The fact is, they could be squibs or they could be compression puffs but there is no visual evidence to say the latter exist but there is plenty of evidence where such puffs are unambiguously attributed to squibs.Originally Posted by SR1419
Can you source any, (other than 9/11), attributed to compression?
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
sorry- I completely disagree with you.
Think about the behavior of a puff of smoke from an explosion- initial burst of energy which quickly dissipates.
Now think the air being released from a hole in a bike tire being squeezed by hand. (or maybe water from a squirt gun?)
You can CLEARLY see material being ejected and the energy increasing and/or continuing after the initial burst.
Entirely inconsistent with a squib.
I am not being deliberately obtuse, merely acknowledging that I personally cannot differentiate between the two. As I said, if I google compression puffs, I can find nothing visually which can be compared to squibs going off.
Any CIA monitors out there, perhaps the CIA could put up some you tube video showing compression puffs for comparison purposes to convince the skeptics
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Is the only possible way for you to understand is by watching a youtube video?
Or can you think abut the dynamics involved of compressed air and its potential behavior...and infer a difference.
If you must- this is as close as I could get- but I only looked for 30 seconds
Last edited by SR1419; January 28th, 2013 at 09:40 AM.
I can assimilate the theory and I agree it sounds reasonable but I cannot visually differentiate between the two. Non technically, I would imagine a squib to be more localised than a 'compression puff'... i.e. a compression puff taking out a whole window or series of windows or other weak points.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
you mean apart from a bunch of verinage videos you have already been shown but have apparently forgotten?The fact is, they could be squibs or they could be compression puffs but there is no visual evidence to say the latter exist but there is plenty of evidence where such puffs are unambiguously attributed to squibs
Can you source any, (other than 9/11
A couple of reminders:
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
How could I possibly forget the perennial verinage technique
As I said... "Non technically, I would imagine a squib to be more localised than a 'compression puff'... i.e. a compression puff taking out a whole window or series of windows or other weak points."
These videos endorse what I say. The 'puffs' on 9/11 were much much more local... more like squibs going off, agreed?
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
No - not that I recall.
Given that the WTC walls were not actually knocked down by verinage (which demolishes a whole floor worth of walls at once) the compressed air inside the tower is going to exit the weakest point first - not everywhere all at once.
And IMO the localised puffs that do appear in various videos look exactly like that happening - they are a relatively long-lasting "jet", whereas demolition "squib" puffs are "explosive" - they happen all at once.
Further, squibs are SMALL explosives - they could not do much more than break a window in a large building, and cerainly not cut significant structural steel.
For moer in depth analysis of this damp squib nonsense see here.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Pascal
"It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God" - Diderot
They are certainly too similar for me to make a definitive decision on at a personal level.
And yet squibs are used in demolition?Further, squibs are SMALL explosives - they could not do much more than break a window in a large building, and cerainly not cut significant structural steel.
Good link, thanks. Definitely thought provoking and the best rationalisation I have seen of that theory.For moer in depth analysis of this damp squib nonsense see here.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Interesting. I posted that very same link not 8 posts prior to that...guess you couldn't be bothered to look at the information.
I think Mike's characterization of a jet- a stream of material- is quite useful.
A bomb would look like - well- an explosion- an initial burst that quickly dissipates.
Clearly, very clearly, the material streams out like a jet- material forced out by continued and increasing pressure.
Sorry about that. Was not that I couldn't be bothered but probably got distracted and thought I had read it when I hadn't. As I said very interesting and thanks for posting it.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
I'm now fairly convinced that WTC7 fell due to natural causes, but for the sake of intellectual honesty, here are a couple of vids challenging my conclusion. Any thoughts?
"Tom Sullivan used to work for Controlled Demolitions Inc. On 9/11 and everyday since, his experience with CDI tells him that controlled demolitions were used on 9/11 to demolish World Trade Center #1, #2 and 7. Mr. Sullivan recently found Richard Gage, AIA, and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and backs them because they are working with the science of 9/11. More and more professionals are coming out publicly to expose the lies of 9/11, specifically that fire destroyed 3 skyscrapers to dust in New York. Keep up all the good work everyone; that goes to those of us on the street speaking truth to power, or those on the stage presenting the latest research."
This version will stay up, this one contains more info and notes to the debunkers who claimed that they "debunked" this info. This video answers how they could have rigged the towers easily and why jet-fuel and external damage can ever in a million years of jet-fuel fire cause even a partial collapse let alone an implosion. AE911truth - Experts Speak out explain it with actual science. Any "expert" that supports the official theory is either afraid for his life or career or believes that by supporting the government story he might be approached by shadow government agents and get paid for his "services". The last and most common is that people are psychologically handicapped and their brain will do anything and hold on to any pathetic argument that supports their worldview and nothing can change their mind. They always find an explanation no matter how outrageously stupid it is. An example: Jet-fuel caused all the secondary explosions that killed and wounded people and blew up the lobby and elevators throughout the pre-collapse time.
Do you have any idea of his position at the company doing controlled demolitions? Has anyone verified that he worked for them?
"Knowledge is the antidote for fear."
CWC (February 24th, 2013)
Good call, Cairenn. Though it appears Sullivan actually worked for CDI, his testimony has some issues. Check this out and tell me what you think: http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010...uth-interview/
Here's some additional background on Sullivan. Apparently, he's not as advertised. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Tom_Sullivan
http://empirestrikesblack.com/2010/0...s-of-omission/
I love how when they fail to do their own homework, that they blame others for 'planting' someone as a 'disinformation agent'.
Why not do the RESEARCH first, before you post nonsense?
In my own debunking I have encountered the non expert 'expert' too many times. I check up on folks. Just last week, I found a guy that had created a FB page for someone and was posting as that person.
"Knowledge is the antidote for fear."
That must be easy to show. Why not pick the best of each type, and start threads on them?
I've met every trick in the book. Even a YTsite named "jazzrocisaspook" where they worked out how many other people I was supposed to be. It's probably there still. Ha. It's been emptied.
Last edited by Jazzy; February 25th, 2013 at 03:52 AM.
Here is another one... If this is genuine, it would leave no doubt that it was demolished. (after the BBC broadcast), It is supposed to be a video found on an old camera. Can anyone see any editing on it?
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
If real . . . Impressive. . . .most impressive!!!!
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
I don't think there is much possibility the video is real. . . .if it were the person releasing it would be dead and the video would already be off YouTube. . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Here's another to add:
Can someone please explain why at 4.15 or thereabouts, we have this really clear picture of wtc7 and then the rest of it is so grainy I can nearly see owls
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
He was merely using a higher resolution photo to enable proper floor identification.Can someone please explain why at 4.15 or thereabouts, we have this really clear picture of wtc7 and then the rest of it is so grainy I can nearly see owls
I am sorry if I sound a bit picky but it does amaze me that with all these camera crews around that is the best video he can come up with to demonstrate with. I am sure I saw OBL waving from the top just before it went downHe was merely using a higher resolution photo to enable proper floor identification.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
WTC7 Collapse Chandler Debunked pt 2
For a start, it's a MIRROR IMAGE.
Is it difficult to paint flashes? Where were the bangs that made the flashes?
WTC 7 was burning merrily at the time of its collapse, and had been doing so for seven hours. Conditions within it were like a furnace. How on earth was a tall structure built of slender columns and wide flat thin floors supposed to function as a furnace? There was hardly any brick...
Fake.
Last edited by Jazzy; February 28th, 2013 at 01:09 AM.
Thanks. Is it definitely a mirror image though? Could it not be taken from the other side? I know that explanation is unlikely but I don't really know what the other side was supposed to look like.
I think it wouldn't be too hard to paint some flashes and add some sound effects, (like they did with the news on the day "OH MY GOD>>> OH MY GOD").
But anyone has to admit the footage of all those towers is of the absolute poorest quality... all the footage look like the 69 moon walks and fake OBL videos or highly dubious ufo's.
Was it really that difficult for the camera crews to take decent footage... I mean they knew 7 was coming down, even reported it down half an hour before. It should have been covered like a blockbuster movie event not deliberately faded out, pixilated rubbish and backgrounds colour washed and blurry. It should have been covered from every angle and reams of footage. Are ALL the news camera men really that completely incompetent. I think not
Last edited by Oxymoron; February 28th, 2013 at 05:21 AM.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
That would be through the smoke of the fire from downwind. So no, it cannot be from that side.Thanks. Is it definitely a mirror image though? Could it not be taken from the other side? I know that explanation is unlikely but I don't really know what the other side was supposed to look like.
Paint some flashes? No. That footage showed a whole lot more detail than that, which had to be in exact-same details and timing with many other videos. This one is merely altered original footage.I think it wouldn't be too hard to paint some flashes and add some sound effects, (like they did with the news on the day "OH MY GOD>>> OH MY GOD").
True. It's what gives truthers the latitude to fill in the gaps.But anyone has to admit the footage of all those towers is of the absolute poorest quality... all the footage look like the 69 moon walks and fake OBL videos or highly dubious ufo's.
Yes. Everything was coated in dust, and there was smoke and dust in the air. Bright low-contrast conditions will generate readily-compressible electronic imaging. Information gets lost that way.Was it really that difficult for the camera crews to take decent footage... I mean they knew 7 was coming down, even reported it down half an hour before. It should have been covered like a blockbuster movie event not deliberately faded out, pixilated rubbish and backgrounds colour washed and blurry. It should have been covered from every angle and reams of footage. Are ALL the news camera men really that completely incompetent. I think not
I'll keep an open mind on that but thanks for your thoughts.
It would appear that way from the 'live' coverage. What about the 'fade to blacks' etc.Yes. Everything was coated in dust, and there was smoke and dust in the air. Bright low-contrast conditions will generate readily-compressible electronic imaging. Information gets lost that way.
And yet there are 'real' pictures out there just look at the clarity of these pictures opposed to the 'live pictures' lol on 9/11. No disrespect but your above explanation does not cut it or how could these exist.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Which are perfectly as they should be.
Right now neither of the towers has collapsed, there is no dust, and the helicopter from which this footage was taken was upwind at 2,000 feet, and well above the haze of sea and city. The air is very clear here.
That was a discussion on the still picture.
The video is garbage. A plane the weight of the 767 doing 500+ mph would pass through a line of box columns made of 5/16" thick steel like a knife through butter. It wouldn't have looked good afterwards (in fact it was instantly slashed to ribbons*) but the steel would be G - O - N - E. The floors acted like knives, slicing the plane into floor-sized sections, but still photos show that the floors were abraded back from the outside of the tower by several feet.
Wreckage is seen leaving the towers at the far side from the impact. Why would anybody say there was no wreckage, when you can plainly see it on the video?
* A "ribbon" of a plane was found on the roof of an adjoining building, along with human body parts.
Last edited by Jazzy; February 28th, 2013 at 01:41 PM.
Now come on Jazzy, don't obfuscate... you know perfectly well that my point is valid and evident in the greatest clarity, (and greatest unclarity).
The live feeds were/are a joke... This is the 'News' and they present it like this!!!... how much editing dit it take to grey everything out and make it look like a live feed from the moon in 1969... which was a joke even then.
We are not talking about 'a picture' v 'live feed video', look at the clarity of the last video. Why would CNN, ABC et al 'fuzz' everything up, hide impacts with banners and 'fade to black'. Anyone with eyes and an IQ over 50 can see this was deliberate.
That's your view but I cannot agree. Last I checked if I hit an object with something softer than the object, the softer object loses.The video is garbage. A plane the weight of the 767 doing 500+ mph would pass through a line of box columns made of 5/16" thick steel like a knife through butter. It wouldn't have looked good afterwards (in fact it was instantly slashed to ribbons*) but the steel would be G - O - N - E. The floors acted like knives, slicing the plane into floor-sized sections, but still photos show that the floors were abraded back from the outside of the tower by several feet.
Wreckage is seen leaving the towers at the far side from the impact. Why would anybody say there was no wreckage, when you can plainly see it on the video?
* A "ribbon" of a plane was found on the roof of an adjoining building, along with human body parts.
So yes, as the plane entered the resistance would be overcome... until it reached the core... then the core wins hands down. Substantial wreckage should have ensued as per Empire State.
Ok, am I insinuating a plane did not hit?
No, all I am saying is the OS doesn't add up and there was a deliberate obfuscation by way of video editing and one has to wonder why?
When you refer to 'human body parts' being found I take it you are referring to the 'nothing greater than half inch bone fragments'. Just trying to be factual and there is no nice way of saying it.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Not always---
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/htmls/wea00226.htm
I have seen multiple pictures after tornadoes of softer materials driven into harder ones.
I know that there is a theory that the low pressure of a tornado 'opens up' the tree or telephone pole. I believe this has been disproved. (The roofs blown off without the tornado touching a house, now seem to be a factor of attached garages and the garage door, blowing in that the wind then lifting the roof from the inside)
"Knowledge is the antidote for fear."
If you have seen multiple pictures... I would have thought you could come up with a better example. That hit edge on into a crack and probably at low impact or could have even been placed as a joke.
I marvel at the way your standards for evidence fluctuate.
Do you have any pictures of light aluminium imbedded in solid steel?
And why not comment on the absurdity of the 'News' coverage and quality of video?
Last edited by Oxymoron; March 1st, 2013 at 06:47 AM.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
And all I am saying is that things do not add up to an innumerate.
Correct yourself. It's all within your powers to do so. Go and study energetic impacts. Try out some numbers.
The impact energy of a 160,000 pound aircraft traveling at 800 feet per second is? Best convert to kilograms and meters per second - 0.5m*v^2 gives you Joules.
You'll find that's about the equivalent of 1.5 tons of TNT. That's the energy available at the contact area (between plane and column) as they touched. Here's slightly less:
You won't find that at speeds less than supersonic (in the case of a bullet passing through a steel plate. But this is a massive aircraft passing through finely-constructed steel only 5/16" thick). Also aircraft duralumin is NOT "light aluminum". It's an alloy of copper and aluminum which is a little denser than pure aluminum and yet very nearly as strong as steel.Do you have any pictures of light aluminium imbedded in solid steel?
You aren't being very clever here. People with greater experience than you should be listened to and not disregarded. How does one educate oneself? The answer is badly.
Last edited by Jazzy; March 1st, 2013 at 07:39 AM.
Because I don't have time this morning. That picture showed up quickly or a creditable site. I shouldn't have even turned the computer on. I have a major show this weekend and will not be on much.
If you want to do some research, look for the tests that they do for certifying a building material for tornadoes. I have seen them shooting 2x4s from an air cannon at a concrete wall, or a brickwall over a wood frame. When one lives in tornado alley you pay attention to such things.
They have been working on developing a method to strengthen a closet or an interior bathroom. In some areas, like the DFW area, there are no basements and storm shelters are not always practical to build (my home is only some 3-4 ft above the bedrock---no in ground swimming pools around here)
"Knowledge is the antidote for fear."
I am always happy to listen to those with greater knowledge or experience... just they seem often to disagree amongst themselves. Now which one should I listen to... NIST maybe?
Ok, obfuscate away. If you cannot provide a rational explanation for the abysmal quality of the 'news real footage and the inexplicable fade to black and covering with logos'... who am i to criticise ... I can't explain it either
I didn't know the core was constructed from 5/16" thick steel... don't think many others realise that either. Can you back that up?
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
One thing to think about is that many of the folks shooting those news videos, may well have had family, friends and neighbors in the twin towers. Newsmen often cover stories where they have to fight their own emotions. If you add in the difficulty of shooting from a copter, and more than likely, having to dodge other copters, there are a lot of valid reasons for poor quality videos.
"Knowledge is the antidote for fear."
LOL... I've now heard it all! Talk about deny at all costs.
And that affects the quality of the film and turns a sunny day into a grey out how?
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
I don't disagree with NIST, except with their tendency to be too terse.
I don't obfuscate. If my explanation leaves you confused then your confusion is a measure of your lack of understanding.Ok, obfuscate away.
But I did provide a rational explanation.If you cannot provide a rational explanation for the abysmal quality of the 'news real footage
Wasn't the "fade to black" another view of the same event already covered in the video above? Then it is irrelevant, is it not? Why are you bothered by irrelevancies?and the inexplicable fade to black and covering with logos'... who am i to criticise ... I can't explain it either
The external columns were 5/16' thick at that height (WTC 1*). The internal columns were thicker. It's all on record. Search it yourself.I didn't know the core was constructed from 5/16" thick steel... don't think many others realise that either. Can you back that up?
Parts of the planes cut through the opposite ends of the towers. There was no way the engines and undercarriage would end out in the streets without striking core columns, and yet they got beyond them.
* WTC 2 was struck lower down where the steel was proportionately thicker. At the base the thickness was 4". But that isn't where the planes struck.
Last edited by Jazzy; March 1st, 2013 at 09:36 AM.
Oh of course... the fault is never yours, always someone else's.
Oh, I must have missed it... my fault I suppose. Was it in invisible font?But I did provide a rational explanation.
No... and yes it is highly relevant. But then I am sure you realise that really.Wasn't the "fade to black" another view of the same event already covered in the video above? Then it is irrelevant, is it not? Why are you bothered by irrelevancies?
That's the Jazzy I know... "it's on the web"The external columns were 5/16' thick at that height (WTC 2). The internal columns were thicker. It's all on record. Search it yourself.
Yep amazing the towers stood after the plane took out that flimsy coreParts of the planes cut through the opposite ends of the towers. There was no way the engines and undercarriage would end out in the streets without striking core columns, and yet they got beyond them.
You have the right to remain silent but is that really a good idea?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks