It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Curious WTC video

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Just to let you know The NYFD doesn't have any Fire Helicopters, The NYPD is the only city agnecy that has helicopters. The big 412 model has a bucket like you see in forest fires. And they assist the NYFD when needed.

The Police helicopters were carrying Fire Battalion Chiefs over the scene to help coordinate the rescue. It also had a portable Radio Repeater mounted on the belly to help with the radio traffic since the main radio repeater was destroyed when the towers went down.

They put alot of hours flying over. to help the radio system which was knocked out when the power was off after the collapses occured.

wtc.nist.gov...




posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
It may have been a police chopper but the strange thing is that I remember seeing that copter fly over a tower and then the tower falls and thennnn apparrently the same copter flies by the other tower and then it collapses. Now it could have just been coincidence but what are the odds of that?
Oh I also remeber seeing a flash of light from the copter on both occassions, crazy huh?



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elijio
It may have been a police chopper but the strange thing is that I remember seeing that copter fly over a tower and then the tower falls and thennnn apparrently the same copter flies by the other tower and then it collapses. Now it could have just been coincidence but what are the odds of that?
Oh I also remeber seeing a flash of light from the copter on both occassions, crazy huh?


So you are now implying that the NYPD, used a particle beam or laser, or some other device, to cause both towers to fall?

Could it just be as bufordny puts it? I have a tad more faith in what he is saying, btw.

As for the odds, I think the odds of that happening are in favor of it happening. That helicopter was more or less circling the entire area around both towers. Simple enough, eh?

Don't get me wrong, there a many things wrong with the official story, but I think you are reaching a little bit with this theory.



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mechanic 32
So you are now implying that the NYPD, used a particle beam or laser, or some other device, to cause both towers to fall?

What, what?
Don't put words in my mouth please.

All I said is this: copter flies over tower, flash from copter(wait 2 secs) tower falls. Same copter flies over second tower, same flash as it flies over(wait 2 secs) tower falls. It may not have anything to do with anything though, I mean it could just be coincidence that the same copter just happened to fly..aww forget it. Nevermind.
BTW ur avatars rock



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elijio
What, what?
Don't put words in my mouth please...

BTW ur avatars rock


Sorry, I must have been mistaken about your point, then.

Thanks for the compliment.



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SneakySquirrel
Another thing: Wouldn't the area around the World Trade Centers (i.e. the entire city of New York) be deemed restricted airspace? Especially when a crisis has happened. That helicopter sure has me confused, could someone please help me out on this one?

[edit on 13-12-2006 by SneakySquirrel]


That helicopter was filming images for Bush, explained in the 5th minute of this clip
www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 15 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by golddragnet

Originally posted by SneakySquirrel
Another thing: Wouldn't the area around the World Trade Centers (i.e. the entire city of New York) be deemed restricted airspace? Especially when a crisis has happened. That helicopter sure has me confused, could someone please help me out on this one?

[edit on 13-12-2006 by SneakySquirrel]


That helicopter was filming images for Bush, explained in the 5th minute of this clip
www.youtube.com...


I've never seen the video that you posted, but when I watched the video, it had me asking more questions then were answered, which is typical of any suspicious video posted on ATS. The part that you were referring to was very confusing to me, I had to watch the section a few times to understand what the narrator was saying. Interesting find though, and thank you for posting the link. I will continue researching this, who knows what could come of all of this?

golddragnet,I would recommend that you should fix your above statement, because there is no way to prove that the particular helicopter in question was filming the video for Bush's 'viewing pleasure'. If you do have any more videos of curious events happening before or during the collapse of the World Trade Centers don't be hesitant to post the link.

I would personally like to thank the people who replied constructively as well as those who lurked and read my thread, I encourage anyone who has an interesting video or picture of a relevant and curious nature of the minutes before and after the collapse of the towers.

-SS

[edit on 15-12-2006 by SneakySquirrel]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   
No. What you want to look out for is the lone jet plane (looks about the size of a 757) that, in violation of normal air traffic patterns, was circling the toers during the period when the hijacked planes were hitting the towers.

Now that IS suspicious.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
No. What you want to look out for is the lone jet plane (looks about the size of a 757) that, in violation of normal air traffic patterns, was circling the toers during the period when the hijacked planes were hitting the towers.

Now that IS suspicious.


Would you be so kind as to post a link so that the rest of us know what youre talking about?

-SS



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Sure... I'd heard about this from a few places, and you can see it in quite a few videos from the day... but the most comprehensive reference I've seen is here:


No mention of a large, commercial-class aircraft loitering in the restricted airspace of lower Manhattan during the strikes on the WTC towers will be found in the 9/11 Commission Report. It does not appear in any version of the Official Story. It is largely unknown even in critical studies of 9/11. Yet substantial evidence exists to support its presence coincident with the attacks, actually orbiting in close proximity to the towers for several minutes while the North Tower burned and the South Tower was struck. Photography, video footage and eyewitness accounts, including FDNY transcripts and mainstream media audio, confirm this fact.


Of interest is also the postscript:


Scholars for 9/11 Truth has been appalled to learn that the author of this study has received threats against himself and his family for having written this article. The source of these threats has suggested that he drop out of our organization and that this study should "go away". He has withdrawn from S9/11T, but this piece of research cannot "go away". It has already been widely read and no doubt copied. Under the circumstances, it would be a huge mistake to allow this organization and its journal to be manipulated by external threats. Since the author has nothing to do with our decision to keep it in place, responsibility shifts to the organization. We hope others will pursue its leads.


Personally, I suspect it was involved in guiding the aircraft to their target, but that's just my guess.

[edit on 17-12-2006 by rich23]



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Mind you, while we're on helicopters, I only just came across this page.

It suggests that among the helicopters buzzing around the scene, one was a chopper carrying military-spec steadicam hardware. Mind you, it also says that this was theyonly live feed that captured the impact of the second plane, and my memory of seeing the second impact, for what it's worth, is of a different shot. I was watching it on CNN world, and I remember a long shot and the plane coming in from the left... but you know what a shifty thing memory is.


A "WESCAM" is a special anti-vibration camera that mounts on a helicopter and delivers some really stellar visuals.
We know, that this helicopter was steady the whole time and that all media choppers had been whisked out of the area.
Why would a regular media copter remain steady at this position, already before the second hit, not moving at all?

Why also did this unidentified helicopter chose a position where the South Tower is hidden and covered by the North Tower, instead of flying just a little bit to the side, to get a better angle?

Was this chopper really from W-ABC or maybe one of the identified U.S. Helicopters, as seen on some footage at time of second hit and confirmed on WINS. After both attacks also on the footage of Rick Siegel (911eyewitness.com), you can visibly notice 14-16 other helicopters, who passed the crime scene

Who was the pilot of the "W-ABC broadcast" and who was the cameraman?

Why did U.S. Miltary Helicopters had been in time before the second hit, but no F-16?

Did these military media perps really film a flying object? Or would the original footage reveal an empty lanscape, then in reality upgraded with a 'live'-CGI, synched and uploaded via vector-keying?


One has to look carefully at items like this for traces of disinfo, and I'm NOT one of those who subscribe to the "no planes" deal, which is why I highlighted that last sentence. Some people honestly believe that hypothesis, but for me it's way too complicated. We know remote control technology exists, whereas the whole "holographic generation" thing is a bit Star Trek and of uncertain validity.

We're looking, broadly, at two competing theories - do they account for the data, or does one solve a problem inherent in the other? The "no-planes" hypothesis buys you control over the explosions - in other words, only pre-determined charges within the building are set off. This means that the chaotic results of a plane impact within the building are minimised, and the complaints about "well, how come the planes didn't set off the explosives pre-planted within the WTC?" are resolved.

However, I lean towards the idea that the explosives used were sufficiently protected from impact and fire damage in the areas likely to be hit by the plane. To my miind it's more plausible than the whole "holoplane" deal.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I don't know... you kids...

I'm talking to the majority of posters on this thread, who are content to just post some unfounded assertion as though it were fact.

We have one of the greatest research tools availablie literally at our fingertimps. I'm talking about that "series of tubes", the interwebs.

Only a very few people post any links at all. Without any real effort, I've come across several web sites that provide a thorough collection of the images and videos and evidence available on the subject of mysterious aircraft within the airspace of the WTC that day.

I originally kept my post very brief in the hope that some people would be intrigued enough by it to start digging, and also, I admit, out of my own laziness: I'd found the page I linked but of course had forgotten where to find it again. But my point stands... come on, people, get those fingers and brains working!

Here's another interesting page.

This page is another version of the PDF article on the mystery plane I linked earlier, but it has some good links.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   
These last three posts are some really good ones, the links all provide very helpful insight to anyone who is interested in this thread. Thank you rich23 for the information and links, I have read over everything and it is all very helpful.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
How many news agencies were covering this?

How many of those dispatched helicopters to get the best footage of the burning buildings?

I don't find the presense of a helicopter to be suspicious at all.


Well, not suspicious, but overly coincidental in my opinion. As I have said before, it just seems odd to me that around the time of the collapse, there was only one helicopter in the general area. As to what that helicopter's specific purpose was on that day, we may never know.

It may have been a rescue or police chopper, if so, then why didn't it stick around to at least look for survivors?

If it were a news chopper, then why didn't it stick around to shoot footage of the collapse?

The thing that drives me crazy about the whole 9/11 thing is that there are so many questions that cannot and more than likely will not be answered to the general public in this lifetime unless certain measures are taken.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join