Second hit footage showing no plane

[Stefan]

[Craig W]

Yes it does. It is just darker than the right wing.

There is a highly unusual effect responsible for this.

It's called shadow.

[Witchfinder General]

[Craig W]

[Witchfinder General]

[kc]

they didnt INSERT a plane, its just that when objects at the further end of a field of vision are converted to poxy youtube resolution they look like a blob.

I'm assuming there are points in the video where bystanders heads look blob like. Are you suggesting poeple inserted blob headed aliens at this point? Actually, you might be right, it would explain the UFO's and the lazer beams. In fact the reason one didnt see the plane is probably because hius newly cloned eyes werent focumssing properly

[chek]

[John White]

[Witchfinder General]

Alleged plane

[andrewwatson]

John, you wanted a clear image? here's a nice, clear image for you.

They put King Kong on the Empire State Building in 1933. You think they couldn't have faked planes in 2001?

How about his video of a rare view of the plane missing towers. That's why one 'witness' said it circled round and came back.


Link

[andrewwatson]

Link


This video proves conclusively that WG is right.

I challenge any planehuggers to refute this clear visual evidence that the explosion took place higher than the 'plane' , a physical impossibility as all the videos show the plane on a downward trajectory and NIST themselves confirm this:

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

there were no planes.

all the news footage and sound was faked.

oh look this NEWS FOOTAGE proves the explosion was'nt in line with the PLANE!

[andrewwatson]

In simple words:

The videos were faked, yes. They showed a real event ( an explosion erupting from the Twin Towers) and a CGI overlay of a plane. It is the discrepancy between these that has led many people to conclude that one or other, or both of these are fake.

No-one to my knowledge is denying that there was an explosion. We are simply saying that it was not caused by jetliners crashing into buildings. Understand now?

PS The photo and the video of the plane flying through the towers are admitted fakes. Just to show how easily it can be done.

FAQ. Why fake video of planes rather than use real ones?

A. Because real planes don't fly through buildings.

[marky 54]

ive heard about faked trees/buildings/planes and been attacked for not believing it, now your telling me it was just the plane that was faked and the rest of the footage is real?

confusion is always setting in becuase so many claim differant things who believe in these theorys and no one tells the same story for you to know what the story is exactly.

[Stefan]

My photo seems to have been ignored here:



Is it not patently clear that the tone of the parts of the plane in shadow, and the coloured parts of the tail, are very similar in tone to the building face in shadow the plane is approaching?

And then when we look at this heavily compressed image:



It is those exact same parts of the plain which are hard to make out (even though they are clearly there).

Do I have to spell it out?

The tones of the part of the plane which are coloured and in shadow are so similar to the tone of the building face which is in the background, that when the image is compressed they become very hard to see?

As for the idea that an explosion from within the towers caused the explosions, how then do you explain the in-bent beams? And how about the fact that the aluminium cladding even has exact thin slice marks where the wing tips and tail fin struck them? What kind of exacted explosion could cause this?

I really think you guys need to deal with this most fundamental qustion rather than continuing to brush it away and ignore it.

[plane son on 911]

A plane cannot cut through a building and leave a cutout shape of itself.

If it could do that it would have cut it's way through the other side of the building and carry on flying.

[ian neal]

[Stefan]

[Stefan]

Andrew,
Do you notice something about that rare footage of a plane missing the towers?

Both towers are intact. There is no explosion.

To me, this is an example someone has mocked up to show how easy it is to superimpose a plane onto an image of the twin towers. Have you looked into this possibility?

I don't think this was ever even supposed to be footage from 9/11...

[andrewwatson]

Stefan,

That video is indeed a spoof, designed to show how easy it is to fake video.

Ian,
With all due respect to Snowygrouch , why do you accept his calculations that a plane could have pierced the steel cladding of the towers, and yet demand proof of scientific credentials from someone who doubts it?

I would be interested to see his 'proof'. I am no scientist, but I would have thought that Newton's third law was proof that such a phenomenon was impossible.

Newton states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore the same result would ensue if a steel-clad skyscraper were mounted on a fast-moving vehicle and sent hurtling along a runway towards a stationery 767. Would the aluminium plane pierce the welded steel columns, or would it crumple into a heap?

[ian neal]

Sorry. my last post was in frustration at plane son.

Categorically stating an opinion without providing evidence to support it doesn't help any of us.

I pointed to SG's post merely because here is someone trying to provide science based evidence to support his statements. SG claims to show that the speed and mass of the planes were indeed sufficient to penetrate the towers. This is why I suggest this is the place for plane son to start if he wants to support his opinion.

I have seen no science based evidence to support the claim that it would be impossible for a 767 to penetrate the towers exterior columns, let alone to support plane son's claim that if it had penetrated we should expect it to continue and emerge on the otherside. It may exist but I haven't seen it

[Stefan]

I'm with Ian on this one.

From snowygrouch we have seen a very hard worked on explanation of how a plane would be expected to create the damage we saw, backed up with photographs, diagrams and full analytical explanations.

I'm not saying he couldn't be wrong; I'm saying no one who claims he is has even made a start on demonstrating how, let alone doing so to the same quality of argument that sg presented.

"A plane cannot cut through a building and leave a cutout shape of itself.

If it could do that it would have cut it's way through the other side of the building and carry on flying."

Is not an argument, it's not going to win over any "truthers" let alone any members of the general public.

If you were going to fit the statement into a category it would go under "religious faith"; some one has told him it is so, so he repeats it like a prayer, with a full congregation at the 9/11 Reserearchers website chanting along, because they are surrounded by plenty of other people saying the same it becomes "true".

But we haven't seen any explanation or detailed reason why.

It's truth in numbers; otherwise known as the "emporers new clothes" syndrome.

[Stefan]

Andrew,
I've noticed now that lower down the thread you referenced that the shot was an admitted fake, my appologies, I didn't spot that the first time around.

[gruts]

[sidlittle]

I think the point Andrew was making gruts, is that it matters not whether it was the plane or the tower that was traveling at 500mph and lets not start kidding ourselves we are talking about a Jenga tower now.

I guess the towers are a feat of engineering, too strong to collapse when debating with the OCT's yet when NPT's turn up , you can blow them over?

For me, its not just that the plane enters the building leaving a 'cut-out' but more the fact it shows absolutely no sign of distress on its way to achieving it.

I am having a hard time imagining the tower crashing into a stationary plane at +500 mph and subsequent video footage showing no signs of the plane buckling.

[Stefan]

It was strong enough to withstand aircraft impacts because it was designed to withstand impacts- it could withstain multiple holes in it. Either the core alone or the perimeter columns alone could have held the weight of the towers, a plane sized hole would do next to nothing; as NIST confirmed, the towers were completly stable after the impacts.

This issue has nothing whatsoever to do whether the damage we saw could be acheived by the planes which hit them.

The only hard worked on argument I have heard either way has been to demonstrate that not only could a plane have done it, it's hard to image what else could have.

The plane did not leave a "cut-out" in the steel, anyone with eyes can see that, and we do not know that the plane suffered no destruction on the way in.

Now anyone who wants to claim otherwise NEEDS to answer my questions, which I have repeated so many times on threads filled with NPT types and has been continually ignored .

So now, in big bold coloured text:

How do you explain the in-bent beams? And how about the fact that the aluminium cladding even has exact thin slice marks where the wing tips and tail fin struck them? What kind of exacted explosion could cause this?

And a a secondary question, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you brush away this fundamental point as though it were irrelevant.

[sidlittle]

[marky 54]

if the towers were moving at 500mph and hit a plane that was bolted into the the ground and was'nt going to be going anywhere once hit, you would get the same results.

the plane would enter the building.

the towers were bolted to the ground and was providing no momentum, the plane was moving freely and providing momentum in the direction it was flying >>>>>>>>>, the only way to negate this momentum is for an opposite force to be applied <<<<<<<<<<<<<<, which the towers provided and prevented the whole plane passing through as the <<<<negated the impact but not instantly and all at once.

how ever the 500mph momentum>>>> will not come to an instant halt when met by the stationary 0mph resistance of the towers<<<<.

the wall absorbed the impact and force but something had to give, and stefan explained this well enough above with his photos and explainations.

if both plane and towers were moving at 500mph this way > and this way< and collided head on then we would expect what you are claiming, equally and opposite reactions.

the things that are being ignored here is one object having momentum and the other object having no momentum but being bolted into the ground and aint going to move, something has to give.

try it with anything you like, a dart, a gun, a javelin as long as it has enough force and momentum it will brake the surface or enter.

also to just add, sefans observation of the impact holes is correct, they are not a perfect plane shapen but rather square sections that have come away of fallen down as the plane has entered.

the joins are what were broken not necesarrily all the steel beams, in fact if you look at some photos you will see a big steel section that has simply fell away and is sitting in the impact hole.

the steel is also a grid not a solid wall, so we have shredding and failure on the wall where the joins absorb all the impact of the momentum>>>>>> and bend inward or fall inward.

i have seen enough videos now to also know that tiny pieces of building and plane did rebound back and fall down, how big you expect them to be after such an impact is beyond me.