going to the left. Even you know this, but for some reason you can't admit it. It's ok.
"majority?"
The majority of the world are no planers?
nobraintheory 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 "The video is right above us, remember?"
The video above is crap quality, as are all your videos. It's like you rely on the blurriness to obscure detail. Kind of like your vague posts, where you can't answer whether the smoke is going left or right, or if two clips are the same footage modified. You refuse to take a stand.
/watch?v=tVo9JorURws&feature=r%C2%ADelated
In this clip, at 1:39, you really can't tell that your 'evil mustache gash' is smoke? Really?
nobraintheory 1 month ago
@nobraintheory
Same as the above video, but frames 0:49-1:13 shows the gash..err...smoke moving from left to right or against the force of the wind.
watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo
But, here's some homework. Show me a clip where this gash/smoke is first shown and then fades away or disappears with time? Good luck.
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
@muzicmaker2001 - "smoke moving from left to right or against the force of the wind."
Aaaahahahahahahaha! Oh my god. Later twoofie!
nobraintheory 1 month ago
@nobraintheory
"Kind of like your vague posts, where you can't answer..."
Yep...
muzicmaker2001 1 month ago
They show me a picture of a building with a gash, and then they show me another picture of a buliding with a gash, and then they ask me, "where did the gash go?" Wha? Is this some kind of a joke?
anastasia2657 2 months ago
@anastasia2657
where do all of these 911 shills come from? Are they recruited? Dayum!!!
muzicmaker2001 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What a profoundly stupid video. This is what UFO nuts do. They blow up videos to the point of grainy blurriness, then analyse 'details'. It's more of an analysis of video artifacts than of any object.
To answer your question, it looks like a shadow, although it could also be a superficial gash in the aluminum cladding. The damaged cladding above might have slipped down with time and increasing stress to 'close the gash'.
Or it could just be a video artifact. I'm voting for that!!
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
ooo my god......can you see the explosives at the tope of the south tower and in the soport floors ???? i can see them soo clary !!!!
kfhify 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kfhify Me to! An the UFO's on the ruuf are *clarely* visibell!!
NonnyMus1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You're a faggot. Get a life.
TSantorsa10 4 months ago
Gash=shadow
Now go outside.
JameyChaCha 5 months ago
@JameyChaCha
A shadow ast from what? Could it be from the big azz smoke cloud moving in the opposite direction? Really?
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
I don't see any plane in this footage, just the explosion. I hear the plane, I don't see it. That's because there was no plane.
Galv140577 7 months ago
TO MANY things happened for the FIRST time in the history of construction and Physics on 911,the useless governments story was poorly planned,as usual.
koolbossjock 8 months ago
@muzicmaker2001. How was that an opinion? That was called a statement. An you can probably go see it for your self if your from the area.
lad63der 11 months ago
@lad63der
This is the internet. There is no way to prove your statement. There are so many people that lie on here just to defend the 911 lie. Wreckage doesn't prove anything unless it is verified. The location and condition of the engine found actually points to a cover-up. Also, experts have analyzed the engine and stated that it's not from a 767.
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
@muzicmaker2001. Ok I understand that but I know that I personally have seen plane wreckage from that day along with building, car an clothing remains
lad63der 11 months ago
@lad63der
How about something other than your opinion? Some real evidence?
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
@muzicmaker2001. Ok but then how do you explain the plane parts found in the wreckage an surrounding roof tops? Oh wait that was planted sorry forgot
lad63der 11 months ago
@lad63der
There is no official verification of any of the wreckage from any of the planes involved on 911. Here's a supposed engine from Flight 11.
watch?v=c7Jo8vpeekU
Ok, it went thru two steel walls of the WTC, traveled 3 blocks, fell 1000 ft and slammed onto the street below. It was found fairly intact with no apparent damage to it or the street below. Time to use your head? Its all about confirmation, not just blindly believing you see on TV in which you are doing.
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
Gash and No Gash. I could not distinguish the video clips, and you Muzak were to incompetent to identify them in this video clip.
Maybe this clip is meant to show that a 767 airliner disappeared right before a missile strike on WTC #1.
With twothers like you, Muzak, it may require a psychedelic experience (per your example) to follow your repeated youtube logic twists.
nevillechamberlain1 5 months ago
@nevillechamberlain1
Here's some education. Find the plane entering and then find the plane shaped damage. They are two different things..
watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo
And what were you saying about not creating a plane shaped hole? That was you, right?
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
@muzicmaker2001
I looked at your video at:
watch?v=wkZKOqYMbXo
I could not determine what technical issues you refer to, that supports the 9/11 conspiracy theories. However you have shown to be incompetent in supporting or documenting your videos.
Is there some one else in your 9/11 Conspiracy Organization that can intelligently explain events for the rest of the World?
You are incompetent on many levels, Muzak.
nevillechamberlain1 5 months ago
@nevillechamberlain1
Do you get a quarter for every time you say technical?
muzicmaker2001 5 months ago
@muzicmaker2001. What part of I KNOW PEOPLE THAT WHERE THERE didn't you get??? Everything from citizens, to firefighters, to emt's so I guess there all wrong to then
lad63der 11 months ago
@lad63der
I have posed this question many times to debunkers with no response. Post just 15 witnesses of the WTC planes recorded live on 911 with no connection to the media or government. This would be your normal citizens walking by. With an approx population of 9 million people in NYC, this should be easy enough. Good luck. Here's people that didn't see a plane. This is called proof..not just me talking, ok?
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
@muzicmaker2001. First off you just made yourself sound even stupider by saying that, but incase you didn't know manhattan on a beautiful morning around rush hour obviously there's going to be thousands of people around, an no I don't believe everything I see on tv but I know what I watched happen live on tv an on top of that I know people that were there, so your telling me that they didn't see it either??
lad63der 11 months ago
@lad63der
I wasn't looking for your opinion, I was looking for actual proof? Everything you see on TV is not real, ok? And I don't think "stupider" is a word Einstein.
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
Ya umm that's not proof dumbass, so how do you explain the thousands of people that watched it happen? Like I said were you there? Or even watch the plane hit on tv?
lad63der 11 months ago
@lad63der
Using the same logic, where's the proof that thousands of people watched it happened. Only in your mind? And do you believe everything you see on TV? It seems you do. You seem to have a big problem with simple logic. Maybe its time to go back to the Nascar or WWE pages?
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
Trust me I have a life, I'm not the one wasting my time making an 18 part video of bull shit, an what proof do you have of " no planes "
lad63der 11 months ago
@lad63der
uhh, the 20 videos posted..back again huh?
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
No life my friend, like seriously don't you have anything better to do with your time then this?? Oh and dis respect the lives lost on that day? Get a new hobby!!
lad63der 11 months ago
@lad63der
I have no life but you are here again? And asking questions about events that don't make logical sense is not disrespecting anyone. That's just ignorance. Try again.
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
Honestly!!! What kind of fucking total complete moron listens to and believes this crap? How much of a lobotomy does one need to see a passenger jet hit a building on live television. Shot by 100 press photographers. And then spend their time looking at crappy compressed videos which drop frames left and right and put together 18 part videos proclaiming... "NO PLANE THEORY!!"
To the idiot who put this together. Dude you aint joining Mensa any time soon. Trust me.
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
@roquefortfiles
Hw can anyone trust you with your obvious agenda? Is this just one of your daily stops? Good luck..
WTC 7 Collaps - Previously Unreleased Footage of WTC 7
CBC - The Fifth Estate - The Unofficial Story - Pt 1-5
Richard Gage: Explosive Evidence?
Richard Gage AIA on New Zealand National Television
WTC2 collapse
9/11 WTC Survivors at the Impact Zone
steel being weakened by a jet fuel fire
911 Conspiracy predicted in X-Files
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Oh hey you again. Yawn!! Trust me!!? I have friends in New York who witnessed this as it happened. Are you another of these "No Plane" Whacks? The only thing i have to say to you is that i feel sorry for you.
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
@roquefortfiles
1. As with all of the planes involved on 911, none of the wreckage has been officially verified to be from the registered flights
2.Post just 15 witnesses (out of 9 million people in NYC) recorded LIVE on 911 with no connection to the media or government that saw the WTC planes. At this point, most shills...errr..debunkers will make excuses but will continue to rant.
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 LOL!!! like WTF???!!! What is it like having a sub par IQ? Oh yeah!! Every single person that day was a government plant paid to witness the planes and then tow the party line. I can only say i feel very sorry for you. The level of rampant paranoia you show is fairly startling. But then that is normal for you truthers ain't it? Concerned about the pages i visit? I would be more concerned about the clinical paranoia you exhibit. Its quite sad really.
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
@roquefortfiles
You've tried on other 911 pages with no luck, huh? Why not give this one a try? An official verification of any wreckage and 15 witnesses recorded live on 911 with no connection to the media or government?
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 ROFL!!!! Tried?? like WTF!!!?? Dude you are so lame it's beyond belief. What kind of a brain has an inability to look at 50 odd randomly shot videos of this event and somehow have a "Problem" with what you are looking at. ?? Its a couple notches past pathetic. Its really sad actually. Don't bother me anymore!! You're a fucking idiot!!!
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
@roquefortfiles
Just repeating ROFL, LOL, Yawn and WTF are not exactly the evidence I was looking for? And didn't you come to my page with yet another desperate attempt to spread lies?
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 If nothing you are incredibly entertaining, i will give you that. Evidence you were looking for??? OMG!!. Desperate attempt to spread lies??? LOL!!! I am sorry!!! NO ONE!!! I MEAN NO ONE!!! is this stupid. You have got to be kidding me!!!?? Do you honestly spend your time pushing this "NO PLANE" agenda??? I guess people like Dave Bottiglia (air traffic controller following 175) have no fucking clue what they are doing eh??
Sad sad sad!!!
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
@roquefortfiles
As I just showed, you tour multiple 911 pages spreading disinfo. Try this bs somewhere else. It's not working here, ok? Or you could actually provide some evidence? Crazy, huh?
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Crazy huh? Spreading disinfo??? LOL!! (You're amazing!!) I don't know what level of lobotomy you and your mental midgets of the Truth movement currently operate under. PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE???? Are you fucking kidding me? I am not the fool who discredits Hundreds of randomly shot videos from that day. If you want to talk about 'DISINFO" perhaps you need to start by looking in the mirror. Who are you kidding pal?
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
@roquefortfiles
LOL. Take a look at your couple of posts. It's like a broken record. No evidence, just repeats.
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 LOL!!! Yeah I am well aware of what i post. Evidence?????!!! What kind of brain looks at 50 odd randomly shot videos of this event and somehow cant pull....PLANE.. CRASH out of it?? You have got to be kidding me. You're the only one showing up to the party in a costume
wiki/File:WtcUA175debris.jpg
Its so easy to get 767 wreckage on to the sub roof top of surrounding buildings isn't it? That was an easy plant.
Here is another repeat. You're an idiot!!
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
@roquefortfiles
A photo of debris proves what exactly. Try this. The official verification of ANY of the wreckage from ANY of the four planes? 911 shills are hilarious and pathetic...that's you.
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
@muzicmaker2001 Shill??!!!! Like WTF!! Yeah I am on Cheney's payroll. I work for the CIA. Why are you people so threatened by someone calling you out on all of your fucking retarded bullshit?? And you know it is. Give me a fucking break man what kind of a lobotomized human being are you. ??? If you want to call that Shill or your favorite.. "DISINFO AGENT" Go right ahead. I know what reality is. Do you?
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
@roquefortfiles
With all of the other 911 pages you visited daily, how do you even have time for this? This is a very busy campaign you are on here defending 911 on YT, huh?
muzicmaker2001 11 months ago
Dude you are a fucking idiot, thousands of people that day saw the planes hit those towers an thousands lost there lives as a result of it... Were you there? Did you watch it happen live, or atleast live on tv? I'm willing to bet not. So instead of your accusations about what happent that on one of the most horrible days in americas history you just keep your beliefs to your self.
lad63der 11 months ago
I'm not surprised by your response. As has always proved consistent with no-planers--the "theory" cannot be refuted, because any evidence to the contrary can (and will) simply be dismissed as fake (which, by a scientific definition, is no theory at all). It's exactly like trying to argue against religion--there's always the out that "God wills it that way". I guess I could wade through hours of footage for clips that meet your EXACT criteria--but what a waste of time--you are beyond reasoning.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
"I'm not surprised by your response."
If the person is not seen talking, how do we know they are even there? These are called a voice overs. They will take any footage from 911 and implant someone's voice in it possibly discussing how they saw the planes, smelled jet fuel, how they heard no explosions, etc. These are used as video tools in a desperate attempt to refute the conspiracy theory. They are all over YT as you just discovered.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
"If the person is not seen talking, how do we know they are even there?"
Add if the person IS shown--then he/she is an actor right? Weren't they all actors-the witnesses being shown on TV describing what they saw? Either way, the "fakery theory" prevails. Your challenge is meaningless. You simply dismiss ALL audio evidence (as possible voice actors) if you can't SEE the person talking? Ridiculous, but expected.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
Just 15 witnesses of the WTC planes recorded live on 911 with no connection to the media or government. I thought it was obvious that the witnesses should be seen talking. But it seems we have more witnesses of explosions heard and felt in the Towers than those who saw the planes? How can this be? Simple. The explosions are real and the planes are fake.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
How about this--find just ONE amateur video clip of what really happened, i.e., someone with a CLEAR shot of the explosion with camera in a position to have captured the incoming plane, but with no plane in the shot. We have over 50 clips showing a plane, none showing what "really" happened. Mega-compressed, ultra low resolution clips don't count.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
No Plane in this shot..
watch?v=DU1M54LsJkQ
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 HA HA! It's a resolution problem. But you can see the wings and engine in the close-up just as it moves behind the building. Nice try though.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
I thought you were going to say it was due to smoke again. Ok here's the reality. A 767 has a wingspan of approx. 150 ft. The width of Towers was approx. 200 ft. That ball doesn't have a wingspan of even 100 ft when compared to the Tower's width. Wait. That ball doesn't even have wings. LOL. Hilarious. Desperation strikes again..
