Video: Bombs Going Off Before The 2nd Plane Hits?

[conspiracybeliever]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2167&st=0&#last

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/Roxdog/flashes_sparks.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/Roxdog/flashes_sparks2.jpg


http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/Roxdog/flashes_sparks4.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e225/Roxdog/flashes_sparks3.jpg

9/11 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions

"There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."

Source: "Teresa Veliz: A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly," in September 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy (Doubleday, 2002), pp 9-15. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm

HERE IS THE VIDEO IN QUESTION:

http://www.bodyatomic.com/vid/QT_big/WTC_big.mov

Pretty wierd....

[Bronze Dog]

I don't see how two moving little white dots constitute explosions.

[Trifikas]

Sorry - It's a video compression artifact. if you slow it down, it's in some frames and not in others. Being quicktime, you can drag the marker frame-by-frame.

Trif

[Hagrok]

Death pixels!

[Manny]

Hey, don't you still owe some answers on how whether Nick Berg is alive, alive but drugged or dead at the time of his decapitation is probative as to who decapitated him (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1566832&postcount=1209)? And maybe some credentials for Dr. Raul Castro Guevara (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1566789&postcount=30)?

Oh, and that tax thing, but I figure that's a "yes" that you're just hiding from.

[conspiracybeliever]

Two flashes? I see countless flashes going off all over the place. If you look at other controlled demolitions you see the same little flashes.

And yes, if you read the thread I posted I state I want to find the source tape. Either way, its intersesting footage. I expect most people here to dismiss it without explanation but I'm trying to get this out to as many people as possible. Thanks for helping me out.:)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Watch the whole video in Quicktime double-size (or full screen if you have Pro). You can tell it's an anomoly caused by the digital recording.

[conspiracybeliever]

Hey, don't you still owe some answers on how whether Nick Berg is alive, alive but drugged or dead at the time of his decapitation is probative as to who decapitated him (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1566832&postcount=1209)? And maybe some credentials for Dr. Raul Castro Guevara (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1566789&postcount=30)?

Oh, and that tax thing, but I figure that's a "yes" that you're just hiding from.
That's a different thread. Most forums don't like when people derail threads. (Can you respond to the CNN and New York Times articles I posted on Berg?)

[conspiracybeliever]

Watch the whole video in Quicktime double-size (or full screen if you have Pro). You can tell it's an anomoly caused by the digital recording.
You can tell no such thing by watching the video, but I'm not saying it isn't possible. Maybe the commission addressed this? Oh wait, no they didn't...

[bjb]

This is because the camera is pointing into the sun and the CCD is generating flash pixels. Another consideration is your graphics card. I'm getting *green* flashes on my computer, the same ones I often see when I'm playing games.

If you can get multiple videos that show the same flashes occuring at the same time in the same place, then they are much less likely to have been caused by digital video compression.

[hurdygurdy]

Roxdog, try to compare those flashes with the size of the tower.

[conspiracybeliever]

Sorry - It's a video compression artifact. if you slow it down, it's in some frames and not in others. Being quicktime, you can drag the marker frame-by-frame.

Trif
It is in some frames and not in others because they are flashes of light. They are all over the towers. Can you explain why these "compression artifacts" only occur on the corners of the WTC 1 and 2 and no where else on the video? Maybe the 9/11 commission has an opinion on this? Oh, wait, no, they don't.

[Bronze Dog]

Can you explain why the flashes are green on bjb's computer?

[conspiracybeliever]

Roxdog, try to compare those flashes with the size of the tower.
Why don't you compare those flashes with the size of the tower? Then go look at other controlled demos and see the same flashes.

[hurdygurdy]

Only on a few parts of the corner, yeah, right.

[Bronze Dog]

Why don't you compare those flashes with the size of the tower? Then go look at other controlled demos and see the same flashes.
Nope. Don't see the same flashes.

[Starthinker]

Clearly pixilation. I mean, clearly. Someone who looks at this Quicktime video and see's flashes and interprets them as explosions clearly doesn't know how digital video compression works. This has to be troll or some other intentional nest-stirring.

[Nyarlathotep]

Those aren't explosions, those are orbs. Duh.

[Manny]

That's a different thread. Most forums don't like when people derail threads. (Can you respond to the CNN and New York Times articles I posted on Berg?)They don't like it much when people abandon them, either. So there's that.

I can respond to the CNN article; I didn't see a NYTimes article from you (though in fairness, it's a big honkin' thread -- I may have missed it and make no accusation that you didn't post it). I'll respond right after you do to the current open issues.

[conspiracybeliever]

"Clearly pixilization"? It's hardly "clear". Explain why it happens to begin in the south tower EXACTLY where the plane hits and only really occurs on the corner columns?

[chipmunk stew]

Clearly pixilation. I mean, clearly. Someone who looks at this Quicktime video and see's flashes and interprets them as explosions clearly doesn't know how digital video compression works. This has to be troll or some other intentional nest-stirring.No. It's Roxdog, and he's quite sincere.

[Starthinker]

It is in some frames and not in others because they are flashes of light. They are all over the towers. Can you explain why these "compression artifacts" only occur on the corners of the WTC 1 and 2 and no where else on the video? Maybe the 9/11 commission has an opinion on this? Oh, wait, no, they don't.

This was already answered, had you read it:

This is because the camera is pointing into the sun and the CCD is generating flash pixels.

You answered your own question, they appear on the corner because that's where the most light/reflection of the sun is. Digital recording does that.

[conspiracybeliever]

I'll respond right after you do to the current open issues.
I have no problem responding to any and all questions put to me.

[CFLarsen]

If you look at other controlled demolitions you see the same little flashes.

Show me.

[hurdygurdy]

I have no problem responding to any and all questions put to me.
Roxdog, please show me credentials from Dr. Raul Castro Guevara.

[kookbreaker]

So tiny, tiny explostions that look like exactly like reflections and video compression artifcacts happened and the building fell down over an hour later.

Riii-ight.

[conspiracybeliever]

I don't think that's a good enough explanation for the flashes appearing all over the corner column in different places. Some say it is pixelation, you say it's the sun. I say it's the explosions everyone and their grandmother reported going off.

[Starthinker]

Let me add one more thing, if those pixilations were explosions then they would be no larger than a firecracker. Yes, I was munitions inspector and did demolition for 5 years in the Air Force. Any blast capable of even breaking a window would be much larger than that and leave behind puffs of smoke, debris and other things. If, for some reason, you actually still believe those pixilations are demolition blasts then I really feel sorry for you.

[conspiracybeliever]

Show me.

No problem...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4700882250848960269&q=Landmark+Tower+building+in+downtown+Fort+Worth%2 C+Texas%2C+on+March+18th%2C+2006&pl=true

[Luke T.]

Why don't you compare those flashes with the size of the tower? Then go look at other controlled demos and see the same flashes.

Please show a controlled demo that has multiple flashes of light several minutes before a building falls, all in the same spot over and over, with NO ejecta.

Hey, did you know there are blue fairies on the moon? Maybe NASA has an opinion on this. Oh, wait, no, they don't.

[conspiracybeliever]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6209867556562706196&q=Landmark+Tower+building+in+downtown+Fort+Worth%2 C+Texas&pl=true

Pixelation or the sun?

[Bronze Dog]

Let me add one more thing, if those pixilations were explosions then they would be no larger than a firecracker. Yes, I was munitions inspector and did demolition for 5 years in the Air Force. Any blast capable of even breaking a window would be much larger than that and leave behind puffs of smoke, debris and other things. If, for some reason, you actually still believe those pixilations are demolition blasts then I really feel sorry for you.
That's one point I was considering bringing up. Controlled demos when I've seen them stirr up a fair bit of dust, even before the building starts moving down. Not seeing that here, which is suspicious considering that we're talking about glass.

Of course, some pixels next to white pixels being turned white by compression artifacts is a lot more plausible than a bunch of guys sneaking into the building and planting several tons of explosives.

[Nyarlathotep]

No problem...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4700882250848960269&q=Landmark+Tower+building+in+downtown+Fort+Worth%2 C+Texas%2C+on+March+18th%2C+2006&pl=true


While I see some flashes that are clearly explosions, the ones I see that are most similar to the ones in your OP persist long after the building falls. Unless they have magic antigravity explosive devices that can hang in mid-air, those ones aren't explsions.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifacts

You can tell from the title sequence that the video is suffering from compression artifacts:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/911_2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/911_1.jpg

[conspiracybeliever]

The ripple of flashes in the TX tower are practically identical to the ripple of flashes that appear in the North Tower. This is fact.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6209867556562706196&q=Landmark+Tower+building+in+downtown+Fort+Worth%2 C+Texas&pl=true

Pixelation or the sun?

I think people may be addressing two seperate issues: (1) the images you posted and (2) the video you posted. The images appear to be of higher resolution than the quicktime video.

