WTC2-- Squibs Far Above "Collapse" Zone During Initiation of Destruction

[spooked911]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psh8kFMKRMk&feature=player_embedded#!

Curious what the official explanation is for this. I think I know what the OCTists will say, but still curious.

[LARED]

1. "the official explanation" ????

well since I was demoted by the alien overlords I can no longer provide an official explanation, but I will hazard a guess that the "squibs" are created when air exists the towers as it collapses. See the notion of collapse has within it the idea that internal space is decreased, air is compressed and will find the path of least resistance out of the space to equalize.

[BeFree]

2. Bwahahaha~!~

Compressed air? Bwahahaha! No wonder they took away your license!!

[LARED]

3. Can't you get anything right

No one took away my license. The alien overlords demoted me from Chairman of the Daisy Committee to Assistant Secretary of Propaganda. That was right after I let the cat out of the bag that George Bush was a member of the Reptilian clan.

[BeFree]

4. No

They took away your license. You are just in denial.

Compressed air? Bwahahaha~!~

[Theobald]

5. Why is the explanation of compressed air

so laughable? If you have one floor collapsing upon another floor doesn't the air volume between those floors become compressed?

[BeFree]

6. Still with the compressed air kick?

What... you think the WTC was built like an ICE? An air compressor? An air tight cylinder?

Engineers of any stripe would laugh their ass off at such a silly suggestion.

[Theobald]

7. You will have to explain your self to me

What do you mean by the statement 'Still with the compressed air kick?"? It is a nonsensical question.

If you have a volume of air contained within an area and one of the containment sides rapidly collapses you will get compressed air. The rate of comprehension will vary depending upon the open areas for the air to escape but the build up of pressure can reach a certain point where it will create new openings to allow the air to escape.

[BeFree]

8. And how many PSI would that be?

Think hard about your "..one of the containment sides rapidly collapses.."

You need to explain yourself to yourself.

[Theobald]

9. Let's start from the beginning

Why is the theory of compressed air blowing out the windows laughable?

You still haven't answered the question.

I don't know the necessary PSI to blow out the windows, but I do know that that it is within the realm of possibility. Windows got blown out at the Sears Tower recently caused by a 70 mph wind storm, the collapsing of one floor onto another would be able to create enough pressure to blow out windows in the trade center.

[BeFree]

10. Collpasing container

Think about that.

You guys are hilarious. Sad, actually.

[Theobald]

20. I am trying to have a serious conversation with you.

I have offered points and counter points, and asked you questions which you have not answered.

Please explain to me why the analogy of a collapsing container is not valid?

Please explain to me why my serious questions are a joke?

Please explain to me why you sound like an ignoramus?

[zappaman]

21. sorry theobald

befree will not answer your questions because befree knows he can't.
that is the way he operates.

[spooked911]

11. The squibs are coming out at multiple floors, up to 15 floors above the "collapse" joint

and come out simultaneously with the tower starting to tip. The idea that compressed air from the floor where there was initiation of "collapse" pushed air and smoke out on the other side of the tower, up to 15 floors above the compressed region, is quite ludicrous but also quite expected from the OCTists.

Maybe this would work in a closed system, such as a unopened coke can, but remember there were multiple large holes in the tower from the "plane hits", from where the vast bulk of compressed air is going to be pushed out.

[zappaman]

12. I know one way to find out

anyone have any bunny cages around?

[spooked911]

17. Nice to know you think this is all one big joke

but pretty pathetic really.

[zappaman]

18. I don't think 9/11 is a joke

Can you guess what I think is a joke, Spooked?
Or are the aliens who have the earth under quarantine blocking rational thought from your mind?

[spooked911]

26. I don't mind too much if you mock the alien stuff--

that is predictable and comes with the territory.

But if I make a substantive post about the WTC, your derision of me shows that:
1) you aren't taking the topic seriously
2) you have nothing meaningful to add to the topic
3) you can't properly refute what I say

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

32. This is yet another of your "substantive post(s) about the WTC" that shows...

... either you have never actually seen an actual video of an actual explosion, or your comparative analytical skills are virtually non-existent. Yet you are quite convinced that the many, many things that you don't understand about the collapses are evidence of a hoax and a conspiracy.

The "squib" nonsense has been refuted many, many times: Those ejections are clearly pneumatic rather than explosive -- explosives create clouds that appear almost instantaneously in videos and then just as rapidly slow down because the motivating shock way is long gone -- and I think even most children could understand that the air inside the building had to go somewhere when the building collapsed, and it had to carry smoke and dust with with it when it was forced out of the building. It's hard to imagine anything simpler to explain, but defending your conspiracy delusions forces you into a position of making yourself look too stupid to understand that -- and a great many other simple things. And then you whine about being derided for it. I don't deride people for simply being stupid -- at least not to their "face" -- but I make an exception when the stupidity seems to be self-induced rather than genetic.

[LARED]

33. Spooked is merely following Lachlan's Laws

Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.rampantscotland.com/humour/blhumlachlan.htm

[spooked911]

40. I love how you dance around an argument

without ever directly answering it.

The classic example was this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=266960&mesg_id=266960

[SDuderstadt]

41. Spooked...

the reason no one takes you seriously is because Logic isn't your strong suit.

Do you honestly think that if the government (or anyone else for that matter) engaged in the deliberate controlled demolition of the towers, that they'd be stupid enough to leave telltale signs of it?? More importantly, why isn't a single controlled demolition expert picking up your banner, dude? Hint: it's because they know your goofy claims are laughable.

Is there any limit to how far you'll go to embarrass yourself and DU?

[zappaman]

42. dude

Of course, the PTB didn't mean to leave telltale signs of their nefarious deeds.
They thought they had covered their tracks.
However, they did not count on the intrepid sleuth SPOOKED to closely examine the "evidence" and find many things that didn't look right.
They have to be very nervous that any second they will be busted.
I congratulate SPOOKED for putting together the pieces of this vast and horrible conspiracy,
Have you guys gotten together yet?

[spooked911]

71. you're simply wrong on every level

http://cms.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/315-explosive-evidence-at-wtc-cited-by-former-cdi-employee.html

[SDuderstadt]

74. Then why is nearly everyone here...

laughing at you, dude? Why are people not rallying to your cause in droves?

[spooked911]

82. you know darn well why

Also, it be nice if you started acting like a human, for a change.

[SDuderstadt]

84. I AM being human, dude...

I am asking you for proof of your goofy bullshit.

[spooked911]

90. I provided a CD expert when you asked for one

99% of your posts here are the same substance-free insults, and it gets real old.

I'm not sure what exactly you get out of being here, but I can guess... and I can guess what your official reason is too.

[SDuderstadt]

91. Dude...

Sullivan is no more a CD expert than you are an expert in what something "should look like". And, your lame attempt to blunt my criticism by pretending I have some "official reason" to be here is just more of your delusional rambling.

Look around, dude, and take note of the fact that, with the exception of a few posters who share your delusions, everyone else believes you to be an embarrassment to DU. Think of us like the E.T.'S you claim have us "quarantined" to Earth, except our aim is to quarantine you here so you can't embarrass progressivism any more than you already have, dude.

[spooked911]

95. Nice of you to admit you are gatekeeping.

My words are *so* dangerous.

The not so funny aspect of this is that despite your constant belittling, I am on the right side of this-- and I'm sure you know it.

[zappaman]

96. uh oh

Time for plan B, dude.
Spooked is on to us.
Spooked, I will say you are tenacious and unwavering in your beliefs...emphasis on "your beliefs".
(3@3(((99

[SDuderstadt]

108. You don't need "gatekeeping", dude...

in case you've missed it, roughly 97% of replies to your posts consist of members chuckling and shaking their heads at your goofy bullshit.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

150. paranoia

is part and parcel with CTers.

[William Seger]

78. LOL, expert Staff Photographer Tom Sullivan says...

“Fire cannot bring down steel-framed high rises -- period.”
...
Sullivan stated that he knew from the first day that the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 was a classic controlled implosion. Asked how he thought it might have been done he posited, “looking at the building it wouldn’t be a problem -- once you gain access to the elevator shafts…then a team of expert loaders would have hidden access to the core columns and beams. The rest can be accomplished with just the right kind of explosives for the job. Thermite can be used as well.”
...
"Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984."

So, the best Gage has been able to do is find a staff photographer who parrots the same nonsense we've been hearing for years? Gee, I would have thought a CD expert would bring something new to the discussion -- like maybe something factual and sensible?

[zappaman]

79. "factual" and "sensible"

are not words in the average troofer's lexicon

[spooked911]

81. reading comprehension problems?

"...Tom Sullivan, an actual explosive-charge placement technician..."

He did the work. Sorry if you don't like what he says.

[William Seger]

85. Since when did an "explosive-charge placement technician" = controlled demolition expert?

Sorry, but anyone who claims that the towers looked like a "classic" controlled demolition is certainly not a controlled demolition expert. Anyone who says "looking at the building it wouldn't be a problem -- once you gain access to the elevator shafts" has either not really looked at those buildings (and the limited access the elevator shafts would provide to core columns) or is not a controlled demolition expert, or both. Anyone who implies that thermite has ever been used for a controlled demolition is not a controlled demolition expert. Anyone who asserts that "thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984" is not a controlled demolition expert, and anyone who tries to pass off that "Low profile thermite igniter" as such a device is a damned fraud.

As I said, this is the same horseshit that Gage has been reselling for years, after having bought most of it from David Ray Griffin, who is decidedly not a controlled demolition expert, and it remains neither factual nor sensible. If you are gullible enough to buy it because "an actual explosive-charge placement technician" regurgitates it after getting sucked into the 9/11 conspiracy tar pit, then shame on you. Other "truthers" are wise to how idiotic Sullivan's interview was (but of course they attribute it to Sullivan being a disinfo infiltrator attempting to embarrass the "movement" with obvious bullshit): https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/11222/

LOL again.

[spooked911]

89. he said WTC7 looked like classic CD, not the "towers"

and my main point was Sullivan was not simply a photographer.

If Sullivan is some sort of cointelpro plant/perp, it really doesn't help the official story, you know.

The most critical point is that the towers WERE blown up, all these distractions aside.

[zappaman]

43. I don't see any dancing in that thread

I see you getting all riled up and not understanding all the rational explanations given to you.
Besides, this thread is better...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836

[spooked911]

47. there were no explanations

besides "chaos". Which is not an explanation.

[zappaman]

49. yes, there were and are plenty of explanations

both scientific and logical.
you chose and continue to choose to ignore them because in your eyes, something "doesn't look right".

[spooked911]

51. point to one

thanks

[zappaman]

53. check out William Seger's responses

your welcome

[spooked911]

55. what about

"my" welcome?

In any case, even the esteemed Dr. Seger couldn't provide a mechanism to explain how the columns came to be lying in the hole.

Dr. Seger did however offer a lot of fancy-sounding, densely-worded fake rebuttals.

[zappaman]

58. damn those fancy-sounding words!

and densely-worded too!
how could a simple men like you and me even understand such high-faluttin' things?
ya got me there, Spooked.
keep digging, you're almost there!

[spooked911]

57. actually, the funny thing is Seger did not even post in that particular thread

I do remember arguing with him about that topic but it must have been in a related thread.

[William Seger]

63. I woudn't call your response an argument

Specifically, I asked if you could understand how those sword guys could slice through a bamboo stalk and leave the top part hanging in the air to swing back and slice through it again. As I recall, your response was no, and you prefer not to try understand what that has to do with what you think "ought" to happen when a plane flying that fast sliced through those columns. There is a thing called "argument from ignorance," but simple ignorance alone is not really an argument, especially when it's willful ignorance.

[spooked911]

72. your recollection is wrong

1) a search of that thread doesn't show you commenting -- initially at least (maybe you commented since I looked a couple days back)

2) as far as the bamboo-sword argument, I understood the concept fine. The only issue was if that was relevant to the official plane impact story, since the plane breaks apart after it slices through the columns, officially. In your example the sword doesn't fall to bits after cutting the bamboo. So what was your point?

[William Seger]

77. I didn't say I responded in THAT thread

That thread has one of the worst number-of-posts/significance ratios of anything ever posted here, and frankly I thought the answer was too obvious to bother with. You, yourself, gave the most plausible explanation very early in the thread, and then immediately found some hand-waving reason to dismiss it out of hand.

No, you did not understand the real point of my analogy; once again, you just searched for a hand-waving reason to ignore it. The reason the bamboo hangs in the air after being cut is the speed of the sword: After slicing all the way through, it isn't in contact with the bamboo long enough to impart much force, so it doesn't overcome much of the inertia of the bamboo.

[spooked911]

80. what was the specific answer I gave that you thought was the reasonable explanation?

I *asked* for which answer you thought was right and you never answered. Everyone else intimated there was a right answer but mysteriously couldn't be bothered to point to a specific mechanism.

I understood your silly point about the sword. Once again-- it is not a proper analogy because the sword doesn't get destroyed as it cuts the bamboo, so it is not the right type of collision. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand.

[William Seger]

88. I answered your question

... but I'm not surprised that you don't remember. Maybe you should go back and review the post where you proposed several possible explanations, forget for a moment about your desperate attempts to find an excuse for dismissing each of them, and reconsider which one is really most probable.

"I understood your silly point about the sword" is an oxymoron. If you really understood it, you would see why it isn't silly. I honestly haven't met very many people who have less understanding of mechanics, with the possible exception of my wife. The analogy is valid, you simply refuse to see why even though I explained why it happens, and all you can do is continue to babble about the sword not getting destroyed -- no real answer to what I said, just denial, and not even an attempt to explain why your objection makes any sense at all. This is why "debating" with you is a complete waste of time, and why your arguments will never have any influence whatsoever on rational people.

[spooked911]

141. You could have answered directly instead of with your (inapt) analogy.

But at least I understand what mechanism you were trying to say now.

A collision that results in massive damage to the striking object, by definition, is not going to be clean and quick. Your sword example is thus not a good analogy. Not to mention that we're talking about a long tube going through a set of columns lengthwise, not a slender sword.

