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: 5
83
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post 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.


What is unusual about that ?

There is a fire station across the street from WTC 2 - the "TEN HOUSE" quarters of Ladder 10/Engine 10 .

www.fdnytenhouse.com...

Also had units several block north investigating gas leak at Church & Lispenard - this is the crew Jules Naudet was with when filmed AA11
hit the North Tower.




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

Originally posted by truthseeker911
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.


This post is off your own topic. Finding it too hard to support your original topic ?

There is buckets of video evidence of smoke rising from burning vehicles etc at the base of the towers.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

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.


The Building is going to absorb the impact of the Plane -- as it was designed to do. The "curtain wall" is not load bearing, but it flexes -- being 78 stories above the ground is also going to make the impact of a plane NOT felt. A large bomb that might have been used to cut the core -- which IS imbedded in the ground, is going to show up on a seismograph.

The plane likely didn't even register.

About 100 people coming out and talking about an explosion at the base. So, once again, we have more evidence of a demolition and the Bush Government Theory is not supported.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


OK, so now we've got exploding vehicles instead of exploding light bulbs. It seems to be a game of wack-a-mole. Any and all possible things that COULD explain the event, other than the most obvious: In order to invade two countries for resources and to install the Patriot Act and get rid of the Constitution, the Bush government rigged the building for a controlled demolition.

The owner of the building, makes about $7 Billion in profit, rather than spending about $2 Billion to remove the asbestos -- he took over control for about $147 Million from the Ports Authority who must have obviously been relieved to get rid of this lemon.

The Bush family, which is about to lose a case for billions in fraudulent Federal Notes -- and ENRON, get all the evidence for the case destroyed in Building 7.

Guilliana, got a donation of $100,000, if he would only relocate his Emergency Response Center in Building 7 -- I mean, why would anyone donate that kind of money just to locate a government office?

All those unanswered questions like; why was the scrap metal sold to China for less than a scrap yard in New Jersey was going to pay for it,... everything fits with a cover-up to hid evidence of a controlled demolition.

You can find one or two bits of evidence, that MIGHT support the government theory, but ALL of them have to be true in order for this to be caused by Kerosene, weak under-grade steel, pancake collapse at free-fall, fireballs exploding cars at the base when the Jet Fuel is at the top. The list goes on.

Missing video tapes at the Pentagon, Obstruction of Justice by the Government, the 911 Commission saying the Bush administration obstructed them and the investigation was a farce, the destruction of Radar Records, why Cheney was running 3 drills of planes flying into buildings, why Silverstein doubles the insurance in July, why the responsibility for shooting down planes was changed to ONLY the President, VP and Donald Rumsfeld in July of 2001. Why the Italians created a PROVEN fake video tape of Bin Laden bragging about the attack.

WE don't know all the answers, but ANY weak argument is used as PROOF that everything happened the way BushCo claims -- one coincidence after another. You know, the ONLY time steel buildings fall, the ONLY time a plane disintegrates by crashing into the ground yet it's engine is miles away, the atomization of computers but passports are unburnt,.. the list goes on and on.

The EASIEST explanation is that the Bush administration allowed or rigged the building.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


Thank you for your response. In the link provided to me by truthseeker it is apparent that there is a seismic record of the plane strike to the North Tower but I could not see anything suggesting a slightly previous explosion as he suggests.

As regards eyewitness testimony to physical damage and injuries in the lobby, I don't doubt it. But everything, to my mind, points to burning, fireballs etc. There are many documented cases of terrible burns. Plenty of testimony to fireballs. As a result of penetration of jet fuel from above.

If high explosive had taken the lobby out there would be more than blown out windows to show for it.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 12:59 PM
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.


It doesn't make me wonder -- it was IMPOSSIBLE, that the steel beams were weakened ENOUGH. Remember that the structure below the fire was untouched. The fuel from the Jet burns up in about 15 minutes. There is a difference between temperature and heat -- steal structures transmit heat, so even if the temperature is THEORETICALLY hot enough, it has to be going for hours before it builds up enough heat load.

After the collapse gets going, it is keeping up with the dust and debris -- which means that the lower levels never we crushed by the collapse -- they had to be imploded and cut by charges. If it were an actual pancake collapse, the core would be standing and it would have taken over a minute to collapse. That was a critical flaw in the demolition from my point of view -- I could believe a pancake collapse, but NOT that fast. No way in Hell.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
reply to post by Alfie1
 


OK, so now we've got exploding vehicles instead of exploding light bulbs. It seems to be a game of wack-a-mole. Any and all possible things that COULD explain the event, other than the most obvious: In order to invade two countries for resources and to install the Patriot Act and get rid of the Constitution, the Bush government rigged the building for a controlled demolition.

The owner of the building, makes about $7 Billion in profit, rather than spending about $2 Billion to remove the asbestos -- he took over control for about $147 Million from the Ports Authority who must have obviously been relieved to get rid of this lemon.

The Bush family, which is about to lose a case for billions in fraudulent Federal Notes -- and ENRON, get all the evidence for the case destroyed in Building 7.

Guilliana, got a donation of $100,000, if he would only relocate his Emergency Response Center in Building 7 -- I mean, why would anyone donate that kind of money just to locate a government office?

All those unanswered questions like; why was the scrap metal sold to China for less than a scrap yard in New Jersey was going to pay for it,... everything fits with a cover-up to hid evidence of a controlled demolition.

You can find one or two bits of evidence, that MIGHT support the government theory, but ALL of them have to be true in order for this to be caused by Kerosene, weak under-grade steel, pancake collapse at free-fall, fireballs exploding cars at the base when the Jet Fuel is at the top. The list goes on.

Missing video tapes at the Pentagon, Obstruction of Justice by the Government, the 911 Commission saying the Bush administration obstructed them and the investigation was a farce, the destruction of Radar Records, why Cheney was running 3 drills of planes flying into buildings, why Silverstein doubles the insurance in July, why the responsibility for shooting down planes was changed to ONLY the President, VP and Donald Rumsfeld in July of 2001. Why the Italians created a PROVEN fake video tape of Bin Laden bragging about the attack.

WE don't know all the answers, but ANY weak argument is used as PROOF that everything happened the way BushCo claims -- one coincidence after another. You know, the ONLY time steel buildings fall, the ONLY time a plane disintegrates by crashing into the ground yet it's engine is miles away, the atomization of computers but passports are unburnt,.. the list goes on and on.

The EASIEST explanation is that the Bush administration allowed or rigged the building.


V & A

It seems to me that you have just employed the time-honoured truther tactic of expanding from the particular to the universal when the going gets tough.

To get back on topic: can you please explain how the camera on the ground recorded simultaneously a shake and a sound, allegedly from the WTC some distance off. Point being that the shock wave through the ground would have got there much sooner than sound waves through the air. So, why no gap ?

Why did passersby in the camera on ground situation show no reaction to the alleged prior to impact explosion and seismic shock ?

Why did the Naudet video, shot at the exact same time, indicate that the firefighters had no prior warning of explosion or shock prior to impact?



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1I 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.


The video camera doesn't actually seem to move, it does however feel the vibration from the ground level bomb/s going off. The vibration is coming from the ground so the vibration goes upward.

There would be no reason for the Nadet brothers or the firemen to be alerted by any blasts. We didn't hear any audible blasts in this piece of video evidence (I'm talking about before the plane hit), seemingly the people in this video didn't hear the blasts. The people in this video heard the loud plane flying overhead.

As far as people experiencing a seismic shock, the vibration that occurred in this video wasn't an earth shattering vibration. It seems to have been a vibration that the video camera picked up because it was directly on the ground.

Another thing to, the people in the video had shoes on with rubber bottoms, I'm sure that could further block people from feeling a faint vibration, although the vibration was enough for the video camera to pick up.

Another reason why I say faint vibration, is because the camera never actually moves, it just feels the vibration from beneath it. A video camera would be much more sensitive to pick up a vibration then the human body.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Just dipping in to say that I've been reading this and somewhere there was a comment that said "Looks like the demolitions guy pressed the button too early" as is my habit, I keep a few tabs open and also had this thread that was just posted:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

where THE DAILY TORYGRAPH discusses the new remote-piloted space shuttle.

It struck a chord.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
This post is off your own topic. Finding it too hard to support your original topic ?

There is buckets of video evidence of smoke rising from burning vehicles etc at the base of the towers.


Actually it is further supporting bombs going off ground level. The bomb explosions got more intense further on as they had to be in order for the weight of the towers to collapse itself when the bottom support was blown out.

Smoke from burning vehicles doesn't create that much smoke. The video also shows ground level point of view of a huge smoke cloud going off when the buildings were still standing, not from vehicles but from explosions of bombs.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
"As regards eyewitness testimony to physical damage and injuries in the lobby, I don't doubt it. But everything, to my mind, points to burning, fireballs etc. There are many documented cases of terrible burns. Plenty of testimony to fireballs. As a result of penetration of jet fuel from above."

defensetech.org...

"The MK-77 Mod 5 uses kerosene-based jet fuel and a polystyrene thickener, instead of the older composition of benzene, gasoline, and polystyrene."

So these military incendiary munitions are made from kerosene-based jet fuel. Hmmmm...I wonder what they smell like...



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
In the link provided to me by truthseeker it is apparent that there is a seismic record of the plane strike to the North Tower but I could not see anything suggesting a slightly previous explosion as he suggests.


There is NO seismic record of the plane hitting the North Tower as scientific sources on that website clearly say when the buildings fell virtually no vibration was transferred to the ground, so obviously there would be ZERO transferred vibration from merely a plane hitting the building/s.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker911

Originally posted by Alfie1I 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.


The video camera doesn't actually seem to move, it does however feel the vibration from the ground level bomb/s going off. The vibration is coming from the ground so the vibration goes upward.

There would be no reason for the Nadet brothers or the firemen to be alerted by any blasts. We didn't hear any audible blasts in this piece of video evidence (I'm talking about before the plane hit), seemingly the people in this video didn't hear the blasts. The people in this video heard the loud plane flying overhead.

As far as people experiencing a seismic shock, the vibration that occurred in this video wasn't an earth shattering vibration. It seems to have been a vibration that the video camera picked up because it was directly on the ground.

Another thing to, the people in the video had shoes on with rubber bottoms, I'm sure that could further block people from feeling a faint vibration, although the vibration was enough for the video camera to pick up.

Another reason why I say faint vibration, is because the camera never actually moves, it just feels the vibration from beneath it. A video camera would be much more sensitive to pick up a vibration then the human body.


Thank you for the reply but you still haven't explained why the sound recorded on the camera is simultaneous with the camera shake. This could only occur if the event causing it was local to the camera. Shock waves through ground moving so much faster than sound through the air.

I have to say that when you start to claim everyone must have been wearing rubber soled shoes that smacks of a desperate last ditch stand.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker911

Originally posted by Alfie1
In the link provided to me by truthseeker it is apparent that there is a seismic record of the plane strike to the North Tower but I could not see anything suggesting a slightly previous explosion as he suggests.


There is NO seismic record of the plane hitting the North Tower as scientific sources on that website clearly say when the buildings fell virtually no vibration was transferred to the ground, so obviously there would be ZERO transferred vibration from merely a plane hitting the building/s.


This is the link you gave me :-

911review.com...

Does it not show a seismic spike, identified as " First Impact" at 08.46.26 ?

i.e. North Tower ?



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Thank you for the reply but you still haven't explained why the sound recorded on the camera is simultaneous with the camera shake. This could only occur if the event causing it was local to the camera. Shock waves through ground moving so much faster than sound through the air.

I have to say that when you start to claim everyone must have been wearing rubber soled shoes that smacks of a desperate last ditch stand.



Again the man on the left, his leg closest to the camera is still and to the left as can be seen from the shadow. Showing that the camera wasn't bumped.

I mentioned that the sound on the camera is probably the vibration that the video camera felt. It's most likely not an audible sound carried through the air, but a sound made from the vibration. The microphone recorder felt the vibration and it made a "thud" sound.

It doesn't just have top happen local to the camera. Whether a video camera is with audio is used or just a plain microphone is used and they are set on the ground, they will both pick up ground vibrations. The theory of someone supposedly kicking the camera doesn't work as can be seen by the screenshot pictures.

The guy to the left would have been the only person to have had access to touch the camera but his shadow shows he was to the left and the shadow shows his legs were still during the vibration.

I never made the claim that "everyone" was wearing rubber soled shoes. If you look back you will see I said "the people in the video had shoes on with rubber bottoms".

You mention multiple times why the Naudet brothers and the firemen didn't feel the ground move beneath them, the vibration wasn't earth shattering but it was enough for the video camera to pick it up.

You claimed twice now that I tried to make "desperation posts" which is quite amusing but not true. Back to the shoes, I was mentioning that beyond the faint vibration, rubber soled shoes would further impede people from feeling a faint vibration. If people were to feel a faint vibration from the ground, barefoot would give them better odds of feeling it.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
This is the link you gave me :-

911review.com...

Does it not show a seismic spike, identified as " First Impact" at 08.46.26 ?

i.e. North Tower ?


Well based on the information from that same site, it seems that it's quite impossible for that to have been the first impact hit recorded on the graph. Contacting Columbia University may be further helpful into finding more info.

What they have listed as the "first impact" was probably actually the ground level bomb blast going off. Based on the fact that they say the towers falling to the ground transferred very little vibration to the ground. So it would be seemingly impossible for the plane crash so high up to transfer any ground vibration.

I don't know the actual math work here but picture the towers falling, that was a big crash but it only registered very little ground vibration. The plane hit the towers very high up, and a plane crash is literally nothing compared to the building falling.

So the "first impact" is more than likely the first ground level bomb blasts going off. This can be backed up by witnesses saying that the building shook like an earthquake then the plane explosion happened. A plane wouldn't shake the building.

"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."

911review.com...



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseeker911
 


Excuse me folks, I know you all like to ignore certain realites and facts that pose an uncomfortable shake up of your beliefs, but maybe you can answer my questions:

Where are the blast victims from this "ground level" blast/bomb/whatever prior to the impact?

Why are there burn victims and burnt to a crisp victims, and no blasted apart victims?

Are you aware that high power explosives have BLAST damage and not burn people leaving behind a strong smell of jetfuel everywhere? Also refer to my post earlier. And stop ignoring or dodging my questions.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseeker911
 


Like all the 1001 truther smoking guns I have been referred to before, this one splutters and gasps into non-existence.

Simultaneous sound and vibration to a camera on the ground can only mean a local cause. If it detected an explosion at a distance then there must be a gap between sound and vibration because of the greatly different speeds of shock waves through the ground and sound waves through the air.

It is apparent from the camera on ground video that no-one gave a damn about the alleged earlier explosion and seismic shock. Despite truthseekers allegation that they were wearing rubber-soled shoes.

The Naudet video, filmed at exactly the same time, proves that an earlier explosion and seismic shock has no basis in reality.

I am not convinced about speculation relating to shadows in the original video. Someone can put me right but I did not see the camera at all, only it's shadow. How certain can anyone be that no-one, out of shot, gave the camera a nudge with their foot ?



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by truthseeker911
 


Excuse me folks, I know you all like to ignore certain realites and facts that pose an uncomfortable shake up of your beliefs, but maybe you can answer my questions:

Where are the blast victims from this "ground level" blast/bomb/whatever prior to the impact?

Why are there burn victims and burnt to a crisp victims, and no blasted apart victims?

Are you aware that high power explosives have BLAST damage and not burn people leaving behind a strong smell of jetfuel everywhere? Also refer to my post earlier. And stop ignoring or dodging my questions.


Are you seriously asking why there aren't any "blown apart" victims that spoke to t.v. reporters that day.

Obviously the "victims" from the basement level bombs died of that result. Moreover not many people would have been in the basement, it's not a public hot spot hangout area.

Explosive blasts can vary well burn people. Explosions can create fire blasts. There are many different types of explosives. It's scientific fact that nano thermite was used in the bomb blastings, and thermite would create lots more fire and burning than compared to blasts without nano thermite.

I'll have to call you out for lying on your last statement, I have never dodged or ignored anybody's posts.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1Like all the 1001 truther smoking guns I have been referred to before, this one splutters and gasps into non-existence.



I am not part of any "truther" organization or group. Nor is this thread about "1001" other subjects. I am going to start sounding like a broken record because you fail to see that I already replied to your statements.



Originally posted by Alfie1Simultaneous sound and vibration to a camera on the ground can only mean a local cause.



I mentioned that the sound on the camera is probably the vibration that the video camera felt. It's most likely not an audible sound carried through the air, but a sound made from the vibration. The microphone recorder felt the vibration and it made a "thud" sound.

It doesn't just have top happen local to the camera. Whether a video camera is with audio is used or just a plain microphone is used and they are set on the ground, they will both pick up ground vibrations. The theory of someone supposedly kicking the camera doesn't work as can be seen by the screenshot pictures.

The guy to the left would have been the only person to have had access to touch the camera but his shadow shows he was to the left and the shadow shows his legs were still during the vibration.



Originally posted by Alfie1It is apparent from the camera on ground video that no-one gave a damn about the alleged earlier explosion and seismic shock.



Again the ground level bomb explosion wasn't heard by the people, either because it wasn't audible enough from where they were, the plane's loud noise masked the ground level bomb sound, or both. Obviously the ground level bomb going off, the vibration was very faint but enough for the camera to pick up.



Originally posted by Alfie1Despite truthseekers allegation that they were wearing rubber-soled shoes.



So you are denying that this guy is wearing rubber soled sneakers in this video screenshot picture? As well as some of the people walking by in the video?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Originally posted by Alfie1The Naudet video, filmed at exactly the same time, proves that an earlier explosion and seismic shock has no basis in reality.



Except for the fact that hundreds of witness that were there said they heard explosions coming from the basement then only after they heard the plane crash above. The ground level vibration isn't going to be picked up on video when someone is holding the video camera in their hands.



[edit on 23-5-2010 by truthseeker911]



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join