http://www.infowars.com/did-nist-edit-wtc-7-footage-to-hide-evidence-of-implosion/

Did NIST Edit WTC 7 Footage To Hide Evidence Of Implosion?
                                     
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, September 2, 2010

After filing a lawsuit that prompted NIST to release more than 3 terabytes of photographs and videos from their investigation into the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 on 9/11, the International Center for 9/11 Studies has obtained evidence that suggests NIST edited several videos of the collapse of Building 7 in order to hide evidence of a controlled implosion.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking production of “all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses.” Following several unsuccessful attempts to get NIST to even acknowledge receipt of the Request, the Center was forced to file a lawsuit on May 28, 2009. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Request was assigned a reference number, and NIST began periodically releasing batches of responsive records.
The Center has now begun posting some of those images and videos online, the first batch of which is from an external hard disk drive “NIST WTC Investigation Cumulus Video Clips.”
In one of the clips, the video of which has been in the public domain for years, a loud, low-frequency boom can be heard just before the east penthouse of WTC 7 falls. Once the support columns that held up the penthouse are taken out, the rest of the building falls almost within its own footprint.

However, in subsequent clips released by NIST, where the camera is located nearer to the building, the collapse of the penthouse is clearly edited out of the footage.
“Several clips from the Cumulus database show signs of editing. In the two video clips below, the collapse of the penthouse of World Trade Center 7 is cut out of the video. These videos happen to have been filmed from close to WTC 7, and have a high quality soundtrack that would have picked up explosion sounds from the charges that severed the columns supporting the penthouse, especially the explosion heard in the last video clip presented,” comments the International Center for 9/11 Studies.

In another clip, the entire collapse of the building is edited out, the audio is removed and only restored after the building has fully collapsed.

The Center also obtained videos of the collapse of the twin towers that had obviously been edited, with sections deliberately removed. “There are many video clips in the Cumulus database that do not show collapse initiation – the only event even purportedly explained in the final report from NIST on the Twin Towers,” states the Center.
Another new video shows Michael Hess yelling for help from the 8th floor window of WTC 7. The clip reinforces the fact that the building had not sustained any substantial damage before its free fall collapse within 7 seconds.

check out the breaking new footage here

http://www.infowars.com/did-nist-edit-wtc-7-footage-to-hide-evidence-of-implosion/

I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next person, however, the "smoking gun" WTC7 theory is more about being a coincidental magic show.
The illusion to the viewer is that there was very little damage to WTC7 before it collapsed. This is far from being the case.

Unfortunately, it was difficult to capture clear images of the other (damaged) side of the building, but there are a few around which show that it was in fact extensively damaged.

Amadd wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 9:21am:

I like a conspiracy theory as much as the next person, however, the "smoking gun" WTC7 theory is more about being a coincidental magic show. The illusion to the viewer is that there was very little damage to WTC7 before it collapsed. This is far from being the case. Unfortunately, it was difficult to capture clear images of the other (damaged) side of the building, but there are a few around which show that it was in fact extensively damaged.

Don't bother trying to talk sense to him Amadd,
I found and linked him the photos AND videos of the damage to WTC7 about 2 years ago...

I got the expected response....."The Government faked them to cover up".....

None so blind as those who will not see I guess....

I'M READY LEADER.

But on second thoughts........

---

There are clearly 1000s of unanswered questions about 9/11.

The film from the petrol station across the road from the Pentagon
was taken by force from the service station owner & never released.
It showed  ????????????

Why?
There must be something to hide!

a 757 cannot leave the imprint of a missile

re:pentagon.

the most heavily fortified building in the world it is said

or is it the vatican

both satanic as i observe this

namaste

all are forgiven

all are LOVED*

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 10:41am:

a 757 cannot leave the imprint of a missile re:pentagon. the most heavily fortified building in the world it is said or is it the vatican both satanic as i observe this namaste all are forgiven all are LOVED*

You're a demented fool, but so far I don't believe we have any reason to believe that you're anything other than a harmless demented fool... So post away you mad nutjob!

dear one,

i do not judge your judgement,you may,

if you have the care

comment on the topic or continue to distract from the title thread

it is for you to react how you will..does this comfort you?

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 10:50am:

it is for you to react how you will.

Gee, thanks for that...

Ever thought of ditching pyramids and welding together a bunch of mangled bars? Let the space in the middle, where the subjects sit, require them to contort their bodies into weird positions... Y'know... give your creations a post-modern edge (and a bit of comedy... sort of like Astral Twister) ... You could name them "Welcome to my head".

about the 9/11 topic,

any comments?

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:16am:

about the 9/11 topic, any comments?

The segue of my previous post was lost on you, then?

You're a dim-witted nut, that makes you susceptible to conspiracy and crank theories.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 11:30am:

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:16am: about the 9/11 topic, any comments? The segue of my previous post was lost on you, then? You're a dim-witted nut, that makes you susceptible to conspiracy and crank theories.

Light is a strange person but the cover up after 9/11 is also very strange.

The segue of my previous post was lost on you, then?

__________

not at all,

i do not contemplate nonsensical hyperbole and distraction

from the topic at hand...

You're a dim-witted nut, that makes you susceptible to conspiracy and crank theories.

__________

this is a distorted view (perspective)

and has no bareing on true reality

only your individual experience

if it is your way or desire to attack and ridicule a being

bringing truth and facts,so be it

however

if this is happening,one may be required to look at the motive

smear campaign against that one whom does shine BRIGHT

with the LIGHT*

it is within for you dear one,you are LOVED

and FORGIVEN by me unconditionally

does this comfort you?

it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 2:39pm:

The segue of my previous post was lost on you, then? __________ not at all, i do not contemplate nonsensical hyperbole and distraction from the topic at hand...

Aww I dunno, have a think... Mangled  welded pipes... 9/11 and all that... After "welcome to my head", you could subtitle it "the Joos dunnit... badassed".... Cashed up nutjobs would be onto them faster than winos on a flagon of meths.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 12:54pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:30am: it_is_the_light wrote on Sep 5th, 2010 at 11:16am: about the 9/11 topic, any comments? The segue of my previous post was lost on you, then? You're a dim-witted nut, that makes you susceptible to conspiracy and crank theories. Light is a strange person but the cover up after 9/11 is also very strange.

Booby the 'cover-up' on 9/11 could be as simple as "Yes we DID have intell on it but didn't do anything"....which wouldn't be too 'unbelievable'...

However, there is a HUGE difference between being too stupid, or arrogant, to believe the rumours.....and actually running the attack yourself...

If you wanted to nuke/go to war with whoever -would you really need to destroy your own world trade centre first?
It makes sense to complete idiots only. Apparently there are millions of them.

Jews did WTC. Let's face it guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ5zEB7jGBA

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2010 at 9:56pm:

Jews did WTC. Let's face it guys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ5zEB7jGBA

LOL well the 'obvious' high IQ of the film makers (Cletus and Lemuel).. convinces me no end....

co intel pro much?

This proves my point. If you take a few million people you can always find a few who will believe anything. Anyway that's what my dog told me this morning.

ahem,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjImLL4NnwA

http://afpakwar.com/blog/archives/2557

Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials

By David Ray Griffin1

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” [CNN Story] According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2

Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3

However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.

Olson’s Self-Contradictions

Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.

Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6

By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement.) The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7

American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version

However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI

The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10,” “9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11,” 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008,
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/03/911-commission-fbi-source-documents.html).] And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.

Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians

Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.11

According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”12

This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “(t)he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”.13, and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.[14.  Shoestring, “The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?” Shoestring911, February 2, 2008 (http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/02/flight-77-murder-mystery-who-really.html).] Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don’t know what happened in that cockpit, but I’m sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”14

The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”15

Conclusion

This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.

Source: Serendipity (Google Cache of this page)

This essay is based on Chapter 8 (“Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?”) of David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008). ↩
Tim O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN, September 11, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson). ↩
This was pointed out in The 9/11 Commission Report, 8. ↩
Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html). ↩
“America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,” Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html ↩
In his “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture,” delivered November 16, 2001 (http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp), Olson said that she “somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in the airplane to call.” He laid out this version of his story more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, “She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/telegraph030502.html). ↩
I discussed the technical difficulties of making cell phone calls from airliners in 2001 in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 87-88, 292-97. ↩
See the submission of 17 February 2006 by “the Paradroid” on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/index.php/t-133356-p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75. ↩
United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html). These documents can be more easily viewed in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights” (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html). ↩
FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic ↩
Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007). ↩
O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane”. ↩
9/11 Commission Staff Statement 16
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf). ↩
“In Memoriam: Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame, 1949-2001,” USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/chic_remembered.html). ↩

The truly sad thing about the 9/11 Truth movement is that it's based upon the wildly erroneous proposition that our leaders would ever be frightened enough of public opinion to feel the need to pull off this kind of stunt before acting in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq. At its heart, 9/11 Truth is a conceit, a narcissistic pipe dream for a dingbat, sheeplike population that is pleased to imagine itself dangerous and ungovernable. Rather than admit to their own powerlessness and irrelevance, or admit that they've spent the last fifty years or so electing leaders who openly handed their tax money to business cronies and golfed in Scotland while middle America's jobs were being sent overseas, the adherents to 9/11 Truth instead flatter themselves with fantasies about a ruling class obsessed with keeping the terrible truth from the watchful, exacting eye of The People.

Whereas the real conspiracy of power in America is right out in the open and always has been, only nobody cares, so long as Fear Factor and Baseball Tonight come on a the right times. A conspiracy like the one described by 9/11 Truth would only be necessary in a country where the people are a threat to actually govern themselves effectively.

But none of that even matters nearly as much as what 9/11 Truth says about the mental state of the population. The whole narrative of the movement is so completely and utterly retarded, it boggles the mind. It's like something cooked up by a bunch of teenagers raised on texting, TV and Sports Illustrated who just saw V For Vendetta for the first time and decided to write a Penguin History of the World on the strength of it. A genius on the order of a Mozart or a Shakespeare would be hard-pressed to dream up the awesome comedy that is the alleged plot from the point of view of the plotters. If there was such a conspiracy, remember, something like the following conversation would have had to have taken place:

Read on at http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33511

Quote:

The truly sad thing about the 9/11 Truth movement is that it's based upon the wildly erroneous proposition that our leaders would ever be frightened enough of public opinion to feel the need to pull off this kind of stunt before acting in a place like Afghanistan or Iraq.

That's not a statement that I would agree with in the least. Governments need the support of their people.
History is littered with fallen governments who thought themselves to be above public support.

Light,

don't expect any of these sheeple to actually address anything you post, as soon as you question the "official" 9/11 story, your credibility is instantly eroded in their eyes.

9/11 is a sacred experience for them, and anyone questioning the common narrative is blaspheming in their eyes. And although they don't use direct means to stifle that "blasphemy" they do use indirect means, like instantly lampooning the very notion that the official line might not be the truth, in order to dispel any such questioning as irrational and nonsensical.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 10:40pm:

Light, don't expect any of these sheeple to actually address anything you post, as soon as you question the "official" 9/11 story, your credibility is instantly eroded in their eyes.

The Irony... the paradox... the comedy... the ramma damma ding ding dong...

What can I say?

Abu Ratshit schmoozing it_is_the_fruit...

Ham on Ham

Helian, I think you mean ham on lamb. Ham on ham is unclean.

Namaste.

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 11:20pm:

Helian, I think you mean ham on lamb. Ham on ham is unclean. Namaste.

Yes, of course... Forgot about that ;)

hamassed.

Quote:

9/11 is a sacred experience for them, and anyone questioning the common narrative is blaspheming in their eyes.

I'm happy to question. I'm even more happy for others to do the questioning for me.

As you have displayed Abu, Islam is the biggest load of crap that we currently have to deal with.
It could be easily solved by labelling your objective as a political agenda
(which it is), rather than incorporating some bs spiritual hocus pocus into the equation.

We don't believe OK? Get that through your thick frikin' head!! Get out of our country and find one where they will believe. We don't want you Abu, rack off!!
The muslim political agenda has failed. Go support Hamas some more you clown, you pathetic leech.i

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys

It's a parody in case you hadn't realised. The comments by some of the faithful on that link indicate that they don't realise it's a parody.

Amadd wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 8:14am:

Get out of our country and find one where they will believe. We don't want you Abu, rack off!!

Oh go back to Indonesia :P

I feel somewhat ripped off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9toD_R6t1pI

all are forgiven yes,

and LOVED beyond measurement

isnt it ~?