In Plane Sight viewers only: Explain the CNN WTC 50-60 story cloud shot.

I just watched In Plane Sight last week. I watched it with a fairly skeptical eye and found myself in disagreement with their interpretations of the evidence they presented on quite a number of occasions. But I don't feel that I closed off my judgement to the possibility that they might present evidence that was convincing regarding September 11, I was skeptical but still open-minded.

About half-way through, they presented CNN footage that made me stand up with my jaw on the floor yelling, ":wtf: is that?!" Those of you who saw it know what I'm talking about: Tom Clancy was being interviewed as they broadcast a live shot of a 50-60 story cloud of white smoke billowing up from the ground level of the WTC while the twin towers remained standing! I couldn't believe what I was seeing, but it was very clear that this cloud formed before the twin towers collapsed. To me, it looked like smoking gun proof of explosives being detonated.

I've shown this scene to two people, tomorrow I will show it to a third friend. Both of the people I showed this to were convinced it was detonation smoke. We tried thinking of alternate explanations, I proposed the idea that perhaps debris from the WTC hit another building and that building caught fire, creating the cloud of smoke. But both of my friends dismissed that idea, the smoke from the WTC was dark and black, while the 50-60 story cloud was light gray, almost white. And how could a burning building create a cloud of smoke at the rate of speed and mass that that cloud accumulated. Why was the cloud not drifting east at the same rate as the smoke billowing from the twin towers? I couldn't think of an explanation.

So I open this topic for In Plane Sight viewers to discuss. Is the CNN footage smoking gun proof of explosives detonated at the WTC? If not, what is it? I'd be very interested to see if anyone can come up with a good non-detonation explanation for this phenomenon.

Do you have a link

I have always thought that they were demolished
by looking at where the planes hit, and how they came down
I am very interested in all of this
email me too!!

http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/wtc/Seven/euro-news-seq.htm

These pictures are of the South Tower collapse.

Watch the CNN footage, then look at the sequence of photos from Euronews. Look for a descrepancy on the right side of the CNN clip. The Euronews footage seems to show something that the CNN footage does not, this anomaly may help prove that they were filmed at different times.

If you had, you would know what the descrepancy on the right side of the CNN clip is.

I'm not saying your theory is wrong. All I'm saying is watch the movie. Listen to what Dave vonKleist is saying. Then get back to me and we'll talk about CNN footage compared to Euronews.

Dave does not discuss anything to the right of the Towers in the clip, though he makes numerous references to the dust cloud to the left.

The EuroNews footage's time is not in question as the time of the "Clancy" footage is in question. So we can now, with moral certainty, state that the EuroNews sequence is indeed the collapse of the South Tower and not an earlier event.

As for "my theory", well it is not mine, I am merely presenting information that may support the theory that the "Building 6" explosion happened before the South Tower collapsed.

Now, have you figured out what it is that the EuroNews sequence shows yet is missing from the CNN "Clancy" footage?

When you mentioned the right side of the screen, I thought you were referring to the blip in the right corner of the CNN footage, when vonKleist says that he is putting the clip in slow motion. Now I see what you're talking about. Again, my mistake, I wasn't sure what you were talking about.

NOW, I think I see what you're really talking about. The EuroNews sequence is coming from the same direction, but it looks like the angle is slightly different. The CNN footage is definitely missing the rising smoke from the right clearly shown in EuroNews, but I'm not 100% certain whether the difference between the two is timing or angle. The CNN footage is pretty brief on the film, and I wish it had been shown as broadcast with Clancy speaking. But as I told another poster here, I'd like to see a source debunking the CNN footage before I disregard the footage.

Tell me more about your "Building 6" theory. I know it's not "your" theory per se, but the theory you mentioned as you understand it. Is that the smoke on the right?

Yes the anomaly that I am talking about in the EuroNews footage is the plume of smoke on the right side of the screen. Now as to whether the difference is timing or angle, it's both.

Slightly different camera angles but also different times. Look at the building with the pyramid shaped roof in both clips, now look at the building with the round dome nearby. The EuroNews clip shows the dust cloud rising past the roofline of the dome, not so in the CNN footage.

