Close up of WTC Collapse + Amazing 'pyroclastic cloud' survivor.

Here's the first clip, it was taken by someone near the South Tower as it collapses, note how in the very little time the so called 'pyroclastic cloud' reaches the camera man and everyone around him (of course a pyroclastic cloud is purely associated with volcanic activity, so regardless of any explosives being used or not at the WTC it never was and never will be that anyway - another 'Truth' seeker inaccuracy).
It's interesting to note that by some miracle it does not destroy either the camaraman, his surroundings or anyone near him... Personally I find this video evidence more convincing than a few photo's of the same burnt out cars from different angles, or some monotone monologue being dictated by by a prize idiot.

video.google.com...

The next clip is of the same tower collapsing, this one is a close up which actually shows it buckling inward on the side that it tilted towards before collapsing fully.
No explosives, no squibs funnily enough (unless you count the puffs of dust and smoke laden air after the collapse has started). More interestingly though is that when it pans out you can see the 'sparklies' which some people seem to associate with explosives. Of course you'll never see this clip being used as evidence for this as you can see them in abundance, the problem is you can also see that they are caused by reflections on debris. If you're still not convinced then any stubborn believers may like to speculate as to how exactly the same effect is seen in the debris cloud ot the side.
As I said, don't expect to see this clip being used as evidence any time soon, it's much better to use long distance shots where it is less obvious as to their true nature.

video.google.com...

[edit on 12-6-2006 by AgentSmith]

Sorry but neither of those vids proves anything either way Smith.

It doesn't have to be a pyroclastic cloud to have been a controlled demo...
And because you don't see squibs in those short vids means nothing either.

Because one vid shows no squibs and another does, it means there were no squibs? What kind of logic is that?

The sparklies don't have to be from explosives either for it to have been explosives.

Instead of just trying, laimly I might add, to de-bunk what the 'truth movement' is saying why not prove to us it was a natural collapse. Oh yeah I forgot, you can't!

[edit on 12/6/2006 by ANOK]

First off, thank you for posting these two videos. I had hoped to find the entire Trinity Church video after another member had posted a snippet of it in another thread, but was unable to. Does anyone know how to copy a video that has been placed on a site like that? Or does some one know where this video resides from which it can be downloaded?

I feel like both of these videos are very important. Let us look at the Trinity video first:

What odds would you put to large-scale events happening in both towers at the same time? Remembering, of course, that the two towers were struck about 15 minutes apart, how probable would it be that combustion/heat induced explosions would take place in both buildings at the same time? Or that one building would collapse at the same time the other building suffered a significant combustion/heat induced explosion?

I personally place the odds of this happening extremely low. But the Trinity video captures visual evidence of possible explosions in both towers at almost the exact same time. That's extremely interesting.

The second video I believe has evidence of something large-scale occurring in the non-collapsing building as well, but would like to find more videos of the WTC 2 collapse showing both it and WTC 1 at the time. In addition, I would like to hear comments on the large explosion-type boom that occurs at 41 seconds into the second video.

[edit on 6-12-2006 by Valhall]

You don't seem to understand Anok, I'm not actually trying to prove if it was or wasn't explosives, I'm simply showing that they weren't 'Pyroclastic clouds' (well a dictionary shows that) and they didn't even resemble them in the heat generated.
I'm also showing that the 'sparklies' are a dud, I also pointed out the obvious fact there were no signs of explosives in the close up. Problem is these are all key arguments at the forefront of the whole 'Truth Movement'.
You have to strive for accuracy in life, the general 'Truth seeker' movement appears to be eager to settle for less than perfection and employ dishonest tactics to get the 'greater truth' out, which is remarkably like the system in place which we are all supposed to get upset about.
I'm not trying to hide the truth from anyone, far from it, but don't think everyone is going to sit back and let you have an easy ride just because you think you're on some righteous, holier than holy mission to save the people at all costs.
I've had people complaining at me that I should basically overlook the lies, as long as the 'truth' gets out it is a small price to pay..
Seems a bit of an oxymoron to me, I'm not interested in watching people as equally corrupt as the current lot taking over instead. It's either a better offering or things can stay the way they are. You see, where do you draw the line? Once you give into using the same or similar tactics it's a smaller step to the next stage, and the next and the next. Exactly like before you get New beginnings, corruption, revolution, new beginning, corruption, revolution, etc, etc.
Gets a bit boring after a while, either come up with the goods or keep the cheap imitation ripoffs in the sack where they belong.

Look at this one...

images.indymedia.org...

Watch the left corner of WTC 1 at and just after the collapse of WTC 2 - watch the billowing new smoke. There was no smoke in that area and then all of a sudden, at the same time WTC 2 collapses, something huge happens in that corner of WTC 1.



