Debunk part II Squibs...

(Image #1)


(Image #2)


(Video of image #2)
www.911research.com...


Ok.. I think we are on to something. I cut this from the other tread because there is about 12 pages of people blabbing completely off topic.

The "Anti-conspiracy" people have only come up with with one theroy for the squibs, that theroy is that thoes squibs were caused by the increasing air pressure caused by the falling floors from above.

The "Conspircacy" people have made some points such as:

• The buildings were not air tight as they collapsed. Obviously, there was even much solid matter from within the buildings being ejected. No reason for the air to not have likewise escaped. The floors were being opened up to the atmosphere one by one.
  
• There were expulsions coming from floors which did not have HVAC terminals (from floors that weren't mech floors).
  
• There were expulsions very early in the collapses, so we are apparently to believe that the pancaking of a few floors would cause violent explosions of solid debris.
  
• The fact that there is solid debris being blasted out of the buildings, well ahead of the collapse wave.
  
• The expulsions contain dust particles of the same consistency of the concrete dust and etc. that "snowed" down over Manhattan and coated the streets. This couldn't have travelled down the building ahead of collapse like that, and came out of a non-mech floor.
  
• All other air shafts were in the core, necessitating air fly across the floors in a jet without decompressing, before blowing solid debris forcefully off of the sides of the buildings.
  
• There clearly is a fire ball in image #2
  

I made this topic so we can all start from here. People, please stay on topic, I think we have something here.

Are there any other ideas other than air pressure that could have caused these squibs? I dont think the air pressure theroy is strong enough but fell free to voice your opinion.

please stay on topic.

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Tasketo]

There clearly is a fire ball in image #2

I have to disagree with that.

I don't see a fireball either but other than that, sure.

One thing I'd like to make clear in addition:

At least one squib, and possibly some of the ones you're looking in image #2, were about 50 floors below the collapse wave.

I'd like to know how the collapse of

I don't know about you but that whole "air pressure from the falling floors above" thing is bollocks. Those are from demolitions. It's unmistakable. For those of you who disagree perhaps you should find some demolitions experts and show them those pics.

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
I don't know about you but that whole "air pressure from the falling floors above" thing is bollocks. Those are from demolitions. It's unmistakable. For those of you who disagree perhaps you should find some demolitions experts and show them those pics.

Funny enough, just watched a CD video and there were, guess what, blasts, not relatively slowly propagating squibs.

Originally posted by tuccy
Funny enough, just watched a CD video and there were, guess what, blasts, not relatively slowly propagating squibs.

Well, were the blasts from within the building and shooting out dust over 100 feet into the air, where it would be greatly resisted by air and thus slowed?

Because that would be a funny sight for anything other than a skyscraper that would otherwise have to be deconstructed for safety reasons due to its complete massiveness.

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
I don't know about you but that whole "air pressure from the falling floors above" thing is bollocks. Those are from demolitions. It's unmistakable. For those of you who disagree perhaps you should find some demolitions experts and show them those pics.

Funny enough, just watched a CD video and there were, guess what, blasts, not relatively slowly propagating squibs.

There aer many different types of explosives and incendaries used in demolition, not all of them "blast" like TNT.

Brisance is determined by the velocity of the reaction. You are basically stating that all explosives will produce a fast moving 'squib' and that is not accurate.

There is a full spectrum of low and high explosives all used for different task depending on the goal of the explosion or reaction. TNT and C4 have a very high brisance and rate of reaction, hence froduce a fast moving shockwave and loud BOOM. Thermite and thermate have a low brisance and low velocity of reaction making the shockwave much, much slower and almost no audible 'boom'.

We can also consider that if a "bomb" explodes in a room, the shockwave and ensuing particle system will be slowed but not stopped by partition walls, doors and other impeding objects.

The speed at which you percieve the air to be coming out of the building by no means proves or even lessens the possibility that it is being pushed by explosives.

Reaction speeds from fastes to slowest (examples):

C4, RDX, TNT, Smokeless Powder, Gun powder, Thermate, Thermite


[edit on 5-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]

As is said before. FInd some local demolitions experts and show them those pictures. You will be surprised to hear what they say about it if you fall for the Bush official story.

Ok... I think it is safe to say that the air pressure theroy is debunked.... Now is this proof fire didnt bring the tower down? Or is there any other reason for the "squibs"?

(how do you not see a fire ball in the image? its orange for crist's sake)

Originally posted by Tasketo
(how do you not see a fire ball in the image? its orange for crist's sake)

Maybe it has something to do with the way our monitors display color? Or the image itself?

I see a fireball here:



and when WTC1 is first collapsing in general, there are expulsions of fireballs in places. But I haven't seen any below the impact holes. I can sort of see where you might see one in the second image (is it the lowest squib?), but I'm assuming this has to do with the image.