WTC 1 - Super Slow Motion

[EpicDoucher]

The exterior of the WTC was load bearing steel covered in concrete.

You don't need to be any kind of expert to clearly see concrete bursting to dust from explosions.

The wiring and explosive setting job on these buildings took years to complete.

You would need full security access.

Enter Marvin Bush, George W. Bush's little brother.

As director of Securcom in charge of WTC security 93-00, Marvin Bush, had more than 7 years to oversee the largest controlled demolition in world history.

[dwheel39]

Doesn't look like any fire-collapse in recorded history. Explosives were obviously used. Thanks for the upload.

peace

[drgzor]

0:26 look 

[LanceCiepiela]

No office fire - that's for sure.

[cregen124]

Amazing footage! The 9/11 was just the beginning of what is to come soon.

[19rollercoasterfreak]

ok notice at 0:34 on the left side of the tower is a wall a full wall free falling menaing the top of the tower pushed it out and away menaing the tower was not a demolition!

also the debri is falling way out of the tower meaning if it was a controled demolition it would be a faliure because it would all fall inside and down this fell out and around also if you look around on the intrenet the whole back of wtc 7 is in flames!

[Duman328]

perfect inside job. respect for the worker

[rOlfOlmaO]

We see clearly that 9/11 was inside job ,,done by Mossad"s Terrorists no?¿

israel is planning new 9/11s.....Gud Vid :)

[MrSqueevoot]

Stop with the fucking conspiracy bullshit, try remembering those killed instead!

[anonymouscommentss]

@MrSqueevoot sadly it is not conspiracy BS, it is a conspiracy theory with substantial evidence. govs LIE, and ours has a history of it (gulf of tonkin, USS liberty, op northwoods [but not done], gulf war one lies, etc.)

we want to uncover the conspiracy FOR the victims, so they do not die in vain. also so their MURDER is not used as the criminals intended, for wars that have killed ~1million. iraq had nothing to do with terror, and i have travelled the ME and israel/palestine. PNAC/NEOCONS.

[TheAmazingLeztits]

so Its time for a brief and basic physics lesson. People claim that all three building that came down that day fell at free fall speed meaning that they were imploded. This video clearly shows that the building was not in free fall or even all that close to free fall. You see all object fall at the same rate but chunks of WTC7 were falling significantly faster than the building itself. Simple physics shows that this building did not free fall.

[concretefire]

Anyone who believes this was an inside job by George W. Bush Jr is a fucking moron. Period. Remember, these are the same dumbasses who who go around with bumber stickers saying "somewhere, a village is missing their idiot" and then they have a picture of Bush. So, which is it? Is Bush a moron, or one of the greatest masterminds of inside jobs alive? Or....is it possible, that the people who believe in this Bush 9/11 conspiracy are just the dumbest people to ever breath air? Answer is obvious..

[Born2Flesh]

What ever...

[509Monte]

Jet fuel LOL! thats a good one

[fo694013]

I can't believe this is still an issue...

[IranContraScumDid911]

Notice it does not hit WTC 7 nor fall on top of it. At best small pieces scratched the facade. The smaller buildings the Tower fell on took the brunt and withstood it well considering. The street between WTC 7 and the main plaza was virtually void of WTC1 debris. FBI Release #22. Greyraven, 1/4 mile freefall 9.4 seconds in Manhattan. Both Towers fell in less than 11 seconds. 1 floor every 1/10 second. The core was plumb and uncrushed by the upper building. The cauliflower dust tells all

[femr2]

@IranContraScumDid911

WTC 7 was hit by portions of WTC 1:

watch?v=wjnJ7CPIoFA

More than a scratch for sure:

watch?v=FaoXMx4pSFE

Primary crush front propogation time was about 14.5s:

watch?v=_rI1MuooNm8

[IranContraScumDid911]

@femr2 I just might have more 9/11 videos than anybody on Youtube, The first link you sent me too from the west. The North Tower does not fall on WTC 7 and again pieces scratch down the facade. The eastern part that looks like it hit, is seen missing in other videos. Here is the deal that cannot be argued and confirms everything I say. There is barely any WTC 1 debris in the street in front of WTC 7. Notice in the first video the roofline is intact, untouched. 2nd link, later Roofline destroyed.

[femr2]

@IranContraScumDid911 Good for you. WTC7 wasn't hit with a huge amount of debris. It got a little more than scratched. But *believe* whatever you please. I'd imagine debris took out lower portion of column 20, which resulted in that damage propogating up to the roofline later on. Who knows eh. There's no video directly west showing clearly what scale of impacts ocurred, so it's all speculation.

[IranContraScumDid911]

@femr2 You can go running with false facts if you like, the truth is the roofline was UNDAMAGED in the first video you sent me, and the building looks like it got an Oklahoma City size chunk blasted out of it in the second video a couple hours later. That is pure fact, no speculation. Thanks for the lead. Quit imagining scenarios that are purely hypothetical and near impossible. By the scientific definition of the word, you saw hundreds of explosions on 9/11. Great video, by the way.

[JulietsMan]

@femr2 if you take out a column at floor 20 on a 50 story building how does that make the roofline fail? answer: IT DOESNT you miserable idiot.

[JulietsMan]

@femr2 @femr2 You are making a point which is moot. Neither damage from falling debris nor fire caused the collapse of 7. How can I say this? Well conclusively the other buildings like 6 which withstood severe damage from debris remained standing. Any rational person knows and can calculate the impossibility of any steel frame structure falling due to fire. And the video eveidence alone is enough to prove that 7 was a controlled demolition. Not to metion the owner of the thing saying to pull it.

[1LTD1]

***COMMENT REMOVED BY FBI***



[1LTD1]

Stupid stupid stupid stupid so very stupid. . Knowing how many people buy into this inside job - crap makes me want to start a career as a con artist. So many people are so incredibly stupid and/or gullible. Add spooky soundtrack and convincing narrator voice to a youtube clip and certain type of people will buy everything you say. It's creepy.

[Watchyourselvez]

You guys really are a bunch of dumbasses...

[sir4ki]

massive explosion..great work by CDI

[Trimixtech]

Lot  of brain leaking asses here!

[dexterboy2007]

@Trimixtech AMEN!

[WTCdemolitions]

Thanks. Whoa. Wow.

[RuffleTheTeacher]

Starting @ 0:40, top of shot, approx 1" down from top in center, creation of a spire starts. Then, all around in the smoke one can see flashes of light beond that spot. In that smoke, there should be nothing... the building is falling.

Just focus on the spire top and you can see a direction to these flashes... then the steel column starts to smoke for no reason and falls away from thoes flashes.

Just a casual obsevation.

Excellent work on these shots and your core collapse series!

[femr2]

Ta. Just had a look at my original for this video and there's really very little that can be gained from the TL white-out segment. It's pretty much digital compression fuzz. By all means download the HD clip from the link in the video details, and take a look with something like virtualdub. Use the levels filter and move the middle arrow to the right.

[femr2]

Watch this video to see the extent of smoke coverage at the point of the descent of WTC 1

watch?v=KlvcWhgV8x0

[RuffleTheTeacher]

Can you do a reverse color image of the upper left corner of the shot, super imposed on top of this footage?

The dark cloud and the lightened sky almost seem to be opposite of the right hand of the shot. Yes, I know it is shaded on the right, but compare the sky images and see if you see what I see.

[femr2]

I can do if it's bothering you, but if you look closely, you can see the smoke 'billows' in the left white-out area.

If you're not happy with my previous explanation, let me know and I'll sort something out.

[RuffleTheTeacher]

Cool... I'm not saying you did a bad job or you are not above the board on your presentation. It reminds me of the FOIA vids that came out end of last year. Clear shots, camera operater seems to know what he's doing. Then, pan up to the hole and white out, over exposure, batteries go dead, etc.

If you have the ability to look at the left in a different way and find something important, then post it. If not, then we have what we have. I believe this area of sky is the arial platform for a weapon

[femr2]

No, it's just smoke, but I'll pop something up asap just to clarify your view. Shouldn't take long...

[RuffleTheTeacher]

The odd thing about this shot is the lighting. Obviously a high quality shot. Look at the sky on the right of shot... blue, clear, and the roof top of the building in the foreground is lit by the hot Sun.

Now, look to the left.... overexposure, no clear dividing line between smoke from fires, sky, or blue sky. It almost looks like there is a cloud in the shot, and EVERYONE knows it was clear... from NY to KS it was crystal clear blue. The Sun was not in the shot. Yet, camera was pointed at it

[femr2]

The white-out on the left hand side 'is' smoke.

If you check the prevailing wind direction, although it wasn't strong, it did blow the smoke in a SE direction.

Hope that clarifies for you.

There is a little lightening in the shot too.

Here's one lightened even more:

watch?v=samGjZ8nKgk

(Both sides white-out)

[smitty121981]

EPIC

[peterene]

WONDERFUL

[Nicktopoian]

RUBBISH RUBBISH RUBBISH MY ASS

[Dynamicdj]

at least ur not saying the collapse vids are fake like simon shack lol

[JSSTyger]

"Dear me. Making up claims again. I did warn you"

He's been driving me nuts with that tactic.

[trutherslie]

Oh... so it was just information... not obfuscation by saying Look BAFFLES can be used.

isn't that special. if it was CD, you would hear it. period. If they used baffles (which can be done) then it is now orders of magnitude more difficult to do w/out anyone noticing.

so provide video showing CD which is silent. very simple.

[trutherslie]

so you claim it is possilbe to have silent demolitions.

prove it. bring in one video of any CD in the world which has silent explosives. that the people watching can't hear.

I worked in Cd for 2 years... it is not possible to wire a building the size of the towrs unnoticed, and to add in baffling w/out someone noticing.

so provide a video showing CD at work with silent explosives

[trutherslie]

Not at all. I am including a mechanism which would eject debris away from the towers at a high velocity. which they would.

did I say the 100K KG mass was driven there by air pressure? strawman.

there are several great papers on how the debris from the towers were spread that distance.

[trutherslie]

The KISS RULE applies. (keep it simple stupid)

you are suggesting another level of complexity, yet NO ONE noticed any of it.

not one person ever said, hey what is that.

not one survivor ever said, you know there was this weird crew in the office 6 weeks before the attacks. not one person has ever come forward.

that level of operational security is unheard of (and impossible. even int he manhatten project STALIN knew about the Abomb test.)

[trutherslie]

explodes in office fires

hydraulics pumps, fire extinguishers, industrial chemicals (cleaning chemicals), office supplies, industiral supplies, computers, electrical transformers, electrical fuse boxes, water pipes, and lets not forget the interior which was collapsing.

now can you eliminate any of those explosions? No you can't.

now if it was bombs they would leave behind residue, and fragments. so if the towers were wired (and baffled like you claim) there should be det cord, etc

[trutherslie]

really? You send me to an eyewtiness who says there were explosions? Great. I fully accept ALL of the eyewitness testomony from 9/11.

now do you? do you accept it all?

Lets look at the explosions. Now in real science we look at the data, form a hypothesis then reexamine the data.

so we have explosions in the towers (which were on fire btw). So what could cause explosions in the burning towers?

bombs? ok.

what else? Oh lets see about hundreds of things.

[femr2]

Pointless spam. Get a grip.

[trutherslie]

Oh no it was ejected that far. You are fully correct.

but there are several mechanisms which would eject the debris that far.

In cluding air pressure from the air shafts blowing out the debris as the collapse occured.

Now you bring in baffling mechanisms... sure you can put them up in buildings to keep it quiet... but now you have added yet another level of complexity to this massive plan.

a team of 40 would takea bout 4 months per tower to rig them for CD. add in baffles, and it is 6

[trutherslie]

femr2.

there is one major problem with the "indication of demolition," where is the sound of the explosions ANYWHERE?

CD charges are NOT silent. You can hear them for MILES. All explosives make a tremendous BOOM. And any explosive which would eject debris that distance would be hear miles away.

where is it?

[JSSTyger]

"Have to disagree with you there."

OK...well...still not a thing hit the roof of WTC 7

"distance...around 600ft"

Hmmm...thats around 50 mph (horizontal) if it came out say from 1200feet high.

...just impossible...

[trutherslie]

I'm sorry, there is visible damage to the roof. how did it get there?

either 1. it was struck by debris not visible from this angle.

2. thre was a progressive collapse of column 20 to the roofline (the same mechanic as the eastern mechanical penthouse collapse and the main collapse of wtc 7)

or

3. your super duper silent explosives which were pre wired with no one ever noticing it.

[trutherslie]

actually if you look close on the left hand of the screen you can see what appears to be the debris which did hit the roof. Of course this video clip cuts out right before the impact.

so how can you s "not a thing hit the roof of wtc7?" You can't.

[JSSTyger]

"if you look close on the left hand of the screen you can see what appears to be the debris which did hit the roof. so how can you s "not a thing hit the roof of wtc7?" You can't."

You mean the debris that is clearly going off to the left and wayyy in front of WTC 7? I'm only asking you to use a little bit of depth perception here You can tell by the trajectory right when it leaves the tower.

At 1:12, the piece that is near the top SE corner...that is the one they blame for the damage.

[trutherslie]

a little bit of depth perception in a 2d image? ROFLMAO.

a 2d image from ground level, with the bulk of the building between you and the debris.  Depth perception... righth.

an engineer you say? really?

[JSSTyger]

"a little bit of depth perception in a 2d image? ROFLMAO.

a 2d image from ground level, with the bulk of the building between you and the debris. Depth perception... righth"

"an engineer you say? really?"

BSCE 2004 Ohio Northern University. I've told you this before. Go research the University. Ask me questions about it.

You are a tool.What you are telling me is that you cannot percieve depth because it is a video.That first sentence is moronic then you go question MY credibility?

[trutherslie]

I love it when truthers attach. My lack of maturity? hahahaha. Oh that is too funny.

I am not the one stating that there are silent explosives, which were wired into 3 buildings with no one noticing. I am not the one trying to claim that thermite/thermate/nano thermite could could steel beams horizontally. I'm not the one claiming a consipracy in the tens of thousand of participants, I am not the one refusing to accept both eyewitnesses and physical evidence. Yet you call out my maturity?

[femr2]

You show your immaturity, nay, stupidity, when you have a 'conversation' with one person, then accuse another of making 'claims' that have formed no part of 'our' conversation.

I don't think I am going to waste my time with you, but you have one final chance to get a grip.

[trutherslie]

I wasn't speaking to you.

I was speaking to JSS who makes ALL of those claims.

[JSSTyger]

Real engineers know this can't be explained any other way than controlled demolition.

[trutherslie]

hahahahaha.

appeal to authority logic fallacy widdle twoofer.

NIST explained it very well. So did fema. So to do the 40+ peer reviewed journal articles which support the common narrative.

how many do you truthers have again in accepted valid scientific journals? oh... none.

ROFLMAO.

[JSSTyger]

"ROFLMAO"

You are sooo right!!! NIST did explain that there was an INVISIBLE pile driver!!

Really you need to stop following me around you little stalker freak.

Once you learn that an imploding building does not explode, then come back and talk to me. k?

I can't help you if all you have is "but NIST is accepted by..."  You aren't knowledgeable about structures so go study for a few years.

[trutherslie]

again and again and again.

you say imploding building. why are massive sections of both cores still standing if it was imploded? Why are there NO videos in which you HEAR the CD charges going off? (they are freaking loud, can be heard a mile away) where did that acre of air per floor go when the roof collapsed on it? where did the mass of the upper portion of both towers go since you say it was no longer there?

you are making the claim that as any E can see it. when they can't. it isn't there

[trutherslie]

wow.. Jss.. you know lookign at this I can see the complete symmetry and how it all lines up.

I can even see the debris EXPLODING UPWARDS.

oh wait... neither of those actions are there.

oops.

[JSSTyger]

"wow.. Jss.. you know lookign at this I can see the complete symmetry and how it all lines up.

I can even see the debris EXPLODING UPWARDS.

oh wait... neither of those actions are there.

oops."

The collapse is virtually symmetric.

And...if you see the arches above the collapsing building, you can tell the debris was shot out at an upward angle...

And just as a side note. You can clearly see (1:10) that the debris that supposedly hit WTC 7 was FAR in front of it.

[PollenB]

Super nice! "Squibs" clearly visible!

[911insidejob81]

thanks for video

great job!

[silversobe]

Rockefellers owned those buildings o.O

[rifleman0007]

wow, how did you do this?

[femr2]

Frame interpolation. Has to be done with a high quality original. Takes ages to process but does the job. It's 1/9 real-time. Make sure you watch in HD.

[rifleman0007]

something like frame morphing? amazing.

[rifleman0007]

by the way could you please post his vid on rapidshare or elswhere i really want to download it.

[femr2]

Can do (will be a day or 2 though)....if you can't wait, you could try keepvid. com (you just paste the yt video url there...) (My upload was about 70mb)

[rifleman0007]

problem is that i only downed HQ, not HD version, fmt=22 not work :\

[femr2]

URL is in the video description.

[rifleman0007]

the best. thanks. :)

[JSSTyger]

I looked, but I can't see any debris hitting the roof of WTC 7. I should be able to...right?

[trutherslie]

Just as a side note you are most definately an idiot

what made that huge gash in the building?

watch?v=IwdD6

debunk911myths*org/ t / images/ thumb /4/ 44/ Wtc7 _ collapse _ damage*jpg

After all there wasn't "siginficant" or do you use "severe?" Oh you use "severe" damage to wtc7.

poor little twoofer.

[femr2]

Derisory rubbish such as "poor little twoofer" will not be tolerated here.

You were asked a simple question.

At what point in this video can you see debris hitting the roofline of WTC 7 ?

I'm fullt aware of the damage to WTC 7, which I'll discuss with you once you have answered the question.

[JSSTyger]

I dragged him in here unknowingly. He's been stalking me cuz I have that feature turned on in my profile where they can view my post history....looks like I'll have to turn it off.

[trutherslie]

To answer your question, In this video there is very littel in the way of observable damage to wtc7. Though it is rather amazing that you cut it RIGHT at the point of any impact to wtc7 so I cannot acurately say that I dont' see debris hitting the front roofline

[femr2]

The end of the video was imposed by the source footage. You suggestion of deliberate obfuscation is childish. Here is the same footage at much lower resolution, but slightly elongated time:

watch?v=KixTSW-yOFk

You have stated "In this video there is very littel in the way of observable damage to wtc7" then contradicted yourself by "I cannot acurately say that I dont' see debris hitting the front roofline"

Tsk.

[JSSTyger]

I know there was a huge gash in the building. Its called explosives. I thought I ran that one by you before.

There is a gash right at the top of the building. As you can see in this video...nothing comes close to WTC 7. to create this gash. The only photo you have is one that is taken from behind the building where its left up to perception to guess whether or not it actually hit the top of the building.

This video here, though, makes it clear that NOTHING hit 7...which is expected

[femr2]

JSS...Here are a couple of useful videos for your discussion:

WTC 7 NIST Ignore Missing Column 20

watch?v=a94uWPzl3zg

WTC 7 Top of Column 20

watch?v=rlesuJwwK1g

[JSSTyger]

"JSS...Here are a couple of useful videos for your discussion:"

Thanks...I've seen those videos...unfortunately, though, I think the discussion has just ended

[trutherslie]

Wow... so the GASH which was a localized collapse due to falling debris was caused by explosives. that is absolutely amazing. Fantastically amazing. So that means they wired up wtc7 well before the attacks, ad detonated them when the tower collapsed. Freaking amazing to control the demolition to just one section of the face o th building. again it must be those stealth explosives you have been peddling.

[JSSTyger]

"Fantastically amazing. So that means they wired up wtc7 well before the attacks, ad detonated them when the tower collapsed..."

Are you the most unresearched, uneducated tool on the net?

There is absouletly NO VIDEO EVIDENCE of debris striking WTC 7's roofline. Its perfectly clear right here!! Come on man.

How hard would it be to "wire" one column and take it out just to look like "debris damage".

This is proof that truthers are right that debris cannot travel 360 feet.

[trutherslie]

Wow.

I love how you ignore the idea of a localized progressive collapse. The debris doesn't have to hit the TOP of the building to cause one.

The mechanics which caused the gash are the same ones which caused the eastern mechanical penthouse to collapse, and the exact same mechancis which lead to to the total collapse.

[JSSTyger]

"Wow.

I love how you ignore the idea of a localized progressive collapse. The debris doesn't have to hit the TOP of the building to cause one."

Oh...do tell...please

Because I want to hear how this "progressive, localized collapse" BS worked out for other buildings that got holes poked into them but hte floors above them did not fail.For land sake the damage was limited to between two columns..thats too small an area for a multi story progressive collapse.Superstructure would easily hold.

[trutherslie]

Yet again you compare apples to oranages. Other buildings didn't have the same design, nor the same mechanic in play. Which I have told you repeatedly, yet you continue to make invalid comparisions.

you have in the past compared the mandarin hotel fire, and the madrid fire to wtc7.

so make a valid comparisions.

[JSSTyger]

"you have compared the mandarin hotel fire, and the madrid fire to wtc7.

so make a valid comparisions."

I can't stand people who completely invalidate the comparison just because the Mandarin Hotel has a concrete core. Forget that the building was a blast furnace compared to WTC 7 and was still intact after 18 hours right?Its a steel framed high-rise.Thats the closest comparison anyone on either side has at this point.

Who knows if 7 had a concrete core or not?No plans been released.

[trutherslie]

steel framed concrete core? is that all it had? Oh there you go again misleading people.

it was NOT an open floor plan design. It was NOT a truss system floor. It was a TRADITIONAL design with spaced steel reinforced concrete on all floors.

that is a MASSIVE difference isn't it?

Like the madrid fire. the steel reinforced concrete traditional part stood.

what happened to the unprotected steel? huh? oh it collapsed due to fire. wow amazng.

shift shift shift

[femr2]

"it was NOT an open floor plan design. It was NOT a truss system floor. It was a TRADITIONAL design with spaced steel reinforced concrete on all floors."

You really need to perform more research on the WTC floor construction, and the varying floor types used throughout each tower.

You need to realise that the truss system is still a steel reinforced floor system, and that numerous floors were also constructed in more traditional steel beam form.

You also need to stop 'exaggerating'.

[keyhole911]

officially: YES!

;-)

[gutrp]

how in the world can any one see this and say its normal building collapse... u see all the debris flying off soo far..

its controlled demolition

good job femr

[GreyRaven75]

@gutrp Actually, if it was a controlled demolition, the debris would all fall close together, not across the street and onto other buildings. Controlled Demolitions bring a building down from the base up, not from the top down like the WTC. Also, you'd see very bright flashes of light and hear very loud explosions as the demo charges go off. This was not an inside job and this video certainly doesn't provide that proof that it was.

[ArsenalReady]

@GreyRaven75 Herp derp. Ignoring the debate about the Twin Towers because it's so tedious, WTC 7 was a classic controlled demolition. :)

[GreyRaven75]

@ArsenalReady  Oh yes. Herp derp. Couldn't possibly argue with that.

[CunningStunt777777]

@gutrp nutter

[Veloce3]

Yep, Squibs, and exploding debris very evident...Doesn't look like a collapse to me!...Thanks