It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debunk this! (Hoaxed WTC7 video)

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Not sure why people are going off topic. This topic is about whether the video in the OP is fake or real, and I'd say it has been conclusively proven to be fake, but people are ignoring the first couple pages and assuming that it hasn't been dissected. Seriously, read the whole thread. It's only a couple pages. The video in the OP uses video trickery to hide the editing which speeds up the collapse and adds in explosions (extremely low quality, by the way, which is a trademark of video manipulation, because low quality means easier faking of realistic things.).




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
The physics of this 'collapse' is enough to tell you it has been demolished. The foundations and bottom floors are fist structurally undermined leaving the buildings weights from above to neatly fall straight down.

A building collapse from any collapse from say fire is very very rare and when it does happen its is almost always only a small part of the building which collapses. This never happens straight down, it is often very messy and all over the place. Look up cases of building collapse and demolision and its even ,ore obvious.
edit on 02/02/1987 by clintdelicious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


People can never be bothered to read ir all im afraid! I believe these vids are government made to made because why would you need to enhance something if it already proves your point? The way it collapses alone is proof though that this was a deliberate demolision. The buildings foundations and botton flaws are taken out at first internally leading to a nice, neat collapse unlike all building collapses caused by other means.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Debunked or not, i do have a few questions.


I'm doing some testing on the footage and there might be another possibility.

It could be the footage was taken from a handy-cam NEXT to the steady-cam from CBS,
when I overlap the two vids, they are almost identical, but not totally.

The building in the front right is not on the "hoaxed" footages, but analysis show it should be.

The low structure on the roof, is in the hoaxed video not visible anymore, in the second part of the video. Although clearly visible in the original.

So same viewpoint, same building side

a few meters/angle apart?

I will upload a vid to see.

(Not claiming anything, just seeing some anomaly's)

Edit: It is not the most perfect synchronizationas the speed of both footages did not match and i did a quick and dirty stabilizing, but is shows the points.




edit on 15-9-2011 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I'm not a video expert or even close.

Having seen the original shots of building seven I can state that this vid is a flipping of it.

The give away is the air unit on the top. In the original this was on the left hand side of the picture. Here it is on the right.

The "flashes" were not in the first video.

I would hope no one took the time to move it before reshooting for this vid.
edit on 15-9-2011 by hdutton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
There is no REASON to debunk.


This video has the same suspicious threats like other, fake videos on Youtube:

It starts with a silly, idiotic sensational text like out from some bad Stephen King book. It is VERY short.
It has some biased/suspect message at the end "about the TRUTH". It was first seen on Youtube.
.
Nothing does even remotely tell me this is legit.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
So the footage has been horizontally flipped, what other indications are there that this might be a hoax? Low quality and short film is really a poor excuse. Compared to most other footage of the building 7 collapse this is the ultra-high quality theatrical directors cut version.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
So the footage has been horizontally flipped, what other indications are there that this might be a hoax? Low quality and short film is really a poor excuse. Compared to most other footage of the building 7 collapse this is the ultra-high quality theatrical directors cut version.


As I and others have mentioned before that if this video was legit it would be showing the side facing the WTC towers and that side has a different facade at the top which is not seen in this new hoax video.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I don't understand. Just because it's not showing the other side it is a hoax? I agree it's easy to examine the footage and tell which side we are seeing, and it's clear that the footage has been flipped. But I'm not seeing the proof of a hoax.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Not a single video can corroborate this one, so its a fake. Basically, the absence of such a video that was not faked pretty much proves it was not controlled demolition.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by EartOccupant
 

good work interested to hear what you find out



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I don't understand. Just because it's not showing the other side it is a hoax? I agree it's easy to examine the footage and tell which side we are seeing, and it's clear that the footage has been flipped. But I'm not seeing the proof of a hoax.


The hoax video is from an angle and distance that are identical to other wtc 7 vids and none have ever shown flashes and booms. If you need more clarification I cant sub-lamen my thoughts any lower.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 




The hoax video is from an angle and distance that are identical to other wtc 7 vids and none have ever shown flashes and booms.
Well the next step would obviously be to take frames from each video and post comparisons for all to see huh?



If you need more clarification I cant sub-lamen my thoughts any lower.
Indeed that comment was completely called for.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Fake videos or people claiming they need to see flashes should learn that controlled demolitions in the conventional way was not employed on 911. The demolition sequence wasnt contained within a few minutes or even seconds but were spread out throughout the day.

When the 1st plane hit there were multiple charges in the basements and subs. Witness described 2 thuds. Some witnessed the explosion in the basement. As the tower burned periodically people would hear BOOM BOOOM BOOM and then nothing then the second plane hit. This diversion was used to weekend the buildings some more. In short the demolition sequence from wtc 7 was spread out over hours so no flashes or controlled demo booms would be noticed.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by UniverSoul
 


It's already there.

Flipped: Yes
Same source-footage? : I don't know.

Also he has no artifacts on the footage, as the source does have.

The building in the front right is MISSING on the "hoax" vid.

Also the the black roofpart next to the penthouse is not in the shot after he zoomed in and out.

Watch the vid I posted above. I made the "hoaxed" vid a little transparent, but you can clearly see he has no building in front of his footage, that is a little odd.

Too me it looks like a slightly different angle and a few meters apart.

The panning and zooming stuff is easily faked, but the missing building is a bit harder.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


At this point I should state that my only remaining interest in this video is purely intellectual, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.



Not a single video can corroborate this one, so its a fake. Basically, the absence of such a video that was not faked pretty much proves it was not controlled demolition.


PLB destroying logic in his usual fashion, you gotta hand it to him.

Basically the thing is that apart from the image being flipped there and matching the CBS point of view (though it is hard to tell if it is precisely) there is nothing immediately apparently wrong with this.

So...

Is the image being flipped in and of itself enough to discard the video. I would say no, since this a trivial mechanical operation to perform.

So...

How do we decide if the CBS video is true or this video is true, since they are mutually exclusive in some respects?

So...

Are there any problems with the CBS video?

Yes, the setup is extremely perfect and convenient and the audio track does not appear to match the scene very well.

So...

Which one is the fake, the CBS video or this one.

There is one way to tell: If the Point of View is exactly the same as the CBS one then this one contains all the CBS footage but this one does not contain the CBS footage, so this one must be a fake generated form the CBS footage. That doesn't mean that the CBS footage is not faked though, but that is another matter.





That pretty much does it for me. Except for the fact that the blown out windows don't match up and the timing is different.

Thanks for all your help.

P.S. The fact that the sound doesn't line up is evidence FOR this being the original sound-track. Hearing the sound at the same time as the flashes would have been a dead giveaway of a fake.

edit on 15-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 




Basically the thing is that apart from the image being flipped there and matching the CBS point of view (though it is hard to tell if it is precisely) there is nothing immediately apparently wrong with this.
Well as stated in the post above yours, this new video doesn't have the artifacts. It also doesn't have a building in the bottom lower right of the screen (as shown in EartOccupants video). All the evidence indicates this footage is completely different and taken from a slightly different place than the CBS footage.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 





Well as stated in the post above yours, this new video doesn't have the artifacts. It also doesn't have a building in the bottom lower right of the screen (as shown in EartOccupants video). All the evidence indicates this footage is completely different and taken from a slightly different place than the CBS footage.


You are right actually.

If you watch that alignment again this cannot possibly have been taken from the CBS footage, there is bits where it would have gone outside of the CBS frame too by all appearances.

Is it possible that this is just a straight up C.G.I.?

If it is not, it must have been at least a couple of meters to the left of the CBS camera position by the looks of it.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Yes, it is completely illogical that the absence of any video evidence showing demolition charges igniting, and a lot of video evidence showing no demolition charges igniting, leads me to believe that no demolition charges were igniting. The logical thing would be to believe that demolition charges were going off anyway, even though no video is showing this. Sorry for destroying logic, you showed me the light of true logic, I now believe there were demolition charges.

Yeh, I am sorry, I don't know what else to do than post this kind of sarcastic nonsense to statements such as the one you made. Either ignore or ridicule it, I can't possible be serious about it.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I don't understand. Just because it's not showing the other side it is a hoax? I agree it's easy to examine the footage and tell which side we are seeing, and it's clear that the footage has been flipped. But I'm not seeing the proof of a hoax.


Gullible, thy name is 9/11 truther.

After 4 pages of proof that some clown flipped the usual tape and added the flashes and the sound and with the photographic proof that the upper facade is not correct and everything else about that image shows does not reflect what the south face of the building looked like and you are *still* not seeing the hoax?

Hopeless. It is a hopeless situation.




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join