(video) Possibly the best evidence of a bomb explosion before the first plane hit

One thing I dont understand, and the lack of logic is stunning me here, but how would an "explosion" in the basement levels burn numerous victims on the street and lobby above?
Also, if there were "bombs" in the basement, then why wasnt there corresponding blast damage and people BLOWN APART afterwards? Only burn victims?

Here is what an explosion with a bomb looks like:



Here is how a plane crash fireball looks like:



notice how small the "fireball" in the car bomb itself is? To even have people burned to a crisp in the elevator shafts and in the lobbies could mean one of two things:
A) The "bomb" was so powerful that it had a very large fireball that was capable of burning victims in the elevators, lobby, and street, or
B) The burns came from the jetfuel flowing down the shafts creating massive fireballs.

The problem with choice A is obvious. Such a powerful bomb would have leveled the WTC and the area around it and EVERYONE would have noticed it, including the media. It wouldnt just knock a few windows out and knock loose some paneling. That is not how an explosive works. Bombs have blast damage. They do not create large scale burns.

[edit on 5/22/2010 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Don't ruin a perfectly good conspiracy with logic and common sense please!

But you're right, this is most likely the cause of the first 'explosion'

Watch the shockwave:

The visible ring IS sound.

The camera in the OP was sitting on the ground. The skockwave will travel faster through solid objects - like the ground - than the air.

So, the plane slams into the columns, and that shock is sent to the ground through the colmns, since at the very least, the core columns were down to bedrock.

But the sound of the jet slamming into building travels through air, followed by the jet fuel deflagration.

2 separate events:

1- shock through the ground
2- sound through the air

I think this is something as simple as someone bumping the camera with their feet accidentally. As the plane could be heard flying by, I'm sure everyone was looking up and the people behind the camera weren't watching their footing. You can even see a couple of shadows standing right next to the camera.

Just like all 9/11 stuff.

It sure is convincing if you don't turn on ur brain.

I'll hit ya with best evidence in video that news camera on ground, the thump yet you're still hearing the airplane then you hear the boom of the plane hit.

Turn on your brain and you realize the impact of the plane would almost instantly transfer kinetic energy to the very foundation (on bedrock) and send that shock wave through the ground. This would travel faster then the sound through the air.

So, that means you'd still be hearing the plane even though you felt it hit. If you could of SEEN the impact you'd prolly have seen the plane hitting a split second before that thump, and a good 1-2 seconds before you heard it.

The lobby damage is easy too, but I'd prolly have to type 5000 words of how pressure works and explosions and such just to get the foundation done to explain it.

Not saying I have the answers, I'm just saying there are VERY simple answers for this stuff.

Originally posted by Just Wondering
reply to post by Faiol

 

The truth is so sinister, so mind blowing so evil that people don't even bother to entertain the probability that our own government could have done such a horrible act.

But why bring the towers all the way down. If they wanted a red flag event to justify their war on terror weren't the planes hitting the towers be enough reason? Why kill extra people withut need? Was there something else in the towers that needed destroying and this was a "two birds, one stone" situation?

The investigation needs to be re-opened.

Maybe you have not read about the towers, and how they were a white elephant...real estate wise. They were supposed to be taken down due to rust issues but the cost was too high. these Towers were a nightmare for any buyer...and the only reason Silverstein bought it was because he was asured of making vast profits from their demise. Bing a Zionist meant that Larry would keep quiet and take the BILLIONS he got from insurance.

ALL of the WTC complex was destroyed...but no others. they had to go...if they had to be repaired the effect would not be as dramatic....drama was needed to whip up hysteria and blame the Arabs...it was all planned out for years...the people who desire to run this world have NO morals and no conscience.

The MOSSAD, along with the Neocons, wanted and got wars that make fortunes, take away our rights, and insure they get away with it. No real investigation meant no problems for the real perps. Anyone who examines the facts cannot come to any conclusion except that it was an inside job...anything else is silliness.

reply to post by richierich

Maybe you have not read about the towers, and how they were a white elephant...real estate wise. They were supposed to be taken down due to rust issues but the cost was too high. these Towers were a nightmare for any buyer...and the only reason Silverstein bought it was because he was asured of making vast profits from their demise. Bing a Zionist meant that Larry would keep quiet and take the BILLIONS he got from insurance.
[/quote

Occupancy rate of 98 % in 2001 - doesn't sound like having any problems
renting the space

Strong retail in mall under the buildings

As Real Estate Director, a position Mrs. Nanninga has held since 1996, the occupancy rate at the trade center has risen from 78 percent to a healthy 98 percent, retail soared in the trade center's mall, and available office space in the Newark Legal Center has nearly been filled.

Today, only about 250,000 of the 10.4 million square feet of office space in the trade center remains vacant. And the legal center has an occupancy rate of over 99 percent.

Rest of your post usual Anti-Semitic drivel by paranoid type....

reply to post by Just Wondering


"The project was titled "the Bridgeways Project."

Their stated objective was; "to encircle the entire twin-structure with scaffolding, to insure the safety of pedestrian traffic during the complete de-commissioning of the towers...It's $2.6 Billion just to erect the two scaffolds to surround both buildings, and that's only the beginning. They literally have to re-build them, then un-build them, twice! -Now it's obvious, bottom-line is that the developer will have to sell soon, or take a serious bath; ...Total?- You tell me, $4.5 Billion, or so!" (I forgot his figures.)"

www.redlineav.com...


I believe it is reliable information the asbestos had to be removed by court decision. How much it would have cost is anyone's guess, but the cut and paste above would appear to me to be accurate.

This one fact alone would make the Twin Towers the proverbial "White Elephant."

As an aside, the material alleges the second place bidder for the WTC was "Stephen Roth from the JDL." This should be easy to prove or disprove.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by truthseeker911

 

Good find S&F. The video clearly shows the "event" as you outlined before the plane has struck the WTC.

The seismic activity reports also conclude the same that there was infact a definite event before the first plane struck the tower.

After watching the video, I can only think about how much more testimony in the form of video has been sliently withheld in fear of what might be the outcome of going public.

The search for truth continues.


Great thread!

Sorry if someone else has brought this up but could it be the vibration of the plane hitting the tower would effect the camera laying on the ground faster than the noise of the plane hitting the tower traveling through the air about a third of a mile away.( think of the gap between lightning and thunder)


Sorry should have read posts above seems like great minds think alike

[edit on 22-5-2010 by tarifa37]

[edit on 22-5-2010 by tarifa37]

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

911review.com...

"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.

SMOKING GUN !!!

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.

Someone mentioned the original news report video (non live) being faked, impossible because the news station didn't even catch the difference in the ground level bomb vibration from the airplane crash. Other people pointed it out, not them. The video is real.

Also some people mentioned that someone bumped the video camera, not true. You can clearly tell nobody bumped the camera. There are only 3 people inthe picture that are feet away from the camera. this can be told by the shadows from the sun. You can also see the video camera shadow.

The first guy is in front of the camera on video standing still.

The second guy is to the right far away from the camera standing still.

The third guy is to the left, you can see that his shadow is completely disassociated (away from) the video camera. Nobody touched the video camera.

some debunkers tried to say that the video camera was affected because their are t.v. station antennas on top of the tower but since this taping wasn't live, it was just a regular filming it wouldn't be affected by any antennas because of a plane crash.

The film caught the ground level bombs going off.


[edit on 22-5-2010 by truthseeker911]

reply to post by Just Wondering

The truth is so sinister, so mind blowing so evil that people don't even bother to entertain the probability that our own government could have done such a horrible act. But why bring the towers all the way down. If they wanted a red flag event to justify their war on terror weren't the planes hitting the towers be enough reason? Why kill extra people withut need? Was there something else in the towers that needed destroying and this was a "two birds, one stone" situation?

They needed to demolish the buildings. They were money losers. They needed expensive upgrades again. Like asbestos removal. Others that owned the towers before were bankrupted. It would take billions to take them down by hand. They applied for a demolition permits but were denied by the city.

The buildings were insured for billions of dollars.

reply to post by Raud


I never said they were in on it, I was making reference to the emergency personnel being there due to a prior explosion. I understand that NYC is a huge city, with a lot of emergency workers and journalists, but I guess it's just one huge coincidence that they were all around the WTC when those planes struck, with camera's filming people talking about explosions, THEN the first plane hitting, but hey.. who am I to question anything?

This should take care of ruling out the possibility of anyone knocking the camera with a foot.

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 ImageShack.us

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 ImageShack.us

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 ImageShack.us

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 ImageShack.us

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 ImageShack.us

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.

Yet another twist in the sorry tale of the 9/11 cover-up....

How the OS cronies can look themselves in the mirror , or into their childrens eyes, when their Govt. lies and lies to covers its tracks(poorly...)...

it amazes me that you could believe the Official Fairytale when theres soooo much evidence...

Quite scary...and naive...and hardly patriotic.

Great video OP.. adding another nail in the 9-11 OS coffin...

reply to post by truthseeker911

"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."

This is most likely correct given the circumstances. Those buildings were built like gigantic nets. They were designed to withstand multiple plane impacts, and for that reason, they could absorb kinetic energy more efficiently than any other skyscrapers in the world. What's more, the planes impacted very high up. This further reduces the amount of kinetic energy that would transfer into the ground. I doubt that the plane impacts caused a shock wave large enough to be noticed at all.

edit to add - my first thoughts were that the vibration was caused by the plane itself passing overhead, simply from the speed and amount of air displacement caused by enormous planes. Jetwash, is it called? However this is clearly NOT the case, because the plane impacted from a completely different angle and did not ever pass overhead the camera.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Son of Will]

Originally posted by fbipeeper
Just like all 9/11 stuff.

It sure is convincing if you don't turn on ur brain.

I'll hit ya with best evidence in video that news camera on ground, the thump yet you're still hearing the airplane then you hear the boom of the plane hit.

Turn on your brain and you realize the impact of the plane would almost instantly transfer kinetic energy to the very foundation (on bedrock) and send that shock wave through the ground. This would travel faster then the sound through the air.

So, that means you'd still be hearing the plane even though you felt it hit. If you could of SEEN the impact you'd prolly have seen the plane hitting a split second before that thump, and a good 1-2 seconds before you heard it.

The lobby damage is easy too, but I'd prolly have to type 5000 words of how pressure works and explosions and such just to get the foundation done to explain it.

Not saying I have the answers, I'm just saying there are VERY simple answers for this stuff.

How "instantaneous" is this:
Explosion Video

reply to post by truthseeker911


How do you account for the fact that the sound and camera shake are simultaneous but the WTC appears to be at least half a mile away ?

So to summarize the debunking attempts up to this point:


Claim 1: The shock wave comes before the sound.
Opposing view: Plenty of other videos show the shock wave comes WITH the sound. (It seems the shock wave and the sound are the same thing)

Claim 2: Someone bumped the camera.
Opposing view: The camera points in a direction that we can see shadows and the positions of the people standing around the camera. If something touched the camera we would likely see the shadow of it. Also, while the video scrambles for a bit, the frame itself has not moved one pixel.

Claim 3: The shock wave travels through the denser ground faster than the air.
Opposing view: The camera is far enough away that the ground would not shake enough to effect the camera. Also, I would add that there is an audible sound from this first disturbance in addition to the sound from the airplane impact. (I supposed it could be argued that this sound could have came from the ground shock shaking the camera, but again, it appears that the video only got distorted without any change in frame position.)


Some questions that should be examined:

1) The timing seems to be off from between the first blast and the airplane hit compared to the audio we see just before the camera shots (video @ 6:20). The timer on the audio shows about 9 seconds in between, while the hits on the camera video is closer to 2 seconds. Even if the 2 recordings were taken at entirely different distances, the timing between both hits should be the same. Also, the eye witness accounts of the people in the basement (beginning of video) suggest they had more than 2 seconds to think about "what was that?" Furthermore, the people in the audio clip comment on the first hit, and it seems to be louder there.

2) Why does the video distort? Is it because it is a consumer grade camera that would be more affected by a shock wave? The air pressure around and inside the camera would certainly be affected, but I don't recall seeing this in other blast videos. If the first sound we hear is in fact a bomb, it would make sense that the bomb shock would affect the camera and the plane shock would not, due to the characteristics of a bomb shock wave being more "sharp", than a crash.

Overall, I lean towards the belief that something did in fact occur before the plane hit. I think the visual audio spectrometer in the video, along with the eyewitness accounts, do a convincing job of displaying this.

Question 1 above is the hardest one to explain here, but not being able to answer this question does not mean ALL of the evidence here is faulty. We must consider that the first sound we hear on the camera could quite possibly be something else entirely. I can't think of anything, but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

This is just a great video.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by TattarrattaT]

reply to post by podizzle


Wow, someone with some sense... Seriously guys, you think a building which is full of glass, and it is set up to swerve with strong winds, according to some of you, should be able to withstand a passenger plane crasing into it, a fire from the passenger plane fuel and the the fire material inside the building, the fact that these skyscrappers have janitor closets with chemicals which on fire will explode, and the fall of tons, and tons of debris on top of other floors which precipitated the collapse....not to mention the fuel that the buildings had in the basement which would have been at least partially filled with burning fuel as some of the fuel went down elevator shafts, and air conduits... Yet you all think the building shouldn't have shook, you all think the strength of the crash shouldn't have started the debilitating of the columns, plus the fire, plus the fact that such a crash was even recorded as an earthquake, which should tell you how strong it was, and the shockwave itself shouldn't have blown out windows...

As of yet NONE of the 911 "truthers" has shown anything that they claim. You make claims with nothing more than conjecture... The people say it SOUNDED LIKE an explosion/bomb... it doens't mean it was a bomb...

The worse part is that such people wait years, and years to make new, or bring back old claims which have been debunked time and again..

Do i believe everything the government says?...no... But do I think that conjectures based on false assumptions, and made up claims shows proof that there were no planes crashing, and it was "bombs instead"?... I saw the videos of the crashes that day, and I remember it well..

None of you seem to have any idea how strong a force a passenger plane can and does wallop into a skyscrapper like WTC..

I am sorry, but all you have proven op is that you can take comments made by people out of context. Nothing more, nothing less.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by TattarrattaT


None of the OP's theory stands up to scrutiny.

If the camera shake and the sound had come from an explosion in the WTC then there would have been an appreciable gap between the camera shake and the sound. The shock waves through the ground would have travelled many times faster than the sound waves through the air.

Another couple of observations :- 1) if you keep an eye on the passersby in the video no-one reacts to a seismic shock which it is suggested was sufficient to upset the camera. Heads only turn when you get the plane impact. 2) Why does this sensitive camera not show any shake when a 100 ton + airliner smacks into the WTC ? Any seismic evidence of two incidents close together at this time ?

As others have pointed out, simplest is usually best, someone caught their toe on the camera as they were craning to look up at the plane.