What We Saw Never before-released video of the WTC attacks

this will be my first post on ATS, although since finding the sight i have been on it every night lol. So sorry for any mistakes made!

i went onto google video to try and watch zeitgeist after hearing about it on here. And stumbled upon this video instead.

i'm not sure if anyone has seen it before, but sorry if everyone already has.

What i find interesing about the video is that, through it's 22minute length it is extremely detailed. Even when zoomed in you can make out a lot of things.
In it the camerawomen has a perfect view of the first tower and makes full use of this.
But when it comes to the towers collapsing, there appears to be parts of the video that have been cut?.

- When shes tries to view the first tower coming down the video starts to lag? so we only see the bottom stories, if even that!

- when she hears the man next to say "OH MY GOD" and then tries to move up see the second tower collapsing, there is again what appears to be parts that have been cut? so we do not see the tower fully coming down and only get to see the bottom stories?

- and on a different note, at one point we see a aeroplane flying around above the towers, we only catch a glimpse of this but then it is cut?.

why have a video depicting the horrible aftermath of the collapses in full detail, but then when it comes to the actual collapses we see nothing?

Google Video Link

maybe it's just me. i just thought it was kinda strange?

if that doesnt show up, the title of the video. is just the title of this thread.

again, sorry if everyone has this / sorry for any mistakes.

I think this video has been posted and discussed before. Like everything 911, there are different views on it. I have heard the opinion expressed that although it seems to be genuine "amateur" footage, that it may have been cut in strategic places. I'll try to find the link for that.

On watching it again for the first time in a while I was struck by the fact that the camera person does not seem to be a native New Yorker by her accent. I'm from Toronto, and I would probably accept her as a local, without going over her speech with a fine toothed comb.

Don't know what that means, if anything, but there are people who think that there was a sinister Canadian connection to 911. Were the Naudet brothers French Canadian? In one of his presentations, David Hawkins of www.hawkscafe.com... labels them such.

[edit on 23-2-2008 by ipsedixit]

I used to think that the weight of the top part of the buildings falling down onto the rest of the buildings was enough power and force to collapse the entire buildings, but after watching the 2nd tower collapse again, it really looks like a lot of the top part of the building actually falls off and away from the buildings to the side, so I don't understand how the rest of the 80% of the building would completely implode like that...

Originally posted by Diplomat
. . . but after watching the 2nd tower collapse again, it really looks like a lot of the top part of the building actually falls off and away from the buildings to the side, so I don't understand how the rest of the 80% of the building would completely implode like that...

Asking questions like that is the beginning of a long sad road. If you answer them honestly and not with wishful fantasies, you are led to unavoidable conclusions about the Bush administration and a great moral dilemma, i.e. what is the response of an honest citizen to a criminal regime.

This video is a strange one.. For the fact that it once was posted in full. Including the second plane hitting, both collapses in full. Then the video was pulled for whatever reason only to re-appear edited.

I remember watching the first time it was posted, only to come back to find the edited version as I wanted to do some closeups of the second impact at a later date.

I only wish I would have saved the first version now.. Apparently the owner of this film says that it has NOT been edited....Um. I know it has been!

Welcome to ATS!

Yes this video has been posted and discussed.

It appears to have been edited. At least from my recollection of the last time I saw it. In fact "Bob & Bri" had a website at one time I didn't look to see if it was still there.

Personally I don't believe these folks are somehow involved in the coverup. Perhaps edited for personal reasons. I remember they had a baby in their apartment at the time of the attacks. Possibly someone else has edited the video???

I remember seeing this video months ago. This copy has definitely been edited and chopped up.

Originally posted by Diplomat
I used to think that the weight of the top part of the buildings falling down onto the rest of the buildings was enough power and force to collapse the entire buildings, but after watching the 2nd tower collapse again, it really looks like a lot of the top part of the building actually falls off and away from the buildings to the side, so I don't understand how the rest of the 80% of the building would completely implode like that...

what you just said makes total sense. as someone who saw it 'live' i can tell you and i say this all the time. it quite simply looked FAKE. like a controlled demolition. and i've never even seen one! it just didnn't make physical sense, in a gravitation and logical standpoint. so to speak

The makers of the video said they would consider letting independent/non-media researchers look at the unedited version in their presence. Any ATS in Manhattan

www.blogger.com...

at the 7:30-8minute mark , there are 3 extremely clear demo charges that show up. First is just above the 2/3 (dark ring), second just below it, then a third about 20 stories below that.

I would think this "birds eye view" film show alot of these charges, and thats why it was chopped up.

