FREE TAPATALK APP

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?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

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

Originally Posted by Carlos

It's a idiocy to believe that those "flashes" were result of explosives planted in random places, but what is the explanation for this?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

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

Originally Posted by Carlos

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

Originally Posted by Carlos

It's a idiocy to believe that those "flashes" were result of explosives planted in random places, but what is the explanation for this?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

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

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

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

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

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

Originally Posted by DGM

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

Originally Posted by DGM

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

Originally Posted by Jackanory

Must be 'Splash to Bang' then. lol.

Air-dropped torpedoes going for the storm drains to "get" the complex from below.

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

Originally Posted by DGM

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

Originally Posted by DGM

Air-dropped torpedoes going for the storm drains to "get" the complex from below.

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

Originally Posted by Jackanory

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

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

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

Originally Posted by Jackanory

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

Originally Posted by DGM

Air-dropped torpedoes going for the storm drains to "get" the complex from below.

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

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

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

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

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?

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

Originally Posted by DGM

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?

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

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

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

Originally Posted by Carlos

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

Originally Posted by Carlos

It's a idiocy to believe that those "flashes" were result of explosives planted in random places, but what is the explanation for this?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Hate 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

Originally Posted by darion

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

Originally Posted by gumboot

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

Originally Posted by Jackanory

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

Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy

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.

12th December 2010, 05:33 AM	#2
ImANiceGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 476	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...
	__________________ ...JUST ASKING...

12th December 2010, 05:51 AM	#5
Jackanory Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,339	Originally Posted by Carlos 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?
	__________________ The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. Oliver Wendell Holmes

12th December 2010, 05:53 AM	#7
ImANiceGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 476	Well 1:19-1:26 has the most visible flashes occuring... Did NIST cover these anywhere in their report?
	__________________ ...JUST ASKING...

12th December 2010, 05:55 AM	#8
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,535	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy 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?
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

12th December 2010, 05:59 AM	#9
Jackanory Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,339	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy 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?
	__________________ The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. Oliver Wendell Holmes

12th December 2010, 05:44 AM	#3
Carlos Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Posts: 285	For example 0:20-0:26 0:48-0:52 1:19-1:26

12th December 2010, 06:02 AM	#10
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,535	If you look carefully you will also see these "flashes" in places other then the towers. Most noticeable in the river.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

12th December 2010, 06:05 AM	#11
Jackanory Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,339	Originally Posted by DGM 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!!!!!
	__________________ The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. Oliver Wendell Holmes

12th December 2010, 06:16 AM	#12
Jackanory Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,339	Originally Posted by DGM 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.
	__________________ The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. Oliver Wendell Holmes

12th December 2010, 06:23 AM	#13
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,535	Originally Posted by Jackanory Must be 'Splash to Bang' then. lol. Air-dropped torpedoes going for the storm drains to "get" the complex from below. It's fun being a "conspiracy theorist". You can just let the imagination fly. Is that why they call it "having an open mind"?
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

12th December 2010, 06:27 AM	#14
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,614	Originally Posted by DGM 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.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

12th December 2010, 06:28 AM	#15
Jackanory Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,339	Originally Posted by DGM Air-dropped torpedoes going for the storm drains to "get" the complex from below. 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................
	__________________ The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. Oliver Wendell Holmes

12th December 2010, 07:18 AM	#16
ImANiceGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 476	Originally Posted by Jackanory 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...
	__________________ ...JUST ASKING...

12th December 2010, 07:24 AM	#17
Jackanory Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,339	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy 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?
	__________________ The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. Oliver Wendell Holmes

12th December 2010, 07:51 AM	#18
ImANiceGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 476	Originally Posted by Jackanory 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.
	__________________ ...JUST ASKING... Last edited by ImANiceGuy; 12th December 2010 at 07:58 AM.

12th December 2010, 08:21 AM	#19
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,629	No.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

12th December 2010, 08:33 AM	#20
NutCracker Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 601	Originally Posted by DGM Air-dropped torpedoes going for the storm drains to "get" the complex from below. 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.
NutCracker Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 601

12th December 2010, 08:59 AM	#21
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,535	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy 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.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

12th December 2010, 09:20 AM	#22
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	they look like video artifacts to me or possibly reflections of glass etc. They make no sense as explosions.

12th December 2010, 09:27 AM	#23
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,535	Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills 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?
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

12th December 2010, 10:16 AM	#24
darion New Blood Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9	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.
darion New Blood Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9

12th December 2010, 10:39 AM	#25
ImANiceGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 476	Originally Posted by DGM 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? 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?
	__________________ ...JUST ASKING...

12th December 2010, 10:44 AM	#26
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,535	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy 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)
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Last edited by DGM; 12th December 2010 at 10:59 AM.

12th December 2010, 10:53 AM	#27
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Carlos 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.

12th December 2010, 12:05 PM	#28
deeper Critical Thinker Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Missing Minnie Posts: 329	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'.

12th December 2010, 01:24 PM	#30
ApolloGnomon Aluminum Tripod Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Time Zone Zed Zed Plural Zed Alpha Posts: 2,018	Originally Posted by darion 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.

12th December 2010, 10:47 PM	#31
Muc Scholar Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 92	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
Muc Scholar Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 92

13th December 2010, 07:01 AM	#32
George II Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Sweden Posts: 311	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.

13th December 2010, 02:47 PM	#33
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,196	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.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

13th December 2010, 02:54 PM	#34
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,535	Originally Posted by gumboot 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.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

13th December 2010, 04:32 PM	#35
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,951	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.
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,951

13th December 2010, 05:58 PM	#36
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by Jackanory They planted bombs in the river too!!!!! Now that is being thorough.

14th December 2010, 11:35 AM	#37
Mancman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 1,010	36 posts about a video that shows floating paper. What's the point of this forum?
	__________________ R.I.P Dr. Adequate

14th December 2010, 01:40 PM	#38
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,629	Humor.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

14th December 2010, 11:20 PM	#39
Telltale Tom Guest Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 384	Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy 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?
Telltale Tom Guest Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 384