In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
CGI images used by CNN
Waco Waltz
Member Posts: 10,828 ✭✭
Look at this video,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPqq9r8mPi0
Then look at the slow mo version.
http://www.mrconservative.com/2014/05/41854-video-proof-showing-no-planes-hit-the-wtc-on-911/
I don't know about a jet slicing through the metal but the fact the wing passes in back of a building it should be shown passing in front of said building IS proof of some funny business.
I am not saying it disproves that a jet hit the tower, but is that not slam dunk proof the media was airing footage that had been concocted before the attacks?
Well what have ye to say about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPqq9r8mPi0Then look at the slow mo version.
http://www.mrconservative.com/2014/05/41854-video-proof-showing-no-planes-hit-the-wtc-on-911/
I don't know about a jet slicing through the metal but the fact the wing passes in back of a building it should be shown passing in front of said building IS proof of some funny business.
I am not saying it disproves that a jet hit the tower, but is that not slam dunk proof the media was airing footage that had been concocted before the attacks?
Well what have ye to say about this?
Comments
I havent seen a plane at the Pentagon but these jumbo military tankers did hit the WTC as witnessed by millions (second plane).
Military Tanker kc767
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIy9hjB3DGk
This stuff's out there for anyone looking. It's not like it's the first time a conspiracy has staged a war.
The no planners are the ones photoshopping.
I havent seen a plane at the Pentagon but these jumbo military tankers did hit the WTC as witnessed by millions (second plane).
Military Tanker kc767
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIy9hjB3DGk
This stuff's out there for anyone looking. It's not like it's the first time a conspiracy has staged a war.
SO you are saying that the slow mo film has been doctored by the truthers? Can this be proven?
From the perspective I see, the building in question is quite a bit nearer the camera than are the towers.
Brad Steele
The no planners are the ones photoshopping.
I havent seen a plane at the Pentagon but these jumbo military tankers did hit the WTC as witnessed by millions (second plane).
Military Tanker kc767
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIy9hjB3DGk
This stuff's out there for anyone looking. It's not like it's the first time a conspiracy has staged a war.
Quite a feat considering the KC767 (KC46 for USAF) did not fly until 2005.
But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Amish
The no planners are the ones photoshopping.
I havent seen a plane at the Pentagon but these jumbo military tankers did hit the WTC as witnessed by millions (second plane).
Military Tanker kc767
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIy9hjB3DGk
This stuff's out there for anyone looking. It's not like it's the first time a conspiracy has staged a war.
Quite a feat considering the KC767 (KC46 for USAF) did not fly until 2005.
But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.
Then it wasnt the KC46. The 767 has been in use since 1980.
Found a better video showing the engines found were not even from a commercial 767.
http://collapsereport.com/2013/04/03/military-goofed-used-wrong-size-767-to-hit-twin-towers/
Why would we think that the building is in the background and not the foreground?
From the perspective I see, the building in question is quite a bit nearer the camera than are the towers.
Watch it again. You see the wing pass behind the far building but the rest of the plane passes in front of it. We can't have it both ways would you agree?
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Why would we think that the building is in the background and not the foreground?
From the perspective I see, the building in question is quite a bit nearer the camera than are the towers.
Watch it again. You see the wing pass behind the far building but the rest of the plane passes in front of it. We can't have it both ways would you agree?
That is not at all what I see, Waco.
I see a plane pass above a building, and as it continues the left wing is obscured by the building. The building is quite a bit higher than the camera, and quite a bit lower than the airplane. There is nothing at all questionable about the video, IMO.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Amish
The no planners are the ones photoshopping.
I havent seen a plane at the Pentagon but these jumbo military tankers did hit the WTC as witnessed by millions (second plane).
Military Tanker kc767
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIy9hjB3DGk
This stuff's out there for anyone looking. It's not like it's the first time a conspiracy has staged a war.
Quite a feat considering the KC767 (KC46 for USAF) did not fly until 2005.
But let's not let facts get in the way of a good story.
Then it wasnt the KC46. The 767 has been in use since 1980.
Found a better video showing the engines found were not even from a commercial 767.
http://collapsereport.com/2013/04/03/military-goofed-used-wrong-size-767-to-hit-twin-towers/
I was mistaken. The first KC767 flew in 2006 and was delivered 2008. The KC-46 was ordered by the USAF in 2011 and is scheduled to be first delivered in 2018.
There are a few 767 that have been used by the U.S. military, but these were standard 767s that were modified.
Bottom line is that two commercial jets were flown into WTC1 and WTC2 that morning. It is fact.
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/bds/globaltanker/docs/tanker_overview.pdf
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Why would we think that the building is in the background and not the foreground?
From the perspective I see, the building in question is quite a bit nearer the camera than are the towers.
Watch it again. You see the wing pass behind the far building but the rest of the plane passes in front of it. We can't have it both ways would you agree?
That is not at all what I see, Waco.
I see a plane pass above a building, and as it continues the left wing is obscured by the building. The building is quite a bit higher than the camera, and quite a bit lower than the airplane. There is nothing at all questionable about the video, IMO.
Well I had it wrong on the wing vs. plane and that third building but the plane is on top of the black smoke from the first tower hit and yet the wing is behind the far building. Unless that far building is on front of the first tower, and we know it's not then the point I made still stands.
The conspiracy theorist nuts spend a lot of time and effort trying to make the historical facts conform to their warped sense of history.
If you are saying the film was doctored show me the debunking video to confirm that.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Why would we think that the building is in the background and not the foreground?
From the perspective I see, the building in question is quite a bit nearer the camera than are the towers.
Watch it again. You see the wing pass behind the far building but the rest of the plane passes in front of it. We can't have it both ways would you agree?
That is not at all what I see, Waco.
I see a plane pass above a building, and as it continues the left wing is obscured by the building. The building is quite a bit higher than the camera, and quite a bit lower than the airplane. There is nothing at all questionable about the video, IMO.
Well I had it wrong on the wing vs. plane and that third building but the plan in on top of the black smoke from the first tower hit and yet the wing is behind the far building. Unless that far building is on front of the first tower, and we know it's not then the point I made still stands.
Not sure what building your are talking about, but the one highlighted in the video is much closer to the camera thaN are the towers. From this angle, there is not much space behind the towers before you hit the river, and (more importantly) if it were behind the towers, it would have to be at least 3/4 the height of the towers and obviously that type of building construction would not support a
750 foot tall building.
Frankly, this is one of the poorest of all the conspiracy arguments, as it does not even leave an open and unanswerable question.
These fellers need to know that the only way these things work is you have to sit down, do your research and find a way to form a question that cannot be answered.
Epic fail here.
Sorry.
Edit:
You do see the smoke from the 2nd tower clearly behind the building in question, do you not?
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Why would we think that the building is in the background and not the foreground?
From the perspective I see, the building in question is quite a bit nearer the camera than are the towers.
Watch it again. You see the wing pass behind the far building but the rest of the plane passes in front of it. We can't have it both ways would you agree?
That is not at all what I see, Waco.
I see a plane pass above a building, and as it continues the left wing is obscured by the building. The building is quite a bit higher than the camera, and quite a bit lower than the airplane. There is nothing at all questionable about the video, IMO.
Well I had it wrong on the wing vs. plane and that third building but the plan in on top of the black smoke from the first tower hit and yet the wing is behind the far building. Unless that far building is on front of the first tower, and we know it's not then the point I made still stands.
Not sure what building your are talking about, but the one highlighted in the video is much closer to the camera thaN are the towers. From this angle, there is not much space behind the towers before you hit the river, and (more importantly) if it were behind the towers, it would have to be at least 3/4 the height of the towers and obviously that type of building construction would not support a
750 foot tall building.
Frankly, this is one of the poorest of all the conspiracy arguments, as it does not even leave an open and unanswerable question.
These fellers need to know that the only way these things work is you have to sit down, do your research and find a way to form a question that cannot be answered.
Epic fail here.
Sorry.
Edit:
You do see the smoke from the 2nd tower clearly behind the building in question, do you not?
Don., no that far highlighted building is NOT between the two towers. That would be the only way you would see the wig dip behind the far building and yet still have the plane in front of the smoke. This observation can be proven by looking at photos of the twin towers from air plane fly over photos.
Don., no that far highlighted building is NOT between the two towers. That would be the only way you would see the wig dip behind the far building and yet still have the plane in front of the smoke. This observation can be proven by looking at photos of the twin towers from air plane fly over photos.
Of course it is not between them. It is a half mile in front of them, nearer the camera.
Just because some idiot in a video claims that the building is behind the towers does not change the obvious fact that it is in front of them.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
Don., no that far highlighted building is NOT between the two towers. That would be the only way you would see the wig dip behind the far building and yet still have the plane in front of the smoke. This observation can be proven by looking at photos of the twin towers from air plane fly over photos.
Of course it is not between them. It is a half mile in front of them, nearer the camera.
Just because some idiot in a video claims that the building is behind the towers does not change the obvious fact that it is in front of them.
It does not look like it's in front of the towers but a photo from the air would convince me.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
Don., no that far highlighted building is NOT between the two towers. That would be the only way you would see the wig dip behind the far building and yet still have the plane in front of the smoke. This observation can be proven by looking at photos of the twin towers from air plane fly over photos.
Of course it is not between them. It is a half mile in front of them, nearer the camera.
Just because some idiot in a video claims that the building is behind the towers does not change the obvious fact that it is in front of them.
It does not look like it's in front of the towers but a photo from the air would convince me.
Ask and you shall receive.
Video was taken from the lower right, in Battery Park. The building with the rounded fa?ade is shown about two blocks left of the trees visible in the video, and then a block to its left is the building in question. The WTC towers are 8 - 10 blocks (probably closer to 3/4 of a mile than my guessed 1/2 mile) further to the left.
The orientation can be verified because the second tower that was hit was the one without the TV Antenna.
Pretty cut and dried, if you ask me.
Brad Steele
I spent 20 minutes of my life finding the photo, learning how to draw circles on it, and then posting it.
What took video boy 12 years to realize has been irrefutably debunked in less than half an hour.
The big question, of course, is are you convinced now that you have seen the aerial photo?
Brad Steele
Geesh, Waco.
I spent 20 minutes of my life finding the photo, learning how to draw circles on it, and then posting it.
What took video boy 12 years to realize has been irrefutably debunked in less than half an hour.
The big question, of course, is are you convinced now that you have seen the aerial photo?
Only in that I am taking your word for it. I don't have any orientation to go on. Why not point this out to the video's maker?
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Geesh, Waco.
I spent 20 minutes of my life finding the photo, learning how to draw circles on it, and then posting it.
What took video boy 12 years to realize has been irrefutably debunked in less than half an hour.
The big question, of course, is are you convinced now that you have seen the aerial photo?
Only in that I am taking your word for it. I don't have any orientation to go on. Why not point this out to the video's maker?
I would rather point it out to someone I believe will think about it, Waco. (I don't place video boy in that category.)
If you look closely at the video and then at the photo I scribbled upon, I think you will find the orientation you need. The building with the rounded fa?ade (circle on the farthest right) is fairly distinctive in both, as is the building that obscured the plane's wing. With these two, and then the trees at the end of the video, it is certain that the video was taken from or near Battery Park. This obviously puts the obscuring building well in front of the WTC Towers, not obviously well behind them to paraphrase the statement in the video.
With this, I would hope you will find that you do not have to take my word for anything.[:)]
Brad Steele
If the * clown who made that video is for real, he spent 12 years looking at that video then he should have been aware of photos as you posted.
He either has to retract his theory or we may have a larger conspiracy or a side conspiracy. As you know I still think there is something fishy about the whole 9/11 thing but if this guy intentionally put out a bogus video and does not admit he's wrong after seeing that photo, and I will bring it to his attention then the only reason that would be is he is putting out disinfo to keep the two sides arguing and fighting so nothing positive will result but the status quo.
NO DON I totally agree with you after looking and thinking about it, orientating myself. I just had to run to work. I am personally going to make the video that debunks that video and I am going to use this thread to show that photo.
If the * clown who made that video is for real, he spent 12 years looking at that video then he should have been aware of photos as you posted.
He either has to retract his theory or we may have a larger conspiracy or a side conspiracy. As you know I still think there is something fishy about the whole 9/11 thing but if this guy intentionally put out a bogus video and does not admit he's wrong after seeing that photo, and I will bring it to his attention then the only reason that would be is he is putting out disinfo to keep the two sides arguing and fighting so nothing positive will result but the status quo.
My guess is he is just a kid who is trying to stir the pot, Waco.
I believe there is a whole lot fishy about the aftermath of the attacks, including not holding anyone responsible for bungling of the intelligence leading up to it. The gross expansion of government that was implemented using the attacks as an excuse is what is fishy, IMO.
Brad Steele