You mean this one? I answered you in the other thread. For your review . . . http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4669137903152322593 At 9:55 he starts his explanation about why the plane was not in the wide shot. At 10:36 he demonstrates the same phenomon with a helicopter in the same video clip. At 10:45 he explains EXACTLY why the plane was not in the wide shot due to the technical limitations of the camera (low quality lens designed to eliminate minor detail to allow for compression of the video) At 12:05 he explains how the camera determines what details to filter out based on how many pixels a particular image occupies in the frame. At 14:30 he indirectly addresses your concern about "Nowhere else did it happen on 9/11." concern. He is a video effects expert. What is suspicious about his claims?
A large passenger airplane flying into a skyscraper. Do you have a clear picture of a nosecone or not?
LOL. Hannibal, it took you over three hours to come up with that? Anyway, you don't see the plane come through the tower? There is video evidence of the plane coming through the tower nosecone first. Why are you denying this? And no, there are no "clear" pictures of this event. You already know that though. But you already know that the video footage shows a plane coming through the towers too. But the question is, why are you denying this?
My favorite part about this whole video fakery angle is this. Truthers would have us believe that "they" (whoever "they" are) have the technology and ability to alter live video and every single private recording that was done on that day and make sure that no one, even the private citizens whose video was altered, told anyone about it YET these same people who were using incredibly advanced technology to do all of this were careless enough to make mistakes that the basement dwelling Internet detectives would discover to foil their evil plan. Which doesn't even begin to explain what all of the people who saw the crash with their own eyes "saw" on that day. A hologram maybe? Don't get me started on the "paid actor" bull(*)(*)(*)(*). So what purpose does it serve to "have a conversation about something in that ballpark" ?
This was the first time I looked at the thread again, drop your insults. No, it did not 'take me three hours to come up with that'. Parts of the plane did penetrate the building and were found on rooftops and streets. The nosecone? No.
Obviously parts of the plane penetrated the building... But you're being difficult. I'm trying to get you to answer something. Can you, yes or no, see the plane come out the other side of the building?
I like a good conspiracy theory. So far tho I haven't found many I thought plausible. One of this magnitude and scope is a real hard one to swallow. And that to spite even anecdotals by witnesses I have talked to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zLKYr5hA6s8 To my knowledge, there is no clear HD picture of this event. Is that better? And no, I'm not saying there's HD video of the event either.
It's not hard to let something happen and then not be asked questions under oath, behind closed doors, and away from media microphones.
What you see coming out of the other side of the building is mostly jet fuel that immediately turns to fire. Remember, a wall of jet fuel would be about as devastating at that speed as concrete.
I see something coming out, of course. Is it the plane? If so, which part? Is it part of the building itself being shoved out by the impact? Impossible to tell from the grainy video. Logically, since no intact nosecone was found on the other side, nor any other evidence therein ... It isn't the intact nosecone of the plane.
1. What else is in there though? 2. Okay, so where is the hole at? Because for the column that weighs six tons with the landing gear tire to have gone through, it would require a 'hole'.
1) impossible to tell from the video. 2) You were shown the damage. The column weighed six tons? Where did you come up with that number?
There is damage, no doubt. But...how does that column go through there without there being a hole? Because there isn't a hole there, not by conventional standards, or even by WTC on 9/11 standards. EDIT: How did this thing: get by?