Tags for this video have been changed from 'radio tower, collapse, Hoogersmilde, netherlands, holland' to 'radio tower, antenna, mast, collapse, Hoogersmilde, netherlands, holland' - edited by calvados

>> ^Kalle:

Just to be fair its not the entire tower collapsing just the upper (antenna?) structure..


You'd still have to be crazy to believe the official story though. It doesn't even ATTEMPT to explain the molten flows and how the first half falls almost perfectly into it's own footprint...

Just to be fair its not the entire tower collapsing just the upper (antenna?) structure..

>> ^therealblankman:

If you look closely you can see the streams of molten metal from the previously implanted explosives and thermite. Also note that the tower collapses faster than the force of gravity, leading to the inescapable conclusion that evil space aliens created a singularity that sucked the antennae into oblivion.


Nice. years from now when they are still trying to say the 7/15 tower collapse accident. We can point to this post and say, "This is were it all began. No fire has ever brought down a tower! The Aliens must be found and made to tell the Truth. We found carbon in the rubble. Proof that a plasma nuclear milk cow was used."

If you look closely you can see the streams of molten metal from the previously implanted explosives and thermite. Also note that the tower collapses faster than the force of gravity, leading to the inescapable conclusion that evil space aliens created a singularity that sucked the antennae into oblivion.

Yeah, the news story I found (very few - it happened just earlier today!) also speculated that it was from an internal fire about 180 meters up which I'm guessing is what you can see when the antenna splits.

Thankfully, the police had evacuated the area because of the fire and doubts about structural integrity under extreme heat. No injuries reported.

http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/2566253/tv-toren-hoogersmilde-ingestort.html

I will sting you too!

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
>> ^ant:

bugs
Ha, that's NicoleBee -- http://videosift.com/member/NicoleBee ...


My antennae are burning.. Don't make me sting you!

>> ^ant:

bugs
Ha, that's NicoleBee -- http://videosift.com/member/NicoleBee ...


My antennae are burning.. Don't make me sting you!

Hey I'm an atheist and I think it's possible this is not our only life. It really seems to me like the mind could exist outside the body... like the body is just an antenna of sorts, drawing your seventh-dimensional self down into four dimensions. Anyhow, carry on.

Thumb/Antenna up from me!

If you know anything about video technology or even own an iPhone you know this is totally fake.
For starters how do you get a video signal out of the headphone jack on the iPhone?
The rest is even more impossible (impossibler?).
How does he create a radio signal strong enough to override the data stream in a shielded digital cable without affecting anything else. That's like detonating a nuclear bomb to light your cigarette without blowing up the entire city or even lighting anyone elses cigarette, multiplied by how many parallel data wires the monitor uses. HDMI uses 4 shielded differential pairs.
The specs and resolution of the monitor(s) being hacked are unknown but it still manages to scale and rotate the image to fit perfectly and even splits it up and sends unique images to different monitors in the multi-monitor setup. With a paperclip-antenna.

Upvote for the video editing. He even got the reflections right and the multi-monitor shot has intentionally bad bezel compensation.

OK, I'll blame most of the discrepancy in details to the incredibly crapy quality of this video, I get about 1 frame per second at best and it won't fullscreen, so it's difficult to see anything clearly. I now see what you mean about the sheet metal/cab not being torn (but it was incredibly difficult to get it to stop on the one frame where that's visible). I think I also see the frame rail move, extreemly difficult to see, but it does seem to obscure part of the drive shaft when it breaks the cab mounts, then it does seem to rotate on that bend point and not break completely. My mistake. Still incredibly strange and possibly (probably?)faked, but not difinitavely. 'FAKE' retracted.
em>>> ^Payback:
>> ^newtboy:
You assume the frame was bent in a flip. The problem with that theory is that the frame is cut clean through. If the frame rails were still there, bent or not, they would have made it impossible for the car (truck) to cleanly break in 2 that way. If you look closely, you can see the frame rails on the front of the vehicle, but not on the rear. It's possible the view is obstructed, but it's not possible that they both broke cleanly at the fold point, the same goes for the sheet metal. My guess would be it's upside down so they could cut the back half off easily.>> ^Payback:

It's not a car. It's a GM full size "Supercab" or "Cab Plus" pickup. The kind with the jump seats and half rear doors that only open when the main doors are open. What you are saying is a "cut through the back door" isn't a door at all. It's the back panel of the cab of the truck.
Looks like the frame got bent when it flipped. Also, the challenge with Chevys is AVOIDING bending them in half in that direction.


Well yes, that is an assumption given the frame LOOKS bent at the beginning, but you're mistaken on a couple points.
-The cab is not cut. What you see rising out of the water is a complete cab, with the rear window crushed and the panel just below the rear window pushed in.
-The frame is not cut. The frame has been weakened (like a power antenna in a car wash) and no longer has any rigidity. The point where the frame is bending seems to be at the rear transmission crossbrace or transfer case mount. The frame is acting like a hinge, about 3 ft in "front" of the cab-to-box gap. The rear most cab mounts have been ripped out as well.

>> ^newtboy:
You assume the frame was bent in a flip. The problem with that theory is that the frame is cut clean through. If the frame rails were still there, bent or not, they would have made it impossible for the car (truck) to cleanly break in 2 that way. If you look closely, you can see the frame rails on the front of the vehicle, but not on the rear. It's possible the view is obstructed, but it's not possible that they both broke cleanly at the fold point, the same goes for the sheet metal. My guess would be it's upside down so they could cut the back half off easily.>> ^Payback:

It's not a car. It's a GM full size "Supercab" or "Cab Plus" pickup. The kind with the jump seats and half rear doors that only open when the main doors are open. What you are saying is a "cut through the back door" isn't a door at all. It's the back panel of the cab of the truck.
Looks like the frame got bent when it flipped. Also, the challenge with Chevys is AVOIDING bending them in half in that direction.



Well yes, that is an assumption given the frame LOOKS bent at the beginning, but you're mistaken on a couple points.

-The cab is not cut. What you see rising out of the water is a complete cab, with the rear window crushed and the panel just below the rear window pushed in.

-The frame is not cut. The frame has been weakened (like a power antenna in a car wash) and no longer has any rigidity. The point where the frame is bending seems to be at the rear transmission crossbrace or transfer case mount. The frame is acting like a hinge, about 3 ft in "front" of the cab-to-box gap. The rear most cab mounts have been ripped out as well.

“Dogs are the best detectors,” Oates said at an Oct. 20 news conference at JIEDDO headquarters in Arlington, Va.When dogs are teamed with small dismounted teams of U.S. and Afghan troops, they are capable of detecting 80 percent of IEDs, he said. “That combo presents the best detection system we currently have.”

Since it was created in 2006, JIEDDO has eagerly sought out every possible technological tool it could find in government, industry and academia to locate and remotely detonate IEDs, which have caused the majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far it has spent nearly $17 billion on new technologies and training programs.

...

Training and educating soldiers is critical in the fight against IEDs, Oates said. It is also the “most underappreciated” piece of JIEDDO’s portfolio. U.S. troops from the get-go face a huge disadvantage in this war because they lack knowledge of local language and culture, Oates said. They also “carry enormous ignorance” about what motivates locals to collaborate with the Taliban or al-Qaida and help them build and bury IEDs. “This is a complicated challenge for us,” Oates said.

BAGHDAD — Despite major bombings that have rattled the nation, and fears of rising violence as American troops withdraw, Iraq’s security forces have been relying on a device to detect bombs and weapons that the United States military and technical experts say is useless.

The small hand-held wand, with a telescopic antenna on a swivel, is being used at hundreds of checkpoints in Iraq. But the device works “on the same principle as a Ouija board” — the power of suggestion — said a retired United States Air Force officer, Lt. Col. Hal Bidlack, who described the wand as nothing more than an explosives divining rod.

Still, the Iraqi government has purchased more than 1,500 of the devices, known as the ADE 651, at costs from $16,500 to $60,000 each. Nearly every police checkpoint, and many Iraqi military checkpoints, have one of the devices, which are now normally used in place of physical inspections of vehicles.

DERP DERPDITY DERP. I repair TV broadcast antennas, therefore radio waves are safe.

You do realize X-ray equipment can be dangerous? You do realize that these backscatter X-rays are nothing like what you are used to. They are low energy and only pass a few mm into the skin. I would say the backscatter isn't generally harmful to adults, but no one has studied effects on testicles, corneas or children, and all credible experts agree this will lead to increased skin cancer especially on the top of the head.

What if you fly daily? What if you are a cancer patient?

Why x-ray anyone when it can't detect anything in your rectum? What is the point? There is not safety in it.
You realize backscatter cannot detect someone wearing a diaper full of powder. The ONLY reason for any of this is the DHS director is making money for every new machine installed. PERIOD. The groping is only to make sure everyone "willingly" goes through the new machines, so as to justify buying more. PERIOD.
>> ^bobknight33:

I agree the radiation aspect is a non issue. I have been repairing X-ray equipment for 1/2 my professional life. >