As I wrote in that thread:

"1) a plane smashed into the tower and punched the columns upward like a garage door flipping up. After the plane goes through, the columns fall down into the hole.

Problem: the "garage door" breakage pattern is highly unlikely at best, as 1) it is assymetric and the initial breakage is away from the precise point of collision, and 2) flipping the columns up means two or more floors are pushed and broken away greatly increases the overall resistance-- while the plane slid in without resistance."

I could have written that better, but I hope you get the gist. We don't see columns breaking in the middle where they were hit, we see the whole set of columns being flipped up-- which creates all sorts of problems as I described.

[LARED]

46. Your failure to understand an argument is not my fault.

I've tried many times and in different ways to get you to look at things in a more reality based framework, but I have failed in that quest.

My apologies are offered.

[spooked911]

48. please point me to your "argument" in that thread

or this thread.

Thanks.

[William Seger]

75. That would explain why "debating" with you is such a waste of time

If you will directly admit that you are completely unable to find any "argument" in what I said about that topic or this one, and I'll be happy to direct your attention to it, beginning with the definition of "argument."

[spooked911]

39. did you watch the video in question?

I haven't seen any refutation of squibs that appear ABOVE the "collapse zone". If you know of one, please provide a link.

The idea that one floor going down created so much air pressure to push out smoke from 10-15 floors above is ludicrous-- particularly when there were abundant holes near the "collapse zone" for air to move out of.

Nice bolding though.

[William Seger]

45. Of course I did, or I wouldn't have commented on it. A better question is, did you

... do as I suggested and compare it to videos of explosions to see the clear differences? Apparently not. Let me explain the difference to you in more detail, since you completely ignored the short explanation: The clouds produced by explosives expand very rapidly because the smoke and dust particles have suddenly been given a lot of momentum by a very high velocity shock wave and rapidly expanding gases. However, that motivating force only lasts for a fraction of a second, after which the smoke and dust particles rapidly lose velocity by colliding with relatively stationary air. That is not at all the behavior we see in your "squibs". Instead, those clouds leave the building at a much slower velocity than a cloud from an explosion, and then they continue at that velocity and in some cases even accelerate, which is irrefutable evidence that they are being propelled by a continuing rush of air, not a sudden and short-lived burst.

But rather than open your eyes to the actual evidence and search for the most logical explanation, you rely on your own inability to comprehend a simple fact -- that higher pressure air moves in every direction where the pressure is lower, immediately causing higher pressure in those areas, too -- to make a perfectly idiotic argument that "squibs that appear ABOVE the 'collapse zone'" are somehow extraordinary and inexplicable. Then you expect that you can reinforce that perfectly idiotic argument by simply claiming that what I clearly see happening in the videos is "ludicrous," yet the closest you can come to explaining what would possible prevent higher air pressure from also building up in the top block and forcing smoke out those windows is the naked assertion that "there were abundant holes near the 'collapse zone' for air to move out of." So according to you, we should therefore conclude that those clouds that look exactly like air being forced out, and nothing like explosions, were really caused by explosions.

Yup, this is pretty much like all your other "substantive posts about the WTC" -- irrational nonsense offered as "evidence" for extraordinary claims.

[spooked911]

54. Several points

First, I looked at the videos in an earlier thread when you asked me to.

Second, I understand the concept about air pressure.

Third, I don't think the difference in behavior of the squibs is as clear as you state.

Fourth, you wrote "those clouds .... in some cases even accelerate, which is irrefutable evidence that they are being propelled by a continuing rush of air, not a sudden and short-lived burst."-- you're making shit up.

Fifth, squibs below the "collapse" zone can be explained more easily as the standard model of collapse assumes the intact upper block of tower is compressing the air downwards in the direction of the "collapse". Squibs above the "collapse" zone are not so easily explained, and yet you act as if they are the same thing.

Sixth, I made perfectly logical and rational rebuttals about air pressure:
a) it wasn't a closed system due to the massive holes in the sides of the tower, thus, pressure can not have built up inside the tower at the onset of the destruction.
b) the squibs start instantaneously with the destruction, and are not reactions to the compression of the tower floors.

Seventh, there are clear tight squibs on that west face of the tower, not "clouds".

Eighth, squibs can be caused by explosions.

Ninth, there is nothing extraordinary about the claim that a tower that underwent total devastation was in fact blown up by explosives. It is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.

Tenth, there is nothing irrational about what I have written here, though I know how desperate you are to refute me.

[William Seger]

62. That's funny, in a pathetic sort of way.

You enumerate all those reasons to avoid understanding some dirt-simple physics and continue ignoring what your own evidence really shows, simply reasserting the same refuted claim, and then you say "I know how desperate you are to refute me."

Well, if anyone is really desperate to disabuse you of your delusions, Spooky, I think they're in for a lot of disappointment. Your defenses are impenetrable.

[spooked911]

65. do you honestly think the WTC was a closed system?

Not that I expect an honest or straight answer from you... but I might as well keep up the little game for a bit more...

[William Seger]

66. WTF

... does "closed system" have to do with it? But no, of course it wasn't a closed system: the videos show that the high-pressure air inside the building escaped through every available pathway -- just as one would expect, if one A) can understand what was causing that high pressure and B) had some rudimentary understanding of how pressured gases behave, and C) was seriously interested in understanding what the videos show. Instead, you try to conjure up reason after silly reason to assert that higher pressure couldn't possible build up above the collapse zone, so those clouds which look exactly like pneumatic air flows and nothing like explosions must really be explosions. I dare say that if the subject were not WTC and your ridiculous demolition theories, you really are bright enough to see what's wrong with that ridiculous argument. So in fact you are playing games -- with your own head.

There's your honest and straight answer. Deal with it.

[spooked911]

67. we're talking about air pressure and you don't know what a "closed system" has to do with it?

Really?

The building was venting air massively BEFORE it went down, and it wasn't venting out tight squibs of air.

So all of a sudden, the building starts to tilt, and squibs come shooting out the far side and up much higher from the breakage point-- and there wasn't even any fire there!

Smoke thrust out from floors smashing together at the "collapse" zone would come out at that point. There really is nothing wrong about wondering about explosives as a cause of those squibs. You need to explain how exactly the air flow would push dark smoke out way high up and away from the breakage point-- when there wasn't even any fire there.

[LARED]

68. Do you understand that the floors above the

tilt level were filled with smoke? Yes?

[spooked911]

69. I'm sure there was some smoke in the levels above the fires

-- it's hard to know how much. A huge amount of smoke was venting out various holes. This doesn't address the issue though of air pressure, nor of the squibs.

[William Seger]

70. We're talking about air pressure in a system that obviously wasn't closed...

... and once again you are attempting to substitute your imaginary physics for the simple explanation for what we see in videos and photos. And as is typical, you can neither refute that explanation nor explain why your "explosions" don't look like explosions. You just deny whatever is said to you with only the lamest attempt at rebuttal, if that, and keep making the same unsubstantiated assertions over and over.

