"Pull it down Larry" video: The ultimate proof the WTC Brought Down By The Controlled Demolition? - 9 minutes showing a lot

A colleague from the Czech-Slovak 911 movement have sent me the link to a new video (whose original intention was to debunk another debunkers video about WTC7)

But in fact it shows much more than just counterarguments against the debunkers video.

It shows that from the North tower were during the "collapse" clearly visibly ejected large chunks of its core - ripped in pieces of size of several floors, weghting probably at least hundreds of tons - to a realy considerable distance. - They were in past notoricaly confused with the perimeter columns - but perimeter columns were much thinner and mounted with much narower distances. The column distance in chunks - they can be seen in the video - compared to the north face 64m reference, is at least 4 meters, while the distance of the perimeter columns was 1m. The beam structure on the video looks like literally fitting in the proportions of the core mount - so the assumption it is the chunks of core, not the perimeter, looks like one very well supported. What force ripped the large core pieces lateraly out of the building? A Gravitation??

The same video also quite clearly shows the numerous squibs at the southwest corner of the WTC7, exploding just exactly during the collapse of the North tower - Maybe to rest concealed while the people look at the North Tower collapsing? It looks like now we'll know how in fact the WTC7 was damaged during the North tower collapse?

direct link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=N0RqVtTpIuk

The video is discussed also in the thread at PilotsFor911Truth: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=10291 where you can also vote (after registration) in the poll "Was WTC Brought Down By The Controlled Demolition?"

If the video would be deleted from the Youtube, search for "Pull it down, Larry" from buckeye studio production .or download the saved flashvideo here: http://sector.ynet.sk/tumetuestumefaisdubien/Pullitdownlarry.flv

The "debunkers" video which is discussed in "Pull it down, Larry" is here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI

For the immediate numerous requests of the sources I contacted the author of the video and he provided me with the links to this videos:

falling core sections: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtYrArNibHo (at about 3:10)
squibs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_JHzuVywQ8 (at about 0:21)
'Bob and Bri' footage for comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWOzOtkAkhI (at about 3:05)

I also recomend to read the discussion to the video on the Youtube to see what the author says about the origins.
There are most probably other footages to support the core sections implications an maybe also other with WTC7 squibs. An independent corroborations are welcome as well as comments. It would be also good to find the master sources which is what also the author now is trying to. Any help is very welcome.

Good observations!

Good observations! When good people really look at what is right in front of them, there is still much to discover. It doesn't take experts- it takes patience and intuition.

I want to know...

where your "colleague" got his source video for the clip at 7:20 where the squibs/spikes are seen ejecting from Tower 7. Can you find that out for me, tumetuestumefaisdubien?

(Will an admin please fix tumetuestumefaisdubien's tags? Thanks in advance)

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

The sources

Hi stallion4,

I've just written directly to the author of the video and I've got this reply:

START OF CITATION FROM EMAIL:
Dear Jan,

Thanks again for your attention to my video. Originally it appeared
as a video response to video posted by gentleman identified himself as 'burnvictim77' who expressed his doubts about WTC7 explosions and
requested proof of demolition. So I cut out a portion of his video exposed
falling core sections (3:10):

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

Frame by frame analysis of falling core columns brought to my attention absolutely unexpected finding identified as squibs on a top floors of
WTC7 appeared before core columns section reached WTC7 level.

Since there are lots of falsified videos and still on web, I decided to look
for original footage first. All I was able to find was another youtube video
released by '911truthiness', squibs are seen there at 0:21.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_JHzuVywQ8

I reviewed tons of other footages from all media networks, however, I could
not not find nothing else what would provide solid confirmation. The problem
was (the way I see it) caused by WTC1 eye-catching collapse; camera
operators focused on tower, zoomed it and WTC7 on all other footages
simply got out of frame. An I failed to find original footage which definitely
would have better resolution.

However, well known amateur video footage provided by 'Bob and Bri',
made from different angle, and released by 'darimon':

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

provided me with confidence that there really were squibs. Huge clouds
are seen coming from WTC7 top floors at 3:05 and those clouds match
from timing perspective first footage.

So, despite my concerns about quality of first footage, I considered both
footages matching and decided to release my video. I purposely did not
mention in my video clouds seen from 'Bob and Bri' footage with a hope
other viewers will confirm that. And eventually one visitor did.

I hope original digital version of first footage would help a lot.

Please let me know if you got any question or concern. I would really
appreciate if you share your opinion.

Very truly yours,

Chen

P.S. Sorry about possible typos, stylistic and grammar errors.
>END OF CITATION

I checked the videos and it realy looks like there are the squibs at WTC7 corner. What I've understood from the Youtube discussion the authors are waiting for the master copies of the videos to confirm the results. But because they've most probably used the publicly available source I think it is at least partialy credible. I think if the findings are true - it is a major breakthrough. It would be good to confirm the results independently. If the video is genuine, there are probably more copies showing the same sitting on the net. I unfortunately have no idea where could the other copies be. I just think, that if somebody would find the same somewhere it could be an valuable confirmation.
The implications about the core remains I find so conclusive that there is probably no more proof needed - because there are at least three videos to my knowledge showing the same. Although more would be appreciated.

Feel free to contact me at tumetuestumefaisdubien@gmail.com with any additional questions.

Jan

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

Thanks

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

Double post -delete

I please the admin to delete this, because it is a double post. I'm appologizing for it. HNY Jan

I'm skeptical.

I have looked for the squibs in the highest quality footage and I do not see them. I'm not done yet...

The claim that the core cols are ejected is false imo. Heres' the evidence:
http://governmentterror.com/images/5122.jpg
more at: http://nasathermalimages.com/#%5B%5BWTC1%20Demolition%20Images%5D%5D

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.
http://nasathermalimages.com

Made this vid looking for the WTC7 squibs

Still need to examine more angles.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HGXZMQ76
The original (cut directly from the archive.org footage without re-encoding) is available at: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=RLCLJ51H

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

No nothing

Sorry, I haven't seen anything in your photos to support the dismissal. Can you be more specific?

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

Congrats on your first comment!

http://www.911blogger.com/user/4756/track
Thanks! Welcome to the forum.

The burden is on you. Your defending the unverified claim. Make some measurements.

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

I've given myself minus1 point

for my comment subject :))

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

both core and perimeter columns displayed

Actually as you can see 10 of 27 stills you provided clearly display core columns; 5 of 27 clearly display perimeter columns; columns are barely visible on others. I guess you'd better check your own materials before you make any claim.

http://governmentterror.com/images/5122.jpg supports nothing

more at: http://nasathermalimages.com/#%5B%5BWTC1%20Demolition%20Images%5D%5D

#1 - supports nothing
#2 - supports nothing
#3 - supports nothing
#4 - extends claim, displays perimeter columns
#5 - supports nothing
#6 - supports claim, displays core columns
#7 - extends claim, displays perimeter columns
#8 - supports claim, displays core columns
#9 - supports claim, displays core columns
#10 - supports claim, displays core columns
#11 - supports claim, displays core columns
#12 - supports claim, displays core columns
#13 - supports claim, displays core columns
#14 - supports claim, displays core columns
#15 - supports nothing
#16 - supports claim, displays core columns
#17 - supports nothing
#18 - supports claim, displays core columns
#19 - supports nothing
#20 - supports nothing
#21 - supports nothing
#22 - supports nothing
#23 - extends claim, displays perimeter columns
#24 - extends claim, displays perimeter columns
#26 - extends claim, displays perimeter columns

member for 2h 53min

I see you registered just to make this comment. Thank You!
http://www.911blogger.com/user/4761/track

It's clear what section we are talking about as the video highlights it.
Feel free to measure and post the distances between the cols seen in the large piece visible on the left of http://governmentterror.com/images/5122.jpg .

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.
http://nasathermalimages.com

Yes, you're right!

What I see at the photograph are definitely the perimeter columns connected on each floor. I must face the reality. It looks that it even can be the same chunk as in the Chen's video. Thank you for posting the comment. The false claims must be dismissed as quick as possible.

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

Thank you for the specification

It looks like some of the photographs show core columns and some show the perimeter columns, from your list even in some cases I'm not sure if what show the photographs are not in fact the perimeter not the core columns (#9). To be honest as I see it now from examination of the photographs It seems to me there is a possibility that in the video it is a fallacy of low resolution, and what looks like the core columns could be the connections of perimeter columns on each floor. I've sent link to the video to the ae911truth and they promised to evaluate the Chen's claim. So I'll send your list with the photographs to him or direct him to this discussion. He said that he plans to do the reedition of the video after having more material (especially from critics), so I think this photographs with your list could be quite valuable for him. - I think that on the end we are looking for truth, not some unsuported claims or making hoaxes. More eyes see more and more people know more photographic material to support or dismiss the claim. So from my point of wiev it is welcome. Anyway I also registered to this blog for posting the video :) Especially because the WTC7 squibs should be independently confirmed with other videos if there is any available. - For suporting the hypothesis of WTC7 demolition it would be realy valuable.

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

Chen, 'Pull it down, Larry' creator

Hi, my name is Chen, I am 'Pull it down, Larry' creator.

The mastership of engineering is to build something nobody was able to build, the mastership of composing is to compose something nobody composed before, and mastership of investigation is finding something nobody was able to find. That's why my virtual studio is called 'buckeye studio'.

Dutch writer Hans Christian Andersen hundreds of years ago wrote a story about king, who was walking across the streets naked claiming he was wearing modern costume, his servants were cheering him and stating how beautiful his costume was, and one little girl who claimed 'King was naked'. That story actually describes one psychology issues - sometimes human beings cannot admit they saw what they really saw for numerous reasons. Servants had a job, they had fear, they were supposed to be politically correct, otherwise they would be fired or imprisoned. Small girl did not have a job, she did not have any fear and she would not be imprisoned. That's why she told a truth. And the opposite were lies.

The same with columns. People see core columns blown away, however, they cannot admit. So they find pictures displayed perimeter columns and claim core columns perimeter columns. What actually is a lie. Both core columns and perimeter columns were blown out, so both are displayed on numerous pictures. However, when somebody sees core columns - he or she should admit that. Just in order to maintain decency and honesty.

Whether towers were demolished or not, core columns should be called core columns and perimeter columns should be called perimeter columns. The rest is a subject of new 9/11 investigation demanded by 9/11 movement.

I did not promise to re-edit 'Pull it down, Larry', but I am gathering evidence every day and working on second edition which will extend first edition. No single piece will be cut off.

Lies always lead to failure and disaster, I hope my opponents understand that. And I hope they understand little girl was much smarter.

Please stop

Using crap low res footage.

Repeat after me. YOUTUBE IS NOT A SOURCE.

