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: 4
68
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
PURE FAKE COMPLETE BS.
" THATS TERRORISTS, TERRORISTS TERRORISTS,TERRORISTS TERRORISTS,TERRORISTS."

PURE SUBLIM.....AS FOR THE DEBUNKERS - ISREAL HAD MORE REASON TO PULL THIS OFF THAN ANYONE - HOW ELSE WOULD THET GET UR ARMY TO FIGHT THEIR WARS?????




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
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)



I'm not seeing that at all. The cameraman's angle changes. The smoke doesn't change.

C'mon people. Stop looking for stuff. We have enough unanswered questions as is. Not everything is a conspiracy.

I do agree this video is a little suspicious (like: the editing and the fact he mentions Israel after the first 'accident') but I don't think there's anymore to this. Where it's been for 9 years...?....is a little strange too but.....


As far as a second passenger plane hitting? Still not convinced. I lean more towards drone/missile but that's just me.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Those cut aways are troubling Im not about to say the footage was tampered with I am not about to make that accusation without more data.But still something about this video is off:


edit on 073030p://1426 by mike dangerously because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


The "drone/missile" you are leaning towards?:


As far as a second passenger plane hitting? Still not convinced. I lean more towards drone/missile but that's just me.


How do you account for all of the video/photos OF a Boeing 767-200? In United Airlines paint scheme? AND the airplane/engine parts, and human remains and personal effects of passengers that were recovered?

AND, that the flight United Airlines 175 was completely normal, from push-back from its gate in Boston, to the time it was taken over, and nothing about it was unusual (from ATC's standpoint) until then? Finally, after the take-over, the airplane was followed, on radar, to NYC.

Any way to explain how one would "lean" towards a 'drone/missile', given all of those facts??

Here's a video of some of the REAL controllers telling their story, in their words....and speaking in ways that pilots (like myself) understand, and connect with. Because, they are real......Yes, it's just under one hour long (it was a full hour NBC special, after all). But, unfortunately, this sort of truth has gotten lost, lately, with all the noise and nonsense coming from so many 9/11 "conspiracy" websites.....:


Google Video Link



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I must say that I believe in the authenticity of this video, while the audio may be suspect, it would appear the video is accurate. It is easy to be critical of persons shooting video under extraordinary circumstances, but it appears to me the videographer acted appropriately, corroborated by his You Tube statement.

The most significant aspect of this video, in my opinion, is the jettison of smoke from multiple places on tower 1 prior to the plane strike on tower 2. This could make the video suspect, or it shows a possible coordinated attack. I do not see how the air pressure could force the expelling of smoke from the inside of the structure.

This may be a significant video, for the possible evidence value, but more importantly for the sheer horror of the days events, and the tragedy of victims involved.

Let's keep examining this evidence-we owe to ourselves, and the victims.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rival
It wasn't released earlier because the government had it.


Really?

I didn't see anything about it in the OP but the feds did confiscate a lot of cameras at Ground Zero, and NIST has videos and photos in the thousands that it never released.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Wow...

Thought I'd seen 'em all.

I think what ckitch and spy66 may be referring to are the apparently synchronistic, multiple floor explosions occurring inside the filmed tower just as the second tower is attacked.

May I suggest starting the clip at 1:50, ignore the other tower's event and simply observe the multiple, seemingly timed events occurring on the face of the tower.

I don't know, seems like the perps thought it a good time to set off additional necessary structure-weakening demolition/cutter charges in the first tower just as the second attack diverts attention.




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




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



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


No, not really, I assumed this was recent FOIA release, but my assumption was wrong.
I don't know why this was released now. FOIA is one possible answer to that question.

Looking at the video again I still see no clear conspiracy. Although there remains no
logical explanation as to why a pro photographer would hang on to this footage for so
long without releasing it.

Still, the comment about Israel goes against my truther perspective of what happened
that day.In my world, that comment would have been edited out first and foremost.
That's why I don't see any conspiracy angle in this video. In my opinion, the guy
might just as well have said George Bush did the attack, and then have that
statement remain and not be edited. I mean, if you are TPTB you edit OUT the
Iraeli reference and leave all the "terrorist" reference. Especially after having ten
years to play with the video...




edit on 14-9-2010 by rival because: to format



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I went to you tube and watched at full resolution and read the poster's comments which
were just updated an hour ago. The reason he gives for holding this video for so long
is quite suspect--not much of a reason at all, but we humans do strange things, so
who knows.

after watching the vid and reading responses, some are questioning the billowing of
smoke form tower one just moments before the impact of tower two...

I am not a debunker, but I'm afraid this is too easily explained to leave out there
as conspiracy. Simply put, the camera was some distance from the towers and
the billowing of smoke actually occurs at the moment of impact, but the time needed
for the sound to travel to the camera is the reason for the discrepancy. The camera
is not pointed at tower two at the moment of impact so this cannot be verified, but
it is the Occam's razor explanation...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
That is some great footage. So sad to see though. I thought I would post up two pics of the object at 1:30.

Kind of hard to believe its a helicopter as it only last for like a second and a half. First picture in normal and the second one is 400% zoom.




zoomed:




Not sure if this clears it up or raises a couple more questions.


edit on 14-9-2010 by yigsstarhouse because: typo



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by yigsstarhouse
 


No, it is not a UFO. It's either a helicopter or an airplane.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by iSeeKEnlightenment8o5
 


I agree it was a helicopter. they had helicopters flying around the towers that day.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
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?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 


IMHO, judging by the content, the initial conversation that ends just after the second strike is a scripted conversation.

I think the conversation audio has been mixed with the original audio.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I believe this video is genuine.....

As spy66 pointed out, and this is important because it confirms the beliefs that some of us have regarding the Official Fairytale, at approximately 1 minute 56, a second or so before the second plane hits, you can clearly see detonations/ explosive material being shot out from the building over multiple floors.....these are squibs.

The fiery explosion from the second plane crashing into the building was used as the literal "smokescreen" to conceal the squib detonations....a nervous hand pressed his Red Button prematurely, and this has now been shown to us on this clip....

A second or so too soon is probably better than the BBC's 23 minute premature reporting of the WTC7's controlled demolition though.....they appear to have had some timing issues that day....


thats why I think this video is genuine....because it confirms the use of explosives on the WTC's....


Go back to page one and keep an eye on the front face of the first building as you watch the video again....as the noise of the second plane can be heard incoming,so you will see the charges being simultaneously detonated.

Genuine....and another straw that will break the camels back eventually.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by iSeeKEnlightenment8o5
 


I guess I should have stated for the record that I wasn't claiming it was any particular thing per say, I just noticed it as well as others did and thought I would post a couple pics of it is all. Im not always all about ufos yano...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
well at least wee know now how to bring down buildings more effectively.

no longer do we need to send in teams of engineers to precisely place explosives in just the right spots.

all we have to do is place a buttload of jet fuel on the upper floors and blow it.

then the buildings will fall down perfectly into their own footfprint.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I question flight 175 because all the footage is questionable at best. In fact, I believe there should've been a LOT more videos but lo and behold, we only were given three? Maybe four?

I can't believe at least another 100 videos haven't surface. The odds don't fit the event. Video cameras should've been everywhere. From people apartments. From the boats below. From their offices. Video cameras were readily available and a lot of people had them but....we are only shown 3 videos of the second plane? Strange....................

I also find it very disturbing that no one (at least on record) claims to have seen this passenger plane 175 fly over Staten Island and over the East River before it allegedly slammed into tower two. Why is it?

Every ones eyes were affixed to the skies that morning yet no one witnessed it approaching?

And the few who were interviewed were saying they thought it was a Cessna or small plane. In fact, the MSM were SAYING.....'they thought it was a missile" (there is a video of that)

Why?

You can see for miles especially on that clear morning. Yet there are no reports of anyone having seen this plane descend over an entire island and span an entire river.

That's why I don't believe it was a passenger plane. And the fact I don't believe any of the OS, it leaves me distrusting the entire official explanation.







top topics



 
68
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join