Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
W Tell

WTC exploding man. Anyone seen this?

142 posts in this topic

This is why it's absolutely no point arguing with conspiracy theorists. Their position is always "you prove that it's not whatever I want it to be", and a one-frame clip on a video is enough to provide all the evidence they could possibly need to prove their argument, but if anyone else can't say for sure what it might be (on account of it being far too brief and fuzzy to be able to make anything at all out), then that means that it must be what the conspiracy Theorist wants it to be.

I'm sure this is entirely logical, in the minds of the people who wish to promote Conspiracies, at any rate.

I've not claimed that. Since no one can say if it's real or fake, we'll have to deal with it as real. I don't have to make an assumption at all if this video is for real. In the end, if you read the thread, you'll find out I'm looking for an explanation on what we see.

I haven't jumped the gun by calling this footage an explosion. It is. No one yet can show me how it was faked. If they do, I'll drop it quickly.

No one deny's my intentions on this. I'm not promoting a Conpiracy theory. It's new evidence.. maybe... that needs analysis.

That's all.

What are you scared of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

W Tell, you don't seem to get the message? :) ..everyone just wants the 911 event to 'go away', it didn't happen.. you know what i mean? get with the program.

cave dwellers with box cutters masterminded it and outfoxed the mightiest nation on earth.

jesus dude, didn't that pristine hijacker passport floating down from the impact spell it out for you?

case closed.

..and we got saddam, right? ..and gadaffi

now line up for your food stamps, bar-code and vaccinations like a good sheep already, the kardashians are on at 8:00, be there or be square

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I haven't jumped the gun by calling this footage an explosion. It is. No one yet can show me how it was faked. If they do, I'll drop it quickly.

It looks like an explosion - a short, focussed burst of pressure.

I don't think it due to a floor falling in - this could not occur at such an isolated point, apparently below the fire zone, and neither are the core and perimeter truss connections likely to fail simultaneously giving the piston action required to generate the pressure - no, not a floor failure.

What other suggestions have we? Hmm cleaning substances :blush:

How about an explosive charge?

The timing and location of the footage would be useful. Is that the East face of WTC2?

PS It matches the 'squibs' seen during collapse... though the building is not yet collapsing... interesting.

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm gonna point out the obvious.

The Bee Gees.

How Deep is Your Love? :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny. I post a thread showing an explosion. I ask for opinions of what it may be. I'm still waiting for anyone to debunk it, but in the meantime I get attacked.

I'm open to options, though Chriz's opinion of air ducts are useless, his floor collapse makes a bit of since.

Guy's, dubunk the video. Quit attacking the messenger. I'm looking for a sane resolution to this..

What are we seeing?

Debunk what? It's a video...it shows something coming outta the building. There's nothing there to debunk. There's plenty to debunk however on a theory of it being an explosive charge.

Anyway, you want an explanation? T'was Superman. There you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's plenty to debunk however on a theory of it being an explosive charge.

That's what W Tell is waiting for, but so far it's not happening... do you have anything besides Superman?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one I'm not sure of. Has anyone else seen this footage?

It happens around the one minute mark, but they replay it several times at the end.

]

There wont be a fair investigation of 9/11 until Bush and Blair are well gone.

It doesnt matter if 95% of the US believe the Twin Towers were brought down with demolition charges. This guy or whatever it was left at high speed after being blown out of the window from high pressure. It may well be explsoive charges knocking out pillars inside to prepare it for demolition.

Lots of witnesses reported explosions like bombs were going off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is just the floor collasping into the next level which blew the windows out with debris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's what W Tell is waiting for, but so far it's not happening...

That would be in your exceptionally educated and unbiased opinion?

That would be as proven by all the facts you have posted.. oh wait..

That would be to support the claim of.. oh wait..

You haven't posted any facts, nor have you made a claim - so what is your claim?

...do you have anything besides Superman?

Oh, how droll! It's good to see such serious posting, to counter all the non-serious stuff..

I don't think it due to a floor falling in

Well that's gotta be good enough for ANYONE!! Funny though, WTell thought it might make 'since'.

- this could not occur at such an isolated point

No, of course it couldn't, because.. oh wait - again, content free posting..

apparently below the fire zone

Apparently? You're very good at this sort of debating.. Apparent to WHO? Based on what? How far would it need to be? (see below)

and neither are the core and perimeter truss connections likely to fail simultaneously giving the piston action required to generate the pressure

What the heck are you on about? A local section of suspended ceiling could do it easily! You do know how things can be set up in office buildings? How air pressure can be funneled into a small area and thereby given quite high velocities? That has very little do with simultaneous truss collapses, although I'm sure the technical words makes you sound like you know your stuff..

Frankly, these are just more examples of a complete inability to think through all the possibilities, and a tunnel-vision-driven desire to manufacture 'evidence' to further your conspiracy (it doesn't deserve the term 'theory', nor is it evidence of anything)..

- no, not a floor failure.

I see you didn't like the idea it could be ceiling (or wall) panels - so you just change it to a 'floor failure' and hope no-one notices - yet another card from under the deck.. Those sort of tactics are simply deceitful.

What other suggestions have we? Hmm cleaning substances :blush:

Why the embarrassed face? Lack of understanding and experience again? Haven't you ever seen what will happen when a simple, single bottle of methylated spirits has leaked and vaporised in a room, and then an ignition source is introduced? I'd suggest you don't try this at home, or you'll be going through a window..

Some folks here need to get out more, and stop pretending they have real world knowledge or experience when all they do is sit on their behinds and pretend to be experts. Crikey, even watching a few episodes of Mythbusters will show you the power of a relatively small amount of a vaporised volatile..

Let me be frank - this is a tiny fragment of video that doesn't show anything particularly 'identifiable' - the 'man' could simply be a bit of curtain material for all we know. There is insufficient information to make any determination whatsoever about what caused that 'blowout'. You can dance around and handwave, but without a lot more information, this is a worthless thread full of baseless claims and innuendo.

Interestingly enough, there COULD be information out there that would help to make a useful analysis possible. And so here's a challenge to WTell and Q24.

Tell us - what sort of information would be needed to make a useful analysis of this footage? I've given a few hints - but without further help, YOU tell us the rest. Show us your expertise.

And if you ARE claiming that you already have enough information - Where are the numbers? QUANTIFY your claims. Eg, to pick just one, tell us how close (and to what) that area would need to be for a ceiling/wall/floor collapse, and all of the assumptions you used to come to that conclusion. Then tell us how close it actually is.

So tell us what you would need for a real analysis. (Don't make me do it - that will just be embarrassing...! I'll give you a few days..) Now's your big chance - prove you aren't pretenders flailing your arms around and pulling claims from nowhere.

Edited by Chrlzs
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of witnesses reported explosions like bombs were going off.

Yes, so frequent and unusual were the explosions in a fire scenario that on the morning of 9/11 the FDNY and police officials actually worked to the theory that secondary devices were planted in the buildings.

A limited selection of the explosion reports are here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be in your exceptionally educated and unbiased opinion?

That would be as proven by all the facts you have posted.. oh wait..

That would be to support the claim of.. oh wait..

You haven't posted any facts, nor have you made a claim - so what is your claim?

The claim is that the observation could be explained due to an explosive charge.

That would be on the basis no one has 'debunked' that the explosion could be an explosive charge.

Now I'll try to pick out the substance from amongst the innuendo of your post...

No, of course it couldn't, because.. oh wait - again, content free posting..

This comment was in response to my suggestion that the isolated ejection could not be caused by a floor failure. To further explain - the floor system was a row of trusses interlinked through bridging trusses and a metal decking (poured with concrete). It is impossible for a single truss, or even a few, to collapse in isolation. Due to nature of the construction, any failure/collapse of a floor system must be widespread; a largescale event. Rather than a single location, the debris would be expected to exit multiple locations... unless that was the only open window in vicinity over the two levels.

Apparently? You're very good at this sort of debating.. Apparent to WHO? Based on what? How far would it need to be? (see below)

This comment was in response to my suggestion that the explosive ejection occurred below the fire zone. I thought this apparent as no smoke is coming from the ejection level, only higher up... indicating where the fires were. There is no reason for the floor system to fail below the fire zone.

What the heck are you on about? A local section of suspended ceiling could do it easily! You do know how things can be set up in office buildings? How air pressure can be funneled into a small area and thereby given quite high velocities? That has very little do with simultaneous truss collapses, although I'm sure the technical words makes you sound like you know your stuff..

I was simply pointing out that should one side of the truss fail, rather than both internal and external connections simultaneously, then it's not going to produce much of a pressure build up.

Frankly, these are just more examples of a complete inability to think through all the possibilities, and a tunnel-vision-driven desire to manufacture 'evidence' to further your conspiracy (it doesn't deserve the term 'theory', nor is it evidence of anything)..

Not at all, I've thought it through and above are three very good reasons the observed ejection does not fit a floor failure. Incidentally, the floor failure is your theory, which does not stand up to the scrutiny I've provided.

So no, not a floor failure.

I see you didn't like the idea it could be ceiling (or wall) panels - so you just change it to a 'floor failure' and hope no-one notices - yet another card from under the deck.. Those sort of tactics are simply deceitful.

Perhaps I missed you mention ceiling or wall panels earlier?

It would have to be a mighty large and heavy ceiling or wall panel to produce that pressure. And the same as above - why should it fail below the apparent fire zone and only in an isolated area?

Haven't you ever seen what will happen when a simple, single bottle of methylated spirits has leaked and vaporised in a room, and then an ignition source is introduced?

A single bottle in an open plan office? More flash-bang than a focussed pressure wave. I don't see any flash in the footage, so, if this occurred, it must have been some distance inside the building. Could the pressure wave of a vapor explosion be focussed and powerful enough to travel to the exterior, producing the isolated expulsion observed?

And again below the apparent fire zone.

Though it's a better suggestion than a floor failure.

At least then we would agree the ejection appears due to some form of explosion.

There is insufficient information to make any determination whatsoever about what caused that 'blowout'.

It was never meant to be the most damning of evidence, just something to consider along with the rest.

W Tell stated he was not sure of the cause.

I put forward, could it be an explosive charge?

Yes we are theorising/discussing the observation.

It is you drawing absolutes about what it was not... based on insufficient information.

I discarded the floor failure theory for the legitimate reasons given above.

The same of ceiling or wall panels.

I find methylated spirits, discussed above, a poor answer next to a dedicated charge of greater pressure.

In contrast, you have provided no legitimate reason for writing off an explosive charge, which does indeed fit the observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, so frequent and unusual were the explosions in a fire scenario that on the morning of 9/11 the FDNY and police officials actually worked to the theory that secondary devices were planted in the buildings.

A limited selection of the explosion reports are here.

Mossad agents were arrested in New York on Brooklyn bridge for having a van full of explosives on the morning of 9/11 but the police were forced to let them go. There are other reports of vans with explosives in them too and Middle Eastern men acting suspiciously around the city. All were missing from the offical report.

I think the US discovered the 9/11 plot and decided to make it a success with the help of Israeli special forces.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mossad agents were arrested in New York on Brooklyn bridge for having a van full of explosives on the morning of 9/11 but the police were forced to let them go. There are other reports of vans with explosives in them too and Middle Eastern men acting suspiciously around the city. All were missing from the offical report.

I think the US discovered the 9/11 plot and decided to make it a success with the help of Israeli special forces.

Didn't anyone tell you that was all 'investigated' and found to be 'A-ok'? :whistle:

Though seriously, I should point out that when searched no explosives were found in the van. It seems that a police sniffer dog reacted as though detecting explosives which brought about the incorrect reports... or perhaps the presence of explosives was covered up. At the least, this suggests to me that explosives were at some point transported in the van.

Lucky for us that dogs don't do cover-ups :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comment was in response to my suggestion that the explosive ejection occurred below the fire zone. I thought this apparent as no smoke is coming from the ejection level, only higher up... indicating where the fires were. There is no reason for the floor system to fail below the fire zone.

I think if there was a significant gap between the explosion and the smoke then you'd have a point, but there isn't a significant gap, only one floor, then twisted and broken windows above that.....as smoke rises and there appears to be no broken windows on the explosion floor (in view of the camera anyway) then it's obvious that it will only be visible where we see it visible on the vid.

If you was approaching a burning high rise you would never assume the smoke is a sign of where the fire starts...the initial training of checking for cold doors before entering has it's roots in the fact the two can't be assumed from sight alone when viewing a building from the outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the US discovered the 9/11 plot and decided to make it a success with the help of Israeli special forces.

I think that Chuck Norris would kick Bigfoots butt all over the Bermuda triangle.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does mispelling a word detract from a conversation.

"We'd". Really "We'd"? Dud honostly....

:no:

Yes, really.

"We'd", a legitimate English contraction, meaning "we would".

I'm sorry, but it's "Dude", not "Dud".

The "E" at the end changes the meaning and the pronunciation.

The phrase would've been better rendered as follows:

"HONESTLY, DUDE"

USED IN A SENTENCE:

Honestly, Dude, when your attempting to attack people's intelligence, spelling all the words in your attack statement properly will at least get you started without making yourself look silly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here ! Here ! Mid well put. The CT`s are hunting in a vast void of lack.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here ! Here ! Mid well put. The CT`s are hunting in a vast void of lack.

YEP, I agree.

And thank you, Sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The claim is that the observation could be explained due to an explosive charge.

O Rly? It could also have been from a nuclear explosion some kilometres away.. Yes, that's silly, isn't it - but there's just as much evidence for that, and I've provided just as much support for it, as you have for your 'claims'. None.

Now I'll try to pick out the substance from amongst the innuendo of your post...

Oh dang, there isn't any. It's ALL:

my suggestion...

would be expected...

I thought this apparent...

I was simply pointing out...

it's not going to produce much...

I've thought it through...

does not stand up to the scrutiny I've provided...

It would have to be...

the apparent fire zone...

it's a better suggestion...

Now, dear reader, you will notice the modus operandi - the same handwaving, the same lack of *anything* to back up all these statements that we are expected to accept. And did you notice that Q24 simply chopped off the challenge and refused to address it? He doesn't want to be seen as backing down, but he clearly has NO INTENTION of discussing what he (or WTell) would need to do to make any sort of 'case' out of this.

And of course he took the opportunity to make a whole pile of new claims and assertions, all completely unsupported.

Then there's this classic, which should give you an idea of Q24's methods, and/or his research abilities:

Perhaps I missed you mention ceiling or wall panels earlier?

Yes, perhaps you did, when I said this:

{Quoting ChrLz}

..it is most likely to be from a collapsing ceiling segment.

Do you need a direct link, Q24?

Now how many folks think that he just missed that? How many think that this is what he does all the time in his efforts to score points hoping that people won't check his 'work'?

And as just ONE example of his repetitive attempts to mislead, there's this:

why should it fail below the apparent fire zone and only in an isolated area?

As readers will note, I already asked him to support this claim, and he failed to do so - yet here it is being repeated as if nothing was queried.

I don't see any flash in the footage, so, if this occurred, it must have been some distance inside the building.

As I thought, he has never seen the explosion of something like metho which has virtually no visible flame, so this lack of knowledge gives him the right to move such an event so far away he can handwave it magically into the bin..? Seriously, this is just pitiful.

It was never meant to be the most damning of evidence, just something to consider along with the rest.

Translation: Yes, I have nothing, but I'll add it to my huge list of evidence for a conspiracy, anyway. Who needs quality when you can have quantity?

I think we can see why it's such a large list...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not see any evidence of an explosion and it seems to me that is a piece of fabric, not a person.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:no:

Yes, really.

"We'd", a legitimate English contraction, meaning "we would".

I'm sorry, but it's "Dude", not "Dud".

The "E" at the end changes the meaning and the pronunciation.

The phrase would've been better rendered as follows:

"HONESTLY, DUDE"

USED IN A SENTENCE:

Honestly, Dude, when your attempting to attack people's intelligence, spelling all the words in your attack statement properly will at least get you started without making yourself look silly.

Dud. You still haven't brought anything to the conversation. Grammer Nazis "hide my chap".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

]

There wont be a fair investigation of 9/11 until Bush and Blair are well gone.

It doesnt matter if 95% of the US believe the Twin Towers were brought down with demolition charges. This guy or whatever it was left at high speed after being blown out of the window from high pressure. It may well be explsoive charges knocking out pillars inside to prepare it for demolition.

Lots of witnesses reported explosions like bombs were going off.

I agree.

And for "whatever it was" that flew out the window, did you notice how quick it was to label it as something flimsy and light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dud. You still haven't brought anything to the conversation. Grammer Nazis "hide my chap".

OK.

It seems your contributions will remain in a deteriorated state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be in your exceptionally educated and unbiased opinion?

That would be as proven by all the facts you have posted.. oh wait..

That would be to support the claim of.. oh wait..

You haven't posted any facts, nor have you made a claim - so what is your claim?

To be honost, you haven't posted any facts yet. We should be able to agree there was an explosian before the collapse.(unless of course someone can show this video as a fake... then it's conversation over.) You have made some claims, to your credit. Except for the floor/ceiling collapse.. which does't have a lot of merit based upon the volume of floor/ceiling that needs to come down at once to produce that kind expultion of presure. I haven't discounted it though.
Oh, how droll! It's good to see such serious posting, to counter all the non-serious stuff..
Now who's being droll...
Well that's gotta be good enough for ANYONE!! Funny though, WTell thought it might make 'since'.

Yes. I would like to hear more about what you have to say on the subject. But be certain and for sure.. you shouldn't use me as an excuse to bolster your argument.

What the heck are you on about? A local section of suspended ceiling could do it easily! You do know how things can be set up in office buildings? How air pressure can be funneled into a small area and thereby given quite high velocities? That has very little do with simultaneous truss collapses, although I'm sure the technical words makes you sound like you know your stuff..
Whether it was from a floor/ceiling collapse, or an explsion, the thing I find odd is that it came out of one window. I'll add this, only for something to think about, but a floor collapse does not direct the pressure. But exhaust from a directed bomb would.
Frankly, these are just more examples of a complete inability to think through all the possibilities, and a tunnel-vision-driven desire to manufacture 'evidence' to further your conspiracy (it doesn't deserve the term 'theory', nor is it evidence of anything)..
I don't expect you to understand, but their are two stories to this same book. You, of course have read and believe the governments version. On the other side of the coin, are the CT group. When given it's due, the ones thinking through all of the possibilities are the CT group. Not the ones spouting the dogma given them. But something tells me this is lost on you.
I see you didn't like the idea it could be ceiling (or wall) panels - so you just change it to a 'floor failure' and hope no-one notices - yet another card from under the deck.. Those sort of tactics are simply deceitful.
I can't believe I have to tell you this. (sigh) In a building like that..one mans floor is another mans ceiling.
Why the embarrassed face? Lack of understanding and experience again? Haven't you ever seen what will happen when a simple, single bottle of methylated spirits has leaked and vaporised in a room, and then an ignition source is introduced? I'd suggest you don't try this at home, or you'll be going through a window..

As has already been said, a small localized flash/bang. Nothing that would produse that much energy.

Some folks here need to get out more, and stop pretending they have real world knowledge or experience when all they do is sit on their behinds and pretend to be experts. Crikey, even watching a few episodes of Mythbusters will show you the power of a relatively small amount of a vaporised volatile..

Don't know you. You don't know me. Don't cheapen the conversation by blaming lack of real world experance. Disgusting tactic.

Let me be frank - this is a tiny fragment of video that doesn't show anything particularly 'identifiable' - the 'man' could simply be a bit of curtain material for all we know. There is insufficient information to make any determination whatsoever about what caused that 'blowout'. You can dance around and handwave, but without a lot more information, this is a worthless thread full of baseless claims and innuendo.
Agreed on your first statement. It's much easier to say this blast was enough to throw some drapes out of a window. It's a whole nother beast to say it blew a man out of the window. I'm not sure how much pressure came out of that window, but it was "signifacant". Is that much obvious?
Interestingly enough, there COULD be information out there that would help to make a useful analysis possible. And so here's a challenge to WTell and Q24.

Tell us - what sort of information would be needed to make a useful analysis of this footage? I've given a few hints - but without further help, YOU tell us the rest. Show us your expertise.

You're wanting to say something. Might as well just spit it out.
And if you ARE claiming that you already have enough information - Where are the numbers? QUANTIFY your claims. Eg, to pick just one, tell us how close (and to what) that area would need to be for a ceiling/wall/floor collapse, and all of the assumptions you used to come to that conclusion. Then tell us how close it actually is.

I'd ask the same of you. How much of the

floor/ceiling collapsed at once to displce that much air through one window?

So tell us what you would need for a real analysis. (Don't make me do it - that will just be embarrassing...! I'll give you a few days..) Now's your big chance - prove you aren't pretenders flailing your arms around and pulling claims from nowhere.

NO. You seem to have something on your mind. Let's hear and judge "it" on it's virtue. I'm not fond of this kind of discussion. I post first so you can disassemble it. You either have an opinion and post it, or you don't. Mine's obvious by now. If what you have to say is you're opinion, fine. It's taken .... with a grain of salt, of course. And contemplated. But if all you want to do is attack a differing opinion (or viewpoint) that gets posted first than I wont play along. I'd rather your argument stand on it's own merits. Not a tit for tat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.

It seems your contributions will remain in a deteriorated state.

Weed agree on that dud.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.