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

reply to post by cultureoftruth


Copied from a known author.


Everyone will eventually know that al-Qaeda never existed, acted under the control of the US Government and acted on its own initiative but with the passive complicity of the US Government to hijack planes, not hijack planes and try but fail to hijack planes, that the US Government, a small rogue element within the US Government, and Mossad operating without the knowledge of the US Government crashed the planes into the towers under remote control, crashed different planes into the towers undeer remote control, didn't crash any planes into the towers but projected holograms of the planes crashing into the towers, and didn't crash or project anything but convinced everyone that planes hit the towers by showing it to them on TV, after which the towers were blown up by explosives that made lots of explosions that everybody heard, weakened by thermite silently which explains why nobody heard any explosions, blown up by nuclear weapons in the cellar which started collapses from the top, and turned entirely to dust by energy beams from space which is why there was no debris, and that the debris pile was then kept hot for months by thermite that hadn't reacted when it all reacted to bring the towers down, and all the steel that wasn't there was immediately taken to China which is why the steel recovered shows signs of explosives, melting and dustification, and a plane, a missile, a different plane and a hologram all crashed into the Pentagon except that it was only one of them, or pulled up at the last second and flew over the Pentagon, leaving a neat 12 foot hole that caused 90 feet of the bit of the wall that had recently been reinforced to collapse, and another plane was shot down at Shanksville then landed in Cleveland leaving no wreckage at Shanksville that was spread out over too large an area to be from a crash even though it didn't exist. That's what really happened, and some day everyone will figure out how obvious it all is.

Dave

reply to post by waypastvne


Nice post, but I have to disagree that many people will ever really know why 911 was a very obvious coverup. If one million people knew the plane crashes were in doubt that would be huge because a small percentage of those could spread the word to even more people. The average person is not going to invest much time to understand the complicated demo stuff, but will listen to eyewitnesses and watch footage. It's really no different than every prosecutor wishing they had video of every crime, even someone forging a check in a bank. The video and stills of the fake blobs are the key to 911 truth.

Originally posted by cultureoftruth
reply to post by waypastvne

 

The average person is not going to invest much time to understand the complicated demo stuff, but will listen to eyewitnesses and watch footage.

What about the average 9/11 forum junkie?

Here is a new video I found that is pretty interesting and I hope you all take the time to watch it and then after we can discuss it and pick it all apart etc. etc.

It's a video by famed NBC orb "ball" video producer Richard D. Hall, but wait, this is a NEW VIDEO from him and has not that much to do with the old orb "ball" one. Well, you'll see.

In this video Hall takes known radar info on flight 175, meshes that with some 26 videos that clearly show flight 175 in the air for at least a few seconds from many different angles and he lays all this out in a clockwise matching demonstration over a wire frame 3d scene he constructed of lower Manhattan.

Yes, I know, that's way more work than I have put into 9/11 research I'll tell you.

Here it is:



Now I sure hope you enjoyed that, I know I did, but moving on...

Here's another little clip I like, it's only short, just a minute forty-six but I want to add it because in a way I will explain later, it ties in with the Hall video.

For those not keen on watching this little video here is a partial transcript I typed up with my emphasis added:

Narrator:

This former superpower has a military secret. It's being blown up - literally.

In the event of war this inflatable hardware like this missile launcher, could be deployed on the front lines.

Tanks too, are available in blow up form all designed to confuse and mislead Russia's enemies.

The trick, say the manufacturers, is in the detail.

Reporter on scene: Oh right an additional fuel tank... Why would you need an additional fuel tank on an inflatable?

Maker: Some have these others are without.

Reporter: Oh I see just to make it look more realistic. Yes yes. Ok.

In the company's workshop design teams draw up the complex patterns needed to produce convincing fakes.

An entire arsenal is already being stitched together, from blow up fighter jets to artillery guns.

For Russia at least it seems that fooling the enemy may be an important part of its future war strategy.

For now these pop up fakes are proving a cheap stand in for the real thing.


Here is the video:



I rather like that one.


Cheers

Originally posted by cultureoftruth

Because if it didn't turn right and left across the rear of tower 2 it would've crashed into the west side, not southeast corner. According to the government it did not pass east of tower 1 in the final seconds, therefore, could not have left its shadow. These two news anchors initially said there was no plane in the area until a witness pointed out the orb and thought it might be a chopper. They acknowledge in this clip that it went in between the towers clearly leaving its shadow.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 24-5-2012 by cultureoftruth because: (no reason given)

In the video above at 12 secs you can CLEARLY see the PLANE come into view top right NOTHING passes between the towers except in your imagination!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by cultureoftruth

Because if it didn't turn right and left across the rear of tower 2 it would've crashed into the west side, not southeast corner. According to the government it did not pass east of tower 1 in the final seconds, therefore, could not have left its shadow. These two news anchors initially said there was no plane in the area until a witness pointed out the orb and thought it might be a chopper. They acknowledge in this clip that it went in between the towers clearly leaving its shadow.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 24-5-2012 by cultureoftruth because: (no reason given)

In the video above at 12 secs you can CLEARLY see the PLANE come into view top right NOTHING passes between the towers except in your imagination!

Yes it does pass between the towers. That fact is visual and acknowledged by wnbc. It's not a plane but an orb. It's your delusion that anything that was supposed be a plane, is a plane. In other words, if Big Macs were in the air you'd call them planes. The orb turned right, then left across the rear of tower 2. Every person (recently) I've shown the footage to agrees that it's not a plane because it's not. "There you see the plane, BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS, and then you see the explosion, UNBELIEVABLE." You're damn right it's unbelievable because a plane cannot go between any two buildings, nor can a floating orb be a plane. They made two statements, one of which was true and the other a joke.

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

Originally posted by cultureoftruth

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by cultureoftruth

Because if it didn't turn right and left across the rear of tower 2 it would've crashed into the west side, not southeast corner. According to the government it did not pass east of tower 1 in the final seconds, therefore, could not have left its shadow. These two news anchors initially said there was no plane in the area until a witness pointed out the orb and thought it might be a chopper. They acknowledge in this clip that it went in between the towers clearly leaving its shadow.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 24-5-2012 by cultureoftruth because: (no reason given)

In the video above at 12 secs you can CLEARLY see the PLANE come into view top right NOTHING passes between the towers except in your imagination!

Yes it does pass between the towers. That fact is visual and acknowledged by wnbc. It's not a plane but an orb. It's your delusion that anything that was supposed be a plane, is a plane. In other words, if Big Macs were in the air you'd call them planes. The orb turned right, then left across the rear of tower 2. Every person (recently) I've shown the footage to agrees that it's not a plane because it's not. "There you see the plane, BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS, and then you see the explosion, UNBELIEVABLE." You're damn right it's unbelievable because a plane cannot go between any two buildings, nor can a floating orb be a plane. They made two statements, one of which was true and the other a joke.

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

edit on 28-5-2012 by cultureoftruth because: (no reason given)

I looked at the video links, the one with the male and female hosts where the guy says like "now seen between the two towers..." and what it seems to me is that the gap between the towers in that shot is pretty indistinct and blurry and that what may appear as a shadow and movement between the two towers is just the split second crossing of the gap between the buildings which is commented on by the guy host.

For the host does not then say like "Hey that's strange, the thing went between the towers but the explosion was on the other side!" He doesn't say anything of the like or act surprised at all. Which indicates to me that his first statement of "now seen between the buildings..." was meant simply as he could see the object PASSING ACROSS the vertical gap of the towers but always knowing it was on the other side the whole time.

You see what I'm saying or am I reading it wrong? Or are you reading it wrong?

"Now seen between the buildings..." could mean either:

1. Wow the thing went right between the two physical buildings like if I walked through there.

Or

2. Because there is a slight vertical gap between the two buildings if a guy was on the other side and walking from behind the right tower to behind the left tower, then while he crossed the 'gap' he would be seen walking "between the two towers".

You focus on the first meaning (I think incorrectly) while I believe it to be the second.

If you watch Hall's video I posted above I believe he actually uses your NBC clip in his analysis.


Cheers

Originally posted by NWOwned

Originally posted by cultureoftruth
reply to post by waypastvne

 

The average person is not going to invest much time to understand the complicated demo stuff, but will listen to eyewitnesses and watch footage.

What about the average 9/11 forum junkie?

Here is a new video I found that is pretty interesting and I hope you all take the time to watch it and then after we can discuss it and pick it all apart etc. etc.

It's a video by famed NBC orb "ball" video producer Richard D. Hall, but wait, this is a NEW VIDEO from him and has not that much to do with the old orb "ball" one. Well, you'll see.

In this video Hall takes known radar info on flight 175, meshes that with some 26 videos that clearly show flight 175 in the air for at least a few seconds from many different angles and he lays all this out in a clockwise matching demonstration over a wire frame 3d scene he constructed of lower Manhattan.

Yes, I know, that's way more work than I have put into 9/11 research I'll tell you.

Here it is:

Hall is a little behind. Most of his "research" presented here was worked-out and posted on YouTube three years ago (before he released his FIRST "ball theory" video):

reply to post by cultureoftruth


You see it through the GAP, YES THE GAP between the towes YOU are so obsessed with what you WANT to see you dont see whats actually there!!!!!!!!!!!


Care to explain this at 1:45 onwards

These no plane threads are REALLY getting old. There are plenty of us in NY/NJ that saw this happen with our own eyes. I'm not going to argue it anymore, I've done it on other threads and people will believe whatever they want to believe.

I can't speak about the 1st explosion, because I didn't know anything had happened yet and wasn't looking @ the towers, but the second explosion was a plane...anyone saying anything to the contrary wasn't there.

Imagine watching a car drive into a house, and then people that were not there but saw a video of it on television tell you that you didn't just see a car drive into a house.... Not only tell you what you saw, but argue passionately about it when they werent even there. It's crazy.

I heard people say it was a holograph, If it was a holograph it was the best damn holograph ever invented by man... and I want to figure out who made the surround sound for it so I can buy one and put it in my livingroom.


My Opinion on flight 93 is that it was shot down, and I can't tell what hit the pentagon because I wasn't there.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


I just finished watching the videos you posted, thanks for pointing them out I was not previously aware of them.

I was trying to get a feel for the creator's perspective, overall in both videos it seems to be questioning and skeptical.

In the first one he tries to decide on the actual speed and gets many indicators that differ but all are over 500 and range from 503-590 MPH, he also uses the RADES military radar data points and seems confused that it doesn't seem to match the visual flight path recorded on videos. (Hall deals with this issue in fact, shows 2 radar tracks, one the RADES and one calculated from NIST which matches the videos, these two tracks being side by side and not the same, separated by some 1200-1400 feet, though along the same trajectory.)

The end of the second vid has him calculating the speed at 600 MPH and he seems to wonder with the dip turn action just how everybody was strapped down in the cockpit otherwise they'd be all over the place and hardly able to fly let alone accurately aim a plane at a building. He seems to conclude that no human could or did fly that trajectory. I'm not sure what he means by that exactly and he's not one to expound on his videos much so it's hard to tell.

I notice he has a handful of videos in various playlists on his youtube channel, concerning 9/11, and I'll have to check those out too.

Again, thanks for the heads up.

As far being first to do the video radar matching attempt, well, prior to Hall, got to give him that. Though I don't know why someone in 2002 didn't just do it up. It's like the distribution of steel and concrete in the buildings data I guess.

