It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Yet More Squibs At WTC

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:28 AM

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:32 AM
I have never really been able to take ANY of the squibs as anything definitive. (Which should be read they could mean about anything including some planted explosive in the building or not.) But these particular ones mean even less to me because they are at and above the impact point. I would think if there was any place there could be a heat/fire induced explosion due to the resultant fires from the impact, it would be at these locations.

So...for me this means absolutely nothing (other than to be yet another point of evidence of what utter hell it had to be on those upper floors

[edit on 6-2-2006 by Valhall]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 06:42 AM
As a matter of fact, if you will watch the impact point when the second set of squibs to the left of it are circled, you will see that a major fireball and "squibs", if you will, come out of it as well. Also, did you notice the jumper from the above floors at the time of the first set of squibs circled? It happens so close to the time the apparent explosion takes place that it makes you wonder if he jumped, or if he could have lost his grip due to the explosion.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:05 PM
If all the people in that certain shrinking circle would just forget about what they believe and pay attention to the numerous demolition squib videos like this. Thanks for posting this one. This one is really good.

Once those planes crashed into the building that was it. Big boom and then fires after that. These are secondary explosions after the fact. Thats not possible with the way the Bush Administration believes. Fuel doesn't explode after the initial blasts.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_CrowleyFuel doesn't explode after the initial blasts.

No, but the diffrent materials, chemicals, superheated air, along with fuel withing the building, along with compression of millions of tons of concrete and steel can.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
Fuel doesn't explode after the initial blasts.

No, but an intense heat in a confined space with the right secondary fuel materials can. And, I'm sorry, but that's a fact. These "squibs" are in areas of the highest temperatures with lots of secondary fuel sources. I want to make sure you understand that I'm not trying to dismiss squibs as possible evidence of internal explosive devices...that's not my intent. But I will remain logical.

Squibs caught on video below the impact point present several possibilities:

1. Planted internal explosive devices,
2. Secondary-fuel explosions due to resultant fires of impact,
3. Ejecta due to collapse of building.

That's why I state "they are not definitive". We can't look at a squib and say - that means "THIS" (fill in the blank). It absolutely is not definitive of anything. And at the same time, we CANNOT DISMISS IT as evidence of the possibility of any of the above three.

But when you talk about squibs at or above the impact zone...they become a bit more useless in arguments about internal charges. (Please do not read that as they become dismissable.) Because the odds that a secondary explosion due to the resultant fires of the initial impact become FAR greater. And thus the comments I made in my initial response to this post.

new topics

top topics

log in