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

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

I didn't get the memo.

There seems to be enough volunteres to deliver the message though.:0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

As much as I'd like to back you up for a change, your posts need none of that.:0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Don't think I'm not being honost. I didn't bring this in as evidence in an already established thread. I want to know what people think about this footage. If it's debunked, then here's the place to do so.

Even if it was just air, it had to build up some how. It's not air pressure from the collapse, that comes later. It's an explosion of something isn't it?

Mr Tell

I Do not post in here usually because I find it maddening how people are trying to get known murderers of the hook on a political agenda. Now, with that out of the way.

Have you ever been in a high Rise Building? If so, have you ever opened the door to the stair fire escape? If not, I suggest you give it a go, it will be difficult to open. Each floor has air conditioning, and that creates pressure in the closed space. Pressurisation fans are used to equalise the pressure in the fire escapes so that in the event of a fire you can actually open the door to the fire escape. This is known as buoyancy force. Humidity is also affected by the pressures. It is conceivable that with the building deteriorating that some fans cut out, and the pressures became unequal, and could possibly cause said apparent explosion.

That dark object could be a person, in fact it vaguely looks like a person in sitting position being thrown out, but then again it could be a curtain or even a coat stand. The clip is simply not clear enough to come to a definite conclusion, more information is required.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chrizs,

Thank you for your last post - there is nothing constructive to respond to that has not been said in my previous post, the on topic substance of which you did not address, in the main opting for the silly ("nuclear explosion some kilometers away") and personal accusations - not the way I'd like to take the thread. And it certainly has not been refuted that the ejection could have been caused by an explosive charge. Anyhow, there was just this I thought deserved a quick response: -

And did you notice that Q24 simply chopped off the challenge and refused to address it?

As W Tell said, if you have information or a suggestion you'd like to bring into the discussion then please do so. That would be better than asking us to guess what you are thinking. Personally I don't believe there is any further information that could resolve this issue, e.g. it is not possible to quantify the pressure of the expulsion in a meaningful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... there is nothing constructive to respond to that has not been said in my previous post

Well, there's a surprise..

the on topic substance of which you did not address

That's because there was no substance, just handwaving.

it certainly has not been refuted that the ejection could have been caused by an explosive charge.

Neither has my nuclear device idea been refuted... Q24, you're still not quite getting the point, are you?

As W Tell said, if you have information or a suggestion you'd like to bring into the discussion then please do so...

OK, I shall. And remember, neither YOU or WTell did any of what will now follow.

First up, let me try to explain this to you gently - feel free to dispute any of the following, but do so in a logical step by step fashion. (No editing out bits you don't like..)

WTell opened this thread with a video. His intent was (and still is) somewhat uncertain, but he seems to suggest that there was an explosion (of the incendiary type, methinks), and a person ejected by that.

Are we agreed so far? If not do clarify..

You've now joined in, with the seeming intent of suggesting that this is 'evidence' - but you are being a little vague as to what you think it is evidence of, other than again, suggesting a deliberately placed explosive device. But more to the point, you haven't shown us anything even remotely looking like an analysis, merely a whole pile of opinions and assumptions providing no support for any of them, and immediate (again unsupported) dismissal of any other possible causes.

Agreed? If not, now's the time to clarify - feel free, in your next post, to clarify specifically what this is evidence for, and why. Also feel free to add in anything that is in any way 'analytical'... As an example - how did you identify this as a person?

Personally I don't believe there is any further information that could resolve this issue

Aha! We are now getting closer to an admission...

Anway, I shall pause at this point and await any clarification or further analysis... And THEN, I shall be happy to point out in great detail why this video is USELESS, and that any attempt by an armchair expert to make it fit their fantasies is just another fantasy. I TRUST you are not one of those armchair experts.. but that then begs the question - why aren't YOU (and/or WTell) - as the promoters of the claim - bearing your responsibility to support the claim (not heard of 'burden of proof')? It's NOT my claim that there is something conspiratorial about the footage, it's YOURS.

BTW, if there is anyone else here with a decent knowledge of investigation and research who wishes to take up the cause, I'm happy to go into much more detail and discuss how REAL research is (or isn't) done.. But I won't be wasting my time further on WTell for obvious reasons (amongst which are things like his belief that a ceiling can't collapse unless the floor above comes down... My guess is that he isn't in the building trade...).

