View Single Post
 
Old 08-09-2015, 06:57 PM
frisco kid frisco kid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 230
CNN.com - Transcripts

Mark, cryptically chuckles at the end of his description, further proving that he didn't see flight 175, and falling short of confirming that it really wasn't a plane. It's no different than Jean Hill saying she saw the secret service shooting back, but falling short of fingering the driver. Of course it didn't belong in the area because it wasn't really a plane at all.

Eyewitness on 9/11 Mark Burnback was able to get a good view of the plane that hit the World Trade Center, because he said that the plane was flying very low. He explained to FOX News that the plane had no windows, a blue logo, and did not look like a commercial plane.

Fox NewsCaster: "Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us. Mark witnessed this... Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane?"

Mark Burnback: "Hi gentlemen. Yeah there was definitely a blue, circular logo on the front of the plane towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. It was definitely very low...

"Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes or something like that. You said you did not see any windows on the side?"

Mark Burnback: "I did not see any windows on the side. I saw the plane was flying low. I was probably a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low, and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport. It was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just looked like it did not belong in this area."

Eyewitness Describes First Plane: No Windows, Blue Logo - YouTube

Let's go back a little in that video and see what the REAL context of that quote was and who actually asked the question shall we?

The guy who asked the question was NOT in the Newark control tower, but in New York and on the phone with Bob in Newark. Bob, walked over to the radar and saw the object over the Verrazano bridge for himself. Check out this killer stock vid of the Big V.

Bob Varcadapane was the supervisor in Newark tower that morning, in charge of eight controllers.

At Newark tower, Bob Varcadapane is still on the phone with a controller at the New York center, and learns that a second plane has been hijacked and is almost on top of Manhattan.

Varcadapane: He says to me, As a matter of fact, do you see that target coming over the Verrazano Bridge. "I went over to the radar and looked at the radar. The Verrazano Bridge is depicted on the radar. And I looked over there and I saw the aircraft descending out of 4700 feet, 3600 feet, 2700 feet."

The skies over America - Dateline NBC | NBC News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMlls8-X5pk

Traffic / Verrazano Narrows Bridge / New York City / Aerial | HD Stock Video 871-099-242 | Framepool Stock Footage



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNtGoRUjaA0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1mcCBLU3tY watch video from 20:00


The 911 commission disagrees with you and offers proof that chopper 4 did not capture flight 175. You must prove that all footage lines up together as only one thing being near the towers. You cannot do this because the ball was at the southwest corner of T1 five seconds before T2 exploded in the front. They cannot be reconciled as being one. It is impossible.

The fake plane nonsense has it behind/south of T2 where it had to be, of course. These simple facts debunk your beliefs and guarantee they cannot be proven in reality.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJX2fStDMo4



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
And he doesn't quite get geometry or direction either.

Trust me, nothing could be a bigger waste of time than indulging this fantasy. You can not reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
It has nothing to do with geometry or perspective. It has to do with where the ball was only seconds before the south tower exploded and then trying to match up the other angles to that. I used the divebomber clip because that's what the government used.

The media acknowledged that the ball went between towers and its shadow is proof that it did just that. The divebomber failed to travel between the towers, which proves that the official flight path is different than the real one captured live on NBC.

The vertical black line appears between the towers when the ball passes east of the north tower. No plane could be between the towers and still make it to the rear of T2. The ball disappears at 2:21 and by 2:23 the black line begins. The fireball begins at 2:25.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNLVxWUbPDU






http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html

__________________
 

Last edited by frisco kid; 11-02-2016 at 02:00 PM.
Reply With Quote