Video link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...052327727&hl=en

I just noticed something while watching this video.

Goto 1:43, where the sequence begins that shows WTC1's destruction.

Notice at 2:01 the camera shakes,...

...and then twelve seconds later, at 2:13, the demolition visibly begins.

Is this evidence of preliminary charges going off at the beginning of the demolition sequence?

I have read firefighters' testimonies of explosions occurring just before the collapse of WTC2, but have never seen any visual evidence of these explosions happening {before the collapses}, and nothing about this in respect to WTC1; but in this video it looks like evidence of this, and for WTC1 as well.

If you look at the video from the very beginning, you can see the camera shake when UA Flt 175 strikes WTC2, which you can then use as a kind of "video reference" for comparing to what happens at 2:01.

What do you think?

that was in loose change second edition

Thanks for letting me know.
I seem to recall it now that you mention it.

And I've watched the video twice too...oh well. :mellow:

Have you seen these?:
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...t=ST&f=9&t=6683

I've seen the first two.

BTW, I read that very thread this day.
Excellent compendium of videos to see.

Thanks to you and the others, CS!

The camera could've shaken for a number of reasons: the cameraman adjusting his position, someone bumping into him, etc. At any rate, explosions aren't necessarily proof of explosives. Any firefighter will tell you that secondary blasts are not uncommon in office-building fires.

Your surmisings of what might have happened are fine.

However, there is additional video / sound evidence of the explosions that corroborate the demolition of the towers.

Here is a link to the video "9/11 Eyewitness".
Go to the 44-minute 25-second mark and see & listen for yourself:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...1+Eyewitness%22

(This is the French version of the video, but don't let that bother you.)

The explosions, scientifically examined via sound analyses, are prime indicators of controlled demolition, especially when you consider the timing of their occurrence.

It has convinced me.

Did you watch the other video?

Why no replies?

It sure is quiet when there are facts on the table.

Are you afraid of a little video footage.

9/11 is an inside job.

KICK.

No replies to evidence that proves 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB?

Where are all the OCT lovers?

The truth be told, no one can refute this. This is why no one replies. FINIS

yo that video is intense. it just reminds me how much we have to expose these killers..and finally brings justice to the family's....
when you slow the video down and watch it, its so obvious its controlled demo. falls straight down..fast...and theres no fire in the hole until it starts to collapse by the bombs...
intense....... :(
look at how the windows are blown out, and the find white dust every were. Dosent the white dust contribute to explosives?
and no way can a building that size fall in that short of time between when the plane hits and they fall. Fire going down cant not get hot enough to melt and bring a building of that size straight down.
NEW WORLD ORDER WILL GO DOWN!! MR. DICK CHENEY. :angry:

That numerous explosives pulverized the towers is self-evident in the available video footage. However, what caused cars in the nearby car park to take fire after the dust cloud had cleared? It is not clear that mere explosives can turn huge chunks of concrete completely to dust and reduce half a million tons of material to a debris pile only about 2% of the original height of the towers. Placing all one's eggs in one basket with respect to how the towers were destroyed may be dangerous in view of anomalies and questions that the modus operandi of a controlled demolition has difficulty explaining. The 47 massive core columns I believe were destroyed by something rather more powerful than just dynamite. Thermate literally does not cut it as a means of weakening support columns and girders. You cannot control how long it will take to do its job, nor how how efficiently, so it could have been only an auxiliary agent of destruction, not the primary one, as Professor Steven Jones has promoted.

What i find interesting is at 32 seconds in that video.....when the second plane hits the south tower....there is a VERY visible fireball bursting out of the opposite (right) side of the NORTH tower....any ideas on this one???

they will? find me some.

did someone just say that anyone fireman knows there are explosions in office fires?> really ???? i would have said that law prohibits office equipment from being explosive. maybe you're getting confused with industrial fires?

Didnt you know? In every office buliding the papers are made of fire crackers.

But there were squibs at locations that were not near the fire zones. Even if your statement were true, it is irrelevant.