[edit on 6-12-2006 by Valhall]

Hi Val, you should see a "Download" button on the right sidebar. Press it and some options will flip down. You'll need to download and install the google video player in order to watch downloaded files, since they are in gvp/gpv format. A link to download the software is provided in the flip down options panel.

Look here at this one (sorry I can't find the individual file so you'll have to open this atrocious page with multiple videos playing - uggh). Next to the last video playing with the title above it "From German Television". Watch the south face of WTC 1 just as WTC 2 starts collapsing. This is some of the best evidence here of a major explosion in WTC 1 at the same time something made WTC 2 fall.

thewebfairy.com...


P.S. Thanks to both AgentSmith and WCIP for explaining how to download from the first video links.

All I can see is the smoke and debris from the tower collapsing preceeded by it's shadow? can you take a screenshot and ring it?
(ref first link you posted)

[edit on 12-6-2006 by AgentSmith]

On which one? The German one? Let me know. I'll be glad to assist. Hopefully I can find that file by itself.

In the first video, the cameraman is about 5-6 blocks at least away from the building. By that time, the energy and heat from the 'cloud' would be greatly dissipated. Whether you call it a pyroclastic cloud or not, it behaved as one, especially near the source.

It seems pretty obvious if these videos are legitimate that the failure occured at the point of impact. The floors didn't pancake rather the loadbearing wall has failed and the top of the building is initially in one piece, it becomes detached when the South Face fails. If it were a controlled explosion I imagine it would fail at the bottom. I suugest rather than believing the official story or the official conspiracy one make one's own observations and draw ones own conclusions. That being said I also know that all the videos of the impact are fake, so what can you do? I suggest that people relate to these events on a more personal level, where were you when all this happened? What did you know about these buildings when these events happened. I don't recall any live videos when WTC 7 collapsed, yet now I see videos of CNN showing it happening, I was watching CNN then, they weren't showing anything. It seems strange how an event that happened in front of millions only a few years ago yet everyone is depending on secondhand knowledge.

Originally posted by Valhall
Or that one building would collapse at the same time the other building suffered a significant combustion/heat induced explosion?

I personally place the odds of this happening extremely low. But the Trinity video captures visual evidence of possible explosions in both towers at almost the exact same time. That's extremely interesting.

The two buildings were interconnected via the subgrade levels.

Remember the accounts from the Stairwell B survivors of the wind?

Air being forced down the shafts of one building and up the shafts of the other could easily account for the fire effects.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Air being forced down the shafts of one building and up the shafts of the other could easily account for the fire effects.

No, it couldn't. Those "explosions" are happening above the 90th floor of WTC 1. Besides that, the collapse is still occurring some 500+ feet above ground level on the WTC 2 - there's no "wind" transmitting almost 2 blocks away via the basement yet (if it ever happened at all, which I doubt). You talk about these buildings as if they were pressure chambers, they were not sealed vessels.

I've also already pointed out in another thread that there was only one elevator shaft that communicated from basement level to the top - that's the freight elevator. And it was still operating in the very last minutes of WTC 1 - so I don't think it suffered through an FAE or a compression blast from WTC 2.

[edit on 6-12-2006 by Valhall]

You don't know, however, if various banks of shafts were open to each other. In addition there were other shafts and chases as well.

In the first video it looks like the core and the buckling around it happened simultaneously as if the core gave out at the same time, interesting.

Howard,

Just as in the case of the FAE discussion we had in another thread, there is only so much energy you can impart to compressed air due to these buildings collapsing. The WTC 2 in these photographs is collapsing at a high floor level. It's not going to cause an ejection on about the 95th floor of a building almost 2 blocks away. Not if you are also going to use "compressed air" as an answer to squibs squirting out of the collapsing building.

The basement area connecting these two buildings had far too much volume to allow any air pushed in to continue to stay energized to the point it could act like a veritable jet 1000 feet into the air 2 blocks away. The basement alone - which would have acted as a vast dampening chamber - would be argument enough to kill that theory.

Originally posted by Valhall
Look here at this one (sorry I can't find the individual file so you'll have to open this atrocious page with multiple videos playing - uggh). Next to the last video playing with the title above it "From German Television". Watch the south face of WTC 1 just as WTC 2 starts collapsing. This is some of the best evidence here of a major explosion in WTC 1 at the same time something made WTC 2 fall.

thewebfairy.com...

It some of the videos on that site, you can notice some brief flashes just as its collapsing.

Yeah, but the reason I try to stay away from flashes and squibs in a collapsing building is that you can argue till the cows come home about whether its cause or effect and neither side can prove their argument. It's either an explosion causing a collapse, or a collapse causing an ejection. That's why I've centered my attention on trying to collect information that could point to secondary explosions PRIOR to a building's collapse.

In this particular instance we have several videos that capture what appear to be something of a large-scale event happening in WTC 1 at the same time WTC 2's collapse initiates. To me the odds of those two large-scale events happening at the same time is a long-shot.