ForumGarden

9/11 hoax: 11 september original CNN video reduced to 3 minutes and 2 seconds

It is as simple as this: the fact that Aluminium planes can NOT cut through steel was NEVER discussed in the illuminati media immediately proves that Aluminium planes can NOT cut through steel.

Aluminium is "strong" but a few pixels much more

The moment we entered the final leg of end times reductionism with a few pixels simulating a "large airliner plane" "live".



14:30 - after the first "witness", "coincidentally" the CNN vice-president, there was a first timing mistake and a real witness was interviewed.

Now the scripted "eyewitness" for the CGI act is on air:

14:54 - the famous final pixels enter the scene, it is pixel time:

14:55 - the famous final pixels exit the scene

oops - bomb not timely detonated -> plan B - switch camera to avoid wide view of WTC Towers

15:00 - ok, bomb detonated, now can switch camera again to show explosion

17:56 - 3 minutes and 2 seconds that it was all they needed to correct the timing error ... here starts the take that will be repeated hundreds of times by each TV station in the next hours.

CNN Sept. 11, 2001 8:48 am - 9:29 am : CNN : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Reminder: 911 illuminati ritual mass murder was first FULLY exposed by LAST PROPHET.

google

911 for dummies basic facts

9/11 for dummies - The Five Basic Facts, by Matt M

Here's what was needed on this subject ... the voice of reason approach.:guitarist

Although I don't actually buy Into the conspiracy theories, I have always been mystified by the lack of debris In Shanksville.

9-11 Review: ERROR: 'Flight 93 Didn't Crash in Shanksville, PA'

I'll get my husband to have a look... he's the nearest expert I have on aircraft debris.

oscar;1404033 wrote: Although I don't actually buy Into the conspiracy theories, I have always been mystified by the lack of debris In Shanksville.

9-11 Review: ERROR: 'Flight 93 Didn't Crash in Shanksville, PA'

I'll get my husband to have a look... he's the nearest expert I have on aircraft debris.


This is another one that I like.

The plane hit in relatively soft ground, at almost a ninety degree angle.

Most of the plane ended up in the ground.

There are several other crashes like it.

Valuejet 592 crash near Miami

United flt 585 Air crash near Colorado Springs (1991)

are the two that immediately come to mind.

Of coarse the "truthers" probably will say those were practice runs for flt 93

LarsMac;1404047 wrote: This is another one that I like.

The plane hit in relatively soft ground, at almost a ninety degree angle.

Most of the plane ended up in the ground.

There are several other crashes like it.

Valuejet 592 crash near Miami

United flt 585 Air crash near Colorado Springs (1991)

are the two that immediately come to mind.

Of coarse the "truthers" probably will say those were practice runs for flt 93 My husband Informed me today that the least debris he Investigated was a US Starfighter that crashed near Lakenheath, near Norfolk, England. In 1965. It crashed vertical, leaving a deep crater.... all that was left was a tiny fragment of the tail.... no human remains at all. His opinion Is actually that he thinks It Impossible for a passenger jet to leave absolutely no debris as was with flight 93.

He talk some more but my eyes glazed over.

oscar;1404066 wrote: My husband Informed me today that the least debris he Investigated was a US Starfighter that crashed near Lakenheath, near Norfolk, England. In 1965. It crashed vertical, leaving a deep crater.... all that was left was a tiny fragment of the tail.... no human remains at all. His opinion Is actually that he thinks It Impossible for a passenger jet to leave absolutely no debris as was with flight 93.




Well, there was debris at the 93 crash site. The problem the "Truthers" had was the relatively small quantity of debris shown in site photos.

The idea that any of the planes involved did not actually crash is a red herring "booby trap" the spreading of which discredits legitimate questions. If you actually care about a real investigation taking place I suggest you abandon the idea that any of the plane crashes were faked.

LarsMac;1404096 wrote: Well, there was debris at the 93 crash site. The problem the "Truthers" had was the relatively small quantity of debris shown in site photos.


I'm In agreement there....the small quantity of debris would be down to the speed at which the aircraft nose-dived the ground.

koan;1404107 wrote: The idea that any of the planes involved did not actually crash is a red herring "booby trap" the spreading of which discredits legitimate questions. If you actually care about a real investigation taking place I suggest you abandon the idea that any of the plane crashes were faked.


On that, we are in full agreement.

Bar the OP who seems to think - correct me if I'm wrong - that each WTC building was brought down with a tactical H-bomb. I do wish he'd stop posting until he's bought a Geiger counter and checked.