Unreleased 911 footage

[mynameis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDujhl2OsQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10

[lightgiver]

controlled demolition.

did you see flashes on 1st vid.

and 2nd one ,controlled demo, well both,no doubts IMHO;)

[banoyes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDujhl2OsQ

Molecular Disassociation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10


Controlled Demolition

[kingmonkey]

the flashes in the first one look like falling glass reflecting sunlight.

[mr_pixie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDujhl2OsQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10

There's something wrong with this video footage the sky's alll white not blue? has the bightness or contrast been messed around with???? Tampered with everdence!

Remember on 9/11 it was a clear blue sky!

[1694]

The north tower footage looks very unlike a controlled demolition. That vid shows the core that people say would have remained if the towers collapsed inthe manner of the official story. You can see the left half of the core fall over to the left aswell, leaving the right spike upright.

WTC 7 looks exaclty like a controled demo.

[thelyran]

There's something wrong with this video footage the sky's alll white not blue? has the bightness or contrast been messed around with???? Tampered with everdence!

Remember on 9/11 it was a clear blue sky!

watch the first video closely,keeping an eye in the top left corner...blue sky
...before the clouds of dust impedes your vision.

[lightgiver]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/details-emerge-on-new-wtc-collapse-videos.html

[turbine]

I tried uploading the videos on youtube but they've taken them down.

Hmm....

[dangermouse]

I tried uploading the videos on youtube but they've taken them down.

Hmm....
I took a small 30 second clip from heroes saying new world order and it got removed due to copyright infringement on NBC ... typical ... :rolleyes:

[krakhead]

There's something wrong with this video footage the sky's alll white not blue? has the bightness or contrast been messed around with???? Tampered with everdence!

Remember on 9/11 it was a clear blue sky!

Automatic exposure adjustment from the camera more probably.

[citroen999]

The north tower footage looks very unlike a controlled demolition. That vid shows the core that people say would have remained if the towers collapsed inthe manner of the official story. You can see the left half of the core fall over to the left aswell, leaving the right spike upright.

WTC 7 looks exaclty like a controled demo.

my spider sense is tingling!! ;)

i might be wrong but i cant remember ever seeing the core left standing in any other footage, but i may have missed it on other videos. Any inks would be great.

Another big question why now? why has it been tucked away until now? I suppose it could have been on one of those handycams which were a pain to transfer videos to pc and the owner has just got around to it.

Who took the footage?


That vid shows the core that people say would have remained if the towers collapsed inthe manner of the official story.

conveniently shows the official story... but lets not get too excited

i am not one for one for making a conspiracy for conspiracy sake but this new footage needs to be checked out.. could be all innocent for all we know

The youtube upload problem could be orchestrated to be taken off asap to give the impression its important to the truth movement, thus will want to believe it more, thus believing the official story..

any video analysts around who can check it ?

[citroen999]

just spotted more details on these videos...

both start with a timestamp, the time shown is the the same font etc on both footage so leads me to believe that the same person filmed both shots, or the same camera was used or both.

The first timestamp we see on the footage is 10.28am and then 5.25pm... why did this guy hang around all day filming? Why was he filming WTC 7 at the exact same time as it fell, you would not have thought it was in danger of falling so why film it?

now watch this again

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10&feature=related

its starts zoomed in on the building as it starts to fall, then goes to a distant shot for the full collapse. It would be impossible for the filming to stop and the operator to restart the camera to get the whole collapse footage in the few seconds it took to fall to the ground. So the 2 possiblities here are the camera man got the whole footage from start to finish but did some lame ass cut sequence at the begining for some reason or its 2 clips from 2 seperate videos put together. Also he missed the very begining of the collapse for some reason.

why no sound?

and what looks like the centre core is the actual outer structure, watch closely.

something doesnt add up here

[lightgiver]

just spotted more details on these videos...

both start with a timestamp, the time shown is the the same font etc on both footage so leads me to believe that the same person filmed both shots, or the same camera was used or both.

The first timestamp we see on the footage is 10.28am and then 5.25pm... why did this guy hang around all day filming? Why was he filming WTC 7 at the exact same time as it fell, you would not have thought it was in danger of falling so why film it?

now watch this again

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10&feature=related

its starts zoomed in on the building as it starts to fall, then goes to a distant shot for the full collapse. It would be impossible for the filming to stop and the operator to restart the camera to get the whole collapse footage in the few seconds it took to fall to the ground. So the 2 possiblities here are the camera man got the whole footage from start to finish but did some lame ass cut sequence at the begining for some reason or its 2 clips from 2 seperate videos put together. Also he missed the very begining of the collapse for some reason.

why no sound?

and what looks like the centre core is the actual outer structure, watch closely.

something doesnt add up here

yeah,there is a lot about 911 that does not add up:confused:;)

did you notice TPTB soon cleaned up after 911,no preservers ion of the crime scene and the evidence,this proves the guilt of the neo cons and their masters.

[citroen999]

yep, knew all that :rolleyes:

but what about this alleged new footage any comment?

i wouldnt say its fake but the cameraman needs to be looked into

[sweheretic]

has anyone seen a controlled demolition of a 100+ story sky scraper before 9/11?

if you blew the charges from the bottom->up, the massive weight and height of the tower would probably make it to tip over, rather than falling into it's own foot prints.

they need to blow the charges by first taking out major columns, and then blasting the remaining charges floor by floor from the top->down in order to make it drop straight downwards at free fall speed. (added bonus: the hollywood-effect necessary to make people feel like they just survived an action movie with Rambo as the main character)

get a structural engineer with a physics grade to check it out though. don't take my word for it

[citroen999]

has anyone seen a controlled demolition of a 100+ story sky scraper before 9/11?

if you blew the charges from the bottom->up, the massive weight and height of the tower would probably make it to tip over, rather than falling into it's own foot prints.

they need to blow the charges by first taking out major columns, and then blasting the remaining charges floor by floor from the top->down in order to make it drop straight downwards at free fall speed. (added bonus: the hollywood-effect necessary to make people feel like they just survived an action movie with Rambo as the main character)

get a structural engineer with a physics grade to check it out though. don't take my word for it

which is what happened, the reason the building fell at freefall speed straight into its own footprint rather than crumbling and falling to bits gradually is that when the top went it met no resistance on the way down, this means the floors below were either weakend or blown.

plenty demo experts say controlled demolition and planty demo experts say not. Me? controlled demo of some sort

[banoyes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDujhl2OsQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10

Building 7 is clearly a controlled Demolition
but
watch the N Tower in the video above
see the central core
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd177/Banoyes/site1074.jpg
From across the river
now watch this video of the core as it turns to dust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2hVLypbFTo

What happened to the centeral core?
There are no explosives that account for turning steel to dust
The Towers were dustified by molecular dis-association-DEW
No doubt explosives and thermate were used also
but they alone, can't explain dustification

[mynameis]

Building 7 is clearly a controlled Demolition
but
watch the N Tower in the video above
see the central core
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd177/Banoyes/site1074.jpg
From across the river
now watch this video of the core as it turns to dust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2hVLypbFTo

What happened to the centeral core?
There are no explosives that account for turning steel to dust
The Towers were dustified by molecular dis-association-DEW
No doubt explosives and thermate were used also
but they alone, can't explain dustification

You should already know the answer to this banoes. There is no steel dust found at the WTC or steel turned to dust. Now you are flat out lying.

[banoyes]

You should already know the answer to this banoes. There is no steel dust found at the WTC or steel turned to dust. Now you are flat out lying.

1. Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust (50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr. Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09 to 2.5 microns)
2. Superheated steels ablating/vaporizing continuously as they fall/as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing.This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate
3. The North Tower spire stood for 20-30 seconds, evaporated, went down, and turned to steel dust.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/46_wtc1spiretodustjg4.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/47_spire.jpg as any can see http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/48_spire.jpg
The spire
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/49_spire.jpg turns to dust [media]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/50_spire.jpg

Where's the building?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPyF7VpOdKU
How did this happen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXqCSDIFh6c&feature=related

Perhaps the mote lay in your eye- but that is something you will have to work out

[mynameis]

Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09 to 2.5 microns)

Perhaps the mote lay in your eye- but that is something you will have to work out

Micron, a micrometre, a unit of length in the metric system: one millionth of a metre.

His dust samples are not specifically metallic or steel concentrations and are meaningless for the informed scientist.


So what did I breathe? Construction materials, for the most part: cement dust from the square-acre floors of the tower; aggregate materials, which basically means particulates of rock and gravel; and drywall, which is made of a calcium-based substance called gypsum. The coarsest particles, the ones I presumably spit up in the bank lobby, consisted of all three materials, but the finest particles--the ones that invade your deep lung, never to leave--were also mostly gypsum. And gypsum is safe for human consumption. Matter of fact, it's used to enrich bread with calcium, can be found in toothpaste and blackboard chalk, and helps coagulate tofu. Tofu, for chrissakes.

"That doesn't mean there's not some harm there, but it's a different kind of harm," Cahill says. "Your lung got loaded up with stuff and your mouth and throat got irritated for a short period of time. But that's better than bearing the enormous body burden of very fine metals working from your bloodstream to your heart."

Finally, Cahill e-mails me an incomprehensible line graph tracking nanograms in the dust sample, plus a written analysis of the bag peppered with scary chemical formulas like CaSO4 . 2H2O and CaO2 and SiO2. Then he calls me on the phone. "I just want to tell you personally what a service you've done everybody," he says. My heart races. I wonder why he's telling me this again, wondering if he's stalling, wondering why he doesn't just come out and fucking tell me the bad news already. And then: "Basically, you just got a big blast of drywall. Which is harmless."

Evidently, these very fine metals didn't enter the air above lower Manhattan en masse until weeks later, when all those smashed computer parts, electrical cords, ceiling tiles, and ballpoint pens began to smolder at extremely high temperatures deep below the street. When the South Tower came down, the massive concrete floors fell like a giant stack of pancakes, slamming into one another and driving the contents of the building straight down, but the air in the building blew out the sides, like a balloon popping when a fat man sits on it. The wind that the building exhaled was hurricane force, instantly aerating the drywall and the glass and some of the concrete, which coated me a few seconds later. "It's no different from when you blow up an old thirty-story hotel," says Cahill. "That's the same kind of dust cloud. Heck, the older buildings are probably worse because they have more asbestos."

http://www.esquire.com/features/9_11bag-3

[banoyes]

Micron, a micrometre, a unit of length in the metric system: one millionth of a metre.

His dust samples are not specifically metallic or steel concentrations and are meaningless for the informed scientist.



http://www.esquire.com/features/9_11bag-3
LOL
Guess you missed the Video and Photos of the Tower turning to dust
Thanks for the large lettering
nothing like meaningless crap in LARGE LETTERS
January 6, 2008 at 19:52:56

Metallic Microspheres in WTC Dust

http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_kevin_ry_080106_metallic_microsphere.htm

[mynameis]

LOL
Guess you missed the Video and Photos of the Tower turning to dust
Thanks for the large lettering
nothing like meaningless crap in LARGE LETTERS
January 6, 2008 at 19:52:56

Metallic Microspheres in WTC Dust

http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_kevin_ry_080106_metallic_microsphere.htm

And what pray tell does it say about how those metallic spherules are created banoes? I guess banoes just reads what he wants and leaves the rest to chance.

[banoyes]

And what pray tell does it say about how those metallic spherules are created banoes? I guess banoes just reads what he wants and leaves the rest to chance.
Do you not see the spire turn to dust??
That is the question
The metal of course is in the dust
where do you think the core went??
The best that can be said of you is you avoid and distract

The spire turns to dust
the metal is in the dust.

[mynameis]

Do you not see the spire turn to dust??
That is the question
The metal of course is in the dust
where do you think the core went??
The best that can be said of you is you avoid and distract

The spire turns to dust
the metal is in the dust.

The metal was not turned to dust. Steel frames went to China, some went to underground vaults, some made a new battleship. I asked a question and of course I get no answer typical of you banoes.

[banoyes]

The metal was not turned to dust. Steel frames went to China, some went to underground vaults, some made a new battleship. I asked a question and of course I get no answer typical of you banoes.
You can read what it says on the site .. duh
that why I put the link ...
so
you are denying what is right before your eyes
the spire is turned to dust
and you deny it
I think this is cool
Now all can see just what you are about
tho
I doubt too many didn't already know

[mynameis]

You can read what it says on the site .. duh
that why I put the link ...
so
you are denying what is right before your eyes
the spire is turned to dust
and you deny it
I think this is cool
Now all can see just what you are about
tho
I doubt too many didn't already know

There is no steel turning to dust. Are you vision impaired or something?


Steel turned into dust? Where's the steel in this forensics report, eh? Where'd the gobs of metal go huh? Should be loads of metal flakes...wrong. You are transparent banoes.
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/4431/dust1gg2.jpg
http://projects.nfstc.org/trace/docs/Trace%20Presentations%20CD-2/Petraco.pdf

[banoyes]

1. Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust (50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr. Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09 to 2.5 microns)
2. Superheated steels ablating/vaporizing continuously as they fall/as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing.This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermate
3. The North Tower spire stood for 20-30 seconds, evaporated, went down, and turned to steel dust.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/46_wtc1spiretodustjg4.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/47_spire.jpg as any can see http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/48_spire.jpg
The spire
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/49_spire.jpg turns to dust [media]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/50_spire.jpg

Where's the building?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPyF7VpOdKU
How did this happen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXqCSDIFh6c&feature=related

Perhaps the mote lay in your eye- but that is something you will have to work out
Information on dustification
They coulda used vibration,in this situation

[mynameis]

Information on dustification
They coulda used vibration,in this situation

Your Example outside 911 of this turning steel to dust?

[banoyes]

Your Example outside 911 of this turning steel to dust?
You recognize the 911 dustification
That's sufficeint

[qasrose]

You recognize the 911 dustification
That's sufficeint

In these photos you can see quite a bit more than just a bunch of dust:
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-Graphics/wtc-rubble.jpg

http://www.bollyn.com/public/ParticlesRisingFromWTCrubble.jpg

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/august2006/250806rubble1.jpg

http://bitrazor.com/content/wtc/rubble_1.jpg

http://dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployments/NYC-WTC2001/images/LER049.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/altf4_photo/GroundZero.jpg

stop repeating another lie banoyes

STEEL TURN TO DUST HA HA HA HA HA, LMAO

[turbine]

Information on dustification
They coulda used vibration,in this situation

So I guess the official story was correct to a certain degree.

[banoyes]

In these photos you can see quite a bit more than just a bunch of dust:


http://bitrazor.com/content/wtc/rubble_1.jpg



stop repeating another lie banoyes

STEEL TURN TO DUST HA HA HA HA HA, LMAO

See the crane .. it is sitting on street level
What you see is the remains of 110 story building
Where did the building go??
qasrose looks but doesn't see
Thanks for these pictures
shows the lack of a sufficent rubble pile,
a key to understanding the DEW evidence

[qasrose]

See the crane .. it is sitting on street level
What you see is the remains of 110 story building
Where did the building go??
qasrose looks but doesn't see
Thanks for these pictures
shows the lack of a sufficent rubble pile,
a key to understanding the DEW evidence

repeating your self again. lol

Big deal the crane is on street level, AND that proofs what???

STEEL DOES NOT TURN TO DUST..

http://www.bollyn.com/public/ParticlesRisingFromWTCrubble.jpg

[qasrose]

1. Most of the dust cloud was the sheetrock (you know, wall board) that the WTCs, as OFFICE BUILDINGS, were FULL OF.

2. There are pics out there that show not only large rocks of concrete, but also many other large, NON-PULVERIZED pieces of debris.

3. It is not surprising that a LARGE amount of the concrete would be turned to dust once hitting the ground, anyway.

[banoyes]

repeating your self again. lol

Big deal the crane is on street level, AND that proofs what???

STEEL DOES NOT TURN TO DUST..




Originally Posted by banoyes
See the crane .. it is sitting on street level
What you see is the remains of 110 story building
Where did the building go??
qasrose looks but doesn't see
Thanks for these pictures
shows the lack of a sufficent rubble pile,
a key to understanding the DEW evidence

[qasrose]

Originally Posted by banoyes
See the crane .. it is sitting on street level
What you see is the remains of 110 story building
Where did the building go??
qasrose looks but doesn't see
Thanks for these pictures
shows the lack of a sufficent rubble pile,
a key to understanding the DEW evidence

and yet again you repeat your self, are you a robot???? or blind? or both??

[banoyes]

and yet again you repeat your self, are you a robot???? or blind? or both??

"Big deal the crane is on street level, AND that proofs what???"

Man ... post some more huge pictures
about the extent of your cognitive ability

Steel turning to dust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCUbcmo9-kE&e

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCUbcmo9-kE&e


People dening what is plainly seen .. must have a reason
what that would be... I don't know

[qasrose]

"Big deal the crane is on street level, AND that proofs what???"

Man ... post some more huge pictures
about the extent of your cognitive ability

Insulting me yet again. because you can not answer my question?

[banoyes]

and yet again you repeat your self, are you a robot???? or blind? or both??
Sorry Mr Sensitive
but you see you asked
So the crane was at street level AND what does that prove?"
and I answered
It proves an insufficent rubble pile
but some how that didn't get through to you
so there it is again
hope this helps you in your search for the truth about 911

[qasrose]

Sorry Mr Sensitive
but you see you asked
So the crane was at street level AND what does that prove?"
and I answered
It proves an insufficent rubble pile
but some how that didn't get through to you
so there it is again
hope this helps you in your search for the truth about 911

But their are still steel structures left standing
but obviously you can not see this.

[mynameis]

You recognize the 911 dustification
That's sufficeint

No. I would be soft in the head if I ever believed such stupid evidence without a shred of proof. You have provided no evidence. I'll reiterate my question. Where is evidence that Quote banoyes suspends physics, and turned to steel dust. exists prior to 9/11/01 or outside September the 11th. Come on banoes prove me wrong and yourself right. I'd like to see your so called evidence.

[banoyes]

No. I would be soft in the head if I ever believed such stupid evidence without a shred of proof. You have provided no evidence. I'll reiterate my question. Where is evidence that Quote banoyes suspends physics, exists prior to 9/11/01 or outside September the 11th. Come on banoes prove me wrong and yourself right. I'd like to see your so called evidence.

In 20 words or less descripe what you see in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCUbcmo9-kE&e

Banoyes,,, I see steel turning into dust

[qasrose]

In 20 words or less descripe what you see in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCUbcmo9-kE&e

Banoyes,,, I see steel turning into dust

Steel is not turning to dust, did you not look at the images
I posted, or where they to small for your eyes to adjust too?

[banoyes]

Steel is not turning to dust, did you not look at the images
I posted, or where they to small for your eyes to adjust too?
There it is Ladies and Gentlemen
Watch the video
see for yourself
then weigh qasrose

[qasrose]

There it is Ladies and Gentlemen
Watch the video
see for yourself
then weigh qasrose

The video shows nothing but the towers falling to the ground
the photo's I posted shows you STEEL structures still left standing.

But of course you refuse to believe this, because of a simple crane.

[qasrose]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_ExMAtyyCgw

And this video ^^ Debunks Banoyes Steel to Dust Theory.

[keystone]

How tall was the crane? It seems to me tht the crane was rather large and therefore the rubble (steel) pile is also rather large. If it were a small crane then perhaps I could believe a small pile.

[banoyes]

How tall was the crane? It seems to me tht the crane was rather large and therefore the rubble (steel) pile is also rather large. If it were a small crane then perhaps I could believe a small pile.
No belief required
Look at the picture
It shows the rubble pile
seems rudimentry to look

[keystone]

Relative size does matter.

[banoyes]

Relative size does matter.
Could someone ( prefer a non Mason) inturpet the above.
I have no idea what this means

[mynameis]

Could someone ( prefer a non Mason) inturpet the above.
I have no idea what this means

The enormity of this crane in this picture is the size of the actual steam shovel / crane compared with the steel rubble present, which sits on the enormity of the whole bathtub that is filled with debris.

http://dart2.arc.nasa.gov/Deployments/NYC-WTC2001/images/LER049.jpg

Size does matter, but scale is represented by the enormity of this steam shovel.

[keystone]

Could someone ( prefer a non Mason) inturpet the above.
I have no idea what this meansI though you were more intelligent than that. If the crane is 500 feet tall and the rubble pile is 450 feet tall then the crane is 50 feet taller than the pile. If the crane is 75 feet tall and the pile is still 50 feet below the level of the crane then the pile is only 25 feet tall and therefore a lot smaller. The relative distance between the tops of the two cranes and their respective piles is still the same.

[lightgiver]

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/5593/911evidenceofthermitecuns5.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=911evidenceofthermitecuns5.jpg)