WTC 2 - South Tower Explosions Visible - Extreme Slow Motion

In this hi-res video I use extreme slow motion and graphics to indicate the clearly visible explosions taking place during the collapse of the south tower. Follow the YouTube link below the video to see it more clearly.



To me, this is pretty much the nail in the coffin.

I can see the explosions. I can clearly see the detonations taking place in the demolition wave. There is no more doubt.

The towers were blown up.

Period.


[edit on 27-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

The tower does appear to be blown outwards but what he claims to be explosive flashes could be windows glinting in the sun i guess. Also on the right tower below the speaker there is what appears to be one of these glinting explosions

Thanks for posting what could hopefully be proof of explosives, S+F

S&F! Great analysis. The top red arrow at :49 points to a flash that could be from glass since there is smoke at that corner that is also shining in the sun.

Having said that, looking on the north face of the south tower, you see one wave of explosives being detonated, then you see a second wave further down before it's all covered up by the dust.

In the following image, you can also see two massive demolition waves coming from the south tower. Look in the middle of both towers at the top and you can see two distinguished demolition waves:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/84b477f323a9.gif[/atsimg]


Great thread! But, you know the debunkers will concoct things to explain away the evidence as usual.

It is impossible for it to be "sun glint".

The flashes are occurring in the shadow of the building.

i am a firm beliver that some form of nano thermite was used. i can imagine that for weeks some kind of spraying took place. mixed with paint or something. and these flashes are the results of scatterd fires setting off the thermite.
thats my opinion though.

S & F

My opinion is that they are clear evidence of the use of demolitions and that those who planted them didn't count on them being discovered at all.

Its clear that the towers were not brought down by the planes. I feel that the more analysis being continued the pressure of the public to get answers will be too much for TPTB to ignore any longer. My concerns are this:

* Most of the fuel was burned outside the towers so how did the heat melt anything? Note the pic of the lady standing in the impact zone avalible on the internet.

* The majority of fires were out within 20 minutes of the impacts and those still burning were no where near the temps required to weaken or melt steel.

* The buildings including 7 fell near perfectly in their own foundation. A feat that is typically considered by experts as only being done via the used of well planned and controlled sequencing demolitions.

* Too many explosions were heard prior to the collaspes and during to be "a coincidence".

* Witnesses who state they heard explosions were ignored by the media at the request of government agencys and the military. (my opinion)

* Melted pools of steel found during the clean up ops are considered by experts in such matters as being suspicious and many agree that could only come from the use of devices/materials other than jet fuel.

* NIST was the scapegoat for those responsible and made the report from pressure placed on them by those involved. The failure of their report in terms of it's integrity compared to their accepted viewpoints & reports in the past denotes this.

spelling



[edit on 3/27/2010 by mikelee]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It is impossible for it to be "sun glint".

The flashes are occurring in the shadow of the building.

Just to play devil's advocate here, the shadow just means less light, not "no" light so therefore the shadow argument can't really be used. You could still get light reflecting off of debris in that shadow, especially if the light source was outside of the shadow.

Also, take a look at how and when that top piece breaks away. As it falls downward, through the path of the building below, it causes the plume to eject outwards indicative of only being obliterated as it fell on the structure below.

I have no doubt that explosives were used and that those flashes could well have been explosions but the shadow argument just doesn't hold up. Anyway, I like your initiative and analysis otherwise.

I think that the little plumes several floors down from the persuing collapse is the greatest evidence of explosives.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by airspoon]

reply to post by airspoon


Its impossible for it to be sun glint if there is no direct sunlight.

Its impossible for it to be debris that's far away from the tower because they occur before the collapse of the tower and inside the blast wave.

Its clear just by looking at it that those flashes are coming from INSIDE the tower, not outside of it.




[edit on 27-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


I'm not saying that it could have been direct sunlight and I'm not even suggesting that you are wrong. I'm just saying that it could be argued that it was light reflected from another surface or source, as the area in question moves. The light could have been reflected sunlight from another building, water or even a fire in the building. I'm only playing devil's advocate here. I think you have a wonderful analysis but I'm just arguing what could be argued. I also agree with you and think it was definately an explosion as it looks pretty obvious to me.

Edited to add last sentence.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by airspoon]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by airspoon]

reply to post by airspoon


It could have been flying monkeys with hand grenades.

I think its pretty clear that the flashes are internal to the building and are light sources unto themselves.

If someone wants to argue otherwise, there's not much I can say. Its like arguing with someone who believes the earth is flat. Nothing I'll say will change their mind.

reply to post by airspoon
I have to agree re; the shadow, anything going away from the shadowed area surface is potentially in the Sun, as the later dust and smoke clouds clearly demonstrate. The absence of a piledriver effect argument is good since it demonstrates that a lot of mass was lost before it hit the below part of the building, that to me is the most important event that has not clearly been explained in a mundane way. The actual image is fairly poor, and not really Hi Res.


[edit on 27-3-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by rush969


In the video I state huge thermite bombs were not used - I want to clarify.

I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE NANO-THERMITE WAS USED

However, the size and type of charge used is what has become clear to me from this. There were numerous small explosive charges used. There was not huge massive piles of explosives as some have suggested.

Absolutely, nano-thermite explosives were used.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Can you please clarify for me:

If you are possitive of the use of nano thermite charges.
1.- How many would be needed to produce what we see??
2.- How would they be placed and where in the building??
3.- Why don´t we hear any explosions during the collapse??
4.- How could these devices be installed throughout the whole building without being noticed??
5.- What time do you estimate it would have taken to rig the building with these devices??
6.- What kind of technology was used to start them off in secuence??
7.- Why didn´t the airplane crash start a chain reaction of all these devices?? (Specialy in the 2nd tower that was hit lower.)

Thanks.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by rush969]

Can you please clarify for me:

If you are possitive of the use of nano thermite charges.
1.- How many would be needed to produce what we see??
no idea, i would guess in the hundreds

2.- How would they be placed and where in the building??
most likely by "maintenance" workers, on the supporting columns

3.- Why don´t we hear any explosions during the collapse??
when explosives are detonated in very close sequence they produce a "roar" - just listen to the CIWS or A10 shoot once.

4.- How could these devices be installed throughout the whole building without being noticed??
maintenance workers

5.- What time do you estimate it would have taken to rig the building with these devices??
long time, several weeks

6.- What kind of technology was used to start them off in secuence??
most likely remote radio detonators

7.- Why didn´t the airplane crash start a chain reaction of all these devices?? (Specialy in the 2nd tower that was hit lower.)
It takes a detonator to set off solid explosives



[edit on 27-3-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Nice vid and yep, definitely explosives there.

Oh, and be nice to Airspoon - he or she is your ally in this war.

It doesn't do very well for the movement to argue over whether some obscure flash in the demolition(seen by a very distant camera) is a shard of glass reflecting sunlight or an explosive from the interior of the building.

I honestly cannot tell which it is, and the answer is fairly trivial in the scheme of things.



edit to add: as much as I want to be skeptic, that flash in the lower right section of the shadowed face of the building really does look like an explosive flash...

[edit on 27-3-2010 by beebs]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE NANO-THERMITE WAS USED

However, the size and type of charge used is what has become clear to me from this. There were numerous small explosive charges used. There was not huge massive piles of explosives as some have suggested.

Absolutely, nano-thermite explosives were used.

Excuse me but I thought nano-thermite was not in the form of an explosive charge carrying a detonator.
If I understand correctly, nano-thermite will ignite and go off if exposed to high temp. fire or an explosion. No need for a detonator.
Am I correct here??

reply to post by mnemeth1


What you are seeing is the internal collapses ahead of the main debris
wave - as the section above collapses it slams in the floor below overloading it and causing it to collapse.

In both cases, the portion of the building that had been damaged by the airplanes failed, which allowed the section above the airplane impacts to fall onto the undamaged structure below. As the collapse progressed, dust and debris could be seen shooting out of the windows several floors below the advancing destruction.

While they were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse

After the planes hit the buildings, but before they collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. The section above the impact area then tilted in the direction of the failed wall. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[27]

reply to post by thedman


no buddy, what I'm seeing are explosions.

If you watched the video, its clear there is no "pancake"

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by thedman

 

no buddy, what I'm seeing are explosions.

If you watched the video, its clear there is no "pancake"

Nobody mentioned "pancake collapse".
What is explained in thedman´s post is the mecanism of the "progressive collapse" of each tower.
And it is the best explanation IMHO of what we saw that day.
Slow motion can be decieving.
Normal video and the sound recording of the collapse doesn´t show any explosions. Only the progressive collapse as explained above.