28 Videos of the Second Hit
I started my second hit compliation project last night, and made a list of ALL the second hit videos I could find.
Between Webfairy and Terrorize, I found 28 "primary" videos that captured the second plane before it hit the South tower.
Twenty-eight.
28.
Of course a lot of these videos have very little detail of the plane-- in many videos "the plane" is just a dark blur-- as the videos are shot from some distance. I will dissect these videos in more detail in the near future. But it is worth simply discussing the number of videos with the plane!
On the one hand, 28 videos may not be too surprising given how many people live within eyeshot (or video range) of lower Manhattan and had in theory the chance to videotape the plane from their home. In this sense, 28 may even be lower than you would expect.
On the other hand, 28 videos is A LOT of videos considering that: the second plane was unexpected, the plane officially was going extremely fast at low altitude, people had only about 10 minutes to get their cameras after learning of the first hit, there was only a ten second time frame to capture it, and the second plane could really only be seen from certain limited angles (and could not have been seen by most people who lived north of the WTC in Manhattan).
On balance, it is hard to be convinced whether 28 videos are too many or too few for this event. Personally, 28 is more than I would expect considering the timing required and the other factors I mentioned, but 28 is clearly not going to convince skeptics of the fake video theory is real.
And I will be honest, having 28 videos of a Boeing-like plane/dark blob hitting the south tower is a big problem for the "no-plane" theory, given that 28 videos, presumably from many different sources, would have to be faked. How could the planners ever find all the videos? Wouldn't just one video of the tower exploding but showing no incoming plane sink their carefully laid plans***?
But let's go through the possibilities here:
A) a Boeing 767-like plane hit the towers and all videos are real (the official story)
B) a Boeing 767-like plane hit the towers and some videos are real and some were faked (for whatever reason)
C) something hit the towers that is not a Boeing 767, that looks like a dark blur from a distance and close-up videos were faked
D) no plane hit the towers and ALL the videos are faked by computer graphics to show a plane.
Now, the problem *I* have is that none of these answers are entirely satisfying.
But, let's dissect this a little more.
Problems:
A) I have gone over and over on this blog why I think the official story of a large plane and the multiple videos of this event is not right. I think some videos are clearly fake, there are too many anomalies with the plane in different videos AND there is reason to think a real plane would not slice into the steel-framed WTC south tower like it did.
B) This is possible, but has big holes in why people would fake the plane in the videos if there were real videos of the plane, and also has the problem of a real plane hitting the tower. CONCEIVABLY, the shots of the plane hitting the building and slicing in without exploding or breaking on contact were faked, and other videos of the plane that do not show this are real. But it really isn't clear why this would have been done (unless they wanted to push the image of the plane damaging the building which induced the collapse, and that still shows inside job).
C) I think this would have been too risky for them to carry off, since random people getting a video of the anomalous plane or missile hitting the building that wasn't the right plane would be a MAJOR problem.
D) This is the crazy theory. However, there is a subtlety to this argument. Let's think about if there really WAS no second plane. Who is going to try to capture NOTHING on video? Sure, a few people might be videotaping the north tower and then catch the south tower explode and videotape that after they see it. But how many people are really going to be in a position to get a good shot of the south tower plane before it hit if they are focused on the north tower (assuming the plane was real)? In fact, no one is going to pan over to south of the south tower if there is no plane there. Moreover, let's say you hear the news, get out your video camera, and start to film the burning north tower. How long are you going to film for? There's not much happening except for the smoke. If there is no plane there, there is a good chance you'll just turn the camera off after a minute or two-- and then maybe start filming again after you see the fireball.
The point is, if there IS NO PLANE, you would have to be very lucky to get a film of the tower right before the event, continue filming up to the fireball, and also film from the right angle where the plane could be seen from.
Thus, I submit that it is possible that part of the whole 9/11 plan was to have teams of videographers and photographers stationed all around lower Manhattan just waiting for the South tower "event". These people would would later edit their videos of the south tower explosion with insertion of a CGI plane at the proper time. I also submit that no true amateur videographers captured the plane.
The point is, once all this video evidence was brought forward to the media and into the public domain, wouldn't it be JUST SO OBVIOUS that a plane hit-- because so many people captured it on videotape (and on camera film)? In other words, the 28 videos could have all been part of the no-plane/video-hoax plan.
How likely is this?
9/11 was a huge job in my book, and they planned a LOT. So I can't put this past them.
One beauty of this plan is that people who might really have happened to capture the south tower explode and were in a position to see the plane could think they simply missed the plane (because it was going so fast or they blinked) later when they saw TV.
There are pieces of evidence I think supports the idea that all 28 videos are faked:
1) in every video the plane is rather well-centered for what would have been a quick reaction shot
2) all the videos are VERY stable (not jumpy like home movies) as they show the plane, suggesting a professional camera operator
3) we don't know who most of these videographers are, but in the few cases we do know who they are, they have suspicious backgrounds in computer animation (Scott Myers, Devin Clark), or their videos were confiscated (Evan Fairbanks) or their whole story is extremely suspicious (the Naudets, Pavel Hlava).
Sidenote: Terrorize had four videos with just the tower exploding without the plane. Clearly videos that do not show the plane are not going to have as much interest as "plane" videos, but one wonders how many other videos are out there that are NOT on the web that show the plane and/or the fireball. I would guess the plane videos are almost all on the web, whereas there may be a few fireball videos that are not. But I could be wrong of course.
***There is no such video I know of: one that shows the tower exploding, and has a clear view of the approach path the plane took but shows NO incoming plane (as might be predicted by the "no plane" theory).
(Note, an earlier version of this post mentioned 27 videos instead of 28)
Between Webfairy and Terrorize, I found 28 "primary" videos that captured the second plane before it hit the South tower.
Twenty-eight.
28.
Of course a lot of these videos have very little detail of the plane-- in many videos "the plane" is just a dark blur-- as the videos are shot from some distance. I will dissect these videos in more detail in the near future. But it is worth simply discussing the number of videos with the plane!
On the one hand, 28 videos may not be too surprising given how many people live within eyeshot (or video range) of lower Manhattan and had in theory the chance to videotape the plane from their home. In this sense, 28 may even be lower than you would expect.
On the other hand, 28 videos is A LOT of videos considering that: the second plane was unexpected, the plane officially was going extremely fast at low altitude, people had only about 10 minutes to get their cameras after learning of the first hit, there was only a ten second time frame to capture it, and the second plane could really only be seen from certain limited angles (and could not have been seen by most people who lived north of the WTC in Manhattan).
On balance, it is hard to be convinced whether 28 videos are too many or too few for this event. Personally, 28 is more than I would expect considering the timing required and the other factors I mentioned, but 28 is clearly not going to convince skeptics of the fake video theory is real.
And I will be honest, having 28 videos of a Boeing-like plane/dark blob hitting the south tower is a big problem for the "no-plane" theory, given that 28 videos, presumably from many different sources, would have to be faked. How could the planners ever find all the videos? Wouldn't just one video of the tower exploding but showing no incoming plane sink their carefully laid plans***?
But let's go through the possibilities here:
A) a Boeing 767-like plane hit the towers and all videos are real (the official story)
B) a Boeing 767-like plane hit the towers and some videos are real and some were faked (for whatever reason)
C) something hit the towers that is not a Boeing 767, that looks like a dark blur from a distance and close-up videos were faked
D) no plane hit the towers and ALL the videos are faked by computer graphics to show a plane.
Now, the problem *I* have is that none of these answers are entirely satisfying.
But, let's dissect this a little more.
Problems:
A) I have gone over and over on this blog why I think the official story of a large plane and the multiple videos of this event is not right. I think some videos are clearly fake, there are too many anomalies with the plane in different videos AND there is reason to think a real plane would not slice into the steel-framed WTC south tower like it did.
B) This is possible, but has big holes in why people would fake the plane in the videos if there were real videos of the plane, and also has the problem of a real plane hitting the tower. CONCEIVABLY, the shots of the plane hitting the building and slicing in without exploding or breaking on contact were faked, and other videos of the plane that do not show this are real. But it really isn't clear why this would have been done (unless they wanted to push the image of the plane damaging the building which induced the collapse, and that still shows inside job).
C) I think this would have been too risky for them to carry off, since random people getting a video of the anomalous plane or missile hitting the building that wasn't the right plane would be a MAJOR problem.
D) This is the crazy theory. However, there is a subtlety to this argument. Let's think about if there really WAS no second plane. Who is going to try to capture NOTHING on video? Sure, a few people might be videotaping the north tower and then catch the south tower explode and videotape that after they see it. But how many people are really going to be in a position to get a good shot of the south tower plane before it hit if they are focused on the north tower (assuming the plane was real)? In fact, no one is going to pan over to south of the south tower if there is no plane there. Moreover, let's say you hear the news, get out your video camera, and start to film the burning north tower. How long are you going to film for? There's not much happening except for the smoke. If there is no plane there, there is a good chance you'll just turn the camera off after a minute or two-- and then maybe start filming again after you see the fireball.
The point is, if there IS NO PLANE, you would have to be very lucky to get a film of the tower right before the event, continue filming up to the fireball, and also film from the right angle where the plane could be seen from.
Thus, I submit that it is possible that part of the whole 9/11 plan was to have teams of videographers and photographers stationed all around lower Manhattan just waiting for the South tower "event". These people would would later edit their videos of the south tower explosion with insertion of a CGI plane at the proper time. I also submit that no true amateur videographers captured the plane.
The point is, once all this video evidence was brought forward to the media and into the public domain, wouldn't it be JUST SO OBVIOUS that a plane hit-- because so many people captured it on videotape (and on camera film)? In other words, the 28 videos could have all been part of the no-plane/video-hoax plan.
How likely is this?
9/11 was a huge job in my book, and they planned a LOT. So I can't put this past them.
One beauty of this plan is that people who might really have happened to capture the south tower explode and were in a position to see the plane could think they simply missed the plane (because it was going so fast or they blinked) later when they saw TV.
There are pieces of evidence I think supports the idea that all 28 videos are faked:
1) in every video the plane is rather well-centered for what would have been a quick reaction shot
2) all the videos are VERY stable (not jumpy like home movies) as they show the plane, suggesting a professional camera operator
3) we don't know who most of these videographers are, but in the few cases we do know who they are, they have suspicious backgrounds in computer animation (Scott Myers, Devin Clark), or their videos were confiscated (Evan Fairbanks) or their whole story is extremely suspicious (the Naudets, Pavel Hlava).
Sidenote: Terrorize had four videos with just the tower exploding without the plane. Clearly videos that do not show the plane are not going to have as much interest as "plane" videos, but one wonders how many other videos are out there that are NOT on the web that show the plane and/or the fireball. I would guess the plane videos are almost all on the web, whereas there may be a few fireball videos that are not. But I could be wrong of course.
***There is no such video I know of: one that shows the tower exploding, and has a clear view of the approach path the plane took but shows NO incoming plane (as might be predicted by the "no plane" theory).
(Note, an earlier version of this post mentioned 27 videos instead of 28)
posted by spooked at 5:52 PM
12 Comments:
Yet again succinctly analysed Spooky.
Here's another question, did a single reporter on the ground or any person in the background of the second hit footage you have collected exclaim anything like; "here's another plane heading in to the towers" well before it struck the south tower - the question doesn't include those watching it on live feeds in TV stations.
I found 28 "primary" videos that captured the second plane before it hit the South tower.
before it hit the south tower. how many videos are there of the actual impact? there is only one isn't there? there could be one hundred videos of the second plane before it hit, but as long as the actual impact behaves like a ghost/cartoon then it IS either a ghost or a cartoon -
slaverstain-- this video:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit11/
911.wtc.2.hit.east.22.avi
has some commentary about a second plane coming before the plane is visble-- the women screaming sounds real, possibly the line about the plane was added in post-production... don't know-- it looks real.
James-- actually there are a few videos that capture the second hit close-up and show the plane sliding in:
1) CNN "ghostplane" footage
2) Evan Fairbanks' film
3) the late-appearing "Cheney hit" film-- this one: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit9/
4) this one:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit4/
These could well be all fake, OR I'm just full of shit... :P
But each of these are suspicious in their own way...
slaverstain-- this video:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit11/
911.wtc.2.hit.east.22.avi
has some commentary about a second plane coming before the plane is visble-- the women screaming sounds real, possibly the line about the plane was added in post-production... don't know-- it looks real.
James-- actually there are a few videos that capture the second hit close-up and show the plane sliding in:
1) CNN "ghostplane" footage
2) Evan Fairbanks' film
3) the late-appearing "Cheney hit" film-- this one: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit9/
4) this one:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit4/
These could well be all fake, OR I'm just full of shit... :P
But each of these are suspicious in their own way...
4 of them - 4 different clips, each showing a phony looking plane behaving in a cartoon like manner - I suppose it could've entered another dimension as it slid into home, that would explain the cartoon/ghost-like aspect.
of course, we could always invoke the dreaded hologram theory to explain this, but that word really seems to scare a lot of people.
Nice post spooked. I have always wondered about these videos as well, but it seems a big stretch to say all these videos are faked. Nonetheless, you raise some great points I had not considered to support your argument. I have always wondered about the CNN video (I remember seeing this one alot during 9/11) where the camera drops down, and pans over to the towers and catches the second plane flight and impact. To me, it seems the person shooting this particular video may not have even seen the plane. It looks to me that the camera operator is panning over the skyline trying to find the towers again, and just as he/she reaches the tower, there is an explosion. What really makes me wonder is how jerky the camera is when the shot finally reaches the tower. It appears the camera operators pans past the tower and back again after the explosion. If the camera operator were really filming a plane on its final approach, and one tower had already been hit by a plane, sorta makes you wonder why the camera operator almost missed the tower. Shouldn't they have realized the second tower was about to be hit by that plane, since the first one was already hit?
Again, its possible they didn't know what was happening and were really filming a plane and just happened to almost pan past the towers and miss the impact. I realize I am stretching a little on this one ;-)
Your blog is full of very imformitive content and I am sure to pass this link on to others. Your blog has become a regular stop for me!
Shep--
Thanks for the comment. That video you refer to actually videos a panned still with what I believe is a computer generated plane image added in. The intial jerkiness is all a trick to make you think the video is spontaneous, IMO.
Er, what I mean is the video was made by a camera panning over a still frame, with the plane added, then it cuts to the real life tower explosion.
I remember from the ABC news footage that the female presenter says after the second crash something like, "I wonder if that was the plane we saw circling around...?" but she is cut off in discussion.
You recall it?
spooked - are you saying you feel this video was created from a still shot of the NY skyline? I certainly agree that is appears this plane was added in later, especially when you watch how the plane interacts with the buildings it passes near. There are some really crappy versions of this footage out there, but I think the best I've found have been here.
I find the Fairbanks footage particularly interesting because it seems the man visible in the shot (who I read was Secret Service, but cannot confirm) doesn't even hear the plane come in - he doesn't react until after the explosion. Anyone who's been near an airport knows how loud those planes. I don't know if NYC had an enormously high decibel level that morning, but it seems this guys should have heard the plane coming in - it's a jet engine!
As has been pointed out before, it doesn't matter if there are a million videos out there: Real planes don't melt into numerous vertical hi-grade steel columns (one meter apart on center), several horizontal re-enforced concrete floors and a massive steel 47-box-column core and .... DISAPPEAR. PERIOD. Read: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes
Anyone seen the "Dancing Israelis" video? FBI must have.
Post a Comment
<< Home