UA 175: Who created this fake footage from this rare south view?

Because there WAS NO Plane. You don't have any evidence, much less irrefutable evidence. All you have is avoidance of reality.

Why don't you ask your Mom to bump up your allowance so that you can afford some decent video and graphics editing software?

And by the way, being called a troll by a raving lunatic doesn't really sting much.

 

Once again,there was NO 'Plane', they are artirfacts from crappy video fakery, and there WAS NO 767 that hit either tower...sorry. DDave will NEVER acknowledge the impossibility of a plane cirlcing a building because it didn't happen but the media said the orb was a plane and confirmed that it cirlcled the towers. A plane moving 200 mph (let alone a commericial jet going 500mph) could NOT circle any building and crash into the rear of it and delusional Dave knows this.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFPB_NTi2cs&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=97&feature=plpp_video"]NIST FOIA: WNBC Chopper 4 Clip (Replay of WTC2 Plane Impact) - YouTube[/ame]

 

No evidence of a plane. Uh, huh.

Why are you so worried about what I think? I'm just one person. You'll have to convince many more people than me for you to do any good or be relevant.

 

Are you claiming that fake 175 circled the towers after flying 500 mph straight for T1?

 

Nothing circled the buildings in the gifs you posted.

 

I'm not claiming anything. But I did notice something.

Right about the time that suede stopped responding to my posts in another thread after he painted himself into a corner

http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...ly-lacking-flight-93-mostly-buried-claim.html

7forever suddenly started engaging me directly in this thread using the same kind of tactics.

Are suede and 7forever the same person? Isn't multiple user accounts a violation of the TOS?

http://www.politicalforum.com/forum-help-feedback-etc/announcements.html

Perhaps the mods ought to do some checking into IP address login info of suede and 7forever and see.

 

You simply don't what the hell you're talking about. The media drones acknowledged the orb, called it a plane and confirmed it circled the buildings. It cast its own shadow between the towers very clearly from chopper 4.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFPB_NTi2cs&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=97&feature=plpp_video"]NIST FOIA: WNBC Chopper 4 Clip (Replay of WTC2 Plane Impact) - YouTube[/ame]

 

No need to get so upset. Your 'evidence' has been shown to be lacking, and your claims have been baseless.

The commercial aircraft, witnessed live by thousands, perhaps tens of thousands live, and by millions more live on television, did not circle the WTC. They slammed into them.

 

Poor Hannibal keeps going in circles, telling the same old lies and avoiding the same facts. Dick Oliver was on the ground and saw the floating orb just like it appears in 4 live broadcasts. That is factual evidence which cannot be refuted. Dick was totally oblivious that his honest account completely destroyed the myth of a 767 impacting T2. Hannibal hasn't offered one eyewitness because the great majority of them did not see a plane. Haney, simply lies about thousands of witnesses seeing a plane on the ground. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT PEOPLE SAW ON TV, only those who gave eyewitness accounts on the ground.

There were around 117 eyewitness accounts and only 20 percent saw a plane. Only 8% saw and heard a plane.



Dick Oliver called the orb a remote controlled drone.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB-rwWeL7Sg&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=126&feature=plpp_video]Dick Oliver Says Plane Was Remote Control Drone - YouTube[/ame]

 

Wonder when we'll see 'Ozzy Bin Oswald' pop up here?

Simply spamming poor gifs and repeating yourself will never equal evidence. Your insults are as effective as killtown's demented blog rants, which is to say "not at all". Good for a laugh, but zero evidence.

 

Nice vid find from Icke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Of50l77YQ&feature=player_embedded#!

 

Simply spamming nonsense and repeating yourself will never equal anything. Your refusal to debate facts or offer proof of planes are as effective as killtown's demented blog rants, which is to say "not at all". Good for a laugh, but still nothing.

 

One of the guys in the video says he witnessed planes impacting the buildings. Live.

Is the posting of this 'nice vid' your way of admitting you were wrong about the 'orb'?

 

We can agree that killtown's demented rants are worthless.

Does this post mean you are going to stop spamming nonsense and repeating yourself? Now that you've posted eyewitness evidence of planes impacting the WTC, will you recant your 'orb' nonsense?

 

Side note:

As if killtown wasn't idiotic enough, now we have a link to a David Icke video?

David Icke, a guy who claims that reptilian shape shifting lizard Jews disguised as humans run the world.

 

We can agree that killtown's demented rants are worthless.

Does this post mean you are going to stop spamming nonsense and repeating yourself? Now that I've posted eyewitness evidence that saw no plane hit T2, you still won't attempt to prove the 'plane' myth?

 

911conspiracy.tv - 2nd WTC Attack Plane Crash Videos

The drone circled the building just as many witnesses had stated and that is corroborated by 4 live broadcasts showing the drone do just that from the north view. It's logical with so much footage being released that something from the south would show the drone's goofy bee-bop behind the towers.

We don't get the drone here but a fake plane exacting it as it circled the Towers. It is most logical that Manos Megagiannis turned his footage over to law enforcement and got it back this way. This man clearly captured the drone coming from over west (left of screen) before circling the buildings which is exactly why that whole part was edited out by starting the fake plane just as it passes east of Tower 1.





41. Here is the story behind my videos: The distance is about 6 miles, (according to Google Earth), recorded using a Sony PC1. After I got a call from a friend of mine about the first plane, I started filming from inside my apartment. To get a bit better view I went to the roof of the building, and the moment I pointed the camera to the WTC and started recording, without even realizing it I captured the second plane hitting the tower. Actually if you see the original tape you will notice that I move the camera so I can confirm with my own eyes the explosion that I saw through the viewfinder. The rest is just very basic digital zoom (very amateurish I admit). The woman's voice, was some tenant in the same building.

The videos have NOT being edited to make the plane disappear or anything like that (as some claim). One of these days, if I find some free time I may go back to the master and re-master the video.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG25MRnPy1o&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=62&feature=plpp_video"]Slow Motion/Close-Up View Of 2nd Plane Impact - YouTube[/ame]

 

Mark, cryptically laughs at the end of his description, further proving that he was describing the slow moving drone, and falling short of confirming that it really wasn't a plane. It's no different than Jean Hill saying she saw the secret service shooting back, but falling short of fingering the driver. Of course it didn't belong in the area because it was a drone and not the boeing 767 it was supposed to be.

Eyewitness on 9/11 Mark Burnback was able to get a good view of the plane that hit the World Trade Center, because he said that the plane was flying very low. He explained to FOX News that the plane had no windows, a blue logo, and did not look like a commercial plane.

Fox NewsCaster: "Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us. Mark witnessed this... Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane?"

Mark Burnback: "Hi gentlemen. Yeah there was definitely a blue, circular logo on the front of the plane towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. It was definitely very low...

"Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes or something like that. You said you did not see any windows on the side?"

Mark Burnback: "I did not see any windows on the side. I saw the plane was flying low. I was probably a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low, and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport. It was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just looked like it did not belong in this area."

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYUs9u1YwV0"]Eyewitness Describes First Plane: No Windows, Blue Logo - YouTube[/ame]

 

10 characteristics of Government Crapologists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are never fact-seekers, questioners, and will never consider a truth outside of official accounts. They simply accept the official version and never defend it against the least bit of scrutiny.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about disproven facts and pretend they are facts, no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simple fantasy.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning nothing from the government, it's no suprise they never answer direct questions of facts which disprove official claims.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is sometimes the government) is therefore impossible.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, government crapologists never acknowledge the gaping inconsistencies in the official accounts which are actually highlighted by enormous, gaping holes in logic, as is evidenced in the official Warren Commission Report that is laughed at in the modern day.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Crapologists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for visual facts provided by video footage. The fact that a claim has been made by the officials, or those covering for them is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that it is true no matter how implausible and ridiculous those claims are. While they do this, of course they will claim to have "open minds" but abuse and embarrass humanity with their endless denials of simple facts.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a crapologist admits that a claim that was made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to debunk it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by repeating the same lies over and over without ever supporting these proven lies with their own analysis.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Government crapologists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally correct without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this disqualifies them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Numerous inconsistencies in the account of an event, huge unanswered questions, endless problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account completely impossible and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary for a crapologist to prove anything one way or another. They simply repeat the same lies and without any supporting proof, because they are simply supporting an official account which was never proven in the first place.

9. It's never a cover-up. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are NO questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they turn off discrimination. They can tell a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) story from a good one, they can tell good evidence from bad evidence and they can tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always lie and pretend that the official story which was never proven, is the Bible truth.

10. A person who always says the same thing, with no supporting proof, and says it over and over again is commonly considered to be a government drone.

 

All 10 points fit your spam perfectly....you just keep repeating the same lies over and over, as if doing so will make them true.

Gots news for ya sport. too many people witnessed the events on 9/11 with their own eyes, and don't need to invent an alternate reality using barely legible,over compressed videos.

 

Wow, not only did he plagiarize someone else's work, he didn't get the point of the original work at all.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

 

I didn't have to leap to any conclusions. I showed visual proof that crazies in the media called a floating ball a boeing 767. You haven't done anything thus far, except talk about nothing and ignore real proof which was always available from news footage. She described the orb as what could be a police helicopter because it obviously wasn't a plane. The truth can only be ignored by those who've seen it but refuse to accept it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obt-1d9POXM&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=116&feature=plpp_video"]2nd hit WB11 W*P*I*X LIVE Dr. Ebbetts - YouTube[/ame]

 

You did NOT show any type of conclusive visual proof.....just the same old claims with (*)(*)(*)(*)ty, overcompressed videos.......you sir are dishonest in your claims.

 

yeh that is what happens when they add fake airplanes n stuff

 

Do you actually believe that?

I'll grant you that there are some questions that could use some clarification, but do you seriously believe the fake plane stuff?