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

reply to post by CynicalM
As discussed above, there's clearly a few cuts in the video. It started in a building and they then moved to street level and moved around. I couldn't see a registration clear enough to determine anything but the different vehicles seem to fit the time frame correctly.

reply to post by dragnet53
Help me understand the alternative thinking of it being too clear. How was it altered, produced or whatever post 9/11 to show what we're seeing? Genuine question. This isn't directed only at you dragnet53 but usually video seen is too blurry and we complain but now it's too clear and we still complain?

reply to post by kiwifoot
I understand how it seems unlikely for him to suggest implosion in hindsight but isn't that what we're used to seeing when buildings are taken down? Isn't that the very type of thing that implosions is used for? They even ironically say it's too tall for an implosion. Could you see yourself speculating such a thing if you were in his shoes? If they anticipated that it was going to fall I would be suspicious. Instead they're essentially thinking like most of us here, never seeing a building fall because of fire but speculating what's going to happen after the fires are out and the buildings are still standing.

reply to post by PersonalChoice
Keep forgetting to think you for finding this. Thanks.


Regarding the narration issues: From reading this recently, which is an as-it-was-happening forum discussion from 9/11. I don't think their conversation is too out there. In this forum was speculation, as it was occurring, about Palestine, Osama and other issues which seemed kind of clairvoyant while it was happening.

ok I did hear the roar like an incoming plane after viewing it a 2nd time.

However, I did notice something else.

If u pause the video at 1:31 or 1:32
you will see another plane come into view
from the right and pass behind the tower.

Could this have been the 175 making a quick pass
to see the damage and making a u turn to hit
the 2nd tower??? It is moving extremely fast.
Looks too fast to be a helicopter.

Originally posted by Myendica
ok, goin out on a limb..
im starting to give the tv fakery a little more credance. the amateur films are way more clear, and blue and detailed than the television videos. i dont know about the whole no plane, but it seem like evry video of that day has been altered. the few that dont seem altered, dont show a plane crash. the amateur films are definitely have more detail .. why? im more frustrated now.

Absolutely!!

If you look at this side by side with the live vid footage you would think the live footage was the amateur videographer.

I wonder how many more videos there are out there that we have not seen yet.

And I slo absolutely agree with the person whom said it was such a sensless waste of human life and my heart genuinely goes out to the families of the lost.

I am still wondering how uniform the damage is of the second strike, and the sound of the strike. Neither seems natural, I know I know nothing natural about 911 I know but you get what I mean I’m sure.

Korg.

reply to post by boondock-saint

that I did NOT hear the jet engines
or roar of a plane coming in just before

Listen again, very carefully. And keep in mind the angle, where the camera's mic is, in relation to the path of the airplane. Remember, Doppler effect, and how it will distort what you might expect to have heard.

So, what you DON'T hear is the characteristic "whine" sound from the engines, which is probably what you're expecting. You do hear the lower-frequency noise of the approaching airplane, and the air it is displacing. The length of time for the after-sound to carry (that of the "whine") means it is likely drowned out in the louder explosion sounds that occured RIGHT THERE, closer to the microphone.

(Too often, these expectations are driven by the many -- incorrect -- examples that Hollywood has provided, over many decades of popular entertainment motion pictures, and their use of sound editing to "enhance" the audience's theater-going experience...)

Here is a real-life video, with real-life un-edited sound, for illustration. Note how the F-18 seems to virtually "sneak up" on you, before you hear it, and just WHAT you actually hear. (Keep in mind, as it passes....that did not occur, from POV of the camera in the OP's video. Since the WTC Tower was in the way....):



And another example:



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Finally (because it's so pretty) and the first two were fighters, here's an airliner. Much slower airspeeds, of course,, but principles are roughly the same. Actually, faster it goes (a'la UAL 175) longer it takes for sound to reach you. PLUS, the position of hte camera matters a great deal.....:



BTW ---- very rare to see a jumbo (or any commerical airliner) in a 60-degree bank. Obviously, it's not difficult, nor impossible for the airplane. Doesn't even hurt anything --- in a level, unaccelerated 60-degree "perfect" turn the g-load is 2Gs. This is well within the design limits.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

Listen again, very carefully. And keep in mind the angle, where the camera's mic is, in relation to the path of the airplane. Remember, Doppler effect, and how it will distort what you might expect to have heard.

And that it was being recorded from inside a building, not on the street.

reply to post by Three_moons


That collapse of the South Tower you can clearly see that the above impact zone tipping over and falling which would help explain away the pancake idea that gov states.The top of the building would fall to the weakest point and continue in that direction. Some how tho, it magically dropped straight down taking down the rest of the building with it!

reply to post by logicalthinking


Just to jump in, because I see this misconception so often.

You have to consider the center of mass, of the over-all position above the impact area. Only way for it to "topple over" all the way off the side of the building would have been if the aggregate center of mass extended laterally over the edge, and away some distance from the structure beneath it.

Gravity only acts in one direction ---- towards the center of the Earth.

can somebody explain to me what that
flying object is coming in from the right
at 1:31 of the video???

reply to post by boondock-saint


It's a helicopter (per the cameraman's youtube comments).

There was actually a recent thread about that here, with different footage.

Originally posted by americandingbat
It's a helicopter (per the cameraman's youtube comments).

thanks
it's moving quite fast for a chopper.
It must have a jet engine on it.

reply to post by PersonalChoice


The video raises alot of questions just as others have stated but I think the name needs some questioning as well. Steven Vigilante? Is this guy serious? A real name? Sounds like a cereal box superhero.

Where have these videos been for 9 years? I've always contend that many MANY more people must've been taping after the first plane/missile hit but for some reason, we were only privy to the handful of videos played over and over again on TV.

Now, where have they been? Were they confiscated? Were they ALL turned over, willingly (yet no one made a copy of their tape to upload on YouTube?)

There is something wrong here folks. All of a sudden, these new videos are coming to light yet no one is explaining their absence. Is anyone else feeling something is amiss here?

Out of interest, did anyone notice that on the video at the start of this thread, when they are filming the 1st tower incident, and the second plane hits, there is an explosion on the 1st building which seems to be evident on the side facing the camera and also the far right?? What caused that I wonder?

reply to post by AzoriaCorp
This guy seems authentic as I posted information about him on page 1 here and here.

Judge books by covers much?


reply to post by ckitch
The only thing I see is the camera shaking from the impact at that time.

reply to post by boondock-saint

....it's moving quite fast for a chopper.

Not really.
Looked about right.
Expand the YT vid, you can see the rotors.

Originally posted by ckitch
Out of interest, did anyone notice that on the video at the start of this thread, when they are filming the 1st tower incident, and the second plane hits, there is an explosion on the 1st building which seems to be evident on the side facing the camera and also the far right?? What caused that I wonder?

When? Can you narrow down the time on the video saw I can view/listen to just that? Thanks.

I don't mean to get all spiritual and new-agish on this thread but do you realize the amount of negativity that enveloped Manhattan (and eventually the planet) that morning???

You don't see one smile. Not one laughter (of course, not that there should be) but.....the darkness that filled the universe that day (and days that followed) is something to this day, we've yet to recover from.
That negativity has had a downward spiral domino effect on this entire planet.

This is my personal opinion only.


The acting is terrible, I even hear a page being turned after the first series of comments, editing perhaps. They did a great job of distance on the voices but just not good enough.

We ourselves work in film, and we are preparing a film of which the WTC attacks are a part of, being presented to Warner. We meticulously have thought about that part of our film, since it deals with amateur footage, and we ourselves have thought out the script for that part and yes we have the shock reactions, the "bro" comments, the holy **** !! holy**** !! comments, people talking over each other etc.. all to give it more credibility... and all of the rest.

To me it's just someone trying to show their limited skills when it comes to film. That's just my opinion, take it or leave it.

I finally got to see a good portion of the clip, and theres a few real quick cuts durin the film.. in non important parts too.. just odd.. i can understand stoppin, then starting again if ya move, but theres a few where it looks like only a second or two werr taken out....

reply to post by Conluceo


I don't know if I buy that this was scripted (but then again, I am shock less) but it is very unusual that it took 9 years for this 'professional' tape to surface though.
What I DO find interesting is, this guy mentions terrorists and Israel (and implosions) far too early. Most couldn't even wrap their minds around what they were seeing but this guy..........is already deducing and concluding?

I lived in NY at the time, watching this unfold via NBC news and up until that second plane/missile hit, we all thought it was an accident of some kind.
Even when the second plane hit....we were all still trying to process what we were seeing. No one that I know of, within the first hour of that morning even CONSIDERED this to be a terrorist act until the MSM started brainwashing us.

So I find this footage very curious.

reply to post by Human_Alien


idk bout that. i may not have thought israel or terrorist that early, but i wad thinking how they would take it down, whether implosion or disassemble. probably at the same moment he wad saying it..