Deconstructing the video of the South Tower "hit"

[theSaiGirl]

I believe this was broadcast orignally by CNN that very morning.
(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about the original source.)

Naturally, we want to give all due credit to the state-licensed corporate media for their breathtaking "live" coverage
. although the Pentagon may deserve ultimate plaudits for this
(just conforming to copyright statutes)

Interesting to watch it in slow-motion.
Looks transparently fakey, doesn't it?

Any opinions ?

http://911closeup.com/nico/

(thanks to the video gurus for providing us with this breakdown of the original network video)

[greyl]

1. None of those are what was broadcast.

They are all edited. I'm not sure what you think they prove.

As for the plane "turning into a featureless black blob", the plane clearly flies into the shadow of the smoke from the first plane impact.

[Twist_U_Up]

2. 9/11 was an inside job.We can all agree on that

[sabbat hunter]

3. eyewitnesses

there were thousands of eyewitnesses on the ground, in person, who saw the 757 hit the south tower.

i cannot believe we are back to holograms again *shakes head sadly*

[theSaiGirl]

4. Not holograms ... just fake, doctored video from the networks

About as "real" as "reality televison".
About as "real" as Orson Welles' 1938 "alien invasion" radio broadcast.
About as "real" as the "quiz shows" of the 1950s (brilliantly exposed in Robert Redford's historically accurate 1994 film "Quiz Show").

But of course, we should all implicitly trust the honesty and reliability of our completely controlled state-licensed corporate media: CNN, FOX, MSNBC

After all, they would never lie to us ... would they ?

http://www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html

http://www.fair.org/activism/osi-propaganda.html

http://www.911hoax.com/

[rman]

5. Of course the MSM do lie, but most of their lies

are lies of omission.

Assuming an inside job, it's much more secure(* to have a bunch of RC planes fly around and hit some buildings, than to have no planes fly and not hit anything - and then fake live broadcasts of all the media.

*) secure, as in: pull off the job and not raise to many suspicions.

[sabbat hunter]

6. so what abotu the eyewitnesses

the thousands of people on hand that saw the plane hit the south tower?

[theSaiGirl]

7. but...but..but... they would never do that ... would they ?

Deliberately destroy the Towers and WTC7 by controlled demolition .. and then haul away all the evidence from the crime scene before it could be adequately examined for explosive residue or forensics.

Launch two military invasions (Afghanistan and Iraq) in the space of two years.

Manufacture forged "Niger yellow-cake" documents and other fake evidence of non-existent WMDs.

The "Downing Street memo" ?
Nothing to see here folks .... move right along...

The destruction of an entire city, Fallujah ...
Why they would never do that, would they ?
Depleted uranium poisoning, all over Iraq, contaminating whole regions and our own troops as well.
Thousands of Afghans and Iraqis dead....

"Extraordinary rendition" and torture camps at Bagram and Gitmo.. and God knows whatever other "secret" locations ?

A new "Homeland Security" police state apparatus, "Total Information Awareness", NSA domestic spying, the complete trashing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights ?

But NO !!!
NO!NO!NO! (he screams in panicked denial)

They would never try to hoax us with fake or doctored video, broadcast over their totally controlled television networks.

They would never do that !

[greyl]

8. The link in your OP is ridiculous.

It would help if you stayed on topic.

[theSaiGirl]

10. re: "It would help if you stayed on topic."

So staffing of the CNN "news room" by Pentagon psy-ops specialists is "off-topic" ?

Ok... I'll try to avoid the obvious impications of that little nugget.

[theSaiGirl]

9. ... and speaking of "video" evidence ...

What about the security cam videos from the Sheraton and the gas station near the Pentagon, both of which were confiscated by the FBI ... suppressed and never shown to the public ?
I wonder what they would tell us about what actually "hit" the Pentagon that morning ?

We got one fuzzy "still" of the alleged hijackers boarding a connecting flight from Portland, Maine ... of all places.

Don't Dulles, Logan and Newark airports have security cam videos of the alleged "hijackers" actually boarding the planes that they are supposed to have hijacked ?
One would think they would have shown us THOSE videos almost immediately after 9/11..
Yet they apparently don't exist .. ?
What ? No 9/11 security cam videos from Dulles, Logan or Newark ?

Instead, the FBI posted pictures of the purported "19 hijackers", all over the networks, within 48 hours of 9/11.

They really think the Ameican population is that dumbed-down .. that gullible ... that easy to brainwash.

Maybe ... maybe they're right ?

[greyl]

11. So you've given up on the link in your OP I hope? nt

[theSaiGirl]

12. Please .. ..which "ridiculous" link are you referring to ?

Please re-post the link you're talking about.

Since I only posted it a few minutes ago, I'm really grateful that you've taken the time to attack it, before you take more than a minute and a half to actually study its content.

Maybe you're just a lightning-fast reader, huh ?

But then.. that's how ad hominem "debunking" is done, isn't it ?

[greyl]

14. There's only one link in your OP. Are you for real?

edit: "OP" means original post. The first post in the thread, iow.

[LARED]

30. The OP link

is amazing. Amazing that anyone would believe it's not faked.

I also noticed it is from Nico Haupt. A true 9/11 wacko. A.K.A. ewing; banned many moons ago from DU.

I think his moniker comes from the fond memories of E wing at a mental hospital he stayed at.

Just a guess.

[spooked911]

45. Haw haw.

Nico is a brilliant man, who at least cares about justice.

Unlike whatever the fuck it is you are trying to do here.

[LARED]

49. If he's so brilliant, why is he attaching his name to

obviously faked videos? They're so amaturish they're laugable. How does humping fake videos advocate justice? What you're saying is no different than if you were defending police detectives that fake evidence to put away bad guys.

[mirandapriestly]

63. I think Nico Haupt is interesting, I read at a forum

where he posts. I sure wish some "other people" would get banned around here; "they" give me the creeps. At first I thought "they" were disinformation specialists, now I think "they" are sociopaths, just like the people who did 9-11.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theSaiGirl]

60. ..... clarification of an historical reference in Nico's relayed remarks

You all must admit, the soft German accent has its charm.

His reference to the "NSDAP", for those of you not well-versed in 20th century European history is an allusion to the Nazis (literally the "National Socialist German Worker's Party") ....

... A bit harsh I would concede but, given Nico's country of origin, I think he bears a special sensitivity and unique insight into the insidiousness of propaganda, censorship, media manipulation and the herd psychology of those "good Germans" who we see all around us, in BOTH political parties today, in tragic DENIAL of the harsh reality of 9/11.

Pray that their blindness will not condemn us all, as it did that tragic generation of "good Germans" in the 1930s and 1940s.

[theSaiGirl]

61. Further response from Nico Haupt

An additional clarification from Nico:

Nico Haupt <[e-mail]> wrote:
tell them also, that it is more than obvious that i re-edited the video.
What goes up, must go down. It was as easy, as they rendered some black blurbs into an empty landscape. For those, who know Marcus Icke also know how easy it was to recreate the plane crash with a flight simulator software into the South Tower.

He used the 'video' of Scott Myers (NIST), who is coincidentally a VR Bluescreen specialist and worked in his office at Ground Zero on Sep11th
Why is DU not asking, if he doctored his own tape?

And where is Evan Fairbanks now who had no sound on his camera and didn't use his own camera on that morning at a gig for the Archbishop of Wales?

Where is the amateur camera team from CNN "exclusive", who was behind the original video (not shown in the first hour after the first attack), which inspired me to remove their bogus aircraft again?

Why did they not exploit their 'fame'?
Why is no one filing a FOIA request to obtain the complete footage of them and let them testify ????


================

To which theSaiGirl adds: Why indeed ... ?
Their silence speaks volumes...

[LARED]

75. I am relived to know I an considered

a government asset and not just a useful idiot. :sarcasm:

I find it interesting that Nico fails to defend the faked video and would rather make false accusations against people.

[greyl]

77. Yep, it's pretty clear

that their response is just one more lump of horseshit to add to the pile.

"He simply took the CNN video from that morning" - horseshit

"video of the 2nd "hit" has simply been slowed down, with a close-up focus on the "plane" object" - horseshit

[jschurchin]

82. Bwahahahahaha......

If you play the video backwards and listen real close you will hear "Paul is dead, Paul is dead" Bwahahahahaha!!!!!!

[mirandapriestly]

62. not thousands!!!!

I am not saying that there were not planes, but "thousands" of people did not see the planes hit the wtc towers. There are many tall buildings and you could only see the impact if you were looking at a very specific angle from a specific spot. To illustrate my point, here are pictures from a guy that was there, he did not see the plane because he was not in the right place to be able to see it. Again, I am not saying there was not a plane(s), but thousands did not see the planes hit. To think so shows the deceptive powers of televisions/mass media. Additionally, if "thousands" saw the planes hit, don't you think that more than two people would have taken photos of the first? and there really aren't that many vids/photos of the second.

http://www.geocities.com/thomas_hobbs/pics/wtc/

[spooked911]

72. Excellent point. The second hit could NOT be seen close up

by that many people.

From a distance, many more people could have seen something dark and blurry fly into the building. This object could have been anything.

[LARED]

74. Easily thousands saw the impact and plane

The West side of Manhattan is the Hudson river. The towers were built along the Hudson river and are clearly seen along 5 to 10 miles of the New Jersey coast on the Hudson. New Jersey is one of the most densely populated places in America. That part of New Jersey is one of the most densely populated parts of New Jersey. Millions of people live and work in that area. Once the south tower was hit there were easily tens of thousands of people watching the tower burn. I know that area, I worked there for many years.

Also you neglect to consider Brooklyn. The southern part of it lies south of Manhattan and the towers are easily seen by thousands of people living there.

[mirandapriestly]

87. Not neglecting brooklyn.

I used to live in New York and because of the nature of the dense and tall buildings , the world trade center was not visible from everywhere. Surely, if "thousands " witnessed the hit there would be more pictures. You seem to think that everyone in new York had a "CNN" view of the wtc, no. Most people would not see the wtc from where they were at any given time and as the link I gave showed, even people who were "right there" when the hit happened didn't see the plane.
The guy who did the video "eyewitness 911" said that he never saw a plane and he doesn't know anyone who did.

[LARED]

101. Why would there be more pictures

And how do you know there are not enough pictures?

Is there a standard?

Also nothing I said indicates I think everyone in new York had a "CNN" view of the wtc. I spoke mainly about the people in NJ that had a great view of the towers from the West.

[mirandapriestly]

102. and how many

have a great view of that particuliar side of the towers from brooklyn? there are tons of pictures of events at the wtc after the initial "impact", but few of them have the plane in them . Lots of people were taking pictures, that is what I mean. It is a valid point.

[Kevin Fenton]

13. What about this one?

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/multimedia.day.html

Try some of the plane crash videos here. I don't think they match.

Perhaps the video at the link in your OP looks fakey because somebody faked it.

[theSaiGirl]

15. He simply took the CNN video from that morning ..

This CNN network broadcast video of the 2nd "hit" (South Tower):
http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro4.htm

has simply been slowed down, with a close-up focus on the "plane" object:
http://911closeup.com/nico

[greyl]

18. No, "he" didn't.

The frames were edited - the plane was removed.
It's obvious.
I can't believe you're serious.

See ya.

[Kevin Fenton]

36. What CNN video?

CNN has different angles. Which video at the CNN website is it supposed to be?

[spooked911]

16. do these match?

http://thewebfairy.com/911/big/

http://thewebfairy.com/911/2hit/blueplane.htm

these are real videos aired by different networks.

why are they so different?

[greyl]

17. Sorry, webfairy is another fraud.

"It's useful to learn that the "planesite" film is largely based on the "letsroll" site, which in turn had much of its work performed by the discredited "webfairy" video site. In Plane Site = Let's Roll 911 = The Webfairy

Some of the bogus 9/11 websites, if you trace back their intellectual framework, and in some cases, their "mirror" sites, are probable candidates for being part of the "webfairy" site (an effort that started by promoting the ludicrous idea that the first 9/11 plane was really a missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram). These "webfairy" type websites proliferated and multiplied (with increasing numbers of allied website domains) through the 2004 election season, which was somewhat effective at dampening down the political impact of the 9/11 truth movement. Their "in plane site" production is much more slick and sophisticated than the easily dismissed "webfairy" site."

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

[theSaiGirl]

19. When confronted with hard evidence ... just haul out the ad hominems...

Just cry "fraud".
Sounds like you're blaming the messenger ...
'cause you can't handle the message.

[sabbat hunter]

20. answer me this then

what about the thousands of eye witnesses that saw the plane hit the south tower?

are they all lying?

[jschurchin]

22. Can you provide a link........

to a site that has the "thousands" of witness statements, PLEASE.

[sabbat hunter]

24. you are joking right

i personally know people that went to NYU and saw it happen.

[jschurchin]

25. Good for you.

The LINK PLEASE.

[jschurchin]

26. Here is one for The Pentagon.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

Now can you provide one for the South Tower. PLEASE.

[sabbat hunter]

28. based on the link you provided

you obviously believe that a plane hit the pentagon (all the witnesses saw a plane)

so what do you think hit the south tower?

[jschurchin]

31. A flying Pig.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Just kidding, An airplane. I just do not believe that it along with fire destroyed those buildings. I am in some good company though, An MIT engineer, A Professor of Physics, Another Professor of Physics the list goes on and on. Good luck trying to convince people otherwise though. I believe you have an uphill battle.

[sabbat hunter]

27. here is just one

I saw the second plane crash into the south tower, I saw both collapse, I saw people running and screaming for their life. Now I see desperation and solidarity but also anger all over; I can't breathe the air of my city, I can't drink the water of my city, and I can't understand how is possible that all this violence belong to human people.
Lorenzo Irico, New York US


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1537530.stm


now since you dont believe a plane hit the south tower, what did hit it. what did the eyewitnesses actually see? where are all the passengers?

[jschurchin]

32. Remember this.......

"Thousands"

[sabbat hunter]

35. how many eyewitnesses

do you think saw the plane hit the south tower? i am quite sure not all of them were interviewed, doesnt mean they didnt see it.

i dont have time at work to do proper research to find thousands of eyewitnesses.



but you have already said that you believe a plane hit the south tower, so what exactly is your point?

[jschurchin]

40. Actually it is your....

choice of words and supplying evidence to back it up. A good statement would be "the majority of witnesses saw a plane hit the south tower". When you say thousands and supply one or two, you look incompetent. Just my opinion, I could be full of shit but that is how it looks to me.

[Twist_U_Up]

42. yep.........nt

[greyl]

29. I doubt that sabbat hunter formed an opinion based on a web link.

Are you suggesting that the people reacting in all of the hundreds of thousands of videos and photographs were faked too?

[jschurchin]

33. Truthfully Greyl.........

What in the fuck are you talking about?

[greyl]

34. The question wasn't worded improperly, was it?

I'm sure if you give it some effort, you'll decipher it eventually.
But, chances are you're just fucking around and throwing up chaff. What was the point of asking for links to thousands of witnesses? What federal case was resting on that pointless and distractionary exercise?

The fact remains that the link in the OP is total bullshit.

[jschurchin]

41. Please take two minutes..........

out of your life, look at my posts in this thread, and then ask yourself, where did he say anything about something other than a plane hitting the South Tower, well except for the Flying Pig :sarcasm:

[greyl]

50. Like I said, it was a simple question.

Reprinted here for your convenience:
"Are you suggesting that the people reacting in all of the hundreds of thousands of videos and photographs were faked too?"

I wasn't stating a conclusion, I was asking you a question.

[jschurchin]

51. You are not very bright, are you?

My post you responded to, with your response.

jschurchin (191 posts) Mon Feb-27-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Good for you.
The LINK PLEASE.

greyl (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-27-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. I doubt that sabbat hunter formed an opinion based on a web link.
Are you suggesting that the people reacting in all of the hundreds of thousands of videos and photographs were faked too?

Please explain to me how my post 25 suggests anything but a request for a link. You seem to have a very active imagination, please enlighten me on what else my post may suggest to you.

[greyl]

52. My mistake was thinking that you weren't interrupting a conversation

to change the subject. I was way off in assuming that your post was related to the discussion at hand as started by the OP. The subject was the assertion that no plane hit the tower and you chose to associate yourself with that side of the argument by arguing against the obvious truth that planes did hit the towers.

I'd think that someone interested in efficient clarity would have answered my question with a no and a brief explanation instead of the waste of time non-answer "what in the fuck are you talking about?"

"please enlighten me on what else my post may suggest to you."

Your posts in this thread suggest to me that you are arguing irrelevancies for the sake of distracting and attacking opponents as if there were two distinct teams. Looking at the timing of your post 31, I think it's quite possible that your tactic changed to covering your ass.

The fact remains that the link in the OP is total bullshit. I'd guess you agree that it's bullshit, but that you don't want to be conspicuous in agreeing that it's bullshit. The "you're with us, or against us" mentality.

[jschurchin]

56. Your getting smarter!!!!!

[greyl]

58. It was bound to happen. nt

[petgoat]

67. If your friends have names, let them make a public statement.

Testimonials from anonymous posters' friends are just hearsay evidence scrawled on a bathroom wall.

[theSaiGirl]

23. Good place to start studying this in detail

"Eyewitness" evidence is contradictory .. at best.
So much of what people thought they "saw" was conditioned by the constant droning and hammering of the media propaganda.

Could you tell the difference between a drone, a missile or a plane ... ?

Here's a great site to begin evaluating the evidence with some scientific detachment and objectivity:

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71

[greyl]

21. There was no hard evidence,

webfairy is a proven fraud, and I provided evidence of that claim in my reply.
Thanks for reading my link so carefully.

[spooked911]

43. you know NOTHING about Webfairy

and OilEmpire is disinfo.

BEWARE!

[sabbat hunter]

48. web fairy vs oilempire

i know a bit about the webfairy site. obviously the person who is runs that site wants to prove a conspiracy theory to be true (holograms, mihop etc) and oilempire is out to do the opposite. prove that the 911 commision was right dead on.

that is the problem with both those sites. they have agendas. they started out with a conclusion and then looked for proof to back up that conclusion. i (and many many others) instead rather look at all the evidence, see what is out there and then decide what really happened.


peace
david

[greyl]

54. I disagree.

I don't see anything at Oilempire that indicates they believe that the 9/11 commission was dead on.
Their agenda appears to be to expose some of the many bullshit hoaxes out there that distract from sincere and intelligent investigations. Iow, they started with the assumption that the official story needs to be looked at with skepticism, then they saw totally ridiculous theories and hoaxes competing for attention and credibility.

[rman]

55. webfairy does UFOs/aliens

and thus does a great job at discrediting any serious CTs.

[spooked911]

70. you are painting with a very broad brush

I communicate with WF every day and she rarely if at all talks about UFOs/aliens.

She's actually a very smart lady who knows an amazing amount of things and has collected an amazing amount of information about 9/11.

[simonm]

104. UFOs are possible , here is why

It is technically possible to build our own flying saucers. I wouldn't rule out all UFO phenomena as false. Yes, it seems crazy but here is a link that proves antigravity or simulated antigravity technology. It is based on running high electrical currents through a lightweight alloy such as aluminum.

The size is scalable but you would need a nuclear power source to fly the damn thing.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm

[petgoat]

66. the ludicrous idea

that the first 9/11 plane was really a missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram

What exactly is ludicrous about that idea?

I've always dismissed it as not worth investigating myself, but I don't know enough about it to
call it ludicrous. What do you know about it? Or are you just rejecting it out of hand? Is a
King Kong sized hologram impossible?

[spooked911]

71. very true-- I never understand why this idea is so ludicrous

when the second hit plane clearly "melts" into the building as if an optical effect.

But in any case, WF's current view (and a view held by many others) is that the 2nd hit plane was inserted by video fakery, not by holograms.

[sabbat hunter]

73. to me

the plane did not "melt" into the building as you like to put it.


there are a ton of eye witnesses that saw a jet hit the tower. how do you explain that. and yes they say a plane, not an object, etc.

i personally know people that attended NYU and saw a plane hit the south tower.

[spooked911]

84. certainly the plane did not explode upon contact with the building

it glided in without slowing. this defies physics. people seeing a plane could have seen a hologram-- what's so hard to accept about that idea?

Obviously something exploded in the south tower-- but was it a plane?

[sabbat hunter]

85. what the heck are you watching

the plane most certainly hits the tower and explodes, it doenst melt into the building.

why should it slow down? it didnt "glide in" it hit at 400+ MPH!

holograms? my gods and goddesses!

[petgoat]

88. my gods and goddesses!

That shows your lack of objectivity right there.

I don't believe there was a hologram. I do not consider the question important enough to justify the
investigation necessary to determine whether such a thing is practical or not.

But I don't believe there wasn't one. You seem to think such a thing is impossible. What is your
evidence for that?

[greyl]

91. Are you saying that anyone who uses the phrase "gods and goddesses"

lacks objectivity? If so, that's an unwarranted conclusion.

"But I don't believe there wasn't one( ed: a hologram)."

Belief has nothing to do with figuring out the most inclusive truth, here or anywhere else.
It's not about belief, it's about well reasoned certainty.
You can sneak up on the truth with logic and reason, but if all you do is believe with piss poor evidence, the truth you believe in remains in your lofty imagination. In minimal relation to the real world, in other words.
In my subjective opinion.

"You seem to think such a thing is impossible"

Of course it's possible to fool people. That's why Sylvia Browne is a millionaire and people love "magic tricks". And it may be theoretically possible to fool thousands of people with a hologram that was perfectly coordinated with aircraft shaped holes in buildings, aircraft parts on the street, phone calls, radar signals, ...oh wait - no, that's not even theoretically possible.

It's more possible, theoretically, that you will give up your current life to go to New Orleans and help with the reconstruction.

[petgoat]

93. I'm saying nothing of the sort.

I'm saying your response "my gods and goddesses" to the hologram theory without providing
evidence of its lack of credibility is unreasonable.

It's not about belief, it's about well reasoned certainty.

I'm glad we agree on that. My marriage to someone who thought sincerity of belief was more important
than rigorous attention to facts makes the issue a sore point with me.

it's possible to fool people.

That point is not disputed. The relevant point was: Are King Kong-sized holograms impossible?

it may be theoretically possible to fool thousands of people with a hologram that was perfectly coordinated with aircraft shaped holes in buildings, aircraft parts on the street, phone calls, radar signals

Pictures of aircraft-shaped holes can be faked, aircraft parts can be planted, phone calls have nothing to do with it, and radar signals were injected in connection with the war games.

[greyl]

94. Your saying something of some sort.

"I'm saying your response "my gods and goddesses" to the hologram theory without providing
evidence of its lack of credibility is unreasonable."

That response wasn't mine.
Not in reality, anyway.

[petgoat]

96. That response wasn't mine.

Sorry, I see it was sabbat's. I use a tabbed browser and operate on several planes simultaneously while sleep-deprived. Sorry about my slip.

[greyl]

97. No big deal.

I'm gonna put in Fight Club and go to sleep.

[petgoat]

89. It glided in without slowing.

I'd submit that the front of the plane would penetrate the steel without significant slowing. When
the wings began to hit, the plane would begin to slow. Pictures indicate that even the tail was still
going fast enough to slice through the steel. (assuming the pictures weren't faked--a big if)

[Kevin Fenton]

37. CNN

Which network is the first one supposed to be from?

What's wrong with the second one?

The CNN videos are here:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/multimedia.day.html
If you clink on this one:
"CNN exclusive video from two different angles shows the second plane hitting the World Trade Center (Sept. 11)"
You get to see the second impact from two angles. One of them might be familiar - except the disappearing plane.

[sabbat hunter]

38. two angles

first angle clearly the plane is hitting the south tower
second angle. plane does NOT disappear. you can see it, right up until it is BLOCKED by the steeple of the church. slow it down, go frame by frame and you will see what i mean. you can see it getting blocked by the steeple. front part first, then the tail. then it hits the tower (which we cannot see the exact impact due to the block) but watch it slowly and see it going behind the steeple, not disappearing.

[Kevin Fenton]

39. I agree completely (n/t)

[spooked911]

46. there is no steeple blocking the plane in the videos I linked to

don't know what you are talking about

[sabbat hunter]

47. the copper roof.

i might be mistaken in calling it a steeple. but the copper roof building clearly blocks out the video in the link to the CNN site.

the video on the OP link is obviously altered .

[spooked911]

44. look at the videos I linked to-- do they show the same path

before the "plane" hits the tower?

It's a simple question.

[sabbat hunter]

53. are you talking about

this link


http://thewebfairy.com/911/2hit/blueplane.htm

[Kevin Fenton]

57. I can't tell

They are both slowed down, but it seems they are played at different rates. They are broadly similar. The one query I would have is the height at which the planes enter the shot - in the first sequence the plane is almost level all the way, but in the other sequence it descends and then levels out. The first sequence descends to the last part of the second sequence.

Is that what you meant?

[spooked911]

69. Yes. The two videos show very different approach paths.

[mirandapriestly]

64. The first one is not from a network

it's from this site:
http://www.bodyatomic.com/video.html

and it's an artist who says he filmed that from the place he was working that day. (I emailed him) He said that he sped the last part up to show the smoke flowing over the city (not to hide how long the spire stands, please...) The reason web fairy knows about it is because I sent it to Scott Loughey who has the CNN hoax site because I was interested in the blinking lights that show up BEFORE the plane comes out the other end and on the tower that was already hit. They poo pooed the lights and are trying to discredit the video. Why would the video maker show those flashing lights if he was trying to fool people for the government? Why doesn't she say something about the obvious flashing lights, the ones you can also see similarly on the web site terrorize, which he thinks are lasers...Now I am wondering if oil empire isn't right. God, this is confusing...

[mirandapriestly]

65. I notice that she doesn't show the lights,

interesting....

[mirandapriestly]

68. Here is "terrorize" analysis

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/misc2/

he hasn't translated this yet, unfortunately, but you can tell what is happening. He misses some flashes from near what the woolworth building is, though...

[simonm]

76. It is a fake - here is the original to compare

Here is how you can tell,

Focus on the blue background and pay attention to any slight color changes. When the plane "disappears" you will notice the background is different from before. These artifacts are typical of image editing software.

The same CNN original footage can be found at

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/11/exclusive.crash.cnn.med.html

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

79. you probably saw these

they are old posts of nico haupt (Ewing) at DU. There are very good archived posts from DU, these are on Team 8. It's funny, cuz the same debunkers were doing the same thing.

http://www.team8plus.org/content.php?content.24

[Kevin Fenton]

80. Hey LARED!

Do you have to share your IP address with multiple operatives? I've got one to myself.

Could I ask you to repost this on all threads in this forum please?

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

86. Sharing the IP is a pain in the neck

It seems like every time I am making some progress in my role as a government asset, some other operative needs to get on the computer to bid on a secret decoder ring on Ebay.

It's tough getting work done. :patriot:

[petgoat]

90. Laughing it off, are we? nm

[mirandapriestly]

92. I did a search for the slogan at the bottom of your post-

only got one hit and that was Free Republic, fancy that. (It's an illogical quote, btw)

[LARED]

95. Interesting

the quote in it's entirety is;

You are given a choice: either you accept the idea of a Creator as the endower of man’s rights, or you submit to the idea that the state is the endower of man’s rights. I double-dare any of you to offer a third alternative. We have forgotten the real source of our rights and are suffering the consequences.

READ, LEONARD E., The Essence of Americanism, 1961 Address

Just in case you are wondering I am not a Freeper. I just happen to like the quote and believe it's true.

[mirandapriestly]

103. I looked him up,

he's a libertarian who thinks that the new deal was "morally bankrupt". I am not even going to get into what is so wrong about that quote.

[jschurchin]

83. Bizarro is a good headline for.......

these clips. They appear to be forgery's. I am not a video expert but, a simple comparison between the video on CNN.com and the site you provide clearly shows that the video was tampered with outside of CNN.

By simply freezing the video at the points the aircraft disappears on Nico's site, on the CNN site the aircraft is still there. This is not a difficult task, I am sure you could accomplish this yourself.

Lets see here, so far we have:

http://www.thetruthrockets.net/truth/atlantis.htm
http://911closeup.com/nico/
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/index.htm

Three truly useless sites, unless you are looking for satire.

[theSaiGirl]

98. First Hit video .... courtesy of the mysterious "Naudet brothers"

We already know that "2nd hit" video broadcast, by CNN Psy-Ops Central, is a transparently fake cartoon:
http://www.911hoax.com/

which was created using "bluescreen" CGI:
http://www.reopen911.org/bluescreen.htm

Courtesy of the our state-licensed corporate media:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1748
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/06/02/28_psyops.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/30/95642/8018

So just what did the "Naudet film" show us ... exactly .. ?

A Boeing commercial jet ?
.. a missile of some kind (Cruise, Tomahawk, Hellfire ...) ??
or some kind of UAV predator-drone ???
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/index.htm

[jschurchin]

99. To answer this question..........

"So just what did the "Naudet film" show us ... exactly .. ?"

An aircraft. Why, what do you see?

[theSaiGirl]

100. Well ... we know one thing ... It wasn't "Flight 11" ...

We know it wasn't the mythical "Flight 11"....
At least ... not according to the BTS's own database:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

What was it ?
........
http://publish.portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/304303.shtml

Try doing a GOOGLE IMAGE search on "UAV" "drone"
Uou'll get some good candidates ... IMHO