Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
exactly..no one verified much of anything they just ignored and destroyed evidence and made up a story
So what substance can melt steel and keep it in a molten state under oxygen starved conditions for weeks?
Well now that's the mystery isn't it? Do you have any suggestions?
"Squibs"EXPLOSIONS-
There were many reports and witnesses to explosions within the WTC towers. These came from many sources that included news reporters who were told to step back because of reports of 2ndary devices. There were witnesses to huge explosions in the basements as well.
It would seem logical that an investigation would include some analysis of these explosions.
The WTC was bombed in 1993 afterall, and so many people on 9-11 reported this.
Something ripped through the WTC 1 concourse lobby at about the time of the impact, blowing out windows and crumpling steel doors. The same blast even knocked marble slabs off the walls in the lobby. Custodians also heard explosions in the WTC 1 basement. A machine shop was wrecked, as well as a car garage.
NIST, has never identified an energy source in the WTC capable of producing such massive explosions.
We can see on videos explosions taking place throughout the towers, some many stories below the collapse fronts. I even found one video that shows a person being blown out of a window...
We can also see that much of the towers were pulverized by some energy source that remains unidentified. If this were a collapse with floors pancaking down on top of each other, we should expect to see some floors remaining relatively intact, in the middle of the "pancaked" floors primarily.
Each floor of the 110 story WTC towers, one acre in size, consisted of a 4-inch thick slabs of concrete on a deck of 22 gauge steel. During the collapse some force pulverized nearly all of this concrete into dust.
The concrete wasn't pulverized as the 1 acre floors hit the ground, but instead, they seemingly were pulverized in midair as the buildings explosively disintegrated.
One towers top section even tilted, but mysteriously instead of toppling over, it disintegrated and there were forcible ejections of massive tons of building materials.
Concrete wasn't the only thing to be disintegrated as many of the furnishings, like desks, chairs, storage cabinets, and people were blown to bits. Some bone fragments were found way across the street on the Deutsch Bank building.
Less than 300 corpses were recovered in the wreckage.
Workers found more than 700 slivers of bone, on the roof and within the that structure.
These towers did not seem to pancake floor by floor, and provide any resistance, instead they looked to just be exploding one by one in rapid succession. The towers fell straight down as if there was no resistance whatsoever., as we can see plumes of ejected materials exploding out of the buildings with great force, and again some of these plumes were 10-20- stories BELOW the collapse fronts. This would rule out them being "air" caused by the "pancaking" floors.
So I challenge any of you OC theorists, to explain this and point out what the NIST report has to say regarding these other anomalies...
Could gravity turn massive slabs of concrete, thousands of tons of material, into fine dust, in midair?
2012 New WTC Demolition Flashes and Loud Explosions (Analysis) - YouTube
Conspiracy theories are often built around anomalies which are difficult to prove either way. The "assumptionists" are convinced they know what the anomaly is. One such anomaly is the so called "Squibs".
They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of Controlled Demolition. It's often followed by more video of charges going off in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase its explosive strength with time.
So what is this then? Why would debris jet out of windows far below the collapse?
It could be a number of things, by themselves or in combination. One reasonable explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they pancaked, (Please read the link to explain the NIST / Pancaking issue) pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Another is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.
During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space. There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...
Matt Komorowski: The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.
Stone Phillips: Like a gust of wind, behind you.
Matt Komorowski: Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.
http://www.acfd.com/miracle_of_ladder_company_6.htm
BILL BUTLER, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: We took two steps down from the fourth floor and the building started to shake.
SALVATORE D'AGOSTINO, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: You could hear the floors pancaking one on top of the other, huge explosions.
LIM: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and faster as they get closer. What I remember the most was the wind. It created almost like a hurricane-type force and actually pushed one of the firemen right by me.
MIKE MELDRUM, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: I was flown down a flight of stairs, a little groggy for a while. I noticed somebody on a half landing just up from me, a few stairs and I thought it was one of our guys and it was David Lim.
CNN.com - Transcripts
Of course, I expect the conspiracy theorists to say this was just the explosives which caused the high wind ("He even says explosions!") but they have no evidence of explosives. We do have evidence of pancaking. The ejecta coming out of the windows of the pancaking floor was uniform across the floor and light in color. It was coming out of every floor window until the falling debris obscured its view. Controlled demolition has staggered ejecta because the charges are only on some columns. You also always see at least [some] before the collapse and not [only] during it. There are none of these jets of debris before collapse.
Another point is the amount of these so called squibs. Some are laughably small wisps of smoke. I wont even bother with these. These are people who are searching every video, frame by frame in order to find something which they can use. Some are simply glass falling and reflecting sunlight or a piece of aluminum cladding doing the same. Yet, some seem to be heavy jets out of a window on one floor and another jet of debris about 30 to 40 stories below as the collapse progresses. I have to admit, when I first saw this I didn't know what to make of it. But as I thought of the possibilities, I also thought of what it needed to be if it were a demolition. In all the controlled demolitions I've seen, there have been a large amount of explosives on almost all floors. Even some small buildings have many charges. Why would they put charges on what seems like only a couple of floors? And once the collapse progressed, why would they care about the 40th floor? When the top 70 floors are crashing down on the 40th floor; even conspiracy theorists have trouble believing that floor would stop the collapse. And even if it did, the message is sent. The towers were no longer usable after the top 70 stories fell on it. It would be an added and absurd risk to add explosives on the lower floors.
The best explanation which fits the evidence is that there were heavy objects free falling down the elevator shafts and hitting the lowest landings. The explosive force of one of these...
...hitting the elevator, then lower floors would be tremendous. Hitting an elevator below would only add to the weight and explosive effect. It would send debris away from the impact point with great force. It's not unreasonable to suspect these heavy objects obliterated the fireproofed gypsum on the way down. Couple that with the over pressure of the collapse and you have a good candidate for what we see. Is that the only thing it could be? Not at all. I, like the conspiracy theorists, don't have an inventory of every window that was broken and every piece of equipment which could have created the effect.
So, we are left with jets of debris which do not act like explosives, on not enough floors to have caused the collapse. We also have some likely explanations which do not involve explosives.
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Squibs
last time I checked you didn't know what end of a screwdriver to use...now you're claiming to know more then the builders, nist etc..."Squibs"EXPLOSIONS-
There were many reports and witnesses to explosions within the WTC towers. These came from many sources that included news reporters who were told to step back because of reports of 2ndary devices. There were witnesses to huge explosions in the basements as well.
It would seem logical that an investigation would include some analysis of these explosions.
The WTC was bombed in 1993 afterall, and so many people on 9-11 reported this.
Something ripped through the WTC 1 concourse lobby at about the time of the impact, blowing out windows and crumpling steel doors. The same blast even knocked marble slabs off the walls in the lobby. Custodians also heard explosions in the WTC 1 basement. A machine shop was wrecked, as well as a car garage.
NIST, has never identified an energy source in the WTC capable of producing such massive explosions.
We can see on videos explosions taking place throughout the towers, some many stories below the collapse fronts. I even found one video that shows a person being blown out of a window...
We can also see that much of the towers were pulverized by some energy source that remains unidentified. If this were a collapse with floors pancaking down on top of each other, we should expect to see some floors remaining relatively intact, in the middle of the "pancaked" floors primarily.
Each floor of the 110 story WTC towers, one acre in size, consisted of a 4-inch thick slabs of concrete on a deck of 22 gauge steel. During the collapse some force pulverized nearly all of this concrete into dust.
The concrete wasn't pulverized as the 1 acre floors hit the ground, but instead, they seemingly were pulverized in midair as the buildings explosively disintegrated.
One towers top section even tilted, but mysteriously instead of toppling over, it disintegrated and there were forcible ejections of massive tons of building materials.
Concrete wasn't the only thing to be disintegrated as many of the furnishings, like desks, chairs, storage cabinets, and people were blown to bits. Some bone fragments were found way across the street on the Deutsch Bank building.
Less than 300 corpses were recovered in the wreckage.
Workers found more than 700 slivers of bone, on the roof and within the that structure.
