WTC Visual Explosives ('Squibs')

Originally posted by HowardRoark

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.

You cannot just dismiss it. You must produce evidence showing the steel core columns during the demise of the strcutures. No one ever has despite my standing invitation to do so.

To say, "This is total BS" ove rand over, is totally un reasonable.

Originally posted by billybob

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.

You sir are confused. The picture(s) being talked about is the Owl with "O RLY" or "PUUU LEAZE" not the pictures being shown as evidence for either side.

As for the explosives in the building. Your telling me that they were undamaged by the impact? The wiring stayed intact also? sure...

And yet, the buildings begin collapse from the impact areas. That must mean that both planes had to have been assigned where to hit the buildings for the explosives to start in these areas. That is to say if they weren't damaged. mind twisting!

[edit on 30-6-2006 by DoomX]

[edit on 30-6-2006 by DoomX]

It's not mind twisting.

Is Astrophysics mind twisting? Only to those unwilling to look at it and understand it.

Furthermore -- HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING.

Maybe the explosives or charges cut at all the right areas, causing the top heavy mass of the building to come down on the impact zone because it's weak there, so thus it would be first to come down there, and a position of initiation. Then with the core being taken down as the building came down (From explosives or charges), it made it easier for it to fall.

But then again, that's hypothetically speaking. I don't intend in anyway to argue that point.

[edit on 6/30/2006 by Masisoar]

Yep, keep going you posted earlier to still give you an explanation of how the squibs were made and you decided the answers you got from others did not do it for you. Well neither does your theory do it for me. mind twisting! But I'm still willing to listen... because I truely do hope some of you come up with very good evidence that would be plausible. Yeah you will probably say you have but that's up to the eye of the beholder.


Truth is you won't accept any opposite theory than your own no matter what evidence is showing.

Originally posted by DoomX
Yep, keep going you posted earlier to still give you an explanation of how the squibs were made and you decided the answers you got from others did not do it for you. Well neither does your theory do it for me. mind twisting! But I'm still willing to listen... because I truely do hope some of you come up with very good evidence that would be plausible. Yeah you will probably say you have but that's up to the eye of the beholder.


Truth is you won't accept any opposite theory than your own no matter what evidence is showing.

DoomX, seriously, what theory was it that I posted? My hypothetical situation, that was just throwing it out there, that wasn't my theory on what happened.

You can have your "reasons" for why there were jets of air or squibs, but no one, and I admit, not even I have come forth with anything reasonable to support anything, other than WCIP's post, which does pose some interesting things.

Care to comment?

It's pretty obvious you believe there were some kind of explosives, that's your theory that you believe. If it isn't, could you please tell me what you think just so I know where you are coming from? Thanks in advance.

So basically you have nothing to add but what WCIP has posted in another thread on basically the same issue.

And you posted it in it's entirety twice.

Nice.

Well a few problems with his theory is that air is not the same as a solid object. The air missiles are misleading and false. That is not how it happens when pressure builds up.

I find the story of the firemen who survived the collapse as very compelling evidence that there was huge amounts of air pressure in the building during the collapse.

They were knocked off their feet and held to the ground. The air also blew open doors. If that kind of force made it to the fourth floor stairwell I imagine it could blow out windows all along the building.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
...air is not the same as a solid object. The air missiles are misleading and false. That is not how it happens when pressure builds up.

The 'air missiles' part was in response to official story supporters who claimed the squibs were the result of "high pressure jets of air exiting the elevator shafts and HVAC shafts and blasting out the windows". Hence, the "misleading and false" came from them.

Not long after, the explanation was changed to static pressure differential, which has been the default explanation since and answered many times. I made a post on page 2 of this thread regarding this, but no one seems to have seen it. *sniff sniff* lol...

www.abovetopsecret.com...





[edit on 2006-6-30 by wecomeinpeace]

Haha explosions could do the same thing you described

Originally posted by Damocles
or is it all still conjecture and finding "proof" to back up a preformed theory?

I find it interesting that you apparently have something against this.

Btw, being familiar with thermite, did you ever see those video clips of molten metal (glowing orange-yellow) pouring out of WTC2's corner, and the still images of a bright, white flame in the same place?

Or have you looked through this thread?: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Damocles
or is it all still conjecture and finding "proof" to back up a preformed theory?

I find it interesting that you apparently have something against this.

Btw, being familiar with thermite, did you ever see those video clips of molten metal (glowing orange-yellow) pouring out of WTC2's corner, and the still images of a bright, white flame in the same place?

Or have you looked through this thread?: www.abovetopsecret.com...

How do you know that is thermite and not something in the office that melted? Metal desk. And if it is thermite wouldn't it continue eating away at the building were it was dripping?

btw Masisoar, great theory.

Originally posted by DoomX
How do you know that is thermite and not something in the office that melted? Metal desk.

What is a metal desk made of?

Even a melted desk would present the exact same problem to you. Even an aluminum desk would have to be heated beyond the capabilities of a hydrocarbon fire to burn orange-yellow.

And if it is thermite wouldn't it continue eating away at the building were it was dripping?

It was running out of the building and down the outer facades of columns until it reached the ground. Thermite is powerful, but not quite powerful enough to melt something by just touching it for a fraction of a second while falling through the air.

But maybe you meant that you've seen it inside the building while it was burning?

Originally posted by Damocles
as to the first part, im not sure i have any idea what you mean honestly. and yes, if i read it right, i do have a problem with that. a hypothesis should come from the result of research, research shouldnt be tailored to fit a hypothesis.

My comment was because your proverbial pot is calling the kettle black. What did NIST do but start where FEMA left off, with pancake collapses and whatnot? When did NIST clear the slate? I seem to recall that they conducted a computer simulation in which they continued to adjust the parameters until they got the results they were looking for to show heat-related failures. And in no tests or simulations, as far as I'm aware, did they ever show what exactly would be necessary to initiate a global collapse. If this is the kind of evidence you're looking for, then you must subscribe to both sides of the issue at the same time, unless you have some sort of bias. Because there is nothing definitive enough for the most stubborn among us on either side.

The "research" most official conspiracy theorists fall back upon is NIST's report. So this is why I think it's interesting, that you should be complaining about the alternative conspiracy theorists' evidence not pleasing you, and talking about how things should be proven and "research shouldn't be tailored to fit a hypothesis" and etc.

i dont know why the buildings fell, im not a physicist, architect, mechanical, civil or structural engineer. (who here is btw?)

I don't know of any physicists among us, but Griff and Valhall are both structural engineers. Not that I see structural engineering as the most relevant field of study, no offense whatsoever intended to Griff or Valhall, both of whom make valuable contributions to these issues in their posts and are wonderful exceptions to the status quo. When you think about it, though, an intelligent cover-up wouldn't focus attention on a relevant field of experts, but a more irrelevant one that would hardly know the difference on the critical aspects of the cover-up. This is why, in my opinion, you have people like Steven Jones and various ex-military officials coming out more more than anyone else.

[edit on 1-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by DoomX

btw Masisoar, great theory.

Thanks buddy

None of this is relevant to the squibs, air jets. Provide some evidence of what you guys have to say instead of arguing, as I said and will keep saying, I know I haven't found anything conclusive, other than Wecomeinpeace's post which makes relevant points. Don't think I'll just go away with this.

Peace.

Originally posted by bsbray11
My comment was because your proverbial pot is calling the kettle black. What did NIST do but start where FEMA left off, with pancake collapses and whatnot? When did NIST clear the slate? I seem to recall that they conducted a computer simulation in which they continued to adjust the parameters until they got the results they were looking for to show heat-related failures. And in no tests or simulations, as far as I'm aware, did they ever show what exactly would be necessary to initiate a global collapse.

The reason they did it that way was because there was no reason for them to think that explosives were involved. There is no hard evidence for them being present.

They also didn't test for:

Alien involvement

Unicorns

Leprechauns

Magic

Etc.

I suppose the fact that they didnt test for magic is somehow evidence for magic being involved with the collapse too.

There was no hard evidence because all that debris was sent off and destroyed. We wouldn't be having these questions if the investigation was done properly. A building doesn't collapse in it's own footprint due to fire damage. Two buildings do not collapse due to fire damage in their footprint on the same day. Three buildings definitely do not collapse in their footprints due to fire damage on the same day that are conveniently owned by Larry Silverstein.

Well, actually the people who were investigating did not complain about this.

www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm


"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".

If the ones who did the investigation did not have trouble with the time it took to remove the debris, why do you?

Of course at that point there was no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the WTC would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures. NOW it does. NOW we have indication that somethin was inherently WRONG with the behavior of the collapse due to fire damage! That's why we have these questions that aren't answered.

I seem to recall that they conducted a computer simulation in which they continued to adjust the parameters until they got the results they were looking for to show heat-related failures. Because there is nothing definitive enough for the most stubborn among us on either side.

Where did you get THAT idea? Do you really think thats how an investigation is done?---Come on!

And in no tests or simulations, as far as I'm aware, did they ever show what exactly would be necessary to initiate a global collapse. If this is the kind of evidence you're looking for, then you must subscribe to both sides of the issue at the same time, unless you have some sort of bias.

Thats the kind of investigative method you're making up. If thats the kind of evidence you're looking for, the you must subscribe to both sides of the issue at the same time, unless you have some sort of bias.

Because there is nothing definitive enough for the most stubborn among us on either side.

Let me ask you --what WOULD be evidence enough for you? Give an example.

Its not that the people who oppose the ideas of most CT are just being "stubborn"--its that there has been ZERO evidence to support their theories and their undefined guidelines for what constitutes valid evidence is wholey biased--a picture and a guess is "strong evidence" for them while the developed science of finite element analysis is just a simplistic method where you put in the information to arrive at a preconcieved conclusion.

Its unbelievable to them that a huge plane loaded with fuel crashing into a very tall building at 500+ mph. could cause enough damage to fail the unique structure----but its believable that the months of work needed to set up a controlled demo...months for EACH building..could go unnoticed. They demand precise explainations coupled with links to evidence for the official collapse theory---but fail to provide even a vague idea of how the rigging of the building for demo was done.

This is not a small point. Anyone care to attempt to explain how it was done? As I pointed out in an eariler post, if this can not be explained to a believable level..even without evidence..the whole theory goes in the crapper-- squibs--black smoke--dust--passports--et.al.---fluuuush--gurglegurgle.

[edit on 1-7-2006 by Vushta]

NOW we have indication that somethin was inherently WRONG with the behavior of the collapse due to fire damage

And that indication is????