Serious footage. Proof of a controlled demolition.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Not doctored. You guys are just plain wrong.

What explosions do you guys think are doctored? The small ones throughout the beginning or the ones I was pointing out at the 2:56 mark in the lower corner?
Those couldn't have just been paintbrushed in there! The whole video is authentic.

video.google.ca...

The truth movement doesn't need to do things like that. All the evidence and proof, simple to see, is right there for us all.

And to someone that posted above, if you want concrete proof of a CD, microscopic analysis of the WTC dust proves it!




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Is everybody just looking past the identical flashes that happen in the blue sky to the side of the building? Yeah some look like they could possibly be explosions, but there's definitely another possible explanation.



[edit on 6-12-2007 by alaskan]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
"Is everybody just looking past the identical flashes that happen in the blue sky to the side of the building?"

What are you talking about?????



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Watch from about 3:10 of the video you just posted.
Look at the sky on the left side of the building. Notice flashes.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by alaskan]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   
After watching again, I'll retract my statement that this was doctored. Not that it MIGHT BE, but that I'm not entirely sure.

Rather, I'll say that there's nothing here that appears to be an explosive. Those flashes look like glints of sunlight off something reflective in the air. Like another poster said, they happen out in the clear blue sky in some places.

I don't believe in the controlled demolition theory. But that doesn't mean I'm not interested in knowing the truth about everything that happened that day. From the standpoint of structural survivability after catastrophic damage, I find the whole subject interesting and I hope it will lead to better design in the future. (not that there was anything wrong with the WTC tower's design)



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
So there's shills here too huh? Figures...

All the explosions are clear as day and undeniable.

The video is not edited, It doesn't need to be.

OK I've got your opinion. Thanks... No need to debate any further. Please don't post here again.







posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   


So there's shills here too huh? Figures...


Are shills defined as anybody who doesn't agree with you?



All the explosions are clear as day and undeniable.


Hardly undeniable. Watch this...

THOSE ARE NOT EXPLOSIONS!

If you'd open your eyes, you'd notice they happen out in the middle of the sky. The burden of proof is on you to prove what they are, not on me or anybody else to prove what they're not.



The video is not edited, It doesn't need to be.


That's entirely untrue. Do you see those places where they replay the same thing over and over and change the image size and cropping? That's called editing. Perhaps you meant to say it hasn't been enhanced in some way to add the glints. I actually agreed and retracted my assertion that those were added. I went on to say that they don't look anything like an explosion to me. They look like a glint of sun from a piece of reflective material. Was there anything reflective falling that day? Glass? Metal? Maybe I can find a youtube video that will tell me.



OK I've got your opinion. Thanks... No need to debate any further. Please don't post here again.


Ummm, yeah. I have just as much right to post here as you do. This is hardly what I'd call a debate though. It's apparently something you posted so everybody could pat you on the back and tell you what a good boy you are for locating this devestating proof that after six years nobody else could have found...well, except for maybe the creator of that video who apparently posted it back in June.

Here's a thought...

If you want to prove that those glints of sunlight are actually explosions, why don't you go and find some sort of video evidence that shows similar flashes during another event?



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Dwight Howard
 


ok, so someone answer me a few questions then?

first of all around the 55 second mark is one of your 'flashes" that are supposedly of a demo charge softening up the core yeah?

ok, so then tell me how if the camera is at an angle to that face of the tower that this flash is visible off to the left of the center of the face of the building how it could possible have come from the core area?

next, as there were no walls to speak of on the floors of the tower, how is it this flash is only visible in one window? i mean wouldnt it light up an area and flash out several windows?

why only one flash? they take out the whole core with one detonation?

do you have any idea how much ordinance it takes to cut steel? and you still expect us to believe that 1000's of people dont all have the same stories about explosions?

is this where you got all your demo training?

reply to post by Dwight Howard
 

ya know, even when youre right about something this attitude and rudeness are uncalled for. even less so when youre so blatently wrong as you are in this case.

but hey, who am i to debate this with you? i mean you got yer high class degree from Google U with apparent post graduate work in youtube studies so hey, im just a shill too it would seem afterall.

i mean how dare i have the audacity to bring real hands on demo experience into a discussion about a video that shows jack sh...er i mean such "clear proof" afterall.

so, tell you what. since you seem to have such a clear handle on such things. go here and make a list of everything im wrong about and call me out on it. i mean surely i can learn something or two from such an authority on the subject.

or you can just realize that compressed video is pretty worthless and doesnt prove anything at all.

reply to post by Insolubrious
 



insol, just a quick question...if there were detonations in the buildings before the plane hit, why did no one that survived the event mention this? i mean its not like the detonation of a few lbs of C4 is exactly discrete afterall. and it does take a bit of punch to cut steel using C4 to brute cut it. LSC's are a lot quieter but you STILL need a pretty decent charge to cut steel because youre afterall....cutting steel with explosives...



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   
So those teeny tiny little flickers of light are supposed to be explosions among gallons upon gallons of burning jet fuel and that is all that happens? No massive chain reactions? At the very least no blown out windows visible from the outside where the explosion is? I don't think so.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Dwight Howard
 
I'd hardly call us members here at ATS shills Dwight.Lets just say we've been through the 9/11 debate quite extensively, to say the least.And some very harsh words have been thrown about here over it,This is evident due to the warning at the top of the page in bright yellow letters.So please try to be civil.
As to the video you provided,I myself don't believe the official story at all.That being said ,I took a look at your video and don't think that the flashes we are seeing are explosives.They look more like aluminum or some other reflective material fluttering in the sunlight.Now,This is my opinion of course,but that opinion comes from ALOT of hours watching clips of that fateful day over and over again for the past 3 or so years I've been researching 9/11.
Trying to pass videos like this as proof of a controlled demo,in my eyes,only hurts the truth movement.That too is just my opinion.

BTW,Dwight,welcome to ATS!



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Oh, I've got to stick up for Studio Guy and I don't even know him...


Originally posted by Dwight Howard
So there's shills here too huh? Figures...

Skeptic = Shill. Got it.


All the explosions are clear as day and undeniable.

They most definitely are deniable (See my above comments).


OK I've got your opinion. Thanks... No need to debate any further. Please don't post here again.


So you mean after all the whining and crying you did at the beginning of this post to get someone to reply what you really meant was that you wanted replies that agree with you. Got it.

Again I say, those little flickers, albeit small, would have been disastrous with tons of burning jet fuel. Also, if the blast was large enough to be seen from the outside, even the heavy duty glass in buildings like that would blow... especially, and I say again, with tons of burning jet fuel.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   
OK I do appreciate your replies. But the truth movement has definitely been infiltrated and I'm sure there are plenty of infiltrators here and everywhere. And I hate them.

And like I said before. My main focus is on the explosions at the 2:53-3:00 mark!!!!
Please comment on those!!!! To me it looks like the core columns exploding.

Please comment on that part!

Jeez we all know they were controlled demolitions!

....riiiight?

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Dwight Howard]

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Dwight Howard]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Threads like this are part of the reason 9/11 truth is taken as a joke. Maybe you're the shill!!!
Seriously though, you're hurting everybody's reputations.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Alaskan. It's just conversation.

Hurting everybody's reputation? We're judged here on ATS?

If the thread is a joke just go away.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
I see your youtube video, and raise you


listen to the real CD's, and you will hear the error of your ways.

Believe it or not, there were people in downtown Manhatten at 9:00 am on a Tuesday morning, and no one heard anything like the types of explosions necessary to take the towers down, including about 50 people I worked with at Empire BlueCross BlueShield who I spoke to personally. ( I was hired 8/02)






posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Dwight Howard
 



nope, sorry still not cd charges.

go read the thread i linked to in my first post here. if you read that and still think cd, tell me why im wrong and be ready to back it up.

so no, we dont all know it was a cd. years of blowing thngs up tells me personally otherwise but yer entitled to yer opinion.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Priest, not only are you saying the WTC1/2 weren't CD, you're claiming WTC7 wasn't too!?

If so, I can't take you seriously!



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   


Jeez we all know they were controlled demolitions!

....riiiight?


And there's the rub. You, nor anyone else KNOW anything. You may SUSPECT it. You may BELIEVE it. You may even be ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED. But you don't KNOW it.

Are there some things that are cause for concern about the collapses? Absolutely.

Are there some things that don't FEEL right about the collapses? Sure.

Are there even some things that seem to strange to be believed? You betcha.

But none of that means there actually IS anything beyond what is evident. What is evident is that a big airplane hit each of the towers and destroyed some part of their structure. The resulting fire contributed to the ultimate catastrophic structural failure that set off the chain reaction leading to the almost complete collapse of the two buildings.

I'm not even sure I know what a shill is, but I'm betting it's not a compliment.

And to speak to your question about some specific "explosions" in that video...Doesn't look like explosions. Looks to me like a greater quantity of material was flickering in the sunlight. I wonder why there would suddenly be a greater quantity of material falling? It might have something to do with the SKYSCRAPER that's in the process of collapsing.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dwight Howard
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Priest, not only are you saying the WTC1/2 weren't CD, you're claiming WTC7 wasn't too!?

If so, I can't take you seriously!


You do think it was a controlled demolition, right? And you think that because it LOOKS, to your eyes, like it was a controlled demolition, right?

Just because your inexperienced eyes see something doesn't make it true.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dwight Howard
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Priest, not only are you saying the WTC1/2 weren't CD, you're claiming WTC7 wasn't too!?

If so, I can't take you seriously!


well, even if syrinx isnt saying it, i will. i could be wrong but theres NO, absolutly NO evidence that it was other thna it LOOKS like one. and by looks like one i mean it fell down.

so, if you think it was a cd, let me ask, how badly damaged was the side of the building facing the towers? cuz i have never seen a detailed pic of how big the gash was or how deep so wihtout that little bit of info, theres just no way to know.

but, ive asked before ill ask again, if it was a cd, any of them (slips into marvin the martian voice) "wheres the kaboom? there was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom!"

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Damocles]





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join