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

I remember now another point I meant to make regarding the sort of tactics used in the video..

In the section talking about debris trajectories, they try to tell us that they go up and out. But if you rewind and watch you can clearly see that the illusion that they go up and out is caused by the collapse of the building, for them to go up and out like the video implies then the building would have had to be stationary.
You can clearly see debris being thrown out sideways and falling down as would be expected, but because the building is falling you get a curve on at the beginning of the smoke trail, the program makers then freeze the video and overlay their cannonball trajectory over the top and make out that the debris was fired up and out. You can clearly see this is a blatant lie just by watching it again, it's not an easy or honest mistake, it's a blatant lie that is easy to miss due to the way the video is made. I actually thought they had something even though I'd just seen it until I decided to watch it again and block out that patronising blokes monotonous voice.
Talk about spelling it out for people, the whole thing is presented like a pre-school educational video with each letter being spelt out while some patronising moron lulls you into a trance.

I also find it curious that there are no loud exclamations from the crowd or any remarks on the live broadcast in the background mentioning the explosions, at first I assumed they had been enhanced, but if they were as loud as they sounded on the video you would think people would gasp or something.

I also wonder if the lone cameraman had someone helping him, because from what I can remember the camera zooms in and pans when following one of the choppers. Then in his remarks he says he was watching it wthrough binoculars. If I havn't got confused here then that is truly an amazing feat, being able to watch it through binoculars while operating the video camera. I'll have to watch again to double check though, what I thought may have been zooming in and panning might be what they did in the editing stage, so I have to check.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I also wonder if the lone cameraman had someone helping him, because from what I can remember the camera zooms in and pans when following one of the choppers. Then in his remarks he says he was watching it wthrough binoculars. If I havn't got confused here then that is truly an amazing feat, being able to watch it through binoculars while operating the video camera. I'll have to watch again to double check though, what I thought may have been zooming in and panning might be what they did in the editing stage, so I have to check.

Much of the zooming was done in the editing stage. You can tell because the pixel ratio doesn't change, because the panning is super-smooth, and because the same footage that is zoomed was shown unzoomed earlier. I thought it was quite obvious when it's camera zoom and when it's production zoom.

I also find it curious that there are no loud exclamations from the crowd or any remarks on the live broadcast in the background mentioning the explosions, at first I assumed they had been enhanced, but if they were as loud as they sounded on the video you would think people would gasp or something.

There ARE reporters that mention explosions. Watch it again. And there are countless reporters and eye-witnesses that were captured on video testifying to explosions before the collapses, videos and written testimonies of which have been posted a thousand times on ATS, and you've been there denying them all through it, Mr. Smith.

Regarding the people on the pier, it's not like there was a bomb going off next to them. They're standing there in shock watching a terrorist attack on their city unfold. Do you think that they are going to panic and scream or run away when they hear a rumble and a thump come across the river from 2 miles away. Secondly you can hardly hear the voices of the people near the camera until the towers go down and some of them are screaming full lung. Thirdly, when the camera pans you can see the crowd is well away from the camera. Who knows what they were saying?

Which seems more probable reaction to you?

"Dude, did you hear that thump?"

"Yeah, I did. What do you think that was?"

"Dunno..."

Or this...

"OH MY GOD!! THAT NOISE WAS A BOMB IN THE BASEMENT OF WTC2 DESIGNED TO COLLAPSE THE TOWER IN ABOUT 16 SECONDS FROM NOW AND USE THIS AS AN EXCUSE FOR GLOBAL HEGEMONY!! WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE RUNYAAAAAAAAARRGHH!!!"



[edit on 2005-12-12 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I remember now another point I meant to make regarding the sort of tactics used in the video..

In the section talking about debris trajectories, they try to tell us that they go up and out. But if you rewind and watch you can clearly see that the illusion that they go up and out is caused by the collapse of the building, for them to go up and out like the video implies then the building would have had to be stationary.

Nonsense. The building would not have to be stationary at all, is a firework stationary when it ejects its projectiles upwards and outwards upon exploding? I'm not disagreeing with you that it could be an Illusion of the building falling, but your statement about it having to be stationary is false.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You can clearly see debris being thrown out sideways and falling down as would be expected, but because the building is falling you get a curve on at the beginning of the smoke trail, the program makers then freeze the video and overlay their cannonball trajectory over the top and make out that the debris was fired up and out. You can clearly see this is a blatant lie just by watching it again, it's not an easy or honest mistake, it's a blatant lie that is easy to miss due to the way the video is made.

Can you substantiate this is a blatant lie? It is possible for debris to be ejected upwards then out from a falling building, if there is an explosive force present powerful enough to do so.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I actually thought they had something even though I'd just seen it until I decided to watch it again and block out that patronising blokes monotonous voice.

Can I ask why a patronising, monotonous, male voice would make you think they had something, but when it is "blocked out," it becomes apparent that they do not have something, Agent Smith?

