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.


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

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Alfie1I 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 ?

The post I made earlier clearly shows it wasn't either of the 2 guys next to the video camera. Since the last possible debunking theory of this video is that someone bumped the camera, my presentation earlier is important because it clearly shows it wasn't either of the 2 guys.

The closest guy on the left had his shadow clearly to the left, and his shadow shows he was perfectly still when the bomb vibration happened. For a different person to have bumped the camera, their shadow would have HAD to have been visible.

At 7:06 of the video someone walks by on the sidewalk, you can see their shadow and they are at least a few feet away from the video camera, for someone from behind to have touched the camera with a foot they would have had to have their shadow even further up front than the person walking by.

Furthermore, if someone hit the camera with their foot by accident, we would have seen the video cameras shadow move even if just a little bit the shadow would have moved.

No one touched the video camera.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by truthseeker911]

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by truthseeker911

Blast victims? Like blown apart persons? No, I see and read about plenty of severely burned people, drenched in jet fuel and set on fire with skin hanging off with severe burns, but strangely nothing about people blown apart by this "powerful" basement bomb. And again you forget that there were numerous people in the elevator shafts that got burnt to a crisp. Again, you fail to acknowledge that. A Perhaps it is YOU who should read the accounts and see what really happened to whom, and not what you think happened.

yes explosive blasts CAN burn people, however the detonation of high power explosives has a very small fireball that does not last long enough to cause burns to many people farther away from the detonation site. A very very very very very large explosive exploding can have a very very very very large fireball, BUT the people around it touched by the fireball would have been blasted apart by the shockwave and blast effects of the detonation well before getting burned up. A powerful bomb's energy is mostly translated into the blasting effect, and not thermal radiation. (except for the A-bomb, but thats a whole different case) If you stand next to a stack of TNT and it detonates, you are going to get blasted apart into smithereens. You arent going to get much of a thermal burn equivalent to getting caught in a jetfuel fireball from a high power blast though.

Did you forget the victims in the elevators? The burnt to a crisp ones? Explain how the heck can a mega powerful blast in the basement can somehow fry the people inside the elevator, but not destroy the car itself? Do you even know what the effects are of a bomb? What are the blast effects of a bomb?

And NO! There was no scientific fact of nano-thermite being ever found. (Just saying or thinking Jones' "paper" is "scientific" makes me want to retch
) You do not add thermite to a bomb and expect it to magically set things on fire.
That is not how thermite works. You use incendiaries to create fires, not stick thermite into a bomb and blow it up and hope it somehow stays together long enough to burn objects or people . Also pray tell, what exact purpose was this special basement bomb? It didnt do anything to the structure. The building started collapsing from the impact point, and the cores remained standing for about 15 seconds after intial collapses. So what point was this bomb for?

Also I didnt lie. I've had the question up for a while and nobody was answering it, including you until I had to ask you directly so you had to respond. It was an open question. Someone could have answered it, but nobody was. So yes someone was dodging and ignoring it until I had to direct it to someone to get it noticed.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:00 PM
So a quick Google search shows that sound, or any other wave, will travel faster in a solid. (I was unsure of this initially).

It takes about 5 seconds for sound to travel a mile through air and it is roughly 4 times faster in water. I didn't get any numbers on how fast it would typically go through the ground, but I think we could easily see it would be even faster.

Knowing this, I think it is fair to say that the camera "vibration" came from the initial impact. The sound we hear from this first vibration is most certainly from the mic picking up the vibration. I still find it odd that the video would distort from this but that is another issue.

It does appear the camera is about 1/2 mile away, which does put the time between the first vibration and the plane impact about 2.5 seconds apart. This makes the most sense.

I know we have a scientist saying that the collapsing towers produced minimal ground shake, but "minimal" is not a measurement, and subject to context and interpretation. It would be minimal to someone standing on the ground, but not undetectable to sensitive seismic equipment (or even a microphone on a camera sitting on the ground).

We really do have seismic graphs showing the impacts, so we know there was at least SOME ground vibration. Columbia Universities data should be all we need to determine if there was earth shake before the first impact.

I do think smaller explosions could go undetected by seismic equipment, but any blast large enough to vibrate the camera in this video would certainly be picked up.

This is a great video, but all information, whether it supports our theories or not, must be taken into account. At first glance I thought this might prove the "bombs before impact" theory, but now I can see how it is more likely that the camera behavior can be explained in other ways.

Does this mean the "bombs before impact" theory has been debunked? NO! It only means that this one piece of evidence does not support the theory.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by TattarrattaT]

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by TattarrattaT

I appreciate the fact that you have critically examined this.

You seem to agree with me that the WTC appears about half a mile from the grounded camera ( a reasonable guesstimate anyway ).

My understanding and information is that sound in air will travel at approx 330 metres per second whereas shock waves through the earth will travel at 3 to 8 kilometers per second according to density and elasticity.

At a difference of half a mile then we should expect the shock wave through earth to take about an eighth of a second but the sound wave through air about 2/1/2 seconds. So, there should have been a clear gap of at least 2 seconds between the the camera shaking and the recorded sound.

Taken in conjunction with the indifference of the passersby in the video and the obvious unawareness of the firefighters in the Naudet video to anything prior to the plane impact I cannot take this seriously.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:36 PM

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.

I'm glad to see you can have a brain, when it comes to this subject at least. Just noticed the "DO NOT Feed The Trolls!" sign. I will cease and desist now.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

There are many reports and evidence of people being badly burned, but no where is there records of their being jet fuel on any of the people. If people were blown apart by a basement bomb, they wouldn't be around to talk about it.

Now also, another reason why is because not many people would have reason to be in the basement. So there only perhaps a handful of people in the basement at the time. If their had been a restaurant in the basement then there would be more first hand people talking about blasts in the basement that they saw.

I have never failed to acknowledge people saw a fireball coming out of the basement, I have also never failed to acknowledge that the windows in the lobby were blown out like a bomb had blown up.

We can argue all day about bombs and fireballs, but if bombs are set to go off with thermite included with them or near them, the fire is going to be greatly increased, much more than a regular bomb. Not that there is only 1 type of regular bomb, there are many different types.

You're making way to many claims like you seem to know exactly what the bomb didn't do. You can't predict what a bomb could have or couldn't have done. There's no way that you can say a bomb blast would have taken out the elevator completely.

Numerous scientists have verified nano thermite being present in the world trade center dust.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:05 PM

Originally posted by TattarrattaT
I think it is fair to say that the camera "vibration" came from the initial impact. The sound we hear from this first vibration is most certainly from the mic picking up the vibration. I still find it odd that the video would distort from this but that is another issue.
[edit on 23-5-2010 by TattarrattaT]

I can't believe someone bumped the video with their foot because the shadows prove otherwise.

The plane crash impact noise doesn't make sense either. If the vibration was caused by the planes impact, then the video camera surely would vibrated much more during the explosion. The vibration of the planes explosion would have been much greater than the planes impact into the building.

But the video camera was never disturbed with a vibration a 2nd time.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:06 PM
Sorry, didn't read the whole thread, lack of time right now, but...

Besides the obvious, and pointed out fact, that sound takes a great deal of time to travel ( anyone who has watched a thunder storm, seeing the flash first, then much later hearing the sound, will have a fundemental understanding of this ) , what does the video prove?

That the terrorists planted bombs also, to maximize the effect?

How is Bush implicated?

*edited for grammar, and probably still not quite right

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Jimea]

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:08 PM
The evidence is here that the 3 WTC buildings were controlled demolitions. How much more scientific proof do you really need to see the truth...

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by truthseeker911
The evidence is here that the 3 WTC buildings were controlled demolitions. How much more scientific proof do you really need to see the truth...

This is a typical truther manoevre, as per Vitriol & Angst, when you can't continue to hack your own thread lob in everything else you can think of as a diversion.

Unless you can pursue and substantiate something all is hot air and you are going nowhere.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by truthseeker911
The evidence is here that the 3 WTC buildings were controlled demolitions. How much more scientific proof do you really need to see the truth...

This is a typical truther manoevre, as per Vitriol & Angst, when you can't continue to hack your own thread lob in everything else you can think of as a diversion.

Unless you can pursue and substantiate something all is hot air and you are going nowhere.

That's really funny in the context in which you lump everyone into "truther groups".

Actually it's quite the opposite, I have been responding to every subject on this thread. I'm not diverting anything, the law of physics don't lie, the video is further proof that explosives are what actually took down the 3 WTC buildings backing up this video catching the ground level bomb vibration.

That last debunking theory that you could come up with was someone kicked the camera which it's very evident that nobody ever touched the camera thanks to the shadows as visual reference.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:41 PM
reply to post by Chadwickus

But there was a 4 second delay between the camera getting affected by the blast and the plane crash sound. Sound travels at 343 meters per second in the air, and therefore the camera problem can't be the shockwave.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:44 PM
Perhaps shockwave from the plane passing by?

Just trying to bring in all possibilities...

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Jimea]

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:45 PM
I'm a bit skeptical of the veracity of this video.

Although I do believe 9/11 was an inside job.

My concern about the camera footage (at 6:38 in the OP) showing the peoples feet on the sidewalk is because of a few reasons. I'll list them below.

1-No one else walking by the camera picking up this "Boom" at the same time it reaches the camera reacts to it, no jumping, flinching, stopping in thier tracks ect.

2- The two voices heard during this low camera shot (supposedly the cameras owner and a friend or bystander) sound way too loud, as if they were added in later.

3- When the jet sound finally stops the camera is picked up, pointed at the towers, and already there is too much black and grey smoke, way above the towers, leading me to believe this show was taken a good minute or two AFTER the crash and the audio was tampered with. The "boom" sounds like the old file cabinet slam, and again the only Clear voices you hear seem somewhat over acted, but still calm, as almost read from a script.

So how could this have been done you ask?

Here is one scenario, the most likely.

Camera tripod guy, gets some footage a minute or two before what we are shown, but doesn't show it. After he realizes the gravity of the situation he places his camera on the ground.

This is where the scene your analyzing begins.

People are already moving quickly not saying a word, smoke is way to high, no fireball from a crash, one would imagine they'd see if he did pick the camera up and point it at the Towers 5 seconds after the plane hits as this video implies.

Again starting with his late timeline, a boom is added, voices are added to the video, the sounds of the plane approaching are added (odd you never do hear the actual "plane crash", the plane approach sounds seem to me like an ordinary low flyby of a commercial plane.

In my conclusion this video well from 6:38 on is very dubious, and all the sounds just don't pass the smell test, imo.

I'm not discounting a bomb went off in the basement, we do have a video of smoke rising from the bottom of the tower, and ALOT of it, as well as the testimony of the Latino man who worked in the sub basements.

It's just the confusion of the morning and the when did the fireball hit the lobby before or after the plane crash is still up in the air. With ALL the witnesses saying a fireball blew out from the elvator shaft, moments after the plane crash I have to believe that DID happen. But I do believe there was a seperate even(explosion) in the basements to weaken to under infrastructure of the Comlex. Again though the timelines are jumbled as the chaos of the event will mess up anyones memory.

But I don't think the 6:38 video in the original post captures the basement or lobby bomb event.

The video just doesn't seem right to me for the above reasons.

I DO NOT think this video is the smoking gun by any stretch of the imagination. This is just my opinion of course, and I respect every elses opinions on this video clip.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Nola213]

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:40 PM
reply to post by truthseeker911

ok have read all the posts , then I looked at the vid from the beggining,firstly many eye wittnesses and first responders seem to dicount he bomb theory ,

THEORY.... the bomb theory seems to be mentioned amongst (if at all) those a bit further away....

In the vdeo go to 7 mins, watch the woman in the red top enter stage right, and walk right to left,at the time of the noise of the plane going over, just after the camera (shockwave glitch) , she looks very quickly to the right , over her right shoulder, as if towards the sound source of something about to hit you , very startled looking.

However when we see the camera picked up the wtc is in fact ahead of her , NOT over her right shoulder ..

Oservation.........the woman in red , as i shall call her , is in fact startled by the massive reflection/echo of the shockwave/ blast being reflected down adjacent streets and off/through the buildings/ground back towards her,

In the vid when looking at wtc the buiding has already been hit..I also do not think it captures a bomb in the lobby at all?In fact I think that is stretching the title of the thread

Could the reports of a bomb(s) , actually be in fact the reporting of the report of the blast being reflected off buildings , appearing as multiple echoes , and in the confusion being taken as multipleblasts?

edit to add , these echoes could then put into doubt any reliability in using the sound /wave to predict anything due to the possibility the sound heard did not take the direct route ?distance variation

[edit on 23-5-2010 by gambon]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by gambon]

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:47 PM
This isn't evidence. All of these cases can be explained through natural chimneying of the smoke and fire down through the elevator shafts due to the increased pressure from the above floors. Leave it alone and let the 343 rest in peace along with the other lost souls.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:17 PM
reply to post by Nola213

The video is authentic. Here are 2 more extended video versions from the youtube account

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:18 PM

Bet you wouldnt be so keen to "let it go" if it was one of your parents or family members killed that day..

Remember, the only reason there was an investigation was due to the family members of those murdered demanding an investigation....

Bush and Cheney resisted, taking your approach of "let it go..poor lost souls "etc ....

Over half the 9/11 Commission dont believe their own findings.....why would you??

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:20 PM
Sounds plausible, though it almost sound likes it's just something falling over.

But it could definitely be a bomb.

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 07:20 PM
Sounds plausible, though it almost sound likes it's just something falling over.

But it could definitely be a bomb.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in