911 cgi glitch
(files.catbox.moe)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (27)
sorted by:
I'm waiting for that dude who always shows up on this site trying to shout down all of the "no planes hit the towers" people.
3...2...1...
That's me, except i'm on this site every day and one of the most prolific posters since it launched. I don't 'show up' when these threads drop, I'm already here. Btw, I spent about 2 full years on 9/11 and can provide loads of sources on just about any aspect of the plot. Feel free to request intel or ask questions.
Lets' get to it.... So, is this your only PROOF that there were no planes? I like how the narrator claims 'this rare video' when last I checked, it had over 3 million views on Youtube. I first saw this video over 20 years ago. It was widely promoted post 9/11, unlike many others that pointed to a controlled demo, that were deleted from Youtube.
Second part first:
Nope. That claimed 'glitch' is just a matter of perspective. The top of the building in question is IN BETWEEN the videographer and the plane as it impacts the South Tower. I'm actually surprised so many need this explained to them. ( I laughed the first time I saw this video because of this assertion ) Think about it. If the left wing were in front of the building from the shooters perspective, it would have collided with it.
First assumption:
There is no debate that the towers were demolished. Controlled demo of buildings that size would have involved months if not years of structural weakening, like in all large scale controlled demolitions. So, we already have the answer. The building was strategically weakened in the area. Furthermore, the North Tower was struck at about the 90th floor, where steel is far thinner than the base. This is a fundamental aspect of skyscraper architecture.
The planes: The 'Official Story' assumes that the Flight 11 and Flight 175 were as described: Normal domestic airliners that had been hijacked and flown by total amateurs. This is one area where CGI shills and I agree. No way novices pull off those maneuvers. But, their explanation is extremely complex with numerous problems, they will never address. Mine is much simpler. These were heavily modified and retrofitted Boeing jetliners, laden with high explosives and remotely piloted or even laser guided into pinpoint impact into the towers. Secondly, the high radiation counts at ground zero could be attributed to depleted uranium, that would have been used in the reinforcement of the plane, especially the leading edges of the wings or contained in the warheads of onboard bunker busters. Did I just blow up the 'Mini Nuke' theory, too? Yes, I did.
One of the engines from Flight 175 landed on a nearby street corner. Col. Fletcher Proudy (deep state spook who is coincidentally also the source of so-called secret Military CGI programs) says that the serial numbers did not match N612UA. He then makes a huge leap in logic and claims the engine was dumped there. HUH? So, nobody saw that happen? It didn't match because it was a much more powerful engine, installed during retrofitting. Now you have the explanation for the higher than maximum possible speed at impact.
You can read about the central figure in the 9/11 Inside Job. His name is Dov Zakheim and he is the smoking gun at every intersection of the plot. Or you can just take the intellectually lazy way out. lol
http://christiansagainstzionism.50megs.com/dan_zakheim.htm
I have to apologize. I know you are prevalent on this Board, and well-respected (including by me). I was being flippant. So, I apologize.
You will not convince me, though. And I, too, spent a lot of time researching 911 like so many others. I do respect your efforts, even though you will judge me as a dolt.
you haven't explained the glitch at all. if the building is in front of the wing, why does the wing appear in front of the illuminated side of the building?
because a key has been applied to make the plane appear on top of the blue sky, which mistakenly makes it appear overtop of the blue sky reflected off the building as well.
and no, there is far more evidence... i would link my favourite compilation here, but somebody already has.
i am all ears if anyone can provide more evidence of planes, or debunk the evidence of compositing presented here
I don't buy it.
You spend months if not years to control the demo, and then send a plane into it. Two planes, actually. That's way too much risk something could could go wrong. It's so much easier to simply fake the plane, and let the media brainwash anyone who might have questions.
well, you're wrong
How is it easier to fake 2 planes with CGI when tens of thousands of New Yorkers witnessed the impacts?
What is your opinion on what hit the Pentagon fren? Curious of your take on it.
Have you not seen how brainwashed people are? And show me the 38,000 people. I don't know any.
But whatever. Either way, at least we agree on the controlled demo part. that part is pretty clear cut.