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

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 Pixels said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Gravy said:
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?
Click to expand...


Eh? What did I actually do right? :boxedin:
 
kookbreaker said:
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?
Click to expand...
I predict that kookbreaker will really come into his own when he stops pulling his punches.
 
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.
 
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
 
azazal said:
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???
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
Roxdog's not looking for answers, he's looking for any stupid detail that will fuel his dillusional mind.
 
chipmunk stew said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
azazal said:
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
Click to expand...
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.

conspiracybeliever said:
And someone please say for the record that it is a coincidence the flashes begin EXACTLY where the plane hits the south tower.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Euromutt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


In the words of Homer Simpson, D'ough :blush:
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom