Fakity Fake 2nd Hit Footage

Check out this seriously bizarre supposedly "live" footage from the morning of 9/11.

The most telling thing about the clip is the consecutive series of zoom-ins (four zoom-ins) right before the plane comes in-- the opening very wide shot shows no plane but when they finally zoom in very tight on the towers, all of a sudden the plane appears!


I think this is pretty good proof that the second plane was a digital fake. The plane SHOULD have been seen in the wide shot-- it only magically appears in the last tight zoom-in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1umznssiZU

I love the no planes / no missiles option. I'm going to steal your link BTW.

============== advertisment ==============
For The Conspiracy Theorist Of Tomorrow






Thanks to:

Who Killed John O'Neill

Andrew Grove

Sibel Edmonds

Daniel Hopsicker

Wayne Madson

Michael Ruppert

And many more...

The video
Ty Rauber made it and it has one actor playing all the parts -a conspiracy theorist, a paranoid "they're after us" type, an OCTer, a philospher and they are all discussing 911-it's kind of like this forum. He ties Kroll, CIA, AIG together, speculated that Kroll is a sort of privatized CIA, running on drug money but able to do what the CIA can't because they aren't allowed. Some of this relates to the Hopsicker story.

Why are these Kroll types anti terrorism experts; where do they get the information? Then they show how people move between these corporations and CIA . Doesn't spend a lot of time on the hows and why's of the actual day, more about drugs insurance companies/ CIA and the piece de resistance -what Al Qaeda really is and what Mohammed Atta's function was, his opinion will make a lot of sense as to Atta's behavior.

This is all for the same video , I gave different links in case some didn't work:

http://www.wkjo.com
http://whokilledjohnoneill.com

Movie Downloads:
http://www.wkjo.com/downloads.html

Mirrors:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4755449627173127935
http://www.archive.org/details/Who_Killed_John_ONeill
http://ia300135.us.archive.org/1/items/Who...ed_John_ONeill

Disclaimer / Copyright
Applies to all my posts in this thread:
All text taken from wikipedia is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights ). This post contains copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml )

You are free to copy this post within 'fair use', if you wish to use the copyrighted material from this post for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owners (see links). Full permission for whatever purpose is granted for these compilations.

None of the contributors or anyone else in any way whatsoever can be held responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages. No guarantees are made, in any way whatsoever, about the validity of the information found here. Any information found on this page can be incomplete, outdated, incorrect and it is upto the user to check the validity of any information found here.

No consequential damages can be sought for this post, as it is a voluntary developed freely to create various online educational, cultural and informational resources. This information is being given to you gratuitously and there is no agreement or understanding between you and the author.

Is that kosher?

http://www.madcowprod.com/mc6612004.html

“Send in The Clowns.”

Remember the “Remote Controllers?” You don’t hear about them anymore. But the fecund minds at Camp Disinformation had a dozen other equally colorful and implausible scenarios up their sleeve. No Plane Hit the Pentagon. Explosives in the WTC. And our personal favorite, See The Flash, pointing out to new initiates the pods beneath the wings of the hijacked planes. Clowns formed the false opposition—people pretending to oppose those to whom they secretly owe allegiance. Like the Phony Bought-Off Left before them, planted to divert and deflect the attention of the only medium which wasn't completely under control at the time of the 9/11 attack.

It started when we received several dozen spams from previously-unknown individuals who needed to tell us of their delight in a new book. One typical message came from someone named "Fred Burks" at something named http://www.septembereleventh.org/.
Fred’s message (The 9/11 X-Files - A review of The New Pearl Harbor) was enthusuatic, but a little stilted, like a book review in English class. He sounded about as sincere as sincere can be, but what he sincerely wanted me to know sounded more than a little dubious. “This is the by far best book I've seen on the 9/11 cover-up,” gushes Fred, about “The New Pearl Harbor,” by David Ray Griffin a theology professor at Claremont college. “It has already woken up many, many thousands of people… I can't recommend this book highly enough.”

We mulled over Fred’s advice. Apparently a groundswell of public opinion was developing around the central premise that Divinity Professors are an underused resource in homicide investigations. We’d somehow missed it. On the off-chance that there was something else in play, we wondered: who the f- is Fred? And we were, of course, shocked—shocked!—when we discovered that Fred—and this is a coincidence!—used to work for, and sometimes still does, President George W. Bush, who was the beneficiary of a campaign by Fred to get people to pray for him.

Why are you here mingling Hopsicker's work with things he completely eschews?

All the source have been checked with one another and with other evidence. I don't care whether people have problems with each other, so Michael Ruppert and Hopsicker don't like one-another, however they have produced parts which fits together in a complete picture.

In case of Hopsicker his efforts have been the investigation into Venice and that checks out and most of it can be double checked as well. I've used Michael's early work from copvcia and that checks out as well. So evne though they can't stand each other, they compliment each other.

So have you examined his work on the sources of Ruppert et al.? Does it check out?

I'm not that pleased about the peak oil, however his old reporting was always solid and can be checked out. There are still lots of things which need to be rechecked and maybe change, however we now have a working model.

The AIG-CIA connection is clear and was mentioned quite a number of times. The drug money laundry has two sources (incl one from Ruppert which cannot be double checked) which is not really enough yet, however it's just me, so maybe others can find more sources. There are strong indications that AIG has been set up as well as a laundry service by the OSS, since they need real money for their operations and these kind of companies are so huge that you can do it there.

The weakest link is Marsh, because that's because WTC1 started there and I don't trust that Bremer team with counterterrorism, bioterrorism, SAS teams and all kinds of weird stuff and the first explosion was in their office and that is the best place to start the operation. And I think that Bremer is capable. You need a serial killer psychopath and he could well fit that description.

WTC2 would have been the most difficult one since they only had the top floor of the impact and probably needed access to Fuji bank, so that's an open question.

Nevertheless we have a complete puzzle now and it is a lot more solid than the other big plans and it was an intelligence operation which makes a lot of sense. The only surprise is that the CIA probably doesn't exist anymore and that makes sense as well. It's privatized, independent, lawless. It can do whatever it likes whether Congress agrees or not.

