It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Weird occurrence(s) in 9/11 video

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 03:11 PM

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by wi1shire

Go to youtube and search for flashover and backdraft. It looks like this is exactly what it is. Of course the video is from far away and the videos on your tube are up close, but you will get the general idea. Would also explain explosions people heard in the buiding. Could have been flashovers or backdrafts and not bombs. Just an idea!

Ah, but what about the "huge explosions" people said to have heard?

I'm going to look at more footage now to see if these flashes are happening constantly throughout when the towers were burning, & not only when they were about to fall.

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 03:27 PM
Here is a video I posted about a year ago with a great view of this event.
This is a terrific video for many reasons!

Here is the link! Warning contains graphic footage!

This is the link to the original thread.

The impact takes place at approx the 6:15 mark. I would recommend viewing the entire video.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by Leo Strauss]

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Check the time on the video - it's the blast pressure from the fuel explosion of UA175 hitting WTC2 that caused the change in the smoke. It also made the fires in WTC1 flare up momentarily and the same effect is captured in a number of videos from different angles. The video has been strategically cut before the fireball from WTC2 becomes visible in the frame to bolster the 'editor's' proposed theory.

I wasn't going to comment on anything,... but what you just described is not possible -- If I'm getting your explanation -- that something in one building affected another.

1) Jet Fuel is designed not to explode.
2) A burst from one building, if it were strong enough to effect the other would be blasting in windows. The pressure would push in from one side and would, at the very least, push air out on the other three sides.

Did anyone check to see if the video is reversed for a second? I can't look at the video right now. If this is actually air going back in over the whole building, it might be the core slumping down, before the rest of the building.

The angled cuts on the girders, and the pools of molten steel weeks later, are signs of squibs being used to cut the girders (not possible from a collapse), and of Thermate being used. There is no natural phenomenon that I could think of that would cause that.

Here is the simplest explanation consistent with all observations.
People in the bottom floors and basements report hearing explosions. Fine dust is found on the bottom floor before the collapse, also indicative of explosions -- not withstanding any magical fairy fire balls going down the elevator.

The girders are blown with very small, smoke-free squibs that cut them, while the core is cut with Thermate, that burns all the way through. Small flashes of light would be consistent -- but someone could doctor those in a video -- look for reflections on shiny surfaces.

The center of the building slumps, preceding the collapse if you look at the radio antenna -- consistent with the core being destroyed.

Building falls at the speed of gravity -- notice that the core does not remain standing, as the floors would have to be breaking AWAY from that with an actual pancake collapse -- you can't have a floor break a truss and pull down the support at the same time.

The idea of the heat melting the joists near the windows and stripping off insulation is ludicrous, because there were still windows not blown out, or melted where this inferno/blast was supposed to be doing its work. No evidence for this theory.

A 20 story section of the North Tower is seen falling to the side. In mid air, it turns to dust and follows the rest of the building. What is more likely? Wind resistance destroying steel and concrete, or small explosive charges in a demolition breaking up the structural integrity?

The Empire State Building had a large military aircraft fly into it just before these plans were made. In order to pass approval, they designed the WTC to withstand the collision of three simultaneous large planes. Do we also need to forget that huge explosion with actual explosives at the base of the tower in 1993 that failed to bring down the building? That's a lot more energy than jet fuel. 3 stories raged in flame two weeks before the North tower opened without damaging the integrity of the building -- that was before they put in sprinklers.

That's with or without this new video.

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 06:20 PM
most people should realize that that's just reflection of shattering glass .
people breaking windows ,ect .. nothing new here .

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 06:26 PM
if you really watched those videos , you'd see that it's just people breaking windows out and or glass falling out of already broken windows . plain and simple . you can see glass falling from each of those flashes of sun reflecting
from breaking windows ..

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:48 PM
[edit on 26-8-2008 by Reevster]

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 08:09 PM
er, yeah, i always carry a camera, with a flash, for such emergancies as this. i know, ill flash the people outside in case they havnt realised that something is wrong and the building is on fire. jeez. ive actyally seen this on a documentry in the uk, thuogh i cant remember why there are flashes but it was mentioned. im not a cynic and actually believe that the american government had something to do with this, or at the least a cover up.
just my humble opinion.

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by whatukno

Exploding Florescent bulbs!?

that the lamest thing i ever heard

did someone pay you to say that, or are you just pulling that out of the air?

I question because there ARE disinfo agents crawling all over this site

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 09:13 PM

Originally posted by wi1shire
reply to post by LoneGunMan

then momentarily, over half a second, dieing down then instantly resuming where it left off, not getting worse or becoming more intense. The fire does not flare, it just stops and starts it seems. If you tell me i'm wrong i'll believe you because you know what your talking about, but i just wanted to be clear on this.

