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.
I am what those who side with the Gov't refer to as a "truther" BUT the debate about Bldg. 7 is a diversion and trap to confuse and discredit. Let me show you easy common sense reasons why.
1. It was not hit by aircraft and not the primary target
2. Why it fell IS NO mystery - the owner/lease holder Larry Silverstein told on a PBS interview that he ordered it "pulled" and it was. Question is how was it done so quickly when it should have taken at least 24 hours to prep.
3. Most if not almost all truthers refer to it not being badly damaged and that the fires were under control many base this on the only view of bldg. 7 most see that being the side facing away from 1&2. 9/11 de-bunking sites show the other side facing the twin towers that WAS heavily damaged! To be sure there was something odd going on at 7 BUT I feel we must stay focused on WTC 1/2 the heart of NYC - 9/11 attack.
I want the truth out but am not willing to place my bet all day long in the rubble of WTC 7!
Bricks fall off of buildings, semi-collapse, in cities (like NYC) more than once in a while. No plane crashing into a neighboring building/house or earthquake needed to start the tumble.
You seem to monitor every one of them. Why is that?
Afraid you'll miss an opportunity to spread the manure ?
The way you're spreading the manure - you should start piling it up along the border. Give the illegals a little something to wade through before they enter.
I know ... that's relatively close to what I believed ... even though I had some reservations about some of the visuals of the plane "melting" into the side of the WTC ... the jittery video of the plane approaching, etc. ... but I really dismissed it ... as well as dismissing anyone who suggested no planes hit the Towers. I considered such ideas ludicrous .... until a couple of images caught my attention, and I began looking at all of the videos with greater scrutiny. Now? I can assure you that what these multiple videos ... including the various live broadcast videos are complete frauds ... and not only frauds ... but actually very poorly implemented in some instances.
My spouse is a veteran film and television editor of over 25 years ... 5 national Emmy awards ... online editor, composite artist, and colorist. If you know anything about that, you know that online editors are responsible for making ready a program for broadcast. This requires extreme attention to detail .. and the expertise to incorporate or repair poor or inadequate special effects, etc. What they do is go over every aspect of the video with a fine toothed comb to ensure the output is broadcast quality, ready for air. Suffice it to say, she is a professional video expert, having finished hundreds of programs that have been aired nationally .... not some amateur like myself, or like most others posting comments here.
We've both analyzed several aspects of these videos, and her expert professional opinion is that the videos are undoubtedly, unmistakably, 100% fabricated creations, with zero chance of error. Not only fabricated, but in many instances, so poorly fabricated, as to be labeled amateurish. According to her, there is also zero chance that the "boys" at the various broadcast networks could miss these glaring errors ... if she were to have ever produced such garbage for broadcast, the program would have been immediately rejected, and she would have been fired. Sound definitive enough to you to reevaluate and look at again?
Open the following video in another window, and follow along the time line and examples #1-9 , there are a great deal of anomalies ... and very good analysis ..... and I encourage you to watch the entire piece ... but I've picked out just a few of the many elements to focus on:
Example 1 time mark 03:45 - 03:47 plane strikes one side of the building (conveniently just after the cameraman zooms in for a great view), and it's nose emerges fully intact coming out the other side? This lame brained CGI effect was created by a moron. The nose of these planes are not made of lead, like a ballistic projectile ... these nosecones are fragile composite material and could not remain intact after crashing through one steel wall, and out the other side of the other steel wall. Totally preposterous, and obviously fake. Watch the entire sequence up to the 08:00 mark for explanations.
Example 2 time mark 25:00 - there was more than just fake planes in these fake videos ... we have fake people too ... some of it very realistic and thoroughly convincing until you see portions of their heads missing (25:27 -25:41) and the featureless people at 26:05-26:09. Freeze the video at 25:28 and notice the man labeled "glass man" ... and freeze again at 25:31 !!! Does this appear real to you? OF COURSE NOT. These are animated composite fakes .... pure evidence of even bystanders being "fabricated". UNBELIEVABLE.
Example 3 - forward the video to a starting mark of 54:43 .... notice at the 54:51 mark, the left wing of the plane disappears, and there is no impact of that wing as it doesn't strike the building.
Example 4 - time mark at 103:22 and 104:08 .... a clearly masked edge along the image of the building, and showing the plane's nose deforming the masked edge ... clearly a poor composite job.
Example 5 - time mark 104:27 - 104:58 ... poor composite and trajectory to impact on the one shot .... and poor comparison between two different shots.
Example 6 time mark 113:33 - 113:42 Varrazzano bridge ... notice the extreme change in the position of the pillar between the two virtually identical angle shots. Given the distance of this bridge in the background, that amount of movement would require an extreme angle change in the shot. Bridges don't move, so the angle of the shot would have to move. But focus on the aspect ration of the tower ... it doesn't change ... you can still see the right side aspect of the building and the aspect doesn't change. In order for the bridge to move that much, the camera angle would have to change, moving left so far, that the right side of the building would shrink or go out of view altogether.
Example 7 time mark 113:56 - Varrazzano Bridge - watch as the entire bridge (background image) pans to the left of the screen. In order for this to occur "naturally", the camera angle would have to be rotating/drifting to the the left also, creating that visual panning effect. Zooming in or out would not cause the relative position of the bridge pillar to pan. At 13:59, you can actually see the camera angle move slightly right (not left) while the bridge is still panning left. That is IMPOSSIBLE. But even more glaring .... notice the dark building in the foreground, lower left side of the screen at the 13:58 - 14:03 mark .... this building is coming into frame because of a "zoom out" of the camera, NOT because the camera angle is changing .... and specifically notice the extreme move left of the bridge pillar while the dark building remains virtually stationary within the shot between 14:00 and 14:03. This is IMPOSSIBLE in a 'natural' live shot. It can only be a composite overlay.
What you have here is a foreground composite with little movement layered over a background with significant movement, and don't let anyone BS you to the contrary. You can tell that the relative position of the camera isn't changing the view angle of the Towers as shown at 14:26 - 14:39
Example 8 time mark 115:30 - 115:42 - the relocating building. Same general viewing angle of the Towers from the same relative position ... watch the building in the LEFT foreground magically relocate itself to the RIGHT foreground. Notice how the other buildings don't change position, proving that the camera position hasn't changed. So there are only two possibilities ... 1) the video is a fake composite or 2) Hi-rise buildings grow legs and walk from one side of town to the other. I dare anyone try to explain this away.
Example 9 time mark 127:44 - 128:20 if there were no planes, what caused those plane shaped gashes in the buildings? Here, you see explosives creating those gashes!
Now all you need do is find one lie in order to bring an entire story into question ... or one fake video to question all the rest. But in this case, I cannot find a single example of video of the events that are actually legitimate! All of them are fakes, including fill shots of bystanders.
I've seen much more, but I've changed computers and didn't save all of the book marks to some of this stuff .... like bystanders who are walking and a portion of their body passing through another person like a ghost.
If I find it, I'll post it. But this ought to be enough to get you going in the right direction.
Wow, they should have hired your spouse to produce the phony video!
Sheesh, it figures....the biggest government caper ever....and they leave it to amateurs! LOL
You could be right about NYC, I don't know. What I DO know is that I was in the Center Courtyard of the Pentagon, smoking a cigarette at 9:38 am, 9-11-01. I heard it, felt it, smelled it, and saw pieces of aircraft debris laying in the grass. I also have longtime co-workers that SAW it.
I don't think the average person can look into 9/11 and not have at least some reservation or question about the official story..for example, many people never heard about 7 at all, but once known, a question of how it came down and that the BBC reported it as down before it came down..has to be a head scratcher for the person of average intelligence.
Is there NOTHING about the official story that you find questionable? Pentagon and Shanksville included? Nothing?
I am a little puzzled as to why many people "never heard about 7 at all". It was covered as it happened, at least here, and collapsed on live television. I personally know people who were present--engineers--on site, when it was decided to abandon efforts to save the building. Yes, I know, I am an anonymous Internet poster who could just be making this up and can't prove that to you.
I did think there was a possibility that United 93 was shot down. I no longer think that based on eyewitness testimony that just doesn't fit in with the shoot-down story, but still I would not have been surprised if that's what had happened. A lot of people also don't realize that there was a false report that day of a plane coming in over the Atlantic toward DC, and a fighter jet went up without time to arm with a suicide plan to ram the plane. Fortunately for the pilot, it was a false story.
While the incompetence and ego-tripping in our intelligence agencies, as well as the FAA, had a lot to do with enabling the attacks to happen, I would also not be surprised to learn that someone in intelligence knew more than they are saying.
