3 Videos w/more evidence of NRPT and Fakery of Gashes in First Impact

reply to post by alienanderson


Amazing what you can do by simply fast forwarding a video isnt it?

Typical of debunkers though. They present a video that for the first 30 seconds shows actual footage or proof of something then quickly switch to faked material that is obvious if seriously analyzed. NO helicopter flys past a building in a matter of seconds with the background moving at miles per hour (unless its like 10 feet away which this shot isnt).

Originally posted by Erasurehead

Originally posted by matrixNIN11

Originally posted by Erasurehead
I can tell you from personal experience that planes hit both WTC towers.
I witnessed the planes hit with my own eyes. There were no missles. Big jet airlines plowed into them. I was at work that morning and saw it happen, I will never forget that day.

I have the most rocksolid proof, what I saw with my own eyes. Not some video feed or film. When you are ready to do a real investigation about your no plane theory let me know. Maybe it would be helpful to actually interview people that witnessed the event instead of just watching video on the internet. I will not post my personal information on ATS. Send me a U2U when you want to come to NYC to talk. I will meet you in person and bring you to the exact spot I was standing when I and at least 20 other people from my office saw planes hit the WTC towers. I will introduce you several other eye witnesses that saw PLANES !!!

Erasurehead,

Do the TV footage from 9/11 represent what you saw live with your friends from the office.

D.Duck

Originally posted by alienanderson

Originally posted by Nonchalant

Originally posted by Finalized
The one thing that really caught my attention was the "bridge walking" across the video. If someone knows where the original is or can explain that away, then I would appreciate it.

Ah, dont mind those walking bridges. And you can ignore those buildings in the foreground that move from left to far right in the September Clues videos too. Its nothing..

I found this clip which tries to explain the drifting bridge phenomenon:

youtube - moving bridge debunked

Have a look and see what you think

Are you really serious? That video is supposed to have debunked the moving bridge? MMMMMkkkkay. I still don't even know what they're trying to show. Aside from the helicopters being fake, that video only seems to validate the MsM fakery even further.

Originally posted by Orion7911
Are you really serious? That video is supposed to have debunked the moving bridge?

The moving bridges is a mystery to me at the moment & that's the only vid I've come across that tries to explain it.

Do you not think the explanation of helicopter drift and extreme zoom explains the moving bridge? Fair enough.

Seems rational to me but I'd kinda like to read or watch some informed opinions on the matter before making my mind up

[edit - found another vid]

Another vid - youtube - Bridge Moving?

Do you think this explanation is valid?



[edit on 4/5/2009 by alienanderson]

Originally posted by Orion7911
Are you really serious? Aside from the helicopters being fake.

Are YOU really serious? The helicopters are fake, the buildings are fake, the bridges are fake, the videos are fake, all the witnesses that saw the planes are lying. Give me a frakkin break. NPT disinfo artists make me ill.....

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Is it any wonder? The NPT icon is Nico Haupt. Google that name if you want a laugh.

There is a video out there that shows plane parts and one guy that got killed by a big chunk of falling wreckage. That would seemingly be hard evidence to dispute - though I suppose the NPT crowd might try.
I wonder if the victim's death certificate listed cause of death as crushing damage from falling airplane parts or something to that effect?

reply to post by Smack


I've already shown that video and they said "prove it was a plane part". There's no winning with these guys. That's why they're called "disinfo artists" or the "disinfo cult". No matter how many facts you educate them with, they go by the same script like an annoying telemarketer.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Did anyone ever find out the name of the person killed? I'd be very interested to hear the stories of those that witnessed it.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by Smack

 

I've already shown that video and they said "prove it was a plane part". There's no winning with these guys. That's why they're called "disinfo artists" or the "disinfo cult". No matter how many facts you educate them with, they go by the same script like an annoying telemarketer.

Because most of them know they're promoting bull#. Some sadly were duped and spew the same mindless drivel they find elsewhere with no effort to come up with anything on their own.

