It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Rare Unseen Video of 1st Plane Hitting the World Trade Center Caught on tape.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 10:40 AM
In this next video you can clearly hear something odd 1.2 second before and during the collision the building.

Its a blink blink noise. Is this evidence of tampering because every version of this clip has it. Also it has been noted that the aircraft sound seems to have been looped or atleast tampered with.

There are hundreds of people that thought something exploded in the basement before the plane hit.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012

Are the debunkers still trying to find Alice in Wonderland Logic to kill threads?

I live near a mine. That that I exactly what an underground blast sounds like.

The impact of the plane could not have traveled with enough force to shake a camera miles away.

This thread was to prove what hundreds of eyewitnesses heard and saw. BOOM! in the ground and subway then they saw the plane hit.

THere were explosions before and during the attack.

When the 2nd plane hit, the 1st towere also suffered more demolition charges. The plane crash was used as a diversion for detonating the internal explosives set upon the core column.

So explain if they set off demolition charges in the basement

1) the building collapse began at the point where the plane impacted, not
in the lower levels

2) Why the building did not immediately collapse, but took in case of
South tower an hour and for North Tower 1 hr 45 minutes

3) Why were there no blast injuries - there were plently of burns from
jet fuel in the lobby of North Tower and on street right outside

You are the one peddling fairy tales.....

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:09 PM
the vibration of the camera sitting on the sidewalk occurs two seconds before the sound is heard.
the shock wave in the ground would be for all practical purposes instantaneous, the sound would travel at 1,100 feet per secons.
assume the camera is 2000 feet from the impact, then the two second delay is understandable.
the camera was not bumped as the shadow of the camera on the sidewalk does not move until the operator picks it up.
neither does the shadow of the operators leg move when the ground shock is recorded on the camera.

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 03:01 PM
I was feeling the break up was indicative of videotape break up. And as others have pointed out, the shadow reveals that the camera nor mic were disturbed. ( Mic is visible to me in shadow. Shotgun-type attached to camera, common to ENG.)

The YouTube description seems to verify that the camera WAS NOT “live” or being Sent via Microwave at the time and it was the onboard recorder rolling. I agree.

Additionally the video was posted Oct 01 2008. I’ll let you all take it from there…….

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 04:31 PM
I rehashed this thread I found because there is a thread about the same video just posted.

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:55 PM
I made a new thread not seeing this old thread, but the new thread has some more points to it as to why the video is proof of a bomb explosion.

After reading all of the back and fourth talk here, the statement made by the T.V. station on the youtube description says that the video wasn't live, it was just filming. Meaning that the debunk theory of the antenna airwaves being disrupted doesn't apply and doesn't fit/work.

So really the only debunk theory left would have to be that the camera vibration was when the airplane hit the tower and that caused an instant vibration to the video camera, then when the fuel ignited it caused a "blown up" sound.

That debunk theory doesn't work, if a plane crashing into a building caused that vibration, then surely when the plane blew up it would have caused a much greater vibration so in according to that theory the video camera should have gone bonkers and it should have felt the "blown up" sounds like crazy.

In that same debunk theory it should have had an even longer time of scrambleness to the video during the "blown up" sounds. A huge fuel explosion would have had much more of a rumbling effect then a plane just crashing into the side of a building.

There's no way that the plane would have been able to create a ground vibration that shook the camera. It was due to a bomb/s being blasted that the video camera shook.

This video along with the tons of witnesses that say they heard and felt an explosion right before the first plane hit corroborates with this video. The bomb transferred a ground vibration. People say they heard/felt the vibrations in the basement.

One woman in the subway said she heard the explosions right above her.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by truthseeker911]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:02 AM
Can it be possible they wanted to sync the explosions having in the basement in the towers when the planes hit in order to make it look like the planes were more destructive in the attack.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:14 AM
reply to post by truthseeker911

Actually, the logical and most simple explanation is that someone caught the camera with their foot while it was running but pointing toward the ground.

A live microphone that is tapped makes exactly the same kind of noise, and the camera shake corresponds with it.

As far as explosions go, in terms of speed, its all about medium. Light travels faster than sound, which is why you see a flash first. You hear sound second, and finally the vibration from the explosion will shake things.

The sound and disturbance on the clip in the OP are, for all intents and purposes instantaneous, meaning that something happened to the camera.

A simple experiement, tapping the microphone on a video camera, should produce the same result or similar.

Logic, science and clear thinking. NOT, assumption, straw grabbing and fantasy.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by neformore

This thread is the topic of discussion for this video piece

I'm now going to crush the last "debunkers theory".

Some have mentioned that they think the vibration is from the plane hitting the building then a sound delay occurs for the "boom" sound. Well if the vibration was from the plane first hitting, wouldn't it make more sense that the "boom" sound (explosion) after would cause a much more devastating vibration effect into the camera? But it doesn't.

The video vibration was the ground level bomb/s going off.

Here is scientific dating back this up

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Last November, Lerner-Lam said, "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage -- but not causing significant ground shaking,"

Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the huge towers.


So if the towers actually falling to the ground made pretty much ZERO ground vibration, then the debunker theory of the vibration caused in the video camera was from when the first plane hit is IMPOSSIBLE!

The plane hitting the building caused ZERO ground vibration.

It doesn't get anymore clear, logical or more scientific than this...

I also covered some other the other debunkers theories on the other thread.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by truthseeker911]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by truthseeker911

Have you ever tapped a live microphone with your finger?

Knocked a live webcam?

I think you should, really. It sounds like you'll be amazed.

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by neformore

Well luckily in this case the shadows show that nobody knocked or bumped the video camera based on the fact that the guy on the left's shadow was visibly to the left of the video camera.

For him to have bumped it, it would have had to have been done by his foot. But we can see that he didn't touch the camera. If someone touched the camera from the left or the right side of the camera, we would have seen their shadow pushed up more.

The guys shadow on the left shows that he is behind the camera and to the left. Now based on the sun and the shadows, for someone to have knocked the camera their shadow would have to be in line with the cameras shadow.

These pictures prove that nobody touched the camera.

Uploaded with

The guy on the left, you can see his shadow on the guy in front, his elbow can be seen on the guy in fronts left pant leg.

Uploaded with

Here you can see the guy on the lefts shadow, you can see his elbow and now the side of his body on the guy in front's pant leg.

Uploaded with

Now you can see the guy on the lefts shadow, you can see where his shirt is overhanging from hi stomach. That little thing that looks like a birds beek is the bottom of his shirt by his waist.

More importantly you can see the guys legs, each individual leg separated by the sunlight in between his legs in this 3rd pic.

Uploaded with

In this 4th pic you can see the guys shadow and you can see that the guys leg closest to the camera is completely separate from the camera. Also the guys legs remain still when the ground level bomb/s blast goes off.

The guy on the left never touched the camera at all. This debunker theory doesn't apply. According to the debunk theory, if there was any time where the guy onthe lefts leg could have tapped the camera it would have been when the guys shadow was touching the camera's shadow.

That would mean that the guy was directly behind the camera and not to the left. But as can be seen the guy never touched the camera at all. He was behind the camera out of range to hit it with his foot and also he was to the left of the camera. The shadows prove that in the video tape and screenshot pictures.

To further prove that he didn't touch the video camera, before the ground level bomb explosion and before the plane crash, his shadow sways slightly back and fourth (left to right etc.) and he still never touches the camera. When the bomb vibration is seen, the guy is completely to the left and his shadow is completely to the left of the camera.

Uploaded with

This picture is just a good picture showing the camera's shadow. This was the only debunk theory left for debunkers but it's been proven that nobody touched the camera.

If anybody tries to claim that a different person touched the camera that also would be impossible because a shadow would have been seen directly behind the camera. The shadow would have had to extend far onto the side walk.

The video camera captured the vibration of the ground level bomb blasts going off.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by truthseeker911]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:01 PM
If that exact plane really did crash into a building, the tracking for it would stop working so therefor the plane should have gone off the real time digital screen map.

Just like in a bad storm when a plane can no longer be seen on radar. The planes last coordinates don't just stay on the screen, they disappear.

So could this be another piece of great evidence...

Here is another good piece of evidence about planes being restricted to fly

"The Binladens were allowed to fly out of the United States, when every other U.S. flight was ordered grounded after the events of September 11, 2001. I read this in a book by Craig Unger,”House of Bush,House of Saud”."

If the government actually thought that Bin Laden did 911, wouldn't it make sense to question his family rather than scoot them out of the country right away...

They were already blaming Bin Laden before the 2nd plane even hit, I remember watching t.v. seeing Bin Laden's picture on the screen. Funny they just scoot his family right out of the country.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by truthseeker911]

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by ChemBreather

This does not sound like a propeller plane. I used to live near an airport and this is what passenger planes sound like 100%.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in