You have no idea what is going on in that building at that moment. Let me ask you this for you to avoid ...if those are controlled demolitions, why are there only two, and why are they so far apart? How do those play into Kylebisme's theory if the demolitions following the collapse? And is it possible something else is happening at those spots besides demolitions? If those are demolitions, why doesn't the building start collapsing from those points? Your silly picture doesn't even begin to prove anything.
it is hilarious watching xj0hnx, tastes&runslikeachicken, and other liars continuously say they are "open minded" while claiming there are no facts or evidence to support a controlled demolition of the twin towers + wtc 7. it is especially laughable for xj0hnx, who claims to be an explosives expert.
first, let's address the lie he stated in the quoted response above: "why are there only two [squibs]".
no, there were not only two squibs. if you've done any research whatsoever you would have known this. there were plenty of squibs from many different angles for each collapse. just a few that other people have pointed out:
xj0hnx, who claims to be an explosives expert, then asks "if those are controlled demolitions... why are they [the squibs] so far apart?". seriously? in a controlled demolition, are all the explosives set off simultaneously, in the same area, all the time? of course not. one could rig a building to come down in any way, shape, or form. it is controlled, and the planners decide which set of explosives are detonated, depending on their liking. one could rig a bottom to top controlled demolition, along with a top to bottom controlled demolition. of course, you knew this xj0hnx, because you're "open minded", yet you and others in this thread have been pushing the fact that because the twin towers did not look like a "classic (bottom to top) controlled demolition", the possibility of it being a controlled demolition is out of the question.
so once again, let's go ahead and list out numerous other FACTS that support the case for a controlled demolition (because you, chickens, etc, claimed there are no facts to support a case for controlled demolition, right?) i stated these facts previously, yet nobody has dared to respond. i wonder why 🙂
Fact #1) Large earthquake type rumbles were reported by witnesses the minutes and seconds preceeding the collapse of the twin towers. Earthquake type rumbles also preceed the collapse of buildings in classic controlled demolitions, as explosives are being detonated inside the buildings, correct? By definition of a controlled demolition, explosives can be detonated at any time interval.
Video of an earthquake / rumbling that shakes the tripod of this camera 10+ seconds before the tower's collapse. A chunk of black debris can be clearly seen falling off the right side of the tower at the same time Etienne Sauret's camera is shaken. That was one hell of a rumble to cause buildings to shake many blocks away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ah8xoQgmI
Sauret's footage is corroborated by numerous witnesses and this footage from across the water. Notice the explosions / pressure waves caught on audio, and the clouds of dust / smoke rising up as a result of the pre collapse explosions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46mPiBeB-Go
clouds of dust / smoke pointed out in yellow, several stories high:
well well. now you have a problem, don't you? it is a fact that there were large earthquake rumblings starting at least 10+ seconds before the towers came down. it is also a fact that the rumbles and vibration shook buildings many blocks away, and even reached across the river. the rumbles also shook the ground enough so that dust / smoke rose several stories high right before the tower began collapsing. now the problem: how do you explain away the earthquake rumblings? don't bother pointing seismograph evidence to try and deny the rumblings occurred, it is a known fact the 1993 WTC bombing did not register on seismographs, and too many witnesses mentioned the rumblings. and don't blame the earthquake rumblings on the internal structure of the WTC towers crumbling either... if you do, you'll be admitting that NIST's collapse model is dead wrong and failed to account for lower level columns disintegrating before the collapses of the towers started. you'll then have to explain how and which columns disintegrated
🙂 it looks like you have a major problem here, eh? anyhow, these rumblings are
facts that are consistent with and support the case of controlled demolition.
Fact #2) In many demolitions, detonations of explosives are accompanied with flashes of light. Numerous witnesses on 9/11 saw flashes of red + orange colored lights on the lower level of the towers, some even before any visual collapse began from the top impact points.
For instance:
Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110008.PDF
"We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down,
before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with
Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding,
but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything?
He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors.
This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes."
Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times
********************************************************
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF
Somewhere around the
middle of the World Trade Center, there was this
orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.
Interview, 11/07/01, New York Times
********************************************************
The red + orange flashes of lights on the lower levels are not proof of explosives. however, it is a
fact that the flashes of lights occurred on the lower levels, and is once again,
consistent with and supports the case for controlled demolition.
Fact #3) See squibs at the top of this post. the numerous squibs / ejections of debris are not proof of explosives, but the fact that they occurred and visible tens of stories below any collapse points are again
consistent with and supports the case for controlled demolition.
as for why would various types of explosives be used together? is there a rule stating a mix of two or more types of explosives in different parts of buildings cannot be used? no, and it is certainly possible. is that conventional? probably not, but if that is what the evidence suggests happened (and facts #1 through #3 stated above certainly point in that direction), then it must be considered and explored
🙂 if thermite / thermate is shown to be valid, then it is just another part of the equation.
Fact #4) Barry Jennings: on record about numerous large explosions in WTC 7 before any of the towers came down, and reported bodies in the lobby of WTC 7, contradicting official reports. Jennings himself explains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI
Fact #5) Because WTC 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition
🙂
One of many experts who agree (and notice his shocked reaction when told it collapsed on the same day):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
also interesting to note is tastes&runslikeachicken still hasn't addressed my sig, and continues to dodge "because this thread isn't about JFK". Let's see if he has the guts to address the gigantic hole in the government's inability to account for the missing blood and lack of damage to the magic bullet in the JFK thread
here.
ns1 has dodged repeatedly also. xjonx, do you have the guts to agree or disagree with cogman's miracle statement in my sig? feel free to demonstrate how "open minded" you are. try not to shoot yourself in the foot like cogman did
🙂. after all, it is about the assassination of a
US president.
