Suddenly, new footage of WTC 7, before it collapsed, and from a different angle

[soba]

they do.
the top of one side has a large black window with the penthouse on top
while the other side has a large window closer to the bottom.
it's mirrored

Yeah...just realised that a second ago...

[Ad Bot]

[james4115]

You're breaking him robot

Go in for the kill

[Wedge]

For people trying to follow along here, the building was standing around fine for 18 years before it blew up, there's plenty of pictures of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7_from_wtc_observation_dec k.jpg

One side has a terraced balcony and the other does not. From the side facing east, the penthouse appears on the right side. In the posted video the balcony is not visible so we must be looking from the east. The penthouse is shown on the left side, which is the wrong side, so the video was mirrored.

[Lil Robot]

Yeah...just realised that a second ago...

9/11 SUCCEEDED BUT FAILED
WHAT HAPPENED?

apparently, the firemen "pulled" the WTC 7, causing it to collapse.

[Wedge]

The OP wasn't kidding when he said the new footage of WTC 7 was from a different angle.

[soba]

Ugg, the pattern of black areas that makes up where the explosions happen is all wrong too

EDIT: uploader shared his comment on it too

TheSecretStore

ATTENTION


this IS a FAKE video made to discredit truthers

1 There are no sides to this building when camera zooms out and no sides to penthouse

2 at 0:15 seconds into the video (when watching the original) when he zooms out the camera after the high-rise starts to explode you see a edited UFO flying over the building to mock truthers.

3 the effects are as fake as it gets.

4 this is propaganda because people are starting to wake up about building 7 rapidly

Copy and paste this to these videos

Flag 48 minutes ago Like•Dislike•Reply

[Lil Robot]

what he's talking about in the comment is the video that was posted with the edits.

also, holy stuff.

[soba]

Hey, check this out

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

1. Plane only appears after it zooms in that last bit

2. Plane's nose shows up through the building

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz9OpujuoD4

THE BUILDING HAS FALLEN, nowait, its right behind her still :o

Larry silverstein, owner of WTC 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

lolwut, office fires?, or demolition?

[Daedalus]

Hey, check this out

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

1. Plane only appears after it zooms in that last bit

2. Plane's nose shows up through the building

Guarantee you that you can't find any footage to disprove that one, also

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz9OpujuoD4

THE BUILDING HAS FALLEN, nowait, its right behind her still :o

Larry silverstein, owner of WTC 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

lolwut, office fires?, or demolition?

:o

[soba]

The first video I admit was fake, but can someone prove these ones wrong for me?

[TapeDeck]

The first video I admit was fake, but can someone prove these ones wrong for me?

There goes all your credibility. 

Hey, check this out

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

1. Plane only appears after it zooms in that last bit

2. Plane's nose shows up through the building

Guarantee you that you can't find any footage to disprove that one,

[Wedge]

THE BUILDING HAS FALLEN, nowait, its right behind her still :o

Larry silverstein, owner of WTC 7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

lolwut, office fires?, or demolition?

Well that's a pretty easy one, it's obvious he's talking about pulling the fire teams out. Are you just going to keep believing every youtube video you see on the bloody Internet or are you going to think for yourself for 10 seconds?

I'd post more on that one but the wikipedia article for Larry Silverstein already has a couple of sentences and some citations, so you can go read it: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

The "likely scenario" in the first video is not even remotely likely because there is not enough delay in live video to do what he is suggesting that they did.

I don't really have the time to look at them right now since it's pretty late. But here's a question for you. Why are you believing what the truthers say when they do not provide a plausible motive or explanation? You get about 300 scattered theories based on 5 seconds of video blown up to 10,000 times the resolution it was recorded at, showing 5 pixels that might even be from the video compression, and they tell you it's evidence that it blew up.

This video hinges on the premise that a jet engine nose cannot maintain it's general shape when it's flown through a building. Based on what evidence? How many jet engines have they seen flow through a building? Consider that the interior of the building is composed mostly of drywall over light gauge steel. Those don't pose much of a barrier to a plane. The only thing left in the building that's going to break the plane up really is the columns. Here's what I'm going to propose, and it's based on literally the same amount of evidence these guys had when they posted the video (and I'm ignoring all the other videos of the planes here): while the columns would disrupt slow down the plane, the plane is pretty solidly built, and probably either sheared and bent the columns or went between them since they're probably spaced around 40 or 50 feet apart. It came out on the other side in relatively the same shape. It sure didn't come out intact, but the video doesn't show a pristine roosterpit complete with glass and crew coming out the other side. It shows a grey blob coming out and I think that's pretty reasonable.

[soba]

Well that's a pretty easy one, it's obvious he's talking about pulling the fire teams out. Are you just going to keep believing every youtube video you see on the bloody Internet or are you going to think for yourself for 10 seconds?

I'd post more on that one but the wikipedia article for Larry Silverstein already has a couple of sentences and some citations, so you can go read it: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

The "likely scenario" in the first video is not even remotely likely because there is not enough delay in live video to do what he is suggesting that they did.

I don't really have the time to look at them right now since it's pretty late. But here's a question for you. Why are you believing what the truthers say when they do not provide a plausible motive or explanation? You get about 300 scattered theories based on 5 seconds of video blown up to 10,000 times the resolution it was recorded at, showing 5 pixels that might even be from the video compression, and they tell you it's evidence that it blew up.

This video hinges on the premise that a jet engine nose cannot maintain it's general shape when it's flown through a building. Based on what evidence? How many jet engines have they seen flow through a building? Consider that the interior of the building is composed mostly of drywall over light gauge steel. Those don't pose much of a barrier to a plane. The only thing left in the building that's going to break the plane up really is the columns. Here's what I'm going to propose, and it's based on literally the same amount of evidence these guys had when they posted the video (and I'm ignoring all the other videos of the planes here): while the columns would disrupt slow down the plane, the plane is pretty solidly built, and probably either sheared and bent the columns or went between them since they're probably spaced around 40 or 50 feet apart. It came out on the other side in relatively the same shape. It sure didn't come out intact, but the video doesn't show a pristine roosterpit complete with glass and crew coming out the other side. It shows a grey blob coming out and I think that's pretty reasonable.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html

[Lørd Tøny]

There goes all your credibility.

Stocking didn't lose his credibility for admitting to faking the first pics.

[soba]

Stocking didn't lose his credibility for admitting to faking the first pics.

Stocking hasn't posted in this topic?..