What is the flash before the plane hits the building?

So a plane hits a concrete building at 400MPH and there is an explosion on impact. If the plane hit the building and came out the other side without an explosion, or any damage, that would be strange.

Originally posted by jondave
So a plane hits a concrete building at 400MPH and there is an explosion on impact. If the plane hit the building and came out the other side without an explosion, or any damage, that would be strange.

I agree ... it would be really strange especially when theyre made from fiberglass and aluminium , and are designed to be light so they can fly , they even float .....


www.google.co.uk... 00l1l1l0l0l0l0l64l64l1l1l0&q=hudson%20river%20emergency%20landing


sorry dont think links working ^^^ anyways it was pics of the hudson river emergency landing.

Watch this from 20 seconds ...
................ www.youtube.com... .................does that even look possible ? lol

I personally think it is just a brief flash of reflected sunlight, take a look at this slowed down 200FPS video and you will see what I mean, it is definitely on the plane whatever it is.



Here is the best screenshot I can get:

reply to post by ReptileRipper


So are the landing gear made from fiberglass? Or the jet engines? How about the wing spars and ribs?

The keel beam (strongest piece on an aircraft)?

Just what fantasy world do you inhabit....

reply to post by thedman


apparantly ... this one

you know thats not what i meant you just dont like the truth ... which is ... youve been lied to dude .. man up , i wasnt behind it , so a petty little post war with me will do no good ... you know for a fine fact that nose should have disintegrated on impact ... but it didnt , it carried on and exited the building before the plane exploded ...... meaning either there was no resistance at all .... steel ..... walls etc ..... or .... that wasnt what they want you to beleive it was.

Debunkers love threads like this. Anyone inject that the plane was a hologram yet? (debunkers salivating)

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
Yeah and dont you think its odd how FEMA just happened to be there the day before, and they had alot of manpower and trucks at the scene ?

They try to ignore what you just said.. because it real facts that lead to the perps. Call it odd, coincidence, or whatever. Fema was setting up on Pier 92 September 10th, on 11th was the long plkanned terrorist attack exercise. Lucky it went live.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

At 30 seconds you can see compressed air lighting up above the right wing near fuselage.

That is a wing cloud silly, Wing clouds do not emit light.

Would you like me to explain wing clouds to you ?

edit on 22-10-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Never said it was a light, I said it was lighting up as an expression. A per usual you have failed to comprehend what is being said. Read next time and put more thought into your posts.

So I was right then. Again.


I SAID IT WAS COMPRESSED AIR. You said no. Prove it not to be.

Remember I dont subscribe to holograms and ufos like you may do. I am not putting you down but I believe in science.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

I SAID IT WAS COMPRESSED AIR.

Actually its decompressed air in the low pressure above the wing . You described it as a flash. it doesn't look like a flash it looks like a wing cloud. If you meant Prandtl Glauert singularity why didn't you just say it ?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

I SAID IT WAS COMPRESSED AIR.

Actually its decompressed air in the low pressure above the wing . You described it as a flash. it doesn't look like a flash it looks like a wing cloud. If you meant Prandtl Glauert singularity why didn't you just say it ?

Probably because we dont have time to google whatever you just googled
how did the nose come out the other side ?

Originally posted by ReptileRipper

Probably because we dont have time to google whatever you just googled

how did the nose come out the other side ?

It was the 19500 cu ft of air traveling at 800 feet per second and a mass weight of 1500 pounds exiting the other side of the building, You're not smart enough to figure that out your self ? Why am I not surprised.

Originally posted by septic
The anomalies like flashes and "pods", or 'laser beacons" were deliberately added.

For the 911 to succeed, there needed to be an unprecedented propaganda barrage in place to apply blame and to deflect suspicion properly. Since the best way to control the opposition is to lead it, certain anomalies and suspicious facts were deliberately leaked to kick-start the controlled opposition, in this case the controlled truth movement would appear to be valid by pointing out incriminating evidence, but in reality are only complaining about red-herrings and false leads.

edit on 22-10-2011 by septic because: (no reason given)

Was thinking about this in relation to the Pentagon. As in, are the photos of no 757 wreckage at the Pentagon the truth or are they altered? I would think to make it sell more parts of a 757 should've been apparent.

Therefore, the early photos apart from staging of fire hose spray, smoking generator, fact shots are from far away etc., the photos depict the actuality.

So, is what we see in the second hit what was viewable and recordable as it was or was it altered?

If things were added couldn't things have been removed? I mean, some say there's an addition of a pod, well, couldn't the same people who added that remove the 'flash'? Clearly they could've if the videos were tampered with.

But look, why leave something in that no one can readily or easily explain that will have people scratching their heads and making threads about it ten years later if what you're trying to do is sell a certain story with no one asking any questions? It doesn't make much sense therefore, to leave the 'flash' in if people are only going to question it. (Or to add a pod to a plane only to have people say later: "What the heck is that pod thingy.")

