Hollywood Special F/X Explosions: Recycled Video Footage, Plus Another Look at WTC 7

Here is a clip that shows Hollywood Special F/X explosions in action. It also shows how the same video can be recycled and used in different instances.

The two clips are from Terminator 2: Judgement Day & Militia.

T2: Judgement Day was released in 1991, while Militia was released nine years later in 2000.

You will be able to see that both of these movies use the same set of video sequences, merely edited in slightly different order.

You may just get a feeling of Deja 'view' after seeing these video clips.

Watch the clip HERE. (large file: 57 megs)

Notice how the huge explosion quickly dissipates and leaves only very small fires on the peripheries of the area affected. Compare this footage to the explosion from the second 'impact' (link from a previous post) at the WTC South Tower and the similarities seem to be uncanny, especially considering that both events were supposedly so different in nature.

The explosion from the movies, is done in a very controlled manner, as to ensure the safety of the actors, film crew and the set on which it is being filmed. The explosion is tightly contained to make certain that it will not blossom into an out of control inferno. The way that movie explosions are so well controlled is from the type of 'explosive' used to create these giant fireballs. It is generally done with some type of 'flash powder'.

The explosion at the WTC South Tower would not have any safety concerns addressed if it were really caused by a hijacked airliner smashing into the building, yet oddly it seems to behave as though it was merely 'an attention grabber' and doing little collateral damage through the 'ensuing blazing inferno' that would be the result of several thousand gallons of hydrocarbon based fuel burning there following the crash of a real airliner.


-----
I am quite sure that this next section of my post is likely to be bitterly attacked, as it has to the potential to impair the 'livelihood' of some people in the alternative media. So be it, as I have nothing to hide about my views about 9/11, nor am I going to try to profit from presenting these views to others. So go ahead and 'release the hounds'.
-----


I am going to 'debunk' one of the myths about WTC 7 that has been perpetuated by many in the '9/11 Truth' movement. The myriad of videos about 9/11 that make claims about only 'small fires on the lower levels' of this building are False, at least from my perspective. These videos usually show the same pictures to reinforce this inaccurate information as being true. They only ever show the sides of the building not facing the WTC plaza and it seems for good reason.

Here are a couple of examples:

Picture 1
Picture 2

The reason is not that there is no video showing the front of the WTC 7 building, the reason is that they are trying to sell a line of Bullshit. That WTC 7 had 'very little damage' and therefore the building MUST have been destroyed by a controlled demolition (it is easier to sell this idea to John & Jane sixpack) or else they are just lazy researchers and never bothered to look for evidence that may refute their claims.

If they showed a heavily damaged building, few people from the population at large would buy the idea that it was a controlled demolition, as most people would just assume that it collapsed due to the damage that it had sustained. In either case, this is a dishonest tactic that is being used by these 'Makeshift Paytriots' that are making a living by $elling these videos.

WTC 7 video showing heavy damage to its South side.

If I, an unknown, near anonymous blogger, with only search engines & some patience can debunk this notion, what the hell do you think the M$M (Mainstream Media) is going to be able to do to discredit their assertions (if the need to do so were to ever arise)?

I personally believe that WTC 7 was in fact destroyed due to controlled demolition, but not for the same reasons as those professing that it was 'not damaged' on 9/11. It was destroyed by controlled demolition as it was indeed heavily damaged by the demolition of the North Tower, thus making it very unsafe to leave it standing in that condition.

"Heated" Debate "Erupts" Over My Previous Post

It seems the mechanics of misinformation have been cranked up to full gear. The very same day that I posted my "The South Tower Impact Videos - So 'Realistic' That They Belong in Hollywood" article, there started an effort to 'debunk' the claims that I had made in it, which is rather telling on many levels.

I stated that it was a 'Smoking' Gun piece of evidence and it must be just that, else why the effort to 'Nip it in the Bud' so to speak or "Let's get this "jet fuel doesn't explode like that" thing settled..."

There must be a reason for people to be so desperate to 'debunk' my opinion, an unknown, near anonymous little blogger and forum poster?

Hmmm, I wonder what that could possibly be?

Can you spot the inferno? (note that one of these buildings supposedly has 4,000+ gallons of jet fuel burning in it)



More WTC pics: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/photos/fires.html

More Madrid Tower pics: http://tinyurl.com/d9928

The South Tower Impact Videos - So 'Realistic' That They Belong in Hollywood

I am going to assume that if you reading this, that you are aware of some of the anomolies that have been discussed about 'Flight 175', if not, check here.There are plenty of videos available on the 'net and in documentary VHS/DVD movies that show several angles of the 'impact' of 'Flight 175' into the WTC South Tower. These videos contain what appears to be a plane approaching, banking and crashing into the South Tower, though none of them provide a very clear view of the plane.

This is the intent of these videos, to make you pay attention to the plane. This will cause you to spend many hours studying the structure, shadow and outline of the plane, all the while, missing the 'Big Bang' so to speak. This is an old magician's trick, HOCUS-POCUS, CHANGE THAT FOCUS. In doing so, you are going to miss the sleight-of-hand that is about to occur.

Click here if you want to watch videos of the WTC 'impact'.

The proof of the trickery is not so much 'in plane sight' (sorry I just couldn't resist), as the proof appears after the plane is out of sight.

It is the gigantic 'fireball' that the magicians DID NOT want you to notice, even though it was sure to catch your eye. Now, I know, you're thinking How could anyone not notice that fireball? Well of coarse you were supposed to see it, you just weren't supposed to pay any attention to it, as it is self-evident of why it occurred, or is it?

How many of you have seen the news footage that day or watched videos of it later and gasped or cried out "NO!","Holy Shit" or put your hand over your mouth in near shock? Was it while watching the plane flying over the city or was it after you witnessed the 'Big Bang'?

Watching a plane fly by is not a traumatic event, nor does it illicit a strong emotional response, but watching a 20 floor fireball explode out of the side of building in an otherwise serene setting is going to 'Shock & Awe' almost all the witnesses to that event.

It was this emotional shock that caused most to miss one of those critical little details that would expose the scam.

The fireball that erupted from the South Tower is the proverbial 'Smoking Gun' that proves that what we have been told happened and what actually happened are VERY different indeed.

This fireball has all the characteristics of the Special F/X used to create giant explosions for many actions movies.

• there is a big orange flash
• there is a rapidly expanding 'fireball'
  
• there is heavy black smoke
• little structural damage to the 'affected' area
  
• there is relatively little fire left behind once the 'fireball' has dissipated

The problem with trying to imitate a hydrocarbon based fire with SF/X material is quite simple, kerosene being a liquid doesn't actually burn, only the fumes rising from its surface burn. This is also why gasoline fires can be so hard to put out, putting water on it causes it to spread out (water is heavier so the gasoline will sit on top of the water) creating more surface area for the fumes to escape which in turn becomes fuel that enlarges the fire.

I can assure that hydrocarbons do not behave in the way the fireball at the WTC did. There should have been walls of fire streaming out of that building, if it had had a burning airliner inside of it. Every surface that was splashed would have become an inferno, not the few small fires that were visible in the seconds after the 'fireball'.

Here is a video that shows how REAL airliners loaded with hydrocarbon based fuel behaves upon crashing:
http://mm.256.com/mpg/nasa_test_crash.mpg
This video shows a tanker truck exploding at a gas station:
http://mm.256.com/qt/tanker_explosion.qt


That old black magic has me in its spell
That old black magic that you weave so well