I also have a simple explanation for why this characterizes the entirety of your 9/11 "research": This is what typically happens when you start with a conclusion and search backwards through the evidence looking for nothing but validation, but your conclusion is simply wrong. That approach also causes you to miss obvious things like this:

> "So all of a sudden, the building starts to tilt, and squibs come shooting out the far side and up much higher from the breakage point-- and there wasn't even any fire there!"

Gee, looks like another clue, Sherlock: The building starts to fall and then we see your "explosions."

[spooked911]

73. No-- the squibs were concomitant with the tilt

as I said several times, the squibs were not a simple result of the tilt and smashed floors. The "then" is yours.

[William Seger]

76. Total bullshit

I suggest you watch that video again. If your delusions still prevent you from accurately seeing what's happening, I suggest that some frame grabs will settle the issue. I further suggest a small wager on the outcome.

Ball is in your court.

[spooked911]

83. The initial squibs were indeed concomitant with the tilt.

Though they do get bigger as the tilt increases, if that is what you are referring to. But the squibs start when the tilt starts, and get worse. There is essentially no delay in the appearance of the squibs, in contrast to what one would expect if compressed air had to move though hundred feet of random space to blow out specific windows for some unclear reason. Of course the whole idea that the squibs are from air pressure from below is fairly ridiculous, but that is your argument, and I guess you're sticking to it, as you have no choice in the matter. Couldn't admit that I might have a point. No, that would be a disaster, apparently. Just like you couldn't admit the 757 didn't line up with the Shanksville crater, and you just couldn't "see" what I was talking about.

[William Seger]

86. Can't you ever admit that you are simply wrong?

I offered you a wager on whether individual frames captures would show the collapse starting before the "squibs" appear. You persist in denying that, yet you won't take the bet? It can be as small as one dollar, if you prefer.

BTW, Webster defines "concomitant" as "accompanying especially in a subordinate or incidental way." Since that's a reasonably accurate use of the word in this case, maybe you should find a word that better describes your delusion view of what happened.

> "There is essentially no delay in the appearance of the squibs, in contrast to what one would expect if compressed air had to move though hundred feet of random space to blow out specific windows for some unclear reason."

When you hear sound coming from your speakers, do you imagine that air molecules are traveling from the speakers to your ears? Or do you recognize that sound waves are pressure waves, and that the air that was already in your ears is simply reacting to them? If so, what does that tell you about the speed with which pressure waves propagate through air? Perhaps somewhere around the speed of sound?

As I said, you simply do not understand how pressurized gases behave, yet you are attempting to support a highly implausible theory with nothing but your own ignorance and imaginary, concocted physics. And you're seriously asking me to admit that you "might have a point?" Sorry, but I can't really respond to that request without violating DU's civility rules.

All this does remind me of your willful blindness about the Shanksville crater, and your belief that simply denying the obvious should be good enough to keep your unsubstantiated and discredited assertions floating.

[LARED]

87. That's a pretty high bar

as a reminder you are asking this of someone that believes there are alien overlords that have the earth under a quarantine of some sort, that no-planes hit the WTC towers, or the Pentagon, and seriously believes that the number 33 somehow is a code that invites mini nukes or micro nukes into the 9/11 narrative.

Good luck

[spooked911]

92. Yes, I can admit I am wrong, I have done so before, on this board a couple of times.

But I don't think I am wrong here.

About your wager--

First, I think it is impractical to bet any money between us, anonymously.

Second, I'm not sure the outcome could be resolved to our mutual satisfaction: the video is not so black and white, nor such high resolution. It looks to me like a couple of squibs come out right before the major tilt, some squibs appear truly simultaneous with the tilt and several right after the tilt has started. So, the answer is not cut and dried.

Now, I suppose your major point is that this is different from standard controlled demo, where you see explosions and squibs well before the bldg starts to fall. I will agree to that.

But if you think about it, that would be far too obvious, if we assume they did an explosive demolition with the WTC. Clearly, they would try to mask the demolition, and make it look like a top-down collapse.

And what it look like to me, is that they blew the upper section up at the exact same time they started the charges that mimicked the collapse at the airplane hit region.

Your explanation that the air pressure in the WTC, in clearly an open system, could travel like sound waves, but be so strong as to blow out specific windows many floors up, with tight squibs of smoke, is simply absurd. I don't know how you can write that with any honesty. There are just so many things wrong with that argument.

If we are going to argue, let us not argue about the timing of the squibs, but about the feasibility of air pressure from floors falling down, causing those tight squibs to spurt out over ten floors up.

[William Seger]

93. Jeez... Pressure changes DO propagate at the speed of sound...

... by definition; the air inside the building HAD to get out somewhere, and it got out EVERYWHERE it could; there are NO "squibs" before the collapse started; and those "squibs" DO look exactly like pneumatic air flows, and NOT AT ALL like explosions. Your entire argument has been shredded beyond repair and all you have to say for yourself is that it's "simply absurd" and you just don't know how I "can write that with any honesty."

Looks to me like we're finished. Again.

[zappaman]

94. but but

if doesn't look right to someone with no grasp of physics.
what more proof do you need?

[spooked911]

98. No, the pressure changes would move at the speed dictated by the force of the compressed air

and that pressure would be completely dissipated in the open system of the fractured WTC-- before it blew out discrete windows many floors above.

"those "squibs" DO look exactly like pneumatic air flows, and NOT AT ALL like explosions"

Really, William? Really???

There's no way in your mind that those squibs could be the by-product of explosives going off?

[zappaman]

99. "There's no way in your mind that those squibs could be the by-product of explosives going off? "

I say NO.
The reason would be that I didn't come to some outlandish conclusion based upon the premise that no planes hit the WTC and then work backwards trying desperately to find things that "didn't look right" and would thus strengthen my flawed hypothesis.
I'm sure William will have his own answer, but I felt you might want to hear from one of the billions of others who finds the "theory" that no planes hit the WTC to be the goofiest "theory" in recent history.

[spooked911]

101. goofy doesn't mean wrong.

I'm sure the Catholic church thought Galileo was goofy too.

And the problem is none of you can seem to mount proper counter-arguments to the evidence I've produced, for the most part.

[zappaman]

103. "the problem is none of you can seem to mount proper counter-arguments to the evidence I've produced

funniest line ever!
the problem is your understanding of "evidence" and your lack of understanding of the arguments, based on logic and reason, that run contrary to your WRONG beliefs.
and now you are comparing yourself to Galileo?
outstanding!

[spooked911]

113. Yes-- I will repeat it:

the problem is none of you can seem to mount proper counter-arguments to the evidence I've produced.

I'm still waiting for a specific mechanism for how the WTC south wall columns get left in the hole made by the "plane". I'm also still waiting for a proper explanation for how "collapsing floors" produced tight explosive-like squibs far away from the "collapse" zone. Still waiting for Seger to admit that a 757 doesn't fit into the Shanksville crater. Et cetera.

[William Seger]

115. No, you are not "waiting' for any such thing

You have correctly deduced that the answers will shatter your delusional "evidence," so you have constructed an impenetrable wall of deliberate blindness and willful ignorance around them.

