UA 175: Who created this fake footage from this rare south view?

Excuse me:

Why do you post videos of planes crashing into buildings to prove that planes didn't crash into buildings?

 

Not only that, but he continues to show a distinct lack of ability to perceive things in three dimensions from different angles. I know spatial relationships is a sign of intelligence. Maybe some people just don't have those abilities.

 

The 911 commission, properly and logically concluded that 175 had to fly over New York Bay in its final seconds, therefore, any object seen west of the towers could not be flight 175. The shadow between the towers seen in three broadcasts is that of the drone because the official flight path, logically could not have flown east of T1 in its final 3-5 seconds, which is required to create the shadow.

Any crapologist who uses the unofficial flight path of 175 cirlcing Newark, is ignoring the official flight path, which has 175 nowhere near it, whether north or south of it in flight. Officially, fake 175 never circled Newark, but most of New Jersey, and anyone who suggests it, is a liar.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJX2fStDMo4&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=143&feature=plpp_video"]911 Commission Hearing Flight paths into WTC - YouTube[/ame]

 

Excuse you:

You post can't videos of planes crashing into the towers because real planes didn't crash into them.

 

Not only that, but you continue to show a distinct lack of ability to prove objects west of the towers could be south, when they must be south. I know denial is a sign of immaturity and a defense mechanism. Some people just can't handle the truth.

 

I was able capture the bogey as it peeked out and then a quick edit occurs to well after the explosion. These guys did not see a plane and were confused as to how the south tower exploded. There's little doubt they made mention of the object and that audio would've been edited out too. There are countless videos with the impact edited out because they weren't going to insert fake plane images into all of them. You can see him pan to the right when that little bogey caught his eye.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHaVijMv5t8&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=157&feature=plpp_video"]2nd hit missed Campl@net NE apartment (w/ bird) - YouTube[/ame]

 

..Once again you fail to show proof that there were 'fakplanes' added to images.....give it up man,only the seriously deluded would continue to claim what thousands saw was 'fake'

 

All folks who filmed the bogey felt obligated and/or afraid for their lives before turning over their footage to law enforcement. If it was a bird or something else, why edit at that moment and we already have 4 broadcasts with the object in it where media lunatics call it the plane once they realize it was the only thing in their respective footage. I would not be surprised if these foia releases left out the owners names.

The most important thing about this angle, is the northeast view, which would have shown the orb circle the south tower, literally. We have techmac's cgi with no right wing for proof of someone cropping out that same NE view and impossible turn.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Got anything to back up that claim that EVERY PERSON who had footage were afraid for their lives? Sounds like you projecting your paranoid delusions on everyone else.

 

plain as day,one can see the leading edge of the 'invisible wing' in seven's crappy videos he offers as 'proof' of 'cgi'

 

Why can't we read the text in that gif you posted?

 

Whomever Cloud turned his footage over to, added a black blob. Clifton, did not hear nor see a plane. It would have been coming from his left. Clifton, debunks all video fakery shown on 911. Advance to 2:00 for his real-time account. He says it over and over and over and over. He didn't see a plane because there was no plane to see. The blob cannot be seen south of where it magically appeared.

"I just caught the second explosion on videotape...No, a bomb, I saw it, no plane hit nothin', the building exploded from the other tower floors down."


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2unTcZnY30&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=139&feature=plpp_video"]NIST FOIA: Clifton Cloud Clips 1-3 (WTC2 Plane Impact, 9:03am) - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTkzxaHAcNc"]NIST FOIA: Clifton Cloud Clips 4-6 - YouTube[/ame]

 

Hate to be the bearer of bad news. but you can clearly see flight 175 hitting the tower.

So what is your point other than you've disproven your own theories?

 

Is everyone on suspention 0r what?

 

Once again you fail to show proof that there were 'real planes'...give it up chump, only the seriously deluded would continue to claim obvious video fakery was real.

 

With the clear and overwhelming evidence of drones, it was inevitable that a few eyewitnesses would corroborate the video footage of drones for both towers. Stewart, said he saw something bump into tower 1 before it exploded. That certainly wasn't a plane, because a plane would crash into it, not bump.

