For the 9/11 debunkers - Can you debunk the scientific anlaysis here?

[simonm]

This documentary contains video,audio and scientific analysis of the WTC explosions. Can you enlighten me and point out some of the "errors" in this video?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness
http://www.911eyewitness.com

[simonm]

1. The silence is deafening

No takers? Why does that not surprise me? Typical Motive Operandi, - always ignore or ridicule when the scientific facts can't be disputed.

There have been hundreds that downloaded this video in the past few days. Keep up the good work guys. People are listening.

[greyl]

2. Do you usually start conversations by saying

"Hey, can I have an hour and 44 minutes of your time?" and then walk away?

[simonm]

3. I'm still here

Listening.

[greyl]

5. Well,

you were gone for a day and left without much in way of introduction to the hour and 44 minute long video.
You didn't sell me on the idea of watching it, what can I say?
Couldn't you paraphrase some of it? I'm on 28.8 dial-up.

[simonm]

7. Significance

Unlike some videos out there, I wouldn't mind placing this one under forensic scrutiny. It provides a solid case for high explosives in the WTC buildings.

There is a 28k version on the net but the video quality sucks due to compression.

[simonm]

8. Found a link for 28k

CLICK HERE

[greyl]

10. Ok

It's in my download manager
http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/

Looks like it'll take a little over 6 hours to get the whole thing. I'll check it out.

[simonm]

12. Whoa

If you IM me your address I can mail you a copy with better resolution.

[greyl]

25. I watched it. Can you guess what my general opinion is? nt

[sabbat hunter]

4. i watched the video

the booms that are heard sound put in afterwards.

the objects flying by (as pointed out by the arrows) are helicopters, either police or news channel copters, probably police.

[simonm]

6. Thanks for watching

the booms that are heard sound put in afterwards.

The camera was at a very good distance from the towers and sound took a few seconds to reach them. They adjusted to compensate for the sound travel delay. The scientific calculations are thoroughly explained in the video.

are helicopters, either police or news channel copters, probably police.

The helicopters are usually marked digitally and the author did not provide wild theories.

This video is the most solid documentary I've seen that would stand up in a court of law. No wild theories to poke holes at. Just mostly scientific analysis.

[sabbat hunter]

9. adjustments

once you start "Adjusting" video/audio it IMO invalidates it as any evidence. who knows what else was done. anybody knowing how to so can come up with the calculations to make it seem legit. but then make major alterations to the tape.

[simonm]

11. Adjusted for sound delay - nothing abnormal about that.

The changes and reasons for editing are thoroughly explained along with visuals. Video originals are shown first and afterwards the edited version (sound delay adjustment).

The originals were shown.

Are you saying everying is faked? ..even the originals?

[sabbat hunter]

13. no what i am saying

is that the added sound is faked. or alterted.

sound delay adjustment could very well = added sound not there in first place.

[simonm]

14. You are implying it

Digital sound recording are the same in the original footage. In the edited version, sound was basically shifted 9.2 seconds earlier because of the time it takes for sound to travel over 1.8 miles.

1. Sound of explosions is in the original
2. Audio starts only 9.2 seconds earlier than original
3. There are no "added" sound effects.

Both versions share the same audio clip. Since you claim the edited version as fake then the original must also be the same.

How can starting an audio clip 9.2 seconds earlier from the original footage make everything fraudulent? That is funny logic.

[sabbat hunter]

15. because we dont know

if the second tape is accurate, if the sound has been enhanced etc. any time a tape has been doctored it is not valid evidence.

[simonm]

18. It is admissible

If the following elements are met,

1. the video is proven reliable (original footage).
2. changes are backed by expert testimony (sound delay adjustment, basic physics 101).

it is admissible evidence in a court of law.

Go ahead, ask any lawyer. Your suggestion of a "tainted" video is groundless.

[rman]

23. Tapes can be doctored without saying anything about it

as can photographs.

This means any photo or video that you submit can also be doctored.

The explosions can not only be heard in that video, they are also reported in the MSM by eyewitnesses, and in audio recordings from emergency personnel communications that have been released after a FOIA request by the NYT.

[theSaiGirl]

27. But our trusted corporate media would never doctor video ..

Would they ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/06/02/28_psyops.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/30/95642/8018
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1748
http://atangledweb.typepad.com/weblog/2004/12/most_trusted_am.html

No, no no .... CNN, FOX, MSNBC ... our Pentagon ..
They would never do something as evil as that...
Would they .. ?

Only those paranoid, disloyal, unpatriotic 9/11 "conspiracy theorists" would do something as evil as that ?