The fire is more than likely compartmentalized. That is more than likely why you are seeing fire just before it seems to go out. Also it can in a really big fire especially with fuel to get so hot it can use up oxygen nearly instantly. Then you have super heated gas left over. The gas can come from anything flammable when you see fire rolling out the windows of a building this is just the gases from all the carbon burning, wood, carpet, furniture, plastic etc.

The gas gets so it has no oxygen and cannot burn and the heat just releases even more gases and the oxygen hits and BOOM! Most times it results in an explosion bad enough sometimes to blow an entire house up. Its some bad chit man. There was a fire incident that was taught in the academy where there were two young children screaming behind a picture window in a house fire. They were right there, firefighter could have just broke the window and scooped them up. The incident commander ordered all personnel to stand down and wait for proper entry because it was about to have a flashover the smoke was being sucked then blown back out like the house was breathing. Those kids died right there in front of everyone because entry could not be made from that direction.

The second I saw that video I thought it was flashover.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by LoneGunMan]

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by LoneGunMan

I want to add one thing here into the mix which is possibly a coincidence, but it seems like it is definitely related to the cause of the flashover. Check out the video below and notice that the flashover happens at the instant or a nano second after the impact of the second plane on tower 2. Who can tell exactly with the audio syncing of youtube videos.

maybe the shockwave of the impact broke a window on the side of the building facing the other tower, the side not visible in the vid. That could provide the fresh oxygen. Also, if the flashover occurred on the other side of the building, that could explain the subdued reaction of the smoke we see, instead of a fireball like flashovers usually produce. It would be perfect if a video was found of the other 2 sides of the tower at this moment that might show the flashover more clearly or even a fireball. I'll take a look. What do you think Lonegunman and anonymousATS (you said you were a fireman).

I'm glad we are creeping closer to a good explanation of what I thought at first was a damning piece of evidence. Good Work ATS.

[edit on 26-8-2008 by wi1shire]

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 10:16 PM
ok, this is weird !!!

i was looking for other angles on the smoke like i said in the previous post and i found another one of those flashes people were talking about, but this one seems different.

Video 1
When the plane hits, look at the corner of the tower right in between the smokey areas. There is a flash there that happens about a second after the plane hits the other tower. Here is the vid

probably just a window breaking and glinting in the sun, right. well i found another video of the same flash.

Video 2
This video is from an angle way off to the left of the first video. Watch the same spot at the same time and you will see the flash, except it is a little different this time. Watch.

to me it looks as if the flash comes out of the building as if we are looking at a ball of fire or hot gas shooting out of the window there. I dont think it is fire tho because it is so white. I dont think it could be the window breaking because if so, it would be flashing at the same time in 2 directions.

Please watch both vids a couple times and compare them. It seems like this is more than a mere broken window flash, emergency fire alarm light, or camera flash. What does everyone think?

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The flashes are the fire alarm system in the building going off. I am working in a building right now in mid-town Manhattan and we have fire drills every month -these huge flashing lights go off all over the building they are bright like a camera flash- I am sure they had the same thing at the WTC. The smoke anomalys I can't explain - but the flashes are very explainable.

Watch carefully the flashes, there is a puff of smoke that occurs right after.

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:40 PM
To clarify my position, I believe 9/11 was indeed an inside job and I am definately curious as to what flashes may be. The falling debris/glass theory crossed my mind but in the OP video you can CLEARLY see that nearly every flash is followed by a "puff" or ejection of some kind. In my mind that means either windows are popping out in random places (sometimes several floors beneath or above the center of damage) or...those are some sort of charges going off. I keep seeing people here say search youtube for "backdraft" and "overflash" and such, well how about searching for controlled building demo's find a vid w/ good quality and a nice view and tell me the flash charges and plumes of horizontally ejected debris dont at least look very similiar to what we see in countless videos.

Also, about the strange black smoke behavior seen in the first OP video AFTER the flashes. I really think some aren't understanding the fireball most likely being the cause..(cont)

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:42 PM
Can someone tell me how the explosion of a plane into the side of the other tower would impact the smoke coming out of the other tower? Why would the smoke already on the outside not exhibit the same change?

I'd theorize that a well timed explosion went off at the same time in the other tower - 'what was that bang?' 'Don't worry it was just flight 175 hitting the other tower... keep reading about paris hilton and using your credit card'.

Why didn't the blast wave then effect the smoke already in the air? It does NOT exhibit any changes at all.

Definitely an explosion inside the building.

Light flashes are not hundreds of light bulbs exploding.. come on people...
Shorting wires? Yeah they put extremely high voltage wires all around the outside of the building to stop ninjas climbing up now? Why would they suddenly short anyway...

Open your eyes up people...

9/11 was clearly an inside job and this is just more fuel for that fire.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:05 AM
When you watch the video in the OP, the anomaly occurs at roughly 9:02, which is pretty much when flight 175 exploded into the opposite tower which for whatever reason wasn't in the shot. The angle completely changes just as the massive fireball is about to enter the screen. Now, go and look at the 2nd video in my 2nd post on the 2nd page of this thread, although you cannot see the plane impact, you can hear it and almost immediately after that sound you can blatantly see that the black smoke coming out of the first tower is affected by what seems to be the impact, blast wave, pressure, whatever you want to call it, of the plane impact/fireball.

People we can't keep jumping on all the tiny details and creating theories for everything, thats what's infecting the truth movement, some go way overboard and make us all look bad. Take a step back for a sec....THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE COME DOWN LIKE IT DID, we as truthers all know that so lets stop arguing technical details with sheep and hired debunkers.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by wi1shire

The flashes occur in a very specific sequence just as the building STARTS to fall, not exactly before. When you talk about the scenario of a hypothetical, covert demolition project, this could have been so that the explosions are less evident and more likely to be attributed to structural failure later on (just in theory). But the explosions ARE evident and are accompanied by small amounts of smoke. My first thought was that perhaps we were seeing reflections from the windows breaking due to heat and the small puffs of smoke were just smoke coming out of the window.. But that doesn't make sense.

Wouldn't the smoke have billowed out these broken windows? And I fail to see ANY window or part of a window falling after the flashes occur. The WINDOWS breaking in sequence might give the same sequence of flashes (just hypothetically) if the structural failure at the top initiates a runaway chain of structural collapses further down the steel framing, thus, giving the illusion that we are seeing small explosions in a pattern appearing to be more indicative of controlled explosions.

To me, the fact that we aren't seeing alot of smoke involved with the flashes isn't near as interesting as the fact that no windows appear to be falling away during or after the flashes in the first place... Which you would think we would see if this was the explanation for the flashes..

Very interesting video.. Thanks OP!

The timing of the flashes in the second part of the video all occur in a very specifically timed sequence.. Which, to me, would be more indicative of timed exposive devices being strategicaly placed in sections of the building that would be hard to see later on because of the timing of the detonations and how the flashes are very precisely choreographed to the collapse of the structure..

From a structural standpoint, what we have been told this whole time is that the heat was to blame.. But we fail to see ANY part of ANY aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks (because they were all confiscated by federal intelligence organisations). If the top of the WTC failed first, that's all they would've had to do.. Gravity would've taken over.. There are just too many oddities that have never been explained or accounted for.. The video footage of the Pentagon attack shows an explosion that looks more like a missile or bomb airburst... And the parts that were left over in the wreckage do not even match the parts of the aircraft they say crashed into the Pentagon in the first place... All of the evidence just makes you scratch your head because it doesn't make any sense..

Explosions experienced and discussed by many people have gone unexplained, the beautifully ridiculous perfect collapse of WTC 7 is unexplained, Too many things to not question what we have been spoon-fed by the media and the government.

NO STEEL STRUCTURE HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE prior to these horriffic events on 9/11.. And when you consider that the 2 WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft, you just can't ignore the facts.

There is also this video which I think most of us have seen involving similar "puffs" further down as the building collapsed (AGAIN) in a very precise sequence that is easy for most people to miss.. Not to mention, it would be very difficult for anyone to hear the explosions for obvious reasons.. THESE explosions further down the chain happen almost in perfect synchronicity to the collapse as the ones further up pointed out in the OP's video. ALLL of these puzzle pieces fit together..


[edit on 27-8-2008 by BlasteR]

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:34 AM

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Can someone tell me how the explosion of a plane into the side of the other tower would impact the smoke coming out of the other tower? Why would the smoke already on the outside not exhibit the same change?

I'd theorize that a well timed explosion went off at the same time in the other tower - 'what was that bang?' 'Don't worry it was just flight 175 hitting the other tower... keep reading about paris hilton and using your credit card'.

Why didn't the blast wave then effect the smoke already in the air? It does NOT exhibit any changes at all.

If I'm not mistaken, in the OP video the second tower hit is directly behind the first, therefore the smoke in the air wouldn't necessarily be affected, imo the black smoke puffing out is a result of the partial fireball (from the opposite side of where the 2nd plane entered &ripped through) feeding just a small amount of air into the still burning impact zone of the first tower....or maybe it is a bomb.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:40 AM
But as I said, debating over pointless smoke anomalies ain't gonna get us very far, we are of one mind on the general story.

BTW, I think Paris Hilton is one example of someone contributing to the downfall of our moral society and I never have or will use a credit card.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:45 AM
About the smoke stopping and then starting again, I never see the smoke stop. I only see a sudden burst of black smoke shoot out of different sections of the building.

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:54 AM
Exactly, as if a sudden burst of air traveled through the burning section?

Anyway I need sleep gonna look for vids w/ better angles tomorrow.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in