http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/northtowercomplete.wmv
Scott Page
Camille
group. I was watching this film with a couple of
friends when I noticed the flashes going off on the
south tower way below the collapse line. This was
about 39 minutes in the film. We stopped the film and
reversed the DVD many times, then played it on 1/8 th
of its normal speed, then you could see the flashes
very clearly. It looked to us that these flashes must
had been very large considering the distance of the
camera.
We speculated if they could have been anything other
than explosives, including light reflecting on the
windows but ruled that theory out as there was just
such heavy dust that this would not have been possible
as the sun was blocked. Quite frankly, I think we have
a smoking gun here as far as evidence. I was surprised
not to get any feedback from the group regarding this.
It deserves a more robust examination as it could be
used as evidence.
--Camille
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
skep...@pacbell.net
When a building collapses many things are thrown out. Some things are
likely to be very reflective. Examples can be window glass, office
desks, computer monitors, etc. We may believe that such things will be
obscured by the dust, but a collapse is a chaotic thing. I don't find
it improbable that in a collapse that reflective objects will be seen.
If this answer isn't completely satisfying also consider that the
outside steal columns were clad over with thin aluminum panels. Those
panels flew off as the towers collapsed and sailed away from the
towers. It is entirely probable that the falshes were from those
panels.
Vince
sco...@pacbell.net
What was the name of the DVD you were watching?
Scott Pettersen
Camille
footage is about 39 minutes into the video. You will
not be able to see this on the internet version as the
video compression obscures the flashes. If you get the
DVD you will see the flashes very clearly, especially
when slowed down to 1/4 to 1/8th speed.
-- Camille
--- sco...@pacbell.net wrote:
__________________________________________________
Camille
First of all I am describing a scene which is way
below the collapse line. The flashes can be seen many
floors below this line where there is no obvious
structural damage to the building. If you are implying
that aluminum plates 30 to 40 floors below the
collapse would blow off from the steel columns show me
the reasons way this should happen. Also, same thing
for the office desk, computer reflection theory. First
of all, even if these items should for some strange
reason get blow out of the building before this
collapse line, what kind of ambiant light would it
take to reflect them in such a bright, explosive
manner. All of us watching this felt that the
suddenness, and brightness of the lights indicated
explosives. Are you ruling out this probablity?
--- skep...@pacbell.net wrote:
__________________________________________________
Victoria Ashley
http://911review.com/reviews/911eyewitness/index.html
Conclusion
This is not an exhaustive review of 9/11 Eyewitness but it highlights two of the film's dominant features:
- It trots out a series of sensational conclusions that are obviously not supported by evidence -- such as that the demolition of the South Tower was accomplished by a helicopter, and that it was a nuclear attack.
- It packages erroneous claims as science lessons. Examples include: asserting that there were numerous pre-collapse explosions on the basis of an unverifiable sound track, confusing the peak amplitude of seismic signals with the energy of the generating events, and assuming that the profile of the North Tower's dust cloud represents particle trajectories.
One might ask, why does Siegel indulge in such obvious errors logic and science? Is 9/11 Eyewitness simply an effort to capitalize on footage of the attack, playing up sensational claims and taking a devil-may-care attitude toward the science? Or is its purpose to discredit the idea that the Twin Towers were destroyed by explosives by superimposing nonsensical claims on footage of the crime, facilitating future straw man attacks of the type Popular Mechanics and other mainstream press outlets wield to such great effect?
One senior British official dryly told Newsweek before the invasion, "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran."
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/talk/030421ta_talk_remnick
Camille
nothing to do with the topic of discussion which is
what is causing the flashes that are occuring on the
video footage 39 minutes in the movie.
--- Victoria Ashley <victr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's a review of 9/11 Eyewitness here:
>
>
http://911review.com/reviews/911eyewitness/index.html
> Conclusion
>
> This is not an exhaustive review of *9/11
> Eyewitness* but it highlights two
> of the film's dominant features:
>
> - It trots out a series of sensational
> conclusions that are obviously
> not supported by evidence -- such as that the
> demolition of the South Tower
> was accomplished by a helicopter, and that it was
> a nuclear attack.
> - It packages erroneous claims as science
> lessons. Examples include:
> asserting that there were numerous pre-collapse
> explosions on the basis of
> an unverifiable sound track, confusing the peak
> amplitude of seismic signals
> with the energy of the generating events, and
> assuming that the profile of
> the North Tower's dust cloud represents particle
> trajectories.
>
> One might ask, why does Siegel indulge in such
> obvious errors logic and
> science? Is *9/11 Eyewitness* simply an effort to
> capitalize on footage of
> the attack, playing up sensational claims and taking
> a devil-may-care
> attitude toward the science? Or is its purpose to
> discredit the idea that
> the Twin Towers were destroyed by explosives by
> superimposing nonsensical
> claims on footage of the crime, facilitating future
> straw man attacks of the
> type *Popular Mechanics*
> <http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html> and
> other mainstream press
>
outlets<http://911review.com/disinfo/press/index.html>wield
skep...@pacbell.net
I watched it at least three more times. I saw no flashes below the
collapse zone. There were plenty of flashes for a few seconds after the
debris cloud passed. (Video compression, as posited by Camille, of the
Internet version that I have only seen, did not prevent me from seeing
flashes)
Glass or aluminum panels are quite reflective. You can see this effect
on the houses of the East Bay hills when you are west of them and the
sun is low and setting. A window only 4 foot by 4 foot will be very
bright in such situations when there is a direct reflecting angle
between your position and the sun. In the case of the towers collapse
many hundred potentially relective objects were set loose and tumbled
to the ground. It would be odd if many of them did not make an angle
that was an exact reflection between the sun and the camera. As such,
there is no anomaly in the video and the flashes provide no evidence
for explosive use.
Vince
Camille
because it will show you quite clearly showing
extremely bright flashes going off way below the
collapse zone in what looks like demolitions. As I
said, you will not be able to see it on the compressed
online file.
However, I am fairly sure you will come up with
another counter argument to demolitions.
--- skep...@pacbell.net wrote:
__________________________________________________
Dana Carson
Your Sunday Salon Program (9/24) about September 11
Dear Mr, Bensky:
As a long-time listener to your Sunday Salon program
(I try to catch at least the first hour most Sundays),
and previously to your Living Room program, I'm
writing this missive in the hopes that you will read
it before air time on Sunday.
My degrees are in Geology (BS & MS), and I've always
been accustomed to questioning and sifting large
amounts of data and reading papers whose conclusions
turn out to be wrong. Of necessity, geology requires
a healthy combination of the "scientific method" with
an active imagination. Everyone familiar with geology
has heard of the tragic story of meteorologist Alfred
Weggener, who first postulated that the continents
"drifted" about on the face of the planet. His
opinion was derived from matching shapes of the
continents, as well as a highly improbable age,
fossil, and lithologic correlation: mountains, rock
types, and evidence of glaciation that seemed to match
quite well when the continents were lined up the way
they appeared to match.
When Weggener presented his theory, he was universally
condemned and ridiculed by the geological and
geophysical establishment. In particular, geophysists
said there could be no possible mechanical mechanism
to explain the apparent drift He died an early death
while on a polar expedition. The eulogy for him
praised his accomplishments as a meteorologist, but
completely ignored his ideas about continental drift
(largely out of collective embarassment).
Fast forward several decades, when magnetic ocean
stripes, deep trenches and high mountain ranges were
discovered in the oceans; when the fluid nature of the
uppermost earth's mantle was revealed, and virtually
100 percent of earth scientists accept continental
drift (now referred to as "Plate Tectonics"). Mr.
Weggener is now revered as the father of plate
tectonics. Mr. Weggener based his theory (and I use
that word advisedly) on observations he could easily
prove, and which had obvious relevance to the subject
matter. But his establishment peers insisted that he
should "stick to his own field".
Those who call themselves “9/11 Truth activists” are
in many ways in an analogous position: they are
personally disparaged by people (often remarkably
uneducated on the actual issues) who will not listen
to their arguments, but instead prefer to dismiss them
as “Conspiracy Theorists”. As a long time student and
practitioner of science, I submit that the term
conspiracy theorist is an utterly meaningless
pejorative. It only tells me that the name caller
does not know the meaning of either word (conspiracy
or theory). A much better term would be
“Paranoid-Nut-Case-With-Too-Much-Time-on-his-Hands.”
While this term is no more accurate than conspiracy
theorist, at least it accurately conveys the intent of
the name caller: to belittle the person rather than
deal with the information he wishes to present.
So as an unapologetic critic of the official 9/11
story (based on what I perceive to be logical,
evidenced-based arguments), I ask you, Larry Bensky,
to please be respectful of both listeners and callers.
By all means refute their arguments if you think it’s
appropriate. But remember there are many of us out
here who are not Paranoid-Nut-Cases, who know that
governments (EVEN THIS GOVERNMENT!!!) do lie, and that
many of the facts JUST DON’T ADD UP.
One final note: I believe I want the same things as
you: an America that practices a sane foreign and
domestic policy and that cares about its citizens and
its environment. But the saddest and most dreadful
future I can think of is this: If the government is
lying and covering up the truth about those attacks,
it is an unspeakable horror to think of the entire
future history of mankind suffocating under that lie.
Thank you sincerely,
Dana Carson
Oakland
510-532-8949
Brian Good
(Two typos-- comma on "Mr," and "pejeorative" in Par. 5)
Can I post this on DemocraticUnderground? If so, do you want
your name on or off?
Brian
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com
Camille
pertaining to 9/11 has been postponed, so if any
others want to write to Bensky before he broadcasts,
now would be a good time.
-- Camille