Uncommon Video on WTC 7 Demolition: Can There Now Be Any Doubt?

page: 2
109
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I knew about this video here in the OP for a while- found it in searches sometime ago, but got distracted on other stuff. Wanted to post a long while ago, and only now have I finally found it again. I think it's from around November, 2008. No other word I have seen on the videographer of this, so we don't know who it is.

This is the only info I've found relating to this footage:

www.corbettreport.com...




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
More about video in OP here:


A source connected to the previously unreleased footage of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC7 which suddenly appeared on internet video-sharing site Veoh.com last weekend has revealed details about the footage to The Corbett Report.

According to the source, the videos available on the internet come from a DVD that was compiled from raw footage taken in New York on September 11. The video on the internet has not been edited or manipulated in any way from the footage on the DVD, although the 'replay' of each collapse has been slowed down by 50 percent. The source indicated, however, that the raw footage had been edited before it was put on the DVD, thus explaining the sudden cut from a close-up of the North Tower to a long shot of the entire building with the collapse already underway.

This source also dismisses internet speculation that the person who took the footage was connected in any way to the collapses themselves. A number of posters on internet discussion boards and forums have claimed that the WTC7 video is suspicious as it zooms out just moments before the collapse, as if the person taking the footage knew what was about to happen. The source notes that the footage starts with a close-up of the windows breaking out on the north side of the building, which would have been a visual cue to anyone watching the building at that moment that something was taking place in the building.

As The Corbett Report previously reported, the videos were released anonymously on the internet on November 1, 2008 with no further information. Watch the video in the player below:


www.corbettreport.com...

And this was actually posted on letsrollforums.com back in December 08:

letsrollforums.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Hi-Res WMV version here:

www.sendspace.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clickfoot
Hi-Res WMV version here:

www.sendspace.com...


Heh, that post above on source info we posted about same time- I was writing mine.

Anyway, I did the same with that higher res video and imported it into the editor. And man, I tell yas, there are explosive charges going off all over that building. You can see holes opening up. Even on the right upper corner of the SIDE of the building, something happens and material appears ejecting.

The devil sure is in the details. Thanks much Clickfoot!



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by C-JEAN
 





Using explosives, to make the building "implode" on its foot print,
without damage to other buildings around. . .


So if WTC 7 imploded in own footprint

1) why did it slid across Barclay street (a 4 lane highway) and smash
into 30 West Broadway aka Fiterman Hall damaging it so badly that it is
being torn down?

Picture of 30 West Broadway on left



Damage inflicted by WTC 7



Or how about the Verizon Building at 140 West St

If WTC 7 imploded in neat pile why was it heavily damaged by debris from WTC 7?

newscenter.verizon.com...

Piece of WTC 7 embedded in Verizon building



Waiting on explanation.....



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


I'm not a demolition engineer, but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night... *smirk*

Seriously, my experience with this sort of thing is pretty much limited to the few demos I have watched via documentaries, but from what I recall, a building that is being dropped intentionally and safely in a tight space would be dismantled to a great extent first, then imploded very precisely with months of precision planning. Buildings that are surrounded by large parking lots are not as likely to have such careful measures, since a wide debris pattern makes for simpler cleanup. (saw one dropped here in dallas and it was basically a blow the sides out on the bottom them blow the core out vertically... it flattened into a large pancake across the parking lot that was very easy to clean up)

If and when WTC 7 was configured to implode, it was likely either hastilly done, or was done expecting that there would be more room. I, frankly, don't doubt at all that it was wired to detonate. If I had a building filled with confidential documents (CIA, FBI, etc), I would want a way to quickly remove said documents in the event of a "problem". It does mean that the building was wired ahead of time, though.

Now, for me, WTC 7 is not a clincher for the 9/11 attacks. The fact that they are avoiding the truth here is simply because they don't want to come out and say in public that all of the "special" government buildings may or may not possibly be wired to detonate...probably.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I cropped the initial explosion and slowed it down to 5 fps for those that wanted it, I will do the full film compress it and run it through some filters when I get time, the quality will be reduced after the various conversions etc......


(click to open player in new window)



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


Thanks for doing that Seventh.

From this other angle though, the very top roof drops first, before the "squibs" appear:



In fact, the whole building seems to expand a bit near the top. Clearly whatever they did to bring it down was done to the core on the inside mostly- to keep outside visibility to a minimum? Because in other videos of demolitions, they even have protective "sheets" or masks wrapped around or near the bottom of the building- to catch ejected material from the explosions.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
I noticed while watching in high quality that either 1 or 2 windows
get clearly blown out near the middle of the front side at around
the 40th story (47 stories total).
That can only happen with explosives.
I'd seen this about 2 months ago but I'm glad you posted it.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


What difference does it make if it didn't fall precisely in it's
own footprint? It certainly wasn't fire that caused a universal
collapse.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Could you possibly post some screenshots my friend? my 1400 mhz does not compute with videos and my other apps running..

Also, where did you find this video? Something new floating around? Or did you just come by it again with a 2nd glance?



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I should also remind you all of this!




Its that line....'keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon' that just seals it for me.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


The evidence is only obvious to those not involved in the cover-up of the truth.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Quick question E, am I correct that in the OP's video, WTC7 is falling away from the camera towards the highway? I figured you probably know that area like the back of your hand.

Anyways, to address your questions, if I remember correctly from the aerial photos, WTC7 basically fell towards the highway and did not touch the two buildings to its sides?

Obviously, I know you probably wouldn't believe it was a CD even if they came out and said they did it. But just imagine if you had to bring down 7 and your goal is to obviously do the least amount of damage to surrounding buildings. The only obvious place to "spill" the collapse debris would be onto the four lane highway. Let us be honest, WTC7 could have done massive damage to a/the surrounding building(s), possibly even collapsing one of them that day. Instead it did minimal damage, when you take into account it's size and it's close proximtiy to other buidings.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
add that to the list with free fall speed and pools of molten steel. no denying it. 9/11 debunkers are just grasping for straws...
Its like when you use logic against a religious person.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odessy
add that to the list with free fall speed and pools of molten steel. no denying it. 9/11 debunkers are just grasping for straws...
Its like when you use logic against a religious person.


Well they can't handle the truth. They are hardcore 'God Bless Americans' and if it came to light that their own government and leaders perpetrated this attack then their entire world would fall apart. So... they must fight tooth and nail to ensure it never comes to light for their own sanity. Not only is wt7 a CD but one of the best I have ever seen, as well as the towers.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
I would love to see someone try and doubt this! I could see someone spinning it around and saying, "well the terrorist obviously must have used demolition/implosion bombs" but if that were REALLY true, then why didn't the government tell us that is what they did? It's because they know people wouldn't understand how some 19 hijackers from another country would have the money, and access to plan out such an attack. Even if Bin Laden had funded them, there is no way anyone would be given access to a building to put in BOMBS.

With this now, I am 100% sure that the government/PTB were in on it!

Thanks for posting this, now I can prove to my friends what I have been saying all along.

THANK YOU!

This should start the revolution up right on time.



[edit on 18-9-2009 by leira7]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I've never understood what I am supposed to be looking at in this video.

Am I looking at the windows blown out at the left? Or the wave of windows blown out as the building starts to 'collapse'?

If it's the left ones, it could have been debris or fire. If the wave on the right, it just looks like a column of windows being shattered from the building falling. I don't really see anything strange about the windows.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Yup. The squibs are clearly visible. Does anyone have any information as to who shot this video footage?

Great find OP.


Edit to add: Never mind, I just seen a post above mine on top of the page that gives information about the footage. It all seems curious to me; just like the JFK assassination video footage....calm hands, zoom before implosion. Could be coincidence, but curious none-the-less.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Manwin]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
So let's think the implications through here.If a controlled demo,someone ordered,bought ,paid for and installed said charges and all that would be required to 'pull it' off.Also,testing would have been done to ensure reliability of said systems after uncertain duration,assuming the pre-planting was done as a precaution,not necessarily as precursor to the 9-11 operation.Like the explosives were known(to a few) there and that gave the perps ideas.The owners of the fingers that pushed the final buttons would be few,but the hands that placed and wired them would be more likely a crew.There would be scrap mtrl's from the installation,someone must have seen.And if the obvious extrapolation that also the towers were wired,that might mean literally miles of wire involved.That would be hundreds of pounds of wire.Literal kilos of stripped off wire end insulation bits!I doubt the individual charges were set off by radio,but sections may have.The plan would have had to have had both reliability and a cretain flexibility to match contingencies such as the plane hitting a target other than exactly where intended.There are not too many experts in this field,no?Someone is gonna talk if they havn't been silenced.And if few in number,they might not be as 'expendable' as say a common shooter.If any is left,their conscience would be mighty heavy about now.






top topics



 
109
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join