Kevin Ryan & Prof. Steven Jones debunk the fraudulent NIST report concerning the collapse of the WTC towers on 9/11.

I found it interesting that they are trying to find an engineering company to make a scaled building of the WTC to do experiments in a controlled environment. Same structures etc, smaller scale. Discuss...

Excellent presentation,

... through sound persuasion of powerful information... that posers within U.S. government have endorsed a disgusting lie to support a blood-libel for war and death. That makes it NOT my government.

Show "Prof. Jones : beyond metallurgy ?" by haverman

You know, "fellow truther",

You know, "fellow truther", your schtick is getting old...

At least you've discovered paragraphs and indentation.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "don't be rude, prove me wrong" by haverman

You have no idea, sunbeam...

..what I'm capable of if you think my last post was rude.

Point is, I don't believe you're a 911activist. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with you. I don't agree with Andy Watson, but I DO believe he's sincere. I don't agree with all of RT's positions but I have no reason to believe he's pretending to certain positions to gain trust and then cause havock latter.

YOU, on the other hand, have said you don't think explosives brought down WTC1 and 2. We are long past the point where that can be considered a matter of debate. The top of one tower EXPLODED. After 5 and a half years the shock should have worn off enough that you can see it LOOKS like an explosion.

But not you.

"Yes, you're right, I don't believe 1 and 2 were brought down by explosives or whatever, the video evidence just does not support that conclusion at all , but that's another discussion "
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6609#comment-122096

Now what type of people try to convince us we're not seeing what we're seeing?

And then there's the wee matter of you having registered 26 weeks ago, but just starting to post five weeks ago. You really got your legs defending the BBC cock-up. Sorry, "chum", looks like you were registered to use later.

You've been careful--saw what happened to bobarctor and others, no doubt. But not careful enough "fellow truther". Just because we've banned anonymous posts doesn't mean we're naive enough to rest on our laurels.

Oh, and, all things considering, I'm being very polite about this.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

911 activism and 911 science

Your first sarcasm-free reply. Well, almost.  

" Point is, I don't believe you're a 911activist. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with you.....I don't agree with all of RT's positions but I have no reason to believe he's pretending to certain positions to gain trust and then cause havock latter. " 

What reason do you have to believe I'm pretending, or that I would ' cause havoc ' later ?  What super powers do you ascribe to me ?  Be wary of imposters by all means, but don't label me one just because I voice some strong dissent from time to time. Everything I have said on this forum is my own personal opinion and I speak for no one but myself. When I see a weakness or a contradiction, why should I stay silent ?  To spare someone's feelings ?  To avoid looking like a bad guy ?  No way.

" YOU, on the other hand, have said you don't think explosives brought down WTC1 and 2. We are long past the point where that can be considered a matter of debate."  

You have just given the perfect description of dogmatism. It means you'd rather hide certain comments from view ( literally ) than consider them for what they might be worth. If you declare yourself unwilling to falsify your own hypothesis, indeed if you promote your hypothesis to the level of law ( I mean in the sense of a law of science ), then you're a long way from home, methodologically speaking. That is not good for 911 activism, because it's an easy point to score for whomever wants to get in your way. The truth does not care who agrees or disagrees with it. It just is. The same should apply for 911 truth.   

 " The top of one tower EXPLODED. After 5 and a half years the shock should have worn off enough that you can see it LOOKS like an explosion."  

 I concur, Jennysparks, it LOOKS like an explosion. But I do not require an elaborate prewiring of explosives hypothesis to account for that. When you cut a huge building in two , and gravity gets a hold of the top part, it's not going to crash to earth quietly. I have outlined what I think happened to 1 and 2 in earlier posts.  

 " Now what type of people try to convince us we're not seeing what we're seeing? "

I guess my type of people is trying to convince you that what you're perceiving is not what's actually happening. And yes, I could be wrong.  

 " And then there's the wee matter of you having registered 26 weeks ago, but just starting to post five weeks ago. You really got your legs defending the BBC cock-up. Sorry, "chum", looks like you were registered to use later. You've been careful--saw what happened to bobarctor and others, no doubt. But not careful enough "fellow truther". "

You're completely wrong and way up Paranoia Avenue here. I registered when the site changed its appearance. Before that time, I don't recall having to register at all. The length of time between first registering and my first post has no significance. There is no particular reason I started posting when I did, certainly not the socalled defending of the big bad Beeb. I actually emailed to Point of View at the BBC to inform them of my disgust at the Conspiracy Files programme. The BBC cock up , I maintain, will get the 911 truth movement nowhere, because it proves absolutely nothing. Yes let them tell us where they got the news that 7 was coming down, by all means. But that news was all over the media already, so why single out the BBC ? It's really a worthless point, in my opinion. Does that prove I'm a spy ?  Come on. You say it looks like I ' was '  registered ?  Get a grip and give me my due : I'm for accountability and justice, but hey, I disagree with Jones and Griffin on the demolition of 1 and 2.  Can you all handle that ?     

