Video Of South Tower Being Hit Two Massive Explosions Options

[7forever]

All they had to do was prerecord the scene with the plane coming in before the attack, and then overlay the live shot of the buildings burning.

Not much different than the way the do green screen stuff for movies.

Something like that but many researchers have done work on this. I think my touch makes it simple for forum readers.

[7forever]

This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. Shills are trying to conceal real news stories and connections to the attacks on the World Trade Towers. So, we get hoax stories poured onto the net by propagandists, to be used by the media to attack the credibility of anyone who dares doubt the official story...

You have me pegged wrong. I did the work on Greer which is a no-brainer. The flying saucer is some pop culture humor added to an apparent truth. There was one witness who literally laughed when describing the object, small plane, ball or whatever you wanna call it. The ball or small plane was an unidentified flying object that caused tower 2 to explode.

[7forever]

The planes are facing different directions and the angles are only slightly different, not enough to change the impossible. The orb caused the explosion in the live footage with nothing that can debunk that visual fact, that is supported by witnesses saying small plane and one guy laughing at whatever it was, a ufo.

The dive bomb shows it going south to north exactly. The other side is east and somewhat south. It might have taken out the southeast corner but that doesn't work because the fake plane had to disappear into the building, hence, south to north.

[7forever]

Digi-plane meets ufo bomb for southeast FAKE-OUT. Notice how it bee bops across the south side like something right out of the Jetsons.

The fireball was on the northeast corner consistent with the missile impact on the north side of T1. T2 is consistent with the initial impact being on the east side and then creates the massive fireball on the northeast corner.

Matt Lauer described the ball being a small plane circling the building. No plane can circle a building. It is complete bullshit. A helicopter or ufo packed with explosives for sure and that is what exploded T2, not a missile and certainly not a commercial jet. One witness kinda snickered and commented on how slow it was moving. The only witness describing it live was a female reporter who said a helicopter was approaching and she freaked out when it exploded. I will try and get that footage.
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/orb-bump_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)

Watch the white object on the northeast corner before it explodes. This could be where the orb really exploded creating the fireball in that very location.
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/northeast-bomb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)

4:48
911stealth Live Chopper 4 NBC No Plane Dim Orb vs 2 Stored NBC Tiny Orb - YouTube

[7forever]

FAKE PLANE SOUTH VS. UFO WEST WINS

The orb cannot be ignored because the fake west plane was shown on all networks who allowed and participated in TV FAKERY. These pics are 13-14 seconds before a decent sized fireball and show the circular bomb well west of the dive bomber myth. This proves two different flight paths beyond any doubt and that makes the ufo bomb the unanimous winner.
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcdive.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcorb3.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/jack_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
2nd hit CBS divebomber CBS9 4:37 pm - YouTube

[7forever]

The wide angle has it right except the orb/missile really came from the west not south. The nose does not come through the north side in the wide angle, live footage, or even the dive bomber footage. This further proves video fakery and makes the west to east path stronger.
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/no-plane_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/nose-fake-out_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/northeast-bomb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
Advance this clip to 4:00 or before and see the plane created out of thin air from behind the building just right of the open and unobstructed skyline.
Unseen 911 Footage Finally Released By FBI, DOJ - YouTube

[7forever]

It took this long to make this gif because gifsoup is a pos. It is clear why she didn't identify it as definitely being a helicopter because it has no propeller, therefore was not a helicopter, plane, or missile of any known kind. The only people who would know are ones with top secret clearance. Notice how slow it moves and the lapse of time between when it's hidden and the explosion. It circles the building as Matt Lauer described, leading to the likely conclusion that it really exploded on the east, not southeast side. The shape, size, and slow movement aren't anything like the digi-plane.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wb-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcfakewest.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcwestorb.jpg)
9/11 South Tower Strike WB11 Live (WPIX) - YouTube

[7forever]

The east view proves a fake plane was added into west view

The plane does not pass through the open skyline before it comes into view which proves a fake plane was added.
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/no-plane_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)

The east view shows the fake plane traveling straight north for 9 seconds, which debunks the official divebomb myth and is clearly seen passing through the skyline, unlike the clip that was released three years ago. The last building it passes may be the same that it magically appears from behind in the west view.
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/east-view_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsWRDHE42gs...AE&index=15

Advance this clip to 4:00 or before and see the plane created out of thin air from behind the building just right of the open and unobstructed skyline. I started this gif two seconds before it appears from behind the building. A real plane would be seen passing through the clear sky just like it does from the east view. This is human error. It is not possible to cover up something of this magnitude unless everyone got together beforehand, which obviously did not happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddGXuy0ep7g

Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008 The FBI and the Department of Justice have released ten new videos relating to the events of 9/11, three years after a freedom of information act request for the footage was submitted.

[7forever]

No plane was captured in two surviving live clips and that's proven conclusive by neither lady mentioning a jumbo jet approaching the towers. They are the best witnesses because it was filmed live, before, during, and after the explosion. Their initial reactions prove the footage is legit showing an unknown flying object..
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wb-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/angle-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)

[23investigator]

[quote name='7forever' date='Sep 22 2011, 12:16 PM' post='10801394']
[/b]by neither lady mentioning a jumbo jet approaching the towers. They are the best witnesses because it was filmed live, before, during, and after the explosion. Their initial reactions prove the footage is legit showing an unknown flying object..

Dear '7forever'

Your considerations are very much worth "considering further".

Have you looked at the work carried out by some people in the UK, who modelled the footage containing the 'globe' as you are calling it.
Their work appears very valid, determining the angle of approach of the 'globe' and a velocity consideration.
The More recent consideration of this on Youtube considers from the 'model', that the 'globe', was something like 37 feet in diameter.
(Forgive me I have not gone back and checked this diameter they stated< my memory suggests that the first time I saw reference to this work the diameter was being stated more like 70 feet in diameter)

The point is, that whatever diameter you may care to consider it is not anything like the proportions of a Boeing 767.

From careful consideration of the video footage, it appears more like the 'globe' has been layered over the original object that was showing in the video footage.
Taking the consideration made in the 'model' if the extreme of the darker portion apparent under the 'globe' is considered it is much nearer to 70 to 75 feet in width.

The 75 feet could well be the wingspan of the object heading towards the South Tower.

Which certainly is not the wingspan of a Boeing 767.

Only in recent days a radar plot by the 'Tracon' at Kennedy airport has come to light.
The interesting thing about this is, that it aligns with the flight path that the people in the UK have determined.

So what aircraft has a wingspan of around 75 feet that has been disguised under the 'globe'.

That's the question.

Be assured the video footage has been edited, in this case not by placing a concocted aircraft over the top of the true --object, aircraft-- , but a bit like the case with the North tower, a smudgy mark, which if you go and have a look at that footage is so apparent, especially when you look at the left side of the footage and see the obvious masking effect near the edge of the buildings on the left.

Robert

[7forever]

Robert,

That's where I got my analysis from, but Richard Hall believes the orb was added to the digi-plane which is what I believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXvN8NrkuU8...feature=related

[23investigator]

Robert,

That's where I got my analysis from, but Richard Hall believes the orb was added to the digi-plane which is what I believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXvN8NrkuU8...feature=related

Dear '7forever'

'but Richard Hall believes the orb was added to the digi-plane, which is what I believe.'

My 'analysis' of the composition of the image in each frame, does not come to this conclusion.

I would be interested to know how you have formed your opinion.

In your previous post you indicated that the reaction of the 'women', in your opinion, indicated that the video footage was genuine.
It does appear that is the case, other than the edit work regarding the 'globe'.
If it is considered, how relatively small the 'object ' in question is, to the foreground and expance of background that the 'women' would have been viewing, particularly considering the conversation was about the burning North Tower, and how more ground detail could be achieved, it is highly likely the 'object' was not part of their concentration.

The 'simplest' form of disguise to unwanted detail contained in the video footage, would have been to "smudge it", which progressive analysis of the composition of the image at the point of the 'globe' suggests.

Robert

[23investigator]

Dear '7forever'

'but Richard Hall believes the orb was added to the digi-plane, which is what I believe.'

My 'analysis' of the composition of the image in each frame, does not come to this conclusion.

I would be interested to know how you have formed your opinion.

In your previous post you indicated that the reaction of the 'women', in your opinion, indicated that the video footage was genuine.
It does appear that is the case, other than the edit work regarding the 'globe'.
If it is considered, how relatively small the 'object ' in question is, to the foreground and expance of background that the 'women' would have been viewing, particularly considering the conversation was about the burning North Tower, and how more ground detail could be achieved, it is highly likely the 'object' was not part of their concentration.

The 'simplest' form of disguise to unwanted detail contained in the video footage, would have been to "smudge it", which progressive analysis of the composition of the image at the point of the 'globe' suggests.

Robert

Dear '7forever'

I realise by bringing this post forward I have not given you an opportunity to answer my previous question.

May I say, I am not participating in the 'forums' to become part of 'protracted argument', but to just bring information forward, for people to give consideration to.

At approx point 5.41 in his video presentation, Mr Hall makes the exclamation, that this was his 'eureka moment'.
What he refers to is 'very significant', but I question his conclusion.
Certainly at the location of the superimposed aircraft there is detail which coincides with the 'globe' he has under consideration.

It is here that the logic he has applied , in my view, becomes incomplete.

This can be best demonstrated by the video on Youtube 23investigator South Tower Infamous video frame showing hidden A3 Skywarrior.
There are a number of other video on the 23investigator Youtube site demonstrating other considerations relating to the South Tower situation.

In respect to the presentation referred to, it is suggested that the viewer use the pause button, to be able to consider how the --superimposed-- A3 Skywarrior fits the parts Mr Hall has referred to, as well as showing that the portions of the original --superimposed-- aircraft, that are missing in the original frame of the video, fit the matrix of deception used to coverup the A3 Skywarrior.

Something appears to have most definitely hit the South Tower, it appears from all the editing of the various videos, that it was not the size of a Boeing 767, and it is doubtful it was a 'globe', although in the video which Mr Hall refers to, it could certainly be considered a 'globe' was the participant, until viewed at larger scale to be able to define what the complete 'globe' is digitally composed of.

Robert

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Sep 23 2011, 05:28 AM

[7forever]

Dear '7forever'

IThis can be best demonstrated by the video on Youtube 23investigator South Tower Infamous video frame showing hidden A3 Skywarrior.
There are a number of other video on the 23investigator Youtube site demonstrating other considerations relating to the South Tower situation.

In respect to the presentation referred to, it is suggested that the viewer use the pause button, to be able to consider how the --superimposed-- A3 Skywarrior fits the parts Mr Hall has referred to, as well as showing that the portions of the original --superimposed-- aircraft, that are missing in the original frame of the video, fit the matrix of deception used to coverup the A3 Skywarrior.

Something appears to have most definitely hit the South Tower, it appears from all the editing of the various videos, that it was not the size of a Boeing 767, and it is doubtful it was a 'globe', although in the video which Mr Hall refers to, it could certainly be considered a 'globe' was the participant, until viewed at larger scale to be able to define what the complete 'globe' is digitally composed of.

Robert

Great post. Post those links. Don't forget the wb11 footage showing a different angle and a larger more defined orb.

[7forever]

This is the clearest footage of the two opposing flight paths brought forth because of this little big thing called the information age. According to this work, this fake west plane path was never shown on TV after 911. The seven second sync is almost perfect. Advance to 4:58 and see for yourself how two plane paths make one fake black plane. The sacking of human ignorance is in motion.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/two-flight-paths_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtctwopaths.jpg)
SEPTEMBER CLUES 5/7 - YouTube

[23investigator]

[quote name='7forever' date='Sep 24 2011, 10:20 AM' post='10801445']
This is the clearest footage of the two opposing flight paths brought forth because of this little big thing called the information age. According to this work, this fake west plane path was never shown on TV after 911. The seven second sync is almost perfect. Advance to 4:58 and see for yourself how two plane paths make one fake black plane. The sacking of human ignorance is in motion.

Dear '7forever'

Yes it was like the backs and the forwards were playing on different fields.

There is some very good considerations on Youtube 'September Clues', regarding further --stuffups-- , by the editors of the immediate footage shown by the MSM on 9/11.

A fellow called Simon Shack, who no doubt you would be aware of.

Mr Shack has come under a lot of attack it seems for his goodwork, a sure sign he has hit some 'raw nerves'.

One particular part of his series considers the footage and editing "blackout" of the "part" which appears out of the back of the South tower.

There is much more to be considered about this, the footage not --faded out for nothing--, to then be covered up by advertising banner, then finally disappear from the public all together, for no reason.
After all it is quite an extraordinary piece of video footage.

So why did they do it?

It would appear because if the original footage is considered with the 'aircraft' on the way in, it is again an edited aircraft overlaying the true aircraft.
If the size of the original aircraft is considered it is nothing like the proportion of a Boeing 767, the part emerging out the back of the South tower nothing like the proportion of a Boeing 767 either.

Should that "part" have had a relatively free ride through the inside of the tower because an entry hole was blasted through the southern wall before the aircraft came in contact with the outside of the building, it could well have come out relatively unscathed.
The corner of the building it emerged through was not constructed like the main wall panels, which again would have offered a lot less resistance to the "part".

People have described what looked like the remains of the nose portion of an aircraft in the roadway near the towers.
Surely if this was the case, and it was the nose section from a Boeing 767, we would have had it 'shoved right up our noses', by now.

Thanks to you, the existence of much clearer detail, footage, has become available, which will allow far better digital consideration, than been possible to date.
When that is completed it will be put on Youtube, for every ones consideration.

Keep kicking friend, "we all" are on the same field.

Robert

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Sep 24 2011, 03:35 AM

[7forever]

The hole that was NOT supposed to be there but has to be there but is not there because no plane impacted T2. Everyone has seen the failure of TV fakery showing the nose come through the northeast side and the live footage showing no such thing. Add to that a picture with no circular hole.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcnohole.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/nose-fake-out_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/northeast-bomb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)

[7forever]

You are revealing your ignorence.
You are using vids off the intenet that have been compressed.
Frames are dropped and detail is lost for internet streaming.
You are still ignoring hundreds of thousands of witnesses who saw it wiith their own eyes.

Giving preference to two hysterical women when you have not even established where they were or their point of view.

One lady was in chopper 4 and I believe the WB11 footage were women in the newstation possibly communicating with their helicopter lady.
You CANNOT explain why a plane does not appear in 2 vids that are both supported by the spooked women who saw no plane but some orb.
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcnoplanepic.jpg)

[7forever]

And what is your proof that your videos aren't faked?

And why haven't you addressed my question about the radically different angles of approach in the two "orb" gifs you posted previously?

The live footage trumps the fake footage every time. The two orbs are slightly different in size, come in at different angles, but both from the west. I can't explain the differences but when those orbs are hidden behind the towers, the south tower explodes and in that they are 100% consistent. I'm going with the WB11 footage because of it's similar, straighter path of both wide views.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wb-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/angle-orb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)

[23investigator]

The hole that was NOT supposed to be there but has to be there but is not there because no plane impacted T2. Everyone has seen the failure of TV fakery showing the nose come through the northeast side and the live footage showing no such thing. Add to that a picture with no circular hole.

(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/wtcnohole.jpg)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/nose-fake-out_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)
(IMG:http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac98/77forever/Gifs/northeast-bomb_h_GIFSoupcom.gif)

Dear '7forever'

The visuals you attached with this post seem to be directed to support the notion that 'no aircraft came in contact with the South tower'.
If this should not be the case, nonetheless, the following considerations need to be considered with your presentation.

Certainly in the image you have presented, there does not appear to be a hole through the north east aspect of the north face of the South tower.
You indicate in your account 'round hole'.
Why would any hole through the face of the building need to be 'round'?

But there is a hole through the north east corner of the South tower.
The images you have presented do not show the hole, but many others do.

The corners of the towers were "bevel".
They were not constructed in the same manner as the main faces of the towers.
They were also faced with aluminium panelling for their whole width.

There is a large hole punched through the north east "bevel" corner, the aluminium panels at the sides and top 'flared' outwards.
The level at which this shows is at the same level as the object seen leaving the building.

If the image you have shown is considered there are a number of things which raise question.
1) the faces of the building are a 'plain white', with no features of the building showing.
2) at the point that the object is ejecting from the building it is also surrounded by the same 'plain white'.
3) the section of the east face of the building where explosion burst through is the same 'plain white'.
4) the shadow running away from the "object" ejecting from the building, passes across the billowing white around the "object", in what appears to be an unrealistic manner.

Artists and photographers, especially, know that to make an object or situation seem further away, the technique is to place an object in front of it, towards the viewer.
The circumstance in the image mentioned, seems to be a classic case in point.

Who could say what the 'true dimensions' are of the "object" ejecting from the building, if some 'editing' has been carried out.
But if the dimensions showing in the footage of the "object" entering the building are considered, the nose portion certainly does not look like that of a Boeing 767, nor for that matter does the rest of the object.

Perhaps there is more to this than what has been considered to date.

Lets suppose, that a 'concocted image' was used on the point of entry of the "object", which purports to be a Boeing 767.
Say the true object was considerably smaller than a Boeing 767, any further editing was then to some degree locked into this.

It was probably not anticipated, by anybody, that the "object", would come blasting out the northern side of the building, at any point.
But if the video footage taken showed it did, well there is the next point needing editing.

Whoever was doing 'editing' would not have had much time to do it, 'it appears', so expediency is needed, to cover up what ejected out of the building.
Use portion of what you have already got, then fade it out.

At this point of time, it was most likely not known that other footage was going to show up, also showing "object" ejected from the building.
Quite a bit of footage actually.
Which show a consistency with what has been covered up, 'faded out', in the images you have highlighted in your presentation.

Robert

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Sep 26 2011, 09:57 AM