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 I am kind of partial to the NO BRAIN theory!! The one that afflicts the "TRUTH" movement. The symptoms include seeing 767's with no wings and missing engines, heck!! even missing planes replaced by holograms. Posting lousy compressed videos and having an inability to discern dropped frames for missing plane parts!!
There is not much anyone can do to help the NO BRAINERS. If you see one offer assistance. They need it.
roquefortfiles 11 months ago
@existenceisfake
" I guess I could wade through hours of footage for clips that meet your EXACT criteria"
Here are the witnesses that did not see a plane again. Use the same criteria. Either thier face should shown talking or their name should be given. Go ahead..
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
Anybody who actually believes that there were no planes on 9/11 and that the gashes in the buildings were faked are delusional, completely out of touch with reality nutjobs. In fact to claim that there were no planes is so ridiculous its laughable!
DanteLacey21 1 year ago
u think it could be the shadow from the fire and smoke thats begin to come out?
TheGodKingOfMusic 1 year ago
@TheGodKingOfMusic
A shadow usually follows the general size, shape and movement of the object being cast. That thin "moustache" looking gash does not follow the smoke and fire.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
ARE YOU UNDER LOCKDOWN?
cbarsonfire 1 year ago
roquefortfiles stated: "How much of an idiot does a person have to be to see this event video taped and photographed from probably over 60 different locations and angles by all manner of random New Yorkers"
60 different locations? No, that is incorrect. There is only one known clip of Flight 11. With Flight 175, there's just more than a dozen clips and most are shown in the clip below. Compare the flight paths, they don't comply with each other.
watch?v=QRpcIZBSAfU
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001, Why don't you explain to me how tons of jet fuel managed to end up on multiple floors at the WTC, which by the way was the cause of the resulting fires? Or better yet explain how aircraft parts like an engine and other pieces of airplane wreckage ended up on the streets near the WTC? See the problem with your idiotic claims is that people on the streets of manhatten saw the planes hit those buildings with their own eyes and not on a tv screen.
DanteLacey21 1 year ago
@DanteLacey21
Jet fuel- well, it depends on which version of the official story you believe, right?
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes" NIST, Sep 2005, PP 183
"But the jet fuel itself burnt in a matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes." -Lead Investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder, NIST
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@muzicmaker2001, The jet fuel ignited multiple floors which reached temps as high as 1000c, it wouldn't have mattered if the jet fuel burned off quickly because the fire still managed to burn hot enough to significantly weaken the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where the floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2.
DanteLacey21 1 year ago
@DanteLacey21
Did you measure the temp (1000C) of the jet fuel yurself? Otherwise, how do you know this? And again, which version do you believe?
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC (480ºF). Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC (1110ºF)." (p 140)-NIST
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001, If you want to continue making a total fool of yourself by claiming that there were no planes on 9/11 then go ahead! I can't argue with someone as out of touch with reality as you are!
DanteLacey21 1 year ago
@DanteLacey21
have a nice day..
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@DanteLacey21
Engine-I think this is the engine you are refering to?
watch?v=c7Jo8vpeekU
Let's examine the scenario, ok? This engine went thru two steel walls of the WTC, traveled 3 blocks, fell 800-1000 feet and slammed onto the street below. It was found fairly intact with no significant damage to the street below or the engine itself. How do you feel about logic?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago 7
@muzicmaker2001, Nope that is not the engine I was referring too, not even close!
DanteLacey21 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001, "A tremendous fireball, flaming debris, pieces of airplane, fuselage, landing gear, pieces of the building. We started running down one of the little side streets, Courtlandt or Dey". FDNY Captain Michael Donavan.
"As we approached West Broadway, a NYPD lieutenant told us we could not proceed due to aircraft parts blocking the road" PAPD Det. Robert Fuchs.
"Various pieces of the plane were falling on the street" FDNY Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick
DanteLacey21 1 year ago
@DanteLacey21
Here's other witnesses actually recorded on 911...
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
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!!
KelvongKlein 1 year ago
..come on.... You havent heard of building immune system? Thats how they built them back in the day. They just dont make em like they used to. A gash....ffft. No problem. Building heals itself. Nowadays? Buildings just collapse b/c they SEE other buildings collapse. Like wtc 7(cuz it was built much later.) IF it wasn't for those bombs inside the twin towers. that entire opening would've been closed up w/in hours- by the buildings own structural immune system.
Hey, keep up the good work!
translationwiz 1 year ago
this one doesn't tell me much. maybe all that smoke is covering the
"gash"
concussedcarneous 1 year ago
it's too difficult to tell with the severe camera movement.
Spazmaztic 1 year ago
@ctcole77
If truthers are morons and 911 is loaded with tons of irrefutable evidence, why do we need debunkers like you on your lil' campaign everyday?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@muzicmaker2001
To expose your lies.
That's why liberals like Noam Chomsky laugh at you.
That's why 911 twoofers are banned from the James Rand site.
