A fake plane was added for south tower explosion

Initiate
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:19 am

PostWed Apr 16, 2014 8:41 pm » by 7forever


Kerrblur2 wrote:
7forever wrote:I'm sticking with what he said two minutes after it exploded. :owned: If the government didn't want the truth to be known, they would not have released it, in pieces.

"I just caught the second explosion on videotape...No, a bomb, I saw it, NO PLANE HIT NOTHIN', the building exploded from the other tower floors down."

NIST FOIA: Clifton Cloud Clips 1-3 (WTC2 Plane Impact, 9:03am) - YouTube

And again, here are the very lies from Clifton Cloud himself, 7 years later.:icon_jawdrop:

"I am telling you absolutely ... you know ... there was a plane" ~ Clifton Cloud

@1:56

pumpitout Jeff Hill Talks to 9/11 WTC Witness Clifton Cloud - YouTube


your on stupid drugs. now i believe there was something attached to the planes. but if your eye balls are in your fkn head. planes hit the WTC's.

and why is this thread still alive? lol guess i just contributed. shit.


I can fully accept that William did not take a picture of a plane because of his slip up that he didn't see one, even though he supposedly captured it right before it impacted the South Tower. All these people were forced into a life time of lunacy after getting back these obvious fakes added to their pics. No one took a picture or shot video of a plane crashing into either tower on 911, and this tidbit of proof fits perfectly with all the evidence that points to no boeings being present near the towers before they exploded. Just imagine how completely stupid you'd sound trying to explain how a man took a picture of something he didn't see, even though he pressed the button to capture it. Nobody saw any planes, meaning that many lied and pretended to see one or more.

William D. Nuñez — amateur photographer 9/11 Airplane Photo Gallery - 9-11-2001 - 2nd World Trade Center Attack

Bond analyst Will Nuñez had gone to his corner newsstand and bought a $14.99 disposable Kodak, hoping to record the smoking tower out his office window "for history's sake," he says. "I remembered an incident back in the thirties when a plane had hit the Empire State Building, and I was always impressed by photos in encyclopedias." Instead, from his perch on the thirty-second floor of One State Street Plaza, he captured the plane's breathtaking blur out his office window, quite unintentionally. In his shot, a colleague, standing before a vast picture window, looks on in silhouette, next to an innocuous baseball trophy, its tiny batter poised on a two-handled loving cup. The plane had streaked by with such speed, Nuñez had not even realized he had caught it on film until he finally got around to developing the roll a week or two later.

- David Friend, Watching the World Change: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, p. 13.

Image
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 2674
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:59 pm
Location: Planet of the nOObs

PostWed Apr 16, 2014 8:58 pm » by DarkHeart


I watched this today; http://www.richplanet.net/starship.php

Four men who have done a lot of research into this & what they come up with makes the most sense to me, even if it seems far fetched, the other options don't fit with the laws of physics.

In 2012 Richard carried out analysis of 9/11 radar and video evidence of flight 175 as it appeared to impact on the world trade centres South Tower. Video and radar data shows that the object was travelling at around 580 miles per hour. Most pilots agree that 580 miles per hour is an impossible speed for a 767 travelling near sea level. Not only that, close up videos showing the alleged plane impacting on the side of the tower show completely impossible impact dynamics. So with two major impossibilities the question arises, what was actually used? By studying the video evidence closely it suggests that some kind of illusion was being generated to trick observers of the existence of a 767 aircraft. It is possible that a solid object was cloaked inside the illusion. John Lear explains just how impossible the speed was, which is a piece of glaring evidence that is not going to go away.
ImageImage

Conspirator
Posts: 2313
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:34 pm

PostWed Apr 16, 2014 10:32 pm » by Cia212


DarkHeart wrote:I watched this today; http://www.richplanet.net/starship.php

Four men who have done a lot of research into this & what they come up with makes the most sense to me, even if it seems far fetched, the other options don't fit with the laws of physics.

In 2012 Richard carried out analysis of 9/11 radar and video evidence of flight 175 as it appeared to impact on the world trade centres South Tower. Video and radar data shows that the object was travelling at around 580 miles per hour. Most pilots agree that 580 miles per hour is an impossible speed for a 767 travelling near sea level. Not only that, close up videos showing the alleged plane impacting on the side of the tower show completely impossible impact dynamics. So with two major impossibilities the question arises, what was actually used? By studying the video evidence closely it suggests that some kind of illusion was being generated to trick observers of the existence of a 767 aircraft. It is possible that a solid object was cloaked inside the illusion. John Lear explains just how impossible the speed was, which is a piece of glaring evidence that is not going to go away.

