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.


A Review of the Jones 'Paper' Part 5

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 03:08 PM
This is going to be a quick one.

5. Squib-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7

Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have evidently not moved relative to one another yet, from what one can observe from the videos.

However, Professor Jones ignores the fact that the center of the building had already begun to collapse as evidenced by the fall of the penthouse into the building from another angle. So even though the exterior walls had not started to move yet, the building was already in a global collapse. It had just not progressed to the exterior walls yet.

In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors (see Chertoff, 2005) is evidently excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.

But, if the NIST hypothesis is true, that the collapse was initiated by a failure on the 7th or 8th floors, then the center portions of the building would have been pulling downward together. There would not need to be a fall from one floor to the other as they were all collapsing and squeezing out the air at the same time, not one after the other. Thus the timing issue here is null and void.

However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be observed at The same site shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.) Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives. Release by the government (NIST, in particular) of all videographic and photographic data showing details of the fires, damage, and collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11/2001would allow us to analyze these squib data in greater detail, to determine whether breaking windows or explosive charges are evidenced in the observed puffs of smoke. Horizontal plumes and sounds of explosions are even more pronounced in available videos of the collapses of the WTC Towers (see sections 7 and 8 below).

Ask the surviving fire fighters that were thre if they heard any explosions before WTC 7 fell. Oh, right. . They are all afraid of the big bad government.

Regarding this highly-secure building, a NY Times article entitled “Secretive C.I.A. Site in New York was Destroyed on Sept. 11,” provides an intriguing puzzle piece:

The C.I.A.'s undercover New York station was in the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center… All of the agency's employees at the site were safely evacuated… The intelligence agency's employees were able to watch from their office windows while the twin towers burned just before they evacuated their own building. (Risen, 2001)

What does this have to do with the point at hand?

Oh, and slappy, the power point presentation does not address this issue.

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 03:10 PM
He does not address ALL of your issues... He is not responding directly to you as you are unimportant.
(rmemeber... sense of humor)

Explain FEMA finding 1,3 diphenylpropane in large quantitiy in the dust.

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 03:21 PM
1,3 diphenylpropane is a component of styrene, a common building material.

Burning styrene will release it.

It is also found in airplanes.

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:06 PM
Heres a good debunk of the 'squibs'. CTs always show stills of the 'puffs' but when you see the actual squib in action, it looks quite different than a explosive 'squib'

new topics

top topics

log in