WTC No Plane Theory (Part 1)

Linking to the same video to support itself is not a peer review.

The video claims there is an independent peer review of the pixel match. I'm sure you have seen this because you are so sure of the match. Do you mind sending me the link?

Have you ever worked with CGI? What programs do you think they used? What were the specific techniques they used? How did they compensate for camera jitter and location on the live shots?

Prove that you aren't a counter intelligence agent. Prove that WWII happened. Prove that the moon isn't made of cheese.

When you make stupid, fantastic claims, the burden of proof is on you.

To say that no one was looking up at the biggest terror attack on US soil over the most populated city in the world with over 40 amateur videos and numerous witness testimony proves one thing:

You live in your own paranoid world that has nothing to do with objective reality.

my proof is there's no proof of the witnesses. simple. and all of the videos don't add up. unfortunately, this is the real world where there are lies, deceptions and motives. welcome...

That's not proof, that's just a statement.

Let me clarify. In the Naudet video of the first impact, the firefighters react to the sound of the plane, before it hits. They clearly look up to see the source of the sound. Then, they see the plane and comment on it. There are tons of videos of people talking about planes.

But you ignore all of that, because it disproves your theory.

What were the firefighters reacting to? Were the firefighers all holograms?

More on the Naudet Bros footage..

watch?v=tRLBvPMyDSQ

fake

Everything that directly disproves your dipshit theory is fake to you. It's why you don't learn anything, you ignore what you don't agree with.

In the two videos the gash is exactly the same. If you're talking about the shadow on the right, then I can't help you.

Have you ever worked with video/motion graphics before?

A shadow from what exactly? And the shadow just dissapears instantly in the other two shots. A shadow that moves across the Towers and then stays put? That's original. Can you leave this comment on linked page with the gash?

Uhhh, the giant debris cloud/fireball that's connected to it.

These two videos compare two separate shots taken at separate times from seperate locations(one of them is HEAVILY pixellated due to poor digital zoom in post) and you expect to see the exact same thing?

Like I said, if you can't tell the difference, I can't help you.

Once again, have you ever worked with video and motion graphics before?

So you think the entire Naudet video is fake? Why add a slight dark spot in a shadow when there is already a real, giant, flaming plane shaped hole in the building? If a cruise missile hit the building (forgive me if this isn't your theory, there are so many different versions with holograms, real time CGI, cruise missiles) what would the point be of adding a dark spot next to the hole?

there ya go:

watch?v=r5o_-KItOZU