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: 13
68
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Not sure if anyone has noticed this but from about 1.54 when the 2nd plane hits, just before this the first tower on fire appears to to have a blow out as more smoke blows out just before the 2nd plane hits. Then after the 2nd plane hits the smoke returns to normal as it was before.

I have no idea why this would happen, anyone else know?

Edit

Just catching up with the thread and realised others have raised it.

I would like to know if their is footage showing the same sort of blow out in tower 2 just as tower 1 collapses, again as if to do it when we are not looking.


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




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sly1one
 


I hate to speculate like i have been doing up until now. I am speaking from my mind according to what i see and what makes sense to me.

When it comes to 911. I have looked mostly into the collapse time and how the buildings collapsed. I have also read a lot about how the CIA and FBI and the US government handled the 911 warnings prior to the actual 911 event.

When i put this information together it adds up to a pre planned event by CIA and the US policy makers/government.

1. The US was warned about 911 months in advance. But did nothing. Ref, the PDB report handed to Condoleezza.

2. The CIA restricted FBI from doing a proper investigation prior to 911. Ref. 911 time line.

3. NATO had forces in Afghanistan prior to the 911 warnings to listen to Osama Bin Laden's radio. Ref 911 time line.

4. I see the 4 airliner as a smoke screen to change our focus from what was really done.

5. The media creates two camps of opinions in the public. This makes the cover up work for CIA and the US policy makers. The 911 post on ATS is also a proof of that. "No one agrees on anything". So it becomes easy for the government to disregard the truthers or the once seeking the truth through proper channels.

6. Since we have two camps of believers the NIST report does its job perfectly. It doesn't matter what any other investigator knows, if he/she is not on the NIST payroll.

We can all see that by all these other investigators who have tried to speak up against the NIST report. They haven't got a chance in hell. Because its way above common peoples heads. They are not NIST,They are not supported by the government. And the nay camp has to defend their stance or they will look like fools.

The reason we dont know the real story is because we have two camps with different opinions. As long as we have this there will never be a proper investigation. The once responsible can lean on their supporters. And the supporters can lean on their government for not doing a damn thing.

Yeah,,, and guess who the victim for 911 is? Yeah the guy mentioned in the PDB report which was handed to Condoleezza prior to 911. This is so crystal clear it funny no one can see it.






[


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



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Conluceo
 


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 .



With all due respect, I can't accept that. Although you did say maybe


Here's why.

Having the plane slam into the tower at an angle between floors 78 and 85? correct me if I'm wrong, and having most of the jet fuel explode on the outside, (that spectacular fireball that everyone saw), I would believe that the steel core surrounded by elevators and offices would have been nearly completely untouched.

If I'm not mistaken, some firefighters made it up that high and said that there were but two fires that could be contained quite easily, no?

So, The smoldering fire remaining would have compromised one corner, the corner that the plane angled at, meaning the tower should have tipped over from that one corner and not symmetrically fall down like it did at the speed that it did. And all that in less than an hour?? while the other tower (North) that was hit dead on had more time to be compromised due to most of the jet fuel having exploded on the inside

It still makes no sense, no sense whatsoever that it would be the first tower to fall.


edit on 15-9-2010 by Conluceo because: other tower info



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by CynicalM
and then when asked who should we attack, they said Israel...
Why??? What would make them think that??

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who heard that.
And I had the same question as you did.
The Israel comment is about 5:10 into
the video.

But I do thank the OP for posting this
as this is new video footage to me.
Have never seen it before. So we
can add it to the 9/11 archives
for future use in a court case
against the real people who
did this.

S&F from me


This is my guess of that Israel Comment he made Your Ready ...

The Cameraman or his Diabetic Friend Knew Someone or a few? that was told to stay home and not to come to work or Enter the 2 Towers maybe himself or his friend if hes Jewish as this goes along with the Dancing Israelis Story

as the 5 dancing Israelis Mossad Agents/Reporters Observers to Document the event that's been caught &
detained then Released & Slipped by the Media Quietly sent back to Israel and later on 3 out of the 5 are seen on a Israel talk show Admitting they were just there to Document the event .. ?

the Dancing Israelis
Sivan Kurzburg
Paul Kurzburg
Yaron Shmuel
Oded Ellner
Omar Gavriel Marmari

( NYTIMES )
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE DETAINEES; Dozens of Israeli Jews Are Being Kept in Federal Detention
By TAMAR LEWIN with ALISON LEIGH COWAN
Published: November 21, 2001
www.nytimes.com...

Were Israelis Detained on Sept. 11 Spies?
abcnews.go.com...

If it were today those same Israelis that Observed/Documented and Knew of the Event of 911 beforehand and did tell one Soul before the 911 Happened would of been in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.. These 5 are (My Guess ) or 60 other detained Israelis were the ones that Told the Jewish Workers of the 2 Towers not to come to Work that day.. thats if its True and if it is has any Jewish Soul WTC Worker came Forward saying it was True?
This Video Might be a Clue to that ... that if the Videos Audio is proven to be Authentic ..






is this Him in IMDB Stephen A. Vigilante
www.imdb.com...

Not only a cameraman but a Producer a Director a Editor!!!!!



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Again, I don't see how a bunch of ametures, without any experience or understanding of demolitions, can conclude that both towers were taken down by the government. It would be similar to asking a landscaper (the ameture) to build a space shuttle. It makes no sense.

How much of this conspiracy originated from individuals who suffer from survivors guilt?
How much of this conspiracy originated from individuals who are seeking a profit?
How much of this conspiracy originated from individuals who have an issue with the government?

While watching this video and its companions, I don't see anything suspicious in which screams conspiracy. We have documented footage that show two planes slamming into buildings. Even though all of my understanding of science, psychology, perception, and human nature are telling me the official story is true, there are people telling me that the most inconceivable scenario in 'modern' American history has taken place.

People who have absolutely no understanding of structural deign, engineering, and demolitions have build this hypothesis, which contradicts all the evidence in which we witnessed on television, internet, or on scene.

I don't know everyone in these forums enough to say that I trust your judgment. Unless you people prove to me the official story is wrong, without slamming my observations away, the trust between me and the 9/11 conspiracy theorist will continue to widen.

You people are telling me to not trust the government, but you are not presenting anything that will get me to trust your judgment. I will stick to the official story, which I witness during the morning of 9/11/2001. Why? I don't trust these conspiracies, the theorists, and their sources.

No one here has proven to me why I should trust anyone or anything.

I don't trust everyone's judgment.


edit on 15-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


Seriously? Watching BOTH 110-story towers collapse straight downward in their own footprint 40 minutes (or whatever it was) after being hit by planes, is akin to accepting the fact that a house can collapse after one wall of one room gets knocked in by a drunk driver. You know a house doesn't collapse after that, but you accept what you see in all those videos?

The first time I watched the towers collapse when they replayed them after I woke up a half hour after it happened, my first thought was "That is a bunch of BS right there". No way could that have happened.

I spent 2 years in college in a Mechanical Engineering program before I got bored and changed majors. I have brothers who are engineers. I know a fair amount about things structural. What I witnessed made NO sense from an engineering standpoint.

If there would be any structural failure of those towers, it would have been at the impact site, and the top floors would have sunk into the remaining building, perhaps toppling off of it. NO WAY would the whole building disintegrate like that. Ya know, it was engineered to hold itself up, why would ALL of the floors suddenly and spontaneously fail after an event that it was designed to withstand in the first place?

What you've come to believe to be the truth is really a lie that has been perpetrated by many sources. The 9/11 commission report, the media telling you what "happened", and others. It's like they've been telling you to look at the sky and saying "Do you see the bunny in the clouds, right there?" and you say "Yeah, I do see a bunny".

Use your brain, man. There is no bunny.


edit on 15-9-2010 by AwakeinNM because: spelling corrections, added some thoughts



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
reply to post by Section31
 
Use your brain, man.

According to what I have read about those buildings (over the years), Rockefeller had them built to react in such a manner. If an earthquake were to compromise those two structures, they would collapse in the exact same manner as they did.

