"Ed Conrad" <edconrad@verizon.net> wrote in a message > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpONEX8tme8 > Watch this Naudet video -- with audio -- a few times. > Someone yells "Holy Shit!" at the precise moment the first > tower is struck. > My educated opinion is that "Holy Shit!" was yelled > a split-second too soon. > I think most of you have to agree. On what basis are you claiming your opinion is "educated" - A background in film work? Experience with jets flying into buildings? Psychology? I don't think anyone has a basis on which to agree with you. Having lived near more than a few jet bases or airports, my somewhat experienced opinion is that when you hear something unusual, such as a jet flying very fast and low, you might explain "Holy Shit!" simply at seeing a jet flying fast and low. A more detailed exclamation might be "Holy Shit that jet is flying very fast and low!" Living near an airbase or airport, you become accustomed to the sound of the approaching planes. It is immediately obvious when one sounds unusual (such as it would if flying too fast and/or too low). As an example, while cooking out in the back yard with some family and friends, we all looked up at the same moment as an F-14 came in too low and slow on approach. As the plane came into view, we could see the pilot had the afterburners on. Flying too low, flying very slowly, with the afterburners wide open, several of us commented that the pilot was in trouble and there was a problem. None of those comments, or where we looked upon hearing the plane, indicates we had foreknowledge. Therefore, your 'educated" opinion of the Naudet video comes across as much more uneducated (on this matter). As for the camera, as he was following these fire department personnel, it is much more probable the camera was on his shoulder. As a matter of fact, if you watch the remainder of the video, with him following them to and into the twin towers, it's extremely obvious the camera is on his shoulder. Now, if you want to pick apart something in this Naudet video, look at the fireman who looks up at the sound of the plane. He looks up, away from the camera. Naudet then immediately turns around to catch the plane crashing into the tower. Here are some potential issues you can consider in seeing those reactions; 1) Since sound and light (vision) travel at different speeds, when you look up upon hearing a fast moving plane, you most often first look to where the plane was, not where it is (because it is already past that point). Usually, it takes you a second to move ahead on the path and actually locate the plane. 2) If you've ever heard a jet, or helicopter, while standing on a street in an urban area, you know that the sound bounces off the buildings, making it more difficult to determine the exact direction from which the sound is coming. Even with the sirens on an emergency vehicle, depending on the location, you some times find yourself looking for it in a completely wrong direction. I can't say if the fireman manage to look in the correct direction for the jet, but, clearly, Naudet managed to swing the camera to where the jet was *going* to be. That seems pretty much the opposite of what one might expect. Maybe he got lucky and manage to look a bit wrong, based on how the sound of the jet was bouncing off the concrete and buildings. Before making any judgments, the proper thing to do would be to check that location and somehow determine how one might have heard the jet. Would there be a significant echo? Was it fairly open to the path of the jet? Might one hear a jet in a manner leading you to look ahead of the actual path? As with any investigation, rather than making sweeping conclusions based on minimal information, one most likely arrives at the correct conclusion after gathering and analyzing *all* of the data.