It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Mystery of the WTC Flashes

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Hello


First i would like to have a thought for all the victims of 9/11. I hope that one day we will finally catch the REAL terrorists, not only for the memories of those who lost their lives and for their families, but also to neutralize these terrorists and stop such horrible events on this planet.

I haven't found any thread discussing SPECIFICALLY about the mystery of the flashes, which need to be known.

Just before both planes impacted the Twin Towers, mysterious flashes can be clearly seen. We can already say once for good that these flashs are GENUINE and not hoaxed, created, photoshopped, etc...

The flash of the first plane was recorded by the only video footage known at this time. The flash occuring just before impact of the second plane has been recorded by four differents cameras, from four differents angles.


Here is the picture of the second plane with the flash (4 cameras) :




Here is the picture of the first plane with the flash :




The videos:

Here are the videos showing the mysterious flashes with explanations of Dave Von Kleist (from In Plane Site documentary) :

SECOND PLANE FLASH (Zipped - 14.6 Mo - Divx 5)
FIRST PLANE FLASH (Zipped - 11.2 Mo - Divx 5)


What we can say after viewing the footage:

- Flashes occur BEFORE the plane hits the towers.
- Flash of the first plane is reflected in the fuselage.
- Flash of the second plane looks twice as big as the plane itself.


The theories:

- Some people state it was a missile which was fired from both planes to help them penetrating into the buildings and ignite fire.
- I also heard an interesting theory about some sort of "laser targeting" system which caused the flash. I'd like to have more infos about this.
- Finally, some people said it was just an electric statical decharge which caused the flash.


I'm not an expert but i think this flash event is something we should focus on as deeper as others anomalies.

Looking forward for your comments, analysis or other things concerning the mystery of these flashes. I hope this thread will get bigger and bigger, to help us understand what was and what caused this.




posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I think I would "flash" also, if something weighing 400,000 pounds and moving at 530mph was about to hit me.

There is a column of air pushed in front of the aircraft. This is probably hitting the building. Since there is no previous data concerning an event of that type, no one knows what it would look like. The force of the air, even if not visible, is tremendous, and it looks like that energy is transfered to the glass and metal structure of the building. It appears to be released as thermal energy. Although it might be electrostatic, or something else, or all of the above.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I read an article describing it as static discharge and heating of the aluminium of the fuselage as it strikes the building. The reasoning and the science seemed pretty convincing. I think this is a red herring. The pods on the planes thing was pretty much dropped by the 9-11 truth movement ages ago.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
The reason i believe it was a missile is because i think that is how they controlled the flight path of the planes. It is much easier and cheaper to use the guidance of a missile to fly the plane than have to tamper with the planes system. The flash is definitely not a static discharge, just look at the color and shape.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I read an article describing it as static discharge and heating of the aluminium of the fuselage as it strikes the building. The reasoning and the science seemed pretty convincing. I think this is a red herring. The pods on the planes thing was pretty much dropped by the 9-11 truth movement ages ago.


Hello wecomeinpeace


First i would like the "pod" theory to be put aside from the thread. Because there is indeed speculations about his existence. However, the flashes really happened. That's why i'd like that we focus only on them without deriving on the "pod" subject. Thanks in advance


If you look closely to the bottom left part of the first picture, you can clearly see that the flash is not located in front of the plane, but on the right and far from any fuselage part. How could a static discharge could have occured there, while the plane has not even impacted the buidling yet and that we see no flash toward the nose ?

Again, the force of pushed air that ZPE StarPilot is talking about should be located right in front of the nose, but not on the right side where there is still a lot of space between the windows and the wings/motors.



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
The reason i believe it was a missile is because i think that is how they controlled the flight path of the planes. It is much easier and cheaper to use the guidance of a missile to fly the plane than have to tamper with the planes system. The flash is definitely not a static discharge, just look at the color and shape.


Yeah, maybe it was freemason alien weather control devices too.
Those flashes are a massive steel object milli seconds about to collide with a tall structure. I always feel queasy when I see this 'no plane hit the pentagon/pod plane/cargo plane hit the wtc stuff. I can accept that explosives were planted int he WTC, and the globalists needed a 'new pearl harbor' using former CIA assets. But this sort of stuff is just pure disinfo to make the whole 9/11 truth movement look fringe and looney.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
the "flashes" couldn't possibly be from the planes search radar getting very close to a metal object could it? or is that to simple of an explanation for you all



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Wow, ministock. I never thought about the weather/collision radar in the nosedome. That's a lot of power if it was on. I'm not sure any reaction would be visible, but sure haven't heard of anyone trying it. Aircraft radar is nothing to fool with on the ground, it can cause physical injury to anyone in front of it.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
All I ask for is that someone tell me what caused that flash and then show me an example that looks similar, cause that's one strange-looking circle of light upon the facade of the building. I might buy the static discharge thing if I was shown that discharges create such large circles of illumination upon surfaces while the discharge itself is not visible, and the body making the discharge is already connected to the second object. Same with the radar thing, which I wouldn't know much about, and, probably for that same reason, sounds at first hearing to be more probable to me. Though, if I've learned anything from 9/11, it's not to believe explanations simply because they seem to make sense, and I have no idea what that flash is.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I think stating categorically that the flash occurs away from the fuselage is dubious at best. From the slow-motion footage, it looks like it occurs on the right edge of the nose cone. The super enlarged version is just all blobs of dark pixels and it is impossible to determine where the plane ends and the building starts.

Could it be the aluminium of the fuselage heating to glowing temperature as 160,000Kg of airplane hits the building at 250m/s? However if this were the case, you would also expect the wings to exhibit the same flash when they strike the building, which they do not.

Also note that the Naudet video shows the flash as white, whereas the videos of the second plane show the flash as orange. Thsi could be due to different film types, etc.

Static discharge or some type of equipment explosion in the nose/cockpit area seems plausible to me, but hey...ya nevva know.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Also note that the Naudet video shows the flash as white, whereas the videos of the second plane show the flash as orange. Thsi could be due to different film types, etc.


Hello


Yes it's true, the colors are different, but the sizes are also different. The flash of the first plane looks much bigger, maybe twice as big as the plane itself. Which makes me think it might be some different kind of flashes. Anyway it's hard to conclude anything indeed. It would be interesting to know what professionals in magnetic/electrical domain have to say.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
my radar theory comes from personal experience on navy ships. an air search radar puts out quite a signal after all it's searching for objects at a range of over 200 miles or more. this range is nessesary to prevent collisions in an enviroment where the closing rates of aircraft are in the order of 800mph nose to nose. and thats just a passenger plane. it also raises hell with your boom box when your out on deck chipping paint or watching videos down below. the morons flying the planes could also have been useing the radar as a targeting device. not hard to line up a tall object sticking up all by itself to the center of the screen. so if we're going with the flash is prior to impact thats my call. one other possibility is that the cowards had some explosives in the cockpit with them and detonated them just prior to impact so they wouldn't have to feel the pain of the sudden stop.
as a side note. why is it that the leaders of these groups that convince these guys that martyrdom and the whole 70 virgins thing is so great why don't any of these "leaders" join them. and why aren't the guys who do the deed asking themselves the same question



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Ministock, Your explosvives in the cockpit theory is very interesting and this is the first I have heard of it. I was wondering if you saw something about this or you just had the thought on your own?



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
Ministock, Your explosvives in the cockpit theory is very interesting and this is the first I have heard of it. I was wondering if you saw something about this or you just had the thought on your own?


just something i thought up on my own. i figured they didn't have the nuts to take an I beam in the face. might have also been planned to make sure the jet fuel ignited. jet fuel in its liquid form is quite hard to light. osamma was depending on the fire to weaked the buildings structure.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   
The flash was to ignite the fuel. The igniting of the fuel was needed to sell the story that heat brought down the building. Without the flames...

As far as the device that created the flash. I have no idea. Some type of specialize missile?


[edit on 7-12-2005 by tn2k]



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ministock
osamma was depending on the fire to weaked the buildings structure.


Not wanting to get into this subject and hijack (pun intended) the thread...but you do know that Bin Laden was surprised that the buildings fell right? How could he depend on the fires to weaken the structure if he was surprised that it did? Just something to think about.

As far as the flash...I think your radar theory has the most plausability in my opinion....not my area of expertise though.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Did you see the airplain crach into a building in Iran?

The plain was destroyed, but the building did not collaps, nor did the airplain enter the building. It was a normal apartments building not made to withstand anything.

People have claimed before that it was not passenger plains that crashed into the WTC towers. And as the crash in Iran shows airplains are not made to withstand crash into buildings.

Yet we see the airplains enter the WTC. So someone have reinforced the structure of these airplains. That is the only way they could have made a hole in Pentagon, wich I am sure is alot more solid than a block in Iran.

Just another detail showing the crashes was planned and prepared for long before they happened.



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
A couple of points.

One) That flash occurred at the impact, not before.

Two) Like it was posted earlier, there are a number of electronics in the nose of the plane. additional info

Three) It is entirely possible that this is an example of a thermite reaction similar to that some people like to claim caused the collapse. We know that there was external scale and rust on the steel of the towers. Even with the fireproofing in place, the force of the impact of an aluminum plane into an aluminum façade panel into the steel, could very well have sparked the flash. example



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Hello



Originally posted by HowardRoark
One) That flash occurred at the impact, not before.
Two) Like it was posted earlier, there are a number of electronics in the nose of the plane.


To clarify :

Concerning the first plane, it is irrefutable that the flash occurs BEFORE impact. This is clearly showed in the slow motion with the shadows as proof.

For the second plane, the flash seems to occur just as the nose of the plane hits the building indeed. However, it does NOT occurs on the nose, but on the right side of the plane, and there is no contact yet with the building there.

I'm confused. Are we seeing the same video ?

I think this is enough clear not to keep arguing about that. Anyone agree ?



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Musclor
Hello


To clarify :

Concerning the first plane, it is irrefutable that the flash occurs BEFORE impact. This is clearly showed in the slow motion with the shadows as proof.


Sorry, I have to dissagree with you there. The evidence is hardly conclusive. (shrug) I'm not going to debate it.



For the second plane, the flash seems to occur just as the nose of the plane hits the building indeed. However, it does NOT occurs on the nose, but on the right side of the plane, and there is no contact yet with the building there.


Same thing. The nose had already penetrated the building by that frame. at a standard (NTSC) 30 frames per second, a plane going a plodding 300 miles per hour will still cover almost 15 feet per frame.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join