Live Animation?
This shot was apparently the only "live" shot of the second hit shown on network TV. The same video feed was shown on both ABC (not the ABC logo in the corner) and CNN (which was using the ABC feed).
The video is taken from a helicopter.
This footage is remarkable for a few reasons:
1) the angle of the shot, from the northwest, only shows the north tower. Thus, the south tower is hidden from view-- and therefore we cannot see the plane actually hit the south tower, we only see a plane going behind the north tower and then the south tower explode.
2) the "plane" is only seen briefly, a dark small object, with hardly any detail. This plane could easily be (and almost certainly is) animation.
3) Interestingly, the reporter on the scene, who was describing the north tower burning, never saw the plane. Only the people back in the studio talk about a plane. However, the reporter was not on the helicopter but was four blocks north of the WTC, presumably from some vantage point.
Notably, other footage of the second hit did not appear until significantly later in the morning.
My guess is the delay is because the fakers needed time to insert the proper digital (CGI) planes into the footage of the south tower exploding. As I have discussed extensively, there is abundant reason to think the second hit footage was faked in many cases, and probably all footage showing a plane hit the south tower is fake.
Interestingly, the ABC TV network is well-known for CIA connections, and was owned by a CIA-connected company, Capital Cities.
Also, interestingly, the "live shot" is the same as this weird fake here. The supposed story of this fake video is: "My brother works in the media, and just sent me this file via ICQ. He claims it's footage recently gained from some inside government source that his workplace has (I can't reveal his identity or where he works for a few reasons, mainly that I don't want him getting fired)." In fact, this story makes some sense, since I strongly think this first video is a fake. This badly timed "fake" was probably some out-take of the original fakery.
The video is taken from a helicopter.
This footage is remarkable for a few reasons:
1) the angle of the shot, from the northwest, only shows the north tower. Thus, the south tower is hidden from view-- and therefore we cannot see the plane actually hit the south tower, we only see a plane going behind the north tower and then the south tower explode.
2) the "plane" is only seen briefly, a dark small object, with hardly any detail. This plane could easily be (and almost certainly is) animation.
3) Interestingly, the reporter on the scene, who was describing the north tower burning, never saw the plane. Only the people back in the studio talk about a plane. However, the reporter was not on the helicopter but was four blocks north of the WTC, presumably from some vantage point.
Notably, other footage of the second hit did not appear until significantly later in the morning.
My guess is the delay is because the fakers needed time to insert the proper digital (CGI) planes into the footage of the south tower exploding. As I have discussed extensively, there is abundant reason to think the second hit footage was faked in many cases, and probably all footage showing a plane hit the south tower is fake.
Interestingly, the ABC TV network is well-known for CIA connections, and was owned by a CIA-connected company, Capital Cities.
Also, interestingly, the "live shot" is the same as this weird fake here. The supposed story of this fake video is: "My brother works in the media, and just sent me this file via ICQ. He claims it's footage recently gained from some inside government source that his workplace has (I can't reveal his identity or where he works for a few reasons, mainly that I don't want him getting fired)." In fact, this story makes some sense, since I strongly think this first video is a fake. This badly timed "fake" was probably some out-take of the original fakery.
posted by spooked at 6:41 AM
10 Comments:
Still waiting for your explanation of the cloaked or invisible aspect of this whole thing.
*sigh*
And we canna kinna dinna do much more without the dilitium crystals, Captain!
Keep it up, though! I love reading about your "extensive" discussions and impeccable reasoning.
you love reading things here, because you are just a lowly SHILL for a empire in decline.
why else on earth would you be here!?? hehe
too bad you aren't honest enough to even admit THAT...
You are pathetic, Pinch, as is anyone who defends this shitty administration and the official 9/11 story.
And of course you should know the US military has great interest in technologies that can make an object less visible. There are such technologies out there.
pinch, I am still waiting to here your sorry ass explain the TOTAL INCOMPETENCE of the military of the United States of America to respond to the 'hijackings' of 9/11. The idea that you guys are 'ready to protect the Homeland' in a moments notice is B.S., you couldn't even stop a dimwit like Hani Hanjour from successfully making a direct attack on your own HQ.
Seeing that NASA can simultaneously track MILLIONS of objects, from screws to large asteroids, from a MUCH GREATER distance, makes any arguement against incompetence (as to a military intercept) even more absurd.
Our Busy Solar System
Now seeing that there have been NO reprimands in the military for their incompetence, something tells me that is a sign of involvement and thus protection.
Wow, with dullards such as yourself defending America, maybe I should pick up a bag of SPORKS and just take over your whole country. (PY pets cat while laughing like Blofeld, light glints off big ruby ring, camera slowly out as scene fades out... Cut, that's a wrap.)
Nice take-down, PY!
You WOULD think he would be embarrassed about how lame his beloved US military was on 9/11, woudln't you?
lol....wait a minute - lemme see if I got this right. I'm being lectured about military matters by a *Canadian*??? The Canada who's Armed Forces are better known as the "Formed Arses"? The Canada whose population spends more on beer than the government does on its military? I lived in Nova Scotia for 7 years - loved the place and still do, but seriously...come back and try again when you aren't such a laughing stock from a military perspective.
I won't even get into the absurdity and ignorance of comparing the tracking of an object in a static orbit to a surprise attack using unconventional and asymmetric weapons in a radar environment that was not specifically designed to track such weapons in the environment they were operating in.
Keep it up, boys! And I'd like some specifics on the "technologies" of "invisible" and "cloaking devices", Warf. Radar absorbant materials (RAM) and similar technologies affect the radar spectrum, not the human eye, Mr Wizard. I'd love to hear about the technologies that takes a 155', 200 ton 757 and makes it "invisible" or "cloaked". My recommendation...take the express elevator down from Wacked Out Land back to Reality World.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, not your fault. Gotcha. Couldn't even fucking protect Washington DC over 1 hr after there is a multi-plane hijacking. You just had NO IDEA what would happen, I'm sure.
By the way, I never said anything about cloaking a 757. Why would they want to do that? Talk about not getting it. I said in theory a cloaked (invisible) missile or UAV could have been used to hit the south tower. I never said it was completely invisible, I said it may have been weakly visible to the human eye.
In any case, this was a formal possibility, I never said it was precisely what happened.
As far as the technology, there are certainly prototype systems for invisibility (try google) and I have no doubt the military has similar technology it doesn't even talk about.
Since you have already link to Above Top Lunatic, perhaps our super-double-secret-squirrel invisibility programs are being run at Dulce, NM:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/dulce.html
That seems to square with your whole "extensive analysis" bit. Makes about as much sense.
Let me guess....the technology passed on by the Reptoids...or was it stolen from the Greys?...is what helps us with making our drones and cruise missiles invisible! Why CNN had footage of cruise missiles and aircraft and EVERYTHING flying into Afghanistan and Baghdad AFTER 9/11 remains a mystery, however, since we could make them invisible before. I'd ask why we aren't using "invisible" or "stealth" or "cloaking" technology *now*, when it would quiet obviously benefit us in the war, but I'd get a "No doubt the EVIL Bush and his NEFARIOUS government want to PROLONG the war and DESTROY the constitution!" excuse. Lame.
I'm sorry....lol...I know how you hate these posts that yank the curtain away from your sordid little fantasy world, but someone has to do it.
But hang in there, Spook! Your small but...faithful...following appreciates what you do even if I throw the bullshit flag!
Don't forget to keep checking out the Instapinch! Just went over 10,000 hits in my first year blogging! Nothing compared to Humit Events, I'm sure, but not bad for a ol' country boy/former naval aviator from Alabama!
Wow, 10,000 hits, dude, you're fucking awesome. Gee, I'm just wrong about everything and you're right. You're so brave and strong and courageous. Thanks for setting me straight.
The Chesapeake campaign and The Star-Spangled Banner
The best known of the destructive British raids was the "Burning of Washington" (the burning of public buildings, including the White House, in Washington) by Admiral Sir George Cockburn and General Robert Ross. This expedition was carried out between August 19 and August 29, 1814. On the 24th, the inexperienced American militia, who had collected at Bladensburg, Maryland to protect the capital, were soundly defeated, opening the route to Washington. While Dolley Madison saved valuables from the White House, President James Madison was forced to flee to Virginia; American morale was reduced to an all-time low. The British viewed their actions as fair retaliation for the Americans' burning of York (later renamed Toronto) in 1813, although there are suggestions that the burning was in retaliation of destructive American raids into other parts of Upper Canada.
War of 1812
So, let's get back on topic, pinch please explain the ABSOLUTE, ABYSMAL, COMPLETE, TOTAL, UTTER FAILURE of the military to carry out the ONLY DUTY that they have on 9/11? You know that place that employs you, "The Department of DEFENSE, which would be named "The Department of Belligerent Aggression", were the gov't held to any real standard of truth.
I'll bet you can earn a reprimand for wearing multi-coloured bootlaces in the military FFS. So how is it that incompetence that lead to 2,000+ deaths has not earned a single reprimand?
Post a Comment
<< Home