IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Smrekar's Dialogue on Richard Gage AE911Truth, Split from WTC7 Oddity

Smrekar
post Oct 11 2008, 09:37 AM
Post #1





Group: Guest
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 3,929



This is certainly very supportive of the controlled demolition hypothesis, and I thank you for bringing it up. handsdown.gif

However, it is not without problems. Namely, why are the squibs (or however we call them) located only on one side of the building and why is the collapse still symmetrical? According to AE911truth and others, the damage to the building according to the official story (or fairy tale or whatever) necessitated an asymmetric collapse, with the building 7 toppling in the direction towards the twin towers. The squibs are seen on the same side as the twin towers were - the south side - and it is quite evident there aren't any on the opposite side, facing the camera. This begs quite a large number of questions - why the building didn't topple is still one of them.
Can someone more knowledgeable than me please answer? Thank you smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 11 2008, 10:12 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Smrekar @ Oct 11 2008, 07:37 AM) *
However, it is not without problems. Namely, why are the squibs (or however we call them) located only on one side of the building and why is the collapse still symmetrical? According to AE911truth and others, the damage to the building according to the official story (or fairy tale or whatever) necessitated an asymmetric collapse, with the building 7 toppling in the direction towards the twin towers.

Hi again Smrekar,

I haven't seen the "symmetry" vs. "asymmetry" issue verifiably justified yet. This sounds like you're asking a question that should properly be addressed to:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

QUOTE
The squibs are seen on the same side as the twin towers were - the south side - and it is quite evident there aren't any on the opposite side, facing the camera. This begs quite a large number of questions - why the building didn't topple is still one of them.

Ummm, "quite evident" from what exactly? I get the impression that you are only talking about one "the camera," but I can't be sure which video clip or photo(s) you mean in your post. I didn't see a reference or link there. Wouldn't we need to look at more evidenciary view(s) from the N, E, and W sides of both Tower "collapses" to conclusively determine "quite evident there aren't any" charges? I don't think you've looked at quite enough photos and video clips looking for blast plumes.

Can you explain the "upwards" and "horizontal" gravity to me?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13766

How about the horizontal velocities needed to impact WTC7 with WTC1 North shrapnel, err.. "debris" at posts #12 and 13?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746708
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smrekar
post Oct 11 2008, 10:33 AM
Post #3





Group: Guest
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 3,929



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 11 2008, 04:12 PM) *
Hi again Smrekar,

I haven't seen the "symmetry" vs. "asymmetry" issue verifiably justified yet. This sounds like you're asking a question that should properly be addressed to:

http://www.ae911truth.org/


Check their presentation. Richard Gage - and architect - makes this exact point on the opening page:

3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance.

QUOTE
Ummm, "quite evident" from what exactly? I get the impression that you are only talking about one "the camera," but I can't be sure which video clip or photo(s) you mean in your post. I didn't see a reference or link there. Wouldn't we need to look at more evidenciary view(s) from the N, E, and W sides of both Tower "collapses" to conclusively determine "quite evident there aren't any" charges? I don't think you've looked at quite enough photos and video clips looking for blast plumes.


Quite evident from the video posted here. There are squibs seen on the south edge of the building, but not the north edge. Camera is situated to the north of the building.
Here is the video, in case you want me to post it again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_BXhEPQfU8

QUOTE
Can you explain the "upwards" and "horizontal" gravity to me?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13766

How about the horizontal velocities needed to impact WTC7 with WTC1 North shrapnel, err.. "debris" at posts #12 and 13?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10746708


I certainly can't. Contrary to what you might assume, I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything. I'd just like an answer to a specific question, about a specific video, regarding a specific - and very important - topic.

Although, in regards to that post, the destruction of the south tower didn't look a lot like an ordnance blast. Furthermore, if there was a major blast, it would have certainly been obvious and, more importantly, heard.
Any controlled demolition within the WTC had to use either small charges, or non-explosive means of destruction (such as thermite).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 11 2008, 11:31 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



OK, now that I know you are addressing thehighwaymanq's post #1 video link, I'd say take a look in the "shadow side" of WTC7 again. Can we conclusively say that there isn't another sequence of debris plumes on the "left, shadow" side of WTC 7 in addition to the ones more clearly seen on the "illuminated" side of WTC7 in highwaymanq's video link? Let's keep in mind that this is 2 seconds worth of quite poor-quality internet video, and I'm not ready to go as far as "quite evident" from this particular video. We are also looking at [EDIT: small portions of] only 2 of the building's 5 available faces...
-----
On the symmetry issue, thank you Smrekar. I found some new WTC7 resources when I went to check Richard Gage's WTC point #3 that you are inquiring here about. Perhaps your symmetry question is addressed in one of those. I'll link them below for everyone's convenience:

Public comments on the NIST WTC7 draft report. Submitted to NIST 09/11/08, Jonathan Cole P.E. (15.7 MB)
http://ae911truth.org/docs/J_Cole_NIST_WTC...8-SUBMITTED.pdf

The Destruction of WTC 7, Vesa Raiskila
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/dest...n-of-wtc-7.html

Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT, by Jim Hoffman
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01, Terry Morrone
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...ingWTCsteel.pdf

There are several articles and papers on WTC1 & 2 as well as the NIST and other reports at:
http://www.ae911truth.org/techarts.php

Also, the AE911truth.org WTC point #7 hotlinks to the following:
http://www.wtc7.net/verticalcollapse.html

------------------------------
Again, I can't presume to speak for Richard Gage on what he intended with symmetry vs. asymmetry (or for the administration of this forum either BTW). I don't even know if Richard has seen the 2 second video above. Also, I don't have a copy of Richard's DVD presentation, so I am unqualified to review that.

If you would like to contact Richard or http://www.ae911truth.org/ they have an email form at:
http://www.ae911truth.org/contactus.php

or their mailing address and phone says:

You may contact us via U.S. postal mail at:

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
2342 Shattuck Ave., Suite 189
Berkeley, CA 94704

Phone: (510) 548-9334 – 9am to 5pm PST/PDT
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smrekar
post Oct 11 2008, 11:56 AM
Post #5





Group: Guest
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 3,929



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 11 2008, 05:31 PM) *
OK, now that I know you are addressing thehighwaymanq's post #1 video link, I'd say take a look in the "shadow side" of WTC7 again. Can we conclusively say that there isn't another sequence of debris plumes on the "left, shadow" side of WTC 7 in addition to the ones more clearly seen on the "illuminated" side of WTC7 in highwaymanq's video link? Let's keep in mind that this is 2 seconds worth of quite poor-quality internet video, and I'm not ready to go as far as "quite evident" from this particular video. We are also looking at only 2 of the building's 5 available faces...


Nope, I certainly can't say that there aren't any squibs on the darkened side. But that's not what I was reffering to, either.
To achieve a controlled symmetric collapse, one must take out the building support columns (and/or walls) in a symmetrical fashion, or else the building might topple over. Gage speaks to some length about this in his presentation. However, it is evident from this video that the squibs appear on only one side of the building, the one possibly damaged by the debris from the WTC towers (or so the official story goes).
If these are squibs from a controlled demolition, why are they present on only one side? If asymmetrical damage almost certainly causes the building to topple over, why WTC 7 didn't collapse in that way?

QUOTE
-----
On the symmetry issue, thank you Smrekar. I found some new WTC7 resources when I went to check Richard Gage's WTC point #3 that you are inquiring here about. Perhaps your symmetry question is addressed in one of those. I'll link them below for everyone's convenience:

Public comments on the NIST WTC7 draft report. Submitted to NIST 09/11/08, Jonathan Cole P.E. (15.7 MB)
http://ae911truth.org/docs/J_Cole_NIST_WTC...8-SUBMITTED.pdf


The Destruction of WTC 7, Vesa Raiskila
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/dest...n-of-wtc-7.html


No. They just lament the NIST report. Justifiably so, I might add, but it doesn't even adress my question. See bottom.

QUOTE
Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01, Terry Morrone
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...ingWTCsteel.pdf

There are several articles and papers on WTC1 & 2 as well as the NIST and other reports at:
http://www.ae911truth.org/techarts.php

Also, the AE911truth.org WTC point #7 hotlinks to the following:
http://www.wtc7.net/verticalcollapse.html

------------------------------


Nowhere near, I'm afraid.

QUOTE
Again, I can't presume to speak for Richard Gage on what he intended with symmetry vs. asymmetry (or for the administration of this forum either BTW). I don't even know if Richard has seen the 2 second video above. Also, I don't have a copy of Richard's DVD presentation, so I am unqualified to review that.


Slide 250 of his presentation (http://www.ae911truth.net//ppt_web/slidesh...250&lores=1) among others shows a still from the posted video. or one very much like it, shot at the same time from a nearby location. Chances he hasn't seen it are very low indeed. This is largely irrelevant, however, see below.

QUOTE
If you would like to contact Richard or http://www.ae911truth.org/ they have an email form at:
http://www.ae911truth.org/contactus.php

or their mailing address and phone says:

You may contact us via U.S. postal mail at:

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
2342 Shattuck Ave., Suite 189
Berkeley, CA 94704

Phone: (510) 548-9334 – 9am to 5pm PST/PDT


I only used mr. Gage as a reference in support of the claim made by the original poster. Namely, if WTC 7 wasn't rigged with explosives, it shouldn't have collapsed, or if it did, it would've toppled over. I'm not asking Gage, but this community how this is explained.
This is because mr. Gage didn't actually say these puffs were demolition squibs, you see. They may well be, but I was hoping an expert could explain this dilemma.
Considering the number of references around here on AE911truth it seemed like a good choice to make. Even if it wasn't, the question is still quite legitimate, I believe.

This post has been edited by Smrekar: Oct 11 2008, 11:59 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 11 2008, 12:00 PM
Post #6





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Smrekar @ Oct 9 2008, 01:33 PM) *
Furthermore, if there was a major blast, it would have certainly been obvious and, more importantly, heard.

There were numerous reports on the day concerning explosions felt before the plane strikes, shortly after such, during the firefighting and evacuation stages, immediately prior to and during the disintigration.

Search out the video 9/11 Mysteries for one example and look out for the testimonies of William Rodriguez and of a British reporter named Stephen Evans. All these reports were shown on the day but were pulled in the days and weeks following and never shown again by mainstream media. Ask yourself why that should be.
QUOTE
Any controlled demolition within the WTC had to use either small charges, or non-explosive means of destruction (such as thermite).

My understanding, from previous personal experience, and having watched the news on the day, researched video, audio and written sources is that your assumption is based on rather limited thinking and that a variety of devices were used that day and yes in the case of some types many were used. Planting these in the buildings without raising suspicion would not be difficult if carried out under the guise of maintenance or refurbishment. Whole floors could be mined whilst occupants were moved out. It is known that much lift maintenance had been carried out (being in the central core that is highly suspect) and that heavy maintainance and building works were in progress on what became key floors and in the basement.

Consider also the chain of custody of those organisations involved in maintenance and also security.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 11 2008, 02:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smrekar
post Oct 11 2008, 12:08 PM
Post #7





Group: Guest
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 3,929



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 11 2008, 06:00 PM) *
There were numerous reports on the day concerning explosions felt before the plane strikes, shortly after such, during the firefighting and evacuation stages, immediately prior to during the disintigration.


The claim made here is that there was a major blast at the top of the tower, just as it began to fall. A major blast is a pretty hard thing to miss, and usually comes with a truly powerful blast, that should shatter windows in a large area. Steel beams would also fall at a lot larger area than they did. This obviously didn't happen.

QUOTE
Search out the video 9/11 Mysteries for one example and look out for the testimonies of William Rodriguez and of a British reporter named Stephen Evans. All this reports were shown on the day but were pulled in the days and weeks following and never shown again by mainstream media. Ask yourself why that should be.


I did see them, and I do ask myself that question, and I do not have an answer. I didn't claim there wasn't an explosive present in the WTC, however, just that comparing the start of demolition of the South tower to an explosion of an ammunition dump (or whatever) is categorically incorrect and not a little silly.

QUOTE
My understanding, from previous personal experience, and having watched the news on the day, researched video, audio and written sources is that your assumption is based on rather limited thinking and that a variety of devices were used that day and yes in the case of some types many were used. Planting these in the buildings without raising suspicion would not be difficult if carried out under the guise of maintenance or refurbishment. Whole floors could be mined whilst occupants were moved out. It is known that much lift maintenance had been carried out (being in the central core that is highly suspect) and that heavy maintainance and building works were in progress on what became key floors and in the basement.

Consider also the chain of custody of those organisations involved in maintenance and also security.


I never denied any of those. I merely stated that the implication that the destruction of the South tower was similar to an ammunition dump blowing up based on a few stills was incorrect smile.gif
We have videos of both. Check those, you'll see it's hardly even similar.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 11 2008, 01:23 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Smrekar @ Oct 11 2008, 09:56 AM) *
Nope, I certainly can't say that there aren't any squibs on the darkened side. But that's not what I was reffering to, either.
To achieve a controlled symmetric collapse, one must take out the building support columns (and/or walls) in a symmetrical fashion, or else the building might topple over. Gage speaks to some length about this in his presentation. However, it is evident from this video that the squibs appear on only one side of the building, the one possibly damaged by the debris from the WTC towers (or so the official story goes).
If these are squibs from a controlled demolition, why are they present on only one side? If asymmetrical damage almost certainly causes the building to topple over, why WTC 7 didn't collapse in that way?

No. They just lament the NIST report. Justifiably so, I might add, but it doesn't even adress my question. See bottom.

Nowhere near, I'm afraid.

This topic was split to debate from WTC7 [video] Oddity thread, since the extraneous Richard Gage and AE911truth "presentation" points interjected by Smrekar are primarily off-topic, except for 2 seconds of poor video of WTC7 (that I didn't see directly linked to Richard Gage either). The original 2-second video in question is in post #1 at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10116

Firstly, Smrekar do you have any verifiable sources for your "to achieve a controlled symmetric collapse" or just the assertion itself? My point is that we were looking at 2 very-low quality seconds' worth of video of a rather "close" and poorly-lit shot of a corner of presumably WTC7. To leap to "evident from this video that the squibs appear on only one side of the building," I'd like to see more area of those 2 building faces, in better light, as well as the other 3 faces of WTC7 before drawing such definitive conclusions, but perhaps I maintain a tighter criterion for "evidence."

Secondly, I think that you just contradicted yourself on "squibs" and the visible portions of WTC7's building faces in the 2-second video- see my bolding of your statements above.

Thirdly, you may not have been aware that:

"• The Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum is primarily a research forum, not a debate forum."

Now you are aware of this Smrekar. This debate forum does have some rather stringent rules, which you may be introduced to shortly. Paraphrasing the Debate Forum rules, we would like to see verifiable sources rather than general or absolutist assertions. Also, the vague "it, this" from your first post regarding the 2-second video and Richard Gage seemed somewhat ambiguous to me- that's why most of us prefer linked sources.

Looking back through your several posts above (and on another thread), I don't see many verifiable sources, just assertions and a few speculations. If unclear on this point, the forum rules will be amended soon to explicitly and un-ambiguously state the verifiable sources requirement alluded to above.

Finally, if there are specifics in the AE911truth (or other written) materials, a hyperlink, filename, page #, and section # would be most helpful for everyone here, in the interests of our time. You are aware that this isn't http://www.ae911truth.org aren't you, Smrekar?

I hope this clears a couple if things up for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Oct 11 2008, 02:42 PM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Smrekar @ Oct 9 2008, 01:56 PM) *
To achieve a controlled symmetric collapse, one must take out the building support columns (and/or walls) in a symmetrical fashion, or else the building might topple over. Gage speaks to some length about this in his presentation. However, it is evident from this video that the squibs appear on only one side of the building, the one possibly damaged by the debris from the WTC towers (or so the official story goes).

There are a number of possibilities for squibs only being visible in some places:

1. Squibs are in shadow

2. Squibs are out of the picture in the sequence under discussion

3. Squibs are being contained in the building.

Note that once CD is accepted as the only possible cause of the effects seen then it becomes clear that very carefull planning went into the organisation of the smoke and mirrors propaganda, note the 'witnesses' on the street immediately blaming fire from planes as the reason for the building collapse before anybody has had real time to think about the violations of the laws of science that such would involve given the construction of the towers. Now point three becomes easy to explain. The collapse of WTC1 was going to be blamed for weekening WTC7 (which was the original BS story from officialdom remember) so squibs in some areas could be explained away.

Absense of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. The ball is firmly in your court and the answers are here if you care to look and you have the acumen and integrity to recognise such.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smrekar
post Oct 11 2008, 05:28 PM
Post #10





Group: Guest
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 3,929



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 11 2008, 07:23 PM) *
Firstly, Smrekar do you have any verifiable sources for your "to achieve a controlled symmetric collapse" or just the assertion itself? My point is that we were looking at 2 very-low quality seconds' worth of video of a rather "close" and poorly-lit shot of a corner of presumably WTC7. To leap to "evident from this video that the squibs appear on only one side of the building," I'd like to see more area of those 2 building faces, in better light, as well as the other 3 faces of WTC7 before drawing such definitive conclusions, but perhaps I maintain a tighter criterion for "evidence."


We are examining evidence that the WTC7 was brought down through controlled demolition. Unfortunately, the whole thing already happened, and we can't set up extra cameras to record how it collapsed. In other words, we have to work with what we have, not with what we'd like to have. We were talking about a particular piece of evidence.
The fact it is not conclusive in itself should hardly mean it's completely irrelevant.

QUOTE
Secondly, I think that you just contradicted yourself on "squibs" and the visible portions of WTC7's building faces in the 2-second video- see my bolding of your statements above.


Hm, no I didn't?
But I do believe you misinterpreted what I said. The lightened portion of the building in the 2 second video has only one line of squibs, off-center and on one side. There may or may not be squibs on another facing of the building, but no such phenomena can be observed on the lightened facet. Therefore, if those indeed were squibs from the demolition charges, they were fashioned there asymmetrically.

No, I can't source this to anyone, because it's my own analysis. You're welcome to challenge it, though I don't see how.

QUOTE
Thirdly, you may not have been aware that:

"• The Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum is primarily a research forum, not a debate forum."


I was aware of that. I wasn't aware that asking a question about a presented video amounted to a debate.

QUOTE
Now you are aware of this Smrekar. This debate forum does have some rather stringent rules, which you may be introduced to shortly. Paraphrasing the Debate Forum rules, we would like to see verifiable sources rather than general or absolutist assertions. Also, the vague "it, this" from your first post regarding the 2-second video and Richard Gage seemed somewhat ambiguous to me- that's why most of us prefer linked sources.

Looking back through your several posts above (and on another thread), I don't see many verifiable sources, just assertions and a few speculations. If unclear on this point, the forum rules will be amended soon to explicitly and un-ambiguously state the verifiable sources requirement alluded to above.

Finally, if there are specifics in the AE911truth (or other written) materials, a hyperlink, filename, page #, and section # would be most helpful for everyone here, in the interests of our time. You are aware that this isn't http://www.ae911truth.org aren't you, Smrekar?

I hope this clears a couple if things up for you.


Sure, thanks. I still don't see what I should've sourced in this particular case, but I'll try to improve things from now on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smrekar
post Oct 11 2008, 05:48 PM
Post #11





Group: Guest
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 3,929



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Oct 11 2008, 08:42 PM) *
There are a number of possibilities for squibs only being visible in some places:

1. Squibs are in shadow

2. Squibs are out of the picture in the sequence under discussion

3. Squibs are being contained in the building.


All of these account as to why squibs wouldn't be seen on other facets. But we're talking about the same facet.

QUOTE
Note that once CD is accepted as the only possible cause of the effects seen then it becomes clear that very carefull planning went into the organisation of the smoke and mirrors propaganda, note the 'witnesses' on the street immediately blaming fire from planes as the reason for the building collapse before anybody has had real time to think about the violations of the laws of science that such would involve given the construction of the towers. Now point three becomes easy to explain. The collapse of WTC1 was going to be blamed for weekening WTC7 (which was the original BS story from officialdom remember) so squibs in some areas could be explained away.


AE911truth disagrees - their assertion is based on 10 points, of which one is arguable (foreknowledge - could indeed have been coincidence, guesswork, etc) and one of which is inadequate (sulfur does not automatically mean thermite was present).
The summary, alongside our video, is present on the opening page:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

QUOTE
Absense of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence. The ball is firmly in your court and the answers are here if you care to look and you have the acumen and integrity to recognise such.


I'm not calling the whole CD story into question by any means. I'm questioning the merit of a single video posted on this site. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hadmatter
post Oct 11 2008, 07:18 PM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 27-June 07
Member No.: 1,271



Regarding the issue of the WTC7 squibs, I believe you all may have missed this entry over on 911 Blogger back in January 2008.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13263

The entry is by AE911truth in response to NIST information, but the interesting part of the post is in the comments down below article, starting with those written by Vesa (her paper on WTC7 destruction is referenced above in dMole's #4 entry).

She presents evidence that the so called "squibs" along the side of WTC7 aren't squibs at all, but rather some sort of video artifact. If you follow the thread you'll see that not only Chris Sarns agrees with her, but also the following poster:

"Thank you again Vesa for another excellent analysis
Vesa has been quite an ally, along with many others, keeping me straight along the way. (By the way - the debunkers have also been very helpful in this regard and we should take the opportunity to thank them for pointing out errors here and there).

We will strike the controversial WTC7 squibs (in the upper right corner) from the online PPT and upcoming DVD update. I agree with the analysis - particularly the impossible "stationary explosions". ((Damn - I thought these were the real deal!)). I think what's happening is that the windows break - and right in time with the shockwave traveling up the front face! And the smoke inside is under pressure and "poofs out" - making them appear like explosions. The 2 stationary "poofs" would be due to the already damaged windows/panels which emerged prior to the collapse - although I can't understand why the smoke wouldn't be "billowing" up and out of the damaged opening more than it is.

Thanks again Vesa for your keen mind and friendship. Sorry you took heat on this blog.

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect

Submitted by richardgage on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 9:25pm."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smrekar
post Oct 12 2008, 04:02 AM
Post #13





Group: Guest
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 3,929



QUOTE (hadmatter @ Oct 12 2008, 01:18 AM) *
Regarding the issue of the WTC7 squibs, I believe you all may have missed this entry over on 911 Blogger back in January 2008.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13263

The entry is by AE911truth in response to NIST information, but the interesting part of the post is in the comments down below article, starting with those written by Vesa (her paper on WTC7 destruction is referenced above in dMole's #4 entry).

She presents evidence that the so called "squibs" along the side of WTC7 aren't squibs at all, but rather some sort of video artifact. If you follow the thread you'll see that not only Chris Sarns agrees with her, but also the following poster:

"Thank you again Vesa for another excellent analysis
Vesa has been quite an ally, along with many others, keeping me straight along the way. (By the way - the debunkers have also been very helpful in this regard and we should take the opportunity to thank them for pointing out errors here and there).

We will strike the controversial WTC7 squibs (in the upper right corner) from the online PPT and upcoming DVD update. I agree with the analysis - particularly the impossible "stationary explosions". ((Damn - I thought these were the real deal!)). I think what's happening is that the windows break - and right in time with the shockwave traveling up the front face! And the smoke inside is under pressure and "poofs out" - making them appear like explosions. The 2 stationary "poofs" would be due to the already damaged windows/panels which emerged prior to the collapse - although I can't understand why the smoke wouldn't be "billowing" up and out of the damaged opening more than it is.

Thanks again Vesa for your keen mind and friendship. Sorry you took heat on this blog.

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect

Submitted by richardgage on Sun, 01/06/2008 - 9:25pm."


Interesting, interesting. I certainly can agree with this particular analysis. Thank you smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 12 2008, 04:47 AM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Smrekar @ Oct 11 2008, 10:08 AM) *
I never denied any of those. I merely stated that the implication that the destruction of the South tower was similar to an ammunition dump blowing up based on a few stills was incorrect smile.gif
We have videos of both. Check those, you'll see it's hardly even similar.

No, we don't have... sources for above??

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smrekar
post Oct 12 2008, 05:52 PM
Post #15





Group: Guest
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 3,929



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 12 2008, 10:47 AM) *
No, we don't have... sources for above??



WTC collapse compilation of videos:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...hl=en&emb=0

Ammunition dumps:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...hl=en&emb=0

I didn't see all of them, but I doubt you can match a single one from the first set to a single one from the second. I am certain that a vast majority show a major differences, sufficient to conclude the two don't look similar at all.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 12 2008, 07:07 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Smrekar @ Oct 11 2008, 10:08 AM) *
I never denied any of those. I merely stated that the implication that the destruction of the South tower was similar to an ammunition dump blowing up based on a few stills was incorrect smile.gif
We have videos of both. Check those, you'll see it's hardly even similar.

While your opinion(s) are now duly noted Smrekar, my post in question (#2) stated:

"For comparison, here are some proven military grade high explosives (UK Royal Marines blasting an arms dump/cave in Afghanistan)."

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13766

I don't recall drawing any conclusions for the reader... You will also note that I didn't make the original post in that thread or type the title of the thread (back in July). I can contact Oceans Flow for you and see if he would like to change the title of that thread if it is problematic for you Smrekar though. rolleyes.gif

EDIT: Methinks he? doth assume too much.

EDIT2:
QUOTE


links to:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8OQWz7xlINA dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Oct 13 2008, 01:41 AM
Post #17


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



I like the title of that thread. Thanks for asking. yabadaba.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smrekar
post Oct 13 2008, 03:42 AM
Post #18





Group: Guest
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 3,929



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 13 2008, 01:07 AM) *


Let's try again:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...5&ct=title#
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 13 2008, 04:39 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Smrekar @ Oct 13 2008, 01:42 AM) *

That worked. I can't speak Arabic though- do we know the who, what, and how of the explosion? The Google video "about" did say this:

"From an Arabic news broadcast. Notice at 4:00 what appears to be a small nuke going off."

The video is pretty dark and distant [and Arabic] though- have you got any videos with known charges in daylight for comparison? Whatever the nature of the blast was around 04:00, it appeared to over-saturate the camera for a while.

EDIT: Do we know any of the tech specs on Al Jazeera's video camera (frame rate, number of un-captured seconds, response times, etc.)? One thing about still images- we know the information was captured. With video, we know much of the information was "dropped" due to frame rate. More info here at post #5, with sources:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10755831
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Smrekar
post Oct 13 2008, 04:47 AM
Post #20





Group: Guest
Posts: 57
Joined: 11-October 08
Member No.: 3,929



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 13 2008, 10:39 AM) *
That worked. I can't speak Arabic though- do we know the who, what, and how of the explosion? The Google video "about" did say this:

"From an Arabic news broadcast. Notice at 4:00 what appears to be a small nuke going off."

The video is pretty dark and distant [and Arabic] though- have you got any videos with known charges in daylight for comparison? Whatever the nature of the blast was around 04:00, it appeared to over-saturate the camera for a while.


You have about 3 pages of videos on the left. There is a few daylight ones among them.

But this "nuke" comparison will do - there is absolutely no flash visible at the South Tower, correct? Night time or not, a flash like that would be visible, at least in the video.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th December 2019 - 04:38 AM