Visual evidence for explosives @ WTC1 - De-bunk this !!!

Not being in the photography industry, I can't say what exactly they are but they don't appear to be coming from the building. And I dont hear any POPS at the time of the flashes.

hi throatyogurt,

I didn't mention squibs at all in my posting. It's about 2 explosions that can be seen cleary and are non-ambiguous. Youre only explanation is that is "has something to do with the camera". wow, i'm impressed! thats a very convinient way to negate all evidence opposing the official story of 9/11.

"Not being in the photography industry, I can't say what exactly they are but they don't appear to be coming from the building. And I dont hear any POPS at the time of the flashes."

your computer got a soundcard?

you can HEAR it, you can SEE it. It has nothing to do with the camera for sure.

PS: Its not an employee of JP Morgan Chase or Cantor Fitzgerald lauching fireworks inside the tower to celebrate the attacks!

I can't believe people are so desperately defending the official conspiracy theory, when there's so clear evidence of the opposite, explosives inside the wtc!

Hi Ephrin ~

I appreciate your passion in your search for the truth. I have been at this for over 2 years. Starting with the POD people, the hologram group, Hunt for the Boeing. My search for the truth is there too. In my search, I have yet to find RESONABLE evidence that supports the controlled demolition of WTC 1&2. I do however question WTC7 since NIST hasn't been able to come to a conclusion on that building. That is the weakest link. Thats where I will stay and read what further the NIST will have to offer in the spring of 07. I'm not here to "debunk", I am here to gather what is out there and learn from it. I wasnt quick to buy the 911 Commisions "Offical Story", so I will be just as cautious when it comes to any other "evidence" that is gathered.

Ephrin ~

If you haven't seen Who Killed John O'Neil, I reccomend it. A little on the weird side...but it is by far the best 911 CT video. Even the debunkers have a hard time with it. www.wkjo.com

Good luck on your search,

TY

hi throatyogurt,

ive already seen this film - and I dont like it much It has some good infos but its too much on the conspiracy /speculation side...

i think too much speculation is counterproductive and it is not much better than disinformation...

people have to learn that 9/11 was simply not possible

1)
high-rise steel structures can't collapse due to fire damage - it has never happened BEFORE ans AFTER 9/11
(wtc7 even wasn't hit by a air plane and collapsed the same way the twin towers did)

2)
An airplane cannot hit the Pentagon (the best defended building in the world), 30 minutes after everyone watching CNN knew that the uS was under attack. The Pentagon has its own air defense system, it doesn't need fighter jets for protection.

and so on and on... I could tell you hundreds of other points why its not possible...

After this is clear, we can try to answer the difficult questions!
Who knew about 9-11. What happened to the planes / passengers? etc
These are really disturbing questions but we don't need to solve them in order to proof that 9-11 was a US government operation.



watch this video @ 7 min. 50 sec. You can SEE AND HEAR the explosions above the second skylobby.

video.google.com...



--------------------------------------------
great documentaries about 9-11

9/11 Mysteries
video.google.com...

9/11 Press for Truth
video.google.com...

Dr. David Griffin: The New Pearl Harbor
video.google.com...

Originally posted by ephrin
"And the first hit wasn't even on the video."

LOL, the only footage of the first hit is from the Naudet 9/11 firefighter movie! they were "lucky" and filmed the Northtower at 8.4g a.m. in a STRANGE coincidence.

that is so correct... funny, eh?

here is a link to the Naudet video if anyone hasn't seen it...
video.google.com...

and here is a site which debunks the video, as it was clearly staged...
www.911foreknowledge.com...

I agree that this shouldnt be debated,
If the U.S is using Fear as there tool,
By her expression's when the building went down,
They put her right in there pocket.

Yes, there are pops and flashing at 7:52 in the video. However, they are in one specific spot, and you dont' see them again. I would think that these were insignificant to bring the building down. I have watched several of the controlled demolition videos since I have been to this site and frankly the amount in this particular video are very minimal. I would think you would have too see a lot more than what was in the video. Don't you think? I had to call my husband over and it took him FOREVER to even see what I saw. I would imagine that there would have to be more than that to even be significant is all I am saying.

I would also like to say that we cannot be for sure why the video stops in certain spots. We can speculate until we are blue in the face.

Could it been editted to remove something for the world to see? I suppose
Could it been that she paused it because she was freaking out at what she was seeing? Another possibility. We can't really know for sure.

The other thing I wish people would stop saying is that no other skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire. It wasn't just fire. A plane hit it. Obviously causing at least some structural damage. Whether or not it was enough damage to bring it down, I cannot say as I am not qualified to address that. My point is, you can't use the argument/point/suggestion (whatever you want to call it) that no other skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire.

"Yes, there are pops and flashing at 7:52 in the video. However, they are in one specific spot, and you dont' see them again. I would think that these were insignificant to bring the building down."....

Yes,there must be a lot more than these two explosions. But it was a COVERED controlled demolition, did you forget that? They cannot blow up the building in front of the all the TV cameras.. Most people still deny the presence of explosives in the WTC? This movie is a proof of the contrary!

They had a lot of time between the plane impact and the collapse to start these little explosions at specific points of the steel structure to weaken the building and prepare it for the final collape.
I only pointed people to these small explosions because they are not removed from the video and can be clearly seen.

More important are the ground level explosions before the collapse of the towers and that i mentioned before. Unfortunately they are missing in the video. For example before the WTC1 collapse:

19 min. 17 sec.

You see WTC1 before the collapse. Then something VERY BIG happens, the video is censored for some seconds. After the "missing" part you see smoke coming from the ground filling the street in the west and raising to the air.. 20 seconds after this ground level explosion the tower collapses (19 min. 40 sec.)

In my opinion, its no coincidence that both time (explosion before wtc1 and wtc2 collapse) the smoke comes from BETWEEN the towers, hidden behind WTC building 3 (Marriott hotel) that was evacuated as soon as the first plane hit the wtc. If they knew that these big basement explosions would create smoke than this was the place to hide them as far as its possible at all. It wasn't. Thanks God! And this is why you can see the smoke from these explosions in this and other videos of 9-11.


"I would also like to say that we cannot be for sure why the video stops in certain spots. We can speculate until we are blue in the face.

Could it been editted to remove something for the world to see? I suppose
Could it been that she paused it because she was freaking out at what she was seeing? Another possibility. We can't really know for sure. "

I tend to believe the first explanation as well. If she's freaking out once or twice thats ok. But not all the time, when something important is happening!



"The other thing I wish people would stop saying is that no other skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire. It wasn't just fire. A plane hit it. Obviously causing at least some structural damage. Whether or not it was enough damage to bring it down, I cannot say as I am not qualified to address that. My point is, you can't use the argument/point/suggestion (whatever you want to call it) that no other skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire. "

WTC7 was not hit by a airplane and collapsed the way the twin towers did...




[edit on 22-10-2006 by ephrin]

Ephrin,

I am not arguing with you, just stating what I saw and that I cannot speculate anything and I am not going to speculate. It could be any number of reasons that I am just unaware of. This video just doesn't show anything overly compelling that we haven't already seen, heard or speculated.

I know a plane didn't hit building 7. However, I see this many times as an argument, for the twin towers. Also there WAS some structural damage on building 7. It wasn't just a fire either. Was the damage from the other buildings falling enough to make it collapse? I cannot say as I am not qualified. But it, too, was not fire alone.

i may watch the video later as i am still waiting for proof of explosives in the WTC. NOTHING ive ever seen allows me to match up what i saw live that day with what i know from working with explosives for as long as i did.

sorry advisor i still disagree with you. wont say you are wrong by any means just that i disagree.

oh, and can someone please please please give me a link or a picture of all these air defense assets at the pentagon? no one ive ever worked with in the military has ever seen them. and dont tell me its guys with stingers cuz shooting a stinger at an oncoming jet airliner is like shooting a BB gun at a freight train. talk to someone who's fired a stinger and they'll tell u the same thing. or let me guess...another case of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". yeah rummy tried that line too, no one believed him did they?

- jab712, damocles

>This video just doesn't show anything overly compelling that we haven't already >seen, heard or speculated.

This is the only video, in my humble opinion (and I've seen all major 9/11 footage) where you can actually see 2-3 explosions popping out above the second skylobby , besides the indirect evidence for ground-level explosions before the collapse of wtc1, wtc2. You can see this in this video, because its the only good footage of the Nort side of the WTC complex.

I think it was mistake for me to mention building 7, pentagon and other stuff. This can be discussed in other posting. Please discuss the evidence of explosives in WTC1 shown in this video, thats the topic of this posting. Thanks

That video also shows that explosives wern't used to the WTC collapse. Half the building clearly fell outward.

A trait not found on domolution detonations.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]

I am rather sceptical about the theory that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives, but the collapse of WTC7 doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Good piece of film that has a humam edge to it, the lady mentioned military plane, air full of ash,and what were those other objects in the air. I wonder how many other films there are like this. And maybe now all those people who dont think that the towers wernt brought down with explosives should go outside and say I AM A FOOL, A BLIND IGNORANT FOOL THAT CANNOT SEE THE TRUTH THAT IS IN FRONT OF ME, I AM ONE OF MANY WHO COULD NOT SEE THE TRUTH IF IT HIT ME ON THE HEAD. Respect to all that died that day and to all those who are dying now for Bush and Co, for oil and greed and power.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
And maybe now all those people who dont think that the towers wernt brought down with explosives should go outside and say I AM A FOOL, A BLIND IGNORANT FOOL THAT CANNOT SEE THE TRUTH THAT IS IN FRONT OF ME, I AM ONE OF MANY WHO COULD NOT SEE THE TRUTH IF IT HIT ME ON THE HEAD.

so, becuase i cant reconsile what i KNOW of explosives from FIRST HAND experience, im a blind ignorant fool? hmmmmm intersting

Respect to all that died that day and to all those who are dying now for Bush and Co, for oil and greed and power.

the one part of your post i agree with

About that flashes/explosions. Why there is no sound of the second flash/explosions and the third ?

Much more interesting in these video is that smoke at the base of the second tower at 14:00...

Anyway. I would like to see this video unedited and uncompressed because this video doesn't bring something new to the table. It just raised the same questions.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by STolarZ]

*tangent*

ThroatYogurt - Thanks for posting about the wkjo.com

I had never heard of that film, and it is for me, amazing stuff. scary too ( *looks into the mirror...errr... * )

But damn, there is a lot of circumstanttial support in there.

Thanks!

Originally posted by ephrin

the EVIDENCE IS NOT what the people in the video are talking!

this movie is full of evidence that there were explosives at the WTC.
Just watch @ 7 min. 50 sec. You can SEE AND HEAR two explosions above the second skylobby.

video.google.com...



about the military plane:

"Why would they say its a millitary plane. From that angle they couldn't even see the plane hit! as the second tower is directly behind the first that got hit."

Why should they see the second plane impact to notice that its a military plane? they see the plane all the way heading towards the south tower. thats plenty of time.

"And the first hit wasn't even on the video."

LOL, the only footage of the first hit is from the Naudet 9/11 firefighter movie! they were "lucky" and filmed the Northtower at 8.4g a.m. in a STRANGE coincidence.





[edit on 22-10-2006 by ephrin]

er, I just watched it again at 7:50 and there was nothing even close to being an explosion. See moves the camera and thats about it!

they didn't see the plane, yes you get glimspes of planes in the background, but the airports were still open at that time. Note I said glimpse, how would a normal civilians identify it as a millitary plane, most could hardly do so standing right next to one, how can they tell from a little dot in the sky?

Clutching at straws I'm afraid.

If its not bombs, its millitary planes, if its not millitary planes, its Israeli remote controlled drones, if its not Israeli drones its an insurance scam.....etc