Find the WTC7 squibs in real full res footage. Then you'll have something. I looked and they are not there as far as I can see.

Also please MARK AND POST the core cols your talking about. The ones in the movie are clearly perimeter cols as can be seen here: http://nasathermalimages.com/images/5122.jpg

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

Yes exactly

Listen to jkeogh, Chen.

IMHO the WTC-7 squibs seen in your video look like they were added. I'm not saying you added them, Chen, since the source video that you say you used from Youtube may have already had them. Perhaps I'm wrong and they're real explosions/squibs, but we need to establish if they are real by comparing it with other versions of the same video.

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

listen to keogh?

Sorry, I never listen to liars. Calling core columns perimeter columns is lie, so jkeogh discredited himself.

About source video - URLs to two videos were provided, you can watch them at any time. One of those videos is video posted by guy who requested a proof of WTC7 demolition.

You watched my video, but if you watched it carefully, you would find squibs visible on second footage, 'Bob and Bri'. I purposely did not mention it in video, just in order to check how careful viewers are.

I just looked at that 2nd Youtube clip and the squibs ARE there

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_JHzuVywQ8

So from looking at that video I'll say you definitely have something. But do you have a higher quality video, something not from Youtube?

RE: Bob & Bri footage

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the WTC-7 squibs/explosions in the Youtube clip you provided above...

(video of North Tower demolition begins 3 minutes into vid)

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

Do you have a link to a high-quality download of this video, not something from Youtube or Google video?

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

Thank you.

Stallion,

Thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate confirmation on your side. I watched tons of recordings publicly available on web, on numerous sites (not youtube) gathered original prime networks recordings (such as CNN, Fox News etc), but unfortunately I could not find it. I believe if somebody (person or organization) requests original recording from that network directly, it is definitely going to be big help. That's simply beyond my ability.

Clouds are visible coming from top floors of WTC7 at 'Bob and Bri' footage at 3:05. Please have a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWOzOtkAkhI

Truly.

Thank again.

Thanks again, Stallion. I believe you understand that falsifying video materials is inappropriate action if not a crime. Truth may not rely on lies. 9/11 movement does not need any lies. History Channel, Popular Mechanics may discredit themselves, it is up to them; 9/11 movement - cannot. Too much is at stake, not just reputation or credibility.

For self-debunker

I understand your frustration with core columns. You saw core columns in my vdieo, you saw core columns on hundreds of pictures, even on pictures you provided, and there is nothing you can say. That's why you claim those are perimeter columns. That's how you ridiculed yourself out. That's why you are getting rude.

If you want to support or make any claim, you are supposed to a little bit smarter and do not debunk yourself what you actually did. Following are pictures you provided clearly displayed core columns:
http://governmentterror.com/images/1531.jpg
http://governmentterror.com/images/6165.jpg
http://governmentterror.com/images/5834.jpg
http://governmentterror.com/images/6590.jpg
http://governmentterror.com/images/5490.jpg

Some pictures clearly display perimeter columns. Both types of columns were blown out, so both were caught by photographers.

And you should not mention any low res anymore. Remember, those are pictures you posted, not anybody else.

Good luck with your self-debunking.

What I see

http://governmentterror.com/images/1531.jpg - When I download the picture and enlarge it I can see what is most probably the tiny perimeter columns
http://governmentterror.com/images/6165.jpg - I can't discern, but from the logic I can come to the conclusion it is the same section as in the previous image and in the image http://nasathermalimages.com/images/5122.jpg where the perimeter columns are clearly visible
http://governmentterror.com/images/5834.jpg - dtto
http://governmentterror.com/images/6590.jpg - undiscernable for me - the image is too low quality
http://governmentterror.com/images/5490.jpg - undiscernable for me - the image is too low quality

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

low quality?

Please be advised all images were posted by jkeogh who later claimed they are low quality. You can find better quality images if you wish of course. However:

http://governmentterror.com/images/1531.jpg - When I download the picture and enlarge it I can see what is most probably the tiny perimeter columns
- CORE COLUMNS VISIBLE LEFT FROM TOWER, NO NEED TO ENLARGE
http://governmentterror.com/images/6165.jpg - I can't discern, but from the logic I can come to the conclusion it is the same section as in the previous image and in the image 5122.jpg where the perimeter columns are clearly visible - CORE COLUMNS VISIBLE LEFT FROM TOWER, NO NEED TO ENLARGE
http://governmentterror.com/images/6590.jpg - undiscernable for me - the image is too low quality - CORE COLUMNS CLEARLY VISIBLE RIGHT FROM TOWER
http://governmentterror.com/images/5490.jpg - undiscernable for me - the image is too low quality - CORE COLUMNS CLEARLY VISIBLE OVER AT&T BUILDING

Perimeter

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/kahn/wtc1b.jpg - after enlargement perimeter colums barely, but discernable
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/nt_col2698.jpg - after enlargement perimeter colums barely, but discernable
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/nt_col0865.jpg - after enlargement perimeter colums barely, but discernable
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/nt_col1531.jpg - after enlargement perimeter colums barely, but discernable
http://nasathermalimages.com/images/5122.jpg - perimeter colums discernable

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/juice/JBR_0007425.jpg - image from the west, proving no debris could possibly hit the WTC7 in the upper part. - especially not in case of gravitational collapse of WTC1 - where one couldn't expect the high lateral velocities of the debris - it is simply too far for it to reach upper part of WTC7 - so at least the main purpose of the Chen's video - to debunk the claim the WTC7 was hit by the WTC1 debris in the upper southwest corner I find confirmed.

all images from 911research must be copy-and-paste because 911research apparently don't allow them linked from other pages.

http://www.stage6.com/user/Tha_man_from_space/video/1057262/ - Bob and Bri hi res (something like clouds around the southwest corner of WTC7 barely visible - but in frame-to-frame analysis there is definitely something.)

I must also add, that I again watched this two videos (Chen used as sources):

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtYrArNibHo aded to youtube by burnvictim77 on July 25, 2007
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_JHzuVywQ8 aded to youtube by 911truthiness on April 28, 2007

booth I've downloaded and examined in frame to frame analysis - they booth contain the clearly visible squibs in same positions - and in my oppinion at least look they coul'd be authentic.
So again I would urge to search for the master or the other sources, because if confirmed - it would be a realy major breaktrough.
And even in case it would be dismissed - we would learn another bit about the video fakery and disinfo around 9/11.

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

Thank you.

Please feel free to request original footage from media network. I guess 911blogger.com has enough power to do that.

There were both perimeter columns and core columns blown out, however, when people see core columns they should not call them perimeter columns.

have to state the difference

Again, I have to state the difference between court trial and preliminary investigation. Court trial requires tangible evidence. Preliminary investigation uses numerous leads in order to obtain tangible evidence supported one of numerous versions. Publicly accessed videos I mentioned and my video I directed considered a lead to tangible evidence. The rest is just technical part which is supposed to be conducted by professional investigators able to get an access to any source. That's why we demand new 9/11 investigation.

Repeat after me

So jkeogh, repeat after me:

I, JKeogh, will never tell Chen or anybody else what to do or what not to do.

I also think it needs the full res sources

And I think with this style you'll just quickly lose credibility.

I think the jkeogh picture http://nasathermalimages.com/images/5122.jpg shows the same pattern of the bottom part of the section as the first "core columns" section in your video - and thus what you show in the video is probably the perimeter section. I can be wrong, but that's what I now see.

Other question are the squibs. If we'll find the full res with it, or other videos to support the same - then it could be taken more seriously. But with a low res video nobody can go to the court. I hope you at least see there are serious doubts, so it would be good to clear them or it has I'm afraid no value. We need probable cause not just some fairy-tales about little girls.

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

I do not need credibility.

It was not me who filmed north tower collapse. It was not me who photographed sections of core columns blown out:
http://governmentterror.com/images/1531.jpg
http://governmentterror.com/images/6165.jpg
http://governmentterror.com/images/5834.jpg
http://governmentterror.com/images/6590.jpg
http://governmentterror.com/images/5490.jpg
But it was jkeogh who posted them on his website and claimed those were perimeter columns.

I did not deliver opinion, I delivered evidence. So I do not need any credibility especially in a light of jkeogh considered credible after he called core columns perimeter columns and ignored his own posts. IMHO he does not even have courage to admit he was wrong.

Pattern... interesting approach... You know what? Open core columns pictures above in five separate windows, and launch my video in another window, and see how perfectly those pictures match video.

No, of course low quality video may not be considered an evidence in court. However, you have to understand the difference between court trial and preliminary investigation (conducted by detectives). Evidence delivered into court room supposed to be strong evidence, tangible evidence. Evidence gathered during preliminary investigation, even not strong, considered a lead to further investigation. The goal of further investigation is to find strong evidence supported detectives' version or find out version was wrong.

I recall one criminal case. Couple years ago young girl was kidnapped, and CCTV recorded man who was pulling her across gas station. Could that evidence be brought into court room? Of course not. Did it eventually lead to murderer? Yes, it did. Murderer was caught and prosecuted. So the same here.

That's why we demand new investigation

'..I also think it needs the full res sources..' - absolutely, your statement speaks for itself. We need full investigation. We need an access to all materials, both classified and non-classified, we need an access to all evidence, we need an access to all documents, we need to question officials and witnesses. That's why we demand new investigation.

Thanks for putting this all together BTW

I have questions out about some other extraordinary "home videos" that I'm waiting to hear back from the author on... seems lots of stuff is coming out... in low quality.

What video?

What video? tumetuestumefaisdubien posted all URLs.

it's unrelated

and the author got back to me saying he made it from *gasp* youtube videos. I am not going to post it.

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

I agree

Of course I agree with jkeogh when he states jetliners cannot demolish skyscrapers.

I agree

Of course I agree with jkeogh when he states jetliners cannot demolish skyscrapers.

SOME CONCLUSIONS

Last email from Chen 31.12.2007 23:37:
Dear Jan,
Sorry if we got different vision on the same issue. I read all your posts and I still do not understand your position. On one hand you are the person who submitted my video and launched new forum. You also admitted several times on 911blogger and other forums that those were core columns. So I really appreciate your efforts.
However, on other hand you claimed core columns are perimeter columns. What is absolutely unacceptable. Core columns are clearly visible on lots of pictures and call them perimeter columns simply means calling black white and reversed.
You have to understand that if you claim something - you gotta keep your fortress. Self-debunking and giving up a fortress is not acceptable. There are lots of opponents, some of them are just naive people, so we have to explain them our vision on 9/11, but some of them are undercovers hired to ridicule 9/11 movement out. Why to help them? Our inconsistencies and hesitations are always considered weak point.
Sorry, I did not mean being rude (actually I am very gentle person), but I am always very straight, especially when I discuss 9/11 issues and protect my fortress, that's simply the way I am...

..................................................................................

Because I don't want to defend any "fortress" but just the truth - and defend it also from "undercovers hired to ridicule 9/11 movement out" - here is my public answer:

1. By one reader I was linked to this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-HFD2t8IWy0 containing the same footage as the "Chen's" video with no discernable squibs (the quality is too poor??) but gives the important clue the "squibs footage" was aired by CBS. So anybody feel free to ask CBS for the better copy. (I'm an European, so its on you Americans...but following maybe will tell you it has maybe no sense.)
The video shows the large chunk from several different positions and for me seems to further confirm the large chunk first redcircled in the Chen's video in fact is a piece of perimeter and NOT the core.

2. I discovered the part of the "squibs footage" was used in the 911Mysteries at 20:46 and there are NO SQUIBS visible even in high resolution copy! (my source: http://911mysteries.yweb.sk/download/911.Mysteries.-.Demolitions.avi)
There is also the resolution fine enough to discern the perimeter columns in the chunk the "ChenDickYeng" calls "core columns".

SO THE "CORE COULUMNS" CLAIM AND ALSO THE "WTC7 SQUIBS" CLAIM ARE BOTH MOST PROBABLY RED HERINGS

...I can't much imagine the creators of something like 911Mysteries would Photoshop-out something like "WTC7 squibs" and on the same footage Photoshop-in the perimeter columns...

So, here is my serious and strong message for the creator of the "Pull it down, Larry" video "ChenDickYeng":
investigate911[from]now more thoroughly before you will release false claims - You'll save the time of all of us for to do something more useful than debunk the red hering videos made to debunk another debunkers videos. !!

I appologize to others to waste their time with this apparently bogus story. I hope they at least learned something from it - as I did.

Somebody should anyway ask the creators of:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtYrArNibHo aded to Youtube by burnvictim77 on July 25, 2007
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_JHzuVywQ8 aded to Youtube by 911truthiness on April 28, 2007
where they did come to the footage containing the "squibs". Who should do it in first place is clear: "ChenDickYeng" aka "investigate911now" aka...
..................................................................................

EDIT: I've just got another email from Chen 1.1.2008 22:44 ...small citations in apostrophes and my answers bold:
"...I might be wrong, but my impression was your personal issues such as your credibility prevail over truth about 9/11 events. You remind me a soldier at battlefield who is concerned about his shoes shine..."

Yes, my credibility is important for me - as well as the real truth about the 911 events. I like my shoes shine and not to spoil them in any "battle" or "fortress" (of a lie).

"....Also it does not make any sense to claim something and back off then. If you thought my findings were wrong - that's perfectly fine, again that's your freedom. Lots of other people claim I was wrong, that's their freedom. But backing off actually means more damage than any of my opponents could expect.."

Is this a kind of a Chen's mysterious threat to me?
.....

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

Thank you for taking the time to research all this

HOWEVER, I'm not convinced that the videos pertaining to the wtc-7 squibs that you posted are the same video that Chen discovered that shows something that looks like explosions ejecting from the right side (West side) of Building 7.

Here is the video that Chen is using to support "squibs" coming from WTC-7 during the controlled demolition of the North Tower...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_JHzuVywQ8

Here is the video you posted at the top of your last post, tumetuestumefaisdubien...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-HFD2t8IWy0

And here's a link to 911 Mysteries (forward to 20:30 for relevant video clip)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536

These two videos are very close in similarity to the video Chen is using to support the WTC-7 "squibs", but I believe that they are a little bit different, i.e, shot from a slightly different angle.

I've searched for another link to Chen's video angle, but have come up empty. I've looked at all available videos of the North Tower's demolition that I could find, but none of them show the "squibs" ejecting from the side of WTC-7 seen in the video Chen is using to support possible explosions in Building 7 during the demolition of the North Tower. Chen is also using the Bob & Bri 9/11 footage, however, I personally can't see any "squibs" (in the Google Video version of their footage, forward to 19:35)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903

So for now I'm satisfied that Chen's WTC-7 "squib" video is showing a video anomaly sometimes called "ringing"...

"Ringing -- In video, closely spaced repeated ghosts of a vertical or diagonal edge where dark changes to light or vice versa, going from left to right. The electron beam upon changing from dark to light or vice versa instead of changing quickly to the desired intensity and staying there, overshoots and undershoots a few times. This bouncing could occur anywhere in the electronics or cabling and is often caused by or accentuated by a too high setting of the sharpness control."

Television and Video Glossary -- P-R
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidglos6.htm

re: perimeter vs. interior columns: I really have no opinion to offer there, since I haven't spent much time at all studying what the big fuss over this point is. During the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers, shit was ejected every which way.

Anyway, thanks to all who spent time looking into this stuff. Until someone can post video from another angle showing "squibs" coming from WTC-7 during the North Tower's demolition, it's prolly extremely safe to say that they didn't occur, since there is only one video that I know of that shows these alleged "squibs", but are most likely just a "ringing" we're seeing in that particular video.

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

look at it again

"IHere is the video you posted at the top of your last post, tumetuestumefaisdubien..."

Lokk at the 0:33 of that video and further - it is in my oppinion the very same shot as in the Chen's video.

Nyway, any squibs are quite macroscopic events, and if they were real, shouldn't they be visible on all the (non-faked) footages - especially on the high resolution ones? Yes, to be realy thoroughly honest, there is still the possibility someone Photoshoped them out...but is it realy probable?
Any hints?

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

Looking at it again I'd have to say your'e right.

If it's not, the persons who shot the video must have been standing very close to each other.

I guess what looks different about it to me is that one camera seems to be further away from the other, but perhaps one of the Youtube vids was slightly zoomed in when it was uploaded?

And I personally don't believe that all the North Tower demolition video could have been doctored to remove "squibs" seen ejecting from Tower 7 in the very short amount of time that it was aired on teevee. We're talking minutes from the time the North Tower fell.

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

feel free

In order to debunk this tumetuestumefaisdubi's misleading request to remove this video:

tumetuestumefaisdubi is a person who posted this video on 911blogger forum (911blogger*com/node/13159), Invision Free forum (z10*invisionfree*com/Loose_Change_Forum/index*php?showtopic=20626) and Pilots For Truth (z9*invisionfree*com/Pilots_For_Truth/index*php?showtopic=10291&st=0); tumetuestumefaisdubi participated discussions and expressed his/her opinion several times, so quoting him/her now:

Core columns related quotes:

"in the video it is the core remains"
"Without any doubt what shows the video aren't the chunks of the perimeter."
"So I think it is good assumption the chunks are pieces of the core.
"No, it is the core remains.""
"clearly visibly ejected large chunks of its core "

Squibs related quotes:

"both I've downloaded and examined (watch?v=jtYrArNibHo and watch?v=h_JHzuVywQ8) in frame to frame analysis - they both contain the clearly visible squibs in same positions - and in my oppinion at least look they coul'd be authentic."
"stage6*com/user/Tha_man_from_space/video/1057262/ - Bob and Bri hi res (something like clouds around the southwest corner of WTC7 barely visible - but in frame-to-frame analysis there is definitely something.)"
"Also the clearly visible squibs during the North tower collapse prove the WTC7 was brought down by the controlled demolition as well."
"The video also clearly shows the squibs at the southwest corner of the WTC7, exploding just exactly during the collapse of the North tower. "

tumetuestumefaisdubi also stated "Realy good job guys!" on this youtube forum. tumetuestumefaisdubi even stated that "Somebody who is an "extreme poster" on 9/11 truth site should already know, where the WTC5 was relatively to the North Tower. If not, he is either an ignorant or an disinformator." tumetuestumefaisdubi also sent link to this video to ae911truth*org: "I've sent link to the video to the ae911truth and they promised to evaluate the Chen's claim."

However, later on tumetuestumefaisdubi drastically changed his/her opinion, so quoting again:

Core columns related quote:
"in fact is a piece of perimeter and NOT the core."

Squibs related quotes:
"no discernable squibs"
"here are NO SQUIBS visible"

Overall his/her final conclusion was:
"SO THE CORE COULUMNS CLAIM AND ALSO THE "WTC7 SQUIBS" CLAIM ARE BOTH MOST PROBABLY RED HERINGS"
tumetuestumefaisdubi even interpreted my posts as threats: "Is this a kind of a Chen's mysterious threat to me?"

Surprisingly another 911blogger forum participant (stallion4) changes his/her opinion too:

His/her initial quotes:
"So from looking at that video I'll say you definitely have something"

And his/her final quotes:
"I personally can't see any squibs" (Bob an Bri footage)

Stallion4 also stated that squibs are the result of television phenomenon called "ringing".

However, later on stallion4 again changed his/her mind again and asked tumetuestumefaisdubi "Look at the 0:33 of that video and further - it is in my opinion the very same shot as in the Chen's video." And tumetuestumefaisdubi replied "No way, any squibs are quite macroscopic events". So tumetuestumefaisdubi at least recognized those "macroscopic events".

I respect anyone's freedom of speech first of all and freedom of changing opinion, however, there are a lots of misunderstandings on tumetuestumefaisdubi and stallion4 side.

First of all tumetuestumefaisdubi does not understand the nature of court trial and preliminary investigation. He/she stated that "low resolution video is not gonna be used as an evidence in court room". I would even add more - none of those videos, low resolution or high resolution videos, may be used as a strong evidence just due to nature of digital recordings. Moreover, any person who would try to build a case based of those recordings, would be laughed at; tumetuestumefaisdubi has to remember that Zacharious Moussaoui case considered a failure just due to lack of strong evidence.

You have to know that any digital video is compressed video file which may go through lots of modifications, especially when numerous people cut numerous pieces and convert them again and again. Any modification may remove some details (not purposely, just due to nature of digital content transformation) or add some bogus elements, and that has nothing to do with "ringing". That's why none of digital videos considered strong evidence. However, such evidence may be considered a lead in preliminary investigation.

Squibs I mentioned in this video are actually the anomalies (referred by tumetuestumefaisdubi as "quite macroscopic events"), which of course may have appeared from those "quite macroscopic events" during numerous transformations, however, there definitely was something what triggered those anomalies.

Only strong and tangible evidence may be brought into court room. So engineers who will be conducting new 9/11 investigation, should use this video only as lead. Anomalies visible on CBS footage match clouds visible on 'Bob and Bri' footage. So engineers supposed to investigate walls, windows, frames and interiors of south-west top floors offices rubbles and build their competent opinion. That's the only way to provide tangible evidence.

So if 9/11 investigation ever re-opens, this video will be considered a strong lead (in terms of squibs/anomalies investigation). That's what this video was created for. Without new investigation this video is useless.

I also think that tumetuestumefaisdubi should have to wait at least for feedback from ae911truth he/she requested before making request to remove this video from youtube.

And of course interpretation of my posts as threats is simply false, indecent and inappropriate. To tell you the truth I expected much higher moral standards here.

tumetuestumefaisdubi of course may feel free to remove this video from any forums, that's his/her freedom.

That's a lot of words there but I think...

you're just trying to cling onto something that just isn't there. I understand that you may feel attached to your research since you've probably invested considerable time putting your presentation together. However, several other videos show absolutely no "squibs" ejecting from the side of WTC-7 during the North Tower's demolition - and I've seen most, if not all, of the North Tower demolition videos. IMO the Bob & Bri footage does not show the "squibs" either. The other video you used in your presentation shows something that kinda looks like "squibs", but I've since determined that what we're seeing there is a video defect called 'Ringing':

Television and Video Glossary -- P-R
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidglos6.htm

This is the best explanation I can give to describe the so-called "squibs" due to the severe lack of supporting evidence.

Investigate911now, perhaps the best thing you could do now -- if you want to continue this research -- would be to spend more time looking for videos (shot from a different camera than the one in your presentation) that show the "squibs". IMO the Bob & Bri footage does not count because the angle of that particular video isn't conclusive, and I don't personally see anything like "squibs" ejecting out of Building 7 during the North Tower's collapse.

When you aren't able to find footage that supports your claim that explosions are seen ejecting out the side of WTC-7, your only other option would be to say that ALL the other videos that don't show the "squibs" are faked.

That's not an option, since there wouldn't have been enough time to fake the North Tower videos since they were broadcast on teevee within minutes of the demolition of the North Tower. People made recordings of these videos when they first aired and over six years later NOTHING has surfaced, except for the one video that you used in your presentation, which was recorded off of Youtube.

Sorry, but I personally don't think you'll be successful in finding any videos that support your presentation. But if you do I would be interested in seeing them.

Cheerio,

S4

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

I'm feeling free

1. I changed my oppinion in cases of the "core columns claim" and "WTC7 squibs claim" because the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming..

2. I've personaly nothing against Chen except I've now strong feeling he wants to push the weakly supported and strongly impugned claims as the truth.

3. Because I've studied TV technology and IT on the college I personaly don't believe the "squibs" in the video is a result of the "ringing" - because in that case it would be apparent also on other dark/light edges of the video - which isn't. So the squibs are either real (which is strongly unsupported by other videos and even on the copy of the same fotage in the better resolution), or it is a fake (for an average DTP it would be a matter of minutes to Photoshop the "squibs" into the footage!)

4.The main Chen's claim and supposedly original purpose of his video - to support the assumption that the WTC7 wasn't touched by debris of the falling WTC1, especially not in the upper southwest corner - I find untouched and even more supported by additional hi-res photographic evidence:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/juice/JBR_0007425.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/amanz/wtc34.jpg
(the links to the images must be copy-pasted to a blank browser window, because the 911research apparently doesn't allow the direct interlinking from other pages)
That's why I asked Chen to review and possibly remove the current version of the video from the Youtube - to not jeopardize the credibility of his main claim - which I personaly find very important.
EDIT: There are more evidences to support the assumption:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8511
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7426

5. I find the interpretation and later dimissal of some of the Chen's claims true, decent and appropriate as possible. His attack to our moral standards I find be an offense.

6. I'll not delete or remove anything from anywhere - The story can serve as an important example what a mess is around the 9/11 probation. I even consider to publish the whole email correspondence with Chen - to provide further clues for his credibility assesment.
EDIT: after this post Chen deleted his video and also the whole account on Youtube and disappeared, no more replying the emails.

7. It was me who asked stallion4 "Look at the 0:33 of that video and further - it is in my opinion the very same shot as in the Chen's video." and not vice versa - as Chen asserts. Anybody can check it for himself it in the above thread.

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

re: point # 3

You wrote:
3. Because I've studied TV technology and IT on the college I personaly don't believe the "squibs" in the video is a result of the "ringing" - because in that case it would be apparent also on other dark/light edges of the video - which isn't. So the squibs are either real (which is strongly unsupported by other videos and even on the copy of the same fotage in the better resolution), or it is a fake (for an average DTP it would be a matter of minutes to Photoshop the "squibs" into the footage!)

Buddy, I've worked on and off in broadcast television for the past 10 years. The defect we're seeing in that video can definitely be described as 'ringing'.

Also, I've been doing a little research on you and have discovered that you are promoting "TV Fakery" on Youtube (unless someone else is using your screenname).

9/11: Impossible Speed & Impact -- Busted! Updated
http://youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=L978nIT-AY4

(Search for "tumetuestumefaisdubi" in the comments section of the Anthony Lawson YT video above)

Your comments there set off huge red flags regarding what your motivations are for bringing this thread over to 911Blogger.

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

Busted.

Thanks stallion4.

Classic.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong about tumetuestumefaisdubi

I read the youtube thread again and this time he/she didn't come off as insane as most who are affiliated with the TV Fakery crowd. Tumetuestumefaisdubi made some valid points and is probably a genuine truth seeker and probably had only the best intentions for bringing Chen's presentation over here. And perhaps he's correct that the WTC-7 "squibs" were faked. However, it's my opinion that we're just seeing a common defect in the video.

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

I checked.

The squibs are fake, and the section of columns measured in the video are exterior columns.

http://nasathermalimages.com

you mean alawson911?

Just now we are discussing him with an aerospace enginer - I already gave up - alawson911 as I see it, is a moron.
Sorry, for me the fakery is still one of the the possibilities - and I've good reasons for it - go to P4T and search for my posts - you'll find out that I've studied the USAF Rades84 radar data quite well and profoundly and with quite interesting results... (even John Farmer - former 911 Commission guy closed the whole his forum about - after I posted my findings...:)) Also if you believe the comparisons of supersonics with jetliners or low intake engines with high intake or that a civil B767-200 can fly 586mph at 700fts (as alawson911 believes without anything which one can call an evidence -just because he misinterpreted one post of a former USAF pilot) or fly way above Vmo ascending (as "UA175" consistently does according to the data from 4 radars) - than it sets quite huge red flag about you to me :) (The USAF radar data show clearly both the "WTC planes" were flying consistently above Vmo even before the alleged hijack had taken place - so the planes weren't most probably the civil jetliners - normal pilots wouldn't fly above Vmo - they would loose their job if they do.)
Anyway, again, the tv fakery is for now just a possibility for me, I don't stick with ideas until proven above any doubt, but I discuss them until prooven or disprooven - as you could clearly see in this thread. I brought the video here to see the opinions of others and when you brought additional evidence I was not reluctant to change the oppinion - it is the discussion - more people - more clarity in unclear, but spectacular BS - which the Pull it down Larry apparently is.
I repeat: I don't personaly believe the "squibs" are "ringing", that's my oppinion, and I'll not change it just because some guy says without any evidence that it is. Bring the evidence and then we can start from there. - you can contact the guys with the sources for Chen and ask them where and how they got their videos. The disappearance of the Chen is a red flag for me. I've seen exactly the same on P4T with another guy - promoting the nonsense "UA175" was flying "Mach1+" - he even with others was making the BS videos about - but when exposed, he disappeared. After I made some research and found out that he was realy promoting (not discussing - promoting - with videos, founding many new threads... ) BS as nukes at WTC, Laser beams and other BS a la Judy Wood....
And anyway, it is not very important if the "squibs" are or aren't "ringing" - it proves nothing about 911 - so it's just distractive BS to even discuss it. I think you should care about something useful. Take care

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

Hi tumetuestumefai...

I personally don't know exactly what aircraft hit the Twins, but whatever hit them looked like passenger jets, according to the tapes, photos, and eyewitnesses (I know some said they saw a military plane, a Cessna, a helicopter, etc., but the overwhelming evidence proves that large passenger jets hit the towers).

Just imagine, all those people in the streets looking up at the towers, any one of them could have filmed or photographed something other than a large passenger jet... but amazingly no one did (I'm primarily focusing on the 2nd plane, since only 2 videos of the 1st plane exist that I'm aware of). No photos or videos of a plane flying into the WTC, other than a large passenger jet, have surfaced. Do you really believe that the persons who orchestrated 9/11 would have taken that risk? I don't.

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

it's misunderstanding

I'm not saying there were not the planes looking like jetliners, I'm just saying there is evidence suggesting the planes weren't the planes govt says - and as far as I know, there is no conclusive publicly accessible evidence they were. NO ONE. If you know about some such evidence please post it.
What about the tv fakery it could have also other reasons to make such fake footages, not just to conceal there were no planes. To this date I've not seen any conclusive evedence the videos are real. And several indicies that many of them aren't. So I leave this question open. Video is not a proof unles the authenticity is proven by a quite complicated forensic analysis. I never have seen any of any of the videos - just some indicies they might be not real.

In the case of the North tower I must say, that if you'll count the direct witnesses of the crash - reporting real time before the South tower was hit and the media showed the 2nd tower hit by a large jetliner - the vast MAJORITY of the witnesses reporting they've eyewitnessed NT crash didn't report a large jetliner. Unless their credibility impugned in a trial it's for me conclusive - I've not a reason to not believe them.

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

The answer is NO!

No, the persons who orchestrated 9/11 would not have taken that risk.

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

My answer?

Honestly: I don't know.

And sorry, your agressive style of pushing the unsubstantiated prejudice I don't like. It is a red flag for me. This discussion is anyway over. Any "risks" taken or not by perps is off-topic here. All important about the Chen's video was conclusively concluded. Thank you for the cooperation. Good bye.

EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com

You've convinced me

The videos and photos were faked! It all makes sense now, even though the 9/11 criminals MUST have had rocks for brains to take such a risk that could have exposed their crime within minutes or hours after the attack, because any person -- out of the thousands on the street -- could have photographed the actual aircraft that hit the twins and uploaded them to the internet or delivered them to any media outlet for the world to see.

9/11 seems so much... sexier now. Sexy time! I like.

Chenqui

____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!"
-Dr. Frank Greening

yes, many peoples videotaped and photographed

And until now - more than 6 years later - I still haven't seen any video or photograph of the 911 planes where is no discussed suspicion it is a fake attached. So what can I conclude? What should I think? What do you suppose me to say? - That all that videos and photographs are real and all that people who have some evidences of fakery are lunatics, all was like the govt tells - even there are direct evidences (as 84Rades data, start database flaws or FAA registration flaws) that the planes couldn't possibly be the alleged jetliners?
EUROPEANS FOR RON PAUL>europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com