Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

911 - Points to discuss

1…121314151618»

Comments

  • #512
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    OK Meglome, I take it you have watched it by now

    The first couple of points Id like to discuss are
    1) the lack of a plane in the first :Wide angle - Zoom - Zoom : Shot from the helicopter, surely if the Plane is htere in the 3rd zoom it should be visible in the first and second shots

    2) tha apparent discrepencies in the second planes aproach


  • #513
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    OK Meglome, I take it you have watched it by now

    The first couple of points Id like to discuss are
    1) the lack of a plane in the first :Wide angle - Zoom - Zoom : Shot from the helicopter, surely if the Plane is htere in the 3rd zoom it should be visible in the first and second shots

    2) tha apparent discrepencies in the second planes aproach

    You're having me on right? You don't see what's wrong with this video?

    I'm not even ten minutes in and it's full of crap. As I understand it the broadcasts were coming from the aerials on top of the WTC so of course there was a sudden blackout for a few frames when the plane hit. They're also using compressed video and recordings from TV so again of course objects may drop from frame to frame, that how compression works.

    I wouldn't take this utter rubbish seriously even if there wasn't a load of other evidence for a plane, which there is. Why is it to believe in these theories we must first completely ignore a load of evidence to the contrary?

    And besides Diogenes who knows his stuff on this topic already explained why it's a load of crap.


  • #514
    Undergod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    Here's a theory: If 9/11 was an inside job, and you wanted people to believe that planes hit various buildings, then wouldn't you fly planes into those buildings?

    It could still be some kind of conspiracy or coverup, even if planes were used.


  • #515
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    Hey MC pratice what you preach.

    You keep saying "WATCH THIS DOCUMENTARY AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK!".

    Here Mahatma watch THIS SODDING FILM. The idiot on the left is Ace Baker a big proponent of September Clues and "Video Fakery". The guy with the mustache on his right is Steve Wright visual effects supervisor on over 70 films.

    So instead of presenting yet another documentary and demanding it be debunked why don't you just go and explain what's wrong with Steve Wright's analysis.


    OH AND WHILE YOU ARE AT IT EXPLAIN THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF WITNESSES WHO SAW THE PLANES.


  • #516
    6th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    I know it can be frustratingbut lets try to be a bit more civil.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement