First Impact Caught in Video

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


Commercial aircraft are restricted below 2000 ft. over Manhattan. I think it was probably much louder than typical commercial flights in the area due to the low altitude.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
This was released either that day or the next day. I saw nothing fly through a smoke cloud, but did see a bird flying around in front if the camera. A large passenger jet passing just a few hundred feet overhead is what caused them to look up, including the camera. No one was looking g away like nothing was happening cause that would imply the fireman had prior knowledge. He worked for the FDNY, not Goldan Sachs. He didn't now what was coming.

Also remember....these were probably one of the first in teams. They most likely all died. Idk that was sure, but my guess is they were inside during the collapse.

And...as stated before..this video is nothing new.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


This clip is famous for being the only clear video footage of the first plane, shot by French film-makers, the Naudet Bros. If you're interested you can watch the whole documentary here:

www.911conspiracy.tv...



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
I am amazed that there are more than one clear video of the first impact. I just watched this one for the first time.

I wonder what made them all look up? Was the noise of this jet different? Could there have been a sonic boom?
edit on 26-1-2012 by earthdude because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2012 by earthdude because: (no reason given)


Can't watch the clip anymore but the Naudet brothers video of the first 'plane'
impact has been proven over and over again to have been staged/faked.

www.cluesforum.info...
911foreknowledge.com...

This is not opinion. This is irrefutable.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Guy coming to say it was tv fakery, hologram, cruise missile, tanker in 5,4,3,2,1




And, You WIN!!!

Page #2, fourth post......where do we send the prize money?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


LOL. It's like Babe Ruth's legendary 'called shot"



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


In other posts in other threads I pointed out 2 strange anomalies concerning this clip.

I will describe them both again here.

1. The right wing tip damage to the building clearly appears to occur BEFORE damage to the building by the right wing section that is closer to the fuselage. Which, considering the wing is tapered back, is impossible.

2. If you accept that this is a continuous shot... Do you? Looks like it is... so, why, when you freeze it at 37 seconds and look below the gash you just see normal building, but when you freeze it at 43 seconds you notice the jarring addition of the obviously missing pieces of vertical cladding?

How can this be explained if this is a continuous shot - as it actually appears to be?

Go ahead right now and freeze this clip at 37 seconds, look at the building face below the gash, compare the same freeze frame area with that of a freeze at 43 seconds.

Now play the clip through a few times, the damage at 43 seconds "magically appears".

Please explain that to me. If any of you can.


Cheers



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Are we referring to the same video from the OP?:


Go ahead right now and freeze this clip at 37 seconds, look at the building face below the gash, compare the same freeze frame area with that of a freeze at 43 seconds.

Now play the clip through a few times, the damage at 43 seconds "magically appears".


Because, I have the clip open in another browser _.....and at 37 seconds (0:37) of this OP's clip, the impact has already occurred.

What I see is a lot of camera shake (gee, you don't suppose the camera man is a bit emotional, do you???) from about 0:34, until near the end of the clip, when the cameraman zooms in at 0:43....still a bit shaky......


IF you think something "magically appears"? It is the zoom of the camera, that adds detail to the shot.

I would think that anyone with a bit of photography experience, or who at least has watched a motion picture or two, would realize this immediately?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Yes, it's because the camera zoomed-in, increasing the resolution on that part of the building. It's weird how people watch these ultra-compressed, low-res, video clips and expect high detail resolution--like you're bothered that detail to the impact hole "magically appears" as the camera zooms in, but did you notice that the sky is all made of shimmering squares, i.e. blocks of pixels? That can't be right. The sky is not made of squares!

Go ahead right now and watch the video in full screen and focus on the sky. Do you see all the shimmering squares of slightly different shades of blue?

Please explain that to me. If any of you can.

THE REAL SKY IS NOT MADE OF SQUARES! FAKE!
edit on 27-1-2012 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 



Originally posted by pshea38

Can't watch the clip anymore but the Naudet brothers video of the first 'plane'
impact has been proven over and over again to have been staged/faked.

This is not opinion. This is irrefutable.


It's only irrefutable if you're wearing a tin-foil hat. It could be that those of us who aren't are receiving brain-scrambling waves that are being broadcast by the government/Illuminati.

Watch--take off your tin-foil.

Now watch the Naudet video again.

See?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


Another shot of aircraft impact on WTC 1

It was taken from a webcam by artist Wolfganag Staehle - the camera was focused on Manhattan and shutter
tripped every 4 sec

Can see approach of plane in upper right of picture just prior to impact

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by LoneGunMan
 



His rank is not firefighter, he is a battalion chief. His own brother was one of the 343 fallen that day


Battalion Chief (rank at that time) Joseph Pfeifer

His younger brother Kevin was a Lieutenant in Engine 33

Kevin Pfeifer was killed in collapse of Tower 1



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by micmerci
 


Have to remember that with all the tall buildings in the area would create a confusing pattern of echos making it
difficult to locate source of sound



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


your "right wingtip damage" is actually the shadow of the plane on the building, because if you take a minute to notice, the sun is shining from left of the frame, as evidenced by the shadow of the smoke after the impact on the right side of the building, and the glint of sunlight on the left face of it.

there was no "pre impact damage" your eyes were seeing what you already believed. as they say, you cannot pour water into a glass thats already full.
edit on 27-1-2012 by LoonyConservative because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2012 by LoonyConservative because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Notice the shadow on the firefighters legs at the start of the video. The light source appears to be from BEHIND him. You can also see this on the legs of the guy in the blue shirt who crosses the street at around 0:13 seconds.

Now notice the shadow on the building on the back ground and also on the brown building the camera pans by at 0:20. The sun is clearly on the opposite side.

You do have to do the research on both the Lets Roll Forums and Clues Forums. There are so many holes in the Naudet's story and if you can't see that this gas leak scenario was a part of the operation you just haven't done the research.

BTW the shadow thing is not the biggest piece of evidence by a long shot -- it's just the easiest thing to notice. One really does need to go to those above mentioned websites to read the tons of evidence regarding these examples of staged fakery.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


They looked up because when a plane flies that low to the ground, its really loud!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Game_Over
 



The light source appears to be from BEHIND him.


Yeah....see that brightly lit building in the background?? THAT big wall on the building is lit by the very bright Sun....the men are in the shadow of the buildings that are not seen, as they are behind the camera. Those faint shadows come from the reflected sunlight on that big building in the video background....it is a "shadow within a shadow".

The first mistake, BTW, was believing any of that absurd crap from the "Let's Roll" or "September Clues" forums.

Especially that idiot Simon Shack and his "Clues". I can't understand how anyone ever takes him seriously.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


Sorry this is really old news. i have seen this a lot. It probably has been discussed her on ats before.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I get that it is probably just a shadow within a shadow.

That's why I stated, "BTW the shadow thing is not the biggest piece of evidence by a long shot -- it's just the easiest thing to notice. One really does need to go to those above mentioned websites to read the tons of evidence regarding these examples of staged fakery. "

And regarding those two sites you are so off base. Of course there is a lot of wrong info -- that happens during investigations. You may have not been there lately, but they have shown repeatedly that there is a ton of strangeness regarding the photographs and news images reported that day. I suggest those that truly have an open mind go to those sites and use your brains to sift through the forums and join the discussion.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Game_Over
 





You may have not been there lately, but they have shown repeatedly that there is a ton of strangeness regarding the photographs and news images reported that day.

Strangeness does not equal conspiracy.

Things look different in photos and videos than they do in person. How many times do we watch the evening news when there is video of an area we are very familiar with, but we have a hard time orienting our brains with the buildings we see on tv?
You could take a still frame of just about anywhere and others will pick it apart for inconsistancies. Just look at the people who spend hours knit picking the Apollo pictures.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join