What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

Originally posted by NWOwned

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

What is it that makes you doubt that it's the oxygen tank ? This is the evidence I presented what part do you think is untrue ?

The first 2 drawings come from the Boeing web site and can be found in the
AIRPLANE RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING INFORMATION
767 SERIES FLAMMABLE MATERIAL LOCATIONS

Link:

www.boeing.com...


This drawing gives the general location of the "CREW OXYGEN BOTTLE IN RIGHT SIDE, E & E COMPARTMENT"
E & E stands for electrical and equipment




The second drawing shows an X-ray view of the E&E compartment. Although it does not show the O2 tank,
it does give us a better idea of the size and location of the compartment in relation to the rest of the plane.
Note that the aft bulkhead of the nose wheel bay is also the fwd wall of the E&E compartment.




This is a photo of the E & E compartment. The O2 tank would be under the floor on the left hand side of the picture.
You can also see the external access door used to service the tank and battery.




An emergency O2 tank like the one on UA 175. It is pressurised to 1,800 psi with pure oxygen, not compressed air like scuba tanks.




The nose wheel undercarriage was located directly in front of of the E&E room and would have been the first major part of the plane to impact. When GPers say hollow aluminum can, they are neglecting things like this. On impact this undercarriage would decelerate wile the rest of the plane continued forward. So the under carriage smashed through the E&E room as well as knocking a large hole in the building. This is why the flash happens outside of the wall and gives the illusion of happening before impact.





A photo of N612 UA in its original colors. The O2 tank would be within the red circle.




An O2 tank explosion on a Qantas Boeing 747.




This composite photo was made by Achimspok it's a boeing 767 photo resized and over laid on a frame from the Spiegel TV video to give a clear view of the location of the flash.




This is the highest quality, best view video. The flash happens after the nose impacts the building.



Is oxygen flammable?



The oxygen tank is the most likely explanation for the flash.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

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.

Is there a record of the process that "proved" this to be a HOAX? What proofs were supplied? Do you have the URLs of the conversations that resulted in that conclusion?

reply to post by InformationAccount


I think I know what that flash is...it's the tail end of the missile as it entered the building. The composite of the plane was superimposed over a missile or missiles, and the exhaust of one of them is visible just before the missile with the jet overlay disappears into the building.

reply to post by septic


I started to write...


If it was the tail end of the missile, wouldn't the missile have already impacted the exterior of the building, causing massive damage? Even assuming that it hadn't exploded already.

Wouldn't it be easier just to put explosives on airplanes and crash them... ...or shoot missiles into the buildings and say that terrorists did it?


... but then I decided not to waste my time on no- planer theories.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by septic

 

I started to write...


If it was the tail end of the missile, wouldn't the missile have already impacted the exterior of the building, causing massive damage? Even assuming that it hadn't exploded already.

Wouldn't it be easier just to put explosives on airplanes and crash them... ...or shoot missiles into the buildings and say that terrorists did it?


... but then I decided not to waste my time on no- planer theories.

edit on 10/26/2011 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)

First General:
The patsies need to be Arab terrorists led from a cave in Afghanistan. What would be easier to convince the public was true...that they hijacked some jets or some cruise missiles?

Second General:
Planes would be believable, cruise missiles would be too hard to explain...let's use planes.

Third General:
How can we use planes? They'll just bounce off or get shredded by the steel towers.

Director of the United States Information Agency (USIA)
If you can make a jet-shaped hole in the towers, I can make people believe Jets did it.

First General:
The only thing we have that can cut hardened targets like that with precision are cruise missiles, but even then it would take several missiles to accomplish. Do we have any missiles that look like planes?

Second General:
JASSMs

Director of USIA
Just find a way to cut a plane-sized hole and I'll do the rest.

Director of the CIA:
We're agreed then.

reply to post by septic


Rubbish.

"no-plane" believers are ridiculous in their delusions, and willfully ignore actual evidence and facts in favor of their silly notions. Going so far as to fantasize about imaginary "Generals".

Hilarious.....but, truly a disservice to the ones who are serious (if misguided) about a "9/11 conspiracy" involving any faction of the U.S. Government. There are a few of them who cannot yet wrap their heads around the physics of a building collapse, from damage inflicted and subsequent uncontrolled fires and uneven extreme heating effects.


Keep working on the manuscripts for your *spy* novels, or movie screenplays....good luck, because while many examples of those forms of entertainment have made it into print and film theaters, they still also fail the standards of common sense, and require the audience to willingly go along with the fantasy, for the sake of the show....this nonsense, however, is so stupid, a ten-year-old child can see why immediately.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by septic

 

Rubbish.

"no-plane" believers are ridiculous in their delusions, and willfully ignore actual evidence and facts in favor of their silly notions. Going so far as to fantasize about imaginary "Generals".

Hilarious.....but, truly a disservice to the ones who are serious (if misguided) about a "9/11 conspiracy" involving any faction of the U.S. Government. There are a few of them who cannot yet wrap their heads around the physics of a building collapse, from damage inflicted and subsequent uncontrolled fires and uneven extreme heating effects.


Keep working on the manuscripts for your *spy* novels, or movie screenplays....good luck, because while many examples of those forms of entertainment have made it into print and film theaters, they still also fail the standards of common sense, and require the audience to willingly go along with the fantasy, for the sake of the show....this nonsense, however, is so stupid, a ten-year-old child can see why immediately.

Plane-huggers just gotta hate.

No planes is the only answer and the topic needs to be allowed on the regular forum.

Originally posted by septic

No planes is the only answer

Only if the question is:

What is the craziest , most nonsensical statement that I can come up with in an effort to discredit truthers....

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by septic

No planes is the only answer

Only if the question is:

What is the craziest , most nonsensical statement that I can come up with in an effort to discredit truthers....

It is not crazy in the least. It is the best explanation, and the reason it is so widely suppressed is because it implicates the media we have been trained to trust.

Originally posted by Dystopiaphiliac
With that out of the way, let me say that the structure of an airplane is much weaker than the structure of say a 120mm projectile (common tank round). A 120mm projectile is a dense chunk of metal which IF fired from a moving plane would be traveling well over 600 feet per second, MUCH faster than the plane would be traveling.
A projectile from even a .50 cal rifle can rip your body apart just from passing next to you, with out a direct hit. A 120mm projectile is just under ten times larger than a .50 cal bullet. The amount of force would absolutely destroy a large section of wall around the impact zone. This is all hypothetical still and did not happen.

Even though it is all hypothetical, you should get a few things straight. A .50 cal miss is a miss. The shockwave won't rip you apart if the projectile doesn't hit you. You will hear its sonic crack as it goes by but will remain unripped and grateful it missed.
The overpressure from the M256 120mm tank cannon can kill a person within a 90° arc extending from the muzzle of the gun tube out to 200 meters and would certainly have shattered many windows had one been fired. www.inetres.com... The velocity of the slower HE round is 3750 feet per second and it weighs about 500 times what a .50 cal bullet weighs, not 10 times. The 757-200 weighs 5,000 times what the cannon shell weighs.

reply to post by septic


JASSM's can't do it.

No plane theories will be relegated to the ATS hoax bin, as they should be. Consider posting on a 'no-plane' site. There will be no one but true believers there but it won't be crowded.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

JASSM's can't do it.

No plane theories will be relegated to the ATS hoax bin, as they should be. Consider posting on a 'no-plane' site. There will be no one but true believers there but it won't be crowded.

Planes can't do it, JASSMs. can.

Preaching to the choir may be your thing, but it isn't mine.

reply to post by septic


One step at a time.

What is your theory on how thousands of gallons of hydrocarbon were delivered by JAASSM?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

One step at a time.

What is your theory on how thousands of gallons of hydrocarbon were delivered by JAASSM?

I am noting only that a jet can certainly not cut hardened targets like missiles can, else there would be no need for missiles.

Originally posted by NWOwned
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?

Yes. 100%.

Originally posted by NWOwned
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.

Not only that, there's no exit hole for a real nose to have exited:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fb3953e10f0c.jpg[/atsimg]



And the pixels don't come close to lining up for a "CGI" plane that was "accidentally moved past the tower" according to the disinfo hoax series called "September Clues":

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a1c87a82e29.jpg[/atsimg]


Therefore, the "nose out" is only smoke/dust/debris in the shape of the fuselage.

Originally posted by septic
Is there a record of the process that "proved" this to be a HOAX? What proofs were supplied? Do you have the URLs of the conversations that resulted in that conclusion?

We don't need a URL. I'll do it right here:

Fade to black:
In reality, it was a camera shot change. Once presented with the evidence, Simon Shack still won't take it out of his video series. That means deliberate deception and hoaxing on Shack's part.

Nose-out:
Simon Shack faded out the "nose in" and faded in the "nose out" and called it a "micro-precision match". Take a look:

The above is creating deliberate deception and hoaxes.


Now, when Shack didn't like that his "micro-precision match" got busted, he manipulated the "nose in/nose out" to make them look more similar in appearance.

Original "nose in/nose out:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6a1c87a82e29.jpg[/atsimg]


And the manipulated "nose in/nose out":

Manipulating images until they are similar in appearance is knowingly and deliberately creating disinformation and hoaxes.

There's no way around this. The "September Clues" series is a deliberately made-up HOAX, created to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.



And with that, this ends the discussion of a topic that is a known hoax, and has already been banished to the HOAX bin.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


What are you debunking? You don't even know my argument yet.

Originally posted by septic
I am noting only that a jet can certainly not cut hardened targets like missiles can, else there would be no need for missiles.

You must've missed (or ignored) the first paragraph in THIS POST. Go back and read it (again).

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by septic
I am noting only that a jet can certainly not cut hardened targets like missiles can, else there would be no need for missiles.

You must've missed (or ignored) the first paragraph in THIS POST. Go back and read it (again).

edit on 26-10-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

I didn't miss it, I ignored it. As we're due to debate, I don't want to show my hand, right? I'm sure you haven't shown yours with your little show about why media complicity is a forbidden topic, or at least I hope you have better reasons for it.

reply to post by septic

I am noting only that a jet can certainly not cut hardened targets like missiles can, else there would be no need for missiles.

Who said it was a hardened target? Only conspiracy loons beive so,,,,

The exterior wall os composed of lattice of columns. The columns are held together by welded spandrel plates
in groups of 3. Each column group was then bolted to the the others

The structural steel used in the exterior 14-inch by 14-inch columns that were spaced at 3 feet 4 inches on center around the entire periphery of each of the WTC towers was fabricated from various grades of high-strength steel with minimum specified yield stress between 36 kips per square inch (ksi) and 100 ksi (PATH-NYNJ 1976). Column plate thickness varied from 1/4 inch to 5/8 inch in the impact zone of WTC 1 for floors 89-101, and from 1/4 inch to 13/16 inch in the impact zone of WTC 2 for floors 77-87. Spandrel beams at each floor level were fabricated of matching steel and integrated into the columns as the columns and spandrel sections were prefabricated into trees. These trees were three columns wide and one to three stories high. The cross-sectional shape of the columns can be seen in Figure B-1. These varied in length from 12 feet 6 inches to 38 feet, depending on the plate thickness and location.

Here is video showing section of exterior being raised into place

www.veoh.com...

When aircraft hit the wall it did not penetrate, but snapped or sheared the welds and bolts holding columns
together,

The broken section were pushed out the way....