Added: 3 years ago
From: bronco2121
Views: 27,290
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (26)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Another fake 9/11 video

  • Flash is paper. There was tons flying in the air.

  • Mystery of FLASH solved:

    That's the same FLASH that was captured in Jennifer Spell's video. Search on youtube and you'll see it. My belief is that the flash had something to do with the missile targeting wtc. The angle at which the flash is seems like it's coming from a body high up there i.e. satellite missile of somekind then. Remember military technology is 50-100 years ahead of what we have right now.

  • Black and white and silent. I'd say this was released circa 1923.

    re: the smoke, I feel like I'm staring at one of those 3D posters.

  • and the angel of the camara tells me it's taken a shoot of it

  • and it can's be the sun if u look at the shadows

  • well the fake smoke must cover somthing up.

  • look carefully when the cam move from side to side then the smoke give after, as it was clouds were moving. felt like it was lsd trip for my eyes, i see evan more, look ind the smoke you see like somthing white flashing thing 0:35/0:49 - 0:43/0:49

  • thats right...what are those things????

  • wtf the smoke is fake?????? !

  • yeah i was wondering about that blinking light myself,but then after reading a couple comments yes that smoke is peculiar

  • Errrrr?....Why does the plane hit the towers TWICE in this video?..Pause the video and you can see it cleary does jump forwards then back again? This is the Most highly upon High shite-ist wierd most dumbest of the dumb Plainly FAKE video of the event i have had the pitty of seeing.

  • On the high res you can see the E4b just after the impact. The smoke effect is not as weird in the high res. If you film with a webcam or a cell phone or other cheap video devices, you'll notice that when you move it, it creates sometimes this effect. Now is this the case? Can't say. I do a lot of video effects/animation/editing for my work and I wouldn't swear that this was added. It's hard to tell. But the E4b is there.

  • I want to add, that I can't prove it's an E4B, it's only my guess.

    Also, if you look at the trees in the lower left corner, you can see some kind of zoom blur effect that could maybe explain the effect on the smoke.

  • well i think it is edited because there is only a part of the smoke moving not along with the rest of the video, as u said u have this effect with a cellphone yes but then the whole screen is jumping.

  • you're right. the floating smoke is odd. i'm in the process now of uploading the full 200MB file to megaupload so you can download it for your own analysis. in the morning, i'll post the download link.

  • Much appreciated. I'll watch for your post. :-)

  • My guess is that the smoke is hiding the E-4B plane which almost certainly was the command centre for the whole event. Even that would be puzzling tho since the E-4B has long since been spotted and identified.

  • What's the intermittent flashing light I can see on the upper left of the tower? It's more obvious in the smoke after the plane strike...

  • Oh my....the no plane guys will pounce on this video like apes for bananas. This will be their best "proof" of tv fakery i promise you.

  • that smoke is def doctored

  • probably trying to cover up the black helicopter that was seen. A good place to remote fly in the airliner

  • there's no secret that there were helicopters in the area, tehre was one hovering over the towers when the south tower collapsed. I have never heard of any helicopter being in view when the south tower was struck. What is more likely is that the fake smoke in this video is covering a big explosion that is known to have occured in the north tower right as the plane hit the north tower...

  • illuminuts, you are absolutely right. Some obvious doctoring has occurred. I would guess that it is trying to hide something. Very amateurishly done.

  • That's the thing that gets me. There is no doubt at all that a blob of smoke has been added to the foreground of the vid. It couldn't be more obvious if they captioned it.

    The really weird part is why was it done so badly? The "right" way to do it would be to use the real smoke from the background, duplicate it and put it on a layer in frotnt of the object you're trying to hide. That way the motion, scale and texture of the smoke would be perfect.

    Instead, they made it blatantly obvious.

  • Is it just me, or does something about the smoke in the video not look right? Moving weird, like it's not tracking with the movements of the camera.

  • Thanks for adding this to the public record.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more