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.

 

WTC Visual Explosives ('Squibs')

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by mark ten
1. some of the aviation fuel will have been burned off on impact


A very large amount did, more than likely. Those gigantic fireballs weren't burning air as fuel.


2. aviation fuel is easily hot enough to ignite the airframe which will continue to burn after the aviation fuel has burnt off
3. whilst the process of combustion is occurring other materials are becoming involved in the fire including furnishings, plastics, dust, etc these cause the smoke to tak the pallour that it does


All of these materials were there and would've been ignited within that 15 minute time-frame.

15 minutes wasn't how long it took to ignite other materials. It's how long it took before the smoke went black.



Hot air rises, not descends
absolutely, if you're in a balloon.


Actually, hot air rises period. Balloons aren't magical, physics-altering machines. Your heated air would not float down the buildings when it could go up and out of a shattered window or gaping hole at any moment pre-collaspe.




posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I'm sick of arguing already made, obvious points, let's stick to the squibs.

- How much volume pressure of air could the windows withstand?
- How air tight were the buildings at the times of collapse?
- How much pressure could of formed globally on ever floor from the compacting floors, as air was escaping out "through the lobby".


I want to start asking more logical questions and getting more conclusive answers, I want this conclusive.

Tomorrow I'm going to conduct some thorough research into that matter to get some decent results to help this. Howard, I don't care what side of the issue your on, if you can provide non-biased valid information, would be helpful, that goes for anyone else. Not personal opinions, data, information.

Then once we get that cluster of information, can we argue our points and opinions.

P.S. Vushta, just drop the black smoke issue. It's a dead fish with an H-bomb in it waiting for the next person wanting to beat around with it. We've discussed this in multiple threads. Look it up in search. Let's keep this thread on topic, if you want to discuss the black smoke more, start a new thread and I'll unload all the info you need (again) to prove the point.

Stick to the squibs, unless you really are trying to derail this thread.. really go use the search feature.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
AGAIN.. helpful information.


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]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar


The exterior panels represented the 250 degrees Celsius measurements, the rest of the samples didn't show evidence of fires over 600 degrees Celsius, am I wrong.


My emphasis. Notice they said that the samples showed this, they didn't say that the fires never got that hot. Nice selective use of evidence. Oh wait, I guess the evidence in NIST that doesn't support you is COINTELPRO.



Sorry, couldn't help myself on the pic there. I had to show you how annoying those stupid O rly pics can be. Please if you can't say it with words take those ridiculous pictures elsewhere.

Back to the different fuels.



The fuels never changed, they stayed the same. And anyways, with the pictures posted earlier..Black smoke = bad air/fuel ratio.. maybe it's just.. there wasn't enough air to burn efficiently.


Actually the fuels did change, as the fire spread it consumed different parts of the building. So more fuel was added, and different parts of the building probably had different fuels in them.

Please stop with this black smoke stuff. Black smoke only proves that fires can produce black smoke.



Or is the above pic a dying fire as well?




How far are you going to ignorantly argue this..



Good question, how long are you going to do it?

Edit: was that quote really necesary? Links work just as well, thanks.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mark ten
1. some of the aviation fuel will have been burned off on impact


A very large amount did, more than likely. Those gigantic fireballs weren't burning air as fuel.


Yes, flight 175 left very little fuel in the building.





But I would have to say that the plane had a bomb on it that was shielded for penetration with delay for entry. The expanding concrete is moving so fast in the opposite direction of the planes travel it is outrunning the fireball, compressing it and squirting it out.



For reference of what a plane hitting a tower looks like without a bomb see the Naudet video.



[edit on 29-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Black smoke is not an indication of low temps.
Sorry it just isn't.


It is when the smoke is light, and then turns dark from the exact same fire.

And understand that hydrocarbon fires producing lighter smoke are ALWAYS going to have higher temperatures. The net heat output will depend on the size of the fire, but the TEMPERATURES will ALWAYS be lower when the hydrocarbon combustion is more inneficient.

Again, less hydrocarbons combusted, less heat. Less combusted, more in the smoke, thus dirty smoke. You certainly aren't going to get HOTTER fires from filthier, sooty smoke from fires that aren't even burning everything they could be.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
What do you not understand Left Behind.

Black smoke = oxygen starved, meaning bad fuel/air ratio. Especially in the 9/11 scenario.

Talk about reptitiveness, START A NEW THREAD if you want to discuss this, its been beat to death.

STAY ON TOPIC WITH THE SQUIBS, if you want to take part, discuss WCIP's findings.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Vushta
Black smoke is not an indication of low temps.
Sorry it just isn't.


It is when the smoke is light, and then turns dark from the exact same fire.

And understand that hydrocarbon fires producing lighter smoke are ALWAYS going to have higher temperatures. The net heat output will depend on the size of the fire, but the TEMPERATURES will ALWAYS be lower when the hydrocarbon combustion is more inneficient.

Again, less hydrocarbons combusted, less heat. Less combusted, more in the smoke, thus dirty smoke. You certainly aren't going to get HOTTER fires from filthier, sooty smoke from fires that aren't even burning everything they could be.


Absolutely; and it can be reburnt even explode under the right conditions if it is very rich from vaporized fuel. Although this condition requires containment and is rare. Most often large glowing semi fireballs around refinery blazes are seen while liquids are present on the ground.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
It has been beaten to death, and it really has no bearing on the collapses anyway. But still black smoke does not equal a dying fire.

Twist it as much as you want, it will never mean what you'd like it to.

The squibs have also been done to death.

There is nothing impossible about them. The squibs flow out of the building and do not look like the explosives used in demolitions.

Please explain how they lined the entire building with explosives with no one noticing. The "squib" theory would have us believe that every exterior column on every floor had explosives and some of them went off in the wrong order.

The "jets of air" theory only requires a basic grasp of how air behaves. The tops of the buildings created enough force to demolish the rest, I don't see why it would be so hard to break out a few windows.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Quit knocking around the topic.

Post relevant data so we can make better conclusions. Otherwise, keep your opinions out or else this discussion, in either direction is invalid. What are your thoughts on WCIP's post? Any? None?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please explain how they lined the entire building with explosives with no one noticing.


www.algoxy.com...

And people did notice. Phil jayhan of Let's Roll remembers hearing that the floors were evacuated by security right before pouring concrete. I viewed a 1990 documentary called "Construction Of The Twin Towers" produced and aired on PBS and it mentioned the floor evacuations and, ............... a special plastic coating on the rebar of the steel reinforced cast concrete core.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera
But I would have to say that the plane had a bomb on it that was shielded for penetration with delay for entry. The expanding concrete is moving so fast in the opposite direction of the planes travel it is outrunning the fireball, compressing it and squirting it out.


I've seen this pointed out before. It could also be explosives within the building detonating upon the impact, and in some pics you can even see large, perpindicular (to the building) blasts of fine powdered material. So whereas, say, WTC2 was impacted at an angle, the outward ejections didn't reflect this.





PS -- How often do you check your U2U's, Christophera?


[edit on 30-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind



Sorry, couldn't help myself on the pic there. I had to show you how annoying those stupid O rly pics can be. Please if you can't say it with words take those ridiculous pictures elsewhere.


well, bigdaddysatan, 'ridiculous pictures' are actually just pictures of the event.
evidence.
there are explosives going off. it is clear.

you sir, are an oldbie.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Vushta
Black smoke is not an indication of low temps.
Sorry it just isn't.


It is when the smoke is light, and then turns dark from the exact same fire.

And understand that hydrocarbon fires producing lighter smoke are ALWAYS going to have higher temperatures. The net heat output will depend on the size of the fire, but the TEMPERATURES will ALWAYS be lower when the hydrocarbon combustion is more inneficient.

Again, less hydrocarbons combusted, less heat. Less combusted, more in the smoke, thus dirty smoke. You certainly aren't going to get HOTTER fires from filthier, sooty smoke from fires that aren't even burning everything they could be.


Well thats just simply false.
Whats the difference between "heat" and "temperature"?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   


P.S. Vushta, just drop the black smoke issue. It's a dead fish with an H-bomb in it waiting for the next person wanting to beat around with it. We've discussed this in multiple threads. Look it up in search. Let's keep this thread on topic, if you want to discuss the black smoke more, start a new thread and I'll unload all the info you need (again) to prove the point.


Thanks.
I agree and have been one to repeatedly pointed out the annoyance of people who change the subject in order to deflect from a main point....but ..I'm not the one who introduced "black smoke" or "temperatures". Even tho I find deflections from the topic irratating, I'm not totally immune from getting sucked in...but why not point the finger where it rightfully belongs and not at me?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Please explain how they lined the entire building with explosives with no one noticing. The "squib" theory would have us believe that every exterior column on every floor had explosives and some of them went off in the wrong order.


This site explains how the explosives were placed and people did notice that something was wrong. Phil Jayhan remembers hearing of the evacuations of the floors before concrete was poured.

www.algoxy.com...

On the week end before 9-11 there was a powerdown in the South tower for 39 hours so a cable upgrade could be installed. During that time thousands of detonators and their related delays were installed. Delays with the wrong time settings were inadvertantly used where jets of debri are seen.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Christophera
But I would have to say that the plane had a bomb on it that was shielded for penetration with delay for entry. The expanding concrete is moving so fast in the opposite direction of the planes travel it is outrunning the fireball, compressing it and squirting it out.


I've seen this pointed out before. It could also be explosives within the building detonating upon the impact, and in some pics you can even see large, perpindicular (to the building) blasts of fine powdered material. So whereas, say, WTC2 was impacted at an angle, the outward ejections didn't reflect this.



PS -- How often do you check your U2U's, Christophera?



The fact that the fireball is centered in the concrete debris shows that the initiation point was very close to the fuel. I do suspect that the floor panels (C4) adjacent to the bomb were detonated by it which causes the encircling of the fireball.



What is a "U2U"?


[edit on 30-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Well thats just simply false.


Come on!
Is that all you can say? I mean at least make some attempt at explaining how you're trying to justify what I'm saying.


Whats the difference between "heat" and "temperature"?



In studying energy changes in systems we need to make a clear distinction between the terms heat and temperature.

Heat: Heat is the thermal energy (kinetic energy) that is transferred from one body to another. It is measured in metric unit termed Joules (symbol J). As mentioned above heat is transferred spontaneously from objects of higher temperature to ones of lower temperature (warmer to colder bodies).


Temperature: Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles that make up the substance.


Source

Ie, a camp fire will put off more heat than a blowtorch, but a blowtorch can reach higher temperatures. Understand now?

[edit on 30-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
The elevators went to the top.

Do you think that people had to walk the final 20+ stories?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera
I viewed a 1990 documentary called "Construction Of The Twin Towers" produced and aired on PBS and it mentioned the floor evacuations and, ............... a special plastic coating on the rebar of the steel reinforced cast concrete core.

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Christophera]


Chris, I am really getting tired of you trying to pass off this lie

This is total B.S,

There were no concrete core walls in the two tower buildings. None. Nada.



Oh, and the idea that explosives were installed in the building when it was built is just TOTALLY INSANE.

Please start taking your meds again.



[edit on 30-6-2006 by HowardRoark]




top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join