 

Clearly, haverman,

you completely disregard William Rodriguez's eyewitness account (as well as many others) and have no understanding of basic physics.

Do you also have a faulty stopwatch?

The original FEMA BPAT put forward a "pancake" theory regarding the Twin Towers, which you appear to endorse.

When the video evidence CLEARLY showed this theory to be absurd on its face, the government myth upholders realized this and abandoned it.

Thus, NIST implies* an entirely contradictory (to FEMA's BPAT) "pile driver" theory. The problem is, even if this theory did not require the suspension of the laws of physics, there is NO "pile driver" evident at at the end of the towers destruction.

(*Implies because NIST makes no attempt to actually explain the destruction of the Towers, it only describes "collapse initiation" using pathological science.)

From reading your posts it is not too difficult to conclude:

1) You either need to learn or relearn basic physics, or

2) You have a not-so-hidden agenda to dispute and/or attempt to cast doubt in the minds of people unsure of basic physics regarding the destruction of the Towers.

If (1), please take a refresher course in basic physics at your local community college and get back to us.

If (2), expect be hammered here, consistently minimized and, perhaps (not my call), banned.

While I will agree with you that the "BBC cock up" "proves" nothing in and of itself, it certainly indicates foreknowledge of an unprecedented event that the BBC has yet to adequately explain.

Additionally, when you state something like When you cut a huge building in two it seriously calls into question your powers of observation and/or motives.

Finally, since you claim to be for accountability and justice, exactly who do you think should be held accountable for precisely what, regarding the events of 9/11/01?

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Clearly, LeftWright

you too are still not free of suspicions and sarcasm and muscle-flexing towards me, but , I do see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.  Ergo :

You completely disregard William Rodriguez's eyewitness account (as well as many others) and have no understanding of basic physics.

Guilty. I don't quite know what to make of Rodriguez ' testimony. The man is very brave, no doubt about it, but when I see 700 feet of central core standing unsupported after the rest of the buildings are down, it makes me doubt those cores were cut or blown at the base.  

Do you also have a faulty stopwatch?

Maybe in my attic. I'll check. Nothing wrong with my timing of WTC 1's collapse though. Check Siegel's footage ( 911 Eyewitness ) at 37 mins and 1.26 mins.   16 seconds minimum. The evidence is there. What kind of stopwatch is Steven Jones using ? 

The original FEMA BPAT put forward a "pancake" theory regarding the Twin Towers, which you appear to endorse. When the video evidence CLEARLY showed this theory to be absurd on its face, the government myth upholders realized this and abandoned it. Thus, NIST implies* an entirely contradictory (to FEMA's BPAT) "pile driver" theory. The problem is, even if this theory did not require the suspension of the laws of physics, there is NO "pile driver" evident at at the end of the towers destruction. (*Implies because NIST makes no attempt to actually explain the destruction of the Towers, it only describes "collapse initiation" using pathological science.) 

They were talking about the initiation of the collapse, I was on about the collapse itself and after. The actual physics underlying the start, the actual breakdown of the last remaining bit of structural integrity, that's where the key lies. Worthy of a long separate post, but I observe two things that no one seems to ( want to ? ) talk about   1)  It all starts with a downward movement practically immediately : I see buckling perimeter columns and then the slow onset of a huge gravitational pull on the top part. ( there's good footage of that, certainly for WTC 2 )   Point is : the ring of fire at the impact zone ( compression, IMO ) , the squibs ( ditto ) all FOLLOW the downward movement. If you say the top exploded and you see evidence of some additional energy ( explosive energy I take it  ), I gotta tell you : I'd expect to see signs of the explosion BEFORE the movement downwards.  And 2) look at how the 3 main elements of the structures are coming down each in their own way. The video shows so clearly these were no ordinary grid of steel girder buildings. For one of the latter to come down in the way the towers did, yes, you'd need explosives, although wired to go off in a way never before seen : upside down !  Why was that again ?  Ah yes, to make it appear as though it wasn't explosives, but the planes that caused it !  Seems very far fetched to me.  How about you ?  

 " From reading your posts it is not too difficult to conclude: 1) You either need to learn or relearn basic physics, or 2) You have a not-so-hidden agenda to dispute and/or attempt to cast doubt in the minds of people unsure of basic physics regarding the destruction of the Towers. If (1), please take a refresher course in basic physics at your local community college and get back to us. If (2), expect be hammered here, consistently minimized and, perhaps (not my call), banned. "

Again with the condescending thing. It's a desperate stand to take : I must be either stupid or I'm a disinformation spook !  As long as you don't have to take me seriously, because I challenge certain ideas you all seem to have put a big fence around : ' do not discuss '      

 Additionally, when you state something like When you cut a huge building in two it seriously calls into question your powers of observation and/or motives.

Don't strawman me.  I was clearly being inexact there.  

Finally, since you claim to be for accountability and justice, exactly who do you think should be held accountable for precisely what, regarding the events of 9/11/01?

see my next post

FYI--"Comrade Truther"

If you can't get along with LeftWright--911Blogger's very own resident love-bomber--(and I mean that in the most complementry way possible! ;-) )--there's no hope for you, "chum".

"see my next post"

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
[Jenny doing Colbert--from White House act)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Accountability

The investigative / judicial process will have to determine who goes to jail for how long. I feel everyone and anyone should be held accountable who was negligent, ingored warnings wilfully, colluded to make or let 9 11 happen Anyone who used 911 for ulterior purposes like a war agenda, curtailing personal freedoms of citizens, war profiteering, and whatever other dark goals must be criminally prosecuted. That starts in the White House, I'm sure. Now as far as the actual collusion between parties was a black op by security agencies within security agencies, I am not holding my breath. They believe in plausible deniability and they are covered in many ways. My list is not complete, but one party must be mentioned.; the press. I'm not sure they are engaging in a crime, but it's very sad and quite scary to see the extent to which they have left the arena and cashed in on the profitable streaming of endless bullshit over the people. Truly sad. 911 truth should work on getting the press to WAKE UP. If this all isn't the scoop of scoops, I don't know what could be. Seeing them so meek at Bush's press conferences...it's terrible. Why doesn't someone have the guts to ask a straight question ? you tell me.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO--

Oh. That's not too bad. Except he forgot the paragraphs and indentation again...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

26 weeks, 3 days

and not one blog entry.

haverman, might I suggest that you make your first blog entry your thoroughly researched and carefully sourced theory regarding the "collapse" of the Twin Towers. You might also consider submitting it to the Journal of 9/11 Studies for review and publication.

You appear to be advancing a new theory that is distinct from (and seems to contradict) and attempts to explain more than either the FEMA BPAT or NIST reports. I salute you for your ambition and encourage you to give us your best effort.

(Since this is a highly technical subject I would strongly recommend being as exact as possible at all times. That is, if you wish to be taken seriously, as it appears you do.)

For the record: I do not put fences around any ideas (by this you mean theories, yes?), I simply disregard ideas (theories) that are not supported by the facts, logic and/or the basic laws of physics.

I look forward to your blog entry.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

WHATEVER

"Comrade Truther".

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

brilliant

a brilliant reply indeed

I don't need to entertain you, chum

All I plan to do is track you everywhere you go on 911Blogger and leave the link for this thread so the unwitting know what they're dealing with.

Mind, I DO have a life and I might only get to it once a week, but I'll get to it, "comrade truther".

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "getting tired of this" by haverman

" I am honestly...."

HAHAHA!! "Honestly"! Good one!

All joking aside, it's time for Jenny to turn in. You'll have to find somone else to exchange witty barbs with for the rest of the night.

Ta. ;-P

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

It is not love, but respect

that you are seeking and not getting here. Respect has to be earned.

My understanding of love allows me to love someone without having to respect the actions they take or the ideas they espouse.

I can honestly say that I love everyone.

Yes, this means I love everyone in the Bush, Cheney and Clinton families, even though I have no respect for the actions taken by most of the members of these families.

haverman, I love everyone and that means that I love you and want the best for you. If you love yourself then you will seek the truth no matter where it leads so you can help us all live in a world of light, justice and peace.

You imply that I am a gatekeeper, let me assure you that I am not. I simply critique what I read and ask for clarification where I think it is needed. Any sarcasm and/or condescension expressed by me is unfortunate and I apologize for whatever injury it may have caused you. I am a human being and thus, imperfect. I will endeavor to communicate with you more carefully in the future.

Please keep in mind that I never confuse a person with their ideas, for it is our actions which define us. When one writes here one is acting in a public commons and these actions become open to critique. Sometimes this critique can be severe. When the subject concerns issues of life and death, this is all but assured. I wouldn't want it any other way, would you?

As I stated in my response above I encourage you to make your case as fully and completely as possible in a blog entry and then we can debate it on its merits.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Thank you, LeftWright

Thank you, Left Wright, althoug I am a little worried you rank me with the likes of Bush and Cheney as persons whom you do not respect. I do take your words about sarcasm and condescencion seriously, however, so I am sure you intended none here.

With love I simply meant an end to the icy chill of distrust that has befallen me on this forum. I am just fine with content-related criticism, but when one's posts just get minussed and most comments are two lines of sarcasm, what's the point ? If you read the exchange between Jenny Sparks and myself ( above ) I think it shows that I have tried my utmost to convince her I'm not the enemy. It is clear however that I need not get my hopes up : her distrust ( completely unfounded, might I remind people ) is just too strong. I even tried to inject some humour as well : " Just because I'm not out to get you, it doesn't mean you're not paranoid ". I thought it might put a smile on someone's face, but oh well.........not, I guess.
In fact the whole thing is becoming very silly, and I am now at a point where I no longer consider anyone's suspicions and distrust my problem.
The idea you suggest of writing a blog presentation of ' my case ' appeals to me. Blogging is new to me, so I don't quite know what to expect. Although I am in no way confident everyone will give my writings as fair a treatment as you yourself promise to do, it will be a good exercise, nonetheless.
It will take some time, as I want to do as good a job as I can. Two weeks minimum I estimate.

One of the problems

inherent in online communications is that all anyone perceives here is the written word. Thus, each and every word and even the placement of commas can make a significant difference in how one is understood. Humor is particularly difficult to convey and sarcasm too easily inferred.

When writing about technical subjects or complex ideas/ theories precise writing is critical. Any ambiguity easily leads to a variety of interpretations; many, if not most, of which are unintended. Thus, simple miscommunication gives birth to possibly false assumptions which then breed disagreement. If the issue is controversial or the matter grave, then this situation is easily compounded.

As for how I "rank" you, I cited Bush, Cheney and Clinton as extreme examples to make a point, that's all. I sometimes use Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot to make this same point.

Regarding your theory of the Towers "collapse", take as much time as you need. We'll be here and there are many very sharp minds readily available to critique whatever you present.

Be well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

This I have got to see...

I wait with baited breath.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Crucify the impure haverman!

Col. Jenny may need a booster shot for rabies. His date of registration?

Anyway, I'm a bit agnostic on demolition. It appears that way, but things aren't always as they appear. These were also unique events never before seen, and so not even "experiments" can tell us for sure what happened. Unless you're willing to build a 110 story replica out of the same materials, let it age for forty years and fly a jetliner into it on the same trajectory.

Further, controlled demolition wastes 75% of our time, when I have mountains of other evidence to study. And those screaming the loudest about "basic physics" demonstrate no expert knowledge of physics at all. Not one equation from their keyboards, ever.

That said, I tend to accept that demolition is not unproven, and appears likely.

haverman says:

"1) It all starts with a downward movement practically immediately : I see buckling perimeter columns and then the slow onset of a huge gravitational pull on the top part."

Controlled demolition uses gravity as a major component. What you have written has no bearing on what caused the structural failure. Of course there is "downward movment." It ain't going up.

" I concur, Jennysparks, it LOOKS like an explosion."

Yes it does. Check one in the demolition column.

" But I do not require an elaborate prewiring of explosives hypothesis to account for that."

Is there any other instance in recorded history of this phenomenon occuring?

" When you cut a huge building in two , and gravity gets a hold of the top part, it's not going to crash to earth quietly. "

When you cut a huge building in two?????????????

By what mechanism?

How do you know it was "cut in two" other than what you were told in metaphors about the official theory?

"I have outlined what I think happened to 1 and 2 in earlier posts."

As long as you leave room for more data and analysis, so that you can evolve your understanding.

You disregard William Rodruquez, who has corroboration from another worker there now, Anthony S. (see recent blogs). But you ignore at least 118 other eyewitnesses (journal 911 studies).

In another post you make two points:

1) The top down sequence.

2) The remaining core columns that didn't fall immediately.

The architects and engineers for 9/11 truth have a more expert analysis on these matters than you or I. They seem to find it suspicious.

