Excellent video of white smoke from basement. I have not seen this before

excellent video and both towers are clearly standing.

It can't really be debated that there was white smoke coming from the bases of both towers, from the underground structure that they both shared. There are too many photos and videos of it.

You guys are aware that there was alot of flaming debris all over.

If debris create explosions, and a 40 floors high white cloud, let me know how...

yeah that white smoke its clearly from a burning car... lol oh please

yeah that white smoke is clearly from thermite / bomb blowing up / mini nuke going off / missile / hologram projector overheating... lol oh please

Ive seen this video before. Its very interesting. But since there were so many camera being used that morning, cant we get a better angle or maybe some shots near the base of the buildings that would let us see the smoke better & hear the explosions better? If this is the only video evidence of smoke from the base of the buildings that was caused by explosions, then i gotta say Nay.

I've seen much closer footage, but I don't have any links for it now. You guys may have to just take my word on this (at least for now), but there was a car on fire near the bases that was producing some of that smoke. I think it was a van actually, not sure.

Anyway, there was also white smoke coming from underneath the buildings, and it was very specifically reported by Mike Pecoraro, underground in the sub-basements. So there was both a car fire and smoke from the buildings. Maybe additional car fires underground, and Pecoraro said himself that that was one of his first suspicions, that something had exploded on the parking level.

Here is a link to a photo of an explosion that is believed to have gone off in WTC6 that might account for some of the smoke at street level. Note that neither tower had collapsed when this photo was taken. In addition this site has a lot of photo analysis that is very interesting. Lots of obvious evidence of "photoshop".

www.911studies.com...

You guys do realise the implication of WHITE smoke right?

Cars do not give off white smoke when burning. Anything with petrolium/oil in it, tyres, paint, rubber, plastic etc. will produce dark smoke.

Not too many things give off white smoke. Thermate does.

For your viewing pleasure...









White aluminum aluminum oxide dust streaming from severed columns?

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Here is a link to a photo of an explosion that is believed to have gone off in WTC6 that might account for some of the smoke at street level. Note that neither tower had collapsed when this photo was taken. In addition this site has a lot of photo analysis that is very interesting. Lots of obvious evidence of "photoshop".

www.911studies.com...

Your photo there is misrepresenting. The south tower actually collapased there.

Originally posted by ANOK
You guys do realise the implication of WHITE smoke right?

Cars do not give off white smoke when burning. Anything with petrolium/oil in it, tyres, paint, rubber, plastic etc. will produce dark smoke.

Not too many things give off white smoke. Thermate does.

ANOK, I guess you will agree thermate brought flight 93 down?

www.youtube.com...

timestamp 4:04 notice the white smoke.

^Well I didn't say ONLY thermate makes white smoke. Not sure what's burning in your vid but it's not really relevant. We are talking about burning cars around the towers. My statement was in that context, smoke from a burning car would be at least grey not white because of the all the rubber and plastic etc.





[edit on 29/3/2007 by ANOK]

www.911studies.com...

Your photo there is misrepresenting. The south tower actually collapased there.

Sorry, take another look. The south tower was hit at 9:03, time on the screen is 9:04. Tower is still standing. I realize it's not easy to make out and the fact that it was hit much lower than the north tower gives the impression of smoke rising from the collapsed building, but it hasn't collapsed yet.

Originally posted by DoomX

Originally posted by ANOK
You guys do realise the implication of WHITE smoke right?

Cars do not give off white smoke when burning. Anything with petrolium/oil in it, tyres, paint, rubber, plastic etc. will produce dark smoke.

Not too many things give off white smoke. Thermate does.

ANOK, I guess you will agree thermate brought flight 93 down?

www.youtube.com...

timestamp 4:04 notice the white smoke.

DoomX that video has great footage in it--the light on the tower before the second plane struck @ time stamp 1:25 was staggering. Laser-guided drone aircraft. OK, now I believe the pod.

And yes, the white smoke is coming from sub-basement explosions. this is obvious; you've got the Columbia seismographic material and numerous videos that capture the sound and even camera shake as they go off.

But I want to know/see more about that light on the face of the tower before impact. If true I have to repeat that's just staggering.

Originally posted by ANOK
^Well I didn't say ONLY thermate makes white smoke. Not sure what's burning in your vid but it's not really relevant. We are talking about burning cars around the towers. My statement was in that context, smoke from a burning car would be at least grey not white because of the all the rubber and plastic etc.





