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)
You're taking for granted that the video you think was edited was done by ... someone. It could also be edited by the person that presented this video as "proof".
But, lets look at the pic. Here it is, magnified by me.
They're not the same.
That object I drew around, I don't know what the hell that is. Maybe it's just an artifact, or maybe it's evidence of tampering, or maybe it's something else.
But that puff of smoke I put the arrow on is different from the other pic. It was not shot at the same time.
Nice try. You said, and I quote you directly, that this was the
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've shown that this was not the same camera shot, you don't know what the distance was, the angle is only similar. You can account for the different background by using 2 different altitudes. If you are higher up, you point the camera down, getting a different background than if you were at the same altitude pointing the camera parallel to the horizon, or not pointing the camera down at as steep of an angle.
The pic on the right looks like it was taken from a lower altitude since you see more of the roof area on the pic on the left. This would not show the same background.
One was shot in low resolution the other one higher. It is no wonder a plane moving fast could appear as a ball on a low resolution cam-corder. New evidence like this does not emerge 9 years from the time of the event. It just doesn't happen. If there was a damn ball there you would have heard about it a lot sooner than now! This video is pure dis-info put out by the CIA/Mossad. Fuck them, and all the idiots dumb enough to believe this lie.
Yes it does, it has everything to do with a fast moving jet airliner appearing as if it were a ball on a low resolution camera with a low frame rate. The so-called buster here is busted.
The two videos, one original live from NBC and the other obviously edited, show two completely different trajectories.
No they don't. Did you even watch the video YOU posted?
This is not new.
Yes it is, or there would have been numerous eye witnesses to this ball being seen. You can't cover something like that up. Really, think about it just a little.
The video, "September Clues" was done years ago.
So? 9/11 was almost 9 years ago. Where were the "ball" stories the first week after 9/11? They didn't exist.
Yes it does, it has everything to do with a fast moving jet airliner appearing as if it were a ball on a low resolution camera with a low frame rate. The so-called buster here is busted.
The two videos, one original live from NBC and the other obviously edited, show two completely different trajectories.
No they don't. Did you even watch the video YOU posted?
This is not new.
Yes it is, or there would have been numerous eye witnesses to this ball being seen. You can't cover something like that up. Really, think about it just a little.
The video, "September Clues" was done years ago.
So? 9/11 was almost 9 years ago. Where were the "ball" stories the first week after 9/11? They didn't exist.
Resolution has Nothing to do with the different trajectory.
Which is what I meant in post #40.
Yes, I watched the video I posted. That's how I could see the very different trajectory.
Resolution has Nothing to do with the different trajectory.
The video you posted did not show a different trajectory, it was exactly the same as the ball's. Going by the monotone presenter's voice and drawing of lines on a video proves nothing. The trajectories were the same. One, they weren't synced, two, they weren't from the same angle, one was shot from a helicopter, the other one was shot from a lower angle. Which is why the backgrounds are different, one was the sky, the other was the river and sky.
Call me an idiot again and I'll kick you in the fucking head.
Come on, you should be use to it by now, you idiot.
Either one, or both of those videos could be fakes. It is even possible I think for them both to be legit too if they were not from the same camera or the same angle. Either way believing a "gravity ball" hit the WTC towers is in the realm of cukoo land, and I will have nothing to do with such idiocy.
Your reasoning is absurd. You are capable of conjuring ideas why someone should not examine this or investigate it, but you haven't given any proof there was a plane.
In fact, the video with the nose out, which aired on a few major tv news channels, is obviously fake.
So if that's not the plane, then where is the plane?
Who gives a flying fuck if people think we're nuts?