The top down sequence was shown on video on this site recently, and it is clearly possible. Because something is standard and familiar to you does not make it the only possible configuration.

This attack WAS expected, and thought about for many years. Since 1992, at the very least, when the FBI was framing Arabs for trying to destroy the WTC, and their own agent provocateur was building the bomb.

Every facet of this attack was meticulously analyzed. Yes, it had to look like a collapse, from a Bojinka airliner crash. Why is that so far fetched for you to accept?

These aren't stupid people. And they aren't incompetent. That's a myth put out by stupid and incompetent opposition mouthpieces.

Anyway, I wouldn't be so sure as you that it couldn't have been controlled demolition. Bombs were going off everywhere. See the footage of the lobbies.

He's not "impure"--he's a fake

But judge for yourself--track everything he's ever said...
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/

Optimism, skepticism, and hope.

Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that they contain the whole truth, or the only truth. - Charles A. Dana

Seek the company of those who seek the truth, and run away from those who have found it. - Vaclav Havel

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself
- and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard P. Feynman

Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. - Benjamin Franklin

All human wisdom is summed up in two words: wait and hope. - Alexandre Dumas

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. - Krishnamurti

A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open. - Sir Francis Bacon

In order that all men may be taught to speak truth, it is necessary that all likewise should learn to hear it. - Samuel Johnson

No Public Debate

Another thing that Mr. Jones said is that NIST refused to debate him on any of there conclusion Why? Its seems wierd our government spends 16 million on a report of a collapse and wont have a public debate on there findings.

No government employee does "debates"

That's a silly complaint.

Of course NIST doesn't debate. They're the government.

There is one small factual error

concerning the cutaway segment with the voiceover. It wasn't a B-52 that hit the Empire State Building in 1945, but rather a B-25. There's a big difference in the size of those two airplanes, and the B-52 was a jet-powered bomber  (which was built in the 1950s) whereas the B-25 was prop-driven.

This doesn't detract from the profs' ideas but is nevertheless an important distinction.

Reality got you down? Read the La Rochelle Times: http://www.rochelletimes.blogspot.com

it was a b25

your right I think loose change guys and 911 mysteries both say it was a B52 I will have to check it out to see if they did

Yes, they did in Loose

Yes, they did in Loose Change,but corrected it in Loose Change 2 ,as far as I remember. Must have been a typo somewhere,but yeah, the difference is huge. Also I don't think the pilot could have flown so far around buildings in New York in a bomber. Anyway, the B52 didn't exist in 1945...

Jones and Ryan have a straight forward message...

Jones and Ryan have a straight forward message...Might we all try to help them by taking this video outside the blogs and into the homes of people who are on the fence and not willing even to look at anything but the official story?

We need to stop preaching to the choir and get this information out into the streets, hearts and minds of those who would never venture to research the truth on their own. I sent the dailymotion URL (for this video) to 17 people who don't really want to know but might be willing to give me 19 minutes of their time to view this video. Who knows, maybe I will get one person to take it to the next step...

This is a non-threatening, non-dramatic, non-partisan look at two people (Jones & Ryan) who have basically staked their lives / livelyhood on the line to examine the science and math that surround the collapse of the WTC buildings. I think it a well done comeback for NIST and UL.

Garnering support to get to the truth about the events surrounding 9-11 is the next step folks. This little vignette would be difficult for any scientist or engineer to dispute. It needs to be broadcast far and wide. We need more people (outside this blog) to join us in calling for another independent investigation into the events surrounding 9-11. So spread the word.

I'm a skeptic

So I can't say enough about how essential Kevin Ryan and Steven Jones are to this "movement."

If everyone who was sincere discarded the conspiracy theories and promoted these guys forensic analysis then we might actually get somewhere.

The logic behind this should be self evident: we don't need to solve a conspiracy. We need merely to prove beyond doubt that the government reports are false.

The rest will follow.

Amen to that

"...we don't need to solve a conspiracy. We need merely to prove beyond doubt that the government reports are false." Then, it has to be thoroughly and independently reinvestigate.

fake audio in wtc2 collapse clip

Great stuff, but I thought it was a shame that the clip they used of WTC 2's collapse from the southwest & below is the one with fake audio. The real audio is very powerful and compelling. Here's a zip file I put together with some writing and clips I used to determine that the actual audio from this clip sounds just like a demolition: http://www.verzend.be/v/4122580/911.WTC2.Southwest.Below.Popping.Audio.z...

They also mentioned that there's no basis for the columns "bowing inward". However, there's a very famous clip that actually shows the columns bowing inward - it's the one taken over the top of a church. I'll have to find it and post it :(

nice pick up

you knew that just by hearing that clip your pretty sharp please send that photo of the columns bending inwards

this video in avi

Is this video available in .avi?

great stuff

Pure common sense marinated in Science!

Ryan, Jones and Griffin are the best authorities out there.

Here's a link with the video

Here's a link with the video of wtc2's external columns bowing inward right before the collapse: http://www.webfile.ws/d/17794 . Unfortunately somebody pulled the plug on my wtc2 demolition audio videos [Edit: maybe the site is simply down :roll:], so I've had to divide them up and rehost them. I'll post them shortly.

Here they are:

Part1
http://www.webfile.ws/d/17795
Part2
http://www.webfile.ws/d/17796

"Pure common sense marinated

"Pure common sense marinated in Science!"

Well, I hope the errors are corrected before it's distributed any further. I hope somebody here informs Mr. Ryan and Mr. Jones of these errors.

are you some sort of joker?

are you taking the piss?

cant see the video

it sucks i could hear the audio but cant see the video thanks

Try vlc - works super with

Try vlc - works super with lots of different formats: http://www.free-codecs.com/VideoLAN_download.htm

Which is faked?

I strongly believe that the 'popping' version (a) is faked and the 'whooshing' version (b) is more authentic.

the (b) version can be hard to find, so here it is:
http://agenda911.dk/upgeek/demolition_sound_fake/911.wtc.2.demolition.so...

Here is something I wrote some time ago on an email list:

Here is my analysis of the soundtrack of the two videos:
I will start with version B, which I think is the real one:

Version B:
- In the beginning you actually hear a little bit of dialog between the firefighters in the picture. There is no such dialog in version B.
-The rumble starts, and in the beginning it sounds muffled, and is muted in the upper frequencies as you would expect from a sound that is coming from some 300+ meters away.
- When the fireman start running, you actually hear someone yelling "Run -Run!!!"
- As the rumble develops it slowly changes character and becomes more and more brightly sounding, as the source of sound comes closer.
- When actual debris starts to fall close to the camera, some much more high-frequent whizzling sounds are heard, and as these extremely bright sounds reaches a very loud crescendo, the sound sort of cuts out, but not completely, as you can actually still hear the very lowest frequencies.
My theory is that the automatic gain control in the camera, is somehow overloading, and partly shutting off the sound input, but the tape is still rolling and recording.

Version A:
The rumble has the same character throughout the progression of the collapse. There is no progression in the sound-character from muffled to bright as there is in version B, and as should be expected when the distance to the source of the sound changes so much.
Furthermore the character of the sound sounds wrong to me. It is much to rich in short-reflections, as if I am standing inside a tube listening to the sound. That sounds doctored to me.
At the end where the debris starts falling you hear a few clattering sounds, but they lack the swooshy progression of the whizlling sounds of version B.
At the end someone yells "Oh my God". I know this is not proof of anything, but to me that just sounds silly in the context of firemen running through falling debris.
In other videos filmed in the streets from a distance of maybe a kilometer or so, I have heard many spectators exclaim "Oh my God", and in that context it is credible, because it is being said by someone who is not themselves in any immediate danger and therefore not preoccupied with surviving, but rather with comprehending the horrendous vision.
I ihave a sneaky feeling that I would be able to find that exact "Oh my God" shout from version A if I listened to enough of the videos from the nearby streets.
You also hear howling voices as of screaming women. I don't know how many women where actually present there among firefighters close the tower?
But I find it very unlikely that the screaming women would have been so loud on this recording. The level is maxed out by the rumble and falling debris, and you hear absolutely no other sounds of running men, apart from the "Oh my God" shout.
I believe the screaming women and the "Oh my God" guy come from the same recording from another location, and that they have been mixed into this sound-collage.

One of these videos is a fake and I still believe it is version A.

Have you heard other recordings of the collapses?
What do they sound like?
Can you present any recording that sounds remotely like version A, or do they in fact all sound much more like version B?

Thank you for 'listening' ;-)

just a guess

I don't have the videos to watch/hear and don't want to d/l them right now, but... if it's a guy yelling "oh my god" is it the guy who was near Rick Siegel on the NJ side of the river, in "9/11 Eyewitness"? If it's that OMG then it will be easy to decide what's fake here. That guy's OMG is very distinctive. In fact, so distinctive that I doubt nobody would have caught this before.

Like I said, just a guess.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Jakob, why do you think the

Jakob, why do you think the "whooshing" clip is authentic when it doesn't sound like a demolition (the "popping clips" certainly does), there's only one version of it, and there's some theme music at the beginning of it? The "popping" clips all sound the same even though they vary in quality, and they have different water marks/logos (which - if they were faked - would require enormous attention to do so). Also, I recognize all of the logos except the channel "9' logo in the pick below (NYC channel 9? Don't know it). Last, where is this "OMG" audio in 911 Eyewitness? Can you give the minutes & seconds, please, because I've seen the movie twice and don't remember what you've referenced.

Here's something I've been working on (though I find posting here difficult, so here's what I can do for now):

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/7088/popyo7.jpg Multiple, Sequential Explosions from WTC2 , Southwest Below

video taken not far from WTC2, September 11th, 2001

If one clip shows so clearly the controlled demolition of one of the twin towers, I haven't seen it yet. This particular clip originally made a stir last November, but the presence of another, similar clip with dubbed audio led many to believe the audio in it was faked. After 3 months of research, I've discovered that the LOUD, sequential explosion noises in this clip are almost certainly authentic, and that the other clip was dubbed or faked. First off, have a look at the Google clip I originally saw in November http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5860825099435530591&sourceid=do... The audio closely resembles the audio in these demoltion videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIOgpxyzqq4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTiWDsG1pUw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ Now compare the Google video to the same footage in the 4 video files in the zip files located here: http://www.webfile.ws/d/17795 and here http://www.webfile.ws/d/17796 One certainly has dubbed/faked audio. Note that there are different TV logos / watermarks (eg, one with the Discovery Channels logo) on all of the other videos, and it should be pretty clear that the demolition-like audio is for real. Torrent here: http://fenopy.com/torrent/911__Multiple__Sequential_Explosions_from_WTC2... and http://www.torrent-finder.com/open.php?name=mininova&kw=911%3A+Multiple%...

More for Jakob: "You also

More for Jakob:

"You also hear howling voices as of screaming women. I don't know how many women where actually present there among firefighters close the tower?"

Look closely at the video - there were people all around - and this is the first tower that fell (WTC2), so there was no warning, lots of people were caught in and around the tower. Please address my points above - I want to get to the bottom of this, but I doubt all those logos could be faked.

Jakob, why do you think the

Jakob, why do you think the "whooshing" clip is authentic when it doesn't sound like a demolition?

Kind of a weird question, as I've already delivered my arguments.

Is that 'why' a hidden stab at my credibility? My motive is to seek the truth about 9/11, and being very suspicious about honey-pot traps is crucial in my mind.

Overall I find the popping version sounds very artificial, and the whooshing version has a far richer and developing soundscape, and I have been listening very closely to these clips many times.

The towers were demolished, but that doesn't mean it had to sound like firecrackers in a bathroom.

Last, where is this "OMG" audio in 911 Eyewitness? Can you give the minutes & seconds, please, because I've seen the movie twice and don't remember what you've referenced.

You´re manipulating. I didn't reference 911 Eyewitness, someone else did.

With regards to the various logos: I don't see how they would prove anything at all, since the faked sound could just have been combined with various video-sources - that's easy.

I think what I think because I listen and trust my senses.

Hmmmm, I may have been wrong

Hmmmm, I may have been wrong about which video the OMG is in. I know in 9/11 Eyewitness there's a guy who yells something like "F***!!!" and then "no WAY!!" as one of the towers is seen exploding. I don't remember now if the OMG guy is in that one. The more I think about it the more I think he was in a vid that was shot from Manhattan somewhere.

Sorry I can't be more specific. ISTR having the impression, at one point, that I was hearing that guy (the OMG guy) in a different vid than the 1st one in which I'd heard him. I do recall he yells it several times in a row. His voice is very distressed.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Anybody else think...

...that the starting frame of this video, with the "play" button on top of it, kind of makes SJ look like he went gonzo on a chocolate ice cream cone with one giant white triangular sprinkle on it? :-D

(Sorry, totally frivolous, I know.)

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Get it right

AWESOME! I enjoyed every second of this,and i would recommend showing this to all . Thank you

To hear video press correct

To hear video press correct arrow.

to get this video started press the arrow on the bottom toolbar NOT The one over Steven Jones mouth.

Lots in this video and I think there would have been a lot more comments but I think people gave up when they pushed the wrong video start arrow and nothing happened.

=====================

For me the video clearly separated the collapse of the WTCs with how long it would take for them to collapse.

1. What was the probability of collapse ?

According to the builders the WTCs were designed to be able to withstand multiple 707 impacts.

ASSUMPTION: But let's assume that it was possible to bring down the WTCs with a 757 impact.

Then we get into the point of how long would the collapse take ?

To me this is where it gets into an impossibility.

Because of all the rest of the building below the impact area it would have had to take 40 seconds to get thru the resistance of the lower 80+ floors and have complete collapse.

Or the building would not have completely collapsed, maybe only the top 30 floor would have collapsed with the other 70 still standing.

200,000 tons of steel designed to hold the building up could not act like a house of cards.

And because a 10-12 second collapse is impossible we have to say that my ASSUMPTION above was incorrect.

And if the buildings did not collapse then the only other assumption is they must have been demolished with explosives.

CASE CLOSED.

We are not even mulitplying in the probabilites that both towers
could completely collapse within 1.5 hours OR

both towers would symmetrical collapse on their own footprint after taking asymmetrical airplane hits.

NO reason to because the probability is already ZERO that it was a normal collapse.

==================================================================

FOR ME THE BUILDING COLLAPSING IN 10-12 seconds.
This is the SMOKING GUN which proves the WTCs were demolished by explosive.

And you add into the equation BUILDING 7 collapsing at the same speed as freefall in a VACUUM. (It was sucked down).
CASE IS BEYOND CLOSED.

This also shows that the perps went to great lengths to try and stop a further investigation. They wanted to blame everything on the hijackers and leave no room for looking for the mastermind perps who are still alive.

Why use the planes at all.
Why not just blow the building up like in 1993.
Maybe they thought there was less risk of getting caught or suspected ?

========================== BEAURECRATS saying NO to further investigation

And NIST did not even consider the phsical laws of conservation of momentum and energy which would have clearly shown that 10-12 seconds was IMPOSSIBLE

They are not willing to meet with Steven Jones.
THerefore NIST is conceding that Steven Jones is right !

And then we have to further think.
Who in NIST is saying NO to meeting with Steven Jones ?
We find that government/NIST beaureacrap and then maybe we are within 1 or 2 degrees of separation of the perps.

============================== Other interesting tid bits in the video.

The b25 crash into the Empire state building left a hole 18ft wide and 20 feet high.
Isn't that the size of the hole in the Pentagon. B25 is a lot smaller than the 757.
Wouldn't this say that whatever hit the pentagon was much smaller that the 757.

Aluminum when it melts only displays white or a silvery color; it doesn't display a bright yellow like in the video.

The metalurgist in the video says how could people be standing at the corners of the impacted areas (lady on edge of WTC impact floor) if the heat could melt steel. He said she would have been vaporized even if she was within 50 feet of such steel.

What is the bright yellow material burning in the video ?
==============================

911blogger how can i download the video ??

even with another 16 million

The point is there is something wrong here it doesnt matter what knowledge the NIST report has gained they are wrong when you do an examination of a building faliure and dont analize the faliure of colapse there is a group of people that are going to draw conclusion were you should have finished. They last chapter was left out because there was now way you could have finished the last chapter even with another 16 million dollars

If you guys are going to

If you guys are going to use our interviews and video please have the courtesy to give our work credit. The clip is from the new documentary
9/11: the Birth Of Treason

http://www.beitshalomministries.org

support our walk for truth from Denver to DC and watch the new , weekly video updates of our journey.

Real Christians Don't Choose War

Thank You, LeftWright

Thank you , LeftWright. Your words offer a welcome change of tone, although I am a little worried you appear to class me with Bush and Cheney in a group of people whom you do not respect. I do however take your words about sarcastic and condescending writing seriously, so I am sure you intended no sarcasm there. With love, I meant an end to the icy chill that has befallen me on this forum. I believe my exchanges with Jennysparks for example, ( see above ) show that I have tried my utmost to gain her trust while remaining as unemotional and civil as I can under these circumstances. In short, the whole thing is becoming silly, and I have now reached a point where I can no longer consider people's distrust my problem. 
It is not criticism I have a problem with, it is distrust. These unfounded suspicions make any rational exchange of ideas impossible, and as I have no other motive than such an exchange, I might as well give up. Yet your suggestion of writing some kind of paper in which I present ' my case ' so to speak, is appealling. It does mean many hours of work, as I would want to do as good a job as I  can.  I will consider it, not least because I believe you when you promise to give it fair treatment.