Although the airforce has denied having fighters tailing the suicide jetliners - I suspect THEY DID. Their denial in preference of the story they did not deploy fighters may be because they wish to conceal that the PA airliner was subsequently shot down. Why would I propose this? I have photos taken from the opposite side of the WTC that show this same rapidly moving object race behind the buildings at the moment of the 2nd airliner impact. Also the wreakage pattern of the PA plane had its engine fall over a mile and 1/2 from the main crash site. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hey, guess what, you are full of sh*t If a fighter jet was tailing the second plane that hit the WTC, it would have shot it down before impact. If one plane has already hit, I think it would be quite obvious where the second plane was going if it was headed directly towards the WTC. The pilot of the fighter jet would have fired on it before it slammed into the building (then the pieces would have shattered and fallen on to New York city streets). Further more, that's saying our government knew this was going to take place, otherwise how would they have the fighter jets tail those specific planes? It wasn't long after the first plane struck, that the second plane hit, and everyone thought the first plane was an accident (not terrorist) before the second one hit. Somehow I don't think they could have deployed our fighter jets in time to tail a specific plane, specially because it was considered an accident at this point. And, being a nerd, I know quite how easy it would be to edit and hack a video like that (people were fooled by this same thing with a UFO video, the thought it was actually aliens - may you should ask a hollywood special effects artist about this "video"). Plus, even if it were true, you can't prove that jet didn't fly by at a much later time after the second plane hit (not directly after), you'd have to take the word of Fox News, or supposedly whoever shot that video. Also the plane that hit the Pentagon was not shot down. If you are saying the PA flight was shot down, then fine - but you are not providing any good evidence as to why, because the stuff above is crap. Despite what some people may think, the world is not one big conspiracy theory. Maybe some of these people are suffering from paranoina.
And you beleive everything the counter-media tells you. That's just as bad as believing everything hte media tells you.
Mmhhmm, I am young; and you didn't even respond to my explainations to your garbage "evidence". Oh BTW, your avatar is VERY ugly. Is that you making those expressions with your face by chance? Oh, nice post with that girl's aging face, smoking a ciggarette; the one about legal weed in Nevada (it seems like the smoke was contributing to the wrinkles and rough skin on her face, the picture was quite large in fact, are you running a drug ring in NV by chance? or was that just a big advertisement). Sorry if I seem a bit hostile, but I think such a ridiculous post required a bit of aggression from my end - and your response didn't help either.
Ha, that is one big f-16...bigger than the airliner! There is lots of video and tons of pictures taken at the time of the 2nd hit. None of these have such imagery. Conclusion: this is doctored. Further conclusion: you need to be more skeptical and less gullible. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That was funny, the picture for Nevada. The chick was smoking a cigarette. Not to mention that if she was smoking a joint she was doing a very poor job of it - she let the smoke out right after inhaling.
Can a mod say that? Isn't it insulting? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yeah, a black dot is not a fighter plane. Think more and don't just declare something that crosses your mind as 'truth'. Btw, I like some of your artwork! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
First, Fox News is a suspect source. Their network was also the one that put together the Hoax Moon Landing theory. You can bet they knew just how full of holes it was before it aired. It aired anyway. They didn't try and give an equal time type billing as that was not their purpose. Their purpose was to cast doubt and therefor give credence to their claim. Once newsfootage is given out to the public there is no telling what will be done with it. We have had the picture of the guy on the roof of TWC with the airliner in the background, the UFO, and now this. All are obvious fakes. One thing that has always gotten to me is that in the background, where ever there is controversy is always the conspiracy theory folks. It is like they come from everywhere. No, I do not trust the government to tell the public everything they know. Neither do I think that they are covering up everything just because it is possible. There is a happy medium ground in between that is wide and large and leaves a lot of room to tell the story. Sorry, I do not believe this is a shoot down of the airliner that crashed. There is to much that would hinge on this to happen and I don't think it was possible for it to come out this way. You would not have caught a glimse of a fighter craft that close to its target if it was a shoot down. They do have the ability to shoot down from miles off with a missle and would not have gotten this close into a city to do it with guns. The object in the background of the moving footage is traveling far to slow to be a jet.
Right, if there was (was) a jet fighter tailing the passenger plane, it would not have shot it down for one bloody good reason IT WOULD HAVE CAUSED MORE DAMAGE Imagine a downed plane crashing in downtown New York. It would have been alot worse. More lives would have been lost. But, this will not be proven in the near future. Damn US government
Actually, you think a United States AF pilot would let a 747 slam into the WTC? I think he would commit suicide from a guilty conscious. If the plane was blown up by a missile, it would likely erupt into a ball of fire, and little bits and pieces of metal and plastic would come falling down. I don't think that would cause as much of a loss of life (a 2x2 piece of scrap metal could fall, hit someone's head, and kill them) Now if it was shot with bullets for example, and the plane did not shatter into a million pieces (let's just say it had destroyed fans), then the plane would still mostly be in tact when it came down, then it would explode on the street, or go crening down it and impact later, that would be bad.
Have you ever seen a passenge plane being shot down. It doesn't go into a million peices. Large chunks blow off with bits of minor debris. It may have been worse, but we will never know.
There was a thing on some news show, I can't remember which one, but it was about I think flight 800? But they were saying that the plane was shot down, and they tried comparing the thing that was supposed to be a surface-to-air missile to an air-launched cruise missile. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you look at later videos, you can see an f-15 patrolling the city later on.
My conslusion and juxtaposing these two pictures is entirely my doing. The movie was from a Japanese tourist across the river and the opposite side was from a NYC videographer. With no precedence for which scenario is worse when considering shooting down aircraft over populated areas there is no blame to be ascribed here. The story of no fighter deployment is simply dubious and evidently a lie. The smear of a potential fighter looks to be over mach 1. The young today are more gullible to what the government feeds them. If you lived through the Warren Commision and Viet Nam you'll know what I mean.
Wet: I am not proposing this is a shoot down what so ever. The Pennsylvania liner that was supposedly re-taken may have been a shoot down since the engines were found over a mile from the crash. I know for a fact these Fox pictures came out within days of 9-11. I found the other movie image just today. The "dot" which is not likely to be a bird , does seem travel away from the camera with some acceleration.
At 1,000 mph a fighter would smear to about 4 times its length on a frame that is 1/30th of a second. In other words its not as big as the blur. Re: the aside about the NV picture, did you check the brand of the "cigarette" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
1. The object is just too large compare the airliner. That's the first sign of fake. A Boeing 767's length is 159ft and a F-16's length is 49ft. You can do the math. 2. The speed of the object is just too fast for a jet fighter at such low altitude. The object in question is flying about 5 to10 times the speed of the crashing jetliner. Assuming the crashing speed is 200mph, the object must be flying at 1000mph to 2000mph. At 1000mph, that's already supersonic, did anyone hear any sonic boom on the morning of 9/11 in NYC? 3. What kind of tailing is that when the guy behind is running at five to ten times the speed of the target? And they both almost arrived at the WTC at about the same time? Isn't tailing suppose mean following the target and matching its speed? 4. Ask any fighter pilot that what kind of person could flight a plane at 1000+mph through the small gap between the two towers? Even if we could ignore the fact that it's impossible to fly between the towers at that speed, the shock wave created by the object alone will tear the towers apart. So Clarentavious was right. It is full of crap!