So you will be "waiting" forever for me to "admit" that a 757 doesn't exactly fit that crater:



How many times do you need to be told that your own bias-driven misconceptions about how things "ought" to look are not evidence of anything except what's going on between your own two ears?

[spooked911]

117. yes, it's delusional to realize that the starboard wing was traveling forwards

(to the top in your GIF), and that this means the wing crater is very much in the wrong place. I'm also sorry that it's delusional to think that the fuselage would have scooped out more of the bottom side of the crater. And I'm sorry that you KNOW that if you move that starboard wing to align with the wing crater better, that this presents an even bigger problem for the lack of crater damage from the fuselage.

I'm so sorry.

[William Seger]

130. Good grief

Now we're back to your "evidence" being your own inability to visualize in three dimensions. As you were repeatedly told and obviously still don't understand, that graphic was intended to show the point at which the nose had already entered into the crater and the wings are at the ground level, so "the starboard wing was traveling forwards" right into that trench! So is the other wing, and the engines are headed right parts of the crater that are larger than the wing trenches. And your attention was repeatedly called to what that nose crater really looked like, by simply looking at other photos from the side, regardless of how "shallow" it looks in that photo, and you still refused to comprehend that a 757 fits into that crater like a glove. That entire "debate" was a classic example of why you really need to find a new hobby.

[spooked911]

137. Really?

perhaps you could produce a better graphic then.

"that graphic was intended to show the point at which the nose had already entered into the crater and the wings are at the ground level, so "the starboard wing was traveling forwards" right into that trench!"

Um, no. The wings would strike the ground well above where the trench is, as your graphic shows.

[SDuderstadt]

105. Your capacity for cognitive dissonance is...

nothing short of amazing, dude.

[William Seger]

110. I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself just because you are

But I'll summarize where we are, one last time:

1. Your patently false assertion about the speed at which pressure waves propagate through air proves that you simply don't understand how gases behave, and that's just one example of how you continue to offer arguments, lame rebuttals and denials based on nothing but such misconceptions;
   
   
2. those "squibs" definitely appear after the collapse had already started;
   
   
3. those puffs of air are easily explained by the indisputable fact that the air in the building had to be forced out by the collapse, regardless of what initiated the collapse;
   
   
4. there is absolutely no credible evidence that explosives initiated the collapse, and absolutely no need for any such hypothesis;
   
   
5. even if you disregard that lack of evidence and speculate that explosives did initiate the collapse, you haven't answered jberryhills's question below about why there would be explosions up in the top block after the collapse had already started below, and what they could possibly have to do with that collapse;
   
   
6. those "squibs" certainly do not look like they were caused by explosives, and your only response to the logical reason I gave was naked denial;
   
   
7. because of (5) there is absolutely no rational reason to try to imagine convoluted ways that they could somehow have been caused by explosives even though they don't look like they were and can be easily explained without any such hypothesis;
   
   
8. but if you insist on doing so anyway, and if you insist on trying to refute the simple explanation, then "reasons" based on nothing but ignorance, imaginary physics, and hand-waving denials certainly won't do the trick.
   

After all that, just where the hell do you get the chutzpah to say that "none of you can seem to mount proper counter-arguments to the evidence I've produced?" The evidence you've produced -- the video -- actually refutes your ridiculously implausible hypothesis and all that's really needed is pointing out the abject incompetence of your analysis.

And then you compare yourself to Galileo? Galileo who?

[spooked911]

111. Let's take #1--

say there are two floors that we can move together at variable speeds experimentally, in a closed chamber, and then we can measure the speed of the air exiting from between the compressed floors-- say through a hole in the chamber that is midway between the two floors. Are you saying that the exit speed of the air will be the same, regardless of whether the floors move together at 1 foot per second, and 100 feet per second?

[William Seger]

114. What th'....?

I'm pretty sure I've expressed myself more clearly than that, Spooky. Please stop inserting your misconceptions into my arguments.

As best I can tell, you're still confusing "speed of the air" with the pressure of the air. Again, this is direct evidence that you simply do not understand the behavior of gases. As I said, just as it isn't necessary for air to travel from your speakers to your ears for you to hear the sound they are making, there was absolutely no need for air to physically travel from the collapse zone to those broken windows to blow smoke out the windows. All that's needed is a pressure difference. You are attempting to use your inability to understand this simple fact as evidence of something ridiculously implausible.

So instead of wasting time trying to untangle the misconception that leads you to propose that pointless experiment, let's consider one that's actually relevant. But let's begin by reiterating this simple, obvious, and irrefutable fact: Those "squibs" simply show that the air pressure inside the building at those windows was greater than the pressure outside the building. Wherever there is a higher pressure, the air will expand in any and all directions of lower pressure. The exit speed of the air from those windows will be a function of how large that pressure difference is, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with your fallacious argument that the "squibs" appear too soon after the collapse starts. That will be a function of how fast a pressure gradient propagates through air, not how fast the air is moving, and by definition, that propagation speed is the speed of sound.

So let's instead consider an experiment that directly addresses your misconception about how air pressure works, and your primary misconception about what we're seeing in the video. Let's say we have a pipe 200 feet long, full of smoke, with a piston in one end. If we violently strike the piston, how long does it take before smoke is ejected from the other end of the pipe?

Please try to focus only on the question actually asked: I'm not asking how fast the smoke is moving when it's ejected; I'm asking how long does it take between the piston starting to move and smoke starting to be ejected?

The correct answer to that question shows why your argument is totally fallacious, yet you keep claiming that your inability to understand the answer means that nobody has refuted that argument.

[spooked911]

116. I assume you want me to say the smoke will come out immediately after you push in the piston

So what? That is a completely closed system and is completely unlike what we are dealing with at the WTC!

I just don't understand how you can pretend that the air from the collapsing WTC floor went directly into ten different pipes that led to those widows emitting the squibs, and that the air had NO WHERE else to go.

What YOU should consider is modifying your experiment, where the end of the pipe was a grid, and you rammed in a piston that was far too narrow for the pipe. Then tell me how smoke *only* comes out of a few select holes in the grid on the other end. That would at least be analogous somewhat, to the WTC.

Or-- even better, make a pipe with hundreds of different winding channels along its length, with a grid on one end, and then at the end where you put in the piston, cut some holes in the pipe. And then see if smoke comes out of only a few holes of the grid.



My experiment addressed the point that the velocity of air will make a difference in terms of how the air travels and dissipates.

[zappaman]

118. "I just don't understand"

Truer words have never been spoken.

[spooked911]

119. Yes, you're awesome for taking my statement out of context.

And you're awesome as well, for apparently not understanding how wrong Seger is here.

[zappaman]

121. ok Spooked

show my why Seger is wrong.
I've read every single post you have written on this and you have yet to prove him wrong.
The simple fact is you either don't understand or don't want to understand his valid points.
Maybe you should have someone you know with better reading skills or a rudimentary knowledge of physics explain to you what Seger is pointing out.
Maybe a 6th grader could help?

[spooked911]

127. actually, I demolished him in my last post about air pressure--

the post you mocked.

If you can't see why he is wrong, there is no point conversing with you.

[William Seger]

132. Musta been a controlled demolition

:rofl:

I kill me.

[spooked911]

140. Yeah, it was.

Glad to know you have no serious rebuttal.

[William Seger]

143. Yup,, it was exactly like your WTC controlled demolition

... a figment of your delusions.

[zappaman]

133. you "demolished" him?

I must have missed that.
I'll re-read all your posts and edit this one when I find your post that "demolishes" him.
Stay tuned....

[LARED]

123. Spooked, have you considered that

not every window in the WTC was gone (in the squib zone), that perhaps some windows were missing and some were intact.

[spooked911]

126. Yes.

Have you considered that the south tower was not an air-tight closed system?

[AZCat]

129. It didn't have to be.

I take it you've never designed a compressed air distribution system.

[LARED]

134. No one is saying that (except maybe you. It's hard to tell what you are

saying)

So please explain how the fact that it was not an airtight system is important?

[spooked911]

135. because

that means the squibs were from explosives.

I thought that was obvious.

[zappaman]

136. what is obvious

is your willingness to reject all the evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived notions.
sad, really.

[spooked911]

139. Sorry, but you are so wrong

for whatever reason, you are wrong. Willingly wrong, or stubborn or something else, who knows.

[LARED]

145. Once again I ponder if you are really that detached from

reality, or are you running some kind of weird psychological experiment to quantify how much BS can be tossed about and still have people respond.

[William Seger]

131. No, it's not a "closed system"

You're trying to wrap your misconceptions in scientific-sounded terms, but at least we have made a tiny bit of progress: You now admit that air pressure gradients travel at the speed of sound. Now, all that's needed is for you to wrap your head around another simply concept: If we were to add more holes along the length of the pipe, that certainly doesn't slow down the pressure wave. All that would do is relieve some of the pressure, so the pressure change at the far end would not be as great as it would be if there were no other holes. Here's what you're really trying to say, but can't quite untangle your misconceptions enough to say clearly: It's conceivable that you could add enough holes that very little, if any, pressure change would be seen at the far end of the pipe. But you seem to have already forgotten that what we were really discussing here is how long it would take the pressure gradient to reach those broken windows where we see "squibs." We were discussing that because your confusion between air pressure and air speed caused you to offer the fallacious argument that we see the "squibs" too soon after the collapse started.

So, since the speed is now a settled issue, on to your other misconception. The fact that we do clearly see air forcing smoke out those broken windows simply indicates that your supposition that other exits for the air were sufficient to keep pressure from building up on those upper floors is simply wrong. Duh.

[spooked911]

138. It depends on the size of the holes in your newest example--

a large hole would darn well offset your speed of sound pressure wave.

The fact is that your "piston" in the case of the WTC "collapse", was not a tight fit, and smoke would simply exit out around the end you put the weak fitting piston it. Assuming of course, that your pipe model is ANYTHING like the WTC, which it really is not.

I could do without your condescending attitude. You don't need to be an ass about this.

[William Seger]

142. Do you also think loud sounds travel faster than faint ones?

Will you never tire of making a fool of yourself? Each additional hole in the pipe would certainly reduce the pressure at the end of the pipe, because some of the energy from the compression would exit out each hole. But it would have absolutely no effect on the speed of the pressure gradient propagation, which I apparently need to remind you once again was the subject of that particular "thought experiment."

You simply have no idea what you're talking about, but you persist in claiming your ignorant misconceptions as "evidence" of something extraordinary.

So, the question you're really trying to address -- or at least ought to be, if you had any idea what you're talking about -- is, how large of a hole or how many small holes would you need before the pressure at the end of the pipe would not increase enough to blow a "squib" out the end?

You have absolutely no idea -- not the first foggy clue how to even begin to estimate that -- and your misconceptions about pressure certainly aren't going to help when you make your wild-ass guess. Yet you don't let that ignorance stop you from claiming that at the WTC, there "ought" to have been enough air exits that there "ought not" have been that much pressure that far above the collapse zone. More than 40,000 cubic feet of air on each floor was being forced out of the building in a matter of a seconds, but you don't think the pressure "ought" to be high enough to explain those clearly pneumatic flows in that video. Nope, that's not how things "ought" to work in your fantasyland where conspiracy delusions can always be supported by delusional physics, so it must be explosives, even though those "squibs" don't look anything at all like expanding clouds from explosives.

All you've got is just another argument from incredulity -- just like all your other "research" -- and it's an idiotic argument: Those "squibs" are very easily explained, and your denials based on imaginary physics have failed to make a dent in that simple explanation.

And BTW, I seriously don't give a damn what you think about my attitude: You've accused me of not only being dishonest but of being complicit in the cover-up of a mass murder, simply because I frequently point out that your arguments are totally full of shit and you are incapable of actually defending them with valid facts and sound reasoning. For some reason (most likely your general disconnect from reality), you and other "truthers" don't seem to comprehend what kind of reaction you're going to get when you toss around accusations like that and your "evidence" is nothing but a tall, stinking pile of bullshit. If you don't like my attitude, then take your bullshit back to your blog and stop polluting the board with it. If your prophet complex just won't allow you to do that, then I guess you'll just have to suffer the consequences of repeatedly being ridiculed for repeatedly making stupid arguments.

[zappaman]

144. ummmm...

ditto

[spooked911]

146. once again--

The fact is that your "piston" in the case of the WTC "collapse", was not a tight fit, and smoke would simply exit out around the end that you put the weak fitting piston in. Your pipe model is nothing like the WTC.

The falling floor would create a local disturbance in air pressure that would be released through the massive holes in the tower next to the break point. Since the system was not closed, or even close to being closed, the air pressure would not propagate significantly to the upper floors.

The south tower destruction was NOT a simple collapse, maybe at some point that will penetrate your conscience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw

[William Seger]

147. And once again

... you seem to think if you just never admit that your argument is stupid, then it isn't.

My calculation was off by an order of magnitude, BTW: There were something over 500,000 cubic feet of air on each floor. The initial collapse actually involved two floors when the sagging floor pulled the perimeter columns in, so there were over a million cubic feet of air that had to go somewhere else in about two seconds. I'm not sure what the minimum IQ would be required to understand those "squibs" but you've convinced me that there's some reason you never will. Just like that Shanksville crater. We're finished here.

[SDuderstadt]

148. I admire your patiience....

Seger. One needs a lot of it to contend with people who embrace fantasy and delusion.

[spooked911]

153. Once again, you seem to think calling me stupid or delusional will change my mind...

"so there were over a million cubic feet of air that had to go somewhere else"

Yeah-- in case you didn't notice, there were major expulsions of debris-laden air right where the tower destruction started. And what you *haven't* explained is how that air traveled through tens of undamaged floors to vent out in specific locations.

Really, your whole "timing" argument is a side issue anyway. Saying that air pressure blowouts could be simultaneous with the collapse hardly proves it wasn't explosions. The key issue is how likely was it that pressurized air from compacting floors could vent upwards through multiple floors and then out a few select windows on the opposite side from the breakage. And it is odd how squibs were on that west side but not on the east side.

