Digital alteration of live video feed

omnithanos

Reg'stoy wrote: »

You use the phrase "nail in the coffin" as if you have actually given some credence to your 'theory'. 100's nay 1,000's of people watched in actual real time not a youtube video of the aircraft hitting both towers.

So may I ask a couple of questions,

First one, did an actual passenger aircraft hit the first tower stuck?

Secondly, if indeed a missile or small aircraft hit the second tower why have a missile hit rather than an aircraft?

Why not use a missile on the first tower, less chance of people filming as obviously every camera available would be trained on the towers once the first tower was struck. The story would have been more plausible if 100's had filmed an aircraft hit (which they did) rather than having to photoshop in an aircraft after the fact.

Finally a missile would have caused a huge amount of damage relative to a passenger jet, think cruise missiles used against buildings in the gulf war.

Let's stick to the facts shall we.

How do you know that 100's nay 1000's saw a plane hit in real time. Is it because you saw people say it on TV? How reliable is that?

In proving that no plane hit the second tower we can immediately discount all the videos of planes hitting that were shown at a later date as irrelevant as we know they could have all been faked.

We must only examine the nose in nose out video shown live which contains not one but two anomalies, the impossibility of going right through the building and the fact that the plane appeared out of nowhere.
The video of the object hitting the tower live with no plane and the video shown on the evening news showing a digitally inserted plane which was not visible in the source video.

This is complete proof of video fakery by the media who were complicit in the fraud of 9/11.

My opinion is that no plane hit either tower however the first tower is irrelevant in proving that a plane did not hit the second tower,

They couldn't use a real plane because it would be too difficult to aim it to hit the exact spot where the explosives were rigged. They couldn't risk the plane missing the tower because then they couldn't then take down the towers as was planned.
Also if real planes hit it would be have been glaringly obvious that they wouldn't take down the buildings as being made of fiberglass and aluminium it wouldn't have entered the building the way that the digital planes did and logically jet fuel fires don't create streams of molten steel that the firefighters reported.
The buildings were rigged to be demolished and we can even see detonation charges going off in some of the videos of the fake planes hitting.

In the Richard D Hall video he contends that it was not a cruise missile that hit but some kind of highly advanced orb perhaps similar to the one in Mr. Peabody and Sherman. Whether it was an orb or a missile or just a bomb that exploded we can be sure of the fact that it was not a plane that hit the second tower which logically leads us to the conclusion that the official story is false which logically leads us to the conclusion that the event was an inside job.

galljga1

omnithanos wrote: »

Let's stick to the facts shall we.

How do you know that 100's nay 1000's saw a plane hit in real time. Is it because you saw people say it on TV? How reliable is that?

In proving that no plane hit the second tower we can immediately discount all the videos of planes hitting that were shown at a later date as irrelevant as we know they could have all been faked.

We must only examine the nose in nose out video shown live which contains not one but two anomalies, the impossibility of going right through the building and the fact that the plane appeared out of nowhere.
The video of the object hitting the tower live with no plane and the video shown on the evening news showing a digitally inserted plane which was not visible in the source video.

This is complete proof of video fakery by the media who were complicit in the fraud of 9/11.

My opinion is that no plane hit either tower however the first tower is irrelevant in proving that a plane did not hit the second tower,

They couldn't use a real plane because it would be too difficult to aim it to hit the exact spot where the explosives were rigged. They couldn't risk the plane missing the tower because then they couldn't then take down the towers as was planned.
Also if real planes hit it would be have been glaringly obvious that they wouldn't take down the buildings as being made of fiberglass and aluminium it wouldn't have entered the building the way that the digital planes did and logically jet fuel fires don't create streams of molten steel that the firefighters reported.
The buildings were rigged to be demolished and we can even see detonation charges going off in some of the videos of the fake planes hitting.

In the Richard D Hall video he contends that it was not a cruise missile that hit but some kind of highly advanced orb perhaps similar to the one in Mr. Peabody and Sherman. Whether it was an orb or a missile or just a bomb that exploded we can be sure of the fact that it was not a plane that hit the second tower which logically leads us to the conclusion that the official story is false which logically leads us to the conclusion that the event was an inside job.

So it was Mr Peabody. Makes sense, about as much sense as your other suggestions.

omnithanos

galljga1 wrote: »

So it was Mr Peabody. Makes sense, about as much sense as your other suggestions.

I believe I have just established that 9/11 was an inside job using video footage shown live on the day of the event.

You last comment is a poor attempt to deflect from the fact that all the so called conspiracy debunkers on this conspiracy forum seem to have no intention to enter into any real valuable discussion in finding the truth behind any conspiracy event.

I have thus far had no constructive debate on the four videos shown in which I have completely exposed 9/11 as an inside job.

Bringing in irrelevant aspects such as mentioning all the videos of planes hitting which could have all easily been faked or mentioning the live witnesses whose testimony cannot be corroborated by anyone here is not debating the issue at hand which is the evidence posed in the four videos I posted.

Debunkers please stick to the four videos and debunk these if you can using logic and intelligent debate.

Unless you can disprove the following statements based on the evidence of the four videos posted we can all safely concur that 9/11 was an inside job.
1. These videos prove digital fakery was used on 9/11
2. These videos prove that a plane did not hit the second tower

Timberrrrrrrr

omnithanos wrote: »

I believe I have just established that 9/11 was an inside job using video footage shown live on the day of the event.

You last comment is a poor attempt to deflect from the fact that all the so called conspiracy debunkers on this conspiracy forum seem to have no intention to enter into any real valuable discussion in finding the truth behind any conspiracy event.

I have thus far had no constructive debate on the four videos shown in which I have completely exposed 9/11 as an inside job.

Bringing in irrelevant aspects such as mentioning all the videos of planes hitting which could have all easily been faked or mentioning the live witnesses whose testimony cannot be corroborated by anyone here is not debating the issue at hand which is the evidence posed in the four videos I posted.

Debunkers please stick to the four videos and debunk these if you can using logic and intelligent debate.

Unless you can disprove the following statements based on the evidence of the four videos posted we can all safely concur that 9/11 was an inside job.
1. These videos prove digital fakery was used on 9/11
2. These videos prove that a plane did not hit the second tower

These video's prove nothing.

omnithanos

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

These video's prove nothing.

They conclusively prove that there was digital fakery involved on the day of 9/11?

Explain why you think these videos prove nothing?

Guy:Incognito

omnithanos wrote: »

They conclusively prove that there was digital fakery involved on the day of 9/11?

Explain why you think these videos prove nothing?

Have you had time to peruse my last post yet?

Heres the contents:

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

That video proves nothing

What about the millions who watched this live on TV and the many thousands who actually saw it live on the streets of NY? Why has one single person not come forward and said "I was there and there was no plane"?

And when the inevitable "they'd be killed" response comes back, how is it that theres any government dissenters left alive in the US?

omnithanos wrote: »

The video in my post #160 proves that they inserted digital planes.

The following video shows what happens if you don't hand up your footage.

Why did no one just not hand up footage (theres no way for the government to know how many people or who they were that filmed footage hat day) and send it anonymously to someone like Alex Jones to release?

omnithanos

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Have you had time to peruse my last post yet?

Heres the contents:





And when the inevitable "they'd be killed" response comes back, how is it that theres any government dissenters left alive in the US?



Why did no one just not hand up footage (theres no way for the government to know how many people or who they were that filmed footage hat day) and send it anonymously to someone like Alex Jones to release?

I have dealt with all these points which bear no relevance to the four videos I posted.

Please discuss the issue at hand or does the hierarchy of conspiracy debunkers not allow you to discuss those points which prove the conspiracy?

Guy:Incognito

omnithanos wrote: »

I have dealt with all these points which bear no relevance to the four videos I posted.

Please discuss the issue at hand or does the hierarchy of conspiracy debunkers not allow you to discuss those points which prove the conspiracy?

You havent dealt with it at all. refuting everything with "well , like ,obviously they'd be killed if they spoke out" isnt dealing with it, its copping out.

Who would the government death squad go to if an anonymous tape had dropped through Alex Jones letterbox showing a video with no planes hitting the WTC?

How , 14 years later, is there not 1 raw video showing the holes being blown in the buildings where the planes supposedly hit?

Reg'stoy

omnithanos wrote: »

Let's stick to the facts shall we.

How do you know that 100's nay 1000's saw a plane hit in real time. Is it because you saw people say it on TV? How reliable is that?

In proving that no plane hit the second tower we can immediately discount all the videos of planes hitting that were shown at a later date as irrelevant as we know they could have all been faked.

You ask why I say 100's nay 1,000's of people would have seen the first plane hit. Imagine walking down any street in Dublin and a low flying jet passes overhead, what happens; people stop and automatically turn towards the noise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

You haven't proven that all videos of the second plane hitting are faked, you have simply offered evidence that some videos may or may not have been digitally altered. Now of course one or two videos may indeed be altered to suit the agenda of those doing the editing, but to suppose that every other video of the same event is fake (see below) based on your evidence is pushing credibility, because of the shear number of videos that must have been altered to prove you right.
I would suggest that it is easier to edit a couple of videos to show that some badly filmed pieces are fake, then to release 100's of videos and ask 100's of people to take credit for filming them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

I can debate whether or not the US Government had prior knowledge of the attack a la Pearl Harbour; but to propose that explosives were planted on multiple floors while 10,000s of people walked by everyday, then have unseen missiles strike and release fake footage of planes hitting goes beyond the Pale for me.

DamagedTrax

Reg'stoy wrote: »

but to propose that explosives were planted on multiple floors while 10,000s of people walked by everyday

this one could be done IMO. recent to the event both the security and maintenance companies were changed. that in itself means nothing but it does validate the possibility.

large buildings have maintenance areas/walkways/lift shafts etc that normal workers dont access on a day to day basis.

then have unseen missiles strike

i agree re WTC but i highly suspect that the pentagon was a missile. i find it easier to swallow than an unseen plane strike. there is plenty of footage of the planes flying over manhattan, why doesnt the same apply in washington? its a big city too. i would think that a plane flying that low (as the official report showed us) would draw a ton of attention like in new york. infact the run up to the pentagon was much more open than the streets of manhatten, that plane should have been seen coming from much further away. and if it had, it would have been taken out of the sky by the various rooftop defence systems around washington.

whereas a missle.. you'd want to have a sharp eye to catch a missle. and with the speed and size of them, they'd mostly likely look incredibly similiar to the security camera footage that the official report tried to pass off as a plane, ie: small and slim with an exhaust flame.

and release fake footage of planes hitting goes beyond the Pale for me.

i agree. the technology to do it definitely exists but the WTC event was too open. it had to be real planes. there is an argument against it being the planes they said it was but definitely solid planes hit those buildings.

Reg'stoy

DamagedTrax wrote: »

large buildings have maintenance areas/walkways/lift shafts etc that normal workers dont access on a day to day basis.

i agree re WTC but i highly suspect that the pentagon was a missile. i find it easier to swallow than an unseen plane strike.

whereas a missle.. you'd want to have a sharp eye to catch a missle. and with the speed and size of them, they'd mostly likely look incredibly similiar to the security camera footage that the official report tried to pass off as a plane, ie: small and slim with an exhaust flame.

Whether or not it was a missile or passenger jet that struck the buildings be it the twin towers or the pentagon, the problem of infiltrating in explosives particularly into the most secure building in the world still exists.

What would have happened if the planes/missiles didn't hit the building it was meant to. What happened if the trigger was hit too early to set off the charges or indeed if they didn't go off. Too many variables to go wrong.

What about the plane that didn't reach it's target, I would imagine it was meant to hit another high profile target, whitehouse? or nuclear plant? Did they have to sneak back in and remove the charges.

Where was the missile launched from, was it US military or a foreign power.

As I said in a previous post I can debate the possibility that the US knew in advance. However the idea that Bin Laden was a formerly trained 'CIA asset' (to use the CT vernacular) was used to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and so would have been under their control when planning this strike, seems to me the most reasonable justification in claiming it was an 'inside job'.

enno99

Reg'stoy wrote: »

What about the plane that didn't reach it's target, I would imagine it was meant to hit another high profile target, whitehouse? or nuclear plant? Did they have to sneak back in and remove the charges.

You ever think it s target could have been building 7
no need to sneak back in just pull it

Reg'stoy

enno99 wrote: »

You ever think it s target could have been building 7
no need to sneak back in just pull it

Ah the "pull it" quote.

Why are these CT's more complicated than a Bond Villains plan for world domination. Park a truck outside the building like Oklahoma and that's all she wrote; but no sneak in explosives and hope a hijacked plane hits it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb428ySuFjA

degrassinoel

Although this thread has been reopened, we dont want to see the level of bickering back and forth that has been going on for the last few pages in this topic. Keep it on topic.

King Mob

DamagedTrax wrote: »

there is plenty of footage of the planes flying over manhattan, why doesnt the same apply in washington? its a big city too. i would think that a plane flying that low (as the official report showed us) would draw a ton of attention like in new york.

You have to consider that first, the twin towers were much more of a tourist attraction, and much more impressive to see and video tape from ground level. You're simply just going to have more people looking and filming up the towers.
Second, there were two attacks on the towers, one after the other. So after the first attack there'd be far more people videoing the crashsite who'd be able to catch the second plane hitting.
Third, like you said, the pentagon plane was travelling low and fast so the few people who had video cameras at the time wouldn't have had much of a chance to get it out, on and pointed in the right direction in time.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

infact the run up to the pentagon was much more open than the streets of manhatten, that plane should have been seen coming from much further away. and if it had, it would have been taken out of the sky by the various rooftop defence systems around washington.

No such rooftop defence systems existed around Washington at the time.
There is an airport literally across the road from the Pentagon.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Third, like you said, the pentagon plane was travelling low and fast so the few people who had video cameras at the time wouldn't have had much of a chance to get it out, on and pointed in the right direction in time.

Coincidentally the 80 plus cameras around the pentagon also conveniently missed it

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No such rooftop defence systems existed around Washington at the time.
There is an airport literally across the road from the Pentagon.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12440

Interesting points brought up here

omnithanos

Reg'stoy wrote: »

You ask why I say 100's nay 1,000's of people would have seen the first plane hit. Imagine walking down any street in Dublin and a low flying jet passes overhead, what happens; people stop and automatically turn towards the noise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

You haven't proven that all videos of the second plane hitting are faked, you have simply offered evidence that some videos may or may not have been digitally altered. Now of course one or two videos may indeed be altered to suit the agenda of those doing the editing, but to suppose that every other video of the same event is fake (see below) based on your evidence is pushing credibility, because of the shear number of videos that must have been altered to prove you right.
I would suggest that it is easier to edit a couple of videos to show that some badly filmed pieces are fake, then to release 100's of videos and ask 100's of people to take credit for filming them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

I can debate whether or not the US Government had prior knowledge of the attack a la Pearl Harbour; but to propose that explosives were planted on multiple floors while 10,000s of people walked by everyday, then have unseen missiles strike and release fake footage of planes hitting goes beyond the Pale for me.

You are completely missing the point. There couldn't be any witnesses who saw planes if there weren't any planes so your "what about the witnesses" argument is irrelevant.

All the later released footage of planes hitting is also irrelevant because we know that anyone could have tampered with this footage.
Also Electromagnetic Jamming (applied with HERF technology) could have Prevented any private camera from functioning during key time windows.

http://cachemcclure.blogspot.ie/2012/04/herf-technology.html

"Special" Film Crews with faraday-shielded equipment recorded all the 9/11 stock footage for historical record.

I posted the the only two pieces of LIVE video footage of the second tower exploding so we must limit our discussion to these two pieces of footage.

What do these two pieces of footage show us?

1. These two pieces of live footage do not correspond with each other so therefore one has to be fake.

2. The ONLY people who could have faked LIVE footage of an explosion going off in the Tower are the perpetrators.

3. The live footage showing the plane hitting the tower is an obvious fake because we see the plane go in one side and out the other with it's nose intact which is impossible for an aluminium nose which is designed to crush on impact. Prior to the plane hitting we see a long shot with no plane visable then when the camera zooms in the plane seems to appear out of nowhere.

4. The footage showing the other object hitting the tower was not meant to be aired. The news reporters did not notice it at the time of broadcast and when they showed the replay both the object and the chopper 4 logo were removed from the shot. This either means that they either did not want anyone to see the object hit the building or that the object was another digital insertion.

5. This exact same footage that was shown live was again shown on the evening news but they took out the background and they digitally inserted a plane to correspond with the only only other live video showing the plane hitting the tower, which plane did not follow the same flight path of the object that was in the original source video.

So there you have it. We don't need to think about anything else.
1. These videos prove there was definite video fakery
2. The only people who could have pulled off this video fakery were the perpetrators of the crime
3. The reason they adjusted the images was to convince us that a plane hit the tower.
4. The fact that they used video fakery to convince us that a plane hit the tower is because no plane hit the tower.

As an aside you might be interested to know that fakery was also involved in live shots of the demolition of the towers as most videos show a helicopter in the scene but in some shots the helicopter disappears.

David Rockefeller had this event planned before they dug the foundations.
Here he is on the cover of Newsweek in 1967 with his watch set to 9 11.



And how did the emergency number 911 come about?
Rockefeller owned AT&T who In November 1967 met with the FCC to find a means of establishing a universal emergency number for the US. In 1968, AT&T announced that it would establish the digits 9-1-1 (nine-one-one) as the emergency code throughout the United States.

Hardly random as it is believed the true birth date of Jesus Christ was September 11th 3BC. As a Satanist Rockefeller wanted to perpetrate the most despicable crime in history on the anniversary date of Jesus' actual birth.

https://goodnessofgodministries.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/when-was-jesus-christ-born-the-bible-says-september-11-3bc-the-day-of-the-feast-of-trumpets/

DamagedTrax

King Mob wrote: »

No such rooftop defence systems existed around Washington at the time.
There is an airport literally across the road from the Pentagon.

not according to cheney. infact he gave an order to stand down the raytheon rooftop defence system.

the plane entered washington airspace without the correct IFF response. on any other day the orders are that the aircraft would be identified and taken down. this was all in place before 911.

why cheney decided that a 'plane' be allowed fly into the pentagon is beyond the understanding even of Norm Meneta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta)

immediately after the attacks, cheney invoked continuity of government and the US moved to partial secret government and suspended the constitution.

makes the whole thing a lot easier when you can suspend the constitution and do whatever the hell you like. who in their right mind was going to argue with the VP (a man that has since admitted to condoning torture AND claimed that he would do it again!!) when planes were falling out of the sky around them?

King Mob

DamagedTrax wrote: »

not according to cheney. infact he gave an order to stand down the raytheon rooftop defence system.

the plane entered washington airspace without the correct IFF response. on any other day the orders are that the aircraft would be identified and taken down. this was all in place before 911.

No such system existed on the pentagon at the time.
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html

If you have a source to show that they did, please provide it.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No such system existed on the pentagon at the time.
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html

If you have a source to show that they did, please provide it.

From your link

The air defense system for Washington is unique, and many of its operations are classified.

A spokesman for the commander of NORAD, Air Force Gen. Ralph E. "Ed" Eberhart, would not comment on the handling of the incident, saying that rules of engagement are classified

So .. Its only clear to a small group of people what is actually out there which leave us with only common sense thinking

I think it is reasonable to ASSUME that the Pentagon has some sort of air-defense system. Furthermore, I think it would be reasonable to ASSUME that most if not all information about any such system would be CLASSIFIED information. There is nothing wrong with making reasonable and rational assumptions provided one states clearly that they are such. I assume the sun will rise tomorrow and that I'll still be here to see it. No, I don't have a "source" other than my own reason. Lets put it this way, how "reasonable" is it to assume the opposite, to assume that the headquarters for a significant proportion of our national defense infrastructure is, itself, "defenseless"? Obviously, absent verifiable reporting, our assumptions are just that and any detail we might imagine is just that. But the overall assumption isn't unreasonable.

Could not have said it better myself

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

From your link

So .. Its only clear to a small group of people what is actually out there which leave us with only common sense thinking

Could not have said it better myself

My link contains neither of those quotes, and none of those quotes are sources for the things that have been claimed.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

My link contains neither of those quotes, and none of those quotes are sources for the things that have been claimed.

Yes they do to make their point in your link they are referring to an article that contain these quotes

If you would use common sense the sources are less relevant ..although there are some sources in the link I provided earlier

If you are looking for blueprints or official statements stating where and what air defense systems are/where used I'm afraid neither myself nor anyone else could help you here

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Yes they do to make their point in your link they are referring to an article that contain these quotes

If you would use common sense the sources are less relevant ..although there are some sources in the link I provided earlier

If you are looking for blueprints or official statements stating where and what air defense systems are/where used I'm afraid neither myself nor anyone else could help you here

And the link I provided explains why that without anything official, then there is no reason to think these defenses exist.
So I stand by my statement.
No such defenses existed on the Pentagon at the time.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And the link I provided explains why that without anything official, then there is no reason to think these defenses exist.
So I stand by my statement.
No such defenses existed on the Pentagon at the time.

