Debunk this! (Hoaxed WTC7 video)

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by misfitofscience
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


It has nothing to do with it being flipped or not. But it was. We know this because of the material I just posted.
Dood, you were right but I and others beat you to the punch.

Page 1 proved the video was flipped. This thread should be moved to the hoax bin.




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Varemia
 




See my post where I put them side by side and show that the timing in the fake video has been extremely altered. All the shaking and zooming is just a magician's trick to distract you from the video-editing.


Yeah, I mentioned that earlier too, thanks for making it explicit like that.

It almost certainly is a faked, the only other possibility is that the CBS footage is faked. We know that THAT footage was cut in a suspicious way, at least the audio portion. Frankly the clear CBS video would seem to me to be easier to manipulate in a convincing way (adding broken windows etc.)

I for one am certainly open to the possibility that the CBS video is the manipulated one, but I wouldn't say it is PROVEN. Certainly not by this footage.

Suggested maybe.


Certainly. This thread is ready for the [HOAX] bin, though. Attempting to debunk the CBS video is another matter entirely.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


nono you are talking out of your ass here.

It took me about 30 minutes to come up with my own theory and then the concrete proof to back up my claims.

I stated a theory, I proved my theory to be FACT. Unlike some fellow sheep!



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


If I may suggest you posting that inverted image of your as a video response?

Second line.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by misfitofscience
 




I stated a theory, I proved my theory to be FACT. Unlike some fellow sheep!


Not to be argumentative or anything, but the same astounding FACT that you accuse me of being a sheep for not observing was proven several posts above you be ME, using a different line of evidence, as well as being immediately suggested by me in OP.

What part of that are you having difficulty understanding. You didn't prove anything that was not already amply established and was immediately apparent on first viewing.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


no one beat me to any punch. I had the idea first, I had to make sure my evidence was 100% correct before posting, to which it is. If the mods could find out when I started typing my first reply the proof would be in that pudding as well.

Anyway, other than saying that it was flipped, which we all know it was, but wouldn't have known for 100% unless you had my concrete evidence that it was, its a hoax so carry on. I like to try and do my part anywhere and everywhere that it is necessary.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


nono, challenge is welcome here. Just make sure you understand what my point is first before you challenge it.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by misfitofscience
 





no one beat me to any punch. I had the idea first, I had to make sure my evidence was 100% correct before posting, to which it is.


Lol, really?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anybody who had seen the WTC7 would know that it was flipped, that is why I mentioned it in the OP. I just didn't have to double check before I left home.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by misfitofscience
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


no one beat me to any punch. I had the idea first,
Yaaay you're the best!







lol
edit on 14-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
IF this video is real which it could be and it could also be faked, but if this is real you could bring this to a court of law and Larry Silverstain would have "happy time" in prison. Along with many others down the line, hopefully. Nice find, S&F for you!



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by PunchingBag80
 


Personally I am much more open to the idea that the CBS footage is tampered with now. If you listen to the audio it would appear that there are multiple layers, somebody is talking about something in the background and apparently continues the conversation after the collapse has occurred.

The foreground voices appear grossly out of context, like people discussing a barbeque. "Woah, woah, woah, your burgers are burning there sonny".

The building itself in video itself seems very suspiciously neat and crisp and the video perfectly laid up and ready.

Frankly, looking at the two videos I can stretch myself that either one of them or both could have been faked in any number of ways. Both have severe problems.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by PunchingBag80
 


Here is the thing, why would Larry go to court? It was his property, he is allowed to demolish the building if he thought it would cause a safety,security or health hazard.It is his god given right as the owner of the building to pull anything he wanted. So who cares because this whole WTC7 argument is meaningless and that is why it is allowed to be published and covered in the media the way it has. Because its just gas.

This whole BS theory about wtc7 is just a crooked side stepping obstruction to keep us away from the real information that we should be involving our time and energies into, which is Flight 93. Just a hole made to look like an airplane slammed into it. When in reality a plane crash would not create that type of hole, unless it fell Straight down into the ground, which no plane of that size flies straight down. The crash site would be elongated for hundreds of meters. This is not the case. There lies the smoking gun.

But this whole WTC7 thing, you must all be as dumb# stupid to believe that story over Flight 93 non story.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by misfitofscience
 


And no one, no one has ever spoke about the 5th plane the crash at camp david Ma.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 

i dont think this is fake

whos to say the media didnt flip it..
what are the black holes on the offical video anyway..looks like someone removed the explosions to me..

it doesnt matter anyway
anyone with logic can see that wtc7 was controlled..its really sad we still need to debate it when its so obvious
why dont we just rewrite science if were going to believe their crap



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

The cbs being fake or not sounds like this thread is going to segway to some tv fakery thread but the video above is from the same angle so it doesnt matter.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Is that the original CBS?

Q1. I know digital compression can do strange stuff, but are those artifacts known artifacts? I mean, they are black and white patterned dots. Is that a common digital artifact?

Q2. How come the "hoaxer" does not have the artifacts?'

The sound effects seem a bit too much..

Peace.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Unvarnished
 


This interview is essential reading. The guy practically makes fun of the idiots buying the official story.

"""Don't take our word on that: the engineers and the architects have studied this thing in extraordinary detail, and they can tell you precisely what caused the collapse of those buildings. What caused the collapse of the buildings, to summarize it, was that the super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse. There's a powerful lot of evidence to sustain that point of view, including the pictures of the airplanes flying into the building."""

--- Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9/11 faith-based commission in an interview on Canadian TV.

Monday, August 21 2006 - 9/11 Commission
Truth, Lies and Conspiracy - Interview with Lee Hamilton

www.911truth.org...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


You're just a brain in a jar. None of this is reaaall.
Debunk THAT.

Seriously though.. on topic.
I don't know if it's new footage or old footage, but I think that the explosion sounds were definitely added and maybe even the flashes. Definitely the sound though.

Which is important because it's the difference between windows blowing out do to the building distorting before collapse and explosives.
edit on 15-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
He even brags about how he could debunk his own bunk:

""""Look, I can go before any audience in America today and I can raise so many questions about 9/11 - raise questions, not answer questions, raise questions - about the investigation. And everbody in the audience will walk out saying 'the government misled us or lied to us.' It's a very easy thing to do! I can raise questions about our own report!"""

--- Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9/11 faith-based commission

Monday, August 21 2006 - 9/11 Commission
Truth, Lies and Conspiracy - Interview with Lee Hamilton

www.911truth.org...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
The truth is out there. 1,500 engineers and architects question building 7 saying it couldn't have been fires that collapsed the building. www.naturalnews.com...





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join