Never before seen Video of WTC attack...goodbye holograms and

[DemInDistress]

missiles. This 49 second clip also has sound. No smoking gun but worth a look. It can clear the air regarding missiles and holograms.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c&search=News%20911%20NYC%20WTC%20World%20Trade%20Center%20Terrorism%20Osama%20Bin%20Ladin

[mirandapriestly]

1. it says: working on the site, come back later,nt

[orleans]

2. it's on now

and just disturbing to see--(maybe it's late & i'm tired)

[mirandapriestly]

3. goody, thanks.nt

[mirandapriestly]

4. There's no sound at impact

it comes later and it sounds like pyrotechnics or something. 4th of July. It seems like you would hear the actual crash. I mean, I don't know, I'm not sure about plane/no plane, but the sound is incongruent with the event. The other sounds are creepy. There is a sort of scary electronic buzz or something . Did you notice that?

[DemInDistress]

5. I don't think its a fake.. do you have earphones?

While I agree there was no impact sound maybe because the jet sliced neatly through the outer steel wall. After listening to this 20 times I have no doubts about this being genuine but hey what do I know. I am just your average guy who amounted to little in life.
Still I keep searching all corners of the internet hoping to find some "smoking gun" that would no doubt bring justice to the "victims" of 911. Then their are millions of Americans who want to know just who is behind the murders.
Follow the money Deep Throat once said. Who stood to profit? H'm...

Miranda the fact that "our government" is deliberately" with holding thousands of photo's, hundreds of hours of videotapes, documents, and the key witnesses aren't allowed to speak publicly speaks volumes in itself.

[mirandapriestly]

9. I don't know what it means, DiD.

I was just trying to analyze the sound and it sounded like something that explodes on the 4th of July. Don't know what it means. I'm not saying it was a fake. That sound afterwards really freaks me out, do you know what I'm talking about? The metallic hum at the end, God that is creepy.

[DemInDistress]

44. here's another look miranda and the sound wave took 12 seconds

to reach this camera shot from possibly Queens maybe 2-4 miles or more away from downtown NYC, have a look and listen for the shock wave 10 seconds later.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VNbgSzr3cA&mode=related&search=sept_11_2001

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

6. Speed of Sound V Speed of Light

N/T

[DemInDistress]

7. ok that sounds reasonable.... thanks....

BTW.. welcome to DU !!

:hi: :hi: :thumbsup:

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

12. Kind of a cool effect

Look at a construction site from down the block, and find a guy hammering something down. You see him hit the object, then the sound comes a split second later.

Cool how you really don't need to be that far for it to prove itself true.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

28. Sorry

But I have no idea who those folks are. Check my ip I am soemone completely different.

[mirandapriestly]

13. Sound travels at 1000 feet a second or something

like that. This delay is like 3or 4 seconds after impact. Chump.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

29. Less than 2 seconds actually

Edited this after watching the tape again.

The plane hits at about 23.5 sec and the aound starts before the timer turns 25. So we are looking at about 2500 ft give or take.

Since the tower is 1300 ft tall and the hit came about mid tower, we are looking at about 700 feet from impact (again, give or take) starting from the base of the tower. Since he is not at the base of the tower, and given that tall building we are looking over, an additional 1300 - 2000 feet added to the distance of the impact the most logical explanation.

[dailykoff]

30. 3,000 feet is over half a mile,

4,000 feet is three fourths of a mile, kind of far to place a camera, especially in NYC which is full of obstructions.

If a plane had hit the towers it would have sounded like a train wreck in the sky but louder. Steel doesn't "slice" like butter.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

32. Think you were responding to my original post

sorry for editing while you were typing.

The sound comes <3 seconds from impact.

I would wager the mics on that camera were not the best quality and not able to pick up the sounds. Mics can be washed out when sound overwhelms them.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. On that morning

my dad was on the other side of the East River in Queens. He said the creepiest thing he noticed first was the sound of all the sirens. Just about every fire house in NYC ran for the WTC and everywhere was the sound of lots of sirens, that's what your hearing on the tape before the plane or whatever hits.

[mirandapriestly]

19. That must have been creepy, but I don't mean sirens

I know there are sirens, but the "dead air" after the "impact" has a bizarre electronic hum to it, never heard anything like it before

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. We've never seen or heard a skyscraper disintergrate before

It's like the building is crackling into little bits. It is interesting to hear what was going on because much of what we have seen is from a distance w/o sound or in still photos. We don't get to 'hear' much of what happened.

[DemInDistress]

35. miranda here is another independent video of Flight 175

it has no sound other than the hysterical people recording the attacks on the WTC. I feel confident enough to put this hologram issue where it belongs.
This video leaves no doubts a large aircraft crashed into WT2. Was it under radio control? I saw a trailer for a TV series on Fox "The Lone Gunman" about a commercial jet hijacked by computers and the evil men who murder for power and profit. This jet is headed for WT2 and the pc problem solvers have just 4 minutes to over ride the hijackers program otherwise it crashes and you die.

here is the short home video of Flight 175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyqo4oh-AzU&search=sept_11_2001

[Old and In the Way]

37. I agree....thanks for posting.

Yet another independent confirmation. A commercial jet hit the WTC....no question in my mind.

[mirandapriestly]

46. DiD, I love U , but

it's not the "hologram issue". No one is saying that. We are just pointing out "unusual" things about the videos that make us wonder about it.

[DemInDistress]

53. thanks miranda.. everything about 911 is "unusual"... our government

is involved but to what degree? With all the material I've seen outside of what the government hasn't commandeered the people can certainly make a good case for a grand jury investigation. I'd start with larry silverstein. Pull it he claims on tape. This building is going to come down soon says 4 dudes who suspiciously look like explosive experts and they were camera shy. Boom, a massive blast followed by sounds similar to detonations. I wish there was more videotape of that WT7 incident.
911 unusual and full of coincidences.
What's your best piece of evidence supporting an inside job? mine is this: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/911.wtc.2.demolition.east.5.enl.slow.2.wmv and this: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/911.wtc.2.demolition.east.5.enl.slow.1.wmv

barring any camera trickery this is strong evidence of explosive detonations. We'll find the smoking gun one day without the help from the government. see you later.

[DoYouEverWonder]

54. Something hit the WTC

that is all we can say from what we see in the images. I don't buy into the holograph theory either, but I do think that there is more here then meets the eye. Proving that what we see in the images are actually Flight 11 and Flight 175 is another matter entirely. I don't think passenger jets could cause the destruction we see. The only thing I've seen that melts into walls, shots all the way through and still has enough momentum and substance to come out the other side are hardened missiles. That's why they use depleted uranium to make the noses, because you need something harder then rock to get through concrete, no less steel.

[bushatbooker]

8. But if it was CGI

then wouldn't it look like a real 767 is crashing into it?

[mirandapriestly]

10. pssst

I don't know what cgi is. I have seen it referred to on another group, but I don't really get it. Also, I stopped the video, but the plane image is blurry, can you describe what makes the plane not 767-ish? and welcome to DU, although you have posted a few times before. Hi!

[bushatbooker]

11. CGI = Computer Graphic Imaging

If it's done correctly, it's hard to tell if something is CGI or not.

[mirandapriestly]

15. Does the plane look not like a 767?

I couldn't get a good enough look. It seemed banked awfully far, though. I believe they probably have released more "convincing" videos now that they have improved technology. Which is not to say it's fake.
Their is something very suspicious about Camera planet and their collection of "amature" videos, I've read. (I know this isn't from Camera planet)

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. Here's a pic for reference

That's a pretty thick strip of red going around the plane and across the nose. In all the pics I've seen of the second plane it looks like it's one solid color silver.

[mirandapriestly]

20. yes, I've never seen the "red"

I really doubt that the flights we were told hit the wtc's, did. I don't know what did,though.

[bushatbooker]

22. the 2nd plane was a Unitied Airlines btw, not AA

The plane on that video looks real from the split second it's shown, but that's what CGI is supposed to do, make it look real.

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. Ah, thanks for correcting me

I keep forgetting one of the flights was from United. Duh!

And in order to be fair, here's the best pic I've seen of Flight 175 before it hits and it does appear to match the paint and markings of a United 767-222 Boeing.

[Old and In the Way]

38. I flew 175 from Boston to LA 4 weeks earlier.....it was United.

very wierd thinking about that....

[mirandapriestly]

26. I just realized that, so it should be blue and dark grey

[bushatbooker]

27. I wonder if they purposely had a UA plane aiming for 2nd tower

since the plane is darker in color, it would be easier to fab than a nice "shiny" AA plane? Notice in the 1st "live" shots of the 2nd crash, the plane is just a dark spot.

[DemInDistress]

31. its not fake miranda... I had seen another home video taken

a few blocks north of the trade center. From the living room the view is close and no doubt its a commercial jet crashing into WT2 there was also some sound although not as much as we hear in this video above. The more I hear people claiming holograms and CGI the more I become angry.
It's not just CNN who taped the crash. Plus, there is a 3rd video from a private citizen who caught the crash and he was further south of the WTC in Battery Park. I found that on you tube.
Can we put to rest/bed the hologram issue? or do we need additional proof it truly was a jet.

[mirandapriestly]

33. I don't think it is a hologram

Ithink there are some strange things about all the plane videos and I am going to say so until I figure out why, which will probably be never.:(

[bushatbooker]

34. can you post all these amateur videos?

If heard there were "hundreds" of them, I've heard there were a handful. The number keeps changing.

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. This link has about 10 videos of the WTC attack

Most of these are from the M$M. The 3rd one down from CBS is very interesting because it has not been played much on TV. Maybe because it shows the plane or something passing the tower and flying off to the top left toward Long Island.

http://www.bookyards.com/videos/memorial/World%20trade%20centre/?sdmfm

[Bolo Boffin]

36. I'm trying my best to put the hologram issue to bed.

It keeps wanting a glass of water and Hopsicker's book to read.

[mirandapriestly]

50. Who said hologram?

no one. That's a straw man.

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Explain no-plane without hologram.

Please.

[mirandapriestly]

51. There's another at Atomic Dog

I used to think it was real and emailed the guy (who ridiculed "crazy conspiracy theorists") but I didn't let on that I followed 9-11, so he was nice. Then I noticed that his "art work" was all really unprofessional, like pictures of him urinating and stuff and looked thrown together at the laast minute so he could claim to be a "video artist".

http://www.bodyatomic.com/video.html

the plane "skips" in this one, it also look like it is the identical plane used in another video. (you can also see c.d. evidence here)

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

18. Have a look at this.

This is a video made by 2 men and released in the summer of 2000.

Note the 'realism' of the CGI objects.

http://www.405themovie.com/Home.asp

From CNN:

Two guys and a computer produce hit Web movie

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Imagine the relief of finding a ritually congested highway suddenly traffic-free. Then a glance in the rearview mirror reveals the reason: a 747 landing right behind you.

That's the premise of "405: The Movie," a short film produced by two California computer graphics artists and a break-out hit on IFILM.

The film, which runs about two-and-a-half minutes, has been seen more than 2 million times since it debuted on the site in June.

The movie not only drove traffic to IFILM, it boosted its credibility after the two creators, Bruce Branit and Jeremy Hunt, were signed by CAA, one of the country's largest talent agencies.

Most of the movie's images, from the airplane to the Jeep being driven by Hunt, are computer-generated. But it's the short film's premise and surprise ending that has given the two friends their break.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/10/23/internet.studio.movie.ap/


Wednesday August 16, 2000

How'd They Do that? "405" Movie

It's the plane landing that launched the careers of Hollywood's two newest Stars. Their Internet movie, "405," brought disaster to the streets of Los Angeles without destroying a thing.

EXTRA explains, how'd they do that?

It's an incredible and terrifying sight. A jumbo jet is making an emergency landing on southern California's 405 Freeway... but the freeway isn't empty. One unsuspecting man is cruising down the road... and he's about to get crushed by the jet!

So how did the filmmakers manage to land a DC-10 on a L.A. freeway? They certainly didn't have the budget to get a shooting permit to clear one of the busiest freeways in America! Believe it or not, there is no real airplane in this film.

http://extratv.warnerbros.com/cmp/spotlight/2000/08_16b.htm

[mirandapriestly]

21. woah, that was a great ride.

yes, not to hard to fake.

[bushatbooker]

23. Yes, that video convinced my CGI is possible

to have faked the 2nd hit.

Here's another link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX9DYTlL2S0

[Old and In the Way]

39. Possible, but not very probable.

It just not the video evidence, it's the people's reactions to the event. Think about the sheer number of people that would need to be in on this. I think I've seen at least 20 versions....are all of the people witnessing the event also part of the deception? I don't think so.

[bushatbooker]

40. You mean the "amateur" videos?

I've seen few and they all have seem to have the zoom evidence.

[Old and In the Way]

42. Every camera in NYC was trained on the WTC's after the 1st hit.

C'mon, are we really going to argue that the 2nd plane was a fabrication? Unless you have irrefutable proof that this is the case, you make an argument that undermines the entire case against this administration.

[bushatbooker]

43. The 2nd crash videos look fake. What can I say?

The first videos of the 2nd crash they showed on TV just showed a dark plane. You telling me those choppers with their high-tech cameras couldn't take better video than that?

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

45. Yes those cameras

bushatbooker wrote,

You telling me those choppers with their high-tech cameras couldn't take better video than that?

Yes, those same cameras that film all of the footage for 'America's Greatest Chases Caught On Tape' & 'True Videos Of The Highway Patrol' etc..

Funny how the footage from the news showing chases involve both the camera and the target moving and super 'sniper-like' zoom-ins that allow you to see the brand of underwear that the occupants of the vehicles are wearing, yet on 9/11 a stationary camera can barely catch anything more than a crude blob.

[mirandapriestly]

48. Good point. They say they can watch us

from space, yet they can't get a good shot of the "plane". uh-huh.

[mirandapriestly]

47. I agree.

and the "plane" looks different in every single picture. Sometimes it is solid black, sometimes silver, sometime grey with the correct markings. No sound on impact. Yeah, I know speed of sound, but you can hear the "roar" of the plane in sync with the plane, why isn't that delayed? The way it moves also looks fake too, sometimes it "jumps" forward. What does it mean? I dunno.
It's weird when people try to shut down discussion, no one is saying "hologram" that is a straw man.

[sgsmith]

55. Sound

But the sound is delayed. You just don't recognize it.

Bear with me here. Imagine a triangle, with one long side at the top, and two shorter lines at the bottom. Where the lines join at the bottom is the observer with a video camera. One end of the long side ends at the WTC building, the other ends somewhere on the flightpath. With me?

As the plane flys along the long line, the sound from the engines radiates all along the flight path and is heard at the point where the observer is at the bottom. That sound, of course, travels at the speed of sound, but there isn't anything to distinguish where along the flight path the sound is generated. Yes, there's a doppler shift, but because the cameras move to track the airplanes, and some of the videos are shot on very long distances, the doppler doesn't help in identifying where the airplane is.

It's only at the point of collision, where a unique sound (the explosion) is heard, that you can begin to localize where along the flight path the airplane is. And that sound is usally delayed from the visual of the explosion.

Yes, a lot of the video is crappy and full of artifacts. But who knows how much and how the video has been compressed from source to web links. Since most web videos are very small size, it stands to reason that a lot of compression has occurred.

Somewhere on this forum is a link to a hugh image file (two image files I believe) that capture the plane before it hits WTC2. I believe they're 16 MB apiece. Find that link and look at a good high resolution still, and it becomes clear that the airplane is real.

[Grateful for Hope]

56. I have been thinking that one of the reasons

we haven't seen a clear indication of plane/WTC is because we are viewing web images, and they have been compressed.

What about the video of the Pentagon hit? Could the same apply?

On the other hand, it is possible that clear images are being withheld so as to introduce doubt of things that really did happen to deflect from the real discrepancies between the official story and reality.

[mirandapriestly]

49. You mean their incredible ability to zoom in

super fast as the plane comes close to the building?

[bushatbooker]

57. Yes, the zooming in and out just at the right time

is a dead giveaway.