See other Editorial Articles
Title: Come to no-planer heaven with me....
Source:
wah.... the Internet of course ;-)
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 3, 2010
Author: moi
Post Date: 2010-09-03 20:59:35 by wudidiz
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: Look at, the facts, chicken, shit
Views: 1786
Comments: 87
I'm a no-planer now. It's easy and it's simple. You can do it too. Just look at the evidence. Do you have any idea what this does to an ego like mine? It's scary. Think about it.... No planes hit any of the WTC. Either the videos were faked or (shudder) they're holograms. WTF does that mean then? What did hit them then? If anything? So I have once again successfully distanced myself from some of my associates and society as a whole. Great. Just what I needed. /s It's lonely here. People look at you like, "Okey-dokey, dude" Trust me, don't just lay that on someone without warming them up somehow first. Introduce yourself or something. On the upside, it's like graduating to the next level. Like being promoted. To master kook. lol No, but seriously it's where the great minds must go. Lest they dwindle and stagnate and spin their tires in the lower plane realm. The glorious truth beckons ye. It calls your name like a maid in the mist. Like an angel when your sleeping it summons your higher self to transcend the 3d world and join us, the intellectual elite... So anyway, yeah..... no planes. It's a fact. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Poster Comment: OMG, my first editorial! First one I remember anyway... lol
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-47) not displayed.
.
.
.
#48. To: GreyLmist, christine, Lod, *9-11* (#15)
This vid rocks
Think about it. OK I have. Do I understand that the video feed of the day of the planes (that were not actually there) was photoshopped to cover the nukes that were set to blow?
"Satan / Cheney in "08" Great to see you here pro no planes.
Basically. Something like that.
Thanks for the kind response.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" You're most welcome of course. Just to clarify, the explosions simultaneous with the faked plane crashes were not likely nukes. The ones that vaporized the elevator shafts and disintegrated the mass of the twin towers were very likely nukes imo.
1. Setting The Record Straight On Mini-Nukes 2. Elias Davidsson: 9/11, International Law, and No Proof of Muslim Hijackers
I was just listening to James Fetzer talking about this: OK, I found some time, listened to the whole show. :) Killtown's argument is good, but there are two very big problems with his argument of no planes hitting the towers and all the videos of the planes hitting the towers being faked. 1st big problem: 2nd big problem: God is always good!
Good point. Doesn't take away from the fact that all the videos of planes hitting the wtc were faked. So why were they faked? Why are there no real videos or pictures of planes hitting the wtc?
There are, you just think they are all faked because some of them are. I hope you can agree with me that the videos of the collapse of WTC 7 are the biggest smoking guns of 9/11 and watching one of them is the easiest and fastest way that will make many stop and say, "wait a minute, how the heck did that happen?" You get them to question the official story just a tad, then the dam breaks open and they come to realize 9/11 was an inside job.
God is always good!
I agree that videos of the collapse of WTC are the biggest smoking guns. WTC 7 more obviously than the others because it's so old school CD style. Show me a video of the plane hitting that wasn't faked.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
The solution to problem one is that you are incorrect. Even the news media has shots of the building blowing up with no plane impact. Something else to consider is your theory of thousands of witnesses who always have their cameras with them. This was 2001 not 2010. People still used pagers back then. And not everyone had a camera in their cell phone. Even so youtube had not been invented yet. Sooo fast forward to where we are today and we have dozens of videos and stills not hundreds , not thousands, but only dozens. The majority of which are from the MSM. The answer to problem 2 is deflection. In a conspiracy this big this long in the making (Remember the first time the tried this they failed because of the human component back in 93) this massive one makes plans to throw out false leads and dead end clues. The people will eventually figure things out. Their is no stopping that. One can only stall. Hence the point of the fake clues. Their may of also been only a limited time frame... With in the first hour the two buildings of the WTC where done and over. Quick in and out. By mid afternoon the world was watching NY some converging upon. That many eyes on the scene of the incident and things get stickier. The trump card that worked at 9 in the morning doesn't work as well at 5 in the afternoon because of the massive build up of attention... Solution? Fuck it go ahead with the plan as scheduled and use the fuck up as a false lead.