Can you link me up to the video that shows this please?

reply to post by spy66


I understand that, however, it would have been very obvious having any shaped charges hanging on the exterior of the columns, or inside the building all along the wingspan. Also, the exterior columns and the cladding showed impact damage, not being blown up from the inside to the inside.

reply to post by GenRadek


The Naudet WTC1 video has been picked apart over the years with dozens of problems.
I wish I had documented every anomally, but here’s a list that come to mind:

the ruse of a natural gas leak was used to evacuate a school closer to the trade center;

the fire department was called to that location and instructed to block the road;

a natural gas emergency would be dealt with by the utility company, not the fire dept (NYFD easier to order around);

with the road blocked, the Naudets are free to go through the motions of filming fireman and then turning to the tower to capture the explosion with no interference from traffic or pedestrians;

supposedly there is a 767 approaching and then passes overhead and no one hears it;

the fireman looks over his left shoulder as instructed but the plane is on his right side;

original videos had the flash immediately before impact, but later versions had it edited out;

different videos have different audio tracks;

one occupant above that level called out reporting the core had exploded from the inside out into the office areas and they were trapped and waiting calmly for rescue;

if it weren’t for the fire up high in WTC1, the breaking news would’ve been the explosions in both towers' sublevels;

Add to this, the problems noted at the beginning of this thread.

I’m glad the squibs were pointed out at the penthouse- they took out the freight elevator and possibly began dismantling the hat truss right from the gitgo. These explosions, separated so many floors away from the phony impact, with no other windows blown out in between, proves separate preplanted explosions, not jetfuel fire.

reply to post by jrnsr


Geez *snip* - gas leaks are common occurance for Fire departments
which is why we carry gas detectors on our trucks !

Blocking the street - why if there is a gas leak would you want anyone
to drive through the area?

As for the plane - you can see the firemen looking up to find source
of noise - planes do not fly over Manhattan


Mod Edit: Nope on the personal attacks. Cheers -alien

[edit on 26-6-2009 by alien]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Orion7911
Are you really serious? Aside from the helicopters being fake.

Are YOU really serious? The helicopters are fake, the buildings are fake, the bridges are fake, the videos are fake, all the witnesses that saw the planes are lying. Give me a frakkin break. NPT disinfo artists make me ill.....

Once again, instead of showing any line by line counter-argument or evidence to support how and where what you claim is true or false, you dodge giving any such specific evidence, and shift the attention away by making more assertions and unsubstantiated claims.

Typical of a Real disinfo artist. No wonder so many new to 9/11 get confused. You're a professional. Do you get paid to do this?

Originally posted by alienanderson

Originally posted by Orion7911
Are you really serious? That video is supposed to have debunked the moving bridge?

The moving bridges is a mystery to me at the moment & that's the only vid I've come across that tries to explain it.

Do you not think the explanation of helicopter drift and extreme zoom explains the moving bridge? Fair enough.

Seems rational to me but I'd kinda like to read or watch some informed opinions on the matter before making my mind up

[edit - found another vid]

Another vid - youtube - Bridge Moving?

Do you think this explanation is valid?
[edit on 4/5/2009 by alienanderson]

No.

Its even more laughable than the other. I'm just amazed you wouldn't know why.

With debunking like that, its no wonder the video fakery camp continues to grow.

Still with the no planes thing?

The more I see and hear of it the more I am convinced it's disinfo.

I'm afraid I lost patience with the thread and only read the first two pages.

One very clear thing to emerge here is that when asked to explain how the face of the WTC could be punched inwards by an exterior explosion, the question is avoided.

I looked at the videos and frankly thought they were grasping at straws on the NPT thing, although some of the perspective stuff and how buildings change position is interesting. While this suggests some sort of trickery, it by no means proves the NPT.

It's also interesting that so many of the people who espouse the NPT thing immediately attack anyone who opposes it as a shill. I'm afraid I think the NPT is there to make the truth movement, such as it is, look ridiculous; and it's also to get people running around asking the wrong questions.

There are shills around. I'm pretty sure I identified one in Fintan Dunne, and he's not only big mates with Fetzer, who I think is promoted because he's permanently angry and will immediately put off a lot of people, but he's now trying to smear Steven Jones as a CIA mole. Jones, of course, is lately becoming a real threat because he's analyzing the dirt from the WTC and finding thermite. Can't have that.

Originally posted by jrnsr
reply to post by GenRadek

 

The Naudet WTC1 video has been picked apart over the years with dozens of problems.
I wish I had documented every anomally, but here’s a list that come to mind:

the ruse of a natural gas leak was used to evacuate a school closer to the trade center;

the fire department was called to that location and instructed to block the road;

a natural gas emergency would be dealt with by the utility company, not the fire dept (NYFD easier to order around);

with the road blocked, the Naudets are free to go through the motions of filming fireman and then turning to the tower to capture the explosion with no interference from traffic or pedestrians;

supposedly there is a 767 approaching and then passes overhead and no one hears it;

the fireman looks over his left shoulder as instructed but the plane is on his right side;

original videos had the flash immediately before impact, but later versions had it edited out;

different videos have different audio tracks;

one occupant above that level called out reporting the core had exploded from the inside out into the office areas and they were trapped and waiting calmly for rescue;

if it weren’t for the fire up high in WTC1, the breaking news would’ve been the explosions in both towers' sublevels;

Add to this, the problems noted at the beginning of this thread.

I’m glad the squibs were pointed out at the penthouse- they took out the freight elevator and possibly began dismantling the hat truss right from the gitgo. These explosions, separated so many floors away from the phony impact, with no other windows blown out in between, proves separate preplanted explosions, not jetfuel fire.

Firefighters heard the plane. People did. You cannot fake or hide a 767 flying over Manhattan, and crash it into a building without a soul noticing it didnt.

But you fail to explain one thing that no one else can explain, how do "pre-planted" explosives make the exterior columns go inside in the exact shape of the aircraft and make the wingtip marks on the aluminum cladding?

Also: The "flash" has already been explained as nothing more than basic physics in action. The kinetic energy of the aircraft slamming into the building turns into heat energy. This location was in the nose of the aircraft. That flash is the kinetic energy turning into heat energy which can be seen in the video. Of course, many so called "truthers" use video that is SO blurry, and SO out of focus, that, heck, you can slip or see anything you want in it. They never use the clear shots, but always use the purposely blurred or fuzzy video, usually edited by another "truther".

As for the cores being "blasted into the office spaces in the WTC Tower, did you stop and think that maybe this person was on the opposite side of the Tower during the impact, and that core "blasting in" was the direct result of the aircraft's impact and debris flying through the Tower, thereby knocking the core pieces and debris INTO the offices?

The audio tracks? Oh you mean those that were purposely changed by the so-called "truthers"? Its been already proven that many videos were edited by those claiming to be a part of the "truth movement". And then other truthers began using those videos and believing they were unaltered. You are correct, there are altered and edited videos, except not by those that you think.

[edit on 6/26/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek

Naudet's fake video

gas leaks are common occurance for Fire departments which is why we carry gas detectors on our trucks!

Fire Departments don’t maintain gas mains. Is it Con Edison in NYC? They’d have been there in a heartbeat.

It is also a good excuse to block the streets to stage an “amateur video”, too.

As for the plane - you can see the firemen looking up to find source
of noise - planes do not fly over Manhattan

Firefighters heard the plane. People did. You cannot fake or hide a 767 flying over Manhattan, and crash it into a building without a soul noticing it didnt.

You guys intentionally skirt the real issues. You can’t answer it, so you evade it.
At the beginning of the video, there’s supposedly a jetliner flying full throttle less than a mile away, and no one looks up; it isn’t until the Boeing has passed by to his right that the fireman looks to his left. This isn’t real, this is scripted to fake the “amateur” vid.

But you fail to explain one thing that no one else can explain, how do "pre-planted" explosives make the exterior columns go inside in the exact shape of the aircraft and make the wingtip marks on the aluminum cladding?

Quite the contrary. For years, I’ve posted my analysis as an engineer on how easily it was pulled off. For those with no experience in heavy construction, I can see how it difficult it would be to understand. Usually, right after that article gets posted, it is yanked off the forum and I am banned. Took less than 2 minutes @ Lxxxxxx Cxxxxxxx. The censorship against No Planes at WTC is as vicious today as it was a few years ago when we tried preaching No Planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville.
This thread started on Naudet’s video fakery. The “holes” is another story.

The "flash" has already been explained blah blah bah

Pretty lame blarney. The flashes were the video mark (likely a few feet of detcord) to locate the very center of the explosion, and the video frame, where the nose should be touching the tower to coordinate the pasted plane images with the explosions. The flash has been edited out of later videos. (blame that on "truthers", too,) The flash and explosions always are in synch, the plane impacts vary as you would know if you studied videos frame by frame.

As for the cores being "blasted into the office spaces in the WTC Tower, did you stop and think that maybe this person was on the opposite side of the Tower during the impact, and that core "blasting in" was the direct result of the aircraft's impact and debris flying through the Tower, thereby knocking the core pieces and debris INTO the offices?

The victim described the situation in his recorded live phone conversation, as the core had "exploded out into the office areas and blocked their escape." Now you’re saying he was mistaken? Maybe that call was faked by “truthers” too.

If you still believe planes crashed at the Pentagon and Shankesville, then you have a long ways to go before understanding the Trade Center.

Fire Departments don’t maintain gas mains. Is it Con Edison in NYC? They’d have been there in a heartbeat.

Been to innumerable gas leak calls in my 20+ years in the fire service

When there is a gas leak the first people called is the fire department

All our apparatus carry a multi gas detector under the front seat

On scene we block the street and then survey the area checking sewer
grates, man holes and other openings for gas. If you get the right
concentration of gas and air forms an explosive mix - LEL (lower
explosive limit ) of natural gas is 4% gas, UEL (Upper Explosive limit)
is 17%

If we find gas contact the utility to check and repair the leak - depending
on location may be an hour before they get there

[SNIP]

Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary insult.

[edit on 27-6-2009 by Gemwolf]

Originally posted by Orion7911
With debunking like that, its no wonder the video fakery camp continues to grow.

And by "continues to grow" he means continues to get banned at forums around the net. Members of their "camp" get banned on these forums, then they make socks and come back and get banned again. Or other forums just ban the discussion of NPT altogether so they don't even have to worry about having the NPT camp coming on their forums and disrupting them.

Yep, that's what I call growing! Maybe that's why they can't see that real planes hit the towers either! Unbelievable.

reply to post by jrnsr


I can tell by your statement that you have never been to NYC. There are 4 airports within 20 miles of Manhattan. Maybe even closer. To hear a jet is not too new. Obviously this plane was flying on a much different course, but probably most didnt take notice. I live under the landing/take-off route to O'Hare Intl. You get used to hearing and seeing jets flyby. And are you watching the truther edited version without the sound AND blurry video?

Ahh right, it was "easy" to create a perfect outline of the aircraft right down to the wingtip imprints on the aluminum cladding with magical explosives that nobody saw on the exterior. Right.... and if anyone else buys that, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I got for sale! No offense, but I can see why they take down your analysis. So explain it if it soooooo easy to do. Remember, you have to somehow cut into the floor trusses, remove the truss seats in certain places to plant magic explosives, patch it all up again, plant those magic explosives on the exterior columns without a soul inside or outside noticing, have it all perfectly lined up from wingtip to wingtip with explosives, and having to deal with the floors, trusses, and everything else in the way. And specify, was it all planted on the exterior with magic cloaked demolitions? I'm looking forward to this.

Ah yes and then be sure to explain how aircraft debris rained down on the opposite side of the Tower after impact.

As for the "flash" I'm surprised that you as an engineer apparently ignored basic physics during engineering school, or are handwaving it away. You can see the same flash effect in the famous F-4/Wall crash test. Kinetic energy into heat energy.

In the original video, the flash is not as evident, however in later truther edited videos, it is. The videos created by the truthers are blurrier, fuzzier, and also are overexposed with brightnesses changed and so on. This has already been exposed on another thread, if I find it I will repost it here.

And I see that what I said about the Tower's core and the survivor just went over your head. Or you are having a bad case of reading incomprehension. Either way, I'll just repost what I said earlier:
As for the cores being "blasted into the office spaces in the WTC Tower, did you stop and think that maybe this person was on the opposite side of the Tower during the impact, and that core "blasting in" was the direct result of the aircraft's impact and debris flying through the Tower, thereby knocking the core pieces and debris INTO the offices?

Now, am I saying the guy is mistaken or lying? no. I am offering you a reason as to why the guy mentioned the core being blasted inwards into the office, which you ignored, or didnt understand. He may have very well been on the other side of the impact and the debris from the crash went THROUGH the Tower, dislodging and impacting the core, and sending into his office. Are you aware of the Tower's layout for offices? The go all the way around the Tower. is it that hard to picture the debris from the plane going through the core area and "blasting" some of it into the offices on the other side of the core?