Very new video WTC7 KINK

It is also a video of mid-colapse. Not a begining to end. Where is the rest of it? Granted the camera operator might not have focused on WTC7 until was told it was happening, swung the camera around and just was able to catch it from this point. From there, the camera swing wasremoved and edited to the present video of two collapses.

So with editing being present, the question becomes how much editing has been done?

micpsi - I saw that on Discovery channel once - your right.
They blow the center first - So the sides fall towards the center.

Overall the whole thing (WTC7) just goes down towards the ground like an elevator - It makes no sense.


Ahabstar - looks like a slowmotion version and a normal speed version.
And I don't think - There was a count down. To tell people turn on your cameras now.

This is amazing... So much denial.


[edit on 8-5-2007 by Ram]

here it is another new video this one shows a lot of white smoke from the basement.
What else do you need the building itself speaking to you guys?
I mean just say it this is CD it does not mean the Govt lied but please just say it and move on with your lifes.

I don't care what angle it fell at. The fact it falls all at once (all four corner columns come down at once) tells me it was not a chaotic fire and damage demolition. It was controlled in some way IMO.

exactly...that about says it all...all four corners are falling...the fire was in one wing
riddle me that?

Originally posted by Ram


Ahabstar - looks like a slowmotion version and a normal speed version.
And I don't think - There was a count down. To tell people turn on your cameras now.

This is amazing... So much denial.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Ram]

Please reread, the fact that there is editing demonstrates that editing has occured. I know enough about video to know that there was a full speed and a slow motion repeat. Again editing. Speaking of editing there is a video out there that someone did to make the buildings dance to a song by running the initial collapse and rewinding it repatedly.

People do strange things to make a point. We have a word to call manipulation to prove an point: agenda. My question is does video exist from this angle of the whole collapse. Looking at something from mid collapse by editing can "prove" anything like CD. Why we can even superimpose a lightining strike or the beam from the Death Star to make Judy's Death Ray real.

Editing can prove any agenda you want. For example the following joke:

One day, a project leader was asked to submit a review of one of his employees. He wrote the following:

1) Bob Jones, my assistant programmer, can always be found
2) hard at work in his cubicle. Bob works independently, without
3) wasting company time talking to colleagues. Bob never
4) thinks twice about assisting fellow employees, and he always
5) finishes given assignments on time. Often, Bob takes extended
6) measures to complete his work, sometimes skipping coffee
7) breaks. Bob is a dedicated individual who has absolutely no
8) vanity in spite of his high accomplishments and profound
9) knowledge in his field. I firmly believe that Bob can be
10) classed as a high-caliber employee, the type which cannot be
11) dispensed with. Consequently, I duly recommend that Bob be
12) promoted to executive management, and a proposal will be
13) executed as soon as possible.

Regards, Project Leader

Shortly thereafter, the HR department received the following memo from the project leader: Sorry, but that idiot was reading over my shoulder while I wrote the report sent to you earlier today. Kindly read only the odd numbered lines for my true assessment of him.
Regards, Project Leader

edited for a typo


[edit on 8-5-2007 by Ahabstar]

So I have a quick question for anyone on this board. Is there any video or documented cases of a building that came down from a complete natural collapse at free fall speed, with nothing of it left standing? Plus how much smoke and how big of a plume is there from a building that falls naturally?

Ahabstar - okay..... i see..

So It was a CD or what?

I dunno if there is a long video showing the whole crash -
Im sure it would have been in the video, if, so, was, it.

or - if such was.
If it was - There is not.

ect.
before the editing - there was another.

perhaps ect.
not, now.

use to be - but is not.

ect.

you know.......

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Ram]

Originally posted by piacenza
I mean just say it this is CD it does not mean the Govt lied but please just say it and move on with your lifes.

What on Earth makes you think that any of the people who remain unpersuaded of a controlled demolition of WTC 7 are not getting on with their lives?

I will say it was a controlled demolition when I have been suitably persuaded of that fact, as of now I am quite prepared to say that the collapse was remarkable but it was born of remarkable circumstances so perhaps that should not be so surprising.

