9/11 conspiracy stuff

  • Thread starter Chi Meson
  • Start date
  • #1
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,789
10
EDIT: This is delicate. The thread was started in S&D, but just now moved to GD. In no way did I intend to further a conspiracy wing nut theory. I belive there to be a plausible explanation, I just would like to know what it might be: [/EDIT]

I saw last night a portion of a conspiracy theory on the 9/11 attacks. Most of it was rather absurd but I could not think of a good explanation for the following.

Tapes of the planes hitting the WTC towers clearly show a flash of light just as the nose of the plane touches the side of the building. Four views of the second strike, and the one and only film capture of the first strike show this flash.

The conspiracy guy suggested it was an incendiary device to make sure that the fuel ignited upon impact. This suggestion made me snarf my Orangina. But still, what would have caused this flash of light?
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
330
1
There all crazy.I herd one where it said that "muslims suspend the laws of physics":rofl: you don't to suspend the laws of physics to destroy two towers like unless you want all the debree flying toward space.
 
  • #3
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
Did anyone catch the first plane on video? Here is a video of the second frame, which clearly shows the explosion after the impact. You can even pause and look at the plane halfway disappearing into the building, with no explosion. Keep in mind that the second plane impacted at almost 600mph, which is 880 feet per second or roughly 30 feet per frame of video. The entire plane disappears in 5 frames of video. If you pause it just right, you can see the plane disappearing through one side of the building and the nose of the plane breaking through the other side of the building before exploding.

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/day.video.09.html

Do you have any photos that "clearly show a flash of light just as the nose of the plane touches the side of the building"?
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Evo
Mentor
23,156
2,818
Watching the videos, it's very clear that there was no flash of light or explosion as the plane hit.

Chi, the videos you watched were probaby tampered with.
 
  • #5
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
To avoid ambiguity, here are 3 captures from the first video of the second plane on the link I posted. In the 3rd pic, you can clearly see the plane breaking through the other side of the building and still, no explosion.
 

Attachments

  • #6
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Evo said:
Chi, the videos you watched were probaby tampered with.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Reminds me of this one stupid flash brought up in PWA a long time ago by one of the usuals that showed that convinence store video. Well i watched it and was like "wow... i remember that video being a lot clearer before...". Of course, after some research, i found the original video clip that was probably 3x as clearer meaning the flash guys pixelized the video frames. Sheesh.
 
  • #7
134
0
Alex Jones at Ground Zero: The Use Of Explosives In the 9/11 Attack

Chi Meson said:
I saw last night a portion of a conspiracy theory on the 9/11 attacks. Most of it was rather absurd but I could not think of a good explanation for the following.

Tapes of the planes hitting the WTC towers clearly show a flash of light just as the nose of the plane touches the side of the building. Four views of the second strike, and the one and only film capture of the first strike show this flash.

The conspiracy guy suggested it was an incendiary device to make sure that the fuel ignited upon impact. This suggestion made me snarf my Orangina. But still, what would have caused this flash of light?
http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/170305martialpreview2.wmv

Is this similar to what you are refering to? I've often wondered about this theory myself. (mentors-if this is not allowed for copyright or something)please delete link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
I thought that 9/11 conspiracy threads were completely banned?

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/C-fraud/01-911/2004/05C1-08-17-04-911-video-shocks-sacramento-citizens.html [Broken]
Is this what you saw Chi? If so the video is there for anyone to download apparently. I can't do that here at work though.

The link says this about the flash...
Other extremely disturbing segments of this video are the clear, slow motion shots of the second plane going into the towers which show a flash right before the nose of the plane hits the building and a pod attached to the bottom of the plane. This strange flash is clearly recorded from four different angles from four different cameras. While there is only one known piece of film showing the first plane hitting the first tower, in slow motion one can clearly see - as with the second plane - a flash from the nose section right before impact. What caused this?
Here's an amusing bit that was just before that...
One particular interview that brought gasps from the audience and many looking around with shock etched on their faces was an interview conducted - live at the time - by FOX News. This intense interview with Mark Burnback, an employee of FOX News, contains the following narrative, paraphrased: Burnback was close to the path of the second plane and had a good long look at what he describes was not a commercial airliner. The plane that hit the second tower had no windows, Burnback was very clear about that. The plane had some kind of blue logo on the front near the nose and looked like a cargo plane. This point was driven to the viewer several times along with the comment from this FOX employee that "this plane wasn't from around here or anything you'd see take off from the airport."

Other footage includes several women who had a very clear view watching the second plane hit were yelling, "That wasn't American Airlines....It wasn't American Airlines going into the building." These interviews were played that morning once on FOX News, never to be replayed again, despite the massive saturation and repetition by the media for many days to come.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
TheStatutoryApe said:
I thought that 9/11 conspiracy threads were completely banned?
Very, very short leash...
 
  • #11
134
0
russ_watters said:
Do you have a timestamp for the relevant part of the video?
The entire video is relevant to the OP's final question as to possible explanations. It was a clip of an Alex Jones conspiracy documentary which I thought Chi Meson was referring to. Actually, I see TheStatutoryApe posted the more likely clip. Feel free to delete if you believe it to be off topic. (I thought Alex Jones mentioned the plane flashes in his full-length movie.)
 
  • #12
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
I'm specifically asking about the claim about the flash as the nose hits the building - what the OP was asking about. I'm not going to wade through a 52 minute video to find it.
 
  • #13
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
177
TheStatutoryApe said:
I thought that 9/11 conspiracy threads were completely banned?
That's correct. As per the posting guidelines, 911 threads are banned from S&D since the subject is not consistent with the forum's format.
 
  • #14
134
0
russ_watters said:
I'm specifically asking about the claim about the flash as the nose hits the building - what the OP was asking about. I'm not going to wade through a 52 minute video to find it.
Well about 38 mins in to the video posted by TheStatutoryApe, it talks about the flashes specifically. They don't make any "claim" as to what it is in the movie. It wants you to believe that the plane was not the passenger flight that was reported in the media but more like a "cargo plane" of some type, with a mounted long cylindrical object mounted to the fuselage. (an alleged missile, bomb, or external fuel tank).

Now, if you like, I actually might be able to answer the OP more specifically. I will draw on my time as an Aviation Ordnanceman in the Navy, working on repairing aircraft weapon systems. (I can provide proof if needed). The first time I saw the video I immediately thought of the LAU-92 weapons rail, which mounts to the fuselage of the F-14. It closely matches the apparent dimensions of the mounted object in the videos. This weapons rail is basically just a housing that allows one to easily switch out a smaller bomb rack to missile launcher depending on whether performing ATG or ATA combat. The LAU-92 could feasibly be modified to mount on a cargo plane. (hell, give me some duct tape and some wire and I could probably do it:smile: )
As for ordinance It could have been a MK-82 GP bomb with a non-delay fuse (When the functioning time of a fuze is 0.0003 to 0.0005 second). Or simply an external fuel tank with the same fuse (slightly modified). Just something to ignite the fuel on impact.

But lets keep in mind that the video was probably doctored. This coupled with the fact that all "unaltered" equiptment used by the military have safety devices which prevent arming the fuse until it has dropped away from the aircraft. This is done by means of an arming wire, or lanyard, attached to the bomb rack and the arming pin (like a grenade). Only after the bomb falls the length of the lanyard does it actually arm. Not very likely anyone would be able to safely take-off with an armed fuse without significant risk of early detonation! Too risky if your trying to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude, imo.

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-rack-bomb.htm

http://www.ordnance.org/fuzes.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,789
10
OK reeling it in, and getting back to the OP:

Avoiding the rest of the conspiracy theories, whether or not it was really an American Airlines craft, whether it was the Jews, the Arabs, the Aliens, J. Edgar Hoover, whether or not we landed on the moon, whether or not Nessie eats eggs, if crop circles are a virus etc etc...

The "flash" is not the explosion... it is too soon to have anything to do with the explosion. THe flash is small and very brief. It seems to be some sort of friction or discharge or other sparking phenomenon caused by the aluminum nose cone striking the steel/concrete/glass side of the building.

The first thing I though about is how some stones spark when you strike them together, some other materials will spark when you snap them apart (Wintogreen lifesavers for example).

I am assuming that the flash was not due to tampering, because the purpose of this flash as evidece of a "detonator" is just too silly to discuss.

So, sticking to the "D" part of the S&D: what is a reasonable cause of this flash?
 
  • #16
fuzzyfelt
Gold Member
751
4
http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1&t=1 [Broken]

General Partin says vonKleist omits the most obvious explanation. "It's very simple," he told The New American, "When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon. That's obvious to anyone familiar with physics, chemistry, and what happens when aluminum hits a structure at a high rate of speed." And the proof of that analysis, the general points out, is in vonKleist's own video. "If you watch just a few frames after the nose flash, you'll see two smaller aluminum flashes as each engine strikes the building. That's all it is."

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
fuzzyfelt
Gold Member
751
4
I'm not familiar with physics of chem and don't know what happens when aluminium hits a structure at a high rate of speed, myself, is this correct?
Also, did the flash happen before or during impact?
 
  • #18
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,193
1,213
Chi Meson said:
(snip)So, sticking to the "D" part of the S&D: what is a reasonable cause of this flash?
Let's see --- big ol' van der Graaf collector --- travelling at four, five hundred mph for half hour, hour --- at whatever altitudes --- approaching a metallic ground? Wouldn't think it'd be visible, but haven't witnessed all that much lightning from the clear sky.
 
  • #19
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,789
10
fi said:
http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1&t=1 [Broken]

General Partin says ..."When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash..."
This is along the idea I was thinking, except I too do not know what usually happens when high speed aluminum his a solid structure. Is it the KE causing a quick vaporization of the aluminum?

I also considered the static discharge possibility as Bystander mentioned. What I'd like is to have a confident response for people who bring this up in the future (especially in my classroom).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
134
0
I wasn't intending to spur on the conspiracy theory with my last post. I was intending to give you a de-bunking of the missile, bomb, pod theory. You might be smart enough to have already figured that out on your own...but if others do still believe that anything other than a plane was involved, I wanted to present my evidence to the contrary.

The issue can still be raised if whether there was a flash at all. Those things can easily be doctored. I didn't see any flashes when I watched the video Russ posted.

As for what caused the flashes (if they occured)...I will bow out of this conversation as I have no idea.
 
  • #21
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
Chi Meson said:
I also considered the static discharge possibility as Bystander mentioned. What I'd like is to have a confident response for people who bring this up in the future (especially in my classroom).
Unfortunately, the only people who will ever give you unequivocal answers are the conspiracy theorists. Real scientists and engineers know that you can't give anything better than reasonable/likely possibilities. And I have another:

The shattering of the nose of the plane and the window of the building may have produced a small cloud of highly reflective debris.

One thing that is extrordinarily unlikely is the conspiracy theorists' idea of an incendiary device. On the nose of the plane would be a terrible place to locate it, since it would be 50 feet in front of the fuel and likely to pass completely through the building (which the nose did) without ever having any fuel touch it.
RVBUCKEYE said:
As for ordinance It could have been a MK-82 GP bomb with a non-delay fuse (When the functioning time of a fuze is 0.0003 to 0.0005 second). Or simply an external fuel tank with the same fuse (slightly modified). Just something to ignite the fuel on impact.
Well, the videos don't show an explosion, just a small flash, so that flash could not possibly have been from a 500 lb bomb.
But lets keep in mind that the video was probably doctored.
I don't see any reason to believe any video I've seen in the past 2 days has been doctored. The problem is simply that the video is of low enough quality that people's minds fill in the blanks and they start seeing things that aren't there. Human minds are wired for pattern/object recognition and because of that, it often sees things that aren't really there. Ie, potato chips that look like Elvis or Lenin in your shower curtain: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lenin.html

Also, regarding the "pod" under the nose of the plane - I'll need to look at the video again (I don't have it in front of me), but from what I saw last night, the bright area does not break the profile of the fuselage, implying to me that it is, in fact, on the fuselage itself. Since the fuselage is mirror smooth and shiny, the difference in brightness between the sky and ground in the reflection could very well be creating the illusion of relief. Since the midsection of the plane is flat on the bottom, the illusion of relief only happens on the front 20 feet or so of the plane, where it is cylindrical and people can see a similar reflection regardless of camera angle. I may do some experimenting with MS Flight Simulator tonight to see if I can duplicate that....
 
  • #22
134
0
russ_watters said:
Unfortunately, the only people who will ever give you unequivocal answers are the conspiracy theorists. Real scientists and engineers know that you can't give anything better than reasonable/likely possibilities. And I have another:

The shattering of the nose of the plane and the window of the building may have produced a small cloud of highly reflective debris.

One thing that is extrordinarily unlikely is the conspiracy theorists' idea of an incendiary device. On the nose of the plane would be a terrible place to locate it, since it would be 50 feet in front of the fuel and likely to pass completely through the building (which the nose did) without ever having any fuel touch it. Well, the videos don't show an explosion, just a small flash, so that flash could not possibly have been from a 500 lb bomb. I don't see any reason to believe any video I've seen in the past 2 days has been doctored. The problem is simply that the video is of low enough quality that people's minds fill in the blanks and they start seeing things that aren't there. Human minds are wired for pattern/object recognition and because of that, it often sees things that aren't really there. Ie, potato chips that look like Elvis or Lenin in your shower curtain: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/lenin.html

Also, regarding the "pod" under the nose of the plane - I'll need to look at the video again (I don't have it in front of me), but from what I saw last night, the bright area does not break the profile of the fuselage, implying to me that it is, in fact, on the fuselage itself. Since the fuselage is mirror smooth and shiny, the difference in brightness between the sky and ground in the reflection could very well be creating the illusion of relief. Since the midsection of the plane is flat on the bottom, the illusion of relief only happens on the front 20 feet or so of the plane, where it is cylindrical and people can see a similar reflection regardless of camera angle. I may do some experimenting with MS Flight Simulator tonight to see if I can duplicate that....
I agree with you. (see last post) It was late last night and I guess I didn't get my point across. It's just an example how, at first sight, it seems plausible...but after you think it through....it's non-sense.

One last thing. The guy they interviewed that identified the plane as not an airliner but a cargo plane with a blue circular emblem on it, made no mention of anything mounted underneath the aircraft. If he had that clear a view of the plane...why no mention of this? Because it wasn't there.
 
  • #23
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
RVBUCKEYE said:
The issue can still be raised if whether there was a flash at all. Those things can easily be doctored. I didn't see any flashes when I watched the video Russ posted.
There are better videos and if this conversation hasn't dropped off the deep end by tonight and gotten itself closed, I'll see about capturing and posting them.
 
  • #24
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
RVBUCKEYE said:
I agree with you. (see last post) It was late last night and I guess I didn't get my point across. It's just an example how, at first sight, it seems plausible...but after you think it through....it's non-sense.
Yeah, I didn't get that - no prob, I got it now.
 
  • #25
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,193
1,213
Sunlight reflecting from the cockpit windscreen moving across the building also looks like a "flash."
 

Related Threads on 9/11 conspiracy stuff

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
68
Views
44K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
52
Views
13K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
94
Views
10K
Replies
42
Views
5K
Replies
35
Views
5K
Top