The Dakota Report - New Document Claims Classified 9/11 Attack Information? Options

[kawika]

Are you referring to the video clip of UA175 striking the South Tower of the WTC which was included on the DVD entitled "In Memoriam, New York City 9/11/01" by Brad Grey Pictures and HBO video?

It sure would help the discussion if you folks would post the links so the rest of us can see what you're talking about.

But if you want to make bare assertions about fakery, then I do understand.

[23investigator]

It sure would help the discussion if you folks would post the links so the rest of us can see what you're talking about.

Dear 'kawika'

If you Google the title given, it will bring up youtube links.

Robert S

[paulmichael]

It sure would help the discussion if you folks would post the links so the rest of us can see what you're talking about.

But if you want to make bare assertions about fakery, then I do understand.

kawika:

I've been struggling to find a way to provide you with a url link to the DVD which is in its case in my cabinet.

You know what?

I no longer have a need for this DVD, so it's yours for the asking.

Just provide me with your name and shipping address, and it will be sent to you.

This is a limited time offer, so act fast, or you can check it out on Amazon or eBay, if this is your preference.

Paul Michael

[911analyzer]

You can see it plain as day right here in slow motion that the explosion starts from the rear, after the plane is already in the building:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glT8a4orUlw

And the guys here I am sure know which video I am talking about, that is a close up from the side.

Point is that if the fuel were in the wing tanks and center tank like a normal 767, it would seem to me the wing tanks would have exploded on impact. But the report actually provides a reasonable explanation of how this could happen- with the fuel moved from the wings to rear of the fuselage, and timed detonators. Many of us have suspected for years now that it was a reinforced military drone with a hardened nose penetrator- so this report perhaps lends credence to the idea.

But with all the other errors as already pointed out, it is probably just some moron who's been around 9/11 conspiracy for a while, and attempted, badly, to explain it all.

[kawika]

kawika:

I've been struggling to find a way to provide you with a url link to the DVD which is in its case in my cabinet.

You know what?

I no longer have a need for this DVD, so it's yours for the asking.

Just provide me with your name and shipping address, and it will be sent to you.

This is a limited time offer, so act fast, or you can check it out on Amazon or eBay, if this is your preference.

Paul Michael

Surely the clip is seen in other youtube compilations. Can you please describe the likely source, camera location, helicopter, close/long distance, network or private camera?

Can you snip the DVD and send me the clip via Skype? Or upload the clip to youtube so everyone can review it?

[kawika]

You can see it plain as day right here in slow motion that the explosion starts from the rear, after the plane is already in the building:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glT8a4orUlw

And the guys here I am sure know which video I am talking about, that is a close up from the side.

Point is that if the fuel were in the wing tanks and center tank like a normal 767, it would seem to me the wing tanks would have exploded on impact. But the report actually provides a reasonable explanation of how this could happen- with the fuel moved from the wings to rear of the fuselage, and timed detonators. Many of us have suspected for years now that it was a reinforced military drone with a hardened nose penetrator- so this report perhaps lends credence to the idea.

But with all the other errors as already pointed out, it is probably just some moron who's been around 9/11 conspiracy for a while, and attempted, badly, to explain it all.

I am sorry, but I don't see any fuel explosion at the rear. I don't see any fire being ejected out of the south face, just dust and debris.

This has always intrigued me. Since the fireballs are being dissipated through the east and north faces, what energy is left to propel debris out the south? If anything this indicates explosives rather than fuel that can only produce ~200fps pressures.

I don't know what the answer is, but experts who understand physics have explained that it is possible for aluminum wings to penetrate steel columns.

The other thing that has always bothered me is how a section of fuselage makes it all the way through WTC2 and lands on the roof of WTC5. This would have to be a rear section that followed the path created by an engine. Of course we can't be sure what building this came from. It could have been ejected during the collapse of WTC1.

[911analyzer]

Well I don't know if that is fuel or explosives exploding, or a combination of both, but if you cannot see that the plane is already in the building, nearly all the way through when the explosion starts from the rear and appears to travel forward, then we have nothing further to talk about. It's right there in front of your face, watch the video again. The initial line drawn across the side of the building is debris as the plane is traveling through the building. The explosion/fireball itself clearly starts from the back, just before the mid section and front goes.

And the weird part is when you take into account the angle of impact, and that the plane is actually moving through the building at an angle because it comes out the near corner of the building on the other side (on the right), when it impacted closer to the middle, the fireball/explosion should have already been going on and coming out the near side on the left near impact point. But it was clearly designed to penetrate the building first, and then explode, is my take on it.

But what do I know as just a worthless noob. Nothing. This was all argued on another forum years ago. Anyway, it just caught my eye in the report, that's all. You can watch my video whenever, IF I ever get done with it. And I'm pretty much over it, and unmotivated to even continue with it frankly. What's the point anymore. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[kawika]

Well I don't know if that is fuel or explosives exploding, or a combination of both, but if you cannot see that the plane is already in the building, nearly all the way through when the explosion starts from the rear and appears to travel forward, then we have nothing further to talk about. It's right there in front of your face, watch the video again. The initial line drawn across the side of the building is debris as the plane is traveling through the building. The explosion/fireball itself clearly starts from the back, just before the mid section and front goes.

And the weird part is when you take into account the angle of impact, and that the plane is actually moving through the building at an angle because it comes out the near corner of the building on the other side (on the right), when it impacted closer to the middle, the fireball/explosion should have already been going on and coming out the near side on the left near impact point. But it was clearly designed to penetrate the building first, and then explode, is my take on it.

But what do I know as just a worthless noob. Nothing. This was all argued on another forum years ago. Anyway, it just caught my eye in the report, that's all. You can watch my video whenever, IF I ever get done with it. And I'm pretty much over it, and unmotivated to even continue with it frankly. What's the point anymore. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

I am not disputing that the south face dust explosion happens after the plane has fully entered. What I am pointing out is, unlike the Naudet footage of WTC1 strike, the fireball doesn't emerge out the south face (in this video clip provided).

However, in the Fairbanks clip (@mark 6:45) there appears to be a small fireball. Still not on the same order as Naudet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udVbDzN9Cgc...feature=related

[paulmichael]

I haven't viewed the HBO "In Memoriam" DVD in over a year, so I wanted to make sure that I did not have any false memory about it, so I decided to replay it now.

OK, the clip on the DVD to which I referred is not exactly how I remembered it, but fault can still be found here.

The clip in question occurs at approximate elapsed time of 14 minutes 15 seconds, and it was captured supposedly by Park Foremen from Brooklyn Heights.

His camera was not initially trained to the blank sky. There was some erratic, random movement of the camera at ground level and then it was pointed up to the sky at just the right moment to start following UA175 from left to right and then on to impact with the South Tower, the point of impact being blocked by the spire of some other building.

But I think that it is highly unlikely to be able catch a plane in the viewfinder and then to pan the camera quite well and in sync with a plane allegedly going 500 MPH with no erratic camera movement as was happening initially at ground level.

I remember an early video of a plane striking the North Tower. The video wasn't of the best quality, The path of the plane was a straight north to south line right over Washington Street, and the plane just disappeared into the North Tower with no banking, just level, and then NO fireball.

Then later, a better video came out, one purporting to be the only one of AA11 striking the North Tower. It showed the flight path of AA11 offset to the east over Church Street, then the plane swerves toward the west to strike the North Tower with its wings banked for a slanted strike and with a significant backwards fireball.

Paul Michael

[paulmichael]

A Bing search on "Park Foreman 9/11" turned up this Youtube video. It's enhanced:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N68xmGAniAM

[kawika]

I remember an early video of a plane striking the North Tower. The video wasn't of the best quality, The path of the plane was a straight north to south line right over Washington Street, and the plane just disappeared into the North Tower with no banking, just level, and then NO fireball.

Then later, a better video came out, one purporting to be the only one of AA11 striking the North Tower. It showed the flight path of AA11 offset to the east over Church Street, then the plane swerves toward the west to strike the North Tower with its wings banked for a slanted strike and with a significant backwards fireball.

Paul Michael

I'd like to see this video where you can tell which streets the plane flies over.

I don't find the Park Foreman video that odd.

Can you imagine the effort it would take to fake videos from many different locations? You'd have to have everything just right. And how would you gather them? If people didn't catch a plane in the viewfinder how could you be sure their camera movements would cooperate with the desired results?

Can it be proven that all videos passed through the same manipulation point? otherwise there would have to be a team doing the same work.

I am not able to grasp such an imagery conspiracy.

I don't however have any problem seeing editing happening where footage is removed to keep certain aspects from being known. I think there is lots of proof for that. But removal is much, much easier than adding what is not there to begin with.

[onesliceshort]

Is it just me or is anybody else having problems viewing the Yahoo video player?

[paulmichael]

I remember an early video of a plane striking the North Tower. The video wasn't of the best quality, The path of the plane was a straight north to south line right over Washington Street, and the plane just disappeared into the North Tower with no banking, just level, and then NO fireball.

Then later, a better video came out, one purporting to be the only one of AA11 striking the North Tower. It showed the flight path of AA11 offset to the east over Church Street, then the plane swerves toward the west to strike the North Tower with its wings banked for a slanted strike and with a significant backwards fireball.

Sorry, it wasn't Washington St. in the first video of AA11 per my recollection of the news on or about 9/11/2001.

I got the street name wrong. I used to work at Merrill Lynch at Washington St. and Houston St. much farther to the north of the WTC.

I meant to say that it was over West Broadway in the original video in which I saw [allegedly] AA11 directly overhead and headed to the North Tower. I doubt that this video is still available anywhere since the official story is that the only video of AA11's strike on the North Tower was the one by the Naudet brothers captured during the shooting of a documentary on NYC firefighters.

"On the morning September 11, Jules was taping as firefighters examined a reported gas leak when American Airlines Flight 11 flew right over him and slammed head-on into the North Tower. Although in the footage, the plane is not seen until the impact is about to happen…" from http://www.documentarywire.com/911-the-naudet-brothers.

So, it was a report that had the plane flying over Church Street. Maybe this is why I thought that I had actually seen the plane over Church Street in the Naudet video.

About 16 months ago, my brother sent the DVD "In Memoriam "In Memoriam New York City 9/11/01" DVD by HBO which I viewed.

I remember being irate about seeing the Naudet video clip on it which did not match my recollection of the first video, the one with AA11 over West Broadway striking the North Tower with no banking and no fireball.

I called my brother to express by outrage over the discrepancy between the HBO clip and my recollection of the first video.

This is how I remember things.

Paul Michael

[rob balsamo]

Is it just me or is anybody else having problems viewing the Yahoo video player?

It's working for me OSS. I just added it like a week ago or something. Nice little feature.

[onesliceshort]

It's working for me OSS. I just added it like a week ago or something. Nice little feature.

Cheers Rob. Must be my computer (iPad).

[PeaceWarrior]

A Bing search on "Park Foreman 9/11" turned up this Youtube video. It's enhanced:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N68xmGAniAM

This angle shows a "tad" of fire coming out of the rearward mass of ejectment right at the end of the video. maybe another angle will have a longer view.

[rob balsamo]

First, to put so much fuel in the aft end of an aircraft, would cause such an aft CG the airplane would be uncontrollable. Of course, the far aft CG could be compensated by adding ballast to the front of the airplane, but then you would have an airplane which could be well over gross weight and never get off the ground.

Furthermore, what exactly is the purpose for putting fuel in the tail?

Lastly, I looked at the video, I don't see the fuel exploding from the tail. I see penetration, the aircraft obviously shredding to pieces inside the tower, then fuel igniting inside the tower... and outward, in the direction of travel.