Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
STUNNING 911 Video - No 2nd plane?
#8
(08-03-2019, 05:00 PM)gordi Wrote: The differences in the ball of fire from the explosion could just be from the slightly different viewing angle of the 2nd footage?

That's a possibility, although the shots look identical other than the plane/fireball anomalies. Another possibility that I've not investigated could be that the timing is slightly different in the videos on either side of the split screen, which could potentially account for the mismatched fireballs in any given instant of the split screen video.

Quote:With regards to the potential placement of the alleged explosives...
To be effective, the explosives would have to be placed at key points in the structural supports of the tower(s) not in the offices etc.
A small "maintenance" team sent in by the owners could very easily "inspect" all of the non-public areas without being noticed at all, and could do so day-after-day, week-after-week.

Not just on structural supports, but at specific places on the structural supports. To verify this for yourself, re-watch the video and notice ALL of the other building demolitions shown to try illustrating the point that it was demolition charges that brought the WTC down. On the WTC, the explosion was at the level of the alleged airplane entry, at about the 78th floor. Demolition charges are set lower, much closer to ground level, as can be seen in the various demolition videos included in the documentary. That is because a higher charge may not sufficiently damage the support structures, and could potentially leave a very dangerous, unstable, and large portion of the building standing. That would in turn necessitate sending in further demo crews to do the job right the second time. The hazardous duty pay for that would be astronomical... not to mention highly visible by a world watching closely - not the best methodology for an alleged black-bag, clandestine job.

Furthermore, the fireball blossoms directly from the 78th floor office windows. It would be difficult to say the least to surreptitiously plant hundreds of pounds of explosive in those offices while having to work around curious office workers.

Also notice that the fireball bloomed from one side of the building. In the actual demolition videos shown, it comes from ALL sides of the building, and it's done simultaneously. Destabilizing one side of a building is a BAD idea just as destabilizing one side of a tree when felling it is a GOOD idea - it allows you to control which way the tree falls. If a demolished building falls sideways, bad idea, as it destroys several more surrounding buildings. You want to drop it straight down. True enough that is exactly what WTC did, but that was just the luck of the draw, not from poorly planned demolitions.

Quote:If there is CGI involved...
I can very much understand why TPTB would "insert" a plane into the shot to support their OS narrative that terrorists used a plane to hit each tower.
If the plane(s) was (were) removed from the shots then.... why? Just distraction...?  From what?

TPTB would not be the ones removing it. the people with a vested interest in pushing the 911 conspiracy narrative would be the ones in need of making an airplane disappear so they could claim there was no airplane there, and therefore a demolition job.

Quote:But, if it was planes (and only planes) that brought down the twin towers.... what about the Salomon Building (WTC7)? (BBC reported LIVE that it had collapsed when it was still clearly visible standing in the background of their shot almost 30mins BEFORE it actually collapsed.)

I confess to not knowing very much about WTC7. I don't know what it looked like, nor could I pick it out of the hundreds of buildings in the BBC background shot. I also cannot be certain that the "background shot" was not stock footage on a green screen behind the reporter. I just don't know enough about it either way.

Quote:What about the Pentagon? Where is the footage which clearly shows that a plane hit one of the most protected and watched buildings in the world? What do they have to lose by releasing the footage?
What about the other plane that crashed in (was it) Pennsylvania? Wreckage anyone? No?

something doesn't add up....

The Pentagon hit was only captured on one camera, on the grounds outside the Pentagon. Now, I know personally from my experience in security, and with security cameras at that time, that external grounds cameras are not considered "critical areas". They are not, for example, placed there to try catching people stealing documents. Cameras in those areas are generally wide-angle, and take one image every 20 seconds. That is plenty enough to capture people or ground vehicles approaching, given a wide enough angle on the camera. Unfortunately, no one planned for an airplane flying into the Pentagon at speed and at ground level. The frames that the camera captured were a streaking indeterminate blur, the edge of a fireball, and then smoke, dust, and debris. The images were not widely released because they didn't really show anything other than what one could see by simply going to the Pentagon and surveying the destruction.

And - they may have had a classification level, given that they were surveillance for the Pentagon. The frames were black and white, not really visually spectacular.

I recall that at the time, analysts were studying the image of the blurred streak, trying to determine if it was really an airplane, or some sort of missile. There was not enough information present in that frame to make a certain determination between the two. The airplane wreckage in the Pentagon gave a far more certain indicator. I believe some of it made it all the way through into the central atrium.

Regarding the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash, it's as easy for me to believe that an airplane obliterated itself by being purposely driven into the ground from 30,000 feet as it is for me to believe that excavation crews and equipment somehow got in there undetected by the residents and dug out that huge crater hole, also undetected by the residents, but forgot to leave enough wreckage laying around to indicate a controlled crash where pilots were attempting to make a safe landing gone horribly wrong.

.
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.’




Messages In This Thread
STUNNING 911 Video - No 2nd plane? - by gordi - 08-02-2019, 09:56 AM
RE: STUNNING 911 Video - No 2nd plane? - by BIAD - 08-02-2019, 12:25 PM
RE: STUNNING 911 Video - No 2nd plane? - by Wallfire - 08-03-2019, 09:52 AM
RE: STUNNING 911 Video - No 2nd plane? - by gordi - 08-03-2019, 05:00 PM
RE: STUNNING 911 Video - No 2nd plane? - by Ninurta - 08-04-2019, 05:12 AM
RE: STUNNING 911 Video - No 2nd plane? - by gordi - 08-04-2019, 12:41 PM
RE: STUNNING 911 Video - No 2nd plane? - by gordi - 08-05-2019, 11:19 AM
RE: STUNNING 911 Video - No 2nd plane? - by BIAD - 09-01-2019, 02:32 PM
RE: STUNNING 911 Video - No 2nd plane? - by Kenzo - 09-19-2021, 12:23 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)