Sounds Like Explosive Devices To Me + Very Clear Squib!

Originally posted by Truth4hire
The lowest cloud simply cannot be explained away, no matter how anyone tries to sputter about air pressure. If this is not air pressure, and not an explosion, then please explain to me what it is.

I agree. That lower squib is clearly a mistimed explosive. Nothing else can explain it. I find it astonishing that so many people are still clinging to the air pressure theory despite overwhelming evidence that it simply cannot be true. It seems that the air pressure mob have reached a state where science dissolves and only faith remains. Very sad.

I repeat...

"How do you explain how the so called explosive squib is acting then? There's a clear cloud of something before the extrusion, and the spray of matter comes in waves, erratically shooting out.

A squib would be sudden, with no slow preamble cloud, and would be a constant shifting of gas and debris, not one that fluctuates in intensity as the film shows.

If this isn't air pressure (who's to say twice the amount of air pressure wouldn't be sufficient to cause this?) it certainly isn't a squib.

As for not being air tight. Fine, explain the massive rush of air experienced by fire fighters etc as the tower collapsed."

They are tiny little bombs if they are explosives. The central core is what needs to be detonated, not the outer walls. The weight of the higher decapitated floors would do the job.

The lower puff of smoke would be due to the air and debris being pushed down the elevator shafts at a much quicker rate than the rest of the debris, crashing into the lower floors through open elevator doors and hence smashing through a nearby window.

Originally posted by albie
The lower puff of smoke would be due to the air and debris being pushed down the elevator shafts at a much quicker rate than the rest of the debris, crashing into the lower floors through open elevator doors and hence smashing through a nearby window.

I don't understand this line of thinking. How can the air and debris be pushed faster than the collapse wave? Especially since air and debris are being pushed at a slower rate everywhere else?

Air being pushed down a shaft would be concentrated. Air being pushed elsewhere (such as upwards or down the side of the building) would have more room to move.

Let's not forget, rubble was falling down the elevator shafts from the first impact.

"The lower puff of smoke would be due to the air and debris being pushed down the elevator shafts at a much quicker rate than the rest of the debris, crashing into the lower floors through open elevator doors and hence smashing through a nearby window."

albie, what you are saying is simply not possible. This has already been addressed. Why are you choosing to ignore the laws of physics?

Can you please share with us the mathematics that lead you to this conclusion?

edited to clarify what I was referring to.


[edit on 1-5-2007 by nobodyv2]

How have you addressed this? By telling me that the air pressure was only twice as much?

How do you know if that wasn't enough to push dust and bits of rubble through a broken window?

And why aren't you answering my questions?

Explain the puff of dust that seems to be lingering and moving before the ejection of dust. Explain why the dust is not ejecting at a constant speed, which would be how a squib works?

It gains force as time goes on. a squib would have one small ejection and and fall off in speed. Not this one.



[edit on 2-5-2007 by albie]

albie

You seem to be avoiding a major problem. It was already brought up. Why is this force of air pressure so far advanced from the collapse? Air concentrated or not is surely not racing ahead of the close to free fall speed of collapse, this makes no sense.

Not to me!

Foolish, ignorant conclusion jumping! Just because you hear a report that firefighters heard explosions, doesn’t mean the building is experiencing a controlled demolition. Why bother with the planes then? Why doesn’t the conspiracy plot call for just demoing the building without the planes involved, and then directly blame it on Saddam? It’s not a stretch to imagine Hussein paying millions in bribes, etc, while hiring a demo team to blow up the WTC. Look at the kooks that almost accomplished it in 1994.

Just like the folks who said they heard explosions before the levys broke in New Orleans, you have to have much more evidence than people claiming they heard explosions. These claims could just be here-say, or if there were explosive type sounds, they could easily be attributed to a lot of things occurring (parts of the building popping and buckling under stress, things falling and hitting the ground, very large objects combusting in the fire, etc). What is needed to support the demo job theory is video tape surveillance and/or several eyewitness to the planting of the explosives and/or aftermath evidence of explosives such as bomb fragmants in the wreckage, etc. Since none of this exists, it’s too much of a stretch to buy into the controlled demoltion theory.

Then you have the videos of the twin towers falling. They do not support a controlled demolition. It’s clear to me and most people, that if you carefully watch both buildings collapse, each one begins to pancake at the damaged area or point of impact. I seriously doubt a demo team only would only plant explosives on the same floors the planes were anticipated to crash into. The plane crashes would’ve likely disabled the explosives.

Anyway……it’s clear that you have a much lower standard of proof and evidence than I do.


[edit on 2-5-2007 by iandavis]

Originally posted by iandavis
Then you have the videos of the twin towers falling. They do not support a controlled demolition. It’s clear to me and most people, that if you carefully watch both buildings collapse, each one begins to pancake at the damaged area or point of impact.

I have to ask. Where do you think the collapse would start in a demolition? If they demo'ed the core columns, the outer facade would still fail at the impact zones. Why? Because it would be the weakest link in the mesh that was the outer column work. Everything fails at the weakest link. In this case, the impact zones.

So, I plead with everyone. Please stop using this as "proof" of a non-demolition. Either way, they would have failed at the impact zones, so it is not proof of anything. I keep saying this but people don't listen. I'll keep saying it though till I'm blue in the face. Ask any other engineer what fails first. Garanteed you'll get the answer of weakest link.

Originally posted by iandavis
Why bother with the planes then? Why doesn’t the conspiracy plot call for just demoing the building without the planes involved, and then directly blame it on Saddam?

Take this argument here and good luck smacking that down:
911 Psychological Operation
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you have the videos of the twin towers falling. They do not support a controlled demolition. It’s clear to me and most people, that if you carefully watch both buildings collapse, each one begins to pancake at the damaged area or point of impact.

NIST debunked the pre-pancake theory. Floors didn't drop out before the collapses, which then makes it that much more challenging to explain the lower level 'squibs' as I demonstrated earlier in this thread with my images.

Whenever there is a natural catastrophy there will be the descriptions by the survivors. Take tornados for example. Everytime there is a tornado, you will have the survivors say "It sounded like a freight train".


Using the CT method of logic, therefore tornados do not destroy building... Freight trains do the damage. After all just listen to what the survivors almost all say.



[edit on 2-5-2007 by Wildbob77]

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Wildbob77]

Let us be clear. Although eyewitness testimony can be wrong, when you have collaborating eyewitnesses saying the same thing, then that testimony becomes much, much stronger.

There are many who said they heard a series of explosions, in sequence if you like. That has to be looked at.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Whenever there is a natural catastrophy there will be the descriptions by the survivors. Take tornados for example. Everytime there is a tornado, you will have the survivors say "It sounded like a freight train".

Using the CT method of logic, therefore tornados do not destroy building... Freight trains do the damage. After all just listen to what the survivors almost all say.

Ad Hominem Red Herring.

Do you have an actual argument related to this 2-point topic?

Originally posted by talisman
albie

You seem to be avoiding a major problem. It was already brought up. Why is this force of air pressure so far advanced from the collapse? Air concentrated or not is surely not racing ahead of the close to free fall speed of collapse, this makes no sense.

Air is pushed by air. Don't you think that hundreds of tons of matter dropping down on you would cause a mighty push of air? Especially if you were stood in a tube.

If this isn't air then it's rubble inside the building that's fallen before the outer rubble. The building is falling in on itself. it's been on fire so floors will be burnt out. Allowing rubble to fall through.

And why would a squib go off early? Show me footage of a proper demilitioned building where the squibs go off prematurely.

albie

So according to you the force of air raced ahead of the collapse? Approx how fast since the collapse was pretty well free fall?

Did the force of air also select what floors to push out of? Leaving other floors alone? Why that particular floor so far down? That sounds like a pretty selective force of air that rushed ahead.

Originally posted by albie
Air is pushed by air.

I believe this is where the concept becomes false. How can air push air and condense it at the same time? It's either being condensed or pushed but not both.

Also if I am not mistaken.

Weren't the towers hermetically sealed?

^It makes no difference when there was a huge hole in the side of the building, and the whole top was opening up to the outsaide air as it collapsed.

There was parts of the outer mesh being ejected lateraly, and the air along with it. So how could it build up any pressure?

Originally posted by talisman
Weren't the towers hermetically sealed?

I think so, but not after planes have created a crator in the facade. I have also heard that they were sealed at the reinforced floors. If that is the case, how do they explain "squibs" that are below the reinforcing floors when the collapse wave was above them?

Someone still needs to explain to me how the building is shooting out sections of steel columns, concrete dust, aluminum panels, and yet air is retained?