I thank mynameis for drawing my attention to this interesting anomaly provided in this thread;

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...post&p=14690096

Unfortunately the thread was dying in the Lounge even though it appears to hold significant importance.

I recommend that interested readers study this video link before scrutinizing my
screen captures as action speaks louder than stills, to coin a phrase;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IQOTqHSrDQ

The producers of that video make a good case for triggered demolitions inside
WTC1 (North Tower) just as the WTC2 (South Tower) fireball is catching
maximum viewer attention.

To get an idea of the WTC Complex layout;


This shows the excellent sight line available from WTC7 which many
people believe was the command post for those orchestrating the WTC attacks.

Going back to the video, I've provided a cropped image from a photo for
the purpose of providing a reasonable quality BEFORE reference image.



The screen capture below, was taken at a reference time about a
frame before any noticeable explosive related change. The second
screen capture was taken 1 second and 3 frames later. To my
mind, it shows that these WTC1 deep internal explosions aren't completely
'contained' and thus reveal themselves as window bursts but not quite
as dramatically as full explosive squibs.





I regret the image quality is so soft but I think there is enough
detail to prove the point, especially once you've studied the actual video.


MM

Could you please reformat the size of the pictures, as for that the text is out of view.

It's called a shock wave from a large blast. Like a jetliner crashing into a building. Helloooooo!!! ... anybody in there?


Here is one with a bit more punch. I'm sure many more can be found, but you get the picture. It would help a lot to not ignore the obvious.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7...earch&plindex=3

I see numerous problems with that theory.

It happens too early and it happens the wrong way.

The blast wave projecting out of the north-east corner of WTC2, was not directly inline with the southwest side of WTC1 where the explosive effects are noticeable.

Also an advancing energy wave (blast front) would be expected to push, not pull on whatever solid objects it encounters.

We see projections but not impactions on WTC1.

We also see that the demolitions are localized and not the more general widespread pattern that would be expected from an expanding wave front.

They occur on floors well above the level of the fireball and there is no dramatic effect on the heavy smoke.

MM

Since when do jet-fuel explosions, which are deflagrations and not detonations, produce shock-waves or even great overpressures in an non-confined area?

The shaking of the tower due to the impact is also unlikely, as that should have produced broken windows on a lot of places, not only in the impact or near impact area of the North Tower. Furthermore, in terms of earthquakes, the South Tower impact was insignificant and therefore could be disregarded in my opinion as the reason for the breaking windows.

It seems more likely, but I'm not stating that as a fact, that something happened inside the North Tower which caused the breaking of the windows.

Yes, these are not squibs.

There will be various differences in air pressure throughtout the immediate area. A shock wave is wery quick indeed, and does a push followed by a pull. You can also take into account the fact that the building itself will be push rather quickly in the direction of the jet, and this will cause a wave of sorts too.

Here are more examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciFGdAczRBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zd0IR1IxTQg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAtWdpHa4wY
DivX downloads included on the video pages. It would appear this other user used the same footage I did except lower quality.

THERE WAS NO SHOCKWAVE!

I already made you aware of this, so stop claiming this.

If you want to learn more about the South Tower impact-explosion and explosions in general and its differences, please read this.

Low pressure bloom is a term I've seen used before.

Thanks for the links Xenomorph!

Obviously my thread is not new news but it is still important news.

There is no natural reason for those WTC1 explosions to occur at that convenient moment in time unless they were man made and deliberately timed to get blamed on the WTC2 strike.

MM

This doesn't explain at all why the heavy black smoke emanating from WTC1 prior to the WTC2 strike is hardly disturbed by the strike.

I would expect air pressure changes and shockwaves would have quite a dramatic effect on that smoke pattern.

I wouldn't expect to see such apparent internally directional window bursts happen so offline from the source of the external disturbance if it was the actual cause.

MM

No problem! :) I've been meaning to compile a longer example actually, it's just that work interferes with doing this., and I've been working on something else. It was 911Blimp's webpage that drew my attention to it about a year ago. http://www.911blimp.net/

Here's another BEFORE and AFTER view from another camera angle.

BEFORE


AFTER (.5 seconds later)


MM

Here is another copy of the WABC video you used for the photos:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=29J226ZV
It was originally someones VHS recording DVD that was up as a torrent last year but has disappeared now. For reference purposes the DVD torrent release was called "911 News: The First 4 Hours"

And lets not forget what these jet engines can do in terms of making changes to the air pressure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKt5uCHu7-A&feature=related

???

Your point?

And lets not forget how long jet engines continue to blast air once they start plowing through steel columns.

MM

Looked into this a little further.

Shock wave = little effect, or not worth mentioning.
Engines = little effect or not worth mentioning.

This video shows the timing of the event much better, and it looks to me like a combination of expanding air from burning fuel and the movement of the building from the collision, also take into account the direction of the wind. At about 16 seconds into the video, you will see that flash of fire from the window in the other building, which takes place after the collision, and slightly after fuel ignition, after parts of the jet exits the building. The timing is perfect for higher air pressure exterior, and thusly the quick puffs of smoke and flame from the building in question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmU1xTN8n4s&feature=related

The video you provide is of too poor a video quality to establish your proof of "cause and effect".

The visible "explosive window bursts" from WTC1 occur shortly into the WTC2 strike timeline. They occur about right for an observer in WTC7 waiting to confirm a successful strike on WTC2.

In your determination to believe anything else you have continued to ignore these points;

It happens too early and it happens the wrong way.

The fireball projecting out of the north-east corner of WTC2, was not directly inline with the southwest side of WTC1 where the explosive effects are noticeable.

Any advancing wave of projected air would be expected to push, not pull on whatever solid objects it encounters.

The window bursts occur on floors well above the level of the fireball and WTC1 is also offset from WTC2 and not directly inline with any energy wave projected from WTC2.

There is no dramatic effect on the heavy smoke clouds emanating from WTC1 which would be a natural expectation if they were struck by a strong explosive wind from WTC2.

We see quick 0.5 second projections (outward bursting windows) but not impactions (displaced smoke patterns) on WTC1.

As NK-44 noted, "jet-fuel explosions, which are deflagrations and not detonations, do not produce shock-waves or even great overpressures in an non-confined area."

NK-44 also noted that "the shaking of the tower due to the impact is also unlikely, as that should have produced broken windows on a lot of places, not only in the impact or near impact area of the North Tower."

I can't help but question your sincerity in pursuing your argument in this matter Pi_314 given your earlier response of "It's called a shock wave from a large blast. Like a jetliner crashing into a building. Helloooooo!!! ... anybody in there?"

So far you just keep finding different ways to repeat yourself while making zero attempt to refute my points.

MM

A video from the opposite side of the buildings would be helpful. I'll see what I can find.

Ok, ignoring for a moment that additional fires breaking out in a building that large is to be expected.

What is the purpose of planting explosives so close to floors on fire from the direct impact? How could the planners know that those explosives would not be triggered by the initial impact? If they were using explosives, and the building collapse in on itself, would this not require explosives on all four sides?

I think my first image showed the relationship well enough to establish an unlikely cause and effect relationship between the strike on WTC2 and the multiple window bursts occurring shortly thereafter in WTC1.



As the screen capture shows, there is no impact alignment with the event.

Any energy front at this point in time, would cross in front and below the bursting windows. It would not impact directly against the face of the building where the bursts occur.

There is an excellent sightline with a WTC7 command post for the purpose of radio triggering secondary explosives though.

The timing of those WTC1 explosions is too close to the WTC2 strike to have been automated or coincidental. They must have been manually triggered by someone in a position to visually confirm the successful strike on WTC2.

MM

You may note how much the fireball has an effect as it passes those damaged upper floors. It makes a huge difference, then note the little puff, which is the subject of this thread. It's just a quick little sputter very much in tune with the movement of the building getting hit by the jet. In all likelyhood the top of the building getting hit moved a good two feet. This will produce a quick burst of air pressure toward the other building. Keep in mind the direction of the wind, which is conducive to higher air pressures between the buildings to begin with. Hell it might not even have anything to do with air pressure. It could be just the shaking of the building that caused a quick increase of combustion.


You propose to ignore the most obvious, as it is blatantly obvious that there has never been any proof whatsoever of GMan shenanigans from start to finish of this whole ordeal. You hold steadfast to the devil is in the details, when in this instance, it's in all likelyhood, just little ole mother nature doing what it does best.

I'm still waiting to see you actually put some effort into finding something?

Who is ignoring the obvious?

Apparently, you choose to ignore every point I make!

You'll notice in the above screen capture, the fireball has not even approached the upper floors of WTC1..and yet we see the window burst effect at it's peak.

Wrong again! This thread points out approximately 10 (the pic above shows only 7) apparent window anomalies.

Typical of the disingenuous skeptic, you lie about what you are responding to and show no real interest in discussion for the purpose of reaching a greater understanding. As I've said, we are talking about multiple window burst events, some of them quite dramatic. In those small screen captures, they may not look that impressive, but given the actual scale involved, the effected area is quite large.

You are grabbing numbers out of a hat. Please source. The fact that the Boeing 767 performed a clean penetration of WTC2 rather than bouncing off, indicates that WTC2 did not 'bend with the blow' and therefore did not move 2 feet like you suggest.

If a direct force doesn't penetrate an object in it's path, it will apply a push to it.

In karate, if you punch a board and it breaks, the board holder remains still. If the board doesn't break, the board holder is likely to absorb the 'push' and be moved by the energy applied.

If true, which you can't be bothered to prove, the created energy wave would move directly in front of WTC2. WTC1 lies off to the side, so it would receive the weaker periphery portion of the energy wave. Keep in mind the window burst occurred before the fireball had expanded very far (observable in my above screencap) and were well above the WTC2 impact zone.

There was a light wind that day and you can't be bothered to even detail the wind direction or it's speed. Keep in mind that the WTC towers were designed to handle hurricane force winds and 4-engine 600 mph+ Boeing 707 impacts.

Now who is grasping?

And you come here presenting an argument made of tissue paper. You only succeed in proving how much the whole Official Conspiracy Case is nothing more than a house built of and on sand!

MM

You are right about one thing miragememories. I can't be bothered by this. You will continue to be delusional no matter what. If you prefer to think of our government as being competent, then I have almost no will to help you with this delusion. You just go right on thinking that thousands of people planned this whole thing out to perfection, and continue to believe it without even a smidge of evidence.

Fact is: If you believed any of this shit ... you would be planning to overthrow the government. I know you aren't, so you really don't actually believe it, you just act like you believe it, which begs the question about your mental state.

Paranoid?

Schizophrenic?

Democrat? :D

Lump them all together and it spells emotional pig.

Or maybe you are just plain gluttenous.

I was going to make that last post, my last post in this thread, but I decided to look at one of those videos one more time, and there is was .... the obvious. At 33 seconds into this video you can see why there is what looks like a short burst of smoke comming out of that building. Watch carefully or you will miss it, and I'm not going to tell you what it is. Just pay attention and you will see why there is a short burst of smoke, and it aint no bomb in the building. It is the result of what happens outside the building ( no question about it).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciFGdAczRBM

Lame.

You've now resorted to expecting me to present your argument for you.

I don't know what you see at 00:33 seconds other than a video edit?

If your last two posts have convinced the readers that you've made a strong case than so be it.

I call 'em the way I see 'em.

MM

slight of hand was used more than once.

While everyone watched WTC2 explode, detonations went unnoticed in WTC1.

While everyon watched WTC2 implode, detonations went unnoticed again in WTC1 and also WTC7.