Haha, no you didn't. You give a different camera view. A view that didn't have the lower part of the building in shot. Duh. That's all you needed to type. Keep denying, keep evading. I'm positive you don't actually know what refraction is or what the hell is being refracted and why! The building shows a wave in perfect sync with the penthouse collapse. It's game over folks. Demolition, (for no apparent reason!) disproven.
thats smoke you can see it in the light version of mine as well but with much less effect because mine is much closer and clearer. Yours is about 1" high and all artifacts, useless garbage. Further more yours does not match mine, yours is just heat and smoke, sorry to tell ya that ya bought another wooden nickel.
Interested viewers will see a number of things. A totally irreievant gif that doesn't show the lower half section of the building, doesn't show the orthogonal view, a ridiculous arm wave suggesting the clear penthouse collapse is "artifacts" and "heat and smoke". Previously, we had a comedy response saying it was "refraction", but of course absent of any reasoning. Now it's smoke and artefacts, refracting out of whatever, because of reasons. Above average intelligence viewers will understand the significance of the penthouse collapse, clearly visible and clearly a preamble to the lower support collapse. They will also be able to see the noise-related obfuscation generated to cover this slam dunk evidence.
Yeh everyone knows thats what you always say when you have no valid rebuttal! Ok pay attention now interested viewers: Um, hey beta, the penthouse is on top, not in the lower half. And viewers: take note, 1) first the one I posted is from NIST site, considered official. 2) The one beta is trying to pass of as a demolition is fake, a sucker play made by debunkers 20 years ago. 3) take note of the light and dark versions, the brilliant flare ups from thermate charges inside the building are perfectly in snyc with the windows blowing out and what we see. 4) that tiny fuz blob beta posted is smoke, light refraction, and because its a fuz blob artifiacts.
All that noise just to state the obvious? The penthouse is at the top. AND? The collapse wave IS in the lower half as well as the top section. Well done you! It's still irrelevant, not orthogonal, a different view and doesn't show the lower portion of the building. How about you address this? So, it's "That just refraction nothing more"(sic), "thats smoke"(sic) , "all artifacts"......and now he says it's fake! The power of debate is very strong here. Hushabooms blowing out the windows? And what crazy world do the "evil-perpetrators" place any sort of demolition in areas of raging fire, as opposed to simply on the lower support columns? Eagle-eyed viewers can see the penthouse collapsing through the building in the same wave as the small gif showing it from a better direction. So now it's NOT fake, but is just "light refraction" and "artifiacts"(sic), PLEASE make your mind up within a single post huh? As posted, the penthouse collapse, progresses in a steady collapse wave all the way to the bottom, clear as day. The building kinks and collapses a few seconds later. Game over: The viewers would now be wondering why you have failed to explain your "refraction" theory, we've seen the pathetic excuse for why not, but that doesn't wash.
For viewers who laugh at the "it's fake" suggestion, they would obviously need to see the source video for the gif: WTC7 Core Failure Propogation Visible - YouTube Game over, the collapse wave drops right to the bottom from the penthouse. CORE PROPOGATION VISIBLE. Let's put this into complete perspective: To rig the building for demolition would need a reason for it to be performed. This is pure chance. They could not KNOW large chunks would hit it and set off fires. Demolition charges would need to be resistant to many hours of unabated raging fires within the building on numerous floors. Now the fire teams all reported creaking/instability sounds. They could tell it was in danger of collapse. Insurance-wise the building was a write-off already, from the fires and damage. There would be no reason to demolish it! Previously claimed are vital records that needed to be destroyed. By splattering them all around lower Manhattan instead of just burning them? In the world of business, things are copied and backed up. How long to place charges around the multiple support columns? 2 hours maybe? NOBODY would have batted an eyelid if the official line said the building was too unstable to remain upright, so we are bringing it down for safety reasons. This whole building 7 (multiple claims) makes no logical sense. There is no reason to any of it.
Nice fake, thats a materially modified video. (poorly done I might add) The video I posted you can see it in both dark and light versions. 20 years ago I checked the one I posted and verified it was identical to the one nist had on their site. Therefore yours has to match mine, its not remotely close. You are posting junk clips and dont even know it. Im sorry you didnt get the memo and were left you out of the planning. At least you now agree that it was a demolition. Im sure you arent going to double down with some crazy theory that failure of one column causes a global collapse are you?
Hilarious. So now they faked the youtube video, that shows "refraction" "artifacts" and "smoke", but those "evil-planners" needed something tangible. Folks: as you can see, this clip has got him stumped. He knows how significant it is, hence the hogwash about it being "materially modified". If it wasn't significant, there wouldn't be any need to worry about it. Game over people, the REAL smoking gun of WTC7, shows the penthouse collapsing through the left hand side, all the way to the bottom, just as the left edge curved towards the camera and the building collapsed. No need for hushabooms, no need for invisibly-planted-irrelevant thermite machines. Fire and building damage, as described by the only reports that actually did PROPER fire modeling! Did anyone notice where my post was actually answered after it got quoted? No, me neither!
1. Hushabooms blowing out the windows? And what crazy world do the "evil-perpetrators" place any sort of demolition in areas of raging fire, as opposed to simply on the lower support columns? 2. The viewers would now be wondering why you have failed to explain your "refraction" theory, we've seen the pathetic excuse for why not, but that doesn't wash.
Puhlease, all it takes is simple conflagration to blow a window out and you would be lucky to hear that 20 ft away. What we now know is that you posted fake as in materially modified video.
Uhuh. So simple conflagration and voila, you can demolish the windows. Does the building fall after that? Seems a bit daft. The word is "please". There is no "uh" in it. So, you seem to have missed my point somewhat, probably deliberately. Let me repeat it and see if you can actually answer it properly! What crazy world do the "evil-perpetrators" place any sort of demolition in areas of raging fire, as opposed to simply on the lower support columns? Ie. What brainless point is there in blowing some damn windows out? You seem to be ignoring a whole lot here, the viewers are probably getting impatient for you to post something that doesn't result in a facepalm. Is there any chance this can happen? Kindly stop using "we". It's just you. The video isn't fake and it's patently obvious that you have no explanation for it. Game over, the penthouse clearly drops all the way to the bottom of the building. The eagle-eyed viewers will have noticed yet again that you failed to respond to this quoted post. "It's fake" is a very uninformed reply to the slam dunk video/gif.
There's that crystal ball again! I didn't detect any violence it looked like a normal lazy fire to me. Can you explain where you saw any violence? Sorry viewers you don't need to be eagle-eyed you need a crystal ball and a great imagination! Beta, you posted a materially altered video makes your position 100% disqualified. Of course you can feel free to go to NBC and cite it for us
Well folks we've gone from "light refraction due to heat shees", to "refraction", to "smoke", to "artifacts", to "it's fake" all the way to some batshit about "materially altered video". Ask this person to actually back up this hogwash? Nada, nothing, a big fat zero. Systematically avoiding large posts and changing their mind every post, that's none too impressive.
Nothing yet. But it's not refraction anymore, I suspect Google was used to determine that "refraction" wasn't the correct word! And completely avoided. It's game over, no wonder the response is "it's fake", because the alternative is 20 years of wasted effort.
everyone is waiting for you to cite the original video so we know its the truth. apparently thats asking too much? apparently you dont care if anyone believes you? you want us to believe you right? Very simple task, cite the original video.
Baffled viewers will by now be asking themselves whether this is just deliberate blindness or pretending not to see the video.
Yes the easily fooled. The critical thinkers however are bored to tears waiting for you to provide something, anything that can be considered forensic evidence instead of the constant battery of conspiracy dramas. At least give people a reason to want to consider our claims! eternally dodged
Game over, you can jump up and down in a huff all you like. The penthouse wave extends all the way to the bottom of the building. You can make up a whole series of daft reasons to dismiss it - we've gone from "light refraction due to heat shees", to "refraction", to "smoke", to "artifacts", to "it's fake" all the way to some batshit about "materially altered video" - but your personal opinion on the matter doesn't count. Is this some sort of tactic? The video is in the post you've dodged above. Here is another version! A compilation of all the collapses, right at the start: First view of the fire-induced collapse. Clearly, even without the brightness turned up, the penthouse collapses all the way to the bottom.
The only thing that is clear about that is the cgi overlay, very poorly done I might add. Even if I were to give all this the benefit of a doubt it still fails because the inside of the building would not be lit up so you could see it fall from the outside, (explosions and thermate excepted).
Haha, priceless. We've gone from "light refraction due to heat shees", to "refraction", to "smoke", to "artifacts", to "it's fake" all the way to some batshit about "materially altered video" - but now it's a "cgi overlay". What a crock! Viewers watching this thread can see the death throes of this daft theory. The slam dunk evidence is being resisted at all costs with a whole barrage of ridiculous excuses. Game over, the penthouse CLEARLY falls all the way to the bottom of the building. Let's put this into complete perspective: To rig the building for demolition would need a reason for it to be performed. This is pure chance. They could not KNOW large chunks would hit it and set off fires. Demolition charges would need to be resistant to many hours of unabated raging fires within the building on numerous floors. Now the fire teams all reported creaking/instability sounds. They could tell it was in danger of collapse. Insurance-wise the building was a write-off already, from the fires and damage. There would be no reason to demolish it! Previously claimed are vital records that needed to be destroyed. By splattering them all around lower Manhattan instead of just burning them? In the world of business, things are copied and backed up. How long to place charges around the multiple support columns? 2 hours maybe? NOBODY would have batted an eyelid if the official line said the building was too unstable to remain upright, so we are bringing it down for safety reasons. There were ZERO demolition noises. None. Hushabooms. This whole building 7 (multiple claims) makes no logical sense. There is no reason to any of it.
3 different videos, 3 different analyses, each with their own set of discrepancies, sorry if you dont understand the nuances. Its difficult if not nearly impossible to find original footage out there 20 years after the fact. Yeh all of the above are material alterations, that they have in common. Apparently you dont even know what that means.....look it up. Just because you are not capable of computing the logic does not mean any of this is illogical. It just means you failed to accumulate enough knowledge to gain an appropriate depth to figure it out. For the rest.....Not interested in your conspiracy theories, just forensics.
You seem to be under the illusion that I am trying to "sway" your opinion. Try not to think that, I couldn't care less what you believe. The viewers are capable of seeing how ludicrous this whole "demolition" schtick is and also equally capable of seeing that the penthouse collapses to the bottom of the building. Further, they can see how desperate you are to cover it up with nonsensical excuses.
You have the misguided impression that everyone believes you when in fact you are the only one that claims there were no explosions, everyone else heard and saw explosions, not to mention you were not there so nothing you can say about explosions is credible.