Tell me, what do you think, based on the above quote of his work, that he would think about the No Planes At All hypothesis?

And that applies to all. And the term "loonies" is a very negative term, since they are all very good investigators even though they might reach strange conclusions. And yes, you can combine sources. It even contains the OCT since I think that Mohammed Atta et al. played a role. As drug smugglers bringing in the money for the operation and some of those "hijackers" are very vague, however I don't doubt that they played a part as al-Cokeda.

I assume that you call me a looney as well.

Brand dilution is the weakening of a brand though its overuse. This frequently happens as a result of ill-judged brand extension. Price cutting that increases volumes but moves a brand down-market similarly damaging the brand in the long term.

http://moneyterms.co.uk/brand-dilution/

Hopsicker has a brand. He's vitally concerned with how that brand is perceived, and has written several articles about a perceived brand extension (association of his research with people like Ruppert and Von Klein). In the strongest of terms, he has condemned this. He has done more of his by-you estimable research into the backgrounds of these people and found them very wanting.

And yet you are here, mixing the two, extending his brand as it were. You praise his research on the one hand, and ignore it on the other.

No. I don't think of you as a looney at all. I think you know exactly what you're doing.

And I do like his stories and there are some things like his opinions which are a bit off. I like to get some sort of overview of what happened and Venice is nice, however the major part of the crime was in New York City. So his investigation is only one part. A very vital part and it is sad that he is the only person doing that.

Ruppert is quite a character and I can understand Hopsicker for not liking him. He also has a background close to the intelligence community which is another problem, however his early investigation into the drug trade was amazing and pretty reliable. I think that copvcia was mainly influenced by Ruppert being irritated as a cop because his couldn't stop the flow, so he acted and in the beginning he was reporting and investigating honestly. And indeed his peak oil stuff seems irrelevant IMO. It doesn't disqualify his early work though.

On the one hand, you praise his research into Atta in Venice.

On the other hand, you discount his research into Ruppert and Von Kleist (how convienently you keep omitting his name) as "his opinions".

Now if you were concerned about promoting his research, you'd realize that by discounting what you don't like as "opinion", you are undermining what you actually like about it: Atta in Venice.

However, if someone were to wish to discredit Hopsicker entirely, both associating it with Von Kliest, and then discounting it as "opinion" would all fall into the game plan.

I'm sure you have the most honorable of intentions. After all, you are a registered member of DU.

Let me make that clear, however I think that you can mix research from several people and that is quite common. It's more or less the norm. Hopsicker can solve Venice, however he can't solve WTC and I prefer to see WTC solved, because that's the major crime and the drug dealing is minor in comparison.

Indeed I use Rupperts and Von Kleist (actually I haven't memorized his name yet) work and I think it is solid, so I can use it. I am not going to disqualify Ruppert because Hopsicker said so. That's madness. They have problems with each other for personal reasons and that's none of my business. I consider things like disqualify all of somebody's work merely based an "opinion." It is stupid to believe that everything anybody says is a lie. Even though the OCT contains 100s of lies, Mohammed Atta is a real character and he played a part, so you can use him despite the terrible source, because it was checked and there was a person called Mohammed Atta.

Mohammed Atta, the central hijacker, the money guy - the story behind his funding is a minor thing, and the WTC is the major thing???

By WTC, you mean the complex theories of plane holograms, controlled demolitions and what not, correct?

And with WTC I mean the big towers who used to be there. At least I remember seeing them and I didn't think that it was an illusion. I thought that they were real.

However logic has it that the likelyhood of planes striking those building is very small and I prefer the inside explosion theory (the insider did it) and image manipulation. I did it on logic and not on my eyes and I think that makes it stronger.

Personally if I have to choose between 5.5 tons of cocaine or killing 3000 people including 295 of their own staff. I think I go for the 3000 people, because that is major and therefore has the highest priority. And the best we can do is solve it, because there's no way we can do anything about it or prevent similar events in the future.

People saw the planes go in, people unassisted by the television, and yet your logic trumps their eyewitness testimony.

So are you sure you saw what you saw? Eyewitness testimony being so unreliable...

Ask them because maybe some of them can testify that they have been inside that building or even worked there.

I only saw them from airplanes and from the street level and they were genuine.

And I choose the no-planes option because one of the most likely companies to do something like that happened to occupy the floors and that was the reason, not the pictures. Even though I was sceptical about some of the material especially the Pentagon stuff.

How is it possible that a company which has the means to do this was on those floors?
How is it possible that the company with the most inside trading other than the airline was Marsh? (95 times the norm as well)
How is it possible that the SEC named Marsh as one of the companies inside the WTC who did a lot of inside trading?
How is it possible that mr. Bremer has a top position in that company and a goon squad which is pretty disgusting, because he runs a top team of mercenaries?

It makes it very, very likely that they themselves are prime suspects and that they blew the building from inside. In their office and got rid of some personel as well and the press reports seem to indicate that they didn't care and wanted to reap maximum benefit out of the disaster.

but the eyewitness testimony of the planes actually hitting the buildings is bad?

How is it that all those people saw the plane go in? What were they looking at, really?

Like I said before it's on reason and not on eyewitness account. You of course skipped all the other stories and just tried a trick question.

Thousands of people actually watched the plane hit the South Tower. You can hear some of them screaming about it and talking about it on the tapes.

What kind of "reason" ignores evident facts?

Who says that thousands saw the plane from the ground? There is even footage of a third plane who circled around the WTC just before the impact. Did they try to get a plane close to the WTC just before blowing it? ( http://worldtradecentertruth.com/ - The Flying Elephant)

I don't buy the plane option anymore. It's way to difficult. Image manipulation and propaganda is a lot easier. They have so many people defending for them and on their payroll, so let's add the plane drama.

I am focusing on the prime suspect. The one who had means, motive and opportunity to do it and they were right inside the building. And WTC1 was totally under their control and for WTC2 they either needed to work their way down or Fuji bank might have been bribed to go along with the plan. Pentagon same story. And it is a lot easier than flying a plane into a target.

Holograms? All those people were looking at something.

Thousands of people is a conservative guess, under the circumstances. New York is a mighty big town. You may have noticed that from your airplane. Lots of people live there, lots and lots. Describing them as "thousands" is really silly of me, actually.

