Serious footage. Proof of a controlled demolition.

most likly caused by the sun reflecting off the metal

it wasnt in direct sunlight though. it cant be the sun

Wow -

Looks like the Disinfo crowd is out in force on this one!

This is an extraordinary discovery and just more good evidence of a Controlled Demolition.

Anyone who can't see these towers lighting up light sparklers is in total denial. I now see why most of the footage of the trade centers before the collapse looks blurry as they have probably presented it that way to keep people from really seeing what was going on.

I think the reason most people didn't notice these white flashes before is because they could have had them timed with the second hit. Everyones attention was on that instead.




[edit on 7-12-2007 by CyberTruth]

well look here and draw your own conclusions...to me this video makes more sense than any one opinion...

www.metacafe.com...

[edit on 7-12-2007 by blueyedevil666]

[edit on 7-12-2007 by blueyedevil666]

Originally posted by ebe51
I work as an eletrical designer, before that I worked in the field. Let me tell you, shorts cause arc flashes.

Who cares? How does a plane impact cause a short circuit, exactly? Why don't you draw me a schematic and show me where/how in the wiring it could possibly happen, especially so many floors below? That's what I want to see, so go ahead and explain this to me, and explain how we're able to physically see it from outside of the building, given where the wiring physically was.

Plug in an electrolytic capacitor rated for 250W with the polarities reversed and put 5mA through it. Is it going to explode? Because it "could" (in the most absolutely trivial sense). Would you say it would, though? In reality it wouldn't, and it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Think about what you're suggesting actually happened, and get back to me with something specific, because I don't see it. And I have to wonder how far 480VAC would be carried through a line meant for 240 before a breaker tripped somewhere or some unintended failure occurred even IF this theory made sense.


Another thing someone may want to realize is that the plane impacts were at least 30 minutes separated from the collapses. So looking to the plane impacts for an explanation is ridiculous in the first place. This is obviously something related directly to the collapse itself. The floors in question weren't even hit by planes anyway.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by bsbray11]

reply to post by Dwight Howard


Why can't you just accept the truth? Is it a genetic problem?
Did you question the source of sunlight as a child?

Originally posted by ebe51
On thing I have against the CD is that in this case nothing fell following the flashes. If CD was going on you expect that the flashes would have been charges to bring something down.

Flashes that go off during conventional demolitions don't always result in immediate failures. A lot of charges are just for a sort of pre-weakening that's required for the structure to lose enough stability to begin to move on its own. Look up enough demolitions and I'm sure you'll find plenty that show flashes going off all over a building before anything starts moving.

reply to post by CyberTruth


Yes, but if thats the explosions, where is all the smoke from them, or the ejected debris? You need some evidence that those flashes aren't just objects floating through the air with the sun glancing off them. Steel is rather strong, a small flash that even without accounting for the lens flare looks to be only a window or so in height cannot really do that much. All other videos posted here to prove controlled demolition have been of so called 'squibs' not flashes of light.

Nuff said:


disclose.tv...

and...

911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com...


and...

www.youtube.com...

and...

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 7-12-2007 by blueyedevil666]

[edit on 7-12-2007 by blueyedevil666]

[edit on 7-12-2007 by blueyedevil666]

[edit on 7-12-2007 by blueyedevil666]

Originally posted by PriapismJoe
Did you question the source of sunlight as a child?

Maybe someone should! lol

You'd be surprised at the crazy theories produced over the centuries as to how the Sun actually works. Now a lot of astrophysicists want to change to an electrical model for the source of the Sun's energy, instead of a nuclear one.

I know it's off topic but questioning anything is the exact opposite of stupid or being indicative of any "genetic problem."

[edit on 7-12-2007 by bsbray11]

I think that the truth is..... if terrorists had declared war on America that day, no matter how good our CIA or military is, there would have been a lot more attacks, and not all these "They're gunna attack!" and then nothing happens, and THEN the big talking heads on TV go "See, I told ya we were good. We prevented all these attacks. Be thankful, America."
Not to mention that the first WTC bombing in '93 was proven to have been ordered by the CIA.
I have no degrees in anything, but I can tell for CERTAIN that building 7 came down in a controlled fashion. If the other side had a huge gash in it and was so badly damaged, why didnt the structure lean when it fell? You mean to tell me that the whole thing just decided "Oh man look at that huge gash on the other side! Let's all fall together, now, children!" And why did we see evidence of the core columns being blown out in the form of the kink, and if you watch closely at the WTC7 collapse, you'll see the first evidence of collapse at the TOP of the building, where the top "middle" starts falling first. Are you gunna tell me that this is how a solid steel structure should fall if it is damaged from the side so badly? Straight down, and obviously not starting at the point of injury?
There's definitely some fantasy science going on here... and I for one was not swayed by anything else except when I was finally reminded of building 7, cuz I remember seeing if fall live on TV, and it never sat right with me, especially with Dan Rather stating "It looks almost like a controlled demolition".... I watched it live, heard Dan Rather speak those words live... and wentr "Whoa, he's right, it kinda does look funny... it doesn't even look damaged really!" I was 16 at the time, so I really didn't look too much into it until quite a few years later when a couple conspiracy theorists came poking their "rediculous theories" in my face, and this one guy was really persistent and wouldn't stop bugging me, so I decided to humour him and I can't remember which "truth"[ film I saw first... but I was highly skeptical until the section dealing with building 7. That building is the key piece of evidence. Nevermind flashes and all that stuff. Give me one good solid reason why that building came down in that highly suspect fashion. So far, I've looked into both sides of the argument, and even people from the "official" side, providing lots of impressive sciency figures, still... their facts and figures may look impressive, and may be even based on some correct scientific assumptions... but clearly, you can see that both sides can base their facts on good scientific assumptions... so you gotta use your gut. You don't have to be a physicist in order to shoot a basketball into a hoop.

And you don't need to make mountains out of mole- hills in order to correctly come to the conclusion that this was an inside job.

Obviously, they were planning on buildings falling that day. They planned out the WTC7 demolition, and you'd be darn sure they wanted to MAKE ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that the other two towers fell in accordance to their plan.... and plane impacts are not enough to bring buildings down completely like that. I'm surprised that even physicists can't use their own senses to figure that out.

I'd like to see a physicist prove that people cannot accurately make baskets into basketball hoops without knowing the physics on how exactly to do so, because that's kinda what some of you are saying... that because of our lack of education in certain areas, that we can't figure the world out for ourselves.

Those videos, whatever, they don't matter because the obvious has already been stated over and over again, yet some people can't see the truth. Just like JFK, you see a story being pushed all over your precious idiot box, and you just can't believe it would ever lie to you that badly.

Well that's what it's there for. To lull everyone into a dreamland where the red white and blue always means the good guys. We're always the good guys. For 230 years, we've always been the good guys. Go, team!

Originally posted by bsbray11


WWhoWho cares? How does a plane impact cause a short circuit, exactly?
Why
don't you draw me a schematic and show me where/how in the wiring it could
possibly happen, especially so many floors below? That's what I want to
see, so go ahead and explain this to me, and explain how we're able to
physically see it from outside of the building, given where the wiring
physically was.

your kidding right that's like asking how can a car roll on tires. Ok here's an experiment you can do at home. Get an extension cord running a tv or someting put a candle under the cord so the it can melt insulation and set back, and wait and tell me what happens. Then repeat experiment and go outside some long distances back looking into a window and see how far away the flash will be visible for.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by ebe51]

Originally posted by apex
reply to post by CyberTruth

 

Yes, but if thats the explosions, where is all the smoke from them, or the ejected debris? You need some evidence that those flashes aren't just objects floating through the air with the sun glancing off them. Steel is rather strong, a small flash that even without accounting for the lens flare looks to be only a window or so in height cannot really do that much. All other videos posted here to prove controlled demolition have been of so called 'squibs' not flashes of light.

Well,

I definitely don't think its floating objects.

My guess would have to be that it is steel cutting charges which would give off a lot of light because of the intensity and heat but not a lot of sound or compression. They would probably pop and fizzle more like a flash bulb or a sparkler type torch. - These cutting charges are meant to cut and melt steel rapidly(not blow it apart)

The explosive charges which create squibs which apparently can be seen as the building collapses - are used primarily for disintegrating and blowing apart concrete - which as in the case of the towers- is seen to have disintegrated into small particles and dust.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by CyberTruth]

also someone tell what or how you would expect to see the buildings to come down if it WAS NOT CONTROLLED manner. In other words in what manner would it have to fall for it to be as reported?

reply to post by blueyedevil666


I seem to be confused. Are you debunking your own debunking?

The last video doesn't seem to be in accordance with the others.

And that blogspot was shameful. Who seems to be doing more mudslinging? The official story believers or the "deniers".

Calling Rosie O'Donnel, and basically every 9/11 questioner "stoopid"???

That's.... uncalled for. There are plenty of highly intelligent people questioning this.

reply to post by ebe51



Well... it shouldn't fall almost perfectly into its own footprint, that's for sure. You can see in several other controlled demolition examples that even they don't always fall perfectly into their footprints...

Someone was quite meticulous with these buildings, then. Because, especially... I get the north and south tower confused a lot... the tower without the antenna... fell STRAIGHT down, no resistance... so apparently, coincidence would have you believe that the plane and the burning jet fuel damaged the impacted area evenly enough so that the whole thing would just come down evenly all at the same time?

The only reason the antenna tower fell down a little crooked was because obviopusly that antenna was pretty heavy and wavered as it fell, causing the top portion to start falling crookedly.... and that begs the question.... how did the pancake theory work on THAT building? Were these buildings built in Idonesia by slave laborers paid 2 cents a day? I mean, they just crumble? Solid steel structures a thousand feet high can just crumble into relative "dust"?

Jeez. That's like saying that your brain is comparable to an egg, and then stating that when an egg is thrown into a frying pan "that's your bain on drugs". That's how horrible the official story sounds. My brain is not an egg and a frying pan is not drugs, and you can throw all the facts and figures at me that you want, it still doesn't equate.

But ya know, many people were convinced that the brain on drugs guy knew what he was talking about just cuz it was on TV.

Originally posted by blueyedevil666
well look here and draw your own conclusions...to me this video makes more sense than any one opinion...

www.metacafe.com...

[edit on 7-12-2007 by blueyedevil666]

[edit on 7-12-2007 by blueyedevil666]

Nice video. Listen at 45 seconds. Sounds like an audible "boom". Could be the building hitting the ground, but I'd think that would sound more like "boom, boomity, boom, boom, boom". Not just one loud "BOOM". Any thoughts?

[edit on 12/7/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by apex
reply to post by CyberTruth

 

Yes, but if thats the explosions, where is all the smoke from them, or the ejected debris? You need some evidence that those flashes aren't just objects floating through the air with the sun glancing off them. Steel is rather strong, a small flash that even without accounting for the lens flare looks to be only a window or so in height cannot really do that much. All other videos posted here to prove controlled demolition have been of so called 'squibs' not flashes of light.

28 seconds into the video, you see a clear flash and then smoke.

I believe that there was some falling metal and glass flashing too, especially during the collapse. However, there are clear flashes followed by smoke, and changes in smoke flow due to massive air pressure differences.

Originally posted by indierockalien
reply to post by ebe51

 

Well... it shouldn't fall almost perfectly into its own footprint, that's for sure. You can see in several other controlled demolition examples that even they don't always fall perfectly into their footprints...

Sure it would, if it's falling from the top down. If the problem was at the bottom then the build would have fallen toward what ever side had the problem. However this build fall from the top down. The top floor falls on next which falls on the next floor which...well you get the idea.

There is no reason for build to fall to the right or left, it would just fall straight down just like the videos show.

reply to post by CyberTruth


Whats the need to cut the outer columns in broad daylight though, where everyone can see it, when they can cut the core columns which no one can see, and let the force of gravity (ie, the weight of the building) take out the outer columns? If the core was taken out there would be no need to remove the outer columns, they facade simply wasn't made to support the entire weight.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by apex]