This is a world in which people invested in a fixed point of view are not above tampering with evidence to make a point.
Again, what are you trying to insinuate?? I have never and never will 'tamper' with evidence...the Truth always speaks for itself and doesn't give a shit about your feelings...this includes 9/11 "deniers"
No, I am saying it is a fake. I have no idea where you got it. But it is "cleaned up" compared to the identical original video. In my viewing of the original video, I could just barely see the left wing because it had a darkness very close to that of the building beyond. This is the kind of circumstance that could lead to a spurious "correction" of the building being in front of the wing. How do you explain the double image of the plane in the original footage? That somehow got cleaned up.
What would be the point? There is plenty of corroborating footage that the airplane crashed into the building. And there is no question that it could have done so in that way, since a past occurrence did the same thing.
Actually, this guy says so. It turns out that building is actually located between the camera and the airplane, so the wing did pass behind it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8 If anons would spend more time doing background confirmatory research instead of bias confirmation exercises, they might earn their name.
This is the guy that shot this video is Michael Hezarkhani. The only information I found relevant is that he refuses to talk about the video. Kinda Odd huh? If this footage was legit, why wouldn't he want to talk about it. It's suspicious, no?
Consider for a moment that this video was purposely edited in this way so it would cause confusion, and disagreement. As you see that's exactly what it's doing. I conclude this video is a red herring, purposely made conspicuous to run interference, to get investigators, and researchers looking in the wrong place.
I've spoken to people that had first hand accounts of seeing the airplane fly into the buidling. I strongly believe they flew something into the building, but I definitely don't believe it was some inexperienced hijackers. I conclude they were military drone aircraft flown remotely, or robotically
That tends to be where I am at on this as well. I mean, the DS doesn't mind killing people in mass quantity, why wouldn't they do both planes and bombs in the buildings?
Also, if the planes were all CGi why not do one for building 7 too? What I think was a major lie was that plane damage brought the buildings down, that was definitely demo charges.
The good news is we'll know the truth soon enough and the assholes responsible will pay.
You don't have to...
Are you insinuating that I faked this video??
Again, what are you trying to insinuate?? I have never and never will 'tamper' with evidence...the Truth always speaks for itself and doesn't give a shit about your feelings...this includes 9/11 "deniers"
No, I am saying it is a fake. I have no idea where you got it. But it is "cleaned up" compared to the identical original video. In my viewing of the original video, I could just barely see the left wing because it had a darkness very close to that of the building beyond. This is the kind of circumstance that could lead to a spurious "correction" of the building being in front of the wing. How do you explain the double image of the plane in the original footage? That somehow got cleaned up.
What would be the point? There is plenty of corroborating footage that the airplane crashed into the building. And there is no question that it could have done so in that way, since a past occurrence did the same thing.
Ok, if you say so...
Actually, this guy says so. It turns out that building is actually located between the camera and the airplane, so the wing did pass behind it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdMKimP0S8 If anons would spend more time doing background confirmatory research instead of bias confirmation exercises, they might earn their name.
This is the guy that shot this video is Michael Hezarkhani. The only information I found relevant is that he refuses to talk about the video. Kinda Odd huh? If this footage was legit, why wouldn't he want to talk about it. It's suspicious, no?
This is my only source saying he doesn't want to talk about it. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/pumpitout/michael-hezarkhani-9-11-videographer-t1883.html
Consider for a moment that this video was purposely edited in this way so it would cause confusion, and disagreement. As you see that's exactly what it's doing. I conclude this video is a red herring, purposely made conspicuous to run interference, to get investigators, and researchers looking in the wrong place.
I've spoken to people that had first hand accounts of seeing the airplane fly into the buidling. I strongly believe they flew something into the building, but I definitely don't believe it was some inexperienced hijackers. I conclude they were military drone aircraft flown remotely, or robotically
That tends to be where I am at on this as well. I mean, the DS doesn't mind killing people in mass quantity, why wouldn't they do both planes and bombs in the buildings?
Also, if the planes were all CGi why not do one for building 7 too? What I think was a major lie was that plane damage brought the buildings down, that was definitely demo charges.
The good news is we'll know the truth soon enough and the assholes responsible will pay.