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.

 

(new theory) Squibs Explained - Controlled Demolition

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   
What we all know and have to acknowledge, is that there were definitely squibs on 911.




Official Explanation = Compressed air.

Theory Explanation = Controlled demolition charges.

MY Explanation = All of the above.

You see, there is no possible way that it could just be compressed air from the collapsing floors. The squibs are just too far below the collapse. Also, if it was controlled demolition charges, why would it only be in those few places? I can explain.....

The middle core of the building is the main area the building gets its standing strength, its like the tree trunk of a tree. So this is where you want to put the demolition charges. It is a common misconception that the outer layer of the building is its primary strength zone, but its not, its the middle core. The demolition experts of 911 knew this, and tried to hide all of the demolition charges in the center of the building, so you can not seem them on the outside like traditional buildings.

But they made a mistake. When the demolition charges were set off, their shock waves created a pressure in the floor, and caused compressed air and the cement particles from the explosion to be forced out of the side of the building. I made an illustration to explain:



As you can see above, if the controlled demolition charges were in the center of the building were they should be, their shock wave, when detonated, would expand outward forcing compressed air and pulverized concrete to escape...

IMO this was definitely a nice try of hiding the controlled demolitions, but it didn't quite work out.


edit:cap title

[edit on 6/28/2007 by kinglizard]




posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
What I don't understand about the Controlled Demo theory is, if the government, or whoever, planted these explosives in the towers, why fly planes into the buildings also? Why not just set off the bombs? Or, to add another theory here, why elaborately stage it to make it look like planes hit if bombs were already planted?

We already had a bomb go off in the very same building in '93. Wouldn't we believe that it could be done again? Didn't the perps of that say if they had more explosives, the towers would have gone down?

Why use demolition explosives? Why not just blow it up Timothy McVey style?

There are a few fatal flaws (in my opinion) in some of these theories (holograms and such are in a class all their own, I'm talking about legitimate theories, like this one). Basically all these theories are based on the "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" saying, which I don't think applies in this case.

Now, I will admit, I have not done an eighth of the research you folks have been doing, so this is just my opinion concluded from the little research I have done and the memory of that day.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer
What I don't understand about the Controlled Demo theory is, if the government, or whoever, planted these explosives in the towers, why fly planes into the buildings also? Why not just set off the bombs? Or, to add another theory here, why elaborately stage it to make it look like planes hit if bombs were already planted?


if you watch loose change you'll understand why planes were used,lo0k at the stock(s) on the 2 airlines after and before the 11th.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Well, according to this site:

911research.wtc7.net...

They LOST money.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11

You see, there is no possible way that it could just be compressed air from the collapsing floors. The squibs are just too far below the collapse. Also, if it was controlled demolition charges, why would it only be in those few places?


I believe those are demolition charges that go off out of sequence, most of them were hidden on the way down, as the top of the building falling covered most of the other squibs up. But I agree it's probobly a combination of compressed air and demo charges.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer
What I don't understand about the Controlled Demo theory is, if the government, or whoever, planted these explosives in the towers, why fly planes into the buildings also? Why not just set off the bombs? Or, to add another theory here, why elaborately stage it to make it look like planes hit if bombs were already planted?


Imagine 911 being different, imagine instead of using the jets, they only used explosives. Out of nowhere, all WTC 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 just blow up and fall to the ground. Everyone would instantly think it was an inside job. It would have to be an inside job to get pass the security undetected. This will no doubt make people question the governments involvment.

So, they used jets. Because anybody, if they so truely wanted, could hijack a plane with box cutters and crash it into buildings. This makes it seem more like a "terrorist" thing to do. We all know when we think of airliner hijackings we automaticaly think "terrorist". Every body would believe that a "terrorist" actually did that, and not the government.

IMO I think their original plan was to use the jets only. Then, technicaly, they found out that the jets wouldn't make the WTC's collapse all the way (which they didnt), because they were designed to withstand a hit from a bigger jet. So they decided to plant explosives to finish off the buildings, if they didn't collapse. I figure WTC 7 was supposed to get hit by Flight 93, but that didn't go as planned, so they still used the explosives.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by IrvingTheExplainer
Well, according to this site:

911research.wtc7.net...

They LOST money.


Read it again.


Put options -- financial instruments which allow investors to profit from the decline in value of stocks.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11
Imagine 911 being different, imagine instead of using the jets, they only used explosives. Out of nowhere, all WTC 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 just blow up and fall to the ground. Everyone would instantly think it was an inside job. It would have to be an inside job to get pass the security undetected. This will no doubt make people question the governments involvment.

