Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe

Originally posted by derdy
thanks, i appreciate that... i'll give it a look.... another good bbc doc i saw was "the power of nightmares" don't know if you saw it, basically breaks down the US gov't through regan and before al'qaide and all the way through today... it was a very good piece, lengthy, but i'm pretty used to spending endless hours on the PC for work, play and research.... i'll have to go find where the torrent resides... i've been archiving all my evidence on my pc, but sometimes i forget to add the urls to my favorites

Unfortunately I missed that one, I did hear about it and I keep meaning to try and watch it - I don't use that awful torrent thing becasue it just seems to give me problems.
I just checked and I can't see it repeated on Sky (which is odd) but if you're in America that wouldn't help you much anyway to be honest.

First of all, I didn't promise you anything. That you claim otherwise shows your dedication to honesty and truth itself.

AgentSmithI do entertain conspiracy theories - just not all of them

i.e. "I do entertain conspiracy theories, but only abstruse ones, as to taint every conspiracy theory". Yeah, we all know how it works, no need to elaborate.

LumosAnyway, now that you conceded that the CIA et al do in fact exert influence outside the sphere considered righteous for most people, how does that fit in with your conviction that on 9/11, everything occured as described by official sources?

AgentSmith[...] The worst thing about the Eyewitness video is they spend far too long speculating and making false assumptions when the evidence should speak for itself.
Assuming the original footage really has not been altered it is a useful piece of evidence, to be honest, but the information is lost by the awful presentation and the blatant lies or misinterpretations with regards to the debris trajectories (going by your response in my thread you obviously have a high degreee of knowledge in the area of science so I'm sure you spotted it straight away)...

Do you want me to point out how this was no answer, at all, to my question? You, as usual, sidetracked it - however, I'll adress your new direction of argumentation: "False assumptions"? "The information is lost" by "the awful presentation"? Blatant lies?

Quite a pile of profound and/or superficial accusations considering the evidence you bring forth to make your case, which has so many holes that it does not even seem to exist! You're right regarding one thing though: I do have a degree of knowledge sufficient to spot blatantly erroneous physical explanations, however, I didn't spot one within the movie we're discussing. I propose that instead of reiterating to what degree the movie erred, you simply state where it erred, for once.

Concerning your suspicions due to the DVD being purchasable, you probably haven't noticed the author mentioning how:

Rick Siegel The very wealthy pirates on the Internet have made our film available in full digital quality. No other film in history to date has this acclaim. No one has put up the vast resources to capture and host 4 Gigabytes of data for one single film illegally. Days to download. The largest resolution prior to this was three 700 Meg files for the 3 hours in “Lord of the Rings” Amazing but true. So now 911Eyewitness the DVD takes the prize of the first film to rate full digital pirating as a file on the Internet. It is truly the number one film.

source

So this goes down the drain as well.

AgentSmith But anyway, I am really flattered that you seem to suddenly have taken an interest in me, my ego is hugely inflated by your apparant stalking.

I have "suddenly taken interest in you" simply because I decided to purge my ignore list for laughs. Funny how you're flattered, hugely inflating your ego, when some loony, tinfoil hat sporting whacko starts stalking you.

Watch your feet!

[edit] tag team

[edit on 3-1-2006 by Lumos]

Originally posted by Lumos
First of all, I didn't promise you anything. That you claim otherwise shows your dedication to honesty and truth itself.

No I suppose you didn't use the word 'promise'

Don't bother responding, I'm putting you back on ignore. Gracias for the laughs, though.

, looks like you've really exposed me there..?

i.e. "I do entertain conspiracy theories, but only abstruse ones, as to taint every conspiracy theory". Yeah, we all know how it works, no need to elaborate.

I only entertain ones that are difficult to understand? Well OK if you think so. Thanks for the vote of confidence - I think I get what you meant though - you think I encourage ones which are far fetched in order ot throw all into disrepute. I checked out one of the sites you linked someone else to and it looks like something they would tell you to say on there.
Basically you're off on the old 'AgentSmith is really a secret agent' lark, crack on - you won't be the first

LumosAnyway, now that you conceded that the CIA et al do in fact exert influence outside the sphere considered righteous for most people, how does that fit in with your conviction that on 9/11, everything occured as described by official sources?

Do you want me to point out how this was no answer, at all, to my question? You, as usual, sidetracked it - however, I'll adress your new direction of argumentation: "False assumptions"? "The information is lost" by "the awful presentation"? Blatant lies?

Is it late where you are? Never mind.. But as I have known a lot of the information in the past it does not affect my opinon of the cause behind the bringing down of the towers.

Quite a pile of profound and/or superficial accusations considering the evidence you bring forth to make your case, which has so many holes that it does not even seem to exist! You're right regarding one thing though: I do have a degree of knowledge sufficient to spot blatantly erroneous physical explanations, however, I didn't spot one within the movie we're discussing. I propose that instead of reiterating to what degree the movie erred, you simply state where it erred, for once.

I suggest you read this thread - you'll clearly see what I was on about regarding to the trajectories - most people have had to admit that it was a gross error on the part of the film makers. Call it a 'straw man' if you want but it's there

Concerning your suspicions due to the DVD being purchasable, you probably haven't noticed the author mentioning how:

Rick Siegel The very wealthy pirates on the Internet have made our film available in full digital quality. No other film in history to date has this acclaim. No one has put up the vast resources to capture and host 4 Gigabytes of data for one single film illegally. Days to download. The largest resolution prior to this was three 700 Meg files for the 3 hours in “Lord of the Rings” Amazing but true. So now 911Eyewitness the DVD takes the prize of the first film to rate full digital pirating as a file on the Internet. It is truly the number one film.

Good for you! Unfortunately I don't get a chance to read every single thing. I'll amend my view on that point.

So this goes down the drain as well.

Gurgle gurgle...

I have "suddenly taken interest in you" simply because I decided to purge my ignore list for laughs. Funny how you're flattered, hugely inflating your ego, when some loony, tinfoil hat sporting whacko starts stalking you.

Wow you had an ignore list going in under 2 weeks? I'm so happy to know I was on it - please feel free to put me back on... pretty please?

Watch your feet!

Na thanks, they're pretty boring...

I love your comments so much man, you're a good laugh you know!
*hug*



[edit on 3-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Pointless to follow up on every of your distractionary paths. I admit that "abstruse" should've been replaced by "absurd", so that makes two things I learned from your presence, which is more than I expected.

In fact, you were on my ignore list even before I posted once, maybe you can get some kicks out of that. I just thought: "There's still Howard, what good is bs in stereo?"

Originally posted by Lumos
In fact, you were on my ignore list even before I posted once, maybe you can get some kicks out of that. I just thought: "There's still Howard, what good is bs in stereo?"

Anyone else would be offended, but you bring tears of joy to my eyes *sniff*. I'd put you on mine, but as I said - it really inflates my ego to see people devoting so much of their precious time on me, even you. The fact someone would rather discuss my rudeness and ethics over something like the WTC is truly an honour.
And since I'm an 'evil government agent', I of course would prefer you talk about me than the subject at hand....

Originally posted by AgentSmithThe worst thing about the Eyewitness video is they spend far too long speculating and making false assumptions when the evidence should speak for itself.
Assuming the original footage really has not been altered it is a useful piece of evidence, to be honest, but the information is lost by the awful presentation and the blatant lies or misinterpretations with regards to the debris trajectories (going by your response in my thread you obviously have a high degreee of knowledge in the area of science so I'm sure you spotted it straight away)...
I am also suspicious of someone who claims to not be in something for the money and then hashes a DVD together for sale when most other people would stick the raw footage out on P2P and have a website detailing how to get it and/or with torrent links.
But all that's just speculation, the raw footage (if genuine) is of course interesting.

well, i don't know about that. just because you're a philanthropist, doesn't mean that you personally have to starve. there is also protection(a modicrum) from 'the dark forces' as a result of fame.

i'm glad there's a little room for you know what by you know who. maybe you're not evil, afterall.

regarding the trajectories...

just 'cause a bunch of people nodded their heads, doesn't mean you're right. i'm not saying your wrong, but i can't think why the middle of that arc would be higher than what is close to the building. i also can't think why so much dust would exactly follow the larger chunks.

anyway, i don't even care, because i watched the video, and i saw new information that i had never been exposed to. like helicopters hiding in the smoke plume. and an actual plotted rate of collapse for tower seven. (zero air resistance, even. it was clearly illustrated that tower seven fell at the rate of the acceleration of gravity in a VACUUM. did you watch that part, because i haven't seen you mention it?)
i really liked the raw footage. it was spooky as all get out. BOOOOOOOM!

you know, technical manuals are boring as all get out, too, but the information is not rendered useless just because it wasn't written by a poet. this movie is not spielberg. it's not supposed to be.

(while we're here, though, that narrator's voice was to die from)

Originally posted by billybob
i'm glad there's a little room for you know what by you know who. maybe you're not evil, afterall.

Cheers, I wouldn't say I'm evil - I'm just not very nice (all the time). I don't have evil intentions in what I believe, I just believe in it strongly and have a rather abrasive nature.. If something convinces me then I will acknowledge it and admit I was wrong, but I am still not convinced.

just 'cause a bunch of people nodded their heads, doesn't mean you're right.

Why are they nodding their heads then? In England it usually means someone agrees

i'm not saying your wrong, but i can't think why the middle of that arc would be higher than what is close to the building. i also can't think why so much dust would exactly follow the larger chunks.

When you look at this sequence (in reverse) you can see that the smoke/debris is pulled down by the vacuum (caused by the falling building).
If it was not for that then then it would obviously still follow the same arc as demonstrated in the image 2nd down.



And when you overlay an early screenshot with a later one you can see that the arc does in fact agree with - the 'normal' arc presented in the video of the same website.

anyway, i don't even care, because i watched the video, and i saw new information that i had never been exposed to. like helicopters hiding in the smoke plume. and an actual plotted rate of collapse for tower seven. (zero air resistance, even. it was clearly illustrated that tower seven fell at the rate of the acceleration of gravity in a VACUUM. did you watch that part, because i haven't seen you mention it?)

I havn't done the WTC 7 calculation myself, but it does seem odd the way it falls, I've never really got involved in discussing that as I don't have any real answers - so I just observe and learn. However I do think that what is being implied seems far fetched as I would imagine the explosive force necessary to evacuate the air would have made a better show. It looks like a demolition in the way it falls, but there are no outward signs of explosives (unless you mean those squibs that were shown to be compression artifacts/excessive zooming).
The helicopters were interesting, I found the flashing from one of them curious, but I wasn't sure how it could be attributed to anything to do with explosives. Anyone with the ability to plant what would be required undetected would not be so clumsy.

you know, technical manuals are boring as all get out, too, but the information is not rendered useless just because it wasn't written by a poet. this movie is not spielberg. it's not supposed to be.

I know what you're saying, but the trajectory thing was a big booboo really and what should have been some interesting evidence just turned into another dumb internet film for me that employs the same criticised tactics said to be used by the government.

(while we're here, though, that narrator's voice was to die from)

LOL, I knew you had a sense of humour really!

Originally posted by Lumos
Concerning your suspicions due to the DVD being purchasable, you probably haven't noticed the author mentioning how:

Rick Siegel The very wealthy pirates on the Internet have made our film available in full digital quality. No other film in history to date has this acclaim. No one has put up the vast resources to capture and host 4 Gigabytes of data for one single film illegally. Days to download. The largest resolution prior to this was three 700 Meg files for the 3 hours in “Lord of the Rings” Amazing but true. So now 911Eyewitness the DVD takes the prize of the first film to rate full digital pirating as a file on the Internet. It is truly the number one film.

source

So this goes down the drain as well.

Actually you seem to have missed the parts where Rick was on here shamelessy promoting his movie. Now you can't see them as he was put on global ignore for being rude and shameless promoting.

Also his 1000mb resolution claim is complete nonsense as I have many files over that in my , er, um, my friends collection of pirated films.


Edit: I'd also like to add another example of bad science in the video. At one point they take the recorded seismic energy and convert it directly into the KE of the caps. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure there is no direct correlation of seismic energy to KE. This in spite of the fact that his numbers are much higher than any I have seen calculated for the force of the caps, and actually help my argument. They are still wrong.






[edit on 3-1-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Actually you seem to have missed the parts where Rick was on here shamelessy promoting his movie. Now you can't see them as he was put on global ignore for being rude and shameless promoting.

Shamelessly promoting his movie? With a bunch of torrent and direct links to the video on the beginning of this thread?

Maybe I would say Shamelessly when he would create his own thread with links to buy his stuff..

Not only did he post links to buy his stuff, but he said we should listen to him, not based on his evidence, but because he cared.

It's pretty pointless to argue about it if you didn't see his original posts.

Here is what SO had to say about it.

Originally posted by Skeptic OverlordThe member, 911Eyewitness, is on "global ignore" and banned from posting until he both modifies his attitude and refrains from promoting his wares on ATS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


If you look at the pages preceding it, you'll see some of the quotes from him, but you won't see his posts due to the global ignore.

In the pages 1-10 there are 2 quotes, none of which would warrant a global ignore in my opinion. Then we got MacMerdin, who's now banned because he argued about excessive quoting, afaik.

In the 2nd quote Rick said he was no expert on physics and as such wouldn't argue about it or pretend he was more qualified than he was. Seems like a wise and honest move to me.

So instead of claiming he was shamelessly promoting his video for profit, among other things, which must've probably been worse warranting draconic measures like a global ignore, provide the proof. I would've expected any highly offensive content being quoted, but there was none.

Originally posted by Lumos
So instead of claiming he was shamelessly promoting his video for profit, among other things, which must've probably been worse warranting draconic measures like a global ignore, provide the proof. I would've expected any highly offensive content being quoted, but there was none.

You've already been told that you can't see it because of the Global ignore, sorry if you're hero hasn't turned out the way you hoped him to be, but from what I understand and remember he was repeatedly warned and kept trying to promote his material - urging people to buy his next DVD - which he seemed far more interested in doing than actually discussing the event.

Yes, but having "already been told" is not sufficient for some of us, at least not when there's nothing factual to be seen substantiating what's been told.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Edit: I'd also like to add another example of bad science in the video. At one point they take the recorded seismic energy and convert it directly into the KE of the caps. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure there is no direct correlation of seismic energy to KE. This in spite of the fact that his numbers are much higher than any I have seen calculated for the force of the caps, and actually help my argument. They are still wrong.
[edit on 3-1-2006 by LeftBehind]

That doesn’t make much sense since the seismic energy was derived from the collapse of the entire building, not just the “caps.”

From the LDEO report

The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 10^11J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for ML 2.3 is about 10^6 to 10^7 J. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust.

So, Yeah, LeftBehind, any attempt to be more definitive than that in regards to the energies involved, is, as you pointed out, just bad science.

I'm curious about the Neocon shills' (AGentSmith & HowieRoark)'s ethnicity and religious backgrounds ?

Originally posted by Zamboni
I'm curious about the Neocon shills' (AGentSmith & HowieRoark)'s ethnicity and religious backgrounds ?

That's a pretty lame argument.

But it's pretty much on par for you.

Originally posted by Zamboni
I'm curious about the Neocon shills' (AGentSmith & HowieRoark)'s ethnicity and religious backgrounds ?

Well I'm white English and my religon is the worshiping of myself as I am so fantastically amazing and wonderful.
I also don't think I'm a Neocon though, mainly due to my belief that we should have a dictatorship where I am the dictator (though I would like to add that I used to say that long before George did), Oh George Bush - how great minds think alike..

If you want to discuss me further, and who wouldn't!, then please check out my thread here!


[edit on 4-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by Lumos
In the pages 1-10 there are 2 quotes, none of which would warrant a global ignore in my opinion. Then we got MacMerdin, who's now banned because he argued about excessive quoting, afaik.

In the 2nd quote Rick said he was no expert on physics and as such wouldn't argue about it or pretend he was more qualified than he was. Seems like a wise and honest move to me.

And that's really the problem Lumos, he posted much more than two quotes worth of stuff. One of those quotes is him telling us to buy his next video to find his proof of the Scott Forbes story. If you see two quotes out of numerous posts, I don't really see how you have much to form an opinion on it either way.

He was also avoiding topics that he had no problem talking about in his video. He talks about the impossibility of this or that, but then comes on here saying he's not qualified to speak on the same things. Not so wise and honest to me.

While it is unfortunate that Macmeridan got banned, he did more than just quote too much. He then publicly complained about his twenty points and posted a private u2u from a mod. After being warned about his behavior he continued and that is how he got banned.

Originally posted by Zamboni
I'm curious about the Neocon shills' (AGentSmith & HowieRoark)'s ethnicity and religious backgrounds ?

I am so dissapointed.

After all this time and effort spent trying to debunk the demolition theory and no one calls me a neocon shill???

I wanna be considered a government agent too!!



Edit: My bad copy and pasted quote script. Sorry Lumos.





[edit on 5-1-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
After all this time and effort spent trying to debunk the demolition theory and no one calls me a neocon shill???

I wanna be considered a government agent too!!

i've got your back.

and, for the record, a shill can wittingly OR UNWITTINGLY prop up a grifter. good grifters don't need to hire and train their props. they use what's already there in the shill, by being excellent at observing human behaviour.

LeftBehind's post above looks like this:

LeftBehind

: Originally posted by LumosI'm curious about the Neocon shills' (AGentSmith & HowieRoark)'s ethnicity and religious backgrounds ?

Seems like he attributed this quote falsely to me on purpose, as "originally posted by" is the default denominator when you actually click the quote button on the respective post. Seeing as I never said this in one of my posts, it must've gone down like this:

originally posted by LeftBehind I'm completely retarded, somebody kill me!

[edit on 5-1-2006 by Lumos]