It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

WTC Visual Explosives ('Squibs')

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Same here. Those don't look anything like the here and there "squibs" pointed out at the towers.

Notice also that one side is damaged more and starts to collapse--but the building still fall straight down as gravity dictates. And you can say those explosions are going off at different times, but they look pretty sequential and evenly timed to me.




posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Yea, maybe for you two, but some of us see that's a very good example of what occurs in the Towers AND WTC7. Either way, this is a matter of perspective. Some aren't going to see that as a comparison to the squibs we see, some will.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
Yea, maybe for you two, but some of us see that's a very good example of what occurs in the Towers AND WTC7. Either way, this is a matter of perspective. Some aren't going to see that as a comparison to the squibs we see, some will.


No. It is NOT a matter of perspective, it is a matter of whether there are observable similarities or not---which proves nothing one way or the other. No matter how you look at it, there are more differences than similarities. The "perspective" angle is just an attempt to keep things vague.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
No, there are observable similarities, I can see it, and he obviously sees it. There's more similarities than differences to ME, which doesn't PROVE anythin but suggests that the nature in which both Towers and WTC7 collapse are similar to a controlled demolition. Also, you don't have to quote preceding posts.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomX


Insolubrious, yup those rappers are running the whole show man. How about this film from 2000 killtown.911review.org...,2000-LoneGunmen_filming They are in on it too.

Correlation does not imply causation.


[edit on 1-7-2006 by DoomX]


Ok no need to be sarcastic, I was not implying the rappers were running the show!

But how can you be sure that they didn't have some inside knowledge? They had a release schedule for 9/12 but it was held back for two months (no surprise). The artwork for the album was completed in july. Their lyrics suggest they have used drugs, so if they are connected to any big drug dealers then perhaps there is a good chance they over heard rumours or discussions relate to the attacks circulating on the illegal underground network.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
No, there are observable similarities, I can see it, and he obviously sees it. There's more similarities than differences to ME, which doesn't PROVE anythin but suggests that the nature in which both Towers and WTC7 collapse are similar to a controlled demolition. Also, you don't have to quote preceding posts.


Yeah I know I don't have to quote posts and won't. Short posts such as the one by you I quoted contain the parts I'm responding to.

What ARE the similarities? What differences do you find?

Here an interesting tidbit.
You show info from Implosion World.

They have a small site with 86 members.

A couple of people posted questions to then asking their expertise in whether they think the wtc could have been done as a controlled demo.

They said no and that people who say yes just don't know what they're talking about---"chowderheads" one expert called them.

When the people asking the questions (who obviously were not willing to accept any answer that didn't support "yes"..) started to post long unrelated info about PNAC--Op. North--"pull it"--world controll etc.--the experts commented on the diversion of topic and stopped responding, which the CTs predictably took to be "running away from the truth".

So my point is --some people post pics of actual CDs from a demolition website.

When expert insight is asked of people in the know about CD at the TWC and they give the "wrong" answer--suddenly they are part of the "inside job"----why is that?


[edit on 2-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
No, there are observable similarities, I can see it, and he obviously sees it. There's more similarities than differences to ME, which doesn't PROVE anythin but suggests that the nature in which both Towers and WTC7 collapse are similar to a controlled demolition. Also, you don't have to quote preceding posts.


Yeah I know I don't have to quote posts and won't. Short posts such as the one by you I quoted contain the parts I'm responding to.

What ARE the similarities? What differences do you find?

Here an interesting tidbit.
You show info from Demolition World.

They have a small site with 86 members.

A couple of people posted questions to then asking their expertise in whether they think the wtc could have been done as a controlled demo.

They said No. and that people who say yes just don't know what they're talking about---"chowderheads" one expert called them.

When the people asking the questions (who obviously were not willing to accept any answer that didn't support "yes"..) started to post long unrelated info about PNAC--Op. North--"pull it"--world controll etc.--the experts commented on the diversion of topic and stopped responding, which the CTs predictably took to be "running away from the truth".

So my point is --some people post pics of actual CDs from a demolition website.

When expert insight is asked of people in the know about CD at the TWC and they give the "wrong" answer--suddenly they are part of the "inside job"----why is that?



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Excellant point Vushta. I didn't post the demo-video.

If you could provide links to where the experts have squashed the CD theory they would be more than welcome, if not long overdue in this thread.

You can expect people to question their 'expert' opinions and credentials. Did they explain why they didn't think it was a CD? Can it be verified that questions concerning the CD theory were answered by 'experts' on that website.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Thanks aecreate

If you go to the IW site there a link to "current dialog" or something like that. The thread is only 24 post long but thats because they just stopped responding imediately after the political/ideological slant was introduced.

They basically state the same reasons that others have brought up--accessing members--miles of detcord--and all the prepwork going unnoticed. Basically mirroring the obvious --"how was it done unnoticed?"



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Here's the Implosion World convo.

It's a good link, the masking of the prep-work would require some stealthy moves, but certainly some on here believe the Gov't is quite capable of executing.

The administrator, Brent, gave this thoughtful explanation:
"There are a million logistical and common sense things that preclude explosive demolition on the WTC site. Whether our gov't is corrupt, or it "looked" similar to an implosion, or "secret files" were in WTC #7, or some guy Silverstein with no demo experience or site authority said "Pull it", or whatever....that could all be true. However it's all completely irrelevant to the the irrefutable physical evidence that explosives were not involved in the collapses. It just didn't happen that way. Didn't happen.

Didn't. Happen.

Several I-world staff keep hoping that some day we'll have the time to list all of the reasons why the assertion is, to put it delicately, ludicrously assinine, however that day is proving elusive. Mostly because reporting on and dealing with real issues always seems to be more important.

But if you're reading this, please encourage people to keep sending us truckloads of conspiracy email, because it's a riot."

And on page 2, after junior member "Passer By" posed ten or so non-political based questions, the IW members stopped responding. Some of those questions, in my opinion, merit an expert response that was so easily brushed off as "Didn't Happen"



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 10:37 AM
link   
It just seems to me when the members of IW are presented with the information we've been privy to on this site, they take it as a threat to their paradigm, quickly brushing off our claims as "Didn't Happen" without providing some real expert analysis, and aren't quite ready to explore the option that it was an inside job.

"Don't hold your breath. We're coming up on three months since such basic info was promised. I would recommend that someone at implosionworld might either update us on the progresss of their work, or just admit that they've lost interest."

It would be nice to have an expert answer the questions posed on page 2



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
It would be nice to have an expert answer the questions posed on page 2


Maybe because the answers to those questions?..or were they more statements?.. are implied in the answer.."no we see no evidence of a collapse via explosives"



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Would still be nice to address each point, as it makes the 9/11 WTC collapse situation unique, haha
or we can just brush it under the carpet with one statement.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Why would you believe them?



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Anyone that can't see a single damned similarity here should consider questioning their own motives at this point. "Am I here to discuss what happened on 9/11, or am I here to argue and try to debunk everything I don't already believe?"

Seriously. For some of you to not see a single freaking similarity speaks volumes for you. Even if you don't think these are explosives, you can at least acknowledge that they appear very similar.






Expulsions of elongated, solid dust-saturated puffs. This is for BOTH cases. But obviously this means they are not similar at all -- DOH!

Is it too much cognitive dissonance to look at these things and think seriously for 2 seconds? Or have you seriously convinced yourselves that the above images show things that at least APPEAR totally and utterly alien to each other? Regardless of what you think they actually are -- you won't even admit they LOOK similar.


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Did that building fall faster than free-fall as well?


It's impossible to fall faster than free fall. But those buildings did fall at around free-fall speed, yes. Watch the real-time video I linked to. The supports were ripped out by explosives, which allowed them to fall virtually unresisted.

Now I'm assuming you're aware that objects have to positively accelerate as they're free-falling, but maybe I shouldn't.


Originally posted by aecreate
And on page 2, after junior member "Passer By" posed ten or so non-political based questions, the IW members stopped responding. Some of those questions, in my opinion, merit an expert response that was so easily brushed off as "Didn't Happen"


Yeah. The only things that people prove when they resort to mocking and ridicule is that they're jerks. And yet when people post like this on internet forums, it's nonetheless taken by the opposing crowd as hard evidence.

I've been around these forums long enough, I think, to have seen any substantial proof against demolition, or for the official story (FEMA, NIST, Greening, personal theories, etc. etc.). What I've seen is a lack of definitive proof of either, but at least demolition theory better addresses physical anomalies than does some theory of the trusses just falling out at a rate of about one every 0.12 seconds or whatever it would've have to have been.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
You're picking out isolated minor visual appearances and attempting to claim the events look similar as a whole.

An eagle has feathers, a beak and it flies.
A duck has feathers, a beak and it flies.
They share those similarities. but it would be difficult to find a person to confuse the two.

No matter how many pics you post with circles drawn within circles to make it appear that there are more individual "similar" things going on, the only egg you have in your basket is a couple of pressure expulsions that appear AFTER the collapse is initiated.

Look. The people who do controlled demos for a living call bullsheeet to the "inside job/demo" idea---but what do they know compared to someone who looks at a picture.



[edit on 3-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Hahaha, nice way to play away his post huh?



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   
It is sometimes very hard to tell what the real deal is. However, these squibbs do not really look like explosives. I haven't seen one video that clearly shows predetonation. Maybe they are well planned to go off at the right time. Technology only gets better. I do have one question though. I was looking at this video, and noticed the first building collapse, that the whole damn building, upright frames, and all just got sucked right into the ground and was totally buried below surface level. Can that possibly happen? You all may have seen it. It was Dan rather, and an amateur video which really speeded up, and got garbled looking. But, you can clearly see it looks like the whole damn building is sucked underground. If you like to see it, let me know. I'll post it somewhere.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Look. The people who do controlled demos for a living call bullsheeet to the "inside job/demo" idea---but what do they know compared to someone who looks at a picture.


The credibility of the members involved in the ImplosionWorld conversation have not been verified. You're assuming the discussion was held with experts. They dismissed the allegations of CD immediately, but when confronted with more information they gave promises such as:

"Tell ya what. Keep the million. We at I-World promise to write a detailed rebuttal to this nonsense, and we'll post it prominently on this site. Furthermore, we promise that whatever we write won't appease most of the misguided chowderheads out there with too much free time. But even if our article only exists as a tiny bastion of reason in a sea of lunacy, we'll know we tried. We'll stick to the principles of building failures and explosives and demolition. We'll address the impossibilities and the contradictions. And most important, we'll stick with the facts."

Shortly following that statement, these questions were posed, and there has not been a response or never any answers, and no "detailed rebuttal to this nonsense"

* Can someone explain the rapid sequence of apparent shaped charges (noticeable squibs of smoke) going up the building of WTC 7? The answer they gave me was this was due to momentum from 'pancaking' but this wouldn't explain why they are going UP the building and not down in building 7. In the video, you can see this clearly in at least two different parts of the building.

* Trademark collapsing on its own footprint. Can anyone give a rational explanation as to why this happened in all three buildings? This has all the earmarks of a controlled demolition.

* Major ejection of shredded debris firing out of WTC 1 and 2 (not as noticeable in 7) several hundred feet. There are countless photos and video of this. Is the reason again that momentum is destroying the building into pieces of fine debris shooting them out like a catapult? Surely, some measley jet fuel fires couldn't have done this.

* Pulverized dust of the concrete. Isn't this a hallmark demolition characteristic? Only high-octane explosives could do such a thing.

* Scores of eyewitnesses, including firefighters, police, rescue workers, and other bystanders all report of several explosions, loud crackling noises, and fine dust. Why would the federal government place a gag order on the NYFD from giving their testimony? It wasn't until a court order under the Freedom of Information Act that these testimonies were released in August of 2005. I wonder why that would be.

* Public firefighter tapes, people standing in the wounds of the building, obvious weak fires, and a little common sense shows that these fires were feeble. Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact in a giant ball of flame. How is it that some piddly fires brought down these massive skyscrapers designed to withstand 10 x the amount of damage?

* Historical precedent. Not a single high-rise steel-framed building has collapsed due to fire in history. Buildings built much more inferior blazed for hours and hours with 3 x the intensity of heat and the buildings remained solidly intact.

* 47 massive, solid steel columns which constituted the core of the building should have been sticking up several hundred feet into the air. Why did they collapse with the rest of the building as opposed to just the floors?

* Incredible free-fall speed. How does "pancaking" cause a less than 10 second collapse in complete free-fall fashion?

* Evidence of molten steel found; debris shipped off expeditiously out of the country and sold for profit.

We would like a response from suppposed experts on this implosionworld website.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by maximusX
I haven't seen one video that clearly shows predetonation.


Because thermite doesn't explode, and that's how they would initiate the collapses to avoid obvious explosions at the very beginning.


But, you can clearly see it looks like the whole damn building is sucked underground.


Do you mean the smoke being pulled backwards and down where the building was falling? This could've been because the building was being destroyed so quickly, and material ejected so quickly, that the vacated volume was being rapidly replaced by air.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join