And again, the air had a much easier time venting out the massive holes where the destruction started.

[William Seger]

155. NOTHING will change your mind

... which is completely irrelevant. The only thing really relevant is your inability to defend your arguments and respond to mine. Ridiculing you is just a side show.

The only explanation necessary is the one I already gave you, and you ignored: Higher pressure air will expand into EVERY place where there is lower pressure, which in this case most definitely included elevator shafts, stairways, and HVAC ducts, and it almost immediately causes higher pressure in those areas, too. Your belief that all the air should just leak out the nearest hole, so pressure couldn't build up anywhere else is just nonsense when that much pressure built up that fast. Not only is your imagination not supported by any principle of real physics, but it contrary to some very simple principles, and it fails to explain why your own video certainly appears to show exactly what you claim can't happen.

I haven't claimed anything that "proves it wasn't explosions." All I've proved is that your arguments are bullshit. Once again, the simple principle that you fail to recognize is that when a perfectly reasonable explanation exists for those "squibs" then YOU are the one who has to prove that it isn't correct. And when you claim something as implausible as explosives are a better explanation, then you damn well need some good evidence and solid reasoning. You have failed. Miserably. End of story.

[spooked911]

157. Except that the top of the tower completely disintegrated in mid air as it fell.

This of course strongly supports explosives, in that upper region, if it doesn't outright prove it.

Higher air pressure will also travel through the path of least resistance. In this case, that would be out the side of the falling floors-- NOT through closed elevator doors and closed stairwell doors and a maze of ductwork. Get real.

Will anything change my mind? Yes, if someone could properly (physically not digitally) model a tower like the WTC and show it can disintegrate in a manner analogous to what happened to the WTC. Until then, the weight of the evidence, to me, supports explosives. And the weight of the evidence supports explosives to lots and lots of other people-- so please stop the bullshit that I am some sort of unusual level of kook.

[terrafirma]

159. The top of the tower completely disintegrated in mid-air???

I must've missed that video.

But let's assume you're on to something. Again, why go through trouble of planting explosives at the top of the tower since you also contend that mini-nukes and basement bombs were set off as well? That seems like overkill to me if all you're trying to do is make the building collapse.

[spooked911]

161. well, most videos of the south tower destruction show this

the upper block breaks apart and turns into a cloud of debris.

Why did they do this?

I can only guess, as I didn't plan it. I can only really see what they did.

Apparently they were going for total destruction of the towers, and it worked.

[terrafirma]

165. Exactly...

... breaking apart into debris is what generally happens in structural failures.

Why your brain needs to add nuclear weaponry into the equation is beyond me.

[spooked911]

166. the breaking apart was much more rapid and powerful than can be accounted for by gravity--

that is one reason to say there were nuclear weapons. There are other reasons, one important one is the heat that was generated at Ground Zero for months after 9/11, which was the China Syndrome reaction.

[LARED]

168. China Syndrome reaction.???????

Jeez, I missed that is chemistry class.

[spooked911]

172. Yes, the China Syndrome

http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com/

[LARED]

173. Spooked, you are the best

The best.

[terrafirma]

170. I assume you can back up your assertion

that gravity alone cannot account for the destruction we see.

[spooked911]

171. lots of people have proven demolition

I analyzed some of the numbers here:
http://bogus911science.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/the-three-fatal-flaws-in-bazants-wtc-concrete-pulverization-calculations-and-why-his-calculations-really-support-nuclear-demolition/

More here:
http://bogus911science.wordpress.com/

[spooked911]

167. see this video, for instance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DChR1XcYhlw&feature=player_embedded

[spooked911]

154. And, as I said when I first posted this, I was curious what your explanation would be

I figured you OCTists would say it was air-pressure escaping, not explosive squibs. And I guess I should have predicted that not one person here could give a specific mechanism to explain how the squibs appeared on those select floors well above the breakage point, on that one specific side of the tower... despite all your unbreakable confidence that those were indeed air pressure releases from the collapse.

Oh well.

[terrafirma]

156. You seem to find the location

of these squibs of some importance. Since it is your belief that these squibs indicate explosives, then perhaps you can explain the significance of the floors from which they appear, and only on that "one specific side of the tower".

The construction of the towers was pretty uniform from floor to floor with maybe the exception of the skylobbies.

Why would explosives be needed in those specific locations?

(And while you're reading this, why was the PTB worried about damaging surrounding buildings?)

[spooked911]

158. Apparently the explosives were set off assymetrically, on that one side

perhaps because explosions on that side were in the shade and in a region of the tower less obvious than the east face where the main destruction started.

In terms of surrounding bldgs, the fact is, the amazing level of destruction to the WTC didn't destroy non-WTC bldgs. Presumably that was part of the plan-- to minimize overall destruction of lower Manhattan property.

[terrafirma]

160. "Apparently", "Perhaps" and "Presumably"

are words that don't really inspire a ton of confidence for your case.

"Perhaps" that's why the truther movement hasn't gotten any sort of legitmate argument to present in court. I can't imagine any lawyer winning a case using that terminology.

[spooked911]

162. you asked why they did certain things

I can only guess at that.

What I know for a certainty is the outcome-- the towers were blown to pieces, in part by small nuclear devices.

[zappaman]

163. wow

today is one of "those" days for you, huh?
ease back on the white wine spritzers.
"small nuclear devices"...wow...just...wow.

[terrafirma]

164. No, you're not guessing.

You're STATING that they used nuclear devices.

You talk like you know what it would take to bring down the towers, to make them collapse they way they did, because the official story doesn't line up. Yet you cannot logically explain even how or why your theories would be more plausible.

"Well, maybe it's because that side was in the shade," doesn't help bolster your case one bit, Spooked.

[AZCat]

169. The problem with your prediction...

is that you seem to think our inability to explain specific minutia of the collapses somehow invalidates our explanation and confirms yours. This is incorrect. As many of us have explained to you, highly nonlinear dynamic systems are generally unpredictable and display behavior that is difficult (if not impossible) to repeat exactly. Welcome to complexity.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Let us know when you....

"make a substantive post", Spooked.

We're waiting with bated breath.

[LARED]

14. The fact that so called squibs

"are coming out at multiple floors, up to 15 floors above the "collapse" joint"

Is completely unremarkable.


The building suffered intense fire, was collapsing, hence the air inside the building found the path of least resistance to exit the building.

[spooked911]

16. It is unremarkable if you think demolition occurred

but it is remarkable in that it is inconsistent with collapse.

The least path of resistance would be the holes in the side of the tower where the plane entered and exited.

[LARED]

19. Jeez you Ct.'ers cannot get anything right today

First with the losing my license business now you are claiming it would be umnremarkable if I thought dmolition occured.

[spooked911]

24. that's not what I said

nice reading comprehension there

[Theobald]

30. I watched your video and I see what you are talking about

You are labeling as squibs any sort of smoke that comes out of the building. I would guess that as the top of the building is compressing windows are breaking and the heated smoke is pouring out from areas it had no escape from before. This combined with the air compressing would help to push the smoke out.

