What were the flashes?

[bryan]

Most people associate the documentary 'In Plane Sight' with the Pod Theory, which was controversial and was at best a dead end, and at worst disinformation.

The same documentary also drew attention to the flashes which occur as the nose-tip of each plane hits the side of the tower. These flashes are not controversial within the 9/11 truth movement. Nobody appears to deny that they happened. Yet there doesn't seem to be much interest in trying to figure out exactly what they were.

I've alway believed that these flashes are a smoking gun. At first I thought that lazers must have been fired from the planes to weaken the walls so the planes could pass through. As daft as that sounds, there didn't seem to be an alternative explanation. Recently though, another theory has emerged:

The two flashes were small explosions from inside the buildings, timed to go off just before the main 'jet fuel' explosions. They were needed so that the people who would later fake the videos would know exactly where and when to place the nose of the cgi planes. That meant that all the videos from the different angles would be synchronized and the timing of the main explosions would be consistent.

To me, this is a very neat theory, and it's an example of how TV Fakery can tie up some loose ends as well as shed light on the bigger picture.

Does anybody have an alternative theory for these flashes?

[matrix911]

Does anybody have an alternative theory for these flashes?

If cgi was used (and I believe that to be from the evidence) to cover up the drone/missle, then imo the flashes you see are from the drones impact. Or iow, the cgi was poor quality (proven by sept clues which shows the cgi changing shape, color and parts of the plane disappears as its moving which may account for the flash from the drone not fully being MASKED by the cgi flaws or screw ups by the "creators" of the fakery. IOW they F'd up and the flash GOT THRU.

[bryan]

If cgi was used (and I believe that to be from the evidence) to cover up the drone/missle, then imo the flashes you see are from the drones impact. Or iow, the cgi was poor quality (proven by sept clues which shows the cgi changing shape, color and parts of the plane disappears as its moving which may account for the flash from the drone not fully being MASKED by the cgi flaws or screw ups by the "creators" of the fakery. IOW they F'd up and the flash GOT THRU.

I can't see that they'd go to all that trouble organising the event then use poor quality cgi's. These videos didn't go out live, and there was plenty of time to get them right. They probably made sure the videos were poor quality so we couldn't see what was going on. But that raises the question of why they didn't cover up the flashes!

I think the only way a drone/missile could have been used on the South Tower is if they had a fake background in the live shots. Between FOX and ABC, they had all the possible approach angles covered. Another thing is, if anybody took a picture of it, that would have been end of story.

Apart from that, why would the impact of the drones/missiles cause the flashes?

[white horse]

They probably made sure the videos were poor quality so we couldn't see what was going on. But that raises the question of why they didn't cover up the flashes!



I think that is a good point, it is much harder to prove a negative than a positive; if they had done some really good planes they might have got some fine details wrong - for instance messed up the livery or the tail designation number.

Of all the aspects of 911, the planes is the most mindfucking; everything else is pretty clear cut... these planes are hurting my brain!

The video/photo evidence seems to be coming into two sections; the 'live' stuff which is very ropey, and later stuff that is much better quality.

Time is probably the key thing, and don't forget, with a conspiracy like this the fewer people involved the better; maybe the 'staff' on the day just weren't up to the high standard they required! (see the 'nose out' controversy and the 'Fox zoom in shot'.)

[bryan]

it is much harder to prove a negative than a positive

I don't think that's relevant in this case. It's hard to prove that no plane hit the Pentagon, but it's easy to prove that no plane hit the South Tower. It was televised!

[white horse]

I don't think that's relevant in this case. It's hard to prove that no plane hit the Pentagon, but it's easy to prove that no plane hit the South Tower. It was televised!

Lol!! You see, this is why 911 still grips after all these years because it is such a mental mind fnck!!

[matrix911]

i can't see that they'd go to all that trouble organising the event then use poor quality cgi's.


thats irrelevant since its a FACT and its been PROVEN by simple analysis of the footages, that the planes CANNOT be real if they change color, wing and parts of the plane disappear or CHANGE or ghost in and out etc which suggest cgi usage and problems that occur. Your guess is as good as mine why they'd be such poor quality and have so many OBVIOUS FLAWS.

U tell ME the theories about that issue. Was/were the video fakery creator/s just incompetent ? or were they racing to create the fakery in a time constraint and didn't have time to re check and CLEAN up the flaws? Or was the technology they were using or available at the time low grade and flawed?


These videos didn't go out live, and there was plenty of time to get them right.


how do you know that for sure?


They probably made sure the videos were poor quality so we couldn't see what was going on.


thats the most likely reason.



But that raises the question of why they didn't cover up the flashes!


perhaps that was one of the little problems that GOT THRU and they didn't catch or think it would be such an issue. It was an acceptable flaw. Or maybe the poor quality cgi messed up at the wrong time and couldn't be fixed.


I think the only way a drone/missile could have been used on the South Tower is if they had a fake background in the live shots.


its possible... but again, the fact remains that all the footage has been analyzed and ALL appears to have been manipulated and the PLANES seen cannot be real or the ones that are claimed to have hit the tower. That one fact validates overwhelmingly cgi was used to cover up what most believe to be a missle or drone that may have looked like a plane to those on the ground.


Between FOX and ABC, they had all the possible approach angles covered. Another thing is, if anybody took a picture of it, that would have been end of story.


If someone had and several claim to, WHY IS IT THAT ALL THE FOOTAGE WE'VE EVER SEEN APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED? Where are all the independent footage? makes me think perhaps not as many were filming it as we think. a strange issue indeed.


Apart from that, why would the impact of the drones/missiles cause the flashes?

those who understand the mechanics of how drones/missles function or behave just before impact seem to explain that its a normal EFFECT for DU type weapons to emit such a flash/explosion during initial impact as it penetrates.

[secondsun]

...the two white flashes were proximity charges set on the beacons placed in theTowers which the two planes homed in on!... logicaly, quite simple!... what else could they be?

[bryan]

...the two white flashes were proximity charges set on the beacons placed in theTowers which the two planes homed in on!... logicaly, quite simple!... what else could they be?

When the charges went off, the planes had already homed in on the towers. Why would they flash after they'd done their job but not while they were doing it?

[secondsun]

Why would they flash after they'd done their job but not while they were doing it?

the flashes were charges set on the beacons to destroy them at the moment of impact!... for obvous reasons they could`nt go off before the plane hit the building!... but if the beacons had no charges set on them at all ...again it would be an obvious possibility... that the beacons would have been pushed through the building and down onto the street where they could have been found!

[bryan]

thats irrelevant since its a FACT and its been PROVEN by simple analysis of the footages, that the planes CANNOT be real if they change color, wing and parts of the plane disappear or CHANGE or ghost in and out etc which suggest cgi usage and problems that occur. Your guess is as good as mine why they'd be such poor quality and have so many OBVIOUS FLAWS.

The reason I'd rather avoid the issue of the missing wings is that there's better evidence of cgi's, and in theory the change of colour could be explained by poor quality video causing similar colours to blend together so the wing merges with the background.


Was/were the video fakery creator/s just incompetent ? or were they racing to create the fakery in a time constraint and didn't have time to re check and CLEAN up the flaws?

They had a time constraint but it was hours rather than minutes for the impact shots. I've watched the whole days broadcast for ABC, except for the missing segment at 4.51pm, and if I'm not mistaken Evan Fairbanks's video was first shown at around 6.00pm. (Actually I thought it was earlier than that till I checked my notes, so not absolutely certain about that)


That one fact validates overwhelmingly cgi was used to cover up what most believe to be a missle or drone that may have looked like a plane to those on the ground.

This is where time constraints could be measured in seconds. You're talking about covering up a missile during a live feed which may or may not have been delayed by a few seconds. To even begin to understand the cgi's, you have to know which shots went out live, which were shown a few minutes later, and which turned up hours, days, weeks, months and years afterwards.


those who understand the mechanics of how drones/missles function or behave just before impact seem to explain that its a normal EFFECT for DU type weapons to emit such a flash/explosion during initial impact as it penetrates.

Now that's interesting. Do you have any links?

[matrix911]

This is where time constraints could be measured in seconds. You're talking about covering up a missile during a live feed which may or may not have been delayed by a few seconds. To even begin to understand the cgi's, you have to know which shots went out live, which were shown a few minutes later, and which turned up hours, days, weeks, months and years afterwards.


Thats a very complex issue and i don't know if it'll ever be figured out how they did it. Seems some parts of the operation was genius, and at the same time so many flaws occurred that can only suggest fakery. But the only reason the flaws have been discovered is due to the technology to analyze it that may not have been anticipated by the perps.

but the fact remains there is fakery... cgi's? imo theres tons of evidence that the south tower plane we SEE, isn't what it APPEARS to be. There's too many anomalies and different color changes going on and the ghosting imo appears to be from some type of cgi manipulation since even though you say its just due to poor quality video, why isn't the same ghosting going on in other objects as the plane passes buildings etc? perhaps the high res
footage somewhat clarify this point... the plane seems to be mostly the primary image that has the type of flaws consistent with manipulation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix911
those who understand the mechanics of how drones/missles function or behave just before impact seem to explain that its a normal EFFECT for DU type weapons to emit such a flash/explosion during initial impact as it penetrates.


Now that's interesting. Do you have any links?


I've been trying to dig up the specific material that discusses what i recall seeing... what i've for you in the meantime are the following tidbits. I think this hits some of the points i'm talking about.... and i believe its called
URANIUM PENETRATORS that create a Flash and Detonation Wave
in the initial blast of a high-energy explosive warhead aka depleted uranium penetrators used to ignite the conflagrations.

So here's a bunch of discussions and links which touch on the issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------

With no evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon available to the public, some 9/11 researchers claim a DU tipped missile, launched by a weaponized UAV, like the Global Hawk, struck the Pentagon. The Global Hawk followed the missile into the building and was destroyed leaving behind only its most durable parts, such as the engine parts and parts of its landing gear.

Because DU is extremely dense, a wide variety of missiles in the U.S. arsenal are tipped with DU rods to penetrate the armored steel of military vehicles and buildings. Because uranium is a spontaneous pyrophoric material, it inflames when it reaches its target and generates such intense heat that it explodes. This is what causes the bright flash that is seen when a DU missile impacts upon its target.

The white flash seen in videos of the two planes striking the twin towers is exactly the kind of flash that occurs when a missile with a DU penetrator strikes. If DU penetrators caused the flashes seen on videos of the planes smashing into the towers, where did the uranium rods go?

Working with Hufschmid, AFP has located several photos that show a mysterious burning object passing through the initial explosion in the South Tower. This object, which displays the characteristics of a burning DU penetrator, can be seen on page 39 of Painful Questions.

The photo of the fireball that occurred immediately after the crash of the plane into the South Tower shows two fast moving objects that passed through the tower and are far ahead of the inferno. One appears as a black dot leaving a trail of white smoke; the second appears to be a dark rod burning with a white flame followed by a trail of black smoke.

The second object displays the characteristics of a burning DU penetrator. AFP sent enlarged photos of the object to Marion Fulk, a retired chemical physicist from the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and asked him if this object could be DU.

"Yes, it is possible," Fulk said. Asked about the dark smoke trailing behind the nearly pure white flame, Fulk said, "It could be uranium oxide."

"Let's assume it is uranium," Fulk added. "It's burning near the surface and it's pretty hot." It is a small object with great mass and has huge momentum behind it, Fulk said. "It's way out ahead of the explosion and nothing stopped it."

If the object is a DU penetrator, that would explain its intense heat, radiation expert Leuren Moret told AFP. The DU would have already been burning before it hit the tower. The burning uranium would have acted to ignite the fuel in the aircraft causing the tremendous explosions seen in both towers. As it passed through the building some of the penetrator's kinetic energy would have been converted to heat energy.

------------------------
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-JBS.html

http://911review.com/errors/phantom/flash.html

http://911exposed.org/Missile.htm

On the front of the missile, there is a conventional explosive, shaped as an “hollow charge”, whose aim is to dig a hole in a wall, while on the back, an uranium load. This metal has the property of exploding when is propelled against such solid materials,

http://www.groundzerofx.com/explosions.htm

During the split seconds (above) of an impact, a missile penetrates the wall & explodes on both sides, with most of the charge released on the entry side, hot shell & wall fragments spray out from the exit side. When animating missiles or rockets remember that the object will penetrate into the target object giving an entry & exit explosion.

In the images (above) two different anti-tank missiles are hitting tank test targets, notice the details of each image. The Javelin fired on the right creates an amazing green flash for a few frames at impact & the video tape itself breaks up with interference. Also notice the spinning oilcan bouncing into the foreground discharging liquid.

Modern Tanks fire 2 main types of shells known as HEAT (high-explosive anti-tank) & Sabot rounds. HEAT rounds use explosive firepower rather than momentum to penetrate armour. Sabot rounds (below) don't have any explosive power, they penetrate armour using shear momentum - working like an arrow. Sabot rounds provide ballistic advantages over simply using a lightweight projectile, since the smaller diameter projectile will have a better ballistic coefficient for a given weight. On firing the expanding gas pushes the sabot and attached penetrator down the barrel. The sabot is attached to the penetrator with relatively flimsy plastic, so it falls away as soon as the round leaves the cannon.

[bryan]

I've had a re-think on this after following your links.


http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn/Bollyn-JBS.html


I don't go for the DU penetrator. One reason is I think the flash would have got bigger and bigger, whereas the ones on 9/11 just seem to flash for a split second. It annoys me that Daryl Bradford Smith pushes the idea of planes/missiles. His site is the best place on the internet for information on the history of Zionism, but he really has it in for no-planers. He probably just refuses to even look at the evidence.



http://911review.com/errors/phantom/flash.html

http://911exposed.org/Missile.htm


At first, I was impressed by the article on 'aluminium flash' and the video of the fighter jet crashing into reinforced concrete, where you can see a flash just like the ones on 9/11. I didn't realize this information had been used to debunk Dave von Kleist.

But then the narrator's voice seemed familiar, and I think it's taken from a BBC Conspiracy Files episode, probably on the Pentagon. If you scroll down to read the comments, the first legible one says:

Anonymous
Posted on: 30 2008 @23 :11
Has anyone noticed the flashes when it impacts the wall? These are the same as the flash when the second plane hit the WTC on 9/11! See for yourself! 9/11 wasn't done with exposives!

This smells like a set-up to me. How many people would notice that flash if they hadn't been told it was there? And what are the chances they'd associate it with the ones from In Plane Site?

A couple of years ago I heard an interview with the founder of the 'Cloud Appreciation Society', who was claiming chemtrails are natural. When I looked up the website and how it was started, I realized the society had been set up just to get people used to the idea of chemtrails.

http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/

They have a photo gallery with a section called 'contrails', where people post photos like they do on this forum, except that most of the comments are saying how beautiful the chemtrails are! If somebody asks how they're formed, a regular always chirps in with something like:

In stable atmospheric conditions, condensation trails usually spread or vanish more or less slowly. But under turbulent situations, the two parallel vortex begin to undulate and break into a regular pattern. The phenomenon is called "Crow instability".

I wouldn't put it past them to produce a video just to make it look like a plane could have vaporized at the Pentagon and then use it to debunk the flashes.

If it's right that a plane crash would cause an aluminium flash at the nose tip, it could be used to argue they were real planes. On the other hand, the planners could have left the flashes in the videos knowing they could be explained. If it could be proved they go off before the nose tip hits the wall, it would debunk the aluminium flash, but the video quality probably isn't good enough. So, unless better quality video becomes available, this seems like a dead end at the moment.