Official story: why believe it?

[Drudgewire]

First, "squibs" are small explosive charges usually used in the film industry to simulate bullet hits. You really ought to use correct terminology. If you want you can call a car a "horseless carriage" but it really isn't a term which is used anymore.

Second, those "squibs" of yours appear when the building is already collapsing and thus explosives are no longer needed. What point is there in detonating explosive demolition charges in a building which is already collapsing?

Hmmm, what if the squibs WERE film props fiendishly placed there by the neocons in such perfectly strategic positions most people wouldn't even see them without looking really hard... KNOWING it would be analyzed by truth seekers and keep them busy trying to prove a conspiracy which science could easily explain away in order to keep our best and brightest running around in circles for six years chasing a ghost rather than putting their efforts into legitmate war protest like they most likely would have otherwise done?














Damnit... found the fatal flaw in that theory. "Best and brightest."

 

[beachnut]

do not tell him the squibs on 9/11 were accelerating, not decelerating like explosions, but accelerating like air pressure form floors collapsing

do not mention the lack of explosives and the sounds of explosives missing on 9/11

he will be devastated and broken his delusional fantasy gone

 

[MIKILLINI]

still not a answer for air pressure from collapse shooting out from specific locations. what would cause the air to go only to specific locations? the air from collapse would go everywhere it wasn't blocked or possibly force it's way thru weaker locations, which would be spread out all over buildings. The path of least resistance is not specific location below collapse.
watch some videos of CD's you see explosion squibs just like 9-11 then you'll see the air pressure coming from the lower levels shooting the dust up. just like on 9-11.
coincidence? not likely

Obviously Lisab, you are stuck on appearances. If you read again what Rwguinn has said about fluid dynamics, you would not assume the path of least resistance would be controlled.
But you've already seen videos of controlled demolition and the typical squibs that are present in the demolition.
But what are you comparing? Videos of actual controlled demolition to video of buildings collapsing after they received tremendous damage, or videos of actual controlled demolition to video of buildings collapsing, presumably having the appearance of controlled demolition?

 

[Belz...]

your opinion is a fact how?

Lisabob, taking what someone says and making it sound like it means something else is dishonest and childish. I suggest you abandon this kind of debating tactic.

Lets get specific.how does the official story explain the squibs that were seen during the buildings collapses? Air pressure would not explain it. The squibs came out of specific locations below collapse.

Where ELSE would they come out except specific locations ? Generic locations ? Please, ANY place where they would appear would be specific, but I'm sure you're aware that, if they were explosive charges, they would've been placed in non-random locations and in much greater number. They also wouldn't be silent.

How could air pressure in those buildings be confined to specific locations and all about the same pressure?

It's been said many times before that it takes a single broken window to create this effect, and there was much damage on the towers that day.

The air would go to path of least resistance

Exactly what I just said.

 

[Belz...]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGLktxPbxPk
funny I hear lots of similar sounds in the WTC collapses as I heard during the normal CD's I think you would have to be blind & death not to see the similarites.

It's also funny how all the explosions start BEFORE the building begins to collapse, not after.

 

[Sizzler]

One thing I don't get is,

how can air pressure explain puff's of air, BEFORE collapse initiation.

No one has ever given me a good explanation for that.

 

[GStan]

One thing I don't get is,

how can air pressure explain puff's of air, BEFORE collapse initiation.

No one has ever given me a good explanation for that.

To what pre-collapse initiation puff's of air are you referring?

 

[Slayhamlet]

One thing I don't get is,

how can air pressure explain puff's of air, BEFORE collapse initiation.

No one has ever given me a good explanation for that.

Maybe because that didn't happen?

 

[Slayhamlet]

nice dog.
I would expect that kind of responce.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGLktxPbxPk
funny how they all look so similar and the widespread air pressure event can be seen after all the squibs in the CD's and in the WTC collapses.

Lisa, you don't even know what the hell a squib is. You know even less about controlled demolitions. What makes you think your uninformed opinion matters?

 

[beachnut]

One thing I don't get is,

how can air pressure explain puff's of air, BEFORE collapse initiation.

No one has ever given me a good explanation for that.

Those were silent explosives! A NWO secret weapon.

 

[Calcas]

Oh my. How did I miss this thread until now?

Specific locations? Is LB really serious? Is that as opposed to unspecific locations? Or just general locations? How about locations that we thought were going to be specific but turned out to be random?

The Stundie cup runneth over...

We have GOT to get a better class of troll back in here or we're going to lose our rep. Is Killtown or p'duh still available because even they were better than this clown. It's really disappointing...

 

[Sizzler]

I didn't say explosions.

I said, "puffs of air".

They occur just before collapse initiation. Above the impact zone. Several occur at once, and then the top part falls.

I find these hard to explain for two reasons.


1 They occur just before collapse initiation.

2 There are several (at least 4, more like 5 or 6)

Here it is.

go to 3:40 mark and begin to watch. at least 4 puffs of smoke seen coming from the upper section of building just before the top part fails (3:45 mark).


Play it a few times over. The video is not slowed down (that I know of) so you may miss it. keep your eyes on the top section just before collapse initiation.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e2_1195549390

again, just before collapse initiation, and above impact zone.

How can air pressure explain these?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Sizzler

The key wording should be that they are seen before the "visible" collapse initiation. Just because the exterior of the building hasn't come down yet doesn't mean there is collapsing inside, or compression going on. If a roof of a room is bending down and making the room smaller, then the air that was in that room has to go someplace and the window can sometimes be the path of least resistance.

 

[Sizzler]

Sizzler

The key wording should be that they are seen before the "visible" collapse initiation. Just because the exterior of the building hasn't come down yet doesn't mean there is collapsing inside, or compression going on. If a roof of a room is bending down and making the room smaller, then the air that was in that room has to go someplace and the window can sometimes be the path of least resistance.

The building clearly tips just after.

Floors could be collapsing inside the building before the perimeter columns break, but wouldn't that go against the NIST theory?

I see the merit in your statement if pancaking was the collapse initiation model. But it is pretty certain, it isn't.

And there are many puffs at once, which lowers the probability that 4 or more small rooms had their rooves randomly collapse at the same time at different locations (wasn't it an open office space anyway?)

 

[Jonnyclueless]

But again, I am not saying it is collapsing, just giving examples of how the puffs being before a collapse have many natural cuases (assuming it happens). It's simply an issue of pressure. We can all agree that before the initial collapse there were areas of the building inside that had collapsed. This doesn't contradict anything, a plane had hit the building, there was collapse at impact.

We can also agree that there were fires, and heat causes things to expand, another thing changing the pressure of rooms. And rooms don't have to completely collapse, they just need to change size. Anyone that has seen a real fire even s small one has seen things like windows blow out. And that's without a collapse event. Just regular fires.


Now if one were to look at a CD, they will quickly see that the ejections aren't small and scattered randomly. They are very distinct and symmetrical and covering whole floors at a time.

 

[Sizzler]

But again, I am not saying it is collapsing, just giving examples of how the puffs being before a collapse have many natural cuases (assuming it happens). It's simply an issue of pressure. We can all agree that before the initial collapse there were areas of the building inside that had collapsed. This doesn't contradict anything, a plane had hit the building, there was collapse at impact.

We can also agree that there were fires, and heat causes things to expand, another thing changing the pressure of rooms. And rooms don't have to completely collapse, they just need to change size. Anyone that has seen a real fire even s small one has seen things like windows blow out. And that's without a collapse event. Just regular fires.


Now if one were to look at a CD, they will quickly see that the ejections aren't small and scattered randomly. They are very distinct and symmetrical and covering whole floors at a time.

I see the merit in what you've said for puffs coming from the damaged areas.

however there are two distinct puffs well above the impact/damage zone. they are very clear and not unlike the rest. We know the level they are on did not receive any damage. Damaged areas are well documented in official narratives and scientific papers.

I think it is difficult given the quality of the film and the distance from which it is being filmed to pass judgment on symmetry.

 

[CHF]

nice dog.
I would expect that kind of responce.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGLktxPbxPk
funny how they all look so similar and the widespread air pressure event can be seen after all the squibs in the CD's and in the WTC collapses.

Any idea why the WTC "squibs" intensify as the collapse progresses?

What kind of CD charge does that?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't see anything more odd even if the puffs came from a region that we assume had no fires and no damage what so ever. I wouldn't see it much different than when you close a door in a house and it causes one in another room to open. But of course in this case on a much bigger/greater scale (and not simply doors of course).

I agree an explosive could cause a window to blow out. We've seen it done many times. But random explosives here and there are not going to collapse a building. So it's very illogical to assume they are from explosives when there are much more reasonable explanations. The only purpose such explosives would serve would be to expose the diabolical caper.

Not to dissimilar is the explosions in the basement claim. Another case where if it actually had been explosives, they would serve absolutely no purpose in the collapse and only serve to expose said diabolical caper.

 

[R.Mackey]

There was damage on many floors of both structures after the impacts, and both towers were full of smoke. Puffs above the damage zone are quite possible since pressure from motion on the fire floors -- say a minor floor collapse, shifting of burning rubble, or toppling of partition walls -- could easily create a brief pressure wave in the region above.

"Squibs" seen during the collapse, below the collapse front, are undoubtedly due to pressurization that would outrun the collapse front (moving at roughly the speed of sound) or due to debris, perhaps rattling down the elevator shafts or stairways, that bounced through a window. Hardly surprising.

Even Hoffman only claims three "squibs" per tower. That's not enough to establish any kind of symmetry, nor is it particularly impressive with respect to demolition. Also they don't look like explosives, don't sound like explosives, don't throw debris, and don't shatter nearby windows.

They're not explosives.

 

[Sizzler]

They're not explosives.

That could be true.

But they do "look like" explosives to some people.

I am one of them and the guy reporting from the helicopter is another. (continue watching for his comments)