IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nose-out

Diogenes
post Sep 13 2011, 08:09 PM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: 27-September 10
Member No.: 5,318



Pilots, I ask you. Can the front tip of an airliner really be stronger than tens of meters of layers of concrete, steel beams and walls? so strong that not only does it poke through and out of the structure on the other side intact, but not have any noticeable reduction in its velocity?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

WTC was an experiment in digital rendering, there were no planes...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Sep 13 2011, 09:41 PM
Post #2





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



Your stats may be a little exaggerated but that's the oddest thing. Ain't it?

If it doesn't show on all the vids then that one likely was played with...

I still accept planes of some type hit the towers...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Diogenes
post Sep 13 2011, 11:17 PM
Post #3





Group: Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: 27-September 10
Member No.: 5,318



QUOTE (SanderO @ Sep 13 2011, 09:41 PM) *
Your stats may be a little exaggerated but that's the oddest thing. Ain't it?

If it doesn't show on all the vids then that one likely was played with...

I still accept planes of some type hit the towers...

no other vid has the angle to potentially show the tip going through..but even if another video showed that, it's impossible right? That video was not tampered, that was the original Fox video that was recorded and still stored on their archives for years until they recently removed it when they saw the glitch...

how do you know that 'planes' of some type hit the towers? Since the FOX footage is fake, why did they do it? Was it a missile and they wanted to cover it up as a plane? Was it just explosions and demolitions inside the building and they wanted to disguise it with 'planes'?

since this video is a fake, we have every reason to believe the rest of the "official" network tv videos were also fake. and lo and behold we have found plenty of artifacts to prove these are forgeries.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Diogenes
post Sep 26 2011, 01:47 PM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: 27-September 10
Member No.: 5,318



*bump

any other opinions on this? how can the nose of a plane be so strong? It isn't. This was digitally rendered! It's not "live"!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 26 2011, 04:19 PM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Diogenes

I am no expert on video footage, and am happy to concede that certain of the videos were manipulated. I say that because many people who do seem to know what they're talking about have claimed certain videos to be manipulated.

Conceding that point, the bigger point is that there are many other sources of photos and videos, taken by all sorts of people, that establish that indeed some sort of Boeing hit the towers.

Which is to say that the existence of manipulated videos does NOT necessarily preclude the fact that airplanes hit the towers.

Plus, the presence of certain aircraft parts down stream of the impact, and in accordance with what some of the videos show as far as trajectory of those parts after impact, also support the idea of actual airplanes hitting the towers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Nov 5 2013, 08:20 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



QUOTE (Diogenes @ Sep 26 2011, 05:47 PM) *
*bump

any other opinions on this? how can the nose of a plane be so strong? It isn't. This was digitally rendered! It's not "live"!


The longer version of Shack's spurious video, shows clearly contradictory evidence, which I gather he gleefully refuses to account for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpE @ 1:07:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th October 2019 - 05:15 AM