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: 5
68
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
i too agree on the plumes seen at 1st tower at same moment that explosion is heard on the second tower.
Mostly white smoke, small puffs on multiples places, some spots already had their black plume.
I think this happens at the same moment as the "second plane" hits because the small white plumes are attracted by the explosion on the other tower, you see what i mean. :p




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto

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.



I man I really hate debunking this, but this anomaly has a plausible explanation. The
reason you see puffs of smoke prior to hearing the impact is because light travels faster
than sound. The camera doesn't actually record the exact moment of impact visually
so this cannot be verified. But what can be scientifically proven (with work) is how long
it would take sound to travel from the site of the impact to the site of the camera.
Judging only by what is apparent an estimate of one to three seconds is about right.

If you assume the camera is one mile away, or actually question the photog and, get
the information and do the math, you could estimate quite closely how long it could have
taken for the sound to travel that far.

The initial poster on youtube is still responding to questions, so the information is probably
available as to what building and what distance from the WTC complex the camera was when
recorded. I'm a truther, I just hate to see time wasted on a goose chase. While it would make
sense to use the "cover" of the second impact as a means to hide further detonations in
either tower, this video simply doesn't provide any evidence of that. You're trying to
"wish up" some evidence. It is biased science. A scientific truther should proceed with
his investigation without bias as much as possible.


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



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
This is how the Truther (me) get a bad rap.

Those aren't implosion 'squibs' at first! Things are probably just blowing up 'naturally' due to the impact.

Is that what you're saying? Are you suggesting 'they' were imploding the buildings for over an hour and a half???
Man, that's one painfully slow demolition!!!! If I were Silverstein, I'd want my money back for that one!


Good gawd!



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kiwifoot

Originally posted by Three_moons
reply to post by kiwifoot
 

Well, at least put it in context for those who aren't going to watch the video and rely on our comments to make decisions.

Narrator: This, that building's never gonna be the same again. How could (it?)
Other guy: How do you bring that building down?
Narrator: I, you can't. You gotta implode it.
Other guy: You can't even implode it. It's too high. You gotta dismantle it from the top.


I could see the possibility of myself saying that if I were in his shoes. If some one really wanted to find out I'm sure the video could be synced with the fire, smoke, sirens and other ambient noise to determine it one way or the other.


Thanks for that!
I didn't intentionally miss that out, I just didn't catch it. It does make a little more sense when considered in that context, but still sounds like a very unnatural thing to say at such a time, don't you think?



I think that would have entered my mind as well; "That building is toast even if they put the fire out. How do you dismantle it". I think he understood the extent of the damage and that it would have to be "removed".



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I also noticed the change in air pressure regarding the smoke coming from the first building, and I tend to think that there might be a delay in the time we see the change in pressure and actually hear the explosion of the second hit.I believe this was mentioned on a previous reply.
I could be wrong because the direction of the pressure change seems to come from inside the first tower, but at the same time it could have been caused by a huge rush of air being forced into the hole by the "approaching object".Either way it all seems very odd.Its almost like I'm looking at "almost" the same event I remember watching nine years ago.But not quite.It could be because the footage is so vivid and chrystal clear.I dont remember as the event unfolded seeing any clear or distinguishable footage, it was almost like watching the moon landing, just enough grainy footage to believe it but not enough to give up any secrets.
My main reason for commenting here was the sound of the "second object" as it quickly screamed into the audio of this footage.I had just finished reading another post regarding footage of close quarter missle hits during the Iraqi war. There are some very compelling close up footage of precision missle hits on certain targets.Has any one else seen that thread?Anyways I listened to the sound of the missles as they came screaming down and slammmed into their target and found the sound of the missles very similar to the sound heard on the video of the second object as you hear it approach and hit the second tower.I'm not trying to imply anything I just found it curious because to my ear they sound similar. I would like someone to compare the sounds in the two videos and see if I'm completely way off.By the way I am new to ATS, but I have been lurking on the sidelines for quite sometime and am humbled and honoured to join your community.Thanks.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
"I man I really hate debunking this, but this anomaly has a plausible explanation. The reason you see puffs of smoke prior to hearing the impact is because light travels faster than sound."

The puffs of smoke are coming out of the first tower on or around the time the second tower is impacted and explodes. What does this have to do with seeing puffs of smoke prior to hearing the impact?

This seems to be rather solid proof of secondary explosions in the first impacted tower; something which a number of witnesses reported hearing.

It would make sense to implode the building in stages over a longer period of time, instead of using consecutive explosions over a short period of time which would be a lot easier to detect by sight and sound.

What exactly could be in those offices that just keep on exploding? From a safety standpoint, it does not make much sense to routinely keep flammable explosive items on office floors where numerous amounts of people are working. In fact, this should be a serious fire code violation.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Can the air pressure from the second plane cause a sudden short burst of extra oxygen to enter the impact zone in WTC2? At approx 1:56-1:57 there are sudden puffs of extra smoke and visible flames that are gone by 1:58.

I also believe that the sound would have only been lagging by about half a second max, based on when the second plane impact is heard and it's explosion first becomes visible (1:58 and 1:59 respectively). This means the air pressure creating the burst of oxygen described above would likely have to come from the plane when it is still flying, rather than the explosion from its impact.

Watching this vid on 480p and full screen is best.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


You saw what you saw, I saw what I saw.
That is two different things and it has nothing at all to do with sound.
Why you make such a big deal about camera distance is a mystery to me.
It has no bearing on the suspicious squib-like emanations, these are not magical air holes which simply expel smoke due to air pressure when the second plane hit.
Well, I guess they "could be" if you want them to be...I see something else.
I didn't even listen to the audio - still haven't.
"you are trying to wish up some evidence..." what? really? are you serious?


edit on 14-9-2010 by trouble_every_day because: exasperation update



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

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...





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


Sounds more like a missile

Every 9/11 video of the plane isn't clear not to mention the sides of the plane.

I am slowly going into the 9/11 planes were CGI group.

I got a good question for you have you ever watched a football game? lets say in rugby
and noticed strange two lines while watching the football game?

the lines show the viewers where the players are it i think, but if you go in a real football game
you wont find or see those lines at all.

They can be either green,yellow,blue,red on the filed.


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



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mark1167

My main reason for commenting here was the sound of the "second object" as it quickly screamed into the audio of this footage.I had just finished reading another post regarding footage of close quarter missle hits during the Iraqi war. There are some very compelling close up footage of precision missle hits on certain targets.Has any one else seen that thread?Anyways I listened to the sound of the missles as they came screaming down and slammmed into their target and found the sound of the missles very similar to the sound heard on the video of the second object as you hear it approach and hit the second tower.I'm not trying to imply anything I just found it curious because to my ear they sound similar. I would like someone to compare the sounds in the two videos and see if I'm completely way off.By the way I am new to ATS, but I have been lurking on the sidelines for quite sometime and am humbled and honoured to join your community.Thanks.




There's a bunch of sound wavs here.

Missile Hit


Not having ever heard a plane nor missile slam into a 110 story building in the middle of city, it's hard to tell what that explosion sounds like.

All I feel is, I don't believe passenger planes were used that entire day.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Thanks for the reply.
I think I need to clarify what I meant.I was talking more about the sound of the object as it approaches rather than the sound of the explosion as it hits.To my ears the sound of the approaching object in the new footage does not sound like an airplane, but as a previous poster replied because of where the footage was being shot and the direction of the approaching object we might not have been able to hear the initial appraoch, but only the last part as the object got closer to the camera.I'm not sure what to think about that, but if someone with more technical knowledge than I could put the two sounds into one clip, one followed by the other, maybe we could compare the sound of a missle approaching with its smaller areodynamic profile compared to the sound of a passenger airliner with its much larger aerodynamic profile.Thanks again.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by trouble_every_day
 


Fair enough, you see what you see and I see what I see. But my point is I'm not ~trying~
to see anything. I take what is presented at face value and then (hopefully) debunk my
own assumptions with more vigor than than any official debunker. That way I'm prepared
when said debunker starts making arguments against mine, because I've put in the
work required to address his questions.

The puffs of smoke could be squibs. as I stated, it makes perfect sense to use the
cover of the impact to further detonate explosions in EITHER building. Using a little
empathy directed at whomever brought these buildings down, and assuming charges
were placed, that is exactly what I would have done. Butthis video just doesn't
provide clear evidence of that to me.

An airliner at five hundred miles-per-hour is pushing ALOT of air in front of it and the
explosion of impact would push even more air. It is plausible that this air created
what (to you) were apparent squibs explosions. It is also plausible that these puffs
of smoke were created by the volume of air being pushed by the airliner and the
impact.

If I am trying, or wanting, to see anything, it is this: Clear, concise, hard to refute evidence
of anything that refutes the official story. I want a preponderance of evidence such as this
to force another, independent, unhindered-with-full-access, investigation.

There is no clear, easily refuted evidence of anything in this video to my eye. It all
fits in nicely with the OS. It is sad, I wanted something concrete, but I see no reason
for any excitement at all for this video so far, from a truth perspective.






edit on 14-9-2010 by rival because: because because because because.....of the wonderful things he does



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
hey rival..

either you misread what I and others have said, or you are trying to add some confusion here...

You still see the squibs exploding on multiple floors even if you have your volume turned down to zero.

Distance X height of building X speed of plane divided by wind speed etc has no bearing on our observations!!

Dont worry what Mr. Vigilante is saying on youtube....just watch the video(sound down...try it!!) at 1 minute 50 through 2 minutes....those ten seconds reveal video evidence of detonations.....irrefutable evidence.

Planes never brought down the Towers....the explosives did.

Edit

Also, your argument that the puffs of air could have been caused by the plane "pushing air" carry NO weight...if anything, using your theory, the puffs would be seen on the "out of view"opposite side of the building....not the side nearest the planes explosion ...


And I am not WANTING to see squibs......as you imply.....I DO see squibs...I'm not making it up....this is not a Mars Anomaly ..... with who knows how many variables open to interpretation....its clearly seen on the clip.

I sense you are being obstuctionist....

I may be wrong....



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



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
hey rival..

1 minute 50 through 2 minutes....those ten seconds reveal video evidence of detonations.....irrefutable evidence.

Planes never brought down the Towers....the explosives did.



I too believe explosives brought down all three buildings but how can a building be in 'demolition-mode' for an hour and a half?

They don't demolish buildings for two hours.

I have a very suspicious mind, trust me but even I can't see how 'they' would do this.
How is that remotely orchestrated?

Yes. The buildings were all taken down by controlled demolition (in my opinion) but it did not take nearly 2 hours to bring the two down (and 10 hours more for WTC 7) That's ridiculous!

I believe they brought them ALL down at the very last moments of the buildings life!
I believe tower one came down around 10:10? Then the demolition implosions went off around 10:09 1/2 not..................at 8:45!

Think about it.


edit on 14-9-2010 by Human_Alien because: correction of hours



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


Okay, maybe I did miss it. I wasn't looking for possible squibs until near the time of impact.
That is what I was addressing. I certainly am not trying to confuse. I'm trying to be reasonable.
I believe the OS is load of BS. But I want the BEST arguments, not what I see as weak, or
misleading arguments to add to the mountain of evidence so far...so in that sense I tend to be
tougher on truther theories than debunkers at times.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
THE VIDEO IS DEFINATELY PUT TOGETHER FOR A REASON

" 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 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Actually YOU need to think about it...


1..Crash plane into building....simultaneously detonate explosives in basement (also poorly timed )

2.Allow window of opportunity for % of occupants to leave building...

3. Allow media to gather and record "event" which would then be played over and over and over subliminally programming you with their commentary...Shock and Awe done domestically...to allow for the US invasion plans in the Middle East and Asia/Patriot Act etc...

4. 2nd plane used as cover for more squibs to be detonated....and there is ample other footage of squibs...

5. At the appropriate time of their choosing the Coup de Grace brings the buildings down...

They didnt use some squibs then hope for the best...they were used to compromise the structures integrity...then (I believe at least) they pushed their last Button, exploding the top of both buildings....they didnt collapse Alien...they exploded from the top down

A theory....

Use it or lose it!!




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Okay, I acknowledge you want to see something that removes the doubt for you although I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as "hard evidence" that is hard enough to satisfy the people who need satisfying here.

I would suggest that there is enough ambiguity and suspicious "evidence" to demand a new investigation where nothing is off limits, no-one is outside the scope and all information is available from all sources. I would also like to suggest that it is unreasonable and unpatriotic to refuse this kind of new investigation. What is there to lose? Money? Hah!

To paraphrase - "the 911 commission didn't have the budget to investigate" some things. Really? Really?!?!


edit on 14-9-2010 by trouble_every_day because: just cos...



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

You will be surprised about what people own, and when they choose to show it to friends, family, etc...

How many videos were shot on that day compared to how many were shown? There could be endless amounts of video..

You people have to keep something in mind. Even though many of you don't believe the official story, that does not mean everyone is also thinking in the same manner. Many people could be holding onto video, which they put away for prosperity purposes. Since they are not thinking like a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, they are not giving the official story a second thought.

I have seen weird stuff pop up decades after something happens. It is not uncommon.


edit on 14-9-2010 by Section31 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Something is wrong here. I graduated the New York Institute of Photography. If this guy is a professional photographer, it's the wost video I've ever seen. Sure it's crystal clear, but professional photographers are trained to see things and photograph things in ways that are unusual. They don't go out and just take straight shots that every other person with a handycam/instant camera would take.

I believe he has edited out anything that could possibly get him in trouble or hurt his career.



new topics




 
68
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join