I’ve been trying to tie up some loose ends in my understanding of certain things lately. The amazing people on GAW always have the answers!
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (62)
sorted by:
into the twin towers....that is just dumb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hApRZ_7v2A&t=0s
Play them at .25 speed and watch the “plane” disappear into the building with not so much as a broken window until the explosion. Odd.
Im not seeing anything like that from any of the angles where we can watch the impact from that side of the building....its there a specific one of the 50 that stands out to you?
Yes, start at 2.07. The guy doesn’t even look up until the explosion as if the sound of the engines wasn’t a thing.
Agree , how does the plan disappear into the building ? Also helicopters flying around ,second plane goes right by and has anyone heard radio transmission from the chopper ?
I had no clue about 9/11 until I visited here. What an eye-opener. Building 7 was what really ran it home for me. But watching the plane melt into the building is something. No one yells or screams “another plane!!” is something. The oh sh:t$ don’t start until the explosion. The video trying to prove simply solidifies trickery to me.
Possibly not at crazy as you think.
There was one home video filmed quite close in that makes me think this might not be "dumb". The reason is that there is no doppler shift noise from an approaching jet on the home video. You can hear the explosion very clearly, and at the distance he was filming, the whine of a jet engine at power should have been at least as loud as a lawn mower. Sadly the camera was not focused on the exact impact point, and the camera was pointed down just before impact and jerked up at the moment the explosion occurred. It was impossible to see if there was a plane there seconds before due to the fireball.
But, here is the takeaway, there was no sound before the explosion. Even without knowing the absolute volume, a relative doppler shift should have been very detectable. A hologram could have mimicked the plane hitting the towers (I don't know how they could make a hologram like that...but my lack of knowledge does not mean it is dumb), but the hologram would not have been able to duplicate the sound of an engine. It would be quiet. And that is exactly what was observed on that video.
Again, not saying it was a hologram. But calling it "dumb" is jumping to a conclusion not necessarily supported by all the data.
Like I said DUMB....there are plenty of videos with sound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hApRZ_7v2A
There were exactly 2 videos in there that were close enough to record a jet engine sound, and neither was close enough to detect a doppler shift of the engine coming towards it. Given that this was a well planned operation, I am not convinced that it can be conclusively ruled out that these 2 (only 2) videos had sound edited in afterwards before being released to the public.
You do not have to believe the theory. I am not saying it is true. But calling it "dumb" is jumping to a conclusion absolutely not supported by all the available data. Certainly not by the video clip you post above. The theory may be wrong, but not dumb.