These towers did not seem to pancake floor by floor, and provide any resistance, instead they looked to just be exploding one by one in rapid succession. The towers fell straight down as if there was no resistance whatsoever., as we can see plumes of ejected materials exploding out of the buildings with great force, and again some of these plumes were 10-20- stories BELOW the collapse fronts. This would rule out them being "air" caused by the "pancaking" floors.
So I challenge any of you OC theorists, to explain this and point out what the NIST report has to say regarding these other anomalies...
Could gravity turn massive slabs of concrete, thousands of tons of material, into fine dust, in midair?
2012 New WTC Demolition Flashes and Loud Explosions (Analysis) - YouTube
Conspiracy theories are often built around anomalies which are difficult to prove either way. The "assumptionists" are convinced they know what the anomaly is. One such anomaly is the so called "Squibs".
They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of Controlled Demolition. It's often followed by more video of charges going off in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase its explosive strength with time.
So what is this then? Why would debris jet out of windows far below the collapse?
It could be a number of things, by themselves or in combination. One reasonable explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they pancaked, (Please read the link to explain the NIST / Pancaking issue) pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Another is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.
During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space. There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...
Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”
Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”
http://www.acfd.com/miracle_of_ladder_company_6.htm
BILL BUTLER, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: We took two steps down from the fourth floor and the building started to shake.
SALVATORE D'AGOSTINO, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: You could hear the floors pancaking one on top of the other, huge explosions.
LIM: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and faster as they get closer. What I remember the most was the wind. It created almost like a hurricane-type force and actually pushed one of the firemen right by me.
MIKE MELDRUM, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: I was flown down a flight of stairs, a little groggy for a while. I noticed somebody on a half landing just up from me, a few stairs and I thought it was one of our guys and it was David Lim.
CNN.com - Transcripts
Of course, I expect the conspiracy theorists to say this was just the explosives which caused the high wind ("He even says explosions!") but they have no evidence of explosives. We do have evidence of pancaking. The ejecta coming out of the windows of the pancaking floor was uniform across the floor and light in color. It was coming out of every floor window until the falling debris obscured its view. Controlled demolition has staggered ejecta because the charges are only on some columns. You also always see at least [some] before the collapse and not [only] during it. There are none of these jets of debris before collapse.
Another point is the amount of these so called squibs. Some are laughably small wisps of smoke. I won’t even bother with these. These are people who are searching every video, frame by frame in order to find something which they can use. Some are simply glass falling and reflecting sunlight or a piece of aluminum cladding doing the same. Yet, some seem to be heavy jets out of a window on one floor and another jet of debris about 30 to 40 stories below as the collapse progresses. I have to admit, when I first saw this I didn't know what to make of it. But as I thought of the possibilities, I also thought of what it needed to be if it were a demolition. In all the controlled demolitions I've seen, there have been a large amount of explosives on almost all floors. Even some small buildings have many charges. Why would they put charges on what seems like only a couple of floors? And once the collapse progressed, why would they care about the 40th floor? When the top 70 floors are crashing down on the 40th floor; even conspiracy theorists have trouble believing that floor would stop the collapse. And even if it did, the message is sent. The towers were no longer usable after the top 70 stories fell on it. It would be an added and absurd risk to add explosives on the lower floors.
The best explanation which fits the evidence is that there were heavy objects free falling down the elevator shafts and hitting the lowest landings. The explosive force of one of these...
...hitting the elevator, then lower floors would be tremendous. Hitting an elevator below would only add to the weight and explosive effect. It would send debris away from the impact point with great force. It's not unreasonable to suspect these heavy objects obliterated the fireproofed gypsum on the way down. Couple that with the over pressure of the collapse and you have a good candidate for what we see. Is that the only thing it could be? Not at all. I, like the conspiracy theorists, don't have an inventory of every window that was broken and every piece of equipment which could have created the effect.
So, we are left with jets of debris which do not act like explosives, on not enough floors to have caused the collapse. We also have some likely explanations which do not involve explosives.
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Squibs
Air pressure doesn't make sense. Air pressure had other places to go like in the centers of the buildings, not only that how could air pressure be blown out 10-20-30 stories below the collapse front? Your site is based on BS guesses...Those buildings weren't that air tight...we would have only seen the suibs immediately below the fronts no half way down the sides in a row and in rapid succession like we can see in many videos.
You of all posters on here have failed the most miserably in presenting a valid detailed case against it being molten steel, and for the probability of it being aluminum.
Any answers were up to NIST to supply, and since they didn't do anything regarding the melted steel, I have tried to interject some logic, and reasoning behind what other credible independent researchers have concluded, and what my views regarding this are..
I have posted pages of information that can show it was more then likely steel that was discovered.
To date no one in this thread has made a valid case for it NOT being steel.
NIST makes no mention of melted steel so we must use what we know and find out regarding the aluminum and the steel within the towers.NIST also made no mention of melted aluminum as most likely being the cause either, as they knew anything that was in a molten state for so long could not possibly have been caused by a diffuse flame office fire, jet fuel or not..Don't you think NIST would have jumped on this melted aluminum BS right away if it had even the most remote chance of being believable?
I just can't understand why this fails to compute to some people, unless they know it is a detriment to their OCT beliefs.
Each tower consisted of approximately 200,000 tons of steel components. No one has posted how much aluminum components the twins had. I looked at another posters link to "9/11 Myths" and used what they mentioned as far as quantity of aluminum is concerned.
They were touted by the poster as a good source of information...
They said ""it is probable that 10,000kg of molten aluminum formed in each tower"
which comes out to approximately only 22,046lbs...for each tower...
Now compare that quantity to the steel in the towers...
Also compare where the aluminum was with respect to the towers. It was mostly on the outside cladding cover them.
Most of this perimeter was forciblt ejected away from where the melted steel was discovered. The melted steel was sighted and reported in the centers up to some 70 feet
BELOW the surface.
Given the lopsided quantities of steel vs aluminum, how is it more likely for it have been aluminum that was sighted and reported under ground in the centers of the towers?
How about the Boeing planes? Well, they were 80-90 stories high up within the structure of the towers..How is it more likely that they ended up, in the centers, below the ground and even remotely be what was sighted?
How is it even remotely possible that all of these numerous GZ personnel, their associated agencies, and that included WTC engineer Leslie Robertson were all wrong and NOT qualified to discern the difference between steel channel and a piece of thin aluminum? You do realize aluminum is sliverish in color?
How can anyone, given the facts above even begin to try and rationally argue that it was aluminum?? This is non sense and intellectual dishonesty.
The melting aluminum, being the most likely scenario is asinine, and can be ruled out, in the twins. There is no rational argument available, and to continue to say that it was "never found" or "confirmed" is not the fault of anyone but NIST.
Not to mention that the aluminum cladding, or a Boeing body argument can not be used at WTC 7!
I'm getting tired at having to point these facts out, and pissed off at some assholes trying to hide behind the neglect of NIST on this part of the WTC collapse investigation, and laying the blame on GZ workers for not testing the steel!
NIST failed in their assigned task, and in so doing failed to give any OCT believers any
logical argument against the facts that have been posted regarding melted/molten steel period, end of chapter. NEXT!
What do you find that is irrational? Try to specifically mention my aluminum in the towers calculations, because it seems that you are having difficulty understanding
How much aluminum was in/on the towers compared to how much steel there was..
Where it was placed in/on the towers.
Where the molten steel was seen in relation to where the aluminum was placed in/on the towers.
And finally WHO was responsible to follow up on the sightings and investigate.
Such as?
Numerous sightings and reports of melted steel, and subsequent ignoring and dismissal of them by the investigative agency is irrelevant?
Do tell, the only thing I find that is contradictory is that it contradicts NIST mission statement.
What should be clear, is that the argument I presented for it being melted steel is much stronger then you and the others argument against it..
What should also be clear is that the possibility of all the GZ personnel seeing melted aluminum is almost nil.
Especially when honestly considering the facts that have been posted regarding any aluminum in/on the towers and the Boeing plane remnants, where it seen, AND when you honestly consider that WTC 7 experienced the same thing and you can't include any aluminum into the equation.
No one has explained or presented a viable argument for melted steel reports actually being aluminum. And no one has even attempted to argue the points I made regarding quantity, placement, witnesses, and WTC 7.
I'm not trying to get nasty with you personally, my frustration is more towards those who try to lay blame on GZ workers and personnel etc, and want to continue to feign some sort of victory points when they haven't even come close to presenting a viable argument for melted steel reports actually being aluminum. And no one has even attempted to argue the points I made regarding quantity, placement, witnesses, and WTC 7.If you want to move on to another point, that's fine. However, you seem to be taking this too personally and getting angrier about it than you should if you want to continue a polite argument about the subject.
Based on what has been presented, and short of anyone providing any stronger contradictory points and facts against the melted steel sightings,, it must be concluded that it was highly more probable that what they saw, described, reported, confirmed by experts, and a WTC engineer, was molten steel.
There is simply too much against your aluminum guesses.
I find the importance you place on the ratio of steel to aluminum irrational and irrelevant. What does it matter how much more steel was in the building? If there was enough aluminum (or other low-melting point metals, such as lead) that is the only relevant information. All the steel in the entire world could have been in the towers, but if the temperatures were not hot enough to melt it/keep it molten, it doesn't matter. If, on the other hand, the temperatures were hot enough to melt other metals and they were present in significant amounts, then even if those amounts were a tiny percentage compared to the steel, it would make sense that the other metals were what was seen in a molten state.
I find your continued use of the word 'confirmed' to be irrational. If no one tested the temperature of the molten metals, if no one tested to see what kind of material it was composed of, if no one tested steel that was not molten and found that it had been previously, if no hardened pools of metal were tested and show to be steel, then we are left with only some witness reports. That is not confirmation, especially when those reports don't include any reason why the witnesses could be sure what they were seeing was steel and not another material.
Your argument about the placement of the aluminum on the towers is more compelling. I disagree with it in part, because while certainly there was an outward force exerted during the collapses, that doesn't mean that all of the siding would have been expelled outward. More, I don't know if there's any way to determine how much low melting point metal may have been inside the towers, in the forms of furniture, computers and the like.
Either the investigators ignored or dismissed the sightings of molten steel, I don't think they could do both.*just thought I'd add some humor!*
I find contradictory your insistence that there was molten steel at GZ and the statements in some of the video posted by GZ workers talking about temperatures too low to melt steel. I believe you also posted a link at some point which claimed office fires generally burn at around 1500 degrees, also well below the melting point of steel.
I appreciate your frustration in this thread. I imagine my posts get frustrating, since we see things so differently; when it starts getting into the tired insults (tin-foil hats and government goose-steppers) your frustration and anger is completely understandable. I mentioned before that I know some of that might splash on me. I will try to ignore that when it happens, and try not to do the same in return when I am frustrated by this discussion, at least in this thread.
I think that you want to see a conspiracy and that colors your view of events. I'm sure that, in contrast, you think I want to avoid seeing government complicity and that colors MY view. But I am at least getting a more detailed view of how you have come to your conclusions, and I appreciate it.
Air pressure doesn't make sense. Air pressure had other places to go like in the centers of the buildings,
not only that how could air pressure be blown out 10-20-30 stories below the collapse front? Your site is based on BS guesses...Those buildings weren't that air tight...we would have only seen the suibs immediately below the fronts no half way down the sides in a row and in rapid succession like we can see in many videos.
what evidence? but don't let that stop you.these debwunkers sound like OJs lawyers ..not people looking at the evidence
Air pressure doesn't make sense. Air pressure had other places to go like in the centers of the buildings, not only that how could air pressure be blown out 10-20-30 stories below the collapse front? Your site is based on BS guesses...Those buildings weren't that air tight...we would have only seen the suibs immediately below the fronts no half way down the sides in a row and in rapid succession like we can see in many videos.
his "theory" conveniently ignores there was no evidence of blast waves either visual or audio..Air pressure doesn't make sense. Air pressure had other places to go like in the centers of the buildings, not only that how could air pressure be blown out 10-20-30 stories below the collapse front? Your site is based on BS guesses...Those buildings weren't that air tight...we would have only seen the suibs immediately below the fronts no half way down the sides in a row and in rapid succession like we can see in many videos.
Please explain to us all how "explosives" on the core columns created an elongated jet of debris at whose pint of expulsion is at the perimeter columns? You aren't suggesting that an explosion originating at the core columns created a "thin jet of expelled debris" at the perimeter columns are you?
How does one control an "explosive force" to only blow out one or two windows?
No asshole it is NOT incumbent on ME to find out. My task in this thread is to point out where I have a problem with the NIST report, and for others to try to show me that I am wrong for doubting NIST..It is incumbent for you to show me how the NIST is accurate, and that I am wrong, and you have and continue to fail miserably at your task.
You base your CT on a false premise; that molten materials at GZ were steel yet you can't explain what substance could have melted that steel on 9/11 and continued to do so weeks later. Like the NIST I find no reason to investigate your concerns absent either proof of molten steel or a substance which could do what you claim. Sorry, Princess, but your CT is still just speculation, innuendo, unsubstantiated assumptions, half-truths and outright CTBS.
You of all posters on here have failed the most miserably in presenting a valid detailed case against it being molten steel, and for the probability of it being aluminum.
Again you try to deviate from the entire point of this part of the discussion, which is to understand why there is objection to the credibility of the NIST investigation and its reports. You simply must continue to ignore the weakness of your argument and case, and continue to say "there is no proof" while ignoring the facts that the only reason you feel that you can even say that, is the fact that NIST provided an out for themselves and anyone who takes the same stance as you do, by NOT CONDUCTING A THOROUGH AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION AND IGNORING THIS OBVIOUS TO HUNDREDS MOLTEN STEEL PHENOMENA!!
Your CT precisely has to rely on "speculation, innuendo, unsubstantiated assumptions, half-truths and outright CTBS" along with shit investigative tactics, including ignoring of this issue, so the OCT myth that only planes flown by inexperienced Islamic jihadists, and fires, and gravity can be said to be the sole cause of the WTC buildings demise..
You lose again.
last time I checked you didn't know what end of a screwdriver to use...now you're claiming to know more then the builders, nist etc..."Squibs"
Conspiracy theories are often built around anomalies which are difficult to prove either way. The "assumptionists" are convinced they know what the anomaly is. One such anomaly is the so called "Squibs".
They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of Controlled Demolition. It's often followed by more video of charges going off in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase its explosive strength with time.
So what is this then? Why would debris jet out of windows far below the collapse?
It could be a number of things, by themselves or in combination. One reasonable explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they pancaked, (Please read the link to explain the NIST / Pancaking issue) pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Another is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.
During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air. But not all the air went so easily out the window space. There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns. So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core. The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up. Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...
Matt Komorowski: The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.
Stone Phillips: Like a gust of wind, behind you.
Matt Komorowski: Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.
http://www.acfd.com/miracle_of_ladder_company_6.htm
BILL BUTLER, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: We took two steps down from the fourth floor and the building started to shake.
SALVATORE D'AGOSTINO, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: You could hear the floors pancaking one on top of the other, huge explosions.
LIM: Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, and faster as they get closer. What I remember the most was the wind. It created almost like a hurricane-type force and actually pushed one of the firemen right by me.
MIKE MELDRUM, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: I was flown down a flight of stairs, a little groggy for a while. I noticed somebody on a half landing just up from me, a few stairs and I thought it was one of our guys and it was David Lim.
CNN.com - Transcripts
Of course, I expect the conspiracy theorists to say this was just the explosives which caused the high wind ("He even says explosions!") but they have no evidence of explosives. We do have evidence of pancaking. The ejecta coming out of the windows of the pancaking floor was uniform across the floor and light in color. It was coming out of every floor window until the falling debris obscured its view. Controlled demolition has staggered ejecta because the charges are only on some columns. You also always see at least [some] before the collapse and not [only] during it. There are none of these jets of debris before collapse.
Another point is the amount of these so called squibs. Some are laughably small wisps of smoke. I wont even bother with these. These are people who are searching every video, frame by frame in order to find something which they can use. Some are simply glass falling and reflecting sunlight or a piece of aluminum cladding doing the same. Yet, some seem to be heavy jets out of a window on one floor and another jet of debris about 30 to 40 stories below as the collapse progresses. I have to admit, when I first saw this I didn't know what to make of it. But as I thought of the possibilities, I also thought of what it needed to be if it were a demolition. In all the controlled demolitions I've seen, there have been a large amount of explosives on almost all floors. Even some small buildings have many charges. Why would they put charges on what seems like only a couple of floors? And once the collapse progressed, why would they care about the 40th floor? When the top 70 floors are crashing down on the 40th floor; even conspiracy theorists have trouble believing that floor would stop the collapse. And even if it did, the message is sent. The towers were no longer usable after the top 70 stories fell on it. It would be an added and absurd risk to add explosives on the lower floors.
The best explanation which fits the evidence is that there were heavy objects free falling down the elevator shafts and hitting the lowest landings. The explosive force of one of these...
...hitting the elevator, then lower floors would be tremendous. Hitting an elevator below would only add to the weight and explosive effect. It would send debris away from the impact point with great force. It's not unreasonable to suspect these heavy objects obliterated the fireproofed gypsum on the way down. Couple that with the over pressure of the collapse and you have a good candidate for what we see. Is that the only thing it could be? Not at all. I, like the conspiracy theorists, don't have an inventory of every window that was broken and every piece of equipment which could have created the effect.
So, we are left with jets of debris which do not act like explosives, on not enough floors to have caused the collapse. We also have some likely explanations which do not involve explosives.
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Squibs
Air pressure doesn't make sense. Air pressure had other places to go like in the centers of the buildings, not only that how could air pressure be blown out 10-20-30 stories below the collapse front? Your site is based on BS guesses...Those buildings weren't that air tight...we would have only seen the suibs immediately below the fronts no half way down the sides in a row and in rapid succession like we can see in many videos.
and you're full of shit, the air pressure increase would be more then enough to blow windows out. the site in accurate but like everything else you'll just deny it.
The story...
"Looking at the upper right-hand corner of [WTC7] we see a rapid series of small explosions travelling upward just as the building itself begins to fall. The size, placement and timing of these "puffs" is very consistent with squibs from cutting charges of the type used in professional controlled demolitions..."
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
WTC7 Squib Big104
Our take...
Looks very convincing, doesnt it? But under closer examination this claim doesnt seem quite so robust, and we have concerns in four different areas.
#1, how was this image produced? Enhancing video footage is a very subjective business, making it wise to compare pictures like this with the source material. Click here to see why.
#2, when did the squibs really appear? The claim above doesnt say exactly, and for good reason. Look at the original footage and you can see the building is falling for some time before they pop up. Here are the images.
#3, everyone who writes about this makes it seem like these images could only be produced from explosives. Look at the video, though, and youll see the building deform, causing windows to break, just as the squibs appear. So how do we know they werent caused in a similar way? Take a look for yourself.
And #4, presumably these squibs are supposed to be throwing smoke and material out of the windows. So why is it that the video shows the squibs staying in more or less the same place relative to the building, even as its falling? It looks like theres more smoke ejected from regular broken windows than these supposed demolition charges. Here are the stills.
Put it all together, then, and the squibs appear after WTC7 has begun to fall, as floors sag across the building, and at almost exactly the same time as this effect causes other windows to break. As these also appear to eject more material than the squibs, then the most plausible explanation is theyre nothing more than windows breaking as the building falls.
WTC7 Squibs
You of all posters on here have failed the most miserably in presenting a valid detailed case against it being molten steel, and for the probability of it being aluminum.
And YOU have failed to provide evidence of it BEING molten steel. The only "proof" you have is visual claims.
This molten steel claim is directly refuted by the fact that you have no fuel source that could have maintained 2,800F temperatures over weeks in addition to there being no evidence of measured temperatures being that high.
these debwunkers sound like OJs lawyers ..not people looking at the evidence
me imply?last time I checked you didn't know what end of a screwdriver to use...now you're claiming to know more then the builders, nist etc...Air pressure doesn't make sense. Air pressure had other places to go like in the centers of the buildings, not only that how could air pressure be blown out 10-20-30 stories below the collapse front? Your site is based on BS guesses...Those buildings weren't that air tight...we would have only seen the suibs immediately below the fronts no half way down the sides in a row and in rapid succession like we can see in many videos.
and you're full of shit, the air pressure increase would be more then enough to blow windows out. the site in accurate but like everything else you'll just deny it.
The story...
"Looking at the upper right-hand corner of [WTC7] we see a rapid series of small explosions travelling upward just as the building itself begins to fall. The size, placement and timing of these "puffs" is very consistent with squibs from cutting charges of the type used in professional controlled demolitions..."
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
WTC7 Squib Big104
Our take...
Looks very convincing, doesnt it? But under closer examination this claim doesnt seem quite so robust, and we have concerns in four different areas.
#1, how was this image produced? Enhancing video footage is a very subjective business, making it wise to compare pictures like this with the source material. Click here to see why.
#2, when did the squibs really appear? The claim above doesnt say exactly, and for good reason. Look at the original footage and you can see the building is falling for some time before they pop up. Here are the images.
#3, everyone who writes about this makes it seem like these images could only be produced from explosives. Look at the video, though, and youll see the building deform, causing windows to break, just as the squibs appear. So how do we know they werent caused in a similar way? Take a look for yourself.
And #4, presumably these squibs are supposed to be throwing smoke and material out of the windows. So why is it that the video shows the squibs staying in more or less the same place relative to the building, even as its falling? It looks like theres more smoke ejected from regular broken windows than these supposed demolition charges. Here are the stills.
Put it all together, then, and the squibs appear after WTC7 has begun to fall, as floors sag across the building, and at almost exactly the same time as this effect causes other windows to break. As these also appear to eject more material than the squibs, then the most plausible explanation is theyre nothing more than windows breaking as the building falls.
WTC7 Squibs
Do you imply, Sir, that some "highly respected" CTs have engaged in half-truths, speculation, self-serving assumptions, fabrications and outright fraud? Ridiculous! Why would they do such a thing?
What should be happening is a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power who can call to the witness stand real experts who do know what temp steel melts at and at what temp jet fuel mixed with office furnishings burn.
What should be happening is a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power who can call to the witness stand real experts who do know what temp steel melts at and at what temp jet fuel mixed with office furnishings burn.
What does melting steel temperatures have to do with jet fuel mixed with office furnishings have to do with anything?
There is no proof that temperatures reached 2,600F - 2,800F, enough to melt steel.
There is no analysis of the supposed melted steel to PROVE it was melted steel. Furthermore, as stated above, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere of temperatures needed to melt steel. That's proof enough that the melted steel claim is bogus.
Melted steel was not needed to fail the support structure. All that was needed was for the steel to be heated and for an increased load to be applied to that steel. That is enough to fail a structure.
Numerous items have been posted in this tread and elsewhere explaining fire proofing on steel and why they do it. There are explanations about fireproofing restrained versus unrestrained steel.
What should be happening is a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power who can call to the witness stand real experts who do know what temp steel melts at and at what temp jet fuel mixed with office furnishings burn.
What does melting steel temperatures have to do with jet fuel mixed with office furnishings have to do with anything?
There is no proof that temperatures reached 2,600F - 2,800F, enough to melt steel.
There is no analysis of the supposed melted steel to PROVE it was melted steel. Furthermore, as stated above, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere of temperatures needed to melt steel. That's proof enough that the melted steel claim is bogus.
Melted steel was not needed to fail the support structure. All that was needed was for the steel to be heated and for an increased load to be applied to that steel. That is enough to fail a structure.
Numerous items have been posted in this tread and elsewhere explaining fire proofing on steel and why they do it. There are explanations about fireproofing restrained versus unrestrained steel.
