911 Eyewitness - A Complete Sham

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
obviously you dont get how howard made a DARTH VADER reference RIGHT above my post

D-U-H.

as for me being conditioned, i do think for myself. i used to think september 11th was a complete inside job but i woke up, and stopped taking everything given to me by the "truth movement" as gospel. your complete aggression in regards to this topic makes you blind to the different shades of gray in opinions on september 11th



OMG YOU DONT THINK IT WAS PYROCLASTIC YOU BRAINWASHED MODERATOR

gimme a break, anok

[edit on 20-6-2006 by blatantblue]




posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
obviously you dont get how howard made a DARTH VADER reference RIGHT above my post


Seeing as I'm not a fan of star treck, or whatever holyweird fantasy darth vader came from, no I didn't get your reference, so shoot me


And just because I'm surprised at WCIP post doesn't mean I buy everything Rick says either. I don't actualy see the pyroclastic flow theory that important, whether it was or wasn't doesn't change the physics of the collapse in any way whatsoever, and it doesn't mean it wasn't a CD....And it doesn't mean 911 Eyewitness is a complete sham. It's just a guy trying to get to the truth.
How are you trying to get to the truth? Oh wait you're not are you? You just take what your overlord tells you as the truth. You give me a break



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
and just becase youre surprised with WCIP, doesnt mean hes brainwashed either. guess you wanted to over look the comment you made about that.

as for me, you dont know what i believe in regards to all the topics, theres that aggression that blinds you. anyone who doesnt completely agree has some blanket put over their eyes. idk mate, youre too quick to jump on people and label them blinded, brainwashed, or bumbling (in all aliteration aside.....oops).


as for my overlord, he pays well, what can i say?



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I didn't even read it and knew you were very wrong. You can easily see on the video, the light flashes in comparison with the sounds, and "loose change" even pointed out the time/sound in mathematical equations, for when you would here them. Also, you should check out this link about the ground shaking before the collapse, and the seismic activity which has been posted.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...


I won't go into all your points, because they are ridiculous, and I feel easily dispelled.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
well now thats not a very good habit, not reading and coming up with your conclusion, is it?

but, to each his own. aint gon' knock you for it



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Dance on the other side of the fence now, are you wcip. Shame is not enough of a word!



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Sorry, I shouldn't have put it that way. I read a little, and saw his first two points, and I already had that info shot down with my own personal info. So, I decided not to bother and rebut all his points, cuz if the first two were that bad, indeed the rest, I felt was.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
and just becase youre surprised with WCIP, doesnt mean hes brainwashed either. guess you wanted to over look the comment you made about that.


C'mon you're taking my brainwash comment too seriously. I don't know if you've read too many of WCIP threads, but if you have you'll know this is a huge turnaround.
My comment was made with my tongue firmly in cheek...

So WCIP are you still 'posing as a 9-11 de-bunker' here?
I don't get the point? What am I missing?



[edit on 20/6/2006 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
You guys shouldn't take it so personally. WCIP has never said he's no longer backing demo theory. He's just, apparently, taking issue with one 9/11 documentary, in which the sound of explosions may or may not have been captured from Hoboken (still waiting for Billybob, at least, to double-check on that).

A movement has now formed of a lot of individuals wanting unanswered questions regarding 9/11 addressed. A lot of people that associate themselves with this movement are going to make assertions that not everyone else is going to agree with, and should we try to find any truth for ourselves, we're going to have to address claims coming from "within" the movement just as well as we are assertions from government agencies or anyone else.

This is the equivalent of not wanting "no Jews showed up for work at the WTC on 9/11" to be considered a serious contention of the movement. Personally, I have a lot of concern for Loose Change being a future target of straw men. It's like choosing your battles. And I'd much rather have Steven Jones or Jim Hoffman in the spotlight answering questions, than Rick Siegel or Dylan Avery.

Either way, the only things for which 9/11 Eyewitness is unique are the explosive sounds and the footage of the WTC1 spire. If the sounds are faked then I'd rather know about it than put on that they're authentic, but having said that, the sounds in the clip WCIP has provided still sound too deep to be wind. But I guess we'll see.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I personally really enjoyed the pyroclastic flow analogy - and that's all it was - an analogy. The reason is because a collapse without exposion would not turn the existing concrete to fine particulate dust as is demostrated by the flow. I think the point is well taken and irrefutable by all except howard who will refute a cat's meow if given half a chance.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with WCIP challenging the video. We should all constantly challenge our conceptions by taking a different perspective, like trying on a new suit. But his disdain for the film-maker is itself questionable. He obviously has a personal bias against this individual. Although I haven't been solicited to purchase the dvd (I have watched the dl version) I don't see him grasping for dollars with this enterprise. Perhaps that has changed. And the recorded "explosions" are not wind IMO. They certainly are low frequency though.

The lights from the heli's being a trigger is a stretch although they are clearly more than running lights. The series of white flashes is most disturbing of all. I had never seen that before anywhere else. But again, I guess it could be fairly easily inserted.

