Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe you and MQ have already posted exactly what you saw and I missed it, so maybe you can direct me to those posts.
OR
If not please tell your whole story in detail now. Where exactly were you at exactly what time? Why were you there? Did you work at or near the WTC? For what company? On what floor?
What EXACTLY did whatever you personally saw look like and sound like?
Were you loitering or rushing through? Was the news media there? Was anyone taking photos? Do you have any photos to post...etc. All the details please.
Are there photos/vids of the evacuation because I have not seen any. If there are not any photos of the evacuation, why not? The media certainly seemed to be johnny-on-the-spot so there must be photos of the evacuation since there was an hour before any explosion/"collapse".
Thanks.
I've already stated on this thread that the news cameras were all at a safe distance. The videos you watch are shot from blocks away. It's odd to me that you think news cameras would have been on the WTC complex itself.
It's sixteen acres. It's not as though you could drive up onto the WTC property or something. The perimeter was surrounded by emergency vehicles and **** is constantly falling off the buildings and crashing all around, some of it on fire, in some cases killing people as they are running. People are jumping from the high floors and splattering into mush on the Plaza and the sidewalks. There were explosions throughout the event, not just before the collapse, and they were random sounds, not timed.
Bear in mind also that all of the NYC stations were broadcast from the microwave antenna on Tower One. Broadcast switched over to the ESB backup (which they established after 2/26/93 when all but one station lost its power because it was the only one with backup on the ESB. Meanwhile, almost all of the stations had broadcast engineers on the roof at the antenna who died that day, so the stations were likely getting firsthand reports of how bad it was at the WTC.
I have seen one video somewhere that someone took with his phone camera as they evacuated Tower Two. If I can find it again, I will post it.
Here is a photo that was taken in the stairwell by someone with a camera (not a news person).
Yep, if you like government sponsored institutional propaganda- and you think those people are the only experts on earth- and if you don't have any common sense.
Really, you do not have the mere basics of physics or real world experience. Be careful at your next cook out- your barbecue grill is quite likely to explode, soften, and collapse!
Are you even reading what I post? Why you do keep repeating this sort of thing like a robot? Can you not even just take a break and think for yourself for one minute?
I am talking about engineers who worked at the WTC for YEARS, most of whom were in the towers that day themselves, lost friends, worked on the pile and on the investigation, testified to NIST about the building performance that day that they experienced first hand, reviewed the draft NIST report, etc. How is that government-sponsored institutional propoganda? To try to claim that all these professional engineers who knew those buildings better than anyone else on the planet and lost close friends and colleagues LIED and falsified tests and reports for the government is beyond ridiculous. It's a 600-person engineering department and there isn't one truther amongst them.
Read this. It is a firsthand account by an architect who worked on the 82nd floor of T1. "Surfing the waves" is a pretty good description of what the impact felt like. The article first appeared in Metropolis, a professional architectural publication.
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum Yep, if you like government sponsored institutional propaganda- and you think those people are the only experts on earth- and if you don't have any common sense.
Really, you do not have the mere basics of physics or real world experience. Be careful at your next cook out- your barbecue grill is quite likely to explode, soften, and collapse!
What the hell is the matter with you people...The truth has been told, and you don't have it...Truthers should change their name to either liars or the deluded.
I've already stated on this thread that the news cameras were all at a safe distance. The videos you watch are shot from blocks away. It's odd to me that you think news cameras would have been on the WTC complex itself.
It's sixteen acres. It's not as though you could drive up onto the WTC property or something. The perimeter was surrounded by emergency vehicles and **** is constantly falling off the buildings and crashing all around, some of it on fire, in some cases killing people as they are running. People are jumping from the high floors and splattering into mush on the Plaza and the sidewalks. There were explosions throughout the event, not just before the collapse, and they were random sounds, not timed.
Bear in mind also that all of the NYC stations were broadcast from the microwave antenna on Tower One. Broadcast switched over to the ESB backup (which they established after 2/26/93 when all but one station lost its power because it was the only one with backup on the ESB. Meanwhile, almost all of the stations had broadcast engineers on the roof at the antenna who died that day, so the stations were likely getting firsthand reports of how bad it was at the WTC.
I have seen one video somewhere that someone took with his phone camera as they evacuated Tower Two. If I can find it again, I will post it.
Here is a photo that was taken in the stairwell by someone with a camera (not a news person).
Did you see a plane crashed on the concourse (or whatever it was called- the area between the buildings) as you previously stated? What did it look like?
Why is it odd that cameras would be at the biggest news story ever? Are you saying news was never filmed at the WTC? Nobody was recording it? Not even the authorities? Reporters report and shoot video on battlefields and win prizes for it, so why not that day?
You never wrote down a cogent story closer to 9/11 with your memories more fresh- that included all the details you witnessed?
I will look up broadcast engineers on the CNN memorial.
All but one station lost it's power does not surprise me. The one with power must have been WNWY 5 which showed the "nose out" movie.
I am not saying you are not telling the truth, there is such a thing as street theater, that is: a very believable staged production.
ETA: Thanks. I skimmed Laurie Balbo's story. That is the kind of report I was looking for and I will read it thoroughly tomorrow.
Last edited by DifferentDrum; 02-04-2011 at 11:23 PM..
The nose exiting is consistent with the pixels of a Computer Graphic Image. Actually, fake planes, no planes, missiles (possibly?), and the "nose" of a FAKE plane exited intact- are pretty consistent.
No real plane could enter a steel building intact, let alone come out the other side with it's aluminum nose in anything close to intact. Only computer graphic images can do that sort of thing.
Ad hominem is weak- why don't you post the live footage from the MSM to compare, or some other useful information on the subject of 9/11?
You're wasting your time. You are arguing a clear truth with those purposely engaging in deception.
It goes like this ........ you: "Here is clear evidence" them: "no it's not, it proves the exact opposite".
My advice .... as given earlier ... stick with a couple UNDENIABLE and UNEXPLAINABLE phonies .... and don't let them drag you into subjective arguments about shadows and light. Make them address YOUR issues ... don't let them reverse the process on you. That's how deceivers operate ... misdirection .. obfuscation ... and redirection.
This bridge tells you (those with the ability to think) that the video cannot be real. The evidence of the fraud is right in your face ... plain as day.
Of course, they tell you what they are going to do ... repeatedly.
The "moving bridge" meme is a powerful demonstration of the infantile reasoning ability of Truthers. It is the equivalent of a preschooler looking out the window of a moving car at night and believing that the moon and stars are following them.
I worked at the WTC from May of 1983 until September 11, 2001. I worked on a few different floors over the years. At 8:46 a.m., I was on 43, although I did not work on that floor (I was getting coffee).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum
Did you see a plane crashed on the concourse (or whatever it was called- the area between the buildings) as you previously stated? What did it look like?
Yes, that is why I previously stated it. It was the Plaza--the Concourse was the area beneath the WTC. Just a suggestion--you should familiarize yourself with the look and layout of the WTC. It's apparent from a few of your posts that you do not really have a handle on the size of the complex, the makeup of the different areas, what it looked like, and lower Manhattan in general.
It looked like a crashed airplane. Some windows still observable, blue fabric (seats?), fire. There was other stuff strewn around--chunks of people, for example. This is not unique to me--as you are aware, thousands of us were pouring out of the buildings, and anyone who came out with a view of the Plaza saw it. I didn't stay there long, obviously, as a cop was screaming at me to run and I realized that there was debris crashing all around me. (I walked out of the Mezzanine directly beneath the gash in T1.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum
Why is it odd that cameras would be at the biggest news story ever? Are you saying news was never filmed at the WTC? Nobody was recording it? Not even the authorities? Reporters report and shoot video on battlefields and win prizes for it, so why not that day?.
I don't get the reasons for your bizarrely disconnected questions, as demonstrated by the bolded. There is no reason for that. Please try to keep the conversation intelligent, thanks. Why in God's name would "authorities" be wasting time videotaping or even THINKING of doing so????? They were there to try to save people's lives.
Yes, reporters shoot video on battlefields. They sign up to do that and go in knowing they are putting their lives at risk, and have to file a living will before they go. Ordinary NYC TV station reporters are not. These are people who show up at the studio at 4 a.m. to get their hair and makeup done. Well, the anchors, anyway, lol. For the correct answer you would have to ask the networks why they didn't send their reporters into a life-threatening situation that day. Personally, I suspect that they were not permitted to enter the perimeter by PAPD and/or NYPD and the FDNY. Would it make sense to hinder the attempted evacuation of 17,000 people by allowing newspeople to get in the way and then possibly having to save them as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum
You never wrote down a cogent story closer to 9/11 with your memories more fresh- that included all the details you witnessed?.
Yes, I did. I also wrote about different aspects of the day for publication, participated and still participate in the WTC Health Registry, provided information to NIST, and have participated in psychological and evacuation studies done by Columbia University.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum
I will look up broadcast engineers on the CNN memorial.
All but one station lost it's power does not surprise me. The one with power must have been WNWY 5 which showed the "nose out" movie..
Again, please read. The loss of power except for one station was on 2/26/93, not 9/11/01. It was NBC. AFTER 2/26 all of the station had backup on the ESB, since by then everyone had gotten it through their heads that the WTC was a terrorist target.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum
I am not saying you are not telling the truth, there is such a thing as street theater, that is: a very believable staged production.
This was no "staged production". It's somewhat amusing and ironic that you think the 15,000 of us who survived that day, along with the cops and firefighters, were all tricked by some sort false imagery involving sight, sounds, and smell, while you think you can come to a different conclusion by looking at small bits on Internet videos that show about 5% of what was going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum
ETA: Thanks. I skimmed Laurie Balbo's story. That is the kind of report I was looking for and I will read it thoroughly tomorrow.
I think you should. I also think you should read Tower Stories and other survivors' and first responders' stories. Ones that are not snipped and quotemined for use on CT websites.
The "moving bridge" meme is a powerful demonstration of the infantile reasoning ability of Truthers. It is the equivalent of a preschooler looking out the window of a moving car at night and believing that the moon and stars are following them.
Baloney .... flim flam nonsense. If you think those putting these clips together ... or others (including myself) haven't considered "perspective" .. and specifically, "rotational perspective", you're nuts!
One thing you will notice in the animation is the minimal foreground objects at either side of the animation view, as well as the lack of detail of the corners of the buildings shown. But what is occurring is a "rotation" of the camera angle ... specifically, a clockwise or left rotation of the camera which causes the background to appear to be panning left .. the reality is that the camera perspective is rotating to the left or clockwise around fixed center being maintained on the animated Towers. That's fine. But when you do this, the profile view of the Tower must change ... if you rotate left or clockwise, the relative angle of the front face of the building and the right hand side of the adjacent side of the building must narrow or decrease. (Read: you'll see more of the face of the Tower and less of the right side).
There is no rotation left of the camera angle in this "live" shot. The perspective of the adjacent right side of the tower relative to the face on view doesn't change AT ALL ... while the bridge pillar moves A LOT. You can still see the same amount of the right side of the building, when the view should be noticeably decreasing as the camera rotates and becomes more squarely aligned to the face on view.
Also, stop the video at the end frames of the 45 sec mark, and note the bottom left corner of the shot, there is a building ... and the bridge pillar is roughly centered between that building and the Towers on the right. IF the camera perspective was indeed rotating left, causing the bridge pillar to appear to pan left, that building at the bottom left would have to move to the RIGHT as the bridge pillar moves left ... but it doesn't ... it actually moves slightly left for a few frames and then returns to it's original position (just prior to the zoom out), while the bridge pillar has moved dramatically left (a good 20-25% of the shot).
This is impossible in a live shot. The perspective of the Tower hasn't changed at all ... not one iota ... and the building at the bottom left hasn't changed perspective either (evidenced by the lack of movement right) ... while the bridge pillar has changed dramatically.
Visually, a distant background will appear to change more than a closer foreground object ... but both have to change ... the foreground cannot remain static, while the background changes significantly.
This video is CLEARLY a composite ... NOT REAL .... what you have here is a fixed angle foreground keyed over a background shot that had a rotating camera angle. There is no other explanation.
Had the shot not maintained the same zoom for 5 or 6 seconds ... it would have been more difficult to see ... but is VERY EASY to see given that the shot maintained relative zoom for that much time.
100% clear fake ... no ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can continue with your foolish "explanations" ... but that's not going to change reality.
As for the one argument posed that the bridge shouldn't be seen at all ... I don't agree with that opinion ... as I've shot video and still photography using telephoto lenses, and I know that distant objects can appear much closer than they are, and you can get some pretty spectacular "optical illusions" in shots like that ... but I do agree that some of the zoomed shots show TOO MUCH bridge, given that the the shooting camera is said to be 5 miles out, while the bridge is further away from the towers than 5 miles. Without recreating the shot, and analyzing side by side ... that issue could be debated endlessly.
But not the rotating perspective argument. That explanation is PURE NONSENSE.
As a side note .... I just want to "correct you" on another point you seem so fixated on. Being a "Jeweler" is a retirement business for me for the past 4 years ... my professional career for 25 years was in Engineering and Computer Science. So, you can now include me in the "engineers for 911 truth" ... if you have any interest in being the least bit accurate or honest ... which is really quite suspect at this point.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 02-05-2011 at 12:07 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, that is why I previously stated it. It was the Plaza--the Concourse was the area beneath the WTC. Just a suggestion--you should familiarize yourself with the look and layout of the WTC. It's apparent from a few of your posts that you do not really have a handle on the size of the complex, the makeup of the different areas, what it looked like, and lower Manhattan in general. 
