WTC 7 was the old smoking gun--this is the new one!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY
The key thing here is not the squibs because "debunkers" believe they are air being forced out of the lower floors--even though they occur way below the demolition wave--they have their mind set on that thanks to Popular Mechanics. PM like to say that there was a high percentage of air below the demolition wave, but the same thing could be said for the floors above; there's simply not enough potential energy in the top third of a steel building to crush the bottom two thirds of it. Anyway, the main evidence this video presents better than any other video I've come across--professional or amateur--is the demolition charge flashes! I've noticed these before plenty of times but never seen them analysed from the various footages available in the same detail as the "squibs" have been analysed and presented in various video/documentaries. No sun reflections here my friends...this video cannot be debunked! The only thing the "debunkers" can say is that they think the videos have been edited to include the flashes...

BTW, speaking of flashes, it should be emphasized that there is a larger delay between the flash and the first plane hitting the building in the Naudet brothers footage than the 2nd flash+plane seen in lot's of footages; the missile was obviously released at the very last split second in the second strike, although there was a considerable delay in the first strike. It's also worth pointing out something else that the various documentaries always forget to mention. The first flash is censored from the UK DVD release of 9/11! (Naudet Bros.)

WTC 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnGt7Bd5sNo

Nice footage of WTC 5! Not seen that before... thanks!

Yeah this is not that new.

Thanks.

Why would you need a plane, AND a missile, AND demolition charges? People obviously are convinced a plane was enough. So why would you need a missile? Just to see if you could somehow rig an active airliner with a missile launcher without pilots, ground crew, mechanics, and a myriad of others catching on?

To me the flashes are "STRONG EVIDENCE." I keep wondering why the flashes issue was not stressed enough in most 911 truth videos.

Its just undebunkable. Good video.
And also if you notice theres smoke emanating from the bottom of WTC1 & 2 before they even collapsed.


And the WTC5vs WTC7- such big fires for so long. Man sometimes I wonder how the official theorists cant even see it.

Plane = to help create part of the illusion being sold to the public.
Missile = they were probably scared the plane wouldn't do enough damage to the building.
demolition charges = needed to bring down a steel building.

And 19 hijackers with boxcutters!

Firstly, it might have only been the job of one person. Secondly, most people don't care about 911 and don't like to share. Thirdly, people inside would indeed have caught on to the fact that 911 was an inside job. If they complain to their superiors they might lose their job, and they know they're just a small fish in a big pond. No journalist is going to listen to them without ridiculing them. The news media are controlled with what they are allowed to release. It's better for the insider to go home and watch his favourite fictional soaps on TV to find out which character has been shot--this is much more interesting than 911--and carry on supporting his family. He will keep his secret, which people are so good at doing, and just wait for the rest of the world around him to slowly expose 911. But some whistleblowers, who care about 911 or had relations killed, have come forward in the past. You won't hear about them on the news media of course, but you hear about them on the internet. That's how I first found out that the planes were remote controlled. Now, why don't you try watching the video? That's what this topic is about; not speculating on things we can't "see" going on in the background.

Juts thinking out loud here.

Why no reports of Nitrates being picked up in air quality tests prior to the collapse?

Presence of nitrates would indicate explosions were used.

Any reports of nitrates being found at ground zero?

You do realize you would need an experienced ordinance crew to load the missile, heavy equipment to actually move the missile, and an engineer who actually designed the plane in order to figure out how to get enough power to the launching mechanism without creating noticeable anomalies in the aircrafts electrical system which would have been noticed before takeoff? Also, missiles don't dumb fire they're guided using either infrared data or radar data in the seeker head or on the parent aircraft. If it was indeed a missile have any fragments of the body been found, or any nitrates from the warhead? The answer is no. If you're saying the missile was fired from the nose of the plane do you know what's in the nosecone of a 757? Is it hollow or does it have its radar dome in there or cargo or hydraulics for the landing gear? Any one of those things would have fouled up the missile shot. Regardless, a missile would not explode that close to its launch vehicle, and it could have traveled how far in that second before impact? Certainly not far enough for its warhead to detonate.

Also, why would they be afraid the plane wouldn't do enough damage to the building when it wouldn't be needed at all to demolish the building?

You found out that the planes were remote controlled? Maybe you should go watch a rebuttal video to Loose Change ANYWHERE on the internet. Most of your claims will be disproved.

Furthermore, if there are any whistleblowers out there who are refusing to come forward because they'll lose their job then they should be arrested and charged as accessories after the fact for not reporting this "crime". Have you actually spoken to one of them? If not then don't assume they exist and that they're just too afraid to come forward.

Lastly, most things end up on the internet rather than the real media BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE CHALLENGED ON THE INTERNET unless you actually go out and look for rebuttals to those claims, something you have obviously not done.

I don't think you or I can say how many people it took to load the missile, or technical info on how it might be prepared. We don't even know what type of missile/system could have been used, so it seems a fruitless discussing this. Even if it took a large team to prepare a missile for launch from a plane, they could do so without being told it's destination--only the person/team controlling the plane needs to know that.

No evidence was found of the type you describe, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a missile. If 19 hijackers flew the planes then would we expect to recover 19 passports? No, because they would most likely get destroyed or lost amongst the rubble. I believe there was a missile fired from each plane that hit the world trade centre towers because of the flashes seen in the video evidence.

I believe it was fired from the "pod" that was attached underneath the plane.

"A missile" is a very general term for any type of incendiary. Again, we don't know what type/system, so we cannot say about the dynamics or how long it would take to explode. I can only comment on the evidence.

If the plane failed to penetrate the outer columns or inflict much damage then nobody would believe the buildings would fall down the way they did, naturally, or that fires could have been started in the first place as a result of the plane's minor impact. Indeed, nobody should believe building 7 came down naturally; it defies logic. With a bit more research, it can be proven that all 3 towers were brought down by explosives.

I don't see how it can be proved one way or another. I just believe the whistleblower was telling the truth (although he might be telling lies), given the fact there were no hijackers and the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, which can be proven so easily by the video evidence.

I haven't spoken to one, personally, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. 9/11 was an inside job, so they must exist! Some would be afraid; some would have no feelings either way.

I disagree.

Here's a question for you! Have you watched the video above? What do you make of the flashes?

You cannot just pull an active airliner off the line long enough to install a missile system and have it go unnoticed. It takes an ordinance crew to load ordinance in an aircraft. Who has experienced ordinance crews? The military. Why would they be covertly loading a civilian airliner with a missile? They wouldn't. You're forgetting that it would be impossible to do so covertly and even if you could try it covertly it would be impossible to just rig it up without causing a significant drain on the aircraft's electrical system.

So, despite the impossibility of your theory, you persist of some flashes? Maybe it had something to do with a 100-ton airliner slamming into a steel framed building. Sparks and such.

It has been proven that no such pod existed that is old, OLD news. http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html#conclusion

You think that a cabal that went to this much trouble to orchestrate a conspiracy like this wouldn't have figured out that the plane would penetrate the building? That's nonsense. Obviously the plane would have been able to penetrate the building. You're making up reasons why something might have been necessary as opposed to looking at the evidence of what was actually in the realm of possibility.

What whistleblower would that be? I haven't heard of anyone coming forward and saying "I rigged 3 airliners with remote flight controls". If you have any evidence that they were in fact remotely piloted please post it. What evidence do you have that there were no hijackers? Oh wait, you have none.

Um, if you have no evidence of their existence then chances are they don't exist.

I'd say those flashes, if you were referring to the minuscule white flashes those are video artifacts, nothing more.

Yeah and who would believe that military planes could be undetectable by radar!
Until the military provides you with the rope to hang themselves from you can keep confident in the chances and just repeat that line for existence of evidence...

You're assuming way too much here. We did not see the planes before they were airborne, so again it's pointless trying to discuss this. Speculating on all these possibilities that might have occurred in the background is enough to send someone crazy! It's like wondering which route an atom took through 2 slits to reach a back wall whilst the nuclear physicist isn't looking!

No way! Watch the video carefully, particularly of the first plane, and you will notice a delay before any part of the plane impacts.

Nonsense! If you watch 911 Ripple Effect, the producers have gathered up all the footages showing the plane from different angles, including a photograph. The "pod" is obviously not the result of light, shade, and certainly not a combination of both!

Have you read the Operation Northwoods document?

You wouldn't believe it anyway, so what's the point? Again, it's not evidence, just testimony. I only believe it because it fits a hypothesis based on things we can prove.

Several of them have turned up alive... I guess they escaped by parachute! *sing* D.B. Cooper, where are you? *sings* :D

I work in the DVD industry and deal with all kinds of video sources--including many with different artifacts. Those flashes are certainly not artifacts--they really occurred--no doubt about it! I think you are lying to yourself because you cannot believe what you are seeing. I know it's hard to accept the government orchestrated this, but the world is a very corrupt place, my friend!

Um I certainly would. Unlike this missile theory, the evolution of stealth technology was inevitable and logical. Again you can't make baseless claims such as this with no evidence and say, "JUST BECAUSE NOBODY SAW IT, HEARD IT, OR SMELLED IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T THERE". Show me some proof of a missile launcher installed in that aircraft. Oh wait, you don't have any.

Seeing as how the flight was tracked from takeoff to landing by radar the entire time, I think it's safe to say it was the same plane.

At least that's how it appears in the video. Did the tape show any missile fly out of the aircraft and hit the building? No.

Oh? How many other 9/11 Truth groups still propose the pod idea? Is it still in Loose Change? It's a myth and a work of shadows and light on a fast moving object in a fuzzy video clip.

Wow. Yes I have read the plan of covert action written up by the CIA 40 years ago to deal with Cuba in which not a single person was supposed to die and even then it was rejected out of hand by the Kennedy administration. That has absolutely no bearing on this whatsoever.

That testimony doesn't even exist. You're supposed to be taking all evidence and not just the evidence which supports your hypothesis.

Again, that is a myth based on news reports from somewhere in the Middle East. The enemy? Sowing doubt in our country? Who would ever think the would do that... :rolleyes:

No, those minuscule white flashes on the screen are most likely video artifacts. That's what they look like and even if they aren't what do they show? White flashes which cause no visible damage to the building. They couldn't even be flashbangs because the windows are still intact. Finally, working at Blockbuster hardly counts as the "DVD industry" :P

I wouldn't waste my time researching radar records because I've no way of knowing how truthful/accurate they might be. I would leave those details to a proper investigation team--if ever we get one.

If the first plane was recorded more close up at a different angle it would most probably have shown the missile due to the amount of delay between flash and impact. Otherwise it's like trying to freeze frame a bullet in motion before it's hit the target; conventional video cameras just don't record in enough frames per second. Atleast they record fast enough to show the plane--not like the ones at the pentagon--supposedly set to 1FPS! Anyway, there's no other logical explanation for that flash other than an incendiary coming from the plane.

What about the photo and different angles of video? The pod looks the same in every shot because it's a real 3D object attached underneath the plane. Go and record some planes near an airport and see if you can re-produce same trick of light. When comparing all the different video sources, it's plain obvious to me that there's something attached to the plane. We'll just have to agree to differ.

You don't appear to believe that the US government could carry out a false flag opperation involving hijacked planes. Operation Norwoods shows that this is well within the realms of possibility. I don't think it's plausible to believe that 19 hijackers, between them, could simulateously hijack 4 planes with boxcutters and fly them into different US targets. That is very hard for me to believe and is contradicted by the evidence.

I've looked at a lot of evidence from both sides. I've heard about all the rebuttals you've so far mentioned, but none of them agree with what my eyes are telling me. My eyes and common sense are twos thing I can trust.

People who work at Blockbuster don't technically deal with video. I'm a DVD Author and I have to convert video from all different sources. Some older videos from 35mm film develop artifacts and also VCDs, but they are nothing like the demolition charge flashes seen in the above video. I assume you've never worked with video editing before? Artifacts are just not like that and they occur randomly. There's no pattern to artifacts. I just don't know how I can convince you here. Saying those flashes are artifacts, to me, is the same as saying that there is no keyboard in front of me right now or I never came from my mum and dad.

So you refuse to look for any evidence to that would contradict your theory? That's telling.

Did the photograph show any flash as the missile exited the imaginary pod under the plane? Or did it just somehow punch through the skin of the "pod" without creating any sparks.

It has been proven to be nonexistent and yet you persist. Why? How would a pod of the size needed to accommodate a missile find its way onto an active airliner without being noticed and not adversely affecting the aircrafts aerodynamics? It wouldn't.

It's possible. The fact remains, however, that unlike 9-11 not a single person was supposed to die in Operation Northwoods. Give it a rest the two are unrelated. You don't think it's possible that 19 religious fanatics, could look at their watches and say hey look at the time this is when I'm supposed to hijack the plane? If that's somehow unbelievable to you then you have a serious problem. Also, the 4th plane never succeeded because the passengers had heard of the goings on in New York, and made the connection. Unlike the others they knew their only choice was to attempt to take over the plane.

You just said you wouldn't look up the radar evidence which would disprove the planes had been switched and now you say you've looked at all the evidence? Please stop lying and actually look at the evidence.Common sense isn't worth much if it's contradicted by the evidence.

If they truly are demolition charges why is there no damage shown to the building facade? You are honestly going to say that a cheap recording of a news broadcast showing a fuzzy picture of a building across the street 90 stories up will not develop artifacts? Give me a break.

No, I never said that. I refuse to look at radar data because I'm not qualified to study it and I wouldn't even trust it. Even if somebody told me that some radar data showed some switchover or something I would still be very weary. It's just like I don't agree with everything Jim Hoffman believes or loose change. I've got my own take on 911, but I still agree overall that the official story is not true.

It all happened rather quickly. The pod is not imaginary; it's right there in plain site! There's not enough frames to show thel animation; it's a bit like the bullet example above. Just because a plane isn't shown in the 1FS Pentagon video, doesn't mean there wasn't one; however, no plane fits in the damn hole! From the hole I can tell there was no plane, just like from the flash and pod I can tell there was a missile (video recording speed notwithstanding).

It's far from being proven to be nonexistent; In fact, there's enough evidence in my view to prove the complete opposite!

You are over assuming again, like missiles only come in one type and size, which I very much doubt. It would have been noticed by the team attaching the missile, sure, but like I said, they wouldn't need to know the destination. As for aerodynamics, I don't think either of us are qualified to say if and how this would be affected on a plane. The type of plane and missile system would also need to be taken into account, and we don't have all the available evidence to come to such conclusions.

Whether anybody gets killed or not is irrelevant. It's like saying that Operation Nortwoods required diesel fuel and 911 unleaded fuel so they are unrelated.
The point I was making is that a false flag operation involving hijacked planes is in the realms of possibility.

I'm sorry but I don't buy that fictional story, just like I don't believe the stories about Jesus and his miracles. If other people want to believe it then that's fine. Based on Operation Nothwards, the alternative scenario is much more plausible given the video evidence we have as well. Right now, I believe in the big bang theory, but if the mounting evidence started to suggest something else then I might shift my belief.

I've looked at more evidence about 911 than most people, but not exhaustively. I feel I've done more than enough research to know the official story is not true.

Most of the damage is being caused internally to the core columns, so the main damage you see is in the resulting collapse. The flashes appear the same on the facade of the WTC as they do in controlled demolitions of other buildings.

You still believe they are artifacts!? Somebody else has obviously first suggested this in a rebuttal of some kind, and people like yourself--who know nothing about what artifacts look like--believe it. I can prove they are not artifacts right away, even though they look nothing like them. Here goes... artifacts can appear randomly across any part of the screen. If so many flashes represented so many artifacts then they would be evenly distributed across the screen--not just in line with the towers--but across the sky and in other areas of the screen. Now I shouldn't even have to explain that. It's plain obvious that the flashes do not represent artifacts. In fact, it's the dumbest interpretation of evidence I've so far heard!!!

The point is that it doesn't show that at all and tracks the plane the entire way. It's clear evidence contrary to your thesis and disproves it quite easily. What reason would you have to mistrust it? The information can be verified and I simply do not see how such a thing could be faked.

No, unfortunately, it is not there. If it was there then there should be a flash as it "exited" just as it made a flash when it impacted. It seems like you trust your own judgment more than you trust the actual physical evidence. That'll get you nowhere in the real world.

It did not exist that is a fact. Until this video nobody reported seeing such a pod, not the ground crew, the pilots, the baggage handlers, the aircraft mechanics. Are you really trying to tell me that EVERYONE who would have noticed it in an instant would simply overlook a sudden addition of a pod to the undercarriage of the plane? No they wouldn't have it borders on the impossible.

The point is that it would still be needed to hold the missile and launching mechanism and if you can see it in the video can't you figure out how wide and large it was? Surely a pod of such size would have to have been noticed, especially since it was an active airliner constantly ferrying passengers across the country. You say that it would be noticed by the team attaching the missile. Why have none of them come forward? The truth is that if the pod was there it would've been noticed by civilian personnel on the ground. It wasn't.

Um yes it is. Faking the deaths of sailors and wounding people is a far, FAR, cry from slaughtering 3,000 people in cold blood. Yes they are in the realm of responsibility, but again EXTREMELY unlikely.

Please well you seem to pick and chose which fiction you like to believe then. For some reason a massive government conspiracy bent on mass murder seems more plausible than 19 men were so consumed by their hatred that they were driven to religiously inspired murder. Guess what, the video shows no pod. It's a trick. Operation Northwoods is a covert action plan to deal with Cuba 40 years ago, and was rejected by the Kennedy administration. Why would a murderous cabal use a 40 year old plan as the basis for their operation? They wouldn't. The two are unrelated.

You've looked up just enough to think that you know what you're talking about when, in fact, you do not. The most dangerous thing in the world is someone with enough knowledge to think you know but not enough to know that you're wrong.

Would it still not throw out fragments from the columns, or the internal office matter which would shatter even one window? They would and these flashes simply do not do that.

Maybe we're talking about two different things here. I'm refering to the strobing white lights that appear at random intervals on the screen, the same kind I get on my VCR right when popping in a tape. As for them being random, since the picture is pretty much tightened into the tower, would it not make sense that even if they appeared randomly the chances are they would appear on part of the tower? No the dumbest interpretation I've heard so far is an imaginary pod, an imaginary missile, a 40 year old draft of a ridiculous plan, and imaginary demolition charges somehow bringing down the World Trade Center.

I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about radar evidence to study it. I don't know where it comes from or whether it was ceased by the government/FBI like they did for all the pentagon tapes etc. I know there's only so much radar can tell us and I doubt it's enough to prove anything one way or another regarding 911 being an inside job. You say it disproves my theory, but then your interpretation skills are rather lousy, and you make all kinds of assumptions.

The physical evidence is not there in terms of catching a bullet/missile/incendiary in motion because of the recording speed of the camera, as already stated. Why do you think so many people believe a plane hit the pentagon? It's certainly not there in the video evidence, but again, because of the recording speed. But then they shouldn't believe a plane hit the pentagon anyhow because of other evidence, namely the hole is not big enough. I hope I don't have to keep reitterating this point to you.

You wish it were a fact, but then you are blinded by the truth.

Some of your arguements are starting to sound rather foolish. Nobody had time to study every detail of the plane before it hit the WTC because it was too high up. We can see the pod better from a photograph taken. We've got more time to study still images, and cameras can see further than my eyes because they have a special lense for zooming.

Sure, that could be measured, but we don't know how big the missile was inside the pod.

Not necessarily; see 2 paragraphs up.

This goes back to what I said in my first response to you. I can't be bothered to repeat it.

You are totally irrational and refuse to accept the connection between Operation Northwoods and 911. Planes + Hijackers + Targets + False Flag is very significant in the equation. People appear to care more about single murders than mass murders. Most people don't even remember what year 911 occurred. It's pretty much forgotten now. And the government knew this because they are experts at propaganda, so Death doesn't need to come into the equation.

Poor excuse! It seems everything we observe in the 911 video evidence is some kind of trick or illusion. The real illusion is 911 itself, including the story of the 19 hijackers (with only a couple of bits of CCTV) and supposed natural collapse of 3 steel skyscrapers due to fire. A bird just flew past my window, but I think it might have been a UFO; or was it some bit of cell trapped in my retina? Oh fuck.

I told you: I'm willing to shift my belief if there's enough evidence. However, there's so much evidence mounting up against the official story, including several smoking guns, which means the official story has no chance of a comeback. On the other hand, the big bang theory has no smoking guns.

Depending on the angle, we can sometimes observe horizontal ejections shortly after a flash, otherwise it looks the same as demolition charge flashes on other examples of CD.

It's not tightened to the tower. In several shots much of the sky is in the same picture--enough for potential artifacts to appear there. But what about when the same flashes are shown by different cameras/angles? This is another way of disproving artifacts to somebody so ignorant and irrational. If you like I'll do a frame by frame analysis of all the flashes based on the area of the screen, and using probability, show that the flashes--if artifacts--have an overwhelming chance of appearing in other areas of the screen, but yet they only show along the line of the WTC. Like I said in my opening post, the above compilation of footages and flash analysis is a smoking gun and cannot be debunked. What are you going to do when I mathematically disprove your crazy artifacts claim, which is in the same realm as no planer theories? Will you apologise and promise to leave the board and never come back again? Will you tell your friends and family about Bush? Will you promise to lead an honest life or will you commit suicide like those 19 hijackers? :D

Its a bunch of dots, moving around, with identifying tags. If Flight 77 doesn't disappear and then reappear, then it's not possible for the planes to have been switched. Get it straight.

So you're saying the flash of its impact would be there, but not the flash of its launch? That makes no sense.

How many other serious sources still go with this "pod" claim?

When the aircraft was at the airport being loaded and inspected, why did nobody notice this pod? Are you saying people who are around planes all day wouldn't notice that this one was radically different?

You can still measure the dimensions of the pod though.

So you're saying there is no difference between faking a few deaths and actually murdering 3,000 people? That's insane. Again, this was a 40 year old document. Furthermore, if it was really the basis of a 9/11 conspiracy why was it DECLASSIFIED by the government? The government is much less adept at propoganda than you would think. If they were so good they would be able to convince everyone that they never made a mistake and yet, most people hate the government because idiots on the internet tell them their was a 9/11 conspiracy.

No, it was a bird. But I guess if the government says it's a bird it MUST be a plane. I guess you know better than them :rolleyes:

Several smoking guns? Try going and having a serious scientific discussion with a REAL expert about these smoking guns. You'll be laughed out of the room.

Oh? I saw no such ejections except for when the towers were falling.

Except the towers, as a dark background, would allow you to see them clearly as opposed to the bright blue sky masking them.

You just don't get it, do you?

I laugh at all the fools who've watched the collapse of WTC 7 but don't question the official story. 911 is the greatest illusion ever sold to the public. Is the Bush admin more intelligent than Hitler? There's somebody out there whose smarter than both:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derren_Brown
This guy can fool most UK audiences watching his programmes on TV into believing what they are seeing is real! Nobody can do it better than this guy. He could invent something more convincing than horrorscopes/astrology or religion even. This guy knows how gullible people are... Since watching his shows I realise that the public will believe all kinds of weird things without questioning things like are stooges/actors being used? I find Derren Brown more shocking than 911! It really makes me sick to think that we live in such a dumb society.

I'm not being funny, but when was the last time you had your eyes tested? I went to eye casualty a couple of months back for a general check up and they told me I had 20/20 vision. It's worth going I think..

The bright blue sky will not mask white flashes! How many more dumb excuses are you going to come up with? Why can't you just accept the truth?? It's not difficult; when has Bush ever told the truth?

Yes I am aware of the connection. You do, however, seem intent on ignoring the fact that Operation Northwoods was REJECTED 40 years ago and forgotten. The same people who drew up that plan are either dead or no longer work for the CIA. Again, faking the deaths of a few Americans or wounding some who most likely would have given their consent already, is a far, FAR cry from actually killing 3,000 Americans for a much less pressing reason than the timeframe Operation Northwoods was drawn up in.

Except the government's conclusions have been backed up by an extensive investigation. The report on WTC7 is actually due out soon. Of course it's ok to question the official story and many have but those same people are unwilling to admit they are wrong, always coming up with new "evidence" of a conspiracy. Are you honestly trying to say that, since the collapse of building 7, in the mind of someone who has no experience in demolition LOOKED like demolitions he has seen on t.v., then that is the most likely explanation? Not at all.

Again, I saw no such ejections.

Maybe I owe you an apology. I was refering to the white dots which appear along the bottom when the tape of the newscast starts. As for the white flashes, they do appear on the building. You will notice, however, that they never change. One of them appeared to have happened BEHIND the billowing smoke and yet we are able to see it, looking undimmed and exactly like the other flashes. If that is true how can they be strobing from demolition charges if they aren't effected by the matter in between them and the lens?