And then you've got people across the river in Jersey watching it too. Thousands of people saw this. Tens of thousands.

Image manipulation and propaganda isn't a viable option for describing what these thousands of people saw.

Come on, give up the goods. How did the prime suspects convince thousands of eyewitnesses that they were watching a plane fly into a building, right in front of their eyes?

However did they see a plane which impacted? Did they see the impact themselves? Or did they just see a plane before this thing hit.

Nobody except for the French guys saw anything at WTC1. And WTC1 was totally under their control so it is very likely that WTC1 was blown from inside. If WTC1 was blown from inside, it'll be the same for WTC2. Why take the risk? Suicide pilots are very hard to find. I doubt whether there is anybody in the US willing to do it. Remote control is easier, however let's go for the easiest of them all. Image manipulation.

And there is also the Eisenhower building. I made a post about it months ago. ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=59600 )

There was a plume of smoke at the Eisenhower building, however nothing seemed to have happened there and it got buried in the news. Maybe that was a similar inside detonation which failed...

Image manipulation? Not of videotape, by which millions saw the second plane hit, but of the actual objects being seen by the thousands of people watching those towers? Image manipulation?

And then the first tower. Nobody but the "French guys" saw that plane.

Oh, and this guy:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/14/wtc.survivor/

LONDON, England -- A British-born architect who survived Tuesday's attack on the World Trade Center watched in horror from his 91st-floor office as a hijacked jet smashed into the building.

George Sleigh, 63, originally of Gateshead, England, told the Newscastle Evening Chronicle he was close enough to the point of the initial impact to see people in the cockpit of the hijacked American Airlines Boeing 767.

"When I close my eyes and picture that airline coming towards me and the people in the cockpit it is like a dream," Sleigh said.

Aftering hearing the whining engine of the jet, "I looked up out of the window and just a few feet away from the building was this huge jet plane," he said.

"The wheels were down and I could see the people in the cockpit. I thought to myself, 'Man this guy is low in the air,' but I still thought it would clear us. But then it smashed into the tower a few floors above me.

So what was he looking at? Image manipulation? Were people from Marsh dangling a acetate sheet over his window?

So the video images being manipulated to show a plane. Maybe another plane which didn't impact for the crowd. And some propaganda. I mean he says that he saw a pilot. A plane travelling at x00 miles/h (just fill in the x) and you can see the pilot is very unlikely especially if the plane is heading towards you, so the initial reaction would be escape since we are human beings and the instincts are very good.

There are so many planted stories and it seem that there are so many layers of deceipt in 9/11 that I prefer this new idea, because it has more potential than any other I've seen before. I'm saying it's right, however it's probably closer to the truth than some theories and a lot closer than the OCT.

On all sides of the WTC?

Who did they have planning this, David Copperfield? Because all of those people saw that plane go in. Nobody, not a single person, out of thousands, says that a plane flew near and then flew away as the explosion occurred. Everybody says the plane went in.

No Planes is the most unreasonable hypothesis out there. Stop associating Hopsicker with it.

If he feels hurt by my posts then it's a shame for him. I still respect his work, however I don't agree with all of his points. Just like we don't agree and we've discussed this enough for now.

I like the sheer simplicity of the no-planes option, because you can later add the planes and make your terrorist story. And quite a number of posters here do agree with that like Spooked and they have very good points like the above mentioned video, however that's weak physical evidence. If it would be possible to do it without - and it seem it is very much possible - it is an option.

Take a break ;) You've been a worthy adversary.

The mind boggles.

Hijack a plane, fly it into a building - complex.

Manipulate the images of hundreds of video cameras simulataneously (on seven second delays for live feeds), deceive thousands of people into seeing a plane, dispose of the actual Flight 175 along with all of its passengers, rig the explosives to look like a plane crash - simple.

Question to be answered after our "break": Why deal with Atta at all if there were no planes for him to fly into the building? Why isn't Hopsicker's work rendered moot and neutered by the no-plane hypothesis?

every Christmas. Doesn't mean they exist.

Not quite. There was only around 25-30.

And where did you get "thousands" of people saw this plane?

I'd guess that at least four times that are privately owned by people in the entire New York City area.

It may surprise you, BAB, that New York City has a population of 8 million people. 8 million! And that's just New York City. The people who live across the river in Jersey don't even count in that number!

So when I say "thousands of people saw that plane", I'm being incredibly conservative. I want you to wrap that incredibly mature mind of yours around that fact. Thousands of people saw the plane go into the building.

The no-plane option is a no-brain option.

The scapegoats needed to be Arabs and preferably a couple of guys with a shady background. So the Hopsicker investigation made it very clear that they were drug runners and if you track some of the aircraft you'll notice that they fly lots of small flights between the US and the Bahamas and the Caribean, so it makes sense that they are drug runners.

Blackops need funding and drugs was also the preferred funding in the past, since it's relatively easy. Since they are drug runners they are the least important of the team even though they are funding the operations. Sometimes cocaine gets discovered and then the pilot is simply out of luck and they know that.

So who is the best candidate? Those Arab drug runners, because they fit the description somewhat even though Hopsicker's investigation makes it very hard to believe that Mohammed Atta was a devout muslim. Still most people see that they are Arabs and therefore muslims, so they are fundamentalist and you have your reason to go war with Afghanistan and later Iraq. However 7 out of 19 are still alive, so maybe Atta is still alive as well.

And his investigation is not moot. I think that Royal Sons probably aren't in Venice anymore after Hopsicker ran that piece. They must have moved out by now unless they are really stupid. And that guy in New Zealand was probably partially kicked out, because the police in New Zealand more or less knew that he entered the country as a drug runner. So it helps a bit...

If there aren't any planes to fly, why do we need actual pilots? You haven't answered that. Why do we need real pilots?

This is an Operation Northwoods thing, right? All those passengers have been made up out of whole cloth, correct? So why do we need real pilots?? Fake pilots work just as well as real ones in the no-plane scenario, so why not leave Hopsicker out of it? Hopsicker's research only works when you have Atta in the pilot's seat of a real plane that flies into the building.

That was the beauty. They had shady Arabs who were pilots, so instead of al-Cokeda driving trucks filled with bombs and parking them under WTC, you could try the kamakaze pilot smashing into the building. Psyops events like 9/11 are used to create mass trauma in the population and the additional drama of watching a airplane fly towards the WTC before it blew up and then repeating the footage on TV over and over again, installed a severe trauma in the people.

Why won't you answer this question? Why do they need to fund Atta in Venice IF THEY DON'T PLAN ON FLYING REAL PLANES INTO THE BUILDING?

They got fake planes with fake passengers - they've gone to all that trouble. Why not fake pilots too - with letters of recommendation from Saddam Hussein??? Why real pilots with ties to Osama???

Answer the question!

Dumb story even for CNN, which incidentally is SpyOps central.

that is what you think from watching it on television. That particular spot is not visible to thousands of people. It's surpising how many people did not see the plane. Even those who were right there.

Thousands of people, in the streets of New York and the shorelines of the river, saw that plane fly into the building. Thousands, and that's an extremely conservative number.

planted on CNN, so you don't even have one eyewitness, let alone thousands.

Oh and you're welcome. :)

That particular location was only visible from a few places with a direct view. People were there and did not see the planes but heard the explosions. Even Judith Miller from the Times saw explosions , not planes. This is an argument that does not mean there were no planes, it just means fewer people could have seen them then you think. You would have had to be on a roof top or an upper floor with a clear view toward that side of the building in order to see it. Or directly below looking up at that instance. That is rare. Even if you are on the waterfront in Brooklyn, it is quite a distance to the wtc. The camera does a zoom so you think people actross the river could see it enlarged like that, that is how photograpohy/film can be deceiving. A person could live in Manhattan (I did for 2 years) and NEVER see the world trade centers. Even if you are at the scene, the height of the building, the closeness of the buildings, the angles of the buildings make it very unlikly that you have an unobstructed view to that particular spot. Even if you are in another tall building, chances are your view is blocked by other buildings. There is a web site of a guy who was there at the 2nd impact. There are all these photos of the fireball but no plane. Why? because he was not in the right place to see it. Rick Siegal, the guy who did Eyewitness 911 filmed from the Jersey Shore. He asked people who were there, he got there after the impact. No one he ever met saw the plane, that he asked that day or after., Does this mean there is no plane? No, it means that thousands did not see it, it was not visible from that many places with the naked eye. The way it is on tape or film makes us think that anyone in NYC or there abouts had this clear view . They didn't.
and if someone saw or heard a plane in the sky on it's way there, they weren't going to know that one is going to hit the wtc, lemme keep my eye on it. Planes fly overheard there all day long, so no one notices. Pictures of the wtc were often taken from helicopters which gives the illusion that everywhere in NY you have this unobstructed view, it's not that way.

even once to support your assertion, it's likely that you'll repeat the same nonsense repeatedly and pretend that it supports your assertion, but it still won't.

Ever met him? Ever talked to him and spent significant time with him? I have (I like him, btw). Until you have, it's probably best not to try to speak for his motives.

For the record, Hopsicker is right to find Von Kleist's (not Von Klein) reseacrh wanting. It's crap virtually all the way down. Ruppert's is a much more complicated mixed bag. I have no interest, nor should any researcher, in protecting anyone's brand identification. Hopsicker's work is fair game; his reputation should be no one's concern but his.

Am I mistaking what he actually wrote about Ruppert and Von Kleist (I really don't care how I spell his name)? You might want to spellcheck "research".

So you, like I, like Hopsicker's work (as much of it as I've read). So you, like I, detest Von Kleist's work. Ruppert we might disagree on. We're pretty much in agreement on most of the issues, but you don't have a problem with people tieing Von Kleist's lunacies to Hopsicker's research.

Explain to me how that works.

Hopsicker has his less-than-pure motives as well. I'm not suggesting anything sinister, but he's a businessman. He's unfairly dismissive of theories of wider 9/11 complicity, for one thing, and let's just say that I don't think it's his journalistic instincts that are primarily responsible for his aversion to them.

I can't get caught up in worrying about Hopsicker's reputation. He should have faith that people can separate the wheat from the chaff (some of his work is chaff, too. Virtually all of Von Kleist's work is).

that is such a freeperish term. That is how they try to discredit the left all the time. And what specifically makes them a "loonie"?
I think anyone who believes the Bush administration and corporate media without question is a "loonie".

You make it sound like it's an exclusive thing. It's not.

Anyone who believes the Bush Adminstration or the corporate media without question IS a looney. I agree wholeheartedly. Thank God I'm not somebody like that.

WTF, BBQ!

telling us which is the bigger loony.

not the conclusion. Give me one reason why he can't take information from where ever he wants (other than desperation on your part).

Why?

and I like how a lot of these news clips of the 2nd crash has their logos in the corner blocking the view of the plane coming in!

I agree, the 2nd plane seen on the videos are fake. This 1st video of the 2nd crash seen "live" is a dead giveaway too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9voNKHk9Y7U

The dark plane is obvious CGI and as someone pointed out, you don't actually see it hit, but see it disappear behind the North Tower since the North Tower is TOTALLY BLOCKING the South Tower! What's the odds the camera person lines up the shot that the South Tower is totally blocked by the North???


Now whether something really hit the 2nd tower is up for debate.

I like how you just show up here 11 posts ago and you're already supporting the WACKIEST theory yet (no planes at all on 9/11).

I hate summer vacation.

You saying that all these videos that have zoom-clues are just a coincidence? That would be some pretty high odds, wouldn't you think?

And how many posts am I supposed to have before I "support wacky theories"?

Heavens forbid if you are right...

Let me the first to welcome you LOL

Welcome to the Dungeon :toast:

:toast:

This was an incredible event. The news station had very likely just gotten that helicopter in the air. You have absolutely no evidence for "zoom clues".

I will give you credit for coming up with the freakiest 9/11 terminology yet. Zoom clues. Zoom zoom zoom.

How about you come back with some really evidence for your wacky theories, and then you can have as few posts as you like to tell us all about it.

"live feeds" are always on a couple second delay.

