Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

Zzap:

Ok. I'm not going to quibble over a few seconds.

To be honest, aside from scale and and direction I don't really see an awful lot of difference between the above and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8"]Unseen 9/11 Footage of Second Plane Hitting Tower - YouTube

 

the difference is that the IMPACT is this color


the same as


that color

yours does NOT show the impact where as seen above upon impact is not that color



it should have been this color upon impact if what we were seeing is jet fuel

not after the semtek was blown out the side

 

I must say that I do have a problem with a passenger jet melting into a building. Perhaps if the building were made of aluminum, and the jet were made of really thick steel, this whole scenario might make sense. But as it stands, it does appear that the Official Line is ass backwards.

 

Mine does show the impact in real time. How many times does somebody have to tell you to post footage that is in real time and not slowed down? Comparing something that is slowed down and something that isn't is ridiculous. Like I said: aside from scale and and direction I don't really see an awful lot of difference between the above and... So yours shows more debris from the impact rather than mine that shows more of the explosion from the side. We are talking less than seconds here. There really is no difference.

 

no we are not talking the same thing at all.

I am pointing out the cover up, that is a fake plane superimposed over an actual explosion, then the explosion fudged.

you can better see the same effects of the impact not from that crappy video that you put in high speed no less which is faster then the eye can see but from the slo mo that I put up where again you can see those mysterious bursts of intense white light. Just like a demolition.



see slo mo lets you see the white burst, the dust, then the orange in correct order, otherwise all you see is building then orange because your eye cannot see as fast as an explosion takes place.

that of course allows you to analyse wht type of explosion it is.

see where it looks like the tail of the plane comes through? and that brite white flash? I would expect to see a cut or very damaged column there.

Just like on the very corner of the building.


slo mo is goooooooooood!

see the progression?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dG9hb3_blo"]Golf impacts - Slow motion video - YouTube
you cannot see the flattening until in slow motion

how else could you see the creation of lightning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=6MUYsIjTKvk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfDoQwIAaXg"]1 million fps Slow Motion video of bullet impacts made by Werner Mehl from Kurzzeit - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UFJu1nmRuE"]Slow Motion Impact - YouTube

 

It's not in high speed.
That's what things look like when they are travelling at 500-600mph.
If you slow your mig crash down - you will see dirt/fire/debris.
It does all go past quite quickly.
I can totally see how slowing something down and then stopping something can make it appear as if something else is occurring.
How do you think Steven seagal has been making films for the last ten years?


We are all on posting the alternative theory in detail now, hadn't you heard?

 

I have not really expressed a theory as such so far. What I have done and really the only place I normally take these discussions is to the point of showing how things should have looked.

Even with the dust and debris the flame is "instantaneously" yellow orange. No delay, instant.

No lingering brilliant white flash first then later orange, immediately orange/yello. as expected

The important thing is that yellow orange then very dark smoke is precisely what is expected from a plane crash when fuel tanks burst.

That in fact did happen in the correct sequence and time frame as one would expect with the mig.

It did not on the wtc.





On the wtc it was brilliant white flashes followed by dust followed by damage broken things.

directly comparable to:



white flashes broken things dust and down it comes. Of course it was fully torched and pre-prep'd prior to demolition.

it can also be used as explosive on the fly "pre-prep", to prep the tower for later which is why the first salvo does not take it down.



likewise white flashes dust broken things and down it comes


Your comparison again downplays the significance of distinctions to the point aand equivalence that a person would not know if they were having sex with a man or a woman. The ability to distinguish the difference is "everything".


what were these guys thinking? They should have known everyone with a camera would have it pointed at the wtc.

 

It's about time you did, imho.

What's the colour in this footage? Yellowy orange orangey yellow - did the right amount of dust kick up before the fire? jeez, every crash is different. .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNPrENu5ocw&feature=related"]SHOCKING PLANE CRASH - YouTube

So you want to get a stop-watch and see if something occured in 0.15 seconds - and lets get a film colourist to see if the colours in both videos and your mig video are precisely the same.
Comparing a tiny plane that hits the ground and a 767 that hits a building is obviously not going to be 100% the same.
Find some footage of a 767 aeroplane hitting a building and compare.
I'll give you a heads up on that one if you want.

No it wasn't.

(look at my video)

 

tell ya one thing you certianly have no room to complain about the quality I post after watching that. They looked like cheapo jinso cell phone cameras to me.

Anyway thats what we have to work with and I will need to down load them and take a closer look.

That said, at first blush that looks like over exposure, HOWEVER unlikely that it may be it is possible that their oxygen tanks were burst and the fuel was perfectly mixed for a moment. Granted that a long shot but can happen in military planes. You wont get that in civilian transports in a head on crash.

You certainly wont get it prior to the presumed wing even hitting the building then in other spots not hit by a plane as can be seen here.

Nor from the wing tanks!



and here

 

There are plenty of e.g's out there - if you want to sit through some soft rock and 3 minutes of a plane flying around.

 

Without actually farting around with ch4ecking the pallette, that particilar camera appears to be a black and white, the rest were all color and the color ones all showed reasonably correct coloration for the fires and the afterburners.

otherwise it does not have to be that accurate.

there is a mile of difference between this color:



seen in those explosions on the wtc and demolitions,

and this color



which is fuel

You do not need a spectrometer to see the differences

 

It is in colour.

I think all that you are doing is finding a point in a film and attaching undue relevance to it. There is a brief flash of white in my video too. If you freeze it at a particular point and strain your eyes. I think both of you need to check you prescriptions, to be honest. There really isn't much difference. Lets just agree t disagree on that. If you are right, how did they blow a hole in the building that resembles a plane? When did they go up to the relevant floors and do this?

 

its colored, that does not mean its in color.

how difficult is it to use cutter charges and some semtek?

first off the last 10 feet of wings would not have had enough mass to break through the steel. it would have been the equivalent ot a bug hitting a windshield

the problem with that portion of the clip is that it is not grainy or poor quality it is so bad and over exposed it is unusable. there is a limit to how poor the quality can be you know and you have gone beyond it.

I was surprised to see that after you complained that quality of some of the clips that I put up were deficient only for you to post one several times worse than even my worst one with the expectation of anyone considering it useable. Its simply so poor its not usable.

If you think it is articulate why anyone should consider it. That and it is a single camera that looked like one of the first ginso cheapo cell phone cameras ever made and who knows how many times it has been dropped and beat around to get that poor quality.

So if you come up with higher quality and corroboration from other cameras like we have from the wtc clips and you will not have any problems getting me to acknowledge it.

meanwhile since peeople are dying over this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6AiFL9FSz-E

I agree that he is on the right trail.

 

I wouldn't want to touch it.

The precision involved in blasting what we see is virtually impossible, imho.
Then to convince dozens upon dozens of people they saw an aeroplane, create the records for those aeroplanes an distribute plane wreckage around the site and further afield - seems totally impossible.

One did 'slice through (not perfectly) and another didn't.
I guess it depends on the angle of impact.

That's ok , don't use it. I only posted that particular one because it was short and to the point. I think you are trying to suggest white flashes and a yellowy orange fire because that might be consistent with semtex.
But, like I said, I think we should agree to disagree on this point - I'm not straining my eyes to see slight variations in colours, if there was slightly more yellow than orange or a white flash.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs1b0OZBsZA&feature=related"]plane crash compilation - YouTube

(notice the wings don't all snap off)

 

you presume that all these people are honest joe bob johnson types when we have seen that many of them were actors!

Those who report bombs etc were not actors.

Nah its not really that precise all things considered.

the color makes a huge difference in radiant analysis since the color determines the temperature








So you should be bothered with it.

 

Actors in New York? Well, I'm SHOCKED.

If you 'white hot fire' pause my video at about 15 seconds. Run it to approx 3o seconds and it goes from white through yellow to orangey/brown.

 

yeh they used actors that gave their opinions on tv using words like "intense" "massive" "inferno" "terrorism" "Al Quaeda" setting the stage for the official story to follow the staged emotional version put out in public by the actors.

I do not need to look, I already noticed and commented on that.

when you have afterburners, they burn blue white in color. Like I said those are military birds so all bets are off. By that I mean that I can think of several situations where you could see white flames. However that does not apply to a passenger plane or an american 707, 737, 757, 767 military unless specially equiped.

 

I've literally heard it all now.

I must have missed it. If you repeat some of your videos I tend to skip them sometimes.

Yet there it is in my clip.

Now THAT is convenient.

 

yeh, none of those claims came from any official. thats why so many people are pissed at the media and media fraud which ultimately had government under it giving them plausible dependability. Thats what its all about and has been since the first king. many of the higher intelligent people here have stopped watching tv in droves. sick of the trash people in 40 states have signed petitions to secede from the union. little do they know statism is in fact the source of their problem. this is not small anymore. people are finding out that our government is not ours. never has been. likely never will be. So you havent even begun to hear it "all" yet LOL


Its the way it is. Soon as afterburners come into play it is possible to get a white blue flame. 767's do not have them.