Amateur video of the 2nd "hit" at the South Tower

[theSaiGirl]

So what hit the Tower ?
A plane or a fast-moving "rocket" (according to the voice-over) ?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=P8oZIYkoBfE&search=september%2011%20plane

[Poll_Blind]

1. Do you have any doubt about what hit that tower?

Yes, yes the person taking the footage thinks it may have been a rocket. They also state that it didn't hit the building sqaure, but "zinged" it- referring to what appears to be a slash running only along the side of the building visible from that angle. Both of these things, are you know, are artifacts of distance and perspective, respectively. However, perspective and distance place the cameraperson at an extreme disadvantage when trying to make sense of what has just happened before their straining eyes. I cannot fault them for this- they, like all of us in some situations, are temporary victims of a misperception.

But do you have any reason to doubt that an airplane hit this tower? You seem to express it. I have no doubt the gentleman who took the film would acknolwedge that an airplane hit the tower. What evidence makes you doubt that an airplane hit the tower?

Thanks,

PB

[theSaiGirl]

2. Who ya gonna b'leeve ? .... Me ? Or your lyin' eyes ? !!

The fact that they broadcast transparently fake video cartoons of the South Tower hit is what suggests that no plane (at least not Flight 175) hit the Tower.


Broadcast of fake/doctored video by CNN purporting to show a Boeing commercial jet striking the South Tower:


This is a close-up of the video originally broadcast by CNN on 9/11

Watch it and make up your own mind.

Planes are made mostly of lightweight aluminum ... light enough so they can be lifted into flight.
A jet plane is essentially an aluminum can.

Ever crushed an aluminum beer can in your hands ?

Watch the "plane" in the CNN video "melt" seamlessly into the concrete and steel of the South Tower ...

http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2 /

Look Ma' .... NO IMPACT !!!

Here is the original “live network news” video broadcast by CNN on the morning of 9/11:
http://www.911hoax.com/gZoomCNN.asp?intPage=14&PageNum=14

And here is how it was done ....
http://www.reopen911.org/bluescreen.htm

And here are the skilled professionals who made it all happen ...
right before our very eyes ..
http://www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/06/02/28_psyops.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/30/95642/8018
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1748
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/cnn.htm
http://www.geocities.com/saufor/unsorted/cnnpsyops.html
http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2004/12/most_trusted_am.html

Now.... guess who got PSY-0P’ed on 9/11 .... ??
Want a hint.
Take a look in the mirror.


Why would CNN broadcast obvious fake video, if they actually had a convincing video of Flight 175 hitting the Tower ?

Same thing with the Pentagon...
Why wouldn't the FBI provide clear and convincing video evidence (from the Sheraton and service-station videos) at the Pentagon, instead of some highly dubious art frames ?

For that matter, why wouldn't the FBI have broadcast security cam videos from Logan, Newark and Dulles airports that would unambiguously show the alleged hijackers actually boarding the commerical flights that they are alleged to have hijacked ?
After all, major airports like Logan, Newark and Dulles have security cams all over the place.
Instead, all they produced was a foggy video of someone (alleged to be Mohammed Atta) boarding a connecting flight in Portland, Maine.
What "trained and dedicated hijacker" would rely on a connecting flight to get him to Logan on time for his planned hijacking ??? !!!!

In all likelihood, no such video "evidence" exists at all.
Which suggests that there were no real hijackers.
And, in all likelihood, no real planes were needed to fake the events of 9/11.

After all, the American public has demonstrated (over and over again) that it is more than willing to swallow transparently fake video like

1) "Fat" bin Laden versus "skinny" bin Laden
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/phony_bin_laden_tape.html

2) Nick Berg - beheaded on video - but, miraculously, NO BLOOD !
http://www.topplerummy.org/berg/

3) Staged events like the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad..
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

etc., etc., etc.

Events can be staged, partially or wholly.
It's easy enough to actually produce fake video.
Some of the fakery is so obvious that it insults the intelligence.
Here is just one example ...
http://911closeup.com/nico/

But then again ... that's one thing no Pentagon or corporate psy-op specialist ever has to worry about when it comes to suckering the American booboisie ....

Their intellignce is congenitally incapable of being "insulted".
No matter how ridiculous or implausible or absurd.

"No one ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American electorate..." - H.L. Mencken
(that quote may not be precise ... someone look it up and correct if necessary)


============================================

[rman]

4. By the same token you could be psy-op

If the live footage is fake, then it is not as obvious as you make it out to be.
The other videos you mention were not broadcast live.
Even though both are deceptive, "staged" does not equal "faked".

[piobair]

5. SAIC analyst

I certainly hope the rest of SAIC has better analytical capabilities. The Web Fairy also proposes that "shape shifting chem trail sprayers" were present.
I think you have to be far more gullible to buy the Web Fairy than you do the OT.

[Americus]

6. Butter-built buildings. I thought M.C. Escher expired long before 9/11,

Never mind the Web Fairy. Eyes are all you need to see that in the video of WTC2, what's shown is impossible in the real world.

[piobair]

7. Never mind

How can I "not mind" the web fairy when so many use it as a primary source for their posts. The site is laughable with it's host of bizarre unsupported theories and circular links to other bizarre sites like foreknowledge. The only thing missing are "Sylphs".

[Americus]

8. Blame it on incompetence, negligence & intel failures.

Think about it this way. Why should OCT'ers have an exclusive on excuses like coincidence, negligence, incompetence, and intelligence failures? Maybe the Web Fairy isn't 100% right in everything she says, but at least she's trying, and that's more than you can say about OCT'ers. They haven't budged an inch since September 11, 2001. However, it must be said that they can't be accused of doing violence to all of the facts and evidence that have been uncovered. KWIM, Vern?

[Americus]

3. Confusion about what hit WTC is understandable in light of

the INCOMPETENCE, NEGLIGENCE, and INTELLIGENCE FAILURES of the Bush administration. If Bill Clinton had just been honest about Monica Lewinsky maybe none of this would have happened...at least not under a Bush administration.

[piobair]

9. train

I saw an interview with a survivor of a tornado and he said it sounded like a freight train. Does that mean it was a train that destroyed his double wide?