A special thanks to 911 Maps http://911maps.wordpress.com/
Missing Flight 175 WTC2 South Tower Impact Explosion Video Summary:
NIST Website/NIST FOIA 09-42 -- R19: FBI Tape #8, Clips 1-19 (WTC2 Impact Explosion, 9:03am) clearly edited out minute 12:50-12:55 and someone forgot to add jet engine sounds!
Jet sounds included here
Issue #1 location location location
Jet sounds included here
Issue #1 location location location
Missing Video Helfer, Richard
2nd Plane Impacts WTC - New West view, explosion only
Helfer, Richard #1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhIzez6hpXE&hd=1
Helfer, Richard #2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-T86_9jPkw&hd=1
"Tribeca Apartment" "It just Exploded "
Issue #2 What would your reaction be if you witnessed
a 767 impacting right in front of your face?
 |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz4XUsEo-DE&hd=1 |
Mr. Eye Shifter during "impact" video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz4XUsEo-DE&hd=1
 |
| Mr. Eye Ball's location |
Dan Plesse Dear Mr. facepalm why don't produce a witness? I don't think facepalm-ing will cause the magic people to appear. Believe NO ONE sees a logo. Very strange.
Alf-Erik Øritsland Your position is that passenger planes did not hit the towers, because not all amateur videos recorded it. It's not only facepalm-worthy, it's hilarious - depending on mood and whether one chooses to take you seriously as a person or not.
The thinking seems to be that all those who were standing there taping the fire in one tower, and filming people's reactions to it. ought to have known that a second plane would be coming, to hit the second tower, and wait for that.
The lack of psychological depth and insight on display in such a position is nothing short of astounding - and hilarious.- Dan Plesse Alf-Erik Øritsland amateurs? one tape is marked FBI. Most likely edited or removed completely. That is #5 tape in a row from the same location.
Can you see that ALL the tapes were in the same location or not? facepalm-worthy if you can't or refuse to process the information correctly.
No one is " filming people's reactions " wrong.
Did you bother to seek out the videos and watch them yourself?
You seem to be talking right out of your ass. - Jeffrey Harr Key word, "assume". Everything that you assert is based on a negative, which is a fallacy. Lack of evidence is not evidence. For instance, lack of clear video showing a UA logo does not mean it wasn't a UA plane; it simply means that there isn't clear video, and nothing more. LOGICALLY, one would move on to other evidence: Were there Boeing parts at the crash site? Yes. Radar of the plane? Yes. Communication between ATCs, pilots and hijackers? Yes. Did the flights take off? Yes. Phone calls from passengers? Yes. And on and on. All you're doing is asking questions based on conjecture, answering them with whatever fits your theory and claiming it as fact.
- Jeremy Haydon visual evidence is always the most powerful jeff, not what you say someone else says etc! if we dont see any UA or AA planes, flying low, on a clear day, in the 21st century, in the most documented event on earth, then we have a real problem from the start!
Dan Plesse Jeffrey Harr
"Radar of the plane" of a mid air switch / swap YES!
Radar context includes all planes 8:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz8cdXyRnlY&hd=1
"Did the flights take off" according to Bureau of Transportation Statistics? NO
"The missing BTS data show only that Flight 11 and Flight 77 didn't send departure data to their airline via the ACARS system, that's why the airline couldn't forward these data to the BTS"
"Phone calls from passengers" and did different people on different flights use the same numbers? If true that's a bullet into the phone call theory. Don't you think? It does prove the NRO war game was the blueprint for 9/11. i.e READ FROM CARD - AND CALL HOME!
Was flight 175 edited out of ALL videos which were the closest the to South Tower on the WEST SIDE? YES.
http://investigatesandyhook.blogspot.com/.../missing...
Why did they edit out ALL flight 175 from the west up close because there is something there to rule out flight 175.
NYPD aviation subtracted Flight 175 from the record. YES
http://investigatesandyhook.blogspot.com/.../911-nypd...
It seems like the closer you get - the edits increase.
Was another plane seen by witness circling the area on video and by witnesses? YES With a helicopter following it YES
Different color scheme: YES
Did people say they "never saw a plane like that before!" YES
Was the blue logo plane photographed YES!
Were there Boeing parts at the crash site and were these parts connected to Flight 175 or Flight 11 via serial numbers? NO
BIGGER QUESTION: where are the remains today of the "UA logo" and "AA logo" found on the tail section of each flight all these so called flights?
Did you bother to look into the ELT signal issue, Jeff? NO
No Hollywood productions. No dramatic music for effect. Just the valid facts of ... See More
Jeffrey Harr The
two-tone blue and grey paint matches perfectly, as does the stripes on
the bottom and the blue engines. The struts on the wings match. It is a
767. This is completely apparent.
Jeffrey Harr Twin-engine
with matching blue underbelly and engines. Matching stripes on
underbelly. Matching grey wings. Struts match a Boeing 767.
Jeffrey Harr You
said the paint didn't match. The photo of the bottom shows the stripe,
the blue underbelly and engines and the grey wings. You are wrong.
Dan Plesse Jeffrey Harr
How many people on camera and on video taped on 9/11 said they saw a
blue and grey plane like UA with red stripe i.e your photo above?
Lets review the main issue you have more clearly i.e the concept of Corroborating evidence.
Corroborating evidence
Corroborating evidence (in "corroboration") is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car.
The reason I ask this is that the photo evidence needs cor·rob·o·rate with
hard evidence on the ground and at least a few witnesses.
You seem to jump to supporting evidence while your ground evidence failed to support the correct color scheme or Corroborate. This should be problem for you right? Only if you don't understand what Corroborating evidence is or you cherry pick irrelevant or debunked evidence, which have done in the past (remember the color adjustments you made to fix up the photos . Don't do that again . )
NY Museums 100% of the time don't show the color scheme side or other museum show the same piece of debris with interchanging labels i.e Flight 175 one day Flight 11 another day. Who cares, right?
We do have at least one person who said it was "UA" however the person next to him didn't see anything, so this evidence seems like the unthinkable happened that day. Along with Urban Moving Systems which took photos of the Flight 11 and Flight 175, Peter Strid could be apart of prearranging the evidence i.e a plant.
Peter Strid
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e21_1189566881
Male 1: "Wha, what just hit it?"
Male 2: "An airplane."
Male 1: "Another one?"
Male 2: "Did the, wait, was the first one an airplane?"
Male 1: "No, the first, no. What was that? Just now?"
Male 2: "That was a... as far as I could tell, that was a United -- it looked it, I swear, a United airplane that crashed into the side of it."
Male 1: "The one just came in now?"
Male 2: "Yes!"
The photo is evidence of hiding the colors of the flights.
Lets review the main issue you have more clearly i.e the concept of Corroborating evidence.
Corroborating evidence
Corroborating evidence (in "corroboration") is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition. For example, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car.
The reason I ask this is that the photo evidence needs cor·rob·o·rate with
hard evidence on the ground and at least a few witnesses.
You seem to jump to supporting evidence while your ground evidence failed to support the correct color scheme or Corroborate. This should be problem for you right? Only if you don't understand what Corroborating evidence is or you cherry pick irrelevant or debunked evidence, which have done in the past (remember the color adjustments you made to fix up the photos . Don't do that again . )
NY Museums 100% of the time don't show the color scheme side or other museum show the same piece of debris with interchanging labels i.e Flight 175 one day Flight 11 another day. Who cares, right?
We do have at least one person who said it was "UA" however the person next to him didn't see anything, so this evidence seems like the unthinkable happened that day. Along with Urban Moving Systems which took photos of the Flight 11 and Flight 175, Peter Strid could be apart of prearranging the evidence i.e a plant.
Peter Strid
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e21_1189566881
Male 1: "Wha, what just hit it?"
Male 2: "An airplane."
Male 1: "Another one?"
Male 2: "Did the, wait, was the first one an airplane?"
Male 1: "No, the first, no. What was that? Just now?"
Male 2: "That was a... as far as I could tell, that was a United -- it looked it, I swear, a United airplane that crashed into the side of it."
Male 1: "The one just came in now?"
Male 2: "Yes!"
The photo is evidence of hiding the colors of the flights.
Jeffrey Harr So,
when I post eyewitness testimony, everyone wants photos. Now I post
very obvious photos and you ignore them and ask for witnesses. Sorry,
guys. The WTC no-plane theory is irrational and just plain silly. The
evidence that flights 11 and 175 hit the towers is overwhelming. You
guys just look desperate and ridiculous.
Dan Plesse Jeffrey Harr
When you post eyewitness testimony it is text only - anyone can write
text testimony. That's why I use audio and visual from 9/11. You just so
happen to have allergies to audio and visual from 9/11. Can I ask you
why?
and those "very obvious photos" never showed up in any FOIA I have ever seen.
Why is that important? Because photo exist in a film rolls of other photos.
Fakes don't exist with a roll of other fakes.
My Drone photo exists in a roll of film. Before and after shots and original file names in sequential order is very clear. Do you have this information? Nope! Do I - the answer is YES YES YES!
Digital Image Forensic Analyzer and software programs jpeg analysis tool such as JPEGSnoop can then used to gather even more information.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jpegsnoop/
Then you can pull out all kinds of information. What camera was used, which software edited the photo etc.
Jeffrey Harr Did you review these photo in Jpeg Analyzers and what where the other photos in the roll of film?
You don't have witnesses and your photos have never been vetted. These are not unreasonable questions.
and those "very obvious photos" never showed up in any FOIA I have ever seen.
Why is that important? Because photo exist in a film rolls of other photos.
Fakes don't exist with a roll of other fakes.
My Drone photo exists in a roll of film. Before and after shots and original file names in sequential order is very clear. Do you have this information? Nope! Do I - the answer is YES YES YES!
Digital Image Forensic Analyzer and software programs jpeg analysis tool such as JPEGSnoop can then used to gather even more information.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jpegsnoop/
Then you can pull out all kinds of information. What camera was used, which software edited the photo etc.
Jeffrey Harr Did you review these photo in Jpeg Analyzers and what where the other photos in the roll of film?
You don't have witnesses and your photos have never been vetted. These are not unreasonable questions.
sourceforge.net
JPEGsnoop
is a detailed JPEG image decoder and analysis tool. It reports all
image metadata and can even help identify if an image has been edited.
Dan Plesse eyewitness testimony MOST BE ON 9/11 an hour or less
Jeffrey Harr --- reply Text from 2002 ???
i.e "Lieutenant William Walsh, FDNY January 11, 2002"
By January 11, 2002 the witness already have seen videos commentary leading Lieutenant William Walsh away from what he saw and making the reference for them.
That's why I said eyewitness testimony MUST BE ON 9/11 an hour or less or during the event.
You continue to get the concepts wrong.
Jeffrey Harr --- reply Text from 2002 ???
i.e "Lieutenant William Walsh, FDNY January 11, 2002"
By January 11, 2002 the witness already have seen videos commentary leading Lieutenant William Walsh away from what he saw and making the reference for them.
That's why I said eyewitness testimony MUST BE ON 9/11 an hour or less or during the event.
You continue to get the concepts wrong.
Dan Plesse Plane Impact Eyewitnesses #1 and #2 said no logos too quick. However
Doug steps in without details and said AA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0hGDcGjGpk&hd=1...See More
Doug steps in without details and said AA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0hGDcGjGpk&hd=1...See More
0:00 - Two unnamed witnesses saw the airplane strike the South Tower. 1:10 - Dou... See More
Dan Plesse Jeffrey Harr
First:
Your imaginations about Doug means twin-engines on the wings are
just that - imaginations. No one is SURE they are on the wings, correct? Other witnesses said the engines were on both sides i.e fuselage maybe no logos.
737 "engines on both sides"
http://youtu.be/mGSve5vGgZM?t=2m16s
Doug Eisler still didn't see a logo while being on 50th floor of the Millennium Hilton Hotel and American Airline does not make configurations. I believe he is in shock. His phone number is public and anyone would like to call him.
First:
Your imaginations about Doug means twin-engines on the wings are
just that - imaginations. No one is SURE they are on the wings, correct? Other witnesses said the engines were on both sides i.e fuselage maybe no logos.
737 "engines on both sides"
http://youtu.be/mGSve5vGgZM?t=2m16s
Doug Eisler still didn't see a logo while being on 50th floor of the Millennium Hilton Hotel and American Airline does not make configurations. I believe he is in shock. His phone number is public and anyone would like to call him.
Who made ""Unseen 911" ? I made a video that photo already One flew over when ti... See More
Dan Plesse Jeffrey Harr "The ELT signal stopped when the plane hit the building "
Point #1 The ELT Signal was designed START during a crash.
Point #2 ELT signals did FIRE but sooner and someplace else.
The 9/11 Time Discrepancy Oddity: Distress Signals Indicated Planes Crashed Minutes BEFORE Flights 11 and 175 Hit the WTC
http://911blogger.com/.../911-time-discrepancy-oddity...
Point #1 The ELT Signal was designed START during a crash.
Point #2 ELT signals did FIRE but sooner and someplace else.
The 9/11 Time Discrepancy Oddity: Distress Signals Indicated Planes Crashed Minutes BEFORE Flights 11 and 175 Hit the WTC
http://911blogger.com/.../911-time-discrepancy-oddity...
911blogger.com
9/11
Blogger receives no foundational or corporate support. Help us cover
the news and improve the site by becoming a monthly donor.
9/11
Blogger receives no foundational or corporate support. Help us cover
the news and improve the site by becoming a monthly donor.
Just now · Like · Remove Preview
Jeffrey Harr An
ELT emits a signal from a downed plane, but the ELT has to be intact
and working to emit the signal. It's not able to send a signal if it's
pulverized.
Dan Plesse Jeffrey Harr Nonsense - An impact-sensing "G" switch sends a signal right when plane senses an impact.
The G-switch is mounted in the tail section (mounted in the tailcone) when G - forces reaches the box.
Why are you avoiding Point #2??
2/21/2001 ELT
http://www.cobham.com/.../g406-4%20description...
The G-switch is mounted in the tail section (mounted in the tailcone) when G - forces reaches the box.
Why are you avoiding Point #2??
2/21/2001 ELT
http://www.cobham.com/.../g406-4%20description...
2 mins · Like
Why edit out the most spectacular part?
Missing Video Helfer, Richard
CTV911. Original clip from FBI NIST FOIA release #19 File 8 Clips 1-4
hint:
"Water pours from about the 90th floor of the south face of the North Tower, minutes after it was hit. There you can read "Richard's Story," which I'll paste in part here":
Missing Video Helfer, Richard
CTV911. Original clip from FBI NIST FOIA release #19 File 8 Clips 1-4
hint:
"Water pours from about the 90th floor of the south face of the North Tower, minutes after it was hit. There you can read "Richard's Story," which I'll paste in part here":
But... What happens at october 22th?
All but two monitoring stations have been removed.
Clearly 'five' was still in the original papers handed to all chiefs at the meeting, however, during the meeting it was announced that in stead of 5 stations only 2 stations remain.
As of october 23th, the number of stations operational to assist in the retrieval of the flight data recorders is as low as 2:
I have yet to fight myself through another pile of action reports and other 9/11 stuff, but I have the following hypothesis:
The black box or boxes that were being mentioned by DeMasi and Bellone were retrieved at october 21th, 2001.
Caveman
"Radio frequency detectors developed at CECOM were used to find "black box" flight recorders from the airliners that crashed into the two towers."
- www3.ausa.org/webpub/DeptArmyMagazine.nsf/byid/CCRN-6CCS2J?OpenDocument&Print=1
No comments:
Post a Comment