I should have put a coarse language warning next to it I suppose. Ran out of editing time before it occured to me to do that. It does cover quite a bit of issues well, though, I think. Glad you found it interesting too and thanks for recommending it. :)
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Excellent post, titorite. Ricky, I've already posted info for you from the September Clues site on visual control explaining that they only had to jam electronic signals for a few minutes between the supposed plane strikes. That is not new technology -- more like SOP in a warzone and our Military isn't the only one that has that capability. Ref: signals jamming of the USS Liberty in 1967. You should at least ask yourself why the newsclips are from such a long distance until well after the alleged 2nd plane strike. Many supposed witnesses and "amateur photographers" are linked to the media, "visual arts", and the government. Some alleged witnesses could be nothing more than characters fabricated by the press in print. Here is yet another video for you showing some info about several "filmers/witnesses" towards the end at about the 04:30 mark: 2001 a fake odyssey ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Very informative sig line. :)
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
No they do not. You can say it a million times till you are blue in the face, it is still a lie. Not ONE VIDEO of WTC 2 Side exploding with nothing hitting hit and thousands of eyewitnesses to a plane hitting hit. And many did have camcorders, they were around then and widely used, don't try to tell me they weren't, and still not ONE shot of the side of WTC 2 exploding with nothing hitting it.
God is always good!
Unfortunately, yes. Both were soul-numbing.
__________________________________________________________ The passenger manifest may have been made up of names of deceased people taken from any database. That would account for the "missing" people.
I want either less corruption or more opportunity to participate in it. Ashleigh Brilliant
that's plausible to me. i do remember many NYers who claim to have seen the planes say that they were windowless and didn't appear to look like a commerical jet.
You think this video is fake too?
God is always good!
Thank you. I thought this was interesting: Of course.
RickyJ: No they do not. You can say it a million times till you are blue in the face, it is still a lie. Not ONE VIDEO of WTC 2 Side exploding with nothing hitting hit and thousands of eyewitnesses to a plane hitting hit. And many did have camcorders, they were around then and widely used, don't try to tell me they weren't, and still not ONE shot of the side of WTC 2 exploding with nothing hitting it. Yes, they do. Forward below to 05:02-06:25, CBS (Viacom) footage. NO PLANE HIT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER 9/11 There are less than 50 known amateur films alleged to have been taken on 9/11. That's not "many" among your unsourced claims of "thousands of eyewitnesses to a plane hitting", many with camcorders. Many of those have long been debunked by sources linked for you to review.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Why do you insist on lying? IT DOES NOT SHOW NO PLANE HITTING THE SIDE OF WTC 2 AND THEN IT EXPLODING! IT DOES NOT EVEN SHOW THE WTC 2 SIDE THAT WAS HIT BY THE PLANE! You have been shown to be a disinfo agent time and time again.
God is always good!
christine: that's plausible to me. i do remember many NYers who claim to have seen the planes say that they were windowless and didn't appear to look like a commerical jet. I think AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System - emphasis on Control) could have shut down remote control planes. They were in the D.C. area and along the east coast that day. Not only would the perps have run the risk of being found out to be liars if that happened before impact but they wouldn't have had any "damage from planes and fires" excuse then for their objective of demolished buildings. THE ENEMY IS INSIDE THE GATES by Donn de Grand Pré airborne warning and control system (AWACS). They have the electronic capability to engage several aircraft simultaneously, knock out their on-board flight controls by EMP (electro-magnetic pulsing) and assume command and remote control of these targeted aircraft. http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a955awacs An Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane on a training mission in the Washington, DC, area is instructed to return to its base in Oklahoma, even though its advanced communications and surveillance capabilities would significantly benefit the military’s air defense efforts in response to the terrorist attacks. The AWACS belongs to the 552nd Air Control Wing, located at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma. [US Air Force, 4/1/2000; GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/16/2006; Spencer, 2008, pp. 265] It has been flying a training mission somewhere near Washington (see Before 9:55 a.m. September 11, 2001). [Code One Magazine, 1/2002] AWACS Sent Back to Oklahoma - According to author Lynn Spencer, the AWACS is directed to return to Tinker Air Force Base “in the immediate confusion after the attacks.” The exact time the plane’s crew receives this order, and the identity of the person or organization that gives the order, are unstated. NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) will contact the AWACS later on, and instruct it to turn around and head to Washington, to provide radio and radar coverage over the capital (see (11:25 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [Spencer, 2008, pp. 265-266] AWACS Has Advanced Surveillance and Communication Capabilities - The AWACS, also called the E-3 Sentry, is a modified Boeing 707 that provides surveillance, command, control, and communications to military commanders. [New York Times, 9/23/1995; GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/16/2006; US Air Force, 11/20/2009] According to a US Air Force manual, the plane’s “advanced surveillance radar provides long-range, low-level detection of aircraft targets over all types of terrain.” [US Air Force, 4/1/2000] It can track friendly and enemy aircraft over a 300-mile radius. [New York Times, 9/23/1995] Mark Rosenker, the director of the White House Military Office, will say that AWACS planes “give you the big picture in the sky. They’re able to identify what’s a friend, what’s a foe.” [White House, 8/29/2002] AWACS Would Help NEADS Contact Fighters - These planes are particularly important to NEADS. [9/11 Commission, 10/30/2003 ] While President Bush is still in Sarasota, an AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System plane) is flying a training mission off the coast of Florida. [cont.]
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
IT DOES NOT SHOW NO PLANE HITTING THE SIDE OF WTC 2 AND THEN IT EXPLODING! IT DOES NOT EVEN SHOW THE WTC 2 SIDE THAT WAS HIT BY THE PLANE! You have been shown to be a disinfo agent time and time again. No I haven't and I'm not lying. You are in denial of what you don't want to see. The videos below at the referenced times might be better examples. The nose-out news video is as close as you can get to seeing what looks like a plane impacting that side of WTC 2 [Edit to add: "live, as it happened"], then it impossibly travels through the other side of the building [Edit to add: nosecone intact]. All of the other live news videos show the plane image vanishing behind [Edit to reword: the building(s)] before an explosion is seen or no plane and just an explosion. Only the amateur films later show the image of a plane impacting the WTC from the side where the explosion started. NBC - As It Happened - September 11, 2001 - Part 2 @ 1:45 September 11, 2001 - As It Happened - The South Tower Attack @ 0:50, 2:25, 4:30
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lepqPvru_s&feature=related May I correct you. That footage is there.
IT DOES NOT SHOW NO PLANE HITTING THE SIDE OF WTC 2 AND THEN IT EXPLODING! IT DOES NOT EVEN SHOW THE WTC 2 SIDE THAT WAS HIT BY THE PLANE! You have been shown to be a disinfo agent time and time again. Gosh really? Just because someone disagrees with you they are a disinfo agent? RickyJ I do not know if you have noticed this or not, but many folks here on this thread disagree with you. Are we all Lying Disinfo agents? Because if that is the case I need to be getting paid. Alas that is not the case. RickyJ their is an easy way you can prove yourself Right and us Wrong once and for all. Use Physics. The basic laws of nature. On the close up shots of the planes you can point out to us where Newtons third law of motion was obeyed show us the blow back. You can point out to everyone the wake vortex of the plane.(If you do not know what wake vortex is look it up). You can show us what the max speed of a 767 is at an altitude of under 100 feet according to the plane manufacturers. Use these little details to correct us. To prove us wrong completely. If you can.
Yes. It is listed at 911conspiracy.tv, #27: Luis Alonso's footage first aired September 22, 2001 on MSNBC Investigates - 24 Hours at Ground Zero (download German mpeg or see English version). Technically, it's not in THE "TV archive." The shot of "Flight 175" also appeared on National Geographic's 2005 documentary "Inside 9/11, Pt.2 - Zero Hour" and in BBC's 2007 "Conspiracy Files" at 11:00 (see these mainstream 9/11 documentaries here at 911conspiracy.tv). The angle was previously called "Fanta Devs" for the graffiti seen on the wall across the street from the camera. This explains the title of YougeneDebs's investigation of the camera location, which questions Alonso's story as broadcast by MSNBC. Was Alonso really the camera operator? (Coordinates according to Achimspok: 40deg 43min 17.69sec N, 73deg 59min 35.38sec W, 30m elevation) [end excerpt] FANTA'DEVS (corrected) YougeneDebs | July 01, 2008 Excerpt from video description note: An investigation into the camera positions used to shoot Fanta'Devs, aka "Miracle Zoom" at 911hoax, aka Luis Alonzo, aka Fanta'Dues Compare angle to a similar one by Ronald Pordy at 911conspiracy.tv, #24: Excerpt: an early airing was discovered— CNN 9/13 at 2:49 am. [end excerpt] That video can be seen at the CNN link and is not live footage either. It starts at the point of "fly in and impact". It only spans a few seconds in that film but there are problems with a white building that seems to pop into the video near the end of those frames and with the trajectory of the plane image when compared to other examples like the "divebomber" angle.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Who shot it and where it was shot from is not really relevant. The video looks legit to me. Crystal clear, sound is perfect, and it shows the plane hitting. If you think this is not real, then prove it with some video facts (e.g. artifacts from inserting plane animation into the scene), not who shot it, or where it was shot from, because that, I don't really care about.
God is always good!
That's not necessary in order to prove it's fake. A hollow aluminum plane would not enter a building's concrete and steel structure like a hot knife slicing through butter without some damage to the plane apparent from the outside of the building. The wings would have broke or crumpled or anything but what happened. Think about it. You've been duped. Don't feel bad though. You're not the only one.
.
Just about every video seems to look legit to you, Ricky. In the first place, the video you posted oddly spends almost 10 sec. looking at nothing but the undamaged part of WTC 1. It's aka "Miracle Zoom" [#19 at 911hoax.com] because of when and how fast it zooms incredibly to film the supposed incoming plane. Then, in case you didn't notice, it is nothing more than yet another video where the plane disappears behind a building and an explosion is seen that is only presumed to have been from a real plane strike. [Edit to add: Additionally, the smoke from WTC 1 moving towards the left of the forceful and smokey fireball is scarcely displaced at all by it and only slightly above it.] If all of that and the questionable origins of the film are still not enough to convince you it's not legit, think about this and pick the flightpath that suits you most as authentic for debates: Flight 175 Flightpath: There's more than one [coarse language warning at end]
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
More coarse language warning:
Oh yeah Genghis Rocks. The No planer folks that dug deep have had their issues too... but like Genghis says Truth is free, you can try to charge for it but thats shit because the truth WANTS to be free.
Yowza. That's for sure but he does make many good points. I found this comment in a thread addressing the issues of the Fanta Devs/Miracle Zoom vid and Camera Planet associates that seems appropos to his Loose Change subject matter and also to this thread: thequest at letsrollforums.com: "If you are not going to do your homework then you do not reserve the right to belittle others. 911 research should not be a religion or cult where questioning is frowned upon and direction comes from the top, down." Thanks for all the great info in these posts: Post #54: 1. Setting The Record Straight On Mini-Nukes 2. Elias Davidsson: 9/11, International Law, and No Proof of Muslim Hijackers Post #55: radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/dr-ed-ward-md.html [Fetzer interview with Dr. Ed Ward - nukes, DEW, etc.] Post #70: www.checktheevidence.co.u...task=view&id=28&Itemid=60 [The New “9/11 Hijackers”? - Andrew Johnson] I haven't been able to get to the info at Post #54 yet but spent quite a lot of time on the Fetzer/Ward interview at #55 and the Andrew Johnson article at #70. Here are some links pertinent to the Andrew Johnson article under COINTELPRO at 911closeup.com: COINTELPRO "Truth" OP 02.Jul.2005 16:03 The damage that Fetzer is doing By Gerard Holmgren ___________________ Fetzer has apparently changed his mind on No Planes Theory but was still trying to marginalize Holmgren (a 9/11 pioneer long before the Fetzer and Co. coup) in a 2008 interview with Killtown, so he is kind of still on caution as a source with me. Genghis and Killtown have clashed over Val McClatchey, the alleged Shanksville photographer. I haven't ruled out that someone might be impersonating Ghengis to some extent by altering his screen name. That's the "politics" update. On the Fetzer/Ward interview, I can't rule out Dr. Judy Woods' Directed Energy Weaponry/DEW theory as yet in the downfall of the towers. Dr. Ward did a good job of debunking Prof. Steven "Weird Science" Jones on his streaming- molten metal and thermite/thermate stories but, just as I question the source (s) and chain of evidence for Jones' "thermitic" dust samples, I will also have to investigate the source(s) for radiation level readings indicating nukes in Dr. Ward's theory. Everything else about it sounds very plausible but depends much on the readings checking out as valid.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
If there is anything, Any single part that you feel is not worth caring about then you should realize that your passion is for arguing and not for truth. If the 911 event DOES bother you then you should be concern over every last freaking detail stem to stern. And don't rely on others to prove shit to you.. Prove it to yourself or them. Don't wait for proof to be handed to you on a platter. As I said. Use physics. Show us all (Show yourself) the Newtonian Laws of motion being obeyed. Crash physics. You can start here: http://www.regentsprep.org/Regen...ys01/accident/default.htm And how about that wake vortex? Where was it? And the G forces of a dive bomb to a strait away. How could a commercial air bus do that and not rip itself apart at 1000 feet? Physics. You can not get around it.
This is Fakery that was probably designed in 2003 for documentary airing to sell the Iraq war, imo. I'll try to find the thread later where that was discussed. I've been trying to find a link to a Fetzer inverview with Stephen Brown, I think it was. If you posted it somewhere else, could you repost it here, please? TIA. Have a wonderful day.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Why would an obviously faked video of a plane hitting the WTC be aired on International news? Why wouldn't they just use a real video of the plane?
#49. To: wudidiz (#45)
No planes Tom.
#50. To: randge, titorite (#20)
Why would an obviously faked video of a plane hitting the WTC be aired on International news? Why wouldn't they just use a real video of the plane?
#51. To: tom007 (#49)
Do I understand that the video feed of the day of the planes (that were not actually there) was photoshopped to cover the nukes that were set to blow?
Why would an obviously faked video of a plane hitting the WTC be aired on International news? Why wouldn't they just use a real video of the plane?
#52. To: wudidiz (#51)
#53. To: tom007 (#52)
#54. To: tom007, Max, Original_Intent, christine, Lod, All (#53)
#55. To: GreyLmist, Lod, christine (#36)
There is evidence that AA11 and AA77 didn't even exist as 9/11 flights.
#56. To: christine (#41)
After the first plane hit WTC 1 there were thousands of NYC residents, workers, and tourists, who always have cameras with them, taking photographs and recording videos of WTC 1 burning from all directions surrounding the towers. Surely someone somewhere would have a shot of the side of WTC 2 exploding with nothing hitting it if no plane hit it. But no one has ever posted such a video on the Internet. It would be virtually impossible for the perpetrators of 9/11 to control ALL the videos that would be taken that day. Some would have made their way into the public domain and then there would be proof that they faked the planes hitting the buildings. They obviously couldn't take that kind of risk so why not just use a real military plane remote controlled with laser guided missile technology to do the job? Why try to make something harder than it needs to be? No reason for it. They had to use real planes or they risked the very real threat of being found out to be liars even before the first Tower collapsed.
If they were going to fake the videos of planes hitting the towers to make sure there were no mistakes, then why did they not also fake the videos of the collapses of both the towers and WTC 7 to make it appear they were not controlled demolitions? Most see the video of the collapse of WTC 7 as the smoking gun of 9/11, myself included, so why did they not fake that video too if they wanted to get away with 9/11? It makes no sense that they would risk faking some of the videos which could show them all to be liars and not fake the videos which also show them to be responsible for 9/11 through basic physics, which unfortunately most Americans lack knowledge of.
