Some Very Strange Footage of the WTC South Tower Impact

[Eagle54]

Apparently, some tv station's news helicopter was flying around the WTC after the North Tower impact, and the footage recorded by the helicopter showed that the South Tower explosion occurred WITHOUT any plane hitting the South Tower.

I'm a bit skeptical of this video. I know that the 9/11 researchers who promote the "no plane" theory have been accused of being disinfo artists.

Anyway, please look at the following link:

http:(xx)www(d)911movement(d)org/thread.php?73


This is a thread on a message board.

The video appears in the first post, under the username fred.

fred's video shows footage from 3 news stations. Pay close attention to the footage from channel 4.

The next two posts discuss fred's video. I thought that I would ask the people of the SOTT forum to comment on this. Thank you.

 

[ThAEther]

I saw the video.

I think that obviously those images showing NO plane hitting the South WTCTower are made up using those percise means (photoshop or anything) that the maker of this film says the media conspirators (WB11) have used.

I don't think there were no planes used. But it must be true that there were 'actors' in the public who were ready to porpagate the same theory to live reporters down on the street : namely that the fuel burning and structural damage to the towers caused thenm to collapse.

 

[name]

the server is down for me

 

[Ruth]

So, the 'plot' behind the 'no planes theory'? Well, it might go something like this:

Don't believe what you see, you can be fooled. Human beings are most unreliable. Believe only what we tell you.
Got it?

See, even the 'no planes theory' have an agenda.

The Government is trying to hide its own complicity....as well as 'mystify' and 'terrify'....

 

[Rich]

I'm a bit skeptical of this video. I know that the 9/11 researchers who promote the "no plane" theory have been accused of being disinfo artists.

Rightly so. You would do well to read 9/11 the ultimate truth - LKJ, There is a good explanation of why by presenting implausible explanations of what happened on 9/11 confuses and distracts from the most likely theory.

 

[Eagle54]

Rightly so. You would do well to read 9/11 the ultimate truth - LKJ, There is a good explanation of why by presenting implausible explanations of what happened on 9/11 confuses and distracts from the most likely theory.

I do believe that, given how many onlookers there would be on the ground after the North Tower impact/explosion, the perpetrators of 9/11 would not have staged an impact/explosion at the South Tower without having *some* flying object in the vicinity.

Now, in the thread that I reference in my first post, the poster known as 911infiltraitor states that it would be impossible for an aluminum plane to fly right through a concrete building without leaving wreckage outside of the building.
I believe that this is correct. So, if a flying object flew through the building without leaving wreckage outside, the object would have to be made of something stronger than aluminum.

 

[anart]

Now, in the thread that I reference in my first post, the poster known as 911infiltraitor states that it would be impossible for an aluminum plane to fly right through a concrete building without leaving wreckage outside of the building. I believe that this is correct.

Why, in the world, would you believe that to be correct?

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to sound harsh - but please try to explain why a very heavy airplane traveling at a very high rate of speed could not fly into the building without leaving 'wreckage' outside - even if it was coated in tinfoil and not aluminum - and, considering the eventual condition of 'outside' - how could anyone even tell?

Apologies, but this whole issue is clearly disinformation and noise on this forum.

 

[Ryan]

This doesn't even need to be faked. Watch the explosions carefully, and you will see that the chopper footage (the lower frame) has a much better view of the left side plumes and flames. Also note the gap between the two buildings and the smaller rooftops on the lower left side. This to me indicates the chopper angle may have had as much as 40-60 degrees difference (assuming the WTC at the center) from the fixed camera (which looks like it is at a much lower altitude, probably from a rooftop).

This provides just enough angle for the bulk of the buildings to mask the flight path of the plane hitting the South tower from the chopper's camera.

The "reading from a script" observation is no doubt correct. The media were harping the "terror attack" angle from the beginning. Of course they knew of it in advance (or were in on it), so this isn't the sort of observation that reinforces the "no plane" theory specifically.

Then there is the "shadow plane" created by the third fixed camera angle used in that clip. It didn't look faked to me at all. I'm also somewhat suspicious that I've seen that particular footage before without the black-screen "glitch" that occurred just as the plane hit the building.

The final "evidence" is the reporter saying "I don't see a plane". Well, we don't know where this reporter is. He might have been working out of a mobile unit which was at an angle whereby he really didn't see the plane when it first hit - just the explosion. And in any case, the lag time between him "catching up" was hardly any kind of smoking gun.

This video strikes me as an interesting bit of stitched-together presdigitation, but essentially just more smoke and mirrors like the rest of the "no-plane" theories. The fact that it's also promoting deviants like Nico Haupt (see Laura's 9-11 discussion list thread for more) doesn't bode well for the legitimacy of it, either.

Or so I think.

 

[crazy croc]

I watched quite a few amatuer videos on the net in the days following the event back in 2001. I remember seeing one where the film began with the cam operator filming the first building burning. Then there was the loud sound of presumambly a jet aircraft. When the filmer heard this, they seemingly lost notice of the camera and presumably looked up with their eyes as the camera began filming the street for a few seconds. I distintly remember this film showing what appeared to be the shadow of an aircraft on the ground which coincided with the sound and moving of the camera. Within about 5 seconds the fimer pulled the camera up and began shooting what was left of the second impact and aftermath. Many of these videos are no longer on the web or maybe are buried on Utube somewhere. There are real videos out there that can clearly disprove the no planes story to a most satisfactory degree.

 

[Azur]

I watched quite a few amatuer videos on the net in the days following the event back in 2001. I remember seeing one where the film began with the cam operator filming the first building burning. Then there was the loud sound of presumambly a jet aircraft. When the filmer heard this, they seemingly lost notice of the camera and presumably looked up with their eyes as the camera began filming the street for a few seconds. I distintly remember this film showing what appeared to be the shadow of an aircraft on the ground which coincided with the sound and moving of the camera. Within about 5 seconds the fimer pulled the camera up and began shooting what was left of the second impact and aftermath. Many of these videos are no longer on the web or maybe are buried on Utube somewhere. There are real videos out there that can clearly disprove the no planes story to a most satisfactory degree.

I think I know which clip you mean. If it is, it was a French film crew doing a documentary (I think). Two Brothers or some such.

You may want to start there to help show in better detail what you are saying.


Cheers.

 

[Eagle54]

I think I know which clip you mean. If it is, it was a French film crew doing a documentary (I think). Two Brothers or some such.

You are talking about the Naudet brothers and their documentary about New York City firefighters.

While filming this documentary, the Naudet brothers were at the right place and at the right time to film AA Flight 11 hitting the North Tower of the WTC.

However, the fact that the Naudet brothers happened to be at the right place and at the right time may not have been a coincidence.


Please read the following article:

http:(xx)www)d(serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael(d)htm


The article is long. However, the main point of the article is that the Naudet brothers MUST have known about the North Tower impact ahead of time and that it was NOT a coincidence that they were at the right place and right time to film the impact.

 

[JGeropoulas]

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to sound harsh - but please try to explain why a very heavy airplane traveling at a very high rate of speed could not fly into the building without leaving 'wreckage' outside - even if it was coated in tinfoil and not aluminum - and, considering the eventual condition of 'outside' - how could anyone even tell?

Anart, you must be kidding here, right? Surely you're being facetious to highlight the absurd parallel claims made in defense of why there's no evidence of a plane outside of the Pentagon. Right?

But I certainly agree with your point that "the eventual condition outside" explains why the inevitable wreckage left outside might have been hard to distinguish from the wreckage that got inside the towers before their collapse.

 

[anart]

Anart, you must be kidding here, right? Surely you're being facetious to highlight the absurd parallel claims made in defense of why there's no evidence of a plane outside of the Pentagon. Right?

No, it was my understanding that he was talking about the plane going through the glass and metal WTC, not the newly reinforced walls of the pentagon - that he was saying since there wasn't a piece of the plane on the streets below that there was no plane at the WTC. If he was talking about the Pentagon, then, yes, my statement would work better as sarcasm, but that wasn't my understanding. My understanding of what he was saying at the time, however, could have been wrong.