It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:14 AM
The puffs of smoke on WTC 1 when WTC 2 got hit have already been noted on other videos. It happens right when WTC 2 explodes, so it was probably caused by the shock wave of the explosion. The reason you see the puff of smoke before you hear the explosion is because sound travels slower than light.

The reason the guys talk about terrorists after the second one hits, is because it was obviously not another accident at that point. Also, 9/11 wasn't the first time the WTC's were attacked by terrorists.

As for the reason the second jet wasn't in view when it happened... it's because the camera guy walked away from the camera and wasn't watching through the camera. You can hear his voice far away from the camera when it gets hit. I'm guessing when he noticed the second hit, he ran to the camera and got it in view.

As for the cuts in the video, he was probably running on a battery and just trying not to film one thing for an hour. Camera men also like to save film for the good stuff.

The comments about the "implosion" are being taken out of context by most of you. They first were talking about the building being "not the same anymore" as in structurally damaged and unsafe to go in if the fires were put out. If you saw a big chunk taken out of a building, you wouldn't want to go in it. You either try to repair it, or you take the hole building down and start over. I think they were thinking about a controlled demo so they could rebuild the tower, instead of repairing it. Or, dismantle form the top down in order to repair it.

The video seems genuine.

The sound of the second jet's explosion doesn't sound right to me. The crack sound it makes sounds nothing like a fuel tank explosion. It sounds more like high explosives. The crack sound is only made when the shock wave created by the supersonic speed of the explosive reaches the camera. It's not the sound of metal on metal jet, nor does it sound like a fuel tank explosion. Fuel tanks have lower expansion rate compared to high explosives, meaning their shock wave would sound way different. I seriously think there were high explosives in the jet or in the building.

edit on 15-9-2010 by illumin8ed because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:14 AM
Right off the bat, i would encourage you tubers to check the channel info. We had some discussion on this last year. Some of us noticed many new channels showing up with join dates of 2006 or 2007, but the stats did not back them up. It became obvious the figures were created, and this can only be done from inside. The owners usually had an agenda.
A user will get channel views, even if there is not much there. By this time, should he not have more channel views? Thousands per year is common.
A user will usually subscribe to more than 2 channels, especially if looking for new projects?
Plus, he just subbed these one month ago? Why? That I find odd.
Did the user delete all videos prior to one year ago? Why, if he was one of the original users from way back in '06?
A user who is a professional should have had much more interest and should have more than 15 subscribers? 100 or 500 a year is common for even small channels.
Only 4 comments? Where are the others from last year and the year before?
On the plus side, he has a comment from EXOMATRIX, who is much more of an expert than I, and should have better discernment in these matters. hmmm.
My take so far:
I have a theory that says this channel was created a month ago.
However, I am leaving these questions for the greater minds here at ATS,
I hope you can interpret and evaluate these anomalies,
and perhaps find some reasonable explanation.
Perhaps I have seen this in the wrong light entirely?

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:15 AM
reply to post by Section31
Huh? I'm confused. I agree that the smoke and fire was pushed outward in WTC 1, presumably from something within it. What does this have to do with the OS and the shock wave of a plane hitting WTC 2 and affecting WTC 1? Or did I read your whole post wrong?

reply to post by harrytuttle
If it worked so perfectly, especially socially, why are we here debating it?

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Azp420
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.

ever heard of a concussion wave???
it comes from an explosion.
If you look at this video you can see
how an explosion outside a window
can cause a wave to push inward
on an adjacent structure. I think the
pause of smoke coming out the windows
of WTC1 was temporarily halted
due to this wave.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:28 AM
reply to post by nagabonar

See first tower at 1:47 to 1:58 more smoke at left puffing out as if more
explosions are taking place.

By 2:00 we see flames at the left from the second tower.

Unfortunate the wide view was not full time but one floor in flames
without more destruction like the first does look like a plane crash.
The voice said terror attack but not saying anything about passengers
or plane.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:42 AM

Doesnt a picture tell a thousand words.....

Thanks for the pictorial explanation mate!!

How many floors do the squibs encompass??

Do people really NOT see the ejections..?...because there seems to be a lot of folks previously implying if you WANT to see something, you can...the irony!!

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:49 AM
reply to post by nagabonar
Squibs? Conveniently originating from existing places of smoke and broken windows?

reply to post by q_ball
What seems fake about the commentary? What's so fishy about the whole thing? Anything could be doctored, you have anything specific to suggest that? Why can't a pro photographer choose not to immediately release it?

reply to post by benoni
I see ejections but for reasons already mentioned they don't look like squibs.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by PersonalChoice

It just amazes me. No Matter how many Videos, how many viewing angles, it still
looks like a Tower Collapsed beacuse a Jumbo Jet broke it.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:03 AM

Originally posted by illumin8ed
The puffs of smoke on WTC 1 when WTC 2 got hit have already been noted on other videos. It happens right when WTC 2 explodes, so it was probably caused by the shock wave of the explosion.

Shock wave hitting the side of WTC 1 which faces WTC 2 ...thats plausible. But how were the puff of smoke created on the side which does not face WTC 2, at the time WTC 2 explodes. That does not add up. Also, the smoke all the sudden comes from inside. One would assume that a shock wave pushes smoke away and not towards the explosion. Something exploded inside from WTC 1

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

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:05 AM
I am speechless. I cannot get over the sound of the plane hitting the building, something I never heard before after all of these years.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:10 AM
three moons...

Sorry mate, but if you cannot see the difference between image one and image two of nagabonars post earlier then you need to go and see an optician....

In his third image he even kindly circled see the squibs being ejected from two of four sides of the building...

You seem in agreement that something within caused this anomaly, and you suspect some form of bellows action....
What could have "moved" within the building to cause the bellows action across at least 20 floors??

I cannot think of anything....

And dont tell me its yet another coincidence that the bellows action occured two seconds or so before the second plane hit....!!

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by boondock-saint

Assuming it was the result of a concussion wave from the explosion (the audio is only lagging by about half a second), that would mean:

The air pressure enters at some point in WTC1. Instead of escaping through the large impact hole (we see minimal disturbance of the smoke there in comparison), it maintains a more or less equal pressure throughout multiple floors and exits simultaneously through many small holes (even some where no smoke was previously exiting).

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:28 AM

Originally posted by badw0lf
Oh why did this guy release this video....

I am curious about his timing as well. This country is on a frenzy of hate right now. People at one another's throats. As I keep saying, when the left hand is keeping you busy, watch the right one. I cannot help but feel this country is being set up right now for something.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:33 AM
reply to post by benoni
Thanks for being concerned about my vision.
I never said I couldn't see a difference between two pictures but rather don't see squibs as the cause and don't think it was because of the second plane. Much like a picture speaks a thousand words, so does video. The video clip I posted speaks thousands of words. They don't appear to be squibs for me for reasons I already mentioned. It's an awfully erratic pattern for squibs and them coming out of existing area of smoke seems oddly strange to me. The air easily could've been displaced over many stories at once considering the building was no longer separated by walls, floors, ceilings and doors as it once did. As far as a cause I previously speculated one too. Some thing falling or collapsing within the building could've caused such a scenario. i see something reminiscent of squibs here but I don't see squibs here.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:41 AM
I do not like the audio, anticipatory.
"How do you bring that building down." Way too early to be thinking of that?
"737 plane," not sure about that. Weird.
"Implode..." I do not like that either.
I watched this live on TV and brought my kids home from school anticipating a nuke war.
I thought "Terrorist attack," and "Bush better do something" also.
I think this was a common thought, because of the previous media talk of OBL planning an attack, widely reported after the first WTC bobing.
My big challenges are the inconsistencies with the channel stats, and the guy having the idea that the building would come down.
None of us here even imagined that.
I do not like the initial video with the buildings and lightpole. Looks odd.
Just my 2.5 cents.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:42 AM
First of all, I do not believe the OS, however:

In my opinion, those who think they are seeing 'squibs' are just confused by the delay of the shock wave and camera shake. I would estimate a TWO SECOND delay from the time the plane actually hit, until the camera shakes and the explosion is heard.

What you see is the smoke first being pushed back inside/away from the explosion, and then immediately after that it begins to flow back out again, just like it was before the explosion. I understand that this might give the illusion of 'squibs', however it is just the smoke reacting to the high pressure wave of energy created by the explosion.

You must realize that the moment of impact is actually when the smoke reacts by being pushed in and then pouring back out (the so called squibs), not two seconds later, as it appears from the audio and camera shake. You can actually use the smoke to determine when the impact actually happened, you don't need to calculate the distance, although it's quite easy:

1130 feet per second is roughly the speed of sound (depending on atmospheric conditions), and there are 5280 feet in a mile. Using the delay of approximately 2 seconds (I'm eyeballing that) from when the smoke moves, until the sound/shake of the impact is recorded, means that the camera recording this was ROUGHLY 2260 feet from the point of impact. A little less than half a mile.

My agenda is the truth, and I refuse to look at things and try and make them fit into any preconceived notions I might have about what happened that day. I suggest everyone who calls themselves a 'Truther' do the same.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:43 AM
Since everyone has been talking about it, I just wanted to post this video, where the guy has a FOX TV shot of the north tower(zoomed exactly like Vigilante video, except the quality is terrible compared to his). Here we can see the smoke being ejected from a little wider shot. Thought I'd add it to the discussion.

edit on 15-9-2010 by PersonalChoice because: Did I say FOX...I meant NBC

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:46 AM
So these planes hit the (TOP) of these buildings and way down below the foundation gives in. OK sure...why not...if you liars say so. I mean that idiot Commander in Thief was our great leader when he wasn't drunk, sitting in a class room with the dumbest (acting) goofy stare I've ever seen. All the incredible accurate true assessment of 911 staring (after the fact) all of us in the face and many believe that congress would reveal to us what happen. People it's over.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:55 AM
Thanks again personal...

Hmm....the shockwave has gone(using previous sentiments of some...), and then a second or two later,we see squib activity right under the fireball....

this video is useful as it gives a better perspective on the distance between the second impact and the squibs ejecting around the other right hand side of the building near the top...

I think its getting a little harder for some out there to debunk the use of explosives in the WTC murders.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by CestLaVie
The guy didn't have the idea that the building would come down but was rather speculating how the building was going to be repaired or replaced; I had the same thoughts in my mind as I watched it live. I think you're taking it out of context.

Originally posted by Three_moons
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 understand your concerns with the YT inconsistencies but doesn't him being authentic in other ways make up for it in some regards? What looks odd with the buildings and light pole?

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in