9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Here is 911Eyewitness squeezed into 9 minutes, 400 percent speed.
It is a little faster than real life, but the perky smoke makes more sense than the paralyzingly slow smoke passed off as authentic. Sped up, we can see flashes and hear background noises and explosion noises more coherently.

Even the boats make more sense speeded up. This was a great emergency and the boats lazing their way down the river would be inappropriate, especially considering how fast they clip along in real life on a normal day.

Views: 117


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Curtis Sherwood on July 4, 2009 at 2:44am
Jack, use the link button. It looks like a chainlink, just left of the camera.
Comment by Jack D. White on July 3, 2009 at 6:00pm
To Jim...my URL does not work as a link. Jim, is there a way to have links? It is a
nuisance to have to copy and paste. Thanks.

Comment by Jack D. White on July 3, 2009 at 5:59pm
I am a newcomer here, and my first question is why do links not work?
Apparently they must be copied and pasted.


PS...I invite all to visit my 911 website: http://www.911studies.com/
I am going to see if this works as a link.
Comment by Rosalee Grable on July 3, 2009 at 5:12pm
Did you watch the footage?
It's only 9 minutes out of your life.
THOSE flashes and explosions.
They weren't noticable when it was stretched out.
The chipmunk noise is the narration.
Somewhere I have a copy of the researchers version of the footage, without the narration.
Thanks for the link with the actual timing of the collapse, with the doctor footage that I trust as source.
So "free fall speed" is a colloquialism.

Compare what these smoke clouds look like with the smoke of some real fire.
I think it looks more natural speeded up.
I trust the smoke speed in the Edna Cintron videos.

I say it was an inside outside outside inside inside outside job.
Comment by Curtis Sherwood on July 3, 2009 at 2:56pm
Which "flashes and explosions"?

Perhaps reflections?

The collapse was not faster than freefall as can be seen here.

For you to suggest they fell even faster than freefall, as if being "sucked down" is beyond comprehension.

Don't forget, I stand behind one idea and that idea is : 9/11 was an inside job,

But what you propose here is beyond the acceptable. I'll need much more info and better proof before I can accept this assertion.

Thank in advance,

Comment by Rosalee Grable on July 3, 2009 at 10:28am
Fred and Simon have pointed out that "live" 911 footage often looks slowed down, probably to stretch out innocuous scenes. I can't imagine what Rick Siegel and Dave Shaw's purpose was, unless it was to hide the flashes and explosions. If the footage was slowed down, that means the "collapse" was likely FASTER than freefall, like the buildings were sucked down.

Speeded up, the footage looks like drones, not helicopters or birds.
Comment by Peg Carter on July 3, 2009 at 10:23am
The water doesn't look natural. I'm agnostic on the helicopters but my sense is that they are unusually fast. 400 percent is four times speed and that is significant, not just "a little faster" "A little faster" to me is 50 percent.

© 2022   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service