[edit on 29/3/2007 by ANOK]

How about a car that was on fire and the firefighters put it out?

photos.innersource.com...

english.people.com.cn...

www.freestockfootage.com...

www.usask.ca...

see white smoke there?

Originally posted by ipsedixit

www.911studies.com...
Sorry, take another look. The south tower was hit at 9:03, time on the screen is 9:04. Tower is still standing. I realize it's not easy to make out and the fact that it was hit much lower than the north tower gives the impression of smoke rising from the collapsed building, but it hasn't collapsed yet.

If you're picture is true, surely you can present many other videos off all the smoke. That smoke cloud is taller than WTC7. You're telling me only this one camera has a picture of it? I've seen 2 videos of reporters at the base of WTC1 and you do not see that much smoke coming from the ground that your picture is presenting. I do however see in one of those videos with the reporter some grey smoke such as what piacenza shows in his video.

And you base the time for your picture from the same source. Whoever made that picture added the Time of 9:04 onto the picture. It was not aired with that time on it. The source is misrepresenting and is erroneous. Provide other evidence: picture / video from a different angle that shows the same occurence of a smoke cloud taller than WTC7 before WTC1,2 collapse.
You're picture of smoke ipsedixit, is not anything like what piacenza video of smoke is presenting. You're smoke is much thicker and looks exactly of the kind of dust cloud created during the collapse.

Oh yeah just found the other thread that shows your picture is misrepresenting.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Glad to see you latch onto crap information so easily.


Do other official story deniers accept ipsedixit image of a 50+ storey by cloud of smoke before the collapse of WTC1,2? Surely, you all see that his picture is erroneous?

[edit on 29-3-2007 by DoomX]

[edit on 29-3-2007 by DoomX]

[edit on 29-3-2007 by DoomX]

In this link at the upper left hand side is a clearer (still a little murky) picture of the south tower still standing. I think the aspect ratio is correct.

www.911studies.com...

The second link is from a CBS video showing the cloud at street level starting to rise above some relatively low buildings (compared to the towers) at the moment of impact.

www.911studies.com...

As far as the other thread you refer to goes, I'm not sure it's as decisive as you say, but I don't want to go there. This thread is handling the issues just fine.

There is a lot of good photographic analysis on Jack White's 911 Studies website. I'm not sure he is right in every case and some of his arguments are beyond me technically but there is no doubt that he has caught some outrageous fakery in some of the photos. Personally, I trust the guy.

If you move further along in his analysis, he presents photographic evidence of massive explosions in WTC buildings other than 1,2, and 7.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

ipsedixit, I guess Vonkleist would disagree with you.

At timestamp 3:20 Vonkleist states,
"Until more evidence is discovered to support the contention of a separate explosion at the world trade center.I think its safe to assume that this rising plume was the first of many, which were the result of the collapsing south tower. which was hidden from view in this camera angle"


www.youtube.com...

Still hold your original belief?

In the links I cited there appears to be photographic evidence of an explosion that took place at or near street level. This explosion appears to have taken place at almost the same time the south tower was hit.

I think Von Kleist was doing the best he could with what he had at the time. I think that's what we are all doing. I don't have anything personal invested in any particular story except that in this case one has to deal with those photos. We know that similar plumes erupted at the time the tower collapsed. The question is at what time were these cited photos taken. I think White has got the goods here and the photos are what he says they are.

Maybe they are fakes. Jack White has shown a lot of hilarious photoshop fakes among the photos from the Pentagon and then we have the premature announcement on the BBC of the WTC7 collapse. That's a fake newscast. If you go to this link, you can hear an obviously faked man-in-the-street interview taking place moments after the towers collapse.

www.prisonplanet.com...

A lot of people believe real time fake footage was inserted into the news casts. Is somebody saying that in this case? The photos are fake or they are genuine. If they are fake, it's the kind of thing White would probably catch. If they are genuine, then an explosion took place at or near ground level at around the moment the south tower was hit. There's nothing I can do about it. Maybe this is "more evidence" that Von Kleist said was needed. I wonder if he's seen these photos or the 911 Studies website.

If a person had time, which I don't, the idea would be to scour all photos of the impact on the South Tower and look for more evidence of the cloud of smoke at the bottom of them. I did find one where the smoke might be found in a spot under the Brooklyn Bridge, in that particular photo.

Unfortunately it is very indistinct and pixilated when enlarged. I didn't take the time to orient the photo to be sure that the "smoke" was located in the right position either. The photo I'm talking about was not good enough to be used as evidence but it certainly was a teaser that there might be more and better photos out there


[edit on 31-3-2007 by ipsedixit]