Suspicions
Besides the fact that in the early wide shots there is no sign at all of a plane (see posts below), there are several other suspicious things about the "Saltergate" video--
1) the commentators sound totally phony, almost as if they were reading a script after the fact
2) this video came from one (suspect) source and has not been verified as legitimate footage by other sources; it is not found in other 9/11 compilations of network footage
3) the series of zoom-ins that are inexplicably oblivious to this plane supposedly racing up to the WTC-- the helicopter cameraman MUST have seen the plane long before it came into view in the camera (assuming the plane was real), but there was NO attempt to track the plane. Why isn't a second plane flying towards the south tower, after the north tower has been hit by a plane, interesting? (Ironically, this is EXACTLY the same behaviour shown by the helicopter cameraman who captured the other "live" footage of the 2nd hit, which was shown on CNN, ABC and FOX-- and it makes no sense that both "live" cameraman would act this way)
4) after the building explodes, something can be seen flying behind the building-- VERY FAST-- and then the camera quickly cuts away. What WAS that?
5) upon "impact", the plane's fuselage initially pokes through as if the plane passed through the building intact:
then the video feed goes dark:
then the fuselage is gone and there is just explosion:
Post-script: I should point out that Webfairy has a slow motion version of this video here, and also that this "Saltergate" video is one I tagged earlier as suspicious because there is an abnormal lag between when the plane goes "into" the building and when the nose comes out-- particularly in comparison to other 2nd hit videos. This suggests they didn't have timing quite right for insertion of the digital plane into the live footage.
1) the commentators sound totally phony, almost as if they were reading a script after the fact
2) this video came from one (suspect) source and has not been verified as legitimate footage by other sources; it is not found in other 9/11 compilations of network footage
3) the series of zoom-ins that are inexplicably oblivious to this plane supposedly racing up to the WTC-- the helicopter cameraman MUST have seen the plane long before it came into view in the camera (assuming the plane was real), but there was NO attempt to track the plane. Why isn't a second plane flying towards the south tower, after the north tower has been hit by a plane, interesting? (Ironically, this is EXACTLY the same behaviour shown by the helicopter cameraman who captured the other "live" footage of the 2nd hit, which was shown on CNN, ABC and FOX-- and it makes no sense that both "live" cameraman would act this way)
4) after the building explodes, something can be seen flying behind the building-- VERY FAST-- and then the camera quickly cuts away. What WAS that?
5) upon "impact", the plane's fuselage initially pokes through as if the plane passed through the building intact:
then the video feed goes dark:
then the fuselage is gone and there is just explosion:
Post-script: I should point out that Webfairy has a slow motion version of this video here, and also that this "Saltergate" video is one I tagged earlier as suspicious because there is an abnormal lag between when the plane goes "into" the building and when the nose comes out-- particularly in comparison to other 2nd hit videos. This suggests they didn't have timing quite right for insertion of the digital plane into the live footage.
posted by spooked at 11:41 PM
12 Comments:
this one just looks like the inserters were idiots, but you know, there is a website that deals with that same weird phenomenon of that thing poking out right before the explosion, except it shows it from close-up and from the other side of the tower - whatever it is it can't be the plastic nosecone of a 767 - i'll try to find it again and link it.
here is a photo at least: newyork4, taken from: 911 strange images.
never underestimate the power of yosemitesam!
and here you can see the exact spot where whatever that thing was came out: newyork5. it's odd that the thing makes a shadow as it comes out (newyork4), but there's not really any hole in the wall afterwards. (newyork5)
no love for no-planners on the blogger. Seems counterproductive to ignore such obvious evidence only because it too difficult to prove/face up to/accept.
I support your analysis Spooked, whereever the evidence may lead. You can't have a 'truth movement' if you're unwilling to examine all the evidence. Just because something goes against a long held belief doesn't mean its not possible. And if your evidence is taken as is, it certainly points to complete M$M involvement from the very beginning... the blogger babies only seem to be focused on exposing a small part of a much larger problem, IMO.
and here you can see the exact spot where whatever that thing was came out
Where? On this page, second photo down, right around the dotted line labelled 81?
Lucky this video gets a little distorted and goes black right when whatever that thing is starts to poke out!
I am sure its just the fuselage... that super strong building penetrating column busting 767 fuselage!
Or a shadow and optical illusions? But from multiple locations?
Anyone know when this footage was originally shown? Is this a 'live' second hit that showed up days later?
shep, yes on THAT page at the white circle. no hole? that's why it's a strange image - you see it coming out at newyork4, and again at newyork5 but a closeup reveals that there's no hole - the implication is that something poked out of a small hole and inflated before being engulfed in the explosion. looking at it from the other side, as is the subject of this blog's thread, the implication is one of video fakery. or fakity-fakeness if you will. ha.
That "missile out" phenomenon shown on NewYork-4 is VERY odd. Looks to be the same phenomenon as here; it's really hard to understand how a plane fuselage could turn into explosive plasma like that. It's not like the (officially) plane was going at warp speed or anything.
That object appears on many videos, including the Fairbanks one. It appears to be real, not CGI, it was observed by a PAPD cop: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-transcript010.pdf
page 9
I think that object, missile or whatever, is what really hit the tower, and the airplane CGIs are covering it up.
trying to find some good footage of plane crashes, aside from blob and yosemitesam..
anyone seen this? watch the tail section crumble. looks like a commercial jet, but has rear mounted engines.
http://www.afsa.co.za/al-thebasics.htm
Whilst aluminium engineering alloys have similar strength to structural steels, aerospace aluminium alloys are even stronger than steel
watching that video above i can't help but notice how fast the force of impact is transfered thru the plane to the tail section causing it to almost fall off.
yeah, I've seen that plane video Shep. The tail is very fragile, breaks off easily and very odd how we don't have one picture of one tail from a 9/11 plane.
Post a Comment
<< Home