Right now no one has come up with a plausible explanation of how a controlled demolition could have been set up and initiated, (at least, not to my satisfaction), so I'll reserve my judgement and neither of these videos appear to bring anything new to the table. Your opinion is, of course, a matter of your own judgement.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by timeless test]

Vinadetta found one
free fall speed.
with nothing of it left standing.
lots of smoke and plume.

there might have been wires connected...

I also found one with a jet smashing through a building -
Building didn't collapse.
Wanna see it?

sorry

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Ram]

I hate this...

You know why and proberly why the outher walls of the Twin towers still standing? - cuz they blew the center core...

It's the thing that hold up the entire structure.
They didn't blow the outher walls.
Again - That means the outher walls would falls toward the center preferable.

1,2,3,4 -


This is the basic structure of any big building.
The center holds up the rest.

This is why the whole building collapses at the same time.
Though it starts in the center.

The outher walls does not really matter.
I use to work in arcitect firm - The arcitect makes a center collum - on the drawing board - with he's pencil - and crap.

good find piacenza - your not crazy..

PS: I made those drawings
- So people have a chance to know what collums means.

Im being kind.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Ram]

If you wonder what real arcitect pencil drawings looks like - I took a photo of some real lines from a pencil - drawn by an speices of Arcitect-human.




It's common knowlegde that center collums hold up the entire structure.

It's the center that is important - If the center goes - then you just lost a floor.

If you think pancake - Then Think about the amount of time before a floor collapses a floor - with a full working center collum.
1 second? - a half second? 2 seconds?

What does free fall speed means?

Means that the center core collum was blow away..

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Ram]

Originally posted by Ram
You know why and proberly why the outher walls of the Twin towers still standing? - cuz they blew the center core...

It's the thing that hold up the entire structure.
They didn't blow the outher walls.
Again - That means the outher walls would falls toward the center preferable.

This is the basic structure of any big building.
The center holds up the rest.

This is why the whole building collapses at the same time.
Though it starts in the center.

The outher walls does not really matter.
I use to work in arcitect firm - The arcitect makes a center collum - on the drawing board - with he's pencil - and crap.

Various videos show the core of the towers were still standing after the collapse. If they destroy the core first, they shouldn't be standing above the outer perimeter that collapsed.

okay - thats wicked...

Are we sure that is the center collum standing and not one of the outher walls?
I remember that picture actually - But I always thought that looked like the outher walls.

I just go spank myself if im wrong..
For the whole next week.


[edit on 9-5-2007 by Ram]

Originally posted by deltaboy
Various videos show the core of the towers were still standing after the collapse. If they destroy the core first, they shouldn't be standing above the outer perimeter that collapsed.

My theory on this. This is only a working theory. They seperated the core columns in three strategic places. The base and the two mechanical floors. This could explain the tilt seen in tower 2. That is another thread but I will address if someone wants to hear.

Anyway, if they used something like aluminothermics to sever the core structure, it would have taken longer for the thermite to burn through the thicker columns at the base. Thus resulting in them "standing" for a few seconds after collapse but still collapse into themselves.

Just a working theory that only explains the core columns standing, nothing else. There's the whole thing regarding pulverized concrete and such.

started another thread on this, but if you watch each building collapse, you'll notice that each one collapses from the top center of the building.

Note on N. & S. Towers the falling spires before the final collapse. These are the first things to fall. Same thing on WTC7.



Does anyone else find this suspicious, especially since WTC7 had "pockets" of fires and extensive damage to one side on the building that caused it's collapse?

Why then would the top center collapse first? Surely the fires burning inside didn't damage the steel beams enough to warp and cause them to buckle, bringing down the entire building?

And if you do not find that suspicious ... do you not find it suspicious that there are no other buildings that have done this before, yet we had 3 do the exact same thing on the same day. 2 from airplanes and the resulting inferno, and 1 from pockets of fire and damage to the lower outer edge of the building.