FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Proofy Proofy That NO PLANE Hit The North Tower

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:45 pm    Post subject: Proofy Proofy That NO PLANE Hit The North Tower Reply with quote

Pause the footage and zoom in to play 'pin the tail on the donkey'!


Link







_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another amateur piece of footage of the North Tower impact and, yes, you guessed it, no plane in plain sight!


Link

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

More stills of north tower hit:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11_missileframes.html

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Proofy Proofy That NO PLANE Hit The North Tower Reply with quote

thought criminal;

Quote:
play 'pin the tail on the donkey'!


Done.


_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC


Last edited by telecasterisation on Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Proofy Proofy That NO PLANE Hit The North Tower Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:


Done.


You could have had my eye out with that.


Check out the following article that shows that the North Tower impact photo that FEMA used was faked:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer03.htm

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.


Last edited by thought criminal on Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FEMA photo





_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Witness "I just saw the entire, err.. top part of the world trade centre explode, so err, I turned on the tv and when I heard they said it was a plane it was really strange"



Link

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3172
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lets try this from the top shall we?

No-Plane-Theory-threads-go-into-Truth-Controversies-Section-not-genera l-chat. Any-NPT-threads-made-in-general-chat-get-moved-here-no-matter-how-many -times-they-get-started-in-general-chat-and-moderators-become-grumpy, which-is-BAD

Especially this Naudet brothers clip again TCrim, you know how badly this got pwned last time you ran with it

_________________
We are not a community looking to believe: We are a community dedicated to seeing what is

Enjoy the View from the Hills:
http://malvernmessages.free-forums.org/malvernmessages.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ok so there was:

1. no plane.

2. a missle.

3. a donkey.

4. faked impact hole(why only the good lord above will know).

5. faked buildings.

6. beams.

7. hologram.

8. tv fakery.

9. eyewitnesses saying they didnt see the plane hit but looked when they saw the explosion.

points to ignore are:

1. disinfo agents faking and reposting on the net.

2. differant angles between each photograph compared.

3. time to focus camera.

4. prespective of filmers and photographers.

5. logic.

6. time on our hands to wake people up.

7. how any of this looks to outsiders.

8. anything people have to say about NPT evidence that dosnt support the theory.

9. witnesses who did see a plane prior to explosion.

10. judy woods interview.

11. evidence.

12. ability to prove the evidence to a court/media.

so is there really a need for me to comment on this? no.........

do i think the above is evidence? no......

if i explained/show evidence to prove the above wrong will i be listened to? no........

should i submit now and end this post here? YES.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thermate
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445

PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you believe in NPT I'm happy for you... but realise your in the minority and also realise that no matter how often you post distorted and intellectually flawed "evidence" you still won't convert us because WE'RE NOT RETARDED, thanks.
_________________
Make love, not money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thermate wrote:
you still won't convert us because WE'RE NOT RETARDED, thanks.


I know, you're just deeply unconscious. You should try meditating.

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Everything in life is based upon perspective and this is equally true of photographic perspective. Even a fairly slight change of view can dramatically alter what you perceive.

The entry hole picture is a good example of this and in fact, the differences in the two camera positions are really substantially different;

The blue arrow in the bottom image points to the area in the back of the building that the arrow in the top image cannot see (it being around the corner so to speak). This is borne out by the obvious 'softening' of the background, it being further away. The shift in the angle of view allows it to be seen, in contrast, the more head-on view means to say it cannot be seen.

Stating that something has magically vanished (the red arrow), is again a shortsighted view;

Moving up and around means that we can now see the objects that were masked in the softer focus (lower res) picture, from a more horizontal plane. Nothing has been altered, the author simply has little to no idea about the effects of changing perspective.


_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC


Last edited by telecasterisation on Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thought criminal wrote:
I know, you're just deeply unconscious. You should try meditating.

Perhaps you should try thinking Donkey Boy! Rolling Eyes

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group