| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mediadisbeliever
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 128
Location: North Humberside
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Woodee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 159
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mediadisbeliever
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 128
Location: North Humberside
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
OK slapped wrist, I copied and pasted it from a link...so where's the appreciation for posting the link to this video providing audio evidence of explosvies going off!
* IT then!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EmptyBee
Moderate Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 151
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes there is another clip with different audio, but I think this may be the genuine audio - linked below is the same clip, only a bit better quality - I gather the one linked above is recorded with a video camera from the TV or something.
I gleaned this from the comments.
Discovery Channel Clip
_________________
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am a trifle unsure exactly why a collapsing skyscraper wouldn't sound very much like explosions?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | I am a trifle unsure exactly why a collapsing skyscraper wouldn't sound very much like explosions? |
I am a trifle unsure whether you believe 911 was an inside job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
The audio on this YouTube clip is very similar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHz9YWVgJWM
My guess is that neither are faked. There is ample earwitness testimony of explosive sounds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: Re: New Audio /Video Evidence Closes 9/11 Case! |
|
|
Purely in the spirit of objective, scientific argument, here is a refutation of Professor Jones' paper by Morgan Reynolds and Professor Wood. http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/why_indeed.html
It's painful to see the poor science......
(Take that whichever way you like or even both ways, for that matter).
I quote from Reynolds & Wood:
"Jones states he was unconvinced about 9/11 demolitions until he learned about yellow-hot molten metal Jones [pdf (7/19/06) p. 45] yet last fall emphasized speed, symmetry and sequence of puffs or squibs at WTC 7 as evidence for demolition. It was not until mid-February 2006 that he discussed yellow-hot metal pouring out of a WTC 2 window. Our fear is that concentration on molten metal is a distraction and a path to a destination most people do not want to go. There are many ways to cut steel and the exact method is not all that important. Thermite cannot pulverize an entire building and make molten metal burn for 100 days. Something far more powerful was used and Jones avoids the question."
Precisely. Anyone who can flip-flop from not seeing ANY evidence for controlled demolition in all the footage (i.e., not noticing the obvious sign of the free-fall speed of the towers) to suddenly being converted merely by ambiguous evidence for thermite in yellow, liquid metal flowing out of WTC 2 has be treated with suspicion. By focussing so exclusively on evidence for thermite/thermate in the samples he analyzed, which the debunkers can easily dismiss as contamination from its use by workers at Ground Zero to cut up girders (see the evidence in Figs 14(a), (b) & (c) at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/why_indeed.html), he leads everyone down an easily debunked cul-de-sac of his own making and makes everyone ignore the biggest problem of all: what energy source could have pulverized nearly all the metal, concrete and office contents into little more than dust? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree. Professor Jones's work is soft on the issues of possible use of classified weapons, and indeed he and another physicist, Greg Jenkins seem to have an indecent urgency in their mission to rule such weapons out of the equation; a difficult thing to do as they are by their nature as yet unverified. A more honest and wise course of action would be to welcome Wood and Reynolds' work while acknowledging what they themselves would surely accept - that their theories are templates in the absence of hard fact and must await confirmation by whistleblowers or forensic discovery. What is wrong with informed guesswork as long as it is understood to be that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andrewwatson wrote: | | What is wrong with informed guesswork as long as it is understood to be that? |
Nothing |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
