Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mishy

  1. The Naudet clip is enough to prove the first plane wasn't real. No wing scar at the point of impact. https://fakeotube.com/video/48/september-clues---911-amateur-part2
  2. I'm sure I read somewhere that soaps etc have a thing where the camera angle changes every 4 seconds. I can't confirm as I don't have a telly and can't be arsed to look on YT. Something to do with keeping the person focused on it apparently.
  3. https://fakeotube.com/v/31 All within the first couple of minutes
  4. Can't see it as it apparently broke Twatter rules.
  5. That's up to you if you want to believe that. But lets not forget Winston is next to the building looking at the size of the hole as the second plane hits. But he doesn't mention a plane, his microphone doesn't pick up the noise from a screaming commercial jet or the resulting explosions of it crashing into the building he's standing next to.
  6. The M Slip is right at the start of September Clues, literally 1 minute in. The reporter is asking Winston https://fakeologist.com/september-clues-tour-guide/
  7. Why wouldn't you watch it? Why take my word for it? Why not just watch it? I'm guessing you've watched other 911 docs? SC just points out how fake the footage is. If just one piece of footage is fake, then you can't trust any of it, even more so if it was on LIVE tv. SC is well over an hour long and is FULL of fake footage. We're not just talking about fake plane crashes, if you'd watched it you'd see that buildings actually move in the LIVE news broadcasts.
  8. You're just being awkward. None of the footage can be trusted. September Clues has been mentioned several times in this thread, you sound like you still haven't watched it. It's not just about fake planes. https://fakeologist.com/september-clues-tour-guide/
  9. I have to agree with this. None of the footage from that day can be trusted.
  10. Looking forward to it. Hoping to beat my 4 hour personal best, but I usually get bored and change the channel.
  11. https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_documents_lost.html
  12. It's exactly the same footage. No wing scar at the moment of impact.
  13. Here's a youtube link for the official Naudet documentary. The footage is exactly the the same. The 'buffoon' as you put it is just pointing out that there is no plane crashing. So with proof that no plane crashed. It would be a fair assumption to say there were no hijackers, no Islamic bogeymen and just a load of lies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Iw-1bOQNIA Go to the 19:51 mark.
  14. It's on the original Naudet DVD. Probably still available on Amazon. I'm not buying it, you buy it and have a look. It's been discussed to death, years ago. They or someone else added the plane. The news then used that exact same footage later on 911.
  15. If real planes could have the required effect to knock down skyscrapers, why did they fake them? Just don't go near those goalposts in an airplane.
  16. It is quite rare thankfully, but two lucky French brothers managed it. And not long after the news caught another. Here's analysis of what those lucky French Bro's captured that day.. https://fakeotube.com/video/48/september-clues---911-amateur-part2 No plane.
  17. Do you have any footage showing an airplane flying into a skyscraper at over 400mph?
  18. I'm referring you to it as if you really wanted to find out what happened that day that's where you'll find it. I don't care about the laws of motion or video editing. I'm just here to point out the footage from that day is fake and no planes crashed. The post with the pole just adds more confirmation, I didn't put a comment on that initial post as no comment was required, but here we are several posts later. Nothing else to discuss. Have a good day.
  19. I'm bringing it up as the thread title is '911was there a plane'.... You maybe want to go and watch the footage again if believe the wings didn't slice through the steel. But you won't, you'll reply with more bollocks in about 3 minutes.
  20. What the fuck are you on about dude? The 911 footage shows the wings slicing through the steel as if the steel isn't there. I've posted a picture showing the damage a lamp post does to a wing at slow speed. But somehow the wing can slice though a steel skyscraper? Yes slice, like a hot knife through butter.
  21. The picture I posted just shows how fragile airplane wings are. To then think that one could slice through steel is ridiculous.
  22. You said it's pointless to discuss it with me, but continue to quote me. If you have footage of the plane with mentioned slinky effect then please post it.
  23. To be 100% crystal clear. I'm in the fake camp. And not just with the plane impacts. And yes, it is pointless, you don't have an argument. The footage is fake. https://www.septemberclues.info/ https://fakeologist.com/september-clues-tour-guide/
  24. You seem to be forgetting that it was all caught on video and none of the footage shows a plane being 'compacted like a slinky'.
  • Create New...