Hundreds of "squibs" seen in WTC collapse movie

Watch this video at 1 hour 18 minutes :

video.google.com...

I have seen many videos and stuff, but this is like the first time I see those very evident squibs.
I say there is no doubt it was a controlled demolition, starting from the top down. Debunkers will say "air presure" did that but I say no way. You can watch the entire video it explains very well.

What about the planes ? I say the terrorist were real, they boarded the planes. But after that the planes could have been remote controlled. And the terrorists were caught in the same boat with the other passengers. This is the explanation I give. Or the real planes landed somewhere else, and remote controled planes were used.


[edit on 5-1-2009 by pai mei]

If you search "squibs" many, many threads show up. Tell me how it could NOT have been caused by air pressure?

Too violent they are. And some are hapenning much lower in the building.
Also in the video you will see other controlled demolitions from the top down, or from the middle down, for comparation.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by pai mei]

Originally posted by Blueracer
If you search "squibs" many, many threads show up. Tell me how it could NOT have been caused by air pressure?

Just a wonder, but would 40 floors below the collapse be effected by air pressure?

No idea, I'm just curious.

It still looks nothing, not even remotely like a controlled demolition.

Look at building controlled demolitions; they look nothing like the WTC. The WTC collapse was a mess and very far from controlled looking.

As said above, the squibs were most likely caused by air pressure

Mikey

reply to post by Mikey84


Was a mess ? Because they did not care how it looked, or how far the debris goes. The building exploded from the top down. 20 stories do not pass trough 80 intact stories like they would pass trough air !

If it was from the air pressure then it must have been more frequent, not just 1 or 2 occasions, but hundreds or thousands of them as the area in which the "air pressure" was kept inside was immense, the air pressure compensation is not going to happen with 1 or 2 broken windows out of several thousands.

You're asking the wrong person. I am not a proclaimed expert on this subject. I want to know how it 100% cannot be.

[edit on 1/4/2009 by Blueracer]

Originally posted by Mikey84
It still looks nothing, not even remotely like a controlled demolition.

Look at building controlled demolitions; they look nothing like the WTC. The WTC collapse was a mess and very far from controlled looking.

As said above, the squibs were most likely caused by air pressure

Mikey

Perhaps you can show us what a controlled demo does look like. Because to me and the main percentage of every other reader in the 911 threads it looks exactly like a controlled demo. The squibs are literally one of the many smoking guns.

One day you'll realize you have been hoodwinked by your beloved leaders you love, revere and trust so well Mikey84.

wZn

Ok, I don’t normally post on 911, but I need to know this. From what I’ve read it was an inside job to create terror and panic right?

So why in god’s name would they do a controlled demolition to cause less damage?

That doesn’t make sense. If it was an inside job the point would be to cause as much panic as possible, not contain the collapses.

reply to post by iammonkey


They used explosives. Like in controlled demolitions. But without the safety rules, and not caring how much damage they cause. It's similar because of the explosives, not because they tried to do a real "controlled demolition".

What kind of a post is this ? I am beginning to suspect something here. Is your post serious ?

Originally posted by Blueracer
If you search "squibs" many, many threads show up. Tell me how it could NOT have been caused by air pressure?

I'm assuming you understand how air pressure works. To accumulate enough pressure to be that destructive (like the "squibs" seen), where are you going to collect the air? Because it has to be an air-tight container. If there are leaks to the atmosphere where the air can decompress, like broken windows, or missing pieces of wall, or, say, the entire building being blown into small pieces floor-by-floor, then the air is simply going to escape before major pressure develops.

There were shafts going through each floor to channel air in the building. They were all within the core. So when you have squibs that are, for example, 50 stories below the collapse wave, how is there air getting that far down the building, without decompressing? How does all that pressure get from the core, to the exterior columns, still in the shape of a narrow enough current to cause the destruction seen? Pockets of extreme air pressure would have to move like a bullet like something out of Looney Toons.

There is too much that would not make sense if these were caused by air pressure. Busted water pipes is more believable to me but even that is not very believable.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Blueracer
If you search "squibs" many, many threads show up. Tell me how it could NOT have been caused by air pressure?

I'm assuming you understand how air pressure works. To accumulate enough pressure to be that destructive (like the "squibs" seen), where are you going to collect the air? Because it has to be an air-tight container. If there are leaks to the atmosphere where the air can decompress, like broken windows, or missing pieces of wall, or, say, the entire building being blown into small pieces floor-by-floor, then the air is simply going to escape before major pressure develops.

