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

page: 58
106
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


767/757 same thing large passenger jet. still more plausible that a hi-jacked plane hit the WTC than some hi-tech orb.. dont even know why the government will waste that much money on something so high tech only to destroy it and risk being found out by sending the orb to crash into the WTC.




posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


767/757 same thing large passenger jet. still more plausible that a hi-jacked plane hit the WTC than some hi-tech orb.. dont even know why the government will waste that much money on something so high tech only to destroy it and risk being found out by sending the orb to crash into the WTC.


I have no clue, just pointed out that an orb was called a plane by the media when it factually could not be. It was most likely some kind of a trigger for the bombs planted inside tower 2.

"There you see the plane between the two buildings", are their words and their way of acknowledging the weird object and calling it a plane. Flight 175 DID NOT GO BETWEEN THE TOWERS, a small orb did and either made contact with the southeast corner or literally entered through a window because it was narrow enough. These news anchors confirm the orb, so there's no way out of it.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 13-5-2012 by cultureoftruth because: addition



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


there were eye witnesses who saw large passenger jets? how can it 'factually' not be large passenger jets?



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


there were eye witnesses who saw large passenger jets? how can it 'factually' not be large passenger jets?

There were also witnesses who say they saw a small plane. It's possible they could have been missiles.



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

Originally posted by Willease

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


there were eye witnesses who saw large passenger jets? how can it 'factually' not be large passenger jets?

There were also witnesses who say they saw a small plane. It's possible they could have been missiles.


www.youtube.com...

The area right of the towers when facing south will always be west and plenty of witnesses said west, over Newark, or from the Jersey side. It all means west, which was not flight 175. This man saw the orb from a distance and just assumed it was a small plane but wasn't a plane at all.

transcripts.cnn.com...
This man had a north view of the towers and saw the drone coming from the west.

OK, we actually have an "Eyewitness News" reporter, Dr. J. Atlasberg (ph) who was downtown at the time and he is on the phone with us live.

Dr. J., what can you tell us?

DR. J. ATLASBERG (ph), REPORTER: Hello, Steve.

I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west.

And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center.

edit on 13-5-2012 by cultureoftruth because: addition



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
There were thousands of eyewitnesses that day and there are many videos from all sources of an airliner impacting the South Tower.

www.youtube.com...

It seems to me that, in the absence of any hard evidence for anything, some truthers are in competition to subscribe to the whackiest possible theory in order to feel special.

But the thing is that while the craziest notions may have become the norm on ATS it is not so in the real world. What reaction would you seriously expect to get from the average New Yorker when you start to ramble on about no plane, it was a gravity defying ball ?



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willease

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


there were eye witnesses who saw large passenger jets? how can it 'factually' not be large passenger jets?

There were also witnesses who say they saw a small plane. It's possible they could have been missiles.


Those are plains not missiles...



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

There were thousands of eyewitnesses that day and there are many videos from all sources of an airliner impacting the South Tower.

www.youtube.com...

It seems to me that, in the absence of any hard evidence for anything, some truthers are in competition to subscribe to the whackiest possible theory in order to feel special.

But the thing is that while the craziest notions may have become the norm on ATS it is not so in the real world. What reaction would you seriously expect to get from the average New Yorker when you start to ramble on about no plane, it was a gravity defying ball ?


You have zero proof what real people would say or think after seeing that no plane showed up for the south tower. They would believe their own eyes, most of them at least. What reaction would you seriously expect to get from the average New Yorker when you start to ramble on about how an orb was a plane with me standing next to you laughing in your face? You have an assumption that anything that was supposed to be flight 175, was a plane but that only works in your fantasy world. It's not a plane because it's an orb, many times smaller than a typical police helicopter.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


Does the orb account for the one plane or for all 4?

People seem to be ignoring that question. Well that and the thousands of witnesses to the crashes.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos

no planes. or was it a high tech orb?
edit on 12-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)


Good grief, can it get any worse? First it was the pod people now it is the orb people. If anyone wants a laugh then just copy and paste 'orb boeing 767' into a search engine to see the ranting of the orb king! It will give you a taste of what is likely to come!



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Does the orb account for the one plane or for all 4?

People seem to be ignoring that question. Well that and the thousands of witnesses to the crashes.


But you know that he will tell you that all the eye witnesses are wrong? Pointless going there. No doubt the various 'disappearing wing' videos will be posted to 'prove' that all footage showing the planes is just a media invention and not 'reality'. It was the gooberment and those pesky orbs that did it!

