It's the 2nd one I have seen, filmed from different angles, where there is an edit just BEFORE the 2nd impact - about 12 minutes into this one. The video is runing merrily, but oops - camera is paused while she makes a cuppa JUST before the 2nd impact. She leaps back to camera to unpause - catching the exploding fireball - spilling her coffee in the process....
All we see is the fireball from the 2nd impact. We hear the helicopters and fire sirens, but no jet engine noise, despite the witness clearly saying "it was a huge military plane"
Either this video has been favorably edited/faked or not right? Perhaps you can suggest an alternative.. I honestly can't understand what this presents in favor of NPT. How about some stuff which corroborates the plane presence..
From the very start of the video...
1: "I heard a plane, it sounded like a plane went over. Then I heard the boom and I looked up, and there was the thing exploding from the outside. Exploding too the ousided.
2: "Your mom said there was a plane flying over."
1: "She heard the noise of a plane, and then a boom."
This from just after the crash..
2: "It was like a military plane."
1: "It was a military plane."
3: "Where are they coming from?"
1: "The south."
1: "It was a huge plane."
Perhaps you could explain to me how this enhances the NP argument?
Perhaps you could explain to me how this enhances the NP argument?
Why did the camera stop and restart just before and after the impact?
There are a number of videos, which show different things. Witnesses say different things. This lady said "a huge military plane" - but we saw no such thing on the video.
This is very similar set of circumstances to the Zapruder film (which shows car in continuous motion, some witnesses said the car stopped) - the film/video conflicts with witness statements so we have a jumble of information.
Which is the true story? Sadly, even fairly good quality video here won't give us a definitive answer..... _________________ Andrew
When this vid was discussed in the past most of us agreed that the edits were suspicious. But the suspicions had nothing to do with the NPT but more to do with audible explosions that may have been edited out.
Listen to what William Rodriguez say about the second impact in this short clip:
So why would the impact on the south tower cause the north tower to oscillate? Explosives perhaps? Also William mentions a series of sequential explosions in the north tower after the impact on the south tower, coincidence?
I might analysis the audio just after the second impact to see if there are any hidden low frequency peak events which might indicate that a series of sequential explosion happened in the north tower. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Either this video has been favorably edited/faked or not right? Perhaps you can suggest an alternative.. I honestly can't understand what this presents in favor of NPT. How about some stuff which corroborates the plane presence..
From the very start of the video...
1: "I heard a plane, it sounded like a plane went over. Then I heard the boom and I looked up, and there was the thing exploding from the outside. Exploding too the ousided.
2: "Your mom said there was a plane flying over."
1: "She heard the noise of a plane, and then a boom."
This from just after the crash..
2: "It was like a military plane."
1: "It was a military plane."
3: "Where are they coming from?"
1: "The south."
1: "It was a huge plane."
Perhaps you could explain to me how this enhances the NP argument?
WELL HOW ABOUT - YOU DID NOT SEE A PLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Either this video has been favorably edited/faked or not right? Perhaps you can suggest an alternative.. I honestly can't understand what this presents in favor of NPT. How about some stuff which corroborates the plane presence..
From the very start of the video...
1: "I heard a plane, it sounded like a plane went over. Then I heard the boom and I looked up, and there was the thing exploding from the outside. Exploding too the ousided.
2: "Your mom said there was a plane flying over."
1: "She heard the noise of a plane, and then a boom."
This from just after the crash..
2: "It was like a military plane."
1: "It was a military plane."
3: "Where are they coming from?"
1: "The south."
1: "It was a huge plane."
Perhaps you could explain to me how this enhances the NP argument?
WELL HOW ABOUT - YOU DID NOT SEE A PLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just shut-it shill as you're really beining to p*ss me and many others off. If I was you I'd get my coat! _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
So why would the impact on the south tower cause the north tower to oscillate? Explosives perhaps?
I'd say probably not. Every time a truck hits a bump outside my window, my flat, on the second floor, shakes - sometimes so much that the screen on my Powerbook rocks back and forth. Without getting too bogged down in formulae (unless Snowygrouch comes to the rescue), I'd guess that given the far greater force of the impact and explosion and the height of the towers, it is not surprising, to me at least, that the North Tower oscillated.
Either this video has been favorably edited/faked or not right? Perhaps you can suggest an alternative.. I honestly can't understand what this presents in favor of NPT. How about some stuff which corroborates the plane presence..
From the very start of the video...
1: "I heard a plane, it sounded like a plane went over. Then I heard the boom and I looked up, and there was the thing exploding from the outside. Exploding too the ousided.
2: "Your mom said there was a plane flying over."
1: "She heard the noise of a plane, and then a boom."
This from just after the crash..
2: "It was like a military plane."
1: "It was a military plane."
3: "Where are they coming from?"
1: "The south."
1: "It was a huge plane."
Perhaps you could explain to me how this enhances the NP argument?
WELL HOW ABOUT - YOU DID NOT SEE A PLANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just shut-it shill as you're really beining to p*ss me and many others off. If I was you I'd get my coat!
If I was you (sh ite for brains) I would go back to your vipers nest and tell the boss man the've sussed me and ask for your next assignment - how about infiltrating the Blue Peter Webb site - that's about your level
I'd just like to thank THETRUTHWILLSETU3 and others who like to post using distinctive styles, in his/her case invariably ALL CAPS, as it makes it easier to scroll past and ignore all the garbage that they post.
Perhaps you could explain to me how this enhances the NP argument?
Why did the camera stop and restart just before and after the impact?
Video camera tapes aren't infinite. The stopping and starting is perfectly reasonable, even expected. No one was expecting a second impact, no one was expecting the first collapse. There's a point where one reasonably stops filming a building that's been smoking for over an hour.
Quote:
There are a number of videos, which show different things. Witnesses say different things. This lady said "a huge military plane" - but we saw no such thing on the video.
Huh? What's that got to do with anything? There's ample evidence of the plans existence through the three eyewitnesses talking about it, yet you say it's evidence they didn't exist because the video quite naturally doesn't show one? Please...
Quote:
This is very similar set of circumstances to the Zapruder film (which shows car in continuous motion, some witnesses said the car stopped) - the film/video conflicts with witness statements so we have a jumble of information.
No. There is no conflict, where are you getting that from? Please explain this contradiction in detail.
Quote:
Which is the true story? Sadly, even fairly good quality video here won't give us a definitive answer.....
Ok. Here's a simple theory:
- They heard a first plane, saw the explosion, got the film camera and began filming the fire, while discussing the plane and explosion.
- Stopped filming after some time, then heard and saw the second plane, raced to turn the camera back on and caught the fireball on tape.
- Talked about the huge plane they saw flying into the tower and theorised about what was going on.
It's quite an easy theory to follow, because it's right there on tape.
I totally agree with you, Fallious. I have done camera work for a living and it is very easy to miss important shots because, usually by their very nature, they simply cannot be anticipated. How long do you film a smoking building? You can see from this video that they were scanning the street for something a bit more exciting than endless plumes of smoke.
And when working I would normally have at least half a dozen spare tapes and batteries etc. but many amateurs are not so well prepared.
As for the Zapruder film, there are said to be a handful of missing frames, not a few seconds' worth - a fraction of a second's worth. Only THETRUTHWILLSETU3 could imagine that a car could come to a stop and start again within a fraction of a second. Even milk floats (once, and possibly still, faster than any other road vehicle from 0-10mph) would find it impossible. Even if it were the case you would see very clear indications of it in the movement of all the people in the car.
The President's car did stop to allow one of the marksmen to shoot. This is clearly the case when you see the car speed up after JFK was shot. When the car speeds up, all four passengers jerk forward - that's forward not backwards. It was doctored so that instead of seeing the car come to a halt, the film shows the car speeding up.
Also, if you've got a copy of the film JFK, as the car with the injuryed President drives past people standing on grass, you see in one image two people and three shadows.
This, of course, has little bearing on the 911 film.
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: Zapruder Film
insidejob wrote:
This, of course, has little bearing on the 911 film.
It has no direct bearing on the films of 9/11 - but the strategy, as far as I am concerned, is too similar to be coincidental. i.e. it was planned that way. _________________ Andrew
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:28 pm Post subject: something's up
This late arrival, un-sourced movie misses out on the all-important events. No plane impacts visible and no towers exploding. However, we do hear an anonymous voice claiming that they had just seen a large military plane hitting the tower. I am surprised to note that they have decided to remain incognito, and have kept this to themselves untill recently. Why? Why have they not gone mainstream with this somewhat important detail. Was this released on the net for our consumption?
As for the camera lying around whilst coffe is made - am I expected to believe that an incoming plane at hundreds of miles an hour allows enough time to pick up, switch on, aim and shoot in the split seconds before the admittedly delayed fireball appears?
Mayhap, but I remain suspicious of this movie. Time may tell, but the only item of note to come from this is the 'military plane'. What can it mean, in that case, that a useless video brings us to the point of fevered debate whilst time marches on?
Last edited by alwun on Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
This video must cause a lot of problems for you No Planers.
On the one hand there's first hand witness accounts of "huge planes" hitting the towers, with the correct plane flight paths both confirmed.
And on the other, you don't get any video of the planes.. This causes a problem for you, because either this video has been handled and edited to insert fake plane info. Or the video and witnesses are genuine.
Unfortunately you MUST assume the tape is edited to add the immediate first hand accounts of the aircraft flight paths, sounds and impacts... But if this is the case, why didn't the conspirators go the extra yard to add the second plane cartoon to the video, as you suppose they have with countless others?
If the tape was edited to include evidence of planes, then why not also add yet another plane cartoon before the explosion? Suddenly, there's a third, quite plausible option...
The tape was purposefully edited to be controversial, to include talk of big aircraft but not show them. A film which in any normal circumstance wouldn't have anything suspicious in it, but leaves just enough OUT for the No Planers to latch on to.
You've been had. If this video IS edited - as you must assume, it's the clearest evidence yet that NPT is a red herring, a distraction and a drip fed poison designed to divide the movement and damage 9/11 truth credibility. Discuss.
Last edited by Fallious on Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: confirmed? - evidence?
This video contains no evidence of planes and impacts, and no confirmation of flights, plans or plots. A mysterious 'voice off' talks of a large military plane. Who is this? What is this? Might as well just be, as Fallious suggests, a complete red herring, but with the intent of stirring it up round here. There was a phrase, popular around the midle of last century, which postulated or even claimed that "seeing is believing". I propose that in the case of 911, unless the person actually behind the vid or photo is identified and questioned as to the veracity of their results, then the worth of any un-sourced imagery is little or nothing.
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject: Re: confirmed? - evidence?
alwun wrote:
This video contains no evidence of planes and impacts,
On the contrary, the video has the first hand accounts of three people who saw or heard planes. This is before the news broadcasts began talking of them. Combined with hundreds of other testimony's, even if no one managed to catch a plane on film that day, the sheer weight of personal account would be more than enough to prove they were there.
Quote:
and no confirmation of flights, plans or plots.
There is confirmation of a sort, when they talk of the first plane they say it "went over" and they were along the flight path of the first aircraft, when talking of the second plane they said it came from "The south". Which again is in line with later accounts.
Quote:
A mysterious 'voice off' talks of a large military plane. Who is this? What is this? Might as well just be, as Fallious suggests, a complete red herring
I'm not suggesting the editing of the tape is a red herring, it's the nature of the editing to leave doubt (for NPT's) that planes were there. That's the poison.
Quote:
but with the intent of stirring it up round here. There was a phrase, popular around the midle of last century, which postulated or even claimed that "seeing is believing". I propose that in the case of 911, unless the person actually behind the vid or photo is identified and questioned as to the veracity of their results, then the worth of any un-sourced imagery is little or nothing.
Well i'd just reference you to my first paragraph, but this is a perfectly sane stance on requiring sources .
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1850 Location: Currently Andover
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: confirmed? - evidence?
Another reason why I thought this was an interesting vid is that there is a "silent" version. Why does the exact same footage suddenly appear with all this noise and conversation.
Fallious - you put down in words what I was thinking.
Possibly a cöck-up during compression the first time around? I can't remember what codec the first version I saw was compressed with but I have failed to select the 'audio' box when I have compressed to DivX via QuickTime myself.
I'm not really convinced either way on this video. I am suspiscious that it was released when it was - I would have thought that the average American flag-waver would have handed over at least a copy to the some agency of authority if they thought it might be used as evidence to help an investigation.
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: Hi there
Fallious, do you mean by confirmation the voices in the soundtrack of this vid? If so, this is a point on which we differ. I do not trust this video, for reasons implied above. I do not accept these people 'babs and bri' or whoever, and their overweaning sentimental caveats in the opening titles, as especially believeable. Their comments sound staged to say the least. Until they show up and explain their vid, then I'm unable to take it at face value. A face value which is negligible, to be generous. These are simply 'voices off', a common device of many theatrical productions.
Maybe future, further enhanced editions of this vid, which at this rate may well appear, will prove more enlightening. It looks to me as if the second impact was deliberately edited out, or something.
P.S. That helicopter coming round the corner just then must have got a fright!
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject: markwm
Hi markwm,
That's correct, her words, as well as the rest of this inadequate video matter not a jot.
Numerous other cameras? I have found 33 videos at killtown. Some are clearly faked, which demands analyses of the others, if nothing else. If anybody knows of footage further to killtown's, please post.
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: markwm
alwun wrote:
Hi markwm,
That's correct, her words, as well as the rest of this inadequate video matter not a jot.
Numerous other cameras? I have found 33 videos at killtown. Some are clearly faked, which demands analyses of the others, if nothing else. If anybody knows of footage further to killtown's, please post.
Must dash.
cheers Al..
Ok, I understand you're not a full No Planer, so perhaps it might help save your soul if you'd let us know which of the videos are clearly faked
Now, I'm no expert, and what is clear for me perhaps is not for someone else. It is just that if one feature of a tale is plain wrong as is so obvious in 8 above, then the others need to be doubted also. That is to say if a vid is being punted as genuine, and is clearly not, then doubts must arise. I will try to find again the two vids shot from the same perspective, but where the smoke from the 1st hit is blowing in the opposite direction.
I'm off to pray etc. now and I hope to be still around tomorrow. As it happens, in good old Christian parlance, my soul went up in a puff of motherlode mindf*k a long time ago.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
.
