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: 3
68
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Three_moons
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.



edit on 9/14/2010 by Three_moons because:




I never said he wasnt "authentic" I was just pointing out if he wants to be taken seriously he might want to consider a name a little less outlandish.




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Myendica
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..


You thought about "who" taking it down? Terrorists or a demolition team after rendering these buildings useless?

No one ever thought ( let alone conceived ) that these buildings were going to come down like they did!!

A building fire does not produce that type of result so for anyone to say they KNEW they were going to fall, I'd like to ask them, based on WHAT previous or futuristic knowledge are you saying this?
(yes, the building might crumble to some degree but not, come crashing down)

It's like seeing a horrible car crash and the ground caves in all around it and eats up everyone in sight!!!!
I mean...........these are events never seen before so how can someone expect it to happen? So these people (in my opinion are) either clairvoyant or criminal.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I agree with your deductions, but that's another reason why I believe it was scripted. Unless you were a planted FBI, CIA agent on the streets giving interviews to various TV broadcasters, helping forge the official story, that's correct, not that many people could have deduced what exactly was happening. 9 years, thousands of videos later is a lot of time to study reactions and help create your own little story for your 15 minutes of fame.

Now is this new footage? If no one can find this footage anywhere else, then in that case, it's goes beyond an amateurish film photography production company, way beyond, like for example, another planted seed to follow the official story done by some video black ops team in order to do two things.

Make it look amateurish and continue mind screwing people in order to have them follow the OS.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
they probably said Israel because thats the only country they knew besides the US @ lol

stupid stupid



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot

I don't know why, but watching this video in it's entirety was like seeing it for the first time again. It sent shivers down my spine. How sad, how pointless, what a bloody waste of precious life.

It makes me sick to think that nearly a decade on, we're still arguing about this horrible day. I wish to God we find out the truth, one way or another.

God bless the poor souls that lost their lives that day, God bless us all, damn it.



Yeah...Me too...I also suspect the handwriting of the group that orchestrated the murder of JFK unsolved....
Although I am not an american i think it must have triggered also the same national grief and outrage



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I have a question about this footage too.


Why does it suddenly cut to WTC2 collapsing after it just started coming down? Either 1) He had the camera already focused on WTC2 and instantly switched it off as soon as it started coming down or 2) had it filming before and just edited out the very initiation.

If I saw WTC2 start leaning and exploding outwards, I would be too shocked and absorbed in the situation to bring my camera up and start filming again that quickly. So I find (1) hard to believe.


I suspect he may have caught the very initiation of the destruction of that building, but edited it out. Was it because that loud, deep boom was caught again, and it was intentionally edited out? There was a reporter standing right underneath WTC2 captured it and even described "another explosion" before they realized it was falling on them. That footage is on YouTube somewhere.


edit on 14-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


Where did that chopper go at 1:32, there was an edit that brought in the
building changing the view.

Definite edit and suspicious aerial activity.
ED: Weird but looks like one floor blew out in the second tower.
Like a floor full of explosives.
ED+: Very good film, things do look different now.


edit on 9/14/2010 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


I rarely followed the news back then... but that was exactly my first thought... after the first plane hit. "My God, it was terrorist". And not only that, I remember saying "Osama Bin Laden" within the first five minutes.

At that point in my life, I believed everything... The National nightly news was as far as I delved into world and political events. Because I thought it, so quickly, it makes me wonder now how many news stories leading up to 9/11 mentioned that name specifically or how many stories were planted in our heads to make us think that. Because, I definitely thought it. Just FYI...I was by myself during those moments. I had just arrived at the Post Office to get mail. I was pulling in the parking spot, heard the radio break in... Listened for a moment, then jumped out to get the mail and get to work. I remember telling another lady I saw coming out of the Post Office that a plane had attacked the WTC. I was crying... I was 7 months pregnant. I was trying to reach my husband who was traveling that day... I remember it all too well... And then I watched for the next two weeks, every moment I could. And then I found ATS...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 



don't understand why this section is cut off from the new video ?

its not like he quickly pans to the collapse, its just missing






Not sure if this is filmed by the same person ? the video quality is similar. No sound though.
seems like its further up the street ?











edit on 14/9/10 by tombangelta because: posted video wrong




edit on 14/9/10 by tombangelta because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



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.


That obviously depends on the speed of the aircraft. In this case the plane was going too fast. Your example is a low speed turn.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalM
 


I know the 747 isn't going "as fast" as UAL 175 did. Irrelevant, since UAL 175 also didn't bank that steeply.

IN any case, the g-loads in a turn are completely dependent on bank angle --- a direct correlation (if exponential, when plotted out). This is true, UNLESS there is a pitching moment at work, as well...an angle of attack change. That's why I said when in LEVEL unaccelerated flight, the g's are related to bank angle.....any given angle, will relate to a specific g-load. Regardless of airspeed. (**)

(**) Except, of course, if you are TOO SLOW, and then try a bank too steep. You will stall.....IF you try to maintain altitude. Keep in mind, also, that the use of thrust is a factor, in steeper angles of bank turns, IF you wish to maintain the entry airspeed, and altitude. Because of increased angle of attack.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tombangelta
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 



don't understand why this section is cut off from the new video ?

its not like he quickly pans to the collapse, its just missing




I read (probably in the comment section on YouTube that) this guy addressed that question by saying something like: His friend was a diabetic and (his sugar was dropping?) so he stopped filming so to buy him a drink (Snapple to be precise).




I'm not sure why this is just being released now though. It's been out for at least a few months (according to how old his comments are on YT) but I'm on both sides of the coin with this one.

On one side: I can see why the 'officials' did NOT use this exceptionally crystal clear footage on any of their mockumentaries because the filmer kept bringing up the word 'implosions' (although I suppose that could've been edited out)

And yet on the other side: I sit here listening to him say "Israel".
And that to me just wasn't the 'normal' response or dialogue that morning. Also....why was he saying "terrorists" after only the FIRST plane rather than saying an accident followed by "Israel"?

Yet another mystery to add to the vault!!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
The voice overs and cuts are suspect to say the least. The guy is worrying about taking the buildings down and makes no mention about putting the fires out. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

"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."

Even if the airplane was traveling at 500 MPH at a ridiculously low altitude and was piloted by a caveman who couldn't even keep a Cesna in the air? Yeah sure, piece of cake.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
This footage to me anyway adds more proof to a cover-up. This footage has been edited and raises some rather shocking questions…
My questions.

1. Why has this footage not been seen until very recently?

2. Why is it such high quality with crystal clear clarity?

3. There are several cuts in the film.... why?

4. We don't actually see the 2nd tower strike as the camera conveniently zooms into first tower... why didn't the spot the incomming plane??

5. The sound of the 2nd strike doesn't sound like a plane to me, shouldn't there have been a drone of the plane clearly herd for some time before the strike?

6. After the 2nd strike did anyone else notice the uniform damage, looks like it is onlt 2 or 3 floors that are blown out in a line, very unlike the jagged edges of the first strike.

7. at 7:12 there is footage of two men, one of which clearly says a plane came in... The man stating he saw a plane is very suspect to me, and the way the footage is edited prior to this is a lead up to this statement. It is clasic profensional directing and editing.

Just a few of the many questions about this footage.

Who were these men and why only release this footage now??

Korg.


edit on 14-9-2010 by Korg Trinity because: added point 7.



Probably because it hasn't been released.

Probably because it's a decent camera.

There are cuts in the video because of the length of it.

We don't see the 2nd strike but we see the fire. The zoom onto the first tower was because...gasp, you guessed it, a plane flew into it.

Sounds like a plane to me.

Yes, a plane hit a building. Damage is going to be done.

It's called editing. Something done to videos quite often.

The points you brought up are so invalid and it seems you just want to provoke trouble.

As for the video, s&f. This footage is brand new to me. Truly horrifying and to believe we still didn't bring the men responsible to justice after so many years...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Didn't anybody notice how the smoke suddenly poured out of the building as the second plain hit the other tower. I find that very odd. The pressure would push the smoke back. In this case it started to poor out towards the blast.

Just before the other plain hits, you can see that smoke comes out at two different Flores. It popes out all around the building. To do that pressure must come from the inside.

Can someone explain that to me please?




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



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
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.



edit on 14-9-2010 by boondock-saint because: correction




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
This looks to be a genuine and straightforward video to me.

It wasn't released earlier because the government had it.

There isn't any commentary or editing that doesn't ring true to my ear.
This appears to be regular guys in NY (one a pro-photographer--hence the
quality) capturing the event and making comments about in a very usual way.

One guy begins to assert it was a terrorist attack, which is a statement I
might have made. Also, he states Israel may have been responsible, I might
have made the same statement again. Both plausible reactions under the circumstance.
The next logical step is moving out of their building into the street for safety.
Once again, something I would have agreed with. Capturing the reactions of
onlookers---I actually think I would have done ALOT more of this to make the
tape saleable in a human interest way.

Missing the actual collapse of the building is probable as is missing the second
strike. Of the first, alot of time passed before the collapse and it would hard to
imagine stringent vigilance to the camera to MAKE SURE you wouldn't miss something
for hours. You would probably spend the time in discussion, at the ready, but
not actually ready to respond at the speed required to catch the collapse as it
happened. Missing the second strike is probable. what wouldn't be probable is actually
catching the second strike on video. hat would be suspect. The videographer had
no idea there would be a second or third or more strikes or what buildings or icons
would be targeted. In that circumstance, I may have trained my camera on the
Empire State building, or the Statue of Liberty, if I believed it was truly terrorists,
and if I had captured an attack on those structures there would be MANY questions
raised as to why I was videotaping them afterwards.

My BS meter is sitting on zero on this one. The only provocative thing is the
statement about Israel, and that statement is counter to what I believe TPTB
would have YOU believe. Recall, the Isaeli moving company van with explosives
that was parked on the bridge. That story received very little attention and
has quietly died for all intent and purpose. No I think TPTB would rather you
didn't hear the comment in this video, but there it is.

It's all good in this video, but nothing new to see...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Can someone explain that to me please?


The only thing I can think of is that something else happened in that building at the same time.

Just like when the planes first hit WTC1, a bunch of stuff happened in the basement at the same time, and an explosion came out of the lobby and burned the skin off of people, blew out the glass and knocked ceiling tiles off, and blew out the elevator banks that went into the basement floors. The elevator banks going to the higher floors were NOT blown out. This is according to NYPD Lt. William Walsh's testimony.

So one very visible thing happens... and then they do something else simultaneously that's more low-key. It's all smoke and mirrors. The oldest magician trick in the book. You distract someone with one hand while your other hand is doing the real work.


I still think the most suspicious thing about this video is that it cuts out the instant just before WTC2 first starts to collapse. They edited out when the deep boom happened.


edit on 14-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Oops! I was quoting Boondock and pressed the wrong button!
I haven't got through all of this thread yet, but I noticed exactly what you did too.
This flying object appears from the right of screen at 1.28 to 1.32,... and the boom! from the 2nd "object" hitting the 2nd tower is at 1.57.
My very first gut feeling was a "missile", however it would have had to make a loop in order to hit from the opposite side.
IT IS NOT A PLANE!
Second option is a helicopter but, yes, it's going too fast. And where are the rest of NY's helicopters at a time like this? LOL.
My guess is it's a guided missile, the template over which a 'real plane' could be 'inserted' later...???

I also don't buy the "voice over"...He said "It's got to be terrorism" too damn fast.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


The Mossad were busy splicing the hell out of the film that the CIA grabbed!



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join