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

reply to post by Conluceo


S&F for the OP! I went to the link you included and as I was going through the videos, I noticed two of the most important parts were missing from the peskin series... The planes hitting the buildings and the buildings coming down. That guy was in a prime location to capture those, but instead he has 15-30 seconds clips of nothing significant. Wondering why the missing clips were not released as they are in numerical order... Skips from 21 to 24 to 30... I find this a little odd..

Came across this whilst browsing the YouTube videos just released- its not one of the '911crasting' vids, but it does add yet more proof that something isnt right:

www.youtube.com...

To be honest, when I actually realized what the author was getting at, I got a cold chill, as it is obvious that someone is faking up the evidence. I know that is a 'given', but when its this obvious, its quite disturbing.

Also, in reply to tsurfer2000h's post "Who was the video expert you talk about and what are their credentials? Don't get me wrong but just because someone says they are something doesn't mean that they are an expert. If that's okay with you. Works both ways doesn't it. " in replying to a post by Mr Hanky . I think I might have been one of the people he was referring to, and my credentials are that I have a masters degree (Msc) in Electronic Imaging, as well as qualifications in 3D Digital Imagery and Design.

My main point, when I quoted my credentials, and at the risk of repeating myself, was to point out that mpeg2 and h264 compression which has allegedly been used on these clips in order to cut down the file size for upload onto YouTube can leave 'artifacts', but they are usually 'blocking' and 'smearing' of the information, which usually occurs across the whole image. It would not cause objects in shot to disappear. Again, I am not claiming 'holographic aircraft', although current prototype holographic technology could in theory breakdown when viewed from different angles, thereby 'explaining' how parts of the aircraft could be observable from one camera angle and yet disappear from another. However, unless we were given access to the original raw footage, it would be impossible to make definitive comments on what we are and are not seeing. Anyone who states otherwise is making a claim outside the available information and in so doing, undermine their own credibility.

reply to post by Nonchalant


I remember John lear talking about the use of holograms on the 9/11 event , as he mentioned that walt disney had holographic technology already and used it in a hollywood movie budget meeting or something . It's during his interview on coast to coast and on a video on youtube he mentions it .

Would it be wrong for me to suggest that we should discuss each video seperately? Perhaps each video should have its own thread, without any other video disrupting the arguement. I understand some videos could corraborate, or debunk others, but thats assuming one is more legit than the other. We should analyze each seperate. This back and forth and sideways and backwards isnt getting US anywhere.
good luck.
enjoy.

Originally posted by Conluceo
reply to post by ethancoop

 

Really? and going by your logic, (and I see right through what you're trying to do here) what exactly is it that I've said that is so hard to believe Ethan?

I knew using the word 'you' was a bad idea. I'm speaking to all the guys who believe there were no planes, heck, I'm speaking to anyone who is trying to make any type of argument. My point is simply, if someone wants to be taken seriously they should not start an argument with obviously wrong information such as the f-18 thing. Opening an argument with bad information casts dispersions over anything else that is said. What I'm trying to do here is help the 'there was no wing - therefore there are no planes - so surely the reptilian NWO overloards did it' crowd to not sound like raving lunatics.

I just don't get the complete suspension of rational thought that happens surrounding 9-11. Holographic projections timed with planted explosives combined with 1000's of conspirators who all manage to stay quiet even down to the lowliest pee-on, I mean holy christ people.

Airplanes hit the buildings, who did it, why they did it, who knew what & why; sure debate that.

Look, if you're going to do critical analysis of video evidence then you must do it with source footage & not some recompressed low quality youtube video or VHS recordings. Why spend hours and hours pouring over every pixel of a video to track paths of planes, calculate speeds, look for the strings hanging from the alien space ship that is towing the plane if you're not using the source footage? Hasn't anyone here heard of compression artifacts? It's akin to wanting to spot some secret in the painting of the Last Supper but using a Polaroid of a magazine clipping of a picture of the painting as the only thing you're examining.

Ok, Ethan, we get it. All your points have been dealt with- at length- in this thread.

Only two posts up, I have said this exact thing- why do you feel the need to ram your point home?

Originally posted by Thunda
Ok, Ethan, we get it. All your points have been dealt with- at length- in this thread.

Only two posts up, I have said this exact thing- why do you feel the need to ram your point home?

Oh, good, someone who might be able to discuss something. I read your credentials & assume you can talk me into a circle concerning artifacting but I'll go down this road with you anyway. I just want to point out to the general guy who doesn't know anything about this stuff (not you) that with HDV video footage on fast pans of wide shots in the woods I've seen examples of tree branches disappearing & merging into each other & leaves being reduced to multi colored mush. This is first generation mpeg2 compression.

These branches aren't causing blocks over the entire image as you say earlier. I don't have the degree to provide theory as to why this happens just the practical experience that it does. Individual small details can get mushed up by a codec, especially thin fast moving lines such as branches (in a fast pan) or in this case wings. Surely you've seen examples of this with your background right?

I want the truth, and will continue efforts to DEMAND truth.

However...where is the Pentagon footage? We must demand access to the footage taken in and around DC on 9/11/01. My gut tells me the ace in the hole was taken by some gas station security cam that morning...

thoughts?

debunkers . Make sure you watch the video shown in this page:





THE BIGGER COVER UP!

reply to post by ethancoop


Ok, I dont want to get into an argument about this- as I have already stated (twice) we cannot discuss this with any certainty because of the lack of original footage. Now, you say in High Def you have seen examples of "tree branches disappearing & merging into each other & leaves being reduced to multi colored mush." I would say two things- firstly, none of the footage we are talking about is HDV (although that would actually be less likely to produce artifacts under first generation mpeg 2 compression) , and also, (Im assuming you mean that the movement of tree branches in the wind is creating this merging and video mush) an aircraft wing is a great deal more substantial element than a tree branch, and whilst you might be viewing merging and mush, it is not disappearing altogether, which is the element I find strange in the 9/11 videos.

I would also say that codec 'blocking' 'usually' appears over the whole image, but not always.

People can argue back and forth all they like here- which is good, as I feel it is healthy to discuss these issues, but what we cannot do, is state with any certainty what we are and are not seeing in these videos. Whilst I understand emotions run high on this subject, and it might be tempting to say 'I have totally debunked this video without question', that simply cannot be said with any degree of accuracy. That said, I feel their are some very interesting anomalies within these videos, which would suggest they have at least been 'tampered' with, and if they have been tampered with, the question is then 'why'?.

reply to post by ethancoop


Thanks Ethan, I appreciate and respect your opinion. I understand the need to get down to the business at hand, and the other thing is, I wish we had something other than the youtube footage, unfortunately that's all we have to sink our teeth in for now.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

No....sorry:

....if you look at about 3 seconds in you can see the laser illuminate the smoke for a split second. its coming from up and left of the building.

NOT a "laser". Piece of paper. This has been discussed countless times, already.

Here it is again, the video you 'thought" shows a "laser":

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, and BTW --- about laser targeting. YOU CAN'T SEE THEM!!! And, they "pulse":
Can we finally put the "laser" to bed,now??
Oh, and now that we destroyed THAT claim...

No we are not putting the laser to bed, and the claim is far from destroyed. Look at this clip again peoples, that bright thing is NOT trash, and here is why: Paper doesn't fly at 900km/hr (560mph) Seriously, look at the speed of that "paper"

Anything heavy like a desk or toilet, would for the most part, fall straight down, with little sideways movement, agreed physicists? "Ah, but it's paper, and the wind blows that" some of you say. well someone else can do the precise maths, but between 1 second in the video, and 4 seconds in the video, the "paper" moves 3/4 of the distance across the WTC. I will say the WTC is 100m across, so the paper moved 75m in 3 sec, or at an average rate of 25m/s = 90 000m/hr = 900km/hr or 560mph
Holy smoke, thats some fast moving paper.

someone who is more competent can put their own figures in, and take into account building angle, distance of "paper" from building, and ANY other variables they can think of, but you will still have one super fast piece of paper

Suspicious "eyewitness" of the planes... don't you guys think so?

www.youtube.com...


(from the 911Crasting channel Cache of New 911 footage )

I've viewed most of the footage concerning the alleged disappearing plane wing, the alleged switched and/or placed landing gear, and so forth. I have a question for everyone. Families and friends lost "REAL" not imagined loved ones on those planes. If the planes were smaller, holographic, or something other than a plane, then where are all the people that were supposedly on the planes? Are they still alive living in other countries paid off by the government, while the family and friends are still here suffering from their loss? Please give me your theories on this.

PS. I have to admit that the evidence is compelling, but I have not formed an opinion yet.

A sad Crime Scene...Plane or no plane aside............Ok I just watched it but now I can't find it??
A Officer is telling press to move away from the towers, he's even issuing orders to the fire department to move away.......YET theres a suit walking towards or infront of the towers......Response to this revelation is, "Nevermind Him, move back".
So this kinda baffles me.....the mad proffessor is allowed through yet fire safety officers aren't??
quick edit.....it was numbered vid 75

reply to post by Inkrinhuminge


That white object is very odd, whatever it is. As you said it moves very fast and seems come in contact with the building at the same point that the right tip of the wing hits/enters. Weird stuff.

OK...Here's my logical take on all this. I'm no debunker or truth seeker...Just looking at it from a logical point of view.

1- REAL planes hit the towerS
2- Missing wing is a fault in either the compression done by multiple codec and/or low quality digital cell phone/cam recorder cameras.
3- The HARDEST thing to accomplish with a Boeing 747 or 707 or what ever the passenger plane was is to TAKE OFF and LAND, notice in the case of both planes, the terrorist did not pilot them for take off and they sure did not land them. This being said, you think that anyone or almost anyone can be talked in to landing a passenger plane safely can at least point it in the right direction and hit two towers ? No one needs intense training to point a plain in a 100 foot wide target standing in the middle of a city. Remember these towers stood out clearly from the landscape and it is feasible that there was plenty of time to properly aim the plane and hit the towers regardless of how much training they had.

Now...This being said. I can not disregard that the plane could have been "guided" in remotely and in my opinion I can disregard that bombs might have been used is some shape or form, thus making the event a planed one!
Another factor that gets me is how unusually low was the number of employees in the towers were compared to any other day at the same given time, call it a stroke of luck, I don't know but...Something to be said about that.

Plus....some camera angles seem "too perfect" for something so spontaneous.....Heck we can only hope that the ones that caught the planes hitting the towers could catch a few U.F.O. so clearly in such short notice.

Three building brought down by "fire" and structural damage......Two of witch were specifically designed to take such a blow, engineered to be safe if a passenger plane did hit them ( I'm thinking that the engineers here thought of every angle and every scenario possible) and still because of air plane grade gasoline that burned for a prolonged period of time the framing failed and brought not one but two towers down ??? Hummmmm If one would of fallen and the other stood.....I would of been easily "bought" but......

Anyways...That's what is going on in my little head...Thought I'd share with you all.
Have a great day !

reply to post by Inkrinhuminge


Your "calculations" ONLY are valid IF that piece of paper was actually traveling only a few feet away from the face of the Tower. You aren't thinking in three dimensions. Clearly, there was light-weight airborne debris that came into camera frame, MUCH closer to the camera, and at some point between the camera and the "subject" (the Towers).

Take note of the next-tallest building, in the right foreground....using your well-honed sense of perspective (or, a street plan layout), it i obvious that building is closer to the camera than the WTC is. AND, you can see a lot of debris falling in front of IT.

Recall effects of telephoto lenses, in photography, and the apparent foreshortening and distortions of perspective that can occur.

Finally...YES, the "laser theory" is put to bed. I linked the description of such systems. They are NOT "visible" to the naked Human eye, and certainly are not "white". If anything, they would have (if visible at all) a reddish hue.

Originally posted by Rahjian
Are you seriously that delusional that you don't think that was a PLANE?! You are &%$#@&! stupid if you don't. A friend of my family was ON THE SECOND PLANE. I also have an uncle who was working in one of the buildings in the WTC area who personally eye witnessed planes smashing into the towers.

Don't get me wrong, I believe 100% 9/11 was a sham. Bush knocked down the towers no doubt. But as to them not being planes? Come on get a grip.

SInce you believe 911 was a conspiracy and a "sham", and with TPTB who were willing to kill all those on board the planes,...why would it be hard to believe that maybe they got rid of them in some other way?