Fairbanks Video stabilized with horizontal charges.

I don't know about you but I would claim some of these arguments are much like straw men disinfo tactic, your moving away from the real argument and attacking the term 'squib'! How low of you!

Regardless of what a squib is we all know what these guys are referring to - the huge jets of smoke that are common place with explosive charges detonating inside the building. So can you please get over it and show us some true arguments instead of this nonsense!

Originally posted by 11 11
b.t.w. I already know there was explosives in WTC, I have proof.

11 11,

I hope you can provide this proof. It'll be very interesting to see what it is. While I also deeply feel that there was explosives used, if you have some sort of proof that hasn't existed before you? That'd be an amazing feat.

Originally posted by Donoso
11 11,

I hope you can provide this proof. It'll be very interesting to see what it is. While I also deeply feel that there was explosives used, if you have some sort of proof that hasn't existed before you? That'd be an amazing feat.

This is all the proof I need. Even though I have more...




Even though you hear 1 explosion. It could be 1 entire bottom row of a buildings support system. WTC 7.

My theory about WTC 7 is that they slowly made it more weak over time with really spanned out explosives. So that you only hear 1 explosion every few minutes. This way, they will hide amoung all the sirens, yelling, crying, and honking, and all the other spooky noises you could hear that day.

Notice after the explosion in the video another fire fighter comes up and says "You gotta get back from here", "You gotta get back", and he points to WTC 7 and the dust from the explosion reaches them. I think some of those firefighters new more than they tell us.

Notice one of the men there is wearing a POLICE US INS shirt. Why is he there?



[edit on 17-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I don't know about you but I would claim some of these arguments are much like straw men disinfo tactic, your moving away from the real argument and attacking the term 'squib'! How low of you!

Regardless of what a squib is we all know what these guys are referring to - the huge jets of smoke that are common place with explosive charges detonating inside the building. So can you please get over it and show us some true arguments instead of this nonsense!

Perhaps you would care to address the points and issues raised in several of my and other people's posts that do not regard terminology arguments? They can be found here.

Originally posted by 11 11
This is all the proof I need. Even though I have more...

(video)

Even though you hear 1 explosion. It could be 1 entire bottom row of a buildings support system. WTC 7.

Perhaps I am missing something here, but could you please provide supporting citation and evidence that proves that that video is of 'explosives', or at least the sort of explosives that are being implied in this thread (to avoid any redundant ambiguity). Also could you explain to me how buildings the size of the WTC towers could possibly remain standing for any period of time after having an entire row of lower level support systems blown away? And how the collapse originated from the point of impact high up if the lower supporting structures were destabilised, or why they would bother destabilising the bottom row at all if their intent was to collapse the building from the point of impact?

[edit on 17-8-2007 by himselfe]

Originally posted by himselfe

Perhaps I am missing something here, but could you please provide supporting citation and evidence that proves that that video is of 'explosives', or at least the sort of explosives that are being implied in this thread (to avoid any redundant ambiguity).

Explosion = explosives = all sound pretty much the same. You want me to prove the type of explosive, while at the same time, you ignore the fact that there is even an explosion in the first place, when there shouldn't be one.

Originally posted by himselfe
Also could you explain to me how buildings the size of the WTC towers could possibly remain standing for any period of time after having an entire row of lower level support systems blown away? And how the collapse originated from the point of impact high up if the lower supporting structures were destabilised, or why they would bother destabilising the bottom row at all if their intent was to collapse the building from the point of impact?

WORLD TRADE CENTER SEVEN(7) is where the video was taken from. WTC7 was the only building to fall from the ground up.... just like demolition. The reason I stay clear from WTC1 and 2 is because no matter what evidence you bring forward, people are going to blame the collapse on the impact of the jets. It's a perfect cover for the masterminds of 911.

I did exagerate though, I didn't mean ALL the supports, I meant just really important ones. Buildings are designed to transfer stress to different parts of the structure when they loose support. So, what better way to bring down a building than to destroy many of the main supports, so that the building's stress is all focus in a smaller area. Then use a smaller explosive to destroy that small area, and the building will fall.

Space out the explosive, so the sounds are hidden within the city noise.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 17-8-2007 by 11 11]

[edit on 17-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by 11 11

Originally posted by Donoso
11 11,

I hope you can provide this proof. It'll be very interesting to see what it is. While I also deeply feel that there was explosives used, if you have some sort of proof that hasn't existed before you? That'd be an amazing feat.

This is all the proof I need. Even though I have more...

Alright well that's seperate from the twin towers. That's an entirely different debate so lets not throw this topic off track.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

My edit of the post above doesn't seem to have shown up on my screen so apologies if I refer to the same points twice:

My theory about WTC 7 is that they slowly made it more weak over time with really spanned out explosives. So that you only hear 1 explosion every few minutes. This way, they will hide amoung all the sirens, yelling, crying, and honking, and all the other spooky noises you could hear that day.

All very nice conjecture but where is the evidence to back your theory up?

Notice after the explosion in the video another fire fighter comes up and says "You gotta get back from here", "You gotta get back", and he points to WTC 7 and the dust from the explosion reaches them. I think some of those firefighters new more than they tell us.

I would hardly call that open palmed hand gesture in the general direction of the incident 'pointing at WTC 7', and honestly if you were an emergency services professional what would you tell people to do around the vicinity of a very unstable situation, "You gotta get back from here" or "sit around and watch the show"? Although it is worth nothing that fire fighters had noticed a bulge in the south west corner of the building indicating instability and possible collapse and thus a decision was eventually made to evacuate emergency services from the immediate area.

Explosion = explosives = all sound pretty much the same. You want me to prove the type of explosive, while at the same time, you ignore the fact that there is even an explosion in the first place, when there shouldn't be one.

I do not ignore the fact that there is some sort of 'explosion' or sounds to that effect, hence my clarification: "at least the sort of explosives that are being implied in this thread (to avoid any redundant ambiguity)."

WORLD TRADE CENTER SEVEN(7) is where the video was taken from. WTC7 was the only building to fall from the ground up.... just like demolition. The reason I stay clear from WTC1 and 2 is because no matter what evidence you bring forward, people are going to blame the collapse on the impact of the jets. It's a perfect cover for the masterminds of 911.

Can you provide some time codes that pinpoints exactly when in the sequence of events running up to the collapse of WTC 7 this footage was taken? Also can you provide evidence proving that the explosion actually originates from WTC 7?

I did exagerate though, I didn't mean ALL the supports, I meant just really important ones. Buildings are designed to transfer stress to different parts of the structure when they loose support. So, what better way to bring down a building than to destroy many of the main supports, so that the building's stress is all focus in a smaller area. Then use a smaller explosive to destroy that small area, and the building will fall.

Baring in mind that controlled demolitions usually take weeks if not months of meticulous planning and a lot of extensive structural work, how do you propose a crew of demolition experts did all this work in the few hours between the main incident and the collapse of WTC 7, not to mention in a burning and unstable building? You could argue that the demolition was planned in advance however how could they possibly plan the exact sequence of events prior to the day they happened, and how could they possibly undertake the major structural work involved in controlled demolitions without the occupants of WTC 7 noticing?

The one other glaring point that's worth noting is, what could any conspiracy hope to gain from the controlled demolition of WTC 7 when the building had already been evacuated (so there were no mass casualties for shock effect) and given the fact that extensive damage had already been done to WTC 3 and other buildings as a result of the main collapse incidents?

Originally posted by himselfe

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I've already addressed this in a related thread, at the bottom of that post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is no reference in those images that proves that your scales and mappings are scientifically correct, also, why does this image have a picture of the WTC upside-down with the lines pointing to completely different floors than where they point to on the corresponding image that is the correct way up?

There's only so much of that huge image I can give you here, it was intended for use in a video short where i could pan all around and zoom in, but i've been shifted into other video projects. There is roughly a +/- 2 floor 'tolerance' on the specific floors; the aircraft impact overlay is absolutely as accurate as can be done with the available diagrams (I have everything that's been made available in terms of blueprints and archetectual diagrams). I spent LOTS of time making everything as precise as i could with what was available. We can only get things so 'so' scientific with what we have to work with. I used those thin lines to try to give perspective. The tower photo had a strange 'twist' to its angle, and that's the only photo I could find that shows the entire height of a tower including the mech. floors. The mech floors are very hard to see in the video, unfortunately. The upside down photo is to show that at least the width's match up, for what was there to work with.

I see nothing addressing the elevator shafts in that paragraph or the rest of the post, in fact, contrary to your assumption about air ducts extending downwards, the elevator shafts (which is what I was referring to) actually extend upwards, as would be expected.

Yes, they do. They extend upwards from the Sky lobby floor, which is above the 2 mechanical floors.

But the problem here is that the 'bursts' start at the first mechanical floor and appear to 'cut' diagonally upwards to the upper mechanical floor:

Can anybody explain to me, if the controlled demolition hypothesis is true, why the sequence of 'explosions' extends downwards, contrary to convention in controlled demolitions?

If you scroll down a couple posts in that thread I linked I've answered that reoccuring question.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Hey guys how about you take that WTC7 discussion over to one of the dozens of threads that address that same video clip?? Regurgitating the same old lines in every new topic ends up derailing every discussion, and it actually violates the ATS T&C (rules). See here:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Hey guys how about you take that WTC7 discussion over to one of the dozens of threads that address that same video clip?? Regurgitating the same old lines in every new topic ends up derailing every discussion, and it actually violates the ATS T&C (rules). See here:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Because someone asked me to show my proof of explosives, and I did. That is not derailment, what is derailment is someone that is NOT an admin pretending to have some sort of authority over ME. Now stop pretending to be admin and get back on subject.

reply to post by himselfe



I would answer every single one of your questions if they were not already answered 1000000000000000000000000000000000 times in many threads.. You ask the same questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over agian. No wonder why 911 truthers give up, we got disinfo people here asking the same questions every damn day. How many times do I have to answer before they finaly RESEARCH ON THEIR OWN?

I'm done in this thread.... Instead of me proving what type of explosives were used in the building, why don't YOU prove to me that those explosives did nothing to the building?. The video I showed is "the ufo landing on the whitehouse lawn" and STILL no believers.


[edit on 17-8-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
If you scroll down a couple posts in that thread I linked I've answered that reoccuring question.

Can you cite the exact post that proves why as part of a controlled demolition the explosions are cascading downwards rather than upwards? because I can't find it.

For some reason I can't cut and paste from the PDF document I cited earlyer, however it is worth reading as it provides a credible and logically sound argument from independent demolition professionals that backs up the already available technical evidence put forward by official investigations.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Few would argue that the 'squibs' were meant to collapse the building themselves, it's rather to ensure that the structure falls to pieces as it goes, ensuring a total collapse for maximum psyop effect. This view would then give credence to the bombs explaination for why they fell down so fast.

You may also want to see here to understand the psyop concept:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by 11 11
Because someone asked me to show my proof of explosives, and I did. That is not derailment, what is derailment is someone that is NOT an admin pretending to have some sort of authority over ME. Now stop pretending to be admin and get back on subject.

You were actually asked for proof of explosives in reference to this thread which discusses the collapse of the two main towers.

He claimed he had proof, and then 10 people asked for said proof. He provided proof of an audible explosion, but not what the source of said explosion was. That's another topic. Please stop trying to drag this issue out in this discussion about the twin towers.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Few would argue that the 'squibs' were meant to collapse the building themselves, it's rather to ensure that the structure falls to pieces as it goes, ensuring a total collapse for maximum psyop effect. This view would then give credence to the bombs explaination for why they fell down so fast.

You may also want to see here to understand the psyop concept:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

There is a glaring lack of citation and evidence in that conjecture. I would refute your argument with citations from the source I have already linked to however as I have already explained I for some reason can't copy and paste from PDF files. I realise how much of a cop-out that sounds like but the link is there for anybody to read.

Originally posted by himselfe

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Few would argue that the 'squibs' were meant to collapse the building themselves, it's rather to ensure that the structure falls to pieces as it goes, ensuring a total collapse for maximum psyop effect. This view would then give credence to the bombs explaination for why they fell down so fast.

You may also want to see here to understand the psyop concept:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 17-8-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

There is a glaring lack of citation and evidence in that conjecture. I would refute your argument with citations from the source I have already linked to however as I have already explained I for some reason can't copy and paste from PDF files. I realise how much of a cop-out that sounds like but the link is there for anybody to read.

Citation and evidence are required in an explaination of why or how explosives could have been used without it actually being wired to the core as in conventional commercial demos? Wow. If we're going to be sticklers how about you offer up some proof that the initial collapse mechanism was 'natural'. It's too bad that nobody can, instead it's all subject to theory and conjecture for either 'side'. I wasn't even declaring the bombs had to have caused the initial collapse mechanism, and then the rest entirely, instead I suggested that supplimental charges could have been located in bare minimum amounts to ensure the complete house-of-cards collapse for maximum psyop effects. It doesnt require citation or 'evidence' for it to be self-evident that the aftermath of 9/11 would have been nothing like what resulted had the towers not completely collapsed.

Now about those 'squibs'...

It has already been concluded that "the force of the falling upper section was at least an order of magnitude beyond what the lower section could support.". Which is why NIST did not model the complete collapse of the two towers. If the force of the upper section falling was sufficient to collapse the rest of the building, why bother with auxiliary explosions?

Citation and evidence are required in an explaination of why or how explosives could have been used without it actually being wired to the core as in conventional commercial demos?

If the explosives aren't 'wired' into critical structure what use do they have?

If we're going to be sticklers how about you offer up some proof that the initial collapse mechanism was 'natural'.

I have

It doesnt require citation or 'evidence' for it to be self-evident that the aftermath of 9/11 would have been nothing like what resulted had the towers not completely collapsed.

You don't think that the act of two planes flying into the WTC and instantly killing hundreds of people isn't sufficient to gear the average nationalist for war? That effect alone was certainly enough to make people commit suicide. Two planes deliberately flew into the towers, people aren't going to go "oh well the towers didn't completely collapse so lets not retaliate". Sure you argue maximum effect, but honestly what does it achieve?

why does the building only pop out at the blackend part of the outer building, is this a construction flaw? I'll admit it went down too fast, just what caused it is the question