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

reply to post by WanderingThe3rd



At 43secs there is a flash that comes from the under belly of the plane. It's not a sun flash either. Good Catch

Originally posted by Inkrinhuminge
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"

How can you prove that your flying toilet/ paper/ laser is right next to the building... For all we know it could be none trade centre trash thats been picked up by the wind in the foreground

reply to post by Inkrinhuminge


It's not often I agree with Wheedwacker on anything about 9/11 but he's right on this. That piece of paper is much closer to the camera than the WTC towers. You can even see it follows the same path while the plane crashes into the building and continues fluttering on it's way.
BTW - this video was shot to the East of the WTC which is the direction the wind was blowing that morning which explains the paper being closer to the camera, much closer.

can people drop the whole "no plane existed" routine

its obvious 2 planes flew into those buildings that shouldnt be the debate...the debate is who is responsible

Originally posted by HYADEAN2025
debunkers . Make sure you watch the video shown in this page:

THE BIGGER COVER UP!

Holy cow, that is an interesting presentation. Everyone needs to watch this. It really deserves it's own thread. You should start one.

reply to post by tracehd1

.... there is a flash that comes from the under belly of the plane...

This has been explained countless times, IF you're referring to the "flash" just under and slightly behind the cockpit area, right side??

That is where the crew oxygen bottle is located. The flight deck crew have a dedicated source of emergency oxygen, different from what's supplied to passengers and flight attendants. (Chemical O2 "generators" are used in the cabin. Two different substances combine, and they release O2 -- and a great deal of heat -- as a by-product of the chemical reaction).

Here, a diagram is always helpful, to visualize. This is typical of the sorts of training materials provided to Airport Fire and Rescue personnel, to familiarize them with different airplane details:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3da4031dc34.jpg[/atsimg]

(I fear it is large, and ATS automatically crops it off on the right side....but, the area in question is on the left, in the image).

The "E&E compartment" means "Electronic Equipment". This is where, along with the already mentioned O2 crew bottle, are the vital electronics, avionics, etc.

The crew O2 bottle is large, similar to a SCUBA tank in size, and pressurized to between 1,150 to 1,800 PSI maximum. Pure oxygen, under pressure, will go BOOM!

Here's a related article about an inflight explosion, involving a Boeing 747...not exact same location, but close enough.

A Melbourne-bound Qantas Boeing 747 was forced to make an emergency landing in Manila on July 25 after an oxygen bottle exploded, tearing a hole in the fuselage and subjecting 365 passengers and crew to a 10-minute ordeal.

www.theage.com.au...

Unfortunately, it's short on detail, as it is part of a story about some other incidents at Qantas. And, puzzling, since they normally don't just "blow up", unless they are affected by some external event. Or, since there are over-pressure blow-out features, I expect there was a failure in the bottle itself, as a containment vessel.

Here is better photo of THAT airplane damage:

www.pprune.org...

And, here is a photo with a man holding it, typical of the size on an airliner:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c724ef9d8202.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by shasta9600


Those stupid (YES! I said "stupid") videos already have a thread.

Just ATS "search" for "ball ufo" or something similar in the "9/11 Forum" (if those are the videos I am thinking of...they look familar, and on closer examination, you will find that the guy who is trying to tell THAT "story" is a crackpot).

Originally posted by Kemal
www.youtube.com...

Fast forward to 0:17 and watch it on fullscreen mode:

Now tell me, what on Earth is that flying object there, moving in the clouds? Have you noticed how the camera was moved to the left once the object showed up? The recorder also blurred out he screen. I don't talk about the plane...

edit on 04/06/2010 by Kemal because: (no reason given)

Hi, I'm a pilot (Not from USA) and that object is most probably an aircraft. The "white flashes" are anti-collision strobe lights usually on the wing or tail or an aircraft that flashes brightly both day and night.

A video about fake planes, if you need further evidence.