If you look at a lot of the 2nd crash videos, they seem to zoom in or out just at the right moment as if the camera man knew what was coming.

No, really. Bestow your knowledge upon us?

On edit: And I highly doubt that the live feed was on the seven second delay with the anchors. The final feed out to the satellites was, most probably, but I really doubt that the anchors were looking at anything other than the undelayed live feed.

If they had everything done in advance to make the final edit, it would only take a couple of seconds from their high-tech computers to make the final rendition after they exploded the South Tower.

Did you notice the 1st "live" second crash video showed the dark plane advance across the BLUE SKY (think "blue screen") and the North Tower was totally blocking out the South Tower?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

WTF? BBQ.

You can use landmarks in the wide-angle shot to estimate the position of the camera and its field(s) of view, plot those on a map against the path the plane took & its speed, and determine wether or not it would have been within the field of view at the time before the zoom-in.

There's no need for guessing or "should have"s here. Just do the math.

that you don't seriously believe this bullshit you just posted.

I know people who SAW the 2nd plane go in. Did they "digitise" this too?

This is without doubt the dumbest, dumbest idea I've ever come across.

No doubt you also think Princess Diana was murdered.

Me to. I know folks that watched the plane fly over their heads in Bayonne. Watched it fly into the tower.

This fact is discounted because anyone that challenges the no-planers are simply defined as government dis-info agents.

Welcome to the club. I'll be sending your secret decoder ring shortly.

I know people who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Guess that makes me an agent as well.

Shit man, why ain't I been paid yet?

Once you do that you get on the payroll.

I'm a have me some FINE rent boyz n' malt liquor TONITE! :toast:

Across the Hudson, that's New Jersey. Everyone along the Jersey side of Hudson had an unobstructed view of the towers.

now that was a credible post!

She probably was.

they also cover up the plane with NYToday sign, so it's hard to get a look at it. It's weird how they all look different from one another.

is that the plane does not look like it is going into the tower at all, but, is passing behind it, and then there is a momentary blackout, and then we see the explosive fire.

From this video, I do not think it is at all clear that the plane hit that second tower.

it looks like it's flying into the tower but then it comes out from behind the just exploding tower and flies off to the left toward Long Island.

For some reason I can't directly link to the CBS video. It is the 3rd one down from the top of the page.


http://www.bookyards.com/videos/memorial/World%20trade%20centre/?sdmfm

I think that film is disinfo. That "object" just doesn't show up anywhere else...it looks like it was taking off from downtown NYC and must have been traveling at Mach 5. There's some kind of refresh going on at a critical point in that video...whoever captured the video did sme extra work on it, IMHO.

for this particular video because aside from the plane coming in and out, the rest looks real.

All the other videos are closer and you only get to see the plane for a second or two before it hit. This is footage from much further away for a longer period of time before the plane comes in. What is significant is that we can see the whole sky, we are seeing things the other videos couldn't see. It would be easy enough to 'add' stuff to any film, so I'll dig around and see if I can find another more 'official' source.

I can't find anything before 2002 in assorted searches.

In their 9-11 section, the link to the videos works, but the videos are gone.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/september11/framesource_archive_videos.html

I'd really love to see this one titled 'Incredible footage of the second crash into the World Trade Center.'

too many sources taken from a multitude of angles. Everything about the actual crash sequence of 175 seems surreal and artificial...but I think that's because we just never witnessed such a horriffic crash.

Since CGI is a process added to existing footage, those plane videos that keep turning up could have been any time after 9/11. Seems like there are new ones all the time, doesn't it?

It also seems like they're getting more realistic, but I still haven't one that's convincing.

Every pair of eyes and every camera was trained on the WTC after the 1st crash...if this was all a fabrication, there'd be 10's of thousands of New Yorker's screaming "bullshit". I think I have a pretty open mind to considering all sides of the 9/11 argument, but a commercial airliner appears clearly to have crashed in the tower. I'll bet there are hundreds more videos that will appear on places like Youtube....because it is an easy place to upload and show the world what people in NYC captured on 9/11.

The early ones showed a plane that was clearly fake because it was in focus. Later ones show a more out-of-focus object, but the problem remains that it just vanishes into a solid steel wall, leaving a cookie cutter plane-shaped hole in the steel columns and spandrels.

When two high-speed trains collide, does one simply disappear into the other?

or plane parts or victims (or their belongings) INSIDE the WTC? I don't know if there were any people that worked in the WTC who worked on the floor where a plane supposedly crashed, but if there were, did any of them talk about having seen the above? How about rescuers? Did any of the fireman claim to have seen a plane or plane parts INSIDE the WTC on the floor where a plane supposedly crashed?

but I'm sure they'll get right on it. So far I've only seen pictures of a few plane parts in the street and on the roof of an adjacent building.

So yeah, you have to wonder, where did 100+ tons of metal, people, and luggage go when they supposedly hit the building?

p.s. welcome! :)

There's no good reason to not release any witness accounts of plane parts in the WTC, and if any pictures exist (that show plane parts INSIDE the WTC), there's no good reason to not release them, either.

Given that the public has seen images of a President asassinated in broad daylight, a Presidential candidate in Mexico murdered at a rally, an American allgedly beheaded in Iraq etc., the Gov't surely can't use the excuse of "the images are too graphic and shocking to allow them to be viewed by the public". After all, most people have seen the alleged WTC jumpers.

So, I'd think that if there were any credible eyewitness accounts of plane parts inside the WTC, we'd have heard about them. Likewise, pictures. Your point about "I'm sure they'll get right on it" is well taken.

Thanks for the welcome.

was it?

is what I'm getting at. Steel doesn't behave like marshmallow creme whether it's a train or a structural column.

If you want to believe that jumbo jets sliced cleanly through solid steel, then completely disintegrated into tiny fragments that removed the drywall and scoured all the fireproofing off the columns and trusses, go ahead.

But I don't know why you'd want to. :shrug:

the steel columns, though not cleanly. Near full fuel tanks in the wings add a lot of mass to the wings. The fuselage did hit head-on, causing all the mass of the fuselage to exert force on the wall in an area the size of the cross-section of the fuselage.
It is not that when two objects collide, the one that's stronger experiences no damage. It is not unexpected to me that both the plane and the building got damaged.

