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.

 

We got flashies, we got flashies!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
This video clip is of the WTC 1 coming down. The camera is really shaky, but you can see some "delicious" little goodies in it.

The first thing you'll notice is some nice squibs pooping out.

But the real morsels are the FLASHIES* seen pooping near the corner of the building! It's hard to see at first, but watch the video clip a couple of times and focus on the corner of the building just right under the demolition wave coming down.

Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop!


thewebfairy.com...




(*demo charges)


Credit goes to Rox Dogg for the clip!


[edit on 10-4-2006 by Killtown]

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Killtown]




posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I think the flashes are just bits of debris glinting in the sun. On the very last frame you can see them quite well. Certainly nothing conclusive there for me I'm afraid.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   
It looks to me like the sun is probably shining from the opposite side of the building... the building face shown in the footage looks to be shadowed so I'm not sure that it's simply sunlight glistening off of debris.

But that's not to say they're related to demolition-blasts either.....

Could they be related to the building's electrical system which is obviously going haywire at this point?



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Yeah, hate to say it but this was brought up in a post already and there was a lot of argument over whether or not these were caused by light reflecting off of pieces of debris, objects like computers and fire extinguishers exploding (these are especially unlikely, I know) or some other things, other actual charges. I think someone may have actually suggested random pixel errors too.

What was interesting for me was that there appeared to be about the same amount of flashes coming from both areas being hit directly by sunlight, and areas with shade (in which no light can reflect at all). You could argue that the debris was being ejected out of the shade into sunlight, but then you'd still expect to see less flashes from those directions. A lot of the flashes seem to me to be coming through smoke, dust, etc., and through the shade, through from the actual inside of the structure of the building, in which case the light wouldn't be from reflections of sunlight (which would be hard pressed to hit the camera in such a manner from so far away anyway; I would at least expect something more glittery and widespread in the debris clouds). But maybe I'm just seeing things.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Right when the video freezes at the end you can see its debris thats in flames. Who knows maybe even a person. That was such a terrible day.


Pie



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Thats enough proof to possibly convince me it was ..all.. planned... Now theres speculation it could be flashing debris, extinguishers exploding, pressure, etc etc.. Hmm..



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
There's a good post somewhere in the 911eyewitness thread which demonstrates the point that it's debris on a video from a different camera angle, as you can get the same effect a few dozen meters away from the tower to the sides, one deduces the same thing is happening towards the camera as well in that one - making it look like there are flashes in the tower.
You seem to forget you don't get an accurate feeling of depth when viewing video like this for obvious reasons.

What else do you expect when you have reflective pieces of glass and aluminum, as well as burning debris, being ejected and falling?
Perhaps, if these are 'flashies' or whatever you call them (as in explosives), you can point out where the inevitable flashes caused by reflections from the debris are?

[edit on 11-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

[edit on 4-11-2006 by Springer]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 7Ayreon
Thats enough proof to possibly convince me it was ..all.. planned... Now theres speculation it could be flashing debris, extinguishers exploding, pressure, etc etc.. Hmm..


There was a Myth Busters episode recreating a scene from Jaws and they exploded a fire extinguisher. No explosion. Just a lot of air escaping, as one would expect. No reason anything else would be exploding either, except, explosives.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 7Ayreon
Thats enough proof to possibly convince me it was ..all.. planned... Now theres speculation it could be flashing debris, extinguishers exploding, pressure, etc etc.. Hmm..


How is that proof and not speculation?

Some flashy things on a video are now "squibs" and any other opinion is speculation?



Originally posted by bsbray11
No reason anything else would be exploding either, except, explosives.


No explosion from shooting a fire extinguisher? Ok, so the "Jaws" model doesn't apply, but I don't think anyone is saying there was shooting as well. How about taking something pressurized and then add intense heat?

Say like...air freshener cans, fire extinguishers, cleaning supplies (various types), glass (can crack and blow with heat), flourecent lights, water pipes, etc, etc. Just a few alternatives.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
No explosion from shooting a fire extinguisher? Ok, so the "Jaws" model doesn't apply, but I don't think anyone is saying there was shooting as well. How about taking something pressurized and then add intense heat?


Still wouldn't work, and I'll give you a number of reasons why.

1) Heat would have to have been applied to the container as it was falling. Not only does this mean a few seconds of heat being applied, but there's going to be air rushing all around the container as it falls as well.

2) The canisters would have had to have been busted open in the same manner as shown on Myth Busters for any plausible scenario of the contents being exposed to the outside.

3) The color of any potential explosions would most definitely not be that bright and wouldn't have people confusing them with light being reflected off of aluminum.


Say like...air freshener cans, fire extinguishers, cleaning supplies (various types), glass (can crack and blow with heat), flourecent lights, water pipes, etc, etc. Just a few alternatives.


Blow up any of those items so that they give off a bright, white flash and we might have somewhere to start.


Edit: This is a new video, too, Zed. Not the same one was before. Watch it and you'll see the flashes from below the collapsing material, so you're gonna have to point the fires out to me. The ones that are falling with the debris and heating the falling fire extinguishers and hair spray to combust, I mean. I don't see them. Something wrong with my eyes?

[edit on 11-4-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I don't believe that those 'random pixels' are all that random. And I don't see any flame. 'Exploding debrie' some say. The levels the flahes occured on are far below the locations where the aircraft striked. It was not too hot, and anyways, what are the chances of two (or three?) of these squibs going off just as the cloud covers them?

As for the sunlight theory, where is the sun, may I ask? Yes, almost behind the building! And yet apparently those white flashes are debris reflecting sunlight at the camera! Now unless there was some freak, extremely timely window reflectrion going on from another building, I don't buy that.

This video definetly looks very incriminating to the powers-that-be that caused those towers to fall.

[edit on 11/4/2006 by watch_the_rocks]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Actually the Sun is significantly to the side in relation to the building and the cameraman, this image may help you visualise it:




posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Looks like flashes from charges to me. Like the corner charges seen in videos taken of WTC 7. Same style of demo charge in a corner in series and going downwards to cause a downward motion on that corner of the building.

People are saying it is electrical then why only in the corners?

Others are saying it is debris, then why in a straight line in only one line going down?

Still some are saying it is light flashing off something when this is on the dark side of the building.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I'd go as far as to say that the sun-reflection theory does not account for all of the "flashies". That doesn't mean they're demolition-related. Lot's of things look like that.



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
People are saying it is electrical then why only in the corners?


The shadow of the building stops any further right, the diagram shows that.
And it would be practically impossible of them to reflect the light well enough if they are further left, due to the angles involved.

It's a little crude and unprecise, but this diagram should suffice to help you visualise what I am trying to explain:





Others are saying it is debris, then why in a straight line in only one line going down?


They arn't only in one line, watch the video again.
As for going down in a straight line, gravity tends to pull things down rather than sideways or any other way.



Still some are saying it is light flashing off something when this is on the dark side of the building.


Look at the diagram... Remembering you don't get an accurate depiction of depth on a 2D video.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Smith, are you taking into account all of those other buildings between WTC and sunlight?



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Yes and No, the diagrams only take into account 2 dimensions, but the 'sparklies' could well be within direct sunlight. The information from this video alone is not enough to say either way I think.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I no longer hold any opinion that reflects this was anything other than a inside job.

We, the American people are at war with an enemy from within


6 Generals cant be wrong, there must have been a military order:



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join