Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
106
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikem

What really bothers me is and what most people don't talk about it is building 7.. the third building that fell.. in free fall.. and if that building was a controlled demolition then the whole thing was a set up.


I love and hate this topic because like a minor nick in glass....it starts shattering more and more in different directions.

WTC 7 is very much talked about. It wasn't. But it is now.

WTC 7 housed the second largest CIA headquarters in the country and Pentagon was hit exactly were the 'records' were kept to help track down that 2.3 trillion dollar missing money.

It gets curiouser and curiouser the further down the rabbit hole we go.


Here's my one (of many) theories. These buildings were built/designed to be taken down. With WHATEVER substance or devices it needed to bring the towers down at some point in the future. It was kept secret in fear tenants wouldn't want to rent office space in a potential towering inferno.

I also thought that perhaps, for security measures, WTC 7 was built the same way. To destroy everything housed in case a REAL terrorist was able to penetrate that building.

Just theories.

Also....we have the theory that Larry Silverstein-----who had so much time (6-months?) to comply to city code and get rid of the dangerous asbestos------ did this himself.

I mean, any of these theories, as far fetched as they sound, work better for me than 19 Arab hijackers of which..... 7 are still alive today!
edit on 13-3-2012 by Human_Alien because: grammar




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Well me being a truther...I find it strange that people put out vids that discredit some intelligence in the truth movement....why at a point is the ball pixelated out....this is an edited over version of the vid which showed the ball idea.....how many times has this vid be edited and reedited....same that this is being toted as some sort of legit vid....come on don't use a video that is so blatantly retouched I mean there is always the fact that 3 steels structures fell in one day......We in the truther movement don't need hoaxed vids to help us in our endeavor.

Videos like this make the truth movement look bad......shame...



OH this vid is not new....nothing to see here...but it will be debated i guess.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Thanks Danbones,

Yes, it is befuddling to me how the woman in the copter
could miss a plane. Clearly I see the dark object to the right at about
2:16 or so...but think about this...the photos we see and footage that show a plane
going in are all so clear, the plane is dark and nearly black.

How could this moment be so different.

At least for me, this proves visually that there were explosions in the second
tower before a plane hit.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Thank you Iwinder,
always read and enjoy your posts.


I see in the video the helicopter on the left, thats clear.
A commercial jet would be huge in comparison, where is it?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Again,

I have asked, someone point me to the video that you say is
the same??? Please? Thank you.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I have to say, buddy, that I am extremely sceptical of your motives to try and explain to me your opinion of why the crew of that particular helicopter didn't see a plane... maybe this... or maybe that... also, why do you presume to be able to school me on the attributes of human nature?

I have seen your post where you have tried to provide evidence of there being a plane... again, I find myself questioning your seemingly desperate attempts to get people to see things your way? It would appear that you have an agenda here?

The fact that the whole world knows that the official story of what took place that September morning is full of holes is why people are questioning whether or not there were any planes... I will always keep an open mind when new theories arise regarding 9/11... I am automatically suspicious of those who do not (like you).



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall




Never saw that one before. Thanks


And now .....I don't think it was a missile. That's way too slow.

Looks exactly like a plane would act if the target was a tower.
Damn!



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
If you freeze the video at 2:14 and scroll forward past 2:15, 2:16 you can see the black dot in a square box of a different color as if it was added in, the pixels are different from the surroundings, dosen't mean it was but looks like an obvious paste of footage, unless it was highlighted during editing but it also disappears to abruptly.

The dot is coming in at a very steep downward angle also at a high rate of speed. The explosion comes out straight and not at an downward angle as the debris should be heading, As the angle of decent of the dot and the debris should be the same but aren't

But is tough to determine from the angle and the film. i was on the Queens side in long Island City when it happened on my roof with a clear view of the buildings but couldn't see the 2nd plane since it didn't hit on the side of my field of vision plus i was at a distance from my point to WTC, is about 21/2 miles.

Just my observation of what i see in the video.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

There are plenty of videos shot from closer, like this one :-

www.youtube.com...

It is perfectly obvious that there was no explosion prior to the plane hit. Plus thousands of people were craning their necks to watch and would surely have noticed a vast explosion and fireball before a plane showed up


I want to believe in the planes, but clearly that video as you listen, the
man says "the plane comes into the frame" . He is watching a video, that is not
his real life experience. Sorry, thank you anyways.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


The view is from the explosion side...
I'm not understanding all the negative replies either.

If the video was edited it's beyond me...
But as I see it the smoke and towers are obscuring the plane.

I'm not saying this video wasn't altered, I really don't know.


But trust me, there was a plane that hit the tower.
Call it whatever you want, missle, UFO, or jet...something struck the tower.
You can't believe everything you see on the internet.





posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamAbeliever
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Let me ask you something. Were you there? I was. That is not what I saw. The landing gear I saw was completely intact. It wasn't one dusty wheel. It was an entire, fully intact, PRISTINE set of four, not one but four, wheels.


Pics or I call BS.

Human memory is often very unreliable, especially during stressful events. There have been many experiments showing this.




Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.


The problem with eye witness testimony


After the Event:

Misinformation Effect

Witnesses can be subject to memory distortions that can alter their account of events. It is of particular interest that the memory of an eyewitness can become compromised by other information, such that an individual's memory becomes biased. This can increase Eyewitnesses' sensitivity to the misinformation effect. Individuals report what they believe to have witnessed at the time of the crime, even though this may be the result of a fabricated false memory. These effects can be a result of post event information.[22] It is very important to provide witnesses with helpful response options on memory tests and to be warned of misleading influences that might affect how the memory of the event is recalled at a later time.[23] Many employees, police force workers, and others are trained in post-warning, in order to reduce influences on the misinformation effect, which can be predicted before crime. In their studies, many researchers use eyewitnesses to study retrieval-blocking effects, which interfere with a witness’ ability to recall information.[24] Misleading information prior to the event can also influence misinformation effects. However, retrieval-blocking methods can counteract misleading information in most cases. In addition, when eyewitnesses are given warning to avoid misinformation, more significant and accurate testimonies could be produced. Other studies also address how misinformation effect seems to amplify over increasing recall.[25] Discussing events and being questioned multiple times may cause various versions of the testimonies. However, the earliest records prove to be most accurate due to a minimized misinformation effect.

Unconscious Transference:

Many mistaken identifications are the result of unconscious transference, or the inability to distinguish between the perpetrator and another person who was encountered in a different context.[26] In many of these cases, the culprit is confused with a different person present at the crime scene. Implicit processing takes place during the event, in which the witness encodes the general features of innocent bystanders, creating a sense of familiarity. At retrieval, this familiarity could cause people who were merely present in the crime scene to be confused with the culprit.[26] After viewing a video of a crime involving a thief and two innocent bystanders, participants were asked to identify the perpetrator from a lineup including the three persons present in the video and three other people never before encountered. Most participants falsely identified an innocent person from the lineup. Furthermore, participants were more likely to misidentify one of the two innocent confederates in the video than one of the three unfamiliar people.[26] Unconscious transference occurs in this instance when the witness misattributes his or her sense of familiarity of the perpetrator to a bystander.[27] This confusing effect of familiarity is found in the mug shot procedure as well.[28] The presentation of mug shot arrays alone does not seem to influence identification accuracy. However, this presentation can be influential if the police lineups include individuals who were earlier featured in the mug shot array. Individuals appearing in police lineups that also appeared in previous photo arrays may be identified as quickly as identifying the actual target. Therefore, in cases where a suspect is identified from mug shots following a line-up, it is uncertain whether the line-up identification is a result of the recognition of the perpetrator or of the detection of a person seen previously in mug shots.[28]


eye witness memory

If anything, you being there makes you much more unreliable than the picture of the landing gear presented. They were not "pristine."
edit on 3-13-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by havok
 

Thanks Havok

I appreciate all sincere comments. I agree,
we can not believe everything we see on the interweb.

Good example below.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 13-3-2012 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrianOrion
My question about this footage is this:

Q) Why didn't any of the crew in the helicopter see a 'plane' approaching the WTC?

You would think that one of them would have seen the 'plane' or at least seen something 'hit' the WTC? Not a single word from any of the people in the helicopter about a plane???

The plot thickens...



Picture this:

You're on a highway. Up ahead you see a huge tractor trailer slam into semi truck and a huge fire erupts. Gas tanks exploding. Passengers jumping out of the vehicles. Others heading their way to help. You're taking in and trying to process all this disbelief, horror and carnage now............would YOU notice a plane overhead?

