What hit the WTC ? Short Video Clip

[Stephen]

What the hell is going on people!

Thanks to Andrew Johnson for sending me this.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7199931064718412242

[Rowan Berkeley]

check dis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYpwI_6UVE0

[marky 54]

the first clip:

compares a plane hitting the earth wing tip first compared to a plane hitting a not as hard but still solid box shape head on, in both cases the speed is very differant as well as angles, how is this a fair comparision?

are we sure the explosion on the second impact was caused by boing only? there is a pretty mean flash caught on most clips milliseconds prior to impact, and there are videos slowed down and focused in that seem to show what look like demolition charges going of, i don't know if these clips are not faked but if they are not they would go a long way in explaining the melting into a prior weakened outer wall and the oddness of the fire ball which would be caused by boing impact and seperate explosions from inside the building.

here is an example. keep your eye out for flashes with in the explosion and some on the wall around or near the impact zone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uaDPp-91iE

and a side on view.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U90ySUwX-xA&mode=related&search=

[marky 54]

the second clip relies on people not having logic.

trees do grow (2 feet a year according to the video, some grow more), scafolding or what ever is put up and removed constantly, and the video had the correct shot in the very first sequence in the video but with shorter trees, i see no lamposts impeding the view either even when the two images are overlaid it is clear no lampost would obstruct.

this video was discussed loads of times and all these things plus more were pointed out then, why have none of them been addressed?
is it a case of people ignoring what you don't want to hear and just continue to spew the same false information which will just get the same answers? whats the point, at least address the problems highlighted in the first place rather than spew the same information over and over whilst ignoring the problems people point out.

[telecasterisation]

The crashing bomber in the first link hits overhead lines before it hits the ground. There is every possibility that the cables contain power, hence it is conceivable that the 'exploding fuel' is ignited by something other than simply hitting the ground.

Bad comparison.

[mason-free party]

hey Stephen maybe it was delayed reaction fuel...nice one and good link at the bottom...

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

infact upon doing it again.

plane in shot at 0.23 into the film

crash 0.23 into the film

explosion 0.23 into the film

we aint even talking seconds in time differance here, but i suppose that dos'nt stop people trying to paint a differant stroy entirely by slowing it down and feeding your mind with pleasing scenerios.

just how fast do you expect fuel traveling at 500mph to ignite given that it needs time to mix with the air?

[Easy Rider]

[marky 54]

and the holes and destruction were also fake or was they caused by nothingness?

do you post on youtube clips of ghosts and and u.f.o's? theres always that one guy who posts the same comment, fake!

c'mon the planes are fake is one thing but fireball to?

i take it you now distrust all those people you qoute about seeing fireballs inorder to make us believe there were no planes?

[Stephen]

[eogz]

Why does it matter that much whether the planes were faked?

I'm in the group that feels they weren't. However what we do have overwhelming evidence for is dirty tricks, unfortunately no one else seems to see it. Hence the need for a Truth Movement.

I wonder how many of these videos are released with the specific aim to cause mistrust and division in truthers. It seems with all the in fighting that goes on, not here so much, that they work.

I'd be intersted to know how many people believe the different theories about 9/11, mmm time for a poll?

[Rowan Berkeley]

I always feel that no planes is quite legit, but that IT ITSELF is being deliberately discredited by association with space beams!

[egw]

[Rowan Berkeley]

however, i am sure you rephrased me in good faith.

to answer your question, I cannot do better than to recommend my very favourite video from the general area of the NPT - Genghis6199's "Unbelievable":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxwpO4MJc2o

in case this four minute wonder appears to you to emanate conflicting messages, I can ease things for you a bit by admitting that Genghis6199 himself admits to the possibilities of "cruise missiles, with wings" and even "rockets, or sump'n" - hence the liberal use of these soundbites in the video.

[marky 54]

[eogz]

I looked at the 911 eyewitness video and some of the no planes stuff, yet i'm still a believer in planes. I'm not saying it is wrong to debate and have different opinions, I just wonder how much stuff is put out there to discredit the Truth Movement (i'm mainly refering to space beams and such (reptillian leaders too)). I'm pretty sure most people who believe in this are very dedicated to their cause.
I still reckon on whether it is plane/ no plane it matters not we still have enough questions to invalidate the official conspiracy.
I'm still quite new to this forum so apologise if i'm upsetting anyone in my ignorance.