This video appears to dispel any notion that:
1. No planes hit the towers on that day - There are no glitches in the video, the viewing angle is not similar to any others, a real September clue to what happened that day.
2. There does not appear to be anything like a pod under the aircraft, it's in plain site.
3. Eyewitness testimony can be wrong - As the woman sees what is obviously a large commercial jet, she adamantly states that, "It was definitely was a smaller plane."
Now, let's get back to studying the empirical evidence. Let's not give them ammunition to use against those seeking the truth.
plain came from where?? :)
Amer300986 2 months ago
@idneagle she doesn't say another explosion, she clearly says another ONE another plane has hit the building. why don't ya'll try telling people who were there that a second plane didn't hit the tower.
dude100801 5 months ago
she starts off saying that it was an explosion, then says ANOTHER plane has hit...
ldneagle 8 months ago
There are a group of investigative Youtube productions which illustrate the digital imaging and sound track manipulation performed on 9/11 trade tower scenes which were provided for mainstream television presentations. They show the "Wag The Dog" digital imaging so well that it opens up a whole can of worms. For those sincere investigators do a youtube search for: "SEPTEMBER CLUES Epilogue"' and the other September Clues productions.Then understand why pilots question 911 plane maneuvers .
Chidanandaji 1 year ago
How can you say "no pod" The view is too far away to tell either way. After 1:15, the lady said "it didn't look like it was ..a commercial jet...it was definitely a smaller plane." The video is interesting, but not conclusive either for the OCT or Truthers.
rshaddock 1 year ago