Time to take on the 911 planes. - 9/11 Scholars Forum2024-03-29T10:05:10Zhttp://911scholars.ning.com/forum/topics/time-to-take-on-the-911-planes?id=3488444%3ATopic%3A22075&feed=yes&xn_auth=noJeannon Kralj said:
"Just in…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-25:3488444:Comment:234232011-05-25T11:54:31.355ZLonnie Starhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/LonnieStar
<p><a class="fn url" href="../topic/listForContributor?user=252mgmru25d7h" rel="nofollow">Jeannon Kralj</a> said:</p>
<p>"Just in discussing planes this little bit so far in this thread, it is clear that</p>
<p>American Airlines and United Airlines were in on this subterfuge and that</p>
<p>makes those entire companies LIARS and TRAITORS."</p>
<p> -----------------------------</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'll disagree with this... It seems to me that they were on the sidelines</p>
<p>watching! …</p>
<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../topic/listForContributor?user=252mgmru25d7h" class="fn url">Jeannon Kralj</a> said:</p>
<p>"Just in discussing planes this little bit so far in this thread, it is clear that</p>
<p>American Airlines and United Airlines were in on this subterfuge and that</p>
<p>makes those entire companies LIARS and TRAITORS."</p>
<p> -----------------------------</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'll disagree with this... It seems to me that they were on the sidelines</p>
<p>watching! They kept quiet and just went along with it all. Otherwise,</p>
<p>why would UAL miscue and report flight 93 with a bomb on board, thus</p>
<p>setting the stage for having it be required to land at Cleveland Hopkins?</p>
<p>If these airlines had been along, there would certainly have been</p>
<p>work done on the BTS data early on. Since the airlines have to deal</p>
<p>with this all the time when they schedule and re-schedule flights.</p>
<p>So, I don't think it would have been missed. And there probably would</p>
<p>have been a better handling of the damage/debris array, than what</p>
<p>we've seen. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Instead, I think they were cowed by the high level people in gov't who were</p>
<p>prodding them along, so they just went along, knowing that such powerful</p>
<p>people are not to be toyed with. I'm sure that if they knew something, they'd</p>
<p>probably have exposed it, since they'd know better than to go along, because</p>
<p>they'd have a much greater fear of being caught, along with the perps, because</p>
<p>things weren't planned very well. They do have the ability to evaluate</p>
<p>the potential of faking crash sites, and would know that it's not likely</p>
<p>to be very successful. They'd be way to fearful of climbing aboard such</p>
<p>a plan, if they knew what it was. So, like mostly everyone else involved,</p>
<p>they were handed a fiat accompli and then told to comply after the fact.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>First they would be given "innocent" things to do! Later they'd realize that</p>
<p>those "innocent things" would add up to complete incrimination, they'd</p>
<p>have no choice but to further comply. In a corporate setting, unlike a gov't</p>
<p>one, it's hard to get orders and information into exactly the hands that</p>
<p>it needs to be placed in. Worse yet, explanations are needed, more than</p>
<p>are needed in gov't. As a consequence of this, the Airlines had to be</p>
<p>kept, very largely in the dark. The perps, would instead, rely more</p>
<p>heavily on plants within the airlines operations centers, who could</p>
<p>amplify or squash the various inputs and outputs. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>But that's just my take, I think corporations make very unreliable partners.</p>
<p>Too unreliable for the seriousness of this kind of undertaking.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> Good comments.
The firm pro…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-25:3488444:Comment:240922011-05-25T11:17:56.388ZJeannon Kraljhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
<p>Good comments.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The firm proving of the NPT would</p>
<p> </p>
<p>completely dispell the notion of "hijackers. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>dispell the notion of "extremist Islamic terrorists" going in to the WTC buildings and planting some traditional kind of controlled demolition explosives. (So if anyone wants to hold on to the idea of demolition charges being professionally and precisely pre- placed in the buildings, it would become just "too much" to try to say those explosives…</p>
<p>Good comments.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The firm proving of the NPT would</p>
<p> </p>
<p>completely dispell the notion of "hijackers. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>dispell the notion of "extremist Islamic terrorists" going in to the WTC buildings and planting some traditional kind of controlled demolition explosives. (So if anyone wants to hold on to the idea of demolition charges being professionally and precisely pre- placed in the buildings, it would become just "too much" to try to say those explosives planter people were "radical Muslim" types.) In a way, I can sort of see that all the "theories" about exactly what physical agents destroyed the WTC buildings are a deliberate diversion and distraction from discussing no planes ideas, and all of these dueling theories do nothing but split up the remaining vestiges of the 9-11 truth movement. Neither Dr. Judy Wood nor Dr. Steven Jones care to give any serious attention to no planes.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>expose the completely planned, orchestrated, scripted, theatrical production aspects of 9-11, such as may have been the incident related by Norman Mineta in the PEOC room of the White House. People who play parts and read their script and play their roles in a false faked theatrical event are LIARS and TRAITORS so establishment of NPT would expose certain and many individuals as such.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Just in discussing planes this little bit so far in this thread, it is clear that American Airlines and United Airlines were in on this subterfuge and that makes those entire companies LIARS and TRAITORS.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I hate to say this but I can see no one person in all of 9-11 truth who seems to have a strong love and devotion to the sovereignty of the U.S.A., and all seem to be globalists to one degree or another.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><cite>Lonnie Star said:</cite></p>
<blockquote><div><p>Yes, I can agree that the terms are being used loosely. "All", means whatever we can find on the subjects,</p>
<p>combined with much of what has been said. And "evidence" is munged to include speculatons, however</p>
<p>reasonable they may be. While NPT is used as you say, to indicate, not that planes didn't fly, but that</p>
<p>the ones stated, did not impact the crash sites indicated. But hey, we're not scientists and we're doing</p>
<p>a pretty good job of it, using what little we've been given, and without precise definitions to work with.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>the "NPT" people took quite a massive bashing when the idea was first released. But the idea still was able</p>
<p>to hold it's own, even against claims that it's holders were loonies, it was still able to gain converts and still</p>
<p>is. "Evidence" that should dispel the NPT quite easily, is being "withheld"; provoking the challenge that it</p>
<p>doesn't exist, and still it doesn't appear. Go figure.</p>
</div>
</blockquote> Yes, I can agree that the te…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-25:3488444:Comment:243742011-05-25T10:50:44.785ZLonnie Starhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/LonnieStar
<p>Yes, I can agree that the terms are being used loosely. "All", means whatever we can find on the subjects,</p>
<p>combined with much of what has been said. And "evidence" is munged to include speculatons, however</p>
<p>reasonable they may be. While NPT is used as you say, to indicate, not that planes didn't fly, but that</p>
<p>the ones stated, did not impact the crash sites indicated. But hey, we're not scientists and we're doing</p>
<p>a pretty good job of it, using what…</p>
<p>Yes, I can agree that the terms are being used loosely. "All", means whatever we can find on the subjects,</p>
<p>combined with much of what has been said. And "evidence" is munged to include speculatons, however</p>
<p>reasonable they may be. While NPT is used as you say, to indicate, not that planes didn't fly, but that</p>
<p>the ones stated, did not impact the crash sites indicated. But hey, we're not scientists and we're doing</p>
<p>a pretty good job of it, using what little we've been given, and without precise definitions to work with.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>the "NPT" people took quite a massive bashing when the idea was first released. But the idea still was able</p>
<p>to hold it's own, even against claims that it's holders were loonies, it was still able to gain converts and still</p>
<p>is. "Evidence" that should dispel the NPT quite easily, is being "withheld"; provoking the challenge that it</p>
<p>doesn't exist, and still it doesn't appear. Go figure.</p> I can agree that planes flew…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-25:3488444:Comment:234182011-05-25T10:25:17.110ZLonnie Starhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/LonnieStar
<p>I can agree that planes flew that day, just that they didn't hit the targets claimed.</p>
<p>It makes much more sense that flight 93 landed in Cleveland, where it's 200</p>
<p>passengers came from is open to guesswork.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As the official story says, the skyjackers purchased their tickets in August,</p>
<p>at which time flight 93 wasn't scheduled. Flight 91 was the only flight in that</p>
<p>time range, so they would have had to accept reservation on flight 91. …</p>
<p>I can agree that planes flew that day, just that they didn't hit the targets claimed.</p>
<p>It makes much more sense that flight 93 landed in Cleveland, where it's 200</p>
<p>passengers came from is open to guesswork.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As the official story says, the skyjackers purchased their tickets in August,</p>
<p>at which time flight 93 wasn't scheduled. Flight 91 was the only flight in that</p>
<p>time range, so they would have had to accept reservation on flight 91. So</p>
<p>the question becomes, how did they switch from flight 91 to flight 93? Since</p>
<p>we learn that flight 91 was not canceled as claimed. Flight 93 was added to</p>
<p>the schedule in early Sept. so that on a day when the airlines couldn't</p>
<p>fill one plane either at Boston or Newark for Los Angles, both airports now</p>
<p>have two planes scheduled for LAX, within the same hour.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My guess is that flight 175 went else where, someone forgot to take down the</p>
<p>flight 175 blip from the screens and left it flying after it had supposedly crashed.</p>
<p>In reality it had to be somewhere else. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> Dr. Hubert,
I have reasoned…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-24:3488444:Comment:240832011-05-24T17:02:30.510ZDeanhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/Dean
<p>Dr. Hubert,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have reasoned that two planes, Flights 175 and 93, flew that day. Best evidence are the Bureau of Transportation Records, lack of official plane wreckage at any scene, media reports of passengers at the gates or planes in question and the sighting of passengers in Cleveland.</p>
<p>I detail this and other evidence in Planes and Passengers and will go into even more depoth in the upcoming <em>Facts Talk but the Guilty Walk: the No Hijacker Hypothesis and Its…</em></p>
<p>Dr. Hubert,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have reasoned that two planes, Flights 175 and 93, flew that day. Best evidence are the Bureau of Transportation Records, lack of official plane wreckage at any scene, media reports of passengers at the gates or planes in question and the sighting of passengers in Cleveland.</p>
<p>I detail this and other evidence in Planes and Passengers and will go into even more depoth in the upcoming <em>Facts Talk but the Guilty Walk: the No Hijacker Hypothesis and Its Indictment of Our Leaders</em> (due July 30)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Dean</p> How certain are we that 2 of…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-24:3488444:Comment:240822011-05-24T16:55:13.486ZDr. J. P. Huberthttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DrJPHubert
How certain are we that 2 of the 4 planes are still flying as Dean Hartwell indicated and is it possible to firm that up?
How certain are we that 2 of the 4 planes are still flying as Dean Hartwell indicated and is it possible to firm that up? "you can't arrive at the NPT…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-24:3488444:Comment:240792011-05-24T14:52:18.152ZJeannon Kraljhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/JeannonKralj
"you can't arrive at the NPT, until after<br></br>
<p>you've considered all of the evidence and testimony presented at all four sites"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Voltaire said: "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms." I just want to point out our problems with semantics and language that 9-11 imposed on us from the beginning and that there really is no way out of the confusion. </p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NPT no planes theory </strong> - is a confusing term from the get-go. But I guess we need…</p>
"you can't arrive at the NPT, until after<br/>
<p>you've considered all of the evidence and testimony presented at all four sites"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Voltaire said: "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms." I just want to point out our problems with semantics and language that 9-11 imposed on us from the beginning and that there really is no way out of the confusion. </p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>NPT no planes theory </strong> - is a confusing term from the get-go. But I guess we need some terms so we accept that we have a common understanding of "NPT." First of all, we are not talking at all about a real "theory." Also, we are not really meaning "no" planes, as we seem to acknowlege that in some peripheral ways, planes were part of the script, but planes just had nothing to do with crashing into buildings or even into the ground at Shanksville.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>"all the evidence" </strong> - Here we have the problem of the word "evidence." We certainly do not mean the word "evidence" in a strict sense, like the "rules of evidence" in a court of law or any other strict definition of what constitutes "evidence." We have "data" and even it is extremely questionable as "data." Then the word "all" becomes equally confusing because we have no way of knowing even a little bit about "all" the evidence. We don't know how much we do not know, but we know we probably do not know at least some of the "all."</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think Dr. Morgan Reynolds and others started questioning from the very beginning of their time of entry into the 9-11 truth "movement" about those early videos including the Naudet brothers footage of a plane going in to the South Tower. The MSM news clips and the Dave Von Kleist and other early 9-11 truth videos contained that absurd footage of a plane melding into the tower with no breakup whatsoever, but those early videos just ignored that absurdity and focused on other things, like pods on planes and such. (Dr. Reynolds probably came into the "movement" about early 2005 and maybe same for Dr. Fetzer.) So Dr. Reynolds did not first study "all of the evidence." He did us the great favor of early on shining the light of reason on those absurd videos. Dr. Reynolds then made some study of the possibility of "video fakery" but probably, although much later, Dr. Fetzer did the best and the most regarding exposing video fakery.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><br/><cite>Lonnie Star said:</cite></p>
<blockquote><div><p>As far as "not considering all of the evidence/alternative theories", goes; anyone who is enamored of the NPT</p>
<p>has to have considered all of it, to even arrive at the possibility that no planes were used. It is only by</p>
<p>taking each piece of evidence, and exploring each theory concerning it, that one is able to conclude that</p>
<p>the NPT is the more likely explanation of the wide trail of conflicting presentations. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You do not arrive at the NPT, by simply stating it to be so! For, without knowledge of what happened,</p>
<p>what the explanations, evidence, eyewitness testimony and analysis of it all are, l there is not a clue</p>
<p>in the mix, that an NPT can even exist with any credibility. One only arrives at the NPT, <strong>after</strong> having</p>
<p>read and discarded many theories and finding way too much of the "evidence" either suspect or not</p>
<p>as credible as it should be. In short the NPT is an after effect! One that attempts to explain all of the</p>
<p>evidence in the simplest way. Not one that rejects evidence, nor rejects any theories, until they've</p>
<p>been examined and shown to be flawed, not probative or false.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>To check the NPT theory, try reversing the equation. How many things would need to be certain, if</p>
<p>the Planes Theory were true? Sure you'll find a piece here and a piece there, that seems to make</p>
<p>it appear there were planes, but then you'll run into the unexplained artifacts, no plane parts, too few</p>
<p>plane parts, improper damage configurations, improper video exhibits, impossible speeds, lack of</p>
<p>training of the suspects, for the incredibly complex task they must perform like experts with thousands</p>
<p>of hours of actual flight experience. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Most people simply thought, at the outset, that it's really easy to simply take over a heavy aircraft and</p>
<p>fly it in a straight line. Actually, in practice, as pilots with thousands of hours in the cockpits of these</p>
<p>same airliners will tell you, there's a whole lot more to it than that! You can't simply take "visual" information</p>
<p>and translate that into a flight plan, even if you have an auto pilot to assist you. ...And, that's before</p>
<p>you even get to the maneuvers these aircraft were put through, that no autopilot would allow, if you didn't</p>
<p>disconnect it. The aircraft then reach speeds that they don't have the engine power to reach. Nor could</p>
<p>they survive the stresses, if they could reach those speeds. Then it is while they are in this incredibly</p>
<p>unstable configuration, where even the controls don't operate predictably, that they manage to</p>
<p>execute maneuvers that even experience pilots admit they could not do. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Other exerts explain that using other specially prepared aircraft or missiles or drones, present another</p>
<p>level of complexity that there is no evidence of. All of which, should mean that people who bring in</p>
<p>alternative craft theories, are just making things up, because there simply isn't any evidence that</p>
<p>backs up such claims. Meaning that, if you're going to posit something other than what we've been</p>
<p>told, beyond merely proving it false, you would be going further to substitute something for which</p>
<p>there is no evidence to support. Example: You do not know how the magician pulled the rabbit from</p>
<p>the empty hat, but you do know it was a trick. But, unless you know more, you still can't say</p>
<p>where the rabbit came from or how it got into the hat. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The NPT is the simplest explanation of all of the evidence at all four sites, all of the anomalies and</p>
<p>all of the results. It also explains why false evidence is needed in all four places, and why the</p>
<p>"eyewitnesses" have so many conflicts. But, like I said, you can't arrive at the NPT, until after</p>
<p>you've considered all of the evidence and testimony presented at all four sites, and have</p>
<p>considered all of the theories that pertain thereto. Only after you are sure, that there is nothing</p>
<p>that bars the door to the NPT, can you adopt it as a credible possibility.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote> As far as "not considering al…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-24:3488444:Comment:241742011-05-24T13:56:54.006ZLonnie Starhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/LonnieStar
<p>As far as "not considering all of the evidence/alternative theories", goes; anyone who is enamored of the NPT</p>
<p>has to have considered all of it, to even arrive at the possibility that no planes were used. It is only by</p>
<p>taking each piece of evidence, and exploring each theory concerning it, that one is able to conclude that</p>
<p>the NPT is the more likely explanation of the wide trail of conflicting presentations. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You do not arrive at the NPT, by simply…</p>
<p>As far as "not considering all of the evidence/alternative theories", goes; anyone who is enamored of the NPT</p>
<p>has to have considered all of it, to even arrive at the possibility that no planes were used. It is only by</p>
<p>taking each piece of evidence, and exploring each theory concerning it, that one is able to conclude that</p>
<p>the NPT is the more likely explanation of the wide trail of conflicting presentations. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You do not arrive at the NPT, by simply stating it to be so! For, without knowledge of what happened,</p>
<p>what the explanations, evidence, eyewitness testimony and analysis of it all are, l there is not a clue</p>
<p>in the mix, that an NPT can even exist with any credibility. One only arrives at the NPT, <strong>after</strong> having</p>
<p>read and discarded many theories and finding way too much of the "evidence" either suspect or not</p>
<p>as credible as it should be. In short the NPT is an after effect! One that attempts to explain all of the</p>
<p>evidence in the simplest way. Not one that rejects evidence, nor rejects any theories, until they've</p>
<p>been examined and shown to be flawed, not probative or false.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>To check the NPT theory, try reversing the equation. How many things would need to be certain, if</p>
<p>the Planes Theory were true? Sure you'll find a piece here and a piece there, that seems to make</p>
<p>it appear there were planes, but then you'll run into the unexplained artifacts, no plane parts, too few</p>
<p>plane parts, improper damage configurations, improper video exhibits, impossible speeds, lack of</p>
<p>training of the suspects, for the incredibly complex task they must perform like experts with thousands</p>
<p>of hours of actual flight experience. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Most people simply thought, at the outset, that it's really easy to simply take over a heavy aircraft and</p>
<p>fly it in a straight line. Actually, in practice, as pilots with thousands of hours in the cockpits of these</p>
