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

Originally posted by turbofan
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).

Oh, you're back. I missed this post.

I'm not comparing a conventional CD with a non-conventional CD. There is no non-conventional CD. I'm saying that there is a very basic reason why this is unlikely to be a CD at all because it doesn't resemble any other one.

Your response to that is that it is a special new kind of demolition. One where charges can go off a good half hour at least before the building collapses.

My response to this is basically just amusement.

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.

But your thread is about smoke.

Never mind though. Even with your new premise, the time lag is about five seconds.

Not half an hour.

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.

It's not in doubt that you have a history of seeing things. As you say you "admitted" as much. The circumstances are not really all that important and it's certainly not an assault on your character to point out something that you yourself admit to having done.

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

Great. I'm really looking forward to it, especially since I've already supplied one which you're ignoring because you're desperate to see something else.

A bit like the time with the birds...

Says the guy that can't explain what he sees and dances around the question.

You obviously cannot grasp the fact that the other demos only fell because of a secondary set of explosions
taking out critical support columns.

Why didn't those other CD's fall immediately after the first set of charges went of Trick? I thought they were
supposed to come down right away?

5 seconds, 30 minutes, all day...it wouldn't matter until the tech. set off the next succession of charges.

I'll even call up a demo company and ask them if you want to place a little friendly wager?

Originally posted by turbofan
Says the guy that can't explain what he sees and dances around the question.

How am I dancing round the question? I've answered you on several occasions.

I think it's something falling. You refuse to believe this, but how do I know your monitors not wrong (again), or you've got your wife's glasses on, or something? You have, after all, been wrong before...

You obviously cannot grasp the fact that the other demos only fell because of a secondary set of explosions
taking out critical support columns.

Why didn't those other CD's fall immediately after the first set of charges went of Trick? I thought they were
supposed to come down right away?

I can't believe that you're still persisting with this.

They came down right after the smoke. You start a thread about smoke - it's there, in the title - and I point out that no CD has ever occurred where the building doesn't fall immediately after the smoke.

You post two videos where this is precisely what happens.

But no, hang on, you're now talking about the flashes. Never mind that they're not the smoke, not the subject of the thread. But okay. The building still comes down within five seconds.

5 seconds, 30 minutes, all day...it wouldn't matter until the tech. set off the next succession of charges.

Oookay. Even if this contention is right, your thread is about the smoke. Out it comes, down comes the building. Every time. Except in your special one-off demolition that's never been done before and resembles no other demo.

Riiiiight.

Furthermore, there's still no precedent. Remember TM logic about precedent? If it hasn't happened before it's not possible.

I'll even call up a demo company and ask them if you want to place a little friendly wager?

Do whatever you like. You'll notice that the demolition industry is not exactly up in arms about 9/11. Nobody is, apart from people with some kind of deep-seated psychological need for a conspiracy.

Originally posted by Project-Sign
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.

edit on 27-10-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-10-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-10-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)

THE flashes are not flashes look a bit closer at your video see if you can see why you think they are flashes
watch closely look at the tower see if you see whats causing this effect. You will kick yourself

Originally posted by wmd_2008
[

THE flashes are not flashes look a bit closer at your video see if you can see why you think they are flashes
watch closely look at the tower see if you see whats causing this effect. You will kick yourself

8"x 11" Laser Dots ?

So if we add up Turbofans evidence for explosives we get this:

Interesting. I admit to an error and the dishonest derailers continue to attack me, but the several errors that
Waypastvne makes and conitnues to propagate are excuseable? Most recently, Waypastvne made a
scientific and logical error about 'air' cutting steel columns in the Twin towers, but you don't see honest members
of the truth movement attacking that error continuously.

In any case, Waypastvne believes there are birds in place of the smoke shown in this photo. I ask you "Waypastvne":

Please highlight the birds in this photo and please highlight the smoke in this photo. I want to make sure you
have a grasp on reality

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0e29219f6768.jpg[/atsimg]

Second, if you don't believe these puffs of smoke exist, please explain what they are and how they all appear
simultaneously.

reply to post by turbofan


Hi Turbo

Your question has been answered already back on page 1. That smoke is from the burning debris falling down. I honestly dont know why you are unable to see that, unless you have bad resolution on your screen, or the monitor is too dark or light, or whatever, but from my computer I can see clearly burning and falling debris with smoke trails, which also show up creating that line of smoke from your picture. However, Turbo, remember, that a picture only gives us one milisecond of an event, that does NOT give us the "whole picture" (pardon the pun). In this case the video itself shows us exactly what the cause of those smoke lines is........ falling burning debris.

Nothing more. I reccomend you go and watch this video on another screen, or adjust your monitor's settings, because it is a little difficult to see the debris as it falls past the camera, but its clear something is falling down and then right after that, we have another piece of smoking debris follow that "line" which is clearer than the "suspect" line of smoke.

As for the flashes, i see them happening also in the sky between the WTCs, so they are not demo charge flashes.
Edit to add: I wish the camera wasnt so shakey. Also try watching the video in its regular format, and not fullscreen. You can see the debris a little better as it creates that line of smoke, with another trail of smoke debris following it a second or two later. Also noticed better that the flashes are actually paper! Oh boy.



It looks much clearer this way than in your original video. I know I know, thinking that zoomed in may look better for "hidden objects" but resolution is apcray that way. watch it this way, its much better and most questions are answered without the use of "demo charges" as being the reason for the smoke line.

Also is there a soundtrack for this video? Because all I get is an annoying buzzing sound, so I was just wondering if anyone else has this problem with the video, or is the video already like that?

Not it has not been answered, or at least not the puffs of smoke I'm referring to.

Here is a slow motion video of the smoke and some still frame shots:

www.youtube.com...

You will notice the smoke appears from the side of the building and jets out laterally.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6aaee771dfb2.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/770437ecab70.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8becf878159e.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0e29219f6768.jpg[/atsimg]

As you can see from the video and still shots, nothing is falling. The smoke puffs are
getting larger and moving laterally.

reply to post by turbofan


That slow mo video doesnt do anything as it cuts out and blurs the whole thing.

I'm watching the original video in regular size, and I take it its the part that comes between 0:51 and 0:53 correct, in my video?

I see it travels from top to bottom, which indicates its most probably a piece of smoking debris zipping by down.

I also see how it is closer to the camera and it even has a few spirals in it, and it goes from more smoke at the top to less at the bottom of the fall. And it looks like its fluttering down with a smoke trail.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Oh they're flashes alright. Right there for everyone to see, apart from the ones that choose not to, apparently.
There's several different videos from several different cameras showing the same thing. In this video, whoever's filming even hurriedly pans down to where the flashes are beginning to go off. Must have been something either loud, or quite bright to grab his/her attention. The claim that the flashes are pieces of debris glinting in the Sun is quite frankly the daftest thing I've ever heard. But hey, it is what it is. Believe what you want. I don't need to convince anyone, I know what happened that day. Enjoy.

reply to post by turbofan


Come on you can do better than that, why don't you show some videos of the buildings exploding, and THOSE lateral ejections, not just at the primary level of destruction, by far below that, which shoot out, and are loaded with building material and cannot therefore be "smoke" or anything other than demolition squibs.

That would be a very effective disinfo effort however, to look at other things much less obvious.

reply to post by Project-Sign


Flashes eh? Lets take a closer look:



Pay close attention to the first few seconds, that little white thing floating around. I havent seen bombs do that before!

Also why do flashes appear in midair too?

reply to post by GenRadek


I fail to see what your point is. There's a lens flare or something similar at the start of your video, and it looks Completely different to the flashes seen at the end of that video and in all the other videos showing the flashes. Can't be lens flare on every camera, every video. Oh and even in your video that puff of smoke comes from the centre of the building at exactly the same time as the flashes go off. This is fairly obvious stuff.

reply to post by Project-Sign


no I was referring to the white paper floating up and down in the very beginning towards the right side of the video, not the lens flash.

reply to post by GenRadek


And? Paper is paper. Flashes are flashes. I hope you're not implying they look the same.

I presume your argument is that under certain conditions, paper and debris can glint in the sun and look like flashes going off. But paper and debris were falling out of and blowing around both WTC buildings all morning, and yet these flashes are isolated incidents, happening only for a few seconds at a time.

Flashes + Smoke eminating from the same area at the same time = some kind of explosion.


Besides, wasn't the argument earlier that the flashes were camera artifacts? Despite them appearing on multiple cameras and videos. And now the argument is that they're paper/debris. Which is it?

reply to post by Project-Sign


Really? Ok then why is that when I see flashes, I see them move around and away from the building and into the space between the WTCs?

even in the OPs first video I see the "flashes" move around in front of the WTC and then even flutter stationary for a second.



look closely at the video from 0:57-0:59 and then again from 1:00-1:04 in between the Towers. I see one set of "flashes" coming down and then ziggin to the left and then zagging right, and then off the tower completely, then I see another set of flashes in mid air at 1:01-1:03 between the buildings just to the left of the building in the middle. Explain to me how can there be bombs going off in mid air like that? They flash just like the ones on the building. I also see flashes at the very bottom of the video which go off the tower.

So flashes can be artifacts, some are the papers, i dont know which are which. Plus for many of the flashes, I dont see any smoke, so no, these flashes are not "explosions" because if they were, we should be seeing the building collapsing already, not having the explosions go off now, then wait around for 10-15-30 minutes and then it collapses, thats not how it works.

Originally posted by Project-Sign
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Oh they're flashes alright. Right there for everyone to see, apart from the ones that choose not to, apparently.
There's several different videos from several different cameras showing the same thing. In this video, whoever's filming even hurriedly pans down to where the flashes are beginning to go off. Must have been something either loud, or quite bright to grab his/her attention. The claim that the flashes are pieces of debris glinting in the Sun is quite frankly the daftest thing I've ever heard. But hey, it is what it is. Believe what you want. I don't need to convince anyone, I know what happened that day. Enjoy.

edit on 30-10-2010 by Project-Sign because: (no reason given)

Well have a look at the video again the top part of the video has a shadow across the tower it's in a diagonal, these objects look like they flash because they fall into the sunlit area thats all and from the other angle you can see the smoke coming from them but why accept what you can actually see when the story is not as good!!! THATS YOUR PROBLEM!!!!

reply to post by GenRadek


I see one 'arifact' in the sky, it's more of a line than a flash.I think it's to do with the lines and artifacts normal to camera video, you can see them for the entire video. This is not the same as the flashes on the building, which there are far, far more of. You're saying one camera artifact in the sky translates to hundreds on the building? And if that's the case, why aren't there any on the South tower? I can't find any flashes showing there. And again, for the 4th time.. These flashes are present in many, many videos, from different cameras, from different angles etc. There's no way you'd get the same artifacts showing as flashes in them all. That argument alone should be enough to prove this. Combine this with the small puffs of smoke coming from the building exactly where the flashes are going off (not the large puff of smoke the OP was talking about, much smaller, look closely), and it's clear this is something that's happening in and on the building, not 'in camera'.

Anyway, I've said my bit for this thread, I have a feeling no one will convince anyone else that their viewpoint is correct, so I'll leave it at that. Pleasure debating with you