[Bronze Dog]

The ripple of flashes in the TX tower are practically identical to the ripple of flashes that appear in the North Tower. This is fact.
And probably far less significant than you seem to think.

[Nyarlathotep]

The ripple of flashes in the TX tower are practically identical to the ripple of flashes that appear in the North Tower. This is fact.

I won't argue that point, as I don;t have enough specialized knowledge to definatively say otherwise. However, many of those flashes occur in mid-air after the building falls, this is also fact.

[conspiracybeliever]

Cool. Thanks guys for keeping this bumped to the top. Ill probably be around tomorrow.

[kookbreaker]

No ejecta seen on this angle:

http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/wtc/hit/second_approach.jpg

[Manny]

I have no problem responding to any and all questions put to me.Cool. There's the question about Raul Castro Guevara, which you can answer here because HG asked or back where it was asked originally (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1566771#post1566771). Please note that I already did your homework for you on the matter of Dr. Nordby (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1566890&postcount=1212) on account of I'm such a sweetheart. We don't always expect our answers to come back the way we predict -- we modify our theories to fit the facts and the available facts so far indicate that Dr. Nordby exists, that he's a legit forensics guy and that there's no reason to suspect that he didn't say what was attributed to him. We'd just like to learn the same thing about Dr. Castro Guevara.

Then there's the relevance of Mr. Berg's condition to who killed him. That's here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1566832&postcount=1209).

And a response to Sultanist's email from the nice people at Controlled Demolition, Inc. That one's here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1547853&postcount=84).

That should get you started. Thanks in advance.

Oh, and the tax thing. Legally speaking, do Americans have to pay income tax on American income?

[kookbreaker]

Its convenient that these 'flashes' appear right next to a surface that has the exact same color.

That makes them compression artifcats, that makes you a crank.

[Nyarlathotep]

Cool. Thanks guys for keeping this bumped to the top. Ill probably be around tomorrow.


Awww, watsamatta Roxie, did your "evidence" get blown away now you have to claim having this thread "bumped to the top" as some sort of victory, so you can run away?

Poor widdle fella.

[FFed]

If those are explosions and not artifacts, then other videos should be showing the explosion as well. But all the other videos I have seen do not show this.

[I less than three logic]

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

I know this is quite broad, and you could turn it around to suit your views. However, in this case it is clearly an example of trying to twist facts to suit the theory.
Two flashes? I see countless flashes going off all over the place. If you look at other controlled demolitions you see the same little flashes.
You’re right; there are little flashes all over in the video, but this is common in digitally compressed videos, especially along sharp contrast edges like the buildings in the video. Try watching some other videos, perhaps something like internet broadcasted news programs with just the face of someone talking, and you’ll see similar flashes. You couldn’t seriously conclude those flashes are explosives too, can you?

I’m sorry, but flashes on a video like this doesn’t cut it for evidence since other simpler explanations can account for them.

[steenkh]

Why on earth should anybody detonate anything if they have two planes ramming the buildings anyway?

[Ipecac]

Wow. Moving pixels. I'm convinced! The whole conspiracy thing suddenly makes sense! :rolleyes:

It appears some people will find any "evidence" no matter how slight, no matter how easily explained, as supporting their preconceived notions of ridiculous events. But then, I already knew that so I'm not surprised.

I've seen a lot of the the "evidence" presented by the conspiracy crowd and this ranks up there with the most ridiculous grasping at straws.

[rwguinn]

I don't think that's a good enough explanation for the flashes appearing all over the corner column in different places. Some say it is pixelation, you say it's the sun. I say it's the explosions everyone and their grandmother reported going off.

That's because you continually reach "Learned" conclusions about things of which you have less than no knowledge.
"You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything..."

[Starthinker]

Cool. Thanks guys for keeping this bumped to the top. Ill probably be around tomorrow.

I knew this was a troll. I said it several times in this thread.

[Manny]

Try watching some other videos, perhaps something like internet broadcasted news programs with just the face of someone talking, and you’ll see similar flashes. You couldn’t seriously conclude those flashes are explosives too, can you? The government -- not the government you think you have, but the permanent NWO government which controls the world -- planted squibs in my Aunt Mabel and timed them to detonate at her birthday party. I have the whole thing on tape.

It's true. :)

[chipmunk stew]

If those are explosions and not artifacts, then other videos should be showing the explosion as well. But all the other videos I have seen do not show this.Corroborating evidence is not highly valued among many of the Loosers. In fact, mutually exclusive evidence is frequently put forth in support of the same point.

[Luke T.]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6209867556562706196&q=Landmark+Tower+building+in+downtown+Fort+Worth%2 C+Texas&pl=true

Pixelation or the sun?

No. Those are explosions. If you can't tell the difference, you are making a willful effort at being an idiot. Keep buying those conspiracy books. It's your money.

[conspiracybeliever]

Before I go:

So the flashes in the TX building are explosions but identical flashes in the WTC are the sun/pixelization. Gotcha....

And someone please say for the record that it is a coincidence the flashes begin EXACTLY where the plane hits the south tower.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think this image http://i.cmpnet.com/videsignline/2006/02/algolith-fig2.jpg
gives a good example of the kinds of distortion that happens during video compression.

[Nyarlathotep]

Before I go:

So the flashes in the TX building are explosions but identical flashes in the WTC are the sun/pixelization. Gotcha....



No, the identical flashes in the Texas building are not explosions either. They persist in mid-air after the building falls, explsoions don't do that, pixelization does.

The flashes in the texas building that obviously ARE explosions do not resemble your 'explosions' in the OP. ANd they don't occur in mid-air after the building falls.

ETA: P.S. You are denser than Neutron Star matter.

[Z]

Before I go:

So the flashes in the TX building are explosions but identical flashes in the WTC are the sun/pixelization. Gotcha....

And someone please say for the record that it is a coincidence the flashes begin EXACTLY where the plane hits the south tower.

Those are hardly 'identical flashes'. The TX tower is clearly explosives going off. Those in the WTC pic are clearly pixellation artifacts. You can see the same artifacts along the edges of the TX tower, btw - as well as 'flashes' all over the video, for that matter - including on buildings still standing, in the air, etc.

let's see the original footage...

[valis]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6209867556562706196&q=Landmark+Tower+building+in+downtown+Fort+Worth%2 C+Texas&pl=true

Pixelation or the sun?

On my PC See only two white pixels about the top right of the lower left quadrant of the screen. They never move and are still there after the building is gone.

[Bronze Dog]

Yup, he's very much a dord (http://www.snopes.com/language/mistakes/dord.htm).

[valis]

I am sorry I am so busy I did not have time to search the other threads and see if this had been posted nor did I even have time to read this article. Just thought I would like to see who is in a major mainstream paper in Utah. Sorry if this is repetative or a mild hijack.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635198488,00.html

[JPK]

Good morning conspiracybeliever
I don't think that's a good enough explanation for the flashes appearing all over the corner column in different places. Some say it is pixelation, you say it's the sun. I say it's the explosions everyone and their grandmother reported going off.
Just for the record, I didn't report explosions going off. Neither did my grandmother.
JPK

[conspiracybeliever]

And someone please say for the record that it is a coincidence the flashes begin EXACTLY where the plane hits the south tower.
???

[dissonance]

You know, if they are explosions (which they are not, but bear with me), then whoever is responsible for this conspiracy is a complete idiot. First crash a plane into the WTC, attracting every person with a video camera in the area, including all the major news networks, then set off explosions? That makes no sense at all if our conspirators don't want us to know about the explosives.

Far more likely that this particular low quality video has some artifacts in it. How many times on 9/11 and in the days afterwards did we see the video on the news of the second plane? If there were explosions, they would have been noticed then. The media would have been all over that.

[kookbreaker]

???

In your second, third and fourth pictures, your pixel errors appear nowhere near where the plane impacted or where the building began to collapse.

Selective much?

[Bronze Dog]

I'm reminded of those alien kooks who zoom in on NASA photos until you can see the pixels, and then employ the magic "Sharpen" filter in Adobe Photoshop until they get what they want.

[Nyarlathotep]

???


Got proof that it is anything but coincidence? You are making the claim (that these flashes are explosions). Thus it is your job to prove they are explosions, not our job to prove they are not.

[kookbreaker]

Roxdog, can you establish to us that you know enough about about video compression to prove that these are not compression artifacts?

Right now you are just trying to dodge and weave, badly, like the whiney coward that you are.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Before I go:

So the flashes in the TX building are explosions but identical flashes in the WTC are the sun/pixelization. Gotcha....

And someone please say for the record that it is a coincidence the flashes begin EXACTLY where the plane hits the south tower.

Well, for one, the TX demolition clearly shows the explosion spanning multiple pixels in the video, whereas the WTC video anomolies are limited to one pixel.

[conspiracybeliever]

Roxdog, can you establish to us that you know enough about about video compression to prove that these are not compression artifacts?

I don't, but from the sounds of it niether does anyone here. How come the flashes pretty much only occur on the corner columns? I state in my post I want the original footage. I find it highly suspicious that these flashes begin PRECISELY where the 2nd plane hits and then seem to happen when there is something else to distract from it. As the fireball expands we see the flashes rippling up and down the corner. When the SOuth tower collapses we see the same thing. Wierd timing.

Right now you are just trying to dodge and weave, badly, like the whiney coward that you are.
Nothing I've done would indicate I am a coward. :D

Your insults ring hollow...

[Luke T.]

If those are explosions and not artifacts, then other videos should be showing the explosion as well. But all the other videos I have seen do not show this.

Exactly.

javascript:new_vod('/video/us/2001/09/12/pv.tick.tock.affl.med.html')

No flashes of light during the same time frame looking at the same corner of the building.

Go to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/day.video.09.html#11th for plenty of videos to compare.

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't, but from the sounds of it niether does anyone here. How come the flashes pretty much only occur on the corner columns? I state in my post I want the original footage. I find it highly suspicious that these flashes begin PRECISELY where the 2nd plane hits and then seem to happen when there is something else to distract from it. As the fireball expands we see the flashes rippling up and down the corner. When the SOuth tower collapses we see the same thing. Wierd timing.



In other words, you have no evidence that these flashes were explosions.

[kookbreaker]

I don't, but from the sounds of it niether does anyone here. How come the flashes pretty much only occur on the corner columns?


Because that is where there is a surface witht he exact same color as your 'flashes'. That's one of the root causes of errors is bleedover from other surface colors. Even non-experts can understand that. Why are your 'flashes' pixels the exact same color as the color of the corners? Hmmm?


I state in my post I want the original footage. I find it highly suspicious that these flashes begin PRECISELY where the 2nd plane hits and then seem to happen when there is something else to distract from it.


Meaning nothing. There is no evidence whatsoever that these are anything other than pixels.


As the fireball expands we see the flashes rippling up and down the corner. When the South tower collapses we see the same thing. Wierd timing.

Nothing I've done would indicate I am a coward. :D

Except for your pretending to be someone else, you complaints about critics on the Loose Change forum, your inability to address questions and issues. There's more...

[Manny]

Cool. There's the question about Raul Castro Guevara, which you can answer here because HG asked or back where it was asked originally (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1566771#post1566771). Please note that I already did your homework for you on the matter of Dr. Nordby (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1566890&postcount=1212) on account of I'm such a sweetheart. We don't always expect our answers to come back the way we predict -- we modify our theories to fit the facts and the available facts so far indicate that Dr. Nordby exists, that he's a legit forensics guy and that there's no reason to suspect that he didn't say what was attributed to him. We'd just like to learn the same thing about Dr. Castro Guevara.

Then there's the relevance of Mr. Berg's condition to who killed him. That's here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1566832&postcount=1209).

And a response to Sultanist's email from the nice people at Controlled Demolition, Inc. That one's here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1547853&postcount=84).

That should get you started. Thanks in advance.

Oh, and the tax thing. Legally speaking, do Americans have to pay income tax on American income?
I realize this forum moves pretty fast, so I thought I'd repost this lest it get missed and you are inaccurately portrayed as having lied when you said you'd have no problem responding to any and all questions put to you.

[Nyarlathotep]

I realize this forum moves pretty fast, so I thought I'd repost this lest it get missed and you are inaccurately portrayed as having lied when you said you'd have no problem responding to any and all questions put to you.

You don't think he'd avoid your questions, do ya Manny? After all, he isn't a coward, he even said so.

[Bronze Dog]

As the fireball expands we see the flashes rippling up and down the corner. When the SOuth tower collapses we see the same thing. Wierd timing.
Hmm... let's see, white pixels moving up and down a white vertical line recorded on a device that involves vertical scanning, displayed on another that involves vertical redraw, and they, with a BIG stretch of the imagination, match up with controlled demolitions. Yeah, that's weird. What's also weird is that dowsing pendulums move back and forth, and so do rocking chairs. Pendulums sometimes go round and round, and so do the wheels on the bus. Synchronicity, it is!

Oh, crud, I've got that song in my head, now.

ETA: Oh, and what "fireball"? I don't see a "fireball".

[conspiracybeliever]

How come no flashes on the corner columns of any other buidlings? Towards the end the flashes are quite evident but they only appear on the corner columb of the WTC and not on any other building (or anywhere else on the video for that matter). Very strange.

[Bronze Dog]

How come no flashes on the corner columns of any other buidlings? Towards the end the flashes are quite evident but they only appear on the corner columb of the WTC and not on any other building (or anywhere else on the video for that matter). Very strange.
Because those corners are dark.

[Nyarlathotep]

How come no flashes on the corner columns of any other buidlings? Towards the end the flashes are quite evident but they only appear on the corner columb of the WTC and not on any other building (or anywhere else on the video for that matter). Very strange.


Ask someone who knows about video. But that's not important. What evidence do YOU have that they were explosions?

[kookbreaker]

How come no flashes on the corner columns of any other buidlings? .

Your second, third and fourth pictures show 'flashes' on the other WTC building. You even had them circled.

[conspiracybeliever]

I realize this forum moves pretty fast, so I thought I'd repost this lest it get missed and you are inaccurately portrayed as having lied when you said you'd have no problem responding to any and all questions put to you.
Sorry, my bad..Very busy....what's any of that got to do with me?

1. I don't care what CDI's PR department (aka, "nice people") have to say.

2. Raul Castro Guevara's opinion is largely irrelevent in light of ALL the facts. Questioning his credentials doesn't negate anything.

3.Federal Taxation of people's wages and salary is a fraud. Google "Joe Banister".

[Luke T.]

How come no flashes on the corner columns of any other buidlings? Towards the end the flashes are quite evident but they only appear on the corner columb of the WTC and not on any other building (or anywhere else on the video for that matter). Very strange.

Have you even looked at other videos of the attack which show the same corner? Do ANY of them corroborate your theory?

My theory is the answer is "No" to both questions.

[NotJesus]

Why on earth should anybody detonate anything if they have two planes ramming the buildings anyway?

You've put your finger on it. This is the stupidest of all conspiracy theories because it simply makes no sense.

[conspiracybeliever]

Your second, third and fourth pictures show 'flashes' on the other WTC building. You even had them circled.
I meant besides the WTC.

[conspiracybeliever]

You've put your finger on it. This is the stupidest of all conspiracy theories because it simply makes no sense.
You're one liners don't negate the facts you fail to even address. :)

[Nyarlathotep]

You're one liners don't negate the facts you fail to even address. :)


Nor do yours.

[Luke T.]

Actually, in the video in the OP, at 1 minute and 24 seconds into the video, you can see the exact same type of white flashes on another building.

There are two buildings in the video with sharp peaks to the left of the WTC. The white flashes are visible on the one closest to the WTC on the lefthand side of the bldg.

You can see the white flashes all the way until about 1:55 when the cloud from the collapsing WTC envelopes the building.

Edited to correct "right" to "left". Two buildings with sharp peaks to the LEFT of the WTC.

[LTC8K6]

It very obvious that these are compression artifacts.

CCD's also have trouble with bright spots. The brightness overloads the pixel element and it bleeds over into the next one. If the overload is big enough, you'll get whole lines of pixels turning white. The "spaceships" in SOHO and LASCO images are good examples of this pixel bleeding.

[Bronze Dog]

You're one liners don't negate the facts you fail to even address. :)
Considering that there's really nothing about those facts that needs addressing. It's your unbridled speculation from such mundanities that's the problem.

[kalen]

No problem...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4700882250848960269&q=Landmark+Tower+building+in+downtown+Fort+Worth%2 C+Texas%2C+on+March+18th%2C+2006&pl=true

Wow! How did they get that building to fall faster than the speed of gravity?

[Luke T.]

If you read my last post before I edited it, the buildings with the peaks on them are to the LEFT of the WTC. And the one with the same flashes on it is the one closest to the WTC.

[Manny]

Sorry, my bad..Very busy....what's any of that got to do with me?They were all questions which had been put to you but not answered -- again, the forums are very fast here. Thanks for getting back to them.

1. I don't care what CDI's PR department (aka, "nice people") have to say.Hmm. Perhaps your earlier comments were misinterpreted. When you said, "Actually, one of the govt's top demo specialist said it was a controlled demo the day of the event," were you referring to the comments Ray Griffin attributed to an expert at Controlled Demolitions, or to some other top demolitions specialist?

2. Raul Castro Guevara's opinion is largely irrelevent in light of ALL the facts. Questioning his credentials doesn't negate anything.You quoted him. Why would you quote a guy unless you had at least some confidence that he was speaking from a position of knowledge.

3.Federal Taxation of people's wages and salary is a fraud. Google "Joe Banister".I know all about Mr. Banister, the guy who paid his taxes. So what's your take -- real deal or government plant?


I eagerly await your comments about the relevance of Mr. Berg's condition to who killed him.

[kookbreaker]

I meant besides the WTC.

I'd consider the other WTC building to be another building. With the same reflective characteristics as well and thus equally prone to bleed-over compression effects. ANd sure enough the pixels pop up at several points on the other WTC building without any correlation to a plane impact, collapse point, or anything whatsoever.

Other buildings in the shot? I don't know, I'm at work and cannot view the video, only your pics. There are not many other buildings in your pics, in fact nothing at all in focus. Bronze Dog states that those corners are dark, and that would be a very good reason for a lack of such artifacts

You still failed to explain why these teeny-weeny 'explosives' are going to be any more powerful than the plane's impact.

You also fail to explain why these 'explosives' went off and took an hour to cause any collapse.

[Bronze Dog]

He also fails to explain how these explosives could get there in the first place.

[Nyarlathotep]

Awww, now all the hard questions have made him run away and start a new thread.

[Luke T.]

Can you explain why these "compression artifacts" only occur on the corners of the WTC 1 and 2 and no where else on the video?

Owned.

Now if someone can do a video capture and post what I am talking about in my last two posts, we can be all done here.

[FFed]

Here is a video of the plane strike. Where exactly are these pre explosions?

http://filebuffer.net/?id=5eea876d626b9a_wtc2-strike-7.avi

[conspiracybeliever]

"Pixels"..."the sun"..make up you're minds people!!! lol

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

"Pixels"..."the sun"..make up you're minds people!!! lol

They're not mutually exclusive. False dichotomy.

[Timothy]

"Clearly pixilization"? It's hardly "clear". Explain why it happens to begin in the south tower EXACTLY where the plane hits and only really occurs on the corner columns?
At the risk of biting on trollbait...

It doesn't. On my computer, the compressed video displays over 25 flashes on the far left column before the impact, 10 of which occur before the plane even enters the frame.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

There, I've explained it.

Now go make up another story.

- Timothy

[Bronze Dog]

"Pixels"..."the sun"..make up you're minds people!!! lol
We don't have to. You have yet to demonstrate that they're explosions. You're the one making the most extraordinary claim. You're the one with the burden of proof.

[CFLarsen]

No problem...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4700882250848960269&q=Landmark+Tower+building+in+downtown+Fort+Worth%2 C+Texas%2C+on+March+18th%2C+2006&pl=true

Are you kidding here? That is nowhere similar to what we see in the WTC video clip.

[Belz...]

Two flashes? I see countless flashes going off all over the place. If you look at other controlled demolitions you see the same little flashes.

In ACTUAL controlled demolitions, can't you not only see the explosions clearly, but HEAR them as well ?

[Belz...]

You can tell no such thing by watching the video, but I'm not saying it isn't possible. Maybe the commission addressed this? Oh wait, no they didn't...

Why would they adress something that WASN'T on their videos ?

[Luke T.]

Well, I hope this works. From 1:31 in the video.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

This is interesting. I took these pictures to our structiral engineer here at work (we do steel construction) and while he is no expert in explosives , he did point out that if those two puffs at the corner were explosions we should have expected that the tower would be most likely to collapse in the direction of those explosions, as a weakening in that corner combined with the slumping structural steel from the burning planes would have caused a sideways collapse.

He also poo-pooed the idea that the fire in the towers had to be hot hot enough to melt the structural steel, he assumes that the steel inbetween floors is the same that we use and that the steel will slump and deform at 800-900 degrees farenheit, causing a straight down collapse, like we see.

In short, we have no clue if those puffs are explosions or not, he said it was possible, but not probable viewing the video and that if it was an explosion it was not big enough to structurally weaken the building.

[Luke T.]

From 1:19 in the video. These two photos should help you locate the building in question. Then watch the action and you will see the same flashes occurring on that building.

[Bronze Dog]

...he did point out that if those two puffs at the corner were explosions we should have expected that the tower would be most likely to collapse in the direction of those explosions, as a weakening in that corner combined with the slumping structural steel from the burning planes would have caused a sideways collapse.
Another obvious point that has been ignored.

[Luke T.]

Will someone please say they see what I see. I need validation! :D :D :D

[Bronze Dog]

Yup. I'm seeing the same digital artifact in the side of that building that we've been describing, Luke. Thanks for showing.

[pgwenthold]

Has anyone ever established that conspiracybeliever/rexdog or whatever is not David Lifton, the one who creatively identified all the snipers on the grassy knoll by overinterpreting poor quality photos?

I like the one he had where there was apparently a rifleman on one knee in the middle of the grassy knoll. For some reason, no one standing on the grassy knoll saw the guy aiming his rifle at the president.

[Luke T.]

And someone please say for the record that it is a coincidence the flashes begin EXACTLY where the plane hits the south tower.

Once again, willful blindness. The plane hits on the opposite side of the tower from the flashes. And the explosion which comes out of the building on the same side as the flashes is BELOW and TO THE RIGHT of the flashes.

Watch the video with your eyes open this time.

[Nyarlathotep]

Will someone please say they see what I see. I need validation! :D :D :D

Plain as day, from where I sit.

[Bronze Dog]

BELOW and TO THE RIGHT
Don't you mean back and to the left? :D

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Don't you mean back and to the left? :D

Greedo fired first!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Greedo fired first!

HERETIC! *hisssss*

[J. Arthur Hastur]

HERETIC! *hisssss*

It's clearly plain that Greedo fired first, in the digitally remastered with deleted scenes directors cut DVD edition :D

[Manny]

It's clearly plain that Greedo fired first, in the digitally remastered with deleted scenes directors cut DVD edition :DAll that editing and he still couldn't take out the part where Luke totally makes out with his sister.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

All that editing and he still couldn't take out the part where Luke totally makes out with his sister.

Incest is more acceptable than cold blooded murder. ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It's clearly plain that Greedo fired first, in the digitally remastered with deleted scenes directors cut DVD edition :D

There is no director's cut. *LALALALALALA*

[J. Arthur Hastur]

There is no director's cut. *LALALALALALA*

You must be an Expanded Universe Revisionist.


So no one has a comment on what my structural engineer said? I told him I wasn't wasting his time.......................

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
So no one has a comment on what my structural engineer said? I told him I wasn't wasting his time.......................

His statements seem reasonable, but I'm not a structural engineer, so all I can really do is nod and smile. *shrug*

[kookbreaker]

There is no director's cut. *LALALALALALA*

The new reimaging shows that the Death Star explosion was an inside job.

'Chain Reaction Photon Torpedo theory' my butt!

[J. Arthur Hastur]

His statements seem reasonable, but I'm not a structural engineer, so all I can really do is nod and smile. *shrug*

Great! I bought him lunch for nothing! I'm going down the hall to punch him in the back of the head, brb...............

[J. Arthur Hastur]

The new reimaging shows that the Death Star explosion was an inside job.

'Chain Reaction Photon Torpedo theory' my butt!

Of course, Darth Vader engineered it, with the sucessful completion of the Death Star Grand Moff Tarkin was more powerful than Darth Vader and could conceivably challenge Darth Vader for his #2 job in the Empire, and let's face it the Empire's redundancy policies stink!

Why do you think Vader went out after the rebels in his fighter? To escape!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Of course, Darth Vader engineered it, with the sucessful completion of the Death Star Grand Moff Tarkin was more powerful than Darth Vader and could conceivably challenge Darth Vader for his #2 job in the Empire, and let's face it the Empire's redundancy policies stink!

Why do you think Vader went out after the rebels in his fighter? To escape!

What we need to be asking though, is where was Admiral Thrawn during this. It is just too convenient that he was off fighting a "threat to the Empire" during this time.


(man, I have to go reread that trilogy now)

[Starthinker]

I heard Kirk blew up his own starship.

[Nyarlathotep]

The new reimaging shows that the Death Star explosion was an inside job.

'Chain Reaction Photon Torpedo theory' my butt!

That just begs for its own web site and maybe even a video ala "Loose Change".

After all The Death Star was blown up by Vader's OWN SON. Explain THAT coincidence away, c'mon, I dare ya. And everyone knows that it is almost imposible to launch a missle down that tiny exhaust port.

[Bronze Dog]

That just begs for its own web site and maybe even a video ala "Loose Change".

After all The Death Star was blown up by Vader's OWN SON. Explain THAT coincidence away, c'mon, I dare ya. And everyone knows that it is almost imposible to launch a missle down that tiny exhaust port.
Yeah! That'd take some kind of magic torpedo, or a pilot who can psychically alter its course in mid-flight!

[J. Arthur Hastur]

What we need to be asking though, is where was Admiral Thrawn during this. It is just too convenient that he was off fighting a "threat to the Empire" during this time.


(man, I have to go reread that trilogy now)

He was busy foiling Grand Admiral Zaarin's rebellion against the Empire.

[Starthinker]

That just begs for its own web site and maybe even a video ala "Loose Change".

After all The Death Star was blown up by Vader's OWN SON. Explain THAT coincidence away, c'mon, I dare ya. And everyone knows that it is almost imposible to launch a missle down that tiny exhaust port.

Somewhere on the web there is a picture of the deathstar exploding but if you look closely you can see several smaller explosives going off around the outside.

PLUS!!! In later years the VERY SAME EXPLOSION looked completely different with a ring of fire and everything as they tried to hide even more evidence but I know earlier copies of the unedited explosion exists somewhere.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

After all The Death Star was blown up by Vader's OWN SON. Explain THAT coincidence away, c'mon, I dare ya. And everyone knows that it is almost imposible to launch a missle down that tiny exhaust port.

Not really, I used to bulls-eye womp rats in my T-16 back home.

LLH

[kookbreaker]

That just begs for its own web site and maybe even a video ala "Loose Change".


Hmmm. 'Loose Sabers'


After all The Death Star was blown up by Vader's OWN SON. Explain THAT coincidence away, c'mon, I dare ya. And everyone knows that it is almost imposible to launch a missle down that tiny exhaust port.

Oh, yeah. And guess what, they allege that the last viable Jedi in the known Universe is on the scene as well. Guess they'll tell us next that they were the same person!

Everyone also knows it is against Sith tradition to wear shiney black. So obviously everything with Vader is faked.

[Earthborn]

Can you explain why these "compression artifacts" only occur on the corners of the WTC 1 and 2 and no where else on the video?That's the place where the bright white can cause colourbleed into a darker area, making them noticeable. There probably are more pixels shifting, but there are large areas with similar colour making it difficult to notice. The compression artifacts don't occur only on the corners. I noticed some at the spire as well. And as Arkan_Wolfshade showed, in the text.

Can you explain why these explosions only occur in the areas where bright colours meet darker colours?

This conspiracy doesn't make sense to me. So we are supposed to think the conspirators planted gobs of explosives into the building and directed planes toward them. Why would they bother to set off the explosives first if they expect the planes? Surely a plane filled with highly combustible fuel hitting them will set them off just as effectively?

[CurtC]

So no one has a comment on what my structural engineer said? I told him I wasn't wasting his time.......................Well, it is kind of a "dog bites man" story - yet another structural engineer has no problem with the standard story that fires made the building fall. What would be remarkable is for anyone to find even one structural engineer who says that it had to be explosives.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Everyone also knows it is against Sith tradition to wear shiney black. So obviously everything with Vader is faked.

Well, the original mauve armor didn't exactly inspire fear. He would've had to choke people to death for days to earn some fear and or respect if they hadn't switched to black.

[CurtC]

Hey Roxdog, here's a news story quote for you:The blaze was still raging out of control in the early hours... Explosions could be heard within the building and authorities cordoned off a zone...
Those words are from this story (http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents/2005/02/13/58231.html).

Oh wait - that story was about the Madrid Windsor Hotel fire. Since witnesses reported explosions, I guess this building was bombed too? Those dastardly Globalists!

[DavidJames]

I don't want to seem like a party pooper but all this noise cluttering up this thread only provides conspiracybeliever more opportunity to miss/ignore the good questions and research those who are serious about this subject have been posting.

This guy and this topic is serious, I would like to see him answer the posts by Luke, Manny, chipmunk stew, CurtC and the others. The "fun" noise just gives him an excuse to ignore them.

Thanks.


eta: Don't get me wrong, as a SW's fan, some of the stuff is pretty funny :D

[Dragon]

That's the place where the bright white can cause colourbleed into a darker area, making them noticeable. There probably are more pixels shifting, but there are large areas with similar colour making it difficult to notice. The compression artifacts don't occur only on the corners. I noticed some at the spire as well. And as Arkan_Wolfshade showed, in the text.

Can you explain why these explosions only occur in the areas where bright colours meet darker colours?

This conspiracy doesn't make sense to me. So we are supposed to think the conspirators planted gobs of explosives into the building and directed planes toward them. Why would they bother to set off the explosives first if they expect the planes? Surely a plane filled with highly combustible fuel hitting them will set them off just as effectively?(My bolding) ... and why do these "explosions" take place several times in the same place and fail to throw off any ejecta or damage the building? In the Texas demolition you can see the explosions (which are yellow, not white) going off in sequence up the middle of the building - very different.

DavidJames - good point but I can also see that humour is a resonable response to idiocy on this scale.

[kookbreaker]

The "fun" noise just gives him an excuse to ignore them.


Like he's not going to ignore them anyway?

[J. Arthur Hastur]

Well, it is kind of a "dog bites man" story - yet another structural engineer has no problem with the standard story that fires made the building fall. What would be remarkable is for anyone to find even one structural engineer who says that it had to be explosives.

Shucks, and I was all excited to present his insight :D

[pgwenthold]

DavidJames - good point but I can also see that humour is a resonable response to idiocy on this scale.

In fact, it more or less ILLUSTRATES the idiocy on this scale.

The fact that you can make arguments on the Death Star conspiracy that are more or less just as persuasive as those for the WTC tells you a lot about how easy it is to create these stories out of nothing.

It's like comparing the numerical coincidences in the Washington Monument to those in the pyramids. It shows how easy it is to do such things, thereby making the original claims less significant.

[I less than three logic]

Sorry for this shameless plug. Hmm, can you be sorry for a shameless act? :boggled:

I'm trying to draw some people over here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1568976#post1568976) to provide some answers. :D

[Manny]

Shucks, and I was all excited to present his insight :DWell, you can impress him back by being a smarty-pants. Rather than "the same we use" you can tell him that the core columns (which is what is at issue here) was A36 plate formed into boxes, from 4' at the bottom to 3/4" on the 84th. After that it was I-beams, also A36. (cite (http://www.911investigations.net/IMG/pdf/doc-295.pdf))

And how bad was the American steel industry in the late '60s and early '70's? Most of the plate came from Japan. :(

[rwguinn]

You must be an Expanded Universe Revisionist.


So no one has a comment on what my structural engineer said? I told him I wasn't wasting his time.......................

If you go and dig thru the Loose change thread(s), you'll see I said the same thing about the collapse. The "explosions" are a recently-transplanted goal-post. At least they are admitting an aircraft was involved now...

[kookbreaker]

I don't want to seem like a party pooper but all this noise cluttering up this thread only provides conspiracybeliever more opportunity to miss/ignore the good questions and research those who are serious about this subject have been posting.

If you insist. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1569475#post1569475)

[bjb]

The pixels do shift elsewhere in the video. At about 37 seconds, there is a flash on the dark building to the left of the tower. I paused the video and captured this frame. Watch for the 'flash' in the area with the yellow circle.

[edited to add]

There are several extra white pixels in the photo I uploaded. Those were caused by my graphics card and appear as green pixels on the original frame capture. Converting to .jpg format changed them to white pixels.

[drfrank]

Is it me, or is this "white flashes are explosions" the perfect 9/11 conspiracy equivalent of the "S Rock" photo from the Moon Landing conspiracy theory?

[Pardalis]

Roxdog, you're a f**ing lunatic.

Doesn't it make you sick to examine frame by frame, pixel by pixel these murder videos and search for any small discrepency that will help your dillusion? How can you believe yourself? How can you go to bed each night? Do you get a boner each time you see those buildings collapse? Does it give you a sense of power over this abomination? Does it make you feel superior knowing all that you know and that we seem to be all in the dark?

I'm really pissed of people like you treating these images as your own personal film, you can rewind, fast-forward, pause, like you were editing reality to your liking.

These are 3000 people brutally murdered.

Can you put ALL your imbecile theories together and make a sensible global theory that works and is credible?

What is exactly your purpose in all of this? What ultimately are you trying to prove?

[Starthinker]

I don't want to seem like a party pooper but all this noise cluttering up this thread only provides conspiracybeliever more opportunity to miss/ignore the good questions and research those who are serious about this subject have been posting.

This guy and this topic is serious, I would like to see him answer the posts by Luke, Manny, chipmunk stew, CurtC and the others. The "fun" noise just gives him an excuse to ignore them.

Thanks.


eta: Don't get me wrong, as a SW's fan, some of the stuff is pretty funny :D

I think the problem is that anyone who's seen more than 1 Quicktime video knows what pixilation and digital artifacts look like, even if they don't know what they're called or how they occur. It's been explained in this thread that a digital recording will create artifacts especially, for example, on a corner of a building with bright sunlight reflected, how transferring the media and compressing it into a Quicktime movie will create artifacts, and how viewing a Quicktime movie on different monitors will pixilate and create even different artifacts, etc., etc.. Again, anyone who views youtube movies or any other movies on the web sees this, knows what it is, and could care less about but this guy STILL says, "No, it's explosions." I wonder if he gets static on his television (we old-timers call it "snow") and sees explosions all over the place. That, basically, is what pixilation and digital artifacts amount to--digital static.

It's also been pointed out how there are hundreds of videos of the second plane hitting without these artifacts, he's been asked for proof to prove his side of the theory (none came), and there's the pesky matter of the truth--that two huge airplanes flew at high speed into tall, skinny buildings, what more do you need to knock them down? It's been pointed out that IF they were real explosions they wouldn't even look like that. And above all else, why?

I think we all agree it is FUTILE to continue arguing with this person as he is either a troll who knows full well he is yanking our chain or someone who is so mentally challenged he can't admit he was wrong or see any other explanation other than his own. (In that case I really feel sorry for him.) So, seeing the futility of the situation we turned to humor as a way to lighten the mood.

I hereby predict that IF he replys to this post it will be for one of these reasons: 1, to insult me or the site/thread in general. 2, to say once again it was clearly explosions and we are stupid for not seeing this. 3, to ignore any of the previous threads and ask once again to prove they were not explosions. 4, to ask some insane question like how can a large jetliner knock over a tall skinny building without the help of explosives? Or why did people hear an explosion when the large plane hit the building? Clearly a large plane hitting a building cannot sound like an explosion. Or 5, that we are ignoring HIS evidence and how can we be so blind? Oh, or 6, that we don't deal in facts and he does.

Seriously, I have no problem with someone believing a far-out theory. But if you have a theory, based on one single piece of evidence, and someone shows you flaws and you don't believe them, when someone shows you proof and you claim it's false, when you are shown mountains of other evidence and claim that it, too, is false, and you won't even consider for a moment that another explanation is even worthy of listening to then there comes a point where you are labled a crackpot and no one will listen to you anymore. Seriously, give, on one single point and you may, just may, gain some credibility that you are even a real person worthy of debating with. (Assuming you are not just a troll knowing full well you are inciting us just for your pleasure.)

This is why I don't join forums dedicated to people like this person. It's just no use.

[hellaeon]

All I can say is wow

Roxdog, your a martyr for your cause.

'He who speaks without modesty will find it difficult to make his words good. ' - Confucius

[chipmunk stew]

I think we all agree it is FUTILE to continue arguing with this person as he is either a troll who knows full well he is yanking our chain or someone who is so mentally challenged he can't admit he was wrong or see any other explanation other than his own. (In that case I really feel sorry for him.) So, seeing the futility of the situation we turned to humor as a way to lighten the mood.If that's a true dichotomy, then you have to conclude mentally challenged:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2167&st=0

[Luke T.]

If that's a true dichotomy, then you have to conclude mentally challenged:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2167&st=0

From that link, a statement by Roxdog:

The flashes are evident in other videos.

Liar.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I enjoyed how one of the posters, who claims to be 120% convinced the towers were brought down by demolition agrees that the flashes are compression artifacts.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Carlos, is that you?

[Belz...]

Is it me, or is this "white flashes are explosions" the perfect 9/11 conspiracy equivalent of the "S Rock" photo from the Moon Landing conspiracy theory?

Wasn't that a "C" ?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Have you even looked at other videos of the attack which show the same corner? Do ANY of them corroborate your theory?

My theory is the answer is "No" to both questions.


I don't think he is gonna be back, but if he does I can't help but notic CB has conspicuously avoided answering this question.

So come on CB what is your explanation for this? Answer the question.....

[kookbreaker]

I don't think he is gonna be back, but if he does I can't help but notic CB has conspicuously avoided answering this question.

So come on CB what is your explanation for this? Answer the question.....

Like I said, we need a Larsen list for this whackjob.

[conspiracybeliever]

Same thing, different camera and angle:

http://s44.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2R5T990...2M169YRTL1O6RQE (http://s44.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2R5T990DP8N2M169YRTL1O6RQE)

[kookbreaker]

Same thing, different camera and angle:

http://s44.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2R5T990...2M169YRTL1O6RQE (http://s44.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2R5T990DP8N2M169YRTL1O6RQE)

It is most certainly not the same thing. This video is later on when the building collapsed. Not when the second plane struck. There are 'puffs', but they are unlikey to be explosives as the building is already collapsing.

Seriously, you guys don't think much, do you?

[conspiracybeliever]

There are flashes on the corners of both towers. I pointed that out pretty early on. The same flashes are evident in this video of the North tower.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Beat me to it Kookbreaker - not the same thing AT ALL!!

[CFLarsen]

Is there any conspiracy theory you don't believe in?

[kookbreaker]

There are flashes on the corners of both towers.


The video you started with was from the impact of the second plane. Other videos and pictures proved that the little pixels you claimed were explosives were nothing of the sort.

You followed up with a video taking place over an hour later, when one of the buidings is collapsing.


I pointed that out pretty early on. The same flashes are evident in this video of the North tower.

You are an idiot.

Why are explosives still going off if the building is already collapsing?

Why do you think that pixelation on a bright object is evidence of anything?

Why is it that you consider this to be evidence of more explosives rather than a demonstration of compression artifacts and lighting?

Could you be any more paranoid, clumsy and stupid?

[dissonance]

If there were explosions, wouldn't someone have noticed them on 9/11, when every station on television was playing the videos of the planes hitting the towers and the towers burning and the towers collapsing over and over and over again? How is it possible that no one noticed them that day? Why is it you only see them now, years later, with poor quality online video?

[Belz...]

There are flashes on the corners of both towers. I pointed that out pretty early on. The same flashes are evident in this video of the North tower.

Which is it, now ? Did they use explosives at the time the planes hit ? Or did they do so when the building collapsed ? And why would they use two sets of explosives ??

[Shaun from Scotland]

All you have to do is CB is show a different video, from a different angle at the same time, which shows the same event.

There are dozens of videos of this impact. Surely you can provide say two or three?

[Bronze Dog]

Another point that comes to mind: Why bother with the whole tons of explosives thing? There are much cheaper and easier ways to manipulate the public.

[Reeco]

Erm...

Looking at the vid, those "explosions" are everywhere.

I've attached an image, taken from a print screen.

Edited - been trying to get another screenshot of the artefacts elsewhere. They are very clear when watching the vid but hard to capture.

On my PC at least, looks like there's little bombs going off all over NY.

[CptColumbo]

There was a lot of debris from the first impact flying around. Could this be paper or one of the signal flags people hung out a window, and the wind blew to where they are in the video.

Just looking for other possibilities.

[Bronze Dog]

And of course, Roxdog will consider the existence of a myriad of possibilities as evidence for explosions being the only possibility.

[Reeco]

Ok, figured out how to use Quicktime:

[LTC8K6]

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/wtc2-strike-0.avi

Higher res divx video. No pixelation, no mysterious little square explosions.

[CptColumbo]

Ok, figured out how to use Quicktime:

What is that? What are you showing us?

It looks like it's after one of the towers collapsed.

[conspiracybeliever]

How can the same pixel anomolies show up in the same places from different angles with different cameras?

http://s60.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0Y7KSSYB7FQ6I20L3R3J5LJVR7

[Reeco]

I'm trying to show another example of the pixellation - they are all over the vid, and not just on WTC1 and 2.

Not sure why I'm bothering really. Anyone deluded enough to think they are bombs won't be swayed by my little jpegs.

:D

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hey CB, why did you remove the 2nd pic from the OP?

[LTC8K6]

CB, you will have to use high res clips to eliminate the pixelation. Once you have done that, you will have a case, if the "explosions" are still there.

As long as you present low res compressed clips, you will have the compression artifacts. As long as you have the artifacts, no one will listen to you. Whatever you see will be an "artifact".

So, present your case with high res clips.

[CptColumbo]

I'm trying to show another example of the pixellation - they are all over the vid, and not just on WTC1 and 2.

Not sure why I'm bothering really. Anyone deluded enough to think they are bombs won't be swayed by my little jpegs.

:D

Thanks. Well not your JPEGS anyway, you're part of it.

[Bronze Dog]

I have a feeling Roxdog is employing some creative broad interpretation of "same time" and "same place".

[conspiracybeliever]

Is there any conspiracy theory you don't believe in?
I've posted no theories.

[CptColumbo]

I've posted no theories.

So your interpretation of events is the only possible explanation for the white dots on the picture.

[DavidJames]

I've posted no theories.
You've also not posted any response to:
- those who showed the "explosions" don't exist on higher res video.
- those who showed similar "explosions" on other buildings
- Gravy, who researched the issues on your police log posts (in the OKC thread)

among others...

[Bronze Dog]

I've posted no theories.
Kind of reminds me of "I'm not posting to convince anyone!"

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've posted no theories.

You're right. At best they are half-baked hypotheses.

[J. Arthur Hastur]

I've posted no theories.

Quite right, bunk and bullsh!t don't count as theories.

[Azrael 5]

This may have been mentioned but its worth repeating if so.
Whoever planted the "explosives" did they know the planes were due to hit? Was it just a coincidence two planes hit the towers the same day as Smoking man was due to denotate them.If so why bother detonating?The planes are obviously doing the job anyway(bringing destruction).
Secondly how many demolition jobs, conspiracybeliever, have you seen where the charges were put halfway up a building? On a corner even?

[Luke T.]

If there were explosions, wouldn't someone have noticed them on 9/11, when every station on television was playing the videos of the planes hitting the towers and the towers burning and the towers collapsing over and over and over again? How is it possible that no one noticed them that day? Why is it you only see them now, years later, with poor quality online video?

quantimbioelectromagnetismfragilisticexpealidociou s coverup!

The JEWS! THE JEWS!!

[kookbreaker]

How can the same pixel anomolies show up in the same places from different angles with different cameras?

http://s60.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0Y7KSSYB7FQ6I20L3R3J5LJVR7

Its not the same places and certainly not the same time.

Why must you lie so much?

[CFLarsen]

I've posted no theories.
Quite right. My bad.

Are there any conspiracies you don't believe in?

Or, rather, what conspiracies do you believe in?

[De_Bunk]

I got it...

The crashing planes were mass induced hallucinations, (they probably used Geller to accomplish this)...

Then they added images of the planes by computer trickery to everything filmed to hide the explosives going off...

And i know they are watching me...

DB

[Pardalis]

I've posted no theories.

Then what the freakin' hell are we talking about here? Why in blazes are you showing us those same images over and over again?

[Pardalis]

There are flashes on the corners of both towers. I pointed that out pretty early on. The same flashes are evident in this video of the North tower.

Do you actually believe, without laughing in our faces, that the people who «supposedly» orchestrated this abomination would risk a pyrotechnic light show in front of billions of people?

[Manny]

Do you actually believe, without laughing in our faces, that the people who «supposedly» orchestrated this abomination would risk a pyrotechnic light show in front of billions of people?Oh, sure. A laser light show (http://www.lfiinternational.com/products_software.asp). The only reason you can't recognize it is that the tapes didn't pick up that Led Zepplin's Kashmir was playing loudly (and mysteriously) throughout downtown that day.

[The_Fire]

I got it...

The crashing planes were mass induced hallucinations, (they probably used Geller to accomplish this)...

Then they added images of the planes by computer trickery to everything filmed to hide the explosives going off...

And i know they are watching me...

DB

Never mind that! I want the computer "they" used to superimpose the planes and falling towers on live television with! To pull that off within 2 hours max from the first hit, they have HAD to have something awesome under that CPU!

[aggle-rithm]

Do you actually believe, without laughing in our faces, that the people who «supposedly» orchestrated this abomination would risk a pyrotechnic light show in front of billions of people?


Particularly one that seemed to have no effect whatsoever?

Wasn't the whole point of postulating explosives that the burning airliner could not have melted steel and crushed concrete? If these teeny-weeny explosives did that, then why didn't the building fall right then?

It strains credibility!!! ;)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Particularly one that seemed to have no effect whatsoever?

Wasn't the whole point of postulating explosives that the burning airliner could not have melted steel and crushed concrete? If these teeny-weeny explosives did that, then why didn't the building fall right then?

It strains credibility!!! ;)

Well, if we keep shooting down his pet theories, he's gonna have to move the goalposts to have anything to blather about.

[Bronze Dog]

My city doesn't let people set off black cats, cherry bombs, and M60s within the city limits for precisely the reasons aggle-rithm states. ;)

[azazal]

Particularly one that seemed to have no effect whatsoever?

Wasn't the whole point of postulating explosives that the burning airliner could not have melted steel and crushed concrete? If these teeny-weeny explosives did that, then why didn't the building fall right then?

It strains credibility!!! ;)


Actully I ask, why use explosives at all?? From my post in the "what really happened on 9/11 thread"

If my math is right, and if anyone sees a flaw in it, please let me know.

B-25, Mass - 11000 Kg, velocity 3200 Kph or 889 Mps
707, Mass - 119000 Kg, velocity 2900 Kph or 805 Mps
767, Mass - 125000 Kg, velocity 9440 Kph or 2622 Mps

So be Kinetic Energy = 1/2*M*(V^2)

B-25 KE = 4.35E+09 J
707 KE = 3.86E+10 J
767 = 4.30E+11 J

A kilogram of TNT has 4.18E+06 J on energy in it.

That means the impact alone for
B-25 = 1039 Kg of TNT
707 = 9282 Kg of TNT
767 = 102713 of TNT

for the metriclly challenged
B-25 = 2290 pounds of TNT
707 = 20345 pounds of TNT
767 = 226444 pounds of TNT

Now this is just impact energy, the effects of fuel and other things burning is not taken into effect. But in short, why plant explosives when the impact of the 767 alone was on par with the energy released by 100 some odd tons of TNT???

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hey CB, why did you remove the 2nd pic from the OP?

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Bueller?

[Bronze Dog]

Now this is just impact energy, the effects of fuel and other things burning is not taken into effect. But in short, why plant explosives when the impact of the 767 alone was on par with the energy released by 100 some odd tons of TNT???
For the same reason why cell phone manufacturers keep putting in more and more needless features into their phones.

[chipmunk stew]

For the same reason why cell phone manufacturers keep putting in more and more needless features into their phones.Planned obsolescence?

[strathmeyer]

"Pixels"..."the sun"..make up you're minds people!!! lol

Yes, a digial picture of the sun is made up of pixels. What else do you want to know?

[Johnny Pixels]

Ok I'm commiting the crime of only reading the first and last pages of this thread, so sorry if this has already been covered.

If this is all a conspiracy using controlled explosives, why not use the same MO as the previous attempt to destroy the WTC, parking a van full of explosives in the basement car park? Except this time you'd drive in possibly under the cover of several maintainance vans, cut power to the CCTV systems under the guise of repair work, and/or replace the security guards patrols with your own men by infiltrating the security company, place proper cutting charges on the supporting columns. Military engineers are trained to demolish buildings. Commercial firms do it all the time. The knowledge is widely available. The military are also involved in planning precision covert ops all the time. If there was a conspiracy you wouldn't even know about it. It wouldn't be such a ramshackle ad hoc plan that conspiracy buffs like to wave about.

[Bronze Dog]

"When you do things right, no one'll be sure you've done anything at all." -God. (http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/03/stupid-god-tricks-1-god-is-ninja.html)

Of course, a simple conspiracy is much easier, because that's less money you have to pay the hitmen afterwards.

[Gravy]

Ok I'm commiting the crime of only reading the first and last pages of this thread, so sorry if this has already been covered.

If this is all a conspiracy using controlled explosives, why not use the same MO as the previous attempt to destroy the WTC, parking a van full of explosives in the basement car park? Except this time you'd drive in possibly under the cover of several maintainance vans, cut power to the CCTV systems under the guise of repair work, and/or replace the security guards patrols with your own men by infiltrating the security company, place proper cutting charges on the supporting columns. Military engineers are trained to demolish buildings. Commercial firms do it all the time. The knowledge is widely available. The military are also involved in planning precision covert ops all the time. If there was a conspiracy you wouldn't even know about it. It wouldn't be such a ramshackle ad hoc plan that conspiracy buffs like to wave about.

Johnny, you're exactly right. I've brought this up with them before, but it makes no impression. If it was an "Inside job" as they all say (and as they're all required to agree, according to the LC mods), then they could load the garages with as many bomb-packed vehicles as they wanted to . If they had had two trucks in '93, it probably would have taken the whole building out. But the CTers claim that CD was necessary to make it look like the planes and fire brought the buildings down. (!!) But then what about WTC 7? Oh, flight 93 was supposed to hit that, it just flew a few hundred miles off course. Except there was no flight 93. Or something. Sheesh.

I'm very impressed that this has gone 6 pages. I only looked at page 1 and said, "well, this'll be a quickie," because the OP contained the flimsiest piece of "evidence" i've seen so far for any WTC claim. And I think Arkan had it right. Very elegant demonstration there, Arkan.

CT do make the time pass, don't it?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Johnny, you're exactly right. I've brought this up with them before, but it makes no impression. If it was an "Inside job" as they all say (and as they're all required to agree, according to the LC mods), then they could load the garages with as many bomb-packed vehicles as they wanted to . If they had had two trucks in '93, it probably would have taken the whole building out. But the CTers claim that CD was necessary to make it look like the planes and fire brought the buildings down. (!!) But then what about WTC 7? Oh, flight 93 was supposed to hit that, it just flew a few hundred miles off course. Except there was no flight 93. Or something. Sheesh.

I'm very impressed that this has gone 6 pages. I only looked at page 1 and said, "well, this'll be a quickie," because the OP contained the flimsiest piece of "evidence" i've seen so far for any WTC claim. And I think Arkan had it right. Very elegant demonstration there, Arkan.

CT do make the time pass, don't it?


Eh? What did I actually do right? :boxedin:

[Gravy]

Eh? What did I actually do right? :boxedin:
The title page pixel compression demonstration. Unless that idea was shot down, in which case it was not worthy of you and I hope you'll try harder next time.

[Gravy]

The video you started with was from the impact of the second plane. Other videos and pictures proved that the little pixels you claimed were explosives were nothing of the sort.

You followed up with a video taking place over an hour later, when one of the buidings is collapsing.

You are an idiot.

Why are explosives still going off if the building is already collapsing?

Why do you think that pixelation on a bright object is evidence of anything?

Why is it that you consider this to be evidence of more explosives rather than a demonstration of compression artifacts and lighting?

I predict that kookbreaker will really come into his own when he stops pulling his punches.

Could you be any more paranoid, clumsy and stupid?
I predict that kookbreaker will really come into his own when he stops pulling his punches.

[Pyrrho]

The ripple of flashes in the TX tower are practically identical to the ripple of flashes that appear in the North Tower. This is fact.
No, that is opinion. There is a world of difference between fact and opinion.

[sat556]

Conspiracybeliever. What would convince you that you are wrong?

This is a serious question, I'm not going to come back at you with any snappy comments.

[canadarocks]

Not that I think that Conspiracybeliever or any other CTers are reading this board anymore, but I thought that a simple test would be to compare the picture with another video taken at a different location at the same time with the supposed "explosion" in view and look for the same anomaly at the same time and place as in the picture. If both show the anomaly, then video compression seems a less likely explanation (but show me the comparison!). If it is there, then we can discuss other ideas.

Sorry for posting this so late in the thread.
Thanks
Canadarocks

[steenkh]

But in short, why plant explosives when the impact of the 767 alone was on par with the energy released by 100 some odd tons of TNT???
Obviously, the conspiracy must conclude either that these guys wanted to make sure that the buildings collapsed even if no plane hit the towers (but how would they explain that?) or that the planes di not actually hit the buildings but flw behind them and everybody just looked at the explosions and did not notice the planes slip away. :p

[chipmunk stew]

conspiracybeliever/Roxdog is still insisting on attributing camera artifacts to explosive flashes:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2167&view=findpost&p=3596059

It's sad, really. He doesn't even seem to realize that his fellow Loosers are starting to get embarrassed to be associated with him.

[ihaunter]

I have been reading most of the CT threads here, as well as the occasional glance on the Loose Change forum. Sometimes I would laugh, sometimes I would shake my head with sadness for the human race, roxdog's response at http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2167&st=120 cracked me up:

Actually, if you read what I posted I conceded that I don't know what the flashes are. Some very important people in this "movement" tell me they think the flashes may be a reaction from thermite. But you have yet to offer anything to prove your assertion. Like I said, I'm not the only one looking into this and asking questions. The fact that you question my contribution to this "movement" only goes to show your are blinded by spite and care more about your ego than the truth. Again, I'm looking for answers, not excuses.

[Pardalis]

Roxdog's not looking for answers, he's looking for any stupid detail that will fuel his dillusional mind.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

conspiracybeliever/Roxdog is still insisting on attributing camera artifacts to explosive flashes:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2167&view=findpost&p=3596059

It's sad, really. He doesn't even seem to realize that his fellow Loosers are starting to get embarrassed to be associated with him.
At least it gives me a bit of hope that there seem to be some fairly rational people on that forum, who are pointing out the obvious. They are right in saying that Roxdog posting this 'proof' and sticking to it so fervently is hurting their movement.

I just wish some of these rational Loosers would come over here so we could have a decent debate.

[Euromutt]

If my math is right, and if anyone sees a flaw in it, please let me know.

B-25, Mass - 11000 Kg, velocity 3200 Kph or 889 Mps
707, Mass - 119000 Kg, velocity 2900 Kph or 805 Mps
767, Mass - 125000 Kg, velocity 9440 Kph or 2622 MpsI think you may have missed a decimal point in the velocities there. The cruising speed of a B-25 is listed on most sites as ~370 km/h, maximum speed ~440 km/h. The B-25 which ploughed into the Empire State Building was going more slowly than cruising, so 320 km/h sounds right to me; that's ~88.9 m/s. Ditto for the other data.

And someone please say for the record that it is a coincidence the flashes begin EXACTLY where the plane hits the south tower.Well, for starters, it's not "exactly"; I'm seeing the "flashes" occurring before the aircraft even enters the frame. There even appears to be one "flash" which actually stays in one place for several frames.
Now, if by "exactly" you mean "a few seconds prior to," yeah, well, that's all the footage there is, isn't it? The footage doesn't start until 4 seconds prior to impact, so no, I can't see any "flashes" on the buildings prior to that because there's no footage in which to see "flashes" or lack thereof.

[Gravy]

I think you may have missed a decimal point in the velocities there. The cruising speed of a B-25 is listed on most sites as ~370 km/h, maximum speed ~440 km/h. The B-25 which ploughed into the Empire State Building was going more slowly than cruising, so 320 km/h sounds right to me; that's ~88.9 m/s. Ditto for the other data.

Well, for starters, it's not "exactly"; I'm seeing the "flashes" occurring before the aircraft even enters the frame. There even appears to be one "flash" which actually stays in one place for several frames.
Now, if by "exactly" you mean "a few seconds prior to," yeah, well, that's all the footage there is, isn't it? The footage doesn't start until 4 seconds prior to impact, so no, I can't see any "flashes" on the buildings prior to that because there's no footage in which to see "flashes" or lack thereof.

Ha! I just saw those velocity figures myself and was about to post about it. Thanks for beating me to it!

[azazal]

I think you may have missed a decimal point in the velocities there. The cruising speed of a B-25 is listed on most sites as ~370 km/h, maximum speed ~440 km/h. The B-25 which ploughed into the Empire State Building was going more slowly than cruising, so 320 km/h sounds right to me; that's ~88.9 m/s. Ditto for the other data.



In the words of Homer Simpson, D'ough :blush:

[NobbyNobbs]

ConspiracyBeliever:

I would love to visit your site. i would love to review the information you have given, watch the videos, and check your math. However, I was banned from your site after only 24 hours and 2 posts, both of which very politely asked for clarification on the rules of the site.

Since you seem to have some influence there, perhaps you could have the administrator lift my ban? Otherwise, I have no objective way of learning more about theories and point of view.

Thanks.

[Doubt]

Been reading this thread for some time. Did not want to waste my time arguing with the CT’ers. But I wonder if anybody over there ever found a case of a large building being destroyed with thermite?

I currently work on boiler control systems.

I also worked in the steel industry for 5 years. Most of that was at a hot rolling mill. The steel slabs were heated for the rolling process to make the steel easier to process.

Before that I worked for a company that built industrial furnaces. Mostly for heat-treating engine and transmission parts. I also commissioned an aluminum-melting furnace.

I do have a background in military demolitions. I was a combat engineer. Not quite the same thing as the folks that bring down buildings, but I understand the concept well enough.

But I am not a structural engineer. I have a BS in electrical engineering technology. (Not an EE. Less math in my degree.)

During basic training, we “watched” a demonstration where a thermite grenade was used to destroy some old radio equipment. I put watched in quotes because we had to turn our backs away from the flash. The Flash went on for over a minute. The stands we were in were only about 20 yards from where the grenade was set off. Thermite is NOT and explosive. It is an incendiary chemical combination that produces great amounts of heat. But it takes a short time to heat up and does not act instantaneously. Real explosives are consumed in a fraction of a second.

The whole idea behind controlled demolition is to use limited amounts of fast acting explosives with precise timing on already weakened structures. Thermite is not what they use. IIRC, the explosives used for such things are the same ones NASA used in explosive bolts on spacecraft. Very fast acting. Much faster than traditional military explosives. Arguments claiming that the WTC were brought down by a controlled demolition and involved the use of thermite are contradictory right from the start.

[CurtC]

I would love to visit your site. i would love to review the information you have given, watch the videos, and check your math. However, I was banned from your site after only 24 hours and 2 posts...Are you saying that you can't even read the threads on that site? If that's the case, it's because the site is using the cookie stored on your computer to remember who you are. You can delete that cookie, and it will then have no way of knowing that you're the same person who was banned, and you can read the threads as a visitor.

[Manny]

Arguments claiming that the WTC were brought down by a controlled demolition and involved the use of thermite are contradictory right from the start.Yup. One of the hallmarks of CTers is that the conspiracy has to get weirder and weirder as the first bits are debunked. Ed forbid that the theory should fall; no, the detailers just get more complex.

So someone comes up with "controlled demolition." Well, as you point out, one of the things done in a controlled demolition of a steel structure is that the structure is weakened -- some columns are cut entirely, others are cut part way through, etc. An operation which takes months and couldn't be done without being noticed by the actual people in the buldings, who presumably would object to someone stripping off the sheetrock and cutting slices into the columns which are holding them up. So now someone has to come up with a way for the building to undergo "controlled demolition" using methods other than those traditionally used for "controlled demolition." Aha! Thermite is very hot when it reacts! It could 'melt' the steel! And because it's 'less' controlled than an actual "controlled demolition," that explains why the towers didn't fall in their own footprints like they had earlier claimed.

Because that's not what is usually done with thermite and because the steel did in fact heat far enough