PDA

View Full Version : "Flashes" at South Tower before the impact


Carlos
12th December 2010, 03:55 AM
It's a idiocy to believe that those "flashes" were result of explosives planted in random places, but what is the explanation for this?

QJi6ma7nrU8

ImANiceGuy
12th December 2010, 05:33 AM
ummm, a plane hit the building?

You might want to specify which of the "flashes" you're referring to...JREF can be less than friendly towards posts like these...

Carlos
12th December 2010, 05:44 AM
For example

0:20-0:26

0:48-0:52

1:19-1:26

Jackanory
12th December 2010, 05:50 AM
It's a idiocy to believe that those "flashes" were result of explosives planted in random places, but what is the explanation for this?

QJi6ma7nrU8

What would your 'explanation' be?

The easy options of Camera recording issues? Glinting glass? Camera flashes? Pixel issues etc are less entertaining and carry no woooo.

Given that the 'flashes' you refer to are not resulting in any glass or debris at the point of those flashes and the lack of 'bang' that is a must when using any type of 'explosive' material then the basics of explosions is easily ruled out. Alas - it is far more interesting and prolonged to do the CT thing and ignore the lack of 'bangs' that emit the 'flash'. Speed of light and sound and all that.

'Flash to bang'. Look it up Carlos. It's not rocket science - unless...............

Jackanory
12th December 2010, 05:51 AM
For example

0:20-0:26

0:48-0:52

1:19-1:26

And the signature evidence of explosions that go with your timings?

DGM
12th December 2010, 05:52 AM
It's a idiocy to believe that those "flashes" were result of explosives planted in random places, but what is the explanation for this?

QJi6ma7nrU8
I would say they're just compression artifacts.

ImANiceGuy
12th December 2010, 05:53 AM
Well 1:19-1:26 has the most visible flashes occuring...

Did NIST cover these anywhere in their report?

DGM
12th December 2010, 05:55 AM
Well 1:19-1:26 has the most visible flashes occuring...

Did NIST cover these anywhere in their report?
Are they in all of the videos in the same places?

Jackanory
12th December 2010, 05:59 AM
Well 1:19-1:26 has the most visible flashes occuring...

Did NIST cover these anywhere in their report?

Then the ' blast' that produces each of these 'flashes' would be easily to determine too. It would be really easy to do if ya could. Can you?

DGM
12th December 2010, 06:02 AM
If you look carefully you will also see these "flashes" in places other then the towers. Most noticeable in the river.

Jackanory
12th December 2010, 06:05 AM
If you look carefully you will also see these "flashes" in places other then the towers. Most noticeable in the river.

They planted bombs in the river too!!!!!

Jackanory
12th December 2010, 06:16 AM
If you look carefully you will also see these "flashes" in places other then the towers. Most noticeable in the river.

Must be 'Splash to Bang' then. lol.

DGM
12th December 2010, 06:23 AM
Must be 'Splash to Bang' then. lol.
Air-dropped torpedoes going for the storm drains to "get" the complex from below.


:eek:


It's fun being a "conspiracy theorist". You can just let the imagination fly. Is that why they call it "having an open mind"?

leftysergeant
12th December 2010, 06:27 AM
It's fun being a "conspiracy theorist". You can just let the imagination fly. Is that why they call it "having an open mind"?

The typical twoofer's mind is so wide open that all manner of debris blows in with the wind.

Jackanory
12th December 2010, 06:28 AM
Air-dropped torpedoes going for the storm drains to "get" the complex from below.


:eek:


It's fun being a "conspiracy theorist". You can just let the imagination fly. Is that why they call it "having an open mind"?


And here's me thinking that they used mini nukes via the underground railway????

I suppose guided torpedoes and storm drains is feasible too. That would explain the 'miracle on the Hudson' episode. Off on a tangent again................

ImANiceGuy
12th December 2010, 07:18 AM
Then the ' blast' that produces each of these 'flashes' would be easily to determine too. It would be really easy to do if ya could. Can you?

I don't understand.

Also, DGM, do you have a time mark in the video in which the flashes appear in the river? I couldn't see any immediately, but the flashes within the space occupied by the tower in the video are easily visible...

Also, DGM, are the flashes not consistent throughout all videos? If you know for sure, please do save me from having to search through WTC tower vids...

Jackanory
12th December 2010, 07:24 AM
I don't understand.

Also, DGM, do you have a time mark in the video in which the flashes appear in the river? I couldn't see any immediately, but the flashes within the space occupied by the tower in the video are easily visible...

Also, DGM, are the flashes not consistent throughout all videos? If you know for sure, please do save me from having to search through WTC tower vids...

What is it that you don't understand? The OP asks for an explanation of the 'flashes'.

Regardless of the flashes in the river..........If the flashes on the building are as a result of 'explosions', either by 'explosives' or 'explosive materials' then a signature 'bang' will exist! Do you agree or disagree?

ImANiceGuy
12th December 2010, 07:51 AM
Then the ' blast' that produces each of these 'flashes' would be easily to determine too. It would be really easy to do if ya could. Can you?

This is the sentence I don't understand. It's almost as though you're countering upon an idea I presented by starting your sentence with 'then' and ending with 'too'....doesn't make sense.

All I asked was if NIST had observed and commented upon said flashes in their reports....

Sorry if I confused you Jackanory; it is not my thread.

triforcharity
12th December 2010, 08:21 AM
No.

NutCracker
12th December 2010, 08:33 AM
Air-dropped torpedoes going for the storm drains to "get" the complex from below.


:eek:


It's fun being a "conspiracy theorist". You can just let the imagination fly. Is that why they call it "having an open mind"?

Seconded. And yes. :)

DGM
12th December 2010, 08:59 AM
I don't understand.

Also, DGM, do you have a time mark in the video in which the flashes appear in the river? I couldn't see any immediately, but the flashes within the space occupied by the tower in the video are easily visible...

Also, DGM, are the flashes not consistent throughout all videos? If you know for sure, please do save me from having to search through WTC tower vids...
They show up mostly random.

Look between the buildings (in the river) starting from the beginning where the towers are at close focus.

sheeplesnshills
12th December 2010, 09:20 AM
they look like video artifacts to me or possibly reflections of glass etc. They make no sense as explosions.

DGM
12th December 2010, 09:27 AM
they look like video artifacts to me or possibly reflections of glass etc. They make no sense as explosions.
You would also think that they would use the video from the NYPD helicopter that can be seen flying in the foreground (yes, it has been released, a long time ago) if they were honestly trying to make a case.

But, hey what's better then compressed YouTube video taken from miles away?

:rolleyes:

darion
12th December 2010, 10:16 AM
As I have stated before those flashes could be the static discharge from the plane when it got near the metal of the building. From what I know planes use a static line before fueling to ensure there is no spark. In flight planes tend to generate a lot of static electricity. When they hit the tarmac they discharge a great deal of that static. However because those planes were still in the air when they came in contact with the buildings they still had the static charge.

However this is only a theory and unless someone wants to spend money crashing planes into buildings to test it out it will remain a theory. First comes a theory. Test that theory to prove it. Use the results of that test to fine tune your theory to be more accurate or completely disprove said theory. Thus is the way of experimentation.

ImANiceGuy
12th December 2010, 10:39 AM
You would also think that they would use the video from the NYPD helicopter that can be seen flying in the foreground (yes, it has been released, a long time ago) if they were honestly trying to make a case.

But, hey what's better then compressed YouTube video taken from miles away?

:rolleyes:

If you feel like it, or have the quick ability to.....can you link the best vid available showing the same tower at the same time without the flashes?

DGM
12th December 2010, 10:44 AM
If you feel like it, or have the quick ability to.....can you link the best vid available showing the same tower at the same time without the flashes?
I don't really feel like it.

What do you think about the same 'flashes" between the towers? They're clearly not in or on the buildings.

ETA: Or the ones that clearly appear to be something falling across the face of the north tower (:17- :24)

Thunder
12th December 2010, 10:53 AM
It's a idiocy to believe that those "flashes" were result of explosives planted in random places, but what is the explanation for this?


its the job of truthers to prove that these flashes are explosives. not our job to prove they weren't.

deeper
12th December 2010, 12:05 PM
I'm going with compression artifacts, they are fairly uniform in size and their presence inbetween the buildings clinches it.

Look at the zoom which starts at 1:17 and finishes at 1:27, look at the left/ going towards bottom left, you can see clearly that it's not the product of any kind of 'event'.

Juniversal
12th December 2010, 12:17 PM
It's a idiocy to believe that those "flashes" were result of explosives planted in random places, but what is the explanation for this?

QJi6ma7nrU8Hate to break it to you but the "flashes" at 1:19-1:26 were clearly lights inside of the building. The flickering was just a video artifact.

ApolloGnomon
12th December 2010, 01:24 PM
As I have stated before those flashes could be the static discharge from the plane when it got near the metal of the building. From what I know planes use a static line before fueling to ensure there is no spark. In flight planes tend to generate a lot of static electricity. When they hit the tarmac they discharge a great deal of that static. However because those planes were still in the air when they came in contact with the buildings they still had the static charge.

However this is only a theory and unless someone wants to spend money crashing planes into buildings to test it out it will remain a theory. First comes a theory. Test that theory to prove it. Use the results of that test to fine tune your theory to be more accurate or completely disprove said theory. Thus is the way of experimentation.


Those are different flashes than the ones in the OP. If I understand you correctly, you're thinking of the "blink" just before the nose of the plane contacts the building. The "blink" looks like a circular light about the diameter of the airframe, it lasts for one frame only, and happens when the nose is about 1 airframe-diameter away from the building. It's present in footage of both impacts, but not in all footage of the second impact.

I theorize it's an effect of the radar arcing between the aluminum cladding and the columns, and might not be visible light but IR.

But that's another thread.

I can't even see anything in the OP video that looks like flashes, much less explosions.

Muc
12th December 2010, 10:47 PM
A possible explanation could be objects (paper, etc.) floating through the air and reflecting light. Some of those seem to move and you can see that the debris ejected by the impact of the second plane (after 2:25) produces lots of similar "flashes" on its way down.

In this video you can see those objects more clearly and in roughly the same areas:
youtube.com/watch?v=FBzts-8pXdA

George II
13th December 2010, 07:01 AM
Yes, paper flying in the wind was my first thought when I saw the video in the OP. The pieces of paper are not easy to make out in that video because of the poor quality, but the second video is better. I can imagine white paper giving of quite a "flash" when reflecting the sun, it can be seen to some degree in the second video as well. Maybe the poor quality of the first video exaggerates that effect?

Anyway, it's hard to imagine how anyone could make explosions out of that. I have been reading reading quite a bit on this forum for a while, but I still get amazed how truthers can make something out of nothing.

gumboot
13th December 2010, 02:47 PM
It's not video artifacts and it's not explosions. It's paper, ejected from the buildings because of the aircraft impact. If you look at other videos you'll see absolutely tonnes of paper was thrown into the air from the aircraft impacts and then slowly fluttered down.

In fact Conspiracy Theorists have previously argued that all the (unburned) paper flying through the air is proof that the fires weren't that hot.

DGM
13th December 2010, 02:54 PM
It's not video artifacts and it's not explosions. It's paper, ejected from the buildings because of the aircraft impact. If you look at other videos you'll see absolutely tonnes of paper was thrown into the air from the aircraft impacts and then slowly fluttered down.

In fact Conspiracy Theorists have previously argued that all the (unburned) paper flying through the air is proof that the fires weren't that hot.
I agree. I also believe that the video compression makes it appear (and disappear) like a "flash". This is caused (IIRC) by very small intermittent movements within a mostly stationary field.

phunk
13th December 2010, 04:32 PM
Watch the one in the lower left corner when they zoom in at 1:25. It's clearly something outside the building blowing in the wind reflecting light. It moves in front of the columns.

dafydd
13th December 2010, 05:58 PM
They planted bombs in the river too!!!!!

Now that is being thorough.

Mancman
14th December 2010, 11:35 AM
36 posts about a video that shows floating paper. What's the point of this forum?

triforcharity
14th December 2010, 01:40 PM
Humor.

Telltale Tom
14th December 2010, 11:20 PM
Well 1:19-1:26 has the most visible flashes occuring...

Did NIST cover these anywhere in their report?

Great detective work Nice Guy.

We can use the video to locate the guys who set off the explosives. Since nobody in the South Tower reported any smoke, fire or explosives from within the building then this video will help us to identify where the explosives were located. And therefore by definition where the people were located who covered it up.

It is hard to imagine why NIST did not go into this in detail, isnt it?

jaydeehess
15th December 2010, 03:28 PM
So tiny flashes of white are supposedly explosions within a tower that still has people in it, that occur accross no more than one window (odd if these are explosions) and no one has bothered to look at other videos and determine if these same flashes are visible at the same time from other angles.

,,, and some 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim the debunkers are blinkered....

I favour the fluttering paper idea. They don't really look like compression artifacts to me.

Jackanory
16th December 2010, 02:44 AM
This is the sentence I don't understand. It's almost as though you're countering upon an idea I presented by starting your sentence with 'then' and ending with 'too'....doesn't make sense.

All I asked was if NIST had observed and commented upon said flashes in their reports....

Sorry if I confused you Jackanory; it is not my thread.

Absolutely no confusion from me. The thread was only going in one direction from the get go. A woo search.

Your question about NIST was a clear indicator of who is confused.

Ask yourself who are NIST? What is it they actually do? Why do they do what they do? Perhaps if they where called The Health & Safety Executive then you wouldnt find the need to ask if they investigated floating paper. The acronym of 'NIST' seems to have a prelonged alternate meaning in the minds of the CTer. Can you tell me what it really stands for and why they should be investigating floating paper or dodgy cameras?

Jackanory
16th December 2010, 02:54 AM
As I have stated before those flashes could be the static discharge from the plane when it got near the metal of the building. From what I know planes use a static line before fueling to ensure there is no spark. In flight planes tend to generate a lot of static electricity. When they hit the tarmac they discharge a great deal of that static. However because those planes were still in the air when they came in contact with the buildings they still had the static charge.

However this is only a theory and unless someone wants to spend money crashing planes into buildings to test it out it will remain a theory. First comes a theory. Test that theory to prove it. Use the results of that test to fine tune your theory to be more accurate or completely disprove said theory. Thus is the way of experimentation.

That is why we fit 'static wicks' to all aircraft.