What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

reply to post by pshea38


has anyone ever heard of or been on the website - "arrabita.ma" ?

i can't quite figure it out.

any opinions would be greatly appreciated.

reply to post by NWOwned


I wonder if you'd give me your opinion of this video (which I repeatedly have enormous difficulty finding in the first place. The other video which contains a similar anomaly has been removed from the internet entirely.)



Watch from 2:22 to 2:28. The North Tower starts to collapse and the person zooms their camera out to a point that allows them to see the entire tower (base and all!). Then, it just skips a couple seconds to where it is already zoomed out and the tower is half-way collapsed. The same anomaly occurred in the South Tower collapse at the beginning, though it could be attributed to putting down the camera and then picking it up to capture the collapse. This has been bugging me for a while, and I can't seem to even get acknowledgement from the Truthers here.

The video I referenced above was taken from off-shore on some kind of solid-state camera which captured the entire length of the tower. For some reason, it was missing the first couple seconds of collapse initiation, just like the video I posted here. If I could find it, I would post it, but I think it was removed from youtube. It would have been the more convincing one, because it was not controlled by a person zooming in and out. It kind of stinks that no video in the entire repertoire of 9/11 includes the base of the tower at collapse initiation.

Still, no one here acknowledges it, and I'm starting to think perhaps people here really are disinfo agents lol.

reply to post by Varemia


What is this a trap?! lol Just exactly what are you trying to learn by asking my opinion of this video?

Ok, I'll play along and see what develops.

I looked at it once, it's choppy, anonymous and without audio, the guy who posted it claims to be a Truther, says "Investigate 9/11" and has links to 911blogger...

I agree with your assessment as far as it goes, there seems to be a chunk missing that is visually jarring to you (and disappointing too) as you watch it, continuity flow is broken etc., I agree.

What I don't understand is why you say truthers don't acknowledge the 2 second glitch or that there's something suspicious with it? Which truthers? How many have you shown it to? Did I pass the test?! lol

I haven't even concentrated on the 'collapses' (lol) yet, as you know I started as a Pentagon staging area guy.

Also, as I explained in my PentaCON post, I really think the photographers and video people really dropped the ball on 9/11. All day WTC7 was on fire and we hardly got any footage (man those fires must've been way too super hot!) either that or that the buildings would eventually collapse was planned but when was a shot in the dark and nobody wanted to just be standing near with their camera when it might happen!

Hey I'm so glad you solved the Pentagon Video thing, guess I'll have to solve the whole of 9/11 thing now to top that.


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned


Well, thanks for looking I guess. No, not some trap. It's legitimately my one main concern when it comes to 9/11. Like I said, the removal of the videos is concerning for me. I originally saw the video I showed when it was on youtube will full sound and was around 30 minutes long or so. It is an anomaly, and I don't like anomalies.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I'm trying to figure out this debate deal, and I get the feeling like it's kind of rigged...why are you keen to debate there, and reluctant to discuss it here?

What "rules" will be imposed, or are we able to create our own guidelines?

I see "anonymous" judges are mentioned...that sounds ominous...what if I prefer to know who's judging me? Are they judging based on my ability to debate or the content of the topic? If the site gets to pick the judges, I already know how impartial this site is regarding this subject.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by septic

 

Then let's do a debate in the debate forum where videos and images are allowed. You can't do videos and images on a radio show.

I am not allowed to post on the debate forum...more rules at play. If you want to debate me, perhaps you can initiate it, but why don't we just open a new thread and have at it? I'm ready when you are.

reply to post by septic


yeah ... preferably somewhere else ... you know ... so the ATS mods cant back up these crazies who believe the OS

I`ll join , i want to debate , but when theyre all waxing eachothers shafts i suppose theres nothing we can do ... atleast thats (obviously) their plan.

Originally posted by EleninPfft
reply to post by septic

 

yeah ... preferably somewhere else ... you know ... so the ATS mods cant back up these crazies who believe the OS

I`ll join , i want to debate , but when theyre all waxing eachothers shafts i suppose theres nothing we can do ...

atleast thats (obviously) their plan.

I kind of thought that was the whole point of the forum, to exchange ideas and have open debates. It's strange to have limits on the acceptable topics, especially here.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by EleninPfft
reply to post by septic

 

yeah ... preferably somewhere else ... you know ... so the ATS mods cant back up these crazies who believe the OS

I`ll join , i want to debate , but when theyre all waxing eachothers shafts i suppose theres nothing we can do ...

atleast thats (obviously) their plan.

I kind of thought that was the whole point of the forum, to exchange ideas and have open debates. It's strange to have limits on the acceptable topics, especially here.

Tell me about it ... the more i think about it ... the more i realise that ATS is infact GOVERNMENT OWNED .... the things ive seen deleted over the years just proves how much they just love to wax the odd shaft

Originally posted by Varemia

Watch from 2:22 to 2:28. The North Tower starts to collapse and the person zooms their camera out to a point that allows them to see the entire tower (base and all!). Then, it just skips a couple seconds to where it is already zoomed out and the tower is half-way collapsed. The same anomaly occurred in the South Tower collapse at the beginning, though it could be attributed to putting down the camera and then picking it up to capture the collapse.

You pretty much answered your own question there.

This has been bugging me for a while.

Why?

You gave a logical explanation for it.

Digital cameras of that era didn't have as much memory as they do now. Hence, one would have turned it off at inconsequential points in order to save space.

TV station cameras used tapes, or large hard drives, or transmitted to home so there would be zero reason to shut off...

Originally posted by NWOwned
There's filming and what looks like a "nose out" and THEN - an abrupt Fade to Black.

There was no "nose out", real or otherwise. As far as the "fade to black", that was a simple camera shot change. That is very easily and clearly pointed out in "September Clues: Busted!":

Google Video Link

Now, you can change your whole world view about the "fade to black". That's what happens when people blindly accept what disinformation artists like Simon Shack, Killtown, James Fetzer, etc., peddle without doing any research are examination of their claims.

Originally posted by septic
I'm trying to figure out this debate deal, and I get the feeling like it's kind of rigged...why are you keen to debate there, and reluctant to discuss it here?

The debate forum is a moderated debate, just like any other debate, where only you and I can respond in the debate thread without the usual thread derailments and off-topic posts.

Originally posted by septic
I kind of thought that was the whole point of the forum, to exchange ideas and have open debates. It's strange to have limits on the acceptable topics, especially here.

The "no planes at the WTC"/CGI/tv fakery garbage is a proven hoax. It was proven years ago by the 9/11 Truth movement, and it was proven so here as well. When something is proven a HOAX, those topics get moved to the HOAX bin where all of the no-planer/tv fakery disinformation is.

It has nothing to do with what is acceptable or not. It has to do with something being proven a HOAX and moved to the HOAX bin accordingly.

There really is nothing to debate on that particular subject anyway because if there were, then it wouldn't be so easy to prove a HOAX.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


How does one start a debate, let's get busy.

Originally posted by Ivar_Karlsen

Originally posted by waypastvneIsn't Simon Shack from Norway too ? Must be something in the water.

edit on 24-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

The water in Norway is just fine, i guess it's all the junk food.

I've read a few posts on the cluesforum, and i'm afraid it's too "out there" even for this forum.

It`s the water, THEIR water,--Fluoride--, it makes an impact on the thyoride gland, makes the people more cooperative.

And not to forget the food. Here " Monsatan " plays a big part, with GMO altered crops, aspartame, MSG, roundup ready, for the coffin ?

Vaccines, 30 to 40 shots of mercury and other "goodies" before adults.

WTC buldings outer walls. 36 cm squered steel box, 1 m appart, center, with 56 cm glass in between.
total of 244, 61 each side.
5 inch thick at lower floors, decresing 1 inch upwards in 5 steps to the top (1 inch)
Then comes the outer facade, made from aluminium, same as the plane.
If the plane hangs still in midair, and a giant pic up the tower and hit the plane, same physics apply, as the plane is flying towards the tower......??? hmm... alu+steel---alu...hmmmm...

NO PLANES.

Regards from
Norway

reply to post by septic


I've contacted a debate moderator. They will contact us by private message if and when the debate is set up.

Originally posted by NotPsyOpsed



It`s the water, THEIR water,--Fluoride--, it makes an impact on the thyoride gland, makes the people more cooperative.


If the plane hangs still in midair, and a giant pic up the tower and hit the plane, same physics apply, as the plane is flying towards the tower......??? hmm... alu+steel---alu...hmmmm...

It's probably all the Dihydrogen Monoxide in the water. Dihydrogen Monoxide is the major chemical component of chemtrails.

Using the planet earth as a frame of reference no the 2 collisions would not be the same.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by NWOwned
There's filming and what looks like a "nose out" and THEN - an abrupt Fade to Black.

There was no "nose out", real or otherwise. As far as the "fade to black", that was a simple camera shot change. That is very easily and clearly pointed out in "September Clues: Busted!":

Google Video Link

Now, you can change your whole world view about the "fade to black". That's what happens when people blindly accept what disinformation artists like Simon Shack, Killtown, James Fetzer, etc., peddle without doing any research are examination of their claims.

The almighty bonez has spoken. All hail the almighty bonez!

Try taking a look at the stats on the above videos Youtube page.....

253 likes.......367 dislikes. Not good bonez. Not good at all!

It seems you are with the minority bonez, but I wouldn't dare call for your
views and opinions to be dumped, even though I distrust you very much.

Allow people to judge for themselves, AllKnowingOne!


Jim Fetzer is a much respected intellectual and if anyone has any doubts, please
listen to any of the shows from his podcasts. radiofetzer.blogspot.com...
(By the way bonez, Jim agrees with you on most aspects of the 9/11 deception.)

SimonShack and HoiPolloi will achieve their due recognition in time!
More and more are waking up to the reality of Media fakery and the extensive roll
it played in the 9/11 Hoax/Demolition Job.

reply to post by NWOwned

Also, as I explained in my PentaCON post, I really think the photographers and video people really dropped the ball on 9/11. All day WTC7 was on fire and we hardly got any footage (man those fires must've been way too super hot!) either that or that the buildings would eventually collapse was planned but when was a shot in the dark and nobody wanted to just be standing near with their camera when it might happen!

More likely because prior to 9/11 nobaody had ever heard of WTC 7 or cared about it .

Most of the attention was focused on the twin towers do to:

Their iconic status

The aircraft impacts against each building

Their epic collapses

More news organizations focused all their attention to showing the aircraft impacts and subsequent collapses

Few cared about the :collateral damage" to all the adjacent buildings

Note that nobody ever brings up Marriott Hotel aka WTC 3 where some 40 firemen were killed when first Tower 2
then Tower 1 flattened the building

Only person who paid attention to WTC 7 was fire photographer Steve Spak who took still and video footage of
WTC 7

Here is some clips from his video "DAY OF DISASTER"

www.911myths.com...

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Why?

You gave a logical explanation for it.

Digital cameras of that era didn't have as much memory as they do now. Hence, one would have turned it off at inconsequential points in order to save space.

TV station cameras used tapes, or large hard drives, or transmitted to home so there would be zero reason to shut off...

Yes, the logical explanation applied to the first scene. The second scene couldn't be applied as well. The camera showed that it was 10:28, exactly when the tower was collapsing. It starts to shoot upward and zoom out, and then loses a couple seconds to the point where it is fully zoomed out capturing the collapse.

It's strange, to me. Maybe I'm looking into it too much, but the same thing happened on this coastal video I saw. It was a fixed camera that was just recording continuously. The tower begins to collapse, and then the video skips a couple seconds into the collapse. It just doesn't make much sense, and the parallels in cuts are eery. It's as if something at the base of the towers is not meant to be captured, because I can't find a single video that shows the base of the towers at collapse initiation. Honestly, if you go look, not one video will show it, and I'll thank you up and down for a while if you can find one.

Edit: Here's another one:

www.youtube.com...

What the hell? What's with the loss of seconds at initiation? (Ok, in hindsight I may be overreacting a bit too fast, but it is slightly irritating.)


Edit2: Ok, I suppose this video resolves it for me:

www.youtube.com...

The reporters are getting live feed from a guy on the street who tells them after they ask about demolitions, that there was no explosion or anything from the bottom. He clearly stated that the top was where absolutely everything happened. It's a very crazy video, because it shows just how unbelievable it was at first.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Ok, the "Fade to Black" (Bad use of description by me, tainted by SC debate, let me call it "Quick Cut") instance between the towers following the "Backside Ejection" (My term, instead of SC "nose out" etc.), you claim is a mere standard industry 'camera change'? Is that fair?

And not to get off thread do you think that the 'flash' is an exploding gas/oxygen cylinder of some sort in the lower nose of the plane going off at impact with the tower that has been proposed here? You ok with that?

Now about the "Backside Ejection", exactly what do you guys think that is? Can we get it down to something specific as well? I've heard a 'pressurized air' suggestion, anyone want to contest that? No? Ok.

So here we go:

1. Quick Cut is a camera change.
2. Flash is an exploding airplane canister.
3. Backside Ejection is pressurized cabin air.

Now that we have that list, anyone is free to contest it - including me.

I said this before but I think it bears repeating, I do not agree with the September Clues conclusions.

I find that they get the idea of video fakery early and easily and they run with it and it has blinded them to the real truth.

Take the "nose out" fiasco for instance, if you look at a high quality shot of the "Ejection" from the front it looks NOTHING like the nose of a plane. Though it doesn't even look like the opposite view of the "nose out" sequence from the front either and that may be another matter, but still, why choose the backside view over one from the front, just because the back one is more plane nose shaped? Confusion upon confusion.

I talked before about the theory that the hijackers were maybe hijacked and that the "video fakery" may have been Faked.

Like, here's my perspective: I know for certain that I had nothing to do with 9/11. That's the first thing. Second thing is I know based on my background and experience that there is obvious (to me) staging perpetrated at the Pentagon scene. Now the second thing makes me suspicious see, of everyone and everything else, but though in a regular sane healthy way. For I know I didn't do it and my experience says something is fishy and so I'm looking at it all. And I'm even looking ever keener since there is so much back and forth and seemingly easy answers and groups of people and individuals with their views and 'smoking gun' evidences.

I want to get to the REAL BOTTOM of it even more now than I ever did.

It was just suggested to me that the lack of WTC7 video and images was due to no one knowing much about WTC7, its importance, its tenants, its eventual fate etc. Though Rudy's newly updated command center was in there as well as various big government and business agencies, and that apart from the two big towers that had collapsed, it was the next highest building on the scene still standing, evacuated, and on fire (seemingly) from top to bottom as evidenced in smoke, but no matter. Maybe it was no more important than the Hotel etc.

On another thread it was suggested to me that the smoking generator at the Pentagon was just like some random car accident where stuff happens like shoes fly off willy-nilly when pedestrians cross roads in haste without looking. Perhaps.

Another time I pointed out that no Pentagon witnesses claimed to see a smoke trail under the plane over the grass prior to hitting the wall on that blurry little gate cam video. For that one I read through over 100 eyewitness accounts. While reading the closest I came to something was one guy mentioned "white smoke" but not in relation to any plane or under any plane. Yet to refute my assertion I was presented with this ONE white smoke witness account. Maybe it's my imagination.

The other day on CNN (of all places) I seen a computer game like representation, no kidding, of a Taliban fighter with a shoulder rocket launcher shoot down that Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan. Unreal. I mean sure we don't have video but now we're just told stuff and computer graphics fill in the blanks. It's just like the seal hit on OBL. Why do I bring this up? It's because we need to solve 9/11 for real before all we do is trade and swap animated tales of what "really happened". If I see another 9/11 animated video... I mean man, we're not even looking at actual video any more, faked or not, just "Here's a little animation of the OBL hit, of the building collapse, of the plane hitting the Pentagon..." OMG give me a break.

People "seen planes" on 9/11 but I defy anyone to point out to me a single piece of plane wreckage in the North Tower Hole or at the wall of the Pentagon. Sure sure, hit me with the simple reasons I'm overlooking why these things don't exist, it's what happens here it seems. Go for it.

I want to be told exactly what the flash is just so I know, so give me the most likely story. Thanks.


Cheers