Analysis by Non-Commissioned Investigator Shows Plane Footage Doctored Up to Hide Clandestine Remote Controlled Anti-Gravity Ball Hitting World Trade Center Building 2
Disclaimer: Veterans Today does NOT endorse the conclusions in the video posted below. The post merely presents the questions and asks for readers to participate.
Yesterday Richard D. Hall posted his new 3-D video analysis of 9/11 showing that a top secret anti-gravity vehicle that hit World Trade Center Building 2.
Almost 10 years on, with no clear explanation why Building 7 collapsed after not being hit by anything but underground media scrutiny, we all seem to feel that something does NOT fit. 9/11 just does NOT pass the smell test. In fact it stinks.
Almost 10 years, we are still engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Neo-Con wars of the first decade are still with us crawling their way into history books.
Whether the video analysis below is true or not, we have so many questions ie
Why did the Global Elite Force play this out?
Did they reach their objectives?
Who benefited? Who suffered?
Was this the only way to reach their nirvana?
Could there have been another way to reach their objectives?
What can, we the people, learn from this?
Do we really have any control, choice, or input or are we just pawns in the Global Elite Force Risk game?
Oh heck, watch this video and comment on the analysis below .
Analysis by Non-Commissioned Investigator Shows Plane Footage Doctored Up to Hide Clandestine Remote Controlled Anti-Gravity Ball Hitting World Trade Center Building 2
So that's what did it. LOL!
Hmm, I think I will be a "Non-Commissioned Investigator" and see what screwball "theory" I can come up with. It will involve naked women, UFOs, Bigfoot, green paint, and a fly swatter.
Think of all the niggers you could hate in 20 minutes.
And what is that supposed to mean? Is that some kind of canuckistani joke? You know what the problem with you people (canuckistanis) is, you're smug. You're smug with zero experience, and you have zero reason to be smug or arrogant about anything.
#31. To: Original_Intent, Eric Stratton, gengis gandhi (#29)
I would be careful in drawing a conclusion.
OI, the videos of planes hitting the towers were faked.
It's completely obvious. I watched this video 4 times.
What hit the towers weren't airliners.
I know you can't watch this video, but here's an image to illustrate only 1 of the points:
Same camera shot, same distance, same angle, same time (notice smoke cloud), different background. The picture on the left had no airliner in it. The faked one on the right did. Where did the background go? Why was there no plane in the original video? (Only on NBC)
I agree, that "noseout" thing is ridiculous and I never really gave it much thought before
Ditto.
Double ditto on the wings doing no damage at the PentaCON. Not to mention that the plane would have had to take out a hell of a lot more than a mere five light poles to cruise at that low speed into the building........without harming the AMAZING, ASTOUNDING PENTALAWN!!
Isn't it amazing how no wings of the alleged planes at the WTC folded on impact with all those steel beams so close together there? An Official Conspiracy theorist chalks that up to aluminum alloy having a higher tensile strength than structural steel and to Depleted Uranium reinforcing the nosecone and wings. Another explained that the strongest part of a planes wings are the shoulders because they have to support the engines. I guess they want us to think the alleged plane at the Pentagon was nosecone reinforced enough to act like a cruise missle but not reinforced enough to keep the wings outstretched and the engines supported like at the WTC. /s