Note the "hiccup" in the film footage at about the 11:45 mark, the time of the hit of the second tower. Otherwise a very interesting perspective that I'd not seen.
#1. To: Eric Stratton, titorite, GreyLmist, randge, *9-11* (#0)(Edited)
Note the "hiccup" in the film footage at about the 11:45 mark, the time of the hit of the second tower. Otherwise a very interesting perspective that I'd not seen.
The part where we would have seen the alleged plane flying towards the tower has been conveniently edited out.
If that was supposed to be a link, could you please repost it so that it's activated? I'd be very interested in your 9/11 audio and video analytical findings.
Thanks. Would that lie-detection research be ethical as evidence, though, or at least ok for informal discussion purposes? I'm asking because Jeff Hill's alleged pumpitout.com phone interviews were eventually compared to illegal wiretapping. It didn't occur to me that was what he was doing and I haven't seen any court complaints filed from those he supposedly contacted for spontaneous questioning regarding 9/11 so that was probably all a staged-op. I'm not a lawyer and don't know what the protocols might be for voice analysis of criminal suspects who haven't been charged as yet for prosecution but might be at some point. Rense has posted some reverse-speech analysis articles of public figures and that's not been legally problematic.
The "Oh my God! It was a military plane!" would certainly be more convincing if they hadn't conveniently cut out the part where it would have been seen flying towards the tower.
How would she have recognized it as a military plane?
This whole 9/11 thing just gets weirder and weirder.
#14. To: wudidiz, randge, Eric Stratton, all (#13)(Edited)
How would she have recognized it as a military plane?
@ 12:40: "They're attacking the World Trade Center, not us."
And why would they be so sure that only the WTC was the attack target there?
This whole 9/11 thing just gets weirder and weirder.
Weird spaceship-like noises early on in the video. Also, maybe it's just me but the firetruck sirens around the first 5 mins. sound almost like a synthesized voice saying, "I think that..." randge, can you do anything to analyze that by slowing it down or running it through voice software or something? Wouldn't surprise me if they even inserted a backwards subliminal message.
The pre-strike footage (of unknown date and time but an identical angle) in this video is kinda weird in that, like a commenter suggested, it could explain what streaming video Bush was allegedly viewing when he claimed to see the supposed first plane hit but then it would be even weirder that CNN ran ABC film of WTC 1 burning "post-impact" and not their own.
I wondered if the owner of the female voice that said it was a "military plane" could have seen a plane from the assumed trajectory of the object that hit the South Tower.
I did find this video, which you might find interesting too.
If you're still busy, could you recommend an application or some equipment to check those firetruck siren noises for voice synthesizing? They also sound oddly stationary to me for a supposed emergency vehicle on its way to the WTC disaster.
I wondered if the owner of the female voice that said it was a "military plane" could have seen a plane from the assumed trajectory of the object that hit the South Tower.
What do you think about the downward trajectory and coloring of the smoke in that film compared to news footage like this:
I did find this video, which you might find interesting too.
I think that's one I have tried to study before but, again, the trajectory of the smoke over the plane in the very beginning of the film is contradictory to the angle of the smoke in news footage of a plane image approach over the water. "Parallax View" just doesn't explain such a flight path variation to me and I find it astounding that what we're expected to focus on instead of that obvious discrepancy is a bunch of speed variation estimates and what not. Rather than trying to be useful in analyzing the different camera angles, I think that research is being used to obscure the fakery issues and mislead. I'm not singling out the maker of that video in particular. There are others bending over backwards to do that.
P.S. Where did they even get the altitude data for that film? Transponders off = no altitude transmissions, afaik, unless there was some special Military tracking involved.