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

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

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]


Very interesting Smith. Good find there. I guess it all comes down to who can see where the projectiles are coming from in the first place. Rick sees them coming from further down the tower and you see them from further up. As for me, I think there is way too much debris to conclude one way or the other. Nice find anyway.

As far as the quote above...the same could be said of NIST and FEMA. Just depends on whos side your on.




posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
As far as the binocular issue...I was under the impression that he was doing both at the same time....i.e. zooming and panning while watching with the binoculars. I guess that was a stupid assumption on my part. Just goes to show that we all make mistakes.

Now I understand a little bit more about post production issues.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   
i am amazed that needed spelling out over the past 3 pages.
i thought id delt with it sufficiently on my 9-12-2005 at 07:19 PM post.

i guess its true that alot of people really dont muse, they amuse.
i honeslty never would have believed it, but it seems true.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I thought that video was good, I watched the whole lot. Then I read Smiths posts and he does have a point. I think anyone who isn't willing to analyse the video for them selfs and maybe do a little research could be sucked into believing this if for real, I did at first that is why I have edited my post.

[edit on 12/12/05 by Towards Omega]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
By the way, anyone know what video software was used to edit the video?



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Towards Omega
By the way, anyone know what video software was used to edit the video?


It looks like Apple's Final Cut Pro to me.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Does that make difference? Just curious as I am no where near being computer swavy.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Does that make difference? Just curious as I am no where near being computer swavy.


If you mean my post about what software he used then I doubt it, I just wanted to know whats all
.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I was just thinking that maybe some programs have more filters or enhancements that others don't. I think it's a very good question in my opinion. If he used something that doesn't have enhancement abilities...then no one could say he enhanced the sound. Good thinking.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I really don't know what all the fuss is about.

Regarding the zoom: Once again, some of the zoom was conducted by Rick, and some of it was conducted post-production to highlight various aspects. It's like some of you have never seen a video before. You can tell from the difference in pixel ratio and clarity, from the smoothness of the post-production zoom, and from focal length lens distortion when camera-zoom is used. But you don't even have to be aware of the specifics of these differences in order to pick it up - it's intuitive and your eyes and brain should register it straight away if you've ever used a camera, an imaging editing program, played a video game, or watched a movie in your life. My grandmother could pick it through her thick bifocals if she was alive. Sometimes I wonder... But even if you're not as observant as Grandmother Peace, the footage is shown first for you unedited, and then shown again immediately after with the production zoom added for your viewing pleasure. But if you can't pick it up with just your intuition, then go to the 00:05:20 mark in the video and watch the chopper go over the top at normal zoom. Once the chopper has passed, listen to the knock and watch the shake as Rick's hand bumps the camera and he camera-zooms in on the North tower. Notice the shaky zoom and the relative clarity of the image. This is camera zoom, folks. Then go to the 00:19:20 mark and watch the exact same footage but with production-zoom added so that you can see the flash on the chopper closer. Notice the zoom is smooth and the pixel clarity is terrible. This is post-production zoom.

Regarding the production quality: How the hell is that relevant? So the video was made on a low budget by people that don't have the financial resources of CBS or CNN. This has no bearing on the content, whatsoever. Maybe they should have gotten Steven Spielberg and Paramount Pictures to do it, then that would have added credibility. War of the Worlds and Tom Cruise certainly have me convinced Martians exist.

Regarding the debris trajectories: I agree the trajectory angles are not positive. The important thing is not whether the trajectory angles are positive, level, or slightly negative. The important thing is the impulse required to send massive chunks of debris weighing thousands of tonnes along huge, horizontal trajectories. Debris from a gravity-driven collapse should fall down alongside the building in pretty much the same direction as gravity, with only a certain degree of lateral impulse generated by 'pancaking' floors. Watch these videos of the collapse and you can see huge chunks of debris being forcibly ejected horizontally over the top of the other falling debris.

terrorize.dk...(divx%205.1).avi

terrorize.dk...(divx%205.1).avi

The chunk of debris which landed on the Winter Garden weighs in the vicinity of 3500Kg (7700lbs) and it was flung 180m (600ft) away on a horizontal trajectory. I've calculated the energy required to accomplish this feet in the past and it is mind-boggling. Now whether or not the energy of the falling cap would be sufficient to do this is debatable, until you add in the pulverization of the concrete, the snapping of the steel beam and spandrel connections, the expansion of the dust cloud, the crushing of the core, etc, etc...there's simply not enough energy available to do all that work, most especially in the time frame of 10-12 seconds, without another energy source other than gravitational potential energy being inputed into the system.

But whether the debris ejection trajectory angles were positive or not is minor, if not irrelevant, and is no justification for certain folks to prance and mince around the halls, inferring with nasty sarcasm that everyone who doesn't agree with them is retarded, and claiming that they have debunked everything in the footage because of one, single point of contention. The trajectories, the free fall of WTC7, the pyroclastic flow have all been done to death on ATS and in analyses of myriad other footage that has been around on the Internet for 4+ years already. The important thing about this footage, and what was the focus of 80% of the post-production video, is the pre-collapse explosion sounds; which vindicates all of the eye-witness reports that we have seen and heard. The attempts to discredit those sounds by focusing on unassociated, peripheral minutiae is extremely telling. And when I see people state, "The entire footage is bunk because they got the trajectories wrong", it once again becomes clear how amazingly easy things are for TPTB. A little psychological trick and everyone nods their head with glazed-over eyes. Dubya mumbles and stutters, "Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories", and suddenly usually rational and intelligent people's stomachs are turning and they're foaming at the mouth, rabidly insulting those who attempt to re-examine and advocate for an independent investigation into the official story - a story which has more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese on a firing range.

I'm sorry about the tone of this post, mild as it is by comparison, but the attitude of DJ and AgentSmith in this thread has already set that tone. If that's how it's going to be, then so be it...We retards may not be as smart as some childhood geniuses in this thread, but we can still play ball.


[edit on 2005-12-13 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I hope that last post wasn't about me WCIP...I've been trying with all my might to come up with scientific proof.....and engineering proof. But you are right...the main point of the vidieo is what is relevent.

I have pretty much reserved myself with the conclusion that without the proper structural drawings...we can't do anything. OK..Eager can come up with his calculations...but does he give ANYTHING about anything?

I'm telling you people...without knowing the EXACT construction of the buildings...no one...even NIST, FEMA et all. can come up with what type of resistance the floors (joists, connectors, concrete etc.) could have had. Oh, as a structural engineer......I can tell you with assurance that bolts are MADE MUCH stronger than the steel that they are connected to. Yes, ask any structural engineer if you will....please don't just take my word for it. Based on this alone.....the "pancake" theory...the "connector" theory is definately bunk. If you don't believe me.....look in any ASTM manual...look in any IBC codes.....look in the NYC codes for that matter. Bottom line is .......bolts (connectors) are designed to be STRONGER than the steel they are connecting. BIG flaw in the "official" theory don't you think? I'm actually, agreeing with you WCIP.....just taking thing in a scientific point of view.

BTW, I watched the video with a skeptical mind........I am now more than convinced it was something other than just plane destruction and fire. Which...as a structural engineer...I kinda knew already.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I just watched this whole thing through and I have to say it's far from the complete definitive evidence some are claiming it to be. Furthermore I can't believe people are shunning agentsmith for perfectly valid concerns with the material in the video. I for one understood the point made straight away and found watching that segment of the video painful at how flawed the evidence was.

Infact the only evidence on the video that really hold up is the explosion sounds, these explosion sounds that were only captured by this one camera nearly 2 miles away


So for me it's back to my fence where I will sit eargerly in wait of new evidence.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
Infact the only evidence on the video that really hold up is the explosion sounds, these explosion sounds that were only captured by this one camera nearly 2 miles away



Exactly, it does all seem raqther odd to me. I know people reported explosions from the beginning, but in the circumstances this would not be unusual. What is unusual is the apparant magnitude of these explosions in this apparantly unedited footage. It seems very noble of the guy to have not sold his video for a huge sum of money, but is there any way we can independantly confirm this? For all we know he might have thrown the thing together with the reported explosions as inspiration and just be taking us all for a ride. It does seem very strange that out of the countless people all videoing the whole event this is the first 'real' piece of footage with these VERY loud explosions on it.

I know a lot of you will be wanting to rip my heart out for questioning this honourable chaps motives and if the video is genuine or not, but as so many people laugh and mock for believing the official line and the countless people that speak it, along with the official reports - I'm sure if you will excuse me for being slightly dubious of some loner video that has surfaced from one guy no-one has actually really heard of who spends 2 hours talking about his approx 20 minutes of smoking gun footage using blatantly incorrect assumptions to demonstrate various aspects of it and how it is definitive proof of demolition.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi

Infact the only evidence on the video that really hold up is the explosion sounds, these explosion sounds that were only captured by this one camera nearly 2 miles away



Which is why I think the explosion sounds are either an outright hoax, or a sound completely unrelated to the WTC. Given the amount of energy for a sound to travel 2 miles, peole within a few hundred feet of the buildings would have been deafened. (The inverse square law applies to sound propagation.)



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
I can tell you with assurance that bolts are MADE MUCH stronger than the steel that they are connected to.


This statement of mine (after rereading my post) is a little misleading. What I was trying to say was that...with bolts combined they are stronger than the steel....not one singular bolt. My mistake.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Greetings, friends.

A few things come to mind reading the above discussion.


The name of Phil Schneider will be familiar to some of you; he was a Texas citizen and an explosives expert employed by the government, who claimed to have worked with underground bases and projects, and in about 1995 decided that he could hide what he knew no longer, which would begin a tour where he talked wide and broad about the government's plans and real agenda. Phil was strangled to death in his house in 1996. (All valueables left behind, however photographs and alien artifacts and such stolen.)

In May of 1995, he held a lecture (www.abovetopsecret.com...), in which one of the topics was the WTC bombing of 1993. In the "Thoughts on the Bombings in the United States" section of the speech, he talks about the damage done to the concrete and steel sections of the building, and the explosives required to do such damage.

Phil says, that there is no way that the regular, "everyday explosives", can produce such heat required to do the above mentioned damage, e.g./i.e., a crashing plane.

Last month, prof. Steven E. Jones of the Brigham Young University (www.physics.byu.edu...), published a report regarding the 2001 bombings, which to a great extent held the same conclusions provided by Phil Schneider.

Article about Steven and the paper: deseretnews.com...

The mentioned paper: www.physics.byu.edu...



Now, read this twice; this man is a professor. I would assume that title has some meaning to most of you. Not anyone gets to be a professor, and you especially don't get to be one by sitting on your arse all day, and; a professor doesn't risk his title, his reputation, and his career by putting out a paper which is not based on facts and hence could be open for discussion.

Some of the most important conclusions in the paper are;

1. The three towers collapsed almost symmetrical, the did not fall over, but rather down in to their footprints. This is the same phenomena associated with controlled demolition.

2. No steel-frame buildings has ever collapsed due to fire.

3. The floors fell down way to quickly than would have been expected if explosives were not fit inside the building.

4. Most of the material in the towers were converted to a sort of powder - one would certainly have expected a more concrete (pun intended) debris.

5. Some of the steel parts of the building were partly evaporated - something that requires temperatures above 5000 degrees Fahrenheit, i.e./e.g. : not a crashed plane and burning office material.

6. Multiple explosions and the sounds made by the same were noted by witnesses, explosions below the sections were the planes crashed.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Loengard]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin

Originally posted by MacMerdin
I can tell you with assurance that bolts are MADE MUCH stronger than the steel that they are connected to.


This statement of mine (after rereading my post) is a little misleading. What I was trying to say was that...with bolts combined they are stronger than the steel....not one singular bolt. My mistake.


I have seen some pictures of the columns and spandrel paltes where the steel "ripped" along the bolt holes like a perforated page of paper.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

I have seen some pictures of the columns and spandrel paltes where the steel "ripped" along the bolt holes like a perforated page of paper.



Could you provide a link if you have one? I'd be very interested in seeing this. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Which is why I think the explosion sounds are either an outright hoax, or a sound completely unrelated to the WTC. Given the amount of energy for a sound to travel 2 miles, peole within a few hundred feet of the buildings would have been deafened. (The inverse square law applies to sound propagation.)


The explosion sound pulses were of comparable or lower intensity to the sound of the debris hitting the ground. Nobody was deafened by the debris hitting the ground.


As for it being a hoax, to support this argument you'd need to find unedited footage of the same time frames before the collapses which picks up the sound of the collapses and the debris striking the ground, but not the explosions. There exist myriad witness statements and news reports testifying to explosions, now further supported by audio-visual evidence.

Everything is a hoax, unless it supports the official story, right?

[edit on 2005-12-14 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Well, I was in the proccess of writing a post about how wierd it was that only this one camera heard the explosions but I found this:

www.terrorize.dk...

Gunfire like explosion sounds...

[edit on 14-12-2005 by ihatescifi]





 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join