Hundreds of "squibs" seen in WTC collapse movie

So basically you're saying that the tilting (which I agree was an undesired effect) could not possibly have continued (no reason why), so therefore the whole building below must be destroyed? Not following the reasoning, sorry.

Speaking in a technical sense, why exactly can the building not continue to tilt? What's the safety net that you think is going to stop it, once it's already tilted outwards 15 degrees and developed every bit of angular momentum expected from that? Nothing has stopped it so far, so what stops it now? Do you think it's going to somehow maintain it's rigid shape and not fold onto itself and start falling over the side? It already had become essentially a trapezoid the instant it started tilting. This angular momentum was caused by gravity because the electromagnetic forces in the bonds holding the building together below still required a greater magnitude of energy to move through, and it wouldn't budge. Common sense stuff. Then why did the building below suddenly give way symmetrically, and on all four faces at once, and not suggestive of being the result of leaning onto one side of the structure? I could go on and on with things that have not been addressed and do not make sense with or are not explained by NIST's model, etc.



You say this like it's an established fact, when nothing like that had ever happened before 9/11.

The information from the reports you are basing that statement on, is what we are arguing about. And you still haven't provided any evidence of it. Not even NIST analyzed the global collapses, ie 99% of them.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by bsbray11]

Those shafts were all inside of the core. Do you know how far anything would have to travel to get to the core to the perimeter? And you realize air will begin to decompress immediately as soon as it reaches any less dense air, which is in 360 degrees in 3 dimensions once it reaches open floor.




You haven't really looked at these things, have you?




I think the buildings were something like 208 feet wide. That stuff (including large pieces of solid debris) is being blown out at least 50 feet laterally.

reply to post by bsbray11

---

You could start with doing some reading.
It might be extensive, but surely worth it. Enjoy.

wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_Part%20IIA_WTC_Collapse_Analysis_Final.pdf
wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6Faber.pdf
www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/sept2005_meeting/Project_6_Final.pdf

Here are a few more FREE videos rush969. No, just like the CIT and P4T videos, you do not have to buy them to watch them. You can even download many of them for FREE to your hard drive.

by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics

YouTube Link

Rapid ejection of debris on the northwest corner of the tower.
Regular speed & 50% slow motion.

YouTube Link

A newly released high resolution edited video of the South Tower, North Tower, and WTC 7 demolitions. Larger video versions located here. Patience required; this high resolution video takes a long time to load. A high quality DivX version can be downloaded from the right side of the YouTube video and viewed with a DivX player. It looks real good and you will have your own copy for posterity.

YouTube Link

[edit on 1/21/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by rush969

---

So, do you want to talk about NIST's work then? That's what it sounds like to me.

How much do you know about it? Can you explain what their hypothesis was for a collapse initiation, and then show me how they proved it? Because I know it isn't in those reports, because they never tested their final hypothesis. And also they didn't analyze the vast majority of the "collapses," ie everything that came after the "initiations." Do you think it makes any difference that they didn't validate their hypothesis, or can you show where they did validate it?

Had you done any research into the controlled demolition industry, or just simply sat all day and watched controlled demoltion videos to see what they look like and how they work, you would know that you only find squibs in controlled demolition.

The squibs are a direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated.

You can sit there and make every excuse in the book to explain the squibs away and make yourself sleep better at night, but you will never find those squibs anywhere else but controlled demolitions.

And you, or any other debunker, will never believe it unless you can come to terms with knowing that certain sections of our government (military industrial complex) planned and carried out 9/11.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by bsbray11

---

The references that I provide are quite complete with the answers that you seek.
In the web site of NIST you can find lots more info. On the same subjects.
You can find it just going to those sites. And there are lots more.

Top-Down Demolition and Squibs



No you cannot. Your pretending that NIST went beyond the collapse iniation does not make it so. The government loyalists do not care if NIST did not bother to validate their hypothesis. They desperately need to defend the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY no matter the NIST lies and stupid errors they have been exposed and trapped in.

Top-Down Demolition and Squibs North Tower



YOUR 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is dead and top-down explosive demolition of the WTC Towers is the most likely mechanism. The hundreds of early TV newscasts which were shown once and then immediately and permanently censored from the American public were filled with statements of explosions at the lower levels and observed demolition.

Top-Down Demolition and Squibs South Tower



The beginning of the top-down demolition of the South Tower is at the base of the 30 story toppling block and 7-10 stories above these squibs we can see here blasting out of the building in parallel alignment.

The big problems with the "squibs" idea are these:

1) They are too haphazardly scattered around the building. The whole purpose of squibs is to evenly destroy the supports and columns to allow for more control. You do not at random times and in random places set off explosives
2) They appear in only one or two windows, and if anyone has a clue about how each floor was designed, it doesn't follow physics at all and explosives can't pick one window to "explode" out of, considering the floor space size and location of windows.
3) These so-called "squibs" don't behave like explosives at all. Once again, some people tend to forget how explosives behave. Explosives explode, and when they do, the blast wave initially starts at a high velocity and immediately slows down after it has reached a certain distance away from the initial detonation. It starts fast and slows down exponentially. These "squibs" show a more gentle "squirt" of air and debris and actually gain speed before getting buried by the collapse. Explosive waves do not speed up. Squib explosions do not pick up speed after detonation. They explode with a certain velocity and immediately begin to slow down.

reply to post by GenRadek

---

My sincere congratulations to GenRadek.
PERFECTLY AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED!!!
THANK YOU GEN.

Yeah, not even close.


Squibs are high-powered explosives used to take out the core of a building, or it's main supports. Then smaller explosives are used for the rest of the job, but this will vary as no two demolitions are the same.

No where in either WTC tower were squibs detonated at random times or in random places. Whatever initiated the collapse of both towers, squibs are seen just after collapse initiation near the initiation area, then follow down the building as the building is collapsing. You will also notice that the squibs are coming from the center of the towers as that's where the core is, and the core absolutely had to be taken out or the buildings would not have collapsed.



You'll notice in my collage that the squibs are, in fact, coming from the center of the WTC towers. If you take a look at the implosionworld.com image in the collage, you'll notice those squibs are also detonated from top to bottom, and they are not evenly spaced, but they're close to even. Squibs are placed in strategic locations and do not necessarily have to be evenly spaced.


As I said above, the squibs are high-powered explosives designed to take out the strongest supports of a building and in the WTC, it would be the core. Smaller and different types of explosives would have dealt with the floors.


Every type of demo is different. There are also many different types of explosives that can be used in demo.

The way an explosive acts is proportionate to it's size, type, and material it has to travel through. Do you honestly think that if 9/11 was an inside job like the evidence suggests, that they would use conventional explosives or make it that much more obvious?

Just because the squibs don't behave like you think they should behave, doesn't mean they're still not there. You will never find those squibs anywhere outside of a controlled demolition and I challenge anyone to prove that wrong.

You can do absolutely anything you want to any building with the right type of explosives. The WTC was not a "controlled" demolition, but it was a type of demolition that used explosives to bring the buildings down. Here's another picture showing similiarities to the WTC demo that shows you can do anything to a building with the right explosives placed in the right locations and detonated at the right times:




[edit on 24-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Can you prove they are coming out in random places?

Or, will you just tell me my question is somehow wrong and repeat yourself?



You have a point but at the same time you debunk any replacement theory that I can think of. Any kind of fluid that is traveling under compression would behave the same way. Explosives would actually be MORE directed and MORE powerful than compressed air (an explosion IS compressed air, just very extremely so), which doesn't travel in any particular direction but simply decompresses into wherever the air is less dense. So, you're saying compressed air came out of a shaft in the core and traveled all the way across the office floors to blow out 1 or 2 windows? Same problem as you have with these being explosives, except even worse now. You probably don't understand this.



Not high explosives, like TNT or C4, you are correct.

Still no one has explained what they are.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by _BoneZ_

---

First off, from your one picture, we see only two jets of debris coming out. Are you familiar with the WTC design?
The core is inside the tower. Any explosives on the core would have been evenly ejected out every window at that location. It would NOT come out of one or two windows on each side. Plus the floor is wide open with no columns between the core or the exterior columns. It will not, I repeat, it will NOT squirt out in a single jet considering the fact that the floor is wide and open. Nothing is there to channel the blast out in a jet like that.

Again, since when do explosives create a jet of air that INCREASES in velocity after detonation? None. Ever. If you have proof of this ever happenning please provide some proof of this. Explosives create a blast wave that decreases in velocity immediately after detonation. Even a shaped charge will explode and slow down. It will not, again I repeat, will NOT speed up and squirt out at a faster velocity than the initial detonation. Air pressure that is being squeezed out like from a plunger will behave like this, not explosives or any kind of explosives for that matter. The more high power the explosives, it still will not cause a jet of air that increases in velocity. Simple physics.

reply to post by bsbray11

---

Well for starters, the "squibs" location of "detonation" do not do anything to the sourrounding columns. Remember, it is claimed they are "high explosives" which should be powerful enough to knock off the aluminum paneling on the exterior. But if they are fom inside at the core, the blast would not come out ina jet, and especially not from one spot on the entire one side. Do not forget that there are more than one core beams inside. All of them would have had to been taken out and we should have seen a whole ring around the area, not from one window. Because of this reason alone, explosives should be counted out and air pressure should be the more viable explanation.
And as I said before, no explosives out there create jets of debris that increase in velocity after detonation. Not C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, Semtex, Plastique, TNT, Demo charges, dynomite, Azide explosives, HMTD [hexamethylenetriperoxidediamine], Nitrate explosive mixtures, Picrate explosives, TATP [triacetonetriperoxide], I can go on and on. I can even give you a list of explosives used by the military and commercial uses:
www.globalsecurity.org...
Not a single one of these can explode, and then cause a jet of air that will increase in speed after detonation. Even if you were to place them in a pipe and blow it up, the jet of air will not speed up. Unless you have an external force such as a plunger type object that forces the air out and is speeding up. But no explosives can do this by themselves.

Whatever image you're talking about may show two of them, but for the record many more unique events were captured on photos and in video. Just saying.



Oh man, this is a laugh. Can I see how you figured this out?



"The core" consists of 47 different columns. For all we know, each column could have had its own device specifically for destroying it. Say the ones along the outer perimeter happened to have charges (or whatever type of device) directed towards the perimeter of the building. That's only one example of a countless number of scenarios I could think of demonstrating how your assumption would be wrong. In fact, it would have to be one tremendous bomb explosion to come out all windows from within the core at once. That's about the only way what your saying would happen. And that would be pretty damned obvious to anyone watching, wouldn't you think?



This is why compressed air coming down shafts in the core would not blow out of the perimeter like that. Explosives have much more velocity and force to them. They would be responsible for this sooner than air compressed by falling debris, ie not compressed at all.



Not all explosive devices have the same detonation velocities and shock wave envelopes. C4 detonates quick and makes a sharp "crack," while thermobarics can go off in stages and make low booms. Think in terms of physics, not the different kinds of explosives you know of, which is certainly going to be much more limited than a military experts, for example.




Who said they were coming from inside the core? How could you tell? Maybe they're coming from the outermost columns of the core towards the perimeter. And how do you even know these devices wouldn't be powerful enough to cause these even then, since we still have no idea what they are?

Also notice the core is just 4 walls when viewed from outside, basically. Four walls with openings for the hallways that snake between the elevator shafts, bathrooms, offices, etc. If explosions were rocking the core, another possibility is that they would only be able to "vent" towards the perimeter through those hallway openings. They would still have to be very fast and have a lot of force to travel all the way to the windows, though.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by GenRadek

---

Congratulations again Gen on your research, expertise, and patience.
You know, it´s useless trying to reason somethings with some people. When all the arguments are gone they will come out with ANYTHING that will explain what they want.
New, secret, unknown technology explosives. Bombs that blow from the outside to the inside of the building (wouldn´t be surprised to see something like that coming up). Mini-nukes, energy beams, etc.
These people keep talking about the destruction of the inner core first when there´s video proof, THAT IS EVIDENCE MIND YOU, that the inner core was still standing after a good part of the collapse had gone through.

reply to post by rush969

---

Just curious, Rush, do you think all explosives/bomb technology is in public domain?

Just a 'yes' or 'no' will do.





That was a small minority of the total number of columns (there were originally 47, but then only a handful with sporadic bracing), and only from about halfway down the building. It wasn't the "inner core," either, but the outermost core columns that connected to the trusses.

When WTC1, the same building, began falling, all 4 corners and the antenna dropped at once. The antenna was sitting right on (solidly connected to) the core structure. So you know, the structure holding that antenna up sank straight down as the same time as everything else. Similarly, if the core went, it would immediately take the perimeter down with it. So what you see is exactly what happened.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by bsbray11]

There are no arguments to be "gone" with. Debunkers are the only one's arguing and trying to make up anything they can to explain what happened so they can sleep at night, all while denying all available evidence.


Do you honestly think you know everything our military has? You don't know the half of it.


The professional research organizations of the 9/11 truth movement do not support these claims and should not be stereotypical of the whole truth movement.


If you were well versed in the real evidence, you would know that only a fraction of the width and height of the cores were standing after collapse. But what happened after both collapses were done? The cores fell straight down, not falling over to either side.

So, you can spin the truth and make things up to help you sleep better at night, but evidence is evidence and it can't be denied.

reply to post by bsbray11

---

Of course not!! Although by now the technology in explosives of the late 90´s should be pretty public wouldn´t you agree? Besides I don´t know why we keep discussing explosives, really. To think that a group of people whoever you want, would have a plane crash against a building and this would turn out to be pretty much just a distraction, because the goal is actually to blow up the place, and destroy it with bombs, is PREPOSTEROUS!!! To me is just nonsense, sorry.

Like it's also preposterous the the joint chiefs and secretary of defense of our own government would sign off on a plan to stage terror attacks against our own people, blow up an airliner that would have been said to be full of college kids and then fake the funerals, bomb our own military facilities and shoot down our own planes or bomb our own ships, all to blame it on another country so we can go to war in that country. It's called "Operation Northwoods" and the fake terrorist attacks were going to be staged and blamed on Cuba to make us go to war with Cuba.

You should go Google and read a little about "Operation Northwoods" or look over the unclassified documents. 9/11 was staged and carried about by the same military industrial complex and then blamed on an enemy so we could go to war with that enemy.

Operation Northwoods wasn't the first time members of our government planned staged attacks against it's own citizens and you can count on that it won't be the last time.

Further, did you know Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz tried this same thing back in the 1970's? They tried to say Russia was amassing weapons of mass destruction so that we could go to war with Russia. Thankfully, the CIA said that all was untrue.

Well, 2001, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz say Iraq is amassing weapons of mass destruction but they succeed in getting us to go to war this time. Once again though, it's all untrue as Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction. Here's a video about "Team B", Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz trying to get us to go to war with Russia:

www.youtube.com...

You would do good to learn the history of your own country before calling things preposterous.