I just quoted a piece perfectly explaining common sense dictates there would be these kind of defenses ...

Of course you can stand by your statement but that doesn't make it a correct one

Example:
Officially there are no US nukes in air force base Volkel in the Netherlands.. But everyone knows they are there, (info was leaked) Was there ever an Official statement confirming they where there ? NO does that automatically mean they are not there ? also NO

omnithanos

King Mob wrote: »

And the link I provided explains why that without anything official, then there is no reason to think these defenses exist.
So I stand by my statement.
No such defenses existed on the Pentagon at the time.

You cannot make a definitive statement about this.

I can however make a definitive statement that the perpetrators of 9/11 digitally altered the live feed.

Here's more proof that it could not have been a real plane

And here's a super close up of the object that hit coming from a different angle.


I'm wondering why my post proving same hasn't been commented on?

Are the debunkers on this conspiracy board actually part of the conspiracy itself?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Of course you can stand by your statement but that doesn't make it a correct one

Common sense dictates that having a missile defense system next to an active busy airport is a bad idea.

If such a defense system existed before or after 9/11 and worked as claimed, then there would be an incidence of a plane being shot down.
My link shows that there have been several occasions before and after 9/11 where a plane wandered into the no fly zones.
They weren't automatically shot down.

There is no basis for your assumption and a lot of reasons going against it.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Common sense dictates that having a missile defense system next to an active busy airport is a bad idea.

Based on what information ? Its not from official channels as your own links are showing

King Mob wrote: »

If such a defense system existed before or after 9/11 and worked as claimed, then there would be an incidence of a plane being shot down.

Why ?

King Mob wrote: »

My link shows that there have been several occasions before and after 9/11 where a plane wandered into the no fly zones.
They weren't automatically shot down.

Where does anyone states these systems are working automatically?

Your links showed that

The air defense system for Washington is unique, and many of its operations are classified.

Unless you have more information you are guessing as much as anyone else in here

King Mob wrote: »

There is no basis for your assumption and a lot of reasons going against it.

I repeat

I think it is reasonable to ASSUME that the Pentagon has some sort of air-defense system. Furthermore, I think it would be reasonable to ASSUME that most if not all information about any such system would be CLASSIFIED information. There is nothing wrong with making reasonable and rational assumptions provided one states clearly that they are such. I assume the sun will rise tomorrow and that I'll still be here to see it. No, I don't have a "source" other than my own reason. Lets put it this way, how "reasonable" is it to assume the opposite, to assume that the headquarters for a significant proportion of our national defense infrastructure is, itself, "defenseless"? Obviously, absent verifiable reporting, our assumptions are just that and any detail we might imagine is just that. But the overall assumption isn't unreasonable.

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

If you would use common sense

weisses wrote: »

Of course you can stand by your statement but that doesn't make it a correct one

omnithanos wrote: »

You cannot make a definitive statement about this.



I can however make a definitive statement that the perpetrators of 9/11 digitally altered the live feed.

King Mob wrote: »

There is no basis for your assumption.

This level of bickering needs to stop, please. You guys more or less are having an interesting conversation here but it doesn't need to be accented with "I'm right you're wrong" attitudes. There are no winners here. Theories are theories, if you don't agree with a theory that's fine but you're going too far trying to battle eachother. "That's how you see it; I would argue XYZ" "Agree to disagree" etc.

Overheal

omnithanos wrote: »

You cannot make a definitive statement about this.

I can however make a definitive statement that the perpetrators of 9/11 digitally altered the live feed.

Here's more proof that it could not have been a real plane

And here's a super close up of the object that hit coming from a different angle.


I'm wondering why my post proving same hasn't been commented on?

Are the debunkers on this conspiracy board actually part of the conspiracy itself?

The uncertainty with this theory, is that it assumes the plane made no adjustments in it's flightpath. As in, it didn't bank, roll, or pitch. At 3:00 he makes mention of this possibility (ie. dragforce from pitching up before impact) but without any explanation just concluded it's physically impossible. I don't buy that, personally. Shaky camera footage and all, it doesn't seem that far out of the realm of possibilities that the plane moved a couple pixels faster than what some guy assumed on youtube from 2001 era analog camera footage.