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: 12
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Damocles
and yet, i was a military demo engineer, i dont see a CD (for reasons ive gone into ad nauseum) and my opinion is just brushed aside cuz i dont agree...

hypocrisy.


Frankly you could both not see a demolition and I would still not agree with you. I was responding to a comment that no one agreed with Jones. Please put things into context. I don't value your opinions that much. I'm not that easily persuaded.


People with strong bias never do value the opinions of otheres who disagree with their notions of reality.
You're being consistant with the personality type.

The question really isn't WHOs opinion does one value, but WHY is that opinion valued?
I disagree, you're very easily persuaded as evidenced by that fact that you feel so strongly about something you have absolutely no evidence for.


And no..no one with the expertise need to make the claims that Jones does, agrees with his conclusions.




posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Nope, no pictures of the 20 story hole that I have found so far. Only the testimony of members of the NYFD that were there that day.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ... on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.


Fire chief Daniel Nigro clearly thought the building could collapse. Here's why:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Although, this site does have ONE picture of the damaged side of WTC7
www.geocities.com...

There are OTHER testimonies from NYFD members that day about WTC7....but they pretty much say the same things as the two I posted above.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
And you believe our Gov'ts fantastic report? Their detached unbiased look at the infomation? That is the last thing those clowns are. How gullible are you?

The fact that a group of individuals most likely more knowledgable than us are attempting to answer our questions that we feel weren't adequately answered in the Gov'ts official story or were dismissed because it goes against the common belief is an admirable endeavor.

In the end,
people are just gona choose to believe whatever information.
This has been a phenomenal discussion nonetheless.

[edit on 7/3/2006 by aecreate]




I think that you're mixing things up.
You seem to think that the politicans are the ones who conducted the investigation.
Thats false.

No. I don't believe "the Governments" report.
I trust the the expertise of the personel from around the planet..the time tested and evolving methodology...the state of the art facilities and peer reviewed conclusions have in deed arrived at the most likely cause of the collapses.

On the other side of the scale is ...what?

In the end SOME people choose what the believe and others rely on the things I stated above.




or were dismissed because it goes against the common belief is an admirable endeavor.


No..they were dismissed because the evidence did not match the conclusions.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
1. Explain to me how they're similar.


Puffs. Of. Solid. Dust. Being. Ejected. Out. Of. Collapsing. Buildings.

What makes them different? Each time I ask this you just ask me back. I don't understand how you think that that's a logical argument.

What about the ejections looks different between the WTC Towers and the Southwark Towers? What about those long, rapid ejections of fine dust from the collapsing buildings appears different in one than the other? They CAN go off in whatever order they're programmed, that's not the question. I'm asking you what makes them look so freaking different.


3. You stated that the "sqibs" look the same whether air expulsions or explosive born.


No I didn't. I stated that I think they're BOTH because of explosives.



Impossible, because skyscrapers have never collapsed like that before 9/11. Or after.


I didn't say just skyscrapers.


Same problem. I've never seen a single building that wasn't a demolition eject solid dust from something being pulverized within the building.


Half of 100 squibs on a 26 story building is still 50.

Half of 2 on a 133 story building is 1.


First, the WTC Towers had 110 floors. Not 133.

Second, there weren't only 2 squibs. I can point out more like 7 in the single image I've been using predominantly on this thread. There are at least 12 or 14 or so known squibs, and these are only the ones that stuck out. Remember that our argument is that the collapse wave itself consisted of these things racing down the buildings in rows. The point was not to be able to see them. Please, PLEASE learn what we're arguing before you try to attack it. It will save us both time.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
People with strong bias never do value the opinions of otheres who disagree with their notions of reality.


I don't really value opinions at all by this point, because everyone has them and they almost always contradict each other.

I'm more concerned with facts. Sorry if you see this as something inconvenient about my personality, but I don't give a damn about that opinion either.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Vushta
The vids you post from youtube are worthless. The "squibs" start after the collapse begins..Whats on the other side of the building? is it the side with the missing corner and 20 story hole? etc.


No. There are no photos of the 20 story hole, but the other side of WTC7 had been photographed before its collapse from Ground Zero, and it looked just fine.


The "ejected debris" one is laughable. It tries to impart the idea that all that was "ejected" prior to collapse by some mysterious force...Its a result of the collapse.


Dude, you just freaking said there were no large ejections of debris. I posted that to prove there were, not to argue with you about how it got there, regardless of the fact that you interpreted that vid wrong anyway.


Got a link to the "gag orders"?


I have a .pdf file of Rodriguez's court case and a video of a conference with Indira Singh, if you'd like those.

I think this is the video: pittsburgh.indymedia.org...


The example you give implies a individual department policy with "having to talk to "the chief" first. Got a link?


Sure. I'll post it just so you can come up with some ridiculous 2-liner to explain it away.


NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” said Isaac.
[...]
Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.

“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airliner’s impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.

Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.


Source.


No one actually saw explosions or "bombs". Why might they jump to that conclusion?..oh, I don't know..maybe because the wtc WAS bombed before?

He must have been joking. The out of context, edited "quotes" of the firemen have been debunked so many times no one can possibly believe them anymore.


Oh yeah, they were joking alright. They thought it was HILARIOUS how so many of their comrades died.

And what is out of context about 'there's a bomb in the building, clear out'? That's about all he freaking said!

No crap you don't agree with these guys, but at least try not to be so dense as you try to shrug them off. I've never seen these debunked in the least and I've seen these pretty often, but if you want to be the first then go ahead.

Go ahead and try to debunk the freaking eyewitness testimony from firefighters.


1. Firemen reported (you do believe testimony from firemen don't you?) the whole corner scooped out and raging fires for 20 stories.

2.Sorry but thats deceptive. "Ejected" paints a distinct picture. If you trip over your sock and fall into the T.V. would it be accurate to state you were "ejected" into the T.V.?

3. I've seen those. I'd like to see the "gag order". If you haven't seen it, why do you belive it exists. You're supposed to be hard to persuade.

4. Thats a statement by Isaac. Where the "gag order'? Is Isaac the only one to claim this? Rodriguez changed his story 3 times. Not the trait of a credibly witness.




Oh yeah, they were joking alright. They thought it was HILARIOUS how so many of their comrades died.


An appeal to emotion does not make the case any stronger.

You've never heard about the firemens statement being taken out of context??? Thats hard to believe.
Ciaacone (sp) was ready to sue.
I'll post a link.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Vushta, what do you believe happened that day? What do you believe?



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
"So they're all fakes?
What are you basing that on?"

Back at ya,
So they're all credible?
What are yooouuu basing that on?

We can rip right into your sources just as easily as you do ours.
It aint my job to find you credible links to base your arguments on lol, you email them. Maybe they'll let you know when they plan on giving that rebuttal?



1. They work as demolitionists.

2. They are not the only ones who say The CD theory is crap.

As far as the emailing for information goes..if anyone BUT you says they got this info. from a credible source...why would you believe them? The only meaningful way is to do it yourself.

Are you afraid of the response you may get?

You feel so strongly that a CD of the towers could be possible.

I assume that that belief is based on a reasoned and researched deduction.

Knowing what is involved in a controlled demolition and the amount of time and work needed, let me ask you or anyone who would like to respond this simple..to the point..non- deflective question.

How were the buildings rigged with no one noticing?



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Why do you have to quote the whole massive preceding post?


Originally posted by Vushta
1. Firemen reported (you do believe testimony from firemen don't you?) the whole corner scooped out and raging fires for 20 stories.


Non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with what I was arguing.


2.Sorry but thats deceptive. "Ejected" paints a distinct picture. If you trip over your sock and fall into the T.V. would it be accurate to state you were "ejected" into the T.V.?


Semantics. You call it what you like, I'll call it what I like.


3. I've seen those. I'd like to see the "gag order". If you haven't seen it, why do you belive it exists. You're supposed to be hard to persuade.


Because I've seen it reported by various eyewitnesses that were there and yet were not in contact with the other eyewitnesses. I don't think this is some coincidence, that three people happened to make up the same random lie for reasons beyond me.


Rodriguez changed his story 3 times. Not the trait of a credibly witness.


Elaborate.



An appeal to emotion does not make the case any stronger.


I wasn't appealing to emotion. Use your head: is someone that's lost buddies going to be JOKING about explosives going off in a building? Why am I even arguing this with you? This is ridiculous.


You've never heard about the firemens statement being taken out of context??? Thats hard to believe.
Ciaacone (sp) was ready to sue.
I'll post a link.


Dude, I was talking about the videos. A firefighter said something to the extent of "there's a bomb in the building, everybody clear out". Is that out of context? The others similarly reported explosions and etc. that were not out of context. It's not that hard.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
You missed the point again.
The fields that they are "scholars" in have nothing to do with the fields that they are giving opinions on.

Their organization--s911t is a single pointed issue organization.
To call IT 'Scholars" is an insult. The word "scholars" implies a detached unbiased and studied look at the facts and a non caring additude to where the facts lead....they're "scholars"..they're just interested in the facts.

This is the last thing those clowns could be characterized as. The bias is glaring and evidenced by the guidlines of their forum..anyone who disagrees with their conclusion or could be "disruptive" to the goals of the organization will be banned.
Real "scholarly" approach to finding the truth. Sounds much more like religious zealotry to me.



You will not admit a single freaking point no matter how hard it can be drilled into your face.


"drilling" points into my face is a waste of your time.
I demands facts to base my conclusions on.



There ARE experts who believe the towers were demolished.


Experts in WHAT? And would you name a couple?



There WERE firefighters that said there were bombs in the buildings.


No. There were people who heard "explosive sounds". No one every claims to have SEEN a bomb, or SEEN anything like a bomb explode. If I'm wrong could you direct me to the source?



There ARE people who agree with Dr. Steven Jones.


So? There ARE people who agree we never landed on the moon. (think fetzer/jack white/eric humscfield (sp)among other on the "scholars" member list.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   


What makes them different? Each time I ask this you just ask me back. I don't understand how you think that that's a logical argument.


You must not be reading my replies.
I stated more than once the inconsistancies are looks..numbers..sequence..timing..placement..etc.



What about the ejections looks different between the WTC Towers and the Southwark Towers? What about those long, rapid ejections of fine dust from the collapsing


What looks different?
Even from a distance you can see the signs of weeks of intensive prep work.
The number and timeing of "squibs" is not even in the ballpark...30-50 for a 26 story building vs. 2-5 for a 113 story building...the collapses are totally different is visual appearances..etc. etc....why does it seem like I've already pointed these things out only to be asked yet again?



No I didn't. I stated that I think they're BOTH because of explosives.

You're being dishonest.



Same problem. I've never seen a single building that wasn't a demolition eject solid dust from something being pulverized within the building.


You missed my point of the original statement..to try a CT tactic by asking a question that can never arrive at an acceptable answer.



First, the WTC Towers had 110 floors. Not 133.


I stand corrected. The minutia is getting fatiguing. 1300+ ft. 110 stories.



Remember that our argument is that the collapse wave itself consisted of these things racing down the buildings in rows. The point was not to be able to see them. Please, PLEASE learn what we're arguing before you try to attack it. It will save us both time.


No..Thats YOUR argument. Mine is that there were no explosive "squibs" and have pointed out why more than once.

2..7..14..whatever. the number and sequence and timing is way off and not credible. To try and handwave this away by saying "the point was not to be able to see them" is just dodging. How could the be made invisible? In a CD the charges have to go where the charges have to go. You can't just.."leave THOSE out...somebody may see THOSE"



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


I'm more concerned with facts. Sorry if you see this as something inconvenient about my personality, but I don't give a damn about that opinion either.


I don't see it as inconvenient at all...and you shouldn't care about my opinion.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
I'm out for the night.
Thanks all..its been fun.
Good disscussion.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   


I find the story of the firemen who survived the collapse as very compelling evidence that there was huge amounts of air pressure in the building during the collapse.


Some people might think that, that might of been hot air from a explosive device going off inside the building which lifted the fire fighter off his feat.




It's impossible to fall faster than free fall. But those buildings did fall at around free-fall speed,


No it's not. Not if the explosives created a vaccuum around the Towers which pulled down the buildings at a faster rate then normal.

However the Towers did NOT fall in free fall, they fell within a couple of seconds off Free fall.


I would personally say about:

10. 5 Seconds for the South Tower
and about 12 seconds for the North Tower.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   
The building still offered virtually no resistance against the floors falling on top of each other. But if this was possible, then how was the concrete and other debris in the building pulverized? If there's no resistance to the force, then how could debris be flung outwards at such speeds and distance.

That's the fact that remains. So what is it, the building had resistance, but not enough, but enough to pulverize concrete? Or it didn't have resistance and pulverized the concrete debris.

See what we're getting at?



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
The building still offered virtually no resistance against the floors falling on top of each other. But if this was possible, then how was the concrete and other debris in the building pulverized? If there's no resistance to the force, then how could debris be flung outwards at such speeds and distance.

That's the fact that remains. So what is it, the building had resistance, but not enough, but enough to pulverize concrete? Or it didn't have resistance and pulverized the concrete debris.

See what we're getting at?


very good.

always refreshing to find someone 'new' who GETS IT.

you cannot simultaneously gain the 'benefit' of pushing and pulling forces. they go AGAINST one another.

that means, for every increase in speed, there is an increase in the need for energy. for every smaller average particle size, a larger amount of energy is required, as well as a MECHANISM for creating these particles.
for every increase in SPEED in 'manufacturing' fine silt, an even greater amount of energy is needed.
for every square meter of dust cloud expansion, more energy is needed.
for every broken bolt, weld, or beam more energy is needed.
for every increase in heat(anyone ever TOUCH molten metal? yes, johnny 'no hands'?) there is a further HUGE energy requirement.

the amount of energy required to grind concrete into 60 micron size is immense (PICO! sizes were also found, and not just concrete but METAL. imagine a METAL MIST hovering over ground zero for a few days, because THAT'S WHAT HAPPPENED!) one estimate puts it on the order of the output of a nuclear reactor's output for a YEAR! (that's just the concrete, and not the EXPONENTIALLY smaller metal particles).

as they say, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.(stupid expression, but we all know what it MEANS)
when you USE the POTENTIAL ENERGY for a WORK task, it is NO LONGER AVAILABLE, except as heat. HEAT does not do work directly, and is inefficient as a source of energy. that is entropy in action.
so, when a floor falls and busts up another floor, and pulverizes the concrete, and sends a billowing high velocity cloud, and creates MOLTEN METAL in a [FRACTION OF A SECOND, it has pretty much spent it's energy token about ten to a THOUSAND times over.

so, the tower not only managed to FALL, but also managed to DISINTIGRATE, in a little more(say 20% on the upside) time than if it were falling through air.

the energy sink(a function of work done over time) is [size=14]ASTRONOMICAL. beyond even the IMPRESSIVE potential energy (acceleration of gravity times mass) of sixteen floors of WTC.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
billybob, that's was a very good analysis. And much good food for thought. The energies realeased by gravitational forces would not be enough alone to do all the damage that had been done to the towers. Not to mention WTC 7. The collapse of WTC7 is most puzzling, and is the key to uncovering what really happened to the other towers that day, imo.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
See that's an observable issue we can see in the videos. The building fell with little resistance, or else it would of pancaked a lot slower, but yet with no resistance, it still pulverized a lot of the debris as it came down, very interesting none the less. And yet, still throwing debris way out to its sides as it comes down, that isn't due to any vaccuum effect.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
The building still offered virtually no resistance against the floors falling on top of each other. But if this was possible, then how was the concrete and other debris in the building pulverized? If there's no resistance to the force, then how could debris be flung outwards at such speeds and distance.

That's the fact that remains. So what is it, the building had resistance, but not enough, but enough to pulverize concrete? Or it didn't have resistance and pulverized the concrete debris.

See what we're getting at?


No one has said there was NO resistence only not enough to stop the massive collapse.

Do you mean there was no force acting on each additional floor? I kinda get what you're getting at but it seems like a moot point....do you mean "no resistence" as in the bogus "freefall"? Look at the vods of the collapse..there are incredible forces there. Certainly enough to crush light weight concrete.



That's the fact that remains. So what is it, the building had resistance, but not enough, but enough to pulverize concrete? Or it didn't have resistance and pulverized the concrete debris.


I think you got it.

How much was "pulverized" in the air..in the collapse, and how much was generated in it all reaching the final immovable resistence of the earth?

[edit on 10-7-2006 by Vushta]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

No one has said there was NO resistence only not enough to stop the massive collapse.

Do you mean there was no force acting on each additional floor? I kinda get what you're getting at but it seems like a moot point....do you mean "no resistence" as in the bogus "freefall"? Look at the vods of the collapse..there are incredible forces there. Certainly enough to crush light weight concrete.


I should of watched my wording, I didn't mean literally no resistance, but not enough to reveal any valid pancaking. So yes, no force on each additional floor.

You can't have "small yielding" resistance yet pulverized material at the same time. It's not as if the upper building mass was just dropped on the WTC from a high altitude, it initiated through gravity.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join