Compare this CNN-aired video of alleged Flt. 175 flying in from the right side of the screen at 3:26 to the CNN-aired Harkhani video from behind WTC 2. The plane angles to the building and to the smoke directions should be investigated, imo.
The Hezarkhani footage is also mentioned at the 12:28 min. mark in the 3D Analysis video posted by you as the subject of this thread. Right after that, at 14:28, the Evan Fairbanks footage is shown with the smoke going towards the left of the screen, like the CNN footage at Post #63 but the "plane" is not flying in from the right side of the screen in the Fairbanks video. It is flying in from the left of the screen and under the smoke -- smoke that is moving away from the plane in the CNN film, not towards it. Do you see what I mean? The plane angles compared to the smoke directions are very obviously contradictory in those network examples but what's even odder, imo, is how the official storyliners and planes devotees stubbornly stay their course of targeting CGI messengers rather than any media productions of CGI fakery and endorsements of it.
Do you realize, that evidence of video fakery is NOT evidence of no planes?
There were many eyewitnesses to the plane that hit the second tower. What does it accomplish to say there were no planes? Does this in anyway make the CIA/Mossad/American military/ MSM any more responsible for 9/11? No, it doesn't.
Pushing a "gravity ball" hit the tower story, even if somehow true, which I highly doubt it is, will not get people to see that 9/11 was an inside job, it will only make people think you are nuts. A ball would have a good shot of being seen by many, so why would they risk disclosure of such technology, if it even exists, when they can just blow a whole in the side of the towers and say planes hit them?
Do you realize, that evidence of video fakery is NOT evidence of no planes?
There were many eyewitnesses to the plane that hit the second tower.
I'll debate the alleged witnesses if you want but, just so you know, I don't consider them tangible evidence of said planes and many have been shown to be suspect as accomplices. Don't you think hoaxers of such magnitude would have fake-witnesses planted and scripted in to provide them with cover and the illusion of "reality"? Of course they would.
Zeuxis and his contemporary Parrhasius (of Ephesus and later Athens) are reported in the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder to have staged a contest to determine which of the two was the greater artist. When Zeuxis unveiled his painting of grapes, they appeared so luscious and inviting that birds flew down from the sky to peck at them. Zeuxis then asked Parrhasius to pull aside the curtain from his painting, only for Parrhasius to reveal the curtain itself was a painting, and Zeuxis was forced to concede defeat. Zeuxis is rumoured to have said: 'I have deceived the birds, but Parrhasius has deceived Zeuxis.'
What does it accomplish to say there were no planes? Does this in anyway make the CIA/Mossad/American military/ MSM any more responsible for 9/11? No, it doesn't.
What does saying there were planes accomplish besides presumed "justification" for two wars and the possible disappearance of 4 planes into the black market, likely with QRS11 gyro-chips that have dual-uses in guided missle technology? Do you expect to paint those orgs as monolithically guilty of something criminal re: 9/11 -- just not re: the "Fantastic Four planes"? There are people implicated in those orgs and others like PNAC. Charging the orgs they are members of as guilty by association probably isn't going to get those orgs imprisoned or abolished so what is your objective? Boeing has already been charged and fined for trafficking in prohibited dual-use parts over 100 times. Even so, every employee wasn't responsible for that and they're still in business. So what if particular personnel there might be guilty of 4 more such violations re: 9/11? If LEO-investigators were more motivated by public approval than collaring suspects, our prisons wouldn't be so heavily populated. I'm more concerned with who is a suspect and why than what monolithic orgs they're affiliated with and what the official storyliners/planes devotees think of "heretics" like me.
Pushing a "gravity ball" hit the tower story, even if somehow true, which I highly doubt it is, will not get people to see that 9/11 was an inside job, it will only make people think you are nuts. A ball would have a good shot of being seen by many, so why would they risk disclosure of such technology, if it even exists, when they can just blow a whole in the side of the towers and say planes hit them?
I suspect they did just blow a hole in the side of the towers and say planes hit them -- at the Pentagon too, for whatever reason(s) there by whoever. What appears to be a ball in the video was investigated and it would be remiss not to have analyzed it as anomolous. If all the video managed to do was show me what it would have looked like if there was a wide enough opening between the buildings to see the "plane" cross that space, had that angle been filmed by anyone, I'd appreciate it for that because I've looked at many, many videos searching specifically for such a perspective and surprisingly to no avail, what with all the alleged "witnesses with cameras" supposedly round about.
Thank you, Eric. Since I don't believe planes were used in the scenarios, I don't believe there were passengers on them. That's not to say I don't believe there were any actual victims at all named on the passenger lists who might have been killed otherwise and "written off" that way for insurance purposes, or just to do away with them, or whatever. Their loved ones might even believe that's what happened to them. Some might have been given new identities and "written off" that way as an exit strategy. Some might have been extraordinarily renditioned. There are several possibilities but I try to differentiate between who might have been victimized and who might be what's called a "vicsim" -- a simulated fictional character to "fill out" the storyline, for false insurance and/or 9/11 Fund claims, that sort of thing. Barbara Olson is not a "vicsim" but a real person. She may have been victimized or she may have changed her identity, who knows? I hope that helps some to reconcile your concerns.