The fact that there exists a large minority of people who actively prove your magical theories false only reinforces the fact that 911 = 911 LIES.
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
It should be obvious at this point that I'm not concerned with the majority and how they think. I only present the truth.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@muzicmaker2001
"I only present the truth."
Again you are a liar.
You do not search for the truth - you search for the truth as you WANT to see it.
911 TRUTH = 911 LIES
ctcole77 1 year ago
@ctcole77
The majority of the clips posted on my page are just raw video evidence. So, the videos are lies? Again, I can't take you seriously due to your obvious agenda.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago 8
@ctcole77
Did you hear the latest? NIST's lawsuit and the new accounts of witnesses that heard WTC explosions before the "plane" impacts? Spread the word..
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
I thought i was crazy but i to have started to notice the little black drones that fly by around the time of the strikes. Hell you can even see a laser from a few angles of the second hit.
f0rumrr 1 year ago
NO ONE in the right mind would think something that quiet would be a jet liner going 500 mph. WE can hear them when they at 20k feet when they going that fast. IT WOULD BE SO INCDREDIBLLY LOUD. SO LOUD. Its just so funny how people cant understand that.
f0rumrr 1 year ago
I still can't believe most people don't see and hear the reconnaissance drone fly by after all these years. Wow, I didn't know AL QUAEDA owned a fleet of recon drones.
You idiots! May you all be cursed for not standing up for those who died and going after the real killers.
marcpinke 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If anybody DOESN'T believe that planes really hit the buildings, THEIR heads were and still ARE in the sand. STUPIDITY is what your spreading. Just kill yourselves, and eliminate your stupid genes from the gene pool. Do the rest of us, living in REALITY, a favor.
hawkeyeriggs5000 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Q: Parts of the building's exterior framework are still there, where there should be nothing.
A: An airplane has struts and voids in the wings, just like the walls in your house. The building's exterior is steel, and wings are aluminum. The Struts are fairly strong, and could knock out framework in the building. The most of the wing is sheet aluminum, and very weak. The steel building would tear the wings to shreds, literally.
hawkeyeriggs5000 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Watch the events carefully, like it says. In order, the events in question are these:
Q: Why doesn't the guy turn around?
A: He is not seen reacting when the others do, because at that moment, he's completely obscured.
hawkeyeriggs5000 1 year ago
uhh, hold up. i thought u said he did react? and obviously, u haven't watched the impacts. the aluminum planes enter the steel building like hot knife thru butter. ur an idiot..
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth , was a cruise missile my friend. Alex Jones did a great piece with a leading architect from Texas who describes the building in detail. Very fascinating listening to this guy talk. Anyway, long story short, he describes how the plane would have bounced off the side of the building. Aluminum going into steel, not vice versa! Besides, it was a bunker buster type missile. Most sources think a JSSAM missile. They are incredible.
marcpinke 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Are you lost in your own imagination? Your head is crosswired and duct taped together. You've been hosed worse than anyone that "believes" planes were really there. "Still intact after impact" and "explosion" are words you used, like the guy who didn't turn around to see the plane. Watch in order. The guy isn't seen turning around, because he's behind a FIREMAN! The plane hits, and there is a FIREBALL, and a HOLE shaped like a fuckin plane.
hawkeyeriggs5000 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The idea that there weren't even planes hitting the buildings is fabricated worse than the 9/11 report. You all are retarded. How could a CGI plane be edited into live feeds from news reports, and ALL PERSONAL recorders there at the time? HOW? There's NO WAY! That's how. It would be easier to really hit a building with a plane than it would be to explain to the Port Authority guard on duty WHY some MF is carrying thousands of lbs of explosives to the 87th floor.
hawkeyeriggs5000 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The hole that was "drawn into" the video was a FLAMING FIREBALL just before it was a "hole". If any of you really need to know what happened that day, GO TO FUCKIN NEW YORK AND ASK SOMEONE. GET OFF THE COMPUTER. This guy filming the shot COULD NOT HAVE EDITED this. You all are neck deep in stupid. You eat stupid flakes and wash 'em down with a big ol' glass of Dumbfuck juice first thing every morning if you really believe this is fake. All the cameras there that day saw the SAME FUCKIN THING!!!!
hawkeyeriggs5000 1 year ago
A flaming fireball? Hardly. This clip below explains the "1st plane crash" in more depth. Note how the plane shaped hole is formed; sections of the building are still intact after impact and disappear with the explosion (pre-planed charges). Welcome to reality..
watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@muzicmaker2001 Really? I need someone else to describe it to me? Didn't you see it for yourself? Better yet, are you going to try to tell the people that were there that they are wrong? Are you off your medication? I watched it LIVE on TV, as well as did MILLIONS of other Americans, and your arguement is totally ridiculous. Even if it was an inside job, HOW IN THE HELL would someone FAKE THIS? Plane hits, *BLAM*. Easy.
