Flight 175 (Rare Video Must See)

[Skywizard]

I've put together a little video after watching a few online this anniversary of 9-11.
This video demonstrates how the news media may have faked the 9/11 terror. The first part shows real CNN footage so the second part is not faked. Watch each one closely and see what you think.


http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x14l0zz_flight-175-rare-video_news


peace...
skywizard

[seehas]

im researching 911 since 2003 and there is tons of material that doesnt make sense and you have to ask is it CGI or either holographic technology.

maybe you know this video allready its called the "911 nose"

- the airplane vanishs like a knife into the steelbuilding - IMPOSSIBLE

- and the nose exits fully intact on the other side - IMPOSSIBLE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i73XmZUxnVo

[indigopete]

I'm sorry, I've been reading about 9/11 for 12 years as well and have been questioning the story since about a month after the event, but this video (the "must see" one) is a good example of hyperbole and not much else.

The debunkers will not have a difficult time with it since the maker appears to just pump out any old anomaly that crosses his mind without bothering to check anything.

First of all, he claims that an aircraft wing cannot slice through steel - without giving any basis for that claim. In fact, karate experts can chop through a lump of concrete with a soft hand due to something called "kinetic energy" - i.e. it makes a difference if the striking force is moving.

Secondly, he claims that the video is CGI "layered" because the wing passes behind the top of that brown coloured tower which he says is "clearly in the background".

Well, actually it's not "clearly in the background". It's probably in the foreground (i.e. between the camera and the plane) but since it's small, looks further away. Wherever it is, the maker of that video should have checked what that building was and where it's located before making claims like that.

The debunkers will (rightly) place this in the "drivel" category.

Pete

[indigopete]

Skywizard - I've just realised it's you yourself that has made this video. I'm sorry my remarks were a bit caustic and I hope you don't take them too personally. You've clearly made this commentary in good faith, but I just don't understand why people can't check the veracity of their assertions when they make stuff like this.

I mean, the internet's awash with resources - you could have checked what that building is and where it is. Not only that, but a bit of self-critical analysis will tell you that if it's in the background, it would have to be almost the height of the WTCs themselves to place it that high in the 2-D view.

Things like this are great if they're solid and a huge deadweight to the cause if they're not.

Again, I apologise for my direct response, but just be glad you're hearing it from a friend who's on the same side of the debate than from a hornets nest of JREFers slapping lots of unpleasant labels on you ending in "tard".

Pete

[Skywizard]

Skywizard - I've just realised it's you yourself that has made this video. I'm sorry my remarks were a bit caustic and I hope you don't take them too personally. You've clearly made this commentary in good faith, but I just don't understand why people can't check the veracity of their assertions when they make stuff like this.

I mean, the internet's awash with resources - you could have checked what that building is and where it is. Not only that, but a bit of self-critical analysis will tell you that if it's in the background, it would have to be almost the height of the WTCs themselves to place it that high in the 2-D view.



Things like this are great if they're solid and a huge deadweight to the cause if they're not.

Again, I apologise for my direct response, but just be glad you're hearing it from a friend who's on the same side of the debate than from a hornets nest of JREFers slapping lots of unpleasant labels on you ending in "tard".

Pete

You don't have to apologise to me Pete. My thread may not have been worded just right. I have researched the 9-11 terror for a long time now. I didn't say it was real I was just comparing the two. My point was:

This video demonstrates how the news media may have faked the 9/11 terror. The first part shows real CNN footage (may be fake?) so the second part is not faked. (same video as 2001 anyway) Watch each one closely and see what you think. You just told me what you thought... no problem here. :thumb:

peace...
skywizard

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

It's definitely a sharp observation, but yes I do have to occur with indigopete, the building in question is (to me) definitely in the foreground, thus the wing of the plane logically appears to pass behind it in its trajectory towards the south tower.

The split second glow or burst of light as the plane strikes, I can see this as being a thermal event, maybe sparks, ignited by a high velocity impact of a metallic object onto another metallic object. I don't know, but that's my guess.

I also believe that sheer kinetic energy can easily account for the plane slicing its way into the building, like a warm knife through butter. It's all about Velocity, and Mass: kinetic energy. It's the same process at work that accounts for a minute speck of dust that can penetrate the outer shell of a space craft. Certainly the mass is tiny in that instance, but the velocity (10s of thousands of mph) does the damage. I'm no structural engineer, or physicist, but with my common sense and discernment, I cannot envisage a 200 ton mass travelling in excess of 500 mph just crumpling like a tin can when hitting this building. If it did, then I would cry fake! The fact it passed nearly all the way through seems entirely reasonable to me.

[crosby]

excellent observation.....skywizard...... i love what you post here.... it gives us food for thought. and just to point out, no one had observed this in my family or within my realm of friends until now. it seems to me that the the turn-style bad episodes are really placed right before our eyes! we just do not want to see. sad.
warmest.
corson