Starboard wingtip in the Hezarkhani video

[spooked911]

One frame of the Hez video, as the plane goes in:


You can see the starboard wing has sliced neatly into the tower here, and there is just a sliver of the tip left. That outer 30% of the wing does not carry fuel, so how is it slicing into the tower so neatly? There isn't a hint of debris or a debris cloud. A similar thing seems to have occurred for the port wingtip as well. It has sliced in neatly, without any debris coming off or any debris cloud forming.

[Nathan_Hale]

1. Newton was obviously wrong...

...there does not seem to be an opposite and equal reaction!

[zappaman]

2. Oh my!

Well, obviously the plane is not real.
The effects team who worked on this video must have left out that frame.
I'll bet they never figured anyone would ever see it!
Nice job!

[SDuderstadt]

3. Dude...

Aren't there far more pressing matters to address?

For example, how are we going to break the "quarantine" the E.T.'s have placed us under? C'mon, Spooked...the whole world is looking to to end their tyranny.

[spooked911]

4. many need to take baby steps first

I'm afraid. Like you.

[SDuderstadt]

5. Dude...

I am NOT afraid of the ET's. You are, dude.

[zappaman]

6. Well, I have no problem admitting I'm afraid!

Did you see how close they flew in last week?
The moon(disguised alien spaceship) was so close you could almost touch it!

And back to the topic, I work in Hollywood and whoever did that video effect with the fake plane should be ashamed of themselves!
I wish I knew who it was so I could make sure to NEVER work with them!

[spooked911]

10. who said I am afraid?

I'm just saying they are key to understanding the ultimate nature of all evil conspiracies.

[SDuderstadt]

12. "who said I am afraid?"

You did, in post # 4, dude.

Duh.

[spooked911]

15. I was referring to you taking baby steps

I was saying "Many people need to take baby steps first, I'm afraid. Like you."

In other words, just an expression of sorrow that so many people still can't understand (or pretend they can't understand) the first level of conspiracy. People such as you.

Got it?

[SDuderstadt]

17. Dude...

Let me get this straight. Now you're quoting what you said with a comma that existed nowhere in the original??

I don't need to take "baby steps", dude. You need to start offering some sort of hard proof of your goofy bullshit. To be quite frank, after your rather comical "bunny cage" experiment and your unbelievably wide-eyed naive question about why FDNY didn't attempt to catch tower jumpers in nets, your credibility is, to put it charitably, in permanently negative territory. It's so far left of scale that no one here takes you seriously, except a few others who possess even less credibility.

[zappaman]

18. To be fair

the "earth under alien quarantine" theory is quite scary!
Even you, dude, have to admit the thought of the moon being an alien spacecraft is cause for concern.

[spooked911]

20. our fucked up country is enough cause for concern

but if you want to understand the ultimate source of the evil, read Anonymous Physicists stuff.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Dude...

about the only difference between you and the "anonymous physicist" is that his goofy bullshit is even less believable than your goofy bullshit, assuming that's even remotely possible.

[spooked911]

25. there's nothing goofy about it

how pathetic can your criticisms get?

[SDuderstadt]

27. Dude...

Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[zappaman]

23. seriously?

If I believed that crap he was spouting, I would hope someone would force me to see a psychiatrist.
Just because someone can post things on the internet doesn't mean they aren't batshit crazy.
And the anonymous physicist is batshit crazy.
I feel sorry for anyone who can't figure that out within one paragraph.

ETA: I just realized that you, Spooked, gave him a Special Award Post for the End of the Decade

For general excellence in conspiracy research...

for major breakthroughs in 9/11 research...

for generating a comprehensive explanation for the ultimate nature of all conspiracy matters....

Wow...just wow.

I sincerely hope the award included a coupon for psychiatric hospitalization.

[spooked911]

24. I'm giving you an award

for most banal and most predictable anti-conspiracy comments. Congrats!

[zappaman]

29. Thanks!

Now me and the anonymous physicist have something in common.
Yes, how banal and predictable to call someone crazy who believes a "mini-nuke" brought down the towers.
At least now we know where your goofy theories come from.

[Stanchetalarooni]

7. "How big is the step between believing and knowing?"

[KDLarsen]

8. Actually, no.

I can't see it has sliced neatly into the tower.

Want to know why? Because that image of is such poor quality, it's impossible to discern exactly where the wing ends and the tower begins.

[Iggo]

9. Yep. Ain't nothin' neat in that pic. (n/t)

[spooked911]

11. seriously?

there is NO hint of debris at that wingtip. If there is crumpling or breakage, it is minimal.

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. Yes, seriously..

It's just a grainy, blurry picture. If I didn't already know what it was supposed to be, I wouldn't know what the hell I was even looking at here. Do you have something clearer?

[spooked911]

14. unfortunately, it's the best we have

No one has been willing to release the original higher resolution videos-- for *ANY* of the second hit videos. Go figure.

I think nonetheless, you can see that the wingtip is not fragmenting as it hits the tower but is going in relatively cleanly.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Wait a minute...

you're claiming that higher resolution footage is being withheld from you?

Can you provide some sort of corroboration of that?

[spooked911]

19. It's being withheld from all researchers

No broadcast quality footage has been released of any 2nd hit. I posted a petition here about this, sometime back. I even filed a FOIA to the FBI for the Fairbanks footage that they are supposed to have and they denied my request.

[SDuderstadt]

21. Dude...

you're "begging the question", because you haven't even shown there is "broadcast quality" footage in the first place.

[spooked911]

26. please-- clearly I am referring to original resolution footage

not the highly compressed versions you normally get online.

[SDuderstadt]

28. I see...

so now it's someone else's fault that your "analysis" always focuses on crappy pictures?

[zappaman]

30. Duh.

BUSHCO is still pulling the strings.

[spooked911]

33. yeah, kind of

I work with the data I have. It seem obvious that higher res video would show clear compositing clues that would blow their scam out of the water. So they hide the high res footage.

Of course, even in the lower res video, we can see things that are clearly fake-- like this wingtip. The unnaturalness of what is happening to the wing is clear, but the low resolution gives you something to hide behind. Why you refuse to admit there is anything unusual here is not clear, though I have some ideas.

[SDuderstadt]

34. "though I have some ideas"

And, what would those be, dude?

Ever notice that virtually no one agrees with your goofy bullshit except the occasional poster that, as luck would have it, is charting new, unmapped territory in the furthest reaches of delusion? Why do you think that is?

Psst...I'll let you in on a secret, so you no longer have to guess what I'm about. I'm engaged in an initiation rite from TPTB. I'm pretty sure it will result in a promotion, so you should probably watch out.

[LARED]

35. 'clear compositing clues'

What does that mean?

[Ohio Joe]

45. How exactly would "they" hide this hi-res footage?

What are you claiming here? That not one person hit the record button on their VCR on 9/11? or that every copy has been some how confiscated by "them"?

Regarding the Fairbanks footage, here seems to be a pretty good quality video, though it is broken up and has Mr. Fairbanks talking over it to describe what happened:

http://www.history.com/videos/evan-fairbanks-on-911#evan-fairbanks-on-911

I bet it is even available on DVD... in fact I bet there are a ton of DVD's available... Are you saying all of the DVD's also only contain these low-res copies of the various videos?

[spooked911]

51. DVDs certainly don't have original footage

and they don't necessarily have hi-res broadcast-quality footage. Clearly, whatever DVDs were officially released would have any "blemishes" cleaned up. VHS videotape is pretty low res, if you've watched any video lately.

[jberryhill]

31. No he doesn't, and that can only mean one thing...

They are hiding all of the clearer pictures from him. Thus the fact that he doesn't have a clear picture PROVES that what he's saying about this blurry one MUST be true.

Because, first they made a bunch of clear pictures that showed it was all fake.

Then, they hid them.

[spooked911]

32. yeah, kind of

Behind your obnoxiousness, there is an important point-- higher res video is more likely to show artefacts of compositing that can be easily hidden in compressed video. So clearly, the video perps will keep higher res footage away from the public.

Nonetheless, even in the lower res video, we can see things that are clearly fake-- like this wingtip. The unnaturalness of what is happening to the wing is clear, but the low resolution gives you something to hide behind. Why you refuse to admit there is anything unusual here is not clear, though I have some ideas.

[KDLarsen]

36. Why do you keep assuming that there is a higher res video?

Michael Hezarkhani was something like a mile away from the site, zooming in with a camera. And keep in mind, this was 10 years ago. There was no such thing as consumer grade HD cameras on the market.

And trying to do any form of photo-analysis on such low quality imagery, is asking to be mocked.

[spooked911]

37. there is enough resolution to see that the wing is behaving contradictory to what is supposed to

have happened-- that the wingtip shatters apart on the steel columns (note, I am referring specifically to the wingtip which doesn't have fuel).

In terms of resolution, it is extremely hard to believe that the compressed versions available on the web haven't lost a certain amount of resolution.

[SDuderstadt]

38. So...

are you backpedaling from your "broadcast quality versions are being withheld from researchers" claim?

[spooked911]

39. Not at all-- whatever gave you that idea?

Broadcast quality = better resolution than what we can get off Youtube.

Duh.

[SDuderstadt]

40. You claim it's...

"being withheld", no?

[spooked911]

41. yes... clearly the FBI is not disseminating the Fairbanks video, for example

WHY????

[SDuderstadt]

42. The FBI is clearly....

under orders from TPTB to fuck with you, dude.

[spooked911]

43. thanks for the info

[zappaman]

44. Dude was not supposed to tell you that

probably get suspended by TPTB for a couple of weeks, so you should be thankful indeed.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Actually...

I have lost my "00 status" trying to help Spooked. Not that he would appreciate it or anything.

[spooked911]

47. this video is good

and check out the outrageous wingtip in the video shown at the end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJL91tfFJ9Q

[zappaman]

48. who gives a shit

about some video when there were hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses who saw the planes hit?
you keep seeing things where no one else does.
is there a clinical term for that?

[LARED]

49. I see what Spooked meant when he said many just try to

obfuscate these posts.

Your really must stop trying to distract, misdirect, and confuse the issue with actual rational thoughts. That clearly is another lame attempt at muddying the waters to prevent the truth from being discovered.

[spooked911]

50. seriously?

first of all, it's pretty damn fucking important if we were shown fake videos.


second, the witnesses are not as reliable as you seem to think. Some saw a fly-by. Many who say they saw the plane actually saw it on TV. I have to posit that if they saw the plane live, they were tricked.

third, I'm not the only one who thinks this.

fourth, what is the clinical term for pathological denial?

[SDuderstadt]

52. Name some of the people who saw a "fly-by"...

Spooked.

[zappaman]

53. "I have to posit that if they saw the plane live, they were tricked."

Of course you HAVE to...otherwise your silly "theory" wouldn't work, would it?
What a joke.

[LARED]

54. pathological denial

Denial
A defense mechanism where certain information is not accessed by
the conscious mind. Denial is related to repression, a similar defense
mechanism, but denial is more pronounced or intense. Denial involves
some impairment of reality. Pathological denial is irrational denial in
the face of conclusive evidence.

http://www.janushead.org/8-2/raabe.pdf

[terrafirma]

55. How does one "trick" someone into thinking

that they just saw an airliner crash into a skyscraper???

Mind-control? Voodoo? Chemtrails?

And do you have any honest comprehension of the number of eyes that were FIXATED on the north tower when the second plane hit? I know you'll argue that, "well then there should be even MORE video evidence since people would instinctively want to capture the unfolding events." But contrary to popular belief, most New Yorkers aren't required to bring a camcorder to the office every day.

So please explain, as it's of vital importance to your "no planes" theory, how TPTB fooled not only the thousands of on-lookers watching with their own eyes in Lower Manhattan, but all the people across the Hudson that were witnessing it first hand from Jersey as well.

Please. My former boss saw the second hit from her office at 120 Broadway. Please tell me how she was fooled.