Quote Originally Posted by EmceeSoze
Definitely

The elevators didn't run straight from top to bottom.

Let's picture this...the plane hits and explodes in the tower. OK, I get that.

An elevator cart survives the destruction, fills with burning kerosene, makes it 78 floors down to the lobby, opens and said kerosene fire erupts from the compartment blasting out lobby windows. Can anyone visually imagine this scenario? To conjure up what it might have looked like is something Hollywood specialises in, not reality.

If I took a flamethrower and fired it at a plate glass window a few feet away, the pane would probably melt before it breaks.

High explosives going off in the sub levels would account for this.
That glass was exposed to an energy so strong, it shattered in place, from standing strong to pieces all over, in an instant.

As for the alleged burning corpse, I have to wonder...can a human being engulfed in flames live long enough to go down 78 floors and still have the life in them to stumble out of the elevator, dropping dead a few feet away?
Would someone on fire have the calm required to get in a closed-space elevator compartment, push the L button and wait it out?

Very convenient that the corpse wasn't shown. I wonder how many cameramen would have resisted the instinctual urge to "get the shot"
I mean, they enter the lobby unaware of the scenes to unfold before their eyes. I'm no camera guy but am I going out on a limb to suggest that the operator was seeing things through the lens? When you're looking through the viewfinder, you're locked in and unable to "look around" beyond the point of focus, right? That's why the handy-cams all have fold-out screens these days. It's much easier to get the shot looking with both eyes at a small screen. The pros still use the "scope" obviously and I believe Naudet was using something a bit better than consumer handy-cam offerings.

I find it very, very peculiar that a professional camera operator walking into a "war zone", film rolling and locked in to his view-finder, DIDN'T get the shot of the burning corpse.

Does the footage roll along un-cut in this alleged burning corpse moment?

If so, I am amazed that Naudet pulled off this editing-room censoring while filming the piece live and un-scripted. What camera jockey alive could match this achievement??

He's squinting through the lense, assumedly missing out on anything around him outside of his camera's focus. Not one inch of the said burning man appears in the footage. How did he go by it so non-chalantly?

Did he open his left eye for a second, see the burning corpse nearby, and judge it to be unsuitable and too graphic, and kept on filming what lied ahead? What camera jockey alive would do this or even be capable of this, I ask again? Not even a brief shot? Nothing? This is the stuff editing rooms were designed for!! This is the stuff that surfaces on the internet years later for all sickos to enjoy.

Isn't this the same guy that was casually filming some firemen going about their business, heard jet engines and turned his camera towards the direction the firemen's attention? The same guy that then "instinctively" framed the WTC towers and caught the alleged F 11 hitting the tower and exploding? This guy is "good" right?(so good that he zoomed in on the tower only when the explosion began to erupt, after the plane was safely inside)

This Naudet thing is psy-ops super-size, IMO.
You think so? Interesting, I don't know if the footage runs uncut or not, I'll have to give it another look. I noticed the Naudet video did edit out the firefighters discussing the bombs going off as the building collapsed, the scene sets up exactly with the firefighters gathering around and discussing the collapse and then it cuts away just as they would begin discussing the explosives.

I've heard others mention it was psy-ops too, however, without that video we wouldn't have a video of the first impact which clearly shows the flash, or the video of the firefighters discussing the explosives.