IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Drone Seen From S Tower Footage, Drone

Freedomlover911
post Apr 5 2007, 01:38 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



http://www.letsroll911.net/images/plane_hits_south_tower.mov
(shows in only a small box: I had to download the video and blow it up to see the drone, but you may be able to see a glimpse by following the time stamp instructions below)

The first segment shows the IR laser tag (white spot traveling from left to right). After the plane hits, the white dot continues to the right, shows on the fireball and extinguishes only after it has continued to the building to the right, also showing.

The "dot" appears to be eminating from a moving object as it has an appearance of minute vibrations which would not be evident from a stationary position.

Fast forward to minute Four on the video slider. Look at the black countdown box. The plane strikes at 4:50;00 approximately. Advance 20 seconds. At 5:11:06 a small flying vehicle appears in the upper left portion of the screen and can be seen traveling IN FRONT of the smoke cloud and moving to the right at a very high rate of speed. At 5:12:00 the segment is done, but the last frame shows wings, a very thin fuselage and what appears to be a "V" tail.

I consulted an avid RC plane enthusiast in my office and he said that it was some kind of small plane. At first he speculated that it might be a military jet (due to the high rate of speed) but I reminded him that there were no war planes in the vicinity. He then said that I might be on to something. I have never discussed any 911 theories with him.

This MAY be the drone from which the IR tag eminates, it does follow along the same path as the IR tag if it were to have swung in a counter-clockwise direction around the towers. Remember that it took 20 seconds from impact to showing up on video, still traveling in a counter-clockwise path around the towers.

This second video clip will play in Windows Media but I have not been able to download it. It confirms the laser dot from another camera. Both cameras are apparently digital as only a digital camera can pick up on an infra-red light such as this one. It is from culled MSNBC footage.
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/911.wtc....laser.msnbc.wmv

need more video....

This post has been edited by Freedomlover911: Apr 5 2007, 03:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freedomlover911
post Apr 5 2007, 07:39 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



I've already started cutting DVDs to hand out...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freedomlover911
post Apr 10 2007, 03:29 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



Update...

the MSNBC footage is the same as the CameraPlanet footage, so to date this is the only video I've seen with the IR Laser image. It may be the only "public" evidence of the laser guidance system in existence.

It's been argued that this "white dot" might be a piece of paper but this is easily refuted. First of all it is on the dark side of the tower away from the sun, and on the opposite side of the other burning tower. If it weren't for the shade, this image would never have been visible. If it were paper, wouldn't it do that "floating dance"? Well, no it doesn't. In fact, it never changes shape or trajectory. By the way, I have weapons guidance systems training, so I was very surprised to see this image during a supposed "terrorist attack". When I saw this about 3 years ago, it was the first "proof" in my mind that this was no attack from a caveman.

Why doesn't this image appear on other video? Infra-red is invisible to the human eye AS WELL as analog video equipment. I have a new digital camera with a hard drive that DOES pick up IR light. This camera came with a remote that if in view of the lens when you push a button you can see it (the IR bulb) light up. This is one of the facts that gave me the idea that the camera that shot the "laser dot" footage must have been digital or had some kind of filter/processor that could pick up the IR light.

Has anyone else been able to spot the drone (I don't mean the big planes!)? It takes less than a second (looking at the black time stamp) from 5:11;06 to 5:12;00. I didn't see it until I downloaded this video and watched it in full screen mode.

My theory about the source of the IR light coming from the drone is based on similar trajectory and speed (short of a computer model to back me up) of both the light and the drone in separate film footage. This drone was for obvious reasons "circling" the towers and it appears 20 seconds after the plane crashes on the opposite side of the towers, traveling at approximately the same speed and direction as the IR laser dot. FORTUNATELY both segments are on the same video collection.

If anyone else can download the video, PLEASE check this out add to this thread. Are there any WOWs out there? I've heard it everytime I've shown it to someone. here is the link again:
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/plane_hits_south_tower.mov
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freedomlover911
post Oct 23 2007, 02:03 PM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



In the first video clip is the white dot traveling across the building, which the plane follows, actually banks to the left as a correction once it picks up the laser....

As I mentioned in my Apr 5th posting, this is NOT a reflection of the sun from the plane. The light "dot" continues across the fireball and is seen on the building to the right of the towers.

