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: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





a lot of video evidence showing no demolition charges igniting, leads me to believe that no demolition charges were igniting.


List the videos that clearly show no charges going off from this angle...



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.


I mentioned earlier that this amounts to little more than an intellectual exercise for me.

Does the mere fact of the flipped image mean this is a hoax? No.

Does that mean it is likely not a hoax? No.

But is there any ham in looking and trying to piece together the ACTUAL details before jumping to an unfounded conclusion? No.

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




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 




After 4 pages of proof that some clown flipped the usual tape and added the flashes and the sound
Perhaps you should take your own advice and read the last few posts. We have discovered that this footage is most likely taken from a different place and is not the original footage with some simple CGI effects (btw is it possible to mathematically deduce the difference of where the cameras were using like the angle of the windows or something?). It does indeed at least appear to be previously unseen footage if not anything else. I am waiting for someone to find the original footage and show conclusive comparisons.
edit on 15-9-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by trebor451
 




After 4 pages of proof that some clown flipped the usual tape and added the flashes and the sound
Perhaps you should take your own advice and read the last few posts. We have discovered that this footage is most likely taken from a different place and is not the original footage with some simple CGI affects (btw is it possible to mathematically deduce the difference of where the cameras were using like the angle of the windows or something?). It does indeed at least appear to be previously unseen footage if not anything else. I am waiting for someone to find the original footage and show conclusive comparisons.
edit on 15-9-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


I will re-post my first comment:

"Gullible...they name is 9/11 Truther."

If you refuse to see that the entire facade and south face of WTC 7 does not look like that, if you do not want to believe the fact that the entire south face was covered with smoke as per that helicopter video, if you cannot accept the fact that there were *no* flashes or explosive sounds in *the vast, vast, vast majority* of the other hundreds of eyewitness accounts or dozens and dozens of videos/recordings of the event, then you just go right along thinking this is some new recording taken from a "digital camera" that did not have that resolution or digital capability in 2001.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


Are you going to actually add something to this thread? Not one person has said there was no smoke on the other side, Not one person has said IT ISN'T FLIPPED.
As for eyewitness accounts many said they thought they heard bombs, the Fire service included.
After seeing some of the work people have put in on this thread (the overlays, etc) then the likes of you come on
with personal remarks, labelling people "Gullible...they name is 9/11 Truther."
Try actually having an original thought.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Here is a still shot.

Where is the front right building?





This part is also not on the "hoax" vid in the part AFTER the penthouse collapse.




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

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

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

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



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
List the videos that clearly show no charges going off from this angle...


Any video you will find that is not faked. Although I suspect you are going to complain that those are not clear enough or from a different angle.
edit on 15-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I am not a hard core researcher into the 9/11 conspiracy. But from what ever I have read I think that there are some points that are suspicious in the official story and that many questions are yet to be answered.

However one doubt has lingered in my mind as I read about the controlled demolition theory. If as the conspiracy theorists say, the attacks were an inside job, why would they do it as a controlled demolition and make it very obvious that it is not an accident? Wouldn't they do it in a way that it doesn't look controlled at all, so that nobody would have doubts and they'd have covered their backs?


Note: Forgive my ignorance if the point has been addressed and answered long ago.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SambhavaamiYugeYuge
 


You are already thinking a too far ahead. If you look at the big picture the real question would be why these conspirators want to destroy building 7 at all. It serves absolutely no purpose, and would only increase the risk of being exposed (with real evidence that is).

But if anyone can give a motive that makes sense, yours would be a good follow up question.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SambhavaamiYugeYuge
 





Wouldn't they do it in a way that it doesn't look controlled at all, so that nobody would have doubts and they'd have covered their backs?


I imagine you need to balance the need to make sure the thing comes down (for whatever nefarious reason) with the need to mask it.

Obviously if WTC7 was a controlled demolition they miscalculated severely.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
To make things a little worse..

Anyone noticed the UFO flying around?




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SavedOne
The video in the OP is probably real, and if it is, it proves rather conclusively that it wasn't controlled demolition that brought it down. I'm an architect and have some familiarity with controlled demolition, it requires literally miles of wiring from each explosive to a central control computer. Each explosive is wired individually to avoid potential faults. The explosives are set to detonate in stages in a very controlled manner with the center columns being destroyed first followed a split second later by the middle columns and then the outer columns (the number of stages depends on the size of the building footprint). This creates a condition where the building collapses inward rather to one side or another. Obviously that is not what we're seeing in the OP, what we see there are completely random flashes of light all over the building, most definitely not controlled demolition. Also most people are not aware that all glass is removed from a building that is being demolished. There's a very good reason for this, the charges would blow the windows out causing glass to rain down for hundreds of yard in every direction. Clearly we do not see this happening in the OP video, it appears a window breaks here and there but we certainly do not see entire floors of windows blowing outwards like they would if a fully-glassed building was brought down with demo charges. Looking at the video in the OP it appears to be a rather random collapse, more than likely due to internal fires as has been reported. I know the twin towers did not have sprinkler systems, I'm not sure about WTC7 but if it didn't either, then a raging fire in the lower levels would eventually burn through the fireproofing and the steel would deform and eventually fail. This can take a few hours, but once the lower levels start failing then the whole thing just collapses on itself.


But it's not supposed to look like a controlled demolition, it's supposed to look like a building collapsing due to fire, hence the not taking windows out beforehand. Lets face it you wouldn''t want people thinking you were planning on demolition would you, so the quote above is a bit pointless. The problem with WTC7 is it throws up more questions than answers.

From my point of view if they released footage of the 757 that hit the pentagon i would be more inclined to believe them, but as they cant even produce that, from all the CCTV they stole/acquired/confiscated, ffs a 757 is not a small object it must be on at least 1 camera (however after 10 years they could have doctored that too, to suit their agenda.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by SambhavaamiYugeYuge
 


You are already thinking a too far ahead. If you look at the big picture the real question would be why these conspirators want to destroy building 7 at all. It serves absolutely no purpose, and would only increase the risk of being exposed (with real evidence that is).

But if anyone can give a motive that makes sense, yours would be a good follow up question.


Bldg 7 had all of the Enron paperwork, evidence, and support for indictments. 70% of that evidence was never recovered. They had their reasons.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
thats beyond obvious. glad the truth surfaced eventually -thought it will be faked in order to pass off truth as faked.

as a new yorker, i was a few streets away when it happened and by evening, it sounded very fishy that they were saying they have to implode building 7 ASAP because of 'damage sustained secondary to the twin towers attack'.

where is the demolition footage?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
If this is legit, that's pretty much another smoking gun pointing to the controlled demolition of WTC7.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ignant
 





it sounded very fishy that they were saying they have to implode building 7 ASAP because of 'damage sustained secondary to the twin towers attack'.


What? You heard someone say that on that evening? Who said it?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by EartOccupant
To make things a little worse..

Anyone noticed the UFO flying around?



LMAO! Oh, no.....not another UFO! HAHAHAHA!

Thanks, EarOccupant, I can't believe no one had brought that up yet. This stuff never ends....I swear to god. I don't know whether to laugh or cry anymore.

Well, if we hadn't deemed this vid a hoax before, I think the UFO kind of seals the deal......



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


Tnx,

I usually scroll to the end of a topic to see if it's debunked AND I check the first 15 posts.

I agree people should take debunked topics serious and perhaps MODS can flag it sooner as a HOAX... however I expect very few topics to survive in that case



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Destroying evidence is not a good motive to blow up buildings, nor is blowing up buildings a good way to get rid of evidence. I can think of way more simple and less risky way to dispose of evidence. Besides, it would require the conspirators to know that the building would caught fire, the sprinkler installation fail, and the fire fighters fail to extinguish it.

Maybe you can answer this question honestly: if you were to plot such an conspiracy, would you plan to blow up building 7 to destroy the evidence? Or would you discard that idea because it is a bad idea?
edit on 15-9-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by 8ILlBILl8
It would be easy to debunk because we have seen all of the building 7 footage. So if any one can find the same video with out the blast then its a fake.
I cant ever recall seeing this angle before unless they reversed the image to make it appear that it viewed from a new angle.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


Quite right. This appears to be entirely video manipulation and audio tracks. The guy who made it was really clever too, because he knew to add a delay in the explosions to account for the building being at a distance.

Here is a video that may contain the sample, at 4:19 :

www.youtube.com...



As someone who has done video editing in the past, the degradation of the OP's video is caused by the zooming. The camera zooming and moving is all digital and the image is flipped horizontally. I'm willing to bet that the audio and explosions are added in. It is automatically easily faked due to the quality being so low. It means you can be less precise, but still appear convincingly real.


Your video has no audio at all for the segment in question. Makes me wonder which one is manipulated, the one with no audio, or the one with "very clever" audiomanipulation? Maybe you can show flaws in the manipulation, such as the aformentioned delay being too long, short. If not, thats even more evidence of explosions. I dont see why a 911 denier would be troubled by them anymore than by all the other evidence. For everybody else the use of explosives has been proven quintuple times or something.

There isnt just the noise of the blasts. There is background noise as well. Maybe one of the debunkers can track down another video with exactly the same background noise? That would indicate the audio of the video in the OT has been faked, with the source of at least the background noise being from some other clip.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


Hmm I'm not convinced yet.

What about the missing building in front, and the roof-line, doesn't that suggest another angle?




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




top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join