Squibs here...Squibs there...Squibs everywhere!!!

[Aggs]

Thats a lie. The recent Ross video lecture goes into detail about the location of squibs and relation to core structures.

PS is your leader accepting the Ross disputation?

I've always wondered, if squibs were used doesn't that dispute Jones theory of thermite? I mean, if you're using thermite to weaken the supports why use squibs, or vice versa? Or is the implication that both were used? And what kind of additional manpower and time resources are need to do both?

 

[Zorglub]

Here's how it's always been explained to me:

CT: There was a power outage before 9/11 when the buildings were wired.
ME: But according to the evidence you used for the power outage it was only 1/2 of one of the building that was out that weekend. How do you explain the other 3/4?
CT: Yeah well what about WTC7?

I think that's sufficient...

Yep, more or less the same answers I`ve gotten over the years. I mean, for sex years there should be someone working out the possibile means.

Thats a lie. The recent Ross video lecture goes into detail about the location of squibs and relation to core structures.

PS is your leader accepting the Ross disputation?

You mean this one?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615
Think I´ve seen it before but mainly he talks about the so called evidence of explosives. Nothing on the "hows".
Care to give a brief resumé of how the explosives where planted and how this could be done without anyone noticing?

 

[Zorglub]

doublepost

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Has anone ever determined exactly what floors the so-called squibs originated from?

 

[leftysergeant]

Thats a lie. The recent Ross video lecture goes into detail about the location of squibs and relation to core structures.

PS is your leader accepting the Ross disputation?

Ross is a nincompoop. What he calls squibs at the top of the buildiong do not in the very slightest act anything like any explosive charge known to mankind. In any video that shows them, they are quadrangular and collapse back onto themselves.

What he actually points out are the spots which were gouged out by flying debris, leaving sheet metal bent obth inward and outward, so that the damage was visible from the southeast and southwest.

Then, there is the issue of his support of the "meteror" from Hangar 17 being a solid chunk of the "molten steel" when it is, in fact, several slabs of concrete with rebar sticking out of it.

And he thinks that the columns torch-cut in clean-up were cut with thermite.

He's a waste of bandwidth.

 

[leftysergeant]

Oops! My bad. I mistakenly attributed the "meteor" blather to Ross when it was Gage who posted that drivel. I still have him nailed on the cut columns.

 

[einsteen]

Why would the so called "Squibbs" increase in expelled energy while expanding as shown in the videos? Explosives would lose explosive energy as the "squibb" expanded.

Which squibs do you mean, I thought there were only a few ?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Which squibs do you mean, I thought there were only a few ?

All of them exhibit constant or increasing velocity during their lifetime. That's not a property of explosives.

 

[einsteen]

constant or increasing ? Which one do you think is the right one ?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

constant or increasing ? Which one do you think is the right one ?

What? Why does it have to be one or the other? There were multiple instances. Switch that brain on, please.

 

[danielk]

constant or increasing ? Which one do you think is the right one ?

In practical terms, there's not much of a difference between a > b and a >= b. The point is it isn't a < b.

 

[beachnut]

Probably you mean that 6 squibs where not synchronized with the other ones, after a while you don't see it because of the ejected debris and dust around it. Do you not realize that the demolition zone is a collection of squibs ?

There were no explosives or "squibs" observed on 9/11. The acceleration profiles are wrong for explosives, right for broken windows moving in a pixel stream of video, and air being compressed and escaping as it increases in speed during building collapse. The squib become a red flag, a way to spot people too challenged to think for themselves and figure out 9/11. 9/11 truth members are exposed to be fact less with the simple squib statement, or the "pull it" statement. Squibs, make it so easy to spot someone who has no clue on 9/11.

The sounds are missing for your collection of squibs. Funny stuff, too challenged to prove it, 9/11 truth just says it. What else can they do without facts?

 

[Pardalis]

When I first saw Loose Change (which was the first time I heard about 9/11 CTs as well) the squibs and the "fake" phone calls were the two major points that convinced me that this was baloney.

 

[einsteen]

The question is not if a>b or a>=b, the question is if a=constant or a will increase during time.

No, how can you draw conclusions about that ?? all debris from above just follows its (parabolic) path in air and of course during the collapse, seen from far away, it will increase when you go down, that has nothing to do with the ejection of the material itself, the videos where you see it from below show a constant speed of ejection, of course with random fluctuations, what do you expect in an inhomogenous building ? Since the building becomes stronger at the bottom and also the collapsing mass is much more at the bottom it will be a complex situation, you can't really easily say yes or no.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Thats a lie. The recent Ross video lecture goes into detail about the location of squibs and relation to core structures.

PS is your leader accepting the Ross disputation?

Are you accepting that Ross is either a fraud or a moron? I've already proven that his paper on momentum doesn't in fact show that the collapse should self-arrest, but rather that with his own numbers that the collapse progresses and accelerates.

I even wrote a letter to him and the journal of 9/11 studies on this issue. He and the "journal" have ignored it. Funny how that works.

 

[Pardalis]

I've always wondered, if squibs were used doesn't that dispute Jones theory of thermite? I mean, if you're using thermite to weaken the supports why use squibs, or vice versa? Or is the implication that both were used? And what kind of additional manpower and time resources are need to do both?

I sure would like to see a twoofer answer that one day...

 

[beachnut]

Ross confirms global collapse if see his errors

Are you accepting that Ross is either a fraud or a moron? I've already proven that his paper on momentum doesn't in fact show that the collapse should self-arrest, but rather that with his own numbers that the collapse progresses and accelerates.

I even wrote a letter to him and the journal of 9/11 studies on this issue. He and the "journal" have ignored it. Funny how that works.

Have you shared your letter? I would be interested in seeing the work. I also see Ross's work as proving global collapse as possible, since he only says he is missing 390 MJ, and that is only some 10 percent short. I do not think truthers understand a small error by Ross and the building falls. And Ross made errors. I would not use Ross if life was involved.

If truthers understood how little energy Ross was short to have global collapse. That means Ross, with an error, confirms global collapse. I have not made this as clear as someone else can but Ross's paper confirms global collapse.

 

[A W Smith]

The question is not if a>b or a>=b, the question is if a=constant or a will increase during time.

No, how can you draw conclusions about that ?? all debris from above just follows its (parabolic) path in air and of course during the collapse, seen from far away, it will increase when you go down, that has nothing to do with the ejection of the material itself, the videos where you see it from below show a constant speed of ejection, of course with random fluctuations, what do you expect in an inhomogenous building ? Since the building becomes stronger at the bottom and also the collapsing mass is much more at the bottom it will be a complex situation, you can't really easily say yes or no.

We are talking about the individual "squibs" and you are describing the collapse wave. Care to clarify?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Have you shared your letter? I would be interested in seeing the work. I also see Ross's work as proving global collapse as possible, since he only says he is missing 390 MJ, and that is only some 10 percent short. I do not think truthers understand a small error by Ross and the building falls. And Ross made errors. I would not use Ross if life was involved.

If truthers understood how little energy Ross was short to have global collapse. That means Ross, with an error, confirms global collapse. I have not made this as clear as someone else can but Ross's paper confirms global collapse.

http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007/07/gordon-ross-shows-collapse-progression.html


The third to last and second to last paragraph are the pertinent ones on this issue. It has to do with what the definition of an inelastic collision is. Ross either ignores this intentionally or ignorantly. Basically there's 1389MJ that just vanishes.

The meat of this letter is mainly there just to show Ross and the "journal" that sharpening ones pencil and getting real numbers instead of just pulling guesses out of ones rear is important.

 

[einsteen]

We are talking about the individual "squibs" and you are describing the collapse wave. Care to clarify?

Indeed, they look the same I would say as a lay man.

@Newton's

What's your opinion about the idea that energy is absorbed by the structure itself and not my individual stories ? As far as I can see your story doesn't clarify is, some nice theory and examples but not a real proof.