Flashes in WTC-6 and WTC-7.

reply to post by talisman


2nd Flash WTC-7 ...to me....doesn't seem real...but the others are all too obvious

reply to post by talisman


So what is the point? That started washing windows on 9/11?

If notice can see window washers scaffold being pulled back up building
to be stowed on roof

It may come as suprise that it takes a few minutes to winch the scaffold
back up side and stow it.

So what are you getting at - that some window washers were in on it?

Now thats bizarre - even for you clowns......

Originally posted by Jim Parker
Watch and learn my friend. Don't be fooled by the deviousness of the 911 truth movement.

www.youtube.com...

ROTFLMAO....what a pathetic attempt...

reasons for explaining flashes....by YOU

zoom in for a tight shot so we don't see them...."see...no flashes"

are YOU also actually trying to say the fireworks going off...are a normal part of CD...???

and it seems YOUR also saying that the second impact, left glass and aluminum...'hanging' in the air, to be seen as 'flashes, an hour later, minutes before the tower collapsed
''

Originally posted by Jim Parker
reply to post by talisman

 

What in the World was that nonsense??

Are you implying the building was imploded above the planes impact?? I think your links were quite devious. Shame on you!!!

How is it...THAT WE SEE the antenna, DROP about 9 stories, while there is NO MOVEMENT below the impact area....HOW does THAT happen?

that WOULD suggest that there is NO top block of force to 'PUSH' the towers down, like the 'OFFICIAL HYPOTHESIS' says....so what does?

reply to post by talisman


Flash of light Smoke comes

Seen this before on fire ground. Its what happens when window breaks

The flash of light is window shattering

Another thing is that window frames on WTC were polished aluminium
which reflects light

reply to post by thedman

Flash of light Smoke comes

Seen this before on fire ground. Its what happens when window breaks

The flash of light is window shattering

Another thing is that window frames on WTC were polished aluminium
which reflects light

Your opinion only, if this is a fact then show your sources?

reply to post by impressme


And your claim that its shows some kind of explosion is not ?


All you have is some video of flash of light at window followed by smoke

My contention that it shows window being broken by fire is equally valid
as yours.

Based on fact that nobody ever found anything associated with demolition
rules against you....

Almost forgot - An explosion big enough to do structural damage would
do more that pop one window .

Would take out most of the windows on that side of building

What have is window failing from fire - seen it many times on fire ground

reply to post by thedman

And your claim that its shows some kind of explosion is not ?

WRONG! I never made a “claim did I.

All you have is some video of flash of light at window followed by smoke

My contention that it shows window being broken by fire is equally valid
as yours.

This is your opinion only, not a proven fact. You still have not answered my question

Your opinion only, if this is a fact then show your sources?

Based on fact that nobody ever found anything associated with demolition
rules against you....

So Pro Steven Jones scientific report is a lie and you have proof there was not any Thermit and Thermate and nano Thermit found in the WTC dust and all the eyewitness report from the NYPD, NYFD and first responders who claim they witnessed flashing and explosions going around the WTC. In fact, the FBI went out of their way to bury those testimonies that went on record to keep the public from learning the truth. However, several years ago under the Freedom of Information Act the New York Times won their case in a NY court. The government of NYC had to release all the information of the oral histories from these creditable eyewitness.

Eyewitness Accounts
Eyewitnesses Recalled Explosions, No Alarms or Sprinklers
The collapses of the Twin Towers were witnessed firsthand by scores of people, most of them emergency responders. The majority of those accounts have been suppressed by the state for years. In August of 2005, the New York Times published the single largest and most authoritative body of eyewitness evidence yet assembled, as a result of winning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. 1 Another body of evidence, which we have yet to examine, is a set of recordings of calls processed by the 911 system on the day of 9/11/01 and released in 2006. 2
The chief of safety of the fire department of New York City told me he recieved word of the possibility of a secondary device: that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place and according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted within the building.
The final clip shows a man in a hospital bed, with a video banner reading "AMERICA RESPONDS". He states:
and all of a sudden it sounded like gunfire -- you know, bang bang bang bang bang -- then all of a sudden three big explosions.
John Bussey, foreign editor for the Wall Street Journal described the collapse of the South Tower thusly:
I heard this metallic roar, looked up and saw what I thought was just a peculiar site of individual floors, one after the other exploding outward. I thought to myself, “My God, they’re going to bring the building down.” And they, whoever they are, had set charges. In fact the building was imploding down. I saw the explosions, and I thought, ‘This is not a good place to be, because we’re too close to the building, and it’s too easy for the building to topple over.’ 6

911research.wtc7.net...

I assume you think all these creditable eyewitnesses are lairs because; their version doesn’t stand up to the OS. If you really believe that all these creditable people are lying, then YOU are not interested in hearing or looking for the truth of 911.

My point was to show there was explosion going off in the WTC which accounts for the detonation and flashing that demo company usually use to bring buildings down.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by impressme]

I'll have to agree with the government loyalists. The flashes at the WTC are windows popping out and sparkling in the sunlight. This has been discussed for many years.

However, for those loyalists that don't believe in the controlled demolition of the towers, let's hear from some credible witnesses that were there:

Karin Deshore

Somewhere around the middle of the (north tower), there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

Stephen Gregory

I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.

Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was an explosion up on the upper floors.

A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.

Richard Banaciski

It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions...

To get a visualization of what they were seeing, watch this:

Google Video Link

Now that is undebunkable. Unless you'd like to call our hero first responders flat-out liars. WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 exhibited all of the characteristics of controlled demolition, and zero characteristics of a fire-induced collapse.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Heya, _BoneZ_

I watch that video (again) and what I see is the entire building beginning to fall as one, crumpling at the base.

I watch video of the WTC Towers, and it is different. ALL of the floors below the damaged section are unmoving, only the top sections begin to fall, at first. This pattern continues, although the tremendous amount of dust and debris tends to obscure.

Can you not see what I see?

Also, on the WTC videos, I don't see the dozens of white flashes, as seen in the Google video of that other skyscraper. What I'm saying is, the known CD video shows the flashes...and there is a perceptible pause...before the collapse sequence. (I was watching with sound off, to remove distractions).

My understanding of actual CD is, the timed explosive cuts are designed to occured FIRST in the center portions, to maximize as much as possible the "implosion". In the WTC we see more of a "push" downwards, and a forcible ejection, as if millions of tons of pressure were being exerted from above.

This is why I have difficulty with the CD theory in NYC.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I watch video of the WTC Towers, and it is different.

Every CD is different. But if you had the controls, wouldn't you want to make it look as little like a CD as possible? There are tell-tale signs of CD that they couldn't cover up like the plumes and flashes.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Also, on the WTC videos, I don't see the dozens of white flashes, as seen in the Google video of that other skyscraper.

That is correct. The color of the flash will depend on the type of explosive used. The first responders reported yellow and mostly red flashes at the lower to middle levels of the buildings. Such dark-colored flashes would be harder to see in videos than the brighter ones in the video I posted. And note that the flashes were reported in both towers, not just one, so as to not be confused with some "explainable" flashes in one tower only.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
In the WTC we see more of a "push" downwards

There really was no "push" downwards in the towers. The towers were literally being peeled or blown from the inside out. Besides collapse initiation, there was never a solid structure on top "pushing" down on the structure below to crush everything below it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is why I have difficulty with the CD theory in NYC.

I appreciate your honest opinion. But the witnesses saw what they saw. We can't discount the witness testimony just because we don't want to believe the conspiracy. If we didn't know that the first responders were talking about the WTC, then it would almost be like they were describing that demo video I posted.

With the numerous explosions and flashes that were no where near any fire, to the collapse physics, to the witness testimony, there are too many qualities and coincidences of controlled demolition that beg us to question the collapses and further investigate them.

Originally posted by CaptainAmerica2012
There is no doubt in most peoples minds that 9/11 was planned within and outside of the u.s....

You got any respectable polling data to back that up?

Upon researching 911, it was easy to see that there was an obvious coverup and pathetic investigation. The paper trail leads to some interesting people and bin laden is not one of them.

Sorry, I am not going to buy your book if it ever gets published. So just tell us----

1. Proof of the "obvious coverup."

2. Proof that the investigation was "pathetic."

3. Who are these 'interesting people" that seemingly you alone know about?



[edit on 8/1/09 by QweeQwa]

reply to post by QweeQwa


Why don't you try debunking my post above? Or is it too undebunkable for you? Here's the direct link to it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

There really was no "push" downwards in the towers. The towers were literally being peeled or blown from the inside out. Besides collapse initiation, there was never a solid structure on top "pushing" down on the structure below to crush everything below it.

The solid structure was the top 30+ floors moving downwards. Obviously it was breaking up, but you have to remember, even though the top floors are falling apart, its still has the mass and increasing velocity as it is collapsing, giving more than enough force to crash on down. Add to that the tube-in-tube design, which gave us this "peeling apart" view.

Bonez you also should remember, that in order to have the exterior columns go "peel away" via explosives only, you would need a LOT of high power explosives lining every single floor all around behind the columns. And not a few pounds, but tons. Usually demolition explosives are used to cut the beams, not blow them over as is being suggested. To blow them over by the blast force, you would have to pack tons and tons of high explosives inside the core all around so A) the explosions dont cut the exterior columns, and B) push the exterior columns out. But for that, there would have been very noticable blasts that would have shattered alll the windows in Lower Manhattan and would have been unmistakable.

The most likely explanation of the peel away is due to the design of the WTC and how the top section acted like a plunger as it went down. The floor truss connections were severed by the sheering forces, either snapping the bolts or completely removing the truss seat from the columns. When the floors went, the exterior was nothing more than freestanding. Then the force of the collapse just shoved them over, which explains why some columns were found over 300ft away. The towers were over 1,000ft high. Its not surprise that some columns could fall over anywhere between that spectrum. 500ft away is not indicative of demolition. any sorts of high pwer blasts would have also sent larger debris flying (steel, concrete, desks, heavier objects) away from the site up to a half mile, maybe even farther. Its happened in a real CDs where a building wasnt properly prepped and people got killed by a piece of flying debris nearly a half a kilometer away from the implosion site and farther.
www.medbib.com...

This was not seen at all at the WTC. No large chunks of debris were located a half-kilometer away from the WTC, except for dust, papers, and light wind-carried debris.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Bonez you also should remember, that in order to have the exterior columns go "peel away" via explosives only, you would need a LOT of high power explosives lining every single floor all around behind the columns.

The floor trusses and outer columns were all assembled in sections. The only place explosives likely would have been needed was in the core.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

The floor trusses and outer columns were all assembled in sections. The only place explosives likely would have been needed was in the core.

Correct. However, the amounts necessary to be able to "eject" the exterior columns for such distances would have been quite large, and would not have left a large section of the core standing after the collapses. But again we are going back to square one on the explosives claim, because prior to collapse, the exterior columns bent and sagged inwards for a few seconds. Without a sound mind you.

reply to post by GenRadek


It doesn't really matter. You will never be able to explain away the flashes seen by the first responders, nor the plumes, all of which have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and nowhere else.

Star, flag, and a bump. I am not going to join into the discussion as I see none. The Facts around 9/11 should be evident from the horrors committed by the US Govt. for decades......... Just look at Op. Northwoods.

It appears that most European communities have no arguing over 9/11, other than the Govt. did it.

Thanks for posting the topic.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Flashes have already been explained by many others. I wont rehash them again.

Plumes? I assume you mean the jets of pressurized air seen squirting out during the collapses? Ah see that right there is another misunderstood event and also a poor understanding of how an "explosion" works. An explosion like a demo charge has an initial high velocity which exponentially decreases with time and distance. We do NOT see this happen at the WTC. The plume puffs out, and then increases in speed. And it gets darker with more dust.

Now had it been an explosive, it should have blown out the entire section of windows, not squirt out of one window. again, the wide open floor would not allow this sort of "steering' of the explosion plume after detonation. The explosion expands outward in all directions relatively at the same time. It wont be in one single direction like a jet. And before you counter this, a shaped charge would not extend this far out either. However, pressurized air from, say, an elevator shaft would be able to sen a jet of air such a distance.

but to recap: where is the corresponding visible damage and KABOOM with the "flashes"? And then why weren there "plumes" of smoke immediately after them? Then, since when do explosives create a single pressure jet that increases in velocity with time? that goes against the physics of explosions completely.