So, they used jets. Because anybody, if they so truely wanted, could hijack a plane with box cutters and crash it into buildings. This makes it seem more like a "terrorist" thing to do. We all know when we think of airliner hijackings we automaticaly think "terrorist". Every body would believe that a "terrorist" actually did that, and not the government.

IMO I think their original plan was to use the jets only. Then, technicaly, they found out that the jets wouldn't make the WTC's collapse all the way (which they didnt), because they were designed to withstand a hit from a bigger jet. So they decided to plant explosives to finish off the buildings, if they didn't collapse. I figure WTC 7 was supposed to get hit by Flight 93, but that didn't go as planned, so they still used the explosives.



If I remember correctly the flight path of Flight 93 is Southeast, not Northeast. Based on that direction they were heading towards D.C. not New York.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
If I remember correctly the flight path of Flight 93 is Southeast, not Northeast. Based on that direction they were heading towards D.C. not New York.


According to a lot of sources, the last few waypoints were pointed to NY. They just crashed in the direction of DC. So its still probable.

www.aopa.org...



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11 11


According to a lot of sources, the last few waypoints were pointed to NY. They just crashed in the direction of DC. So its still probable.

www.aopa.org...


According to your source the last few waypoints are heading towards Southeast. And the flight data provided showing that 93 was losing control or was intentional to be crashed which is why that sharp turn.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Ok whatever deltaboy, what about the squibs what do you think about that?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Firsts of all, WTC7 would have been a VERY difficult move to hit that building.WTC7 had several other sky scrapers around it. If you think about the smoke from the two fires would have made it next to impossible for them to navigate to hit it. Yes the wind carried the smoke in only one direction...but there would be no way to know the wind direction at the time of planning and execution. No way IMO.

As far as the squibs go, why didn't any of the full time bomb sniffing dogs pick up on the explosives? In addition to the bomb sniffing dogs on duty, extra dogs were on duty prior to that attacks. Vehicles are consistantly inspected prior to being allowed into the Towers complex.

Since 1993 attacks, security at WTC towers was pretty tight.

I'm sure I will here the "black op's explanation. Well, they would have to go in disguised as a certain tradesman or skilled technician. WTC had inhouse Maintenance and Elevator personel. If these technicans hear that outside contractors are coming into so some work they are usualy aware of the work and it's scope...the Building Superintendant would also have to be notified. the building super always hires the vendors to do any outside work that isnt done by inhouse mechanics. IF say, the owners told the Super that there was work being done, I can assure you that the super will want to know the exact scope of work that is being completed and that all appropriate permits have been filed. Its HIS job. It also his job to check on the vendor to assure tasks are completed on time and in a workman like manner.


I respect your hypothisis, but it just cant happen. Too many eyes to see that many charges being set off.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
As far as the squibs go, why didn't any of the full time bomb sniffing dogs pick up on the explosives? In addition to the bomb sniffing dogs on duty, extra dogs were on duty prior to that attacks. Vehicles are consistantly inspected prior to being allowed into the Towers complex.




The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

Source: Newsday (September 12)



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
TY danx,

Im supprized CaptianObvious didn't know this tiny detail. I thought it was common knowledge?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
the EXTRA dogs were removed... im surprised YOU missed that


Remember that the regular dogs were there full time. Sirius was actually killed:


Police K9 Sirius was a bomb detection dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department. He and his handler, Police Officer David Lim, were assigned to the World Trade Center, where they often searched hundreds of trucks and vehicles each day, as part of America's "War on Terrorism." Sirius was the only police dog killed by the terrorists on September 11th and, perhaps, the only American police dog ever killed by international terrorists.

www.portauthoritypolicememorial.org...
www.our.homewithgod.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
And please address my other points in my thread... just curious.

thanks



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I don't mind posting these things over and over, as long as I'm passing new information to someone so they can judge the big picture for themselves.

After all, that's the primary goal of forums, to share and discuss the information.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by danx
I don't mind posting these things over and over, as long as I'm passing new information to someone so they can judge the big picture for themselves.

After all, that's the primary goal of forums, to share and discuss the information.


Yes.. i posted information ...seems that 1111 and others thought that ALL the dogs were removed from the WTC. This is not accurate.

I was asking the OP ( 11 11 ) what he thought of my points.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   
nice post 11 11, my suspicions have always been that the majority of charges were planted on the core, right out of sight and your placement for them looks pretty logical. I have always thought the squibs would be a direct indication of the charges location.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Hmmm..no one wants to answer my post.

Oh well...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join