New Second Hit Video

[spooked911]

(also shows the WTC collapses, but is edited for length)

here:
http://www.bodyatomic.com/video.html

scroll down to bottom.

Does the path of the plane fit with any other video of the second hit? It comes in very quickly from the west...

[sgsmith]

1. Very similiar/identical

That clip is very similiar/almost identical to another clip that shows the plane coming in from the west. In that other clip, the plane comes out of the haze, descends and banks to the left. This clip shows an abbreviated version of the left bank.

[sabbat hunter]

2. it is the same

it is the same path.

also the audio sounds phony to me. like someone added it in afterwards. not near enough emotion in their voices.

[LARED]

3. Second hit fascination?

Why are you so entrenched with the notion that the second hit was faked?

Thousand of eyewitnesses SAW the plane crash into the building. Dozens of cameras caught it on video or tape. What is the deal? Are you after a Don Quixote award?

[spooked911]

5. Don Quixote-- that's good!

I just think there are real peculiarities to some of the footage.

[mirandapriestly]

8. thousands didn't see the plane in NYC

maybe dozens. millions saw it on tv, and that is how the myth of what happen spread. We just assume that those who were there saw it. Some only saw a fireball, or heard the explosion and those who saw the plane were in Brooklyn or something. The likelihood of being close up and being in the position to actually see the plane as it hit is slim.

[LARED]

9. Maybe dozens??????

I find it incredibly hard to believe you really believe that. The North tower was hit 15 or so minutes before the South tower. It is blazing away with huge plumes of smoke heading skyward. The towers sit on the edge of the Hudson river. There is a massive population in New Jersey watching the North Tower burn from the Wast. And a equal or better number watching in Brooklyn and Queens from the East. Not to mention the folks in Manhattan.

The tallest building in NY is on fire at the 90th floor and another jet flies in from the southwest over a densly populated area striking the equally tall tower right next to it, and you think only a dozen or so people maybe saw it happen. You can't possibly believe that to be true.

[mirandapriestly]

20. Saw the plane hit the building or saw it close up, I guess

I should say.

[LARED]

30. What difference does it make?

This is a picture taken from over 3 miles away in Bayonne NJ back in the 90's on a roof about 60' in the air. It's zoomed, but it's not a high power zoom. How close does one need to be to be sure it a planr impacted?




This is almost the same spot that people I know were standing on 9/11 while the plane flew over their heads. they watched the plane fly into the tower.

[DoYouEverWonder]

44. Flight 175 did not come in

over a heavily populated area. On it's final approach it same up from the SE which is over water and turned back NW toward the tower. It would have only been in visual range of people on land for a minute or two. Plus most of the people on the east side of the tower might have heard the plane but probably couldn't see anything. The problem in NYC is that buildings block most people's view of everything except a small part of the sky.

[FogerRox]

50. I know a dozen folks from NJ who saw both planes thru the window at work

another 2 dozen that saw one or the other. Every major office biulding in Newark had a view. Homes built on hills, like in Nutley, Bellville, Montclair, South Orange, Maplewood all have views of NYC. If you couldnt see the towers, the smoke was visible from the 19 or so miles away,that I was.

[mirandapriestly]

53. You would not be able to see the 2nd plane impact

from, say, Nutley NJ. It hit on the south side and Nutley is to the northwest , at least 20 miles away. Maybe they saw the fireball or whatever but I doubt they saw the plane.

[greyl]

11. I'm not impressed by your detective work. nt

[mirandapriestly]

22. Well, I think I'll commit suicide then.nt

[greyl]

24. Well, now that would be unreasonable, wouldn't it? nt

[mirandapriestly]

37. What? You're great critical mind is unable to discern sarcasm?nt

[greyl]

39. Why did you reach the conclusion that I thought you were

going to kill yourself?

[emcguffie]

45. Gee, I live in New Jersey.

Way out in West Orange, but up on one of the "Newark Mountains". And we used to be able to see the WTC from here.

I did see the first tower burning from an Amtrak train on the way into work that morning. But no, I did not see the second plane hit, by then I was in the subway.

I cannot imagine that many more than dozens did not see the second plane hit. My neighbors could look out their window and see it.

I would also like to just suggest that any plane that approaches NYC and turns at all has to go over some heavily populated area. It is not possible for it not to do so.

I don't know that for sure, but from all my trips to and from the area, and my familiarity with the area, I don't think it is possible to come in straight from the Atlantic, unless the plane was coming from Europe? Even then it would pass over populated areas. Manhattan Island is way up in a bay. Staten Island is to the south, Jersey to the west, Brooklyn and Queens to the east. This is one big huge populated area for miles and miles and miles in every direction. North? Populated for a very, very long time.

Just saying.

[mirandapriestly]

51. It doesn't matter how many saw it fly over the area

on it's way to the wtc. They didn't know it was headed for the twin towers.
"I cannot imagine that many more than dozens did not see the second plane hit" - what does that mean?
Does it mean "I cannot imagine that many more than dozens saw the second plane hit" ?

[FogerRox]

54. Yeah, coming over the hill on RT 280, & NJ transit from Summitt

Theres a section of track right before Summitt, where there is a beatiful view of NYC. And whats that Resteraunt in the reservation... off of Eagle Rock ave,

West Orange, eh? , so you know where Gregory turns into Wyoming at the South Orange line. Well that entire ridge from Millburn thru Maplewood, South Orange, West Orange, into Monclair is covered with houses that have views of the city. I watched the smoke from about 20 miles away in South Maplewood.
Ive watched Apaches over NYC when Cheney visited, from Bellville NJ.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

12. Dozens?

So the footage on television was faked?

Perhaps the most reviewed television footage in histoory and NOT ONE network has come out to say that their footage was doctored?

How many people have to be complicit or just plain apathetic to let the most reviewed footage in history be faked and passed as real?

[mirandapriestly]

21. Huh? I'm not saying that I'm just saying that not that many

people saw the plane.

[sabbat hunter]

29. hundreds

if not thousands saw the plane in person.

[mirandapriestly]

36. Well, ok maybe but thousands is ridiculous . This explains it:

(Certain people aren't thoughtful enough to understand this concept)

http://www.911hoax.com/gWitnesses2.asp?intPage=80&PageNum=80
Since this author first came out with the claim that the TV networks aired fake video of animated planes striking the World Trade Center the first objection that everyone makes is what about the witnesses in New York?

I've been to New York and there are some people who will confirm they did not see a plane strike the WTC. Most of these eyewitnesses were never interviewed on the air (although some were).

Still, when you scout out the area in the business district near the WTC you discover that there are so many tall buildings around that actually very few people in New York have an unobstructed view of what was the South Tower. Actually, on 9/11 there might have been only a few thousand people in the entire city with that view. Even if none of these people took their eyes off the South Tower before the explosives that were planted detonated, the potential audience of people near the WTC is relatively low.

In contrast, a world-wide audience knows that planes struck the WTC. They saw these planes do so repeatedly on their TVs. Even monks in Tibet know that planes struck the Towers.

So, if you're someone in New York who is certain that no planes struck either Tower, even the South Tower, if you speak up you will be automatically ridiculed.

That's part of the psychological pressure that prevents the eyewitnesses from coming forward.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

4. Compare that video to...

the camera angle from CNN's Aaron Brown's 'rooftop' coverage, actual-crash.avi.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=actual-crash.avi&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

[spooked911]

6. The reason I think this is a fake is--

because of the extreme angle the plane takes to approach the tower. Basically, it is coming at the tower from a southwest approach, to hit a target facing straight south-- which meant the plane would have:

a) hit the tower at about a 45 degree angle-- whereas shots of the plane hitting the south face have it coming in essentially straight, with both wings hitting at the same time. There simply is not enough time for the plane to turn flush to the building in the Body Atomic/CNN clip.

b) if you track the plane's path outward from where it was going, the plane should have smashed out the east wall of the south tower. Certainly from the approach the plane takes, and the speed it is going at, it does not seem possible for it to hit the southeast corner of the tower (where the hole was) yet come straight out the northeast corner. Just not possible.

c) other videos show a much longer southerly approach for the plane before it hits. This one simply comes at an angle from the southwest.

[mirandapriestly]

7. I don't think it's fake

I think some of the msm ones are

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

40. Amazing how...

silent the OCT crowd is on the fact that this 'new' footage was actually filmed by the same camera as the Aaron "First Day On Camera For CNN" Brown "rooftop" coverage.


Aaron Brown recalls his first chaotic days at CNN — covering the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Alice Burdick Schweiger

It’s not that CNN news anchor Aaron Brown was unknown in the world of television broadcasting prior to 9-11 — he had been in the business for more than two decades.

But after his riveting nonstop coverage of the devastating tragedy, Brown became a household name.

Not scheduled to start his new job at CNN for another month, Brown was driving into Manhattan from his home in suburban Westchester County when he learned of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. As he sped to his office, he began covering the biggest story of his life.

“I was coming in that day to interview people for staff positions and brainstorm program ideas, but it wasn’t going to be a hard day,” he recalls. “Then, boom, I went on the air about 9:30 , and I feel like I came off the air Thanksgiving Day.”
Article: http://www.geocities.com/jetdogy5/abjnews.html

[mirandapriestly]

52. I think the plane part is fake

I didn't before, I was more interested in the other phenomena. I also thought you meant the whole vid was faked.

[kerry_s]

10. It's clearly faked

This video is very strange, the plane is "stepping", it isn't flying smoothly, the video has 30 flops, but the plane maybe 10 flops



"What is even more peculiar about this "Live" Video is that the UA175 aircraft does not seem to be flying a smooth descent path like the other UA175 aircraft from other videos. There appears to be a downward "stepping" effect at regular intervals that gives the appearance of a kind of downward "skipping" effect which would be impossible for any kind of normal aircraft."



"...and we were standing there and I said I can't believe this, and sure enough there it was, another plane. The plane wasn't no er... airliner or anything, it was a twin engine, big grey plane..."

more on:
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ggua175/

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

13. Eye Witnesses are frequently inaccurate

Eye Witnesses frequently get it wrong. That is why the police separate them and then put the stories together.

From your previous post, only a few people saw it from "up close." How fast would the plane moving at full throttle have entered their field of view and then hit the tower? Not long, maybe a split second, and you wonder why they can't give a detailed account of the markings.

[seatnineb]

18. There is a difference between being innacurate and talkin' pure bullshit.

Like this witness:



.......... who saw flight 175:

"Then I heard this terrible roar, just over my right shoulder. The plane was so close I could read the BOEING 767 painted under the cockpit window. Then all of a sudden, the pilot cut the engines. That's what no one talks about. He just glided in for the last couple hundred yards. There was this weird, horrible silence right before that plane hit."

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/6months/testimonials/3.htm
This witness is talkin' pure and utter bullshit.

I wonder how many more there are.

[sabbat hunter]

14. twin engine

a twin engine, big grey plane pretty much describes a united 757 plane.

get over it people.

a jet hit the south tower

deal with it

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

15. What color is a United Airlines Plane?

Grey & Blue underneath

[gbwarming]

16. At 450mph and 30fps the plane should travel ~22 feet/frame

I don't know exactly the official speed offhand, but I think it was around that and the distance/frame is proportional with speed so it isn't particularly sensitive to small errors.

450mile/hour * (5280ft/mile) * (1 hour/3600sec) / (30frames/sec) = ~22feet/frame

A 767-200 is about 160feet long so we would expect to see it travel about 1/8th of its length per frame - similar to what it does in the video.

[sabbat hunter]

19. mainly grey

[kerry_s]

32. Blue-grey, not grey

Your picture is pointless, cause that plane is hiding in shadow, so I've found a better illustration for UA 757:

They are grey, but not all, the underbelly and tail are blue, wings are white-silver,
and there is a very visible white inscription in front of the plane

U N I T E D _ A I R L I N E S

[sabbat hunter]

34. looks like grey to me

:)

[LARED]

17. Take a look at those glasses

I'm not sure I want to see her providing details about something ten feet in front of her.

[file83]

26. Umm...I see the glasses, but that's not a woman. It's a man.

How closely are you paying attention? If you can't get that simple observation right, what's that say about your ability to analyze any of this other, more complex visual data? Just curious.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

27. The point exactly!

This frame represents a split second in time. This shows tht with that much information (a split second's worth) you cannot make an accurate depiction of events.

[LARED]

31. Simple observation?

I thought it was a women because of the long hair. A perception that tainted my observation. I had to check the link to confirm it is a man.

There is a difference between perceiving something in a different way than someone else and just having the ability to see clearly. That man obviously has terrible vision.

[quickesst]

46. Lared

"That man obviously has terrible vision." Exactly what brings you to the inarguable conclusion that this man has terrible vision? I know many people, including myself, who wear glasses and can see just as well as anyone. Is it the size of the lenses? Because they look bigger than what most people see? Is it because of the thickness of the glasses, which I can't tell because of the reflections and glare? Or perhaps it's because his eyes are way out of proportion with the rest of his fac.....ok, never mind that one. I am just curious as to how you gained your amazing ability to simply look at a photo, ala catkiller Frist, and make the determination that this man "obviously has terrible vision". Thanks for the explanation.
quickesst

[mirandapriestly]

23. Everyone's an expert...I emailed the guy FWIW

he said it was what he saw through his window as events unfolded..I don't know what incentive he would have for faking it. On the one hand, it legitimizes that there was a plane (although funny looking) and on the other hand it shows those flashes which look like a preplanned operation. So if he was working for the "perps", he would have left the flashing lights out, and if doctored the flashes , he would not have put in the plane. Plus he said he was bombarded by emails from "conspiracy theorists" so I got the feeling he wasn't really interesting in perpetuating a deception that would lend credence to a preplanned event by the gov't.

The plane looks very similar to one in a CNN video by the same angle.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

28. Not saying he is faking it

Just that he could have gotten(is this even really a word) it wrong.

The likelihood that he got it partially wrong is more than the liklihood that he got it right.

We hear from the accounts of the calls from flight 93 that they made them close their window shades.

I would propose that they did this to the other airliners as well, and that with the window shades closed, you would not see the sun or light coming through the aircraft and it would look solid to a quick glance.

My simple explanantion of the video How many times have you tried to pause a VCR, DVD, TiVo, whatever, then advance "frame by frame" and seen smooth motion? I can't do it.

But I would say that it probably has something to do with a digital recording. Digital recording is a sampling of the overall analog data and then is further compressed into various formats. You lose some of the data when you go through the sampling and compression.

[mirandapriestly]

38. Well, the most significant thing about the video is:

the blinking lights before the impact which the becomes an explosion and the lights on the other tower. These lights are seen in other videos.

[file83]

25. That video is coming over at 15 frames/second. Where did you get 30?

[kerry_s]

33. Where did you get 15??

This video is .MOV file so it doesn't have any video properties in Windows. I supposed that it had 30 fps because it is smooth, below 20 fps an image starts to loose its fluency and "stepping".

[Make7]

35. QuickTimePlayer for Windows

If you download the video at this link...

   http://www.bodyatomic.com/vid/QT_big/WTC_big.mov

...and open it in QuickTimePlayer, then go under the Window drop-down menu of QuickTimePlayer and select Show Movie Info - or use the keyboard shortcut: Ctrl+I. (NOTE: These are the menu options in the version I am using on Windows 2000 - other versions may differ.) That should open a window that gives the frame rate encoded in the movie and the current frame rate when playing.

And yes, the movie is encoded at 15 fps.

- Make7

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

41. Stick a fork in it because...

this clip is so way past done, that it's BURNT.

Either N.Y.C. suffered from a major case of S.M.B.S (Sudden Migrating Building Syndrome) or there is video trickery afoot.

Exhibit A:

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

42. Are you kidding me?

That is evidence of video trickery?

Different zoom.
Different angle.
Video is a 2-D medium
Diffrent lenses.

The list goes on.

[mirandapriestly]

43. At first I thought it was real and I emailed the guy

pretending to admire his other "work". He told me he had got a lot of mail from crazy conspiracy theorists, so I pretended I wasn't one. He claimed it was real and that he had taped it while at work and I really believed it because I didn't think he would leave the demolition visuals in there if he was going to put a fake plane. Then , I looked more closely at his web site and noticed his "video work", he's supposed to be an artist, is really amateur, things like he tapes himself peeing and footage that looks like travel footage. Stuff anyone can do. Then, of course I noticed how fake the plane looked, so now I think it is fake-o. Another thing, he put up a notice on his site saying he was not going to continue it. IOW it goes up after 9-11, then although supposedly he is an artist, he is just going to take the thing down. It's not a cheap web site. Another thing, the screams and banter in the background in the background sound very similar if not identical to the screams/banter in other 9-11 "amateur" videos. The fake claims of being a video artist were probably to explain how he was able to get such a shot "accidently"

[Ferry Fey]

47. What would moving that front building gain them?

It's not such a vastly different angle that the background buildings in front of the WTC have changed their position enough to move that foreground building so extremely.

But what would going to the trouble of moving that front building gain them?

Very interesting sig file you've got there, PerpetualYnquisitive. I'm glad it can't tell whether I'm still wearing my jammies or not. :o

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

48. Another view.

Ferry Fey said;

Very interesting sig file you've got there, PerpetualYnquisitive. I'm glad it can't tell whether I'm still wearing my jammies or not.

I'll be sure to try to add that feature in the next update. (Better lose the Underoos®)

[boolean]

49. You ever notice...

You ever notice how when you're driving at night with a full moon, the moon follows you around?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: