Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

And they say eyewitness accounts are credible.


Sorry thats a mistake its supposed to aren't credible.




posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
This doco is BIG, highly recommended!



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I just finished watching it. I'm speechless. No doubt anymore. I hope this will hit the big medias, even if we know they are monitored and censored...

Yes, Spread the Word.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 04:49 PM
link   
A friend's statement regarding the contents of this film, wiith permission:

I remember [my son] calling us that morning at something like 7:15 and telling us to turn on the TV. When the first tower went down I thought to myself: Hey, wait a minute - skyscrapers don't collapse straight down with virtually no resistance like that. Then when the second one went down in precisely the same manner I thought: Two skyscrapers, one right after the other, definitely do not collapse like that unaided! Then when #7 also went down in a classic controlled demolition later in the day there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that the whole affair was an inside job right from the get-go. And at that precise moment I intuitively knew that everything had just changed forever.

Now, what I find to be the height of absurdity is the on-going debate as to whether #7 was intentionally blown... especially in light of the fact that, afterwards that same evening, Joe Silverstein, in a taped interview, actually stated that they decided it was best to just "pull it." Yeah, no [expletive deleted]. That much was not only blatantly clear enough to me, his slip-up also proved premeditation. I mean, you don't just pull a 47-story building at a moment's notice!! Never mind that since then, literally mountains of incriminating evidence have been brought to light which points to there being several very strong motives for the entire 9/11 affair. And yet, the stupid debates drag on! Why?

I think one of the main sticking points for those who are on the fence about the premeditation part is how did they get all those explosives in unnoticed? Sheesh - everybody seems to be under the impression that it had to have been done quickly just prior to the event. Why? Who's to say how long this plan and its prep work has been simmering? The WTC was built some 30-odd years ago so these people had all the time in the world! Besides, the other lame assumption seems to be that this all had to have been done during normal business hours right under the noses of thousands of people. HUH?? Is it possible to be that simple and narrow-minded!

You know, none of what we've been witnessing over the past decade or so surprises me in the least. The world is undergoing a massive cyclical paradigm shift wherein positive and negative energies are both increasing at an accelerating pace, and the gap between these two polarities is becoming wider and more pronounced. This is necessary and it's why, as I'm sure you've noticed, it is becoming more and more uncomfortable (often intolerable) for people to interact peacefully and harmoniously with those who are aligned with an opposing polarity. We are all being prompted, in no uncertain terms, by both group and personal events in our lives to chose one polarity or the other. Riding the fence is no longer a workable option.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Thanks for that, BH. Your friend expressed very eloquently what many of us think.

I received a U2U from a much-respected member raising a few excellent questions and issues with the footage which I'd like to address here:

The manner of presentation seems to be a little simplistic, almost to the point that it comes across as a bit patronizing.

Firstly anyone who's ever dabbled in video production knows that producing a professional end product is no easy task, nor is it cheap. If after all the recording is done, you realize that the narrator speaks a little slowly, etc, the option of going back and re-recording is going to be an unnecessary expense. But in the end what matters here is the message, not how it is delivered IMHO.

Secondly, I think it's easy to forget that many of us here have been studying the events of 9-11 for quite some time now, whereas the majority of people, which group comprises the target audience for this video, have never considered the possibility of the towers being demolished. If you bludgeon them with too much information too fast, or clutter it with endless minutiae, many won't have the the patience to think through it; the message becomes diluted and the effect is lost. We 9-11 enthusiasts revel in the details, but I think for the purposes of mass consumption by the couch potato public, the presentation style is perfect.


Could the explosion sounds have been enhanced?

The makers of the DVD have stated that they did not alter the sound of the original footage in any way other than standard adjustments required when transferring footage to DVD format, such as reducing hiss and clipping. Whether you believe them or not is up to you. Rick Siegel has a forum set up on their site where if you want you can post and directly ask him questions about the DVD:
www.911eyewitness.com...


In the Naudet DVD you don't hear the explosions. If they were as loud as they are in this footage, then they should be deafening in the Naudet DVD.