So I would say that this shows the clips are from two different timeframes, the CNN clip is before the South Tower collapsed and the EuroNews clip is during the South Tower collapse.

Here is an aerial shot of WTC 6:

Notice the huge amount of damage in the center of the building, also notice the much lesser damage to adjacent roof areas.

This page shows that WTC 1, 2 and 6 all had major damage that went below ground level.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s781.htm

It would definately seem that the damage to building 6 was caused by more than just falling debris.

:hi:

That's the photo I was looking for. Looks pretty impressive. But WTC 6 was never in issue in the media as far as I remember.

And definitely damage caused by more than falling debris. Combining this evidence along with the eyewitness accounts shown on 911 In Plane Sight saying they definitely thought it was a bomb that went off (I believe the FOX correspondent said "huge explosion") makes the possibility of explosives planted in advance more credible.

I wish vonKleist had spent more time on this than the no plane hit the Pentagon angle. He hinted at it during his examination of WTC7 being "pulled" just 8 hours after the attack, saying if they could have placed detonators in building 7 why not building 6 or the north or south towers. But he didn't connect the dots, which both you and Perpetual seem to be doing.

So, does anyone have a map of the area that shows where building 6 stood in relation to the twin towers and building 7? I'll try googling to find it. Is building 6 to the right or left of the towers from the direction it is filmed in the CNN and EuroNews clips? I'm very curious to see how all this evidence stacks up.

Building 6 is in front of tower one. In the videos, tower one is in the front with tower two to the rear. The subsequent explosion and cloud of smoke is consistent with the position of 6WTC.

Thanks a lot, Perpetual! I didn't expect to find corroborating evidence of a planted detonation, but I think that's what we've got.

It looks very likely that the hole is the result of an explosion.
As I'm not very much into this subject:
Two questions:

Is it correct that FEMA didn't collect any data on WTC 6?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc6.html


Second the fact that WTC 6 had no hotspots (contrary to WTC 7) contradict the interpretation of an explosion, don't they contradict each other?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

I seem to remember the movie showing in greater clarity that there was a spatial separation between the two towers. I'll watch it again tonight and check it out. But I'm pretty sure that line in the middle shows both towers, not just two sides of the same tower. If the first tower had already collapsed, I think there would be a lot more smoke at ground level.

anyone?

The link on post 10 is better. But googling gave me multiple links.

http://www.public-action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/1/towerblast.html

Just scroll midway down and you'll see a still. But the post 10 link shows it in real time.

Do you know by any chance if video footage of this scene is somewhere on the net?

Besides there exists one possible explanation here:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/07_14_02/Unexplained_9-11_/unexplained_9-11_.html

That website is forbidden here.

That is all.

Sorry about that!

These guys don't advertise their true identity.

:toast:

:toast:

Do you mind to give me some sources where I can figure out why AFP is faschist? (I didn't know that)
Thanks!

"american free press" and "willis carto."

anyone, anyone

Your link shows the CNN footage, but it's not nearly as clear as the film. The film shows very clearly how the plume of smoke reaches a height of 50-60 stories while both towers are still standing. The film also shows a corroborating photo from a European source that I don't see listed on the website. But thanks for the link, it should give the uninitiated an idea of what I'm talking about.

I'm not really into this subject.
Just as far as I remember Eric Hufschmid believes in his book that this is an explosion in WTC 6. As a proof he gives aerial overview photos that show is strange hole in WTC 6.
Can somebody please explain me how I can insert photos here?
:-)

Here a link talking about the hole of WTC 6


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc6.html

What else could it be?

What appears to be the south tower is simply a mirror image of the north tower super-imposed over the south tower collapse. The plume is from the south tower collapse.

It's certainly probable that someone faked the video. But do you have a source for your assertion, or is this just a guess? Do you know who created the mirror image? If vonKleist is selling videos using a phony clip attributed to CNN, wouldn't that put him in legal hot water with CNN?

that the smoke patterns emerging from both towers are identical, mirror images. To the right of what is supposed to be the south tower, we see another, taller and narrower, plume- a remnant from the south tower implosion. The plume emerging from behind wtc 7 appears identical to the plume created by the south tower implosion.


This is not to say that their wasn't some kind of explosion in wtc 6, this supposed CNN clip just ain't it. Building 6 was located in the bathtub so ,although it was only 8 stories tall, it descended 75 feet underground. It was in close proximity to the core-bedrock attachment of the north tower.

Was the phenomenon that created the seismic spike, the same phenomenon that created this plume that rose to well over half the height of the building, just before it started imploding?





The same phenomenon that left molten steel in the sub-levels of both towers?


The same phenomenon that melted buses..


..and cars?



the same phenomenon that left fires burning for 3 months in the sub levels, where the core was attached to the bedrock?


Is the crater in WTC 6 simply collateral damage from the core-bedrock blast suffered by the north tower, blowing up and out from the bathtub?

I'm going to watch the movie again tonight to get a better idea if it's really a mirror image or not. It seems to me that the volume of smoke coming out of one side is greater than the other, but I want to be sure.

The photos you presented definitely add to the mounting evidence of WTC 6 explosives. Perhaps WTC 6 and the south tower detonations were set off at the same time, I don't know. The south tower collapse certainly created a diversion. Triangulation of crossfire strikes again!

The best clues are usually found at the scene of the crime. :)

This is all very interesting,NO. Thanks for the contribution.

..rather, an illusion.

What we are seeing is the end of the south tower collapse. What is standing, and appears to be two towers, is the north tower viewed from directly perpendicular one of its corners. The corner gives the appearance of being the separation between the "two towers". The north tower antenna can be seen right in the middle as well.

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem8/911.wtc.2.demolition.plume.cnn.wmv
---------------
Photos of the plume

Just found this. It's about 15Meg http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/...
It has several clips of the south tower collapse including one from about the same angle as the Euro photos linked earlier. I think it clearly shows the huge billowing cloud in the CNN clip developing and rising above WTC7 after the tower collapses.

The last clip shows the scale of the structural stuff falling to the ground. WTC6 was right next to WTC1 and from the photo PY posted in #27 it seems that there is a lot of structural steel fallen inside the hole but very little on the uncollapsed roof at the top of the photo. I don't see why large hunks of steel falling a few hundred feet couldn't punch several floors deep.

One thing I notice about the CNN video is how murky brown the sky looks. Maybe it's just like this on the web version. :shrug:

Look at the damage pattern to building 6. It is very strange that the debris would punch holes several floors deep with almost perfectly straight lines, that even have square corners, don't you think?

9/11 research humour moment brought to you by the letters R, D, X and the number 80.

If is that easy to collapse the interior of a structure with that near perfect symmetry by tumbling beams falling on it, then maybe you will help finance my new business venture, Gravity Demolitions Inc®. I propose to that the company will just use several very heavy beams and drop them from a heavy lift blimp at random over the structure to be demolished and these beams will then knock down most of the building's interior in a very neat fashion. We can then simply push the outer walls into the empty space made by the falling beams.

How many shares can I have transferred to your account sir?

my apologies to E.H., sorry guy, I stole your bit, but I am willing to negotiate for its safe return.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

So how do you account for the 'neatness' of the collapsed areas in building 6?

If the roof and floor membranes are stripped from the beams what other shape could the holes be?


(A random steel building)

The shot is taken from roughly northwest of the site. What appear to be two buildings are actually just the north and west faces of the North Tower. Look at the top, where the broadcast mast is: It was located about dead center of the North Tower, and in the clip is right in line with the "seam" (actually the NW corner of the building). If those were two buildings it would be offset to one side.

From this angle, the North Tower is completely obscuring the South one. You don't see the south tower itself falling because the view is blocked.

On edit: But then you noted that in #37 above...

I watched In Plane Sight again with a friend last night. He seemed more impressed by the flash of light upon impact on the towers than the cloud of smoke. But I looked carefully at the footage of the 50-60 story cloud of smoke and I now believe that the cloud of smoke was caused by the collapse of the south tower.

There are two reasons for my change of opinion: first, as NecessaryOnslaught and gbwarming pointed out, both towers are not on the CNN footage, it's just one. What I thought were the fires burning from both plane crashes is actually the entrance and exit wounds from the first plane. Second, while I believe the information provided by PerpetualYnquisitive and other posters regarding the detonation of WTC6 is valid and worthy of further investigation, I don't think WTC6 is big enough to create the huge 50-60 story cloud shown in the CNN footage. It has to be the south tower.

In spite of this change of opinion on further viewing, I still believe explosives were planted at the World Trade Center. There were plenty of eyewitness accounts both recorded on the scene and afterwards. I still haven't found a credible explanation for how WTC7 could possibly have had detonations set in place in an 8 hour time frame. There are still a lot of unanswered questions, but it's good to get an answer regarding the CNN footage that had me shocked. Thanks to all for helping me take a second look from a different perspective.

If you believe that there have been explosives in WTC 7 than conclusevly you must also believe that they have been set BEFORE the first attack. I don't think it's possible to set them within 8 hours given the fact that driving with a van to the WTC would have been impossible (look what's going on in the streets!). Moreover you needed a lot of explosives and they had to be perfectly placed in order that WTCT 7 doesn' fall to the side. Moreover wouldn't an eyewitness have noticed the strange occupation of peopl rushing into the WTC although it was evacuated since 9:00 (!)?

It's absurd to believe that within 8 hours they had all the charges set in all the right places to make the building come straight down the way it did. I haven't read the 9/11 Commission Report (I read the Warren Report, I imagine reading 9/11 will be just as time-consuming and ultimately infuriating) but I doubt they asked any serious questions regarding this.

It's the cloud dust and debris from the south tower collapse after rushing across the plaza and being redirected upward when it hits the facade of WTCs 5 & 6 (and 7 between and behind them).

Debris from the North Tower was more than enough to smash the hole seen in WTC 6 afterward.

what do they say about this clip? I'm curious about their interpretation and motivation. In only a couple of hours we DUer's found video that demonstrated that the tower had already collapsed. Are these film makers cynical money grubbers, poor researchers, blinded by preconceptions? What are your impressions?

It appears that they are a part of a disinformation campaign. It is clear that the whole Plume of smoke, Pods, Missiles and Flashes are meant to distract attention away from the fact that no 'real' investigation into 9-11 has happened. Not even supposed 9-11 researchers are investigating. They are theorizing why it happened, instead of asking who, what and how. Actually, Dan Hopsicker at the mad cow morning news is investigating, but how much can a person accomplish on their own? His website is at www.madcowmorningnews.com if you care about that.

Back to Plane Site, read the following articles:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/hoax.html


For the PowerHour's stranger side read this:

http://hometown.aol.com/wbflegal/j-dquestions.html

peace

Great links. There was quite a lot of bullshit Von Kleist put on In Plane Sight, I never believed the pod theory (OOO, look, flash of light!) and the plane never hit the Pentagon theory is pretty easy to debunk with some simple googling.

You're probably right, anyone who proudly features letters of approval from Poppa and Momma Bush in their office is part of a disinformation campaign. And it pisses me off that they get the lion's share of attention in the search for truth regarding 9/11. But personally, I never dismiss anyone or any idea out right, I always do my own investigating, amateur as I am. There were two theories von Kleist presented that got my attention because I couldn't immediately disprove it. One was the 50 story plume of smoke, which you and other posters here have shown to be false as proof of MIHOP. The other was the detonation of WTC 7. Unless you have information proving otherwise, this is the one remaining golden nugget amidst a pile of bullshit.

Thanks for the madcow link. Do you know Hopsicker? He seems like he's on the money every time I read him. A friend of mine is sending me a copy of Welcome to Terrorland, so I'll let you know what I think of that soon. Thanks again for the links, that pretty much definitively puts the plume of smoke theory to rest.

What links are you googling, btw? First try googling killtown and those links. Pentagon issue is solved by viewing extant photographs, not reading reports or snopes. Most debunking sites leave out the decisive photographs for some strange reason or the other. Pictures worth a 1000 words.... google killtown...