You have to check out this video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[spooked911]

http://thewebfairy.com/911/krash/

Notice anything funny???

[spooked911]

1. by the way, here is another odd video

http://thewebfairy.com/911/saltergate/salterplane2.htm

notice how long it takes for the explosion to start after the lane went in.

seems they merged the plane in too early here, rather than too late as in the first video.

[LARED]

2. You mean like tampered with funny?

The flames are shooting out of the tower before the plane hits? How could this be?

[Make7]

3. "Funny" is not the word I would use.

What is interesting is that the fireball appears after the plane hits the building in the video footage used to create that flash.

What I do find funny is this post of yours:

 spooked911 (1000+ posts)

Fri Feb-10-06 09:47 AM 
Original message 

 Please don't respond to any "concrete core" posts unless  

a) you are a troll
b) you want to waste everyone's time
c) Christophera finds a copy of his magical video

I DON'T CARE IF THE WTC HAD A CONCRETE CORE.

IT IS NOT CRITICAL TO ESTABLISHING DEMOLITION.

THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES, WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF A NEW WAR.

THE WTC TOWERS WERE PULLED BY DEMOLITION.

END OF STORY.

NOW LET'S SPREAD THE WORD.

We need to know the whole truth about what happened on 9/11/01. http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/

 

What catagory do you fit into: a) or b)? Or perhaps c) you could find the not so magical video that was altered for the webfairy presentation.

- Make7

[rman]

4. that implies there are eyewitnesses who could testify

that no plane hit the second tower

[RayUbinger]

6. You mean like this guy?

"It was a bomb, a bomb in the other building, not a second plane. That was a bomb. Who said it was a second plane?"

http://thewebfairy.com/911/bombs/abomb.htm

The interviewer (Fox's Rick Leventhal, stationing himself around the perply Church-Murray intersection) gets rid of the man fast. Leventhal has a story to sell and this witness is undercutting it at the root.

[rman]

8. There were many reports of explosions

It's quite possible that witness did hear an explosion and simply didn't look in the right direction when the 2nd plane hit.

All the networks and a bunch of civilians got video footage of a large plane hitting the 2nd tower. I'm the last to say the media does not play a role in deceiving the masses, but to have everyone cooperate to the extent of not actually recording a plane hit and then broadcasting faked footage of a crash, that's very implausible.

[spooked911]

5. Here is the original source

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread97480/pg1

Yes! The video is clearly fake!

The point is how do we know other videos of the second hit weren't faked-- particularly since you wouldn't expect an airplane to cleanly slice into a steel wall?

[sabbat hunter]

7. because

people on the ground, in person saw the second plane hit the south tower.

thats how we know they arent faked. a plane hit the south tower, accept it.

[rman]

9. The requested URL was not found on this server.

Besides, how do we know that footage is in fact "original" and not faked by a disinfo operative?

[spooked911]

10. it was faked, we don't know why-- but it's a good fake

so how do we know that all the plane footage wasn't faked in one way or another?

[seatnineb]

11. Excellent question Spooked!

[sabbat hunter]

12. how do we know?

jeez. we know because people, in person, on the ground saw the plane hit. i will repeat this cause it is VAGUELY important

people, live persons, on the ground near the WTC saw, heard the plane. saw and heard the plane hit the south tower.

is that simple enough for you?

or are you on the "hologram" theory still?

[rman]

15. hologram?

that would explain the reluctance to just lay out the theory as he sees it, and instead dragging out the dialog.

[mirandapriestly]

16. Like this guy "saw it"?

or he would have seen it , if he had heard it
http://thewebfairy.com/911/bluebeam/index.htm

[rman]

14. All the networks and a bunch of amateurs/civilians

cooperating to the extent of not having actually shot any footage of a plane hitting the tower, and then broadcasting/submitting footage that shows just that - broadcasting live, no less. Not to mention many hundreds if not thousands of eyewitnesses - of which so far only one has claimed there was no plane.

How do you propose all that is faked?

I say it's a lot easier to fake one video after the fact then it is to fake lots of videos as the event happens.

[mirandapriestly]

18. ATS is a disinfo site. nt

[pauldp]

13. That is some really poorly faked video.

Looks like a 12 year old with Adobe After Effects did it. And obviously intentionally faked to look like a fake. WTF?
All the more reason to ignore webfairy links. Jesus, talk about muddying the waters.
Isn't webfairy also the outfit that promotes the hologram theory?

[mirandapriestly]

17. This site deals with fake media videos/pics

I sent the guy a video and he told me it was a fake because it was different than the ones he had seen! I asked why that meant it was fake since the ones he was looking at were fake?
http://911hoax.com/Table_Contents.asp