9/11: Flashes before the tower collapses

[hamishsubedei]

Because Nanothermite would create the flashes on the shadowed side of the building that couldn't be reflecting glass.
Nanothermite was possibly found in the dust and could explain some of the flashes * waiting on the Basille study.

Can anyone explain why a natural collapse would be so quiet on video ? From personal experience when walking past construction sites etc when metal falls and hits stuff its really loud..

 

[WeedWhacker]

I do not believe the collapses of the WTC Towers were "quiet" at all. Keeping in mind previous posts about the 'flashes' being a function of visible light (at a speed of approximately 186,000 miles per second), compared to the speed of sound, in air at Sea Level. Or, about 0.211 miles per second.

(We could convert these units, into other more commonly understand standards, if need be).

But also to consider is the provenance of any video that is watched on YouTube. There are any number of ways it can be dishonestly manipulated. And even if no dishonesty, there are still limitations in sound recording quality, etc.

 

[Hama Neggs]

Because Nanothermite would create the flashes on the shadowed side of the building that couldn't be reflecting glass.
Nanothermite was possibly found in the dust and could explain some of the flashes * waiting on the Basille study.

Can anyone explain why a natural collapse would be so quiet on video ? From personal experience when walking past construction sites etc when metal falls and hits stuff its really loud..

Now the collapse of the WTC towers was too "quiet"?? Do you have anything to offer that isn't just multiple wild rambling speculations?

 

[Pete Tar]

I *think* he's saying that the video sound does not represent the actual sound.

 

[Hama Neggs]

I *think* he's saying that the video sound does not represent the actual sound.

What? And that would be a surprise or anomaly?

 

[Jazzy]

There was something seismic occurring just a few seconds before the collapse. (Smoke puffs out of several holes, pumped out by some large body possibly an engineering floor collapsing within). But no "flashing" until after the collapse.


No blast whatsoever is observable here. Not even super-powerful super-silent nanothermite.

It sounds pretty noisy to me.

.

 

[JRBids]

You're making a good claim.It's possible.But it still doesn't seam consistent with what we see in the video.Especially when you compare it with witness testimony such as William Rodriguez reporting explosions before any plane even hit.The credible reports of explosions combined with video evidence of flashes and outburst of dust from the building gives the impression that there were explosives in the tower.

Falling debris. End of.

 

[JRBids]

Although it may not be totally on topic, what would be the PURPOSE of a controlled demolition? I don't think many more would have survived if the towers HADN'T fallen. There was so much smoke and fire. There is absolutely no purpose at all for explosives.

 

[garrykennethperkins]

"Debunk that specifically." Debunk what? What claim are you making about it?

Doesn't even look like "flashes" to me. Appears to have been a smallish explosion in the smokey area, followed by stuff which could have been ejected from that same area appearing to produce some dust-like substance directly below. Could have been chunks of drywall from above falling and striking the building.

"Debunk that specifically." Debunk what? What claim are you making about it?

Doesn't even look like "flashes" to me. Appears to have been a smallish explosion in the smokey area, followed by stuff which could have been ejected from that same area appearing to produce some dust-like substance directly below. Could have been chunks of drywall from above falling and striking the building.

There's no way debris falling and hiting a building is going to cause any type of flash especially being that the flashes that was seen was floors below while each towers was falling just like there was windows blowing out before the towers got down to that floor

 

[garrykennethperkins]

Although it may not be totally on topic, what would be the PURPOSE of a controlled demolition? I don't think many more would have survived if the towers HADN'T fallen. There was so much smoke and fire. There is absolutely no purpose at all for explosives.

Using explosives it a good way to destroy and type of proof that would be able to prove anything

 

[JRBids]

Using explosives it a good way to destroy and type of proof that would be able to prove anything

What type of proof would explosives erase?

 

[JRBids]

There's no way debris falling and hiting a building is going to cause any type of flash especially being that the flashes that was seen was floors below while each towers was falling just like there was windows blowing out before the towers got down to that floor

Are you saying that air being compressed would not blow out a window? We do not know how much more quickly interior debris was falling. We do not know what was going on on that floor where a window blew out, it may have been farther along in the collapse.

Could a flash not be created by air blowing burning debris?

I am not sure why you say debris "hitting a building" wouldn't cause a flash. Did someone point out a flash was caused by debris hitting a building?

You seem to be coming from an argument of incredibility and stating personal opinions based on your own observations: "no WAY that could happen!". Do you have any facts to back up your feelings?

 

[Gridlock]

Thermite is not an explosive and does not flash, and is not white when it combusts. Is nanothermite the same thing, ground smaller? I'm a bit out of touch with my made-up chemicals.

