http://youtube.com/watch?v=I_BXhEPQfU8

The squibs start at the middle of the screen and go up. This is aginest the wave of collapse but more important, THIS IS AGINEST GRAVITY! .

This is totally impossible, you can't go aginest the law of gravity.

How does a collapse which occurs vertically down, have explosive squibs occuring vertically up?

Debunkers/Truthers, have any of you thought of this. I think this could be pretty important with the case for C.D. of WTC7.

I'm a strong case for the controlled demolition of the building, but how does that "go against the laws of gravity?" :)

From my understanding, and again I failed physics in high school, pressure is applied north (which is evident by the squibs) when the object in motion is traveling south.

Regardless, it's a good find and it defiantly helps the cause for a controlled demolition.

If we accept the official story and a pancake collapse occured. The pressure from the collapse, which is the explanation skeptics give about squibs, will proceed downwards. But the squibs go up the building.

BUMP!

GOOD STUFF,CLEAREST SQUIBB VIDEO IVE SEEN SO FAR

Forget the presense of the squibs for a second. Accept the fact they were there and the building collapsed because of a pancake, fire/damage related, collapse. Then, answer the question:

How do the squibs start around floor 42 and proceed upwards, aginest the force of gravity and collapse wave of the building, until they reach the top?

When you throw a ball into the air, are you going against gravitational force (or the law of gravity, as you put it)?

Hmmmm. Must not be squibs.

So what are they then?

I don't know. I don't think either of us does. But if the collapse follows the squibs (which it does, of course) and these "squibs" are moving contrary to the collapse, then they cannot be squibs.

If there not squibs, and their air being forced out of the building due to the collapsing floors, then how are they traveling up? The collapse travels down, the pressurized air would travel down.

The "whatever you want to call them ( squibs, pressure, mystery things)" start 9 floors below the roof so that would be the 38th floor.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t0oE6-RrbSg

How isn't that an implosion?

BUMP!

Please look at this and reply.

I think this could be very important in the arugment for C.D. of WTC7.

Thanks.

It looks like it's happening exactly the same time the building is imploding on itself.

I've have not seen this one before, thanks for the link.

I'm convinced by this and other facts which lead me to believe it was a controlled demo and an inside job.

Then what are they then, hot air coming through the elevator shafts, (Upward) as each floor create air pressure so hard it blows the windows out?

Moved to WTC 7.

i think i have seen controlled demos where the squibbs blow from bottom to top,actually ....might want to consult with an explosives expert ....but i would think the initial charge,especially in a 1000 foot tall building ,would start at the bottom and work its way up rather that the other way around ...possibly

It should blow out starting with the 47th floor, then 46, until collapse if it was a pancake collapse.

But it did 38, then 39, until 49.

Got any videos?

Reverse Logic - It's actually the other way around. If the collapse travels down, the pressurized air would travel up.

Iv seen those squibs before, ...till date I didnt see any official theorist give a 'rational' explanation to it.

Watch the video in my signature below - in the first 38 seconds you can see squibs go upwards in a real controlled demolition.

It's hard to make concrete statements about things like this but it seems rather coincidental these 'squibs' only appear on floors we know had damage to that corner from the collapses ( http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-105.jpg ).

It seems more likely these are just bits of broken facade moving in the gust of air which followed the start of the collapse. At least to my mind.

Alright. But Why would these damage points pop out going aginest the collapse wave?

The squibs appear well above the observable damage shown in that ridiculously large photo you sourced e^n

Those were clearly squibs and to your mind anything that goes against your chosen belief will always require a different interpretation.

In a classic controlled demolition, ground floor structural support is instantaneously removed across a building's core cross section to start an implosive collapse. The normal expectation would be for the immediate floors above the break to collapse first and the process to continue upwards as other planted explosives remove structural support resulting in the building imploding in on itself and in a perfect controlled demolition, landing in it's own footprint.

Thus it would seem logical that these planted explosives, which naturally are capable of creating observable explosive squibs, would be expected to be timed to go off in rapid succession from bottom to top, thus accounting for the upward direction of the squibs we see.

MM

Oh, alright. Thanks for clearing this up.

i will try to find some/one

After careful frame by frame analysis, i have concluded that the blob tried to escape and got stuck.

Seriously, there are some problems with the squib analysis.
Squibs are usually in the center.
There was no reason, that i can see, for demo charges in the upper corner of the building.
There is no trailing smoke.
The black spots move down with the building.
The video is too grainy to say for sure.

I think it's probably a Trojan Horse they hope we will try to ride so they can argue the point ad nasium.

To convince skeptics, we must play our aces.

I appreciate your efforts and desire to add to the body of evidence but i don't think the squibs are an ace.

They really weren't:

This part is the only incorrect part, this doesn't happen during the collapse in 'classic controlled demolition', it happens beforehand. It's really a minor niggle.

Click on the Southwark Towers thumbnail.
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

I don't get it, the 'squibs' (which looked totally different to most of those hilighted on the towers) went off literally as the collapse began, the ones in the towers were all after collapse initiation.

Like I said, it's a minor niggle because it's very hard to know exactly what was going on in the towers.

I guess your idea of significant damage and mine strongly differ!



I see mostly superficial damage caused by the WTC1 (North Tower) collapse.

MM

You didn't say "significant" you said "observable" but either way it is irrelevant, the damage happens to match up extremely well with the 'squibs' and at least to me it seems quite likely that it was simply air being pushed out of the way as the building began to fall.

The only damage that matters is significant damage.

Arguing over the inconsequential is not only pointless, it's petty.

I have more than a few problems with your "pushed air" fantasy e^n.

Not only are those dark, debris laden squibs large and dramatic, they are not properly in sync with the collapsing (squeezing) floors.

We can see dramatic squibs when the floors have hardly begun to drop, reflecting the proper sequence of explosions causing structural failure.

Those upper floor squibs stop well before their associated floors begin to dramatically drop. This can be observed by advancing the video frame-by-frame (increments of 1/30 second) which clearly shows the building's upper story collapse behavior in relation to the squibs.

The proper expectation would be that the greatest amount of "pushed air" via rapid squeezing would occur at the peak of compression for each collapsing floor and not near the beginning.

MM

I simply mentioned they were inline, I didn't attempt to make any claim about how significant the damage was. Why do you think I did?

I'm sure you do MM, I have no intention of definitively stating my position regarding these 'squibs' as I do not have one. I see you have felt at liberty to romanticise as usual but regardless the only significant visual effects on the linked youtube videos are small dark sections which seem to protrude outwards from WTC7 as collapse begins. I would suggest this is just part of the facade being moved by escaping air but again I am simply offering it as a possibility. It seems coincidental that this would occur only on floors with observed damage but not even visibly break windows around it.

One other thing that interested me is you said this:

Can you extract these frames for comparison then please? I assume you have a decent non linear suite which is something I am sorely missing.

Nothing is said or done without purpose e^n, especially by you. Significant damage (large amounts of loose or fragile building material and big holes gouged out of the outside wall) aids the argument for a non explosive based squib.

Insignificant outside falling debris damage (chipped, scratched, abraded, sections of external building facade) would contribute nothing to the content of the observed dark squibs.

You would rather play it safe and merely 'imply' a position. Why go to the trouble of wasting the reader's time and attention about damage you state you aren't attempting to make any claim as to having significance?

An illusionist distracts the audience by focusing their attention on the unimportant so they don't carefully observe that which is important. You do that frequently and it only serves to illustrate the dishonesty behind your supposed truth seeking.

Those would be the floors of which you previously said; "I simply mentioned they were inline, I didn't attempt to make any claim about how significant the damage was."

I could. It would be a "significant" amount of work. The observation I describe is best observed by stepping frame-by-frame through the video. The explosive squib completes very early in the floor to floor descent. A forced air squib would continue longer as the floors still had much air space to collapse through. It's not an observation that makes itself that clear in a series of screencaps as much as it does when 'stepping' forward and reverse, frame-by-frame, with a decent video application like QuickTime Player.

MM

Okay this is the best I could come up with in the few minutes I had available.



The left hand shot was captured at the start of the first observable squib and the one to it's right was about 14 frames later (7/15 of a second).

The right side image is a wide shot reference that matches the second image.

The squibs had peaked at this point and remained suspended. I see no upper floor crushing that would be squeezing out air bursts.

WTC7 descends downward as it floors collapse from bottom to top.

It's a classic style controlled demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfR-YX1N9i4

MM

the hypothetical situation that could cause that effect is the air pressure created within the lower floors, as they collapsed.

remember, wtc7 fell in the opposite manner that the towers did. Bottom first. So with the towers, we allegedly had (this is official story, not what I believe) upper floors smashing lower ones, and so the air in those lower floors had to escape sideways into what looks like squibs.

but with WTC7, the debunker argument has been "the air pressure from below moved up"... which is scientifically conceivable. Gravity has very little to do with it. We're talking about the force of pressure needing to cause hte gasses within the structure to escape.

But here are two problems with that typical debunker claim, primarily e^n.

1. If the air needed to escape, and busted some windows where we see squibs, then that pressure would be released at that floor, not on the next and the next and the next also. In fact, those squibs are all about the same size and apparent speed. There's no way they could ALL be due to air pressure needing to be equalized.

2. Any air pressure differences could have easily been evened out by having air escape the lowest parts of the structure where the implosion began. Pressurized air will take the easiest route out of the building. It would not need to go up towards the top of the structure, since the bottom was already being destroyed.

except that they might not have wanted a large chunk of building to remain after the collapse... that's usually how demos are done. break up the entire thing. So yea if the argument is, "they only needed to make it collapse, not break it up all the way to the top" then you'd be right. But that premise is false. If they did not break up the whole thing, then the collapse of this structure would demonstrate that a falling chunk of building will not be totally destroyed after falling a few floors... and that would totally obliterate NIST's t heory of collapse for the towers.

thanks... you've just provided me with a new quote...