It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 20
3
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
So how did the steel stay hot so long without a continuing heat source again?
[edit on 21-12-2005 by AgentSmith]


Don't know, but something thatcould have helped is the naturalgas mains that were severed when the towers collapsed, it would have contrbuted untill they got them shut off ( could also be a source for explosions )

BTW I need to ask a silly question, just what is a "squib" I've Googled and Googled and all I can find is that they are small pyrotechtnic charges...

From Wikki...

en.wikipedia.org...(explosive)

Surley these are not the charges that brought down the towers?




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Oh it's what some people call the jets of dust/smoke that can be seen in some videos. A lot of people put it down to a sort of syringe effect caused by the floors falling and helped along by the elevator shafts and such. Some people however see them as explosive charges prematurely detonating..

I especially like this bit in the WIkipedia reference:


Squibs are also very sensitive to EM radiation and devices such as vehicles, radios, cellular phones, and even cellular and microwave transmitters can set off a squib unless the two leads are terminated correctly.


Good job there weren't cellular phone masts, tv masts, thousands of mobile phones, wireless telephone headsets, microwaves, etc in the WTC or it might have set off all those explosives prematurely! Thew..!
Good job too that the plane hitting the tower did'nt either, or it would have been nasty!

Very lucky they had wires which could not be damaged by impacting aircraft, or instead had radio controlled detonators that were impervious to radio interference..

[edit on 21-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Ahhh...gotcha...

So...these small charges brought down the Towers?

Man...strong stuff, weak metal...



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
To be honest I think it's just a name someone came up with for them, just shows the intelligence of whoever started it I guess! LOL

What a lot of people believe is that explosives were used, but the one in question ranges from demolition charges or thermite to mini-nukes.
Even though no loud reports like one would hear are reported (just the vague description of 'explosion(s)' - which is how most people would describe the sound of a collapse) and they are not present on any of the videos does not seem to deter anyone. I've even seen some people suggest they used special 'quiet' explosives.
Nor does the fact it would be practically impossible to expose the areas required throughout the WTC to wire it in the first place.
Nor does the fact some of these 'squibs' occur in the damaged area where any explosives would have been destroyed or detonated on impact. When you say the wires would have been destroyed they say they could be remote control... (but didn't suffer from radio interference causing premature explosions).
The fact that some videos clearly show holes in the building with smoke wafting out, which then blow out exactly like the other squibs (showing the air being pushed out from the collapse) is ignored. When I brought this up one DTB even said to me 'that is why we don't mention that' - I don't think he realised what he was saying.

Others say there were explosives in the basements, when you point out the there were survivors on the 20th floor of the still standing bottom of the core they say it is proof but are vague in elaborating as to how.. so what can you say?
You also point out part of the core was standing momentarily after the collapse, then falls. This is still somehow proof of explosions in the basement. This of course, bearing in mind it is clear in all videos that the collapse starts from the top down.

Other than that Thermite is an excuse, proof being the liquid steel weeks later, etc. For some reason the fact it would have cooled within a day without a continuing fire (which can not be directly linked to explosives or thermite) to sustain the temperature seems irrelevent somehow..
Even in the case of Uranium based thermite which one person suggested which burns much hotter than regular thermite.
Also liquid steel has never been properly confirmed and all we have seen physical evidence wise is what is more than likely aluminium.

The countless bottles, gas tanks of cars, oxygen in the big open spaces underground, the subway tunnels, wood, paper, carpet, ceiling tiles, gas mains, etc are all irrelevent too and could not possible have anything to do with any of the sustained fires.

The white smoke cannot possible be from the moisture being burned away, the burst water pipes, the water that was poured onto these hot fires, etc and is proof of thermite reactions.... even days later... ?..

Don't even get me started on the mini-nukes...

[edit on 21-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   


The white smoke cannot possible be from the moisture being burned away, the burst water pipes, the water that was poured onto these hot fires, etc and is proof of thermite reactions.... even days later... ?..


Funny you should mention that, in my reading of this event there were also steam pipes running in and below the towers...


Pressure in the steam system dropped rapidly following the attack, as a result of breaks in steam pipes running through the World Trade Center complex.


media.corporate-ir.net...

Some of that white "smoke" could be from this...



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Did you bother reading my posts that touch on the circumstances that could contribute towards high temperature underground fires, as well as the posts relating to the short amount of time that it would take for even Uranium based thermites to cool?


I read them but didn't see much more than speculation. Do I need to comment on that?

Btw, you don't have to comment on our speculations, either. The types of explosives used, etc., really don't matter at this point. You still won't properly address the major physics problems with the collapses that clearly show the presence of additional energy. Discussing what kinds of explosives were potentially used with you would be rather ignorant when you have yet to even establish that you think there were any additional sources in the first place. I will mention, though, just to fill you in on the construction of the towers, that blowing out all of the perimeter columns would not necessarily cause a total failure (as evidenced by the fact that it did indeed still stand in part after the collapse of at least one of the towers - before somehow falling straight down upon itself). The core structure was indepedently floored and had its own lateral resistance, and carried most of the vertical load. Thus multiple mediums would be useful. But again, before you go off attacking this as if it is some kind of fact anyway, let me say again that it's stupid for you to laugh and mock these ideas when you haven't even explained away all those blaring physics problems you still can't get over. That stuff is objective. And I don't see you mocking it. Only the speculation on the explosives. I wonder why?


Given free reign of your explosive theories, how exactly to you explain the consistant and long periods of time in which there were high temperature being recorded? How does using ANY type of explosive explain how even hot aluminium would be recovered some time later?


I can't, as I don't know exactly what was used. LaBTop was sharing some insight on the amounts of energy required to maintain heat, but he's apparently off on a break. Prove there were some hydrocarbon fires down there and I guess I'll know, though.


Given free reign of all manner of nonsense, like the WTC Towers being airtight as they collapsed, steel resistance being comparable to vacuum resistance, etc., how exactly do you explain all the momentum business with the disappearance of one type and the appearance of another type for which Allah apparently entered universal cheat codes to compromise the fact that the momentum provided by the caps would have been limited in amount?

Those seem like much more relevant issues to me, as they are more objective. Not "let's see who's speculation sounds more reasonable!" And if you want to attack our case, explain why there was no retardation in the collapse speeds as the caps deteriorated and rushed into thicker, heavier floors, for starters. It seems a little immature, imo, to resort to attacking our speculation on the types of explosives used, etc., while putting forth your own speculating, while leaving the facts laying around as if they don't concern you. Actually, I don't think they are your main concern.


Good job there weren't cellular phone masts, tv masts, thousands of mobile phones, wireless telephone headsets, microwaves, etc in the WTC or it might have set off all those explosives prematurely! Thew..!
Good job too that the plane hitting the tower did'nt either, or it would have been nasty!

Very lucky they had wires which could not be damaged by impacting aircraft, or instead had radio controlled detonators that were impervious to radio interference..


Yeah, give them a hand. They have technology. They're the US military complex. What do you expect with such a runaway budget? That they only have as much tech as is publically available, or only as much as is talked about on the internet, or only as much as the British military has at its disposal, or what? Considering the US spends more on its military than about every other country in the world combined, and all the black bases and researches scattered about, that I'm sure many other members here could inform you of, I think you could stand being a little less naive about what they can or can't do in terms of various signals and detonators and all that.


The white smoke cannot possible be from the moisture being burned away, the burst water pipes, the water that was poured onto these hot fires, etc and is proof of thermite reactions.... even days later... ?..


Sure, but it was coming out of the bases of the towers before their collapses.

Uh oh! Now you have a problem with your blaming busted pipes here and there where there wouldn't have even been any damage anyway.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Ahhh...same thing happened last time I asked this question...

Just what are "squibs" according to Wikki ( and all the other sights I've been to), they are a low order pyrotechtnic explosive...

en.wikipedia.org...(explosive)



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Want to call them oranges, Jedi? Or paper bags? It doesn't matter, does it? You know what we're talking about, right?

These puffs of debris being ejected by explosive charges:



From what I understand, among demo experts, those are called squibs, too, or at least the charges that produce them are.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   


Sure, but it was coming out of the bases of the towers before their collapses.


How many times do I have to post this before you stop believing the white smoke is from explosions?

www.flurl.com...



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Want to call them oranges, Jedi? Or paper bags? It doesn't matter, does it? You know what we're talking about, right?

These puffs of debris being ejected by explosive charges:



From what I understand, among demo experts, those are called squibs, too, or at least the charges that produce them are.


No sorry maybe the caps that initiate the explosion are called "squibs" but the explosives themselves are not, from everything I can find "Squibs are no more that fire crackers, perhaps you can name the actual explosives, or type other that a "squib"?...


You know what we're talking about, right?


No I do not, as a matter of fact I don't think you do either...


It doesn't matter, does it?


It does matter a great deal, if you don't know the type of explosive that would do this ( I mean you're all knowing and all seeing right? )...

Let's see your figures on how these "squibs" were able to explode out the windows, and still have enough energy to blow the firemen that were trapped in the lower floors off their feet...



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi


Sure, but it was coming out of the bases of the towers before their collapses.


How many times do I have to post this before you stop believing the white smoke is from explosions?

www.flurl.com...


That's an excellent video ihatescifi highly recomended ( not that anyone will look at it )...




posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Squibs are used to describe that kind of shape of dust exulsion I believe as squibs are use to create the effect of bullets hitting walls ect in movies.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
I believe as squibs are use to create the effect of bullets hitting walls ect in movies.


You are correct "squibs" are used also in movies in this manner, and in pyrotechtnic special effects...

They are also used in a number of low order explosions such as opening a blood pack in the movies, opening a valve to eject a seat in an airplane ect...

It's more or less a small firecracker...

And this is what brought down the towers...






[edit on 21-12-2005 by Jedi_Master]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Let me get this straight, Jedi.

You don't think we use the term "squib" right.

So therefore whatever we may say about those explosions is null and void.

Now that's denying ignorance.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Let me get this straight, Jedi.

You don't think we use the term "squib" right.

So therefore whatever we may say about those explosions is null and void.

Now that's denying ignorance.


No...don't twist my words...just what is a "squib" from what I can find it is no more that a firecracker...

Give me a consise explaination, you haven't given it, which tell me you don't know what a "squib" is, to me it's no more that a firecracker...

Otherwise you don't know what you're talking about



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Looks like your research skills aren't up to snuff, Jedi. Looky what I found:


Squib - A type of fireworks slang for an electric match (see definition of electric match above). True squibs are actually blasting caps (initiators) used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives. This term crept into fireworks jargon by individuals that did not understand the differences between an electric match and a blasting cap. True squibs are not used for fireworks.


You get that? Initiators used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives.

According to where, you might ask? Why, a fireworks site, no less.

www.usfireworks.biz...

But nonetheless, when it comes to 9/11, the term "squibs" describes this:



Hope that clears up what appears to have been an immense amount of confusion. The name has nothing to do with the problem anyway. Just linguistics.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Looks like your research skills aren't up to snuff, Jedi. Looky what I found:


Squib - A type of fireworks slang for an electric match (see definition of electric match above). True squibs are actually blasting caps (initiators) used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives. This term crept into fireworks jargon by individuals that did not understand the differences between an electric match and a blasting cap. True squibs are not used for fireworks.


You get that? Initiators used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives.

According to where, you might ask? Why, a fireworks site, no less.

www.usfireworks.biz...

But nonetheless, when it comes to 9/11, the term "squibs" describes this:








That's pretty much the same I'm saying it's a Low Order explosive to set off a higher explosive...

It's no more that a firecracker that is used to set off a higher order of explosive...

I guess you don't understand, squibs don't have the power to blow out windows...



But ahh...well have a Merry Christmas...



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
No comment on the video showing that the white smoke wasn't from basement explosions then?



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ihatescifi
No comment on the video showing that the white smoke wasn't from basement explosions then?


I just now watched that video, and it definitely does show another source of white smoke from the bases of the WTC. Good find, but at the risk of sounding hard-headed, it just raises more questions for me. Was it out by 10:28, dissipated before the collapse of WTC1? What started the fire in the first place? Was it the only source of white smoke from the bases that morning?

Realize that I ask these while keeping in mind that the core structures were very strong in and of themselves, and could stand independently of the perimeter columns, albeit with less lateral support than the perimeter columns. A buckling and collapse of the perimeter columns would in no way necessitate a global collapse that included the core structure. And you can see the core structure standing for a bit after the collapse of WTC1 before it falls down upon itself vertically.

Now, if I were a military planner and wanted to cover up for any large amount of smoke pouring from the bases of the WTC Towers from thermite reactions, I could easily have a vehicle or two or three, etc. set on fire on which to pin the smoke. No problem. And with conspiracies, things like this are always easy possibilities, I'm afraid. But if I were gravity, trying to pull the tough core structure down by collapsing the perimeter columns around it, I would imagine a much tougher time without some additional help, you know? Hell, dude, the perimeter columns didn't even slow the whole time they fell. You know something's up with that.

Maybe the core was brought down with thermite, maybe it wasn't, but we still have improbability that it fell without further aid, and we still have the white smoke and reports of molten steel, so thermite is naturally a likely candidate.

Throwing in a random car fire spewing white smoke at the bases of the towers is nothing but fishy to me. There doesn't even really appear to be any damage to the van. Just quietly sitting there burning. Odds? Or is there some specific reason for that? It looks like another coincidence on the magnitude of the NRO's 9/11 excercises on that very morning, of a plane flying into their HQ, or the huge coincidence of NORAD also having wargames that morning, or the huge coincidence of FEMA, of all people, being in NYC, of all places, on 9/10, of all days.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
bsbray...

It is more that likely steam from the steam pipes...

media.corporate-ir.net...

Merry Christmas folks and a happy New Year!!!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join