Watch the Naudet video again [which BTW was produced under contract by CBS
], you'll see that it is edited to bits. There is no continuous, unbroken, unnarrated, clean-sound footage shown of or in the buildings in the time frame where the explosions were picked up by Rick's camera, i.e. between 60 and 17 seconds before the collapses initiated, with delay accounted for.


At some points in the footage, you can hear the wind blowing across the microphone which causes rumbling sounds similar to what are cited as explosion sounds. Could this have been the cause of all the sounds?

The footage plays for an extremely lengthy period before the collapses of WTC1 and 2, with no rumbling sounds at all from wind or anything else. Then, shortly before each collapse, the booms and rumbles are very distinct, with a definite THUMP at the peak of the larger pulses. Also some of the pulses occur in a rhythmic, rapid succession of four like a drum beat. Then after the collapse of each tower, there are no further booms or rumbles. Later again, right before the collapse of WTC7, a distinct, peaked boom can be heard. To assume that wind disturbing the microphone would, by a one in a million chance, restrict itself to only occur just before the collapse of each building on all three separate occasions and in such a rhythmic manner, would seem to be stretching the reasonable limits of coincidence by a very, very long way.

There are only two instances where I can hear rumbling sounds which appear similar in any way to the pre-collapse sounds, and these are in the afternoon, a while after the collapse of WTC7. The two sounds can be heard at approximately the 1:02:30 mark, where a sharp sound is heard, and at the 1:03:20~30 mark where a low rumbling can be heard. If you look at the edge of the frame as the sounds occur, you can distinctly see that the camera shakes quite noticeably at exactly the same time. On one of the instances, a leaf can be seen blowing by the camera as if in a strong gust of wind. Returning to the earlier, pre-collapse sounds for comparison, the camera is quite steady throughout each pulse, with no wind-shaking evident whatsoever.

Furthermore, comparing the sound of the cited explosions with the wind affecting the microphone, the quality of the sounds are different. The sharp sound at 1:02:30 is absent the peak thump and intensity of the pre-collapse sounds, nor does it contain the rumbling build-up. The reason for a build-up to a sound caused by explosion is because the pulse traveling through the Earth travels faster than the speed of sound. You hear a slight rumble as the ground pulse reaches the listener first, causing vibrations in the air above, ie. sound, and then the direct sound of the event traveling through the air reaches you an instant later. This phenomenon is not present in the wind on the microphone effect.

There is another forum where Rick Spiegel posted in response to questions about the footage, under the member name "911eyewitness":


www.letsroll911.org...
I heard the explosions and felt them across the river.
[...]
What I know is that the explosions sounded like boom boom boom and on, and that while I remember them coming across the water in a staccato.
[...]
I felt those blasts as a staccato beating on the chest across the river. Not like sitting in front of the Bass guitar at a Who concert, but enough to know there were concussions.


He states quite clearly that the explosion sounds are coming across the river. As such, it basically comes down to what we each personally believe, perhaps some imagining that this man is simply a huge liar and an elaborate con artist. To each his own, I guess, but there comes a point when healthy skepticism crosses way over the line into simple pathological denial.

Also keep in mind that a video microphone picks up and records sound differently and not as distinctly as the human ear of someone who is there, and is further muddied by the compression of the .avi format video file that we are assessing here.


A few other points of note:

* The explosions heard in this footage correspond with and validate all of those witness reports of explosions which we have read, yet have been suspiciously absent from ALL mainstream media since not long after the events, and have been constantly denied and discredited by debunkers. Explosions were also mentioned by reporters on the ground on the day, reports which have also since disappeared into the memory hole.

* Smoke can be seen rising from the bases of each tower immediately following the explosions. There is some smoke present near the base of WTC2 before the explosions, but a sudden and sharp increase in smoke immediately following one of the explosion pulses is most noticeable at the base of WTC1, to which the camera has a direct line of sight. Pure, amazing coincidence? You be the judge.

* Sound is a funny thing, particularly when recorded by microphones, and also when affected by structures, water, and other things. There is a 9-11 video called "The First 24 Hours". One stage of the video was filmed from a location closer to the WTC complex than Rick's camera. The microphone captures very clearly the sound of the plane impacting and exploding into WTC2, like a heavy clap. Yet when the building collapses, it does not pick up any rumbling from the collapse, nor any sound of the debris hitting the ground at all like it should. Listening to it, it's as if the building were made of fluff. This is a prime example of how different sound equipment, different video compression methods, and different locations can all affect and pick up sound in dofferent ways.

* Recorded in real-time as the events were transpiring, Rick's camera picked up an ongoing radio news broadcast. On it there are many telling interviews and statements by reporters. One of them is an interview with an emergency worker on-site, conducted just after the collapse of WTC7. Here is a partial transcription:

"I was just standing there...you know we were watching the building actually because it was on fire, the bottom floors of the building were on fire. And we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder, turned around we were shocked to see that the building was...well it looked like there was a shock wave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out...you know it was horrifying. Then about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that."

Again, the above testimony recorded live and never heard again, directly corresponds with and validates the explosion boom picked up just before the collapse of WTC7.

=========================================================================
While we can raise questions, saying it could have been this or could it have been that, I think the footage, the sound, and the relation of the events and all the evidence put together, pretty much speaks for itself. It's simply a matter of what each of us personally believe. => There will never be footage come out of a helicopter firing missiles at the towers, or some guy depressing a Wile. E. Coyote plunger with an Acme wire running into WTC7 just before it implodes. But the question that really matters is, have enough evidences come out and enough disturbing questions consistently gone unanswered that an independent, real investigation should be opened into the events of 9-11? And the answer is a resounding...YES!


[edit on 2005-12-11 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by allisoneisall
one quetion i would ask is whywould the government go through the trouble and extreme risk of planting explosives to assure the collapse of the building?


The failed attempted in 1993 is why they made sure it came down fully this time.

People forget pretty quickly, the buildings would be as new in 2005 if it was only the plane damage that occured. Life would be back to normal.



I doubt very much that life would go back to normal even if the towers didn't fall.

So who flew the planes into the towers in this pre-planned mission?
Where they drones? What happened to all of them passengers that were aboard those flights?

And if that is the case, why an attack on such a small scale. Why didn't a dozen or so different cities and buildings recieve the same treatment? If your going to plan something so dastardly, why not go for broke and pull out all the stops?



[edit on 12/11/2005 by Classified Info]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Well I finally downloaded the video and watched the whole thing, and I'm completely stunned.

Stunned at ignorance spread by people on this site who are supposedly denying ignorance. This whole thing is a load of crap pseudoscience targeted to appeal to the paranoid or those whose agendas are so twisted they'd believe almost anything! And you all have the nerve to call others sheeple!

The response this film has gotten from some members I used to respect has caused me to really question my views on how intelligent some of the people on this site truly are...

I got the space on my hard drive back, but I can't get the time I spent watching this crap back.

I better stop talking now, if I say any more I'll risk getting myself banned.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well I finally downloaded the video and watched the whole thing, and I'm completely stunned.

Stunned at ignorance spread by people on this site who are supposedly denying ignorance. This whole thing is a load of crap pseudoscience targeted to appeal to the paranoid or those whose agendas are so twisted they'd believe almost anything! And you all have the nerve to call others sheeple!

The response this film has gotten from some members I used to respect has caused me to really question my views on how intelligent some of the people on this site truly are...

I got the space on my hard drive back, but I can't get the time I spent watching this crap back.

I better stop talking now, if I say any more I'll risk getting myself banned.

I think your going a little bit too far there, controll yourself and controll your rant, make the points your not happy with and try to explain what it is thats made you be so rude, enlighten us



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Major blowout there, dj.

Would you care to be more specific as to exactly what it is you disagree with or object to so that we can have...you know...like, a discussion? It's a little difficult to grasp your point amongst all the insults.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I have to agree with DJ. A big waste of time for what can best be described as bollocks.

It did a good job of documenting the explosions prior to the collapses, but it's a LONG road from there to the theory that they were planted charges.

Does anybody really believe that there wouldn't be things going boom inside a 110 story building that is tearing itself apart? It seems like people are just ignoring the astronomical stresses that were being transferred throughout the structure once parts of it failed, and somehow expecting a home video from over a mile away to be an accurate account of what was happening inside the buildings.

Come on guys, show some common sense. For all the loud booms and clouds of dust recorded at lower levels, the plain glaring fact is that the buildings collapsed from the top down. If secret government agents planted demolition charges in the buildings, they need to be sacked because they didn't have the slightest effect...

The rest of the video was astonishingly stupid. Cannonball trajectories? Pyroclastic Volcanoes? Defying Gravity? Yes, as the video shows and we all saw on Sept. 11 - those are the things that happen when 110 floors of concrete and steel pancake on themselves, each time like a massive piledriver. Don't believe that would release a little explosive energy? Factor that into Newton's Law? I'd like to laugh but that would be insulting the memories of the souls that died that day, so I can only shake my head. :shk:

Please. For all the effort expended trying to prove there were explosives planted in the WTC buildings, take just a few minutes and ask a real (not internet) structural engineer why the buildings fell down. Ask why the debris was ejected at a 45 degree angle. Ask what produced the explosive force to do that. Ask why there was loud booms within the building before the collapse and why there were clouds of smoke/dust ejected from the base. Ask about the ejections from the lower floors, and anything else you think is anomalous. There are answers for everything and there are no mysteries - only a lack of understanding.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
mythatsabigprobe: please, share with us you knowledge about this "events". Answer question you've asked at the end of your post. Prove to us that all theories are wrong and official story is real. Can you do that ?



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by STolarZ
mythatsabigprobe: please, share with us you knowledge about this "events". Answer question you've asked at the end of your post. Prove to us that all theories are wrong and official story is real. Can you do that ?


Can I prove to you that all the theories are wrong? No, only you can prove it to yourself by deciding what evidence is factual and what evidence is not. That's why I suggested asking a qualified expert, not me.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
A big waste of time for what can best be described as bollocks.

There are answers for everything and there are no mysteries - only a lack of understanding.

So do you think the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and building 7 was'nt just a little bit extraordinary?



Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
There are answers for everything and there are no mysteries - only a lack of understanding.


So the official line is, the fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they crashed into the floors below. With the weight of the plunging floors accelerating, the exterior walls buckled.
its ok to except this view, but for me personally i cant just ignore the mystery and the way that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed,



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Can I prove to you that all the theories are wrong? No, only you can prove it to yourself by deciding what evidence is factual and what evidence is not. That's why I suggested asking a qualified expert, not me.


Well, I think that I might be qualified enough......

I can't really explain why they fell with NO resistance to forces. It just does NOT happen.......period. And if you really want a good answer...don't look for structural engineers (we design buildings to stand NOT fall).....ask a demolitions engineer...they are the ones with the real knowledge.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Would you care to be more specific as to exactly what it is you disagree with or object to so that we can have...you know...like, a discussion? It's a little difficult to grasp your point amongst all the insults.


Ok, well this video plays fast and loose with reality and the laws of physics: one minute explosions create pressure that blows things up and out, the next they create vacuums that suck things in. Air resistance is accounted for at times, others it is conveniently ignored along with even the force of gravity and falling clouds of dust and building parts are expected to behave like perfect Newtonian moving bodies in empty space. The towers are said to have fallen down neatly into their footprints, yet even the video shows a large swath of destruction and shows the Winter Garden and the WFC (which is quite far away from the tower footprint) destroyed. They say there was little or no damage to WTC7, but then what caused the fire that burned for hours and hours before it fell? Did it spontaneously combust? What damage was caused to the underground foundation of that building when the towers fell, as they were all interconnected underground....there's so much. Sorry I do tend to get emotional on this issue since I live in NYC and went to the WTC all the time and all these conspiracy theories just bring back the memories and it turns my stomach to see people try to blame anyone except those responsible for that day's horror.

[edit on 12/11/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
First off DJ...we are NOT trying to be direspectful. If anything, we are trying to get to the bottom of things....wouldn't our fallen comrades want us to do this in their honor?



