"Flashes" at South Tower before the impact

[Jackanory]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jackanory]

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

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

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