#57. To: RickyJ, christine (#56)
Surely someone somewhere would have a shot of the side of WTC 2 exploding with nothing hitting it if no plane hit it.
#58. To: wudidiz (#57)
Why are there no real videos or pictures of planes hitting the wtc?
#59. To: RickyJ (#58)
#60. To: wudidiz, GreyLmist, christine, Lod (#48)
#61. To: RickyJ (#56)
1st big problem: After the first plane hit WTC 1 there were thousands of NYC residents, workers, and tourists, who always have cameras with them, taking photographs and recording videos of WTC 1 burning from all directions surrounding the towers. Surely someone somewhere would have a shot of the side of WTC 2 exploding with nothing hitting it if no plane hit it. But no one has ever posted such a video on the Internet.
#62. To: christine (#40)
it's an interesting and entertaining conversation. i will say that.
#63. To: titorite, RickyJ (#61)
(Edited)
06:18 - 2 years ago
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=- 415424133034814785&hl=en&emb=1
#64. To: wudidiz (#53)
#65. To: titorite (#61)
Even the news media has shots of the building blowing up with no plane impact.
#66. To: tom007 (#44)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#67. To: Lod (#39)
But the passenger manifests show that many passengers on the (alleged) flights have gone missing...and with zero muslims on any of those flights.
#68. To: RickyJ (#56)
They obviously couldn't take that kind of risk so why not just use a real military plane remote controlled with laser guided missile technology to do the job? Why try to make something harder than it needs to be? No reason for it. They had to use real planes or they risked the very real threat of being found out to be liars even before the first Tower collapsed.
#69. To: GreyLmist (#63)
#70. To: GreyLmist, Original_Intent (#64)
Very informative sig line. :)
#71. To: RickyJ, GreyLmist (#69)
You think this video is fake too?
#72. To: RickyJ, titorite (#65)
titorite: Even the news media has shots of the building blowing up with no plane impact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=mWcp2rB_i8k
#73. To: GreyLmist (#72)
#74. To: christine, RickyJ (#68)
RickyJ: They obviously couldn't take that kind of risk so why not just use a real military plane remote controlled with laser guided missile technology to do the job? Why try to make something harder than it needs to be? No reason for it. They had to use real planes or they risked the very real threat of being found out to be liars even before the first Tower collapsed.
.
.
Before 9:55 a.m. September 11, 2001: AWACS Planes on Training Missions in Florida and Near Washington, DC
#75. To: RickyJ (#73)
(Edited)
Why do you insist on lying?
http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=5TZpVyvYod4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=1lKZqqSI9-s
#76. To: RickyJ (#65)
You can say it a million times till you are blue in the face, it is still a lie. Not ONE VIDEO of WTC 2 Side exploding with nothing hitting hit
#77. To: RickyJ (#73)
Why do you insist on lying?
#78. To: RickyJ, 911conspiracy.tv (#69)
You think this video is fake too?
http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=DMVdh8owj6w
#79. To: GreyLmist (#78)
#80. To: RickyJ, GreyLmist, 911conspiracyTV (#79)
prove it with some video facts (e.g. artifacts from inserting plane animation into the scene)
#81. To: All (#80)
#82. To: RickyJ (#79)
(Edited)
Who shot it and where it was shot from is not really relevant. The video looks legit to me. Crystal clear, sound is perfect, and it shows the plane hitting. If you think this is not real, then prove it with some video facts (e.g. artifacts from inserting plane animation into the scene), not who shot it, or where it was shot from, because that, I don't really care about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=x3NOMCp7oos&feature=related
#83. To: All, GreyLmist (#82)
#84. To: wudidiz (#83)
#85. To: wudidiz (#83)
(Edited)
More coarse language warning:
History lesson by
By Gerard Holmgren and Nico Haupt
July 21, 2006
Gerard Holmgren
August 23, 2006
#86. To: RickyJ (#79)
(Edited)
not who shot it, or where it was shot from, because that, I don't really care about.
#87. To: wudidiz (#81)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest