DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
They show up mostly random.
Look between the buildings (in the river) starting from the beginning where the towers are at close focus.
"Flashes" at South Tower before the impact
- Thread starter Carlos
- Start date
-
- Tags
- flash flashes south tower
Look between the buildings (in the river) starting from the beginning where the towers are at close focus.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
they look like video artifacts to me or possibly reflections of glass etc. They make no sense as explosions.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
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?
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.
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
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2009
- Messages
- 476
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
Skeptic not Atheist
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)
Last edited:
its the job of truthers to prove that these flashes are explosives. not our job to prove they weren't.
deeper
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 332
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'.
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
CIA + FBI + NWO Employee
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,145
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.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
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.
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
In this video you can see those objects more clearly and in roughly the same areas:
youtube.com/watch?v=FBzts-8pXdA
George II
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2010
- Messages
- 309
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.
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
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
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.
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
Skeptic not Atheist
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.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Now that is being thorough.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Humor.
Telltale Tom
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 384
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
Penultimate Amazing
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.
,,, 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.