If Rockefeller had them built in such a manner, why should I trust your word over his engineering and safety considerations?


edit on 15-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


That is the biggest crock of sierra I have ever heard. An engineer designs a building to collapse during an earthquake? WHAT??!?

All due respect, that's exactly what you want to PREVENT during an earthquake. Sacrifice how many thousands of people in them for what? So they don't get injured from the buildings swaying back and forth?

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Just to clarify, even if he wanted them designed so that they would be easier to demolish after an earthquake damaged them beyond repair, that's the same as just making them so that they collapse easier. Show me an engineer who would do that.


edit on 15-9-2010 by AwakeinNM because: clarification



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
now if this Steve Vigilante channel is right

has anyone notice that a subscriber of his channel owns the
Stop Funding Israel's Channel hmm

Interesting to say the least this video is from the Stop Funing Israel Channel

Listen to the Director of the WTC and Police Chief Interesting 10 thousand people Per Tower
would of been in those towers! at the time of the Crash ! and they act so Calm!! WTF!!
also they say they dug out of the World Trad center but!!! butt!! no Ash or Suit dirst Stain on thier Clothing
and dont forget the Police Chief is Wearing WHITE!!!!!! WHITE !!! WOW ok any ATS Member would like to Comment on it ! ?

the Director of the WTC said this 2.00 mark

9-11 Israeli Involvement - 9th Year Summary



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 

You are talking about almost every engineer that exists. Form follows function is a universal design philosophy. You can look up what I have said in any design and engineering history book. Go to your library or nearest college.

If those Towers were serious compromised, they were built to fall in the exact manner as they did. Other words, the damage from the plane's impact caused severe internal damage, which had weakened the overall structure and foundation. As a design consideration to prevent a larger disaster, Rockefeller had them created to collapse downward. Even though some of the top fell to the side, majority of the structure fell into its own foundation.

Just as planned.

Don't take my word for it. Walk into a public or local college library, and look up what I am telling you. Or, just ask a professional engineer.

Why should I trust your word when everything else tells me otherwise?

You guys have not won my trust over. Why should I believe everyone's hypothesis? Why should I trust you over the knowledge I can obtain from going to a library?


edit on 15-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 
The "Official" story cannot be as described ie; true. 9./11 commission member/s have stated that they were not given proper information on the twin towers even though their conclusions still stand. NIST have made conclusions on the twin towers even though they also did not have proper documents to peruse, and also some conclusions were left open ended, and not dealt with. Do you then want go home happy enough, or do you prefer to not think about it, and just bury the bone!







edit on 15-9-2010 by smurfy because: Amending ameture grammar




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by Section31
 
The "Official" story cannot be as described ie; true. 9./11 commission member's have stated that they were not given proper information on the twin towers even though their conclusions still stand. NIST have made conclusions on the twin towers even though they also did not have proper documents to peruse, and also some conclusions were left open ended, and not dealt with. Do you then want go home happy enough, or do you prefer to not think about it, and just bury the bone!

Sounds like everyone is missing the structural design specs for these buildings, so that brings me back to my original statements. Why should I trust you over the official story? Why should I believe that a conspiracy occurred?

If those in charge don't have all the details, as you stated, how can anyone here conclude that it was a government conspiracy?



edit on 15-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Seconds before the 2nd plane hits something happens in the already-struck tower---it appears there is an explosion. Anybody else notice this?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boblobblaw
Seconds before the 2nd plane hits something happens in the already-struck tower---it appears there is an explosion. Anybody else notice this?

All that tells me is that something caught fire in the first building, and then it finally exploded once the temperature became hot enough. It doesn't tell me anything suspicious.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


The ONLY part of the towers that were seriously compomised were the floors that were struck by the planes. Sure, there were shock waves that emanated away from the impact points, but to the extent that they did damage to the point of total collapse? No way, Jack. No effing way.

The part of a building that would be most susceptible to catastrophic failure would be the foundation. I do believe that you will agree with me that the most damage inflicted was quite a few floors away from the foundation. Remember the very large bomb that was detonated years before that took out ~several~ subfloors? That did nothing to make that tower collapse.

The design considerations you are referring to, if I am getting you correctly, is that in the event that the towers were damaged and unoccupiable, then the design would lend itself to a more controlled demolition that would be as constrained as possible and not damage the surrounding structures. DEMOLITION. Not a "spontaneous-collapse-upon-any-kind-of-damage" scenario.

I think the reference that you quote was used out of context to put some kind of authoritative opinion to what you witnessed.

How do you explain away WTC 7? That wasn't even hit by a plane, had superficial damage from falling debris, and a few isolated fires here and there, and IT collapes in its own footprint at freefall velocity. Clearly a controlled demolition. So why would they purposely demolish building 7 and leave it to chance that the other towers would fall "on their own"? It takes weeks to prep a building for demolition.

How about some engineers back me up a little.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bluloa
 


Hi...I have been wondering the same and have not seen anyone reply to this question.

I have started to wonder, if perhaps, there were partial floor collapses occurring initially where the "planes" impacted? Could floors have slowly collapsed as the fire grew, sort of hollowing out the building? Is this a crazy thought?

**Just red above post


edit on 15-9-2010 by Cosmocow because: POV




edit on 15-9-2010 by Cosmocow because: previous post



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

Originally posted by Boblobblaw
Seconds before the 2nd plane hits something happens in the already-struck tower---it appears there is an explosion. Anybody else notice this?




YES.

And common sense (this....coming from a Truther no less) says it's either stuff in the building NATURALLY exploding (due to the nature of the impact) or..........the plane itself carried some sort of explosive on it.

Please, do not entertain the notion that a handful of Elite NWO-PNAC lovin' pinheads, were sitting there, detonating explosive whenever they saw fit for an hour and a half!

That's absurd. They're greedy. Not brilliant!!!

Four (or five) planes were PLANNED to cause terror and bring into fruition PNAC that fateful day. Let's not loose sight of that nor...........get carried away. These people (our own government) are terrorist not, Houdini wanna-be's

Do not make more of this than it already is. You're giving too much credit to a handful of apathetic soul-less Globalists.
They're evil. Not overly clever.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmocow
reply to post by bluloa
 


Hi...I have been wondering the same and have not seen anyone reply to this question.

I have started to wonder, if perhaps, there were partial floor collapses occurring initially where the "planes" impacted? Could floors have slowly collapsed as the fire grew, sort of hollowing out the building? Is this a crazy thought?

**Just red above post


edit on 15-9-2010 by Cosmocow because: POV




edit on 15-9-2010 by Cosmocow because: previous post



I see two windows where smoke is forced out of them. Hardly an explosion or blowout. If I were to make a guess, I'd say it was a weakened ceiling collapsing from the shockwave of the plane hitting the second tower and forcing the smoke outward. The timing is right. Yes, it occurs before you see the fireball, but it took that fireball a few seconds to come into view of the camera after the plane hit. The shockwave would have gotten there immediately.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I keep seeing the same questions, the same ones, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. They keep getting answered, yet no one seems to know.

WTC 7 did not have superficial damage and minor fires here and there. The side of WTC 7 was impacted by serious debris from the tower collapse. It cut the water lines to the sprinkler systems, so when fire broke out, the safety mechanisms did not function. I doubt any structural engineer plans for chunks of steel girders slicing through a structure. Then, when the penthouse part of the floor collapses, a progressive collapse on the inside of half the building takes place. When it hits the bottom, probably the base of the structure, it blows out the main supports and the whole building comes down.

The tower top did not tilt over and fall off because there was no pivot force. At the most, because the wall was still attached, once the top began to collapse it basically started to tilt and was unable to continue "because" it was hitting the tower below it. The only situation I see people thinking about is like a piece of wood breaking off. Guess what? Steel mesh is not wood.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
WTC 7 did not have superficial damage


It did according to NIST.


The side of WTC 7 was impacted by serious debris from the tower collapse.


If by "serious" you mean "insignificant" then you're right in line with the official story.

Don't tell me you're a conspiracy theorist too?



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join