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.

 

Longest piece of film showing F175's final destination, nine seconds.

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Hi there,

While schmoozing over on this thread New 9/11(NY) footage, taken by Steve Vigilante, released last month(Warning Graphic Language)

I was doing some research into why there doesn't appear to be any footage of the plane actually coming in over the skyline when I discovered this..



This is the only footage that I’ve seen that would actually validate the use of planes on the World Trade. I have seen many films on the subject and have to say I don't believe the official story, there are way too many holes and anomalies for the official story to be even slightly plausible.

Yet I have this footage of what appears to be a plane clearly seen on an approach and the strike.

This footage is making me re-evaluate my position on 911.

Help and opinions welcome.

Korg.


edit on 15-9-2010 by Korg Trinity because: fix link




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

This is the only footage that I’ve seen that would actually validate the use of planes on the World Trade.


I do not understand. You thought no planes were used?


Originally posted by Korg Trinity
This footage is making me re-evaluate my position on 911.



What was your original position? That there were no planes used in the attack? If so you are causing damage to legitimate investigation by posting this. My heart sinks whenever I see posts like this. As I have mentioned before, I await the video and posting that puts forward the theory that there were no towers to begin with. They were holographic projections from the moon that were beamed directly into our consciousness. So depressing.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I do not think people should be focused on whether or not there were planes involved. Rather we should be focused on the collapse of both buildings, which we all know is impossible for the facts given to us surrounding the event, and the "facts" stated in the OS.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
The one thing that makes me curious about this footage, is that you can clearly see the plane traveling through smoke. And from what we know of the Official Story, the flight of the plane, should not have been aligned with the direction the smoke was blowing in.



edit on 15-9-2010 by leira7 because: Edit to add video evidence of Official Story



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
There is no doubt planes where used. Thousands of witnesses saw them while standing in the streets of nyc and even new jersey...What planes where used, where they remote controlled, who knows, but they were def planes..



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Looks like no doubt that second strike was a plane--not that I disbelieved it. The second aircraft at a terrific speed is probably a fighter that didn't get there in time. Would it have shot down the passenger jet over the city if it had? Difficult choice.

And was there a second high-speed jet on the video also?

And what about the white, round objects directly over (from our perspecive) the WTCs? Toward the end of the clip they both seem to have dark objects within them.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
i thought the majority of people on this site, have seen the majority of film, regarding 9/11. Ive seen many videos of planes. It is hard to go further than just consider a no plane theory, or atleast plane looking and sized object. something huge, best description is plane, hit the tower. we should focus on other questions regarding that day.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Hi all .
I usually just read threads on ATS but lately i felt like putting in my two cents worth.

I have never seen this footage before so thanks for posting it. However the no planes theory is so far out in left field that it can't be taken seriously. The only thing i can really take from this video is that MAYBE it wasn't as difficult to fly the planes into the buildings as has been indicated by pilots for 911 truth. But Ive never flown a plane so i cant say with any certainty.
I do agree with the other reply's that the no planes theory hurts the 911 truth movement. Most people have heard of the no planes hit the tower through main stream sources who like to bring it up because it so wackadoo. Giving people a knee jerk reaction to seeing 911 truthers as pretty stupid.

If i never hear anyone mention this theory again as possible I will be a happy camper.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Whoa, all of you guys posted so fast. Jee, really fast, and I'm surprised not one of you has commented on the video I posted, that also references the video in the OP. Same footage, and a good argument to reckon with. Angles and Smoke, the plane shouldn't be flying through the smoke according to the Official Story.

Sounds like most of the 'people' here are so quick to answer. So quick.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ReVoLuTiOn76
I do not think people should be focused on whether or not there were planes involved. Rather we should be focused on the collapse of both buildings, which we all know is impossible for the facts given to us surrounding the event, and the "facts" stated in the OS.


Yes I agree. The point remains that the OP seems to be making the point that no planes were used. This is the point I was answering. This sort of speculation causes damage to the real and legitimate investigations.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   


And was there a second high-speed jet on the video also?

And what about the white, round objects directly over (from our perspecive) the WTCs? Toward the end of the clip they both seem to have dark objects within them.


I think those are birds, only a few hundred feet from the camera.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Well i have to apologize. I thought that the no plane theory was bunk but after watching some video posted on another thread have to change my position.
There seems to be enough evidence to support a no plane theory for at least the seacond tower that was "hit".
Watch 9/11 TV Fakery: Smoke & Mirrrors (short version) (shows that viseo was tampered with )and September Clues (shows many things including dive bomber responsible for second attack between the 44min and 45min mark).

I now am eating my humble pie



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pentothal
I do not understand. You thought no planes were used?


I have watched many video documentaries and there are quite a few anomalies with the footage showing the planes crash into the towers.

I personally believe that the official story of that fateful day do not represent what truly happened. My original stand point was that there was clearly video editing going on with all the so called live footage.

I have seen many videos of the official images of a plane going into the towers with multiple issues and anomalies.

The many videos of the event don't correlate to each other and there are so many anomalies it's very clear that something more than what we were told went on that day.

Having researched the event for the last 10 years I was leaning towards thinking that a Military drone plane was used or a missile such as the JASSM 158 missile.





Hope this helps,

Korg.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 

I don't believe the OS in it's entirety but I don't doubt that planes hit the twin towers. My personal belief about the lack of footage of the second plane lies predominately with the fact that when the first plane hit most, if not all , people thought it was an accident and were focusing on the burning tower. In my mind it'd be more suspicious if people were looking to the skies for other planes instead of focusing on the tragic disaster that already occurred. What legitimate reasons did people have at that time to expect that we were under attack to be looking at the sky and trying to record further events?

reply to post by leira7
 

I don't understand what you're saying. I don't see anything traveling through the smoke. In the first segment of the video the smoke is blowing towards the left of the screen and the plane, or whatever you may believe it is, is coming from the background, almost perpendicular to the smoke. The smoke from WTC 1 is also above the location where the second plane hits WTC 2.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by Pentothal
Having researched the event for the last 10 years
Korg.


10?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Planes hit the towers. There are just to many witnesses you have to discount and all the video prof to the contrary is something that I need more verification of before I can accept that that might have happened.
But that being said I would like to look more into were that smoke and mirrors video came from and would like to see better images/stills from the ball dropping video.
Maybe a cruise missile was used IDK. Any how this debate/topic should be taken with a grain of salt as its mostly speculation(not that's i think there is any thing wrong with speculation).
As far as hurting the truth movement, don't worry it never really had a chance in the first place. Sad but TRUE and has been since JFK IMO.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   
Not really surprising I guess that I would be hit by the Official Story People.

Just goes to show that either or both of the following are true.

1. Disinfo agents active on the board
2. People are living in ignorance and will believe anything told them

This to my knowledge is the only footage with a wide pan of the object that struck the twin towers. No other footage I have seen shows such.

There are plenty of witnesses that say they didn't see a plane, or that they saw a small plane. There are even witnesses that say they saw a missile.

The video footage on all nearly all the videos I've seen has been proven to have serious anomalies that correlate to each other, such as oddly timed glitches and cuts and zooms that re-occur in sync on several networks from several different camera sources. As though the audio visuals were being pulled directly and controlled from a central location. My guess either the pentagon wing that was attacked that same day, or WT7 that collapsed that day too.

In some of the footage of the plane strikes, the videos have been clearly tampered with.

I thought that this Video was important because if it can be proven to be real then it would prove that a lot of the official news network footage was faked, because the footage above does not resemble what was recorded by the news networks.

If this footage is fake then this raises the question of why should someone fake the incoming object?

I am a little shocked that we haven't had more truthers supporting this video....

Korg.


edit on 17-9-2010 by Korg Trinity because: Well... Just because KAY!!




posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   
I think these two videos refute anything other than a plane hitting tower two.



Then this one that shows multiple angles,the no plane theory is dead,its over.




edit on 9/17/10 by nickoli because: sp



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nickoli
I think these two videos refute anything other than a plane hitting tower two.


edit on 9/17/10 by nickoli because: sp



O.k. why so many anomalies then...

Example...

No plane....



And in the footage from my first post. There is the plane??



Care to explain why the live footage didn't capture the plane??

In addition, what about this footage... of a plane hitting a towerblock...



Think this looks real?? Think again...

Korg.


edit on 17-9-2010 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join