OMG! HUGE Cache of New 911 footage released !!!

and I can pretty much tell u why they
chose these particular videos to manipulate.
Because of the blue sky background
behind the plane in every hoaxed
video. It's way simpler to hoax when you
don't have to line up building edges
in the overlay. They were chosen
for their ease of manipulation.
The sky can be copied and
pasted into the overlay a lot
easier than lining up the side
of a building and it's edges.
Too much detail for that.

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

Anyways what I still cant get over is why the plane didnt disintegrate on impact like this

phantom vs wall

that phantom was travelling at 500mph , and the 757 was going faster than that and had more fuel !
and when you look at the video of the plane hitting the WTC the just in the frame as it hits the side there doesnt even appear to be any initial surface damage like a hole appearing or a tear in the structure , it just looks like the plane slices right through it .

If the building was designed to withstand imapcts from airliners then fair enough but it doesnt even look that bad on initial impact.

Well, for one, hitting a thin steel and glass facade is a heck of a lot different than slamming into an anchored, reinforced concrete slab many feet thick. The WTC towers were designed to withstand and survive an impact, but not by having objects bounce off the outside of it.

reply to post by larphillips


Yeh the concrete was anchored on the phantom test .
however it was just reinforced concrete the WTC was reinforced concrete then a steel skeleton?
Surely they are equal in strength , the WTC is of course anchored as well.

Ayways this 9/11 just gets weirder and weirder as the years roll by !
The most shocking thing about it is not that we cant get a definitive answer on what actually happened that day , but why all those people had to die and are still dying because of that one event.

That really does look like a nicely done demolition...I just wonder when and how it was rigged. There's media sources telling there was occupancy in that building, although I haven't seen sources stating if the entire building was being leased, which I doubt.....Office space in WTC7 I imagine would be quite expensive.

Aaahhh yes, the disappearing wing trick. Whoever created that CGI monstrosity needs to get their tail back to video editing school and relearn how to properly layer video files.

And by the way, it is extremely unlikely that this disappearing wing is the result of video compression, low resolution, contrast, lighting, reflection, coloring and all the other rubbish mentioned by the 9/11 debunkers turned professional digital video editors. The previously mentioned anomalies usually affect the entire video, not just one small section of it.

Why this (and many other videos) were altered is anybody's guess. However, one can easily see that this poor quality work is similar to the lousy TV fakery we saw live on 9/11 from the various media outlets. Therefore, we can assume it was done by the same flunkies who had a hand in selling this mass media deception to the general public.

Please let me know when someone locates what would appear to be a non-doctored, non-digitally altered video of an actual commercial airliner impacting the tower(s) taken by a real live amateur person. Sorry, but until then, that 9/11 OS dog don't hunt.

reply to post by ugie1028


Ugie, no-one seemed to pick up on the first video you posted. It IS very revealing - the shots of "molten metal" pouring from a corner of the WTC #2, the same corner and at the exact point where the collapse begins.
THERMITE, ANYONE?

Boondocksaint: I agree with you that these videos have been manipulated to further divide the 911 truth movement. I had seen the originals as well and didn't recall any missing wings on them. Holographs are possible but video manipulation is easier and more likely.

PLANES? - NO PLANES? = no difference. The OS is still full of crap and someone other than 19 arabs did it.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Second impact... I think I have a whole new understanding of what people say when they talk about how great the flying had to have been.

Yeah, it's easy to see at that angle.

The pilot goes over that building to hit the tower.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You're an aggressive poster, and you aren't really answering people's questions. You're giving out half-baked efforts to debunk; are you really that desperate to believe the OS? What do you have to gain from ignoring the fact that we can obviously see a straight line cut-off? It just disappeared dude - and it did in four different vids. Not to mention that this most certainly isn't the only anomalous video. And how come these stayed hidden until now? Any ideas?

I mean, don't get me wrong - I don't know you from Adam, but what I can't understand is this almost religious zeal to deny that anything out-of-the-ordinary is taking place in all these videos. Show me any other event in recent times which was witnessed and video-recorded on a large scale where similar proportions of the footage/ testimony/ evidence gathered were anomalous. You can't.

Nearly every damn video has anomalies, which can't be realistically explained by the OS, or the smoke/ pixel obfuscation nonsense, or whatever else cock 'n' bull silliness the pseudoskeptobunkers want to peddle. Is there a menu? On Monday we'll be having 'Pixellation a la Compression', Tuesdays will be a 'Debris pas de Nosecone'...

I give up. But then, isn't that what they'd want? To frustrate the questioning mind with continual BS explanations that become progressively distant from logical sense?

M'eh.

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

You're an aggressive poster, and you aren't really answering people's questions. You're giving out half-baked efforts to debunk; are you really that desperate to believe the OS? What do you have to gain from ignoring the fact that we can obviously see a straight line cut-off? It just disappeared dude - and it did in four different vids. Not to mention that this most certainly isn't the only anomalous video. And how come these stayed hidden until now? Any ideas?

I mean, don't get me wrong - I don't know you from Adam, but what I can't understand is this almost religious zeal to deny that anything out-of-the-ordinary is taking place in all these videos. Show me any other event in recent times which was witnessed and video-recorded on a large scale where similar proportions of the footage/ testimony/ evidence gathered were anomalous. You can't.

Nearly every damn video has anomalies, which can't be realistically explained by the OS, or the smoke/ pixel obfuscation nonsense, or whatever else cock 'n' bull silliness the pseudoskeptobunkers want to peddle. Is there a menu? On Monday we'll be having 'Pixellation a la Compression', Tuesdays will be a 'Debris pas de Nosecone'...

I give up. But then, isn't that what they'd want? To frustrate the questioning mind with continual BS explanations that become progressively distant from logical sense?

M'eh.

I 2nd Dat.

reply to post by Enthropy


You do know you debunked this with that video, because it shows both wings before impact so how can that be if one wing disappears. As far as that goes thank you for that. And just to toss this out there I do think it was an inside job but to keep saying the wing just disappears does not fly and your video proves it. So whats next.

reply to post by Gabo-


It was a news chopper. I think (Best guess) that the audio goes on and off because the pilot/reporter/cameraman had their mic switched off but the video was still rolling.

I posted that video because i saw little sparks right before it collapsed. I dont know what they are, or where they are coming from, but as i said i found it interesting.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Thats why i posted that video. Its weird isn't it? Something that appears to be molten just flowing out of the corner of the building. One of the same places where collapse can first be seen.

reply to post by sapien82


What a good idea.

Can anyone provide comments re: Sapien's suggestion of an FOIA request for the radar data. That would be awesome. I guess you'd have to move quickly if you wanted the legit info; any chance the records aren't manipulated if something was iffy? Hmm.

Originally posted by lambros56
reply to post by Rahjian

 

First, i`m sorry you lost your friend on that day.

I watched most of these videos over a year ago and at the time, couldn`t get my head round it but now my opinion is that planes did hit the towers but....i think the planes were switched and the ones that hit the buildings were remotely controlled.
The reason i think they were switched is the lack of bodies and luggage at Shanksville and the Pentagon.
Some sort of technology has been used.

It makes no sense. If they did switch the planes, where did all of those people go? What did they do with them?

can some one save these video's!

before the C.I.A gets Them ! lol

Originally posted by ugie1028
Videos in the cache i found interesting.

1:35

Thanks OP!

edit on 10/25/2010 by ugie1028 because: (no reason given)

Looks like thermite doing its job possibly? Not exactly sure how it looks when in use but I'm under the impression its heats up like that?

Has anyone ever thought that someone edited the film to make it look like the wings disappeared so they can push their agenda on how 9/11 was in inside job even if it wasn’t?

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Originally posted by lambros56
reply to post by Rahjian

 

First, i`m sorry you lost your friend on that day.

I watched most of these videos over a year ago and at the time, couldn`t get my head round it but now my opinion is that planes did hit the towers but....i think the planes were switched and the ones that hit the buildings were remotely controlled.
The reason i think they were switched is the lack of bodies and luggage at Shanksville and the Pentagon.
Some sort of technology has been used.

It makes no sense. If they did switch the planes, where did all of those people go? What did they do with them?

They #ing killed them dude

Originally posted by boondock-saint
well it seems that most people
won't listen to reason so I submit
your invisible wing hologram
debunk. Please note I have
taken a screen of the missing wing
photo posted here in this thread
and ran it through an editing filter
to take out some highlights
and deeply adjusted the contrast
and please note the big blue box
overlay on the plane's wing and tail
section and it overlaps. This image
and the video have been hoaxed.
It was intentionally manipulated
for an agenda. Next time pay attention
folks. Deny ignorance. I told ya so

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/113ddc6b3b27.png[/atsimg]

video debunked as hoax

Which video did you use? Why would NIST hold on to a manipulated video? it makes no sense anyway, unless you mean this is not one from the NIST collection. I have seen a very similar video from the same standpoint before and also quite recent. Thing is, it makes a nonsense of Weed's explanation which was reasonable enough in the first instance. In my opinion for what it is worth, a 'plane hit WTC1 and WTC2, how it got there is anybody's guess. I would point to the very first video as being of the greatest interest in this thread, as it shows another aircraft perhaps at a higher altitude and following in the same general direction. The thing is, there is not much difference in speed between the two observable aircraft given their different altitudes, and generally the 'plane that hit WTC2 is considered to be at a high speed. The "Follow on" aircraft is then, also at a high speed, but behind and and not much higher. It is hard then, to think other than that, the second aircraft would not have seen the mayhem going on in front and below it involving a viewable lower aircraft, (especially when WTC1 is already burning) So what is the second aircraft? another passenger 'plane that didn't report, or a fighter jet that didn't engage, or something in another capacity. You have to allow that the WT2 'plane was already under observation in some form.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Okay then this is a video from someone that is not a media person and guess what it shows if you pause it at :31 second you will see an amazing site. The wing that was supposed to disappear in tact and still on the plane. So when did the wing disappear, because amazingly enough it is there where it always was. Go figure the plane that loses a wing still has it when it hits the building. Oh yes this is a second video that shows the wing.



And here is another one for you in fact watch between 1:23 and 1:27 and can you guess what you will see. If you said wings both of them then you are correct. Enjoy.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
reply to post by sapien82

 

it's agenda is to make truthers
appear nuts and to divide us
on our theories of how 9/11
happened. Divide and conquer.

Exactly! Divide and conquer. Its the same crappy thing we were told about Global Warming. When we talk about starvation in Africa... divide and conquer. When we talk about muslim and christian fanatics, divide and conquer. BP oil spill? Divide and conquer.

I hope it will sink in to people one day... before its to late!

Star 4 you