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

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
AgentSmith how can you ignore the fact that this video clearly depicts squib like explosions before the collapses of the world trade center? Please explain the reasons for this if there was no controlled demolition.




posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
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]


I just asked you that exact same question! And, I might add, your possible reasons for the deception were absolutely pathetic. "An Investment," please, how much more of an investment could $48 a second on hour’s worth of footage be? I'd call that "milk," wouldn't you? We can't explain the discrepancy you pointed out because you haven't shown us in any kind of acceptable or clear way that there is one. Nice of you to facetiously put analysis in quote marks when yours is totally non-existent.

"Play ball here..." you're kidding, right?












[edit on 063131p://43126 by MERC]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   
I'm not even discussing at this point if there was a controlled demolition or not, nor am I interested in discussing the reasoning behind it, I think you'll find that my second reason is not unlikely though - that he believes he is fighting a just cause so is prepared to use certain underhand tactics to carry his point across.

What I am interested in discussing is a blatant deception in the analysis of a particular event.
I can't understand how anyone can really debate if what I said is right or not as you can see it in the video. They even rewind it in slow motion and you get to see it even better. I guess some people are angry that even though it was presented to them like this they couldn't see the wood for the trees, but it's done and we have to ask why..
If your not interested in tackling this then just say so and I'll go away - then you can all carry on massaging each others egos and bragging about how your all right.


[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
What I am interested in discussing is a blatant deception in the analysis of a particular event. If your not interested in tackling this then just say so and I'll go away - then you can all carry on massaging each others egos and bragging about how your all right.



Originally posted by MERC
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 asked you right there to discuss it, are you blind, Agent Smith? Support your claims. I'll say this for the last time, nobody is just going to take your word for it.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by MERC
I asked you right there to discuss it, are you blind, Agent Smith? Support your claims. I'll say this for the last time, nobody is just going to take your word for it.


Well I assume you all watched the same video? - there's your evidence. I'm not expecting anybody to take my word for it, I just assumed we all saw the same video. Anyone who saw the video will know exactly what I am talking about. Don't forget even though I do not usually entertain a lot of these alternative theories, even I actually fell for what he was saying regarding the debris trajectories.
It wasn't until I rewound it and watched that bit again I realised the truth was staring at me right in the face, so I can imagine that anyone who doesn't want to find a problem will have just ignored it or not noticed.

Don't take my word for it, watch that bit of the video again - I'm not sure what you expect me to do, repost the link to the video we're discussing??


If you think I'm going to spend a couple of hours messing around making a pretty GIF animation out of it because you can't be bothered to look again then you can forget it.

It's really quite simple:

*Debris is ejcted away from the building horizontally with a dust/smoke trail behind it and falls away.

* The tower is falling so the smoke/dust trail effectively creates an arc, in a still photograph it creates the illusion that the debris has been ejected in an upward and outward motion, if the tower was stationary and at the lower point then this would be correct, however the debris is ejected horizontally while the tower is at a higher position.

This contradicts one of their main points they are making, they overlay their cannonball trajectory over the debris trail, problem is the cannon is on a stationary cliff firing up and out. The debris from the tower was ejected horizontally from a falling object, hence causing an arc on both sides of the ejection point.

Clear enough for you?

But if you havn't even watched the video, then why even try to discuss it? At least I bothered to watch it before wading in saying it was all a load of crap - which isn't what I believe anyway. But I am addressing what I see as serious flaws in the presentation and reasoning behind one of the pivotal moments highlighted in the video.

Of course, if you're prepared to overlook this, then I'm sure you won't mind overlooking the apparant inadequecy of the fires in being able to cause the structure to fail.


[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]


XL5

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:32 AM
link   
At the moment the debris is ejected sidways, the floor under it hasen't started falling yet and has no up or down movment, then the debris hits air that has not been thrust down by the main body of the building. The building is moving faster then the debris, and therefore the debris is higher then the floor it was ejected from. The debris is lighter, it has more air resistance (surface area) and has thick dust to make the bigger bits "float" a tiny bit more then in just free air. The debris does eventually gain downward velocity and this forms the arc you see.

It is like the experiment of the bowling ball and the feather ( they should both fall at the same speed) but they don't because the feather has air resistance. However, if the feather is placed on top of the bowling ball, it has no air resistance and it falls at the same speed.

If it was a timed explosion that controlled the speed of collapse, debris would have also been seen to shoot downward at an angle too.

This is not a school test, it is not smart to skip one and move onto the next question because you don't know what to say or what the answer is.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Well I assume you all watched the same video? - there's your evidence.


Thank you! Now where's your's?


Originally posted by AgentSmith
It wasn't until I rewound it and watched that bit again I realised the truth was staring at me right in the face, so I can imagine that anyone who doesn't want to find a problem will have just ignored it or not noticed.

Don't take my word for it, watch that bit of the video again - I'm not sure what you expect me to do, repost the link to the video we're discussing??



I did watch it again, several times. I see no reason to disagree with their analysis of that fall.


Originally posted by AgentSmith
If you think I'm going to spend a couple of hours messing around making a pretty GIF animation out of it because you can't be bothered to look again then you can forget it.


I have watched it again. You take stabs at their 'analysis' as you put it, and you can't even be bothered to make a GIF? I wonder how much time and effort the makers of this film put into their analysis, and you expect us to agree with you?


Originally posted by AgentSmith
But if you havn't even watched the video, then why even try to discuss it? At least I bothered to watch it before wading in saying it was all a load of crap - which isn't what I believe anyway. But I am addressing what I see as serious flaws in the presentation and reasoning behind one of the pivotal moments highlighted in the video.


You really must stop jumping to so many conclusions, Smithy. Where the hell did you get the idea that I haven't even watched the video? You're just making things up.


Originally posted by AgentSmith
Of course, if you're prepared to overlook this, then I'm sure you won't mind overlooking the apparant inadequecy of the fires in being able to cause the structure to fail.


You have overlooked everything except this one single issue, if anyone is overlooking anything, it's you. I am not overlooking anything here, and have addressed everything you have brought forward.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
If you've watched it again and still think that it shows debris being ejected upward and outward, then there really isn't any point in discussing it with you.. I don't care enough about your opinon to be honest to bother making a GIF, it's so obvious a kid can see what is happening, I didn't bother joining in the general discussion because it's mainly just addressing the same points that have been discussed in other threads, all I was interested in was pointing out this obvious error. But if you can't see it then there's no point in discussing it any further..

Out of curiosity, what sort of shape would you expect from the trail if debris was thrown out sideways as would be expected, if not what we saw? Bearing in mind the building is also falling.

Anyway, if it makes you happy you're absolutely right about everything
well done!


[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
If you've watched it again and still think that it shows debris being ejected upward and outward, then there really isn't any point in discussing it with you


See Agent, WE are discussing a larger picture, the entire suspicious collapse of theose 2 towers And WTC 7, you highjacked this thread about an error you see in those people's analisys (in which they put a great deal of time and effort)....

If you don't think the WTC were brought down by demolition charges, then you shouldn 't be in this thread, pretty simple really...



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR

Originally posted by AgentSmith
If you've watched it again and still think that it shows debris being ejected upward and outward, then there really isn't any point in discussing it with you


See Agent, WE are discussing a larger picture, the entire suspicious collapse of theose 2 towers And WTC 7, you highjacked this thread about an error you see in those people's analisys (in which they put a great deal of time and effort)....

If you don't think the WTC were brought down by demolition charges, then you shouldn 't be in this thread, pretty simple really...



Emmm, you don't really know how things work around here do you?
I love your last comment


Let me point out how silly your post is:

1) This thread is based on a video presented as evidence, so discussing anything in the video - inclduing any errors - is important for the truth whatever that may be..

2)

you highjacked this thread about an error you see in those people's analisys (in which they put a great deal of time and effort)....

Ah shucks, the poor guys at NIST and FEMA also put in a "great deal of time and effort", but you like to point out errors in their reports... Double standards maybe?
Surely the truth is what is important..?

3)

If you don't think the WTC were brought down by demolition charges, then you shouldn 't be in this thread, pretty simple really...


That has to be one of the stupidest comments I've seen on here, maybe you should do some reading around the forums and see how things work before you post again. This thread isn't a private club for any group of people I'm afraid and anyone can enter the discussion.

I'll tell you what I think, fearing that the rumbles on his video were not condemning enough evidence they elaborated a bit, including his irrelevent comments on the Pentagon. Either blinded by their own agenda or simply taking advantage of people's blind faith and the shock of what they were seeing, they decided to chip in some 'basic physics', making full use of the teaching method of presentation they employed and warped the real facts slightly to further push their point across. I'm not even saying that the whole video is a load of crap, all I'm saying is that a crucial, pivotal point in their portrayal of events was presented in a misleading and incorrect way. Sorry it's causing such a stir!


I already said I'm prepared to leave it and you can all carry on thinking you're right for all I care.. If you think I'm talking rubbish I don't understand why anyone keeps replying. We all know my opinon doesn't matter.. Like I said, carry on amongst yourselves congratulating each other on your evidence, I really don't care, it isn't important in the grand scheme of things. I just thought you might like to be aware of this flaw as I thought you were looking for the truth.


Oh, thank you XyZeR for your comments - you just proved my point that I was saying about how some people don't care about the whole truth as long as they win what they think is the good fight.


[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
We pick ideas up and examine them from every angle. We call that denying ignorance.

If a full examination of a concept is not desired, may I suggest the Democratic Underground, or maybe Ann Coulter's place, on the other end of the hall?

[edit on 12-12-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

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.
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]


Smith, I think you are decieving yourself. What I mean is...if the projectories are blown straight out...they would fall at the SAME rate or faster than the building (which would have to have some retardation due to redundancy strength). This does not happen...the building falls at a faster rate than the debris being blown out. This can only happen if you have an upward force from the begining. Agent Smith is really a good name for you......how long have you worked for the Matrix anyway?



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

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'.


Hmmm...yes, I would consider a child prodigy "stupid". Did you watch the begining of the video?



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

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]


oh yes they can, i see it on here all the time. they convince themselves so much they believe it, it becomes real in their mind, even if it is wrong.
Believe it or not it happens all the time.
Loose Change 1, "missile fired seconds before impact"... give me a break.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Hmmm...yes, I would consider a child prodigy "stupid". Did you watch the begining of the video?


Well I don't want to toot my own horn, but I've come out in the top percentage of people in the whole country (UK) in various tests when I was a child. I also have an above average IQ and actually came out top in various MOD entrance exams for a technical civilian position I applied for years back. I was considered a 'child prodigy' but you think I'm talking crap - so what's the difference?

The point? I make mistakes, I get caught up in what I think and say and so does everybody else. I can dress myself up in a similar fashion and it means jack (hence why I don't do it), in fact you just end up looking a bigger idiot when you do make a mistake. So that comment is pretty meaningless, and if you think so highly of the guys opinion of himself then why don't you listen to me? I'm not the smartest guy here by far, but I'm not an idiot and I'm proven to be well above average in intelligence.
Not once on this board have I ever divulged what I have said above, to help me prove a point or to brag about myself - my words speak for themselves, sometimes helping my downfall admittedly, I don't need to brag about how clever I am before each statement or point I make. I'd question anyone who starts their own video with a load of crap about how amazing they are.

Basically - it means nothing.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Maybe Rick did make a mistake. Then, you of all people should know that it does not negate the purpose of the video in question. I'm not sure at this moment because I don't have access to the video (I'm at work...the vid is on my comp at home).



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Maybe Rick did make a mistake. Then, you of all people should know that it does not negate the purpose of the video in question. I'm not sure at this moment because I don't have access to the video (I'm at work...the vid is on my comp at home).


Good, good.. As it was an important point made in the video and potentially can throw into doubt the motivation, authenticity and more importantly the competence of the film makers - I thought it was important to make sure it was clear. We all know how important these 'little' mistakes are - just look at the controversy surrounding the official reports! I only think it's fair to point out these glaring mistakes in both sides of the argument - to ensure a fair conclusion and honest means in getting it.

Assuming the sound recorded is genuine and has not been emphasised, then it is of course a valuable piece of evidence in itself, marring it with a load of twaddle only gives people a reason to question it.

In his defence, the parts regarding the seismology readings were interesting. I wonder what the explanation for the difference is? You'd think they would be similar regardless of the cause of collapse.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
the debris pattern are not new information, for crying out loud, whatever your position is, there's not much use in telling one another that we're all wrong, because the trajectories bolster/don't bolster your desired theory.

that's as futile as trying to convince an eyewitness who claims seeing the planes fly backwards, of a more realistic version, tbh.


heretic question to throw you off track: why was the cap smahed, how and where? i mean there was nothing on top of it except (an admittedly large) antenna, shouldn't the roof remain intact the way down?

reminder: you can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't use a few pulverised storeys spread all over manhattan to crush the entire building, can you?



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
As one or two people were upset that I 'couldn't be bothered' to illustrate my point more clearly, and as I have 1/2 hour to kill, here you go:



This image is a screen capture from the DVD where he tries to illustrate that the debris could not have been ejected from the building horizontally.

Problem is, if you overlay a shot from just after the initiation of collapse and his frame where he tries to show the debris was thrown up and out:



You can clearly see his fatal flaw, for some reason he is making out that the debris in question was thrown out many stories below it's actual ejection point.

This sequence from the slow motion rewind in his DVD should help you see what is happening:



And if not then this overlay I put together should make it as clear as day:



Unfortunately the animation he used to demonstrate the cannonball trajectory is not interactive, so you can't alter velocities and such, but it looks like we don't need to anyway...

That was all I was trying to point out to you guys anyway - enjoy!
(you may chant my name as I leave the room).

I guess it just proves that if you talk down to people in a patronising and monotonous voice, present false and misleading information, throw in some high-school websites and make out that they would be stupid and lacking in a basic school education if they don't agree with you - you can literally make some people blind to what's in front of their eyes!

Haha! The program maker must have thought we are all retarded, luckily that isn't true, ay comrades!

[edit on 12-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Oh before I go, going back to the binoculars issue - it kinda looks like he is operating the camera and using the binoculars at the same time. If you check out the transcript and following footage:


17m 15sec

....I heard the first one and I got the report and ran into the shower, got showered and came down on my Zappy(?) scooter... With all my stuff and zoomed in here, set up my cameras on tripods so that I could watch with my binoculars and started filming the twin towers as they were burning


19:18 - 19:57

You see it zoom into the helicopter, I am open to considering this is done in post production, however why is it so shaky and erratic - like it is being done manually at the time?


20:30

Well I'm watching with my binoculars, and I got in there just the guy and the helicopter line and all of a sudden the guy is out of my view, but you know you think you moved or something and I'm like 'where is it' and I had a look because from the angle you only get a sliver of the, of the err.. second building............


Just wondered how he managed to do both at once. He says himself he set up the camera on a tripod so he could use his binoculars.

Look:



It's probably nothing and was done (very poorly) in post production - but I thought I'd point that out too just in case there's something there!





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join