Horizontal Ejections and Squibs

Mince said:
Do you believe the (relative) small amount of (according to most truthers) squibs we see in all the videos is indicative of explosions designed to collapse the towers? Do you believe that (relative) small amount of explosives was sufficient to collapse a 110-story office building? Even in significantly smaller demolitions, a much greater amount of explosive flashes can be seen and a tremendous amount of "squibbing" can be seen as a result. Where were the flashes (at all) and significant squibbing in any of the buildings that day?
Click to expand...


I would say that in one of the videos, squibs can be seen at about 4 different floor levels until collapse. Granted you would see more in a normal demolition, but they would want to disguise this one as much as possible, for obvious reasons. There a number of explanations that can account for this. I'll pull a few out of my ass right now.

What if they had most of the explosions occurring in the core of the building, out of sight and earshot, but needed explosives further from the core only every 30 floors or so to do some kind of effect to the perimeter and outer core collumns to make it fall a certain way.

I admittedly am not an explosives expert and sure as hell did not help them plan this demolition job, so i don't really know.

Anyways, please stop answering my questions with questions.

I would like to know what you think those "squibs" are. We can't deny that they exist any more. Someone needs to come up with a reason for their occurence.

Also, why do you keep assaulting me with how much energy would require for these to occur with explosives? You are trying to argue that no explosives were needed, yet if explosives were needed, you claim you would need a ridiculous amount (i presume). So how can you say that gravitational energy alone has more energy than explosive and gravitational energy?

Say "I" if you see how inconsistent and contradictory these views are.

I do not deny that gravitational energy was present in the collapse. I am arguing that explosives were needed for the collapse to progress in the way it did.
 
beachnut said:
The WTC was a gravity collapse after impacts and fire destroyed the strength of steel. Engineering and experience show me you have no expertise in physics, engineering or real knowledge on a broad range of topics needed to make sound judgments and form logical conclusions on 9/11. This is just from your mangling the questions and acting so knowledgeable on 9/11.

I assume you have read NIST, and several other reports on the fall of the WTC, and understand the chief structural engineer agrees with impact, fire and collapse as the mechanism that destroyed his structure. If you lack knowledge on these areas alone, you are lost and will not even get started on a discuss let alone your veiled attempt to blame others for the act of 19 terrorist who were responsively for the impacts at 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy, 7 to 11 times greater than the design aircraft impact studied by Robertson, the chief engineer on the WTC.

You veiled explosives attempt is weak.

Without a background you bring pure false information to form bad questions.

So with a masters, you can see your OP shows your failure.
Click to expand...

Do you realize that you are the only one here who entirely misses the point of this thread?

We are talking about a specific characteristic of the collapse, and you're over here talking to yourself about how awesome gravitational collapse is.

No one cares if you don't think explosives were used. I want to know what the squibs are that we see during the collapse.
 
DGM said:
Air!!!!!! The building was full of it (thankfully for all the people that worked there).


Any explosive charge would move the air in thousands of feet per second not less than a hundred. You can't deny this no matter how much the "truth" movement tells you to. (please think for yourself)
Click to expand...

Just hold it right there Mr!

How did that air escape the building through midpoint windows 30 levels below the collapse front.

From what i witnessed, if the horizontal ejections (the ones AT the collapse front) were provided by the gravitational energy of the falling top section, there is no real reason for that pressure to be exerted 30 floors below this point, is there?

We can see most of the pressure is flinging steel beams and dust horizontally at the collapse front, now where is the energy of this explosive pressure wave coming from?
 
papasmurf said:
What if they had most of the explosions occurring in the core of the building, out of sight and earshot,
Click to expand...
There is no way in hell you could have such powerful explosions out of earshot in the towers. And remember, the cores were standing after the initial collapse!

I admittedly am not an explosives expert and sure as hell did not help them plan this demolition job, so i don't really know.
Click to expand...
I thought you understood the physics? You rejected the air being pushed out because of compression, surely you must have at leat a back of the envelope calculation on the explosives you propose?

Anyways, please stop answering my questions with questions.
Click to expand...
Sorry Sparky, you proposed explosives. Calculate how much was necessary.

I would like to know what you think those "squibs" are. We can't deny that they exist any more. Someone needs to come up with a reason for their occurence.
Click to expand...
Air compression inside the towers due to the top of the building falling. And it has been explained to you aver and over again.

Also, why do you keep assaulting me with how much energy would require for these to occur with explosives?
Click to expand...
Because it's your theory Sparky.

You are trying to argue that no explosives were needed, yet if explosives were needed, you claim you would need a ridiculous amount (i presume).
Click to expand...
That's right.

So how can you say that gravitational energy alone has more energy than explosive and gravitational energy?
Click to expand...
Do you even know how much potential energy was stored in the towers due to gravity? This should be right up the alley of a physics guru such as yourself! Get cracking!

Say "I" if you see how inconsistent and contradictory these views are.
Click to expand...
You haven't produced a shred of math to even show they're contradictory. Got that calculation for potential energy done yet?

I do not deny that gravitational energy was present in the collapse. I am arguing that explosives were needed for the collapse to progress in the way it did.
Click to expand...
Where's the math? We were promised world-class physics in this thread. So far all we have is Turbofan-style fyziks 101.
 
Last edited:
papasmurf said:
Just hold it right there Mr!

How did that air escape the building through midpoint windows 30 levels below the collapse front.

From what i witnessed, if the horizontal ejections (the ones AT the collapse front) were provided by the gravitational energy of the falling top section, there is no real reason for that pressure to be exerted 30 floors below this point, is there?

We can see most of the pressure is flinging steel beams and dust horizontally at the collapse front, now where is the energy of this explosive pressure wave coming from?
Click to expand...
They're way to slow!!!! If a column is "thrown" by an explosive, the blast wave will pass the column on it's sides (the same force that would move the column) and a visible (high velocity) wave would be obvious.


Your trying to argue a point (explosives) that there is no visual evidence (although "truthers" tell you there is). Think very high speed crap moving through the air.
 
Last edited:
A squib is a demolition device. In controlled demolitions, their use looks exactly like the focused horizontal ejections seen during the collapse of the world trace center.
 
papasmurf said:
. I want to know what the squibs are that we see during the collapse.
Click to expand...

Air due to the building being 95 percent air, air was forced out like in any collapse. A piece of plywood falling down sends air flying, parts of the WTC were like a piston too.
Grade school again
 
Last edited:
Papasmurf,

I would like to get to know your theory better. From what you have written are you saying that nothing was happening inside the buildings below the "collapse point" you see on the videos that show the external columns peeling away?

Are you suggesting that the floor trusses inside the buildings were intact until your "collapse point" reached them?

That, nothing was falling inside the buildings?
 
Last edited:
Par said:
What do you mean when you use the word “squib”?
Click to expand...
papasmurf said:
A squib is a demolition device...
Click to expand...


Whether or not there were “demolitions devices” in the buildings is a crux point at issue. We do not accept that there were. Thus, when you ask us what the “squibs” – i.e. “demolitions devices” – were, you are presupposing the existence of demolition devices. This is an example of the petitio principii fallacy. Do you see?
 
How are those calculations coming papasmurf? The potential energy of the WTC should be easy for you to calculate, in fact it's been done before here. I'd tell you where, but a physics genius such as yourself doesn't need my help.
 
a squib is a hollywood SFX device to simulate small explosions (ie BULLET shots into a building or a person). Anyone who continues to misuse this term is willfully ignorant.
 
I already addressed that point. Is that all you can do is repeat popular mechanics?

It is not just air, it is pulverized concrete.

This piston that you speak of. I doubt it's even there. Most of the matter you talk about is ejected horizontally at the collapse front, there is no solid body to act like a piston.

Think about what you are looking at. You are looking at a focalized point of emmission. Breaking though a window and shooting out jets debris. How great would this pressure need to be to cause the windows to break on multiple sides of teh buildings at teh same time like that?

Let's outline the math.

We can calculate the yield strenght of the windows using some data. If we have the size of the window and the type of glass, we can calculate the amount of force needed to shatter that window.

From there we use the area of the window to calculate the pressure.

Now, if we model the building as a perfectly sealed piston (which it isn't) and that no pressure can be exerted upward or horizontally at the collapse front (which it did), then we should be able to calculate the amount of air pressure exerted by the speed and mass of the falling top section which acts as the piston head.

Maybe i'll do this at some point. Then considering that there are elevator shafts and stairwells through out the building, we would need to determine if the air pressure can be distributed through out the entire building, or if there is enough resistance to airflow that the pressure would be forced to increase greatly on the observed floors for some particular reason, and blast out the windows.
 
papasmurf said:
Also, why do you keep assaulting me with how much energy would require for these to occur with explosives? You are trying to argue that no explosives were needed, yet if explosives were needed, you claim you would need a ridiculous amount (i presume). So how can you say that gravitational energy alone has more energy than explosive and gravitational energy?

Say "I" if you see how inconsistent and contradictory these views are.
Click to expand...


A very large amount of explosives would have to be used to collapse the building. This is indisputable among the sane and the intelligent species. The reason I dismiss a small amount of explosives to initiate collapse of an already compromised structure integrity is that because the collapse initiated at the very point of aircraft impact. How did these explosives survive aircraft impact, explosion, subsequent fires and displacement?
 
papasmurf said:
I already addressed that point. Is that all you can do is repeat popular mechanics?
Click to expand...
No you didn't, we were promised physics. Got any?

It is not just air, it is pulverized concrete.
Click to expand...
Then be certain to include in your calculations of the amount of explosives needed not just the amount needed to cut and eject the steel, but to pulverize the concrete as well.

This piston that you speak of. I doubt it's even there. Most of the matter you talk about is ejected horizontally at the collapse front, there is no solid body to act like a piston.
Click to expand...
Excellent, this will simplify your calculations.
 
Squibs, jeepers.

So anyway, PapaSmurf, just what makes you think that there were windows there anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom