No Proof of Video Fakery:

[John Doe]

I am unable find any proof for video fakery on 9/11. I used to think it was plausible when considering there were different trajectories of the plane, nose out, etc.. but after reconsidering the so called evidence I find there is none.

Flight Path Trajectories Resloved:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1722486/

Nose out is just debris:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/2161368/

There is no moving bridge:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/802716/

Parallax 4 You:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPUW4UAsCEA

Although very little, there is a measurement of deceleration:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/747312/

We can see an engine being ejected from WTC 2 found on the corner of Church and Murray.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1829738/

Are all the people that saw a plane lying? Are all the pictures fake? Would it be possible to control all the people with a video camera recording the towers that day?

There are many people who witnessed, photographed and recorded on video something hitting the tower that day. It is obsured to say they are all lying!!!

http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/forum/455512/


.

[Shallel Octavia]

Hey Jeff,
The physics and the logistics of a Boeing 767 performing these maneuvers is covered very well in the
WTC Attack, by P4T. It's good to test these theories you've mentioned here. Keeps us honest in our work.

So where do we go from here?

Peace, Bud

[Kay Bee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS0dNaseISM&feature=player_embedded

This is what you wanted to see, perhaps?

It's no good crying there's always one exception to the rule.
The exception is the rule.

Regards. KB

[Elaine O'Grady Moore]

I can't believe it! Now Jeff Hill says that planes can fly right through buildings!

Witnesses? Video cameras? Plane parts landing under scaffolding? (Still not identified by serial number by FAA)

All this stuff has been covered by those willing to look. Thought Jeff Hill was one of those. Looks like I dialed the wrong number.

[John Doe]

What are you talking about? I never said planes can fly right through buildings and none did on 9/11.

Here is information on the engine:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/1829738/2/

Why is it that every time I ask for some proof I just get the run around? If you do have some proof of Video Fakery I would love to see it. I am willing to look and there is no evidence for VF that holds up to scrutiny. So Elaine, instead of posting condescending remarks, why don't you post some proof???

[Cee7truth]

Go to septemberclues.info and really go through the site. Pay close attention to the interview of the man that was in the chopper during the nose out shot. Also, don't be so gullible to eat up the moving bridge debunkers. Go to youtube and type in " on top of the verazzano bridge and look at the video shot from the top of one of the towers. After you successfully find the bridge. Go back to the BBS archives and look at the footage again and compare. I have been to NY and on top of those towers and did site seeing they way they show in the "on top of the verazzano bridge" on youtube. The live footage is fakery!

[Bob Campbell]

Hi I hope this is in the right place..... The nose out video stills and the complete screen videos of the guy sitting below the 2nd "plane" inserting into tower 2 are (in my opinion) examples of video fakery.

Thanks for all you've done Jeff, I hope you are not being blackmailed into your recent direction. If not then perhaps the idea that doubt is like a canoe one uses to get to the other shore of a lake then one abandons the canoe and then moves on may aid your thinking in some way.
Anyway all the best and thanks for your great work.
bc

[Thoth II]

See, this one is already is done deal, and it is easy for me to say that, because the videos shown violate the laws of physics. And any vids that do that, can't be authentic videos of planes. This ball game is over.

Now we just need the harder proofs of exactly what were done in the videos and what happened to the towers. Pretty hard to figure out, just like KFC always says the public will never figure out their secret recipe.3

And, well, this is just me talking, but never just trust the experts on anything. Educate yourself on each and every issue , learn Jim Fetzer's principles of logical fallacies, and scientific reasoning, ; and apply this to each case; and trust your judgement. That has worked for me in my life and career, that's for sure.

[bill smith]

Hi Jeff Did you ever consider the possibility that the perps planted the idea of no-planes deliberately ? It split the Truth Movement quite nicely, helped them to make us look crazy and it took all the attentian off how a real plane might have flown through that massive steel barrier. The plane weighed one three-hundredth of one percent the weight of the building and that weight was spread out over almost the width and depth of the building.

Therefore If it was a real plane then maybe the point of entry was doctored.and the no-planes theory was manufactured.as a distraction from the seamless entry of the plane into the building.

For me I find it hard to believe that they would not just use real planes and avoid all the reams of mistakes that they made that led us (perhaps by the nose) to the no-planes theory.

[Shallel Octavia]

Real planes leave real wreckage, and since the planes couldn't have been the 767's which we were told they were, since it was so far out of their performance envelope, anyone finding wreckage could prove it wasn't from a 767. And what if they missed? The story relies on the planes penetrating the towers and that is something that would never happen.

[bill smith]

It was the risk of the planes missing that led me to a theory that truly indicated real planes.

If the plane into WTC2 had missed it would most likely have ploughed into the ground. Even inder remote control that risk would have been there at 590mph. A tiny glitch and the plane would be in the ground and the building, full of preparation for a controlled demolition would be standing there waiting for it all to be discovered.. The perps could never take that risk.

The only way that I can think of to keep people out of the building in that case would be to declare that a biological weapon (probably Anthrax) had been unleashed inside the building. It would be put under immediate quarantine, a large containment area would be declared and nobady would go in or out.

And funnily enough there was a large bio-warfare team at hand. They had arrived and started setting up for a 'training exercise 'on the evening of monday the 10th of september 2001. The day before 9/11. This is all documented fact.

So if the biowarfare team was there to cover the eventuality of the plane missing,as I suspect then it had to be a real plane.

Shallel Octavia said:

Real planes leave real wreckage, and since the planes couldn't have been the 767's which we were told they were, since it was so far out of their performance envelope, anyone finding wreckage could prove it wasn't from a 767. And what if they missed? The story relies on the planes penetrating the towers and that is something that would never happen.

[bill smith]

It would be so much easier to make an illusion of the WTC2 impact wall than it would be to make an illusion of the plane. Under real circumstaces the plane would not have penetrated tthe building at all, The original engineeers only calculated for the fuel that might enter through broken windows but the body of an impacting plane was expected to fall away.

But for their purposes on 9/11 the perps had to have the plane ENTER the building and do supposed massive damage.

[sandy rose]

Bill Smith, if that is your real name, where's your pic? why do you
look like a pair of women's feet in red shoes? i'm really tired of
people coming to a forum about truth and being too afraid to show
their real pics.
using video fakery and the bs story about the planes did split
the 9/11 truth movement, because not everyone has the stones to
even think outside the box. exactly what the criminals had in mind.
i'm certainly not an expert on video or physics or science, but i
was sold long ago on fakery, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist
to look at the videos and see that they are bs.
have you seen the footage of the first hit object at wtc? alias
the flying pig? are you gonna try to say that thing is an airliner?
see web fairy's pic of that, from the naudet snuff film, hopefully
you've already looked at that. i have it over in the photo section.
does that in any way resemble an airliner to you?
also, how were we led by the nose to the no planes theory?
not very many people even seem to stumble upon it, and many
are just plain afraid to look at the videos. i don't notice anyone
leading us by the nose on this one. and your theory would mean
that all our great video experts would have been in on it, and i
won't buy that one even if it's free.

funny how you're trying to talk us into the planes being real.
you may be a real truther, but i'm seeing more red flags here.
we know that 9/11 was an inside job, which means their
whole story was a crock of crap, including the hijackers and
the boxcutters and the whole shebang.
why do you look like a pair of ladies' shoes? that's disturbing.