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

J. Arthur Hastur said:
Shucks, and I was all excited to present his insight :D
Click to expand...
Well, 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)

And how bad was the American steel industry in the late '60s and early '70's? Most of the plate came from Japan. :(
 
J. Arthur Hastur said:
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.......................
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 

Attachments

  • flash.JPG
    flash.JPG
    14.5 KB · Views: 12
Last edited:
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?
 
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?
 
DavidJames said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Starthinker said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
Luke T. said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.....
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom