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: 12
68
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic_al

because we've seen so many tower collapses, haven't we? Just like a regular ole collapse due to a jetliner striking a World Trade Center-sized tower. Seen this many times before, happens all the time, what's the big deal?

I am very glad not to have the same disconnect from logic that many of my fellow ATS possess.

Wake up, it's time to die!




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


Yes the sound might be of. But not the blast it self. You can see where the blast went out from the building. It went out on the right side. That tells you where your shock wave went. Because when you look at the side facing building one there is hardly any damage. And if you look at where the damage is on building 2 compare to the big gap in building one. You would need some magic to be able to make your blast wave reach that spot with such a force, to generate enough power to blow smoke out of building 1 without disturbing the smoke already outside the building.

When we blasted doors in the Army with C4. We stood right beside the door against the wall. right beside the blast. That's because the blast deflected straight out. Sometimes we got hit by the rubber band. That was because the rubber band we had taped to the C4 cord hit the wall on the opposite side and hit us. A shock wave or a blast don't turn corners. They move in a straight line.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Great video quality, amazing sound, but it is to bad he didn't capture the plane hitting #2. Any major event in history has conspiracy theories attached to it, unfortunately the most obvious reason is usually the correct reason.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:37 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. 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)




There is something in what you say about the area where the second 'plane hit, and it entered the building at a diagonal taking it further to the right of the South tower. There would be some delay though in the sound, and probably a shockwave, but also an air blast wave, and I don't see any air blow deflection on the puffs coming out of the North tower, they just come straight out. Also, they are not just smoke puffs, there is dusty debris as well. I don't know how far away the camera was from the towers, the time delay might well be shorter than the video indicates.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stuship
* * * * Any major event in history has conspiracy theories attached to it, unfortunately the most obvious reason is usually the correct reason.


Well said. Occam's razor at its best.

I watched the events on TV that morning. When the towers fell I also knew that "the most obvious reason is usually the correct reason". And that's why I questioned the OS even before it was announced. The speed with which the core elements of the OS were assembled (pre-assembled?) eroded the OS's credibility all the more. Then, Bush/Cheney's failure and refusal to immediately initiate the crucial investigation, and then their refusal to testify separately and under oath, sealed the deal for me. You all known the rest of the story.

When will the true perps be brought to justice and stripped of their positions of power, comfort, and privilege? It's long overdue. Those who aid them in diverting and delaying the search for truth in this matter deserve the same consequences that will eventually come to them.

Back to my point. I couldn't agree more with your stated principle.


edit on 9/15/2010 by dubiousone because: Clarification and spelling.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I love the way a post I made and put a lot of time into just goes ignored by the ATS'ers posting here. Instead of reading it and thinking about it, then responding, every person has simply continued bickering over pointless tidbits surrounding the video.

As it stands, I DID see the smoke jut to the side just as the plane hit. I watched it and re-watched it many times to make sure. The smoke that was already outside the building jutted to the right, then it ceased for a moment as the smoke inside the building was disrupted. It proceeded to continue smoking like normal after there was time for things to settle from the shock.

As I keep on saying, from all the evidence I've seen, the buildings look like they collapsed for the reasons the O/S says they did. This does not mean I support the entire O/S! Just the part that explains the collapse of the buildings.

I am getting quickly tired of the repetitive nature of many here on ATS who simply say (in simplified terms) "I can't understand it, so it must not be true." It is a FACT that just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's impossible. Look at gravity. Does anyone in their right mind truly understand gravity? We know it exists, and that it does things, but we have no clue why. Same principle here.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Conluceo
 


" I really can't understand why that would be the first tower to fall. "

Maybe , just maybe , because the second plane hit at a much lower floor level . Therefore , the support columns in tower 2 were challenged with supporting a much heavier load after being compromised .



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Yes. The angle which the plain hits building 2 at, plays a big role on where the energy will travel. We can see that the right side of building two is getting the worst of it.

For the sound wave or blast wave to reach building 1 it must first travel through the building two towards the left side. The sound wave/sound pressure wave is trapped by the building, there is only damage from a blast wave at the far left edge on building 2. But this blast wave would not cause the puffs of smoke we see on building 1. The distance is to great both in distance to the building and the height to the big gaps.

If you study the video there is no damage to building 1 where the blast came out from building 2. The aria where the blast came out from building 2 should have at least created some damage at that aria if the blast created the smoke puffs 50+++m higher up.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 



Originally posted by dubiousone
Well said. Occam's razor at its best.


I just finished watching 911 Mysteries at TruthTheory.org which I feared would be a rehash of everything that I've already heard or seen and yet I still learned a few things that I didn't know. I'm sure some of our debunkers would love to watch that movie and spend the whole time shouting "truther lies" at the monitor. It reconfirmed to me that the OS doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny and shows that Occam's razor is only valid if used with full knowledge of all available evidence.



Originally posted by dubiousone
When will the true perps be brought to justice and stripped of their positions of power, comfort, and privilege? It's long overdue. Those who aid them in diverting and delaying the search for truth in this matter deserve the same consequences that will eventually come to them.


Justice will not happen until the criminal organisation that is running the US has been replaced with a true representative government and the organisations that keep TPTB in power have been destroyed. In other words, probably not within my lifetime.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Originally posted by Varemia
I love the way a post I made and put a lot of time into just goes ignored by the ATS'ers posting here. Instead of reading it and thinking about it, then responding, every person has simply continued bickering over pointless tidbits surrounding the video.


Perhaps they've added you to their ignore list and just don't realise that you're even making a contribution. I might as well do the same because there's no point trying to discuss 9/11 with someone who believes that a steel building can dissolve into a cloud of dust because of one plane hit and a couple hours of oxygen-starved fire.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnJasper
 


Please tell me where all that steel came from that was at ground zero , if the steel buildings dissolved into dust ?

Where did all that steel come from , that took them months to clean up ?

Was all of that steel planted there , to cover up the fact that the real steel from the buildings "dissolved into dust" ?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalM
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Agreed, and then when asked who should we attack, they said Israel...

Why??? What would make them think that??


Yeah, the audio at or around 4.40 - 4.50 to me just yelled 'scripted.' although I think he said 'because of Israel', not 'attack Israel.'



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Im curious if maybe they had a large set of charges in building 1, timed to be remote detonated at the moment of plane 2 impact to disguise the explosion/sound with the plane impact.

Also I watched a video describing that plane 1 and 2 crossed over an AFB (stewart AFB?) at almost the exact same time BEFORE heading to the towers. That makes me wonder if they didn't do a switcharoo at the AFB landing the commercial jet liners at the same time decoy jets took off loaded with thermite to eat through the supporting beams after impact.

Also the construction done weaks prior in the elivator shafts might not have been to plant explosives for implosion but to remove the fireproofing so the support structure could be easily melted by the thermite or whatever was in the decoy planes. Combine the removal of fireproofing in the elivator shafts a "more lethal" decoy plane actually hitting the buildings full of not people but whatever could melt support beams, and possibly a larger set of charges toward the bottom of the elivator shaft to weaken the support structures at the bottom of the tower. Remote detonated to go off the moment the second plane hits to disguise the seperate explosion.

just a theory I thought of when looking at some of the oddities of this video and many others.

~sly~



edit on 15-9-2010 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)




edit on 15-9-2010 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)




edit on 15-9-2010 by Sly1one because: awkward sentence



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper
reply to post by Varemia
 



Originally posted by Varemia
I love the way a post I made and put a lot of time into just goes ignored by the ATS'ers posting here. Instead of reading it and thinking about it, then responding, every person has simply continued bickering over pointless tidbits surrounding the video.


Perhaps they've added you to their ignore list and just don't realise that you're even making a contribution. I might as well do the same because there's no point trying to discuss 9/11 with someone who believes that a steel building can dissolve into a cloud of dust because of one plane hit and a couple hours of oxygen-starved fire.



So I complain about not being heard in my argument, and because it does not agree with your view you think it's just as well that I be set on ignore? I have not slandered anyone or posted lies, so what have I done that would prompt this?

As for the building dissolving into dust, all I can say is "no it didn't." And oxygen-starved fires? If that was true, then how in the heck was there so much smoke? Smoke=Fire, right? Or is my logic not functioning correctly?

I will not bow down to the pressures of the masses who believe in the conspiracy of the building destruction here at ATS. I am denying ignorance by looking at the facts and finding a conclusion based off those facts. In choosing to ignore those that disagree with you, a person is by definition "embracing ignorance."


edit on 15-9-2010 by Varemia because: Added an extra paragraph at the end



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Conluceo
 



Originally posted by Conluceo
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?


This actually makes perfect sense. It's the pickle jar effect. When you can't open a jar despite twisting even while biting your tongue, all you have to do is rap the lid with a butter knife in the direction of opening. This breaks the inner seal and enables you to open it easily.

The 2nd aircraft hit at an angle that broke the seal. That in turn initiated the "shaken up carbonated drink bottle" effect resulting in all the pressurised contents of the tower to explode out of the now loosened top resulting in the free-fall collapse. Simple!


(Note to self: This might be seen as inappropriately flippant but I feel that it actually makes more sense than the OS explanation and is marginally less disrespectful because I don't expect anybody to accept my BS!)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


When you start with a preconceived notion it is very easy to build a case around tiny things that don't amount to a shred of empirical evidence. The truther movement won't stick because there is no heavy evidence to support it. Here are some of the arguments I've seen here.

Earthquake during the towers falling: Of course the ground is going to rumble as 500000 tons of concrete and steel crash to the ground in a matter of seconds.

A picture of smoke blowing out from a lower section of the building as the top collapses: Of course the down force of air being compressed is going to push out smoke/dust from lower areas especially if parts of the interior of the building are falling at different speeds.

Trade center 7 falling. Four other buildings were also destroyed from fire/destructive forces that day. The fire department couldn't control the fires so they pulled out and fortunately saved their own lives.

If there was evidence enough the truther movement would gain ground and gain support. Many experts would talk. After 9 years videos like the one posted today only enhance the evidence of how destructive these two planes crashing into the trade centers were.

The best argument for truthers to focus their efforts on is that the government failed to prevent an attack that they had evidence for.


edit on 15-9-2010 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bugman82
reply to post by dubiousone
 


When you start with a preconceived notion it is very easy to build a case around tiny things that don't amount to a shred of empirical evidence. The truther movement won't stick because there is no heavy evidence to support it. Here are some of the arguments I've seen here.

Earthquake during the towers falling: Of course the ground is going to rumble as 500000 tons of concrete and steel crash to the ground in a matter of seconds.

A picture of smoke blowing out from a lower section of the building as the top collapses: Of course the down force of air being compressed is going to push out smoke/dust from lower areas especially if parts of the interior of the building are falling at different speeds.

Trade center 7 falling. Four other buildings were also destroyed from fire/destructive forces that day. The fire department couldn't control the fires so they pulled out and fortunately saved their own lives.

If there was evidence enough the truther movement would gain ground and gain support. Many experts would talk. After 9 years videos like the one posted today only enhance the evidence of how destructive these two planes crashing into the trade centers were.

The best argument for truthers to focus their efforts on is that the government failed to prevent an attack that they had evidence for.


edit on 15-9-2010 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)



the best 'evidence' for me are the eye witnesses...they were there and plenty talk of bombs going off...

a plane hitting many many floors above would not cause explosions near the ground floors...


eye witnesses are one thing most of the official story followers seem to erase from the entire discussion..in a court of law they have real importance...for a reason.


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



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 



Originally posted by Varemia
So I complain about not being heard in my argument, and because it does not agree with your view you think it's just as well that I be set on ignore? I have not slandered anyone or posted lies, so what have I done that would prompt this?


I was merely suggesting a possibility as to why you're being ignored. I wasn't accusing you of improper conduct.



As for the building dissolving into dust, all I can say is "no it didn't." And oxygen-starved fires? If that was true, then how in the heck was there so much smoke? Smoke=Fire, right? Or is my logic not functioning correctly?

I will not bow down to the pressures of the masses who believe in the conspiracy of the building destruction here at ATS. I am denying ignorance by looking at the facts and finding a conclusion based off those facts. In choosing to ignore those that disagree with you, a person is by definition "embracing ignorance."


Rehashing the same evidence over and over might serve some purpose but moving on to either greater detail or new territory is a better use of people's time. Trying to convince those who don't want to believe is non-productive. There are a lot of 911 videos and documents available to view but if you haven't watched 911 Mysteries (available at TruthTheory.org) you should take time out for it. It answers several of your questions above and sets out a broad overview of the 911 conspiracy. You may disavow all or most of the information provided but you'll be better placed to discuss 911 with non-OS believers after watching it.

IMHO, puffs of smoke synchronised with the 2nd plane impact is small beer compared to the rest of the evidence.

You can trust that my only intention is to raise awareness, not force my opinion on anyone.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Bugman82
 


A picture paints a thousand words. Try the pictures in


Google Video Link


and

9/11 Mysteries


What will you learn?


Originally posted by Bugman82
Earthquake during the towers falling: Of course the ground is going to rumble as 500000 tons of concrete and steel crash to the ground in a matter of seconds.


The Earthquake started before the building fell!


Originally posted by Bugman82
A picture of smoke blowing out from a lower section of the building as the top collapses: Of course the down force of air being compressed is going to push out smoke/dust from lower areas especially if parts of the interior of the building are falling at different speeds.


Of course, these squibs are a regular feature of controlled demolitions.


Originally posted by Bugman82
Trade center 7 falling. Four other buildings were also destroyed from fire/destructive forces that day. The fire department couldn't control the fires so they pulled out and fortunately saved their own lives.


Those other buildings were damaged much worse than WTC 7 and yet didn't collapse.


Originally posted by Bugman82
If there was evidence enough the truther movement would gain ground and gain support. Many experts would talk. After 9 years videos like the one posted today only enhance the evidence of how destructive these two planes crashing into the trade centers were.


Many experts and eye-witnesses did talk and were subsequently ignored by the commission and all other authorities.


Originally posted by Bugman82
The best argument for truthers to focus their efforts on is that the government failed to prevent an attack that they had evidence for.


Don't give up so easily. Watch the 2 movies linked above and then you can add debunk statements for loads more evidence.

Also, look into how Judge Hellerstein has prevented any 9/11 case from being heard in court and then marvel at how 9 years can go by without even the slightest bit of justice for the victims. 9/11 Zionist Judge working for Israel?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Wow.. this is some clear video. I've never heard audio of the plane hitting the second tower. Very disturbing sound.

This also leaves me wondering how a building that is about 90% intact on one side, and probably 100% intact on another, with the exterior structure being an integral load-bearing part of the building, fall STRAIGHT DOWN. If the hogwash in the 9/11 commission report were even remotely true, the building should have tipped over at the point of impact and the top half would have fallen over, not the whole building collapsing in on itself at freefall velocity.

Does anyone still believe the planes and fire brought both of those towers down? Wakey wakey.




edit on 15-9-2010 by AwakeinNM because: bad typing skilz




top topics



 
68
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join