Myself being a native NY'er , I can say for sure the camera women voice doesn't sound like a native NY accent, but , then again doesn't sound like much of any accent I can tell. The second womans voice in the backround is definitely Canadian/French-Canadian imo.

Wow I wish they hadn't chopped up this video.

If anyone has a copy of the original please post it.

I'm gonna have to finish watching the last 16 or so minutes later since I'm late for an appointment, but I've never seen this video before. Nice find, thanks for posting it.

Again if anyone has the original, "uncut/un-tampered" with, please post it up.

Originally posted by starskipper
The makers of the video said they would consider letting independent/non-media researchers look at the unedited version in their presence. Any ATS in Manhattan

www.blogger.com...

My question would be to Bob and Bri:

Why is it edited in the first place?

My question would be to Bob and Bri:

Why is it edited in the first place?

from the qa blog:
Q. Isn't this video missing important scenes?
A. We did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse. As many have surmised, the impacts of the airplanes and collapses of both buildings did catch us by surprise.

Q. Why did you edit this video?
A. The version we released on 9-11-2006 was intentionally and obviously (using dissolves) edited for length and size only. About 10 minutes of mostly redundant video was removed. None of the media services could host the unedited file at sufficiently high resolution.

reply to post by starskipper


OK. That could make sense.

I find it wierd though that they would film all this footage (of the towers burning) but miss the 4 most important parts?

I could go with "took them by surprise" and all, but 4 of THE most important times?



[edit on 2/25/2008 by Griff]

Still doesn't answer the fact of why they won't realese ALL of the footage they have. So what if it's another 10 or 20 minutes longer. Make it two parts. If there are upload constraints.

Apparently people have seen the entire footage way back when, so put back up the entire thing.

I mean they may find it boring,and understanderbly so. But for those of us who have never seen the footage from this angel don't.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by Nola213]

reply to post by Nola213


I agree, I found it discerning that they said all revenue from the video would be donated to charity. That seems to me that they would be putting it up for sale or something.

As the above poster said biohazard i think, between 7:00 and 8:00 you can see several bright chagres going off inside the building.

And how very convenient that the video is not only heavily edited, its edited at very crucial moments. But right before the the first implosion the camera operator zooms in on the base of the tower and you can see a volume of white dust rising.

The unedited video HAS to be availible somewhere, perhaps archived?

Originally posted by Diplomat
I used to think that the weight of the top part of the buildings falling down onto the rest of the buildings was enough power and force to collapse the entire buildings, but after watching the 2nd tower collapse again, it really looks like a lot of the top part of the building actually falls off and away from the buildings to the side, so I don't understand how the rest of the 80% of the building would completely implode like that...

It's called physics, and the fact that these structures were bolted together so that the individual braces of metal become a semi-contiguous mesh (like chicken wire). When the one side falls down and "away" (though 80% of it is still falling directly on top of the rest of the structure) - it is still pulling and twisting the rest of the structure with a very large amount of force.

It's quite simple.

Additionally, if I do recall, each floor was designed to withstand 5 times its own weight. After doing the math for the acceleration of a falling floor over the average ceiling of about 3 meters, and its arbitrary weight, you arrive at the conclusion that a single floor could fail and collapse on the lower floor without causing a total structural failure. However, two floors would cause a sequential failure of the floors and lead to total structural failure.

We obviously see far more than two floors falling onto the subsequent floor in the twin towers - thus, the fact that there was a complete and global structural failure is not, at all, surprising in any of the witnessed building collapses.

As for the video - it needs to have a verifiable source. No other footage obtained has any of the abnormalities this video has. Which is suspect. Video and photo editing software is available with the touch of a button - I can have the most expensive professional software on my computer without paying a dime - so it's not like these things are out of the reach of the general public who have a little bit of an education about the internet.

While it may not be faked - it would be quite beneficial to the owners of that video if there were explosions photographed (those of you saying "implosions" need to get your wording straight - you discredit yourselves with such disregard for such simple little factoids: explosions have a 'positive' force - propelling objects away from them - implosions have a 'negative' force, causing objects to be drawn inwards, towards them).

Originally posted by starskipper
My question would be to Bob and Bri:

Why is it edited in the first place?

from the qa blog:
Q. Isn't this video missing important scenes?
A. We did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse. As many have surmised, the impacts of the airplanes and collapses of both buildings did catch us by surprise.

Um....... They did capture the second impact, i remember seeing it as clear as if I watched it yesterday. Something isn't kosher about this. They also had both collapses from start to end. What are they hiding, and why?
I am still kicking myself for not saving the original, unedited film that was on google video the first time around.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by justme2]

[edit on 29-2-2008 by justme2]