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: 6
68
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Oh why did this guy release this video....

Just to feed the 'CGI'/'Coverup' mobs rabid obsession with arguing.... ugh...

All I want to say is, as with Kiwifoot, watching this was like watching it for the first time. Heart wrenching.




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
sodakota..

Except for the squibs......


2nd line


edit on 14-9-2010 by benoni because: missed soda's name...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by badw0lf
 

Straight from the video's description:

Some footage I shot on 9-11-01. This is never before seen footage and has never been released. I chose to upload it because I feel it has historical importance. Like many New Yorkers I know some of the people who have passed and I know many people who have lost a loved one. Some of the footage is considered graphic as is some of the language. Unfortunately, this is a day I will never forget. May God Bless those who we lost on that terrible day.

Who knows. Hopefully there will be more information about this video later. Hmmm...

Look at the church in front of the towers. There is some sort of black outline.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sodakota
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.

True, but he's not trying to make a movie/art piece here. I don't think his first thought when recording it was "Oh, I gotta make this as artistic as possible". No, he was just simply recording the event.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Okay, I went back and looked as closely as possible to the time frame you suggested.
What I did (or didn't) see that supports the squib going off at impact argument, is that
in the prior moment before impact what I would have expected to see was a perturbation
of all the smoke in the area adjacent to the impact. I would also have expected to see
more puffs coming from the opposite side of the building, but instead only saw puffs
coming from the adjacent side.

I think what I'm saying is as the flow of air (I assert) comes in from the appraoching
plane, all the smoke in the area should have been seen to affected at least to some
degree, but what I actually see is that the smoke already outside the building remains
undisturbed, while puffs of smoke can be seen emanating from the windows only. So,
maybe you're argument has some merit. But I don't think it is very strong.

For one, squibs on the central core columns of lower floors would be the expected (IMO)
target and these squibs appear to be going off adjacent to the already impacted floors.
Still plausible, but not compelling. Also, I believe squibs (contained charges placed against
the supportive steel columns) were not a large part of what brought the buildings down.
I believe thermite was used in a slow burn process on keys areas, especially near the
impact zone, on the steel structure to weaken it pre-implosion (pools of molten metal etc).

Anyway, last post on this, (I don't wanna rain on the parade), but I don't see anything
compelling here. Definitely not on my top ten list of evidence against the OS.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Even though this would have been a great piece of footage, I do not think the first half of the clip is authentic. Bummer... We all could have used some footage from this angle. What gave it away is the black outline of the clock tower at time index 3:19. If you look along the left side of the clock tower, there is a black outline that is similar to digital imaging editing. I could be wrong about my assessment, but this is starting to look like a fake.

I so much want to be wrong.


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



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
That being the case..who faked it, and why???



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Ever thought it was on a tripod and they were not right next to it ad it sounds like there talking farther off from camera or watching tv.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 

I couldn't tell you that answer.

If you take an extreme dark toned color and lay it next to an extreme light tone color, you can also create the same black outline affect you see in this clip (Smokey darker background next to a sunlight building). My other explanation would be that an extreme 'sharpen' filter was used on the clip, so that the lights and dark tones are popping out. You can use the 'unsharpen' filter in most video software to do this. Outside of those two explanations, the only other way is to overlay one image over another. Digital imaging.

Three choices:
(1) An unsharpen filter was used on the film to make the lights and dark tones pop out.
(Footage is real).

(2) The dark smoky background is interacting with the sunlight clock tower.
(Footage is real).

(3) One image was cutout and overlapped on-top of another clip.
(Footage is fake).

After reviewing the video one more time, someone did use a 'sharp/unsharpen' filter on this video. Lamp post at time index 5:45 revealed the results of adding the filter. Sharp tones of dark and light 'with' slight pixelation.

We need more footage!!!!


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



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I watched the scene with the "squibs" very closely, repeating it again and again. I see no squibs. What I see is the smoke being shock waved to the side slightly and then a puff getting out as the smoke inside is going I think sideways for a moment. Then after the other building finishes its airplane explosion, the smoke resumes extremely dark and thick from the same areas.

I think this is an impact/fly-by shock wave. It happens.

As it is, this is a very good video. It shows a lot of detail in areas you otherwise wouldn't see. You can even get a decent clear angle of the inside of the first-hit tower's damage if you take a close look when he zooms in on it. Can you see all the torn metal inside? The beams that look severed? Cause I think I do. If you see something different let me know.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
People who say that they talked about terrorism/Israel too early:

You have to remember that the WTC was attacked in 1993 by terrorists. If you're a New Yorker and you see the WTC attacked again, my first assumption would be terrorism.

When I was in school and they told us to turn on the TV (on 9/11) etc etc big announcement, my first gut instinct was the President was assassinated. Now had that been true, would everyone be assuming that I was part of it, just because my guess/assumption was true?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Varemia..

Funny.. I see it completely differently.

At exactly 1:57(watch it on 480p and FullScreen if you can ) I see horizontal lines of smoke simultaneously being ejected across multiple floors. I cant see the smoke being "shockwaved to the side"....I just see jets of smoke, both grey and black in colour being forced outwards, square to the building, forcefully.

The quality is really good, even at Fullscreen....thank you OP for sharing this...I think its quite damning.


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



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


I just don't see it. What I see is the smoke coming out at the same rate it was the entire time, except that a shock wave interrupted it a little.

Experiment time! Light some incense, get a good stream of smoke coming out. Now clap your hands next to it and watch what happens. Also, try rushing your hand past it and watch how the smoke reacts. Honestly, I would make a video of this myself, but my college dorm specifically outlaws anything that can cause smoke that would set off the fire alarms.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 

If this clip turns out to be authentic, it actually proves the accuracy of the original story. Once you go past that 1:57 impact marker, you can tell that the smoke and fire was pushed outward. Shock-wave from the impact pushed the fire and smoke outward. It is clear as day.


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



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Wow guys, there is something funny about the explosion sound. I think the second jet might have had explosives other than fuel tanks on it.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
GRR...can someone please tell me how to properly embed an ATS media video?

Regarding the puffs of smoke around the 1:57 mark: I initially didn't even see them and then wasn't sure what to make of the them. I made a short clip to make it easier to analyze this. It's about a 5 second clip looped 3 times followed by the same clip in slow motion. The effect I see is reminiscent of a fireplace bellows. The majority of these air bursts come from existing places of smoke being released and it appears all of them are coming from existing holes, or windows, that have been blown out. There's also an air burst on the far right side in the lowest area of smoke but above the bottom of the hole. The thing that mostly supports the fireplace bellow for me is that the fire also changes intensity at the same moment, indicating a rush of air from something. If something fell or collapsed within the building because of the fire, it could be responsible for what's seen. I don't see any smoke reacting to an air rush from the outside which is suggestive of something from within. I don't think it's related to the approaching plane. I believe I saw squibs and flashes that suggest controlled demolition, among other reasons, when the building came down but I don't see them here.

As long as I was editing video I also placed the aircraft issue from the 1:30 mark. The first clip is full frame at regular speed followed by a close up at regular speed and finally the close up in slow motion. It's clearly a helicopter in my eyes and I can even see the main rotors, especially in the zoomed in slow motion part.


(click to open player in new window)

Video clip direct link

reply to post by Human_Alien
 
(Earlier post) Neither you nor anyone you were with thought of terrorists when the second plane hit? I gotta be honest, that pretty much got my brain moving in that direction really quick when that happened. One plane, with sketchy details, seemed like an accident. Two planes hitting essentially the same building within 20 minutes of each other, on a sunny day is no coincidence. It seemed purposeful and it seemed like an attack although I didn't have any names or places to attribute it to. I too was thinking about what was going to happen to the towers once the fires were out while it was occurring. Maybe being in construction made me think that way and probably my own mechanisms of dealing with it persuaded my mind thinking that way but I didn't see it as too far fetched.


reply to post by Human_Alien
 
(Later post) Let me start by stating that I'm a truther but I have some issues with your thoughts. After the first plane hit I believe everyone's eyes were on the burning tower, not affixed to the skies. You admitted here that you yourself thought it was an accident and were trying to process what you were seeing. When an accident happens people focus on the accident. I would find it more suspicious if people were expecting something else to happen. I believe peoples eyes, ears, thoughts and focus were on the tragedy that already occurred. Who was expecting another plane to hit and who had enough foresight to be actively looking for and getting ready to record it?

I'm not surprised that there's not more video of the second plane hitting. I believe most people were either watching it on TV, going about their everyday task without knowing about it, listening to it on the radio or watching it live, visually focusing on the smoke and flames of the tower. I'm not surprised that those who were watching it live in the city didn't see more either. Like you, I'm sure many were simply trying to process what was going on at the time. I know a plane is loud but this is NYC with lots of distractions, especially at the time. I tend to think everyone was visually paying attention to the burning tower like I previously mentioned. I think other senses were heightened, mainly visual, and hearing was lessened. The sirens, especially at street level, were very loud at the time in addition to the normal ambient noise level of the city. People were paying attention to the burning tower, not looking in the sky for more attacking aircraft. If there were more video I think the question being asked would simply be how did they know it was coming?

How accurate are eye witnesses during a time like this and how many can accurately compare the size of a plane in relation to a building at that height? I believe most people can differentiate the size of a small or large plane while it's parked at an airport but how many can actually do so at a great rate of speed in an unexpected environment? I also think psychology comes into play here as who could've fathomed the possibility of a large commercial aircraft crashing into a building? How many times has that happened before in comparison to smaller planes crashing into buildings? The MSM saying they thought it was a missile isn't relevant for me as they're only human eye witnesses too or reporting what's others have said in a time of pure chaos. As an example, eye witnesses believed they heard and saw a plane crash that caused the San Bruno fire but it doesn't mean it was true. You said you were living in NY at the time, any chance in NYC? If so what did you see and hear?

reply to post by mark1167
 
Can you post a link to the thread and video? I wouldn't mind comparing the sounds for all to hear.


reply to post by Section31
 
Seriously? I see something in the shade. I think you're looking too hard to find something wrong.


edit on 9/15/2010 by Three_moons because: added words




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I watch this video, and I can only applaud the genius of the masterminds behind the New World Order. Their false flag attack worked perfectly, technically, strategically, socially, and politically.

The people behind this attack will stop at nothing to make the world they way they want it.

9/11 is by no means the last attack we'll see upon American soil. That was just them getting warmed up.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Have you guys ever been to a magic show? theres 2 hands wavin around, one hand has an object the other hand is empty. Then the magic dude fools you by quickly switching it to the other hand but its really in the same hand as before etc etc. What if the same logic sticks here, like at that time and moment people out there must of seen that plane flyin towards the tower. All eyes on that right, Mean while just before the impact, there is a event that happens just before that camera pans to the other tower. Just before the second plane hits, I can see the smoke violently shifts right for a split second, then the puffs of smoke comes outa the building simultaneously from left to right. Any thoughts?

I did a drawin on what i can see in this vid





posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
SQUIBS

minute 1:56



minute 1:57



minute 1:57 - edited with red circles to show squibs




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Commentary seems fake. Whole thing seems very fishy, and could be doctored. No way a pro photographer/camera man would release this 9 years later. He would have had this up the minute it happened.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join