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.
Thank you, Eric. There are several things about the Bob and Bri video that are strangely suspicous, besides the dubious sound effects and smoke discrepancies that I mentioned in my previous posts. One is the oddly shaped corner near the bottom of WTC 1. Doesn't look like it was built that way, doesn't look like it was marred by debris, and it "heals" just before WTC 2 collapses. A firetruck looks like it's leaving the area instead of arriving. No fire is seen in the gash on WTC 1 for some time, not even flickering light like a fire is the cause of so much smoke, and when it does appear around the outer edges, it's minimal compared to the collapse-by-fire excuses. There is very little explosion damage seen on the right side of the building at first and then it starts to widen firelessly later in the film. When fire is seen there, it's like an afterthought and on a small scale. Here are some videos of flashes at WTC 1 and WTC 6 noticed by others: