New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

Daithi 1

Exploding transformers I bet :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ZwnXhX56s

Thanks enno99, This deserves it's own thread

meglome

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Exploding transformers I bet :pac:

Thanks enno99, This deserves it's own thread

Lads I hate to be the bringer of some bad news but this has been faked. There is video taken from all over and they have no sounds of explosives on them but somehow it's as clear as day on this one. Not only that they are showing flashes in places that would be very odd given the way the building is falling.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that the breaking windows are real as the collapse has started at that point. Just some 'special' effects for the gullible added.

FAKE.

stoneill

Doesn't even look like the WTC building.

Daithi 1

stoneill wrote: »

Doesn't even look like the WTC building.

it's building 7 lol

meglome

Daithi 1 wrote: »

it's building 7 lol

Yup the footage looks real but the sound and flash effects are added.

Daithi 1

meglome wrote: »

Yup the footage looks real but the sound and flash effects are added.

Got the un-edited footage handy ?

meglome

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Got the un-edited footage handy ?

It's a pity as it's good footage, if the original could be located without the added special effects.

Daithi 1

@ 14 seconds you can hear a guy state "7 just came down", just before it fell. My fishy senses are tingling....

davetherave

I counter your video with this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw&feature=player_detailpage#t=215s

You can clearly see the building has already started to fall before the windows are broken in the same pattern as the video the op posted.. What would the point of detonating explosive devices as the building is already going down?

studiorat

Dodgy student overdub job on the sound. Bears no relationship to the atmospheric sound or the acoustic of the original track.

Give it a pass, possibly a merit if it had a good written report and the delivery media was labeled correctly.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Yup the footage looks real but the sound and flash effects are added.

Any evidence to this claim?

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

Any evidence to this claim?

Sure from the video posted in the thread already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw&feature=player_detailpage#t=215s

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Sure from the video posted in the thread already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw&feature=player_detailpage#t=215s

it's a different angle at a different distance.
that's not evidence that the video has been altered.
it's not even an indication that the video (the one you are claiming to be altered) is in any way not 100% genuine.

Daithi 1

100% fake. There is a fake ufo over the building @ 15secs.

Who needs another smoking gun anyway.

ed2hands

Meglome why do you think NIST didn't test for explosives?

Sorry to put you on the spot. It's sort of rhetorical.

Daithi 1

Same kinda flashes and ejections can be seen in this video, perhaps the previous was edited to discredit the others ?

Drops like a sack of spuds, unbelievable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrd-wJoZo0M

meglome

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Same kinda flashes and ejections can be seen in this video, perhaps the previous was edited to discredit the others ?

Drops like a sack of spuds, unbelievable.

I can't see any flashes on this one and the only 'ejections' I can see are air/smoke/dust blowing out while the buildings collapses. The air in the building has to go somewhere after all.

Remember in controlled demolition the explosives go off, the blasts show and are heard, then the building collapses - not the other way around.

davoxx

ed2hands wrote: »

Meglome why do you think NIST didn't test for explosives?

Sorry to put you on the spot. It's sort of rhetorical.

i can answer that with my "evidence hat"!!
<puts on evidence hat>
they did not because there was none. had there been explosives there they would have tested for them.
<takes off the evidence hat>

davoxx

Daithi 1 wrote: »

100% fake. There is a fake ufo over the building @ 15secs.

Who needs another smoking gun anyway.

dunno, but they need WMDs to silence the non believers ...

meglome

ed2hands wrote: »

Meglome why do you think NIST didn't test for explosives?

Sorry to put you on the spot. It's sort of rhetorical.

davoxx wrote: »

i can answer that with my "evidence hat"!!
<puts on evidence hat>
they did not because there was none. had there been explosives there they would have tested for them.
<takes off the evidence hat>

Why didn't they check for cheese?

I can't speak for NIST however let's look at why the they should or shouldn't test for explosives.

For.
1. If you assume a conspiracy it seems suspicious.

Against.
1. There were no sounds of explosives in the collapses.
2. There was no damage found consistent with explosives.
3. There was no detcord or other evidence found.
4. The building collapse is consistent with being hit with a plane and left to burn.
5. There was no way to plant explosives without people knowing.
etc etc

I dunno kinda seems obvious why.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Why didn't they check for cheese?

Who said they did not?

meglome wrote: »

I can't speak for NIST however let's look at why the they should or shouldn't test for explosives.

For.
1. If you assume a conspiracy it seems suspicious.

Against.
1. There were no sounds of explosives in the collapses.
2. There was no damage found consistent with explosives.
3. There was no detcord or other evidence found.
4. The building collapse is consistent with being hit with a plane and left to burn.
5. There was no way to plant explosives without people knowing.
etc etc

I dunno kinda seems obvious why.

obviously they did not check for explosives because they knew there was explosives there so there was no reason to check for it?
seems pretty obvious.

Daithi 1

Megalome, watch at least the 1st min of this. Then tell me there were no sounds of explosives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEb4vxK72TE

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Megalome, watch at least the 1st min of this. Then tell me there were no sounds of explosives.

There's no video showing explosions of any kind. Just one guy claiming he heard them. But by his description, they must have been audible on any video.
But they're not.

jimmynokia

Its a fake video ffs **** sake go look at the discovery channel for the conspiracy theory's
ITS FAKE

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

obviously they did not check for explosives because they knew there was explosives there so there was no reason to check for it?
seems pretty obvious.

Explain in detail why did they not check for space lasers or fallout from a nuclear blast, and you'll see exactly why they didn't look for explosives.

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

obviously they did not check for explosives because they knew there was explosives there so there was no reason to check for it?
seems pretty obvious.

So let's look at this the other way around.. if it's so obvious then the traces of explosives would also be found with the following...

1. Sounds of explosives before the collapses.
2. Damage found consistent with explosives.
3. Detcord or other evidence was found.
4. The building collapse isn't consistent with being hit with a plane and left to burn.
5. Cause so many people had to be in on it the story got out.

How many of those things did they find?

(P.S. It's none in case you're stuck).

davoxx

jimmynokia wrote: »

Its a fake video ffs **** sake go look at the discovery channel for the conspiracy theory's
ITS FAKE

Its a real video ffs **** sake go look at the discovery channel for the documentaries
ITS REAL

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

Its a real video ffs **** sake go look at the discovery channel for the documentaries
ITS REAL

He might have meant the fake sounds and fake flashes. I'm only guessing though.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Explain in detail why did they not check for space lasers or fallout from a nuclear blast, and you'll see exactly why they didn't look for explosives.

i did, do you not understand? they same reason they checked for WMD, because they wanted to find out the result. so if you know the answer, ie that there were explosives there, why bother checking ...

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

i did, do you not understand? they same reason they checked for WMD, because they wanted to find out the result. so if you know the answer, ie that there were explosives there, why bother checking ...

Well then there must have been space lasers and nuclear bombs there too, since that's the only explanation for why they wouldn't check.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

So let's look at this the other way around.. if it's so obvious then the traces of explosives would also be found with the following...

1. Sounds of explosives before the collapses.
2. Damage found consistent with explosives.
3. Detcord or other evidence was found.
4. The building collapse isn't consistent with being hit with a plane and left to burn.
5. Cause so many people had to be in on it the story got out.

How many of those things did they find?

(P.S. It's none in case you're stuck).

how many of those 5 things did they look for?
(P.S. It's none in case you're stuck).

jimmynokia

meglome wrote: »

He might have meant the fake sounds and fake flashes. I'm only guessing though.

yeah thats what i meant thanks

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Well then there must have been space lasers and nuclear bombs there do, since that's the only explanation they wouldn't check.

do you have proof/evidence to the contra?

davoxx

jimmynokia wrote: »

yeah thats what i meant thanks

ahh, that was not very clear.
do you you have anything to back up that claim?

ronan45

stoneill wrote: »

Doesn't even look like the WTC building.

lol why should it?

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

how many of those 5 things did they look for?
(P.S. It's none in case you're stuck).

Ah holy jebus. Thousands of people worked on cleaning up the site and/or looking for evidence. Not a single one has spoken of finding anything like the leftovers of explosives or explosions. Not a single one has spoken out against the NIST report.

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

do you have proof/evidence to the contra?

You really don't get it do you?

I can say right now that I truly believe that a giant invisible unicorn brought down the WTC buildings and demand that you prove otherwise. In the real world though I'd have to prove that it was a giant invisible unicorn in the first place for people to take my claims seriously and respond.

jimmynokia

just like these images FAKE

jimmynokia

davoxx is going to turn around next and say bin landen is doing cartwheels in time square next.

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

do you have proof/evidence to the contra?

Contrary to there being space lasers and nuclear weapons?
Besides the total lack of evidence? Not much.
Guess there must have been some then, since you clearly don't understand how evidence and logical inquiry works.

ed2hands

meglome wrote: »

Why didn't they check for cheese?

I dunno kinda seems obvious why.

I'm sorry but that's not a valid explaination for me.

I think that NIST should have checked for explosives considering that the building came down more or less exactly like a controlled demolition.

It was unscientific not to check for explosives. It's a huge red flag. Anyone that questions this is apparently a bat**** tinfoil hat nutjob.
Why didn't they check for truck bombs???

NIST didn't even heat up the concrete floor slabs in the model so the whole NIST theory is null and void.

Everyone asks why the "theorists" or ""truthers" or whatever are so intrepid and ubiquitous. I'll tell you why:

It's because the 9/11 commission report and NIST report were unscientific and a whitewash. Not a shred of testimony admissable for secondary explosions for instance.

Daithi 1

Explosions in the Lobby

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gOp8cIT6DA

Explosions in the Lobby

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3uFvOiTNz4

Explosions in the Lobby

davoxx

jimmynokia wrote: »

just like these images FAKE

so you have the original footage? no? did not thinks so.

davoxx

jimmynokia wrote: »

davoxx is going to turn around next and say bin landen is doing cartwheels in time square next.

you have no idea what i am going to say.

if you can't back up your nonsense, please be quiet.

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Contrary to there being space lasers and nuclear weapons?
Besides the total lack of evidence? Not much.
Guess there must have been some then, since you clearly don't understand how evidence and logical inquiry works.

so that's a no.

lack of evidence = evidence??


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74422587&postcount=106
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424470&postcount=113
replied to in
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424746&postcount=115

seeing a pattern here i am.

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

You really don't get it do you?

I can say right now that I truly believe that a giant invisible unicorn brought down the WTC buildings and demand that you prove otherwise. In the real world though I'd have to prove that it was a giant invisible unicorn in the first place for people to take my claims seriously and respond.

but that's exactly what you've been saying!!

you don't get it. no you really just don't, otherwise you'd answer my questions and requests ...

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

Ah holy jebus. Thousands of people worked on cleaning up the site and/or looking for evidence. Not a single one has spoken of finding anything like the leftovers of explosives or explosions. Not a single one has spoken out against the NIST report.

did NIST check for those 5 things as stated previously?

davoxx

davoxx wrote: »

so that's a no.

lack of evidence = evidence??

So then do you believe that space lasers and nuclear bombs are plausible explanations and the NIST should have checked for them as well?
If not, why not?

ed2hands

No they didn't

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

So then do you believe that space lasers and nuclear bombs are plausible explanations and the NIST should have checked for them as well?
If not, why not?

ahh i see what you trying to do there, but change the subject i shall not.

ed2hands

Space lasers? What an unscientific remark in the context of what we're discussing.