What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by waypastvne

 

But the whole nose of the plane was in tact when it popped out of the other side...... so the oxygen tank wasnt damaged.

NO you think it was because of some poor quality video!

Originally posted by ReptileRipper

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Nah nah ...... answer the question O.Ser

2nd

I did G.P.er its over in the proper thread. This is the nose flash thread.

Why exactly do you think the flash cannot possibly be the o2 tank Truther ?

Because .... OSer .... what ever it was , it helped a 747 pass through steel and concrete without any resistance ................... what do ya know , it collapsed like there was no resistance too. Am i missing something here ?

I can get you some video of water cutting steel and concrete that shouldn't be possible according to you!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by waypastvne

 

But the whole nose of the plane was in tact when it popped out of the other side...... so the oxygen tank wasnt damaged.

NO you think it was because of some poor quality video!

poor quality ? its clearer than most videos of 911 , and you can clearly see the nose of the plane ... intact.... when you deny it it doesnt make it go away you know ........ seriously, step back and look at the whole situation..... forget what NIST and FEMA have filled your empty little noggin with .... and explain to me , like a rational person ....... What happened from point A (entry point) to point B ( exit ).

And that wasnt the question i was talking about

It's very obvious that the flash happens while the nose is already quite deep in the building - or does the maker of the video/thread need to have his eyes checked, or why does he write "before the plane hits the building"?

The oxygen tank explanation sounds valid to me - even assuming if were no oxygen tank..if a plane hit's a building....are you saying it would be "not normal" that stuff is exploding? HECK a fricking plane just crashed..so of course all kinds of "stuff" might be exploding.

And explanations like "its pre-planted charges" to make it easier for the plane to penetrate etc...are just absurd...let alone the problems with timing issues and having a plane hit exactly where such a charge is located....etc...absurd again as many of the so called "truth" 911 theories .

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Interesting...

Question, how would a controlled site treat the truth if it was stumbled upon?

Originally posted by NotPsyOpsed
reply to post by ReptileRipper

 

In all respect for the dead.

And no respect for Mossad and CIA and... the list is long.

You have been sleeping in you class mister.
The nukes was 50m below the towers, (50+27m , ground floor of buldings)
Several firefighters,and people working in the rubble of the buldings, have ben sick of radiation-releted sickness,(fumes from the heat underground) and
before you go posting some more, dive in to these 2 sites and clear your mind of any prebiased vision of nukes over ground.
This has to do with physics under ground where the radiation is absorbed in the rock, and the rest of the force from the 150kt nukes is delivered in form of a crushing effect on the towers.
Nothing else is capable to do this on such steel constructions!!!

This have been done by the Russians and many other since the early 60`s.
The bomb creates a cavity of 100m, and the plasma of 10 000 degree celcius seals of the chamber with an inner glased layer on the walls.
This is used for storing of liquid gass, among others.

Here is the site witch explanes the radiation substances after 911: www.box.net...

And this goes for the nuke facts: www.911thology.com...


Regards from
Norway

The only thing Nuked on 9/11 was my cold coffee in my microwave oven... you know, IMO.

I mean I'm all for being open to look at all the various ideas but this one doesn't seem at all right to me. So if you got evidence of above ground (or below) above background radiation, of sick individuals, of below ground images of the detonation space, please produce it.

The question I pose and ask is if the footage is just what it was or was it altered? Are the flashes there or were they added? Why add something that only adds suspicion? Why leave them in if you could remove them?

The thing about the "nose out" to me is not the nose out in the traditional sense of the nose of the plane coming out the other side, which to me is ridiculous. And yet I fully acknowledge that the shape of what comes out the other side bears an uncanny one to one resemblance to the look of the nose of the plane first going in on the other side. No doubt. But now, is this just physics and/or mere coincidence? i.e. The force of the 'cylinder object' creates a cylinder nose out puff? (I say that because there's a shot of the damaged exit wall and there is no physical hole there.)

I'm going to take a chance and say that the video of the second strike from the various angles, coinciding with each other are not Faked or manipulated in any way. I'm claiming No Video Fakery on the second hit. I'm claiming it looked just the way it looked if you yourself were standing there looking or if I was there looking and filming with my own personal video camera.

What troubles me about the second hit, the flashes and the "nose out" though is something more akin to Video Monitoring than Video Fakery. What do I mean by that? Well after the "nose out" you'll all recall and notice that there's a very quick decisive cut or Fade to Black. Now why? Why? It's like someone has their finger on the trigger, on the situation, waiting - MONITORING - monitoring the video of the hit, and they pull the Fade to Black trigger. Now why? Why?

I mean what's the big deal?

Why was it necessary to cut the feed on the "nose out"? The whole impact sequence was going smoothly up till that? Why not let the impact fall where it may? Why cut it short? It's just the back end of a plane hitting a building and the resulting explosion all around etc. Why not let it play out?

What was so important about that very quick Fade to Black on the "nose out"?

What were the perps so worried about, worried enough to cut the feed?


Cheers

Interesting. I have seen far greater threads closed for what is going on here.

There are multiple new users that are contributing now, some that have never posted before. The opposition to the truth in this case is being represented by people who know quite well how to inflame a conversation.

Classic disinformation tactics.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

www.whale.to...

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.


Read the last couple of posts and try to identify some of these traits. Research this page 25 Rule of disinformation

I believe that this is on topic and should be mentioned before good users get banned for replying to these people.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

TV FAKERY JUNK WILL NOT BE PERMITTED HERE.

... and here you are injecting the most vile conspiracies. Tv fakery? really?

Have I produced any fake video upto this point?

Does the video in the opening post contain any TV Fakery?

I am simply saying that we can't really be sure what video footage has been altered and what hasn't.

Now is the flash real or has it been added to the original video clip at a later date?

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by InformationAccount


It is possible that the orginal evidence was doctored or is in fact the real evidence.

heh...well said.

If it was doctored, how could we find out? Who would stand to benefit from doctoring the evidence? Who had the means to doctor and distribute such a huge lie? Who had the opportunity?

Maybe the proper question should be.

Who has/had something to gain by manipulating footage of the event?

Originally posted by InformationAccount
Maybe the proper question should be.

Who has/had something to gain by manipulating footage of the event?

No, maybe the question should be, who has/had something to gain by bringing up these nonsensical theories in the name of 911 truth?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Interesting. I have seen far greater threads closed for what is going on here.

We're just trying to have a simple conversation as far as I can tell.

There are multiple new users that are contributing now, some that have never posted before. The opposition to the truth in this case is being represented by people who know quite well how to inflame a conversation.

Rather than let your paranoia run rampant, I am here because I'm interested in this topic. For all you know it is this very subject that is prompting the new users to join.

Classic disinformation tactics.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

www.whale.to...

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

You just described your own posts!

Read the last couple of posts and try to identify some of these traits. Research this page 25 Rule of disinformation

I believe that this is on topic and should be mentioned before good users get banned for replying to these people.

edit on 23-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

Somehow you don't strike me as being all that concerned for the welfare of the "good users" (as opposed to what, we "bad users"?), as you are in controlling the discussion...pretty creepy man..,

Here's my own thread on the matter.

The Media are the Military

Here's an excerpt from the Army's PSYOPS field manual:
Source

Name Calling or Substitutions of Names or Moral Labels. This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable.

Types of name calling:

Direct name calling is used when the audience is sympathetic or neutral. It is a simple, straightforward attack on an opponent or opposing idea.
Indirect name calling is used when direct name calling would antagonize the audience. It is a label for the degree of attack between direct name calling and insinuation. Sarcasm and ridicule are employed with this technique.
Cartoons, illustrations, and photographs are used in name calling, often with deadly effect.

Dangers inherent in name calling: In its extreme form, name calling may indicate that the propagandist has lost his sense of proportion or is unable to conduct a positive campaign. Before using this technique, the propagandist must weigh the benefits against the possible harmful results. lt is best to avoid use of this device.The obstacles are formidable, based primarily on the human tendency to close ranks against a stranger. For example, a group may despise, dislike, or even hate one of its leaders, even openly criticize him, but may (and probably will) resent any nongroup member who criticizes and makes disparaging remarks against that leader.

Pinpointing the Enemy: This is a form of simplification in which a complex situation is reduced to the point where the "enemy" is unequivocally identified. For example, the president of country X is forced to declare a state of emergency in order to protect the peaceful people of his country from the brutal, unprovoked aggression by the leaders of country Y.

So, are you trying to herd the sheep from the shadows? Why are you so annoyed with what I think caused the flash? What do you think caused it?

reply to post by InformationAccount


Are we free to discuss the implications? I don't know about you, but this creepy thought police stuff is unnerving. It's exactly what I'd expect to encounter if I was on the right track.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by InformationAccount
Maybe the proper question should be.

Who has/had something to gain by manipulating footage of the event?

No, maybe the question should be, who has/had something to gain by bringing up these nonsensical theories in the name of 911 truth?

OK who has/had something to gain by questioning the Governments story about the events on 9/11.

Also ask, who has/had something to gain by supporting the Governments explaination about the events of that day.

reply to post by NWOwned


The video that day only shows a gray shadowed plane melting inside a steel boxed bulding, on a cleay sunny day, with the the sunny side lighting up the plane ?

What a joke, flashes or no flashes, the 5 media sources has the same wiewpoint of the towers that day, put up in minutes(?) after the first north tower incident.(read explosion)

They had better pictures in the 60`s, not like this, with different colouration, various backgrounds, from the same wiewpoint.

The professional cameras used, provides much better pictures on a clear day, this is only to mask the badly faked video insert of a grayish plane.

There is not one single picture taken of the south tower, showing any plane near the bulding.
How many people ready to "shoot", in the minutes between the first and second hit ?

Get passed this point, and the rest of the story opens up, terrorists," huh ", your government ?
Triggerhappy people going to war, slaughtering other nations on false premisses.

www.septemberclues.info...

reply to post by NotPsyOpsed


Have you considered the differences caused by the mediums being mostly digital? Digital film is considerably different than the older forms, with smaller, more "economic" (lower quality) cameras being released so that the average person can just pick up and film. Plus, the uploading to youtube often degrades the quality, decreasing pixel limits and blending colors.

It's not that it's all fake. It's that you're disregarding how it is being recorded and spread.

reply to post by NotPsyOpsed


Evidently we're not allowed to discuss the truth on this website, so mind your manners and get back to talking about Arab terrorists.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by NotPsyOpsed

 

Have you considered the differences caused by the mediums being mostly digital? Digital film is considerably different than the older forms, with smaller, more "economic" (lower quality) cameras being released so that the average person can just pick up and film. Plus, the uploading to youtube often degrades the quality, decreasing pixel limits and blending colors.

It's not that it's all fake. It's that you're disregarding how it is being recorded and spread.

I`m talking about the proffessional cameras used by the media, as in $10 000,- cameras.
Not the one used by mr. familyman.

The media will not put out "original" video, because then you se no plane on it.
This is the way they control our world.

1. No plane crashing in Shanksville
2. No plane crashing in The Pentagon

It takes no brains to admit this, as there is no plane-parts on the scene. (not taking in to cons. a few alu pieces and a small turbine engine)

3. Same in NY, no "blackbox", only minor parts from a plane,( NO sign of 4 7t engines made of high grade steel and
titanium), and not to forget:
a passport from an "hijacker" , whose name is not listed in the official list of passengers.

Why can`t someone display a picture taken with an SLR camera of the plane ?
Simply, there was no plane hittting the buldings that day.....

As we all know, there is a reward put out, of such a picture...

Originally posted by NotPsyOpsed

Why can`t someone display a picture taken with an SLR camera of the plane ?
Simply, there was no plane hittting the buldings that day.....

As we all know, there is a reward put out, of such a picture...

Isn't Simon Shack from Norway too ? Must be something in the water.

Originally posted by NotPsyOpsed
reply to post by NWOwned

 

The video that day only shows a gray shadowed plane melting inside a steel boxed bulding, on a cleay sunny day, with the the sunny side lighting up the plane ?

What a joke, flashes or no flashes, the 5 media sources has the same wiewpoint of the towers that day, put up in minutes(?) after the first north tower incident.(read explosion)

They had better pictures in the 60`s, not like this, with different colouration, various backgrounds, from the same wiewpoint.

The professional cameras used, provides much better pictures on a clear day, this is only to mask the badly faked video insert of a grayish plane.

There is not one single picture taken of the south tower, showing any plane near the bulding.
How many people ready to "shoot", in the minutes between the first and second hit ?

Get passed this point, and the rest of the story opens up, terrorists," huh ", your government ?
Triggerhappy people going to war, slaughtering other nations on false premisses.

www.septemberclues.info...

It might be good for you to check out my long post over on the PentaCON thread where I talk about staging at the Pentagon and how in 1963 there were more cameras with "multiple shooters" apparent in the footage than in 2001. (The Titanic part describes this too and would be as equally ridiculous as 9/11.)

I think September Clues is right in its questioning but wrong in its conclusion. (i.e. SC thinks the "nose out" is a mere video overlay extended out too far - I think that's basically wrong. And I think the abrupt Fade to Black aspect is far far more significant.)

As well, I agree that pro quality cameras should not film grey and gold hazed buildings on a clear September morning but SC thinks that's to aid in or is itself evidence of video fakery... which IMO, is also wrong. (I mean, it's a good guess and partly correct, but ultimately it's wrong.)

So it's possible see, that any proposed solution may be wrong simply because it misses some things, or that it doesn't explain everything that needs explaining, or that committing to *something* and explaining it that way blinds you to an alternate interpretation of the very same thing, one that encompasses even more of the observed evidence and witness accounts.

Take the "nuked" issue, we do have to account for a lot of missing building, missing people, missing contents, weird shaped clouds, extreme heat etc. etc. so we have to have more than just a suggestion of it and a link to some info. We need a more robust accounting/description that will fit most if not all of what was claimed, observed, reported, found and witnessed on 9/11.

Now, were the "flashes" really there or inserted? We have to start somewhere. We have to account for people "seeing planes" and hardly anyone "seeing plane wreckage" for starters. Check shots of the North Tower plane shaped hole, there are as many 757 parts there as at the Pentagon wall, or even in Shanksville.

My reasoning goes like this: Why not put 757 plane parts at the Pentagon wall if you're going to say one hit it and you're trying to sell that story? Yet the pictures, from far away, don't show any... so I think the pictures are accurate. That creates a kind of precedent that not all 'recordings' (pics, video) are Faked. When it comes to witnesses I think economy. You can't have 300 people be lying so therefore, witness accounts of "seeing planes" is to be respected. (I'm a Sherlock Holmes fan, see below lol, with a 20 year photography/film background.)

It's possible that the multiple coordinated video angles on the second hit just recorded what happened and not that the fact it's from multiple angles all matching seamlessly means all of it is doctored. You follow? Just all recorded what actually was even merely visible as if you yourself were there watching it.

For the second hit this is my contention - no video fakery.

That means (for now) I think the flashes are natural, THERE, and not inserted.


Cheers