08-03-2019, 05:15 AM
In the footage shown, I also saw no birds, bugs, people, cars, busses, trucks, etc. The whole thing must have been CGI, therefore the WTC must still be standing. Almost any city in the world will have bugs, birds, people, cars, busses, trucks, etc.
Seriously. there are a plethora of angles the building were filmed from. Some of them would not have shown an approaching plane if it were coming from the other side of the building. That would just have shown the side of a building blowing out for no apparent reason.
Some of the shots were from so far away an airplane would not have registered on the camera CCD, so, no plane (also no bugs, birds, people, cars, busses, trucks, etc.).
Some of these people were pretty clearly not demolitions experts. For example, one lady said it was a "bomb", because everything blew outwards. Every explosion I've ever seen scattered stuff outwards in all directions from the point of explosion. None of them gave a crap what angle the bomb came from when they were scattering shit to the wind.
One guy said it was "physically impossible" for a 747 to go through a building, which is utter bullshit. I've seen a chunk of soft lead go entirely through a plate of steel. It's just a matter of speed and momentum. I used to have a party trick where I could drive a plastic drinking straw through a solid potato - same thing, speed and momentum... although in the case of the straw, covering one end with a thumb also increases the air pressure inside the straw (making it a little stiffer) as it's driven through the potato.
Now, the side by side video of plane/no plane was interesting. Watch it again. The fireballs shown emerging from the building do not match, so there is nothing there to make me believe that they are the same video with a CGI plane added into one. One of those videos probably WAS CGI, but I'll let you decide for yourself which you believe it was. One had a CGI fireball, but you decide for yourself whether it was the one WITH a reason for an explosion or the one WITHOUT a reason for an explosion.
"Where did the wing go"? Another camera angle in this same documentary clearly shows where it went - You can see the illumination line on the wing change as the plane banks, making part of the wing "vanish" from a different angle, from a distance, in video that has been copied over and over and over again.
One more thought, just to muddy the waters a bit more. It's pretty easy to erase a plane from a video if one were so inclined to, in order to support a narrative that would fall apart WITH a plane in the video. It's easier still if the background of the plane is a clear blue sky without clouds. You can do it yourself in the comfort of your home. All you would need are a couple of pieces of off the shelf software. You would first need to deconstruct the video into it's constituent frames. I would use "Avidemux" for that, simply because that is what I have laying around here. Once the frames are deconstructed into individual photos, you would just need to step through each one and remove the plane. I would use "inPixio" for that. It does a great job, and it's fast. The you just recompile the frames and audio back into a video. Presto! no mo plane.
So those are most of my thoughts. Another is wondering who is promoting this narrative, and why. What are they trying to distract attention from that would otherwise be concentrated from legions of folks being distracted by this? There is no "there" there, but folks are not noticing where a "there" IS because they are concentrating on this Pied Piper narrative.
.
Seriously. there are a plethora of angles the building were filmed from. Some of them would not have shown an approaching plane if it were coming from the other side of the building. That would just have shown the side of a building blowing out for no apparent reason.
Some of the shots were from so far away an airplane would not have registered on the camera CCD, so, no plane (also no bugs, birds, people, cars, busses, trucks, etc.).
Some of these people were pretty clearly not demolitions experts. For example, one lady said it was a "bomb", because everything blew outwards. Every explosion I've ever seen scattered stuff outwards in all directions from the point of explosion. None of them gave a crap what angle the bomb came from when they were scattering shit to the wind.
One guy said it was "physically impossible" for a 747 to go through a building, which is utter bullshit. I've seen a chunk of soft lead go entirely through a plate of steel. It's just a matter of speed and momentum. I used to have a party trick where I could drive a plastic drinking straw through a solid potato - same thing, speed and momentum... although in the case of the straw, covering one end with a thumb also increases the air pressure inside the straw (making it a little stiffer) as it's driven through the potato.
Now, the side by side video of plane/no plane was interesting. Watch it again. The fireballs shown emerging from the building do not match, so there is nothing there to make me believe that they are the same video with a CGI plane added into one. One of those videos probably WAS CGI, but I'll let you decide for yourself which you believe it was. One had a CGI fireball, but you decide for yourself whether it was the one WITH a reason for an explosion or the one WITHOUT a reason for an explosion.
"Where did the wing go"? Another camera angle in this same documentary clearly shows where it went - You can see the illumination line on the wing change as the plane banks, making part of the wing "vanish" from a different angle, from a distance, in video that has been copied over and over and over again.
One more thought, just to muddy the waters a bit more. It's pretty easy to erase a plane from a video if one were so inclined to, in order to support a narrative that would fall apart WITH a plane in the video. It's easier still if the background of the plane is a clear blue sky without clouds. You can do it yourself in the comfort of your home. All you would need are a couple of pieces of off the shelf software. You would first need to deconstruct the video into it's constituent frames. I would use "Avidemux" for that, simply because that is what I have laying around here. Once the frames are deconstructed into individual photos, you would just need to step through each one and remove the plane. I would use "inPixio" for that. It does a great job, and it's fast. The you just recompile the frames and audio back into a video. Presto! no mo plane.
So those are most of my thoughts. Another is wondering who is promoting this narrative, and why. What are they trying to distract attention from that would otherwise be concentrated from legions of folks being distracted by this? There is no "there" there, but folks are not noticing where a "there" IS because they are concentrating on this Pied Piper narrative.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’