New Angle - White Puffs of Smoke Timed Together at Several Levels

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

I don't believe you answered. YOu told me what you tihnk it's not...however you have not told me what
you tihnk the smoke might be. What is your best shot?

Further you previous logic about the flashes/smoke and timing is quite funny in my opinion.

Here's a good quesiton (more to follow):

Do you tihnk the smoke from the CD videos is a result of the earlier demo flashes?

What does it matter what I think it is? There's all kinds of stuff it could be. Personally I think your video is inconclusive as to whether it's something falling or not.

You might find my logic funny, but I notice you can't refute it. How about posting some more videos that agree with me?

Your videos - flashes, short pause, puffs, collapse
WTC video - no flashes, something that might be conceivably be puffs but might not, building stands for half an hour or more.

Wow, they're exactly the same!!!

But then I suppose I should remember that I'm arguing with someone who will swear blind that a flock of birds is a series of CD flashes. You soooo want this to be true, don't you?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


The flock of birds was due to a small screen on a laptop. I have apologized for the error and moved on.

YOu have not however.

This video was viewed on a large monitor and clear enough to show lateral smoke ejections.

This fact is not up for debate.

PLease give me one of your many possible options for these simultaneous puffs of smoke ejecting from several
different floors.

'No flashes'?

I don't want to be rude, but are you blind? There's hundreds of them. Particularly high amount between 53 and 55 seconds, which is followed by columns of smoke coming from the building. Quite obviously small charges weakening the building for collapse a short time later. Of course, anyone who believes already knows all this, and those who don't will never believe no matter what evidence is provided. I highly doubt this or any other thread will change that.

reply to post by Project-Sign


I see dozens of flashes all along the side of the building throughout the video and I definitely see lateral projections at :52. That's what I "see," guess I could be wrong. Almost hate to say anything since trusters are such haters.

If I wanted to do a CD without it being obvious, I would plant more small charges to go off in a progressive and staggered fashion so the sounds would be absorbed by the building and just wait for the weight of the building to finish the job.

Originally posted by Project-Sign
'No flashes'?

I don't want to be rude, but are you blind? There's hundreds of them. Particularly high amount between 53 and 55 seconds, which is followed by columns of smoke coming from the building. Quite obviously small charges weakening the building for collapse a short time later. Of course, anyone who believes already knows all this, and those who don't will never believe no matter what evidence is provided. I highly doubt this or any other thread will change that.

Watch the whole video and it's clear that the "flashes" are in camera. You can see them all through the video, even when it's pointed at the street. And during the phase you describe there are several in mid-air between the towers. They're glitches or whatever, errors in the picture.

Compare them to the ones in the videos turbofan posted above. They're not at all the same. He's fallen for a picture error, just like he did with his birds.

Originally posted by turbofan

This video was viewed on a large monitor and clear enough to show lateral smoke ejections.

This fact is not up for debate.

Sorry, I disagree. And you're a person with a history of seeing things that aren't there.

I reiterate: what they are not is explosives. Unless you've found a video with explosive puffs that are not followed immediately by a building's collapse.

Perhaps you subscribe to the other poster's novel idea: that they are demolition charges that don't demolish the building. In which case, as per the Truth Movement, I'd like to see a precedent that suggests this is possible.

Thanks for your dishonest reply. Totally avoiding the fact that puffs are ejecting sideways from the building
proven by still frame and slow motion video.

Thanks also for not providing a suitable alternative to what may cause puffs of smoke to appear on five
seperate levels at the same time.

Your comment about "my history" is also false; you have a habit of attacking character rather than answering
questions. It's apparent in your replies thus far.

I think our debate ends here, and this thread will serve to inform honest researchers in any case.

reply to post by turbofan



You are totally deluded you can see the smoke is left by an object falling you can see it in the video you posted I suggest you have a look at your own video again.

Originally posted by turbofan
Thanks for your dishonest reply.

It's not dishonest. I wrote exactly what I think.

I think our debate ends here, and this thread will serve to inform honest researchers in any case.

Yeah, okay. It's not been an overwhelming victory for you though.

First you post a load of videos that agree with my premise, and then you change the subject, and then you say

Your comment about "my history" is also false

But it's not. You posted a video of "demolition flashes". Everybody else saw birds. You were proven to be wrong. Thus you have a history of seeing things which aren't there. I'm not sure how that could be more accurate.

Does anyone else see the logical error with Trick? He's equating the timing of smoke with the collapse of the
twin towers, as well as comparing a conventional CD with a non-conventional CD (one that was top down).

I showed him two videos that set off charges and the building doesn't immediately come down...but then he
cries about the timing of the smoke...as if the smoke was the origin of the cutter charge, and not the flash.

Anyway, Trick is clearly out to character bash and claim I have a history of 'seeing things' when I clearly
admitted an error while viewing a video on a small monitor.

This is the type of people we are dealing with. Those that attack the messenger, while avoiding questions. Don't waste your time debating them, I wont. As I stated before,
I'm here to share new information with honest researchers. I look forward to viewing the latest evidence that
all of you bring forth.

Trick, when you can come up with a logical explanation for those simultaneous puffs of smoke maybe we'll talk.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I don't see flashes anywhere other than the side of the building.

Here's another video, different angle, different camera. Flashes start around 0:20. See how the smoke eminates from the middle of the building.



Are those flashes 'in camera' too? Strange that such a similar phenomena would be present in two different cameras. And there's many more videos showing WTC flashes on youtube, feel free to have a look.
I understand a lot of people don't want to believe that a country would do this to it's own people to further a certain cause, and therefore some people's minds won't be changed regardless of evidence provided, making all of this rather pointless.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


What do I see watching this video a few times?


I see debris burning and smoking, leaving behind smoke trails falling from the WTCs. I see glass breaking and "sparkling" down while catching sunlight. I see smoky debris falling. Nope, no demo charges, squibs, magic nanu nanu thermite, or anything else. Nope, I guess people are starting to see things that just dont exist, and wishing it was real.

Originally posted by GenRadek
I see debris burning and smoking, leaving behind smoke trails falling from the WTCs. I see glass breaking and "sparkling" down while catching sunlight. I see smoky debris falling. Nope, no demo charges, squibs, magic nanu nanu thermite, or anything else. Nope, I guess people are starting to see things that just dont exist, and wishing it was real.

No doubt General. Even the video posted just above yours shows the same thing. It's falling debris!!!

reply to post by Project-Sign


There are two separate phenomena here. No one is claiming there's no smoke, although there is controversy over what it is and where it's coming from.

In the first video you can clearly see flashes hanging in mid air between the buildings. There may be some other flashes as well, and they might be visible in your video also. But

- the videos are way too poor quality to make any definite pronouncement

- the flashes look absolutely nothing like the ones in the cd videos helpfully posted by turbofan earlier. They are either a video artefact or just conceivably something like broken glass.


It's a bit rich to say that the towers look like cd but then gloss over the huge differences between cds and the situation at the wtc. It's also incumbent upon truthers to find precedent. Turbofan was unable to.

Thanks Turbofan and Dennis. This is a good clip with nice resolution even though the camera work is shoddy. I agree with your observations; I see the flashes and smoke ejections coming out at regular intervals. This is the important point as random phenomenon will not occur in regular patterns.
It looks like about every 10 floors of separation between the smoke ejections.

I have long wondered about the "streamers" as I call them - the falling things emitting heavy white smoke leaving a curly cue trail as they fall. They don't fall like heavy objects would nor flutter like paper on fire, more like something in between, like hot cinders popping out of a campfire would if they could fall hundreds of feet.
Now I see an association between the streamers and the smoke coming from the towers.

My money is on this being thermite charges cutting the exterior load bearing columns.

It would be good to know what time this video was shot and how long before the collapse occurs.
I believe it is possible to have cut the columns with thermite and later use high explosives to "kick" the core columns out and initiate a top-down controlled demolition.
There would be no need to cut the supports at every floor, about every 10 would be enough to bring on global collapse using the weight of the building above to destroy the floors below.

S&F

BTW - I'm finding some very intriguing information on the "white elephant' (E4-B/NEACS plane) that was circling .the white house at the time of the Pentagon attack on 9/11. It seems to invalidate the OS, particularly the testimony of the JCOS/Pentagon officials. I'll post on this later.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Please do not just jump on the bandwagon of magic thermites being the cause of those smoking debris trails, without doing some research first. Let me show you a video of another large highrise fire in Korea I believe:



Pay close attention from 0:28-0:47

Notice something similar?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

First of all, belief is a powerful thing. If the prevailing belief is that the world is flat, or that the Earth is at the center of the solar system, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, those beliefs will hold sway. Even if a significant portion of the population begins to weigh the evidence and to privately come to have doubts about the prevailing view, they will suppress that opinion if it is not the prevailing view, especially if there are figures in religious or political authority that discourage having the alternate view. If a day comes when that alternative view becomes the prevailing belief, then if flips over and now anyone who held the first view is ridiculed.

Asking for CD’s that show a precedent to the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 misses the point. There is no precedent. It is my belief, based on all the evidence I have observed, that the desired result here was not to have a typical demolition of a building, but rather the creation of an illusion, a magician’s trick if you will, pulled off by technical experts. The desired illusion is that these towers are toppled as a result of being flown into by commercial jets fully loaded with fuel that have been hijacked by Muslim extremists. To this end, Mohamed Atta’s suitcase “magically” did not get onto any airplane, it was conveniently made available for observation and how obvious the contents were: a copy of the Koran (western spelling), maps, instructions, etc. And how interesting this magical fireproof passport that was conveniently found in the dust of the collapsed buildings, in perfect condition, purportedly to have fallen from the collapsed building, and purportedly belonging to one of the hijackers. Like Claude Perrot, the detective in the old spy novels would say, “Hmmm, me thinks there is too much evidence”.

The towers were of course, designed to sustain being accidentally flown into by a Boeing 707 fully loaded with fuel (the 707 being the largest jet in production at the time of the building design). We have the video and photos of a woman named “Jessica”, God rest her soul, who stood in the hole where the plane went in. She gave testimony to the fact that her flesh and blood human body was just fine, in good condition, thank you very much, that it was certainly not hot enough for her body to melt, yet we would soon be told that this same cold thick black smoke fire was hot enough to melt the steel above her head and initiate a collapse of the building. Anyone who has soldered circuits in the old days of standalone transistors and has placed a pair of needle nose pliers on a transistor lead to conduct heat away from that lead would know what would happen to steel frame buildings subjected to heat, that the steel would constantly conduct the heat away from the heat source toward the colder part of the frame. A hydrocarbon fuel fire, especially one applied asymmetrically to a building, cannot cause a total symmetrical collapse of that same building. Newton Law’s of physics were not in suspension that day. Why would the top of the building fall down through the path of most resistance, i.e. the cold undegraded steel of the bottom of the building, as if the bottom of the building were not even there? Can we expect a small sports car, traveling at 80mph, to come up on and collide with a semi-truck traveling at 50mph and have the truck magically just jump out of the way?

Personally, if I were shown this video, and then told that I was to report for work the next day in this same building on the 50th floor, I think I would say “Thank you, no”, I do not want to work in a building that has that kind of flashing going on inside and those kinds of puffs of smoke coming out in such a synchronous manner. Thank you, no.

Oh what a shock!

Paper and office supplies fluttering down in the bright sunshine.

Did you notice the heavier and smoldering pieces floating down leaving a smoke trail?

Oh what a surprise!

Originally posted by winstonsamuels
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

First of all, belief is a powerful thing. If the prevailing belief is that the world is flat, or that the Earth is at the center of the solar system, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, those beliefs will hold sway. Even if a significant portion of the population begins to weigh the evidence and to privately come to have doubts about the prevailing view, they will suppress that opinion if it is not the prevailing view, especially if there are figures in religious or political authority that discourage having the alternate view. If a day comes when that alternative view becomes the prevailing belief, then if flips over and now anyone who held the first view is ridiculed.

Asking for CD’s that show a precedent to the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 misses the point. There is no precedent. It is my belief, based on all the evidence I have observed, that the desired result here was not to have a typical demolition of a building, but rather the creation of an illusion, a magician’s trick if you will, pulled off by technical experts. The desired illusion is that these towers are toppled as a result of being flown into by commercial jets fully loaded with fuel that have been hijacked by Muslim extremists. To this end, Mohamed Atta’s suitcase “magically” did not get onto any airplane, it was conveniently made available for observation and how obvious the contents were: a copy of the Koran (western spelling), maps, instructions, etc. And how interesting this magical fireproof passport that was conveniently found in the dust of the collapsed buildings, in perfect condition, purportedly to have fallen from the collapsed building, and purportedly belonging to one of the hijackers. Like Claude Perrot, the detective in the old spy novels would say, “Hmmm, me thinks there is too much evidence”.

The towers were of course, designed to sustain being accidentally flown into by a Boeing 707 fully loaded with fuel (the 707 being the largest jet in production at the time of the building design). We have the video and photos of a woman named “Jessica”, God rest her soul, who stood in the hole where the plane went in. She gave testimony to the fact that her flesh and blood human body was just fine, in good condition, thank you very much, that it was certainly not hot enough for her body to melt, yet we would soon be told that this same cold thick black smoke fire was hot enough to melt the steel above her head and initiate a collapse of the building. Anyone who has soldered circuits in the old days of standalone transistors and has placed a pair of needle nose pliers on a transistor lead to conduct heat away from that lead would know what would happen to steel frame buildings subjected to heat, that the steel would constantly conduct the heat away from the heat source toward the colder part of the frame. A hydrocarbon fuel fire, especially one applied asymmetrically to a building, cannot cause a total symmetrical collapse of that same building. Newton Law’s of physics were not in suspension that day. Why would the top of the building fall down through the path of most resistance, i.e. the cold undegraded steel of the bottom of the building, as if the bottom of the building were not even there? Can we expect a small sports car, traveling at 80mph, to come up on and collide with a semi-truck traveling at 50mph and have the truck magically just jump out of the way?

Personally, if I were shown this video, and then told that I was to report for work the next day in this same building on the 50th floor, I think I would say “Thank you, no”, I do not want to work in a building that has that kind of flashing going on inside and those kinds of puffs of smoke coming out in such a synchronous manner. Thank you, no.

Originally posted by winstonsamuels
There is no precedent.

I know, thanks for at least admitting it.

My point is just that it's a common request by the TM that precedent be found for events relating to the collapse. When one makes the same request the other way it's not so popular.

Personally, if I were shown this video, and then told that I was to report for work the next day in this same building on the 50th floor, I think I would say “Thank you, no”, I do not want to work in a building that has that kind of flashing going on inside and those kinds of puffs of smoke coming out in such a synchronous manner. Thank you, no.

Yeah, I don't think I'd want to go to work in a building that had just had a plane flown into it either.