Quote Originally Posted by al uh looyah
by my watching that vid, it seems like we're watching the back side of the buildings from very far away so the planes were coming in from the other side from where the camera was, so it was obscured by the buildings, plus the camera operator was zoomed out, so its hard to see.

I'm not ruling out d.u. bunker busters or similar type nuke stuff, but it seems like a geiger counter would show increased radiation still in that area, have there been any geiger readings around ground zero in the last 5 years?
"have there been any geiger readings around ground zero in the last 5 years?"

question of the day! Plus it might be worth researching what experimental bunker buster nukes have been developed in the last decade and what their effects are. In other words, it might have been explosive technology that the public has absolutely no information about.

"it seems like we're watching the back side of the buildings from very far away so the planes were coming in from the other side from where the camera was, so it was obscured by the buildings,"

That's what I was thinking. All the same it is worth researching to find out the angle from where that video is shot, just to be certain that the projectile that hits the bldg hits on the side opposite of the cameraman.

Other points.

According to most accounts, the plane dropped into the scene, did a swooping turn, then hit the bldg. So yeah, maybe part of the plane's path was obscured by the bldg., but what about the entire path of the plane?

What I'm saying is, the "bldg obscuring the plane" is the only explanation we've got. I mean we see absolutely no plane. The camera man does not say, now remember that plane we just saw fly overhead. In fact, neither he nor the person he is with discuss seeing a plane. They state the opposite, saying they've seen no plane.

On that same note:

You have the cameraman, at the moment it happens, saying, that it was "fast," that it was "a missile." The person (female) he was with says "but that wasn't a plane," and he confirms, "nope," not a plane.

This is important because they are on the scene. Nobody says, "hey you two dunces, remember that plane we saw a minute ago. The one that flew over the river real low and made a turn." No, instead they immediately rule out a plane.

This meshes with other eyewitness accounts from the day that claim to have witnessed a missile.

Of course, just like with the Walker films, we have to be careful not to simply decide that the films are authentic. But no harm in discussing them.

Or maybe there is. So get your comment posted quick before Jon kills this thread.