I do think it is quite likely that the plane broke up in the process and severely damaged a fair amount of dry wall. I don't think it is plausible that the pieces scoured all the fireproofing off the columns and trusses - some, quite possible - "all", quite unlikely.
With or without fireproofing, i don't think it is likely that the damage and the fire caused the buildings to completely collapse.

A passenger jet is basically an aluminum balloon. The Trade Center was basically a steel fortress.

:)

into the other?

No, of course not. But you are comparing apples to tomatoes here. In the WTC crash, you have a speeding mass that applies force to a relative small mass/area of steel. Of course the steel perimeter wall is going to fail quickly. The crash does look surreal, espcially when viewed on a frame-by-frame basis. But that is exactly what I would expect for a result. If the plane had impacted,crumpled, and fallen to the plaza....now that would have really blown my mind.

for the plane to get crushed and bounce off the outside of the building?


ever see pictures after a hurricane or tornado? wooden boards have been driven thru trees cleanly, with no damage other than the hole in the tree. now imagine if that board was loaded with jet fuel and would be a flying bomb. what do you expect it now to do now?

sheered off and bounced of the wall.

or is that sarcasm?

I can't believe you even bothered to explain why this idea is the epitome of idiocy to the poster.

CGI? This has GOT to be a joke.

How else could eyewitnesses be fooled?

It's easy to persuade witnesses that they saw something they didn't really see. Cops do it all the time in trials.

And in any court case, for that matter.

Somehow your claim doesn't ring entirely true.

some serious mental help.

I am sorry to say this, but to suggest that a plane did not hit the either of the towers is beyond preposterous, it is a sign of real psychosis.

It could be. I wouldn't rule it out.

But people are very capable of sticking their heads in the sand on matters like these, and still be quite functional in their normal lives. Psychotics tend to break loose.

Less than 3 dozen videos have shown up in almost 5 years, yet you are predicting that 'hundreds more will appear', yeah appear out of nowhere, just like the 'planes'.

Here a couple of clips from a couple of mainstream movies 'presaging' some of the events of 9/11.

Executive Decision
Independence Day
Armageddon

Watch the right wing tip disappear:



seen three times here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXlZXXqubrM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TodJ4n2j_9w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFxx1o84dj4


seen here too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zowKvlMIy4

Second Plane, UA175

QUOTE
I ran downstairs. No sooner did I run downstairs and look up, that I saw the second plane strike the south tower. When the second plane hit, it was just a lot of fire, a lot of black smoke. I only saw two people come out. Evidently from the explosion up on those floors they got blown out.

I walked about two, three minutes, and all of a sudden I heard a plane. I said oh, my God, we're being attacked again. Someone said it could have been a B15, a U.S. plane up in the air. Actually, what I think it was, was simultaneously the plane and the north tower coming down. So that's what the sounds were. I heard that rumble.

--LIEUTENANT MURRAY MURAD FDNY


QUOTE
After that I ran up to the roof on the third floor with me and Eric Bernsten. We were watching it. We could see it from here. We have an unobstructed view. The other guys came up too. All six of us were on the roof.

Then we saw the second one come up. It looked like it was coming up the East River from here. I guess it was coming from the south. I thought it banked over the East River, which is what it looked like. I thought it made a left over the East River and went right into it going from east to west. But as it turns out, it came from the south. Then we saw it just go right into the building and explode.

I remember talking to Eric. I remember Eric saying something, "Oh, my God, there's another plane." I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building.

--FIREFIGHTER JAMES MURPHY


QUOTE
as I'm walking towards the Engine to find out what Lieutenant Walsh wanted us to do, I heard the sound of a jet plane. I looked up and saw it pretty close and I was like holy @#%$. What's going on with the with the flight patterns. All of a sudden, the wings turned and it dove right into the building and it was screwed up.
--BARRETT HIRSCH EMS

QUOTE
As we were driving over the 59th Street bridge, just looking out the window, we saw a plane hit the World Trade Center, what we thought was a plane. When they looked, you could see the flames and the smoke starting and they're like, wow, it must have been one of the little planes. I said, no, it looked like a jet.

--PARAMEDIC KENNETH DAVIS plane hit WTC2


QUOTE
At some point after our arrival and after we had moved to the west side of West Street, I heard a loud roar of a jet, looked up and saw the second plane impact the south tower. At that point it was clear to me it was a terrorist attack. We stepped over small airplane aviation parts, on Vesey, continued west, continued looking at the building.

--CHIEF OF THE DEPARTMENT DANIEL NIGRO FDNY


QUOTE
JUST THEN OUT OF THE CORNER OF MY EYE COULD SEE THIS PLANE JUST REMEMBER THE DARK IT WAS IN THE SHADOW IT LOOKED LOW THOUGHT WHAT THE HECK IS THE GUY DOING WATCHED IT WATCHED HIM TURN AND CRASH RIGHT INTO THE SOUTH TOWER.

I SAID THOUGHT THAT THAT SECOND PLANE THAT WENT INTO THE SOUTH TOWER WAS MILITARY PLANE LIKE TRANSPORT OR SMALL CARGO MILITARY.

THE REASON THOUGHT THAT FOUND OUT LATER THE SUN NEVER SHINED OFF IT IT WAS DARK COLOR PLANE IT ENDED UP FOUND OUT LATER IT WAS WHY IT WAS UNITED AIRLINES. They PAINT THEIR PLANES DULL GRAY AND BLUE DIDNT SEE ANY SHINE OFF THE PLANE WHEN IT WENT FROM DARK TO SUN.

--BATTALION CHIEF BRIAN OFLAHERTY


QUOTE
I was looking up to see if I could do a little more initial size up. That is when I saw the second plane hit the building . I just watched it coming in.

--EMS CAPTAIN MARK STONE


QUOTE
WHILE WEWERE RIGHT UNDER HERE UNDER THE WESTSIDE HIGHWAY AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE I SEEN THE SECOND PLANE COMING I’M THINKING ISNT THAT PLANE TOO LOW I’M LIKETHEN NOTICED SEEN IT TURN IT TURNED AND WENT RIGHT IN THE BUILDING BUT WERE BEHIND LIKE THIS IS THE BUILDING IT WENT IN AND YOU SEE THE EXPLOSION IN THE front

--EMT JARJEAN FELTON


QUOTE
It was at that time when I saw the second plane hit the building. I called a mayday. I told them the second plane hit the south tower of the building. I wasn't sure which floors it was, but I knew it hit the upper floors of the south tower. Debris was falling, body parts were falling. We ducked for cover inside Engine 7, but the rig was getting bombarded with debris from the building, debris from the plane. We saw bodies crash landing right next to the rig. So we couldn't stay there.

--FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH CASALIGGI saw the planes hit & bodies


QUOTE
FIREFIGHTER THOMAS GABY

Q. The second plane?

A. I saw it coming in, I heard it, and bang, it hit


QUOTE


WE PARKED THE VEHICLE ON KENT GOT OUT. I STOOD THERE STARING AND THEN WATCHED EVENTUALLY THE SECOND PLANE SAW IT IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS CIRCLING COMING SOUTH THEN CAME BACK NORTH STRIKING THE SOUTH SIDE OF TOWER NO 2.

--PARAMEDIC JOEL PIERCE


QUOTE
Police guided us across the West Side Highway, then we heard a loud roar and looked up to see a second jet headed right for the south tower. We heard the engines speed up as it turned sideways and hit the corner of the building head on. It looked like it melted into a fireball. We thought there might be other planes. So we all started running toward the Hudson River to the ferry service to New Jersey. The ferry was packed with people crying and hugging one another, not knowing if their coworkers were dead or alive.

--Carl Cunneff, 36, an oil broker who works at the World Financial Center, located across the street from the WTC.


QUOTE
I live across the river from the World Trade Center and can see it from my street. I went out to look after the first crash and saw a plane coming in low and make a deliberate turn towards the building. Then I saw the explosion. We watched all morning the smoke drifting towards us and saw the towers collapse. Each collapse shook my house. Many of my friends and neighbours were in those buildings. Later we saw Stealth Bombers circling overhead. Later still, some of the smoke started drifting over us and tiny bits of soot would occasionally fall. I wonder if the bodies of my friends and neighbours are part of that soot. Many children in my town will be parentless tonight.

--Beth Goodtree, Bloomfield, NJ; USA



QUOTE
Lakshman Achutan, an economist, was attending a meeting on the ground floor of the north tower when it was attacked. He described the initial impact, his escape, and his view of the second plane as it approached the south tower in an interview conducted on October 31:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?amme...(afc911000144))


College student Denise Weiss was evacuated from her school near the World Trade Center and saw the north tower in flames and an airliner slam into the south tower. Interview:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?amme...(afc911000117))



QUOTE
Rick Thornton
Ferry captain

"On the morning of September 11 2001, I was doing what I usually do every morning, taking passengers from New Jersey over to midtown Manhattan.

At approximately 0845 we saw the explosion and saw the smoke erupting from the first tower that had been hit. We saw the second plane hit about 10 minutes later"



QUOTE
then ari called my cell phone and i told him " that a @#%$ car bomb just went off at the world trade center. " " no, a plane hit the building! " i looked up and saw that the north tower had a big burning hole at the top of it and i couldn’t believe it. at this point i was staring skyward walking north towards where i work. a security guard was starting to tell people that we should walk south, so i headed one block west into battery park. at this point there were a mob of people in the streets, but everyone was calm. all of a sudden, i heard the sound of an airplane and looked up to see a f---- commercial jet slam right into the south tower. i was probably only 200 yards from the base of the building and watched the plane come in, hit the building and explode. all of a sudden it was like a movie scene, where everyone just turned and were literally running for their lives.

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_f...ts/01815083.htm



QUOTE
From: Seno Park
Subject: Re: Re: Are you ok?

My company is located in one block south of WTC, and I
was on my way to CIBC(one of our client) which is in
the World Financial Center at 8:40am. I witnessed the
first attack, ran, saw the second plane flying over my
head crashing into the other building, ran, then came
back to my company only to witness the whole thing
collapsing in front of my eyes! I ran again, and all
the people in my building were trapped in the lobby
since it was completely black outside. 20 minutes of
anguish, and just when we were about to come out as it
clears, second one collapsed. Blackout again... I saw
people jumping off the windows, suffering ashma and
heart attacks when we were all trapped.
The whole thing still doesn't seem real to me. I am
glad everyone is fine.

www.stinky.com/wtc/stories3.html



QUOTE
When I reached the lobby, I heard that a plane had hit Tower 1. My first thought was that this was an accident. I remember watching small planes fly by at lower altitudes when I worked at the building. I thought that someone had probably lost control of a Cessna and hit the building. The lobby was crowded with exiting hotel guests and rescue workers. Small pieces of broken glass, metal and burning paper were showering down.

Once clear of the falling debris, I turned to look up at Tower 1. I was also looking for Mike. It turns out that we were probably about half a block apart at that point, but within moments, we heard the second plane approaching and saw it slam full speed into the tower above us. The scene was so surreal that we still can't believe what we saw. It was complete chaos with people running, screaming and falling down.

http://www.betterinvesting.org/articles/bi/366/5009

That's what the first fireman is saying. And if the third "plane" didn't hit, then it's possible the second one didn't, either.

And, don't forget that these firemen were briefed by the CIA.

Can you see that projectile/plane to the left of the North Tower just as the South Tower is being attacked?



Assuming it is a jet of some denomination......it would have to have been flying somewhere near or over the east river.....

That jet plane over the East River? How do you figure that?

Seriously. From the information available on that picture, I want you to show your work. How exactly did you arrive at the location of East River for that jet plane?

After that I ran up to the roof on the third floor with me and Eric Bernsten. We were watching it. We could see it from here. We have an unobstructed view. The other guys came up too. All six of us were on the roof.

Then we saw the second one come up. It looked like it was coming up the East River from here. I guess it was coming from the south. I thought it banked over the East River, which is what it looked like. I thought it made a left over the East River and went right into it going from east to west. But as it turns out, it came from the south. Then we saw it just go right into the building and explode.

I remember talking to Eric. I remember Eric saying something, "Oh, my God, there's another plane." I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building.

--FIREFIGHTER JAMES MURPHY

You were pointing a plane to the left of the WTC towers flying past after the second tower has been hit. (That's clear, the south tower has flames along the floors where the plane has already hit it.

Now you're saying that that plane came up along the East River and then hit the building. But it can't be. In the picture the south tower has already been hit. The one in the picture you were pointing out is not James Murphy's second plane.

So again I defy you to explain how you think that jet in the distance is merely over the East River.

....which calls into question the authenticity and accuracy of their testimony......

The east river separates Brooklyn(and Queens) from lower Manhattan:



James Murphy's firecompany(Engine 212) is situated in Brooklyn:



Yet James Murphy claims that Flight 175 flew from east to west:



But James Murphy is not alone when it comes to eye witnesses in Brooklyn who saw a plane circulating ominously overhead and then WITHOUT seeing the crash assumed that this windowless plane was the cause of it:



The plane/projectile in the below foto appears to be over the East river/Brooklyn area:



How many people thought this plane was the cause of the explosion in WTC2?

What reasoning process gives you the confidence to state that?

Nobody thought that plane caused the explosion in the South Tower. In that picture, the South Tower has already been hit!

.....over the east river?

After all ....that is what eye witness James Murphy says:

"Then we saw the second one come up. It looked like it was coming up the East River from here. I guess it was coming from the south. I thought it banked over the East River, which is what it looked like. I thought it made a left over the East River and went right into it going from east to west. But as it turns out, it came from the south. Then we saw it just go right into the building and explode."

Strange.....but according to the 9/11 commission's diagram




.....I don't see Flight 175 coming either up or down the east river...do you?

So either your witness James Murphy is talking out of his ass......or so is the 9/11 Commission...possibly both....

But the projectile/plane that is seen in this foto:



....seems to be either NEAR OR over the east river......

And when I say near....I mean Brooklyn:

You know ...Brooklyn ...where the windowless plane was spotted:



You disagree with me.....then give me your reason...if you can:

But just to give you a sense of perspective...here is the East river as seen from the west:







Face it bolo....Murphy is either confused,lying or embellishin' half truths with lies.....the same goes for your beloved 9/11 Ommission Report.

Believe them if you will....but I won't.

And whilst we are at it....what are windowless planes doing, flying around both before during and possibly after the South Tower is attacked?

Not all paramedics.

The plane hit the building.

a plane in the distance and thinks to himself ,that plane is going to hit the other tower and watches it and memorizes it's path?

Neither are any of those witnesses.

although you don't know that. If you look at the statements there is something wrong with many of them. For example, the lady from Bloomfield, NJ, well, Bloomfield is 30 miles from lower Manhattan and to the north. Even if she could see 30 miles away she was on the north side of the impact. One fire fighter was from ladder 2 in New York which is on West 3rd street. For one thing, that is quite a ways away for another it is on the north side of the impact as well. I don't know why I'm even arguing this, I'm not convinced of "no plane", but there are problems with a lot of this part of the story , too.

...correctly that it will crash into the WTC?

What's wrong with seeing a plane fly up to the building, seeing a huge explosion, seeing no plane fly away, and then saying, "I saw the plane hit the building?"

I'll tell you why you're arguing it, even though you aren't convinced of "no-plane." I'm (me, boloboffin) on the other side. You have given me, a slightly anonymous poster on a website, full control over what you do or think on a certain subject. Oh, you don't believe a single thing I say, and if I start arguing against something, that's reason enough for you to stand against me, even if you don't really believe what it is you're defending. And if I dig in, you'll come to believe what you defend, and defend it to the very end. That's the kind of power over your thoughts and actions that you have ceded to me. You don't always confront me, but I'll bet you a dollar that every time you see I've posted, that you think you ought to say something.

Do you see a problem with my story?

Hey, where did that plane come from?!?!

This last picture is 8 seconds from the first frame, and 6 seconds from the second frame.

The plane appeared out of NOWHERE.

The only real explanation is insertion of a digital image in the close-up shot.

In the second frame, there is 1.1 miles from the south tower to the right hand side of the screen. Officially, the plane was going 540 mph-- or 9 miles per minute, which equals 0.9 miles per 6 seconds. (of course, there is the argument that this is absurdly fast for a 767 at sea level)

In any case--
the plane should have appeared in the second frame.

Yo Spooked!

This anonymouse witness claims flight 175 did a u-turn(which this same witness claims to have filmed)

At this point I was still under the impression that this was an accident and after watching and filming this other plane make a U turn and head back towards the towers nothing in the world could have prepared me for what would happen next.I dont recall that feeling I got when I filmed that plane hitting the second tower,but the screams from the people around me and the anguish and tears in the eyes of the shocked man standing next to me is something I will never forget.

http://forums.ebay.com/db2/thread.jsp?forum=121&thread=...

But in the below video there is no sign of that u-turn!



Keep up the great work Spooked!

is the most obvious that it was planned.

I doubt it. Using Google earth I got somewhere around 0.8 miles. Also the jet fly in form the south. The camera angele is from the Northwest, so the plane was further from the towers than the camera.

gives it away. Unless you are a coincidence theorist.

that every time a video clip zooms in, it's sign that the video is tampered with, yes?

at the perfect time, yes, the odds are too great for it all to be coincidence. Agree?

You will never ever say something this silly again.

Well, you may say something just as silly, and so might I. But you won't ever make the same statement again.

a zoom in is evidence of a coincidence theory?

Too many to chalk up as coincidence unless you're a coincidence theorist.

It is what we would expect to see. What are the chances that all of the camera operators had their preferred field of view for the airplane collision? Some were zoomed in very close to details of the building, other were zoomed far out to see the big picture. When the operators realized another plane was headed toward the WTC, most of them adjusted their field of view one way or the other.

This is another case were evidence that actually disproves crazy theories is ridiculously spun.

If it was recorded from northwest it would mean that there is MORE to view at south, not LESS...

In the opening shot, the plane would be 0.4 pixels high: in the second, maybe 1 pixel - less, if it was approaching from the far side of the towers. You're not going to to be able to see that on a compressed video. It's not evidence either way, I'm afraid...