I'm not suggesting that buildings weren't destroyed or that people did not die ... I'm simply saying that the events did not unfold as you saw them unfold on TV ... those videos of planes ramming into these buildings ... every one of them are total frauds. They are all created, animated video,
Where were you that day...and how old were you? 12?
Not fraud. Not "created, animated video".
I was watching the news that morning and was on the phone with a good friend of mine who had a clear view of the towers after the first plane hit...not only was I watching the tv when #2 plane hit, she was (along with everyone else on her floor) standing at the windows in her office building watching plane #2 hit.
HELLLLLOOOOO??????
Animated video my ass.... PROVE it!
Quote:
And I'm not just referring to the videos showing planes slamming into these buildings ... oh no! I'm also talking about crowd shots ... fill shots .. showing what are either totally artificially generated people, or animated composites of real people. That's right ... people with portions of their bodies missing .... people that pass through other people like ghosts, etc. These videos are absolute PROOF that what was presented on TV for the entire world to witness, were phony contrivances, and not real.
What videos have you been watching?
Quote:
So what I've learned much to my dismay is, what I thought I saw happen with my own eyes, and what I was convinced actually did happen, is not what happened at all, on 911.
Get your eyes checked.
Quote:
So what did happen? I have no idea, and no answer. All I can say is what didn't happen.
No, you can't. You have no proof. Unlike those who were there, saw it, witnessed it, have family members on those planes that no longer exist...how do you explain that? Oh, let me guess, government paid them off? To go away? So their spouse could get remarried? Make believe they never had a child or a grandchild?
MQ: I often wonder about what the nation saw on their TVs. We had all the real, live, experienced, local coverage. I hardly consider a BBC reporter to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the WTC complex. What did CNN, MSNBC, Fox news and etc. choose to report? More importantly, what did they leave out.
Before 9/11, how many of you conspiracy theorists were even aware of WTC7? Most tourists I've met thought the WTC consisted only of the two towers.
You OBVIOUSLY haven't looked into anything beyond your BS conspiracy theory.
You don't "like" the "official story"...get your behind to NYC and start pounding the pavement ... start knocking on the doors of those who SAW the planes hit - especially the second b/c everyone in sight had their eyes turned toward the first tower that got hit. They didn't miss the second plane. Or was that a hologram perfectly timed with some "conspiracy bombs" ?
The quackery on your end, well, there is no other word for it other than pathetic.
Talk to the survivors--they are everywhere. You can find them easily at the WTC Tribute Center on the south side of the WTC site. All of the volunteers are either survivors, live in the neighborhood, or are family members. The Tribute Center, The New York Historical Society, the Museum of the City of New York, even the state museum in Albany, all have compiled oral histories that you can hear on audio.
You can also read books--I recently read 102 Minutes for the first time, which seems to be more comprehensive than the documentary of the same name. There are others as well--Tower Stories is good, Touching History, about the commercial and military air response is good, and Covering Catastrophe--interviews with reporters who were at the sites that day is pretty interesting, too, from their perspective.
They aren't arguments against the conspiracy theories, but you would come to realize that the facts just don't jibe with what you have been told.
In the extreme, I suppose it will be argued that all the books, all the recordings, all the witnesses, are just part of a huge conspiratorial backup effort to aid the coverup, but does that REALLY make sense? It gets to the point where that idea is just too farfetched to swallow.
MQ: I often wonder about what the nation saw on their TVs. We had all the real, live, experienced, local coverage. I hardly consider a BBC reporter to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the WTC complex. What did CNN, MSNBC, Fox news and etc. choose to report? More importantly, what did they leave out.
Before 9/11, how many of you conspiracy theorists were even aware of WTC7? Most tourists I've met thought the WTC consisted only of the two towers.
The most common comment we get when people view the site is, "I had no idea how big it was."
I know the coverage away from the NY metro area wasn't what it was here. I had a coworker for a while who was working in Chicago and came back to NY after three weeks. She said there was no longer any coverage about the WTC on the news every day there, but when she got back home it was still an every day lead item on the news here.
That explains to me why so many people had so many misconceptions about a "quick cleanup". They had no idea about Fresh Kills and what they were doing there, the barges carting the debris down the Arthur Kill to Fresh Kills, the temporary morgue set up under the FDR, the endless stories of survivors and the dead and what was going on at the pile, etc. Every minute aspect of the aftermath was covered here, but apparently not elsewhere.
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.
