I Keep running into these videos

[332nd]

redtail perhaps if you keep running into these videos, next time you should duck.

They're quick little buggers. Like Cheney with his shotgun or Clinton with his... Gah! don't even want to think about it.

 

[PerryLogan]

They're quick little buggers. Like Cheney with his shotgun or Clinton with his... Gah! don't even want to think about it.

You are not fit to lick Bill Clinton's boots. Think about that.

 

[332nd]

You are not fit to lick Bill Clinton's boots. Think about that.

What? I was just commenting one the soon to be released movie, Cheney & Clinton in "It Just Went Off and Hit'em in the Face"

 

[PerryLogan]

What? I was just commenting one the soon to be released movie, Cheney & Clinton in "It Just Went Off and Hit'em in the Face"

You might want to go back to your porn sites.

 

[332nd]

You might want to go back to your porn sites.

Right...

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

and its not the first time.

Its the phony FDNY firefighter
Its the phony EMT worker
Its the phony Afghanistan service record (here, here and here)


Cheers,
SLOB

I'd like to add to that list:

The phony Underwriters Laboratories employee Kevin R. Ryan.

Cheers,
SLOB

 

[Myriad]

Which raises the question...

How many fakes do you have to make up, before you start arguing, "They can't all be fakes, can they?"

The whole trooth movement is becoming more and more like a counterfeiter searching through a pile of $20 bills he just printed himself, saying to himself, "there are so many twenties here, chances are one of them has to be real!"

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[busherie]

The first one is falling debris, not an explosion.

The second one is a fake.

-Gumboot

The explosion sound has been added afterwards.

In fact, I believe the exact same explosion has been added to quite a number of CT videos. I guess they don't have a very extensive sound effects library.

-Gumboot

Gumboot you're incredible. When you pretend they're fake, you "believe" nthe same sound has been used before, would you care to show any evidence?

The first video you can hear explosions: can be anything, from gas to fuel tanks whatever. Can also be thermate devices in WTC7 ignited by the ongoing fires. The fact is you don't know and as you can see the guy points at the top of the buildings when he hears the explosions not the bottom where the "debris" would have produced sme sounds...

For the second video, well clearly there is something strange about it. Falling debris from WTC7 is not a good sign as the collapse startd from the bottom.

Anyway, when you state things are "fake" please provide evidence, otherwise I declare anything fake in the official story. Would be no use. See the point?

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot you're incredible. When you pretend they're fake, you "believe" nthe same sound has been used before, would you care to show any evidence?

I'm not pretending they're fake. It's obvious they are? Are you saying you actually think that explosion is genuine?

How? where did the cameraman hide his second microphone? Why do the people not react like they just heard (and felt) an enormous explosion?

Anyway, when you state things are "fake" please provide evidence, otherwise I declare anything fake in the official story. Would be no use. See the point?

I did. I told you to watch them with the sound muted. It makes it patently clear the explosions are fake. I also explained that the explosions were in stereo, with significant channel separation. This is impossible to achieve in-camera, thus the explosion must have been added.

Do you actually read people's messages?

-Gumboot


ETA. To be fair to Busherie, my first statement was backwards. I believe the CNN footage is genuine, and is falling debris. The other piece of footage - with the men at the telephone, has the fake sound. Just to make that clear.

 

[busherie]

I'm not pretending they're fake. It's obvious they are? Are you saying you actually think that explosion is genuine?

How? where did the cameraman hide his second microphone? Why do the people not react like they just heard (and felt) an enormous explosion?

ETA. To be fair to Busherie, my first statement was backwards. I believe the CNN footage is genuine, and is falling debris.

Well obviously, 9/11 was a day when people got used to huge sounds (like towers collapsing for instances, planes exploding) so it did not come out of the blue. Moreover these are not "enormous" explosions and the video is pretty difficult to interpret anyway., I'm not a sound specialist bu you may be right.

As for the CNN video, that is still a hint that something is utterly bizarre in the no-CD theory. "blow up" is not a term you use like that. Plus the guy who says "she's about to blow up" seems kind of enthousiastic (not afraid or sad) Watch it again you'll see and hear. Enthousistic like he's about to result of his job. I'm just interpreting here but make your own opinion after watching the video a couple of times.

So this video seems strange to me, and this is not contradictory with "falling debris" since there were fires in WTC7.

 

[gumboot]

Well obviously, 9/11 was a day when people got used to huge sounds (like towers collapsing for instances, planes exploding) so it did not come out of the blue.

I disagree. This was an existing video of the men reacting to something else. Something that was not sudden or sharp, like an explosion. Someone then added a pre-existing explosion sound effect to the video.

Moreover these are not "enormous" explosions and the video is pretty difficult to interpret anyway., I'm not a sound specialist bu you may be right.

No, it's not difficult to interpret. Can you not heard the distinct separate channels of the explosion?

As for the CNN video, that is still a hint that something is utterly bizarre in the no-CD theory. "blow up" is not a term you use like that. Plus the guy who says "she's about to blow up" seems kind of enthousiastic (not afraid or sad) Watch it again you'll see and hear.

I totally disagree with your interpretation of the tone in the voice of those talking. Two people use the term "blow up". The first is a police officer telling people to get back. In the context of what is happening he seems slightly bored to be honest (no doubt sick of telling firemen and journalists to get back).

The second is a spectator - the cameraman, and he doesn't sound overly excited, though slightly more so than the policeman. Again, this makes sense. He's a cameraman for CNN, he's obviously been in New York for hours. He probably didn't catch any of the early action, so he's been sitting around for HOURS waiting to catch something good. Finally he's told a building is coming down (coincidence that he uses the exact same wording a policeman just used right next to him? I doubt it, he's parroting what he just heard). So yeah, he's excited.

What you're ignoring, and what is most important, is that from the nature and context of these statements, it is quite clear they are expecting the building to collapse due to fire and damage, not from a demolition. They are reporting debris falling, so WTC7 is already falling apart by this stage.

So, do people ever use "blow up" when they mean "fall down"? Sure. People use the wrong words to describe things all the time.

-Gumboot

 

[boloboffin]

So, do people ever use "blow up" when they mean "fall down"? Sure. People use the wrong words to describe things all the time.

-Gumboot

Especially when people have just seen two 110-story buildings tear themselves to pieces in an extraordinary fashion within eight years of being the target of a terrorist bomb.