Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 4 votes

WTC exploding man. Anyone seen this?


  • Please log in to reply
141 replies to this topic

#76    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,128 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gold Coast (Qld, Australia)

  • I only floccinaucinihilipilificate
    when it IS worthless...

Posted 21 June 2012 - 08:27 AM

Wow, that is a record-breaking whoooooooooooosh...

View PostW Tell, on 20 June 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

And I won't tell anyone you didn't bring anything to the discussion...
er.....EXCEPT all of the questions that you now happily admit are important..

Quote

I only quoted what was pertinent..
..to avoiding the topic of the thread, namely working out what the video actually shows.  Now, WTell (and the wandering lurker), please read the next bit carefully.  It's where the whole point just whooshed right over your head/s..

Quote

You wanted to play Sherlock.
Something wrong with emulating a fine detective?  I appreciate the compliment..

Quote

You're asking all the right questions
Yes, the questions you edited out of your reply so you could avoid them.  The questions that ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, as the maker of the claim. The ones that you haven't addressed at all (although it seems you now concede they are necessary..)

Quote

the same questions asked when any claim is made, but you failed
YOU posted the claim. YOU failed to ask, let alone answer the questions.  You didn't even know what sort of questions SHOULD have been asked, up until I posted them..  And even then, I've only scratched the surface.

Quote

You didn't answer a single one of them.
You're EXACTLY right! And neither did you.  In other words, the claim is worthless, the video is not analysable without much more information.  THAT WAS MY POINT.
There I was, foolishly thinking you might have some stuff to back this video up.  You didn't.
There I was, foolishly thinking that you would know what sort of questions needed to be asked, what sort of supporting information might be required..  But when given ample opportunity, neither you nor Q24 (nor Wandering - although I think that's a given) had the first idea.

THAT'S why I posted all those questions, all those suggestions of possible causes - most of which you summarily dismissed with nothing more than a handwave..  I posted all of that in the (clearly forlorn) hope that NEXT time you tapdance around like this, that maybe you might do the required homework, before wasting our time.

Quote

The way you were acting, I thought you might have had some answers.
That's pretty sad, you being the one who posted the video...  The way you were acting, I thought you might at least know some of the questions that needed answers, let alone provide any of those answers...  But nope.

Quote

So... you could have saved everyone time just by saying "I don't know either. It could have been anything".
You sorta missed the point that YOU could have saved US a LOT more time, as the OP...  And I've been saying it could have been other things right from the start...  I invite readers to read that post, and look at the ones above it from WTell, where he makes various completely unsupported claims like:

Quote

It's not air pressure from the collapse.

Note also the title of the thread - "WTC Exploding Man.."  Is that someone researching or asking questions, or is it someone with their mind already made up?  The irony of WTell's comment rings loud and deserves repeating:

Quote

you could have saved everyone time just by saying "I don't know...
Indeed, WTell, that you could have..  You don't know if it's an explosion, or a man.  At least you have now conceded that, so some good has come of it... :)

PS - Wandering, are you going to be addressing my points and questions - the ontopic ones relating to analysing this video?  After all, you wouldn't want to be accused of abandoning the thread.. I'm still here...

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#77    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 June 2012 - 10:03 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 21 June 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:



PS - Wandering, are you going to be addressing my points and questions - the ontopic ones relating to analysing this video?  After all, you wouldn't want to be accused of abandoning the thread.. I'm still here...

No.

Personally, I do not believe It is a man or object being propelled by an explosion. It looks like a piece of debris falling down either out of frame or out of the smoke.

I have enough work to do without an imaginary schoolteacher such as yourself handing out homework. If you wish to teach pupils, may I suggest you attempt to do so through the education system.


#78    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 21 June 2012 - 11:31 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 19 June 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

1. Introduce the topic and 'purpose'
Before even beginning, there is the simple question of what is the point of the claim/video, and any analysis thereof?
I'm still not entirely sure what the point is, but it does seem to be clear that a couple of posters believe this might be evidence of conspiracy in some form or other (I'll talk about "confirmation bias" a bit later, maybe..). However, that angle does seem to be jumping the gun..


Please revisit the OP where the topic and purpose were set out. W Tell was not sure of the video and wanted to know what others thought. Perhaps the problem is that you are not appreciating the difference between a claim and a hypothesis - here, there was no claim, though an implied invitation to provide hypothesis. In my first post on the thread I raised such a hypothesis in the form of a question, "How about an explosive charge?" The magnitude of that hypothesis makes it in the interest of all to rule out, though apparently it cannot be.


View PostChrlzs, on 19 June 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

2. Present the available information
Here's where you answer the what, where, when, who, how, why type questions. Things like when was the video shot, precisely? Where is the scene (what building/floor)? What equipment was used, and what settings? Why was this area being filmed? If it is cropped and enlarged, what algorithms were used? What post-processing was used and how has the footage been re-encoded? You should also present some provenance if available. How could the above 'facts' be verified or checked? - is the original footage available, and if not or it is unknown, why is that? Now that is just the information about the video... Much less than half of what we need to know...
Then we need to know about that location - by using the information we already have (?) in regard to the floor and particular window/panel in question, the floor plan could be viewed to identify things like whether it is large or small room, where aircon ducts run (to be compared to where the strike damage was), whether it was directly in line with a corridor to a lift shaft, and so on. Then we would also look at the nature of the internals - was it an open plan office, were there partitions, suspended ceilings? What sizes of partitions and ceiling panels were there? What sort of furnishings (eg curtains) and what colours were in the area? Were there any potential sources of 'explosive' air pressure variations (other than falling walls, ceilings, aircon ducts, corridors, etc) in the area, like cleaning chemicals, solvents, paints, pressurised gas cylinders (eg oxygen or other gases for medical facilities, or propane for kitchen/cooking facilities) and so on.

Next we would look at any related observations - is there other footage showing this area at the same time? Corroborative reports of a body/bodies falling or landing beneath that area? Were people known to be in that area of the building at that time?


I agree that all of this would be useful information, though I think unobtainable, and even then I'm not convinced it would provide a definitive answer everyone can agree. This is why, along with the hypothesis of my first post, I confined to the more realistic: "The timing and location of the footage would be useful. Is that the East face of WTC2?" If you know of any way we could obtain the information you suggest, it would be in your interest so much as ours to do so toward ruling out the hypothesis you so dislike.


View PostChrlzs, on 19 June 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

3. Apply forensic investigative techniques as applicable
Without going into too much depth, some techniques that might be applicable include slow motion analysis of the video, along with appropriate (non-destructive/non-additive) processing to enhance details. Doing so would require genuine expertise (not some moron adjusting the RGB sliders or using unsharp mask in his pirated copy of Photoshop..) along with access to the original footage - Youtube re-compressed videos are pretty much useless for this. It is also where you would try to identify how much air was being moved, and at what speed - for estimating that we would need to know exactly what the 'thing' was, and how much it weighed... Then you would consider all the possible sources of the burst of air. Some might be eliminated.. but not by handwaving - you would need to 'run the numbers' and provide proper analysis..


Again I agree this would be useful analysis, one that requires some expertise. It has been the aim of investigations to determine the collapse process. One would think this might incorporate such analysis to assist the conclusion. How disappointing then that no investigation has sought to include such observations, before, during and after collapse, in their explanations - choosing instead to ignore or deny where possible any phenomenon which does not fit their pre-conceived notions. It is clear where the failure of responsibility to address your point 3. rests.


View PostChrlzs, on 19 June 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

4. Develop & present the hypothesis/es
Here you would bring together all the available information gathered above in a logical and coherent fashion, and offer hypotheses (or a single hypothesis) and give full reasoning for why each hypothesis was deemed proven/likely/possible/impossible. Again, handwaving doesn't count - and incredulity from ignorance is worthless.


I would say that once this stage is reached, and the hypotheses weighed against one another, that is where real claims could be made. As discussed above, the unobtainability of information and failure of official studies, means we will never get there. And so, as on this thread, we are left discussing possible causes between us and never reaching conclusion. The best that could be hoped for is to rule out the hypothesis of an explosive charge. We don't need to know what it is... only to rule out an explosive charge or demonstrate a more fitting suggestion to end the discussion. Can anyone do that?

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#79    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 June 2012 - 11:25 PM

View PostChrlzs, on 21 June 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:




er.....EXCEPT all of the questions that you now happily admit are important..

I've never said they weren't important. You acted as if you could answer some of those questions. If you can..go for it because you've "made" claims and haven't backed any of them up. I, on the other hand have only said that if this video isn't a fake, it's evidence of an explosion. I've asked for possibilities of what it could be. There have been some posts on here about that question, that have been postulated that are worth some thought. All of those posts create questions, but most can be written of to not being able to prove because we just can't see what's going on inside. The video only shows us what happens outside. But I am glad I recieved some usefull feedback. Excluding you, most have been cordial.




View PostChrlzs, on 21 June 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Something wrong with emulating a fine detective?  I appreciate the compliment..

Nothing wrong. If you want to take it as a compliment, that's fine. I didn't post it as a put down. You're asking the right questions.. you just don't have any answers.

View PostChrlzs, on 21 June 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Yes, the questions you edited out of your reply so you could avoid them.  The questions that ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, as the maker of the claim. The ones that you haven't addressed at all (although it seems you now concede they are necessary..)
Nope. It was for you're whole post. Just don't need the mods warning me about "5h. Redundant quoting: Avoid quoting large amounts of material just to provide a short reply, only quote what you need to in order to avoid ambiguity." Like I said, I only posted the pertinant part.

My post was enough to cover what you said and my response was to the part of your post that held the essence of what it boiled down to.


View PostChrlzs, on 21 June 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

YOU posted the claim. YOU failed to ask, let alone answer the questions.  You didn't even know what sort of questions SHOULD have been asked, up until I posted them..  And even then, I've only scratched the surface.

What claim have I made that can't be corroborated by that video? (as long as the video is not fake)


View PostChrlzs, on 21 June 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

You're EXACTLY right! And neither did you.  In other words, the claim is worthless, the video is not analysable without much more information.  THAT WAS MY POINT.
There I was, foolishly thinking you might have some stuff to back this video up.  You didn't.
There I was, foolishly thinking that you would know what sort of questions needed to be asked, what sort of supporting information might be required..  But when given ample opportunity, neither you nor Q24 (nor Wandering - although I think that's a given) had the first idea.

The only thing I wanted to find out about this video is if it was a fake or not. If it can't be shown as a fake, then when someone asks if there was evidence of explosions before the collapse, thay can be steered towards this video. My caveat, as would be yours, is that it could've been caused by anything but here you go.

So.. if you don't have evidence it was faked... and you can't explain what caused it... it stands on it's own merit as an explosion before the collapse. But it could be anything.

View PostChrlzs, on 21 June 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

THAT'S why I posted all those questions, all those suggestions of possible causes - most of which you summarily dismissed with nothing more than a handwave..  I posted all of that in the (clearly forlorn) hope that NEXT time you tapdance around like this, that maybe you might do the required homework, before wasting our time.

I fail to see where I've wasted anyones time. You on the other hand given the impression that all would become clear with some kind of epic post you hinted at. All you did was ask questions everyones wondering about without supporting your own claims. That's it. All I did was ask if anyone had seen this video and what it might be.


View PostChrlzs, on 21 June 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

That's pretty sad, you being the one who posted the video...  The way you were acting, I thought you might at least know some of the questions that needed answers, let alone provide any of those answers...  But nope.

I've never acted like I had the answers. I wasn't even asking anyone for answers until you came along and acted like you knew it all. Just their opinions.


View PostChrlzs, on 21 June 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

You sorta missed the point that YOU could have saved US a LOT more time, as the OP...  And I've been saying it could have been other things right from the start...  I invite readers to read that post, and look at the ones above it from WTell, where he makes various completely unsupported claims like:
Like...? What unsupported claims have I made?


View PostChrlzs, on 21 June 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Note also the title of the thread - "WTC Exploding Man.."  Is that someone researching or asking questions, or is it someone with their mind already made up?  The irony of WTell's comment rings loud and deserves repeating:
Since it was the name of the video from Youtube, I used it to start the thread. Is that so odd?

Did you notice that the rest of the title was a question? As in..."Did anyone see this".

I'm leary of any new pics or videos showing something I haven't seen in the last ten years. I was pretty sure someone would have come along by now and shown us that the video itself is faked. That's why I started a seperate thread for discussion. I didn't inject this in an established discussion as proof. I wanted to vett it a little first.  

View PostChrlzs, on 21 June 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

Indeed, WTell, that you could have..  You don't know if it's an explosion, or a man.  At least you have now conceded that, so some good has come of it... :)

If it's not faked, it's an explosion of some sort. That much is obvious. That is the only claim I've made. You have made several that you admit are impossible to corroborate.


#80    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 22 June 2012 - 06:48 PM

I paused the frame and noticed that is not a man in the video. The plume of smoke does not depict an explosion, but it does depict compressed air blowing from inside the building.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#81    Mr. Smith

Mr. Smith

    Dirt Eater

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,174 posts
  • Joined:11 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Above the left and right.

  • Anger is a wind which blows out the lamp of the mind.
    -Robert Green Ingersoll

Posted 23 June 2012 - 06:41 PM

Those guys must have been filming that spot because they knew that bomb was going off. And they sounded, if you listen carefully, like mossad terrorists. There is no other explanation for that poor guy to get blown out of the window at that point in time with a camera on him. Take that deniers! Now where'd my good tin foil hat go? I've gotta go buy some more supplies for my EOTW Mayan-proof bunker.  :wacko:


#82    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 24 June 2012 - 04:29 PM

View PostFramling, on 23 June 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Those guys must have been filming that spot because they knew that bomb was going off. And they sounded, if you listen carefully, like mossad terrorists. There is no other explanation for that poor guy to get blown out of the window at that point in time with a camera on him. Take that deniers! Now where'd my good tin foil hat go? I've gotta go buy some more supplies for my EOTW Mayan-proof bunker.  :wacko:


What man blown out of the window?
What explosion?

There was a piece of debris.
There were at least 4-5 loud banging sounds in the first 2 minutes of this tape.

They closely resemble sounds on the video shot by various firefighter groups in close proximity to the buildings, and especially when inside the first floor of the towers.

Many people have mistaken these for explosions / bombs. and have created crazed CTs about controlled demolitions and such.

The reality concerning these sounds is alot worse to realize.

No "exploding man", and no explosions.

Edited by MID, 24 June 2012 - 04:31 PM.


#83    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:52 AM

View PostMID, on 24 June 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:




What man blown out of the window?
What explosion?

There was a piece of debris.
There were at least 4-5 loud banging sounds in the first 2 minutes of this tape.

They closely resemble sounds on the video shot by various firefighter groups in close proximity to the buildings, and especially when inside the first floor of the towers.

Many people have mistaken these for explosions / bombs. and have created crazed CTs about controlled demolitions and such.

The reality concerning these sounds is alot worse to realize.

No "exploding man", and no explosions.
I'll forget your grammer for the moment.(or for eternity, I'm not a dick like that) I'm more intrigued with what you think about the sound. Please...go on.

I also think Framling was screwing around. (IMO)

Edited by W Tell, 25 June 2012 - 03:58 AM.


#84    Constantine2012

Constantine2012

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2012

Posted 25 June 2012 - 06:29 AM

To: Ectoplasmic Residue

You posted; WTC exploding man.  Anyone seen this?

Answer: No I did not see an exploding man in the video.

1. Watch the video again, pay attention to detail, at the beginning it states: "A person gets blown out of the WTC", it does not state that the man is exploding.

2. The camera focuses on man straddling side of WTC Tower, man climbs back inside, camera zooms out and down and to the left and focuses on debree blowing out, wether it is from pressure, heat, combustibles and the like; who can say!  The point is the person(s) who took this footage and or posted this video obviously were not paying attention when they captured what was taking place, or to whomever added "A person gets blown out of the WTC", either way; getting blown out is different then exploding!

How would I know you may ask???  Well quite simply from seeing exploding human beings, opposed to human beings being blown out from wence they stood, it often occurs in Combat, but never have I seen a man vaporize into dust while being blown out, up and any other direction.


#85    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:28 AM

View PostConstantine2012, on 25 June 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

To: Ectoplasmic Residue

You posted; WTC exploding man.  Anyone seen this?

Answer: No I did not see an exploding man in the video.

1. Watch the video again, pay attention to detail, at the beginning it states: "A person gets blown out of the WTC", it does not state that the man is exploding.

2. The camera focuses on man straddling side of WTC Tower, man climbs back inside, camera zooms out and down and to the left and focuses on debree blowing out, wether it is from pressure, heat, combustibles and the like; who can say!  The point is the person(s) who took this footage and or posted this video obviously were not paying attention when they captured what was taking place, or to whomever added "A person gets blown out of the WTC", either way; getting blown out is different then exploding!

How would I know you may ask???  Well quite simply from seeing exploding human beings, opposed to human beings being blown out from wence they stood, it often occurs in Combat, but never have I seen a man vaporize into dust while being blown out, up and any other direction.

lol'd


#86    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,213 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:44 AM

It seems that everyone who posts on this thread is an ex intelligence op or an ex commando. :whistle:

Give it a rest.

WTC fell down because a group of Islamic fundamentalist morons hijacked planes and flew them into the WTC.


#87    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2012 - 11:51 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 June 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

I paused the frame and noticed that is not a man in the video.
I don't think it was a man either.

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 June 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

The plume of smoke does not depict an explosion, but it does depict compressed air blowing from inside the building.
Well I'm sorry but this where we part paths!

The people who recorded it seem to think it was an explosion of some kind and it looks like an explosion of some description to me.

And I think I'll take the opinion of the people who where there, videoing the footage rather than an internet warrior on debunking mission armed with his keyboard and ignorance.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#88    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,404 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 June 2012 - 07:50 PM

View PostStundie, on 25 June 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Well I'm sorry but this where we part paths! The people who recorded it seem to think it was an explosion of some kind and it looks like an explosion of some description to me.

The  plume sitting in front of the window is not indicative of an explosion, and it shows that something was actually happening just before the expulsion of air, and what you saw in that video comes nowhere near the velocity of high explosives.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#89    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 25 June 2012 - 09:02 PM

View PostAntilles, on 25 June 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

It seems that everyone who posts on this thread is an ex intelligence op or an ex commando. :whistle:

Give it a rest.

WTC fell down because a group of Islamic fundamentalist morons hijacked planes and flew them into the WTC.


:tu:

It isn't really all that much more complicated than what you said...!


#90    Mr. Smith

Mr. Smith

    Dirt Eater

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,174 posts
  • Joined:11 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Above the left and right.

  • Anger is a wind which blows out the lamp of the mind.
    -Robert Green Ingersoll

Posted 26 June 2012 - 12:09 AM

View PostMID, on 24 June 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

What man blown out of the window?
What explosion?

There was a piece of debris.
There were at least 4-5 loud banging sounds in the first 2 minutes of this tape.

They closely resemble sounds on the video shot by various firefighter groups in close proximity to the buildings, and especially when inside the first floor of the towers.

Many people have mistaken these for explosions / bombs. and have created crazed CTs about controlled demolitions and such.

The reality concerning these sounds is alot worse to realize.

No "exploding man", and no explosions.


You might need to excerize your right parahippocampal gyrus for some of my posts. Sorry.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users