The Incredible Disappearing Squibs
One of the tenets of the "Controlled Demolition" hypothesis has been the presence of "squibs" at the WTC, going back to the original version of Loose Change if I remember correctly. Richard Gage's group has been an especially fervent proponent of this theory, and lists them prominently on their homepage, defined as:
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
They never quite explain why squibs are only "mistimed explosions" though. Should there not also be evidence of properly timed explosions too? Does the act of timing them suddenly make them disappear?
Anyway, Gage now seems to be making a rather large retraction, and is suddenly backing away from this, at least in reference to WTC7. From the comments on 911 Blogger:
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.
So what super secret explosives did bring down the building? I am curious as to how much time will pass before they change their website.
I would also be remiss in not pointing out the first part of his comments:
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).
It is amusing that suddenly they view us as their quality control department. I would have to disagree though, we are not pointing out "errors here and there", but "everywhere".