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.

 

New 9/11(NY) footage, taken by Steve Vigilante, released last month(Warning Graphic Language)

page: 11
68
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 

As mentioned earlier, I have an unexplained feeling that the video is genuine. I'll gladly change my stance if I feel it's appropriate. I can see how it may appear that I'm defending him but I'd like to think I'm being objective about it as I've thrown stuff out there for people to interpret while giving my own opinion and more than once have reflected on the information that was replied to me. Specifically in regards to the post you replied to, I just felt like the information posted was shifting back and forth and it just rubbed me the wrong way. I'm just looking for the truth and trying to look at all possible sides of the story. I don't know the answers to your questions but they're certainly fair ones.


reply to post by InterestedUK and post by InterestedUK
 

Isn't their placement a little erratic for squibs? Isn't it odd that they all come out of existing holes and most from existing areas of smoke?


reply to post by Prove_It_NOW
 

I wasn't sure what you were saying and was just supplying information.



reply to post by weedwhacker
 

You appear knowledgeable on audio issues. How do you think the fact that he's inside a building should be affecting the sound, or muted/masked sound, of the approaching plane (or other object for some)? I don't think I've seen you address that question.




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Listen to Jon Steward and Tonly Blair:
www.thedailyshow.com...

911 is still 9 years later the excuse for invading any country they please...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
[atsimg]











files.abovetopsecret.com...[/atsimg]


edit on 15-9-2010 by KIZZZY because: add




edit on 15-9-2010 by KIZZZY because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 


Great respond. Thanks


I had a opinion that you might have known this person personally heheh.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
It saddens me how ridiculous this has become. Someone posts an admittedly interesting but very sad piece of footage and instantly dozens of clowns jump out of the woodwork trying to find evidence of conspiracies in it.

Why the hell would this be faked or altered for some sinister reason? why would sounds or dialog be added later? why? it's illogical and just plain dumb to suggest this kind of nonsense. It's right up there with finding the high quality of the picture 'suspicious'

Some people need to calm down and stop living in an idiotic conspiracy filled fantasy-land that has very little similarity to the real world.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
This video seems raw, I know some suspect it. Even if it is edited, it seems to match up with the dozens of other videos I have seen on 9/11. What I noticed different on this video was the sound of the second plane hitting, most videos don't have this level of sound, the whhoosh and ka-boom part.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
SEISMIC 'SPIKES'

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

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31." www.rense.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by angus1745
It saddens me how ridiculous this has become. Someone posts an admittedly interesting but very sad piece of footage and instantly dozens of clowns jump out of the woodwork trying to find evidence of conspiracies in it.


Or maybe they questions everything they see about 911?

Maybe you are on a conspiracy site?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I have a question for all of those who are claiming that the second airplane crash was used as a diversionary tactic to cover up / mask the "explosions" that were allegedly taking place at that very moment in tower 1 .

What was used as a diversionary tactic to cover up / mask the "explosions" that took place in tower 2 ?

Squibs were seen in tower one , so they timed the plane that hit tower 2 to coincide with the squibs , in the hopes of diverting everyones attention from the squibs ?

Guess what people , squibs were also seen coming from tower 2 , later on .

What was used to cover for that ?

Can anyone see how foolish and desperate this crap sounds ?

But , keep reaching guys . It's entertaining , if nothing else .

It's called common sense people .



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
People will see whatever they want to see from this. Those who work on the basis that a huge event must have a huge explanation will start picking it apart for edits, timing errors, sound distortions, and a zoomed in image of Cheney at the controls of the plane.

The rest of us will recognize it as just another image of a day when fanatics hijacked planes full of fuel and flew them into buildings which then burned and collapsed. A day that changed this country forever.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Why is there no major sign of fire or smoke on the side facing building two after the impact? There is hardly any damage. Probably because there wasn't a major shock wave in that direction. The plain hit at an angle leading away from building two. The plain just about mist building two.



Yeah I saw that. In that case, wouldn't it mean that most of the jet fuel would have escaped through the fire ball at the end side that the plane was angled at? and if so, I really can't understand why that would be the first tower to fall.


Less jet fuel due to angle of strike, less burning time, though first one to fall??

The other one was burning much longer. Common sense would have that one falling first no?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


I think you might be trying to make more out of this than it really is. As for why the man held on to it so long before releasing it. I have read remarks about others filming that day, almost all of them said the same thing. They captured what they could that day, but never watched it. The trauma of living through it that day was enough, watching it is too much.
as for questions about clarity and the like, this was captured by a professional camera man. Of course his equipment and techniques would have been superior to the everyday job that grabbed their home camera. The view from the 29th floor and the first street set up are obviously done with a tripod or at least good bracing. Notice how steady the shot is, panning is mostly smooth and controlled. Further down the street, it's a little more shaky, which would be normal under the conditions.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar

Originally posted by angus1745
It saddens me how ridiculous this has become. Someone posts an admittedly interesting but very sad piece of footage and instantly dozens of clowns jump out of the woodwork trying to find evidence of conspiracies in it.


Or maybe they questions everything they see about 911?

Maybe you are on a conspiracy site?


Even though this is a conspiracy site, I believe the site's slogan is "deny ignorance." What I've been seeing people doing every day is "embracing ignorance" in the hopes that they can prove an idea they had. A scientific approach is not one where a person has an idea and attempts to support. Real science is when someone has an idea and tries to disprove it. When an idea cannot be disproven after rigorous analysis and tests, it is eventually accepted as a reputable fact.

The problem most of the conspiracy people run into is that they have an idea, for example demolitions, and instead of looking at all the evidence and trying to find thing explosives wouldn't explain, they look only for the signs that a demolition has (squibs, for example in this example). Practically ignoring all other evidence, such as testimonies, the plane damage, the fires, and the structural integrity, the conspiracy theorists just see the evidence that "fits" their idea.

People like me, who have been not even looking into this from very long, have an unbiased approach when it comes to this. I look at all the evidence and think, "What's the most likely cause for all this?" Then I come up with an idea based on research and look for reasons to not believe it. All the conspiracy theorists have been doing to disprove the official story have been to take minute details and stick them on a billboard with their idea on it, just tossing the rest out as "distractions" and "cleverly placed disinformation." There is no scientific backing for the belief that these things happened, but they believe it none-the-less.

On another note, after 9 years, wouldn't at least one well-respected institution of engineering be able to conclusively prove that the planes didn't subsequently cause the collapse of the towers? Since all I've been able to find are journals that "support" the official story of what happened based on the behavior of the materials in the towers and the circumstances, including WTC 7, I am inclined to accept that what really happened, happened. There is no logical reason whatsoever to believe in any of the conspiracies that dispute what really destroyed the towers.

This is not to say that I do not think a conspiracy is not possible. I firmly believe that it is very easily possible that the US "let" 9/11 happen, or even played a hand in carrying it out. I just cannot find any reason to dis-believe the reasons behind the towers' demises.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto

Originally posted by trouble_every_day
reply to post by Ketzer22
 


Yep, you're not the only one who thinks this is very suspicious.
~1:58, multiple locations around the tower over two levels or so.
Maybe enough to initiate a collapse due to the weight from above...who knows?


Wow...I didn't see that. You are right. Why would squibs from one building come out as if detonated seconds before the 2nd plane strikes a separate building? Coincidence? I think not. Whoever is behind this knew the second plane was incoming and detonated charges under the cover of the 2nd plane noise.


Is it not conceivable that when the first strike occurred, many windows were blown out, including many of those facing the other tower? If one can at least agree to that possibility, then the explanation of why the smoke appears to change immediately before the second strike becomes simply a matter of physics. The strike to the second tower yielded a very large fireball and pressure wave which in turn, washed through the now open windows on the floors impacted in the first tower causing the change in the plumes of smoke coming from the first tower. The other aspect is simply a matter of distance the sound traveled from the event, to the location in which the video and audio were recorded. It took just a second or so, for the sound of the second strike to reach the cameraman and therefore, would make it appear that the plumes of smoke moved just prior to the strike on the second tower rather than in near synchronicity to the event.

Conclusion: no apparent attempt to cover-up any of the events shown in this particular video.

ESV



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conluceo

Originally posted by spy66

Why is there no major sign of fire or smoke on the side facing building two after the impact? There is hardly any damage. Probably because there wasn't a major shock wave in that direction. The plain hit at an angle leading away from building two. The plain just about mist building two.



Yeah I saw that. In that case, wouldn't it mean that most of the jet fuel would have escaped through the fire ball at the end side that the plane was angled at? and if so, I really can't understand why that would be the first tower to fall.


Less jet fuel due to angle of strike, less burning time, though first one to fall??

The other one was burning much longer. Common sense would have that one falling first no?


All i can say is that i think you are on the right path of thinking. The big fire ball you see outside building two is the fuel going up in smoke. The angle the airliner hit the building at will tell you where the blast force is going to go. A blast always takes the easiest rout. In this case out the sides where the fire ball is being observed.

Why the building came down at all... Is the big mystery here


I also see that some people can't see anything odd with this event at all.

Some say: Airliners hit both towers, hot burning fires and than they implode. Yeah nothing wrong with that at all. Because that is how it happened.

The airliners are the big smoke screen to get people confused.




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I rarely speak of 9-11 anymore because it just pains me inside. I will not comment on this video for it is another ploy and inconsiderate attempt to give more garbage into the can of bull that has been filled since the "OS" came out. MOSSAD, CIA, and very elite people committed this act and God will be the one to hold these people accountable. For I have realized that the majority of people are weak minded, stressed, and distracted by so many other forces that past incidents like this just become folklore. I will be saddened and just await the day that the judgment for these people comes and finally justice will be served to them. God bless those who seek the truth and those that were loss in a lie to restrict the rest of us. Alas, I still feel their is hope for US to gain justice in this world...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ketzer22
Idk if this has been brought up yet, but in the footage right before the plane hits you can see a bunch of plumes of smoke shoot out of the other tower. What makes them look like charges as opposed to fire smoke is they appear suddenly and dissapate quickly. Also, the timing is quite suspect, considering it happens right before the plane strikes so people think the explosion is the sound of the plane hitting.

A shock wave from the impact changed the pressure around the building, pulling smoke out for an instant. I see no time problems. Why is there only one video that has a frame with a plane half in the building? It happens to be the one that looks like the nosecone comes out the other side.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by Ketzer22
Idk if this has been brought up yet, but in the footage right before the plane hits you can see a bunch of plumes of smoke shoot out of the other tower. What makes them look like charges as opposed to fire smoke is they appear suddenly and dissapate quickly. Also, the timing is quite suspect, considering it happens right before the plane strikes so people think the explosion is the sound of the plane hitting.

A shock wave from the impact changed the pressure around the building, pulling smoke out for an instant. I see no time problems. Why is there only one video that has a frame with a plane half in the building? It happens to be the one that looks like the nosecone comes out the other side.


LoL.

Why dont you see the smoke that is already out side the building move by the shock wave? You dont see that until after.

If you know so much about shock waves: why is most of the debris on the right side of the building. The shock wave blew out most of the side of the building where you see the big fire ball. There is only two small holes close to the edge of building two. And that edge is not even lined up with building 1.

A shock wave must first pass through building two,, cross the open space before it can enter building 1. Ant this shock wave must be strong enough to generate the pressure needed to eject the puffs of smoke we see at different floors all around the building simultaneously.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by earthdude

Originally posted by Ketzer22
Idk if this has been brought up yet, but in the footage right before the plane hits you can see a bunch of plumes of smoke shoot out of the other tower. What makes them look like charges as opposed to fire smoke is they appear suddenly and dissapate quickly. Also, the timing is quite suspect, considering it happens right before the plane strikes so people think the explosion is the sound of the plane hitting.

A shock wave from the impact changed the pressure around the building, pulling smoke out for an instant. I see no time problems. Why is there only one video that has a frame with a plane half in the building? It happens to be the one that looks like the nosecone comes out the other side.


LoL.

Why dont you see the smoke that is already out side the building move by the shock wave? You dont see that until after.

If you know so much about shock waves: why is most of the debris on the right side of the building. The shock wave blew out most of the side of the building where you see the big fire ball. There is only two small holes close to the edge of building two. And that edge is not even lined up with building 1.

A shock wave must first pass through building two,, cross the open space before it can enter building 1.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


I watched it 5 times and it looks like normal physics at work. I blew up lots of those green plastic army men with firecrackers as a kid. So yes, I am a shock wave expert. LOL Don't use the sound as a factor. It took time to travel to the camera and also the soundtrack may be off.


edit on 15-9-2010 by earthdude because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31

rotflmfao

really. actually proves? without a question of doubt, huh?

is there free shipping to canada of your 'brand' of kool aid ?

and, is there a difference between an original story and an official story? aboriginals may like to offer their opinion on the difference...



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join