Look they can't even get the 'fake' planes right!










edit on 13-5-2012 by tommyjo because: Additional info added
edit on 13-5-2012 by tommyjo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


this is the damage of a small plane on impact:
www.nytimes.com...

about one floor and a few rooms.

the WTC had damage ranging from 93rd-99th floor and 77th-85th floor. about 7-9 floors damaged by a small plane?

if you extrude the initial hole right through, two small prop planes would have been able to fly through the towers side by side.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo

Originally posted by choos

no planes. or was it a high tech orb?
edit on 12-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)


Good grief, can it get any worse? First it was the pod people now it is the orb people. If anyone wants a laugh then just copy and paste 'orb boeing 767' into a search engine to see the ranting of the orb king! It will give you a taste of what is likely to come!


What does that mean? The orb showed up in wb11 and wnbc and circled the south tower. Are you saying the orb was flight 175...that it came from the west instead of south, where it had to come from? Ridiculing facts and reality shows that you have a belief in something that you cannot defend when someone comes along and points out simple facts.
edit on 14-5-2012 by cultureoftruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


Does the orb account for the one plane or for all 4?

People seem to be ignoring that question. Well that and the thousands of witnesses to the crashes.


I posted two witnesses who were standing there and saw no plane. One, actually was recorded while it happened. There was no plane and his account confirms the live broadcasts that clearly show no plane. His account was released, unbelievably and not molested. Clifton Cloud saw it, no plane hit nothin'. Even if there weren't eyewitnesses, there were live tv broadcasts that confirm no plane was in the area when the south tower exploded.

"I just caught the second explosion on videotape...No, a bomb, I saw it, no plane hit nothin', the building exploded from the other tower floors down."

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


this is the damage of a small plane on impact:
www.nytimes.com...

about one floor and a few rooms.

the WTC had damage ranging from 93rd-99th floor and 77th-85th floor. about 7-9 floors damaged by a small plane?

if you extrude the initial hole right through, two small prop planes would have been able to fly through the towers side by side.


Go ahead and post the south tower and north tower holes side by side. The south tower hole was many times smaller, further supporting that something smaller was involved in it.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


Lie:


The south tower hole was many times smaller, further supporting that something smaller was involved in it.


forgive me for jumping in, but when I see a LIE, it needs to be pointed out, as a LIE!!!!

(or, "misconception"....to give a "benefit of doubt" that an ATS member is simply 'parroting' something they've, read, or seen somewhere else)........that is a LIE!!! (Even if unintentionally.....).......

In order to understand how you have been LIED to (presuming, of course, that the "facts" you think you have been "given" come form "9/11 conspiracy sites"....).....there are PLENTY of photographic evidence to review, to prove this a LIE.

Also, you may wish to note this "9/11 Timeline" information....for your perusal......
edit on Mon 14 May 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


your first video at 0:16secs in you can clearly see the 767. you need some spacial orientation awareness to be able to picture it though. im not sure if you can picture its orientation. it is turning left however.

and also it is by no means small.. just because its a film from far away does not mean it is small. if so than the sun is puny because when i look at it my fist is larger than the sun.....

clearly he wasnt watching the plane or couldnt see it,, but i can see it clear as day possibly because he wasnt expecting it.
edit on 14-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


your first video at 0:16secs in you can clearly see the 767. you need some spacial orientation awareness to be able to picture it though. im not sure if you can picture its orientation. it is turning left however.

and also it is by no means small.. just because its a film from far away does not mean it is small. if so than the sun is puny because when i look at it my fist is larger than the sun.....

clearly he wasnt watching the plane or couldnt see it,, but i can see it clear as day possibly because he wasnt expecting it.
edit on 14-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)


They aren't my videos. I posted two live broadcasts that aired a floating dot that came from west of the towers. It's too small to be a chopper and it turned right and left around the south tower, which was not flight 175. All you can do is lie and repeat those lies and ignore simple video proof that there was no plane for tower 2. Here is the orb zoomed on and reveals nothing more than what aired live, an orb that would have impacted the west side of tower 2 had it not turned twice. It is so close to the rear of the towers that it leaves a distinct shadow between them.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 14-5-2012 by cultureoftruth because: addition



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


too small???? your perception is completely off.... how can you think its small just because its far away??? do you even know how big the WTC's were?

and that video you posted.. just because the contrast of the wing colour and the poor video quality makes it hard to see doesnt make it an orb.



posted on May, 14 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by cultureoftruth
 


too small???? your perception is completely off.... how can you think its small just because its far away??? do you even know how big the WTC's were?

and that video you posted.. just because the contrast of the wing colour and the poor video quality makes it hard to see doesnt make it an orb.


The orb circled the building but flight 175 did not. You can only dodge facts and reality. Did 175 circle the tower and fly straight south to north? Were there to boeings that hit tower 2?
edit on 14-5-2012 by cultureoftruth because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
106
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join