It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 4
83
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Dogdish
 


That's "kilometers away".... that camera wasn't "a few kilometers away" from the WTC...

If you are going to try to compare something, make sure you compare something equal.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Wow, about 3 mintues in, you see a guy being interviewed about the lobby explosion who is interrupted by the first plane hitting. You can clearly see that the windows were busted out, and that firefighters are trying to investigate the source of an explosion in the lobby. It also makes no sense that the PATH train would be filled with smoke from an impact 900 feet high where the smoke is clearly exiting upward. This makes you wonder how the steel beams could have been weakened.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I'm confused as to your point. Are you saying that a greater distance is slowing the shockwave down, coincidentally to arrive nearly simultaneously with the sound wave?

Wasn't the original premise that the shockwave travels faster through the solid granite?



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Notice at 5:37 there is a fireman in full gear as the first plane hits. Why? I normally don't see them in full gear just walking around.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Is anyone believing the "bombs before impact" nonsense going to answer my original questions?

Since when are high power explosives blowing up deep in the basement levels going to leave multiple burn and burnt to a crisp victims in the elevators, lobby, and outside? And where are the corresponding BLAST victims?

In order to have a massive fireball WITH a high power blast, then the explosive itself would have to have been massive, on such a scale it would have leveled the entire area around the WTC and possibly blown a massive crater right through the lobby and in the streets around the base of WTC. And THAT would have been VERY noticeable to EVERYONE within a five blovk radius of the WTC site. OH and not to mention the sound of such a blast, which also would have shattered windows of buildings miles away. Plus tall buildings are great at channeling sound!



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
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 ?



911review.com...

"Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained."

If Columbia University recorded the seismographs 21 miles away, then this video camera surely could capture the ground level bomb blasts from where it was sitting.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TattarrattaT
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.

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]


I'm only really looking at this piece of evidence because it has video, audio, and vibration evidence. I'd say closer to 3 seconds.

But as to why bomb explosions could vary, say for instance the other audio clip was closer to the first building and it was on the complete opposite side from where the video cameras was. It's possible that the other audio clip caught a series of bombs this clip didn't.

But again I'm focusing on this video camera evidence.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
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]


The trade towers were built with plane crashes in mind. If they were able to fall by plane crashes alone the government wouldn't have needed to use bombs to destroy the buildings lower columns.

No building has ever fallen due to plane crashes or fires. The laws of psychics don't allow the theory of debris falling or the top parts falling to take the whole building down.

The earthquake type recordings that you describe were not of the building falling, the earthquake type seismographs occurred before the buildings fell indicating bombs taking out the final columns so the weight of the buildings would fall without the support of the bottom columns.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
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.


Actually all of the facts that I mention are real.

Your first paragraph is written so I don't even know what you are trying to get across so I can't respond to that one.

The reason people don't visibly act up to the seismic vibration is because a really loud plane noise is flying right overhead. They are all looking and listening to that.

The reason the camera didn't shake when the plane flew into the building is because the plane transferred ZERO ground vibration as can be scientifically verified by an earlier post that I made with a link citation.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker911

Originally posted by Alfie1
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 ?



911review.com...

"Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained."

If Columbia University recorded the seismographs 21 miles away, then this video camera surely could capture the ground level bomb blasts from where it was sitting.


Thanks for the link but I could not see anything there about a seismic spike a second or two before plane impact to the North Tower.

Still doesn't answer how camera shake and sound were simultaneous when the WTC was some distance off. Shock wave will travel much faster than sound so there should have been a gap (unless someone gave the camera a slight kick of course).

Why didn't the camera, still on the ground, react similarly when a fully laden Boeing 767 smacked into the Tower ? The passersby reacted to that but not to the first blip.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
Debunkers will say the official reports say the fireball went from the 78th floor all the way to the lobby.

However, if there were bombs, the main support columns that had to go were right next to the elevator shafts.

The explosion from the bombs would have been sent through the elevator shafts.


Oh, yes, the anti-truther's magic fireball -- almost as crafty as the Magic bullet that hit three people in the JFK assassination. Any fireball that wants to destroy the lobby, has to get off the elevator at the 30th or 40th floor (someone who worked at the WTC could probably tell you more), because they do not go all the way up -- you have to change elevators two or three times to get to the very top.

The thing is, that most of the newscaster on TV may high 6 or 7 figures -- they didn't get these jobs by reporting the news. Many of the reporters who started reporting about the truth behind the mercenaries and death squads in Latin America during the '80s lost their jobs. One of the few front-line reporters who still had some integrity; Dan Rather, got nailed for daring to challenge the Bush Crime Family.

So most of them, don't need to be TOLD what to report -- they just know only to jump on a story if their is no negative feedback, and to drop one when it's not the "status quo" -- that's why MOST of the reporters on the day of 9.11 reported that it looked like a "demolition." The next day, after the hired guns, the propagandists, and the usual pundits started saying "Everybody knows the airplane fuel collapsed the building" they all just reported the status quo -- because that's how they've kept their really nice jobs all these years. Many are probably not even aware of it -- it's just reflex.

Just like most people in America -- especially the ones who think they are rebels and think for themselves. The Evangelical churches teach that "belief" is more important than love. Most people with good jobs, believe that their bosses are superior workers and thinkers, and that's "belief" is going to get you promoted. Reflexively, we think how we are expected to think, or we are "losers" -- it's very hard to keep a job if you are really in touch with what is going on, because it is crushingly depressing.

So, plug in a few paid bloggers in the midst of all the sheeple (sorry, the term fits), and you've got everybody an Engineer and they all know; "Kerosene and fire can collapse steel buildings, the US can't track airplanes off transponder, Bin Laden sent 16 men with box cutters who crashed planes for religious purposes." When we first learned that these guys were attending stripper shows the day before -- and then that story stopped playing, and suddenly, we ALL KNEW they were devout Muslim terrorists -- well, it's pretty freaky to watch otherwise intelligent people have mass amnesia.

The thing that has freaked me out most about the 9/11 false flag operation by the Bush/Cheney crime organization, is how easily people can be fooled. You can look at the collapse, and know that each level is falling WITH the dust -- there is no time for the force of the floor above to crush it.

Then we go to war in two countries who didn't even have a PERSON from their country amongst the alleged terrorists -- and we listen to a group of people who have no record of telling the truth -- because the media echo chamber, the CHURCHES, and the usual Right Wing mouthpieces are all saying the same thing.

We have no judicial system, no military, nothing that is institutionalized that is functioning to protect us -- and we sit and wait for the next "useful calamity" that these SOBs can use to wage their war on Democracy and the Middle Class. We can wait for "the truth to come out" but that will be a few weeks after we are doomed.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Wow, about 3 mintues in, you see a guy being interviewed about the lobby explosion who is interrupted by the first plane hitting. You can clearly see that the windows were busted out, and that firefighters are trying to investigate the source of an explosion in the lobby. It also makes no sense that the PATH train would be filled with smoke from an impact 900 feet high where the smoke is clearly exiting upward. This makes you wonder how the steel beams could have been weakened.



Originally posted by Hero Protagonist
Notice at 5:37 there is a fireman in full gear as the first plane hits. Why? I normally don't see them in full gear just walking around.


The guy who was being interviewed wasn't interrupted by the first plane hitting, because that footage wasn't aired until the next day of the first plane hitting.

The firefighters were being filmed by the Naudet brothers, they weren't investigating any lobby at the time.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
In the video at 2:38, a witness gives this testimony,

"I was reviewing some work and it was about 10 to 9 (around 8:50 am) the building shook and I thought there was an earthquake and it didn't belong maybe I guess I thought the building could sustain earthquakes they were built for that. Then there was a huge explosion and the ceiling fell."


Keep in mind that the plane hitting the building transferred ZERO impact to the building as in the building did not shake at all. So it seems that the building shaking is a mystery unless you count in the bombs in the basement.

"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.

source- 911review.com...



