Rare Unseen Video of 1st Plane Hitting the World Trade Center Caught on tape.

What is interesting about this video is the obvious thud that shook the ground before the plane hit the towers. William rodriguez said before the 1st plane hit there was a massive explosion in the basement then he heard an explosion from above. 2 events.







Here is the Naudet film of the 1st plane, there is an obvious audio anomaly right beofre the plane crashed. Was this video or audio edited to conceal the ground explosion?.


Regardless the 1st video shows a heavy ground shake enough to move a camera sitting on the sidewalk.


To use explosives to take down the building they would of set the majority of the structural damaging explosions right before the planes hit.




[edit on 15-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]

Interesting, impressive I havnt seen this footage before.

Get ready for a slew of rabid repliers.

Hopefully before posting every one who views this will take into consideration the potential this has for blowing open the case.

Or closing it for the time being.

reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012


There is a delay though.

Like a thunder clap following lightning, you'd see this happen, and then feel it. Likewise, you'd see it happen and then hear it.

It would take a lot of study to clarify what the process would be, but I know that the visual is accurate to time, the sound and blast wave would both be delayed.
I don't have the knowledge beyond that to decide whether the sound or blast wave would be experienced first.

But interesting to see this point of view anyway.

I already know there is a lot about this event that gives reason for incredible suspicion, so I don't need any more convincing, I just thought I'd clarify the point of the delayed timing to further discussion.

reply to post by detachedindividual


Yup I've been around explosions, you can see it then feel it before hearing it.

The blast travels faster than sound, but only by a little. We always seen the IED blasts then felt them just before hearing it. Of course distance is a major factor.

Hence how one can use the flash to bang method for measureing distance.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012

 

There is a delay though.

Very good point. The question then would be.... Would the impact of a plane transfer its energy to the ground many blocks away enough to move a camera on a sidewalk?

I live 2 miles from a mine that blasts daily. Sounds just like the underground blasts I am used to.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by CaptainAmerica2012]

Here is a video of an eyewitness. SHe believes the bomb in the basement came 1st before the plane hit corroborating with William R.'s testimony


"A new eyewitness who was working in the WTC on 9/11 has gone on record to describe how he heard multiple grenade-like explosions around the basement levels of the north tower, backing up William Rodriguez’ story, the WTC janitor who reported explosions before the first plane hit the tower."

reply to post by ADVISOR


Sound does travel faster through media that is more dense.

Sound is faster in water than in air, for instance.

excerpt:

Although "the speed of sound" is commonly used to refer specifically to the speed of sound waves in air, the speed of sound can be measured in virtually any substance. Sound travels faster in liquids and non-porous solids than it does in air, traveling about 4.4 times faster in water than in air.

Additionally, in solids, there occurs the possibility of two different types of sound waves: one type is associated with compression (the same as usual sound waves in fluids) and the other is associated with shear stresses, which cannot occur in fluids. These two types of waves have different speeds, and (for example in an earthquake) may thus be initiated at the same time but arrive at distant points at appreciably different times. The speed of compression-type waves in all media is set by the medium's compressibility and density, and the speed of shear waves in solids is set by the material's rigidity and density.

(Source is wiki....sorry, this computer at my hotel won't let me copy/paste the link for some reason)

In the first video, with the camera on the ground, notice that there seems to be no reaction to the audible noise of the first "bump" by passersby.

reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012


Plane hits building (event 1) Plane fuel aspirates and then spontaneously combusts (event 2). Two separate events. Pretty simple.

In the last clip , it doesnt sound like a passenger plane does it ?
Sounds all most like a fast propellar plane ??
Ahh...

[edit on 15/8/2009 by ChemBreather]

reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012

Here is the Naudet film of the 1st plane, there is an obvious audio anomaly right beofre the plane crashed. Was this video or audio edited to conceal the ground explosion?.

I've seen/heard the Naudet video many times, just listened again. There is no "obvious audio anomaly" that I can hear. IF it is the sound the airplane is making, if that's what you think is an "anomaly", it sounds perfectly normal to me. Anyone who has been to an airshow or heard jets fly low and fast overhead has heard the same effect.

Especially, when you are hearing or recording in the midst of tall buildings, you get lots of sound reflection.

I used to live just a few miles from Arlington Cemetery. There are a lot of Airman burial services there, since the Middle East operations, and there is always a flyby, sometimes 'missing man' formation, depends on the equipment the deceased service member flew.

In Spring/Summer, with trees full of leaves, it was hard to spot the airplanes, because of the difference in hearing the sound, and trying to lead with your eyes to spot them. In Winter, trees were bare, and it was easier, sound was more direct, and visually easier to spot.

The other videos???

There are better experts here at ATS on those, but all I know is we must be absolutely certain of timelines, in the case of the eyewitness (ear witness??) testimonies.

reply to post by ChemBreather

Sounds all most like a fast propellar plane ??

***sigh***

NO. It does not. Sound. Like. A. "fast propeller plane".

Is THIS a "fast propeller plane"????

(Turn up the sound...)

The "thud" in the first video right before the crash is something bumping the camera. That's obvious by the sound and lack of reaction by anybody walking by. Anyone who has an old VHS cam corder can test this by putting in a tape, pressing record and bumping into it.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I can never get over that video. I wish we could see more as at the very end, it looks like the plane is in such a steep climb that you can't help to think it will stall. Would like to have seen how he got out of that climb.

The plane crash was a show in my opinion there were bombs placed althrough the WTC including the basement, there is no reason to believe these wittness are lying, what do they have to gaine.
The WTC was blown to bits by an evil administration for reason of a false war. ( WMD) money and power.

911 was an INSIDE JOB!

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

...it looks like the plane is in such a steep climb that you can't help to think it will stall. Would like to have seen how he got out of that climb.

If I wait long enough someone will come along and say it's faked!

And it's not even my video!

No stall, because he had a lot of excess airspeed.

At the end, if they showed it, best way to finish that without any negative Gs would just be to roll into a bank, and allow the nose to drop through.

[edit on 15 August 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No stall, because he had a lot of excess airspeed.

He would have to have excess airspeed, however it doesn't appear that way due to the size of the aircraft and probably the video doesn't do it justice.

Either way, cool video every time you show it.

Classic debunking by weedwhacker and not bad derail with the propeller thing.


Yes indeed there are hundred of witnesses to the explosions in the basements not caused by jet fuel but before the plane struck. That is a fact.


To new readers. Research this yourself elsewhere and never stop especially at one forum. When you seek, you will find, and when you find you will marvel.

The Thump in the first video is interesting. It could be as mentioned just someone bumping the camera. Judging by the shadow of the camera on the ground, it doesn't look like it is bumped.

Actually, there have been discussions in the past on those weird "static" events just as the plane (South Tower) first entered the Tower. Some kind of flash is seen in the Naudet film but too difficult to tell.

Is this some kind of interference? It does seem a little odd.

reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012


You might be interested in this thread:

"First North Tower Explosion Confirmed On CNN?"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is an interview, shortly after the North Tower impact, in which a woman named Jeanne Yurman refers to hearing a "sonic boom" in her apartment in Battery Park City followed by momentary loss of her TV signal. She gets up and goes to the window only to see an explosion as the side of the North Tower blows out.

It seems probable that the "sonic boom" she heard and felt was in fact the first explosion referred to by Willie Rodriguez in the sub-basement of the tower.

There is some other discussion of the audio on different tapes of the event.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012

 

You might be interested in this thread:

"First North Tower Explosion Confirmed On CNN?"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is an interview, shortly after the North Tower impact, in which a woman named Jeanne Yurman refers to hearing a "sonic boom" in her apartment in Battery Park City followed by momentary loss of her TV signal. She gets up and goes to the window only to see an explosion as the side of the North Tower blows out.

It seems probable that the "sonic boom" she heard and felt was in fact the first explosion referred to by Willie Rodriguez in the sub-basement of the tower.

There is some other discussion of the audio on different tapes of the event.

There is something going on here. I mean, we might be able to explain a few things, but when it is consistent then that means there is something.