*backup=[...snipped...] from http://www.darkhorizons.com/international-trailer-no-time-to-die-007/. It has new footages too.

They just dusted off the 9/11 scripts and shot new footage.

^ Here's another news article which includes footage. There seems to be zero dispute that the deceased was pacing back and forth on a street car wielding a knife prior to being shot.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/new-footage-reveals-further-details-in-streetcar-shooting/article13495500/

Your video, New Footage From Original Hong Kong Interview of Snowden, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Ah, new footage for a serial killer documentary.

"The 1% is hogging all the brains."
"Yes We Can...eat your brains."
"End World Hunger. Eat Everyone."
>> ^packo:

>> ^Porksandwich:
New footage from the Walking Dead.

it'd be cool, but from reading/watching the Walking Dead, working news helicopters and zombies carrying signs aren't all that prevalent

>> ^Porksandwich:

New footage from the Walking Dead.


it'd be cool, but from reading/watching the Walking Dead, working news helicopters and zombies carrying signs aren't all that prevalent

New footage from the Walking Dead.

@Sarzy

In fact, I'm going to go even further and ask if YOU actually watched both videos... this one adds over a minute of new footage and music including him playing on the water stage which isn't in the other one.

In short:

1) Different performance (filmed at a different time/camera angle)
2) Different music
3) Different camera angle
4) Different length of time of vid

= NOT A DUPE!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Japan, earthquake, tsunami, new, footage' to 'tsunami 2011, Japan, earthquake, tsunami, new, footage' - edited by lucky760

FOIA=Freedom Of Information Act
>> ^joedirt:

The other helicopter footage had the same BULLSHIT title. This isn't new footage. I'm not sure why "FOIA" means it is new or was hidden or somehow meaningful. This is clips of the same WTC7 footage.

The other helicopter footage had the same BULLSHIT title. This isn't new footage. I'm not sure why "FOIA" means it is new or was hidden or somehow meaningful. This is clips of the same WTC7 footage.

Changed the embed to an even better and official one. Also I've put a making of that has a fair bit of other footage: http://www.videosift.com/video/Avatar-Making-Of-James-Cameron-s-Vision-New-Footage

>> ^bcglorf:


But the whole truther movement is based around planted explosives in the buildings, is it not? All the videos and information I've gone through hold that in common.
The thing is if the terrorists were able to plant demolition charges in the building, why bother with the airplanes?
If the government was behind it, and they planted the explosives, the question is still why they should bother with the airplanes? It's still easily blamed on the terrorists, it wouldn't even be the first time that terrorists had used explosives against the towers.
The Truther movement's questions do not warrant investigation or follow-up, and I see open ridicule as good a tool as any to keep the gullible from being drawn into their BS. Even if the government WAS behind the attacks, the Truther movement would actually be even worse BS, by dragging a whole class of people questioning the official story off on some goose chase after imaginary demolition charges.


That is one of the main things they claim, yes - I'm not a truther myself, though..

They don't believe that explosives would have been planted by terrorists - or at least not terrorists operating outside of the control of "those in power."

I think they'd argue that both explosives and planes were used for maximum effect (toppling both towers) and because planes provide that strong, visual, undeniable evidence. Obviously there's a need for an outside attacker - those "terrorists" flying the planes. There's also a lot of muddy, suspicious circumstances surrounding the terrorists themselves, and their ties to the mainly fictional 'Al-Qaeda.'

These ideas relies on the belief that there are people in power in Washington, with far too much power, pulling the strings to suit their own agendas. What lends credence to these theories is moreso what happened after the attacks - how the US went to war, looking for Osama in a cave, never finding him, the whole oil thing... certainly suspicious. Then you look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident, realize it's not unheard of to lie to go to war, etc. etc. And when you do some digging you'll find that the evidence for this secret government is quite strong, though widely ignored and often scoffed at. The Iran-Contra scandal was a sort of shocking insight into what goes on behind the scenes, along with many other events like that which most Americans have no clue ever happened.

I dunno though, I'm arguing from their perspective because I do believe there needs to be more investigation. The official report was certainly not an adequate review of the events that took place.

>> ^EndAll:
>> ^griefer_queafer:
>> ^EndAll:
Not the best way to discredit Truthers.. This is just retarded. Does a disservice to skeptics who actually have well-structured rebuttals for the conspiracies.

I respectfully disagree, Endall. Don't you think there is a way in which the absurd simplicity is kind of effective?
Its kind of the way I feel when I watch videos of these town hall meetings. In a way one might want to try and reason with these people, but after a while you have to kind of just sigh and write it off. Despite the condescending ending to Gjersten's vid, i think this work is kind of like a big sigh

Apples and oranges - the events around 9/11 warrant serious questioning and public inquiry - the townhall meeting protests are just stupid bullshit. I agree there need be no serious debate about whether or not the airplanes actually hit - there's no question about that, they did - but there's a lot more to what happened that needs to be looked into. Most truthers will tell you that the planes did hit, but that there were explosives in place as well. I don't make any claims about that, but it might help clear things up a bit.


But the whole truther movement is based around planted explosives in the buildings, is it not? All the videos and information I've gone through hold that in common.
The thing is if the terrorists were able to plant demolition charges in the building, why bother with the airplanes?
If the government was behind it, and they planted the explosives, the question is still why they should bother with the airplanes? It's still easily blamed on the terrorists, it wouldn't even be the first time that terrorists had used explosives against the towers.

The Truther movement's questions do not warrant investigation or follow-up, and I see open ridicule as good a tool as any to keep the gullible from being drawn into their BS. Even if the government WAS behind the attacks, the Truther movement would actually be even worse BS, by dragging a whole class of people questioning the official story off on some goose chase after imaginary demolition charges.