I started my second hit compliation project last night, and made a list of ALL the second hit videos I could find.
Between
Webfairy and
Terrorize, I found 27 "primary" videos that captured the second plane before it hit the South tower.
27
Of course a lot of these videos have very little detail of the plane-- it is just a dark blur-- as they are shot from some distance.
I will dissect these videos in more detail in the near future.
But it is worth simply discussing the number of videos with the plane!
On the one hand, 27 videos may not be too surprising given how many people live within eyeshot of lower Manhattan and had in theory the chance to videotape the plane from their home. In this sense, 27 may even be lower than you would expect.
On the other hand,
27 videos is A LOT considering that: the second plane was unexpected, the plane officially was going extremely fast at low altitude, people had only about 10 minutes to get their cameras after learning of the first hit, there was only a ten second time frame to capture it, and the second plane could really only be seen from certain limited angles (and could not have been seen by most people who lived north of the WTC in Manhattan). On balance, it is hard to be convinced whether 27 videos are too many or too few for this event. Personally, 27 is more than I would expect considering the timing required and the other factors I mentioned, but 27 is clearly not going to convince skeptics of the fake video theory is real.
And I will be honest, having 27 videos of a Boeing-like plane/dark blob hitting the south tower is a big problem for the "no-plane" theory, given that 27 videos, presumably from many different sources, would have to be faked. How could the planners ever find all the videos? Wouldn't just one video of the tower exploding but showing no incoming plane sink their carefully laid plans***?
But let's go through the possibilities here:
A) a Boeing 767-like plane hit the towers and all videos are real (the official story)
B) a Boeing 767-like plane hit the towers and some videos are real and some were faked (for whatever reason)
C) something hit the towers that is not a Boeing 767, that looks like a dark blur from a distance and close-up videos were faked
D) no plane hit the towers and ALL the videos are faked by computer graphics to show a plane.
Now, the problem *I* have is that none of these answers are entirely satisfying.
But, let's dissect this a little more.
Problems:
A) I have gone over and over on this blog why I think the official story is not right. I think some videos are clearly fake, there are too many anomalies with the plane AND there is reason to think a real plane would not slice into the steel-framed WTC south tower like it did.
B) This is possible, but has big holes in why people would fake the plane in the videos if there were real videos of the plane, and also has the problem of a real plane hitting the tower. CONCEIVABLY, the shots of the plane hitting the building and slicing in without exploding or breaking on contact were faked, and other videos of the plane that do not show this are real. But it really isn't clear why this would have been done (unless they wanted to push the image of the plane damaging the building which induced the collapse, and that still shows inside job).
C) I think this would have been too risky for them to carry off, since random people getting a video of the anomalous plane or missile hitting the building that wasn't the right plane would be a MAJOR problem.
D) This is the crazy theory. However, there is ONE subtlety here. Let's think about if there really WAS no second plane. Who is going to try to capture NOTHING on video? Sure, a few people might be videotaping the north tower and then catch the south tower explode and videotape that after they see it. But how many people are really going to be in a position to get a good shot of the south tower plane before it hit if they are focused on the north tower (assuming the plane was real)? In fact, no one is going to pan over to south of the south tower if there is no plane there. Thus, I submit that it is possible that part of the whole 9/11 plan was to have teams of videographers and photographers stationed all around Manhattan just waiting for the South tower "event". These people would would then have their videos of the south tower explosion edited by insertion of a CGI plane. Then, once all this video evidence was brought forward to the media and into the public domain, wouldn't it be JUST SO obvious that a plane hit-- because so many people captured it on videotape (and on camera film)? In other words, the 27 videos could have all been part of the no-plane/video-hoax plan.
How likely is this?
9/11 was a huge job in my book, and they planned a LOT. So I can't put this past them.
One beauty of this plan is that people who might really have happened to capture the south tower explode and were in a position to see the plane could think they simply missed the plane (because it was going so fast or they blinked) later when they saw TV.
There are pieces of evidence I think supports the idea that all 27 videos are faked:
1) in every video the plane is rather well-centered for what would have been a quick reaction shot
2) all the videos are VERY stable (not jumpy like home movies) as they show the plane, suggesting a professional camera operator
3) we don't know who most of these videographers are, but in the few cases we do know who they are, they have suspicious backgrounds in computer animation (Scott Myers, Devin Clark), or their videos were confiscated (Evan Fairbanks) or their whole story is extremely suspicious (the Naudets, Pavel Hlava).
Sidenote: Terrorize had four videos with just the tower exploding without the plane. Clearly videos that do not show the plane are not going to have as much interest as "plane" videos, but one wonders how many other videos are out there that are NOT on the web that show the plane and/or the fireball. I would guess the plane videos are almost all on the web, whereas there may be a few fireball videos that are not. But I could be wrong of course.
***There is no such video I know of: one that shows the tower exploding, and has a clear view of the approach path the plane took but shows NO incoming plane (as might be predicted by the "no plane" theory).
No comments:
Post a Comment