Proofy Proofy That NO PLANE Hit The North Tower

[thought criminal]

Pause the footage and zoom in to play 'pin the tail on the donkey'!


Link

[thought criminal]

Another amateur piece of footage of the North Tower impact and, yes, you guessed it, no plane in plain sight!


Link

[thought criminal]

More stills of north tower hit:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11_missileframes.html

[telecasterisation]

thought criminal;

[thought criminal]

[thought criminal]

FEMA photo

[thought criminal]

Witness "I just saw the entire, err.. top part of the world trade centre explode, so err, I turned on the tv and when I heard they said it was a plane it was really strange"



Link

[John White]

Lets try this from the top shall we?

No-Plane-Theory-threads-go-into-Truth-Controversies-Section-not-genera l-chat. Any-NPT-threads-made-in-general-chat-get-moved-here-no-matter-how-many -times-they-get-started-in-general-chat-and-moderators-become-grumpy, which-is-BAD

Especially this Naudet brothers clip again TCrim, you know how badly this got pwned last time you ran with it

[marky 54]

ok so there was:

1. no plane.

2. a missle.

3. a donkey.

4. faked impact hole(why only the good lord above will know).

5. faked buildings.

6. beams.

7. hologram.

8. tv fakery.

9. eyewitnesses saying they didnt see the plane hit but looked when they saw the explosion.

points to ignore are:

1. disinfo agents faking and reposting on the net.

2. differant angles between each photograph compared.

3. time to focus camera.

4. prespective of filmers and photographers.

5. logic.

6. time on our hands to wake people up.

7. how any of this looks to outsiders.

8. anything people have to say about NPT evidence that dosnt support the theory.

9. witnesses who did see a plane prior to explosion.

10. judy woods interview.

11. evidence.

12. ability to prove the evidence to a court/media.

so is there really a need for me to comment on this? no.........

do i think the above is evidence? no......

if i explained/show evidence to prove the above wrong will i be listened to? no........

should i submit now and end this post here? YES.

[Thermate]

If you believe in NPT I'm happy for you... but realise your in the minority and also realise that no matter how often you post distorted and intellectually flawed "evidence" you still won't convert us because WE'RE NOT RETARDED, thanks.

[thought criminal]

[telecasterisation]

Everything in life is based upon perspective and this is equally true of photographic perspective. Even a fairly slight change of view can dramatically alter what you perceive.

The entry hole picture is a good example of this and in fact, the differences in the two camera positions are really substantially different;

The blue arrow in the bottom image points to the area in the back of the building that the arrow in the top image cannot see (it being around the corner so to speak). This is borne out by the obvious 'softening' of the background, it being further away. The shift in the angle of view allows it to be seen, in contrast, the more head-on view means to say it cannot be seen.

Stating that something has magically vanished (the red arrow), is again a shortsighted view;

Moving up and around means that we can now see the objects that were masked in the softer focus (lower res) picture, from a more horizontal plane. Nothing has been altered, the author simply has little to no idea about the effects of changing perspective.

[Patrick Brown]