All of this has been debunked multiple times. And the speed is not impossible, the plane was in a power dive - here are a few others to exceed the "impossible" speed:

From Randi's forum:

First, China Airlines 006, a Boeing 747, is thought to have exceeded Mach 1 by accident... with one of its four engines flamed out, and the other three at ordinary power. It exceeded 650 MPH, well above its "rated" speed.

Second, Egpyt Air 990 nearly reached Mach 1 at sea level as it dived to its destruction. And this was even a fellow Boeing 767, similar to Flight 175. Its final speed was nearly 750 miles per hour. At sea level.

The speeds NIST cites are entirely credible for a 767 in a power dive. Flight 175 was at full power and diving from 28,000 feet at over 10,000 feet per minute when it struck WTC 2.

Initiate
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:19 am

PostSun Apr 20, 2014 5:26 pm » by 7forever


Cia212 wrote:
DarkHeart wrote:I watched this today; http://www.richplanet.net/starship.php

Four men who have done a lot of research into this & what they come up with makes the most sense to me, even if it seems far fetched, the other options don't fit with the laws of physics.

In 2012 Richard carried out analysis of 9/11 radar and video evidence of flight 175 as it appeared to impact on the world trade centres South Tower. Video and radar data shows that the object was travelling at around 580 miles per hour. Most pilots agree that 580 miles per hour is an impossible speed for a 767 travelling near sea level. Not only that, close up videos showing the alleged plane impacting on the side of the tower show completely impossible impact dynamics. So with two major impossibilities the question arises, what was actually used? By studying the video evidence closely it suggests that some kind of illusion was being generated to trick observers of the existence of a 767 aircraft. It is possible that a solid object was cloaked inside the illusion. John Lear explains just how impossible the speed was, which is a piece of glaring evidence that is not going to go away.

All of this has been debunked multiple times. And the speed is not impossible, the plane was in a power dive - here are a few others to exceed the "impossible" speed:

From Randi's forum:

.


If you don't address what they said came over the bridge, then you're conceding that they were correct.

Was that flight 175 coming over the Verrazano bridge or was that the ball that aired live three times?

Varcadapane: He says to me, “As a matter of fact, do you see that target coming over the Verrazano Bridge.” I went over to the radar and looked at the radar. The Verrazano Bridge is depicted on the radar. And I looked over there and I saw the aircraft descending out of 4700 feet, 3600 feet, 2700 feet."

Greg Callahan: And I could hear him calling on altitudes. “I have a target in sight, he’s descending rapidly.” And he said—“Look out to the southeast,” and the gentleman working ground control said, “Hey, who’s that by the Verrazano Bridge?” "And here comes a very large target descending rapidly, very fast." The skies over America - Dateline NBC | NBC News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMlls8-X5pk
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

Initiate
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:19 am

PostMon Apr 21, 2014 2:23 pm » by 7forever


Kelvinm wrote:This post is cringeworthy :oops:


There are no fake plane images from 911 that look like flight 175. They needed to produce fakes that could be considered real comparables. All your fake images are hideous. In a real debate you could never explain why your fictional case hasn't even one decent cgi.

Image
Image
Image
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

Initiate
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:19 am

PostSun Jun 15, 2014 10:51 pm » by 7forever


The57ironman wrote:.

...you're high.....





.



The holes in the towers are completely irreconcilable. The south tower hole is at least three times smaller. Did something smaller hit it, or did no plane impact either tower?

ImageImage
http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/

Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:30 am

PostMon Jun 16, 2014 12:26 am » by Mattler906


Re: the OP

Ladies and Gents,

Just to be clear: I do believe that aircraft were used on Sept 11th. And I also think that it was likely done using remote controlled, heavily modified 767/757 drones. This was obviously a highly sophisticated operation, with many, many levels of cooperation and coordination, among very wealthy and monopolistic entities. The results of that day are proof of these facts. Furthermore, while I understand the financial side of 9/11 fairly well (cui bono), I'm only now beginning to appreciate the Psy-Op aspect of it. It was meant to terrify the living hell out of each and every one of us. Not sure about you guys, but I don't like being messed with like that.