He's not real clear on the evidence and what it means though, so his attempt looks more like a personal or school project hobby uploaded to youtube as an after thought. I give it 2.3/10

I give Hall and his late(r) secondary effort an 8/10. It's simpler and cleaner in presentation, comes with a clear explanation and some discussion of what other groups and individuals (Simon Shack) are doing in their work.

So it's a lot simpler and a lot clearer and more informative overall IMO.

Hall seems to conclude that there's no video fakery involved with the second hit as was presented on TV and through various amateur videos. So it removes the no plane via 'video fakery' angle. Which of course doesn't necessarily mean there was an actual 'plane', just that the no plane thru 'video fakery' possibility is not very likely.

I can use the Russian inflatable tank as an example.

Let's say 6 balloon tanks are placed with 12 other similar real models over on a hillside 2000 or so feet away, a 2001 amateur camera and a 2001 grade TV news crew film the hill from different heights, different places and different angles. Then all the videos are compressed and converted to FLV and uploaded to youtube.

Then we run a survey in the comments and ask people to count the actual number of tanks.

Most would probably say 18 if they could see them all if they (some) were not obscured by vegetation. But how many would guess 12 correctly? It would either be 18 or someone would come along and say you can't trust the videos at all there could be 36 or 4 who knows? So the videos would show 18 tanks but only 12 real ones but who would even guess this and accurately? Surely it would "look like" there were "18 tanks" etc. All the videos from all the angles Pro and Am alike all show 18!

"I was there when they filmed those tanks on video and I counted them with my own two eyes man!! And I swear to God the videos do not lie there were 18!" Etc.

And if you want to introduce 'video fakery' the best way is not to add tanks to the videos but to film 18 tanks and then take a few videos from a few different angles and actually REMOVE some tanks. Then upload the edited videos to youtube.

It would be far far easier to perform 'video fakery' by removing things from a few videos (to discredit video and promote fakery) than adding things to all the videos that all have to sync up seamlessly in the end.

In this thread there was a video posted, (since removed?) that was like this. Show a video where a plane should be but isn't! But the perps would not for the life of them leave a plane gap, no it's all there in multiple angles, no thing is missing.

It was planned that no thing be missing.


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned

You've made some nice observations.

The thing with the Hall video is that it's misleading. He claims to have plotted two distinct radar paths, one military (84th RADES) and one "civillian" (from the Bower study). However, Bower states in his report that he used RADES data (along with other data) as a critical part of reconstructing his flight paths:

Full report here: NTSB RADAR Data Study
Hall does not mention this.

The achimspok videos I posted are unique because he calculated the flight path solely by looking at the video evidence. His flight path was reconstructed by pinpointing camera positions and comparing the position of the plane in time as seen from various camera angles, a.k.a, triangulation. He noticed that all flight paths seen in videos of 175 were congruent, but did not match the RADES data.

You're right that the videos are rather ambiguous, he proposes questions, but no answers. I believe this is intentional. He doesn't propose any answers because he doesn't have them.

IMO, this is more honest than what Hall is doing. He concludes with wild speculations about some possible unknown stealth and holographic technology. Hardly scientific. It's also strange that with all that purported research he did, he didn't do any investigating of the crash physics which he dismissed as "impossible", even though the subject has been thoroughly researched and published by numerous professionals who disagree with him.

Originally posted by NWOwned

Originally posted by cultureoftruth

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by cultureoftruth

Because if it didn't turn right and left across the rear of tower 2 it would've crashed into the west side, not southeast corner. According to the government it did not pass east of tower 1 in the final seconds, therefore, could not have left its shadow. These two news anchors initially said there was no plane in the area until a witness pointed out the orb and thought it might be a chopper. They acknowledge in this clip that it went in between the towers clearly leaving its shadow.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 24-5-2012 by cultureoftruth because: (no reason given)

In the video above at 12 secs you can CLEARLY see the PLANE come into view top right NOTHING passes between the towers except in your imagination!

