New Footage 9/11 Second Tower Explosion Incredibly Clear Video From Helicopter - Where Is The Plane?

reply to post by Alfie1

Ah yes, the old "you're all deluded" argument. I could say the same thing about people that believe the Official Story (but don't). The Official 9/11 Report is a 571 page lie. "Terrorists did it!" Sounds a little too convenient and too pat, just like 7/7 conclusions....

There's a few things that I notice about this footage.

1) An object is visible at ~2:15 that is traveling at the right trajectory to impact at the explosion.

2) The object is nowhere near big enough to be a 747.

3) It does appear to have been edited out where it disappears, or it was edited in before that.

4) The timing isn't right. If you trace the path along the trajectory at the speed it is traveling, it should impact a good 2-3 seconds before the explosion occurs, it would've had to either slow down or have a delay between impact and explosion.

All the footage I have seen of the second airplane hitting does NOT show the plane slowing down at all, so the only logical conclusion regarding that last is that the explosion was delayed. The only thing I know of that delays between impact and explosion is a missile. The size of the object also coincides with a missile.

These are my observations, please don't take my word for it. Go to the youtube link and go full screen. fast forward to 2:10 and trace the objects trajectory and speed for yourself.

Jaden

reply to post by Masterjaden


No where big enough to be a 747, well yes that is correct.

Because it's a 767.

Analyzing one example video to this extent leads to all sorts of mistakes....as represented in the posting.

The distance, combined with poor quality resolution cause all of those so-call "anomalies".

But of course, in order for this waste of time thread to continue, ALL the other video examples, and other evidence, needs to be completely ignored.

Great job!!

Success!!


(PS...look up the term "radar" as it applies to the airplanes of 9/11. And then come back and keep banging on about the video being "edited" in some way).

Good way to deny ignorance.

/sarcasm.

reply to post by ProudBird


Thank you Proud Bird i always enjoy your objective approach! MOds please move this to the hoax or skunkworks forum on the SOLE basis that what the op is Attempting to pass off as proof is and EDITED forgery. 21 pages of useless argument because of a hoax.

Like some say, thanks for making truthers look dumb. We're never gonna get anywhere with "proof" like this. It just makes it harder when people really want to be objective.

p.s.: They couldn't have done a crappier job with the cgi.

reply to post by ProudBird


Thank you Proud Bird i always enjoy your objective approach! MOds please move this to the hoax or skunkworks forum on the SOLE basis that what the op is Attempting to pass off as proof is and EDITED forgery. 21 pages of useless argument because of a hoax.

Like some say, thanks for making truthers look dumb. We're never gonna get anywhere with "proof" like this. It just makes it harder when people really want to be objective.

p.s.: They couldn't have done a crappier job with the cgi.

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by bitfreak


Well see? There are just so many weird things with the whole plane theory that are questionable

But what about the hole with the woman waving shortly after the supposed plane made that hole? There is NO plane debris in that image, the fire is almost out and she is standing their waving (and there are LOTS of pictures of her and video)

Did you read my response to you earlier regarding this?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And to those seeing the plane as a darker shade, notice, it was flying behind and under the smoke. Smoke blocks sunlight. Depending on the angle of the sun, the shading from the smoke, and where the person was watching, it maybe very hard to see markings or color. Nothing mysterious about it.

reply to post by GenRadek


But Gen, that is where trusses were supposedly sagging from heat.

How can it be hot enough to cause steel to sag if the fires have moved? You can't have it both ways.

That is something we've been saying all along. The woman in the hole proves the fire were not that hot, and they had moved as the fuel ran out. There was simply not enough heat to cause weakening, let alone failure of steel.

reply to post by Anunaki10


Bush did tell a porky, but about the first plane into WTC1, that footage didn't surface until next day. There was some rendering on it as well. The rest was seen live.

reply to post by ANOK


And ANOK, what was happening deep inside the WTC? I'll give you a big hint:







Also ANOK, there was more than one floor that was burning. Boy I thought you were better than this.

OT comment deleted

reply to post by burntheships


This video proves nothing.........

It was either edited, or it was the fact that camera was on the opposite side of the impact.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


Maybe thats where the radar comes in... you know the radar that picked up
the events happening On September 11, 2001... the seismic stations grouped around New York City.

The recorded seismic events from the WTC site, two of which occurred immediately prior to the aircraft impacts upon the Twin Towers. Because these seismic events preceded the collisions, it is clear they were not associated with the impacts and must therefore be associated with some other occurrence. None of the authorities charged with the responsibility for the investigation of the events of 9/11 have proposed a source for these seismic events, nor have they given a valid reason for the difference in times between the seismic events and the aircraft impacts. Only by consideration of the evidence of basement explosions before the aircraft impacts, as experienced by William Rodriquez and 36 others, can an explanation be found for the fact that the seismic stations recorded seismic events originating from the WTC sites prior to the aircraft impacts. It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high-level, technological coordination. Do the facts presented here, simple and few, raise the possibility of inside involvement in 9/11/01, both before and after the attack?
Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
www.journalof911studies.com...

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

 

Maybe thats where the radar comes in...

you know the radar that picked up
the events happening On September 11, 2001... the seismic stations grouped around New York City.

The recorded seismic events from the WTC site, two of which occurred immediately prior to the aircraft impacts upon the Twin Towers. Because these seismic events preceded the collisions, it is clear they were not associated with the impacts and must therefore be associated with some other occurrence. None of the authorities charged with the responsibility for the investigation of the events of 9/11 have proposed a source for these seismic events, nor have they given a valid reason for the difference in times between the seismic events and the aircraft impacts. Only by consideration of the evidence of basement explosions before the aircraft impacts, as experienced by William Rodriquez and 36 others, can an explanation be found for the fact that the seismic stations recorded seismic events originating from the WTC sites prior to the aircraft impacts. It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high-level, technological coordination. Do the facts presented here, simple and few, raise the possibility of inside involvement in 9/11/01, both before and after the attack?
Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
www.journalof911studies.com...

There is nothing out of step with the seismic records :-

911research.wtc7.net...

Can you please explain what you think is wrong ?

reply to post by GenRadek


It doesn't matter what was happening 'deep' in the structure.

If there were enough heat ANYWHERE on a floor to cause the steel to heat up enough to sag no one could stand on that floor. Beside if the trusses were only hot at the core they would not have sagged as NIST claimed.

Photo's of fire in other parts of the building make no difference. The one with the woman in the hole shows quite clearly there was not enough heat to cause steel to fail.

Do you realise how hot it has to be for enough heat to transfer to steel to cause it to sag? You really need to learn about heat transfer, and realise that room fire temps do not equal steel temps. It takes a long time to transfer that heat, and when that heat is removed because the fire is no longer burning the steel instantly starts to cool. Tower two fell in less than ONE hour, not enough time to transfer the heat to the steel, especially as we know the fire at the impact points, were the sagging supposedly started, had already extinguished and was cool enough for someone to survive.

You've obviously never worked with steel, just try standing even close to tons of steel hot enough to fail, you would fail instantly.

So show all the pics of the fires you want Gen, but it doesn't address the details does it?

reply to post by ProudBird


The point was that it wasn't big enough to be a commercial airliner. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't done a lot of research into 9/11.

Nothing that you said in this post does anything to discount the points that I made. /no sarcasm..lol

Jaden

Originally posted by smurfy
Bush did tell a porky, but about the first plane into WTC1, that footage didn't surface until next day. There was some rendering on it as well. The rest was seen live.

The footage of the first plane didn't surface until next day, that's correct, George W. Bush said in that speech 3 months later, here in this speech on TV were he said something like >>I was sitting outside the class room, ready to go in, and i saw an airplane hit the Tower on TV, the TV was obviously on and i, i used to fly myself, and there was one terrible pilot, and i said it must have been a horrible accident, but I was whisked off there, I didn’t have much time to think about it

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by ProudBird

 

The point was that it wasn't big enough to be a commercial airliner. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't done a lot of research into 9/11.

Nothing that you said in this post does anything to discount the points that I made. /no sarcasm..lol

Jaden

So what is this then other than a commercial airliner ?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by burntheships

 

an airplane appears and then disapears to the right of the screen... what the??


by the way guys...

I was watching live before the second plane hit while I was in class. It's all we did all day.
At some point the twin towers disappeared and in their place to gray rectangles appeared. The tower on top was gone too. and then it switched back after 2 seconds to the towers again.

its like they were using some computer program to edit the footage, and someone cut off the special affects at some point. Prolly on purpose...

DID anyone else see this??

edit on 3/13/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/13/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

What is prolly ? The word is probably. Or there is probable. But the least probable is that this was done to us by our own government. For what purpose ? Thats the million dollar question that never gets answered here in ATS. Why the government or as they are known here. TPTB, would want to kill us or destroy our will or keep us hungry or dumb or in the dark. To what end does a civilization make their citizens misrable ? Plan their demise or plan that they are never happy. I know for a fact that I have more control over my life then what folks here would have others believe. An inside job just does not make sense. and before someone says OIL, gas prices were about 1.45 a gallon in 2001 and 3.78 today so where's our inside advantage ???

I've seen the video before so it's nothing new on me and doesn't really add anything strong to either side of the discussion in my opinion.

That said, on further evaluation of other live footage taken of the second aircraft impact I do think something strange is going on, for example, check out these 2 stills from a live feed; see anything that doesn't seem right ?

reply to post by Sly1one


Ummm, there were people at home in NY that day. They were there on the scene. They witnessed the entire thing. Of course it was live.