9/11myths.com manipulates it's videos

I'm starting this thread because while debating in another thread, I discovered the manipulation of Steve Spak's videos by 9/11myths.com and rather than derail that thread, let's discuss it here.

On a side note. Going through the clips, I noticed that there is a second or two at the beginning and end of those clips where they edited in fires from other buildings into them. Why the deception?



I can't trust a site that would edit in fires from other buildings to blend them into the beginning and end of those clips to make the fires look bigger.

IMO, 9/11Myths sucks and is a sham.

If Richard Gage did something like that, you guys would be all over it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also, can someone explain what this is? I think copper burns that color.



Here's the link to the manipulative culprits.

www.911myths.com...

So, let's discuss.


Mode edit: Changed to internal quotes and fixed link to post in other thread.

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Hal9000]

I refuse to get dragged into another 911 thread, but that greenish colored fire looks to me like its from a natural gas line.

Originally posted by defcon5
I refuse to get dragged into another 911 thread, but that greenish colored fire looks to me like its from a natural gas line.

Would a natural gas line just flare up for a second or two? Did you watch the clip? I believe it's 9.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking.

For anyone wondering that other building is WTC5. It was all steel-framed, used much smaller structural members, was heavily impacted by falling debris, and burned for longer than either of the towers, but still didn't collapse besides where it was physically impacted.

I'm not sure what the following implies for good or ill, but the chemistry guys and pyrotechnics guys might be able to interpret it. (I was originally going to suggest that the building had been hit by a meteor, pushing the day's statistical odds from astronomical to string theoretical. lol.)

en.wikipedia.org...

To create green sparks, fireworks use barium salts, such as barium chlorate, barium nitrate crystals, or barium chloride, also used for green fireplace logs.[24] Copper salts typically burn blue, but cupric chloride (also known as "campfire blue") can also produce green flames.[24] Green pyrotechnic flares can use a mix ratio 75:25 of boron and potassium nitrate.[24] Smoke can be turned green by a mixture: solvent yellow 33, solvent green 3, lactose, magnesium carbonate plus sodium carbonate added to potassium chlorate.[24]

Originally posted by ipsedixit

To create green sparks, fireworks use barium salts, such as barium chlorate, barium nitrate crystals, or barium chloride, also used for green fireplace logs.[24] Copper salts typically burn blue, but cupric chloride (also known as "campfire blue") can also produce green flames.[24] Green pyrotechnic flares can use a mix ratio 75:25 of boron and potassium nitrate.[24] Smoke can be turned green by a mixture: solvent yellow 33, solvent green 3, lactose, magnesium carbonate plus sodium carbonate added to potassium chlorate.[24]

Thanks ipsedixit.

One thing I noticed was the barium nitrate listed.

The main chemical reaction in thermate is the same as in thermite: an aluminothermic reaction between powdered aluminum and a metal oxide. In addition to thermite, thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature[citation needed]. Various mixtures of these compounds can be called thermate, but, to avoid confusion with Thermate-TH3, one can refer to them as thermite variants or analogs. The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN).

en.wikipedia.org...

Interesting.

I guess the people who are always on Gage's ass about things he has done on his website don't care that their debunking God site 9/11myths.com has been caught red handed in video manipulation? Very telling.

[edit on 12/6/2008 by Griff]

To create green sparks, fireworks use barium salts, such as barium chlorate, barium nitrate crystals, or barium chloride, also used for green fireplace logs.[24] Copper salts typically burn blue, but cupric chloride (also known as "campfire blue") can also produce green flames.[24] Green pyrotechnic flares can use a mix ratio 75:25 of boron and potassium nitrate.

What we might be witnessing, coming through that window might be more of an example of arson than the results of attempting to cut metal with thermate. At least it's something to keep in mind. They may have been using some kind of chemical compound similar to the pyro stuff to start the fires in the building.

[edit on 6-12-2008 by ipsedixit]

Yeah, I'm sure thermate doesn't burn like that. I just thought it interesting.

I wonder why the crowd is silent on this?

reply to post by Griff

Wasn't November 5th Guy Fawkes day, the day on which a false flag operation was set in motion, to blow up the British parliament buildings and blame it on the Catholics? Maybe some of the debunkers are still in England for the after festivity festivities leading into Christmas and then of course New Year.

reply to post by bsbray11


WTC 5 was not a 48 story building. Thats #1. I thought you would at least understand that part before you made the "why didnt collapse too?" innuendo. You do know the difference between a 8-10 story building and a 48 story building right? Which one has more weight? Which one had transfer trusses over a ConEd substation? Oh thats right, WTC7. Are you aware of the designs of the WTCs or are you just pretending?

reply to post by ipsedixit


Also some more uses of barium chloride:

As a cheap, soluble salt of barium, barium chloride finds wide application in the laboratory. It is commonly used as a test for sulfate ion (see chemical properties above). In industry, barium chloride is mainly used in the purification of brine solution in caustic chlorine plants and also in the manufacture of heat treatment salts, case hardening of steel, in the manufacture of pigments, and in the manufacture of other barium salts. BaCl2 is also used in fireworks to give a bright green color. However, its toxicity limits its applicability.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Griff


The green "flash" can be any number of things. Gases that built up from the fire experiencing a flashover.
But besides that Griff, I think I may have found an answer, of sorts. Found here:
chemistry.about.com...
Boric acid makes a nice green fire. Found in detergents and in powder form. Could account for the momentary green fire.
Alum and borax are others:
www.campfiredude.com...
And more sources of green colored fire:
chemistry.about.com...
The common denominator I find is mostly cleaning agents.

Originally posted by GenRadek
WTC 5 was not a 48 story building. Thats #1.

Why would this matter?

I understand more floors weigh more, but I want you to actually learn something about buildings today, particularly skyscrapers. Do you think taller skyscrapers use the same size columns as shorter ones? Do you think the size of the columns makes any difference at all? Do you know what a design factor or a safety factor is, and how they apply to a 48 story building as opposed to an 8 story building?

I'll give you a hint: it's a multiplication factor based on the expected loading and a minimum ratio is required by law no matter how many stories the building is. So a 5 story building has to be able to carry, say, 2x its loads without failure, same thing for a 48 story building. The redundancy does not change. The only thing that does change is the sheer massiveness of the bigger building, but the forces holding it together are proportionately more massive.

One other thing that changes is the amount of total heat you would need to heat the bigger columns to the same temperature. It would take much more heat energy. And unfortunately, fires don't burn bigger and hotter in taller buildings.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by bsbray11]

Mike W. owner of 911Myths.com responds to accusations of video manipulation

I e-mailed Mike and asked him to look into this. Here was he response to me:

I've manipulated nothing in the Steve Spak videos. If there's one image fading into another then it's a fade from the original footage. They can go download the DVD for themselves - www.archive.org... to check.

- Mike W. of 911Myths.com

I hope this clears things up for you Griff!



-CF

posted by CameronFox
Mike W. owner of 911Myths.com responds to accusations of video manipulation

I e-mailed Mike and asked him to look into this. Here was he response to me:

I've manipulated nothing in the Steve Spak videos. If there's one image fading into another then it's a fade from the original footage. They can go download the DVD for themselves - www.archive.org... to check.

- Mike W. of 911Myths.com

Well there we have it. Boy scout's honor too? Cross my heart and hope . . ?

Everybody knows how honest and forthcoming and open-minded the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY faithful believers are. How could we have doubted?

So the link to verify his honesty is totally useless?

Must be another 9-11 coincidence.




[edit on 12/8/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by CameronFox
Mike W. owner of 911Myths.com responds to accusations of video manipulation

I e-mailed Mike and asked him to look into this. Here was he response to me:

I've manipulated nothing in the Steve Spak videos. If there's one image fading into another then it's a fade from the original footage. They can go download the DVD for themselves - www.archive.org... to check.

- Mike W. of 911Myths.com

I hope this clears things up for you Griff!

-CF

Not really. I went to download the videos and here is what I get:

The item you have requested had an error:
Item cannot be found.
which prevents us from displaying this page.

If you would like to report this problem as an error report, you may do so here.

www.archive.org...

reply to post by bsbray11


But what happens to a 48 story building when its main structural load bearing columns and trusses get damaged or destroyed? Especially critical ones that the building needs to survive? And those that did survive, how do they cope with being exposed to fires for 8 hours without firefighting efforts?
You see, WTC5 was a conventional steel skeleton. WTC7 was not. WTC5 would behave differently than WTC7. To ask, why didn't WTC5 collapse like the first 3 is being ignorant of WTC5's design. (If you look at the actual damage though, you will notice a good section of the WTC5 collapsed internally.)
911research.wtc7.net...
you can see entire floors areas that collapsed from debris impact and fire. In fact, the connections of the steel beams broke away when they were heated up in the fires. This also allowed more collapses inside.

WTC7 had large transfer trusses over the substation which held up a large part of the tower. There were no steel beams in the front of the building going down to bedrock. The weight of the front of the building was redirected by those transfer trusses over and behind the substation. That leaves a large open area at the front of the base of the building. Do you honestly believe that engineers who designed and built WTC7 would ever expect to have a few key transfer trusses get destroyed and/or severely damaged, then exposed to fire for 7 hours over multiple floors? I don't think so. To think they designed the building with that scenario in mind is stretching it. A LOT.

And its not just the beams that are heating up. What happens to the connections? The bolts and nuts? The seats where the bolts attach and hold the beams together? Do they magically withstand all heat and horizontal, vertial, and sheer loads? It was seen in some of the recovered steel beams from WTC5 of entire bolts getting torn out from the sides of the steel beams, due to overloading and heat softening up the steel. No evidence of explosives or thermite.

[edit on 12/8/2008 by GenRadek]

[edit on 12/8/2008 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek
But what happens to a 48 story building when its main structural load bearing columns and trusses get damaged or destroyed?

And I suppose you can prove that happened?

You're talking like some expert on the subject when all you've done is copy someone elses hypothesis.

Answer this, how did that debris have enough energy to fly 355ft from the south tower to cause enough damage to completely symmetrically cause a 48 story building to collapse into it's basement?

According to SeymourButz those pieces of debris just dropped from the towers with no force behind them. Do you support this hypothesis? If you do then explain how the debris could have caused any damage at all to WTC 7.
If you don't agree with Seymour then you will have to agree that the pieces of debris must have had some significant force to cause that much damage to WTC7 right? So how do we explain that much force from a gravity fed collapse? Can you explain this without contradicting your hypothesis?

Originally posted by GenRadek
But what happens to a 48 story building when its main structural load bearing columns and trusses get damaged or destroyed?

In the case of WTC7, nothing should have happened. It was stated in the NIST report that the minor damage to WTC7 was not enough to bring it down. The NIST report also stated that the sole reason that WTC7 fell was due to the fires.

And those that did survive, how do they cope with being exposed to fires for 8 hours without firefighting efforts?

GenRadek, I've called you out on your false claim in this thread. In that thread, you made a similar claim about fires burning for eight hours or so in WTC7.

I asked you which floor was on fire for eight hours and you never responded. The NIST report mentions all of the fires on all of the floors and all of their durations. NONE of them burned eight hours, according to NIST.

You really need to stop spreading this bunk and stick to the fire durations that NIST use, unless you can explain why you feel that NIST was wrong and that there was a fire burning for eight hours on one or more floors?

[edit on 9-12-2008 by tezzajw]

Originally posted by SPreston



So the link to verify his honesty is totally useless?

Must be another 9-11 coincidence.

NO, Spreston... it's called a cut & paste error on MY part. What did you do to obtain information regarding Griff's O.P.? Nothing. As usual all you did was do your best Alex Jones impersonation.

From those that are interested:
www.archive.org...

That is the active link. I simply cut and pasted the text and not the link. I would assume with all the graduates in here from Google University, one of you would have figured it out.