[rman]

31. my point is that "adjustment" doesn't imply 'doctored'

any more then when it would not have been adjusted.

[mirandapriestly]

16. What did you think of the lightning-like rods

coming down from the helicopter? It made me think of this -

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=72822003

"AMERICA has developed a new weapon capable of crippling Saddam Hussein’s war machine by unleashing powerful man-made lightning strikes.

Known as the HPM - High Powered Microwave - it has been created under a top-secret Pentagon programme aimed at revolutionizing the US military’s warfare techniques, Time magazine reports.

HPMs are artificial lightning bolts packed inside cruise missiles, with the potential to deliver as much electricity in a single flash as the Hoover Dam generates in one day - more than two billion watts.

As it homes in on its target, the missile discharges an energy pulse that moves at the speed of light, destroying all electronic gadgetry and computer equipment within 1,000ft of the ultimate flash by blowing out circuits and memory chips. The effect is similar to that of a lightning strike on a household television or computer, which can be burned out by a storm-wave of electricity surging in through the wiring..."

...there's more at link
(I'm not a debunker by the way)I think that video is very interesting . The author said he put it up right after 9-11 and that his website was removed by someone, I'm not sure if he knows who, but he thought it was the government.

[simonm]

17. Cool tool but doesn't fit the job

I believe flashes from the helicopter are just sunlight reflections or some type of signal. It is too fuzzy to draw a hypothesis.

What you are referring to is an EMP type of weapon used for electronic warfare. It is great for knocking down an enemy's electronic capability. I doubt there would be a use for it on 9/11.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

19. I believe that the demo wasn't working right on WTC 2

so they had to intiate it manually. Something was fired at explosives on the top cap of the building and the building immediately went down once they finally went off.

WTC 1 went without a hitch, a picture perfect collapse.

[mirandapriestly]

21. You are observant, nt

[Harald Ragnarsson]

22. Thanks!

Hopefully I'm correct a majority of the time in what I observe as well.

:toast:

[mirandapriestly]

20. A helicopter left right after each building collapsed

They were doing something.

[simonm]

24. One can only speculate

I remember reading somewhere about demolitions experts preferring wired charges over wireless. The main reason for the preference was signals are most reliable going through a cable especially when split seconds matter.

Based on this information and others, I believe they used wired charges and had enough control to make changes if necessary.

This becomes evident when you examine the south tower building. This building not only was attacked second but fell first. A few interesting facts;

1. A majority of the plane’s fuel exploded outside.
2. Fires were starved of oxygen (black smoke)
3. Damage was limited and not enough to justify a complete building collapse.

If you take the above into consideration, it looks like the demolishment of the south tower was accelerated due to having less opportunity for a dramatic effect (i.e.: not enough large fires and smoke).

There are reports of Rudy Giuliani’s bunker in WTC building 7. This location would be the most logical place as a command center. Besides having front row seats to the event, the perpetrators can easily hook up the main switch box via existing communication lines.

I see no reason for helicopter involvement unless they needed a wireless computer uplink. In this method a computer would have to be programmed as the main switchbox that sets off the charges in a specific order.

The folks behind this crime had plenty of access to WTC’s structure. Why use a helicopter when you can take advantage of WTC’s cabling?

[mirandapriestly]

26. I agree about your south tower falling first scenario, I remember

reading that in the New Pearl Harbor and that's when I really started getting interested in this, but..I think that the people behind this had a lot of military technology at their disposal and I am always looking for explanations for "coincidences" (helicopters leaving the scene, just prior to each collapse, etc..) there are other unexplained visuals (flashing lights - lasers?) that I put out there just to explore the possibility of their likelihood. I don't get much response though, so maybe it's nothing...

[Kevin Fenton]

28. I agree with most of that but...

"A majority of the plane’s fuel exploded outside."
It didn't, less than half exploded in total (i.e. inside and outside). The plane had 9,100 gallons and 20-30% exploded outside. The jet fuel makes no difference anyway.

"Fires were starved of oxygen (black smoke)"
My understanding is that black smoke can mean a lot of things - it doesn't necessarily indicate a fire is oxygen-starved. The north tower fire is supposed to be relatively oxygen-starved (which is why it moved faster), but the south tower fire isn't (because the plane broke more windows due to the different impact location).

[theSaiGirl]

29. You mean this "plane" here ?

You mean this "plane" here ...
http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/noplane2/

The one that just "melts" seamlessly into the concrete and steel of the South Tower ..

Look Ma' .... NO IMPACT !!!

LOL

[jschurchin]

30. Do you take...........

your seeing eye dog with you everywhere?