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: 9
68
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 



Yes, your photos 2 and 3 , if from DIFFERENT sources, have the same "Line Of Sight". The perspective is almost exact, as if they were in or on the same building. It's a side issue though... because I thought one of them (your 3rd photo down, was from this video, I was mistaken.

But it's still interesting how many photos, stills from videos, and videos themselves, have almost identical Lines Of Sight. That's why I was asking.



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




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   
The only issues I have now with this video is why the HELL this guy didn't submit this years ago. News stations would have paid him thousands for his footage, just as stock footage for archives, movies, etc.

He doesn't seem that business savvy.

And is anyone going to ask him if he has the other footage? I would really like to see the unedited stuff. Hours and hours of pro quality HD never seen stuff!!

And did all the cameramen hang out with the Naudet Brothers at that intersection? That place seems like a great meeting spot.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
News stations would have paid him thousands for his footage, just as stock footage for archives, movies, etc.

He doesn't seem that business savvy.


This type of comment, and not just from you PIN, throws my brain into pure confusion and makes it hurt. There's so many threads were money and greed comes up, often related to big business, and then we have the exact opposite here and it seems everyone directly shifts to arguing the other side of it.
I just don't get it sometimes.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Three_moons

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
News stations would have paid him thousands for his footage, just as stock footage for archives, movies, etc.

He doesn't seem that business savvy.


This type of comment, and not just from you PIN, throws my brain into pure confusion and makes it hurt. There's so many threads were money and greed comes up, often related to big business, and then we have the exact opposite here and it seems everyone directly shifts to arguing the other side of it.
I just don't get it sometimes.


Well what I said isn't as nefarious or shady as it would seem. I'm a businessman and sometimes that comes out. I didn't mean it as a heartless greed based comment. Cameramen make money from footage regularly. It's not an "evil" thing. I charge people to do what I do, because it's a skill, and I need to pay rent. There's nothing wrong with making money from your trade or skill. He had valuable footage, he took time to shoot it, risked his health and possible injury, why shouldn't he of sold his "work"?

Sorry that's what people do.

And I meant that at MINIMUM he could have made money from the footage.

ORRRRR...he could have donated the footage if he chose. Either way, he sat on it as a PROFESSIONAL CAMERAMAN which is just plain weird.

The point is, he held onto it for NINE YEARS, and only now feels it's relevant.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
So in approximately 50 minutes, this guy is able to move around a chaotic Manhattan and set up and take video from four or five different locations, including one location which is the exact location where the grainy Naudet film was shot from? What a coincidence. He also had time to stop at the store and get his diabetic friend a Snapple. Did he sit down and have some Wheaties also?

Interesting how he had the foresight to move further and further away from the buildings, as if knowing that they would collapse. This is especially odd, considering no one in their right mind expected those buildings to collapse from some oxygen starved fires.

He said he stopped filming after the collapse of the first tower because he was worried about his pregnant sister who was supposedly three blocks away. Of course, he wasn't worried about her when both buildings were on fire after major explosions. I guess he was too preoccupied at the time with how they were going to repair the buildings by taking them down, imploding them, etc. Everybody else was in shock and disbelief and worrying about the safety of others and this guy was concerned with building repairs.
Is he related to Silverstein?

He is a professional video guy, so he sets up his camera with a light pole in the foreground partially obscuring the shot. Did he expect the light pole to also explode?

He says he was only compelled to release the video now because of all the media which was released by others online, even though most of this other material was released 7-9 years ago. I'm surprised he didn't wait until after his death to release this footage, or another nine years at the least. Did he expect the footage to appreciate in value (like baseball cards) the longer that he held it. Did it ever occur to him to provide this video to the authorities as key evidence of the attacks? What a concerned citizen.

This appears to be footage spliced together from several different sources with a phony soundtrack inserted to sell some more improbable crap (as if the OS is not enough) about that day. Can someone explain why the Woolworth Building (point green top) in the foreground and the towers in the background are both in clear focus, although they are 4-5 blocks away from eachother. Oh yes, I forgot, he had access to professional video equipment that the major media outlets (who have the best equipment that money can buy) did not have access to that day.

And finally, we have another zoomed in shot of the second impact, once again missing that ever elusive second airliner. Aside from those cartoonish planes we were treated to by our friendly media, for some reason, nobody was able to get a clear shot of the second plane. The zoom in zoom out function is your best friend when it comes to covering up 9/11. So use it.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Look most likely what happened was that the terroist planes hit. The government was concerned for the lives of others in New York. They made a grave sacrifice of the lives still in the towers to save others if the towers would have fallen and hit other buildings in the process. Would you tell the public that you just killed thousands of lives? Probably not if your job/life depended on it. Put yourselves into the situation and try to understand what was going on. What I have just proposed is most likely scenario if the Gov't is indeed innocent. I think all skyscrapers have explosives in them in case the Sh** hits the fan like it did that day. Imagine how many more lives would have been lost if they hit other buildings. Just my Two pennies.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
And by the way, what happened to the FDNY crew which was inspecting/repairing the gas leak in the famous Naudet video? Since it was shot only about an hour after the Naudet video, they are nowhere to be found in this video. Did they just leave the scene of the gas leak after the first impact, leaving a hazardous and dangerous condition behind? Did they repair this gas leak in record time ( I wish I had a plumber who worked that fast)? Or was this gas leak business staged to put Naudet in a perfect line of site to film the first impact?

Also, in the audio, one of the guys states that the fires are moving down the Tower. What a load of garbage! Was this thrown into the mix to give the credibility to the famous lie about the miraculous ball of fire which traveled down the elevator shaft down to the lobby?

While everybody else was freaking out wondering what the hell was going on, they had it all covered. In this short eight minute video, they talked about terrorism, building implosion, fire moving downward, Israel, American military retaliation, etc. Maybe I can ask one of these guys to look into the future and give me some lottery results. Amazing how easy it is to fool people by slapping some video and audio together.




edit on 15-9-2010 by SphinxMontreal because: Adding ?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I didn't read through all the comments here so maybe this has been asked but. .... What goes flying from right to left at 1:30 on the video??

Just for a second line here, this seems waaaaaay too convenient of a video to have... Especially to be stashed away for 9 years! Seems ideal to release something like this around election time and a time with little to no support for any more war!!! What better way to get the blood pumping and make americans mad than to release this kind of video along with all the mosque crap that is all over the news.. Seems like propaganda to me



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Well , looking at this video again it seems we have very similar "HOLY SH*T" exclamations.

In the 'new' video right at the beginning about the 0:02 mark we have a "HOOOLY SH*T" from some guy. I knew the voice sounded familiar, couldn't put a finger on it though.



Then I looked over the original footage of the Naudet first strike and found this video. Go to around the 0:03 to 0:05 mark in the beginning of THAT video...the same "HOOOLY SH*T"???



Now I'm not claiming anything here, just that there were a lot of "HOOOOLY SH*TS" thrown around that day, but these two sound like the same guy. Just sayin.....



Does this guy "Steve Vigilante" have any connection to the Naudet Bros. cuz there's a guy with the same sounding voice , yelling the same "holy sh*t", in almost the same exact manner. And he seemed to end up at almost the same intersection the Naudet Bros were at in THEIR footage.

I'm sorry guys but the "holy sh*t" sounds the same.


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



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 

I don't recall hearing anything about people not being able to freely, easily, normally move around on foot during the time frame being discussed and at the locations where it was being filmed. Were there issues I'm unaware of? You question how he had time to stop like there was some time line or rush to do something or go somewhere. Was there? Why couldn't he have stopped to have a big breakfast? There were only two oxygen starved buildings on fire and it was suspected that there was an ongoing attack. You imply that he knew they would collapse yet question why he was so lax with his time? It sounds like you had better foresight than he did.


And if he stayed there up close for a great shot your story would be questioning how he knew to stay so close to know that the buildings were going to fall to get that great footage. The fact that he moved away from the towers is proof of knowledge of the fate of the towers? His original filming location seemed far enough away to be relatively safe I believe.

Why should he have been worried about his pregnant sister when there were only two buildings with some oxygen starved fires? Who anticipated them falling? You took the narration out of context in speech and the time frame of it since it was mentioned when only the first building was burning from that oxygen starved fire. Believe it or not different people deal with situations in different ways. And if the audio showed your anticipated shock and disbelief you would probably have different issues with it.

I don't believe it was a light pole. You do realize he was in a building during that portion of video, don't you? The 29th floor is what I believe was said which is pretty evident I think. "Knock, knock...can I film from your apartment/office? I know we're under attack and want the clearest unobstructed view I can get".
If he knew what was happening why didn't he do that?

I'd continue but fail to believe it's worth my effort since your logic seems to go back and forth that he had foresight of the events.




reply to post by Shadowed
 
Hold on, let me see if I got this right. So the government thought that for the first time a building might fall on its own from fire but instead of taking the chance they decide to implode the building with explosives, that all skyscrapers have
, and that scenario is if the government is innocent?
How is the government innocent if they decided to kill people?
I gotta admit that I've never heard this version before.
for creativity.


edit on 9/15/2010 by Three_moons because: grammar



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Any plane experts here?

listen to the 2nd impact at 1:55
what plane sounds like that?


at 7:23 the collapse.

look at the angle of the top 30 floors falling. How can anyone believe they were crushing anything in that angle?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
This story is bull I don't see how someone could keep this footage to themselves for this long and not feel the need to come forward during or around the 9/11 commission.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Three_moons
 


To be honest. It ain't often you see camera men leave a big event, they usually tend to try and get closer to it.

This guy had a perfect spot and left it. How professional is that?

Some how i also sense that you defend this guy quite a bit. Why is that?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
LIsten to the sounds before the impact, and the impact itself of the second attack. You can clearly hear multiple sirens, car horns, traffic, voices, typical city noise. A commercial airliner coming in approaching the tower, would make such a tremendous noise, it would echo throughout the streets of Manhattan. The sound i hear is not that of a plane, but of a missile. The sound of the impact too, does not sounds like the impact of colliding metal, but that of a missile. EVERY shot that has been taken has conviniently 'missed' the approach of the plane itself. How many millions of New Yorkers would have been looking up in the sky that morning? not one of them have any definative shot of a plane...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
dont know if its a plane or missile, but the woosh sound seems to continue after the impact..



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
A second before the second plane hits, there are about a dozen puffs of smoke that come from all around the building. Could these be detonation charges, synched to go off as the second plane hits to mask the sound?
Watch for yourself. The puffs occur at around 1:57.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


See my other videos....Doppler effect, speed of sound versus light.

The "whoosh" is the appraching sound, the loud "pop" is the actual impact. The sounds arrive AFTER the sights, of course. This is normal.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Its CGI.

Look at the smoke as the second plane approaches.

Right around 1:58.

It looks like a new frame started right before impact.

And as someone mentioned, you can't hear any plane whatsoever.


To hear the impact so well but not the plane flying overhead is pretty odd in and of itself.

I call something fishy. Maybe not government stuff, maybe just some guy trying to make himself famous, but there is something fishy going on here.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by conar
 


See my other videos....Doppler effect, speed of sound versus light.

The "whoosh" is the appraching sound, the loud "pop" is the actual impact. The sounds arrive AFTER the sights, of course. This is normal.


I understand the smoke clouds coming before the explosion sound, because of the sound delay... light is much faster than sound...

but the woosh sound continue after the impact/explosion sound, how????



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



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar
Any plane experts here?

listen to the 2nd impact at 1:55
what plane sounds like that?


at 7:23 the collapse.

look at the angle of the top 30 floors falling. How can anyone believe they were crushing anything in that angle?


I am not going to argue the sound a plain makes. I think people are being distracted by the impact sound rather paying attention to the actual sound before it impacts.

But you are right about the angle the top part is falling at. But when you see how much scientific knowledge most people on ATS have, this does not surprise me at all.

To them it is even logical that this building is capable of falling top down in 10 seconds. To them it is even logical that the top part of the first building hit, is capable of crushing the rest of the intact building into the basement.



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join