• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squibs and the morons who cling to them

Taken from Implosion World whitepaper:

Brent Blanchard said:
ASSERTION #3
"But explosive charges (aka plumes, squibs, etc.) can clearly be seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse."
PROTEC COMMENT: No, air and debris can be seen pushing violently outward, which is a natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse.
Click to expand...
There is an important hidden point in this statement about why certain windows failed and others didn't. There wasn't just air being forced out through lower floors, but also debris. Chunks of concrete bouncing down stairwells, office furniture blown into the windows, etc. Also the building was loaded funny after being plane-struck, so you'd see some windows stressed more than others. There's no reason to expect all the windows to blow out symmetrically.

Brent Blanchard said:
... it matters little whether Alex Jones is drawing parallels to building implosions, Steven Jones is drawing conclusions from hot metal or Chuck Jones is drawing dynamite in the hands of Wile E. Coyote ...
Click to expand...
Genius. :D

This is a nice writeup. Thanks for pointing it out to me.
 
Kent1 said:
Implosion World's paper has finally come out.
I can't access the site right now, but here is a link from the LC forum

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10012
Click to expand...

That is freaking devastating! Yowza. The only counter I saw was to part 1 where they were talking about how imploding a building is done bottom up. I'm sure the CT'ers will claim this was done top down to make it look like normal fall. That would of course take way more explosives.
 
TjW said:
OTOH, it's probably above the design dive speed, and it's possible that all sorts of fun Mach effects and possible fluttering could happen.
Pulling back hard on the yoke could pull the wings off, but that's generally true anywhere above maneuvering speed.
Click to expand...
600 MPH is about 0.8 Mach at low altitude, lower than the Mach limit (cruising speed listed as 540 knots at altitude according to Wikipedia). The plane would probably be able to handle it, though I don't know if it would be able to sustain that kind of speed on the deck.

It'd be one heck of a bumpy ride, I'll tell you that.

P.S.: Unlike johndoeX, I don't even claim to be a pilot.
 
kevin said:
That is freaking devastating! Yowza. The only counter I saw was to part 1 where they were talking about how imploding a building is done bottom up. I'm sure the CT'ers will claim this was done top down to make it look like normal fall. That would of course take way more explosives.
Click to expand...

More good news......and it doesn't look very good for McKinney.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/elections/entries/2006/08/08/mckinney_losing.html

67% reporting in
Johnson , Hank 25,152 58.20
McKinney , Cynthia (i) 18,067 41.80
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Since I am a Registered, Professional Engineer, dealing daily with loads, strengths, stresses, and strains from both static and dynamic standpoints (although i don't do buildings any more), I reject any implications that S. ones and/or J. Woods are qualified at all. They have demonstrated a remarkable lack of expertise in real-world engineering and statics, much less kinetics.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reality check.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
AFAIK squibs are movie props (sortof) a tiny explosive they use to blow up a fake blood pack when someoen gets shot in a movie

there could be a second definition though
Click to expand...

Squib

A squib is a small explosive device which has a wide range of uses, such as generating mechanical forces as well as in pyrotechnic use. A squib can range in size from a small cap only millimeters in diameter to ones which can be 15 millimetres in diameter...

...It must be distinguished from a detonator, which is used specifically to initiate high explosive. A squib may indeed be energetic enough to initiate high explosives, but that is not its primary purpose.

It must also be distinguished from the electric match, which produces only a flash of flame and is used to ignite military simulation pyrotechnics, stage pyrotechnics, fireworks in professional firework shows, charges for special effect purposes, rockets and a wide range of other pyrotechnic items requiring merely flame to ignite them.

In aviation, squibs are used to generate pressurised gas to open valves and operate small mechanical devices such as those found on ejection seats, and to pierce metal diaphragms that are retaining pressurised liquids such as halon and fluorocarbon extinguishants, or release compressed nitrogen gas to act as a propellant.

They are widely used in the special effects industry to simulate a bullet hit by coupling the squib itself with a condom or balloon of either fake blood for hits on persons or dust/debris for hits on other objects.

Squibs may be sensitive to EM radiation and devices such as vehicle radios, radar, cellular and microwave transmitters can set off a squib unless the two leads are terminated correctly, or better still, are fitted with suppressing ferrite filters....

...Squibs were originally made from parchment tubes, or the shaft of a feather filled with fine black powder and sealed at the ends with wax. These were inserted into the touch holes of cannon and used to ignite the main propellant charge. Roger Bacon first described the making of squibs in 1248...
Click to expand...

So in conclusion... put up your had if you believe a 15mm explosive cap caused that stuff to eject out of the windows of the WTC...

-Andrew
 
Dog Town said:
Gotta do that where do I sign?????!!!

DT
Click to expand...

bummer, dictionary.com says:
Thus any comments regarding the content of the definitions that appear on our site should properly be directed to the publisher or copyright holder.
Click to expand...

They list where their definitions come from. Anyone gotta link to the one where dynamite is actually listed (pull/pulling definitions only say it's used in demolition, no method is specified)?
 
wikipedia is the only place where I have been anle to find info on squibs. All the other results are straight from conspiracy theorists websites.
 
Barcoded @ Loose Change said:
Lol, if you were gonna secretly blow up a building you would try your very best to not make it look like a typical CD...why cant they understand that?
Click to expand...

I thought the only reason those poor, deluded fools came up with the controlled demolition theory in the first place was that "it looked just like CD."

Aaaand we've come full circle.

ETA: From the same freakin' thread:

CanadaWantsTheTruth @ Loose Change said:
Are people not using their freakin' eyes when the watch footage of the towers coming down or are they just refusing to watch them? You don't need an engineering degree to see that it didn't fall on it's own, fire, plane or not.
Click to expand...

sigh. I really don't regret never bothing to register there. I'm allergic to so much stupidity...
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
Squib



So in conclusion... put up your had if you believe a 15mm explosive cap caused that stuff to eject out of the windows of the WTC...

-Andrew
Click to expand...
Don't forget, squibs also pulverized 110 40,000 sq. ft. floors of 4" thick concrete...
 
kevin said:
They list where their definitions come from. Anyone gotta link to the one where dynamite is actually listed (pull/pulling definitions only say it's used in demolition, no method is specified)?
Click to expand...
my mistake, it doesnt list dynamite...although im sure i saw it somewhere....probably some truther adding it when they quoted dictionary.com (wouldnt surprise me)
 
Gravy said:
Just read the Kevin Ryan paper. I'm glad he's not testing water for U.L. His ignorance and cherry-picking of data could endanger people.
Click to expand...

This is from the paper by Firmage:

The Pentagon was well prepared for aerial attacks, with batteries of anti-aircraft guns surrounding the headquarters of the world’s most powerful military. They did not fire a shot that day.
Click to expand...

Do these morons even do any research at all? The military has not even had anti-aircraft guns for decades, much less had them emplaced in batteries around a public office building. I am glad these papers are "peer reviewed" or else they might say something really stupid.
 
JamesB said:
This is from the paper by Firmage:

The Pentagon was well prepared for aerial attacks, with batteries of anti-aircraft guns surrounding the headquarters of the world’s most powerful military. They did not fire a shot that day.
Click to expand...
Do these morons even do any research at all? The military has not even had anti-aircraft guns for decades, much less had them emplaced in batteries around a public office building. I am glad these papers are "peer reviewed" or else they might say something really stupid.
Click to expand...
C'mon, everyone knows the Pentagon is just a modern verion of this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom