Is there independent verification of the letsroll911.org footage?

[better2know]

The footage is supposed to be slowed down frames from the famous 2nd wtc impact.

Has anyone else with the proper equipment taken a closer look at this very wide-spread footage and made a report?

http://www.letsroll911.org


edited for spelling

[AndyP]

1. hmmm

I love conspiracy theories! I've never heard that one before.

[better2know]

2. There are pics of a strange dark shadow that some call a missle pod

[Must_B_Free]

3. WTF is that thing?

[better2know]

4. Looks like smoke trail, ignition flame, and explosive impact of a missle

n/t

[Rick Myers]

5. That's puzzling, but...

The idea of a 'missile' fired from an underwing pod at that moment seems kinda' redundant since the brute force of the aircraft impact would be hundreds of times more powerful than a small warhead.

That said, I have NO IDEA what this is...

:tinfoilhat:

[better2know]

6. Many also say that the plane impact with wtc didn't mean total destruction

I don't know about this one,
but it definitely is possible.
Think of the bomber that slammed into the empire state building during wwii.
The building certainly wasn't designed for planes, at least of that size, impacting the building.

[WoodrowFan]

13. except

that was a small bomber (a B-25, not a B-17 or B-24), it wasn't loaded with fuel, it wasn't going as fast, and the Empire State Building wasn't built in nearly the same way as the World Trade Center. The Empire State had its load-bearing beams on the outside, the WTC had them on the inside, much more fragile.

But hey, other than that, it's just the same!!! :eyes:

[slaveplanet]

15. not redundant

If your purpose is to cause an incendiary burn to insure complete ignition of all that fuel loaded in the wings....very interesting pics considering there are pics of the first plane w/the pod. This is a miracle pic because terrorists did not ever expect pics of the first plane to come forth. These are the pic taken by the French journalist making the documentary on the NYFD whom just happened to be rolling at the time, and got the camera into place for the split second of impact....

Of course it could be redundant if you truly believe 19 Arab hijackers did all this...In which case I've got a bridge to sell you...

[cosmicdot]

7. the webfairy has devoted time to 911

http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/index.htm

[Kali]

8. ummmm

why crash the plane into the building if you have a missile?

I couldn't see a thing, myself....

[better2know]

9. kick for the morning people

any leads?

[rman]

10. "why crash the plane into the building if you have a missile"

I'd say it's obivous: To make it look like a terrorist attack.

If it would obviously a missile, then who'd believe it was the work of a bunch of crazy suicide bombers? They were armed with box cutters, so them having a missile mounted on the plane wouldn't exactly fit the official story.

[Kali]

16. then

why bother with the missile? seems risky, and redundant, wouldn't the plane itself be a pretty effective statement?

[bhunt70]

11. I don't see anything special

looks like to me its the nose hitting the tower, not a missile.

[WoodrowFan]

14. don't worry

If you don't see a missle, it's because there isn't one. It's like the "human footprints" that Creationists see along with Dinosaur tracks, a willing destortion of what's there by true-believers./

[Minstrel Boy]

12. The footage is genuine, but the theory is, I believe, bogus.

Yes, there's a flash of light, but I don't see that, therefore, it must be a missile impact. And what looks to be a "pod" likely has an innocuous explanation. The plane was flying at excessive speed. Perhaps a panel had been shaken lose.

I'm a MIHOPer, but this is a distraction. A discrediting one, too, for 9/11 skeptics.

[BurtWorm]

17. You're not going to get at the truth watching a video stream over and over

. I hope you all know that.