Peace

Originally posted by weedwhacker you will find that the guy who is trying to tell THAT "story" is a crackpot).

The only 'crackpots' out there are people that believe and support AND PROMOTE the official lie..err, story of boxcutters, and 'top gun' cavemen...

Originally posted by Sportbominable
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.

We'll probably never know, anyway would be much easier to make the aircrafts "disappear" somewhere else (with everybody inside it) , than to hit those buildings , at a impossible speed at that altitude by the way...
check this link
killtown.blogspot.com...

I agree there are some anomalies; the missing wings, delayed explosions like a bunker buster-type missile, etc. My question is, if we were to assume that those were really missiles, then how would TPTB manage to doctor every piece of footage available before it hit the air? Wouldn't all of the MSM have to have a hand in it?

I'm not trying to debunk anything, I think 9/11 has some serious issues and I don't think we know the whole story. I'm just asking for theories.

Okay, I believe planes hit the towers, because I know someone who was on the second plane.

However, I am willing to play devil's advocate here because this idea just popped into my head...

Does anyone follow NBCs The Event? In the show, a plane (like in Lost.. seems to be the theme) is about to crash into the White House and then before it does it gets warped into a desert in Arizona.

What if the technology of warpholes exists and the plane was real but it got warped away right before it hit and then explosive paint on the frame of the towers blew up the exact moment it "hit".

Just a wild thought.

reply to post by Beyond Creation


I'm sorry, about that video by "Rod Hilderman"??? I could only stand to sit through the first three minutes.

IT'S GARBAGE!!! The man has no idea what he's seeing, and the rest of his "analysis" is crap, from that simple fact. Furthermore... ...he is a "chemtrail" crackpot!!!

AND, he actually thinks that this incredible "hologram" technology exists!!! He has no flippin' clue!

Did I already post the photographic evidence that explains the "white stripes" on the belly of the jets, in this thread??? That is nothing other than areas that are UNPAINTED!!! Bare aluminum. It varies, depending on each airline's paint scheme...some leave it unpainted, some paint the whole area.

Ahhhh...well, found an even BETTER photo, to illustrate. This does say it's copyrighted....but, was available easy enough on the Web, so I guess can use:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7c01cbc941e.jpg[/atsimg]

It is a United Boeing 777, but in the same paint scheme as United 175 (a B-767). You can clearly see how the blue paint, lower part of the fuselage, doesn't meet at the bottom, but leaves bare areas. The center area where the wings join the fuselage, you can see the NORMAL "bulges".....the is where the Main Landing Gear retract. It is very much similr on the 767. They HAVE to "bulge" out, and incorporate fairings to smooth the airflow over them....the gear is big, and if they didn't have it stow in that position, out just that bit, then it would have to come up above the level of the passenger cabin floor, which is not a very elegant design.

So....you can easily see that the YouTube poster is ignorant of things that need only minimal research...helps if you have some aviation knowledge and experience, too. Like me.

This is why I cringe, EVERY time a "9/11 truther" has something to say about 9/11, especially about the airplanes, and the details of aviation....(because, let's face it, THAT is the main event) ....EVERY time a "truther", whether posting on YouTube, or on any of the "conspiracy" sites devoted to 9/11 that infest the Web, makes any observation, or comment, they get it WRONG. Ignorantly, terribly stupidly wrong.

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

Here, link to picture by same photographer, a United B-767-300 version (slightly longer fuselage, so minor differences). Just prior to touchdown. You can see good detail on the landing gear, when extended. Note, at the tail, a tailskid. (This is trivia stuff, now, but airline pilots who fly this equipment know it). The tailskid extends and retracts with the landing gear...and is NOT installed on the 767-200. Flaops are set to maximum extended positon for landing, "Flaps 30":

Originally posted by Rahjian
Does anyone follow NBCs The Event? In the show, a plane (like in Lost.. seems to be the theme) is about to crash into the White House and then before it does it gets warped into a desert in Arizona.

What if the technology of warpholes exists and the plane was real but it got warped away right before it hit and then explosive paint on the frame of the towers blew up the exact moment it "hit".

Just a wild thought.

Lol.

I for one am a so called truther as people seem to like to call those who want to know what happened...I also believe that planes did hit the towers....not someone who thinks it was,ufo's, a ball, a halographic image....but I am also one who does not believe for one single momentary second that amatuer pilots got hold of the planes and were able to fly them into the buildings hitting their targets...and i do not for one second think that the pilots themselves would have ever let their aircrafts be forfieted in such a way.
so to me that leaves two options....they were professional pilots who were masquarading as the arabs using false documents....Or the airplanes were remotely controlled even as far fetched as that seems to me...but i have been putting together the possibilities of that in another thread as there were individuals with the necessary capabilities to do that within the federal goverment itself.
but that is just my opinion...and Weed....you put forward many good points...but i ask you on a personal basis...do you think that ill trained...well put it this way..CRAP trained cessna pilots were capable of pulling it off in your honest opinion.
I don't really think you need to go on justifying wether planes hit or not...as most truthers really honestly do believe planes hit.
your only trying to convert the few who seem to be way out there.
but i do admire your pure tenacity.
I am a structural engineer...and i will honestly say that those buildings should not have come down due to the impacts...and especially from the fires...and i have grown tired of trying to point it out with good info and many many documents....most truthers want to know what really happened is all...and is that such a crime...most of us think that there were false flag wars created in the aftermath of 9/11...and groups like pnac ....say things like another pearl harbour was needed to get such a war going...and well they got it.
I have looked at it from a criminal aspect and there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to bring some very correctly placed individuals in for questioning.
now remember this is my opinion...and when there is discrepancy you know i will always try to contact the source personally.

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by kid_cudi

 

well it is a shame that you actually believe that it was Osama Bin Laden behind it...but we will not go into that in this thread as it has been discussed so often....
also I still think it is a shame that people still believe some amature pilots just jumped into the cockpits with very little training and accomplished this task under the strain of committing a hijacking at the same time.
But lets keep looking at the footage....it is good to be looking at some new material...and it is still strange that it would take an FOIA request to get this stuff released.

I don't think it was amature pilots that did it and I know it wasn't amature pilots because they had extensive training on how to take off and fly but they never wanted to know how to land a plane. So they knew what they were doing. Now once again let me remind you that in the 90's Osama bin laden tried to blow up the towers with trucks full of explosives which was an epic failure. The second time he masterminded the plan of flying planes into the buildings. And the buildings didn't fall to the ground so perfectly because of explosives. It's because of how hot and much aircraft fuel burned through the building that made it collapse and as a result of how hot it burnt it was able to dematerialize the concrete and structure of the buildings.

My two cents on this thread (and 9/11 as a whole): I believe the issue with the disappearing wing is technical (specific to the video itself).

— I'd also like to reiterate to the group (and debunkers) that the key to understanding 9/11 (and, specifically, why the Truth movement exists), begins primarily with WTC 7. Even if you believe that sporadic fires and minor damage legitimately caused it to collapse, you've already been led astray because Larry Silverstein has admitted to "pulling" (controlled demolition) the building (on a PBS documentary, found here). This plan was later confirmed by a FDNY lieutenant (link). Let's not forget eye-witness testimony of hearing bombs in the building. Complicating things, you have both the 9/11 Commission and NIST failing to mention Building 7 in their reports — completely disregarded.

The icing on the cake, for me, was learning about high-profile people, like Mayor Giuliani, who ostensibly had foreknowledge of the impending collapse.

P.S. For those of you interested in an amazing book, I would like to highly recommend The Terror Conspiracy. It will take you through the events of 9/11 beginning weeks in advance and culminating with Bush's post-9/11 War on Terror. Jaw-dropping stuff.

reply to post by kid_cudi


i am not going to go into the dynamics of the steel and structural integrity of the towers and how they were designed with you ....cause I have discussed it in many many many threads on the issues and your more than welcome to go and have look through.
buildings are what i do for a living just as planes are what weed does for a living....but please feel free to go into many threads and have a look about and it will be fully explained to you....
For me after 9yrs of exlaining the way Steel structures are built and the thermals that they can withstand and the many many achitects and engineers that have torn the nist reports to shreds over the years it is time to move forward.
And i am asking a professional pilot what his honest feelings truely are on the fact about the..LIMITED abilities of these individuals...especially under the stress of also sucessfully hijacking aircraft.
i have flown in Cesnas and i was also fortunate to fly in the cockpit of a 737 from yvr to yyc.
i worked for PWA for 3yrs just as a ground handler but it did have it priveledges.

reply to post by plube


You labor under a number of misconceptions...

....and i do not for one second think that the pilots themselves would have ever let their aircrafts be forfieted in such a way.

THAT is the first misconception. They didn't!! They were attacked, without warning, while vulnerable....seated, backs to the only door, in a fairly confined space, little room to do anything to escape the attack...AND seatbelted. Their necks were terribly exposed, in that situation, to the weapons of choice. If you only were able to ACTUALLY go in, and sit down in one of the pilots' seats, you'd see exactly what I mean.

....they were professional pilots who were masquarading as the the arabs...

Nope. Only the extremists would be suicidal.

...Or the airplanes were remotely controlled ...

Nope, as you said, "far fetched"...because, it DIDN'T HAPPEN! Let's dispel that, quickly....for that "theory"you have to make people believe that the real pilots somehow could NOT control the airplanes, because the "theory" alleges a ground "take-over" remotely. There is simply no way to accomplish that....pilots know too much about the systems of the airplanes we fly....and IF were faced with such an improbable scenario...could always simply turn off ALL the electrical systems onboard. There is NO "remote control" device that will work without electricity.

...but i ask you on a personal basis...do you think that ill trained...well put it this way..CRAP trained cessna pilots were capable of pulling it off in your honest opinion.

Commonly repeated misconception number two. It is NOT a fact that they were "CRAP" trained. This entire story has been inflated by "9/11 conspiracy" sites because of the ONE occassion of ONE hijacker....Hani Hanjour, who flew American 77. The poor assessment of his abilites was made by the flight instructors at a place where he wanted to RENT a Cessna 172 (an airplane he hadn't learned in, as he learned in Pipers). Still, it is a basic airplane, and while he had hundreds of hours, and Airman's Certificates, still the requirements to be allowed to RENT, without being accompanied by one of their instructors, meant that he had to be satisfactory in ALL aspects of operating the airplane, to include take-offs and landings. SO, this "argument" is moot, since all he had to do was steer the thing around in the air....and YOU, and everyone else readin gthis, can do that with only a little bit of practice. He had hundreds of hours, in all...they all did.

I am a structural engineer...and i will honestly say that those buildings should not have come down dues to the impacts...and especially from the fires..

Covered in other threads, of course...not here.

I would suggest more investigation, with the knowledge sets you already have as an engineer...to study the reality of the construction designs. I have read both sides, and it is compellingly obvious WHY and HOW they failed. Absent any "planned" demo.

But, that's another thread......

I have looked at it from a criminal aspect and there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to bring some very correctly placed individuals in for questioning.

Agree that SOME need to be directed to further questioning, not sure if the "evidence" is sufficient. BUT, this is for a much more logical reason than "disappearing wings" and "holograms" and "planned demolition"....because none of that happened. The TRUE "crime" is the cases and instances of "cover your a$$" that went on, AFTER the events.....to cover tracks of malfeasance and ineptitude that led to those who were responsible for detecting these kinks of plots NOT being able to adequately intercept and deduce the impending plans of the attacks.