Hi Res Release of New WTC Collapse Videos

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Hi Res Release of New WTC Collapse Videos
Topic Started: Dec 8 2008, 12:51 AM (1,966 Views)
Lin Kuei	Dec 8 2008, 12:51 AM Post #1
Posts: 1,604 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	Quote: An anonymous source has released high resolution DVD mpg2 footage of the North Tower & Building 7 collapse clips, reported here on November 1st, 2008: http://www.911blogger.com/node/18358 Also the source has allowed the release of video of the South Tower, and made all 3 available in high quality downloadable DVD file mpg's. These files are cut from source recording DVD VOB files so there is no quality loss, however the sound has been removed, and the video is edited. The source wishes to remain anonymous at this point. View all 3 clips here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY Hi Quality DVD files at these links. South Tower: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=67PMXROL North Tower: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YS0XHA8B Building 7: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=EKPQ0VXM http://www.911blogger.com/node/18742
Posts: 1,604 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


JFK	Dec 8 2008, 08:36 AM Post #2
Posts: 4,822 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	These are available here - http://agenda911.dk/article.php?story=20081207193437321 - without the hassle.
Posts: 4,822 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Miragememories	Dec 8 2008, 09:53 AM Post #3
Posts: 973 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	I've had no luck with those MPEG downloads from either source. Neither VLC or Quicktime Player on my Mac will recognize the downloaded files. Sigh. MM
Posts: 973 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


SPreston	Dec 8 2008, 10:48 AM Post #4
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Miragememories Dec 8 2008, 09:53 AM I've had no luck with those MPEG downloads from either source. Neither VLC or Quicktime Player on my Mac will recognize the downloaded files. Sigh. MM Me either MM. But you are in luck. Go to the right side of the YouTube video and download the DivX version and use a DivX player. It works just fine and looks real good. Quote: Alternately, I've made a high quality DivX compilation of all 3 clips, you can download that here if you wish: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LSO4XYAZ Patience required; this high resolution video takes a long time to load. Two DivX video captures - What is this damaged building behind the North Tower? North Tower showing explosive hurling of heavy steel exterior wall sections up and out. South Tower Doesn't look like smoke - looks like a lot of steam Edited by SPreston, Dec 8 2008, 10:54 AM.



Nevermind	Dec 8 2008, 11:13 AM Post #5
Oh, you didn't know? Posts: 672 Group: Admins Member #4 Joined: 12/21/07	The building between the towers was a hotel, Marriot World Trade, I believe.



SPreston	Dec 8 2008, 11:28 AM Post #6
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Interestingly in the south tower collapse, we can see what appears to be white hot debris (steel?) falling off the building around the 50th floor. mysticalgroove cropped, stabilized, and zoomed in on this debris so we could have a better look. White hot molten debris South Tower Plume emerging from ground level ahead of debris cloud, during South Tower's collapse. Somebody said the train tracks were inside that long short building, so those plumes must have been coming from underground and the sub-basement levels. Edited by SPreston, Dec 8 2008, 12:16 PM.



Grit1645	Dec 8 2008, 12:29 PM Post #7
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	I wonder how they exerted such a large DOWNWARD force on those big exterior pieces?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


SPreston	Dec 8 2008, 12:43 PM Post #8
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Grit1645 Dec 8 2008, 12:29 PM I wonder how they exerted such a large DOWNWARD force on those big exterior pieces? Explosives of some nature maybe? Up, and out, and down while still traveling outwards up to 600 feet away from the tower? We can see from the photos that a lot of it reached Winter Garden and WFC3. That took a lot of explosive force applied to the heavy structural steel exterior wall sections.



Xenomorph	Dec 8 2008, 07:13 PM Post #9
Posts: 97 Group: Members Member #67 Joined: 01/16/08	Yeah, the mpgs are in sort of an unusal mpeg format, not typical for DVD's, but they are as I recieved them. I have a series of mpeg codecs enabled under FFDshow that enabled me to get them to play or able to convert them correctly.
Posts: 97 Group: Members Member #67 Joined: 01/16/08


Grit1645	Dec 8 2008, 07:19 PM Post #10
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	SPreston Dec 8 2008, 12:43 PM Grit1645 Dec 8 2008, 12:29 PM I wonder how they exerted such a large DOWNWARD force i]on those big exterior pieces? Explosives of some nature maybe? Up, and out, and down while still traveling outwards up to 600 feet away from the tower? I was referring more specifically to some of the pieces which are well below the "collapse zone" of the tower, as in this picture (to the left of WTC1). I've looked at the numbers, and I don't believe it's possible for an object which leaves point X to go UP and then DOWN and then overtake another object which left point X at the same time and falls under gravitational acceleration only. In other words, if the "collapse zone" falls at acceleration 32.2 ft/s^2, a section of exterior wall cannot begin at the same time from the same place, and move up and then overtake the downward-moving zone. Therefore, these sections must have been thrust downward with some force, to give them an initial velocity down. It's not obvious where a downward force located outside the footprint of the building (in the air?) would come from.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Dec 8 2008, 07:30 PM Post #11
Posts: 973 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 "I've looked at the numbers, and I don't believe it's possible for an object which leaves point X to go UP and then DOWN and then overtake another object which left point X at the same time and falls under gravitational acceleration only." Where was that said? MM
Posts: 973 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Dec 8 2008, 09:17 PM Post #12
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Dec 8 2008, 07:30 PM Grit1645 "I've looked at the numbers, and I don't believe it's possible for an object which leaves point X to go UP and then DOWN and then overtake another object which left point X at the same time and falls under gravitational acceleration only." Where was that said? MM Umm, SPreston was referring to pieces going up, out, and then down, and I said those were probably not the ones I was referring to, since pieces could not go up and then down and then overtake another object falling from the same point under gravity only? Any thoughts on what would cause a downward force located OUTSIDE the building wall?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Dec 9 2008, 08:32 AM Post #13
Posts: 973 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 "I've looked at the numbers, and I don't believe it's possible for an object which leaves point X to go UP and then DOWN and then overtake another object which left point X at the same time and falls under gravitational acceleration only." Where was that said? Grit1645 "Umm, SPreston was referring to pieces going up, out, and then down, and I said those were probably not the ones I was referring to, since pieces could not go up and then down and then overtake another object falling from the same point under gravity only?" So in other words, he never claimed what you chose to rebut? The only point to your aside was to create the impression of a contradiction in his post. As a self proclaimed structural engineer, you aren't curious as to why multi-ton steel sections would go up and out in a gravity collapse??? Explosive forces acting on the building's structural members, would logically be expected to cause broken sections to be flung in a variety of directions, including deflected impacts that would re-direct objects downward at greater speed that a normal gravity drop? MM Edited by Miragememories, Dec 9 2008, 11:49 AM.
Posts: 973 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


frank nada	Dec 17 2008, 05:10 AM Post #14
Posts: 28 Group: Members Member #969 Joined: 12/17/08	Quote: however the sound has been removed, and the video is edited. : ( that really is too bad. you could find out a lot from the audio.. even with talking and such on the tape. Quote: The source wishes to remain anonymous at this point. well, i'd assume that the reason for no audio... still... too bad.
Posts: 28 Group: Members Member #969 Joined: 12/17/08


Grit1645	Dec 18 2008, 01:35 AM Post #15
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Dec 9 2008, 08:32 AM Explosive forces acting on the building's structural members, would logically be expected to cause broken sections to be flung in a variety of directions, including deflected impacts that would re-direct objects downward at greater speed that a normal gravity drop? MM No. The fact is that there is no physical cause that can make the large pieces of exterior wall fall faster than gravitational acceleration in this collapse. There are no explosions OUTSIDE the building walls, and there is nothing to collide with that could turn the direction of motion downward and speed up the velocity of a large wall section falling from the upper floors. No, the fact is that we obviously don't know the correct physics. Whatever "laws of physics" we are relying on are incorrect, and need to be reconsidered and reformulated. Physicists still have a lot to learn about how things work.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Dec 18 2008, 09:03 AM Post #16
Posts: 973 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Miragememories " Explosive forces acting on the building's structural members, would logically be expected to cause broken sections to be flung in a variety of directions, including deflected impacts that would re-direct objects downward at greater speed that a normal gravity drop?" Grit1645 "No. The fact is that there is no physical cause that can make the large pieces of exterior wall fall faster than gravitational acceleration in this collapse." And you know this for a fact? There were no possible physical causes, that could act in addition to gravity, to direct building debris downward at a velocity greater than a gravity drop? The simple fact is Grit1645, you know nothing of the kind. Your facts are assumptions based on all the other assumptions that permeate the NIST WTC Collapse reports. Grit1645 "There are no explosions OUTSIDE the building walls, and there is nothing to collide with that could turn the direction of motion downward and speed up the velocity of a large wall section falling from the upper floors." Where did you dig that up? Who said anything about "explosions OUTSIDE the building walls"? You deliberately ignored what I said and injected your own words to refute! What part of my statement; "Explosive forces acting on the building's structural members, would logically be expected to cause broken sections to be flung in a variety of directions", did you fail to understand? As you know, I believe the collapses were caused primarily by explosive demolition of the building cores. Let me make it clear. I'm talking about INTERNAL EXPLOSIONS! Grit1645 "No, the fact is that we obviously don't know the correct physics. Whatever "laws of physics" we are relying on are incorrect, and need to be reconsidered and reformulated. Physicists still have a lot to learn about how things work." With that facetious statement, you are just being an ass. Math and physics work well when applied honestly. MM
Posts: 973 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Dec 18 2008, 12:14 PM Post #17
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Dec 18 2008, 09:03 AM And you know this for a fact? There were no possible physical causes, that could act in addition to gravity, to direct building debris downward at a velocity greater than a gravity drop? The simple fact is Grit1645, you know nothing of the kind. As you know, I believe the collapses were caused primarily by explosive demolition of the building cores. Let me make it clear. I'm talking about INTERNAL EXPLOSIONS! MM Please explain how an explosion in the center of the building can exert a downward force on a wall panel which is 35 to 100 feet horizontally AWAY from the explosion?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


DoYouEverWonder	Dec 18 2008, 02:45 PM Post #18
Posts: 515 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	Notice the bottom edges of the first set of panels coming down? All of column broken at the same length. This would indicate that these are columns from the mechanical floors and that the mechanical floors failed first. These columns created the bands that went around the buildings because the columns were set at the same height all the way around, instead of in staggered sets of three. The mechanical floors had beams instead of trusses and were designed to carry more load. Setting the columns at the same height created a seam, which was considered a weakness in the structure. If you blew up the mechanical floors first, the floors above with the trusses above have no where to go but down. Too bad the gov didn't recover all of the major from the impact zones and the failure zones. All of the columns and beams had id numbers. If a proper investigation had been done, none of this would be a question now. Edited by DoYouEverWonder, Dec 18 2008, 02:48 PM.
Posts: 515 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


Miragememories	Dec 18 2008, 07:57 PM Post #19
Posts: 973 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 "Please explain how an explosion in the center of the building can exert a downward force on a wall panel which is 35 to 100 feet horizontally AWAY from the explosion?" MM
Posts: 973 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Dec 18 2008, 09:36 PM Post #20
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Dec 18 2008, 07:57 PM Grit1645 "Please explain how an explosion in the center of the building can exert a downward force on a wall panel which is 35 to 100 feet horizontally AWAY from the explosion?" MM Is that an answer? Cause I'm not seeing an answer to the question I asked. All I see is you pointing to some stuff coming out of the side of the building well below the collapse zone. And coming out HORIZONTALLY at that.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Dec 19 2008, 09:04 AM Post #21
Posts: 973 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Grit1645 "Is that an answer? Cause I'm not seeing an answer to the question I asked. All I see is you pointing to some stuff coming out of the side of the building well below the collapse zone. And coming out HORIZONTALLY at that." Honestly Grit1645, you know, and I know, it doesn't matter what I say, or show you. Your initial reaction is not one of sincere interest, but a kneejerk reaction of how to reject what opposes your stratified point of view. Explosions by their very nature, try to expand spherically. Consequently, and depending on the openings in the building, some debris will be projected or deflected below horizontal at speeds greater than what would be produced by a gravity drop alone. That arrow by the way, was left from the original graphic and is pointing at projected debris, well below the collapse front. MM
Posts: 973 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


DoYouEverWonder	Dec 19 2008, 09:14 AM Post #22
Posts: 515 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08	It's no accident that the plumes blowing out of the east wall are coming from the mechanical floors. These were key floors you would want to target to CD the building.
Posts: 515 Group: Members Member #206 Joined: 01/24/08


Grit1645	Dec 19 2008, 11:00 AM Post #23
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Dec 19 2008, 09:04 AM Honestly Grit1645, you know, and I know, it doesn't matter what I say, or show you. <snip> MM Lol, there's some truth to that, MM. And of course that pendulum swings both ways. Do you believe that all of the collapse videos are faked or tampered with, as to the timing?
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Lin Kuei	Dec 19 2008, 11:18 AM Post #24
Posts: 1,604 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07	Grit1645 Dec 19 2008, 11:00 AM Do you believe that all of the collapse videos are faked or tampered with, as to the timing? Huh?! Grit1645 you are now confined to the skeptic's section. You can 'debate' all you want there. Edited by Lin Kuei, Dec 19 2008, 11:20 AM.
Posts: 1,604 Group: Admins Member #5 Joined: 12/22/07


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

<a href='http://delivery.zetabbs.com/adserver/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a731ce40&cb=1196158526' target='_blank'><img src='http://delivery.zetabbs.com/adserver/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=29&cb=1196158526&n=a731ce40&ct0=INSERT_CLICKURL_HERE' border='0' alt='' /></a>
« Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic »