So how would you rule out other possible causes of the flashes?
9/11: Flashes before the tower collapses
- Thread starter Credible theorist
- Start date
So how would you rule out other possible causes of the flashes?
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
hamishsubedei
Member
Yes I agree in the videos you can also tell from falling debris but there are some blue or even yellow explosive flashes in some angles
hamishsubedei
Member
My example for example 0:24 seconds was on a shadowed side so how could it be reflecting light.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
I understand that there exists a concerted system of "belief" in some aspects of the collapse of the WTC Towers...but indeed, it is really all down to simple physics, and related to the design of the original buildings.
It could be several feet away from the building, and hence in the sunlight. Look at the other falling debris, some of which is lower. And remember this would have been a single frame flash in the original.
hamishsubedei
Member
on the very bottom edge of the photo you see it , you can also see another one higher by the corner.
I don't think that what you are referring to is falling debris but more squibs, the bright flash can be seen emanating from the building and is not falling.
I don't think that what you are referring to is falling debris but more squibs, the bright flash can be seen emanating from the building and is not falling.
It's there for one frame. Post the original video, not this fake slow motion one.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
That really does look like a piece of debris, rotating in such a way as to pick up light and reflect it momentarily.
hamishsubedei
Member
Its not a fake video , I have seen it countless times even on History Channel , no mention of flashes of course.
It has been post-processed to be slow motion. Frames have been added. Please find the original.
hamishsubedei
Member
Any idea how to do that mick ?
Look on youtube?
hamishsubedei
Member
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
There are some odd "flashy" artifacts there which look like problems with the vid and there are "flashes" which really do look like debris reflecting light.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
That is a great video, but I do not see how it bolsters a contention of "controlled demolition". Thanks, though.
hamishsubedei
Member
here is a control note similar flashes
After looking at that, I think the flashes there could also be from panes of glass
Note there are some "flashes" well away from the building, which are obviously falling debris:
Compare the noise there with this one that supposedly has flashes. If the flashes were explosions of any destructive force then there would be very loud bangs. Hence they are not explosions. The camera here is closer than in the demolition video.
Last edited:
hamishsubedei
Member
There would be loud noises from a building collapsing too did you think of that, the noise is filtered out .
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
There is no evidence that I have ever seen of audio deceptions.
Please, provide such evidence if you have any.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
You mean the noise of explosions which are so obvious in the controlled demo is somehow blocked by the noise of the WTC towers falling? Why would it be so radically different? You are ignoring the obvious. If CD in the WTC, why are no explosions heard BEFORE the towers start to fall? After all, wouldn't the explosions have to take place BEFORE the towers start to fall?
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
I think he is saying the noise of collapse would mask the explosions.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
Yes, except of course....the initiation of the WTC Towers collapse (as recorded by multiple sources) had NO "explosive" noises, prior to the start of the collapses.
Seems fairly obvious to anyone who bothers to research examples of actual CD of tall buildings:
EDIT: I would invite some viewers of the video just above, to note the position of the camera, and hence the microphone, as it records this event. Note, please, that LIGHT is faster than sound. I suggest that those who continue to believe in "CD" on 9/11 take this fact into account.
Last edited:
Jazzy
Closed Account
He did that because that was the way it happened for him.
Sound isn't transmitted simultaneously. It travels at 1100 feet per second. The aircraft was traveling at 800 feet per second
The diagonal path the aircraft noise took between the aircraft (say, some 650 feet away from the point of impact and 900 feet up) and the foyer was longer than the path of the impact explosion blast wave straight down the lift shafts (900 feet). The aircraft noise would have arrived later, much of it, reflected off other parallel plane surfaces of the surrounding buildings, later still.
Draw yourself a diagram or two. You'll get the idea.
Last edited:
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
I agree....and, what's a "problem" of sorts is the inclination of films, in our psyches, and our memes, to show 'explosions' on-screen, and with no regard to the POV (point of view) of the audience, in terms of distance from this "epic" explosion, as so carefully depicted by either CGI artists, or just SFX experts.
In a film, when the audience views an "explosion", they want to HEAR the sound match to the action. THIS leads to (in my opinion) a cognitive disconnect in some people's minds, when it comes to reality.
The SAME problem is exacerbated in (what I still like), Science Fiction productions...again, "explosions" in space, on film, usually "must" have a 'sound', for an effect. But of course, we all know that "In Space, No One Can Hear You Scream" (or, explode....)....
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
Off topic but one must note that while the sound of the approaching aircraft would travel via air to the ground, the sound of impact would travel via the steel structure. The later speed of sound is much greater than the former.
On topic, the flashes look like aluminum cladding, and/or window glass, and/or drywall reflecting light.
None of these occur until collapse is underway which ensures that all of these items are in play.
As for 'squibs': floor collapse led perimeter collapse which in turn led core destruction. Internally collapsing floors would occasionally cause window breakage and expelling of debris.
On topic, the flashes look like aluminum cladding, and/or window glass, and/or drywall reflecting light.
None of these occur until collapse is underway which ensures that all of these items are in play.
As for 'squibs': floor collapse led perimeter collapse which in turn led core destruction. Internally collapsing floors would occasionally cause window breakage and expelling of debris.
Jazzy
Closed Account
The aircraft impacting the tower steel would have been the first sound in the foyer - true. But it was followed in less than a second by the lift shaft blast wave.
Of course.
.
cjnewson88
Member
Sigh I must say I have grown tired over the years of the same old "here is my theory, debunk me!" canard. Your theory, you prove it. Prove that the flashes are the result of explosives and not debris/glass/camera anomalies. Asking us to debunk your theory is not proof of anything. You want to prove 9/11 was an inside job? Then damn well prove it.
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
I recently came across a youtube video made by a guy called Steve Shives. It's a long profanity filled rant so I won't post it here, (I actually didn't watch all of it) but I'll provide the link if anyone's interested: watch?v=smX9P7zXwAc
In this rant Steve makes an observation that really encapsulates conspiracy theorists in general and your post specifically. He says:
So Hamish, on that note, I'll ask you to show us how we can get the same answer as you regarding these flashes and squibs. Who planted them? How many were there? What size were they? How were they detonated? Why were they placed as they were? etc etc etc"The people asking these questions, the people making these insinuations, never actually come to a conclusion, never actually make a claim, never actually reach a point with their questions. They just ask the questions."
"You don't just ask questions and then demand that people who react dubiously find the answer for themselves. Show us how we can get the same answer you got."
jaydeehess
Senior Member.
It is entirely possible as well that Rodrieguez heard the impact via the steel structure, then the sound of the turbine whine of the approaching aircraft via the air, and characterized this as an explosion preceeding the aircraft.
Jazzy
Closed Account
Hmm.
OK, on the flashes alone - they are mostly window glass. Something like nine thousand square feet of glass blew out moments after the plane struck.
Falling pieces of glass will fall like a falling leaves or falling playing cards. They will rotate about their longest axis as they fall for aerodynamic reasons. Their spin axis will tend to the horizontal. also for aerodynamic reasons.
The upshot of this is that when you observe such flashes through smoke, as in this case, they will have a long horizontal axis, and a short vertical. That's what's happening in all the vids of this that I have seen.
Explosion flashes are more likely to seen to be vertical, as they would be seen through vertically-orientated windows. There is nothing otherwise to constrain them to the horizontal.
So what you see is a strong pointer to - glass.
.
OK, on the flashes alone - they are mostly window glass. Something like nine thousand square feet of glass blew out moments after the plane struck.
Falling pieces of glass will fall like a falling leaves or falling playing cards. They will rotate about their longest axis as they fall for aerodynamic reasons. Their spin axis will tend to the horizontal. also for aerodynamic reasons.
The upshot of this is that when you observe such flashes through smoke, as in this case, they will have a long horizontal axis, and a short vertical. That's what's happening in all the vids of this that I have seen.
Explosion flashes are more likely to seen to be vertical, as they would be seen through vertically-orientated windows. There is nothing otherwise to constrain them to the horizontal.
So what you see is a strong pointer to - glass.
.
hamishsubedei
Member
Sounds of demolition-
1.
In other threads we discussed the explosive velocity of nanothermite and how it paled in comparison to known explosives.
This could account for lack of noise.
2.
In the videos you hardly hear a sound is that would you expect from a natural collapse anyway? Im sure it would be extremely loud all the metal hitting each other falling etc.
1.
In other threads we discussed the explosive velocity of nanothermite and how it paled in comparison to known explosives.
This could account for lack of noise.
2.
In the videos you hardly hear a sound is that would you expect from a natural collapse anyway? Im sure it would be extremely loud all the metal hitting each other falling etc.
But now you are just hypothesising about a theoretical explosion that could create exactly the conditions that were observed.
Why not simply go with the more obvious explanation of falling debris - especially panes of glass?
Explain why nanothermite is a better explanation than glass here.
WeedWhacker
Senior Member
I have not seen those threads...perhaps a discussion there would be more fruitful? Can you point me in their direction?
And, AFAIK, "nanothermite" doesn't 'explode'.
Similar threads