Yes it does pass between the towers. That fact is visual and acknowledged by wnbc. It's not a plane but an orb. It's your delusion that anything that was supposed be a plane, is a plane. In other words, if Big Macs were in the air you'd call them planes. The orb turned right, then left across the rear of tower 2. Every person (recently) I've shown the footage to agrees that it's not a plane because it's not. "There you see the plane, BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS, and then you see the explosion, UNBELIEVABLE." You're damn right it's unbelievable because a plane cannot go between any two buildings, nor can a floating orb be a plane. They made two statements, one of which was true and the other a joke.

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

edit on 28-5-2012 by cultureoftruth because: (no reason given)

You see what I'm saying or am I reading it wrong? Or are you reading it wrong?

"Now seen between the buildings..." could mean either:

1. Wow the thing went right between the two physical buildings like if I walked through there.

Or

2. Because there is a slight vertical gap between the two buildings if a guy was on the other side and walking from behind the right tower to behind the left tower, then while he crossed the 'gap' he would be seen walking "between the two towers".

.


Cheers

It doesn't make any difference what they meant because the shadow of the orb was cast within the last five seconds before the explosion. Whether someone wants to say it passed east of tower 1 or face the reality of the orb making two turns around the south tower, neither action could've been peformed by any plane. The government themselves say 175 was entirely south of the towers in the final 14 seconds. Flight 175 could not have passed east of tower 1 logically or officially right before the explosion. That simple and visual fact exposes an irrefutable distinction between reality and fiction on 911.

The bottom line is, in the real world you can't have it both ways. One plane cannot fly west to east and south to north in the few seconds before the south tower exploded. The real flight path was performed by this weird object which originated from over the Verrazano bridge, then flew north of the towers and circled around.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by cultureoftruth


an orb? This is as bad as chasing dust....The plane is behind the building. That is what the OP is asking....why is this thread still open.

reply to post by cultureoftruth

Originally posted by cultureoftruth

It doesn't make any difference what they meant because the shadow of the orb was cast within the last five seconds before the explosion. Whether someone wants to say it passed east of tower 1 or face the reality of the orb making two turns around the south tower, neither action could've been peformed by any plane. The government themselves say 175 was entirely south of the towers in the final 14 seconds. Flight 175 could not have passed east of tower 1 logically or officially right before the explosion. That simple and visual fact exposes an irrefutable distinction between reality and fiction on 911.

The bottom line is, in the real world you can't have it both ways. One plane cannot fly west to east and south to north in the few seconds before the south tower exploded. The real flight path was performed by this weird object which originated from over the Verrazano bridge, then flew north of the towers and circled around.

www.youtube.com...

Perhaps this might help you understand:

reply to post by burntheships


the video was removed by the user.....who???...the op???

Originally posted by lunarasparagus
reply to post by NWOwned

 

You've made some nice observations.

The thing with the Hall video is that it's misleading. He claims to have plotted two distinct radar paths, one military (84th RADES) and one "civillian" (from the Bower study). However, Bower states in his report that he used RADES data (along with other data) as a critical part of reconstructing his flight paths:

Full report here: NTSB RADAR Data Study
Hall does not mention this.

The achimspok videos I posted are unique because he calculated the flight path solely by looking at the video evidence. His flight path was reconstructed by pinpointing camera positions and comparing the position of the plane in time as seen from various camera angles, a.k.a, triangulation. He noticed that all flight paths seen in videos of 175 were congruent, but did not match the RADES data.

You're right that the videos are rather ambiguous, he proposes questions, but no answers. I believe this is intentional. He doesn't propose any answers because he doesn't have them.

IMO, this is more honest than what Hall is doing. He concludes with wild speculations about some possible unknown stealth and holographic technology. Hardly scientific. It's also strange that with all that purported research he did, he didn't do any investigating of the crash physics which he dismissed as "impossible", even though the subject has been thoroughly researched and published by numerous professionals who disagree with him.

So, where are we? We have 2 independent video investigators (probably unaware of each other) who ran the videos and came to basically the same two conclusions:

1. The videos (flight 175) all show a single object flight path that is congruent and synchronized over all known video clips.

