• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What We Saw - Bob & Bri (Not what we heard)

Gravy said:
I think you are a coward.

You ran from my questions, which were raised by your statements, are not trick questions, do not require further delibration, and are not going away. You are still running. Clear enough?

Was I uncivil to you in that thread? Did I not take the time to answer your questions and back my statements with evidence?

What are you afraid of, Russell? Any search for truth requires facing tough questions. They aren't going away.
Click to expand...

Gravy,

Maybe it's just because I'm 45 and stuff like that but the name calling thing is just not becoming.

If you perceive me as having run away from anything then I would have to say you are entitled to your viewpoint.

That thread dipped so far below my standards for communication, that I opted to not be a part of it any more. I truly did not expect that kind of behavior from the people here.

I promise you I have not one shred of fear. If the official story is true then I will be relieved to have finally resolved all of this. Then my website will reflect what I believe. It's that simple. My conversion from no plane to a plane at the Pentagon has left me an "agent" and an outsider - who cares? I am not attached to the outcome.

Sometimes projecting fear onto another is indicitive of a need for a look inside oneself. What if for instance you came accross something that changed your mind, would you be able to withstand the loss of your position of being the skeptic guru? Think about it.

Even once, has the expectation of other people caused you to look too quickly passed something? Have you ever had to put something out of your mind since you're not allowed to think it?

I can play mind games all day. If this thread degrades into the same classless communication as the last one I will move on by preference as well.

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
Wow. Tough crowd.
Click to expand...

Honest crowd.

You're playing dumb, Russell, and I half believed that was beneath you. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that.

I have to get some sleep now, and will not be able to engage further here tonight, but do stop playing stupid. It really does not become you, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about you.
 
Pardalis said:
Russell, in the video I linked, you recognized not hearing explosions. What does that tell you?
Click to expand...

Pardalis,

It tells me I need to know from how far away it was taken.

Here is another one with no explosions. But at the very end (:49) there is a boom. Is that the same boom that Rick recorded at the start?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=wtc+1+collapse&hl=en

Ground vibrations travel up to 18 times the speed of sound as I understand it. They can be perceived as a rumble.

Both of those videos end right after the visual collapse ends.

How far away are they?

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
It tells me I need to know from how far away it was taken.
Click to expand...

Why?

It's clearly closer than your video from across the river, Russell, believe me.

Here is another one with no explosions. But at the very end (:49) there is a boom. Is that the same boom that Rick recorded at the start?
Click to expand...

I hear a rumble, and screams, no "boom".

If I can hear screams, why can't I hear explosions?
 
LashL said:
Honest crowd.

You're playing dumb, Russell, and I half believed that was beneath you. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that.

I have to get some sleep now, and will not be able to engage further here tonight, but do stop playing stupid. It really does not become you, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about you.
Click to expand...

LashL,

I am not sure why you are taking this specific angle.

But nothing has changed about me and I am here looking at things as usual and taking it all in to consideration.

Goodnight

Russell
 
Pardalis said:
Why?

It's clearly closer than your video from across the river, Russell, believe me.



I hear a rumble, and screams, no "boom".

If I can hear screams, why can't I hear explosions?
Click to expand...

Pardalis,

As a photographer I know very well the lens foreshortening potential.

I seriously would like to know where that was taken from.

Screams would be recorded based on how close the people were to the camera not on how close the camera was to the building. The crowd response would be based on the speed of light or their visual experience.

If we had a video with ten seconds before and ten seconds after the collapse of sound recording within two miles of the building then we could know. We have one which is claimed to be fake and one that is not continuous so far.

I am going to sleep now too.

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
If we had a video with ten seconds before and ten seconds after the collapse of sound recording within two miles of the building then we could know. We have one which is claimed to be fake and one that is not continuous so far.
Click to expand...

That's not going to happen Russell, you're asking for a perfect piece of footage.

That's just never going to happen.

So basically, in this absence of a "perfect proof", you are willing to discredit the entire Official Story?

Come on Russell...
 
Russell Pickering said:
If we had a video with ten seconds before and ten seconds after the collapse of sound recording within two miles of the building then we could know. We have one which is claimed to be fake and one that is not continuous so far.
Click to expand...


Russell, with all due respect there are numerous videos which show exactly this. The fact that you have not found them suggests to me that you have not put much effort into looking.

I have mentioned the Naudet footage several times now. They had video footage taken prior to, during, and after, both tower collapses. Both pieces of footage are continuous. One is easily within 2 miles of the buildings, and of course the other is actually physically INSIDE one of the towers.

Neither of these pieces of footage catch explosions.

In addition, the Naudets captured a great deal of footage throughout the day of 9/11 in and around the buildings. I have watched their documentary extensively in relation to a different 9/11 discussion. I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence from any of their footage that indicates explosives were involved in 9/11. If any cameras on 9/11 were going to capture explosions, it would be the cameras in the Naudets' hands.

-Gumboot
 
I think Russell wants a perfect, unedited, continuous shot with crystal clear image and sound of the entire sequence of the collapse, with ten seconds before and after.

Is that what you want Russell?

If so, that's just impossible. Ridley Scott wasn't there to film this...
 
Pardalis said:
If so, that's just impossible. Ridley Scott wasn't there to film this...
Click to expand...


Ridley Scott doesn't often go for long continuous shots. You're better off getting Orson Welles or Alfred Hitchcock to film it. Akira Kurosawa would be another excellent choice.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Ridley Scott doesn't often go for long continuous shots. You're better off getting Orson Welles or Alfred Hitchcock to film it. Akira Kurosawa would be another excellent choice.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Yeah you're right, I guess I chose Scott because I have a bias (I'm a huge fan :D )

Also Tarkowsky and Angelopoulos would also be better examples. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom