Three Minutes Before WTC2 Demolition
This video has a nice view from a distance of what happened to the south tower before it was blown. Probably the most interesting thing is the appearance of the dripping "molten material/thermite reaction*" right before the demolition. This video put this event into a time context that I didn't appreciate before and really gives the impression that the molten junk is a direct cause leading to the downfall of the tower.
*yeah, yeah, I know.
*yeah, yeah, I know.
posted by spooked at 7:05 AM
5 Comments:
So now you are supporting thermite or what?
Your words seem to.
Whatever that is doesn't support anything, as whatever it is could have been rigged to pour out before nukes went off, just to support the perpetrators' coming hangouts. And if thermite was to be used as a subsidiary explosive, why didn't that bit of it explode (if that is what it is, and there's no proof of what it is)? Since it is being claimed to be very hot, by its color, if it were thermite it should have exploded. Just meaningless hangout palaver.
Just drivel to hide what really happened. Thermite--"all things to certain people." And totally disproven as the destruction mechanism. So why write seemingly otherwise?
What I do see--and not commented on--is a strange video glitch at about 2:39 that may be due to EMP from the first "collapse" nuke(s).
Note also how the smoke from both visible towers is so different. From both facades of the one tower it seems to be mostly vertically rising. From at least one the facades of the other tower, the smoke is mostly horizontal. Even though the other tower has a facade aligned the same way, so it is not likely due to external wind causation, but due to the nature of what is causing the smoke itself.
So either there is video fakery throughout, and/or it just shows how much of what happened before final explosions was carefully set-up. While the "plane going in" videos are obviously very poor CGI with zero interaction physics, much of this video "appears" to be real, thus indicating that many things were carefully set up to provide for the coming gatekeeping hangouts.
A.P.
Also I am not sure the following has been cited before as such.
In any case, I think it is significant.
A few seconds after tower destruction commenced, the smoke at top contains numerous tiny flashes. To me this MAY indicate that the overpressure and great temperature from the nukes was triggering explosions of a subsidiary conventional explosive.
But even that may not be correct, as there could have been other more usual things present that when impacted by the nukes's effects would have first exploded rather than simply be melted or vaporized. Again this is in a region whose floors have already been destroyed a few seconds earlier. So maybe the 2nd explanation is actually more plausible. Bottom line is that we can't be sure; but it does seem like many small (conv.) explosions occurred in matter whose floors had already been destroyed.
But do look for all the tiny flashes on top after destruction occurred.
A.P.
Maybe Spooked is really an "Intel Filth" like everyone else.
The most interesting thing is the forced venting on the opposite side china. WTF is that about? WTC7 and these two are not the same drop modus, the drop modus with these two is a cocktail to taste. A brew with a view and they knew no one would really care before they dropped the economy.
@11:33:
I "like" the time that that was posted. A hint for us?
I never said "everyone else" rather I said from the outset "virtually everyone else" and that HAS been verified. From Judy Wood, to all the disappeared or reversed "9/11 truth forums" (orders are orders.)
And I don't think that is the case; and that would make me the biggest fool that ever existed. So I doubt it.
But all I know is that disinfo crap from the likes of S. Warren or the thermite crap would never be cited by a Bill Cooper or a Sherman Skolnick at their sites, once they were explained as disinfo crap, so it is very dubious at best to promulgate the disinfo material. There are enough intel sites posing as conspiracy truth sites that do that.
Just very dubious and needless. And I don't see any good reason to post such things. If things are slow, one could always re-post some of the remarkable findings that I or Spooked have written that are true instead of disseminating anything from an SW or anything that appears to lend credence to the thermite burns forever scam. Or that it was even dripping down as there is no proof whatsoever that that was thermite, or even that that was not video fakery.
And there are plenty of photos and video e.g., of pure water waterfalls such as at Yosemite where the time of day/lighting etc. makes the water look red or orange, such as here (I have misplaced a video of this, but it's on youtube):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1PjugGtteA&feature=related
And I had just sent a video of that to here, before this thermite piece was posted, so why?
I had hoped the video of the Yosemite waterfalls looking like fire would be posted... As again it helps show that the "dripping stuff" could be anything, instead this piece which sure seems to be promoting thermite. Unless I am missing something that I cannot see or understand? Please enlighten.
I will see if I can find the video of red/orange Yosemite waterfalls, but you have a nice photo of it above, and it's just water, so it's shows what either natural lighting or video fakery can do. But something could have deliberately been dropped out just before they blew it up, as well.
A.P.
Post a Comment
<< Home