People did say they saw a plane. But then that gets twisted into 'they're shills'.
Then we have footage. But those get contorted into CGI.

How about this one that someone on here just posted:



So.
It's been seen.
It's been said.
It's been recorded.
Not sure why we're all still unsure. Me included.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


those pleasure boats were evacuating half a million people from that area.. So they say.. I do find it odd the lack of views from the "2nd planes" angle. No helicopters... Its as if they were aware and didnt want to get in the way?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Is the commentator on Ketamine or something?! She just watched as the second tower exploded and didn't even react!! Then after about 10 seconds, gives out a wow, the kind of wow you give when you hear that your neighbour is dead.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by BrianOrion
 


One needs to understand human nature. People react differently, and some get a sort of "tunnel vision" that filters out everything else when something crazy is happening, just like here. Maybe they werent looking right it all the time, maybe they were looking somewhere else, or were trying to gather notes. There are so many variables that is is foolish to believe that just because YOU see it, doesnt mean others can, or can notice it.



I'm withcha on this one bro! Because a plane, in comparison to ALL that was going on within this one city block could easily have been not noticed.
It's not like we're talking about a planet sized meteorite. It's a plane.
The no-plane (unless they were missile) is just too unbelievable to contrive. The effort that would take to get EVERYONE in on it at the same time is impossible.
You're talking witnesses, news casters, law enforcement, videographers, tourists, townies, truckers, parents, children and so on and so on.

Now ask yourself this simple question: Why?
Why would anyone go to that extent? Even if it was our own government (which I believe it was)...all they would have to do is blame Osama.

There's no reason to pretend they were planes.
They could've said they were
missiles.
or
bombs.

The storyline was completely open and available to make up anything they wanted. Why go through this pantomime routine by.....saying they were planes, filming one plane, showing the whole world there was a plane but yet, it really was something else. Who benefits from that? I don't understand.

I think those who don't think these were planes or missiles are giving our insane-government way too much credit.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


those pleasure boats were evacuating half a million people from that area.. So they say.. I do find it odd the lack of views from the "2nd planes" angle. No helicopters... Its as if they were aware and didnt want to get in the way?



Well that could very well be but that would've been after the fact. When the first plane (missile?) hit...there wasn't THAT much panic that people were running for their lives at that point. Remember, the workers in building one were told to return to their desks!!!!

So the commotion really began after the second plane/missile hit.
So I image someone on these boats were filming the fire in the first tower (WTC2) at the time the second plane/missile struck.

But I agree. Many boats were being used to cart people off because all bridges and tunnels were closed.

Ten years later I still blame Bush and Cheney
edit on 13-3-2012 by Human_Alien because: grammar



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
What is the "white thing" that comes in at around :23 from the left, and then disappears shortly after?

I watched a documentary called September Clues (I believe it was called) a few years back regarding 9/11 being an inside job and I found it very interesting.

It's clear that there is more going on here than we know. It's very clear.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RomeByFire
 


I am pretty sure that is a helicopter, probably this one.
NYPD Helicopter footage, after the second tower is already on fire.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by guitarist
If you freeze the video at 2:14 and scroll forward past 2:15, 2:16 you can see the black dot in a square box of a different color as if it was added in, the pixels are different from the surroundings, dosen't mean it was but looks like an obvious paste of footage, unless it was highlighted during editing but it also disappears to abruptly.

The dot is coming in at a very steep downward angle also at a high rate of speed. The explosion comes out straight and not at an downward angle as the debris should be heading, As the angle of decent of the dot and the debris should be the same but aren't

But is tough to determine from the angle and the film. i was on the Queens side in long Island City when it happened on my roof with a clear view of the buildings but couldn't see the 2nd plane since it didn't hit on the side of my field of vision plus i was at a distance from my point to WTC, is about 21/2 miles.

Just my observation of what i see in the video.


You reminded me of this: Where are all the Staten Island and New Jersey tapes? This baby went right over Staten Island and just east of New Jersey. Surely those folks were on their rooftops too. Someone in Staten Island should've been able to view and video tape the underbelly of this craft practically.

Hmmmmmmmm






top topics



 
106
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join