New video showing the second Tower impact, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 31 times

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 01:36 AM by PersonalChoice

reply to post by Human_Alien

If I remember correctly, the story goes that he was there (in NYC) sight seeing, and was going to see the towers. Or landmarks (that included the towers)...So I guess, as he was approaching the city and getting his first glimpses of the towers he began to film, and got the north tower impact. As far as the second shot, he did have a view of the fire coming out of the north tower as he sat on the highway there.

What is odd to me about the south tower impact shot he filmed, was that weird noise?? By what means was that created..strange..would be interesting to know what caused that effect we all hear.

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 05:48 AM by thedman

reply to post by OldCorp

I still want to know what was in the pod underneath the plane.

That has never been answered to my satisfaction, and it appears in ALL of the videos of the second hit.

The "pods" that conspiracy idiots love to harp about are the fairings covering the landing gear when retracted

Its been explained before = just that "truthers" refuse to listen.....

Underside of a British Airways 767

Ameriican Airlines 767

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 06:45 AM by Varemia

Oh wow. I did not expect to see this turn into a no-plane thread.

These theories are honestly worse than the demolition theories. It would require ridiculously tedious amounts of work from far more people who would now be "in on" 9/11. Also, if these guys were so capable of fooling every single viewer in America, how the hell could they make mistakes that people here can point out as oddities? I thought they were meticulous and thought of everything?

No, it seems more likely to me that you guys are just cherry-picking and not understanding how the real world functions outside the computer screen. Things like 9/11 don't happen every day, and no situation has been similar since.

One more thing, how was it CGI when people, tons of people, saw the plane in real life with their eyes? Was this some undisclosed hologram technology now? I remember the technology from 2001, and I don't recall there being sufficiently advanced processing computations for this kind of thing. I know you'll say "but, secret..." but unfortunately, "secret" stuff can't be proven until it is proven to have existed. You can't rest your whole theory on the hope that there was secret technology that would validate your theory.

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 07:37 AM by ckitch

reply to post by Human_Alien

Hi, I'm saying it's another fake video, because its content smacks of falseness... 1. Why were they filming the top of the tower just as it was hit? 2. Why did they go quiet after the second hit... After all their jabbering prior to, there is no way you'd watch what they seemingly watched and say nothing. Also, it seems the reason they were silent was because the sound was interfered with.

I personally haven't a clue if they were real planes or not. The video showing the 'hologram' plane does make you wonder. I suppose if I were to bet on it, I'd say real planes but military planes not commercial - I've seen too many videos of these planes and they are decal free and seem to have ignited on the nose cone on impact etc. You also have to question how a planes nose cone could pass right though the tower?? It's a mega mystery, and the more they flood the media with different clips the muddier the water gets.

Regardless of this particular video posted by the OP, the event was definately an inside job. I think if you stand back from all the video clips and info available, and ask yourself... What have I seen to convince me this was a real terrorist attack, and then ask what have I seen to convince me it wasn't, and I think if you put pen to paper and listed those points, you'd have one blank sheet and one very long list on the other!

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 08:28 AM by TWILITE22

reply to post by mayabong

god that's what I thought,not even in the beginning during the first strike and the second,not one peep?

almost like it was expected?very strange video

edit on 30-9-2011 by TWILITE22 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 08:43 AM by TWILITE22

reply to post by pshea38

Was that video shown on television?if so I have to say from someone who knows nothing about video editing birds would not have flown through the thick black smoke,nor what looked like through the top of the building.Don't get me wrong, I believe some of the footage shown was faked.I'm not convinced of the no plane theory.Something flew threw the buildings,planes or military craft of some sort.Not looking to debate this just wanted to comment on your video.

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 09:04 AM by micpsi

Originally posted by ckitch
reply to post by Human_Alien

Hi, I'm saying it's another fake video, because its content smacks of falseness...

No, it doesn't. It is just that you find it puzzling, whereas others do not.

Originally posted by ckitch
1. Why were they filming the top of the tower just as it was hit?

Er, because they happened to be filming the top of the North Tower, which is close by?

Originally posted by ckitch
2. Why did they go quiet after the second hit... After all their jabbering prior to, there is no way you'd watch what they seemingly watched and say nothing. Also, it seems the reason they were silent was because the sound was interfered with.

Never heard of being dumbstruck? Maybe you would not have been shocked into silence for a few seconds, but others may have been.

Originally posted by ckitch
I personally haven't a clue if they were real planes or not. The video showing the 'hologram' plane does make you wonder. I suppose if I were to bet on it, I'd say real planes but military planes not commercial - I've seen too many videos of these planes and they are decal free and seem to have ignited on the nose cone on impact etc. You also have to question how a planes nose cone could pass right though the tower?? It's a mega mystery, and the more they flood the media with different clips the muddier the water gets.

It was not a nose cone. If it had been a solid object, it would have fallen onto the sidewalk like the other bits of engines and the smoke trail it would have left would have been visible. Instead, it was a column of smoke and hot gases expelled by the pressure of the fireball through gaps/cracks in the side of the tower. That's why it suddenly dissipated as it got enveloped by the expanding fireball.

Originally posted by ckitch
Regardless of this particular video posted by the OP, the event was definately an inside job. I think if you stand back from all the video clips and info available, and ask yourself... What have I seen to convince me this was a real terrorist attack, and then ask what have I seen to convince me it wasn't, and I think if you put pen to paper and listed those points, you'd have one blank sheet and one very long list on the other!

I agree with you there.

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 09:12 AM by JibbyJedi

reply to post by Varemia

So after all your 9/11 debating with us all, THIS is NEW to you? Sounds like you've barely scratched the surface on researching 9/11, which makes sense considering your devotion to the OS and attempts to defend it.

You really should watch some of these 1-2 hour WTC documentaries that dissect the OS and most of the time destroy it, give it a try sometime instead of only watching and reading the points that support your own belief system.

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 09:33 AM by rhazer

Originally posted by mayabong
Very strange that there was no reaction when the plane hit.

my exact same thoughts, maybe it IS the reaction! shock!

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 10:06 AM by truthzouthere

Originally posted by Varemia
I've never seen this footage before, and it's kind of eerie the way it caught everything. If you skip to 1:40, you'll see the second plane hit from an angle that's insane. You really have to see it. You can hear it coming just before it comes on screen.

YouTube Link

Just thought this was worth showing people, because it is something you don't see every day. The filmers appear to be Russian or something. I'm not certain.

i remember reading somewhere that the planes were said to be remotely controlled and that you could tell by the large tube like thing attached to the underbelly.it said regular comercial aircraft do not have that...only remote drones or something like that....well i think i can kinda see that in this video.anyone else here that before?and does anyone else see that?

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 10:10 AM by Teebs

I'm taken aback by some of the reactions in this thread. Fake video?

I want the truth, nothing else. I don't think the government is giving us the truth about what happened on that day.

That being said, the people who claim these videos are 'fake' have no idea what they are talking about. I work with video/audio effects, compositing, etc., and I just don't understand what exactly people think is fake. Sure, audio and video can be manipulated - but I don't see or hear anything that would suggest this video is anything other than what it presents itself to be: real aircraft slamming into real buildings, videotaped by real people.

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 10:14 AM by LestatG

I dont think you can compare the reactions of what seems like Russian men to American women. Just a totally different culture and way of showing emotions.

I would also like to know what that sound is when the second plane hits the tower. Does anyone recognise it? Could it be interference on the video?

Thanks

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 10:26 AM by Teebs

reply to post by LestatG

I would guess either an alarm, or some sort of high-voltage electricity.

After a second listen it sounds electrical. Maybe he was standing near a transformer; maybe there was some power fluctuation or redistribution caused by the impact.

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 10:31 AM by scotsdavy1

if you check the timer at the bottom, you will see it scips some seconds while playing the clip. why?

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 10:53 AM by mthgs602

Originally posted by pshea38
Fake video, just like ALL other witness video proporting to capture the fictional 'collisions'. .
What gives this video away (outside of the complete non-reaction from anyone present
at the moment of 'impact', and some iffy graphics) is the birds seen at 1.54 an on.
They must be absolutely enormous first of all, and of a super strain, as they can be observed
exiting the scene almost as fast as the so called 'airplane' enters it (at an impossible 500 odd m.p.h!).

Maybe they are related to these other 9/11 superbirds?

YouTube Link

More BS Movie Special Effects C.G.I. Fakery.
Man We Are Such Suckers!
edit on 30-9-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)

Holly wow.....i didnt think anyone actually thought that the news was in on the attacks.

Thats a lot of loose ends....you know?

Trust me

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 11:08 AM by canadiansenior70

This is the so-called Paval video.

webfairy.org... will tell you the whole story and that it is supposedly filmed from a fire truck.....because of the red reflection in the rear window glass of the car ahead!

Any time missing might be while under the bridge, but the same time registers in each for the crash into the 2nd tower.

The actual first plane was filmed, barely visible, white in the video that was made to explain Pavel's ...or was it Pavel? There is a Mike in this one too! and the announcer is far more calm that the riders in the Truck/SUV.

edit on 30-9-2011 by canadiansenior70 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 11:35 AM by purplemonkeydishwasher

YouTube Link

"what's that other jet doing.. *expletive deleted*"

..uh.. what plane? lulz

edit on 30-9-2011 by purplemonkeydishwasher because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 11:35 AM by SquirrelNutz

Originally posted by mayabong
Very strange that there was no reaction when the plane hit.

- he knew to zoom out to capture the moments before impact
- he did not even flinch when the plane came into frame
- not one word spoke when for 30s+ after
- when they did start speaking, it wasn't English(!)

Wtf - were they part of it? Somehow privy to the event? Were they assigned to document.

This is a VERY odd vid!

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 11:53 AM by Human_Alien

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by Human_Alien

If I remember correctly, the story goes that he was there (in NYC) sight seeing, and was going to see the towers. Or landmarks (that included the towers)...So I guess, as he was approaching the city and getting his first glimpses of the towers he began to film, and got the north tower impact. As far as the second shot, he did have a view of the fire coming out of the north tower as he sat on the highway there.

What is odd to me about the south tower impact shot he filmed, was that weird noise?? By what means was that created..strange..would be interesting to know what caused that effect we all hear.

AND (what's odd about that buzzing noise is) it stops as soon as he asks his friend a question.

I don't know what to think.

Could it have been someone's car alarm (because after all, this did cause a minor earthquake) and they just so happen to turn it off just in time for Mike to answer the question?

Suspicious indeed!

reply posted on 30-9-2011 @ 12:03 PM by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Varemia
Oh wow. I did not expect to see this turn into a no-plane thread.

These theories are honestly worse than the demolition theories. It would require ridiculously tedious amounts of work from far more people who would now be "in on" 9/11. Also, if these guys were so capable of fooling every single viewer in America, how the hell could they make mistakes that people here can point out as oddities? I thought they were meticulous and thought of everything?

No, it seems more likely to me that you guys are just cherry-picking and not understanding how the real world functions outside the computer screen. Things like 9/11 don't happen every day, and no situation has been similar since.

One more thing, how was it CGI when people, tons of people, saw the plane in real life with their eyes? Was this some undisclosed hologram technology now? I remember the technology from 2001, and I don't recall there being sufficiently advanced processing computations for this kind of thing. I know you'll say "but, secret..." but unfortunately, "secret" stuff can't be proven until it is proven to have existed. You can't rest your whole theory on the hope that there was secret technology that would validate your theory.