I await clarification.. after which I'm happy to go through what sort of information would be required to actually analyse this video. And then the readers will be able to judge who is able to swim at the deep end, and who is just poking their toe into a puddle while claiming to have won the last Olympic 50m freestyle..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I shall. And remember, neither YOU or WTell did any of what will now follow.

First up, let me try to explain this to you gently - feel free to dispute any of the following, but do so in a logical step by step fashion. (No editing out bits you don't like..)

WTell opened this thread with a video. His intent was (and still is) somewhat uncertain, but he seems to suggest that there was an explosion (of the incendiary type, methinks), and a person ejected by that.

Are we agreed so far? If not do clarify..

You've now joined in, with the seeming intent of suggesting that this is 'evidence' - but you are being a little vague as to what you think it is evidence of, other than again, suggesting a deliberately placed explosive device. But more to the point, you haven't shown us anything even remotely looking like an analysis, merely a whole pile of opinions and assumptions providing no support for any of them, and immediate (again unsupported) dismissal of any other possible causes.

Agreed? If not, now's the time to clarify - feel free, in your next post, to clarify specifically what this is evidence for, and why. Also feel free to add in anything that is in any way 'analytical'... As an example - how did you identify this as a person?

I can't agree with the way you have worded it...

Methinks it would be worthwhile you going back and reading word for word what W Tell and myself have actually said. For one example... neither of us have claimed the object is definitely a person (I haven't commented on the object at all)... yet you end with the question above. Also, I did already spell out both of our positions/intents toward the end of my post #36...

It's quite simple - W Tell and myself would like to discuss the observation and likely cause - that is why the thread was created. We are not closed minded... I think earlier W Tell said he was open to the idea of a floor collapse, and I couldn't entirely rule out your methylated spirit blast (though don't find it the best answer). So... if you have any further relevant information to add or discuss on the observation (as you keep hinting but not delivering), we'd love to hear it.

why aren't YOU (and/or WTell) - as the promoters of the claim - bearing your responsibility to support the claim (not heard of 'burden of proof')? It's NOT my claim that there is something conspiratorial about the footage, it's YOURS.

Neither of us have drawn a definite conclusion: "it was an explosive/demolition charge because X, Y and Z". Again, what we would actually like to discuss is: "what are the possible causes for the observation?" Along with the pros and cons of each.

If you have anything to rule out our leading hypothesis which you so obviously don't like, then go ahead. If you have anything to support your own favoured hypothesis then let us know and we will take a look. Let's weigh up the options and everyone can decide the likely cause.

Currently you're writing a lot but not saying much (in way of the topic).

Finally to add - this observation is a drop in the sea in way of evidence for demolition of the WTC buildings. I would think that W Tell, and certainly myself, are viewing the observation in context of the wider evidence which we are aware of. I find this best as it allows us to provide a one fit answer to explain all observations... and that answer, is demolition. On the other hand, I know that official theorists don't like to view the body of evidence, for there is no one fit answer, preferring to explain each observation in isolation. The result is a ever-growing list of coincidental and disparate explanations.

The above becomes relevant when considering Occam's razor: a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.

Anyhow, please continue with your methylated spirits hypothesis (yet another new one for official theorists to add to the list)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weed agree on that dud. ;)

:cry:

Indeed, I think most people agree that weed has a great deal to do with one deveoping into a dud :clap: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I just bring it to the attention of people that this site has rules, one of which is this one:

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.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think I'm not being honost. I didn't bring this in as evidence in an already established thread. I want to know what people think about this footage. If it's debunked, then here's the place to do so.

Even if it was just air, it had to build up some how. It's not air pressure from the collapse, that comes later. It's an explosion of something isn't it?

Occam's razor. We know that fires blow out windows all of the time. This phenomenon is see by fires frequently. The simplest answer is that this window was blown out by the fire, rather than some sort of charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Tell

I Do not post in here usually because I find it maddening how people are trying to get known murderers of the hook on a political agenda. Now, with that out of the way.

Have you ever been in a high Rise Building? If so, have you ever opened the door to the stair fire escape? If not, I suggest you give it a go, it will be difficult to open. Each floor has air conditioning, and that creates pressure in the closed space. Pressurisation fans are used to equalise the pressure in the fire escapes so that in the event of a fire you can actually open the door to the fire escape. This is known as buoyancy force. Humidity is also affected by the pressures. It is conceivable that with the building deteriorating that some fans cut out, and the pressures became unequal, and could possibly cause said apparent explosion.

