Even More 9/11 Evidence for Everyone to Ignore
Bizarre wing-tip explosions for "UA175"!
Here are screen captures from the Michael Hezarkhani "Ghostplane" video. The yellow arrow indicates the "wingtip" and where it struck the tower.
Capture A:
Capture B:
Capture C:
Capture D:
Capture E:
Capture F:
Capture G:
Why is the fragile wingtip, which contains no fuel, producing an explosion?
The round smoke puff that appears in capture F just to the left of the arrowhead is particularly odd. If these puffs were deflected plane fragments, we should see them in Capture C. Instead we see a large puff of explosion where the wingtip goes in-- a puff that merges with the larger center explosion.
There's also an unconnected explosion that occurs much lower down from the wing--away from EVERYTHING. It's in the middle of capture F, and merges into the large explosion. There is NO WAY the plane caused that puff.
Let's call this hard proof of planted explosives in the south tower, okay?
Here are screen captures from the Michael Hezarkhani "Ghostplane" video. The yellow arrow indicates the "wingtip" and where it struck the tower.
Capture A:
Capture B:
Capture C:
Capture D:
Capture E:
Capture F:
Capture G:
Why is the fragile wingtip, which contains no fuel, producing an explosion?
The round smoke puff that appears in capture F just to the left of the arrowhead is particularly odd. If these puffs were deflected plane fragments, we should see them in Capture C. Instead we see a large puff of explosion where the wingtip goes in-- a puff that merges with the larger center explosion.
There's also an unconnected explosion that occurs much lower down from the wing--away from EVERYTHING. It's in the middle of capture F, and merges into the large explosion. There is NO WAY the plane caused that puff.
Let's call this hard proof of planted explosives in the south tower, okay?
posted by spooked at 4:35 PM
5 Comments:
"How much more obvious could it be that the official story of the 9/11 attacks is a cruel hoax?"
If it's so obvious, then why aren't more people aware of it?
"Obvious" is obviously in the eye of the beholder. As with some of the claims found in right here on this site.
Who ya gonna trust?
Who ya gonna trust?
the laws of physics which tells us that the thin-walled hollow aluminum tube of a real 767 would squash like the flying beer-can that it is against the massive steel of the wtc.
Isn't it so that a stratotanker was filmed earlier flying somewhere else, dropping the white thing that flies a couple of seconds beside the plane and falls at the same time? The images of both then hide the real missile.
No.
See my other note about dog-shit crazy as a moonbat.
Spooked, do you know if there is anything that contradicts what I wrote at 9:17 AM?
Post a Comment
<< Home