It just falls to fast while it keeps it's shape to not be a CD imho.

[wildbilln864]

video link :hi:

[William Seger]

1. Really?

"The size, placement and timing of these 'puffs' is very consistent with squibs from cutting charges of the type used in professional controlled demolitions, and in fact nothing but small explosive charges could create such an appearance."

Tell me, wildbill, if those "puffs" are puffs of smoke from cutting charges, why do they fall with the building? :popcorn:

[wildbilln864]

2. I hope you aren't trying to imply that's my quote.

I never said they were puffs of smoke William. They still could be debris dislodged by the explosives that is forced out the windows by the rapid expansion of gases. That's what explosives do William.
What exactly do you mean by "fall with the building"?
If you mean, ejected debris falls after spewing from the building, then that would be gravity,
William.
:popcorn:

[William Seger]

3. I mean that they appear to be ATTACHED to the building

So if you disagree with the video, why did you post it?

[wildbilln864]

4. attached to the building?

you mean coming from the building's windows? So what?
What's to agree or disagree with? It's just a video of the building collapsing in less than 7 seconds with jets of debris bursting from the right rear corner going upward as the building begins to collapse.
They are not attached but they do originate from the building.

[William Seger]

5. What's to disagree with? I just told you.

There is absolutely no way in hell those are "squibs," puffs of smoke from demolition charges, as the video claims. Now, you're trying to suggest that it's debris blown out by some kind of demolition charge that didn't produce any smoke? :eyes:

Nope, even as ridiculous at that is on the face of it, it doesn't fit the video. Whatever it is, it doesn't continue outward and fall on its own, as debris would. It appears to be still attached to the building.

{ETA: Not to mention that it would be absurd to place demolition charges high up on that one corner and set them off when the building is already falling.}

[wildbilln864]

8. you assume.....

it didn't produce any smoke just because you don't see it. Maybe it hadn't made it's way into view before the collapse. Maybe there were smokeless compounds used. It moves up the building.
Fit the video?
Your opinion.

Attached to the building? Not to me. It looks like expulsions. Again, opinions.

"{ETA: Not to mention that it would be absurd to place demolition charges high up on that one corner and set them off when the building is already falling.}"
Not if you want to make sure evidence is destroyed. And you can't see the entire building.

Just because you can't imagine reasons for certain things doesn't mean they can't happen.

[WillowTree]

6. I don't know how to break this to you...

....but in a real controlled demolition, charges are placed at the base of the building, to cut the supports and cause the building to fall. There would be no reason at all to place charges at the top of the building in a controlled demolition. None.

[wildbilln864]

7. I must disagree. nt

Yes I agree as long as you're not trying to hide the fact that it was rigged with explosives but
there might be if the demolition was meant to look like it was caused by a plane. Doing it as you say would be obvious to everyone that it was indeed rigged to for controled demolition. Bin Laden couldn't do that.