WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

page: 28
104
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





Not to put you on the spot, but maybe you can explain why observing the largest "squib", we see the jet of debris rapidly increasing in velocity


The squib on the right side of the tower is the initial blast.


Which is followed by a secondary blast ejecting more debris from the first blast hole.


As you can see from this they are milliseconds apart




posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


No I do see the jet of air and dust, but this clip does not show the whole effect.
The video does:



But I was talking about the first large one on the side. Notice how in the actual video, the jet starts shooting out, and then keeps jetting out dust and air, right up until the debris wave collapse meets it and obscures it. My problem with calling it a squib is, since when does a "bomb" blast keep jetting out debris after detonation?

Watch the above video closely and closely watch the largest "side squib". Watch how it keeps jetting the dust and debris. That is not how squibs or any explosives detonate.

Also the lower "puffs" are puzzling as doesnt a squib cause some observable damage? Couldnt they be elevators or elevator equipment plummeting down and impacting the technical floors below, causing the puffs? Or again, the air pressures from the collapse above venting out in those areas?

edit on 9/29/2010 by GenRadek because: add in comment



posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


Luckily we have evidence to test your hypothesis, and it doesn't fit. You can clearly see there is at least one continuous stream, not two short bursts. So the next thing to do is claim there was a whole series of detonations.

But all this speculating isn't really getting anyone anywhere. The important question is if it is plausible that the cause was air being compressed in the vents/shafts/staircases. If it is, these plumes are no evidence for CD what so ever, as we would expect them in a top down collapse.

So why do you think it is not plausible it is compressed air caused by the collapse?



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by remymartin
 


No I do see the jet of air and dust, but this clip does not show the whole effect.
The video does:



But I was talking about the first large one on the side. Notice how in the actual video, the jet starts shooting out, and then keeps jetting out dust and air, right up until the debris wave collapse meets it and obscures it. My problem with calling it a squib is, since when does a "bomb" blast keep jetting out debris after detonation?

Watch the above video closely and closely watch the largest "side squib". Watch how it keeps jetting the dust and debris. That is not how squibs or any explosives detonate.

Also the lower "puffs" are puzzling as doesnt a squib cause some observable damage? Couldnt they be elevators or elevator equipment plummeting down and impacting the technical floors below, causing the puffs? Or again, the air pressures from the collapse above venting out in those areas?

edit on 9/29/2010 by GenRadek because: add in comment



This squib is below the technical floor where the lifts terminate, so you can rule out air pressure from a lift hitting said technical floor.
And there is no collapse here its at least 25 floors below the falling building.So where is the air pressure coming from?





posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


The big, big problem with these squibs is that in all these videos and images, they happen "during the collapse," not at the beginning of the collapse. I've shown in the past that once a building begins to collapse on itself from the top that it will progressively collapse the rest of the way down. What would be the point of planting charges and having someone waiting with the trigger until after it begins to collapse to begin pressing buttons? So far I've failed to see any ejection that comes out the moment of or just before the collapse of the towers, as the demonstrations of CD buildings clearly show. The squibs in CD come out right when the building is coming down, because cause and effect dictates that the explosive must go off before the building can collapse. The ridiculousness of having squibs from demolitions happening during the tower collapse, when explosives aren't even needed to aide the collapse... it's just silly. Even if it was needed, the havoc, destruction, and loss of life from say, half the building collapsing completely would have been insane. However, physics don't work like this, the building was destroying itself once it started collapsing.



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


Why could air only escape on the floor the lifts terminate?



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by remymartin
 


Why could air only escape on the floor the lifts terminate?


I did not say that. I was replying to genradek about his lift theory. I Said



This squib is below the technical floor where the lifts terminate, so you can rule out air pressure from a lift hitting said technical floor.


edit on 30-9-2010 by remymartin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
There's plenty of videos showing explosions, and many eye witness reports to go with them. But 'debunkers' still choose to ignore the video evidence.

Same with NIST, they ignored the videos and didn't bother to test for explosives, they should have at least tested for them.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


I don't choose to ignore those videos, I just never get people like you to post them. So there is nothing to ignore. But by all means, post the videos that show explosives going off.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by kidtwist
 


I don't choose to ignore those videos, I just never get people like you to post them. So there is nothing to ignore. But by all means, post the videos that show explosives going off.


Why dont you get people that post them? The reason for posting them should be pretty obvious!



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by kidtwist
 


I don't choose to ignore those videos, I just never get people like you to post them. So there is nothing to ignore. But by all means, post the videos that show explosives going off.


Why dont you get people that post them? The reason for posting them should be pretty obvious!


He said he never gets people TO post them. He keeps asking for these videos that prove your point, but you refuse to post them.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by remymartin
 


The big, big problem with these squibs is that in all these videos and images, they happen "during the collapse," not at the beginning of the collapse.


They were occurring as they needed to occur. They did it the way they did it that day because the whole world was watching, they had to be as covert about it as possible. Do you only have one fixed train of thought?



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by remymartin
 


The big, big problem with these squibs is that in all these videos and images, they happen "during the collapse," not at the beginning of the collapse.


They were occurring as they needed to occur. They did it the way they did it that day because the whole world was watching, they had to be as covert about it as possible. Do you only have one fixed train of thought?


Thing is, the whole conspiracy is riding on the similarity of the collapse to a controlled demolition. Explosions AFTER the collapse initiates are a big deviation from every controlled demolition in history. I've no doubt that the collapse would interfere with radio signals that are purported to have been setting off the charges as well. The fact that no explosions were recorded on any camera to initiate the collapse are the biggest problem, to me.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
There's plenty of videos showing explosions, and many eye witness reports to go with them. But 'debunkers' still choose to ignore the video evidence.

Same with NIST, they ignored the videos and didn't bother to test for explosives, they should have at least tested for them.


If they truly did not test for explosives that seems incredible, preposterous, ridiculous, disgraceful and suspicious all at the same time. Among other things etc.

As for the videos it sure sounds like they ignored them as you claim. I suspect this myself in part because I looked at the Naudet video of the first 'plane' strike very very closely and discovered that the North Tower wasn't even hit by an airplane!!

So testing for explosives after discovering this OBVIOUS FACT seems like a no brainer because APPARENTLY (see my avatar pic, upper left) something other than an airplane contributed to the North Tower's collapse.


Cheers
edit on 2-6-2012 by NWOwned because: sentence structure
edit on 2-6-2012 by NWOwned because: same
edit on 2-6-2012 by NWOwned because: emphasis



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by remymartin
 


The big, big problem with these squibs is that in all these videos and images, they happen "during the collapse," not at the beginning of the collapse.


They were occurring as they needed to occur. They did it the way they did it that day because the whole world was watching, they had to be as covert about it as possible. Do you only have one fixed train of thought?


Thing is, the whole conspiracy is riding on the similarity of the collapse to a controlled demolition. Explosions AFTER the collapse initiates are a big deviation from every controlled demolition in history. I've no doubt that the collapse would interfere with radio signals that are purported to have been setting off the charges as well. The fact that no explosions were recorded on any camera to initiate the collapse are the biggest problem, to me.


I've posted numerous, as have others, it's not our fault you are too blind to see the obvious!

Let's face it, the more we post them the more you'll ignore them so it's not even worth posting them anymore for people like you. You can lead a donkey to water.....



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by kidtwist
 


I still have no clue what videos exactly us "OSers" are ignoring. And I am not really expecting that you will post them as they probably only exist inside your imagination.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidtwist
I've posted numerous, as have others, it's not our fault you are too blind to see the obvious!

Let's face it, the more we post them the more you'll ignore them so it's not even worth posting them anymore for people like you. You can lead a donkey to water.....


If you could give me a reference, it would greatly help me see. It's hard to look at videos when no one will even post them. I've seen you post at least a dozen times that I and others here are ignoring your magic videos, yet you haven't posted them once. Where is this wondrous proof you are hiding under your bed?



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
The only way to really prove the inside job in the minds of the masses would be to "recreate the experiment". Rebuild a replica tower off the original blueprints in the middle of nowhere. Fly a drone airplane loaded with fuel into it and see if the tower collapses. Don't get me wrong, I believe the "official story" is complete BS. but if you want the WORLD to believe it, they need to see the events unfold in a full scale experiment that proves that fire cannot knock one of those buildings down into their footprint. Put cameras in the lobby's to see if they explode like they did... see if the electrical systems in the elevators fail. Get enough people to donate funds in a global effort over a decade or so and recreate the scene of the crime. Only then will you get answers that people will believe.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by permadank
 



I don't think the answers you get will be believed. The argument will simply become "but those towers were not exactly the same, so of course those did collapse."

There are by the way far easier ways to convince others. Its done by scientific publication, and is currently successfully used on a massive scale.





top topics
 
104
<< 25  26  27   >>

log in

join