WE WERE LIED TO
There are two videos with a similar view of the WTC.
Video 1-- a sharply descending approach to the south tower:
Video 2-- an apparent ascending approach to the south tower:
Note the light colored band of floors (floors 75-76) on the north (burning) tower-- these floors are obscured on the south tower, but you can see the plane is BELOW this level in the second frame-- meaning the plane has to ASCEND to hit floor 79-82. Moreover, the plane is clearly ascending if you look at its position relaitve to the Woolworth building (the ornate tower) between frame 1 and frame 2. The cameraman has zoomed out between the first and second frames here, making the analysis a little trickier. Nonetheless, the cameraman has not changed position, meaning that the plane has definitely ascended.
There is no way to reconcile these plane paths.
This is PROOF for video forgery of the south tower plane.
There are also the oddities of the Camera Planet footage-- with two different cuts. The first cut is above, here is the second cut. In the first cut, it is as though someone is alerting the cameraman to the plane when he is filming down in the street. In the other cut, the cameraman is first filming the north tower-- someone falling-- then for no apparent reason (we don't hear anyone alerting him to pan over as in the first cut) he pans over to shakily find the plane-- as though he KNOWS something is there. It's VERY odd. Then the audible response to the explosion: a whispered "go foul" (or something like that). What the hell is that? Who would say that? It's totally weird. Finally, I have discussed this footage somewhat in a post earlier.
Video 1-- a sharply descending approach to the south tower:
Video 2-- an apparent ascending approach to the south tower:
Note the light colored band of floors (floors 75-76) on the north (burning) tower-- these floors are obscured on the south tower, but you can see the plane is BELOW this level in the second frame-- meaning the plane has to ASCEND to hit floor 79-82. Moreover, the plane is clearly ascending if you look at its position relaitve to the Woolworth building (the ornate tower) between frame 1 and frame 2. The cameraman has zoomed out between the first and second frames here, making the analysis a little trickier. Nonetheless, the cameraman has not changed position, meaning that the plane has definitely ascended.
There is no way to reconcile these plane paths.
This is PROOF for video forgery of the south tower plane.
There are also the oddities of the Camera Planet footage-- with two different cuts. The first cut is above, here is the second cut. In the first cut, it is as though someone is alerting the cameraman to the plane when he is filming down in the street. In the other cut, the cameraman is first filming the north tower-- someone falling-- then for no apparent reason (we don't hear anyone alerting him to pan over as in the first cut) he pans over to shakily find the plane-- as though he KNOWS something is there. It's VERY odd. Then the audible response to the explosion: a whispered "go foul" (or something like that). What the hell is that? Who would say that? It's totally weird. Finally, I have discussed this footage somewhat in a post earlier.
posted by spooked at 4:17 PM
5 Comments:
what about those of us who were actually there?
oh conspiracy smasher, were you actually there?
that's funny, i didn't see your official recorded eyewitless testimony anywhere.
time to put up or shut up!
a critique of the complete official version
TOO FUNNY!
OH!! NOW the government SHILL infers that he/she was there, and can testify as to what actually happened!
Suuuuure you were...
Suuuuure you can....
I live here in nYc...where exactly WERE you!?????
Who else can blow up their asbestoes filled building and then get the insurence company to pay for it and the Taxpayers to pay for the clean up?
Disaster relief firm's 9/11 fraud not prosecuted.
Theft by FBI agents prevented government from seeking punishment.
Seems like everyone was out for their share of the loot.
How did everything go in Chicago on the weekend, anyone know?
Lets see the proof that the planes brought down the buildings.
It's much more plausible to me that you lack analytical capabilities regarding optical illusions, than there was no plane causing the sightings and hole in the tower.
What is gained other than angry attention by suggesting there was no plane? There are plenty of real coverups by the government to get angry about, no one has to make up new ones.
saskboy--
It's much more plausible to me that you lack analytical capabilities regarding optical illusions
You bring up a valid point, one worthy of further discussion. Opticial illusions are, by definition, a visually perceived image that is deceptive or misleading, and I have often wondered how best to go out analysizing such illusions myself. Puzzling over such phenomena as fuzzy black dots appearing between intersecting lines, twisted rooms which distort the relative size of an individual, or other popularized optical illusions is one thing, but I am curious as to how it is you use your analytical capabilities to explain blatant violations of established physical laws during events documented by multiple eyewitnesses from multiple perspectives? Insight is gained by examining your blogger profile, where you list your interest in topics ranging from reading, writing, and politics to photography, taking pictures, and breathing. Further evidence of your analytical capabilities can be illustrated by your choices for favorite movies and books, including famous Hollywood hits as The Da Vinci Code and The Core. You clearly deserve some merit of respect on this matter. Care to weigh in further? Care the take a stab at using your analytical observations to explain these optical illusions?
Post a Comment
<< Home