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I also find it curious that there are no loud exclamations from the crowd or any remarks on the live broadcast in the background mentioning the explosions, at first I assumed they had been enhanced, but if they were as loud as they sounded on the video you would think people would gasp or something.

Curious, maybe, but still speculatory. Maybe after seeing the planes go into the buildings they were expecting a few more explosions, maybe not. Maybe they should have "gasped," or reacted differently, how can we really know? Regardless, news reports, and fire-fighter eyewitnesses have specifically mentioned explosions, or Bombs. Also, what about this;

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded very interesting seismic activity on September 11, 2001 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 9-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

Source

?

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I also wonder if the lone cameraman had someone helping him, because from what I can remember the camera zooms in and pans when following one of the choppers. Then in his remarks he says he was watching it through binoculars. If I havn't got confused here then that is truly an amazing feat, being able to watch it through binoculars while operating the video camera. I'll have to watch again to double check though, what I thought may have been zooming in and panning might be what they did in the editing stage, so I have to check.

Did it ever occur to you the Binoculars where attached to the Camera, or vice versa?

Originally posted by MERC
Did it ever occur to you the Binoculars where attached to the Camera, or vice versa?

Now you're being silly...

If you watch the video again and look at their example, you see the debris being blown away from the building horizontally and falling down, as the building falls it creates the arc on the other side. They then freeze it and overlay their graphic while telling us it has been thrown up and out.. It hasn't.. It's not open to interpretation - it's an obivous fact. Watch it again if you don't believe me.

Look, I don't care about the binoculars, there are far more legitimate issues to be addressed.

As for the upward and outward projection thing, I think it is open to interpretation, and with good reason. What is certainly not open to interpretation is your dangerous ability to overlook key issues, and provide insufficient backing for your outbursts. Do all the serious, more damning points just go in one ear and out the other with you, or what? I suggest you look at the video again.

It really isn't, watch the video - the debris is ejected horizontally and falls away in an arc. The collapsing building creates the arc effect on the other side of the path and you end up with the illusion that the debris is thrown up and out. It isn't open to interpretation and it isn't a matter of opinon. The video clearly shows it while a photograph is deceptive.
The programme makers can not have made a mistake in this, they are delibrately deceiving people.
Sorry to break up your party but that's the facts and there is nothing you can do or say about it.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Sorry to break up your party but that's the facts and there is nothing you can do or say about it.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]

Don't get all excited with yourself. You haven't broken up anyone's party, and you still haven't provided anything to support your assumptions, then you try and dictate to me what I can and can not do or say about it? How dare you, you ignorant person. I can say something about it and I'm saying it now. The people who made the video have gone a lot further to proving their claims than you have with yours, you think I'm just going to take your word for it, then shut up and go away? Regardless of whether you are right about it being an illusion or not, there is still far more damning evidence for you to concern yourself with. Keep ignoring all the witness statements, audio and video of the explosions, etc, etc, etc, etc and cling to binocular anomalies and ghost trajectories all you want, I don't care.









[edit on 053131p://08125 by MERC]

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The programme makers can not have made a mistake in this, they are delibrately deceiving people.

One more thing, while I'm at it; if they are intentionally deceiving people, then can I ask to what end?

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Just a reminder, all credit and thanks should go to Rick Siegel, the guy who took the footage and put the DVD together. He was offered $48 a second by the MSM giants for the footage, but he refused knowing that the footage would dissappear and never be seen again with the explosion audio intact. He took hours of footage...you do the math.

It doesn't look like financial gain, does it? Why put the DVD out themselves and run the risk of barely covering their production costs? Could you explain to me the reason they are intentionally deceiving people? I don't think they have those intentions at all, it doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry but the trajectories of the debris are clear in the video and they have misled you. Maybe you should watch it again, I could repeat what I have already said but that seems pointless. The fact is the debris does NOT go up and out and you can see it in the video.
I was angry as well when I realised because I fell for it too at first.. It sucks to have someone trick you like that.
As you like to say yourself, you can't change the laws of physics..
You can try and deviate from this as much as you like but I've found my strawman and it's going to give the beating it deserves.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]

Hey smith, i'dd like your anwer on this question posted by wecomeinpeace

If they are intentionally deceiving people, then can I ask to what end?

Why would someone go trough all this trouble to "misguide " people ?

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I'm sorry but the trajectories of the debris are clear in the video and they have misled you. Maybe you should watch it again, I could repeat what I have already said but that seems pointless. The fact is the debris does NOT go up and out and you can see it in the video.
I was angry as well when I realised because I fell for it too at first.. It sucks to have someone trick you like that.
You can try and deviate from this as much as you like but I've found my strawman and it's going to give the beating it deserves.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]

Hello,

Ok, even if you were right about this particular fact, and they misinterpreted that, why keep focusing only on it ? There are irrefutable other facts which are the most important and compelling evidence of use of explosives in this video.

You know, this is like when PETA members try pushing their views on you with videos of slaughtering of animals. They will show you a video of "wrong doing" or just the normal way of killing them that just looks wrong. No matter what happens in the video it still means different things to different people for different reasons, but it still doesn't change anything or anyone.

This is just as fruitless as getting a priest to worship satan based on pure logic and facts.

Originally posted by XyZeR
Hey smith, i'dd like your anwer on this question posted by wecomeinpeace

If they are intentionally deceiving people, then can I ask to what end?

Why would someone go trough all this trouble to "misguide " people ?

I can think of a couple of reasons, but I'm not going to answer.. why..?
Because I don't have to and I feel like being awkward.. Mainly though, because I don't wish to deviate away from the point I'm making, which you all desperately appear to be attempting to do.

It's not just a silly little mistake or flaw, they spend considerable time on it and they make it an important part of their case. If they are this incompetent then what does it say about the rest of it?

I'm not going to leave it, it's not a slip of the tongue, it's either complete stupidity or a complete lie.

If they can't get this simple, yet crucial, piece of information correct then what else are they misleading you on?

[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]

so the video is a fake???

i watched the first hour of it and i thought it was pretty boring

but i thought it was real too...

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by XyZeR
Hey smith, i'dd like your anwer on this question posted by wecomeinpeace

If they are intentionally deceiving people, then can I ask to what end?

Why would someone go trough all this trouble to "misguide " people ?

I can think of a couple of reasons, but I'm not going to answer.. why..?
Because I don't have to and I feel like being awkward.. Mainly though, because I don't wish to deviate away from the point I'm making, which you all desperately appear to be attempting to do.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Classic. What he really means is he doesn't know, and he's too afraid to admit it.


"Why are they misleading you, you ask? BECAUSE I SAY SO, AND THAT'S THE END OF IT!"

Nobody is deviating away from it, we are asking you a direct question relating to it.

Originally posted by AgentSmith
It's not just a silly little mistake or flaw, they spend considerable time on it and they make it an important part of their case. If they are this incompetent then what does it say about the rest of it?

I'm not going to leave it, it's not a slip of the tongue, it's either complete stupidity or a complete lie.

If they can't get this simple, yet crucial, piece of information correct then what else are they misleading you on?

Nobody is asking you to leave it, just provide something to support it, I'll say it again, nobody is just going to take your word for it. You can't even answer a simple question as to why they might be decieving us (which they do not appear to be) let alone support in any way why you think they are wrong about the trajectory, and you have the cheek to accuse the makers of this film of stupidity?

I don't think it's fake, it's obviously a real video of the collapse. But their analysis is wrong, maybe through a lie or by plain stupidity. But it doesn't change the fact that a key part of their analyisis is wrong.

People find descrepancies in the official reports and use them to pull the whole thing apart and discredit it, how come it's unacceptable to do the same thing in return to the alternative reports?

Or is this another 'one rule for you, one rule for me' type game?

Originally posted by MERC

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by XyZeR
Hey smith, i'dd like your anwer on this question posted by wecomeinpeace

If they are intentionally deceiving people, then can I ask to what end?

Why would someone go trough all this trouble to "misguide " people ?

I can think of a couple of reasons, but I'm not going to answer.. why..?
Because I don't have to and I feel like being awkward.. Mainly though, because I don't wish to deviate away from the point I'm making, which you all desperately appear to be attempting to do.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! Classic. What he really means is he doesn't know, and he's too afraid to admit it.

As for reasons, if you insist - it may be money orientated. He may have been offered a lot of money for the clip but by distrbuting this he gives himself a position from which to milk it for everything it is worth. It is basically an investment, he is also making a name for himself which he can exploit.

It may also be that he genuinely believes in what he is saying and is a bit stupid, or that he is convinced of foul play and is prepared to add in bits or effectively create/warp 'evidence' in order ot put his point across. A tactic people on any side of an argument or fight are often prepared to use in order to fight for their 'just cause'.

Do you want me to think of more reasons or are you prepared to do some thinking for yourself?

[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by they see ALL
so the video is a fake???
i watched the first hour of it and i thought it was pretty boring

but i thought it was real too...

No, this video is not a fake. It proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that it was a controlled demolition that brought down the towers and not the airplanes.

The people who think otherwise are brainwashed. The truth is so shocking that it challenges the basic fundamentals of our day to day lives. They are in the violent opposition stage. Which is normal seeing as they are one step away from acceptance.

People find descrepancies in the official reports

Yes We SURE DO , You are the one assuming the official report is correct, which it clearly isn't, if the buildings came down with the oficial pancake theory, then the towers would have taken much more time to go down, floor 1 crashing into floor 2, floor giving way and crashing into floor 3.... there't have been a free fall of massive chunkcs of building.....

Oh come on chaps, play ball here.

Let's hear your explanation for the discrepancy I pointed out... How come they misled us with their 'analysis'?

[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]