I'll argue now for the same thing with the pod but in reverse.

If you're trying to sell something why add anomalies easy to see but hard to explain?

My thinking is therefore, like my view on the early Pentagon crash photos, and that is that that second hit video was what was and could be recorded only with no subtractions or additions or tampering of video or even of things added to the plane.

The 'pod' was seen on the plane, the 'flash' was seen on the plane, the shape of the nose of the plane going in mirrors the shape of whatever came out the other side etc.

Something in the same/similar shape as the first 25 feet of the plane came out the other side but I don't think it was a nose or any part of a plane.

There were not only vertical steel around the tower but horizontal floors as well, that ran the complete area of the towers - every floor. That means anything going in at an angle doesn't really GO IN as much as get destroyed in strips like one of those old red handle potato cutters that slice them into chips. The floors had substance and ran the whole width of the building. Anything going in at an angle would've been sliced just like a potato.

So I think the video and any "anomalies" are just what was recorded and that the "nose out" wasn't a nose out, obviously, (see above), but was just what was seen and recorded as what it was.

Now, what was it?


Cheers

I see that tv fakery, holograms and pods have recycled themselves again.... here we go....

reply to post by InformationAccount


I have a clip of the first plane hitting the tower. There is a flash before it hits. The funny thing about it is, in some clips of the same footage, the flash has been edited out. Why would somebody edit out the flash? Is it possible to put the clip somewhere in this post so you all can see it?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

At 30 seconds you can see compressed air lighting up above the right wing near fuselage.

So at 33 seconds there is also a flash on the right wing.

Why isn't there a flash on the left wing?

And why does the flash on the wing only occur in a very small area?

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by ReptileRipper

Yeah and dont you think its odd how FEMA just happened to be there the day before, and they had alot of manpower and trucks at the scene ?

They try to ignore what you just said.. because it real facts that lead to the perps. Call it odd, coincidence, or whatever. Fema was setting up on Pier 92 September 10th, on 11th was the long planned terrorist attack exercise. Lucky it went live.

They were probably just rumaging through some of the trash cans on the dock looking for the $2.3 Trillion that Donald Rumsfeld announced was missing from the Pentagon on September 10th, 2001.

Thank god we're an open society that doesn't harbor any secrets, unlike those commies that we fought against during the cold war.

Wake up and OPEN your eyes

NO hijacked planes
NO arabs on the passenger lists
Planes landed in Cleveland
Aluminium thru steel?
Speed on planes on ground level, air density 135 times thicker than 35 000 feet
Only faked video on 911

If you can step beond these above facts, then you can step up to the next level:
WTC Nuked !!!

septemberclues.net

911thology.com

Originally posted by NWOwned

Originally posted by septic
The anomalies like flashes and "pods", or 'laser beacons" were deliberately added.

For the 911 to succeed, there needed to be an unprecedented propaganda barrage in place to apply blame and to deflect suspicion properly. Since the best way to control the opposition is to lead it, certain anomalies and suspicious facts were deliberately leaked to kick-start the controlled opposition, in this case the controlled truth movement would appear to be valid by pointing out incriminating evidence, but in reality are only complaining about red-herrings and false leads.

If things were added couldn't things have been removed? I mean, some say there's an addition of a pod, well, couldn't the same people who added that remove the 'flash'? Clearly they could've if the videos were tampered with.

But look, why leave something in that no one can readily or easily explain that will have people scratching their heads and making threads about it ten years later if what you're trying to do is sell a certain story with no one asking any questions? It doesn't make much sense therefore, to leave the 'flash' in if people are only going to question it. (Or to add a pod to a plane only to have people say later: "What the heck is that pod thingy.")

I say that we should edit out the flashes of all footage.

It's cleaner that way.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ReptileRipper

Probably because we dont have time to google whatever you just googled

how did the nose come out the other side ?

It was the 19500 cu ft of air traveling at 800 feet per second and a mass weight of 1500 pounds exiting the other side of the building, You're not smart enough to figure that out your self ? Why am I not surprised.

WHAT !!!! ????
Arent you the dude that tried to tell me the video of a man being blown out of the tower .... was a bird screen and when i said , well where did the energy come from during the collapse your answer was - the center of the earth

Look at that post ive quoted above..... HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE ? you dont see the cockpit leave the building ? is that what your trying to tell me ? because i`ll post the vid again if you missed it the first 5 times

Originally posted by NotPsyOpsed
Wake up and OPEN your eyes

NO hijacked planes
NO arabs on the passenger lists
Planes landed in Cleveland
Aluminium thru steel?
Speed on planes on ground level, air density 135 times thicker than 35 000 feet
Only faked video on 911

If you can step beond these above facts, then you can step up to the next level:
WTC Nuked !!!

septemberclues.net

911thology.com

It wasnt nuked you crazy fool ... its idiots like you who disrespect the dead with that crap .... if it was nuked .... why is there no radiation .. its a conspiracy ... you need to lay off the shrooms.