It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On the surface it would seem to be an accurate overview of the 'facts' however, some of the supporting evidence to validate these statements as 'facts' have been called into question.
Flight characteristics of aircraft involved have been claimed to not be possible by pilots experienced with vehicles in question.
Architecture of towers should not have failed so easily, countless other more poorly made buildings have resisted the same kind of damage.
The list goes on, suffice to say that there are inconsistencies that still need to be addressed.
A smug attitude will not help.
The Luc Courchesne's footage was broadcast first on CBC Newsworld 9/14/2001, exact time unknown. You got any thing else Witch Hunter.
The full length Courchesne footage comes from radio-canada.ca -- watch (also link 2 above), or download wmv file. One of the clips above comes from the CBC News program The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney, which aired Oct. 6, 2004. Other versions are unknowns. All (but the new one) are of relatively poor quality. This may be why the wing seems to disappear as "United 175" flies overhead.
At 8.46 a.m. on September 11, 2001, at the intersection of Church and Lispenard Streets in Manhattan, one of two French film-making brothers, 28-year-old Jules Naudet, was filming a group of firemen from Ladder 1/Engine 7 at 100 Duane Street, checking for an alleged suspected gas leak, when he captured what was thought to be unique film of American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston flying into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, three quarters of a mile away.
Two years later — the delay still not satisfactorily explained — a Czech immigrant called Pavel Hlava produced his own video film of the event, shot from south-east of the tower and much further away, at the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel — the plane impact unseen, on the far side. It later turned out — although virtually no-one seems to have noticed at the time — that the plane had a third photographer all along, a German artist, Wolfgang Staehle, whose single still picture showed the plane heading towards the tower. No credible explanation has been offered as to why the Naudet shot was universally, at least from September 2002, described as the only existent image of the plane. It is still in many ways unique, however — and far superior to the two others — with its view, from almost directly behind, of the plane actually hitting the tower, followed by close-ups.
Jules Naudet claims his film exists only because of pure luck — as would seem to be logical, given that this was the first attack of the whole "9/11" sequence, and was totally unexpected. When United Airlines Flight 175 flew into the South Tower sixteen minutes later, it was captured by many photographers — including Jules Naudet's brother Gédéon — who were filming the aftermath of the attack on its neighbour, but who had not, of course, filmed that attack itself. After the first attack, the second one was easy to film — but how else could the first one have been captured than by luck ?
There is an answer to that question, but an extremely disturbing one. I believe the Naudet film of Flight 11 is a charade, staged to appear accidental. However bizarre that claim may appear to be, the evidence that justifies it is there in the film (which throughout this article, unless otherwise specified, refers to the DVD version, issued in September 2002 : "9/11 — The Filmmakers' Commemorative Edition" (Paramount PHE 8276)), and I challenge anyone watching it and following my arguments to reach any other conclusion. No-one can dispute that this is an extraordinary piece of film — because of its uniqueness as well as its content — and that there must therefore be an equally extraordinary explanation for how it came to be captured. I believe, for the reasons in this essay, that those who had both the motive and the effrontery to carry out these attacks also had the motive and effrontery to film the first one for propaganda purposes, passing it off as the product of luck, complete with a contrived cover story, the one told in the Naudet film.
If Staehle knew that day that he had captured the plane, why did he allow the Naudet claim to go unchallenged, and why was his existence as unknown to me as to all the journalists who carried on for years using the word "unique" about the Naudet shot ?
In "Heroes of Ground Zero," a New York fireman claims to have seen people jumping that day, a sight he still had nightmares about. Let's have it said, for the record, that anyone who says he can see a human being jumping out of a building, through flame and smoke, a minimum of 1,200 feet above the street — very nearly a quarter of a mile away — is either a complete liar or has the most incredible eyesight in medical history. Unless he meant he had seen it through binoculars — but he didn't mention any — or maybe he just assumed that a falling body he saw much nearer the ground must have jumped from higher up. Whatever — he could not possibly have seen it with the naked eye from ground level. But he is in very distinguished company: Mayor Giuliani makes the same claim in "In Memoriam." *But let's have something else said, in that film's favour : that it proves a falsehood in the Naudet film. The prologue to the DVD version of "9/11" claims we are about to see "the only known footage from inside Tower 1" — but "In Memoriam" includes at least three film clips captioned "Evan Fairbanks — Lobby WTC 1, North Tower." Fairbanks' film inside the North Tower was well known long before the Naudet DVD was issued, and the claim should never have been included. (See Appendix 4, Picture 35))
Originally posted by tpg65
This thread is almost 3 pages long and has so far acheived nothing .
With all the bright minds on ATS , is this the best we can do ?
This thread has achieved nothing because it wasn't necessary. How can you just waltz in here, put up a post like that OP in the middle of one of the largest 9/11 forums on the planet?
Originally posted by tpg65
reply to post by Enlightenme1111
Great find , but we can still only speculate what hit the Pentagon . One thing is undeniable.......It was not a 757.
That's a pretty high hurdle.
I doubt it as your are very strict about only presenting facts.
Dear readers...have any of you seen Hooper present any facts, ever? This is a guy who claims his sister was an eye-witness to imaginary jets. Talk about a high-hurdle.
The hypocrisy is strong in this one.
What do you want, my sisters name, address and phone number? Yeah thats going to happen.
By the way - do you believe the victims of 9/11 are real or make believe?
Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Yankee451
Yes, over the years I have seen Hooper post many, many facts, blowing away various conspiracy theories. However, like me, he seems to have grown weary dealing with the same goofy theories that he has helped demolish in the past.
Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by pteridine
But, but what happened to the missiles on top of the Pentagon that particular day? Why weren't they working?
Originally posted by DragonriderGal
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by tpg65
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tpg65
So what wasn't factual about my post? Sept. 11, 2001? Hijackers? 4 planes? The towers of the World Trade Center? The Pentagon?
Can you back up up anything you have just wrote , with facts ?
You mention the attack on the Pentagon , but did you know that there is not one scrap of evidence to prove that it was hit by a passenger jet . If you have evidence to the contrary , then please present it and it will be objectively discussed.
Did you know that there is not one scrap of evidence to prove that it was hit by anything but a passenger jet? That is what people saw and that is what the physical evidence is consistent with.
Well, just looking at the pictures of the place the missle hit.. oh excuse me, the Plane hit.. you can see there isn't anything but an approx. one story round hole. No sign that wings even tried to penetrate the wall. Plus No wing wreckage, in fact not much wreckage at all. No fuselage parts lying about and the head of the 'plane' penetrated how many walls of the solid concrete and reinforced steel (just newly remodeled) building???
Now if you've ever been on a real airplane, you'd know no nose on one of them is going to make it past the first wall.. in fact I doubt they would have made it thru the wall at all.. more like they'd have just smashed flat against it, since they are just a fiberglass shell full of electronic equipment, and if it was a big passenger liner, the hole (if they didn't just bounce off and maybe break a few windows) would have been way much bigger.
But no... of course it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon. Uh huh. Sure. *rolls eyes*
Something that massive doesn't bounce off of a building and the structure of the nose will not change it.