The Overlooked and Neglected Evidence thread.

A far better picture analysis of the rear WTC2 fireball, depicting a completely different explosion pattern than the other two very clearly.

1). Same time.

2). Identical environment.

3). Yet is completely different in every aspect an explosion can be (visual), when compared to the other two.....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/535ca94f7dae.jpg[/atsimg]

When you have an object that compares to a missile and frame by frame behaves like a missile, then explodes like a missile, is it by chance a miracle 757 nose cone exploding after travelling through a fair amount of steel and concrete, that was damaged en route by an exploding oxygen cannister?.

I have to say that having looked at more footage of the Flt.175 impact, the flash etc., plus the location of the crew oxygen tank in the 767, I concede that the flash could have been the tank, with the momentum of the plane carrying the blast inside the building before it could be seen outside.

This bears somewhat on the whole issue of fake video. Why, if you are faking a video, do you include an anomalous flash that only makes people suspect a rocket being shot from the plane or some other suspicious source for the flash?

I still don't think a plane could go into those buildings without coming apart on the way in, but I now think the flash could be seen to argue for genuine video. (Blush.)


[edit on 17-8-2009 by ipsedixit]

www.youtube.com...

Another small but significant piece of evidence, the B.B.C. report regarding WTC7 collapsing several minutes prematurely and cast aside as `They`re only human, it was an easy mistake to make, happens all the time`, Jane Standley carried on reading an incorrect report for just over 7 minutes, how can anyone not notice the tower standing behind her over this time?, how horribly wrong it would have been for them if the tower would have collapsed during her report.



Let`s look at the very simple process of a live news feed of which there are basically two ways of doing them.... On the spot ad libbing - making it up as you go along and explaining the event the best you can, whilst throwing in the general consensus of the local people etc - would be absolutely impossible to make such a gigantic mistake like that. The second way is via front line reports sent to a base station and relayed by an anchor...


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/afda87493b19.jpg[/atsimg]

So the link dies just 5 minutes before the event and we get the obligatory buck stops here feeble investigation, somewhere along a very short line the B.B.C. - N.Y. live broadcast crew were sent a bulletin by either their own front line team or another news company, if it were another news company then the B.B.C. would not have been the only newscasters broadcasting this story, an American company or a random country that had sent the data would definitely have broadcasted the same mistake simultaneously.

So that leaves the only other option, okay everyone had to stand three blocks away, the building was showing signs of collapse so that is understandable, a whole lot of commotion going on, panic, noise, it would be so easy to follow on after hearing someone say `WTC 7 has just collapsed` and relay the data back to base, easy to do, hold on, this is B.B.C.`s own on the spot crew there, they are news journalists through and through, where are their relative pictures and videos?, depicting the dust clouds and noise of collapse, and more importantly why was there no live from the scene anchors put on air?.

So we now have and justly so, a huge anomaly and it warrants an investigation on whom relayed the bulletin to the base crew, must be a name/names responsible for this, or shall we brush it aside and treat it like the average double entendre based goof that is the norm of news broadcasts goofs, whilst deliberately ignoring the fact of a horrendously incorrect live news feed that had lasted 7 plus minutes until the obligatory link loss, then boom 5 minutes after WTC7 done it`s thing.

Once again 9/11 brakes a record, google world news broadcasts although completely wrong are still aired for 7 minutes, I could not find one anywhere near the calibre of this one, `happens all the time they say, nothing to see here, it was a common mistake`, got news for you all.. No it is not.

[edit on 11/08/2009 by Seventh]

reply to post by GenRadek


Sorry I thought I had replied to your post bud my bad, awesome video btw , and yes I did notice the sparks but do fighter Jets have an O2 tank?, would be interesting to research this as if they do not, then something else caused that spark .

/cheers