<p>same airliners will tell you, there's a whole lot more to it than that! You can't simply take "visual" information</p>
<p>and translate that into a flight plan, even if you have an auto pilot to assist you. ...And, that's before</p>
<p>you even get to the maneuvers these aircraft were put through, that no autopilot would allow, if you didn't</p>
<p>disconnect it. The aircraft then reach speeds that they don't have the engine power to reach. Nor could</p>
<p>they survive the stresses, if they could reach those speeds. Then it is while they are in this incredibly</p>
<p>unstable configuration, where even the controls don't operate predictably, that they manage to</p>
<p>execute maneuvers that even experience pilots admit they could not do. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Other exerts explain that using other specially prepared aircraft or missiles or drones, present another</p>
<p>level of complexity that there is no evidence of. All of which, should mean that people who bring in</p>
<p>alternative craft theories, are just making things up, because there simply isn't any evidence that</p>
<p>backs up such claims. Meaning that, if you're going to posit something other than what we've been</p>
<p>told, beyond merely proving it false, you would be going further to substitute something for which</p>
<p>there is no evidence to support. Example: You do not know how the magician pulled the rabbit from</p>
<p>the empty hat, but you do know it was a trick. But, unless you know more, you still can't say</p>
<p>where the rabbit came from or how it got into the hat. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>The NPT is the simplest explanation of all of the evidence at all four sites, all of the anomalies and</p>
<p>all of the results. It also explains why false evidence is needed in all four places, and why the</p>
<p>"eyewitnesses" have so many conflicts. But, like I said, you can't arrive at the NPT, until after</p>
<p>you've considered all of the evidence and testimony presented at all four sites, and have</p>
<p>considered all of the theories that pertain thereto. Only after you are sure, that there is nothing</p>
<p>that bars the door to the NPT, can you adopt it as a credible possibility.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> When the "mission" is looked…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-24:3488444:Comment:240782011-05-24T13:05:17.851ZLonnie Starhttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/LonnieStar
<p>When the "mission" is looked at from all angles, going from what happens inside the buildings</p>
<p>after the strike, the damage (no of steel box columns completely cut through), etc., You have</p>
<p>to realize that none of this could have been done, but the planes that were either depicted in</p>
<p>the videos, or that we were told and provided "evidence" of having been skyjacked and flown</p>
<p>into the towers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it is not possible for planes to have created this…</p>
<p>When the "mission" is looked at from all angles, going from what happens inside the buildings</p>
<p>after the strike, the damage (no of steel box columns completely cut through), etc., You have</p>
<p>to realize that none of this could have been done, but the planes that were either depicted in</p>
<p>the videos, or that we were told and provided "evidence" of having been skyjacked and flown</p>
<p>into the towers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it is not possible for planes to have created this damage array, then the damage is not caused</p>
<p>by planes! If the fragile wing tips could not slice through several boxed steel columns all the way</p>
<p>out to the wing tips, then the damage seen after the fake strikes, was not caused by planes. There's</p>
<p>nothing magical about it. A "rabbit" has been pulled from an empty hat, in front of our eyes! The</p>
<p>only question is, will we believe that rabbits can be pulled from empty hats? Or will we believe that</p>
<p>some trick has been played? If something could not happen, then something else must have happened.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Just as it is not necessary to prove how the magician did his trick, to know that in reality, it's impossible</p>
<p>for it to be real, we don't really need to know what hit the towers, to know that what we were told isn't</p>
<p>true.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Obwon</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
Can that image be sharpened…tag:911scholars.ning.com,2011-05-23:3488444:Comment:240752011-05-23T22:52:34.937ZDr. J. P. Huberthttp://911scholars.ning.com/profile/DrJPHubert
<p> </p>
<p>Can that image be sharpened up at all? What is the vertical defect that extends for quite some distance above the bright flash?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Where is this from? Do you think this is actual footage of whatever struck the building or do you think it is fake?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Can that image be sharpened up at all? What is the vertical defect that extends for quite some distance above the bright flash?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Where is this from? Do you think this is actual footage of whatever struck the building or do you think it is fake?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>