WTC Visual Explosives ('Squibs')

Originally posted by Masisoar

Remember, some of these occured on floors below the collapse (i.e. no damage to anything yet).

To say "no damage to anything yet" you don't know if this is true. There could have been structural failures happening way down the line of the building. It collaspsed in such a short time, I truely doubt there weren't any other failures on lower floors after the higher floors have began piling and applying even more force.

Just cause the outside of the building looked fine doesn't mean the inside of it was fine also.

Originally posted by DoomX
the higher floors have began piling and applying even more force.

There was no "piling" or "pancaking" evident in any video or pictures I have seen. Looked more like vaporization which would not have applied greater forde to the lower floors. If anything weight was being REMOVED from the structure.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

There were NO FIRE DAMPERS in WTC1 or WTC2 though you stated it as fact above.

The NISt said it so it MUST be fact.

wtc.nist.gov...

Try again.

There were indeed fire dampers.

No smoke management system, however, but that is a whole different animal.

wtc.nist.gov...

From page 68, (120 of 248)

According to the Port Authority, all of the base building duct penetrations through fire rated partitions were equipped with fire dampers. There were no smoke dampers in the base building HVAC system, except for those within the air handling unit serving the Windows on the World restaurant in WTC 1. The smoke dampers were designed to segregate the restaurant from tenant floors below.

Originally posted by Masisoar
And rather, if you see the squib photos, does it look more like air, or something more dusty coming out?

Ok the "squibs" occur as the collapse is happening! You're telling me that the dusty air from the collapse is only suppose to be present outside the building? When the top of the building is collapsing the dusty air flows through the building as well.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

There were NO FIRE DAMPERS in WTC1 or WTC2 though you stated it as fact above.

The NISt said it so it MUST be fact.

wtc.nist.gov...

Try again.

There were indeed fire dampers.

No smoke management system, however, but that is a whole different animal.

wtc.nist.gov...

From page 68, (120 of 248)

According to the Port Authority, all of the base building duct penetrations through fire rated partitions were equipped with fire dampers. There were no smoke dampers in the base building HVAC system, except for those within the air handling unit serving the Windows on the World restaurant in WTC 1. The smoke dampers were designed to segregate the restaurant from tenant floors below.

Looks like they have contradicted themselves Howard... Might I remind you though that you clearly stated:

1. Dampers were required by NYC fire code for WTC1 and WTC2. NIST says otherwise.
2. They were of the Steel Curtain type. No source.

Where is this info from and how could the NIST be wrong?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Finally, if your damper lie were true, how would the pressure have transfered through the closed dampers to floors far below the collapse zone? You do proclaim them to be "pressure proof".

I only brought up the dampers in response to the question of the penetrations from the core area to the tenant areas. Normally they would have been open. Could some of them have closed due to the impact and fire balls? Yes, it's a possibility. How many, where etc. Who knows?
Could some of them have been open? Yes, it's a possibility.
How many, where etc. Who knows?

Could this have had an effect on which floors would have been impacted by the air escaping from the collapse? Absolutely.

What effect? I don't know, and neither do you. But you have to acknowledge that the possibility of that effect being present. Failure to do so is the true lie in this discussion.

Originally posted by DoomX

Originally posted by Masisoar
And rather, if you see the squib photos, does it look more like air, or something more dusty coming out?

Ok the "squibs" occur as the collapse is happening! You're telling me that the dusty air from the collapse is only suppose to be present outside the building? When the top of the building is collapsing the dusty air flows through the building as well.

Not necessarily at all. Howard and I are currently arguing if there were dampers to seal off the HVAC patthways for the dust.

If the HVAC was "sealed" and the elevator doors were sealed how was this dust flowing freely 10 floors below the destruction?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by DoomX
the higher floors have began piling and applying even more force.

There was no "piling" or "pancaking" evident in any video or pictures I have seen. Looked more like vaporization which would not have applied greater forde to the lower floors. If anything weight was being REMOVED from the structure.

That's you're perception, I still stand by mine.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by DoomX

Originally posted by Masisoar
And rather, if you see the squib photos, does it look more like air, or something more dusty coming out?

Ok the "squibs" occur as the collapse is happening! You're telling me that the dusty air from the collapse is only suppose to be present outside the building? When the top of the building is collapsing the dusty air flows through the building as well.

Not necessarily at all. Howard and I are currently arguing if there were dampers to seal off the HVAC patthways for the dust.

If the HVAC was "sealed" and the elevator doors were sealed how was this dust flowing freely 10 floors below the destruction?

Again, I don't think the building was perfectly sound on the lower floors that were preceeding the collapse. I believe things were breaking apart from the force above. The building collapsed in about 9 seconds and I'm suppose to believe that the lower floors fail in 1 milisecond? I think it was bearing the stresses and failing as the collapse persisted.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

There were NO FIRE DAMPERS in WTC1 or WTC2 though you stated it as fact above.

The NISt said it so it MUST be fact.

wtc.nist.gov...

Try again.

There were indeed fire dampers.

No smoke management system, however, but that is a whole different animal.

wtc.nist.gov...

From page 68, (120 of 248)

According to the Port Authority, all of the base building duct penetrations through fire rated partitions were equipped with fire dampers. There were no smoke dampers in the base building HVAC system, except for those within the air handling unit serving the Windows on the World restaurant in WTC 1. The smoke dampers were designed to segregate the restaurant from tenant floors below.

A damper system, all ventilation, would have to be through the core, and it only had fuel in it, mostly WTC 1. The core concrete, or by default no steel core columns are ever seen. the source of the horizontal debris jets are quite important and as yet unexplained by anything but high explosives.

I'm not seeing that this is making any sense. Are you are forbidden to do such, or at least in any comprehensive way? Are you only appyling skills of observation and reason to something like fire dampers? It really seems as though this discussion is dedicated to keeping a focus on inconsequential factors.

The major event is unmistakenly an explosion unless you grew up in America watching TV. In which case it would be a collapse.

None of those things are going to matter in shifting the trend away from fearful apathetic interaction empowering the infiltrators of our government. We can however, within this defined strategy of those set against us as we try to use our rights and skill of communication, be sure that anything of consequence will be visciousy attacked.

Little exists in the popular discussion is of any real consequence if it's not relating to the uses of high explosives to effect the demolition of the towers and. The discussion seems totally confused, incapable of sifting out what IS of consequence because of the constant interference by people who have no evidence, profess only a belief that uses of raw evidence is no good, essentially rejecting and dismissing all evidence that threatens to create a reasonable explanation of events.

It is actually very important to understand what is information of consequence and what is not.

Does information offire dampers have any value. No, not if there is no authority that you can go to for complaint and expect action. Meaning the fire or damper discussion is of no consequence.

A feasible, realistic explanation for rates of fall near free fall is something of consequence only because no one has ever put one forth, except for this one.

algoxy.com...

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by Masisoar


There were shafts that came down the building and up the building to provide air weren't there, and every floor had access to them.. hmmm?

were they clear and functioning or blocked? We don't know.

A good point. The shafts would have had fire dampers with fusible links at each floor. It is possible, that the fireballs that blew down the core shafts could have caused some of those links to melt, and thus shut the fire dampers on various floors.


[edit on 28-6-2006 by HowardRoark]

Fire dampers are meant to block smoke and flames, not pressure.

Are you familiar with the operation of first generation fire dampers? They are only held shut by a weak spring or gravity...

The dampers would have been forced open by far less pressure than would be needed to blow windows out.

This argument is just meant to confuse. Fire dampers made the squibs? whatever.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]

What are you basing this on?

Originally posted by Christophera
The discussion seems totally confused

Not as confusing as your post.

I’ve read it three times, and I’m still trying to figure out what you said.

I don’t want to be a grammar nazi, but can you try to follow basic English sentence structure? Please rephrase or clarify your comments.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Looks like they have contradicted themselves Howard... Might I remind you though that you clearly stated:

1. Dampers were required by NYC fire code for WTC1 and WTC2. NIST says otherwise.
2. They were of the Steel Curtain type. No source.

Where is this info from and how could the NIST be wrong?

You seem to be confusing active smoke management systems with fire dampers.

Fire dampers, of the type that I refrenced earlier are the standard method of code compliance. They are "active" only in the sense that they are activated by heat. Otherwise they are totally mechanical systems. If you are aware of any other type of damper system that would have met the building codes circa 1969, then please let us know about it.

Active smoke management systems involve specialized fans, controlls and power systems. This is not the same thing as a fire damper between the tenant areas and the core shaft.

This discussion has nothing to do with explosives which are evidenced here.

Try,

discus.4specs.com...

They will benefit much more than America from your information

We have conclusive evidence of high explosives here.



meaning that smoke dampers are not worth discussinig IF a person wants to assure that the US Constitution stands in service to the citizens.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by Christophera]

DoomX, why don't you think the floors below were perfectly sound preceding the collapse? The "acclaimed" buckling was occuring at the top, the bottom was fine, minus the explosions going on in the basement.. but let's not get ourselves wrapped into that yet.

What's your sound reasoning for the building's floors below not being sound?

Did you like how that sounds?

Oh snap, I found an awesome post by Wecomeinpeace!

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Exploding the myths regarding the squibs on the WTC towers

Among all the evidence pointing to controlled demolition of WTC1 & 2, perhaps the most damning is the explosion puffs, or "squibs", seen exploding out from the building - sometimes tens of floors below the level of collapse. The government's "pancake theory" hinges on each floor being collapsed in succession by the weight of the falling floors above it. This admirable, but ultimately ridiculous attempt to explain away what was obviously a controlled demolition is debunked by many factors. Here are just a few of the factors we've discussed so far, there are many more:

• The potential energy contained in the towers is insufficient to collapse the towers completely, let alone to snap lengths of steel into neat 12-foot lengths, to completely pulverize the concrete and other materials in the towers, and to create such a voluminous, rapidly expanding dust cloud, as was observed.
  
• The truss failure which the pancake theory depends upon cannot explain the complete destruction of the steel core.
  
• The fires and secondary effects observed in the towers indicate that temperatures and conditions were not sufficiently extreme to cause the steel failure which is fundamental to the pancake theory.
  
• The pancake theory can not account for the violent and high-energy lateral ejection of steel beams.
  
• The failure of one area or section of a tower would lead to partial and tilted collapse, rather than simultaneous collapse at all points. This led the government to later come out with the all new "zipper effect theory", a bogus theory attempting to explain away the flaws in the original bogus theory. This brings to mind the secondary theories invented to explain away the incongruencies in the geocentric, "Earth is the center of the universe" theory in the days before Copernicus.
  
• The pancake theory fails to account for each floor somehow only providing enough resistance to produce an additional 2.77s to the collapse time over free fall - an average of 0.029s (29/1000ths of a second) per steel-framed, steel-cored floor!
  
• ...and so on.

However, even NIST and FEMA completely avoided the issue of the squibs because they know they cannot be explained away by the pancake theory.


SQUIB MYTH#1: The squibs came out from the skylobbies.

Some defenders of the government lies would have you believe that the squibs observed were simply air, compressed by the collapsing floors, magically descending through elevator shafts until they reached the bottom of the shaft, and then blasting out the sides of the buildings with explosive force in isolated spots. If the WTC towers were giant steam pipes that had suddenly sprung a leak or twelve, this theory might make sense. But unfortunately it amounts to a "magic bullet theory"; just another bogus theory dreamed up to explain the inconsistencies in the original bogus theory.

The skylobbies were located on the 44th and 78th floors in both towers.

The skylobbies and the mechanical equipment floors were easily distinguished from outside the towers by their darker color, creating a banded effect around the towers. Each skylobby was the top floor of each of these bands.

The following diagram illustrates the elevator layout for the towers.

Notice how the local elevators stop at the skylobbies. They do not connect to the mechanical equipment levels. If the compressed air magically traveled down these elevators and, upon meeting the resistance of the elevator shaft floors, shot out the elevator doors and exploded sideways from the buildings, all such explosions would only be observable at the 78th and 44th floors. This is not what was observed.

I will provide some frame captures of relevant videos below, but these are inherently grainy and are provided more as a reference for squib location. You need to download and watch the videos (click the "VIDEO" titles) to get a clearer picture, and decide for yourself.

VIDEO 1: The explosion squib observed in this video at first glance appears to come out of the dark banded area. However, if you look closely, you will notice that it explodes from the bottom of the dark band, and is perhaps even just below it. Remember, the skylobbies constitute the top of each dark band, and the elevators do not progress down beyond that floor.

VIDEO 2: In this video, we can see explosion squibs coming out from the corner of the building not far from the top. As you can see, the squibs are at least 5 floors below the collapse level, and nowhere near the skylobbies. There is also a smaller squib visible in the middle of the face we are looking at.

Here is a slow-motion version of the collapse with the squibs marked: VIDEO 2 Slow


VIDEO 3: Again, here you can see two clear explosions of dust and debris from well below the collapse level, yet well above the skylobby. The video may be low-res, but no one could argue that these are anything but high-energy, localized expulsions of dust and debris.

VIDEO 4: This video is very shaky, but early on you can see some squibs explode out from the building, one on the right which may be from the skylobby, and another on the left which is from the bottom part of the dark band. However, later you can see another two squibs explode out from the building which are nowhere near the skylobbies.

VIDEO 5: This video is amazing. You can see squib after squib exploding out from the right side of the building, and also from the side facing the camera, again all nowhere near the skylobbies. But the most amazing squib, and the one that puts the final nail in the coffin for any "magic compressed air" theories is this one:

This squib is about 50 FLOORS BELOW THE DESTRUCTION LEVEL and it is BELOW THE SKYLOBBY!

HOW DID IT GET THERE!? We can clearly see from the magical, physics-defying path any supposed "compressed air" would have to take to reach this spot, that this is ANYTHING BUT compressed air from the collapse.

I could show more squibs, there are so many, but I think the evidence is clear enough. Very few, if any of them exploded from the skylobbies.

SQUIB MYTH#2: Magical compressed air expelled from the elevators had a clear path to the outer perimeter.

This image shows the floor layout from a typical floor in the WTC towers. This particular layout is from the 96th floor:

Firstly, look at the area covered by the elevator shafts. How much air do you really think is being compressed down these narrow shafts? Especially considering that the majority of compressed air is supposedly snapping steel beams and ejecting them hundreds of feet, as well as creating those explosive clouds of pulverized concrete that we're supposed to believe are not explosions.

Secondly, notice how the elevators are in banks facing each other. If the magical compressed air is taking a trip down elevator shafts and then for some reason deciding to get off the elevator and take a trip outside, it has to smash through another bank of elevators on the other side, still stay in an uninterrupted stream, and then smash out through the glass and maybe steel of the outer perimeter (Path 1). Or, it has to make a right turn and smash out through the windows perpendicular to its original path (Path 2). Compressed air simply does not behave in this manner. Do you think this is plausible? I agree... it's impossible.

But even if we decide to attribute fantastical, super-physical powers to streams of compressed air, we have to remember that many of the squibs I showed earlier are exiting from the corner of the building, but at right angles (Path 3). If this is compressed air, then how did it get to this position and exit at this angle??

The only conclusion we can draw from this is that the observed squibs are not compressed air. If they are not compressed air, then, together with all the other observed phenomena in this unprecedented collapse, one can only reasonably assume that they are mis-timed demolition charges.


SQUIB MYTH#3: If the squibs observed were explosions going off earlier than they were supposed to, then those sections of the buildings would have started to collapse as well.

This theory just does not stand up to logic. If the observed squibs were from demolition charges of some type, then they were obviously single, isolated charges going off out of sequence. They were not explosions that covered entire floors and were not large enough on their own to cut all of the core columns and cause a structural collapse at that level. If the mis-timed explosions witnessed were entire floors blowing out, then this theory would hold some merit. As it is, it is a non sequitur argument.

[edit on 2005-7-15 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by DoomX
Again, I don't think the building was perfectly sound on the lower floors that were preceeding the collapse. I believe things were breaking apart from the force above.

What "force above" would destroy floors so far down?

A) There would've been no sudden free-fall drops onto lower floors, ie a floor gives out and suddenly there's 12.5-foot free-fall. Resistance would be present the whole way, and in the initial stages, loads were just transferred, like WTC2 leaning, rather than any sudden jolt or anything else.

B) Even if there was some kind of jolt that went down the columns, the buildings were both built to withstand hurricane-force winds. Their lateral strength was pretty massive because of the perimeter column/truss system buffering the core structure, and lateral stress from within the core would be channeled outward through the same truss system.

C) Most of the debris ended up outside of the buildings' footprints. This happened during the collapses, of course. Therefore, it follows that most of the debris did not fall straight down during the collapses, but outwards, off the sides. This can be confirmed with either aerials of Ground Zero, or images of the collapses, which show massive amounts of debris falling all around the buildings. This means that loads were lessening and not increasing as the collapses progressed. It would've been easier on lower floors, not harder.

The building collapsed in about 9 seconds and I'm suppose to believe that the lower floors fail in 1 milisecond?

One millisecond is an exaggeration of course, but each individual floor fell in about 0.12 seconds or so, depending on where exactly you pin the collapse times (11 seconds, 12 seconds, 13, 14? etc.). So I get what you're saying, and I have a problem with that too.

But whereas you explain the problem by saying the lower floors were somehow being raped by the collapse waves as much as 50 stories higher, despite some of the things I pointed out above, I would opt instead for the simpler explanation of explosives simply removing whatever resistance would've slowed the collapses.


Btw -- that WCIP post's a classic, Masisoar. Right out of the old WTC Challenge thread. XD

[edit on 28-6-2006 by bsbray11]

Masisoar, so why a random squib so far down the building? If it's an explosive is that just one charge?

And that one charge can make that entire area fail on that floor? Or were there multiple charges but only one is shown as a squib because it was close to the windows?

I'm just trying to understand.

Again, Just cause the outside of the building looked fine doesn't mean the inside of it was fine also.

WCIP post is nice. "The potential energy contained in the towers is insufficient to collapse the towers completely, let alone to snap lengths of steel into neat 12-foot lengths, to completely pulverize the concrete and other materials in the towers, and to create such a voluminous, rapidly expanding dust cloud, as was observed."

When buildings fall they don't create massive dust, that's what I understand from it. If there is too much dust there must be explosives used.

bsbray11, the buildings were built to withstand plane hits. The Titanic was built to be unsinkable and we know how that turned out.

et alone to snap lengths of steel into neat 12-foot lengths

I know we went over this before.

the steel was not "snaped" into 12 foot lengths.

The aluminum column covers were 12 feet long, and you can see the flying all over the place during the collapse.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

et alone to snap lengths of steel into neat 12-foot lengths

I know we went over this before.

Yeah, we did. Aluminum facades weren't the only things flying through the air in relatively small segments.

Originally posted by DoomX
bsbray11, the buildings were built to withstand plane hits. The Titanic was built to be unsinkable and we know how that turned out.

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I just posted. And here I was thinking that you were capable of having a logical discussion.