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.
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 ?
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]
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.