All that said, there is little question that explosives were used. The govt's inept "investigation" and refusal to even consider explosives is telling. As I've said before, when a jetliner goes down they typically try to find out why it happened. These guys are not interested in why these buildings came down and never have been. Bush solicited congressional inaction at the suggestion of an investigation. It was the familes of victims that ensured any investigation got done, and 28 pages of the published report (implicating the Saudis) are completely missing.

Questions upon questions remain.

[edit on 20-6-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
He needs to speak for himself, and he mentioned alot more than explosions. It is clear, that the video depicts very pronounced sounds very different from the microphone wind. And as for seismic activity/discrepencies, I provided a very credible link that absolutely does not support his statement in no way. I'm not trying to discredit wcip, but he certainly has changed his opinions 180 degrees. Is that what it takes to be a mod?



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I guess it only matters if you want to be a mod. But who would want that?




posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
LOL! Definately not me. But, I just can't understand why he claimed all this with no real research. It's baffelling.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Please confine your discussion to the thread topic: » 911 Eyewitness - A Complete Sham

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Everyone needs to calm down a little, I think. I'm at work now so can't answer properly, but really I think bsbray11's last post sums things up very well.

For now, please stick to the topic, i.e. the veracity of the content in the 911 Eyewitness video. If you have any questions or statements you'd like to make regarding me personally or my approach to 9/11 research, my U2U box is always open for business.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Until that sound can be verified if it is wind noise or not, we're just assuming. A coincidence is that the definate noise occurs 28 seconds into the video just as the tower is about to fall. For 27 seconds from the start of the video no definate noise present. As the tower has fallen mid way definate noise persist such as the wind noise at 28 seconds. After the tower has fallen and the dust cloud is expanding the noise has stopped at this point.

My thought, it's coindcidental wind noise with the sound of the falling tower. Explosives don't rumble, they are quick releases of energy. All I hear there is rumbling.

Rick does not have to be conspicious about his financial agenda but that doesn't mean he doesn't have one.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Here is a sound sample of wind noise. Bear in mind differenence in wind speed, gusts vs constant wind, the recording equipment, etc.

www.acoustics.org...

And where are the explosives in these recordings, made much nearer?

video.google.com...

video.google.com...

In the second one you can hear the traffic, a truck, you can hear the helicopter, the radio, the people. You hear the collapse, yet even for 1:20 before the collapse you don't hear any explosions? You'd think if they were picked up so clearly from the 911EW camera they would be even louder there, no? Where are they?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   
One can still support the controlled demolition theory, and still think the 911Eyewitness video is complete garbage. I'm one of them.

I made an extended post in another thread about just this. That post can be found here, and the entire thread is viewable here.


On thing that I do not address in that post is the pyroclastic flow theory. Remember, it was a pyroclastic flow that wiped out Pompeii, vaporizing the residents, and leaving only ghostly images of them behind in the ash. The dust cloud coming from the WTC demolitions is not pyroclastic in nature, but rather is simply a cloud of pulverized concrete and other building materials, ejected from the collapsing building at high speed from the out-rushing air, as the floors collapse in upon themselves. It's the same dust cloud as is seen in any controlled demolition - there's just more dust, because the WTC towers were roughly 20 times larger than any other building that has been brought down by controlled demolition.


Another reason I feel the 911EW claims are rediculous, is because they also claim that a mini-muke was detonated in the basement of each tower (as shown in the video that starts off the thread I link to). In the above linked post, I explain why something like that is utterly impossible.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Not contesting the point you're trying to make, but you've posted video clips of WTC2 collapsing whereas WTC1 is the collapse in reference here. But I don't doubt that you can find similar clips of WTC1.

Aside from that, I wonder whether the audible explosions, if legit, were coming from the basement floors or higher up. Sound's a funny thing, and depending on what obstacles were between the explosions and the people recording, different volumes of sound could be picked up (and possibly drowned out by more local noise where less volume arrived). I remember my dad talking about US Civil War battles, massive battles, where gunfire and cannon blasts would be totally unheard by half of a battlefield because of the way the sound was shielded by hills and other obstacles in certain spots.

If the explosions were from higher up, one would expect to hear them from quite a distance, assuming they're loud enough, but from the basement, I would imagine that it would be harder to say. But I'm satisfied to say that nothing too loud must have come from higher up the buildings before collapse initiations either way.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Wrt seismic readings, there was a thread, titled 'physics prof says explosives not fire brought down WTC towers' or somesuch, now i can only find its atsnn twin, though.

When analysing visible collapse times and propagation delays, it becomes very clear that all three collapses started with noticably similar precursor events, all looking like swelling triangles, then a second nothing, then the full blown collapse.

Strangely, the collapse of WTC7 had a precursor event with a larger seismic footprint than the collapse itself. note that this only becomes obvious when vertically resizing all images to the same scale, which, by default differs by a factor of ten between wtc1/2 and #7 collapses.

So, seismic charts do exist, they're just misaligned for the most part due to selective omission of propagation delays and need resizing for clear view.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join