He says, "I'm not sure, if it was a ????? (plane). Of course it wasn't a plane, Stewy, and you gave the truth some of the best early testimony that no planes of any kind were seen for either tower because neither had wings. His subconscious gave every word, but 'plane', leaving no doubt that his conscious state prevented that last word. But, we already know those goofy french kids did not film a plane or really any identifiable object which corrorborates Stewart's verified account.

Bryant Gumbel: It's 8:52 here in New York, I'm Bryant Gumbel. We understand that there has been a plane crash on the southern tip of Manhattan. You're looking at the WTC. We understand that a plane has crashed into the WTC. We don't know anything more than that. We don't know if it was a commercial aircraft. We don't know if it was a private aircraft. We have no idea how many were on board, or what the extent of the injuries are right now. We are, uh, we have, I understand, an eyewitness on the phone right now. Sir...

[cuts to commercial briefly]

BG: ...your name?

Stewart: Yeah, my name is Stewart.

BG: Sir, where are you right now?

S: I'm working at a restaurant in Soho. (northeast of the towers)

BG: Alright, so tell us what you saw if you would?

S: I literally, I was waiting a table and I literally saw a -- it seemed to be like the small plane. I just heard a couple of noises. It looked like it bounced off the building and then I heard, uh, I saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down and it just stunned -- you know a lot of smoke was coming out and that's pretty much the extent of what I saw.

BG: A private aircraft?

S: I'm not sure, if it was a -- it just seemed like a smaller plane. I don't think it was anything commercial.

BG: Did you, could you tell us whether or not it was a prop, or a jet .

S: I honestly don't know. It happened too quickly



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SXIxbhgUDw"]WTC MISSILE STRIKE ON 911: EYE WITNESS SAW "A SMALL PLANE" - YouTube[/ame]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html
Now we want to bring in Todd Harris (ph). Todd on the scene, saw what happened.

Todd, corroborates the Naudet footage, which captured a slow moving blob.

Todd are you with us?

TODD HARRIS: Yes, I had a perfect view, and the plane was coming in. I noticed it a second before it hit the building. It looked like it was moving slowly, and it lined itself up to hit the building directly.

KAGAN: Are you talking about the first plane or the second plane?

HARRIS: The first plane.

 

So, let me see if I understand.

Eyewitnesses to planes hitting the building means that no planes hit the building. Likewise, videos of planes hitting the buildings proves that no planes hit the buildings.

I see.

Given that logic, does that mean there were also no buildings? (Since we have witnesses and videos of the buildings, they couldn't possibly exist!)

 

It doesn't matter that he said it was a plane, only that Naudet did not film a plane, but a slow moving blob. You are silly, and have zero ability to prove that any plane showed up in NY because no video footage exists showing one.

So, you now understand that...

Video footage showing an orb circle the towers and fake planes hitting the building means that no plane impacted either tower. Therefore, fake videos of planes hitting the buildings proves that no planes hit the buildings.

You see.

Given this logic, no real boeings were filmed on 911, but weird objects that were for the most part called small planes or choppers.

 

once again there were no blobs,there were no orbs but there WERE two distinct 767's that hit the towers, anyone saying there were 'blobs' or 'orbs' is a liar.

 

So, since the buildings show no windows in your gifs, the WTC had no windows? Or were the entire buildings fake?

Do you have video of yourself doing something today? If not, do you even exist?

 

once again there was cgi, and no planes. anyone saying there were 'planes' and not 'orbs' is a delusional liar.

 

The rest of the world saw 767 hit the towers.....you seem to be stuck in this fanasy of CGI planes,despite what thousands saw.........who's lying now?

 

How do you CGI real life? Thousands upon thousands of people SAW THE PLANE HIT IN PERSON. And how do they CGI every video tape produced? Maybe you don't know what CGI really is.

 

Conspiratorial Graphics Injection

 

There are four videos showing an orb. That debunks any eyewitness who saw something inconsistent with video evidence.