2. The observed and recorded flight path (flight 175) does not exactly match the 84th RADES military radar data points.

As it concerns point 2, 'achimspok' (youtube name) merely seems perplexed by this, while Hall lays out two tracks and speculates somewhat wildly (I agree with you about Hall on that btw)

But here's the thing, I like a little wild speculation, certainly over mere perplexity. At least you can correct a bad theory or answer someone puts forth. We're all human and can't think of everything etc.

As an example, Hall mentioning that it's possible that an energy weapon may have made the right wing hole in the North Tower hadn't really occurred to me, I was thinking it was derived from something inside the building etc. Who knows how long I would've held to that idea of mine had I not been exposed to someone else's speculation?

So I'm ok with speculation on the possibilities end because I can't think of everything and know this as a fact.

I feel Hall is like Solid, Liquid, Gas. The congruent single flight path: SOLID. The 2 side by side radar tracks, LIQUID. The speculation of a hidden cloaked secret weapon, GAS. He should've just stopped with SOLID, showed simply the single track and took a few shots at Sept. Clues. That would've been better IMO.

Leaping and speculating I'll cut him some slack on and toy with the ideas. In fact I did spend some time looking for a cloaked craft speeding along at 600 MPH to the right of the South Tower as could possibly be seen in the deformation of the smoke trails coming off the buildings right along that particular flight path.

But back to the radar. So what's the deal with the RADES not matching the visual video track? How accurate is it? What's the explanation? You mean to tell me that if we went to JFK or LAX and filmed some jets taking off and landing and then and went and checked it against radar that all the planes would be 1200 feet to the left of the readings? That hardly seems right. Why wouldn't RADES (or any radar tracking) match the visual plane?

Like why doesn't it and why wouldn't it?

In comparison, how accurate is the black box flight data recorder info on a plane's location? And is not having that for flight 175 just a little too "convenient"? What would the plane's data have shown us compared to RADES? We would've had voice, movement, systems, position, etc. etc. but we don't have that... why? "Well didn't you see the videos, the plane crashed into the building and that's why we don't have that!" Oh yeah, RIGHT. D'oh

Can we get some kind of official confirmation from the Air Force or Navy about this? Like do they know their radar systems are only approximate?! Lol.


Cheers

reply to post by cultureoftruth


What orb and what shadow

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by cultureoftruth

 

an orb? This is as bad as chasing dust....The plane is behind the building. That is what the OP is asking....why is this thread still open.

The orb was directly west of the towers for 7 seconds before disappearing below and behind the towers for less than five seconds out of sight before the explosion. The orb's flight path is entirely different than any footage from 911 but has the shadow in common with some fake plane imagery coming from the same westerly direction. No REAL planes with markings were recorded for either tower.

Originally posted by cultureoftruth

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by cultureoftruth

 

an orb? This is as bad as chasing dust....The plane is behind the building. That is what the OP is asking....why is this thread still open.

How about we meet in public and every person I've shown the orb will laugh with you and at you that an orb was filmed by 4 news stations. Let's set it up.

I will ask again what orb what shadow you have also to explain the plane in the videos taken by members of the public in different areas of the city?

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by cultureoftruth

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by cultureoftruth

 

an orb? This is as bad as chasing dust....The plane is behind the building. That is what the OP is asking....why is this thread still open.

How about we meet in public and every person I've shown the orb will laugh with you and at you that an orb was filmed by 4 news stations. Let's set it up.

I will ask again what orb what shadow you have also to explain the plane in the videos taken by members of the public in different areas of the city?

The only shadow cast between the towers is the orb and some of the fake planes coming from the same direction. The divebomber joke does not cast it's own shadow by passing east of T1 below the height of the towers. It's 13 seconds before explosion and orb 12 seconds. The orb is nowhere near the smoke or above it in sight. They are two completely different objects and flight paths.

www.youtube.com...