Another researcher has discovered a similar drone in the North Tower footage from the Naudet brothers film. The link is here of his discovery:
http://www.v911t.org/UFO.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freedomlover911
post Oct 23 2007, 04:53 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



***Note to researcher for NTower Drone"***
By my count, that makes the 4th unmanned "drone"; 1 for each tower, 1 reportedly at the Pentagon and 1 by eyewittness account at Shanksville. I have video of the South tower drone as well. By "drone" I mean the small, light construction (cabon fiber), jet powered, remote controlled plane. This is NO UFO. No aliens. The RC jet plane you found in the Naudet video and the one I found on the Camera Planet video are commonly known on the web as the "Global Hawk".

What were they doing there at the towers? They were the source for the laser guidance system that assisted the targeting of the towers by the larger "passenger" planes. The larger planes were controlled by two methods: Remote control for flight and target approach & laser guided to target strike. The small drone as I mentioned was the targeting laser source.

I have a background as a specialist in missile and weapons guidance technology (thanks to Unky Sam). All of what I mentioned above is real and existed 20 years ago. In 2001 the technology was fantastic and now it is even better. Every major city in the US now has these drones stationed at an airfield near you. Two arrived in my city a couple of years ago. The ME war has probably dozens if not hundreds of them, now with Hellfire missiles attached.

Shanksville EW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gliHOhXYFQ
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freedomlover911
post Nov 9 2007, 02:55 PM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



UPDATE

The "UFO" in Alfon's Naudet brothers video "expose" is a friggin bird. I guess pigeons brought down the towers. Lay off the shrooms dude!

Too bad I can't edit him out of this thread!

This post has been edited by Freedomlover911: Nov 9 2007, 02:56 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freedomlover911
post Jan 30 2008, 06:54 PM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



Here is the latest!! I hope this video stays up on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZD__qb2uHA

Hear Richard Clarke's testimony about the existence of these Predator Drones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmATDU5hLb8

Compare the jet audio to this small UAV jet powered by Hydrogen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4NSUA-soKs
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jan 30 2008, 07:09 PM
Post #8


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Freedomlover911, I'm moving this thread to the Alternative Theories section of our Research forum.

Your research is highly speculative based on video evidence that is inconclusive at best and open to subjective interpretation. Anyone can say that white dot is anything they please. Lazer, Drone, bird, piece of paper floating on the wind, a UFO, Super Girl or what ever. The point being that much more and better quality evidence is required to make a concise determination.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freedomlover911
post Jan 30 2008, 09:13 PM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



Speculative? You guys post your theories based upon your professional experience and I have forwarded mine based upon my own PROFESSIONAL experience. How many of your members have military weapons guidance systems background? If there is more than one, then I am not alone.

The video I posted on YT is not nearly the quality I have in the original. In my experience, it is unprecedented and positive. I have plenty of alternative and cumulative proof that I was not able to add to this video. I plan to do this at a later date.

Post it where you like, and thanks for posting it anywhere smile.gif

This post has been edited by Freedomlover911: Jan 30 2008, 09:16 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 30 2008, 11:02 PM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Well laser targeting would certainly fit into my scenario. My understanding is that laser targeting has been in use for about 10 years or so, and thus quite routine and perfected.

Putting the target onto Paul Bremer's 6 floors of office space would be a pretty cool way to do it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jan 31 2008, 01:06 PM
Post #11


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Freedomlover911 @ Jan 30 2008, 05:13 PM)
Speculative?

Yes, speculative. Try to understand the difference between established fact versus speculation. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has established as a fact that the FDR data sent to us by the NTSB does not support the official account of events at the Pentagon on 9/11. Now, from this established fact one may deduce various things -- for example: The FDR from which this data came could NOT have been found in the Pentagon as reported. The data itself contradicts this possibility. This is a strong speculation. Another speculation is that the plane from which this data came may have flown over the Pentagon rather than hit it. However, the data itself does not support this and so, although this is a 'reasonable' speculation, it is not a 'strong' one (until it is corroborated by witnesses, for example, as CIT has attempted to do).
QUOTE
You guys post your theories based upon your professional experience and I have forwarded mine based upon my own PROFESSIONAL experience.  How many of your members have military weapons guidance systems background?  If there is more than one, then I am not alone.

I don't know the answer to your question but probably few do. We welcome you and your expertise.
QUOTE
The video I posted on YT is not nearly the quality I have in the original.  In my experience, it is unprecedented and positive.  I have plenty of alternative and cumulative proof that I was not able to add to this video.  I plan to do this at a later date.

Post it where you like, and thanks for posting it anywhere smile.gif

Personally in general I do not find video to be very strong evidence of anything. With video, people can argue endlessly about what something 'is' or 'isn't' -- even whether or not it has been manipulated or "faked" -- without ever establishing fact.

Example: Is this two black faces or a vase?



We've all seen this 'optical illusion' before so we all know it is a matter of how you look at it, how the mind focuses on the image. Factually it is NEITHER faces nor a vase. Factually it is (in this medium) an area of dark pixels surrounding an area of light pixels whose shapes give the resemblance of faces/vase to an observer.

Strong evidence is something that is near incontestable. For example, that Building 7 came down in 6.7 seconds is an established fact only marginally contested by a few and that fact alone is very strong evidence that demolitions were used. The videos of the destruction of Building 7 do not "prove" demolition but they do strengthen the already strong demolition hypothesis without doing anything to weaken it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
genghis6119
post Jan 31 2008, 08:14 PM
Post #12





Group: Newbie
Posts: 30
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 1,730



""" too bad i can't edit him out of this thread"

is that what you do with information and messengers that don't fit into your little theory ??

the neaudet bird, the main one flies in between the north and south tower just before fade out.

so are u saying this is a pidgeon???

this pidgeon would be 40 foot tall yes??

at this range that would make it also capable of mach 1 or 2 and still turn on a dime.

it also doesn't mind flying RIGHT INTO LARGE CHEMICAL FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS.

there is also a second.

the long version of this clip shows the second one flying STRAIGHT AT THE BUILDING a second time.

then it ends.

straight after that on ginny carrs' recording we hear ASECOND EXPLOSION/

and you wrote all this off already ??.
and don't want other people in your thread??

i started reading this thinking there was a no planer opening up here.....

but you're just another wheel barrow pusher who really wants the whole arab story to be true....

i won't bother continuing , this kind of blatant bias research and shitty egotisitcal attiftude will let you get nowhere near the real truth...



good luck with that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Freedomlover911
post Feb 1 2008, 01:43 PM
Post #13





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27-December 06
Member No.: 381



QUOTE (genghis6119 @ Jan 31 2008, 07:14 PM)
but you're just another wheel barrow pusher who really wants the whole arab story to be true....

I'm not getting your entire rant. The "pigeons" in Alfon's video postings are too vague to me to make out in the video. It really does look like birds. Sorry to offend.

And...NO I'm not pushing the Arab theory. Ridiculous to assert actually. they wouldn't be flying UAVs in our airspace would they? If you were asking me (and you're not) I think that special ops guys now associated with Blackwater were the military brains behind this operation. They have the money, the knowhow and the hardware to pull this off. Not only that, they have all of the political and gov't connections to hide their actions. One of the 911Comm guys was a Blackwater board member, not to mention the Asst. Sec of Interior (in charge of these merc contracts) has a brother who sat on Blackwater's board. I am referring to the Krongard brothers. Buzzy was also connected to the German bank that was traced to the PUT OPTIONS on UA and AA.

I've been down the rabbit hole...and I didn't find any pigeons! (or Arabs)

QUOTE (Quest @ Jan 3 2008, 01:07 PM)
The question is, "Can a Boeing 767, while traveling 550MPH, increase it's banking angle by 12% in only 1 second?"

ANSWER:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...pic=10385&st=15

This post has been edited by Freedomlover911: Feb 1 2008, 02:37 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7forever
post Dec 6 2011, 06:34 PM
Post #14





Group: Banned
Posts: 99
Joined: 11-October 10
Member No.: 5,347



911conspiracy.tv - 2nd WTC Attack Plane Crash Videos

The drone circled the building just as many witnesses had stated and that is corroborated by 4 live broadcasts showing the drone do just that from the north view. It's logical with so much footage being released that something from the south would show the drone's goofy bee-bop behind the towers.

We don't get the drone here but a fake plane exacting it as it circled the Towers. It is most logical that Manos Megagiannis turned his footage over to law enforcement and got it back this way. This man clearly captured the drone circling the buildings which is exactly why that whole part was edited out by starting the fake plane just as the drone passes east of Tower 1.





41. Here is the story behind my videos: The distance is about 6 miles, (according to Google Earth), recorded using a Sony PC1. After I got a call from a friend of mine about the first plane, I started filming from inside my apartment. To get a bit better view I went to the roof of the building, and the moment I pointed the camera to the WTC and started recording, without even realizing it I captured the second plane hitting the tower. Actually if you see the original tape you will notice that I move the camera so I can confirm with my own eyes the explosion that I saw through the viewfinder. The rest is just very basic digital zoom (very amateurish I admit). The woman's voice, was some tenant in the same building.

The videos have NOT being edited to make the plane disappear or anything like that (as some claim). One of these days, if I find some free time I may go back to the master and re-master the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG25MRnPy1o...ture=plpp_video
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7forever
post Dec 6 2011, 06:37 PM
Post #15





Group: Banned
Posts: 99
Joined: 11-October 10
Member No.: 5,347



ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH
UNITED 175
IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa.

ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier?

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21754
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7forever
post Dec 6 2011, 06:38 PM
Post #16





Group: Banned
Posts: 99
Joined: 11-October 10
Member No.: 5,347



Jennifer Spell said it circled the building after flying out over New Jersey. This could only be the drone because the fake plane seen in her vid came out of nowhere (it did NOT circle anything) just in time to meet the drone. Flight 175 officially flew way south of NY and did a u-turn. It could not have come from over NJ, but had to come from south like this fake plane did. It makes sense that 175 was as far south as Pittsburgh because of those pesky messages routed in that area.



The last five seconds of 175 could not have circled the buildings but the drone could have and did.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5flD6Qok4pQ...ture=plpp_video
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7forever
post Dec 6 2011, 06:39 PM
Post #17





Group: Banned
Posts: 99
Joined: 11-October 10
Member No.: 5,347



I took the work from September Clues and made it into something real instead of a rambling mess. Dick Oliver called the orb a remote controlled drone. He was on the ground and saw it floating just like it did in 4 live broadcasts.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB-rwWeL7Sg...ture=plpp_video
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7forever
post Dec 6 2011, 06:41 PM
Post #18





Group: Banned
Posts: 99
Joined: 11-October 10
Member No.: 5,347



Mark, cryptically laughs at the end of his description, further proving that he was describing the slow moving drone, and falling short of confirming that it really wasn't a plane. It's no different than Jean Hill saying she saw the secret service shooting back, but falling short of fingering the driver. Of course it didn't belong in the area because it was a drone and not the boeing 767 it was supposed to be.

Eyewitness on 9/11 Mark Burnback was able to get a good view of the plane that hit the World Trade Center, because he said that the plane was flying very low. He explained to FOX News that the plane had no windows, a blue logo, and did not look like a commercial plane.

Fox NewsCaster: "Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us. Mark witnessed this... Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane?"

Mark Burnback: "Hi gentlemen. Yeah there was definitely a blue, circular logo on the front of the plane towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. It was definitely very low...

"Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes or something like that. You said you did not see any windows on the side?"

Mark Burnback: "I did not see any windows on the side. I saw the plane was flying low. I was probably a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low, and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport. It was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just looked like it did not belong in this area."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYUs9u1YwV0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7forever
post Dec 6 2011, 06:43 PM
Post #19





Group: Banned
Posts: 99
Joined: 11-October 10
Member No.: 5,347



This is a great copy of the north tower drone. You can see it has no wings before it makes impact. The clowns who shot this were only several blocks north of the towers. If flight 11 had really crashed in NY it would have looked much like this plane landing.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MP5eFR97OX0...ture=plpp_video
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7forever
post Dec 6 2011, 06:46 PM
Post #20





Group: Banned
Posts: 99
Joined: 11-October 10
Member No.: 5,347



I doubled the speed of WB11's last orb showing, and their first plane morph. The most notable difference besides the silly morph is the orb moves straight west to east but the cgi is turning more left/north. The wingless drone was shown 6-8 times, with the fake image making its debut only one minute after the last orb showing.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9KQ...ture=plpp_video
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th September 2014 - 07:45 PM