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
I can't really explain why they fell with NO resistance to forces. It just does NOT happen.......period. And if you really want a good answer...don't look for structural engineers (we design buildings to stand NOT fall).....ask a demolitions engineer...they are the ones with the real knowledge.


And I've contacted demolition companies, and been told that the information I was requesting, they couldn't inform me of without me telling them who I was and why I needed it - for national security, you understand. I was simply asking what technology they had to collapse buildings in various directions. It wasn't that big of a deal though, because someone later provided a video from their own site illustrating exactly what they could do.



Originally posted by djohnsto77
Sorry I do tend to get emotional on this issue since I live in NYC and went to the WTC all the time and all these conspiracy theories just bring back the memories and it turns my stomach to see people try to blame anyone except those responsible for that day's horror.


DJ, we've been discussing the science behind the things that video covers for some time here on ATS. We've covered much more than that video, and in much greater detail. If you look through some of these threads you'll come across the information that should clarify the things that are confusing you. Here's a thread with lots of info, 15 pages long so far (not that long considering the amount of info in it, especially compared to other 9/11 threads around here, or click here and scroll down for a post illustrating 3 more basic problems that I've posted).

But it seems to me that no matter what is brought forth against the official story, you're not going to be able to accept it, judging from I've quoted of you above. You may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, as many, many Americans did after 9/11, all across the country. No doubt that your relationship to the WTC has somewhat magnified the trauma you have experienced, as compared to someone that had never visited the WTC from, say, Arizona, but emotional distress from trauma usually doesn't last more than a few months. If you want, I can U2U more information to you, if you think you may be suffering from PTSD.

But the relevance here is that such a condition, whether severe enough to actually be considered a disorder or not, will affect your judgment. Just something to keep in mind, not meant as a personal attack, etc., while browsing this part of ATS, as you'll notice the majority of posters here will generally agree that 9/11 was an inside job (See WCIP's poll here, and scroll down to the "Latest tally"). Rather than this being the result of anyone being motivating or otherwise psychologically needing the events to have been brought upon us by our own government (I would see this as much more troublesome than the threat of any outside terrorist cell), I think the majority of those here, myself included, have come to such conclusions based on the science that's been presented all through this part of ATS.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
DJ, the points that you raised have been done to death all over ATS, so I won't address them again. For me, the importance of the video in question is not the free fall, the damage and fire in WTC7, the ejection of debris from the towers, etc, etc. Of the events captured from the pier that day, the one which makes this footage so very, VERY important is the pre-collapse explosions recorded for all three buildings. Therein lies the proof of what all those myriad witnesses stated about explosions just before the collapses; testimony on video, in transcripts, on website interviews after the event, on news video recorded on the day and subsequently suppressed. THAT is what makes this footage so important.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Classified Info

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by allisoneisall
one quetion i would ask is whywould the government go through the trouble and extreme risk of planting explosives to assure the collapse of the building?


The failed attempted in 1993 is why they made sure it came down fully this time.

People forget pretty quickly, the buildings would be as new in 2005 if it was only the plane damage that occured. Life would be back to normal.



I doubt very much that life would go back to normal even if the towers didn't fall.

So who flew the planes into the towers in this pre-planned mission?
Where they drones? What happened to all of them passengers that were aboard those flights?

And if that is the case, why an attack on such a small scale. Why didn't a dozen or so different cities and buildings recieve the same treatment? If your going to plan something so dastardly, why not go for broke and pull out all the stops?



[edit on 12/11/2005 by Classified Info]



Ask your Government those questions.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
it turns my stomach to see people try to blame anyone except those responsible for that day's horror.


What about the numbers amongst "those responsible for that day's horror" who are alive and well?

You can clearly hear the explosions, djohnsto77, if they haven't been edited in, then how can you explain this? How can you deny this? Why were the planes allowed to even reach their "targets" in the first place, where was NORAD? I genuinely don't mean to be disrespectful in any way by asking you these questions, I'm not trying to upset you, but if you are able to pin this solely on Terrorists, then you are able to tell me why. I'm not going to pussyfoot around you just because you are from New York.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join