As to you implication that these puffs or plumes of smoke are caused by explosion I fail to see how this would work. Why would you have explosive charges at such a high level? It makes no sense it would not help with the implosion that is taking place beneath it and generally speaking is just plain stupid.

[spooked911]

31. I'm glad you watched the video and you see the squibs.

The thing is that they are coming out simultaneous with the top starting to tilt-- it doesn't look to me like they are a reaction to collapse but rather they are coincident with the start of destruction.

As to why they would explode the whole top, there are reasons-- such as trying to minimize the chunk coming down to lessen the nearby damage-- and it's pretty clear the large upper chunk that came off WTC2 disintegrated as it fell down. But it doesn't really matter so much WHY they did it here, as that they did it.

[deconstruct911]

36. The top block was turned

to dust, other than the outer steel walls which fell outwards in each direction.

This raises the most important question to the official explanation of the collapse. If the upper floors turned to dust well before the collapse was over, what caused the progressive collapse? Certainly not the top block which was turned to dust….The same top block which ejected human fragments to other nearby buildings.


The block also falls to the east. In fact directly on top of WTC 4. WTC 4 was important to destroy when you examine the 9 11 fraud. Easily as important as tower 7.However as you pointed out, the top block was turned to dust, so WTC 4was destroyed from within, using the south tower collapse as cover. (All that gold below WTC 4 and Deutsche bank was the primary tenant in the office space) I conclude the tilt that is a big anomaly was in fact a big success.

[zappaman]

37. great conclusion

are you planning on presenting your astounding findings to anyone in the government?
or just the usual dozen or so troofers who still spout the same stuff over and over again?
please do everyone a favor and take a simple course in physics.

[spooked911]

38. I think many of us have tried presenting this to people in govt

they won't listen. Not interested. For obvious reasons.

I don't think taking a simple course in physics is going to resolve this problem.

OTOH, I do wonder if you will ever get tired of your continuous pooh-poohing of any non-official conspiracy.

[JuniperLea]

97. Tiny little poofs of air = Squibs

How do you explain the tiny little poofs as opposed to windows blown out, etc.

[spooked911]

120. maybe the windows WERE blown out

but the question is-- why were they blown out?

And given the scale here, I wouldn't say these are tiny little poofs.

[JuniperLea]

122. I'm just saying...

I don't believe big ol windows can produce tiny (everything being relative) little concentrated puffs like we see in the videos. You'd more likely see shattered glass blowing out if it were compressed air in the building.

[spooked911]

128. I'm not sure where you're coming down on this

but I hold the squibs-- the concentrated puffs-- are not simply compressed air from the collapse blowing out the windows, but rather from internal explosives.

[LARED]

13. you think the WTC was built like an ICE?

ICE?

What is an ICE?

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. Internal Combustion Engine, I'm guessing n/t

[LARED]

28. I think you're right, lets see if BeFree will confirm nt

[LARED]

15. Here's a question for you

If you are in a room with door and an open window with curtains. What happens to the curtains when you quickly close, or open the door? Do they move? Why do they move?

[zappaman]

22. spooked did you just wake up?

so-called "squibs" at the WTC were debunked years ago.
you should get out more.
or at least read up on elementary physics.
can't wait to see what you post next that "doesn't look right".
have you ever asked yourself why so many things "don't look right" to you?
ever google "spooked 911".
the second hit pretty much nails it.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Most of Spooked's posts...

"don't look right to me". In fact, I can't recall one that did look right.

[spooked911]

25. These squibs are different from ones typically talked about

as they occur ABOVE the "collapse" zone.

If someone has "debunked" the ones I am referring to here, please provide the reference.

[terrafirma]

34. Personally...

... I would expect any squibs produced by mini-nukes to be a little more dramatic than what we see here.

[LARED]

35. Well if you don't believe in mini-nukes,

can I sell you some micro-nukes. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/04/16/ward.htm

and you don't have to worry about this silly CT losing steam I sure there are nano-nukes lurking around somewhere in the top secret government black ops nuke weapons closet. See here http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread437869/pg1

The only thing smaller than a nano-nuke is the evidence that any nukes were used at the WTC

[spooked911]

50. plenty of evidence, actually

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/10/brief-new-summary-wtc-destruction-high.html

[zappaman]

52. bwhahahahahahaahahaha

seriously?
You think that there is "evidence" on that site?
"Imaginative Speculation" might be a more appropriate term.
Spooked, there really isn't any conspiracy theory you don't believe, is there?
Once again, I ask you, do you have the courage to face the people who lost loved ones on 9/11 and spout this stuff?

[spooked911]

56. yes, there is plenty of evidence there

as desperately as you try to wave it away.

I would be happy to talk to someone who lost a loved one on 9/11 about this. Of course, I wouldn't be crass enough to start talking about the worst aspects of 9/11 right away. I'm actually not sure what your point is. You think I am a coward about this?

[SDuderstadt]

59. Jesus, Spooked....

you took the words right out of my mouth. By all means, seek out a victim's family and start spouting your goofy bullshit to them and see what happens. Make sure to take pictures.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

64. Spooked

you do know that is against DU rules, right?
Please go here and offer your theories of what really happened that day.
I'm sure they would LOVE to hear them.

http://www.survivorsnet.org/

or here

http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/resources.aspx?s=10

[zappaman]

60. Sorry, Spooked

I just realized that it is your site.
No wonder you think it is "evidence".
Trust me, you would not be happy to talk to anyone who lost someone on that day...

[jberryhill]

100. Taking these as evidence of explosives...

...then what possible contribution are they making to the collapse at a position "far above the collapse zone"?

[spooked911]

112. I already addressed that above when someone else asked it.

But the most likely explanation is the perps didn't want to the huge upper block of the tower sliding off to the side and falling en masse and damaging bldgs outside the WTC complex.

[terrafirma]

124. Correct me if I'm wrong...

... but there were buildings outside the WTC that were damaged.

And why exactly would the perps be worried about them anyway?? According to you, they just nuked the two most iconic buildings in New York City. Are you saying they were worried about not being able to shop at Century 21 for a couple months while they stayed at the Hilton?

[zappaman]

125. it just gets goofier

don't it?
so, the government goes to all the trouble and fakes planes hitting the WTC so they can nuke the buildings but are worried about a piece sliding off and hitting another building?
spooked, do you ever listen to yourself?
you have crossed over into the realm of fantasy.

[terrafirma]

151. Still waiting...

On an explanation as to why the PTB were so worried about damaging surrounding buildings.

[zappaman]

152. don't hold your breath

it's gonna take some time to come up with some cokamamie answer

[Make7]

102. How do we know this isn't another example of video fakery? ( n/t )

[zappaman]

104. "another example"?

please provide others in regards to 9/11.
is it the fake planes they greenscreened in to make it look like they hit the WTC?

[SDuderstadt]

106. Make7 just forgot to include...

the sarcasm symbol, dude. Relax...Spooked is not gaining adherents.

[zappaman]

107. ok

I just figured since I have been shown the obvious "evidence" of greenscreening and am now a believer, that others have too.

[Make7]

109. I would actually like to know how it was determined that this video is not fake. ( n/t )