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

reply to post by jlc767


I would like to say to you well stated and well said...And your completely right about building 7 and that has always been the thorn in my side...but also...the towers themselves should not have just come down as they did in any way shape or form without assistance...such as a controlled demolition.
and if you would like to read a thread i put together please read it...as it is a great deal of info along the lines you state.

I treat is as a crime scene and expose the criminal element for what it is It is a challenging read but it is worth it i think...and the nice thing it is not a bunch of bickering

well it is good to your viewpoint on that and you only mention the one pilot...and i see you believe that these guys were good enough to tackle the whole hijacking and still be able to pilot the planes...and these guys were not trained pilots with hours of flight time under their belts.
so i now think your just going to believe it is only one way....so therefore your mind is completely closed...
Least people know exactly where you stand now...so i must thank you for the reply.

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
reply to post by You Will Never Know

 

Here is another video I just watched. It seems a lot of the witnesses have been killed off over the years.

with all the garbage ive seen in regard to this stuff, the only thing that has been of any value is this video of witness deaths, the new footage is same ol same ol, the witness video makes you think.

reply to post by plube


You are still not understanding it.

They were a TEAM, each with a specialized skill!

...and i see you believe that these guys were good enough to tackle the whole hijacking and still be able to pilot the planes...

I never "believed" any such thing! I am able to use common sense to realize how it went down.

They had the "muscle" guys to storm the cockpit, initally The one(s) who knew how to fly (I think there may have been two assigned that task....hard to tell, because we only have the United 93 CVR. Two of them were discussing some aspects of the autopilot controls, in Arabic, in the recordings).

This is just common sense!!! Any "closed minds" come from those idiotic "conspiracy" sites, devoted to 9/11.

...and these guys were not trained pilots with hours of flight time under their belts...

How much, to YOU, is sufficient? They had at least a Commercial Certficate, and several hundred hours. I could take you into the proper classroom, with the training aids, spend a few hours in that setting explaining and describing, and THEN take you into a full-motion simulator, and have you practice...not only the actual flying, but how to use the navigation computer, and autpilot controls (as they did).

Even if you've never flown in your life, in just a FEW hours you'd have a pretty good idea what to do, for the purposes seen on 9/11. Not taking off, not landing...none of that.

Now, let me spend a WEEK with you, for a total of only 12-18 hours in the Sim, and more classroom stuff (and some homework, maybe...for additional reinforcement and memorization)....

These guys had hundreds of hours. Do the research.

There are too many coincidences to be coincidental.

There are too many videos showing the wing disappear to chalk it off as a "glitch" or "pixels".And why is it that only the wing screws up and nothing else in the video?That one video was practically was crystal clear except for the weird looking black plane and the disappearing wing.

I always thought they were missiles disguised as planes with hologram wings.So to the eye they would seem like planes.That would explain the no windows and the laser guidance beam.A laser guided missile with hologram wings.

Seems like an obvious plan.Make it seem so "unrealistic" that no one will believe it.

Like holograms....check this out! www.youtube.com... notice the fuzziness of the outline of the hologram?Similar to some of the footage of the planes.

Originally posted by shasta9600

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.

I guess so.. people in here seem to be missing the BIG POINT here!!

Originally posted by XxiTzYoMasterxX
There are too many coincidences to be coincidental.

There are too many videos showing the wing disappear to chalk it off as a "glitch" or "pixels".And why is it that only the wing screws up and nothing else in the video?That one video was practically was crystal clear except for the weird looking black plane and the disappearing wing.

I always thought they were missiles disguised as planes with hologram wings.So to the eye they would seem like planes.That would explain the no windows and the laser guidance beam.A laser guided missile with hologram wings.

Seems like an obvious plan.Make it seem so "unrealistic" that no one will believe it.

Like holograms....check this out! www.youtube.com... notice the fuzziness of the outline of the hologram?Similar to some of the footage of the planes.

Do you (and others) realize how nuts you sound?!? Tell me, where are all the people that were aboard the planes? Where did the plane parts/pieces that were found in the streets come from (there was even a wheel stuck in one of the columns found in the street)? Where did the phone calls come from, from the passengers on the planes? How is every video or image of the planes faked? You think that every witness that saw that planes hit that towers are lying?

I don't claim to know what happen to the passengers.And I don't doubt some plane parts were found at the scene.And I never said no one saw planes,but they weren't ordinary planes that's for sure.I said they were missiles disguised as planes.

Most of these videos are bogus. Some seem altered. others have missing pieces, the important pieces. Others seem to have electrical interference at approximately the same time. As if they were on the same "fade to black" timeline. Does any one else see it this way? I just watched a lot of these videos, and they seem strange. Just throwing it out there.

I think a lot of the videos of witnesses should immediately be discounted.

the reason I say this, most witnesses are prone to exaggeration, not on purpose but on how they remember things and how they react to things. No two people in the same circumstance will react the same, UNLESS they are trained pros.

Also, if a witness is currently under some sort of treatment such as shrink then chances are that they are also having some sort of medication. In the States they do love their shrinks and meds. So chances are their opinion or witness testimony is conflicted, and at the very least affected.

Even on the spot witnesses are unreliable as they see thing the way they have experienced them, which, is different to how you might experience them.

Just a thought.

Second man interviewed, very interesting. Says he was supposed to be on the 82cnd floor for a meeting. Was told to be ten minutes late, no meeting.

reply to post by Myendica

Originally posted by Myendica
Most of these videos are bogus. Some seem altered. others have missing pieces, the important pieces. [..]

As pointed out by Conscope on page 3 and kloejen on page 7, these videos were released by NIST after a FOIA request by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. You can read more about the process here, and you can actually download the 86 gigabyte worth of video yourself. There is also a forum on 911datasets.org on which you can discuss each video separately.

This release is labelled part 14 of 30, meaning there are 29 such collections left. This collection contains 86 gigabytes of video, but only because it has been recompressed by the IC to a torrent of 86 gb; the original is 924 gigabyte. There was supposedly little quality loss by recompressing (see the download page linked above) - of course, the videos you have seen so far were recompressed by Youtube as well, lowering the quality further.

I'm not sure why the video fragments have been split up in so many little clips, but since the missing portions are also missing in the 86 gigabyte torrent (which I'm downloading), I doubt that IC911studies.org split up the files. It might very well be the format in which NIST delivered the files to IC911studies.org; there are still 29 collections NIST haven't delivered, and there is a good chance those contain the remaining clips of the same video fragments.

Why NIST would prefer to split perfectly fine video files into multiple tiny clips, I wouldn't know. Perhaps they liked to repeat a single video so they could get a good view of something happening in a split second - even though many of those tiny clips contain nothing extra-ordinary, as there are plenty of slow shots with nothing happening.


By the way, ic911studies.org (according to 911blogger.com) is more than willing to supply the raw videos (i.e. the original videos from the collection of 924gb, possibly compressed as well) to you on request. Conscope even took on this invitation and requested the raw version of one of the videos in which the wing disappears against a clear blue sky. Any news yet, Conscope?

reply to post by thepixelpusher


That's the big hundred thousand dollar question. For all those that don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, answer that simple question. If we are too accept the governments official story of what happened on 9/11, why not release the pentagon videos? If it was a plane that hit the Pentagon simply prove it! The government is quick to belly ache about the 9/ll conspiracy theories, but they do nothing to squelch the simple questions so many of us have. For the number of security cameras trained on the Pentagon, surely there has to be at least (1) video showing clearly a plane plowing into that building. The idea that they can't because of national security reasons is just fueling the flame for conspiracy. It's a commercial airplane for pete's sake. We see them in the skies all the time. What's so special about this one? Why confiscate videos that were not even on the property of the Pentagon? And those videos were never returned to the owners!

reply to post by kloejen


Thank you for understanding my point. As your screen cap clearly states, compression can not make objects disappear (particularly H264 codec). What they do sometimes is blend them against the background. In that pic you can clearly see the head's outline because the pixels are not the exact same color as the background, and it's even more obvious when you watch the video.

Now take a look at this:

img408.imageshack.us...

That's a screen cap I just took of the video I downloaded from the torrent. This video does not have the YouTube compression so it's the most raw-like footage we can analyze. As you can see, there is no outline, there are no pixels where the wing should be. Let's also not forget that in one of the videos, the wing that disappears is not the same as the rest.

I stand by my position: some videos have been altered. By whom and to what effect, I don't know and I don't care.

reply to post by Radiobuzz


I know you don't care & will stick to your position, but please forgive me - I'm afraid this post may still look like part of a meaningful conversation. Disregard that notion.

If the videos have been altered, there are only two possible culprits: NIST, and icfor911studies.org. You are downloading the torrent from the site of icfor911studies.org, so there really is noone else who could have manipulated the video. NIST released this collection (#14) about a month ago, which in my opinion is very little time to both edit and compress the 924 gigabytes of video. Of course not every video had to be edited, but since they are offering to release the raw (i.e. the format they received from NIST) video, they would've had to edit the original version, and do the compression afterwards. Since compressing 924 gigabyte presumably takes some time, thus further limits the time window in which icfor911studies.org could have pulled this of.

Furthermore, your statement about compression is, in my opinion, completely false. Compression can make objects disappear, especially in cases where the fragment has already been compressed. Unless you're using rare lossless compression for video, which x264 (not H264) absolutely isn't, detail will get lost. Like you say "blend them against the background" - if that happens once, you can still see a smudge. Twice, the smudge is a bit more faint, and less well defined in shape. If you repeat the process, there's nothing left to see.

Your screencap actually proves it. Look at the sky above the body of the plane. There is a very distinct 'smudge' where the wing should be. That is the wing. Try raising the contrast of the image if you can't see it (I could run it through a filter if anyone wants to see it more clearly).
The faint smudge isn't visible in the further compressed youtube files, showing how detail can get smaller and smaller until it's too small for the compression's algorithm to notice.

reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX


Occam's razor, anyone?

Why in the hell would they not just put a freaking missile inside 737, or at least some sort of explosive payload? Wouldn't that make more sense than holographic wings, or cloaking A10s, or whatever crazy stories I've seen in here?

I don't get where logically, "A missile designed to look like an airplane with holographic wings" makes any sort of sense... There are such thing as remote controlled planes... And if they went through the lengths to make the "missile's" fuselage look accurate, why wouldn't they just put some wings on it as well?

I swear, while I'm on the fence about this in general, these crazy theories sound like disinformation put out to discredit the "truthers."

reply to post by scraze


I noticed that smudge but as far as I could tell it was random noise, similar smudges were in other parts of the sky. Also the positioning is not completely right. By the way, H.264 is the codec, x264 is merely an open source encoder implementation of that.

To whoever asked if holograms were realistic, Hologram technology is so good now that it's almost scary.

They've reached almost a sci-fi movie-like level with it even. There's no telling what TPTB have access to.

YouTube the Nessie holographic demonstration in Japan, Or Google "holograms you can touch".

Dosent anyone else think its odd that all these new vids just came out all of a sudden?
They have probably been manipulated then released, just like the JFK assasination video.
The government probably knows that were onto them, so they probably have realeased this manipulated footage to make some claims seem illogical.

reply to post by scraze


I was up until 5:00 am last night (this morning) and have spent most of the day, since 3:00 pm today reading and googleing (googleing?) stuff on holograms, 3D holograms, etc. My last post I asked for two explanations. One was on the fact that there are four videos of this wing that seems to disappear. Thank you Scraze for an explanation. However, because I don't really have much knowledge on photography and videography, I can't fully grasp what you're saying. Are you saying four people were in the same place taking a video of the plane hitting all at the same time? "IF" that is what you're saying, please explain further how that could have actually happened.

As I said, I've read up to page 20 and no one (unless I missed something) has given a decent explanation for why there isn't any debris after the plane is all the way into the building. I read something about the building not being concrete and being constructed of some other material. But, when you see (or they give you something to see) the nose coming out the other side, debris starts falling everywhere as soon as it comes through. So, assuming the nose coming out is real (which personally I don't believe) then the material used in construction is strong enough that it allows to enter the building w/o causing the building to crumble, but not strong enough to damage the nose when it comes out the other side. Please tell me exactly what they used in the construction of this building that on the outside it's tough and on the inside it's weak.

Are all the pictures of the nose coming out CGI or is it a hologram? Did everyone that got this shot do CGI? If all the pictures are not tampered with originals, then they must be 3-D holograms. And if this nose out shot is a hologram, why not the whole aircraft? It's known we have the capability, don't we?

LInk on Hologram technology:
www.biztechmagazine.com...

I'm leaning strongly now toward the 3-D hologram theory. It makes sense to me and evidently many physicists, pilots, engineers, etc. too.

LInks to nose out videos:
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I'm leaning strongly now toward the 3-D hologram theory. It makes sense to me and evidently many physicists, pilots, engineers, etc. too.

There's a part of me though that says does all this even matter? What's really important is that we know we have been lied to by our government, the media and others.

Please someone help me with this one, so I can get some sleep this week before returning to work this weekend. Why wasn't there any debris when the plane hit? Seriously, I need a good answer that really makes sense. (I can't believe I've gotten back into this 911 topic...I thought I was done with this...aggh)

I'm new...I hope the links work. I haven't learned how to imbed yet. Thanks to all and especially the debunkers from whom I learn the most.