Must See Film

[Camille]

Hi y'all.

Last night I saw a film called "9/11 Eyewitnesses"
(see Chuck for a copy of the DVD). The film has very
interesting shots that I haven't seen in other films
including a shot of the south tower during its
collapse in which one can see many rapid flashes in
the building below the collapse line. I was watching
it with three others and we were all stunned by this
footage as it so obviously looked like explosive
charges. We tried to ascertain if these flashes could
be reflections from broken glass from the sun rays,
but most of the flashes were underneath a thick cloud
of debris and smoke from the above collapse zone,
obscurd from the sun. Also, many of these big, bright
flashs were on the shadow side of the building.

If you haven't seen this video I would highly
recommend it. To me it looks like proof positive that
explosives were used. The film also has very strong
points in that the producer used known physical
science and audio analysis of the collapses. The audio
collapse data was very interesting.

**** Four stars. Highly recommended.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Victoria Ashley]

A review of the film is here:

Rick Siegel's 9/11 Eyewitness:
Sensationalism and Pseudo-Science

911eyewitness is a DVD by Rick Siegel purporting to teach the truth about the attack on the World Trade Center. Instead of elucidating the truth, however, the piece seems designed to hide the reality of the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers by surrounding footage of the demolitions with a vermeer of vapid claims and pseudo-scientific analysis. The DVD teaches us that helicopters were instrumental in Towers' destruction and that it was a "nuclear attack".
http://911review.com/reviews/911eyewitness/index.html

--
"Last year, the chief executive of AT&T asked why web sites should be able to "use my pipes free.'" Pretty soon, we won't be able to.
http://savetheinternet.com/

[Dana Carson]

OH, COME ON.

--- Victoria Ashley <victr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A review of the film is here:
>

> Rick Siegel's *9/11 Eyewitness*:
> Sensationalism and Pseudo-Science
>
> *911eyewitness* is a DVD by Rick Siegel purporting

[Camille]

Well, I also was a bit dubious about the helicopter
stuff but I was more interested in the footage showing
the rapid fire flashes as the building was coming
down, indicating explosives. I hadn't seen this before
and was pretty amazed to see it so clearly. Also, some
in our group have been promoting that explosives
weren't used and that the pancake theory was probable.
It think that this footage should put that idea to
rest.

Also, Victoria, I don't think we should throw out the
nuclear stuff out of hand. It seems that some
governments have been making mini-nukes for some time
now. Why wouldn't this be part of the arsonal of tools
that they could use? Perhaps this would explain the
extremely high heat for over a month at the sites.

Camille

--- Victoria Ashley <victr...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A review of the film is here:
>

> Rick Siegel's *9/11 Eyewitness*:
> Sensationalism and Pseudo-Science
>

> *911eyewitness* is a DVD by Rick Siegel purporting

[Hal Womack]

Did you mean "veneer"?
The Dutch painter Jan Vermeer died in 1675.

Otherwise, thanks for the 2nd look.

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

--
Hal Womack
24/7 tel.# = 415/788-5701
San Francisco CA 94133
U.S.A.

"BEtween Just yoU & Me & the TELephone KOmpany" =
BEJUMTELKO

[Dana Carson]

Camille:

You were much nicer and more solicitous than I; I
simply wrote back, "OH COME ON".

Dana

[Victoria Ashley]

>>Perhaps this would explain the
extremely high heat for over a month at the sites.

Prof Steve Jones believes that the extremely high heat and molten metal pools are evidence of the use of thermite.

His paper is here:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
"prolonged heating likely due to non-ignited thermite cutter charges, keeping molten pools hot"

See his long discussion of this in his first point:

1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools

- Vic

[skep...@pacbell.net]

Camille asks why the nuclear bomb idea should be dismissed.

In a nation where according to the famous scientist Carl Sagan, 95
percent of the population is scientifically ignorant, just about any
idea can be worthwhile. A nuclear bomb would be a dumb thing to use
because nuclear weapons leave behind radioactive signatures that can
allow investigators to determine many things about the weapon and who
probably made it. Determinations of how an atom bomb may be made can
even be inferred by radioactive assessments taken from the atmosphere
from a distance of many thousands of miles. See
http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eglobsec/publications/pdf/2_4DeGeer.pdf
for details is anyone is interested.

In addition, there is no evidence whatsoever for a nuclear weapon used
at the WTC center. Such films as 911eyewitness have probably been made
to be one of many films and websites that hook in the scientifically
ignorant and drown our movement with gullible people and discredit the
9/11 truth movement to the degree that the movement associates with
such films, web sites and gullible people.

Vincent Sauve

[Camille]

Vince, I would suggest you read this:
http://www.vialls.com/nuke/bali_micro_nuke.htm

It would seem that the modern mini-nukes being
developed today do not omit significant amounts of
gamma radiation, which is what gieger counters pick
up. Here is an excerpt from this piece on mini-nukes
and the Bali bombing:

"The new Dimona micro nuke was the very first critical
weapon that could be used in “stealth” mode. Gone was
the dirty Uranium 238 reflector, and up went the
purity of the smaller Plutonium 239 core. You see,
Plutonium emits only alpha radiation, which for all
practical purposes is “invisible” to a standard Geiger
counter. If you do not believe me then ask the
American Environmental Protection Agency, whose staff
will confirm this.

In direct contrast with its more deadly cousins beta
and gamma, alpha can travel only a few feet and is
incapable of penetrating human skin. If you can afford
an incredibly expensive and highly specialized Muller
tube or similar, you may be able to detect tiny
amounts of alpha directly outside the Sari Club,
though you will more than likely be defeated in this
quest by the Bali environment."

-- Camille

Oh, by the way, you still have not commented on the
flashes seen all over the collapsing building.

--- skep...@pacbell.net wrote:

__________________________________________________

[Scott Page]

There are no dumb questions- so I say ask ahead, if only to cover all
of the bases. While I doubt that this administration would be stupid
enough to use a nuclear device to take down the WTC structures when
more conventional means could work just as well, I've been proved
wrong before. That the smoke and mirrors (shock and awe) 9/11 event
did fool most of the world, and the bogus War on Terrorism has worked
well enough to undermine it's sceptics rants against it, clearly we
should leave no stone unturned, even if at first pass the question
seems ridiculous to ask. Either radioactivity was present (like
thermite and thermate) or it wasn't. If it is inconclusive, then
another means of analysis should be tried. What is evident from a
simple visual inspection of the WTC catastrophe, is that some sort of
explosive device was used in New York. The event was dramatic enough
to even mimic the power and characteristics of an atomic blast in
many respects, but this doesn't indicate that such a device was in
fact used. There should be a radioactive signature if one was
employed. Perhaps no one looked for radioactivity in NY- certainly
someone has asked this question before.

I know that Jeff Rense isn't an ideal source of information but the
following links are interesting just the same:

http://www.rense.com/general72/911dis.htm
http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm

If this is hogwash- please post a link(s) to dismiss this line of
inquiry (personally, I'm satisfied with Dr. Jones' data) so that we
can move on. Questions are what got us thinking about 9/11,
persistence is what hopefully will get us results.
~Scott Page

[skep...@pacbell.net]

Not being up on nuclear bomb technology (and neither is Camille) I
sought an opinion from a friend who is more refreshed in his physics
education than I am. Here is what he wrote on the subject of the Bali
micro nuke idea:

"The discussion of explosives at WTC sounds sensible, but the Bali
mini-nuke discussion is bullshit. Nuclear explosions propagate with
neutrons and create a neutron burst so powerful that it will expose all
photographic film within several hundred meters. The talk about alpha
decay is for unexploded Plutonium, not for a nuclear explosion." --End
of quotation from friend--

Also of note is that the author of the micro nuke idea writes "If you

do not believe me then ask the American Environmental Protection

Agency, whose staff will confirm this." and "If you can afford an

incredibly expensive and highly specialized Muller tube or similar, you
may be able to detect tiny amounts of alpha directly outside the Sari
Club, though you will more than likely be defeated in this quest by the
Bali environment."

Real science desires to propose hypotheses that are falsifiable. A good
hint for recognizing pseudo-science is that built into the
argumentation are statements that lead away from falsifiability. In
other words, it is not at all practical or likely that a person is
going call the EPA (and probably get put on their list for suspicious
callers) and find someone who can confirm or deny some claim of nuclear
science. Nor is it likely that someone is going get their hands on an
"incredibly expensive" devise just to go to Bali and then be defeated
by, I'm assuming, natural background radiation of the Bali environment.
It would be good if we all started to look for clues of pseudo-science
before we suggest some article as a rebuttal.

Vince

[skep...@pacbell.net]

Camille asks: "Oh, by the way, you still have not commented on the

flashes seen all over the collapsing building."

Yesterday morning I watched the film for the first time in a while. I
was looking for the flashes that you have referred to and have not seen
them. Perhaps I blinked at the wrong moment. I even replayed the
collapses. Perhaps I blinked again at the wrong moment. It would be
helpful Camille if you saved us the time and provided the exact minute
and seconds into the film when we need to really focus our vision. And
which building supposedly has the flashes?

Vince

[Camille]

Well, maybe you need to turn up the dimmer on your TV
Vince, because four of us (Dana, Diana, Me and Don)
were watching this footage and we all saw the flashes
very clearly. And, there were not just a couple of
flashes their were at least twenty. Since you have a
DVD player you might want to slow down this collapse
sequence to a quarter speed and you will see it quite
clearly, unless, of course, you don't want to.

Camille

--- skep...@pacbell.net wrote:

__________________________________________________

[Dana Carson]

The flashes are clearly visible, and appear much like
the flashes of camera flash bulbs at a stadium at
night. They appear to come from what I interpret as
the core complex of the North Tower during the
collapse. I have no idea what they mean, but I
completely agree with Camille that they did happen.
They are so subtle that even experts might not have
noticed them. I wouldn't have seen them if not for
Camille pointing them out. Now that I have seen them,
they are obvious every time the footage is run.

It is also worth noting that similar flashes appear in
the footage of numerous building collapses I have
seen, as a series of pops that crackle audibly just
before the collapse process begins. I'm not sure how
they relate to Jones' hypothesis of thermate cutter
charges, but I believe there is evidence of more than
one type of demolition charge being used in the
process. Jones points out that thermate may have been
used to weaken the strongest elements of the core
complex, but that standard charges such as C4 may have
been used to pulverize the concrete etc.

I don't claim to know. I just claim to clearly SEE
the flashes. As with the flashes that appear just as
the plane hits the South Tower, the question is not
whether they are there, but whether they are
significant to understanding the event. As always, I
insist on distinguishing between what can clearly be
observed, and what interpretation one wants to put on
the observation.

For example, it is clearly observable that no clearly
recognizable airplane debris (or any that clearly
identifies the type of plane of Flight 77) can be seen
at the Pentagon. There are many possible
interpretations of this fact, but the observation
exists independently.

Thank You Camille for noticing the flashes. That is a
contribution, regardless of the interpretation.

Dana

P.S. Happy Fourth of July. A great day for breast
beating, drinking beer, "supporting" the troops, and
bellowing about how this is the "GREATEST COUNTRY IN
THE WORLD".

Or for those with a stronger stomach, how about
walking through the midst of these revellers carrying
unpatriotic and inflammatory signs?!

[skep...@pacbell.net]

Camille, perhaps you four seeing the flashes and I not seeing it can be
explained by the video source. You guys watched it on a DVD and TV. I
don't have a DVD of the film so I watched it on my computer monitor
from over the Internet. I was not able to slow the film down.

Vince

[Another Worldview]

The key word there is BELIEVES.

 

Reasonable minds may differ - particularly if they evaluate all sources of evidence for THEMSELVES. And don't mistake this as an endorsement of the film - I haven't seen it. Think of this as an endorsement of free-thought, and against cult-behavior, NLP and other subtle forms of mind-control.

 

Ian

Victoria Ashley <victr...@gmail.com> wrote:

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[Another Worldview]

Speaking of gullible people Vince - are you still buying the official story on the Pentagon 'hook-line-and-sinker'?

 

As you may be aware - the Bush administration has been talking about "mini-nukes" for some time now. Just how 'mini' they can make them is still unclear. If you're hearing about about a future weapon in the press, you can basically assume that they already have it. Now I will admit that the mini-nuke theory doesn't have the strongest evidentiary support (though I can't claim to have seen the film, or even having given it the same amount of time that I address to your mis-directed energies), but that doesn't mean it is already disproven. That's how science works Vince, someone proposes a hypothesis, no matter how unlikely, and then people test it. So go ahead and test.

 

As for your assertions that nuclear weapons would leave tell-tale signs...well, so do controlled demolitions, and it took several years for anyone to compile the better evidence for that, too. The question is not whether or not these signs were present there at ground zero - but if there was anyone there who could or would perceive them. Recall please that the EPA gave the "all clear" shortly after the attack.  And I don't know if Princeton was taking into account the possibility of "mini-nukes" in the piece you cite. After all, aren't they some futuristic weapon (until we go after Iran, anyway).

 

As for information on mini-nukes, perhaps Jim can 'model' one for us. I'm sure that the Lawrence Berkeley Labs would have at least a bit on the subject, just lying around.

 

http://www.msri.org/sponaff/Support_Federal notice the Dept. Energy (the Nuclear weapons people) amongst the sponsors here.

 

I don't know if we can even dismiss matter/anti-matter annihilation as a means for generation of the enormous energy of the outward explosions at the tops of the buildings, much less a micro-nuke. And of course what occurred at the top isn't necessarily what occurred at the bottom. Perhaps it was a combination of themite and other explosives (a near certainty, nuclear of not - since themite doesn't explode like dynamite - it burns like white phosphorus or napalm).   

 

Ian

skep...@pacbell.net wrote:

---

Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

[Another Worldview]

Funny, but I "saw" the flashes in the film, and that was on radio. Try leaving the "mute" function off, on your TV. I know that the narrator makes reference to them. Perhaps that could be your clue.

skep...@pacbell.net wrote:

ridiculed.

Second, it is violently
opposed.

Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer 1788-
1860

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.