There were shafts going through each floor to channel air in the building. They were all within the core. So when you have squibs that are, for example, 50 stories below the collapse wave, how is there air getting that far down the building, without decompressing? How does all that pressure get from the core, to the exterior columns, still in the shape of a narrow enough current to cause the destruction seen? Pockets of extreme air pressure would have to move like a bullet like something out of Looney Toons.

There is too much that would not make sense if these were caused by air pressure. Busted water pipes is more believable to me but even that is not very believable.

Just a quick question could these squibs be caused by natural gas explosions?

Just thought would it be possible assuming they used natural gas in the building for heating (which I have no idea if they did or not) for that to ignite in such a way to go down the building from the top causing these squibs?

Maybe they used all electric I don't know but the thought just occurred to me.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by Darthorious]

I can post a video too:




It makes sense to me, I know half of you will agree with it and the other half won't.

The fact of the matter is, that will never change. Ever.

I reckon the families of those who have died would want all this rubbish to stop, ever heard of moving on with your lives? Instead of dwelling on the past?

Just my 2cents

Originally posted by Darthorious
Just a quick question could these squibs be caused by natural gas explosions?

If you mean the ones that stick out individually all over the place, I don't really know. But I would say "no" anyway, because I have also seen these things come out, row by row by row, or semi-spiraling around the buildings, at the collapse waves (they WERE the "collapse wave"). So all that stuff flying out floor-by-floor, really looks like these "squibs," if you can see past/through all the flying dust clouds and other debris. It's easiest to see near the beginning of the collapse and from the ground level. So that would have to be a LOT of gas explosions, enough to consider a significant part of the collapse if you ask me.

I don't know if they used natural gas or not. Someone more familiar with building codes probably has a better idea. I'm sure there would be plenty of safety regulations either way.

reply to post by Chadwickus


1/2 ? Oh somehow I think you have to back up claims like that one mate.

Wrestling represents deceit, and I'm really beginning to wonder about Mr Skeptic debunker we have here. Perhaps you can take your own advice about getting a life pal.

911 was an inside job, controlled demolitions were NYTC.

wZn

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

1/2 ? Oh somehow I think you have to back up claims like that one mate.

Yeah, half and that's being generous.
I don't need to back up the claim, it's a Colloquialism.

Wrestling represents deceit, and I'm really beginning to wonder about Mr Skeptic debunker we have here.

Again with the focusing on my avator, if you have issues with it, report it to a mod and if they see fit to remove it, then so be it.
Until that time, why don't you worry about what I say not what picture I have for an avatar.

Perhaps you can take your own advice about getting a life pal.

Speaking of what i say, where did I say people need to get a life?
I said people need to move on. Get your facts straight.

911 was an inside job, controlled demolitions were NYTC.

wZn

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.



[edit on 5-1-2009 by Chadwickus]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I can post a video too:

It makes sense to me, I know half of you will agree with it and the other half won't.

The fact of the matter is, that will never change. Ever.

I reckon the families of those who have died would want all this rubbish to stop, ever heard of moving on with your lives? Instead of dwelling on the past?

Just my 2cents

Excellent post.

But you know that the “truthers” just ignore stuff like this, they pick out bits and twist them to suit their agenda and ignore clear facts and evidence.

I’m still yet to see a single shred of proof that it was a controlled demolition, or even an inside job. No one has provided any proof of either claims, or the many other conspiracy claims around 911.

In my opinion, 911 was NOT an inside job.

Mikey

reply to post by Mikey84

I reckon the families of those who have died would want all this rubbish to stop, ever heard of moving on with your lives? Instead of dwelling on the past?

This is a very well known disinfo tactic (applying guilt and nonsense to make them feel ashamed for asking questions.) Nice work!

But you know that the “truthers” just ignore stuff like this, they pick out bits and twist them to suit their agenda and ignore clear facts and evidence.

This is yet another tactic it is called, ridiculing, and belittling, and just out right lying and here is more proof to support my statements, Sir! Can you show me who is a truthers, and who is picking out bits of info and twist them to suit their agendas, and who is it that ignores clear facts and evidences as you claim?

I’m still yet to see a single shred of proof that it was a controlled demolition, or even an inside job. No one has provided any proof of either claims, or the many other conspiracy claims around 911.

That is your “opinion” and it is not a fact.

In my opinion, 911 was NOT an inside job

In my “opinion” is 911 was an inside job.




[edit on 1/5/2009 by cashlink]