Video Of South Tower Being Hit Two Massive Explosions Options

[Paul]

Hi guys found this video interesting, it's a video of the south tower being struck by
flight 175 but what i found interesting is that a second or two after the tower is hit
there are two really loud explosive bangs which sound like actually explosives
going off there is really no delay between the two explosions they occur almost
simultaneously at the same time but my suspicion is the the sounds are faked
i just want to know what you guys think, is there really anyway of telling if they
are or not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDmP3ZowyDE...feature=related

Are there any witnesses that anyone know of that heard two explosions or
multiple explosions just after the plane struck the south tower?

WTC 9/11 Rare New Impact Footage [NEW VIDEO QUALITY]

The footage is owned by the camera planet archive

Thanks cheers

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[7forever]

Robert,

That's where I got my analysis from, but Richard Hall believes the orb was added to the digi-plane which is what I believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXvN8NrkuU8...feature=related

[23investigator]

Robert,

That's where I got my analysis from, but Richard Hall believes the orb was added to the digi-plane which is what I believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXvN8NrkuU8...feature=related

Dear '7forever'

'but Richard Hall believes the orb was added to the digi-plane, which is what I believe.'

My 'analysis' of the composition of the image in each frame, does not come to this conclusion.

I would be interested to know how you have formed your opinion.

In your previous post you indicated that the reaction of the 'women', in your opinion, indicated that the video footage was genuine.
It does appear that is the case, other than the edit work regarding the 'globe'.
If it is considered, how relatively small the 'object ' in question is, to the foreground and expance of background that the 'women' would have been viewing, particularly considering the conversation was about the burning North Tower, and how more ground detail could be achieved, it is highly likely the 'object' was not part of their concentration.

The 'simplest' form of disguise to unwanted detail contained in the video footage, would have been to "smudge it", which progressive analysis of the composition of the image at the point of the 'globe' suggests.

Robert

[23investigator]

Dear '7forever'

'but Richard Hall believes the orb was added to the digi-plane, which is what I believe.'

My 'analysis' of the composition of the image in each frame, does not come to this conclusion.

I would be interested to know how you have formed your opinion.

In your previous post you indicated that the reaction of the 'women', in your opinion, indicated that the video footage was genuine.
It does appear that is the case, other than the edit work regarding the 'globe'.
If it is considered, how relatively small the 'object ' in question is, to the foreground and expance of background that the 'women' would have been viewing, particularly considering the conversation was about the burning North Tower, and how more ground detail could be achieved, it is highly likely the 'object' was not part of their concentration.

The 'simplest' form of disguise to unwanted detail contained in the video footage, would have been to "smudge it", which progressive analysis of the composition of the image at the point of the 'globe' suggests.

Robert

Dear '7forever'

I realise by bringing this post forward I have not given you an opportunity to answer my previous question.

May I say, I am not participating in the 'forums' to become part of 'protracted argument', but to just bring information forward, for people to give consideration to.

At approx point 5.41 in his video presentation, Mr Hall makes the exclamation, that this was his 'eureka moment'.
What he refers to is 'very significant', but I question his conclusion.
Certainly at the location of the superimposed aircraft there is detail which coincides with the 'globe' he has under consideration.

It is here that the logic he has applied , in my view, becomes incomplete.

This can be best demonstrated by the video on Youtube 23investigator South Tower Infamous video frame showing hidden A3 Skywarrior.
There are a number of other video on the 23investigator Youtube site demonstrating other considerations relating to the South Tower situation.

In respect to the presentation referred to, it is suggested that the viewer use the pause button, to be able to consider how the --superimposed-- A3 Skywarrior fits the parts Mr Hall has referred to, as well as showing that the portions of the original --superimposed-- aircraft, that are missing in the original frame of the video, fit the matrix of deception used to coverup the A3 Skywarrior.

Something appears to have most definitely hit the South Tower, it appears from all the editing of the various videos, that it was not the size of a Boeing 767, and it is doubtful it was a 'globe', although in the video which Mr Hall refers to, it could certainly be considered a 'globe' was the participant, until viewed at larger scale to be able to define what the complete 'globe' is digitally composed of.

Robert

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Sep 23 2011, 05:28 AM