Still waiting for answers

[HERA]

Does the evidence show that WTC7 was brought down by a standard controlled demolition? Yes.
Does the evidence show that there were explosions within and below the twin towers? Yes.

Does the evidence show that the twin towers were brought down by standard controlled demolitions? No.
Did the twins fall in less than "free-fall" time? Yes.
Were large amounts of the twins steel/concrete "vapourised"? Yes.
Do the 3 answers, above, indicate that there were other unknown factors? Yes.

Were large amounts of WTC7 "vapourised"? No.
Is there evidence for the existence ofpowerful particle beam weapons? Yes : for a long time.
Was there evidence thay they were used : ie circular damage apparently, from above and nearby buildings "sliced."? Yes.

Does the film showng the aircraft entering and, partially, leaving the tower seem realistic? No.
Does the film showing planes hitting the towers include shots of the planes from a long distance or does it seem that the shots appeared when near the towers? The latter.

[telecasterisation]

I am unsure as to what the purpose of this thread is? You pose a question, and then supply answer, so what exactly is outstanding, what are you waiting for, different answers?

I would however draw you up on this;

'Does the film showing planes hitting the towers include shots of the planes from a long distance or does it seem that the shots appeared when near the towers? The latter.'

How would it be possible for anyone to capture images of the 'planes' (either of them), from a distance? The first being captured on film was essentially a complete fluke. The second, no-one on the ground expected it. It was traveling in excess of 500mph directly towards the area where the majority of cameras were positioned. To accurately capture from a distance an image, still or otherwise, of the approaching aircraft, the camera's operator would need to;

1) Know of its existence and intention prior to it being visible.

2) Have positioned and pre-focused a camera on the exact direction and height in the sky it was approaching from. Marry this with a high magnification lens to gain any real 'early' insight. Difficult from street level with buildings in the way.


People outside of the immediate vicinity of the first burning tower would be focused upon that, not empty sky behind or to the side of their position.

If you have ever been to a large air display that includes jets, you will know just difficult it can be to anticipate exactly where a fast approaching aircraft can be even with the tannoy announcer telling you where it is coming from. At such a high approach speed, it is on top of everyone and over in a couple of seconds.

The second aircraft appeared very quickly on 911 because of its approach speed, giving no-one an opportunity to do anything other than what was done on the day.

Hopefully I have provided genuine and practical reasoning as to why no 'long'distance' footage exists. Without ground radar, or some form of early warning, no-one on the ground was prepared for a second aircraft - how could they have known it was approaching?

[Bicnarok]

[telecasterisation]

Anyone remember the way to download and save YOUTUBE videos? I have some software but it leaves a watermark because it is unregistered.

There was a method published here some months ago.