Sounds Like Explosive Devices To Me + Very Clear Squib!

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
I'm not denying that there is something fishy about the WTC collapses, but I think this

whole "squib" thing is a bunch of crap.

I don't buy these 'squibs' which are normally passed around:


BUT, the lower floor "squibs" cause major problems for the no-bomb hypothesis. Here are some images from the materials I've put together, as scientific I could, for a special release video I have in the works:

It's important to note that even NIST says that there was no "pancake collapse",and that the floors held until the collapse started. They have no choice, as photos demostrate that the fires were flush on the floors:
i24.photobucket.com...
I dont have a clip handy to link in, but I have clips from latest NOVA/PBS documentary where NIST presents their findings first hand.



This is a small version of a 3000x2000 image I've built:

I cant provide it in full res, but in the video I'll be able to pan around however I want.

There's a closer view. The red / blue lines correspond respectively to the 'squib' / 'demowave' of each. There's about a 1-3 floor 'tolerance'. I did the best I could with what I could find. I still need to do similar treatment to the similar phenonenon observed with WTC2 collapse, so I've been procrastinating.

The problem I see with this is the squibs are far belwo the mechanical floors, and it would seem to be common sense that the mechanical floors feed downward, meaning there's no air'pipes' connecting to those lower floors and the collapse zone. I've been meaning to start a thread to focus on specifics like the way the air ducts functioned.

If you give the perpetrators enough credit that they could wire whole buildings with explosives without being detected,

I won't suggest that bombs were the primary mechanisms to bring down the towers, but I will propose that perhaps some explosives could have been placed to help ensure the towers would fall to ensure the psyop would take full effect.
More:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

orchestrate the disappearance of three planes full of people,

wth are you talking about??

then why the heck would they be stupid enough to place the demo charges where the windows are so that the entire world could see them going off?

If only some bombs were placed strategically it would lower the odds of visible evidence. The psyop factor was what it was all about, regardless of who was behind it. If the towers didn't fall things would have been much much different.

WITHOUT leaving a papertrail or credible witnesses

See the last 6 paragraphs of the second post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 23-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Since this is getting sidestepped, perhaps I better bump this post:

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
That clip with the explosve audio is from an NINEMSN documentary titled "Return to Ground Zero".

You can review it for yourself here:
sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au...
At around 4:40

Hahah the ignorance is thick in this thread.

This video is probably the biggest bombshell in terms of length and what it proves (and disproves.)

We might class this as the denial line. Aftering seeing this video, If you are not at least sitting on the fence about 9/11 (I.e. unsure), then you are in denial.

And ROFLMAO at the guy who figured the mass of the building would make it fall faster. Things fall at the same acceleration and therefore at the same speed on earth. The only factors which change this is that are air resistance and upward thrust.

Originally posted by Yandros
Things fall at the same acceleration and therefore at the same speed on earth. The only factors which change this is that are air resistance and upward thrust.

More precisely, anything getting in the way will slow mass down.

Air resistance affects all objects, regardless of their mass, and you'll never see an object fall through air without drag simply because it's heavy. It doesn't work that way. And especially when you're falling into tons of steel and concrete... you get the idea.


Edit: Think of it this way:


Air is a fluid. Water is a fluid. Water is just more dense than air.

When you drop something into water, it falls more slowly than it does through air. Even if it's very very heavy, like a sinking ship, will it fall at free-fall through the water? No! The only way this could happen is if you sucked the water out of the way of the falling object.

Well replace the water with a solid steel structure underneath you. Good look getting anything to fall through while accelerating anywhere near free-fall, regardless of the amount of mass.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I won't suggest that bombs were the primary mechanisms to bring down the towers, but I will propose that perhaps some explosives could have been placed to help ensure the towers would fall

I don't disagree. However, as to the pictures, the "visual evidence" can be dismissed as ejecta due to collapsing material preceding the main collapse and the seismic evidence could simply be a result of collapsing material slamming into lower floors. You may be right, I may be right, but either way there are enough plausible theories out there that neither can be said to be definite.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
wth are you talking about??

I was injecting a little sarcasm into the argument, in an effort to keep a little levity. I was referring to those who believe that the people on the flights that crashed were actually kidnapped and held in some government base in an effort to make it look like the planes crashed into the building.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
If only some bombs were placed strategically it would lower the odds of visible evidence

You're kidding me right? "Hey, lets blow up this building, but lets only place some of the bombs strategically, okay?" What kind of logic is that? How does that make sense? The "psyop factor"? Come one, that makes no sense, "Well, screw it, we'll plant half the bombs to collapse the buildings, but what the heck, lets take the other half just to scare the already terrified victims some more...and maybe some amateur will catch it on video and we'll jeopardize our operation".

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
See the last 6 paragraphs of the second post

Vaguely related to the current topic, at best.

Originally posted by Truth4hire
Boom boom. Boomboomboomboom boom!

Probably just the floors pancaking again? Eh no. Then it would have been 60x boom.

Gee, why would firefighters report explosions? Any idea?

What about that plume of smoke at 00:07 in the centre? al least six storeys under the wave!!


[edit on 22-4-2007 by Truth4hire]

wow ! you've found something ! you found what it sounds like when a
100 story falls ! waste of time , as usual .
do you think a building that tall is gonna fall and not make much sound ?
then your only lying to yourself and the "people" who'll listen to you .

edit -
to the people who say it fell in 10 seconds , we all have NO CLUE WHAT-SO-EVER as to what's happening behind the clouds of smoke and debris ,
so the 10 sec. thing , out the window ! and if you say you can see it , your
lying !

and as to people saying they heard explotions , guess what , no one in the world had ever been at the rim of a 110 story building collasping before , that much debris is gonna sound like explotions . nothing more ,
nothing less .

[edit on 23-4-2007 by gen.disaray]

[edit on 23-4-2007 by gen.disaray]

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
I don't disagree. However, as to the pictures, the "visual evidence" can be dismissed as ejecta due to collapsing material preceding the main collapse and the seismic evidence could simply be a result of collapsing material slamming into lower floors.

"Pictures"? "Ejecta"? Those are screenshots from video I have that I laid those overlays (green wireframe; timer; etc stuff in the top image up there - not the big 3000x2000 image) over. You can see them happen visually, they precede the "demowave" by bare minimum 30 floors, and are beneath the mechanical room / skylobby floors.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
If only some bombs were placed strategically it would lower the odds of visible evidence

You're kidding me right? "Hey, lets blow up this building, but lets only place some of the bombs strategically, okay?" What kind of logic is that? How does that make sense? The "psyop factor"? Come one, that makes no sense, "Well, screw it, we'll plant half the bombs to collapse the buildings, but what the heck, lets take the other half just to scare the already terrified victims some more...and maybe some amateur will catch it on video and we'll jeopardize our operation".

What's the main part of your view? Let me guess: Planes / Fires alone fell the towers? You think "they" wouldn't have calculated that? It's funny how people present it as either the fires alone did it, or bombs alone did it. Look up "False Dichotomy".

Terrorism is PSYOPS. If our establishment did it it was uber-PSYOPS. The towers had to collapse, but they'd still be subject to as much simplicity as they could grasp. The probable solution would have been to "wire" it at the minimum required to ensure the towers not only began collapsing but completely collapsed when they did. If there were any bombs whatsoever it would have been imperative to ensure total collapse. For the disired psyop to work, you know the one we all experienced and the world is vastly changed now because of it, if planned that way, it was imperative to ensure total collapse.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
See the last 6 paragraphs of the second post

Vaguely related to the current topic, at best.

Proof that tens and even hundreds of thousands of people ca participate in "conspracies" and noone finds out until they decide so, when the primary anticonspiracy argument is that lots fo people cant get away with anything, but it's only "vaguely" related?? Um, ya.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by gen.disaray
wow ! you've found something ! you found what it sounds like when a
100 story falls ! waste of time , as usual .

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by bsbray11
More precisely, anything getting in the way will slow mass down.
[edit on 23-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Yeah we could push the physics argument.


Crushing floors requires energy.
Where does the energy come from? Falling mass of the upper part of the building.
Therefore in order to crush floors the mass must lose energy.
The only energy the mass would have, if it were a pancake collapse, is that of kinetic (i.e. kinetic energy.)
When kinetic (or movement) energy is ‘used up’ the object must slow down. Does the collapse slow down? No. It accelerates. Physically impossible without energy being added to the system (in this case through explosives.)

Another way to look at it is force wise:
Before the collapse, every floor held up all the floors above it. If this were not the case the building would never have stood.
After the collapse, no extra force has been added. Gravity is still pushing down with the same amount force and the ground is still pushing up with the same amount of force. The net force remains zero in the undamaged parts of the building.

Forces cause objects to accelerate. The falling mass of the upper part of the building accelerates as the collapse takes place. If the net force was truly zero, as it should have been if it were a pancake collapse, then the collapse wave should not have accelerated, and should have come to a stop after crushing the damaged section. After this the top of the tower should have toppled off onto the street below.


... Yeah we could push the physics argument,

But people are mostly too ignorant of classic physics to understand what we are talking about. Best to meet them half way.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Zep Tepi
The original footage, i.e. the CORRECT footage that Paul filmed is available here.

You seem to be completely sidestepping my post to the reviewable MSN documentary. Why would MSN fake the audio? Are they now part of the conspiracy to divert and confuse the public? Can you source the 'nonediting' audio clip to something we can review?

Eh, Sidestepping the issue? How do you work that one out? I provided you with the name of the guy who actually filmed that footage. The footage that MSN showed could have been sourced from anywhere. Oh and btw, I just looked at the film from the link you provided, I didn't realise you wanted that done immediately...

The original footage is part of a documentary named "9/11: The Firefighters' Story".

I knew there was a reason I left these threads alone. It's quite amazing how often the same old tired arguments are repeated.

Edited to add the following because of this in the post above:

Crushing floors requires energy.
Where does the energy come from? Falling mass of the upper part of the building.
Therefore in order to crush floors the mass must lose energy.
The only energy the mass would have, if it were a pancake collapse, is that of kinetic (i.e. kinetic energy.)
When kinetic (or movement) energy is ‘used up’ the object must slow down. Does the collapse slow down? No. It accelerates. Physically impossible without energy being added to the system (in this case through explosives.)

Stunning

Let's completely ignore the fact that the "falling mass" is increasing with each floor.

Like I said before, I knew there was a reason I left these threads alone.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by Zep Tepi]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
"Pictures"? "Ejecta"? Those are screenshots from video I have that I laid those overlays

Well Pardon me for not using terminology that meets your standards My point stands.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
What's the main part of your view? Let me guess: Planes / Fires alone fell the towers?

Nope. But nice trying to dismiss me as a skeptic. Please try again.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Terrorism is PSYOPS. If our establishment did it it was uber-PSYOPS. The towers had to collapse, but they'd still be subject to as much simplicity as they could grasp. The probable solution would have been to "wire" it at the minimum required to ensure the towers not only began collapsing but completely collapsed when they did. If there were any bombs whatsoever it would have been imperative to ensure total collapse. For the disired psyop to work, you know the one we all experienced and the world is vastly changed now because of it, if planned that way, it was imperative to ensure total collapse.

So, essentially, you're sticking with the "Well, screw it, we'll plant half the bombs to collapse the buildings, but what the heck, lets take the other half just to scare the already terrified victims some more...and maybe some amateur will catch it on video and we'll jeopardize our operation" argument. Still don't buy it one bit.

Originally posted byIgnoranceIsntBlisss
Proof that tens and even hundreds of thousands of people ca participate in "conspracies" and noone finds out until they decide so, when the primary anticonspiracy argument is that lots fo people cant get away with anything, but it's only "vaguely" related?? Um, ya.

So. Your argument here boils down to: "Other people can do it elsewhere, therefore it must be so here". Deny ignorance my friend, deny ignorance, not perpetuate it.



[edit on 23-4-2007 by Reality Hurts]

Originally posted by Zep Tepi

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Zep Tepi
The original footage, i.e. the CORRECT footage that Paul filmed is available here.

You seem to be completely sidestepping my post to the reviewable MSN documentary. Why would MSN fake the audio? Are they now part of the conspiracy to divert and confuse the public? Can you source the 'nonediting' audio clip to something we can review?

Eh, Sidestepping the issue? How do you work that one out? I provided you with the name of the guy who actually filmed that footage. The footage that MSN showed could have been sourced from anywhere. Oh and btw, I just looked at the film from the link you provided, I didn't realise you wanted that done immediately...

The original footage is part of a documentary named "9/11: The Firefighters' Story".

I knew there was a reason I left these threads alone. It's quite amazing how often the same old tired arguments are repeated.

Wow you caught me slipping. Power skimming not always so wise. I just seen the quote and the seperate link and summed it up as your rebuttal to the quote.

So where is your link that has Paul himself stating that the audio in teh MSN video has been faked? Unsubstantiated statements like Paul filmed it, and he's a friend of my son are heresay.

If such evidence exists, then we have a case that MSN is somehow promoting diversionary conspiracy theories, which is one of my primary positions on 911 being a conspiracy:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Reality Hurts

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
"Pictures"? "Ejecta"? Those are screenshots from video I have that I laid those overlays

Well Pardon me for not using terminology that meets your standards

My point stands.

No I got your terminology. My arguement was that if you had the video you'd see your argument hardly even counts as conjecture. Don't confuse my assertion of your 'innocent' ignorance (don't know all of it) with incompetance (which I didn't imply). Argumentum ad ignoratiam.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
What's the main part of your view? Let me guess: Planes / Fires alone fell the towers?

Nope. But nice trying to dismiss me as a skeptic. Please try again.

Fair enough. So then your argument is that bombs alone fell the towers, as demonstrated by the rest of your argument, which denies my alternate solution to the implausible notion (by your own account) that the entire buildings were wired. False Dichotomy.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Terrorism is PSYOPS. If our establishment did it it was uber-PSYOPS. The towers had to collapse, but they'd still be subject to as much simplicity as they could grasp. The probable solution would have been to "wire" it at the minimum required to ensure the towers not only began collapsing but completely collapsed when they did. If there were any bombs whatsoever it would have been imperative to ensure total collapse. For the disired psyop to work, you know the one we all experienced and the world is vastly changed now because of it, if planned that way, it was imperative to ensure total collapse.

So, essentially, you're sticking with the "Well, screw it, we'll plant half the bombs to collapse the buildings, but what the heck, lets take the other half just to scare the already terrified victims some more...and maybe some amateur will catch it on video and we'll jeopardize our operation" argument. Still don't buy it one bit.

They were only wired as much as needed, if they were at all. Them being wired is still borderline conjecture, I must say.

Originally posted byIgnoranceIsntBlisss
Proof that tens and even hundreds of thousands of people ca participate in "conspracies" and noone finds out until they decide so, when the primary anticonspiracy argument is that lots fo people cant get away with anything, but it's only "vaguely" related?? Um, ya.

So. Your argument here boils down to: "Other people can do it elsewhere, therefore it must be so here". Deny ignorance my friend, deny ignorance, not perpetuate it.

Don't label me with false fallacies. I simply demonstrated that conspiracies do exist, to smack down the notion that they simply can't, which is broadcast and propagated far and wide across the infosphere daily.

[edit on 23-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
No I got your terminology. My arguement was that if you had the video you'd see your argument hardly even counts as conjecture. Don't confuse my assertion of your 'innocent' ignorance (don't know all of it) with incompetance (which I didn't imply). Argumentum ad ignoratiam.
en.wikipedia.org...

Cute, but there is a good chance that neither you or I are degreed structural engineers with an expertise the thermodynamics, so we are both arguing from the same place. "Internet expertise" is worth what you've paid for it.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Fair enough. So then your argument is that bombs alone fell the towers, as demonstrated by the rest of your argument, which denies my alternate solution to the implausible notion (by your own account) that the entire buildings were wired. False Dichotomy.
en.wikipedia.org...

Funny, I haven't stated any argument other than calling this squib thing into question. So I see what this is, this is you trying to feel superior, good luck with that.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
They were only wired as much as needed, if they were at all. Them being wired is still borderline conjecture, I must say.

At this point, I have no idea where you're even going with this.

Originally posted byIgnoranceIsntBlisss
Don't label me with false fallacies. I simply demonstrated that conspiracies do exist, to smack down the notion that they simply can't, which is broadcast and propagated far and wide across the infosphere daily.

Does "false fallacies" count as a double negative? :p

I think that the existence of conspiracies, past and present, is a given. Many have been exposed over the years, decades, and centuries as evidence comes to light. So my point was that your commentary along this particular line of discussion was not relevant, and I stick by that since stating the obvious isn't much of an argument.



[edit on 23-4-2007 by Reality Hurts]

Originally posted by Reality Hurts
Cute, but neither one of us were there, and neither you or I are degreed structural engineers with an expertise the thermodynamics, so we are both arguing from the same place. "Internet expertise" is worth what you've paid for it.

1. IIB and I are here at ATS.
2. I was not at WTC. / I'm not a structural engineer.
3. Therefore, IIB wasn't at WTC. / Therefore, IIB is not a structural engineer.

You could be right, and in this case you were, but how were you to know whether or not I was/am? Sounds like Weak Analogy.
www.fallacyfiles.org...

Funny, I haven't stated any argument other than calling this squib thing into question.

You have repeatedly met my third and moderate dichotomy with staunch criticsm, you've dismissed all forms of "squibs", you've ridiculed the notion of bombs in the towers while setting up red herring straw men in virtually every post (go back and see).
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

"Well, screw it, we'll plant half the bombs to collapse the buildings, but what the heck, lets take the other half just to scare the already terrified victims some more...and maybe some amateur will catch it on video and we'll jeopardize our operation"

I never even implied that. EVER. See directly above. This applies to both your argument and my assertion of your 2 falacies.

So I see what this is, this is you trying to feel superior, good luck with that.

If that were the case I would have implied that you're incompetent. Now you're forcing me to wonder...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
They were only wired as much as needed, if they were at all. Them being wired is still borderline conjecture, I must say.

At this point, I have no idea where you're even going with this.

Of course you claim you don't. You're trying to tiptoe your way thru this, while it appears you're trying to make any form of consensus impossible, and if you acknowlegded that my assertion wasn't outlandishh as you tried to present it, it'd make you look like incompetant, while harming you're intention of ruining consensus if that's one of your objectives.

Does "false fallacies" count as a double negative? :p

You got me. It should have read something more like "Don't falsely label my example as fallacious".

I think that the existence of conspiracies, past and present, is a given. Many have been exposed over the years, decades, and centuries as evidence comes to light.

You didnt state that before, instead you cynically implied the notion of bombs in the buildings as absurd.

So my point was that your commentary along this particular line of discussion was not relevant, and I stick by that since stating the obvious isn't much of an argument.

in light of your implication of

If you give the perpetrators enough credit that they could wire whole buildings with explosives without being detected, orchestrate the disappearance of three planes full of people, and all of the other major details....WITHOUT leaving a papertrail or credible witnesses,

it's very relevent.

Hey good job ruining this thread with pointless and fallacious cynicism.

You're trying to obfuscate what we are discussing by semantically eviscerating every word or phrase I type. You argue the words, not their intent or meaning.

Congratulations, you are king of teh intarweb. Go you.

I, in the mean time, will attempt to engage in discussions with those who are interested in meaningful discourse, not meaningless word play.

That's good news

Hardly a thing you've said has made any sense, and if you cant even speak logically or reasonably how is that constructive?

Word War comes to this innocent thread about the video with the enhanced/unenhanced audio. Ignorance you battle with overwhelming evidence, which can be, well, overwhelming where as your opponent, Reality picks at the delivery of said evidence which seems trite. I've wondered when someone was going to take your psycops angle on, something that donned on me 6 months ago. If you take all the coincidences and evidence, or glaring lack of some evidence, then the subsequent lack of an immediate investigations(911 Commission Report), removal of evidence(ground zero debrie removal, secuity videos from around the Pentagon), altering of evidence(exposed in this very thread), then your psycops idea really starts to fit. While everyone argues the "facts" the media quietly slips out the back door, only to return to knock down anyone who would even suggest somethings wrong with the official story. Polictical suicide awaits any candidate who would even entertain questioning the "facts". Just keep on keepin' on, Infinityoreilly.


[edit on 4/23/2007 by infinityoreilly]

I don't have time to read the whole thread, but...

Originally posted by GwionX
Well we have three videos from the same camera...and they all sound different.. That is why I think the "middle" one (as so far as sound goes) is likely the most accurate..

I suppose the only way to be sure is to find the "original" source.

Yes, three videos. And I've done plenty of work with audio, so here's my expert, albeit quick, opinion.

Two of the videos contain the "Oh my God." Those also contain screaming as the smoke overtakes the people. These are both the same video, they have just been equalized differently and are therefore probably from different sources, or are from the same source but were uploaded two different times with different settings on the EQ, perhaps on two different computers. It's not just the explosions that are amplified, but many of the bass frequencies.

The video without the "Oh my God" sounds like the entire audio track is different. There doesn't seem to be a single corresponding sound. Of course I don't have the time to look at that in detail right now. Also, there are some musical notes mixed in to the audio at the begining. My guess is that this came from some sort of 911 special, and the audio track was swapped because the original audio would raise questions about "explosives," and that's not even to say that there were or weren't explosives, but avoiding unnecessary questions is always good. And notice that it isn't just altered, but entirely swapped out. It's just cheaper and faster to completely replace the audio then to go in and eliminate all of the audio "attacks" caused by each "explosion." After all, why pay an engineer for extra time for such a small piece of video.

You get the idea, I gotta go

Oh, forgot to add the most obvious reason that the "Oh my God - explosives" video is the one with the real audio. Everyone is screaming as the cloud of hot smoke is overtaking them. Well, yeah, you'd absolutely be screaming in that situation.
Those screams are NOT in the video with the musical interlude.

That's my word


[edit on 4/24/2007 by Sunsetspawn]

Here is a still from the OP video. You can clearly see two squibs a long way ahead of the collapse zone (almost 1/3 of a tower apart), and even further away from the collapse zone (remembering that the collapse zone is actually HIGHER than the dust clouds).

I do question the initial few seconds of the audio track as the screaming fades in, but doesn't detract from the visual evidence of a CD.



[edit on 24-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]