That dark object could be a person, in fact it vaguely looks like a person in sitting position being thrown out, but then again it could be a curtain or even a coat stand. The clip is simply not clear enough to come to a definite conclusion, more information is required.

Now that is some food for thought. I've never tried to open the door to the stairwell. Could there be so much pressure in the stairwell, that when released, that it would create that much force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Occam's razor. We know that fires blow out windows all of the time. This phenomenon is see by fires frequently. The simplest answer is that this window was blown out by the fire, rather than some sort of charge.

I know what you're saying. Two things bother me though. First it's obvious the fires are above that floor. Second, fires do blow out windows, but I haven't yet seen one force air out like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I await clarification.. after which I'm happy to go through what sort of information would be required to actually analyse this video. And then the readers will be able to judge who is able to swim at the deep end, and who is just poking their toe into a puddle while claiming to have won the last Olympic 50m freestyle..

Good lord.

Just get on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Now that is some food for thought. I've never tried to open the door to the stairwell. Could there be so much pressure in the stairwell, that when released, that it would create that much force?

Not just the stairwell, but the entire building, each floor is pressurised, any imbalance could possibly have some dramatic repercussions. I would have to know more about specific conditions, but it strikes me as quite plausible given the situation. Fire eats oxygen as well, which I guess might have some type of flow on effect.

If you have the opportunity to enter a High Rise, give it a go, you will be able to open it because the pressures are stabilised, but it will require more force than you would usually require to open a door. The difference will be noticeable.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

DP

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good lord.

Just get on with it.

Just call me ChLrz.. And yes, certainly, seeing you asked so nicely. Given your (lack of) further comments on the video, I think it's fair to assume you have nothing more of substance to provide regarding the video.. So let's begin. Others are welcome to chip in with stuff I may have missed, or not thought of.

First up, I'd make the point right from the start, there should be a realisation that MANY, perhaps MOST one-off situations like this one, will simply NOT be accompanied by enough information to allow a conclusive analysis.

OK, let's get serious.. Here's a quick off-the-top-of-my-noggin outline of what would need to be done.. E&OE.

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..

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?

Let's move on, but there is more I haven't even touched upon..

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..

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.

Anyway, I'll pause there... I have lots more if anyone is interested - but I think by now you can look back at the posts on this thread and see for yourself how much of what I have pointed out was done... or even considered. You will also see the lengthy and wild handwaving I referred to. No numbers. No logic. Just "Omigod, that could only be...".. Ill-considered rubbish.

Of course all of this may look pretty daunting, and indeed gathering enough information for any reasonable analysis is very unlikely to ever happen - much of that information will now be impossible to gather or test, and probably wouldn't have been available even if we had unlimited access to every bit of data during/immediately after the event anyway. So, imnsho, it's a complete waste of time trying to come to any conclusion about what the video shows. Something gets blown out of a window, because some air rushed out. Yup, I can see that.

We don't know what the something is.

We don't know where we are looking.

We don't see any footage from any other angle.

We don't know how much, or little air was expelled.

We don't know what might have caused it.

We don't know what was behind that panel/window.

And so on, as per above..

About all we do know for sure is that the person who posted this at Youtube is absolutely certain about what happened!!!!1!!1!!

. :wacko: Yet he is a bit shy about providing all/any of the information I have outlined above - rather like certain posters here..

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post Chrlzs :tu:

What difference would the colour(s) in the room make though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I'll pause there... I have lots more if anyone is interested - but I think by now you can look back at the posts on this thread and see for yourself how much of what I have pointed out was done... or even considered. You will also see the lengthy and wild handwaving I referred to. No numbers. No logic. Just "Omigod, that could only be...".. Ill-considered rubbish.

Of course all of this may look pretty daunting, and indeed gathering enough information for any reasonable analysis is very unlikely to ever happen - much of that information will now be impossible to gather or test, and probably wouldn't have been available even if we had unlimited access to every bit of data during/immediately after the event anyway. So, imnsho, it's a complete waste of time trying to come to any conclusion about what the video shows. Something gets blown out of a window, because some air rushed out. Yup, I can see that.

We don't know what the something is.

We don't know where we are looking.

We don't see any footage from any other angle.

We don't know how much, or little air was expelled.

We don't know what might have caused it.

We don't know what was behind that panel/window.

And so on, as per above..

About all we do know for sure is that the person who posted this at Youtube is absolutely certain about what happened!!!!1!!1!!

. :wacko: Yet he is a bit shy about providing all/any of the information I have outlined above - rather like certain posters here..

Can't believe I wasted any time on your posts. You could have just said "I don't know either, but it could have been anything" and it would equal what was posted.

Good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe I wasted any time on your posts. You could have just said "I don't know either, but it could have been anything" and it would equal what was posted.

Good day.

That wouldn't make him sound as smart as he likes to sound though would it? Don't hold out any hope for a real answer though. Ch(L)rz is prone to abandoning threads...Right Ch(L)rz? Still waiting for your homeopathy study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wouldn't make him sound as smart as he likes to sound though would it? Don't hold out any hope for a real answer though. Ch(L)rz is prone to abandoning threads...Right Ch(L)rz? Still waiting for your homeopathy study.

.. wheras those who wish to promote conspiratorial theorising never let go and bang on endlessly until all the Skeptics have been converted to the indisputable rightness of their arguments? It rarely works like that; most people, when they feel that they are flogging a dead Horse, decide at some point that there's no point trying to argue any more, and just leave people to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent post Chrlzs :tu:

What difference would the colour(s) in the room make though?

Glad you asked! The reason I mentioned that was because it might help identify the 'thing' as a curtain, tablecloth, wallhanging, etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**** This part, down to the line of asterisks, is offtopic, just for he who hath wandered in.. ****

Homeopathy study? You mean that silliness about your 'Mom'? How is that relevant to this thread? If you are seriously still waiting for proof that homeopathy is 99.99% bovine excrement, you could start here http://onlinelibrary...02.01699.x/full

You might need to go visit a library to read the whole thing, but the abstract should give you a bit of an idea:

The results of these re-analyses demonstrate that the more rigorous trials are associated with smaller effect sizes which, in turn, render the overall effect insignificant ... Collectively these re-analyses imply that the initial conclusions of Linde et al. was not supported by critical evaluation of their data.

Do you want more? (in other words, is there no end to your laziness/unwillingness to do your own research anywhere but conspiracy sites/intense desire to point score/ad hominems?). I'll let the readers decide if I'm a pretender - they seem to actually read what I post and consider it / debate it sensibly, rather than shoot from the hip and let personal anger/dislike influence their decision.. {or in your case, perhaps (misplaced) 'derision'..} If you wish to take the homeopathy thing further, please POST ON THE RELEVANT THREAD. **** End Offtopic. ****

*****************************************************************************

Now, Wandering, would you like to add anything of value and on topic to this thread? Would you like to dispute any of what I posted? Would you like to add anything I've forgotten?

There's plenty more, but unless someone is willing to actually debate rather than offer one-line demonstrations of their disinterest/ineptitude, I don't think it's worth going much further. If you wish to call what I posted above, 'abandoning' the topic or that I'm trying to sound smart.. well, let's compare it to what YOU just posted, shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe I wasted any time on your posts. You could have just said "I don't know either, but it could have been anything" and it would equal what was posted.

Good day.

:D

It's ok, W Tell, I'm sure nobody noticed that you just edited out all the parts of my post that you didn't want to address..

I won't tell anyone - your secret's safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

It's ok, W Tell, I'm sure nobody noticed that you just edited out all the parts of my post that you didn't want to address..

I won't tell anyone - your secret's safe.

And I won't tell anyone you didn't bring anything to the discussion. I only quoted what was pertinent.

You wanted to play Sherlock. You're asking all the right questions, the same questions asked when any claim is made, but you failed in the follow up. You didn't answer a single one of them.

The way you were acting, I thought you might have had some answers.

So... you could have saved everyone time just by saying "I don't know either. It could have been anything".

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you asked! The reason I mentioned that was because it might help identify the 'thing' as a curtain, tablecloth, wallhanging, etc..

In what ways would color help identify tapestries from business suits? If it was bright orange or had a red and white checked design, you might be onto something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I won't tell anyone you didn't bring anything to the discussion. I only quoted what was pertinent.

You wanted to play Sherlock. You're asking all the right questions, the same questions asked when any claim is made, but you failed in the follow up. You didn't answer a single one of them.

But (as I remarked before), the irony with this statement is that that's all that those who wish to promote any kind of Conspiracy about anything at all ever do; they only ever say "something doesn't look right here", or produce vague and fuzzy photos that really could be anything, and certainly do not offer any vaguely plausible outline of what might have happened according to their favoured theory. They only ever say "think for yourself" and talk about Sheeple.They never answer a single question anyone ever asks them about how their preferred theory might have been done.

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.