"11 September 2001 - What We Saw" (You-Tube video)

[doublethink]

Put online on Sept 11-12 ... 2006. An eyewitness account of a pretty high quality filming of 911 as it happened from someone a few blocks away in another sky-rise building. Length about 28 minutes. My questions to those taking the time to check it out are.... Why did the film-makers scrub/edit/delete the scene of the second plane hitting the second tower? Along with a few other edits I had questions about? And more relevant can we get a copy of this whole film 'unedited' for further evaluation? Just throwing this out there for more research etc.. Link here .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn-y4NCgncY

note: this film is 'not available from Google Video at this time' ...... any reason?

second note: my verdict is still out on 911, so why stop asking questions now? Go with it :) Peace

[FoxOnTheRun]

1. it is

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-542183109714508590

http://www.revver.com/view.php?id=59686

[doublethink]

4. Thanks couldn't get my Google link to work here .....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5841197953012597968&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=undefined Peace.

[greyl]

2. Is that the same as this one? :

(Sorry, I haven't seen either one yet)

"Video taken from a apt 500 yards away from WTC. They weren't going to release it because of the personal nature and the potential for mis-use"

http://media.revver.com/broadcast/59686/video.mov
http://www.revver.com/view.php?id=59686

[doublethink]

3. That's it ...... check it out when you have time ....

Excellent location 'from where they filmed' and to have the 'whole video' unedited might answer a-lot of questions ... then again might just open another whole can of worms? ...... :eyes: ?

[greyl]

18. What makes you consider that it may be edited?

It's likely that making a film wasn't at the top of their priority lista at the moment.

What makes you consider that it may be edited?

[doublethink]

20. Editing is a normal process when making a film .......

I'm not saying the film is 'doctored' in any real sense but that certain relevant shots seem abruptly missing either all of a sudden ....... or they are 'faded into and out of'. The fading out of street level/and into the first building collapse at around 14:00 to 14:04 makes me believe that the "Fading" was done on a computer and not originally shot that way. The film isn't doctored, just presented artistically or for whatever reason that way. This is what I mean by editing. (note: the 'smoke' at street level and then the 'smoke' from the tower collapse being part of the 'artistic' idea when making the jump from one shot to the other) Peace

[Bolo Boffin]

5. The second tower hit wasn't recorded because the camera

was down.

The edit was just as she raised the camera back up to catch the impact as she could - no darker motive than that. In fact, she thought she did record it.

[doublethink]

8. Thanks for that explanation ....

do you have a link to your source for that information? And did she do the same thing as the 1st tower was collapsing? .... same edit problem there. Really I'm just curious why both these two moments are missing from the tape and obviously edited out if you look closely at the film, the 'cuts' are there in a herkey jerky movement. Anyone that has ever operated a video camera can see this in the film. All the best and Peace. :)

[Bolo Boffin]

9. My "source for that information" are my own eyes

Anybody can see the camera being jerked up after the edit to the explosion of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower. I would guess that the South Tower collapse is the same - she (or he, the way she's weeping, I doubt the camera would have been that steady) was either not filming that, or was filming other things when the tower collapsed. You can see that the camera drifts here and there.

This impulse to see something sinister behind innocent things is exactly what I'm talking about when I call CTs "darkweaving". The camera wasn't on the towers for unexpected events like a) the first hit - the camera wasn't even turned on then! b) the second hit, and c) the first collapse. However, the last collapse is captured and as it falls or just after, the woman says something like "I told you that would happen". In other words, they made a more concerted effort to keep the camera on the North Tower because they anticipated it would fall. Other events? Not anticipated, and so it wasn't a priority to keep the camera strictly on the towers, but to record other details of the day.

[doublethink]

11. Your 'speculation's just as relevant as mine.......

sucks doesn't it? :rofl: peace.

[doublethink]

14. Okay you just made me re-watch it again ...... and I say to you.....

at 11:45 of the film she catches the 'explosion' of the second plane hitting or going through the back of the second building. And it is a clean cut ... a slight pan from right to left into the shot, NO I don't believe the camera was OFF prior to this, and the motion shows no evidence of her 'picking up the camera' to get this shot. It is a clean edit ..... watch it again. Also look at the film at about 13:57 to 14:04 just before the edit of the first tower collapsing .... around 14:04 there is quite a bit of 'smoke' at GROUND LEVEL .... before the tower collapse as she goes into the edit. Where did all this smoke come from down there? Look closely just before the edit 14:00 to 14:04. Peace. :)

[Bolo Boffin]

15. I didn't say the camera was off or that she picked it up.

Excellent recall of my words, especially since they're right there on the screen in front of you.

Having demonstrated your ability to believe whatever you wish to despite the facts in front of you, I bid you Peace out.

[doublethink]

16. .......

:rofl: nice splitting of hairs there buddy. Yea .. Peace out :hi:

[doublethink]

10. "She thought she did record it" .......

did you get that from the film or another source? Anyway their perspective from where they filmed this thing would sure tell a-lot if they actually had FILM OF THE FIRST TOWER COLLAPSING .... more-so than the second plane hitting. And that is where I got really curious to see any possible explosives going on in the building beforehand, but of course that's missing from the film ..... shit. Just more frustrating stuff thrown out there that makes you go hmmmmmmmm ....... all the best and thanks for your perspective. Peace. :)

[Bolo Boffin]

12. The film.

What exactly do you think you could see of the South Tower collapsing from that angle? It's almost completely obscured by the North Tower.

Did you see all the debris from the North Tower slam into Seven?

[Not gullible]

6. They saw a MILITARY plane!

They saw a MILITARY plane they said, and maybe they don´t dare to put it out on film...for their own security...

Listen at 12.16 minutes...


Or maybe the camera was closed, and immediately after the crash they powered it again!

But they SAW the military plane!


And maybe this is the reason they haven´t been brave enough to make the film known for the public earlier, but now when the truth is out about 9/11 they now dare to do this...


So the theories about the pods seems to be real anyway... :)

[Bolo Boffin]

7. So they're too frightened to put the actual military plane out there

But they've got cojones enough to keep the statement that it was a military plane in the video?

:eyes:

[Sven77]

13. Dupe

;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x116706

[doublethink]

17. My last thoughts on this .......

from 13:45 to 14:06 of this film .... there is a pan from the top of the trade center to ground level. In between and on the way down you can see blue sky in the shot. But once down to ground level ...... something is burning down there at ground level, smoke in the streets (then the editor of the film makes a cut to show the tower collapsing) ...... but before this cut there is a distinct moment of seeing smoke rising from the ground below the towers, which seems disconnected from the impact by the planes above. Any thoughts? Peace.

[mogster]

19. Interesting view of WTC7

Didn't get much debris, did it?