hawkeyeriggs5000 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 The "gash" is smoke. It's too bad you tv fakery Shack disciples don't actually do any real investigating yourselves--just taking you master's word as truth. If you're too slow to surmise that it's probably black smoke coming from a hole seen in all the other footage (since it makes NO sense to add a photo-shopped "gash" to ONE clip and not any of the others)--here's an idea--why not look for a closer angle of the "gash" filmed at the same time? Try this one:
watch?v=wZJXNdhkhCY
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
Yes, the clip you posted is a clear attempt to cover up the original error, but the damage is already done. But using simple logic: In the above clip, note how a massive cloud of smoke flows with the wind direction from right to left. Was this "gash looking smoke" some sort of rogue smoke that traveled against the wind? Let me know.. And here's another error in audio editing with the famous Hezarkhani shot. Your explanation?
watch?v=X5i07-kHgww
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 The clip I posted is closer, higher resolution footage of the same occurrence of black smoke billowing from a hole at the edge of the tower. It's obviously smoke. You suggest by saying the wind blows from "right to left" that it's blowing in an easterly direction.The angle is deceptive. The wind was blowing to the south that day, directly over the south tower--making it perfectly logical that smoke coming from the west side of the impact hole would be carried back into the hole.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
Yes, before 911, smoke actually followed the normal wind direction. The wind direction is easily determined by following the bigger smoke cloud. But, here's some questions. Why is this "smoke" a completely different color (black) than the other smoke and in the shape of a narrow gash? Also, in this video clip, the plane impact damage appears AFTER the impact. How is this possible?
watch?v=yjQmxS-DpyM
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Smoke can change color for many reasons depending on what's burning, the amount of oxygen available, and how much moisture is present. If there were sprinkler systems that came on, the smoke would turn white from water vapor.
Big fires can cause all kinds of funky drafts since they consume so much oxygen. Wind direction is only one factor. Regardless--it makes no sense that "they" would create a fake gash on ONE video clip, ignoring all others. Smoke makes much more sense.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
You speak as if you were actually there? The gash seems to be created to compensate for the wingspan of the plane as was the preplanted explosives that went off after impact. There were many mistakes made the perps on 911 and this happened to be one of them. It's near impossible to fake a plane crash without an actual plane involved (Pentagon, Shanksville, WTCs). Thus, the conspiracy and the people here paid to defend the OV. Welcome.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 I said I was there? WTF?
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 You're delusional--a genuine "true believer" of the religious ilk. The Jim Huibregtse clip shows exactly what happened as clear as can be, yet you still deny, dodge and weave. Do you ever admit it when shown to be mistaken? The "gash" cover-up theory is preposterous. Complete nonsense. Look up "confirmation bias", then sit for awhile in a quiet place and contemplate.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
I'm having a hard time trusting someone with an obvious agenda to defend the 911 lie. See a pattern to all of your pages visited or is it just a coincidence? You disinfo agents crack me up. Don't you that the fact that you have to be here only opens the door further to a cover-up?
911 AMATEUR
Rooftop view of 2nd plane hitting South Tower, loud boom...
Naudet tape black gash on WTC tower exposed.
Analysis of "Ball" Footage on NBC - Richard D Hall
THE PLANE FACTS
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 You should actually watch my videos. Sit for awhile in a quiet place--contemplate.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Also--it makes sense that there would be a draft being sucked into the impact hole since the fire from the explosion would be sucking up oxygen.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
And no comment at all?
watch?v=X5i07-kHgww
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 What does the Hezarkhani clip have to do with this video?
If CNN edited the audio for replay, I guess you have proof that the audio was edited. Does that prove that the original clip is fake? What if it was an unintentional error? The networks were rushing to air numerous clips as they became available, you would expect some errors in editing. Why would they air both versions if they were trying to deceive the public? When you find some genuine proof of fakery, let us know.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
"at does the Hezarkhani clip have to do with this video?"
Its called editing. Yes, CNN edited the audio in a live clip and Hezarkhani came into the studio to add his voice several different ways in several places. That makes perfect sense. Please stop.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 The Hezarkhani clip was live? No. Came into the studio? WTF? It's possible to edit a sound clip without re-recording it.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
In the Hezarkhani clip, he says different things at different times in the supposed same video. This obviously means there are different versions of the same video (re-recording). And can you tell me why would you edit this clip at all?
watch?v=X5i07-kHgww
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
From the DVD, CNN Remembers: After 7 secs, Hezarkhani says, "OMG. The plane just crashed into the building. I can not believe it."
From CNN (red logo): same as the DVD, CNN remembers. OMG, 7 secs,.....
The first time the clip was shown on TV on Sep12: Hezarkhani says nothing at all in the entire 12 sec clip
From CNN (red bar): Around 12 secs, Hezarkhani says something indistinguishable and then OMG in a totally different way from any other clip
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 It's the same audio--just a few seconds were cut out--sounds like they edited out the word "shit". The OMG is the same except it's cut off. A seamless sounding audio edit of that sort is simple with so much chaotic noise--cut out a piece, and then cross-fade at the cut. Why would they do it? Who knows. Perhaps it's just because of the "shit". As I said this proves nothing except that the audio was edited. It doesn't prove the original video is fake. Nothing fake about it.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
I don't take anything you say seriously. This is just entertainment. All disinfo agents know for a fact that every aspect of the official version is true. So, from the start, there is a problem. How could they possibly know this? Back to reality: There is no reason for CNN (or Hezarkhani) to make 3 different edits of the same clip. Good luck on your campaign to defend the 911 lie.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 I've never said anything about the "official version" of 9/11--not one reference. Why do you presume to know what I believe? Do you always see everything as so black and white? That's a "True Believer" symptom (look it up). I'm saying if you have something to prove--then prove it. A video clip that has had the audio edited, doesn't PROVE the original clip is fake. Is it suspicious? That would be subjective depending on one's bias. But the fact is--you DON'T KNOW.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
The official version is that two planes hit the WTCs and that is what you are defending, right? And you are incorrect. The facts are: "WE" DON'T KNOW.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 That's one part of the official story--the part filmed by over 50 camera's, captured by numerous still cameras, and seen by many witnesses. Yes I am defending that fact. I've yet to see ONE credible piece of evidence demonstrating fake planes or video "fakery"--not ONE. It's all misunderstandings, misinterpretations, video compression artifacts, parallax, perspective distortion, etc. The no-planes theory is nonsense. Simon Shack is its most idiotic proponent.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
"the part filmed by over 50 camera's"
First, there are only just more than a dozen video shots of Flight 175. There is only one known shot of Flight 11 from the Naudet Bros. Next, the flight paths of Flight 175 do not match with the many "witness" shots.
watch?v=QRpcIZBSAfU
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 Wrong--since the release of the NIST FOIA Cumulus Database, there are over 50 known different camera angles. Before that there were over 40. See them all at
911conspiracy dot tv/2nd_hit dot html.
The flight paths are consistent if you know what you're looking at:
watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ
watch?v=-K-WjsHa_2k
You're witness challenge is absurd. Watch "102 Minutes that Changed America" to see/hear just a FEW of the many witnesses filmed.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
It doesn't seem weird at all that more shots of the planes are coming out. Funny. So, last questions. If you're not a disinfo agent, why do you care if anyone believes the conspiracy? Why do you travel multiple 911 YT pages on your campaign? It should be obvious that you are not changing anything here so what's your motive? The reality is people are now using thier heads and waking up to the truth and new footage (NIST) is not going to change anything.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
The straight line approach vs. the decline approach vs. the lower angle all from the same plane? Also, the news chopper/elevated shots. All show the Towers in the EXACT same perspective. The clip below shows five DIFFERENT shots of Flight 175 overlayed onto one another and they fit perfectly. For this to be possible, all choppers/cameras had to be in the exact same position in the 17 minute time window between the first impact and second.
watch?v=NnhDqOJh_28
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
On the "Matrix" shot--it's a complete misunderstanding of the laws of perspective.The farther you are from an object--the less it will appear to change in perspective as you move.All those "matrix" angles were filmed from at least two or more miles away and zoomed-in.It's fallacious to look only at the towers to "match" perspectives". Differences in parallax are too subtle to notice. You have to also take into account objects in the foreground and background to determine angle.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
"Differences in parallax...blah"
LOL. Five shots showing the exact same perspective. This is not that complicated. This means five cameras were in relatively the same location in the 17 minute window between the first and second impact. And noting that the top of the Tower is visible, all shots must be from a chopper or higher elevation. Ok, five choppers in the same location in 17 minutes (or) one shot made to look like five shots? Obviously, its the latter.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
For example--I have thoroughly refuted your (Shack's) assertion that the two NBC clips shown in "WTC No Plane Theory (Part 4)" are from the exact same angle (Matrix). See why here:
watch?v=32uRDI0-wGc
watch?v=lgY4Qsch8M8
Yet I know you will find a way to rationalize away Shack's obvious error.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
'I have thoroughly refuted your (Shack's) assertion"
Actually, you have not. Note how the same amount of roof top is shown in all "matrix' clips. This is evident because the "white knob" on the right side of the roof is clearly visible and it is not smoke. It seems all anomalies can be explained by smoke? LOL. Here's chopper footage showing the EXACT perspective as all matrix shots and your supposed Empire State footage.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001 You obviously didn't watch or pay attention to my videos.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
"You're witness challenge is absurd"
Cool. That is the same response I get from all disinfo agents. But I've heard them claim that hundreds, thousands, even millions of people witnessed the WTC planes, but all have absolutely no evidence to back any of that up. Here's some witnesses recorded live on 911...but they didn't see a plane. How do you miss a massive low flying 767 in NYC (Air Force One flyover??)? You don't.
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
"Here's a few clips"
I guess I should've been more specific
.
1. The clips must either show the person's face talking when describing the plane (David Vogler clips, Ed Peterman clips, NYU dorm room, "Not an American Airlines", Mike Toole, 102 Minutes That Changed America ) or their name in the clip. Otherwise, it could just be a simple voice over in which I've seen many on YT.
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@muzicmaker2001
(few clips..cont.)
2. The "witness" footage should not be from someone who actually captured the planes on video (Mark Trottenberg, Peter S. clip) for obvious reasons.
3. None of the witnesses can be affiliated with the media or government (firemen, etc)
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
@existenceisfake
"and seen by many witnesses"
I have posed this question to many disinfo agents like yourself and none have responded. Find just 15 valid witnesses recorded live on 911 of the WTC planes with no connection to the media or government. Just your average folks walking by. With nearly 9 million people in NYC and this being one of if not the worst attack on US soil, this should be an easy task, right?
muzicmaker2001 1 year ago
"what plane?" is right. considering the time when the fdny react, you would think that the guy in the blue shirt should react to a low flying plane coming straight at him, but he doesn't even flinch.
seeknthetruth 2 years ago 16
This comment has received too many negative votes show
HE DID REACT! Are you watching the same video? What are you really watching?
hawkeyeriggs5000 1 year ago
how does he react? by not looking up and continue walking?
seeknthetruth 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's only TOTALLY OBVIOUS that EVERYONE didn't turn around until the plane was AUDIBLE, and at THAT POINT, he was BEHIND THE FIREMAN! HE MAY VERY WELL HAVE FELL DOWN THE MANHOLE, WHO KNOWS! When everyone else reacted, he was OUT OF VIEW! yOU CONSPIRACY THEORISTS are retarded! Isn't there a big fuckin hole, and footage of a PLANE HITTING THE FUCKIN building? I can't believe I'm even responding to this retarded BULLSHIT! If you watch this video, don't you see a FUCKIN PLANE? What's wrong with you?
hawkeyeriggs5000 1 year ago
Two towers lost, two countries invaded.
Simple as that!
It's all about politics and oil....
Mil33d 2 years ago 28
Anyone who believes aeroplanes brought down the twin towers has their head in the sand. How many people saw planes hit the towers? Why aren't they on the web in all their might complaining? One thing is for sure. A lot of innocent people were murdered that day, and it wasn't by Ossma Bin Laden.
whonut 2 years ago 21
Well, my cousin's wife was supposed to be working on the first plane that hit the towers and she was, at the last minute, and yes, her co workers all died on that plane. Everyone who saw them were interviewed by news media all over the place at the time. I'm sure they don't spend hours on the net anymore, because they actually have lives to live now, jobs to go to, families to raise, etc. And the attack wasn't by one person. It was by a group of people.
godsfiddler 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Where are all the people who were there that day that DIDNT see planes?
The only people that didnt see planes are you fucking morons and you werent even there
Where are all the people that MUST have seen people depositing airplane wreckage all over lower manhattan?
Silly toofers... reality is for people who can handle it
SWEP2AOTC2002 2 years ago
Here's a few:
watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU
watch?v=ZhsBqUtq4XI
The big question is how do you miss (see? hear?) a massive 767 when you're directly under the Towers? Can you find just 15 witnesses (no connection to the media/government) recorded live on 911 that DID see the WTC planes? This should be an easy task considering that thousands people saw the planes, right?
muzicmaker2001 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Same old TIRED videos of cherry picked quotes
Unreliable sources 1/2 truths and outright lies
BUT if you eel so strongly about this SHIT you call evidence I suggest that you take it to the Manhattan courthouse where Khalid Sheik Mohammad is going to be tried and present it as evidence for his defense
Im sure he will get off despite having admitted his masterminding of 9/11 thanks to your "evidence of an inside job"
LOL
Silly toofers Reality is for grown ups
SWEP2AOTC2002 2 years ago
SWEP2AOTARD is most likely a paid shillfag or just straight up retarded..possibly both..fucking douchebag
methodmanson13 1 year ago 8
You haven't watched all videos by the Naudet bros. My cousin's wife was supposed to be a stewardess on the first one. That was her normal, daily flight, from Boston to LA. Her flight was changed at the last minute. She lost co workers and friends that day. As for them not spending all their time on here complaining, many haven't even HEARD of this stupid theory. The rest have real lives to live and unlike those who spend all of their time on here,they actually have productive things to do
godsfiddler 2 years ago
I believe the Naudet brothers would vomit at the "no planes" theory.
godsfiddler 2 years ago