New Pa. 9/11 video shows smoke after Flight 93 crash

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


He says in the video that it was more terrorists that crashed that plane. I can't remember right off but when were we told it was a terrorist attack in the first place? Right after the twin towers happened or was it hours later? The news cast videos I am watching seem to hint that it was just an assumed attack by the time the 2nd tower was hit.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by lilowl53
9/11 threads seem to always go to poo poo.

ANYWAY! To get back to the topic of this video....I noticed after watching it again, no time or date stamps. Again with my theory that it was made at another time...

Can anyone find a longer version of this vid, or even a similar one from another witness, doesn't seem like a lot of smoke, just a big poof and then a bit of a trail. Other plane crash vids have thick black smoke that trails on and on for a good amount of time.

If it had a time or date stamp would you believe it?

This is the earliest known video pertaining to the aftermath of Flight 93. The video is genuine. Unless you have some evidence of it being manipulated by an elderly man and his wife.

Yep, I agree. It is a genuine video... Nothing wrong with speculating though. If speculating were wrong, Einstein would never have come up with the theory of relativity... Which led to the Quantum Mechanics Which led to string theory which led to M-Theory...and so on.

Contemplating other possibilities is good for you.

reply to post by Six Sigma


Yes, if there was a time stamp of sorts or any other proof it was in fact 9/11/2001 . Then yes I would be more apt to believe it.

Originally posted by lilowl53
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

He says in the video that it was more terrorists that crashed that plane. I can't remember right off but when were we told it was a terrorist attack in the first place? Right after the twin towers happened or was it hours later? The news cast videos I am watching seem to hint that it was just an assumed attack by the time the 2nd tower was hit.

I can't remember. I was thinking that it was assumed by the media after the second one, and then eventually confirmed. But I am not sure.

By the way, for what it is worth, when embedding a video from youtube, you only need the last part of the address... Everything that comes after the v= in the address.

So for example, using a random youtube video.

http://w ww.yout ube.com/watch?v= cakYpP2escc&feature=feedu

From this you would only use cakYpP2escc&feature=feedu when entering the vid link number.

If that make sense.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Thank you, I am new to adding links and such. And I am doing it fast before my net goes out again, lol! Blast this storm!

Originally posted by lilowl53
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

Thank you, I am new to adding links and such. And I am doing it fast before my net goes out again, lol! Blast this storm!

Oh yeah, the storm. Stay safe!

No problem.

was Flt 93 almost out of gas?

Judging from the amount of smoke in that plume, there was only fire for a couple of minutes. Both WTC and Pentagon crashes burned for hours

Originally posted by lilowl53
.I noticed after watching it again, no time or date stamps. Again with my theory that it was made at another time...

The house were this was filmed at was easy to find on google earth, it's the red dot at the bottom of the picture.

It is 5.74 miles from the crash site.

Everything in the video lines up perfectly with the position of crash site.

Even the wind is blowing the same direction as it was on 911.

So in order for this to be filmed at another time, they would need to take another few thousand pounds of fuel out to the crash site, wait until the wind is right, and light it.

Personally I think someone might notice that and ask "hey what are you guys doin". They might even call the fire department or something.

Originally posted by TXRabbit
was Flt 93 almost out of gas?

Good question,I honestly am not sure how to find out how much gas was left. I doubt it was almost out of gas, I mean, I would think those things hold enough fuel to go for quite a while with out having to fuel up again, but I am not sure.

Any way we could find out how much fuel was left in the tanks?

reply to post by waypastvne


Excellent post my friend.

Best supporting evidence yet

reply to post by waypastvne


Nice! I forgot about google earth, lol. When I said it could have been at a different time, I think I also said possibly another place entirely also. Who really knows for sure but the man who made the video. I'll admit I could quite possibly be defeated at this point. But just about this video.

Only somewhat notable thing I noticed was his statement "It shook our house like heck...". Not an expert on the potential affects of a largely aluminum plane striking the ground at, 500 - 600 mph? to surrounding structures. He looks to be a good ways away from the impact. Also, it looks more like a bomb crater. I'd be interested to know what the seismographs for that area looked like upon impact. I know we have them for the WTC.

reply to post by deadmessiah


Well, that google earth picture says he was about 5.74 miles away... But who knows. I mean, if a plane crashed it is bound to make a pretty big boom with a pretty big shock wave. The article says that investigators believe it was going 580 MPH when it hit.

I don't know. Makes sense to me.

reply to post by lilowl53


Don't be too deflated. I believe this could be CGI. How difficult would it be to fake?
Had the camera man never heard of the zoom button?
The quality is very low (typical of many cgi 9/11 fakes), even though the filmers wife
claimed to have had the camera fully charged to be able to instantly shoot some of
the beautiful vistas to show to relations living in the city.
tribune-democrat.com...
The iconic picture showing the mushroom cloud over the barn at the moment of
'the crash' in shanksville has already been shown to have been faked, with the cloud being
in an impossible position in relation to the crash site.

And now for it to be released exactly on the 10th anniversary? Come on!
9/11 footage is chock full of Fakery but people have such a hard time
processing this truth, for some strange reason!

9/11 Media Fakery
Systematic Media Fakery

It Looked Real When I Saw It On The Tell-A-Vision!

Video and Photographic Fakery solves an awful lot of 9/11 issues.

regards

pshea.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
reply to post by deadmessiah

 

Well, that google earth picture says he was about 5.74 miles away... But who knows. I mean, if a plane crashed it is bound to make a pretty big boom with a pretty big shock wave. The article says that investigators believe it was going 580 MPH when it hit.

I don't know. Makes sense to me.

edit on 6-9-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

He said that the shock-wave shook his house? Almost six miles away no way possible. All of the trees would have deadened the shock-wave long before it got to his house. I've seen quite a few plane crashes and fight 93 shows no evidence of crashing that plane was shot down. There is no way that plane crashed like they say and it leave practically no debris behind.

Originally posted by pshea38

The iconic picture showing the mushroom cloud over the barn at the moment of
'the crash' in shanksville has already been shown to have been faked, with the cloud being
in an impossible position in relation to the crash site.

The mushroom cloud was exactly were it should be.
Killtown, the truther who made up that story, neglected to take into consideration that fact that the fuel onboard the plane was traveling at 580 mph at the time of impact. Some of the fuel may have drifted just a little beyond the crater when it ignited.

Here's a google earth image showing Val's location, the impact location, and the location of the base of the mushroom cloud.

reply to post by buster2010


See, that is something I was thinking about to... Would the distance and obstacles in the way, weaken the... shock wave, I guess you would call it?

There really are not that many trees in the way though....

Originally posted by buster2010

He said that the shock-wave shook his house? Almost six miles away no way possible. All of the trees would have deadened the shock-wave long before it got to his house. I've seen quite a few plane crashes and fight 93 shows no evidence of crashing that plane was shot down. There is no way that plane crashed like they say and it leave practically no debris behind.

The shock waye that shook his house would be the one that traveled through the ground. The sound would have reached him a short time later.

Originally posted by waypastvne
Here's a google earth image showing Val's location, the impact location, and the location of the base of the mushroom cloud.

How did you determine that is the base of the cloud?

Is it something we'll have to take your word for?

So, I found out about this video on Fox Nation. I like to go there because the people are crazy. Anyway, I saw the story and watched the video and this is my conclusion:

1. Guy is dead (not necessarily suspicious, but convenient)
2. His family decided to release the video right before the 10th anniversary (happy coincidence, just found it in the attic?)
3. His family wishes to remain anonymous (You've got to be kidding me, people post things all day long and you don't even need to be doing it to get your 15 minutes, it's to make the source verifiable)

About the video specifically: The guy says "a bomb exploded on board". Well, we all know the official story does not seem to want to explain just why the whole plane disintegrated (yet they still found some journal of one of the terrorists) when that does not happen from your run of the mill jet crash. The guy says he heard (though it's not clear if that was on the ham radio) a big explosion. He said the whole house shook 15 miles away. When does a plane crash make a shock wave like that? Then again, this wasn't a plane crash at all was it.

See, here's the thing, you don't have to make this some opaque mystery, but the problem is that what they do want to tell us does not make any sense and/or is unprecedented (and so many unprecedented incidents in one day is hard to swallow). Both stories are conspiracies because more than one person was involved in a secretive plot. The problem is that the official conspiracy is incoherent and riddled with firsts.

One more thing about the FOX nation page (and you can go see it if you want) is that there is a poster responding angrily to another who was flagged for review, so I couldn't see what he said. However, I'm going to assume it was about a plane not hitting the pentagon based on the angry responses. One poster, a certain HoosierVet, says:

I had a collegue on that plane. A friend of mine was turning off exit 1 of the Shirley Highway and saw the plane coming in. He watched the plane hit in his rear view mirror while passing Arlington National Cemetary. You can go to heII.......

So, either this guy is a liar who feels entitled to make things up because of his passion about the OS or his need to feel important and connected to the events - OR (and I'm leaning this way)

This is a calculated information manipulation campaign in the running up to the 10th anniversary by one of the many agencies currently running those multiple personality response programs on online forums that we've heard so much about recently documented in the news.

-This all smells. All of it. And honestly, I've always been a bit dispassionate about 9/11, concerned more about the wars it spawned and social issues related or not. But I have to say, it's just too convenient. To sum up:

A family, who wishes to remain anonymous, releases a video nearly 10 years to the day, filmed by their deceased relative, who filmed the smoke trail from the plane in PA that crashed into a million tiny pieces (except for some papers written by one of the terrorists) and it was brought down by passengers in mid air, yet the man filming says the bomb blew it up in the air.

I feel like I'm living in some crazy alternate universe.