In the name of full disclosure, I fly one of the types of aircraft used that day, which is the Boeing 767. I have over 7000 hours with a major international carrier, and have been flying into NYC since the beginning of my career. Here are some facts on which I'm willing to bet my professional credibility:

1) They were real aircraft, and;
2) These aircraft were observed on radar, and by using video metrics, doing impossible speeds and maneuvers, and;
3) These aircraft were flown much too precisely to be flown by a human being,

and;

4) Finally, the last point, on which I will go into a bit of depth. The video in the OP, "claiming" to be 100% proof that a CG aircraft was used, is not proof of that at all. Furthermore, I think this point can be easily understood by any rational human being who has ever spent time watching aircraft in flight (whether in real life, in PC flight sims, or on video).

The reason that the aircraft wasn't visible until it popped out from the right side of the building, is that it was on a trajectory that was perfectly masked by the buildings in the foreground.

During the time that it was masked by said buildings, it was approaching south Manhattan in a descent with a shallow left turn. In this time, its trajectory was in the general direction of the cameraman, even though all of this was being obscured by the buildings in the foreground. As it approached those buildings, it steepened its turn and descended to line up with the south tower. This is when it pops out from behind the buildings in the foreground.

One simply needs to understand that when an aircraft is coming straight at you, it doesn't appear to move at all. In the context of avoiding collisions with other aircraft, a pilot knows that when an aircraft's trajectory is dissecting its own trajectory (ie. the two planes are on a collision course), the oncoming aircraft does not appear to move at all - it just gets bigger. This is a dangerous illusion that can be mesmerizing and thus fatal to new pilots. Simply put, if one does not take evasive action quickly, they will hit the oncoming aircraft.

So the plane that hit the south tower did exactly that, vis à vis the cameraman, as it approached south Manhattan. In those moments, it was behind the buildings, and thus its approach to the city was completely obscured. As the aircraft's heading changed, its trajectory approached 90 degrees in respect of the cameraman, it only then pops out from behind the buildings. That's because the aircraft's trajectory is now crossing the field of view of the cameraman and so we can fully appreciate its velocity.

This is only my opinion, but I feel like it's based on rational science. I invite anyone to ask for clarification, or debate my logic. I also recently broke up with my girlfriend, so if the NSA wants to set a honey trap for me to find out what I know, I'm cool with that too. Also, if you want to talk about Illuminati or Chem Trails, please first read Tragedy and Hope, and research cloud seeding - these are the real-deal conspiracies (ie. big money enterprise). But I digress.

In conclusion, I'm sure this video was well intentioned, but I think it is highly counter productive when it comes to discovering the genuine truth. I say that with this one little caveat: I continue to be blown away by the sophistication of this operation (9/11), especially as more evidence comes out. So I reserve 5% of my judgement for the possibility that this was all just CG, and that it is evidence of how manipulated our media is. I just don't think that is the case at all - Occam's Razor kicks in long before that eventuality.

My final point is this: having viewed this video and a few others many times in order to verify my hypothesis (especially the re-creation done by Pilots for 9/11 Truth), I am even more convinced that physical aircraft were used. This video is organic, and thus contains all the regular illusions presented by every day optics. Often it is the lack of these unpredictable details in a video that is evidence of CGI fakery.

Peace.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2559
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:23 pm

PostMon Jun 16, 2014 1:14 am » by Rich316


7000hrs flying time and you just broke up with your girlfriend... So you're 16? LOL

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:34 am
Location: Fredericton, New Brunswick -Atlantic Canada

PostMon Jun 16, 2014 1:21 am » by DmoniX_The_Destroyer


7forever wrote:This is so simple it's stupid. :look: The plane does not pass through the open skyline before it comes into view which proves a fake plane was added.
Image

Advance this clip to 4:00 or before and see the plane created out of thin air from behind the building just right of the open and unobstructed skyline.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddGXuy0ep7g"]Unseen 911 Footage Finally Released By FBI, DOJ - YouTube[/url]

Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 The FBI and the Department of Justice have released ten new videos relating to the events of 9/11, three years after a freedom of information act request for the footage was submitted.

And a fake brain was added to those who believe this nonsensical dribble :hell:
Oh I know I'm goin to Hell, I'm just working on how deep.

Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:30 am

PostMon Jun 16, 2014 5:14 am » by Mattler906


Rich - So a guy in his early 30s (ie me) can't have a girlfriend? Only 16 year olds "do that"? Is that what you mean? Are you saying I sound 16 when I type? Thanks I think. :D


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook