a question for planehuggers

[Easy Rider]

Click on the video link below.

From 8:08 until 7:48 both towers are clearly in the camera shot from Chopper 4.

At 7.48 we have an explosion

The female news host says "Oh Err if your taking a look now you can see that we have just had another explosion"

Yes another explosion "not another plane". This intimates that the news reader believed the first impact was purely an explosion.

There was no plane in the film and the news host did not see one.

There can be no argument to say "ah but the plane approached from an angle the newsreader could not see" because in all the footage where the plane is seen with the sea as the backdrop the plane approached from the right.

Please explain the lack of a plane and the fact that the newsreader did not report seeing one


http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/51103/Were_The_Live_Videos_of_The_T errorist_Attacks_Also_Faked_

[telecasterisation]

[Easy Rider]

Yep good explanation..................best one so far anyway

[marky 54]

there are plenty of explainations for this in previous threads made about it.

anyhow, there are numerous shots with planes in and some also without,
the shots without planes are usually log distance or being filmed from the opposite side to the impact.

so if a clip with no plane impact proves there was no planes, does a clip with a plane impact in it prove there was planes?

which one is lieing?

or are they both true and it has more to do with compressed video not picking up on small details depending on what the background is the plane is flying past from that certain angle?

i find the NPT arguement also ignores totally any evidence for a plane and cherry picks the rest of its information.

there is just as much evidence for a plane(if not more) than there not being a plane.

[Easy Rider]

Why don'y you answer my question Marky?

Don't answer a question with more questions

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U90ySUwX-xA&mode=related&search=

here another, i could find tons of them, but i wanted to show the ones that have demoltion charges going of also at the point of impact, EXPLAINING! why it was so easy for the plane to go through the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG25MRnPy1o&mode=related&search=

and another, look how the plane appears invisible when flying over the background of the buildings, this is what happens on low res compressed video's and explains why in some shots we dont see a plane even though there is one there, take note of demolition charges going of also.
so we aint just talking about a plane impact on its own(could explain the melting).

[Easy Rider]

You still have not answered the question other than spouting gibberish

[Disco_Destroyer]

Does itt matter ? It is an inside job, we'll still be arguing when the next attack comes

[telecasterisation]

For goodness sake, it is only Thought Criminal with another hat on.

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

[Easy Rider]

Another newsreader sees no plane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2v04xpp91I

[telecasterisation]

[Easy Rider]

[telecasterisation]

[Easy Rider]

So we have a blob on one video and no blob on the other.

They cannot both be genuine, so there must be some video fakery here

[telecasterisation]

[Mark Gobell]

This must the at least the 911 th time i've posted about this Chopper 4 no plane nonsense.

Whoever is promoting this shot as not containing a flying object is either blind, stupid or both.

I stopped the Chopper 4 video as soon as I see the blob on the right hand side horizon at 7:58

I put a circle around it's start position so that we can all see where it starts it's track into the frame.

Once you know where to start looking, replay the video and watch that part of the screen, then follow the blob as it moves from the start position to the twin towers.

Case closed.