So unless the videos were doctored, there were bright flashes at both towers just before impact. And I'm not going to speculate as to what the possibilities might be but there's no question it isn't something to dismiss. So just add those flashes to the hundreds (thousands?) of anomalies and convenient improbable/impossible coincidences surrounding and facilitating 9/11. If we're talking about 2, 3, 4 or 5 of these, we could possibly (but shouldn't) be able to dismiss them, but there are so many as to defy the probability (some astronomical number) that they are merely natural coincidences.
I do not buy into the Naudet video. The one you show appears to be that video, and it's very much out of focus, but I do see a flash. That poor quality video, assuming that it is legitimate, out of focus this morning, shows a flash, but the detail is so poor it cannot be determined whether the flash was an explosion inside the building (likely) or a flash projected from the aircraft.
To expand a bit, I don't trust the Naudet video mainly because it's just a bit too convenient, and it conflicts with other evidence once on the internet, but no longer. That is the several statements made to NYPD from those living nearby who observed the first strike. I think about 10 people called in to report that an airplane had struck the North Tower. About half of them noted that it was a smaller aircraft, perhaps a commuter or corporate jet. That was printed in the mainstream media and was part of the record. Then not much more was heard about that. The other is a brief video that used to be at PFT, but was also removed before long. It was from a fixed camera at a parking lot nearby, and that showed the North Tower in the background. Though only about 2 seconds in duration, it clearly showed the strike. The aircraft appeared to be much smaller than a 767, and conflicted with what the Naudet video showed. So I'm most skeptical of Naudet. There is no question of a flash in the South Tower footage, and exactly what it means is difficult to determine IMO.
You wouldn't happen to have a link of that smaller aircraft I take it? Here's a video I found a couple of years ago that no one seems to ever talk about. It's purportedly a video of the first airplane strike but it isn't a Naudet video, it comes from Al Jazeera news. (at 0:40)
This is one of the most obviously idiotic statements imaginable. When a house of cards tumbles down the cards are not damaged and therefore no energy is expended doing damage. Also the cards do not weigh enough to damage each other. The structure can be rebuilt with the same cards. Was that the case with the Twin Towers? I built a model demonstrating the problem: That is more complicated than a house of cards in that it has heavy components to provide momentum and weak components that provide support but can sustain damage. It also had to get stronger toward the bottom because of the increased weight It could not completely collapse. Americans are scientific idiots who can believe anti-Newtonian nonsense.
And NIST is well aware and took advantage of that. You can't generalize like that, many know enough physics to understand NIST was FOS.
Americans generally have real lives, and won't waste their time on BS like this. Of course, there are the few, usually unemployed, living on entitlements with nothing better to do with themselves.
Ah, you're describing yourself again, an American wasting your time posting BS and/or you're unemployed, living on entitlements with nothing better to do with yourself. You just can't stick to the discussion at hand, trolling daily (hourly?), can you? There are at least 4 9/11 related subjects currently being discussed in this thread, the flashes, the video of the first plane impact, the house of cards analogy to the destruction of the twin towers and the limitations of Americans with respect to physics. Americans' real lives, wasting time, unemployment and entitlements are NOT part of any of these subjects.
No, the remarks from citizens calling it in were there, but no emphasis was placed on it, and you never hear any talk of it anymore. The short piece at PFT was up for several months, but it's been down since maybe 2007. It was 2005 or so when I saw it, just as I was beginning to realize for sure the failure of the official story. I had not seen the Al Jazeera piece before thanks. However I have the same questions: who took it and from where, and how did AJ come to possess it? And why have we not seen that before?
Enlightening in compounding a simple visual card trick of destruction which in principle shows effects of gravity, not all that different from concrete, metal & glass collapsing & falling instead of floating in air limbo after damage from impact. It's like the burning Bush's patriot act comments after 9/11 - what an idiot.
I wish I had those answers. If you notice, the length of time for the tower strike scene is barely 1 second. The video, from a 60 Seconds TV clip is 10+ years old and has had over 133,000 views. Several of the comments claim it's a fake.
I suspect it's fake, but wonder if it might be footage from the Dancing and Filming Israelis in New Jersey?
this is your evidence of proof? ... I wouldn't take that to a jury ... (and notice that nobody else has even attempted it) ... have you actually put a stopwatch on this? ... of course not because that would be impossible to measure but of course, Bob states it's a full 1/2 second before impact ... clown shoe material but of course I'm a rabid OCT defender ... (take your usual shot Bobby) ... so what was that supposed missile fired from a drone supposed to hit? ... Debbie's desk? ...
Where did I post that Mr. Ad Hominem? Evidence and proof are 2 entirely different things. I know you hate dictionaries so I won’t ask you to look up the definition of those words.
I was talking to Scott Bobby ... but I know you get confused by reality ... you don't really take Scott's old Avery video seriously do you? ... that would be just sad if you did ... really man? ... flashes? ... I'm seriously disappointed by troofers ... are we really going back to Loose Change??? ... it's a sad experiment in paranoia ...
This response would get you laughed out of the debating hall. You didn't address the issue of the flashes. Are you saying they're not there? There's also the issue of the pod under the plane and the witnesses' saying that it didn't look like a passenger plane. Your attitude doesn't fit the situation. No matter how silly you pro-official version posters look, you maintain the attitude that you're winning. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-truthers-believe.532027/page-19#post-1069781105
Unless the videos are doctored or you’re blind yeah really, flashes, bright ones too. But for you nothing there’s nothing ever to question if it isn’t in the OCT bible.
Experiments are very meaningful in physics, not so much in psychology. It is the lack of experiments in physics that make this entire issue a huge mass of psychological nonsense if not outright stupidity.
I'm not interested in your high school debating hall ... and where did I say no flashes? ... ooh bright flashes that you claim happened 1/2 second before impact ... has anyone other than Dylan Avery looked into this? ... this is some really groundbreaking information Bob !!! ... Scott is even going back to the pods underneath the fuselage shtick ... this can't get more amusing ... can we get back to 2018 please? ...
while I admire your dedication in making a model, it entirely lacks so many potential elements in play ... paper, washers and dowels are fun to play with but come on ... you're a teacher right? ... don't deny it ...
No one official has investigated anything about 9/11, except in your delusion that the investigation was "adequate". The only thing "groundbreaking" for you is the OCT, stick with it Shiner, it matches your level of intelligence and maturity to a tee.
LOL It's far more than adequate. We see the results of the happening. You don't, but everyone else does. If you are really trying to investigate something. How about the events prior to the actual hit. The setup in Europe. The possible advance warning in chatter.
You think the steel in the towers was weaker relative to the mass it had to support than my paper versus washers? The issue is weight versus strength not what material is used. But it is because I have so little mass that I use paper. I do not consider my model to be adequate but the ridiculous thing is that engineering schools that charge $100,000+ for 4 years of education have not done anything better. What schools have done anything? Where have they discussed the distributions of steel and concrete? Where have they discussed the center of gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower? An acceptable model would be at least 13 ft tall and weigh not less than 800 pounds. I can't afford to do that but why haven't any engineering schools done it? A reasonably accurate model cannot even be made without that accurate steel and concrete distribution data! I have never seen it, so my making a bigger model would not make much sense anyway.
Because nobody is wasting their time and resources on this BS, that a handful of nutcases are proposing. Schools are for learning, not playing your stupid games.