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Wow, I've always leaned on the side of being skeptical about the 911 conspiracy, but this is really strange. At 6:30 in the video you could argue that the first boom was the plane hitting and the second boom was the explosion in the lobby. Which would match what the official story says. But in the second part with the news team, you can clearly hear the plane is still in the air when the first boom is heard. I'd really like an official explanation for this one!



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
This is a clip from the famous Naudet video:-


www.youtube.com...

Self-evidently it was being recorded at the exact same time as the camera on the ground being discussed here. Where is the preliminary sound and evidence of seismic shake before plane impact ?



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Thanks for the link but I could not see anything there about a seismic spike a second or two before plane impact to the North Tower.

Still doesn't answer how camera shake and sound were simultaneous when the WTC was some distance off. Shock wave will travel much faster than sound so there should have been a gap (unless someone gave the camera a slight kick of course).

Why didn't the camera, still on the ground, react similarly when a fully laden Boeing 767 smacked into the Tower ? The passersby reacted to that but not to the first blip.


The initial bomb blasts in the basement weren't as powerful as the final blasts that took the buildings down. The final blasts were the grand finally in order to insure that the buildings would fall.

It's most likely that the sound of a "thud" we hear was from the vibration. The vibration made that blip thud sound. The reason that the camera didn't pick up the plane crash with a vibration is because the plane crash transferred ZERO vibration to the ground as can be told from that link.

If the buildings falling to the ground transferred virtually ZERO vibration to the ground, than a mere plane crash transferred ZERO vibration. The ground level bombs made the vibration.

To people who keep bring up someone kicked the camera, that had already been clearly debunked. If at any time the camera should have been kicked, it should have been when the guy onthe lefts shadow sways back and fourth (left to right etc.)

When the bomb blast vibration is seen/heard, the guy on the lefts shadow is clearly disassociated to the left and the guys leg are still, as in not moving at all.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

This is a clip from the famous Naudet video:-


www.youtube.com...

Self-evidently it was being recorded at the exact same time as the camera on the ground being discussed here. Where is the preliminary sound and evidence of seismic shake before plane impact ?


You're trying to compare oranges and apples.

The video camera footage being discussed in this thread was sitting on the ground subject to direct ground vibration.

The video camera in the Naudet brothers film was being HELD in a guys hands. Obviously the fact that it was held in a guys hands is the reason we don't see the same effect


Plus the Naudet brothers film was further away, not that distance matters when a video camera is being held in a persons hand compared to sitting on the ground subject to direct ground vibration.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
This video shows a huge cloud of smoke 50-60 stories tall rising from the bottom of the world trade towers, only shown live once and never again. It also plays the sounds of the earth quake type blasts that Columbia University recorded from seismographs. It shows smoke also rising from the ground right before the building/s fall.




It's so Evident that bomb's were used. Some people try to say that people only though they heard bombs ground level and debunkers will try to say it was probably just boilers or something else. If a plane crashes into a building that high up, there should be NO explosions on ground level of that building.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker911

Originally posted by Alfie1

This is a clip from the famous Naudet video:-


www.youtube.com...

Self-evidently it was being recorded at the exact same time as the camera on the ground being discussed here. Where is the preliminary sound and evidence of seismic shake before plane impact ?


You're trying to compare oranges and apples.

The video camera footage being discussed in this thread was sitting on the ground subject to direct ground vibration.

The video camera in the Naudet brothers film was being HELD in a guys hands. Obviously the fact that it was held in a guys hands is the reason we don't see the same effect


Plus the Naudet brothers film was further away, not that distance matters when a video camera is being held in a persons hand compared to sitting on the ground subject to direct ground vibration.


I am not sure the Naudet brothers were further away but that is not crucial. Point is you are alleging that there was a detonation at the North Tower and the sound and shock ( by the camera moving ) was recorded by a camera on the ground. This being prior to impact by the plane. It is quite apparent from the Naudet clip that none of the firefighters was alerted by any preliminary explosion or seismic shock.

In fact, seeing that clip, which we all must have done many times, I, unfairly, always get slightly annoyed that they are so casual until the moment of impact.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join