Serious footage. Proof of a controlled demolition.

the collapse speeds up towards the path of most resistence. The building gets stronger near the base. It would not do that without secondary devises. You can say that the weight of the above floors were the cause, but they were destroyed and reduced to dust....it does not add up

Originally posted by billybob
yet, there were multiple reports by 'earwitnesses' of 'massive explosions'.
so, people DID hear them 'a mile away'.
and rick seigel (911 eyewitness) recorded them from 2 miles away.

oh yes, the seigel video from 2 miles away that many CT sites like to "resync' the audio to correct for the 9 second delay.

9 seconds for 2 miles. whats the speed of sound again?

ok fine there were multiple "earwitnesses" that heard (and most video footage shows them saying things like "sounded like" an explosion) "explosions" vs the 10's of thousands who didnt.

i really have to wonder how many, if any of you understand just how unbelievably LOUD an HE detonation is...IF there were bombs that went off inside those towers that were of the magnitude needed to drop those buildings we wouldnt be having this debate. any of us. because it would have been obvious...it was not. not to anyone with a backround in blowing things up anyway. (please dont link to the video of the dutch guy who the CT'rs showed the video of wtc 7 without audio or even telling him what building it was. leaving out the audio or failing to consider how much damage had been done to it is just their way of trapping him into making an observation without all the facts to back up their claims)

Originally posted by CyberTruth
If it helps you to know - I personally doubted 911 controlled demolition theories myself until a structural engineer made it a point to educate me on the impossible nature of the "Twin Towers Collapse" at free fall speed straight down into itself and into the ground.

what was his experience working with high explosives? did he happen to have copies of the structural drawings for the wtc towers? if he has no experience with HE and didnt have the drawings, just how rock solid is his opinion?

Perhaps you need to go seek out a structural engineer and educate yourself on this matter.

thanks but for me ill stick with my experience blowign things up and keep my own opinion until such a time as someone provides some actual evidence for a CD thats more than "but they LOOKED like a CD".

Originally posted by Griff
Cool. If you ever see me posting misunderstood civil engineering principles, please point it out. BTW, I have a BSCE also.

I hope thats an actual acknowledgement, and not some kind of dig, because I can - if need be - scan and post my qualification certificates for the staff to see which clearly show the Structural Mechanics and Design of Structural Elements qualification.

reply to post by neformore



Now come on. You've been around long enough to know that wasn't a dig. If you took it that way, I apologize. I was serious. I don't pretend to be all knowing.

If you'd like me to prove who I say I am, let me know also.

You gotta be kidding me. This forum is supposed to be for intelligent review of evidence. I don't know whether this footage is doctored of not, but how can anyone with no evidence come on here and say its not?

I haven't even finished reading the first page and I've already read "How do you know this footage isn't doctored" (twice!).

It is possible to tell if footage is has been tampered with. Why don't you ask someone who can review the tape and tell? Just because you haven't seen it before doesn't mean it's been doctored.

Think before you post... Jesus.

9 seconds for 2 miles. whats the speed of sound again?

Just fyi, the speed of sound is around 1130 feet per second. A distance of 2 miles would 10,560 feet. The time of arrival for a sound originating from 2 miles would be 9.345 seconds (10,560/1130). That doesn't mean I'd put any weight into the video or what it reports, but the math does actually work out for that amount of time correction.

To the guy who suggests we all do research before posting, right after he admits having not even read the entire first page of the thread needs to follow his own advice.

*Fact*

Three controlled demolitions took place on Sept. 11, 2001. It's simple to see.

Microscopic analysis of the WTC dust proves it.

And a missile hit the Pentagon. No doubt.



Explosions at the 2:54 mark!

video.google.ca...

reply to post by Dwight Howard


Wow, with undeniable evidence like that, I can't believe EVERYBODY doesn't just believe everything you say.

So, for what institution did you do your microscopic analysis of the 9/11 debris? I'd love to read your study paper where you explain how you draw these conclusions. No doubt the video you keep linking to is just something you've put out there for us poor, uninformed types who probably couldn't understand your master's level chemical and physical analysis work. Hey, there are some pretty smart people here, maybe you could go ahead and put your study up for all of us. Maybe I could get my mom to read it to me?

And that conclusion on the pentagon. Wow. That's a very compelling argument you make. Is there any way you could share your study on that subject too?

Pretty please? With a big cherry and some whip cream on top?

reply to post by StudioGuy


I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Originally posted by CyberTruth
Wow -

Looks like the Disinfo crowd is out in force on this one!

[edit on 7-12-2007 by CyberTruth]

Indeed. Indeed...

Originally posted by Dwight Howard
reply to post by StudioGuy

 

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

THAT IS THE BEST RESPONSE I'VE READ ON ANY BOARD EVER!

Nice one.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by StudioGuy]

I also am seeing the 'puffs of smoke' where the flashes are. I would like to know if this video has been altered?

reply to post by talisman


No, it has not been altered.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe in the CD theory but it could just be a video compression issue or something.

I've seen the collapse from most, if not all, the angles but this one stuck out at me...



...I see all kinds of white flashes, but it seem to me, imo, a video issue in this case. I could be totally wrong, but I don't think us "truthers" should just take everything at face value.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Conundrum04]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Conundrum04]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Conundrum04]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Conundrum04]

Yes, there is an even better view of that in my vid. At the 2:00+ mark or 2:40. Watch closely for explosions at the 2:54 mark in the lower left corner.

video.google.ca...

[edit on 10-12-2007 by Dwight Howard]

reply to post by Dwight Howard


I wanted to get away from your vid because I've seen all the footage before but never seen the white flashes. I wanted to see if it could've been doctored, but it looks like it hasn't.

I'll have to go back and look at the other video clips I've seen in the past and compare it to the clip you posted. Either way, I don't think it's going to convince many of those people desperately dependent on the system and capitalism that 9/11 was an inside job.

reply to post by Dwight Howard


Why are you still ignoring the flashes in open air next to the building? Even the ones you're pointing out are happening after the building has passed that point.
Don't just watch the building, look at the sides, the blue sky. Watch it a few times.
You need to accept that you're wrong about some things.

im really kinda confused about this post studioguy, lemme tell you why.

see this bit;

Originally posted by StudioGuy

Just fyi, the speed of sound is around 1130 feet per second. A distance of 2 miles would 10,560 feet. The time of arrival for a sound originating from 2 miles would be 9.345 seconds (10,560/1130). That doesn't mean I'd put any weight into the video or what it reports, but the math does actually work out for that amount of time correction.

youre 100% correct about and i was mistaken at the insinuation i was laying out in that part of my post.

but this bit;

To the guy who suggests we all do research before posting, right after he admits having not even read the entire first page of the thread needs to follow his own advice.

im kind of at a loss about. cant say ive ever told anyone they needed "to do some research before posting" (though i may have implied it a time or two when i thought it warranted, but havnt we all) ive never just come out and said it that i can recall. i do know an ats member who says that in just about every post they make, but it certainly isnt me. and as i have been posting in this thread since early on, and i have read the thread/watched the video i cant see where id have any advice to follow.

so, did you quote me to show me where i was mistaken (which i DO appreciate. im big enough to admit when ive made an error) and then make a comment towards someone else? did you misinterpret something i said to qualifiy that second part of your post at me? did you mistake me for someone else?

whats up? if that second part was directed at me, im not sure why and honestly think i deserve an apology. but thats just me, im not going to lose sleep either way.

reply to post by Damocles


Sorry about that Damocles. I was trying to share some knowledge I have on sound and acoustic properties. Wasn't trying to make you look silly at all.

As for the research part, I was actually responding to a poster a couple of pages back. I just went back looking for the post that was along the lines of "I haven't even finished reading the first page of this thread and some of you are already throwing around 'it's doctored' as your explanation...do some research before you post!" Unfortunately, I think that person edited their post because I can't find it anymore. My fault for not quoting it directly...just laziness on my part.

I just thought that was an incredibly ironic statement to make. It wasn't a reply to you in any way...just tagged onto the end of a post where I was replying to you.

My most sincere apologies for any confusion.

Originally posted by Dwight Howard
*Fact*

Three controlled demolitions took place on Sept. 11, 2001. It's simple to see.

Microscopic analysis of the WTC dust proves it.

And a missile hit the Pentagon. No doubt.



Explosions at the 2:54 mark!

video.google.ca...

Fact
My cousin was in the area of the Pentagon very close to were the AIRPLANE hit. He does computer programming for homeland security.
He says airplane! He also said he had to run like hell to keep from getting burnt, and that his office was toasted.

Fact
A building with major structural damage and fires will have electrical shorts which might look like bright flashes of White light.

Fact
Popular mechanics did research on the structural collapse of the towers and concluded that the building could have fell just as they did without controlled demolition.

-----------------------
Speculation
Controlled demolition....Questions if true....

How did the explosion get there? You couldn't do it before because wiring and charges would have be damaged during the crash.
You couldn't do after because a person would die from fire before getting to where charges would need to placed, or likely path to location would no longer exist.

Who would do it?

How would you cover it up, many people would need to be involved, would everybody involved be tight lipped?

How you would drill out beams and the other prep work needed without letting the tenets know, was major construction going on? You can not place charges on the surface, you have to place them inside the beams. To knock out a beam with a surface charge you would have to have a very big explosion. Small charges like some people think they see would not work on the surface of a beam. Case in point an airplane exploded on the beams and they did stood, for a long while. So, someone has to drill holes. Did anybody see people drilling holes into the beams.

Think people, think! It's impossible to do this much work and cover-up with out people knowing about it. Yet, airplane crashing into a building will do everything you see these videos.

Why, why, why, do all you have to assume the worst? There are NO Facts pointing toward control demolition yet so many people are looking at it as an answer...WHY?





[edit on 10-12-2007 by ebe51]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by ebe51]