It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


New Footage 9/11 Second Tower Explosion Incredibly Clear Video From Helicopter - Where Is The Plane?

page: 18
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:24 AM

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

yeah i agree with you its like she didn't notice the plane at all.

Most people didn't notice the first plane until it hit. Until the second hit, the world assumed it was a tragic accident. So your attention would be focused on the first building and the goings on the ground below it. Plus planes flying over NY is not new.

I understand that but i was mentioning about some of the videos that i have seen where you have this watching the WTC Skyline and all of a sudden the plane gets into the frame yet he keeps staring.

He doesn't notices the plane at all in the frame i thought that was really strange.

Usual a Normal person would reacting when they see something coming there way really fast and they would either say OMG, and wow.

I will see if i can find that video.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:27 AM
reply to post by LightAssassin

I think the pods were advanced tech that allowed the plane to get further into the building for maximum damage, but whatever.

Those pods contained the main landing gear. Kinda hard to mess something like that unless you launch the plane with a giant rubberband and a couple of poles in the ground.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:45 AM
This witness claim he saw no passenger windows on the plane , but this footage of the plane seems to have United Airlines paintings and logo on it , and this picture of the plane also seems to have United Airlines' paintings and logo on it 0&sz=28&tbnid=8QbmIUA6MdxnwM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=143&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dunited%2Bairlines%2Bflight%2B175%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=united+airlines+fli ght+175&docid=-AU9NzY4dTKHOM&hl=da&sa=X&ei=YH9gT9fyBc7Q4QS74dzTDg&sqi=2&ved=0CGYQ9QEwBQ&dur=0

Birnbach said on air, >>I didn't see any windows on the sides

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 06:47 AM
reply to post by mikem

Maybe you should take a look into this short video, in which Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC, talks about the dicision "to pull" WTC 7.

So... What does it mean to pull a building?

To pull the supports out from under it similar to imploding it is not what it means, that sounds good, but here is what it means.

The demolition process uses explosives to damage the columns. This explosion, like any, is a sudden expansion of gases. That expansion, when over, leaves a vacuum. The vacuum within the building "pulls" the building into the middle, helping it to implode, not explode all over the surrounding area.

When a bld is demo'd they might say, "pull it", to mean create that little black hole to suck the build into.
The pulling action also helps the building to fall faster than it would without assistance.


According to the Wikipedia-entry, at 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely, about 8 hours after the north tower was hit.

The interesting question is - how much time does it exactly take to prepare a 47 stories tall building for demolition? Especially for such a clean collapse as seen in the videos of WTC 7.

By the way: Nowhere in the Wikipedia-article about WTC 7 you'll find any word about Silverstein's decision "to pull" it...

edit on 14/3/12 by Peloquin because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:12 AM
reply to post by ANOK

Once again ANOK you look at things in isolation I didn't just say its own mass, lets make a list

Aircraft Impact
Explosion of the fuel (damaged fire protection)
Structural damage due to impact.
Further stress caused by the fires.
VAST impact loads due to falling structure. (WORK THEM OUT IF YOU DARE)
BAD floor design were failing floor structure could fall between walls.

It worked with newton laws YOU are just not educated enough or have the PRACTICAL experience to see it.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:16 AM
Unbelievable that this is still going on after being debunked countless times. 911 was not an inside job, those were real planes with real people on them who had families and kids they lost who were on those planes. This video proves nothing, yet people flag it like it's something new that was just uncovered. I have not seen ONE piece of evidence proving this was an inside job, that they were cargo planes, that building 7 was demolished with actual demolitions, etc etc.

All of the facts that I have seen prove this to be a very well planned terrorist attack. At this point, the only thing that would convince me this was an inside job would be for a high profile whistle-blower who at some point wants to get it off his conscience and does interviews and provides documents. Until this happens, the truther's can keep on believing that our government is capable of pulling such an operation off. And if you still think that we were capable of pulling this off, then you have a higher belief in our gov't clandestine operations than I do.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:17 AM
The angle of descent is impossible for a 767 to maintain control and be guided to a target. The chopper is well above the twin towers so this video is showing a supposed aircraft that is also at an altitude greater than the height of the towers.

Compare this video to others showing the approach as a slow descent.

There is also pixelation around the blob as it enters the top right of the screen,

Given all these anomalies none of which match up with other videos my guess is this video has been doctored to create yet more division within the 9/11 truth movement. Perhaps to take people's attention away from the statements by Kerry and Graham about Saudi involvement.
edit on 14-3-2012 by Asktheanimals because: corrections

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Arken
The big problem, my friend, is that the real enemy is not from here... but the enemy came from above...

You said something interesting... From this "Reptilians behind 9/11?" thread

Conspiracy theory tells that the reason why US military forces invaded Afghanistan is because of the control of the opium and oil, that the oil is of great interest of the United States. But the conspiracy theory does not end there, the conspiracy theory goes deeper than that... Conspiray theory tells of an evil alien race called Draconian Reptilian that allegedly arrived to Earth 800,000 years ago Zulu Shaman Credo Mutwa claim that african politicians are "hypnoticed" by reptilian alien beings, that these african politicians' bodies are taken over and possessed by reptilian alien beings. North- and South- American Indians call them "Snake Brothers". Conspiracy theory tells that reptilian beings also have taken over american politician's bodies, and other famous people, including George W. Bush' body, and turned him into a reptilian shapeshifter

According to David Icke it is the Reptilians who are behind 911 , and David also said >>Presidents are not elected by ballot, they are selected by Blood>[url=]Rharrharrharrha-tsatatahhss-t-t-ts-rhatsash-t-th-sh-rhatata-ts-ts[/url ]

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:26 AM
reply to post by kevpa

Agree 10000%

They do it because its the cool thing to hate the US government and blame them for all the evil in the world. The level of absurdity rises and falls, depending on mood at the time. Its along the lines of Hamas intentionally targeting an Israeli school bus with a laser guided anti tank missile, which was on Hamas own website where they laid claim. People still argued Hamas is controlled by Mossad and refused to believe the evidence present, which in that case came directly from the horses mouth - Hamas.

The people on the planes, the ATC recordings, the witnesses on the ground - all apparently are part of the government cover up. The 100+ witnesses who watched the plane fly over the highway and slam into the Pentagon. The thousands of people on the ground in New York who saw the first plane hit, then all the thousands of people who evacuated or came outside to watch, when the 2nd plane hit.

Its the same flawed logic when they argue about a coup occurring in the US. The conveniently leave out the fact that there is no way they would have the support of all members of government, from federal to state to local, in addition to the support of all military units, both federal and state guard units, all federal law enforcement and state / local law enforcement, etc etc etc.

The conspiracy headline, as is the case in this thread, are designed to grab the attention of people while offering nothing to support the claim.

I think we would all be better off, and better people, if we took a few minutes to review the info and check the info / facts before we do the 100 meter rush to judgment.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:34 AM
Oh. My. God.

Are you people for real?

Of course it was an airplane. Why on earth would someone go to all of the trouble of trying to fake it, knowing full well they'd probably get caught out because there'd be cameras all over the place, when all you need to do is get a group of people who want to kill themselves for a cause to hijack 2 planes and actually fly them into the buildings (I have alternative suggestion below).

Only an idiot would even believe in projected holograms around cruise missiles, computer generated special effects, or the other guff that's banded around, never mind actually claim that's how it was done.

It's easy. Just get some guys, put them on some planes, and let them fly the planes into buildings.

No possibility of being caught out, no need for sci-fi special effects or gimmicks (that don't actually exist), just do it the simple way.

You just make yourselves look like idiots with these crazy ramblings, and consign any serious debate about what really happened to the garbage heap of lunes, cranks, and tin-foil-hattery. IE you are stiffling the ability of normal people to question it because they don't want to be associated with crackpots like you lot.

On top of that, it's impossible to definiteively get an agreement on what did or didn't happen, or what is or isn't possible, because for every expert you present who says X, I can get another who says Y, so it is pointless to even go there.

Instead you want to focus on the things that can cast serious doubts into peoples minds, like probabilities.

For example:

What is the liklihood, or even better the ODDS, that some terrorists would hijack some planes and fly them into some targets on EXACTLY the same day that the military were running an exercise with simulations where some terrorists hijacked some planes and flew them into the SAME targets the real ones picked?

Then what are the ODDS that EXACTLY the same scenario would play out again in London on the 7/7 tube bombings - that there was an exercise where some terrorists set off bombs on the underground at some stations, and then MAGICALLY it actually happened for real at the same time at the same stations.

The odds would be so long it would make it in all intents and purposes IMPOSSIBLE.

Then you could go further and suggest that the people who were classed as the "hijackers" were in fact there under the mistaken belief that they were taking part in the exercise, hence why the London bombers paid for a parking ticket for their car, paid for return tickets, etc, etc.

And you could reasonably assume that this is why the mysterious exercises took place - to get the "terrorists" into position and to give a cover story allowing plausible deniability.

But suggesting holograms and invisible planes or no planes at all is just sheer mindnumbingy stupid nonsense.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:46 AM

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
9/11 was an inside job.

There sure seems to be too many "holes" in the official 911 report

People like for example Steve Pieczenik claim he have been told that 9/11 was "Inside Job", and that Stanley Hilton claim that George W. Bush ordered the attack on the Twin Towers and the WTC 7 building (the building that was not hit by a plane). That Niels Harrit and others claim to have found evidence of explosives, and many experts doubt the official 9/11 explanation. Witnesses claim there were explosions on the Twin Towers, even moments before the planes hit them.
At first the thought of George W. Bush as a crazy president killing some of his own citizens (New York citizens) and order the destruction of the buildings sounds too crazy to be true. People might think >It is money "out of the window", sounds too crazy, "Inside Job"?, it doesn't make sense, a president would never kill his own citizens and bomb his own buildings, come on!

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:47 AM

I doubt the official story ...but some people need to get their heads checked.

I see a second plane hitting on this video...unless they had new technology where they could do real time special effects in 2001 and had Steven Spielberg directing.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:56 AM
reply to post by Asktheanimals

As the "aircraft" descends it moves into a relatively large, whiter or brighter rectangular area of pixillation and disappears. The aircraft has been removed from the footage for some reason, I think, but there should be evidence of that all along it's projected flight path to the tower and there is not?!?!?

This footage is very strange.

Edit: I looked at it again (fullscreen) and noticed that the "aircraft" is in its own area of pixillation from the moment it appears. It would be interesting to know where this footage comes from. Apologies if it has already been mentioned.

This might be a rough draft of fake footage that was rejected in favor of other fake footage that wound up being used.
edit on 14-3-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 07:56 AM
reply to post by shell310

Ok. I couldn't keep reading the same thing over and over again, everything being debated, yet repeated ad nauseum as of page 6, so sirry if this got answered after my eyes got tired.

I also see this "White Dot" mentioned all of 2 times (up to the "fed-up" point)
From that very first video posted:
From the :23 mark, the dot enters the left of the screen, and travels to the right, only to vanish completely, mid frame at the :35 mark. Another "white dot" appears, traveling the same direction starting at :42, and then the camera operator starts to pan down, and you lose sight of the mystery object at the :48 mark.

As for the camera chopper video (forgot which page it was on, sorry) the view portrayed was traveling from the right of the building, nearly over the top of it, and around to the left, (which, according to another poster, was the "white dot" being referenced) and since that chopper was supposedly the only one near, and was going AROUND the building top in an elliptical pattern (again, right to left) it couldn't seemingly be a chopper viewed in reverse of the direction that was filmed.

And on that note, that chopper hovering so close (that eventually landed in a grassy field) My question is this: With as traumatic, and intense as the situation was, why did he (she?) choose on multiple occasions to pan over to the river. Was there something special there? The action outside his window was also remarkably steady, but you can also see the window he (again, she?) is filming through is bouncing all over the place more than a group of kids in a bounce house.

Am I off base here, or just off my rocker?

Oh, I KNOW this is what.. my third or fourth post since signing up, but the reads on here are fantastic to say the least, and although i really do enjoy the thought provoking posts I have read up to this point, repeating the same thing over and over gets a little tiring, sorry.

Just MY .02

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:27 AM

Originally posted by simon2k7
I see a second plane ed.hitting on this video...unless they had new technology where they could do real time special effects in 2001 . . .

Yes, they had that. This kind of stuff has been discussed in some detail in old threads in this forum. They have the ability to intervene in real time broadcast footage to insert psyop type material in a way that would make the public believe it came from a network broadcaster and to do it almost seamlessly in real time. This came out of briefings given by defense department staff to various commitees concerned with such things.

and had Steven Spielberg directing.

They obviously didn't have Spielberg because they made such a mess of it.

Incidentally, this: XELamUnF0EU is the portion of your embedded video URL that goes between the two "yvid" sections to embed the video.
edit on 14-3-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by burntheships

I think this is the plane:

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:51 AM

Or the view you see is from the opposite side of the flight path?

That was my assessment as well.

I remember seeing the second plane hit live, and there was no doubt it was a second plane. As for explosions before it, couldn't say, but I do know I saw a second plane hit.

At first, we thought it was just another replay, until we noticed the building was already on fire when it hit (from the first plane), and then they reported the second impact. That's when we knew this was an attack, and not some freak accident. Of course, some of us knew earlier... I remember that morning well. When I heard about the first plane, and was hooking up the training TV to get the news, I said to a co-worker...that was no accident, this is a prelude to war...we've just seen the opening act of a war.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:56 AM
I've got a weird story for you guys... So I was at an AA meeting and there was this ex-prison inmate that was talking about his addiction etc... Then he offhandedly mentioned 9/11 and the fact that the government wants you to believe it happened in 2001 but it really didn't... So I was like WTF?? Anyways during a smoking break I went to ask him about what he was talking about and this is what he claimed happened, even though it was obvious that this guy wasn't very smart at all, didn't know much about conspiracies, but he said this is what happened to him as fact:

He said during the year 2000 while he was in prison he was being transferred to another prison facility along with a bunch of other inmates on a bus. While they were in the bus the driver claimed there was something wrong with buses engine and that it had to stop over at some maintainence facility to repair it. They were in WA and he said the bus drove them out into the middle of nowhere in the forest where the bus repair station was. He said that him and the rest of the inmates had to wait in the parked bus for hours while still being shackled in their cage. Then some guards came to the bus and said there was something going on in NY and that they all needed to get out and follow him. The guards led them to a facility where there were other prisoners inside and huge T.V. screens where they were all told to sit down and watch the news on these giant screens. Anyways he said they all watched this news of the supposed 9/11 attacks for hours and all the prisoners were aghast and horrified. After hours of watching that they were led back to the prison bus where they waited for even more hours shackled inside. Finally the driver said it was "repaired" and they took the bus he was in along with the other prisoners to the prison they were being transfered to. Anyways when they got to their new prison him and the other people that were shown this news started going around asking all the other inmates what the hell was going on in N.Y. while they were locked in the bus for those extra hours and to their surprise all the other inmates were looking at them confused asking them "what the hell THEY were talking about?". All the inmates at his new prison said nothing was going on in N.Y. and everything was normal. Mind you this was in the year 2000. Anyways he said next year when 9/11 actually happened he was going around and telling all the other inmates that he'd already seen this a year ago and since they were watching it live they looked at him as if he was crazy...

Now this guy was very obviously intellectually challenged but he was completely adamant about his story and the fact that "9/11" really happened in the year 2000 and that all of us "regular" people on the "outside" didn't know the whole story. Now I don't think a guy like this could make something like this up or I don't even know why he would want to. But he swears up and down that it happened on the year 2000 but can't back up why with any logical answers because like I told you he's mentally deficient.

That got me thinking, maybe this guy along with these other inmates that were forced to watch whatever they were shown were maybe test subjects or guinea pigs to take a sample of peoples reaction to this false flag event if indeed it was a false flag. I mean if you think about it they would make the perfect test subjects to study because on the outside if they went to tell somebody, anybody, of what they were shown NOBODY would believe them and they would take their story with a grain of salt; because after all these people are just crazy, stupid ex-junky criminal inmates that nobody cares about...

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 08:56 AM

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Such a strange video! Flying things appearing and disappearing. An explosion that just happens. I didn't see a plane hitting the second tower in the video either.

Not to mention the fact that the first tower's fire didn't seem to be burning that hot.

To me, 9/11 was most certainly an inside job. Video and visuals can be manipulated, but the stock market never lies...Not when there is millions and millions of dollars to be made from inside information.

Thanks for the video. It could just as easily be posted in the UFO section, with all the appearing and disappearing flying objects in it.

In order to come to the conclusion that it was an inside job, and there was no airplane that ran into the second building your are discounting all of the eye witnesses that watched it happen.

This is ignorance at it's worst. you are believing a poor quality video that could have been manipulated, over the eye witness accounts of hundreds of people.

If you think it was an inside job, fine. But prove it with reliable clear evidence, don't just take everything for a given fact. By doing that you are being the exact same as most truthers claim people who think it went down just like, or MOSTLY like the official story... sheeple. Except your are just doing it for a different cause or team is all.

posted on Mar, 14 2012 @ 09:00 AM
So all the videos that clearly show an airliner flying into the building are faked, and all the ayewitnesses are lying.

But this one helicopter angle from a distance is the real deal?

This is all kinds of weaksauce.

new topics

<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in