See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: 9/11 footage faked? "no-planers" emerge - Your opinions?
Source:
valis
URL Source: http://none
Published: Mar 11, 2006
Author: valis
Post Date: 2006-03-11 14:46:37 by valis
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: "no-planers", opinions?, footage
Views: 1713
Comments: 38
It is beginning to appear to me that there may be some merit to the theory that al least one of the video containing footage of the second tower strike may have been synthetic. This is a highly controversial issue within the 9/11 truth community, with some saying that it makes the whole movement look like nutcases, and others insisting that every video of the second impact was faked. Please take a gander at the following links and tell me what you think.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 31.
#2. To: valis (#0)
On this one.. it seems the wing never comes in front of the building.. so this IMO just shows that the building is in the foreground.
I don't think so. Look again. That's a "tiny" building, perspective-wise.
I'd say the wing is behind the building. The gap between the wing and the building on frames 3-5 is probably the second side of the building which just can't really be distinguished from the sky given the lighting.. The "cut" of the wing on frame three highlights the edge of the building between that face and the roof.
I'll try to find the same clip elsewhere for comparison. Hang tight.
Both planes were flying above all buildings save the WTC's, so the wing had to have passed above (behind) the building. Yes, seconding Sky's comments, it can really be counterproductive to believe every conspiracy theory. In fact, one could disrupt investigation into a true cover-up by proliferating a myriad of fake cover-up possibilities. Those prone to unrealistically believe the government is running a conspiracy behind every rock and tree then lose credibility in debunking the real one. Just because something could have been faked doesn't mean the US government did fake it. Just because evil was done doesn't mean Bush was responsible. Be objective.
#33. To: Neil McIver (#31)
I try. In my mind, one aspect of weighting all the options includes getting peer feedback from posting this here.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Zipporah (#2)
On this one.. it seems the wing never comes in front of the building.. so this IMO just shows that the building is in the foreground.
#11. To: valis (#3)
#21. To: Neil McIver (#11)
I'd say the wing is behind the building. The gap between the wing and the building on frames 3-5 is probably the second side of the building which just can't really be distinguished from the sky given the lighting.. The "cut" of the wing on frame three highlights the edge of the building between that face and the roof.
#31. To: valis (#21)
Replies to Comment # 31. Be objective.
Just because evil was done doesn't mean Bush was responsible.
Simply blaming a meat-puppet like Bush isn't going to accomplish anything. If you are paying attention, like i think you are, you'll see that this goes way beyond one administration.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 31.