New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

Daithi 1 · 15-09-2011 10:02PM #1

Exploding transformers I bet :pac:

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

Thanks enno99, This deserves it's own thread

meglome · 15-09-2011 10:09PM

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 · 15-09-2011 10:11PM

Doesn't even look like the WTC building.

Daithi 1 · 15-09-2011 10:13PM

stoneill wrote: »

Doesn't even look like the WTC building.

it's building 7 lol

meglome · 15-09-2011 10:14PM

Daithi 1 wrote: »

it's building 7 lol

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

Daithi 1 · 15-09-2011 10:28PM

meglome wrote: »

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

Got the un-edited footage handy ?

meglome · 15-09-2011 10:30PM

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 · 15-09-2011 10:31PM

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

davetherave · 15-09-2011 10:42PM

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 · 15-09-2011 11:02PM

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 · 16-09-2011 10:16AM

meglome wrote: »

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

Any evidence to this claim?

meglome · 16-09-2011 02:20PM

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 · 16-09-2011 02:39PM

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 · 16-09-2011 02:55PM

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

Who needs another smoking gun anyway.

ed2hands · 16-09-2011 03:06PM

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 · 16-09-2011 03:07PM

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 · 16-09-2011 03:14PM

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 · 16-09-2011 03:29PM

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 · 16-09-2011 03:32PM

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 · 16-09-2011 04:15PM

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 · 16-09-2011 04:21PM

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 · 16-09-2011 04:34PM

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

16-09-2011 04:38PM

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 · 16-09-2011 04:40PM

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

16-09-2011 04:41PM

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 · 16-09-2011 04:48PM

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 · 16-09-2011 04:51PM

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 · 16-09-2011 04:53PM

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 · 16-09-2011 04:54PM

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 ...

16-09-2011 04:55PM

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 · 16-09-2011 04:55PM

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).

New 9/11 footage shows visible explosions in building 7

Comments