WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

I would like to see more videos of high rise implosions. What is odd to me in that video is that lower "squib" comes out of the building at about three seconds in, and the "smoke" just hangs in the air for four seconds, and is just starting to dissipate when the camera turns away and the cameraman starts to run. Now if the wind was blowing hard enough to blow the smoke from the top of the buildings sideways wouldn't the smoke from a squib blow away pretty quickly? This looks like it just hangs out next to the building for a few seconds, then decides to go away.

Most of this thread discussion seems to hinge on the "FACT?" that the white spots are "Squibs"! It's ludicrous to say that a spot of white on a video is automatically a "SQUIB"! How about "It's an electrical short"? 440 volts does that quite well and in a building of that size 440 volts is common on every floor.

The no noise statement doesn't fly, either. It would if all parts of the building were suddenly accelerated downward at the exact same moment. Clearly, that's not so.

The large cloud? Well, I saw clouds as large as that when a large, old hotel in my home town was imploded, and to get everything to pile up staying on the property the ground level explosions started in the center and worked outward.

Your video clearly shows what looks like a floor to floor collapse to me and the video clearly shows a slight pause as the falling mass hits each floor.

The "analysis" presented just has too many assumptions to hold water as FACTS!

However, at this point in the discussion, protecting one possible theory as proof of "right" has become the issue, rather than group speculation of what is perceived from the presented data so this thread has lost validity. Oh well!

jafo72

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I would like to see more videos of high rise implosions. What is odd to me in that video is that lower "squib" comes out of the building at about three seconds in, and the "smoke" just hangs in the air for four seconds, and is just starting to dissipate when the camera turns away and the cameraman starts to run. Now if the wind was blowing hard enough to blow the smoke from the top of the buildings sideways wouldn't the smoke from a squib blow away pretty quickly? This looks like it just hangs out next to the building for a few seconds, then decides to go away.

Interesting question Zaphod. Nice to see someone here is approaching things with rational questions and arguments and debating amicably.

1. The winds would be much stronger at the top of the towers than at the (approx.) 25th floor where the lower squib came out. If you've ever been on the roof or balcony in a high-rise building you'll remember the difference in wind speed compared to lower heights.

2. The wind flow at the top of the towers is not obstructed or dispersed by other buildings as it is lower down.

3. The convection forces of the heat from the fires and the heat of the smoke itself would add to the upward and outward dispersion of the smoke at the top.

4. If the squib were comprised of heavier particles, such as pulverized concrete and/or glass, it would tend to hang in the air and retain its shape longer. The second squib appears to be more thinly dispersed and ejected with a greater expulsive force, and thus can be seen to disperse and move upwards slightly before being swallowed by the dust from descending destruction.


There can also be observed what may be shattering of glass and smoke in the darker, banded area. It's not very clear in these grabs, but again, you must actually watch the video to appreciate the effect.

Here is the location I'm referring to.


[edit on 2005/6/28 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by jafo72
Most of this thread discussion seems to hinge on the "FACT?" that the white spots are "Squibs"! It's ludicrous to say that a spot of white on a video is automatically a "SQUIB"! How about "It's an electrical short"? 440 volts does that quite well and in a building of that size 440 volts is common on every floor.

Thats a new one.......I dont even know what to say about that one.
An electrical short is not going to produce the many identicle effects.I am sure it isnt going to produce an explosive stream of smoke either.
If electrical shorts, only one would happen, as the short would take all of the energy......and ..oh wait, THE POWER WAS OFF!!!

No electrical short

I noticed that also when I watched the video but wasn't sure if it was just me or not. I'm just having a really hard time to believe that they would crash the planes into the towers AND set off squibs to bring the towers down. I remember how angry people were in 93 when it was the truck bomb that just damaged the towers. While killing so many people would increase the anger factor, just crashing the planes into the towers, and the Pentagon would have been more than enough to create a case to go to war. Or setting off a "car bomb" in the basements to collapse the towers when it was unexpected and would kill more people.....

I have read so much testimony from experts, and seen what they are talking about that I find it easy to believe what they are saying. I know there ARE some irregularities about 9/11 and things that our government is hiding, I've always admitted that, but I also know how easy it would have been to hijack a plane, fly it back to NY, and crash it into the buildings.


Edit: Some portions moved to new thread
[edit on 28-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

Edit: Moved to new thread

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

What you've posted is very interesting, Zaphod, and worthy of a thread unto its own. But it doesn't have much to do with the collapse of the towers, which is the topic of this thread. If we start getting into NORAD and the hijacker side of the issue here, then we'll get nowhere.

"You eat an elephant one bite at a time", I saw someone post elsewhere.

I agree, and since I can't remember which topic had the military parts posted, I just started a whole new thread to argue in. heh. Too many threads going on.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

Where is the squib here?... oh my, it dissapeared. it must have been Silverstein who made it dissapear all of a sudden...



Time for another conspiracy theory.....and we shall name it "The Mysterious Dissapearance Of Squibs"....

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

There can also be observed what may be shattering of glass and smoke in the darker, banded area. It's not very clear in these grabs, but again, you must actually watch the video to appreciate the effect.

Here is the location I'm referring to.

[edit on 2005/6/28 by wecomeinpeace]

I believe that those are the mechanical floors, and that is probably smoke/dust being forced out of the air handler intakes by the reversed air pressure.

Originally posted by SMR
I fully agree with that Howard.I do.
All I can say about that issue though is all the video showing WTC 7 falling, has no audio.If there is a video showing that fall that has audio, I am not aware of it.
From what has been reportsed, peole did hear explosions.Were they from WTC 1, 2 or 7? We do know some said they heard it in the streets and from inside.
I personally cant say there was or wasnt explosions heard for WTC 7, because as I state above, all video of it falling have no audio.
If there is video of WTC 7 falling WITH audio, please direct me to it.

I sent Tom Clancy an email asking him about the video, he said the audio wasn't working. I tried to get a firm answer on whether or not he thinks the video is fake, he hasn't given me an opinion. More than anything, he seems to wonder why there there should even be a fuss, he stated clearly that he thinks burning fuel brought the building down.

Are we talking about the same footage? Maybe I presumed it was the same because you said the audio was down, but building 7 was supposed to have fallen after the towers. The footage with Tom Clancy's name on it shows towers standing.

OK, I used the electrical arc thing just to emphasize the point that "squibs" have yet to be proven and they only exist as one theory, not as a fact.

However, the pictures do show something interesting, Note the direction of the sunlight (near the bottom, the shadow of another building exists) Now, look at this snippet.

A shadow seems to appear down and to the left, beginning at the white dot. Radiating upward and to the right, there appears to be a white reflection also beginning at the white dot. This next snippet:

Whatever is causing the white dot seems to have rotated, and a brighter reflection seems to strike the building, but also starting at the white dot.

Though not proven, the evidence that causes these effects is likely a pane of glass creating the shadow and causing the reflection of sunlight onto the building. It would be interesting to examine the video frame by frame with this thought in mind to see if THIS theory holds water.

I'm not equipped to do that but I'm sure some of you can do that from the video.

jafo21

Originally posted by SMR
Are you fricken blind!!!!
I quoted you and made the reply,,,,,, JHC man!! Is this your way of making people give up or something? I will let you know I will not.

If you can't understand that i made a generalized point because all three of you are making claims that don't stand up to reason, and instead want to make it a big deal go ahead. I am not wasting my time trying to explain a sentence to you.

Originally posted by SMR
APPLES........EAT EM' !!!!!!! and hope you choke on them.

LOL, you have watched "Good Will Hunting" too many times.....watching a movie doesn't make you smart btw....

Originally posted by SMR
I will however continue to show that WTC 7 was demolished and not to have fallen by fire or weakness in the structure.
Goodbye Agent Muaddib

LOL, me a disinfo agent? not really, I am too outspoken. If there were any disinfo agents in here, they would keep a low profile, mostly being lurkers and just watching the show. You might even think they are your friends, and more often than not their goals would be to try to give credit to hoaxes and bogus stories instead of the real conspiracies. This way they would discredit any real conspiracies, and websites such as this one. You almost fit the profile, but you are not smart enough to be a government agent, no offence.

I am certain there are also disinfo agents from other countries going around sites such as this one trying to see what they can use against other governments.

Anyways...back on topic. Your theory has been debunked with facts, that doesn't make me a government agent, and being intelligent doesn't make me a government agent either....unless you want to now claim that all intelligent people are government agents.....

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by jafo72
..................
Though not proven, the evidence that causes these effects is likely a pane of glass creating the shadow and causing the reflection of sunlight onto the building. It would be interesting to examine the video frame by frame with this thought in mind to see if THIS theory holds water.
..............

jafo72, if i had more Above Top Secret Awards i would give it to you.

That's one of the possible reasons i saw for that bright spot. i think it is the most likely, although I won't speculate as to what it is yet since I am not a photoshop expert, and IT is not really my field.

Anyways, with the limited knowledge i have, looking at the pictures given, the enhancement seems to be low quality, you can see the pixels of the frame in several parts and distortions as well all over the picture, so it is possible that it could be a hoax, or the frame was not enhanced and retouched properly.

You would get more or less the same effect if you put a video on your vcr, pause the video and the try to enhance it by looking at the tv through a magnifying glass/spyglass. You will see pixels all over the place, dark and bright spots where normally there wouldn't be any when looking at the tv without the magnifying glass/spyglass. I know it is a poor analogy, but I think i am right. What we need is an expert in photoshop. Probalby he/she can explain it better.

---Edited to add---

It does seem as if someone did some retouching of the pictures already. i remember seeing more distortion and pixels in the first pictures given, could be wrong.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib


Another of the theories in which some people keep claiming something else happened at the WTC is proved to be false, and now we get two people trying to come up with some lame excuses, which do not make any sense, trying to prove to themselves and anyone dumb enough to believe that "if the towers went into PERFECT freefall all by themselves, THEY WOULDN"T MAKE A SOUND, AND THERE WOULD BE NO DUST CLOUD."....

This topic is now officially going into the world of la la land.

muaddib, if i was wrong about this, howard would have called me on it right away. his response to this is, "i don't agree with those calculations", not, "that is bad science".

i'll go through it again, because if you're going to continue all your super successful "debunking", LOL, you will need to understand this simple physics law. the law of conservation of energy.

can you make a sound without moving? if you stopped eating, would you be strong? can you blow a puff of smoke out of your lungs without moving?
can a car with no gas be driven away? does gas push a car? are you getting this? you need to convert energy from one form into another in order to do work.
the amount of work required to bring a tower down instantly, is far greater(over time) than the amount to bring it down slowly.
if the towers stood for twenty thousand years, the rain would do this work.
if the towers fell at the same rate as the acceleration of gravity, that would be perfect freefall. so, muaddib, once again, for every decrease in the time of the collapse, there is a greater energy requirement over time.

the reason a tower all of a sudden falling all by itself would make no sound, and have no puff of smoke, is because 100% of the energy available would be converted from gravity into motion.
every time there is a crash, the energy to create that sound comes from the same source as the energy of collapse, ie. gravity. everytime a piece of concrete is pulverized(and the more complete the pulverisation, the greater the energy requirement), there is less energy available. for every air pocket between floors that is resisting the downward cascade, the fall should be slowed. for every metre of distance something is thrown from the towers, there is less energy available to speed the collapse.
do you understand yet? the potential energy from gravity is like the gas, and the towers are like a car. the faster you drive the tower into the ground, the faster you burn your gas. so, if these towers did indeed fall at near the rate of acceleration due to gravity, and they made a dust cloud that big, and they made a loud noise, AND THERE WAS MOLTEN STEEL IN THE BASEMENT FOR WEEKS AFTERWARDS(it takes a great deal of energy to melt steel), ......it would be like getting into a dodge viper with a gallon of gas in it, and driving at 160 mph from NY to LA.

there has to be a massive external source of energy to account for all the work that was done(work in the physics sense, my little messiah of dune).

do you understand the law of conservation of energy, now? because all the physicists in la la land understand it.


[edit on 29-6-2005 by billybob]

Billybob, you hit that nail one shot.

Sorry for all the pictures I'm a man of few words, and these pics, say more that I could ever try to write.

People have to wunder what kind on power did this below, please emember that this took place long after the planes hit the Towers.













[edit on 29/6/2005 by Sauron]

originally posted by billybob
do you understand the law of conservation of energy, now? because all the physicists in la la land understand it.

My guess, billybob, is that the member does understand it, but he knows that directly addressing it would be a losing argument. So he has opted to attempt to frustrate you by pretending to not understand it and making you repeat it many times until you give up, or slip up. He is also hoping that the casual observers here will be diverted by his attempt to obfuscate the concept you presented.

The member has used the same ridiculously transparent tactic by taking one of the images I posted of the WTC2 captured just before a squib emerged and laughably attempted to infer that this image constitutes proof that squibs had "disappeared".

14 pages into the thread and disinformation tactics such as these are unimportant and a sad sign of desperation. Enough evidence has been presented and the disinfo tactics have been defeated well enough that neutral observers, if there are any left still watching, will be able to decide for themselves what they believe.

If any of the pseudo-debunkers here are paid disinformationists, as many have inferred, then I think they will be getting a serious pay cut next month.

Armed with the truth, we shall prevail.

For a lot of good satellite images of the WTC and Pentagon, here's a URL to start you off. Perhaps someone may see something in these images to aid in the understanding of this thread discussion.

www.globalsecurity.org...

These paragraphs at the end of that URL may add insight to the mechanics of collapse!

"More than 200,000 tons of steel were used in the World Trade Center's construction. Construction of the Trade Center used 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. There were 43,600 windows in the two Tower buildings -- over 600,000 square feet of glass. There were 99 elevators, including 23 express elevators in each Tower building. There were five levels below ground including parking for almost 2000 cars. "

"The existence of "sky lobbies" at the 44 and 78 floors in each Tower thus made each tower essentially three buildings, one on top of another, no regular passenger elevator ran all the way to the top."

Also, in my last post, I mentioned the shadow of a building on the tower. Because I snipped only a small portion of two large frames posted earlier, neither snippet shows the shadow. However, it was in the larger image from which one of the snippets was made.

One final comment. Concrete always retains some trapped moisture. This from my son, a concrete company foreman whose company makes high rise concrete buildings. Is it possible that the concrete, suddenly intensely heated by the exploding fuel, be turned into powder by rapidly expanding steam from such moisture?

This may be a trite way of explaining, but good popcorn has approximately 12 % moisture for best popping, and a more or less hard skin ( the varieties chosen are picked because the skin (hull) is not porus). The resulting steam does produce a nice "explosive" result.

Is it possible that the concrete powder is the result of trapped steam? The grinding together of the falling pieces of conctete and steel would contribute powder as well. Just another thought!

My apologies to anyone thinking that my posts are aimed at putting you down. That certainly is NOT the case. I'm merely trying to separate known facts from conjectures and theories. When we have enough facts, we will know the mechanics and causes involved.

jafo72

electrical shorts , at the windows ? going off in sequence ?

creative...

I'm not buying it tho...
--------------------------------
BACK TO THE POOLS OF MELTED STEEL

other than a vague reference to them being large, is there any documentation

as to the size and number of them ? any forensics ? [ cuz I don't recall any ]

-----------------------------------------

anyone notice the two different colors of the clouds ? white and brownish gray ,

are there any other speculations to the two different clouds ,

which suggest to me , two DIFFERENT SOURCES, for their origin !

eh ?