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

einsteen said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's already included in Ross's original analysis. The columns compress elastically, which absorbs energy (by the way, they then unload which release energy and causes vibration!). The bottom floors lose height, thus adding potential energy. Ross has already included this in his calculations if memory serves.
 
Erm... Guys, the "experts" of the truth-movement say that these squibs are "misstimed" explosives, and not that they destroyed the towers alone...
Look at Ae911truth.org.
Just to make this clear :)
 
einsteen said:
The question is not if a>b or a>=b, the question is if a=constant or a will increase during time.
Click to expand...


Uhh... just watch any of the numerous videos you truthers try to post as evidence. If these events were caused by explosives, one would expect a quick burst and a rapid deceleration of the materials ejected. That's not what is observed, though.

It doesn't matter if the debris is ejected at a constant or increasing speed. The point is that the debris ejected does not decelerate rapidly, which you would expect if it had received its velocity from an instantaneous explosion.

The observed phenomenon indicates that there is a constant or increasing force pushing the debris outward.

Explosives.
Do not.
Do.
This.

I requested that you switch your brain on. Is that going to happen any time this year?
 
Last edited:
pleitegeier said:
Erm... Guys, the "experts" of the truth-movement say that these squibs are "misstimed" explosives, and not that they destroyed the towers alone...
Look at Ae911truth.org.
Just to make this clear :)
Click to expand...


Ok lets run with that. Assuming the explosives were planted in such a way that they were not shielded as is typical for demolition charges. That is. The charge is first wrapped in geotextile. followed by chain link fence. followed by a heavy plywood box. What do those "experts" claim prevented the miss-timed explosives from setting off adjacent charges?
 
Ae911truth.org is not a good source for facts

pleitegeier said:
Erm... Guys, the "experts" of the truth-movement say that these squibs are "misstimed" explosives, and not that they destroyed the towers alone...
Look at Ae911truth.org.
Just to make this clear :)
Click to expand...
I am not sure why, but http://www.ae911truth.org/ is not a good source of facts for 9/11. It is a good source for the same old false information manufactured by the 9/11 truth movement.

As you know this web site, http://www.ae911truth.org/ , is not real information. An example is their statements with no facts.
Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body evidence (i.e.controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.
Click to expand...
They make up CD just out of the blue 5 years after 9/11, but stole the idea from others. Old 9/11 truth ideas, and no facts. Fraud comes to mind when you see such abuse of position not supported by facts.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Uhh... just watch any of the numerous videos you truthers try to post as evidence. If these events were caused by explosives, one would expect a quick burst and a rapid deceleration of the materials ejected. That's not what is observed, though.

It doesn't matter if the debris is ejected at a constant or increasing speed. The point is that the debris ejected does not decelerate rapidly, which you would expect if it had received its velocity from an instantaneous explosion.

The observed phenomenon indicates that there is a constant or increasing force pushing the debris outward.

Explosives.
Do not.
Do.
This.

I requested that you switch your brain on. Is that going to happen any time this year?
Click to expand...

Whether it decelerates in air depends on what the material is, smoke or dust decelerates. How do you know how things would look otherwise, we are speaking about non-reproducable one off events. I don't think that the observed behaviour proves that charges are impossible, for a pure gravity driven collapse I would expect a different behaviour
 
einsteen said:
Whether it decelerates in air depends on what the material is, smoke or dust decelerates. How do you know how things would look otherwise, we are speaking about non-reproducable one off events.
Click to expand...


You really think this effect can't be reproduced? That's amazing. I'm completely baffled by that statement of yours.


I don't think that the observed behaviour proves that charges are impossible, for a pure gravity driven collapse I would expect a different behaviour
Click to expand...


And what would that behavior be?
 
What a real demolition sounds and looks like

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
 
parky76 said:
9-11 Deniers love to talk about the magical "squibs" as proof of a controlled demolition. There were supposedly 5 or 6 squibs...per tower.

Are they trying to tell us that a 110 story building, that had charges set on almost every floor, only had squibs on 6 floors? Does that make ANY sense?

If charges were used to take out the HUGE core beams, the force from such an explosions would not have exploded out one window..it would have taken out the whole side of the building.

Instead, what do we see? Air being pushed out the path of least resistance. Probably the one window that wasn't fastened as right as the others.

6 Squibs....evidence of CD?...Give me a break.
Click to expand...

The squibs look suspicious to me. The explosions were forceful and directed, there was a lot of particulate being ejected in what were narrow streams, and they all seemed to be centrally localized.

According to cross-sectional diagrams of the floors, the facades of the buildings were 208 feet wide. Am I supposed to believe the path of least resistance for the air contained between each floor wasn't out the sides of the building at the collapse wave itself? The explosions can be seen several floors below the collapse wave. I would think the next-to-least path of resistance would be the elevator shafts. Lets assume it was air that caused the explosions. Regardless of how it flowed downwards we have to believe that the windows near the corners of the building were strong enough to contain this mass of rushing air that may have traveled more than half the length of the facade in order to be narrowly ejected through the apparently much weaker windows in the center. Or, the air pressure was that much greater at those points for some reason.

I find it hard to believe that the strength of the windows could vary this much or that the weak windows would coincidentally be at the center of the facade. On the other hand, what if it did indeed go through the elevator shafts? If the elevator shafts were truncated at various sections of the building, then it might be expected that once the air hit the bottom of the shaft it would shoot out the side in a very forceful and directed manner, producing the explosions that we saw. If the elevator shafts traversed the entire length of the building, then the air pressure explanation doesn't seem feasible to me.

Has anyone analyzed the relative locations of the squibs with the layout of the elevator shafts to see if they correspond to where the shafts are truncated, if at all?
 
Last edited:
Tippit said:
The squibs look suspicious to me. The explosions were forceful and directed, there was a lot of particulate being ejected in what were narrow streams, and they all seemed to be centrally localized.

According to cross-sectional diagrams of the floors, the facades of the buildings were 208 feet wide. Am I supposed to believe the path of least resistance for the air contained between each floor wasn't out the sides of the building at the collapse wave itself? The explosions can be seen several floors below the collapse wave. I would think the next-to-least path of resistance would be the elevator shafts. Lets assume it was air that caused the explosions. Regardless of how it flowed downwards we have to believe that the windows near the corners of the building were strong enough to contain this mass of rushing air that may have traveled more than half the length of the facade in order to be narrowly ejected through the apparently much weaker windows in the center. Or, the air pressure was that much greater at those points for some reason.

I find it hard to believe that the strength of the windows could vary this much or that the weak windows would coincidentally be at the center of the facade. On the other hand, what if it did indeed go through the elevator shafts? If the elevator shafts were truncated at various sections of the building, then it might be expected that once the air hit the bottom of the shaft it would shoot out the side in a very forceful and directed manner, producing the explosions that we saw. If the elevator shafts traversed the entire length of the building, then the air pressure explanation doesn't seem feasible to me.

Has anyone analyzed the relative locations of the squibs with the layout of the elevator shafts to see if they correspond to where the shafts are truncated, if at all?
Click to expand...

(Ignoring the lack of audio that indicates CD charges...)Hmmmm. What could block elevator shafts and cause air to shoot out at different levels of a very tall building?
 
How could you possibly mistime a wired explosion? How would it not have any effect on the remaining explosives and wiring? Ae911truth care to explain?
 
Redtail said:
Cookie for you! Now then, the squibs are odd because...?
Click to expand...

... they still look suspicious to me, I still have no way of knowing exactly what happened, and I haven't seen any convincing explanations for them. If there is a study that attempts to prove it was the elevators, I'd love to read it.
 
Also might account for where the HVAC air handlers were. Also partition layout. Don't forget the windows impacted by debris movement inside the building will break first. Adjacent windows not impacted by blown furniture or debris will in all likelihood remain in place. If a window in a pressurized plane shatters objects are drawn through that window. not the adjacent ones. In a demolition explosion in a fully intact building with complete glazing I would expect all windows in the immediate area to shatter and a huge debris cloud to result.
 
Last edited:
The higher up "squib" is surely dust and loose rubble being ejected.

The lower "squibs" are smoke. There were fires on many floors due to some of the airplane fuel falling down the elevator shafts. Machinery from the elevators crashed down to the lobby and flames burnt a lot of people. It's reasonablew to assume there were small fires everywhere.

The "squibs" at the top of building seven are clearly windows popping as the building tips over.
 
They'd say anything to make the world look more interesting.

I debate a lot with them on THEIR forums. It's often ten against one. illusionsforum.com is good though because you can call them names and the mods don't care.

And they wonder why I bother to go there.
 
Some quick calculations.

The volume of air contained within one floor of a WTC tower is roughly
(63m x 63m x 3,8 m) 15 000 cubic meters or 49 000 cubic feet.

Falling debris with a speed of 8 m/s would collapse a floor in less than 1/2 a second. When the speed has increased to 16 m/s the floor would be collapsed in less than 1/4 of a second.

Conclusion, a tremendous amount of air that needs to escape in a fraction of a second carrying dust, smoke and ash. That would be quiet an "explosive" event.
 
"[SIZE=-1]A squib is a small explosive device used in a wide range of industries,"

A puff or flash is a puff or flash. A Squib is a DEVICE. So anytime someone says "look at the squibs", they're deliberately using the incorrect word to imply something that's not proven to be there.

Just my $0.02
[/SIZE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom