2nd point first: wing vs. distant building. Here is a public issuance of the video by Michael Hezarkhani (see below), as #10 in the vignettes, appearing at about 5:24 in the timeline. It is devilishly difficult to start and stop this to glimpse the same frames, but it becomes clear that the image of the aircraft is split between frames, and the port (left) wing has very low darkness as it passes before the building. Hard to discern from the darkness level of the building. I suspect the video posted by Purkiss80 is a fake---but one that has been "cleaned up" to present a depiction of a CGI falsehood. It would be a peculiar falsehood if it only replicated a building that indeed was there.
1st point second: airplane vs. twin tower. Of course it is possible for an airplane to smash through the hanging wall of the tower, which was not its primary structure. This is basically the same thing that happened with a B-25 bomber when it crashed between the 78th and 80th floors of the Empire State Building on July 28th, 1945. Complete penetration into the building. Lots of damage internally. The narrator is clearly not an aeronautical or civil engineer to make such an assured denial that this could happen. What was the airplane supposed to do? Flatten out like a cartoon character? No, there was a lot of mass and momentum and it would not be stopped without the airplane driving into the building and getting minced (and then it was stopped).
This is a world in which people invested in a fixed point of view are not above tampering with evidence to make a point. This includes 9/11 "truthers."
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.
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
I don't buy this argument.
2nd point first: wing vs. distant building. Here is a public issuance of the video by Michael Hezarkhani (see below), as #10 in the vignettes, appearing at about 5:24 in the timeline. It is devilishly difficult to start and stop this to glimpse the same frames, but it becomes clear that the image of the aircraft is split between frames, and the port (left) wing has very low darkness as it passes before the building. Hard to discern from the darkness level of the building. I suspect the video posted by Purkiss80 is a fake---but one that has been "cleaned up" to present a depiction of a CGI falsehood. It would be a peculiar falsehood if it only replicated a building that indeed was there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ
1st point second: airplane vs. twin tower. Of course it is possible for an airplane to smash through the hanging wall of the tower, which was not its primary structure. This is basically the same thing that happened with a B-25 bomber when it crashed between the 78th and 80th floors of the Empire State Building on July 28th, 1945. Complete penetration into the building. Lots of damage internally. The narrator is clearly not an aeronautical or civil engineer to make such an assured denial that this could happen. What was the airplane supposed to do? Flatten out like a cartoon character? No, there was a lot of mass and momentum and it would not be stopped without the airplane driving into the building and getting minced (and then it was stopped).
This is a world in which people invested in a fixed point of view are not above tampering with evidence to make a point. This includes 9/11 "truthers."
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...
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