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

I personally debunked that video back on May 5 of this year on another site. This goes to show how the same old crud keeps being stirred up.

You know what they say, the more your stir it the more it stinks.

One of the give a ways is the mouse cursor in the center of some of the video.

The still photos in the video, showing cruise missiles painted to look like airplanes have been photo shopped. The originals are posted on this site.

www.globalsecurity.org...


Like I said on the other site: If a reporter found small sections of the exploded missile with small windows painted on the side, you would have a media frenzy. It would make more sense to paint the cruise missile like it’s a vending machine. No one would question pieces of a Coke machine in the debris.


The mysterious ‘fireball’ is nothing more than the sun reflecting off a window. Anyone who flies on a sunny day will see these.

The strange triangle that hits the Pentagon doesn’t even hit in the correct spot. Nor does it travel the correct path.

You have to wonder about the motives of the person who took the time to produce and distribute the video. It’s the same old crud being re hashed time and time again.

The link to the other site showing how it all transpired is.

--.com...

It wasn’t too long after I posted this that they banned me. Some conspiracy sites can’t handle people who don’t believe.
ATS seems to be different. Maybe that’s why ATS is growing and the others stagnate.

for what it's worth (probably not much)

That isn't an f/a18

It looks like an f15 to me! Might help with identifying where it came from if you have the correct aircraft type, just saying

reply to post by plube

The big difference is, that the world trade center had holes into the steel and the concrete wall that is bigger than the jet, doesn't have a single hole in it where the plane could get past... Yet still the plane magically disappears!

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

1:35

0:23-0:39

Fireman describing explosions

Start watching at 2:44...

Ill post more later.

Thanks OP!

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

that first video.. the melting steel, jet fuel and fire cannot do that.

This REALLY reminds me of a THERMITE REACTION

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/42b790127b9d.jpg[/atsimg]
not sure....lets look closely
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/49fd65b28020.jpg[/atsimg]
yep getting closer
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/499834f267e3.jpg[/atsimg]
hmmm wingless....yes loads of smoke...oh and contrast
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/09a34a642ff4.jpg[/atsimg]
oh my these are quite clear are they not...strange.

note: All i am saying is i find it odd....very odd indeed...do i know why...nope...do you know why...i am sure you will tell me...these are the frames as they were....i did not manipulate.

edit on 123131p://f01Monday by plube because: added note

wings flex

and in the case of airliners, quite a lot. Especially at that speed

I think perhaps it is a combination of a crappy camera, and the wing flexing to reflect the light just enough that the camera doesn't pick up its outline

But that opens another can of worms, the speed involved. The planes they claimed were involved are not capable of the speed and angles of attack that they apparently achieved. This has probably been brought up before, but it really gets me.

reply to post by Grifter.be


just a note...the plane hit between floors...therefore hitting into the floor btween....which shows up in many vids....the space between was way less than the width of the fusalage on the plane and therefore would have had even more of a tearing effect upon the aircraft...but i knew someone would come back with such a feeble statement....well done.
The plane may have disintegrated but as it did so it created a debris field and also the distance and size of fusalage between the nose to wing between the test and a passenger jet is far greater...so why is the debris field on the passenger jet so mauch less when there is far more material.
you see i do not care what debunkers try to do...this is to show people the real anomalies during the events of 9/11 of which there are so many...and believe me i have a very good understanding of materials.....
I have explained many things in the past so please by all means try to sway the few ...but it does not work....as the debunkers get fewer and fewer and more and more people question the OS.
the evidence is speakng for itself.

reply to post by plube


But i am not a debunker... Maybe a realist? No serieus... I do believe there is something fishy... But the no plane theory is just so far fetched... A marvelous sound system-hologram.... One which can cast shadows and hi decibel sounds... Cool... So you think project blue beam had anything to do with this? En where are the passengers gone? Killed by the government? Or all highly paid actors?

But still, i could indeed be possible... But then again???

reply to post by Grifter.be


I have to agree...i am not one that subscribes to a no plane theory myself....but the anomalies just keep on adding up and without any real reasonable explainations....
I have no reason to believe the buildings just collapsed as they are all steel buildings with inner cores and they dont just fall down...(without help).
The buildings being hit by planes should not have bought them down the way they did...especialy building Seven.
some people say fires did it...but fires would not porduce global collapse as the fires would have had to burn sooooo hot for much longer periods of time...56mins after the first plane struck a tower falls completely...(unbelievable).
some folks go on about the jet fuel but jet fuel is mostly kerosene and does NOT burn hot enough to meltsteel...or even Aluminium for that matter.
also people fail to realize steel would act like a giant heat sink.....where the fires were concentrated the heat would be automatically drawn away through the steel up and away from where the planes hit the towers in the first place.
The OS willl have to change to convinced this person that there was not some sort of interaction other than the planes that brought the buildings down...but the more i look at the plane crashes themselves....the worse the OS gets.
like the photos of the f4 fighter into the wall....look at the debris before the crash reaches the wing edge......
Then you look at the debris from the photos of the plane into the building...the distance between the nose to wing edge from the f4 to the 767 is huge...all this debris would not have magically just disappeared into the building.
the steel would have had resistance.....especially the area between floor levels.....that whole front section just disappears into the building....like it is entering paper.....aluminium versus steel....hmmm the steel wins every time.....if a bullet strikes a pumpkin at say 6000n the pumpkin exerts the same force in the oposite direction of 6000n the bullet wins cause of the material it is entering....well in this case the steel would be the bigger winner.
the exoskeleton was not this papar thin peice of mesh as people would try to have us believe....the wings of the aircraft would have not have entered the pices that would have created the most damage would have been the engines.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Oh, and BTW --- about laser targeting. YOU CAN'T SEE THEM!!! And, they "pulse":

NO actually your wrong. infra red lasers cannot be seen by the naked eye.
but when seen through a digital camera you can see the beam in this case the target spot.

simple experiment for all. get your digital camera or camera phone and your TV
remote control, OK you cannot see any light with your eyes when you press the
buttons on your TV remote.(your looking at the end you point at the TV)
NOW point your remote at your camera lens and you WILL SEE the infra red light
on the little screen of your phone or digi cam blinking away! simple as that!

That is why it shows up on the TV!. not paper sorry.

Originally posted by stealthyaroura
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Oh, and BTW --- about laser targeting. YOU CAN'T SEE THEM!!! And, they "pulse":

NO actually your wrong. infra red lasers cannot be seen by the naked eye.
but when seen through a digital camera you can see the beam in this case the target spot.

simple experiment for all. get your digital camera or camera phone and your TV
remote control, OK you cannot see any light with your eyes when you press the
buttons on your TV remote.(your looking at the end you point at the TV)
NOW point your remote at your camera lens and you WILL SEE the infra red light
on the little screen of your phone or digi cam blinking away! simple as that!

That is why it shows up on the TV!. not paper sorry.

of course he's wrong... as always... nothing new there. ANALOG cams won't pick up IR... but Digital cams have the capability and appears that may have been the case in the camera used in that footage. Whatsmore, this video below explains and illustrates more than enough evidence to support IR/lazer targeting and puts to rest the "oh its just PAPER reflecting" argument.

it just proves what i've said many times that weeds posts are based on no real research or objective and educated debunking... Its all either Opinions or empty claims designed to derail, obfuscate and inject disinfo into those seeking truth in order to steer seekers from the evidence through confusion... basic disinfo tactics..

All his so-called debunkings are based on out-dated data and old arguments and most of what he criticizes, he hasn't even researched or bothered to review.

heres a few excellent analysis the duhbunkers like weed don't want people to see and are scared to see themselves.







www.youtube.com...

www.globalsecurity.org...

the object, is not a piece of paper. There are several points of time where the dot can be seen passing through the smoke like it were a liquid, creating a cylinder of light.

You can also clearly see the dot follow along the edge of the expanding fireball from the plane crash. If you record it's path across the fireball you will notice, it does not follow a straight line. In fact it moves all over the place, disappearing and reappearing at different angles and elevations etc.

A "piece of paper" doesn't exhibit the type characteristics observed by the visual evidence and illustrated in the analysis.

several threads have already discussed this many times without any real "debunking" by those like weed claiming its been debunked but the evidence and arguments that haven't been remotely adequately addressed let alone conclusively disproven, proves otherwise.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.pakistan.tv...

"the object, is not a piece of paper."

If it was a piece of paper, where did such a relatively large piece of paper come from? Why is it still floating around the sky 15 minutes after the first Tower was hit? Did it happen to sneak out of the first Tower just prior to the second impact, where the temperatures were "reportedly" hot enough to melt all that iron? Did it magically float up 800 feet from the street?

Hey, I guess if a passport can survive and be in pristine condition after being in such a firey explosion, anything is possible. Especially when you're dealing with a bunch of pathetic and desperate liars.

I believe the wing fell off. Here you see it intact.


Here you see it off. Below the plane.


Last. Wing flying away. Past the tower.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal





It's a piece of paper.

It sure is a piece of paper, or maybe its about 1.000.000 laser targets....
Hehehe, really, many people really wont to see something... And then they show a 15 second from a five minutes movie... Then go claim, look, that's not a paper, when you keep watching the same movie, you go see thousands of those flying papers, even papers way higher!

Although, some interesting thoughts in those movies... Like the way to burn the steel... And after getting a repeated watch of the nose out section, it does seems strange and makes me wonder how that could happen...... Although i personally think there is a reasonable explanation for this...

Originally posted by Grifter.be
And after getting a repeated watch of the nose out section, it does seems strange and makes me wonder how that could happen...... Although i personally think there is a reasonable explanation for this

My explanation for the nose out is in this video.