I posted a thread about this in the old forum, and it kinda went unnoticed, so here it is again :D

I noticed a couple of suspicious flashes during the collapse of WTC7. Here are some highlighted pics, and then the video from which the pics are taken (watch it frame by frame, starting near the end of the collapse):

Flash 1:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Flash 2:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

Flash 3:

1 | 2 | 3

Video:

WTC7.avi

I think these flashes are very significant, and aren't just windows/aluminium reflecting light. The position of the flashes (i.e. above the building's roof, as opposed to being on the building) is common during demolitions. The video clips of "official" demos in 9/11 Mysteries show this; the flashes in mid-air, way above the rubble pile, as if suspended in space.

Also worth noting is that the flashes during WTC7's collapse immediately turn into black spots before fading away into the dust. This kind rules out windows/metal.

Any thoughts?

There does seem to be some flashs, wether it's glass poping out or evidence of explosives i'm not sure.There is one in the image below just to the right of that white chimmney looking thing.

If they were explosives to bring down the building shouldn't they have been before the collapse was almost finished?

Reggie_perrin: I can't see it being glass, for the simple reason that even where the windows are situated you don't see this anomaly. For a building full of windows, to have only 3 reflections of this nature in the entire video would be kinda amazing. Also the fact that the flashes turn into black marks is strange. Glass doesn't do that, as far as I know! hehe

TomBombadillo: Well, that's what I'd have thought too, but like I said in the first post other controlled demolitions have this phenomenon of flashes occurring in mid-air, way above the building, and they appear for a good 5 - 10 seconds after the collapse is complete. It's as if these charges have become dislodged during the collapse and are exploding outside the designated demolition area. I can't seem to find a clip that shows it, and I'm not sure at what point in "9/11 Mysteries" the clip runs. I've scanned through it on Google Video and can't find it, but I'm going to watch the whole film again later and when I do I'll take note of the time and post it here for comparison.

In the meantime, if you happen to watch the film yourself, pay attention to the demolition videos it uses as examples, and watch the sky directly above the buildings during/after the implosions ;)

Cheers!

Very observant but I think that might be a piece of this thing ( antenna?) coming loose and following the building down later.

:mellow: .... Paddy... you're pic is gross...

Actually Reggie_perrin, now that I look at the area of the building you had highlighted I see a few more flashes. They can't be the antenna.

Watch the video frame by frame, and keep your eye on the area Reggie_perrin highlighted in his pic. Little white flashes appear in the puffs of dust.

Jarroyo: I think your picture is more frightening! :P My pic is just Robert DeNiro at the end of the film "Taxi Driver" ;)

:lol:

....why? :huh:

...still.... it's gross.... :P

How many times does a controlled demolitions explosive explode?

Or do you mean to tell us that these are all seperate objects?

Excuse me. Look at the video. You see a white spot, above the building, it moves down slightly, becomes dark, moves further down, becomes light again, moves downwards, becomes dark, .... etc.

I don't know what the rest of you see, but I see some fairly large piece of debris with a light side and a dark side, thumbling as it falls.

Probably a piece of ventilation duct, or something like that.

Hans

Perhaps it's just some of the leftover pancakes from towers one and two...

You're excused :) But seriously, I think you may be right. However, this can't be said for the flashes observed in the puffs of dust on the face of the building, highlighted in Reggie_perrin's pic. If it's windows breaking and reflecting light, why is it only observed in a handful of places when the building is peppered with windows?

It's all academic anyway - the building collapsed in 6.5 seconds, straight down, into it's own footprint, with molten metal visible in the basement 6 - 8 weeks later, with squibs bursting from key areas, with the roof dipping in the middle, with the penthouse collapsing first, with eyewitness reports of a shock wave and a roll of thunder-like sound immediately before the collapse began, etc etc etc...

:D

Because only some of the windows happend to break in a way to reflect sunlight in the direction of that particular camara?

If it's to be academic, you need to provide an explanation for who rigged the building for demolition, when, and how.

No, the entire collapse sequence was some 15 seconds.

That was the TT.

After the collapse had started (and how do you identify them as "key areas"?). Show us an example of a controlled demolition where charges are fired after the collapse starts.

How is that evidence of CD?

Nobody says there wasn't an explosion. You know, when buildings burn, sometimes things explode. Such explosions may even contribute to a building collapsing. .. However, have you any accounts of a series of loud, sharp HE detonations, like we see in CD's?

Etc what exactly?

Hans

Alright, time to regurgitate what you already know but refuse to acknowledge.

I don't know what collapse you are watching, but the collapse takes less than 7 seconds. All of the official reports that have had the balls to address WTC7 more or less agree with this. I really don't know how to argue the point further other than to ask you to watch the video again, take note of video time at the the start of the collapse, and then the point at which the roof stops dropping.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go_xmcuzkRs - from "9/11 Eyewitness".

Molten metal was also found under the WTC7. Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Inc. was the one to confirm it. Google his name alongside "WTC7 molten steel" and you'll find ample coverage of his comments. "Hot spots of molten metal" he said.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Loi...le+Search&meta=

Squibs were shown blowing from key areas, which are identified as "key areas" because they coincide with the position of the main support columns inside the building. And are you really telling me you've never seen a demolition where squibs appear during the collapse? Here:

http://controlled-demolition.com/images/client/jlhudson.mpg - Squibs can be seen (and explosions heard) throughout the collapse.

The roof dipping in the middle and the penthouse collapsing first are tell-tale signs of controlled demolition because the central support columns are typically blown first, causing the roof to cave in somewhat before the rest of the collapse is initiated. As a result of the core being blown first, the rest of the building is pulled inwards towards the centre owing to the vacuum created. Hence "controlled" demolition. The roof dipping isn't evidence in and of itself of CD. But taken alongside every other anomaly of the collapse it is just another piece of data supporting the CD hypothesis.

"You know, when buildings burn, sometimes things explode. Such explosions may even contribute to a building collapsing." Do you have any examples of this occurring in a steel-framed building (besides on 9/11)? Not the fact that things explode during a fire, but that a collapse was caused by fire, even with fire-induced explosions to help it along. One example would be enough to satisfy me.

"Etc etc etc". Larry Silverstein ordered the building "Pulled". No fire fighting effort was taking place at this point, so he didn't mean "pull the fire-fighters out". Construction workers filmed leaving the area were heard saying "the building is gonna come down". Other voices are heard saying the same from other videos. How could they have known that, when it has never happened before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ - One voice in particular can be heard saying "we're moving back, the building is about to blow up".

The building collapsed straight down, despite the fact that had the collapse occurred naturally, the laws of physics would suggest that the building would topple towards the damaged corner. Instead, the building collapsed in a symmetrical fashion, which involved the undamaged support columns all failing at the same time.

Sulphidation was discovered on the steel (not just the steel from the Twin Towers). Where did this sulphur come from if not from Thermate or one of its derivatives?

Controlled demolitions are an exact science. How can you believe that some random fires, with insubstantial external damage, could produce the same effect? All CD companies have to do, instead of spending weeks/months preparing a demo, is to light a few random fires in the building, maybe blow out a chunk of the facade, and let nature take its course. The building will collapse in near perfect symmetry, and not damage surrounding structures :rolleyes:

All of the anomalies of the collapses (including those of the Twin Towers) can be explained in one fell swoop if you consider the controlled demolition hypothesis. It leaves no questions lingering and can accommodate every aspect of the collapses. Occam's Razor, contrary to the beliefs of the supporters of the official fable, is actually favouring our hypothesis. The simplest answer that [can account for all of the available evidence] is probably the correct one.

As for "how would they have rigged the buildings with explosives?" You've heard about the power downs and construction work that was going on. Watch "9/11 Mysteries" to get the best representation of this information. And for the record, the burden of proof is not on us, it is on those who claim that the unprecedented and unexpected occurred.

it gets really annoying when skeptics try to debunk the evidence. WTC7 is soo blantant.
we dont have to prove anything, we are just asking for a proper indepentant investigation, because we feel that the official one was CRAP.

What he said :D (Although with less spelling mistakes :P)

I'm glad to see people are thinking about alternative explanations and not merely offering every piece of potential evidence as "proof". The possibility of the flashes being reflected sunlight also crossed my mind. There is a reasonable argument against that idea, however. The area was shrouded in dust. There would not have been much directly incident sunlight hitting such glass.