Duane Daman Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 It is amazing that this is still being argued. It has been shown that the clip was not aired at 9:04 but rather at around 11:53 when they were talking to Tom Clancy. The link to the video at that time has been posted. It shows one tower standing as the dust cloud rises and and only dust in the place of the second tower. If you look closely you can see the dust in the area where the second tower was gets lighter and you can actually see light coming through from the other side. This would not be possible if there was still a tower there. What's really amazing is that you are still playing this silly game and that I'm still arguing with sheer insanity . THIS is a still photo from the ORIGINAL video which was filmed EARLIER ( as in 9:04 AM ) and it is clearly showing BOTH buildings . Speaking of playing games ... What was your user name on the UM again ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Here is the same still. The green arrows point to the edges of WTC 1. The red circle is where WTC 2 should be but there is light showing through. How is that possible if the building is still standing like you say? How is my username (frenat) on UM relevant? What games are you implying that I played? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Of course ... "frenat " ... You were one of the best game players there when it came to trying to refute ALL conspiracy evidence , and apparently you still are still playing the same game here . Look at Jack's enhancement study again ...It clearly shows two buildings ... What you are mistaking for light is only smoke in front of the building ... If you look directly below the part you circled , you will see the outline of the second building . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 The frame on Jack's study showing the enhancement does not have the cloud on it. It is a different still and likely both towers were still standing then. Here are some more stills from the video found here http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111134-1216 Starting at about 19:05 in the video with a different still taken about once a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 and more The light area get progressively more transparent as the cloud increases. In the video one can also see downward movement. There is no building there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 (edited) and more The light area get progressively more transparent as the cloud increases. In the video one can also see downward movement. There is no building there. Game, set and match. Can White admit he is wrong? ROFLMAO! Edited September 22, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Got to admit those video stills Matthew posted seem pretty conclusive. On top of that, there is contradictory evidence in Jack's study itself. Seems Jack made a simple error in his analysis that led him to a faulty conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 and more The light area get progressively more transparent as the cloud increases. In the video one can also see downward movement. There is no building there. Game, set and match. Can White admit he is wrong? ROFLMAO! Poor Craig is still pretending he is capable of playing tennis ... ROFLMAO! CNN CONFIRMED that the video footage in question was taken at 9:04 AM ... The building was just hit , and not even close to collapsing yet ... The South tower is obsured by smoke , but still standing right behind the North tower . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Got to admit those video stills Matthew posted seem pretty conclusive.On top of that, there is contradictory evidence in Jack's study itself. Seems Jack made a simple error in his analysis that led him to a faulty conclusion. Dave ... The amount of dust cloud that rose into the air at the moment the South tower collapsed was enormous , eventually covering the entire city , along with the dust from the North tower ... The amount of dust cloud which shows in this still picture is the same amount of dust as when the tower was HIT ... NOT when it collapsed . The origin of smoke is at the same location as where the plane hit it ... So it is not too low .... The South tower was hit much lower than the North tower . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Got to admit those video stills Matthew posted seem pretty conclusive.On top of that, there is contradictory evidence in Jack's study itself. Seems Jack made a simple error in his analysis that led him to a faulty conclusion. Dave ... The amount of dust cloud that rose into the air at the moment the South tower collapsed was enormous , eventually covering the entire city , along with the dust from the North tower ... The amount of dust cloud which shows in this still picture is the same amount of dust as when the tower was HIT ... NOT when it collapsed . The origin of smoke is at the same location as where the plane hit it ... So it is not too low .... The South tower was hit much lower than the North tower . No Duane the South Tower crash centered on the 81st floor. Even if yosu convince yourself that the grey between WFC 3 (the building with the pointed roof that Dave's red line points to) and WTC 1 (the North Tower) is WTC 2 you have to admit the grey blob with the diagonal edge above WFC3's roof is smoke or dust. That smoke is obviously is coming from a point lower than the height of WFC 3 which is a 50 story building. Notice how it's height closely corresponds to that of WTC 7 which was 47 stories tall. Thus no matter how you slice it the smoke is coming from a point far too low to be from the impact of flight 175. Thanks also for posting the link with the interview of the EMT who said she went into WTC6's lobby after the South Tower collapsed and there still were people there on the other thread. Kind of hard to explain that if the building had been vaporized down to the basement almost an hour earlier. CNN CONFIRMED that the video footage in question was taken at 9:04 AM According to a reporter fired from a CT publication for dishonst reporting. Even IF Bollyn didn't make it up since CNN didn't show that footage at 9:04 it's even possible that the archivistv was mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 If WTC6 collapsed or exploded before the first tower fell, I assume the theory would be that the damage to WTC6 was deliberate, since there was no debris to damage it. But if the damage was deliberate, why would they do it so quickly with nothing to explain it? They would logically wait till at least one tower fell, to claim collateral damage to WTC6 (i.e., "large amounts of debris fell on top of 6 and it partially collapsed," to quote Kevin West). This makes it more likely (whether the destruction of WTC6 was deliberate or not) that the South Tower is gone in the frame that shows the WTC6 dust cloud. If so, it seems to me that this frame must show the scene immediately after the tower collapse, with the WTC6 dust cloud thus immediately arising. Otherwise the smoke that is mistaken for the South Tower would be more widely dispersed, not standing there like a building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) If so, it seems to me that this frame must show the scene immediately after the tower collapse, with the WTC6 dust cloud thus immediately arising. Otherwise the smoke that is mistaken for the South Tower would be more widely dispersed, not standing there like a building. Indeed, and in an image I posted a few pages back, you can see that the cloud rising in Jack's image is mearly the highest point of the dust cloud rising in the whole area from the wtc2 collapse. Same scene, different angle. From the direction that Jack's picture was taken, the dust circled in blue would be hidden behind WFC3, while the dust circled in red would be hidden behind WTC7, leaving only Jack's supposed WTC6 explosion visible. If Jack would show the video he took his image from, I am willing to bet cash that it would show the collapse of WTC2 immediately before the frames he captured, and clear sky where WTC2 was immediately after the frames he captured. He cherrypicked those images, that is why he won't share the video. Edited September 23, 2007 by Kevin M. West Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 If so, it seems to me that this frame must show the scene immediately after the tower collapse, with the WTC6 dust cloud thus immediately arising. Otherwise the smoke that is mistaken for the South Tower would be more widely dispersed, not standing there like a building. Indeed, and in an image I posted a few pages back, you can see that the cloud rising in Jack's image is mearly the highest point of the dust cloud rising in the whole area from the wtc2 collapse. Same scene, different angle. From the direction that Jack's picture was taken, the dust circled in blue would be hidden behind WFC3, while the dust circled in red would be hidden behind WTC7, leaving only Jack's supposed WTC6 explosion visible. If Jack would show the video he took his image from, I am willing to bet cash that it would show the collapse of WTC2 immediately before the frames he captured, and clear sky where WTC2 was immediately after the frames he captured. He cherrypicked those images, that is why he won't share the video. I'll go quite a bit further, I think Jack just cribbed the entire thing from someone else. Not his original work. He can't show you the video he took the still from because I don't believe he even took it from a video at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 If so, it seems to me that this frame must show the scene immediately after the tower collapse, with the WTC6 dust cloud thus immediately arising. Otherwise the smoke that is mistaken for the South Tower would be more widely dispersed, not standing there like a building. Indeed, and in an image I posted a few pages back, you can see that the cloud rising in Jack's image is mearly the highest point of the dust cloud rising in the whole area from the wtc2 collapse. Same scene, different angle. From the direction that Jack's picture was taken, the dust circled in blue would be hidden behind WFC3, while the dust circled in red would be hidden behind WTC7, leaving only Jack's supposed WTC6 explosion visible. If Jack would show the video he took his image from, I am willing to bet cash that it would show the collapse of WTC2 immediately before the frames he captured, and clear sky where WTC2 was immediately after the frames he captured. He cherrypicked those images, that is why he won't share the video. I'll go quite a bit further, I think Jack just cribbed the entire thing from someone else. Not his original work. He can't show you the video he took the still from because I don't believe he even took it from a video at all. I have all frames from the brief video clip. Your "belief" is irrelevant. You are irrelevant. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 If so, it seems to me that this frame must show the scene immediately after the tower collapse, with the WTC6 dust cloud thus immediately arising. Otherwise the smoke that is mistaken for the South Tower would be more widely dispersed, not standing there like a building. Indeed, and in an image I posted a few pages back, you can see that the cloud rising in Jack's image is mearly the highest point of the dust cloud rising in the whole area from the wtc2 collapse. Same scene, different angle. From the direction that Jack's picture was taken, the dust circled in blue would be hidden behind WFC3, while the dust circled in red would be hidden behind WTC7, leaving only Jack's supposed WTC6 explosion visible. If Jack would show the video he took his image from, I am willing to bet cash that it would show the collapse of WTC2 immediately before the frames he captured, and clear sky where WTC2 was immediately after the frames he captured. He cherrypicked those images, that is why he won't share the video. I'll go quite a bit further, I think Jack just cribbed the entire thing from someone else. Not his original work. He can't show you the video he took the still from because I don't believe he even took it from a video at all. I have all frames from the brief video clip. Your "belief" is irrelevant. You are irrelevant. Jack Your 'study' only shows 6 frames. That's less than 1/4 second of video. You claim that CNN actually broadcast a clip that was only 1/4 of a second? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now