 

[Efftup]

Thermite is not an explosive and does not flash, and is not white when it combusts. Is nanothermite the same thing, ground smaller? I'm a bit out of touch with my made-up chemicals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite.

The reaction is quicker but I don;t think that makes it an explosive.
Apart from a comment about producing lots of UV and needing a mask to view it, no comment on flashing, although the pictures I have seen of normal thermite are pretty damn bright.

 

[Hama Neggs]

There's no way debris falling and hiting a building is going to cause any type of flash especially being that the flashes that was seen was floors below while each towers was falling just like there was windows blowing out before the towers got down to that floor

Apparently you're implying that the "flashes" were from explosives, but there are many recordings of the towers falling. Where is the SOUND of those explosions?

 

[econ41]

There's no way debris falling and hiting a building is going to cause any type of flash especially being that the flashes that was seen was floors below while each towers was falling just like there was windows blowing out before the towers got down to that floor

The fact that you do not understand the cause of flashes does not prove malicious human intervention. It proves that you don't understand flashes. So what? I don't know the reasons for the flashes either. I do know that they seem to have occurred. So what?

The logic is a standard arse about truther ploy plus a logical quantum leap or two - "I don't understand THEREFORE CD"

Reality is that there was no CD - in scientific method language the extant default hypothesis is "no CD" and there has never been a pro CD hypothesis which could stand scrutiny.

So discussion of flashes or thermXte in dust or falling with X velocity or Y acceleration or...any of the factors beloved of truthers - proves nothing.

IF (say) there was thermXte on site or flashes or.... the CD still needs to be proven. And all the weight of evidence overbalanced by counter evidence.

So those trying to assert CD may as well prove CD FIRST - then we can examine if and where flashes fit into the scenario.

 

[MikeC]

There's no way debris falling and hiting a building is going to cause any type of flash especially being that the flashes that was seen was floors below while each towers was falling just like there was windows blowing out before the towers got down to that floor

Why not?

 

[MikeC]

Using explosives it a good way to destroy and type of proof that would be able to prove anything

Using explosives would leave explosive traces - apart from iron microspheres and paint chips I am not aware of any such residue having ever been discovered - are you?

Iron microspheres have been discussed at some length - do you have anything new to add?

Here's another thread covering many CD "theories"

And one covering "nanothermite paint"

 

[Trailblazer]

There's no way debris falling and hiting a building is going to cause any type of flash especially being that the flashes that was seen was floors below while each towers was falling just like there was windows blowing out before the towers got down to that floor

If a building is falling in on itself from the top down, I would be astonished if the air pressure didn't blow out windows and fan flames on levels below the collapse.

 

[tadaaa]

from recall it was quite a sunny day, so presumably lots of opportunity for "flashes" of reflected sunlight

not withstanding the amount of "movement" taking place

would be odd if you did not see "flashes"

 

[Oystein]

Perhaps some of the flashes, especially pre-collapse, were flash-lights from consumer cameras, as people trapped in the towers were trying to document the mayhem?

Anyone can speculate, so why can't I

 

[jaydeehess]

Using explosives it a good way to destroy and type of proof that would be able to prove anything

No, it really isn't. Please explain how you see that working.

As for flashes; it was a bright morning. Glass blowing out would be tumbling and quite easily would sparkle as sunlight hit it.

 

[RecoveringCT]

Although it may not be totally on topic, what would be the PURPOSE of a controlled demolition? I don't think many more would have survived if the towers HADN'T fallen. There was so much smoke and fire. There is absolutely no purpose at all for explosives.

If I may, I'll respond to your question as someone who once thought this way. Here goes...

The purpose of the controlled demolition was to create the most shocking visceral and cerebral impact on the viewer. This stunning visual - and its subsequent death toll - necessitated that the buildings fall in dramatic fashion with as much collateral damage as possible to therefore rally support for widespread war in the Middle East. Motivations for this act of terror range from:

Oil
Military Industrial Complex
Illuminati sacrifice
Martial Law
Gun Confiscation
Big Brother
Bush family secrets

The theories are as random as they are impossible to prove. Shock and awe is the leading candidate for the PURPOSE. Hope that helps.

 

[Bruno D.]

If I may, I'll respond to your question as someone who once thought this way. Here goes...

The purpose of the controlled demolition was to create the most shocking visceral and cerebral impact on the viewer. This stunning visual - and its subsequent death toll - necessitated that the buildings fall in dramatic fashion with as much collateral damage as possible to therefore rally support for widespread war in the Middle East. Motivations for this act of terror range from:

Oil
Military Industrial Complex
Illuminati sacrifice
Martial Law
Gun Confiscation
Big Brother
Bush family secrets

The theories are as random as they are impossible to prove. Shock and awe is the leading candidate for the PURPOSE. Hope that helps.

But from that perspective, wouldn't planes hitting WTC without the collapse or planes partially hitting the towers and crashing somewhere else cause the same visual impact and cerebral impact? Is the collapse itself the most important part?

I always wondered why the collapse itself should be more dramatic than the planes impact and less damage? The death toll would be 1000 instead of 3000. Would that be relevant?

 

[SR1419]

The purpose of the controlled demolition was to create the most shocking visceral and cerebral impact on the viewer. This stunning visual - and its subsequent death toll - necessitated that the buildings fall in dramatic fashion with as much collateral damage as possible to therefore rally support for widespread war in the Middle East

How does WTC7 fit into that scenario? No death toll, mediocre visuals, almost an afterthought that day. Yet, for some, WTC7 is supposed to be the smoking gun.

So many contradictions in the various theories.

 

[Freak]

But from that perspective, wouldn't planes hitting WTC without the collapse or planes partially hitting the towers and crashing somewhere else cause the same visual impact and cerebral impact? Is the collapse itself the most important part?

I always wondered why the collapse itself should be more dramatic than the planes impact and less damage? The death toll would be 1000 instead of 3000. Would that be relevant?

If there WERE someone planning a false flag attack, all that matters is what THEY thought would be needed. If they (hypothetically) thought the planes crashing into the towers weren't enough of a shock, but that a collapse would be, then that's what they'd do. It wouldn't matter if it was truly needed. Only that the planners thought it was.

 

[RecoveringCT]

How does WTC7 fit into that scenario? No death toll, mediocre visuals, almost an afterthought that day. Yet, for some, WTC7 is supposed to be the smoking gun.

So many contradictions in the various theories.

I agree. I'm merely speaking as one who believed it, to provide an example of the circular logic used to construct a conspiracy theory.

I can easily create a ridiculous theory from thin air for WTC7: All three were supposed to fall in a controlled demolition. Somehow, the timing was off for it, which is why the building's owner said "pull it". He wanted to collect the insurance money.

All of these things I've heard thrown about on conspiracy websites. None of them make any sense.

 

[RecoveringCT]

But from that perspective, wouldn't planes hitting WTC without the collapse or planes partially hitting the towers and crashing somewhere else cause the same visual impact and cerebral impact? Is the collapse itself the most important part?

I always wondered why the collapse itself should be more dramatic than the planes impact and less damage? The death toll would be 1000 instead of 3000. Would that be relevant?

Again, playing devil's advocate to this theory - the reason planes hitting the buildings wouldn't be enough is because planes have hit buildings before, and it wouldn't set any sort of precedent. To rally an American people who are largely numb to Hollywood special effects, you'd have to do something so spectacular - and the damage; so awful - that it would be your patriotic duty to want swift vengeance.

 

[RecoveringCT]

If there WERE someone planning a false flag attack, all that matters is what THEY thought would be needed. If they (hypothetically) thought the planes crashing into the towers weren't enough of a shock, but that a collapse would be, then that's what they'd do. It wouldn't matter if it was truly needed. Only that the planners thought it was.

Exactly what I was trying to convey. You put it far more succinctly than I did. But yes, the theory goes that it had to be a spectacle on the level of a Pearl Harbor to rally support from a Vietnam-era, war weary populace. Absolutely ZERO evidence that that is the case. However, on a hypothetical level it's a decent argument even if there's not meat on its bones. If you're already sold on the Illuminati, it's not a tough sell to get a conspiracy theorist to buy into it. It's one of the more plausible explanations as opposed to lizard races and ritual sacrifice.

 

[cloudspotter]

Again, playing devil's advocate to this theory - the reason planes hitting the buildings wouldn't be enough is because planes have hit buildings before, and it wouldn't set any sort of precedent. To rally an American people who are largely numb to Hollywood special effects, you'd have to do something so spectacular - and the damage; so awful - that it would be your patriotic duty to want swift vengeance.

So the whole "falling in their own footprint" thing (I know they didn't) would be kind of counter productive to this

 

[tadaaa]

yeah, going by the "new pearl harbour" narrative, logically, you would have thought that an uncontrolled demolition would have been more effective (like the federal building in Oklahoma)

but even then nothing really matches the visceral images of two fully laded commercial airlines smashing into the towers

 

[tadaaa]

I suspect cloudspotter means it fell in a remarkably undramatic way

 

[cloudspotter]

Could you elaborate? I think you mean the physical behavior of buildings in a controlled demolition...?

One of the claims of the 911 truthers is that the buildings collapsed in their own footprints indicating a controlled demolition. Surely, if you were going for spectacular with the biggest bang for your buck, you would make them collapse in a way that would cause the most collateral damage to the surrounding area.

Way off topic though here though

 

[RecoveringCT]

I suspect cloudspotter means it fell in a remarkably undramatic way

Ah ha...I can see that point.

I fear I may be veering off topic with this. I sort of regret bringing it up because I'm not dealing with a specific claim of evidence. I just wanted to shine a light on some of the more interesting theories I've come across about the "flashes of light being explosive charges" notion. How would you attempt to debunk speculative theorizing? Is it better to just call it what it is and leave it at that?

 

[cloudspotter]

How would you attempt to debunk such speculation?

Ask for evidence. Otherwise it is just pure speculation and arguments from incredulity

 

[Efftup]

Again, playing devil's advocate to this theory - the reason planes hitting the buildings wouldn't be enough is because planes have hit buildings before, and it wouldn't set any sort of precedent. To rally an American people who are largely numb to Hollywood special effects, you'd have to do something so spectacular - and the damage; so awful - that it would be your patriotic duty to want swift vengeance.

I still totally disagree with this.

Seriously. HOW MANY people who DID support the war with the devastation that DID happen, would have NOT supported the war if the buildings stayed up but only 1,000 people died?
People hijacked planes and crashed them into important buildings.
The Iconic image of these buildings on fire in the middle of New YOrk is still burned into people;s memories, and 1000 people die in the WORST TERROR ATTACK THE USA HAS EVER SEEN.

SO how many people would REALLY think "Well the buildings didn't collapse and it's not like 3,000 Americans died, nah fuck it, I ain't supporting that!"?

 

[Freak]

I still totally disagree with this.

Seriously. HOW MANY people who DID support the war with the devastation that DID happen, would have NOT supported the war if the buildings stayed up but only 1,000 people died?
People hijacked planes and crashed them into important buildings.
The Iconic image of these buildings on fire in the middle of New YOrk is still burned into people;s memories, and 1000 people die in the WORST TERROR ATTACK THE USA HAS EVER SEEN.

SO how many people would REALLY think "Well the buildings didn't collapse and it's not like 3,000 Americans died, nah fuck it, I ain't supporting that!"?

While I don't dissagree with your point, it's irrelevant. If the "planners" decided that bringing the buildings down was necessary, then they would.

We can look at it now and have a decent idea what it would have taken to get the result we did, but before it happened there would be no way to predict how people would respond to the event. And if I were going to plan something like that, I'd rather go for overkill than not meet my objective.

 

[Efftup]

While I don't dissagree with your point, it's irrelevant. If the "planners" decided that bringing the buildings down was necessary, then they would.

We can look at it now and have a decent idea what it would have taken to get the result we did, but before it happened there would be no way to predict how people would respond to the event. And if I were going to plan something like that, I'd rather go for overkill than not meet my objective.

No, but the "planners" would SERIOUSLY increase the complexity, cost and risk of detection of the whole operation by ensuring the buildings came down. They would have to have a REALLY good reason.

As long as the planes hit the buildings, it was guaranteed to be the worst Terrorist attack on the US ever. If the planes missed the buildings, it would be very strange to bring them down.

 

[SR1419]

No, but the "planners" would SERIOUSLY increase the complexity, cost and risk of detection of the whole operation by ensuring the buildings came down

Indeed...a complexity that to this day defies logic.

 

[RecoveringCT]

I still totally disagree with this.

Seriously. HOW MANY people who DID support the war with the devastation that DID happen, would have NOT supported the war if the buildings stayed up but only 1,000 people died?
People hijacked planes and crashed them into important buildings.
The Iconic image of these buildings on fire in the middle of New YOrk is still burned into people;s memories, and 1000 people die in the WORST TERROR ATTACK THE USA HAS EVER SEEN.

SO how many people would REALLY think "Well the buildings didn't collapse and it's not like 3,000 Americans died, nah fuck it, I ain't supporting that!"?

People who rely on emotional reasoning and not logic. Don't shoot the messenger. I couldn't agree more. But that's what you or I are up against if we attempt to debunk someone operating with such a mentality. I'm wanting to get feedback on how to respond to that sort of thinking. So far, the feedback has been that it's speculative thinking and cannot be debated by evidence.