Second hit footage showing no plane

[Witchfinder General]

No Plane
No Plane noise
Eye witnesses say they saw no plane just an explosion


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULr0Gl0tj70

[telecasterisation]

[Craig W]

[andyb]

I heard a plane?? How would you expect them to see a plane from the angle they were at? Do you think this is fakery too?

[EmptyBee]

As Craig points out you can clearly see the fricking plane at 2:39, as well as hear the roar of its engines for several seconds prior to that, and then to top it all you have an eyewitness correctly identifying the plane as a United Airlines jet.

So that's 0 for 3 there. Nice research!

[chek]

I'm left increasingly to wonder how the gang at
"researchers" appear to be so willing to uncritically
swallow and regurgitate such easily disproved tripe.

Can there be an 'innocent' explanation that I haven't thought of?

[Craig W]

Chek, the same question has crossed my mind more than once and I have considered these explanations:

- they are just very, very paranoid and have lost the ability to use reasoning and logic to assess evidence and probabilities

- it is a poorly funded intel disinfo op designed to waste everyone's time and make the site look like a bunch of flakey cranks

- they are computer-generated forum trolls with only basic logic programming (that would explain the robotic repetition and almost complete inability to debate)

- they are a bunch of primary school children on a project

- there really were no planes and these laughable posts are designed to make us see it as completely bonkers

[EmptyBee]

[Witchfinder General]

there is something at 2.39, however if you move the footage on to where the fireball is exiting (by the banding banding on the building) which must be at least 20 to 30 storeys higher.

So explain that then?

[Micpsi]

Here we have a guy on the spot saying, shortly after the fireball erupts in the South Tower, that he saw what looked like a United Airline plane crashing into the second tower. Then a girl says "I saw the first one go in." How can the no-planers dismiss these two witnesses to planes in any sensible way? They can't. Therefore, they should admit defeat. Game, set and match.

[Witchfinder General]

Is anybody going to explain how the fireball came out 30 storey's above where the alleged plane entered?

No you won't cos you can't.

[EmptyBee]

[Craig W]

[kc]

Heat rises. A lot of heat rises a lot. Ergo Giant fireballs tend to rise above the combustion source.


I;d like to thank WG for posting a clip that conclusively prooves that at least one plane hit the first tower.

Cheers WG, you really showed the NPT crowd with that evidence! Now, find one backing up the second tower hit and we can all get on with it.

[EmptyBee]

[Stefan]

Sigh... the usual MO for these guys...

Post a film claiming to prove TV Fakery, then refuse flat-out to answer any of the valid questions pointing towards the fact that it does no such thing.

Time for stage three: Where everyone questioning the original assertation gets accused of being agents, being the same person, and "muddying the waters of truth"...

Here's your cue WFG...

[Witchfinder General]

[kc]

[EmptyBee]

[Craig W]

Thankyou, WG.

I don't know why you think the witness was referring to the first plane. The reference to United Airline and the timing of the comment (immediately after the second strike) strongly suggest that he was referring to the second plane.

No problem in explaining the fireball. There is no discrepancy or anomaly. Its location can be easily explained by a couple of points.

The main reason is the fact that the direction of flight of the plane is upward and to the left relative to the frame of the film. This is because of the position of the filmmaker relative to the buildings and the plane.

If you freeze the film when the plane appears and draw a line along the same heading to the other side of the tower it takes you just below where the fireball appears.

The second reason is, as has been stated, that fireballs flare upwards because heat rises. This is the same whatever you are burning: the flames appear above the burnt thing.

No mystery. No anomalies. No strange oddities. Just a noise, a plane, a crash and a fireball. Exactly as one should expect them.

[Witchfinder General]

On the CNN footage, the trajectory of the plane is not upwards and the exit fireball is at approximately the same level as where the plane entered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtoiLN7FYAs

[Craig W]

Is this a different film?

[EmptyBee]

WG, can you explain why any of us should waste one more minute of our time debating your 'anomalies'?

As soon as one delusion is refuted you just shift the goal-posts and come up with yet another 'anomaly' for us to debate in an infinitely recursive circle, until you disappear up your own a**ehole...which is somewhere I'm not inclined to follow.

[chek]

WG, while I appreciate you'll probably regard them as The Books of Evil, the NIST reports are actually a good source of information regarding basic data such as mapping the damage caused by the strikes.

Their conclusions of course are a different kettle of damned souls.

Check: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf

Normally I'd be super kind and extract and post the pics for you, but as I'm at work I can't.

[Craig W]

Oh, I think you have misunderstood me. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

You seem to have thought I was claiming that the plane was travelling upward at the point of impact. That is not what I said. I said upward relative to the frame of the film. But that may also be misleading.

I think the problem is one of perspective.

You can see the effect of the perspective by freezing the footage and tracing one of the two darker grey bands visible on the closer tower from the right hand side of the right hand face to the left hand side of that face (mimicking the impact of the second plane). By doing this you can see that were a plane to hit horizontally on the right hand side the exit explosion on the left would appear markedly "higher" up relative to an imaginary horizontal. Of course, it's not higher because we know that those bands are really horizontal. It's just an optical illusion.

Notice also how the higher of these two bands (which appear as chevrons or arrows pointing upwards) seems to deviate from the horizontal even more than the lower, exaggerating the illusion further.

Does that explain it?

[telecasterisation]

[Craig W]

Brilliant. That's it, tele.

What's that saying: "A picture can paint a thousand words."

[Witchfinder General]

Well done Telly

This however backs up my argument that the exit fireball is too high
The footage I showed earlier is CNNs film of the same impact

Maybe Telly can do the same job on that to further emphasise my point.

Thanks again Telly

[Stefan]

WFG,
It appears I misjudged you in predicting you were about to attack; my appologies.

However, I would say this subject is now closed.

Compare Tele's image with a high res photo showing how far the fireball rose:





For me, that's about as consistant as you can get.

[Witchfinder General]

Im not talking about high the fireball rose, I talking about where it first appeared. This was too high in relation to the entry point of the alleged plane.