Squibs here...Squibs there...Squibs everywhere!!!

[parky76]

9-11 Deniers love to talk about the magical "squibs" as proof of a controlled demolition. There were supposedly 5 or 6 squibs...per tower.

Are they trying to tell us that a 110 story building, that had charges set on almost every floor, only had squibs on 6 floors? Does that make ANY sense?

If charges were used to take out the HUGE core beams, the force from such an explosions would not have exploded out one window..it would have taken out the whole side of the building.

Instead, what do we see? Air being pushed out the path of least resistance. Probably the one window that wasn't fastened as right as the others.

6 Squibs....evidence of CD?...Give me a break.

[T.A.M.]

well their sekrit ops only had a black out and weekends, so they couldnt have gotten the explosives on EVERY floor...lol

TAM:)

[Reality Believer]

6 Squibs....evidence of CD?...Give me a break.

It would be more effective if they used one giant squib instead. They are used in demolition all the time.

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/215500/215546TYbx_w.jpg

[T.A.M.]

It would be more effective if they used one giant squib instead. They are used in demolition all the time.

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/215500/215546TYbx_w.jpg

They are only legendary creatures...lol

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

It would be more effective if they used one giant squib instead. They are used in demolition all the time.

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/215500/215546TYbx_w.jpg


Hey! I used that joke in my interview with Les Jamieson.

[CHF]

Notice also that twoofers never look into what structural supports existed where their precious "squibs" appear.

[JamesB]

Don't forget the super secret nano-thermite squibs.

[albie]

There was only a blackout on one tower. what about the others?

Imagine all that wiring to be kept secret.

[T.A.M.]

Albie:

Thats amazing man, you registered in 2004, and this is your first post...welcome to posting on the forum...lol

TAM:)

[Civilized Worm]

There's also the small matter of "squibs" being small explosives most commonly used as special effects and never used in controlled demolition.

But then that never stopped them with thermite.

[Alt+F4]

Yeah, I could never understand why the conspiracy liars latched on to the term "squib". The amount of explosive used in a squib is very, very small and they are almost universally used to simulate a bullet hit or ricochet.

In addition, there is no such thing as a radio-controlled squib. They are taped to an actor's body, the detonator cord runs down the actor's pants and connects to a control box called a nail board. When each nail is struck it will trigger the according hit, good for machine gun fire.

So maybe one of our conspiracy friends can tell us, who was operating the nail board on 9/11 and where were they located? Certainly not in the building. Gosh that's alot of det cord.

[Zorglub]

Has there been any attempt at all from the CT:s to produce some sort of schematic over how the WTC supposedly was wired and what detonators they supposedly used? The only answer you get is thet there was a blackout and GWB:s brother was connected with the security company.
Heiwa once tried to answer that question by implementing "high-tech technology". But a real CT is of course uninterested in the "hows".
Is there any article anywhere about this?

[einsteen]

9-11 Deniers love to talk about the magical "squibs" as proof of a controlled demolition. There were supposedly 5 or 6 squibs...per tower.

Are they trying to tell us that a 110 story building, that had charges set on almost every floor, only had squibs on 6 floors? Does that make ANY sense?

If charges were used to take out the HUGE core beams, the force from such an explosions would not have exploded out one window..it would have taken out the whole side of the building.

Instead, what do we see? Air being pushed out the path of least resistance. Probably the one window that wasn't fastened as right as the others.

6 Squibs....evidence of CD?...Give me a break.

Probably you mean that 6 squibs where not synchronized with the other ones, after a while you don't see it because of the ejected debris and dust around it. Do you not realize that the demolition zone is a collection of squibs ?

[T.A.M.]

Has there been any attempt at all from the CT:s to produce some sort of scematic over how the WTC supposedly was wired and what detonators they supposedly used? The only answer you get is thet there was a blackout and GWB:s brother was connected with the security company.
Heiwa once tried to answer that quesion by implementing "high-tech technology". But a real CT is of course uninterested in the "hows".
Is there any articel anywhere about this?

I have asked this exact question in a thread on this site within the last 2 days...guess what...no replies from the CTists...hmmmm....I wonder why.

TAM:)

[einsteen]

http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/forum/wtc2collapse.html

http://i18.tinypic.com/62xt9ub.jpg

Looks like a squib is nothing different than the effect on top

demolition wave = collection of squibs, the squib is simply an element of it.

A possible debunking is indeed that everything is caused by air pressed out due to the collapsing mass, I'm no supporter of that.

[tsig]

9-11 Deniers love to talk about the magical "squibs" as proof of a controlled demolition. There were supposedly 5 or 6 squibs...per tower.

Are they trying to tell us that a 110 story building, that had charges set on almost every floor, only had squibs on 6 floors? Does that make ANY sense?

If charges were used to take out the HUGE core beams, the force from such an explosions would not have exploded out one window..it would have taken out the whole side of the building.

Instead, what do we see? Air being pushed out the path of least resistance. Probably the one window that wasn't fastened as right as the others.

6 Squibs....evidence of CD?...Give me a break.

It wasn't squibs it was squids.

A hexapod of giant squids destroyed the towers.

Two for each building.

[A W Smith]

http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/forum/wtc2collapse.html

http://i18.tinypic.com/62xt9ub.jpg

Looks like a squib is nothing different than the effect on top

demolition wave = collection of squibs, the squib is simply an element of it.

A possible debunking is indeed that everything is caused by air pressed out due to the collapsing mass, I'm no supporter of that.


Why would the so called "Squibbs" increase in expelled energy while expanding as shown in the videos? Explosives would lose explosive energy as the "squibb" expanded.

[Aggs]

Has there been any attempt at all from the CT:s to produce some sort of schematic over how the WTC supposedly was wired and what detonators they supposedly used? The only answer you get is thet there was a blackout and GWB:s brother was connected with the security company.
Heiwa once tried to answer that question by implementing "high-tech technology". But a real CT is of course uninterested in the "hows".
Is there any article anywhere about this?

Here's how it's always been explained to me:

CT: There was a power outage before 9/11 when the buildings were wired.
ME: But according to the evidence you used for the power outage it was only 1/2 of one of the building that was out that weekend. How do you explain the other 3/4?
CT: Yeah well what about WTC7?

I think that's sufficient...

[Revolutionary91]

Notice also that twoofers never look into what structural supports existed where their precious "squibs" appear.

Thats a lie. The recent Ross video lecture goes into detail about the location of squibs and relation to core structures.

PS is your leader accepting the Ross disputation?

[Aggs]

http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/forum/wtc2collapse.html

http://i18.tinypic.com/62xt9ub.jpg

Looks like a squib is nothing different than the effect on top

demolition wave = collection of squibs, the squib is simply an element of it.

A possible debunking is indeed that everything is caused by air pressed out due to the collapsing mass, I'm no supporter of that.

You know what would be cool, if one of the CTers could explain the dynamics of the resulting air pressure caused by the collapse (with demo or without). In other words, CTers like to poopoo the idea that the squibs were caused by air pressure, but they've never produced anything to show what the affects of air pressure should have looked like.

[Aggs]

Thats a lie. The recent Ross video lecture goes into detail about the location of squibs and relation to core structures.

PS is your leader accepting the Ross disputation?

I've always wondered, if squibs were used doesn't that dispute Jones theory of thermite? I mean, if you're using thermite to weaken the supports why use squibs, or vice versa? Or is the implication that both were used? And what kind of additional manpower and time resources are need to do both?

[Zorglub]

Here's how it's always been explained to me:

CT: There was a power outage before 9/11 when the buildings were wired.
ME: But according to the evidence you used for the power outage it was only 1/2 of one of the building that was out that weekend. How do you explain the other 3/4?
CT: Yeah well what about WTC7?

I think that's sufficient...
Yep, more or less the same answers I`ve gotten over the years. I mean, for sex years there should be someone working out the possibile means.

Thats a lie. The recent Ross video lecture goes into detail about the location of squibs and relation to core structures.

PS is your leader accepting the Ross disputation?

You mean this one?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615
Think I´ve seen it before but mainly he talks about the so called evidence of explosives. Nothing on the "hows".
Care to give a brief resumé of how the explosives where planted and how this could be done without anyone noticing?

[Zorglub]

doublepost

[Alferd_Packer]

Has anone ever determined exactly what floors the so-called squibs originated from?

[leftysergeant]

Thats a lie. The recent Ross video lecture goes into detail about the location of squibs and relation to core structures.

PS is your leader accepting the Ross disputation?

Ross is a nincompoop. What he calls squibs at the top of the buildiong do not in the very slightest act anything like any explosive charge known to mankind. In any video that shows them, they are quadrangular and collapse back onto themselves.

What he actually points out are the spots which were gouged out by flying debris, leaving sheet metal bent obth inward and outward, so that the damage was visible from the southeast and southwest.

Then, there is the issue of his support of the "meteror" from Hangar 17 being a solid chunk of the "molten steel" when it is, in fact, several slabs of concrete with rebar sticking out of it.

And he thinks that the columns torch-cut in clean-up were cut with thermite.

He's a waste of bandwidth.

[leftysergeant]

Oops! My bad. I mistakenly attributed the "meteor" blather to Ross when it was Gage who posted that drivel. I still have him nailed on the cut columns.

[einsteen]

Why would the so called "Squibbs" increase in expelled energy while expanding as shown in the videos? Explosives would lose explosive energy as the "squibb" expanded.

Which squibs do you mean, I thought there were only a few ?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Which squibs do you mean, I thought there were only a few ?


All of them exhibit constant or increasing velocity during their lifetime. That's not a property of explosives.

[einsteen]

constant or increasing ? Which one do you think is the right one ?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

constant or increasing ? Which one do you think is the right one ?


What? Why does it have to be one or the other? There were multiple instances. Switch that brain on, please.

[danielk]

constant or increasing ? Which one do you think is the right one ?

In practical terms, there's not much of a difference between a > b and a >= b. The point is it isn't a < b.

[beachnut]

Probably you mean that 6 squibs where not synchronized with the other ones, after a while you don't see it because of the ejected debris and dust around it. Do you not realize that the demolition zone is a collection of squibs ?
There were no explosives or "squibs" observed on 9/11. The acceleration profiles are wrong for explosives, right for broken windows moving in a pixel stream of video, and air being compressed and escaping as it increases in speed during building collapse. The squib become a red flag, a way to spot people too challenged to think for themselves and figure out 9/11. 9/11 truth members are exposed to be fact less with the simple squib statement, or the "pull it" statement. Squibs, make it so easy to spot someone who has no clue on 9/11.

The sounds are missing for your collection of squibs. Funny stuff, too challenged to prove it, 9/11 truth just says it. What else can they do without facts?

[Pardalis]

When I first saw Loose Change (which was the first time I heard about 9/11 CTs as well) the squibs and the "fake" phone calls were the two major points that convinced me that this was baloney.

[einsteen]

The question is not if a>b or a>=b, the question is if a=constant or a will increase during time.

No, how can you draw conclusions about that ?? all debris from above just follows its (parabolic) path in air and of course during the collapse, seen from far away, it will increase when you go down, that has nothing to do with the ejection of the material itself, the videos where you see it from below show a constant speed of ejection, of course with random fluctuations, what do you expect in an inhomogenous building ? Since the building becomes stronger at the bottom and also the collapsing mass is much more at the bottom it will be a complex situation, you can't really easily say yes or no.

[Newtons Bit]

Thats a lie. The recent Ross video lecture goes into detail about the location of squibs and relation to core structures.

PS is your leader accepting the Ross disputation?

Are you accepting that Ross is either a fraud or a moron? I've already proven that his paper on momentum doesn't in fact show that the collapse should self-arrest, but rather that with his own numbers that the collapse progresses and accelerates.

I even wrote a letter to him and the journal of 9/11 studies on this issue. He and the "journal" have ignored it. Funny how that works.

[Pardalis]

I've always wondered, if squibs were used doesn't that dispute Jones theory of thermite? I mean, if you're using thermite to weaken the supports why use squibs, or vice versa? Or is the implication that both were used? And what kind of additional manpower and time resources are need to do both?

I sure would like to see a twoofer answer that one day... :)

[beachnut]

Are you accepting that Ross is either a fraud or a moron? I've already proven that his paper on momentum doesn't in fact show that the collapse should self-arrest, but rather that with his own numbers that the collapse progresses and accelerates.

I even wrote a letter to him and the journal of 9/11 studies on this issue. He and the "journal" have ignored it. Funny how that works.
Have you shared your letter? I would be interested in seeing the work. I also see Ross's work as proving global collapse as possible, since he only says he is missing 390 MJ, and that is only some 10 percent short. I do not think truthers understand a small error by Ross and the building falls. And Ross made errors. I would not use Ross if life was involved.

If truthers understood how little energy Ross was short to have global collapse. That means Ross, with an error, confirms global collapse. I have not made this as clear as someone else can but Ross's paper confirms global collapse.

[A W Smith]

The question is not if a>b or a>=b, the question is if a=constant or a will increase during time.

No, how can you draw conclusions about that ?? all debris from above just follows its (parabolic) path in air and of course during the collapse, seen from far away, it will increase when you go down, that has nothing to do with the ejection of the material itself, the videos where you see it from below show a constant speed of ejection, of course with random fluctuations, what do you expect in an inhomogenous building ? Since the building becomes stronger at the bottom and also the collapsing mass is much more at the bottom it will be a complex situation, you can't really easily say yes or no.

We are talking about the individual "squibs" and you are describing the collapse wave. Care to clarify?

[Newtons Bit]

Have you shared your letter? I would be interested in seeing the work. I also see Ross's work as proving global collapse as possible, since he only says he is missing 390 MJ, and that is only some 10 percent short. I do not think truthers understand a small error by Ross and the building falls. And Ross made errors. I would not use Ross if life was involved.

If truthers understood how little energy Ross was short to have global collapse. That means Ross, with an error, confirms global collapse. I have not made this as clear as someone else can but Ross's paper confirms global collapse.

http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007/07/gordon-ross-shows-collapse-progression.html


The third to last and second to last paragraph are the pertinent ones on this issue. It has to do with what the definition of an inelastic collision is. Ross either ignores this intentionally or ignorantly. Basically there's 1389MJ that just vanishes.

The meat of this letter is mainly there just to show Ross and the "journal" that sharpening ones pencil and getting real numbers instead of just pulling guesses out of ones rear is important.

[einsteen]

We are talking about the individual "squibs" and you are describing the collapse wave. Care to clarify?

Indeed, they look the same I would say as a lay man.

@Newton's

What's your opinion about the idea that energy is absorbed by the structure itself and not my individual stories ? As far as I can see your story doesn't clarify is, some nice theory and examples but not a real proof.

[Newtons Bit]

Indeed, they look the same I would say as a lay man.

@Newton's

What's your opinion about the idea that energy is absorbed by the structure itself and not my individual stories ? As far as I can see your story doesn't clarify is, some nice theory and examples but not a real proof.

That's already included in Ross's original analysis. The columns compress elastically, which absorbs energy (by the way, they then unload which release energy and causes vibration!). The bottom floors lose height, thus adding potential energy. Ross has already included this in his calculations if memory serves.

[pleitegeier]

Erm... Guys, the "experts" of the truth-movement say that these squibs are "misstimed" explosives, and not that they destroyed the towers alone...
Look at Ae911truth.org.
Just to make this clear :)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The question is not if a>b or a>=b, the question is if a=constant or a will increase during time.


Uhh... just watch any of the numerous videos you truthers try to post as evidence. If these events were caused by explosives, one would expect a quick burst and a rapid deceleration of the materials ejected. That's not what is observed, though.

It doesn't matter if the debris is ejected at a constant or increasing speed. The point is that the debris ejected does not decelerate rapidly, which you would expect if it had received its velocity from an instantaneous explosion.

The observed phenomenon indicates that there is a constant or increasing force pushing the debris outward.

Explosives.
Do not.
Do.
This.

I requested that you switch your brain on. Is that going to happen any time this year?

[A W Smith]

Erm... Guys, the "experts" of the truth-movement say that these squibs are "misstimed" explosives, and not that they destroyed the towers alone...
Look at Ae911truth.org.
Just to make this clear :)


Ok lets run with that. Assuming the explosives were planted in such a way that they were not shielded as is typical for demolition charges. That is. The charge is first wrapped in geotextile. followed by chain link fence. followed by a heavy plywood box. What do those "experts" claim prevented the miss-timed explosives from setting off adjacent charges?

[beachnut]

Erm... Guys, the "experts" of the truth-movement say that these squibs are "misstimed" explosives, and not that they destroyed the towers alone...
Look at Ae911truth.org.
Just to make this clear :)
I am not sure why, but http://www.ae911truth.org/ is not a good source of facts for 9/11. It is a good source for the same old false information manufactured by the 9/11 truth movement.

As you know this web site, http://www.ae911truth.org/ , is not real information. An example is their statements with no facts.
Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces. However, the 3 high-rise buildings at the World Trade Center which "collapsed" on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body evidence (i.e.controlled demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience.
They make up CD just out of the blue 5 years after 9/11, but stole the idea from others. Old 9/11 truth ideas, and no facts. Fraud comes to mind when you see such abuse of position not supported by facts.

[einsteen]

Uhh... just watch any of the numerous videos you truthers try to post as evidence. If these events were caused by explosives, one would expect a quick burst and a rapid deceleration of the materials ejected. That's not what is observed, though.

It doesn't matter if the debris is ejected at a constant or increasing speed. The point is that the debris ejected does not decelerate rapidly, which you would expect if it had received its velocity from an instantaneous explosion.

The observed phenomenon indicates that there is a constant or increasing force pushing the debris outward.

Explosives.
Do not.
Do.
This.

I requested that you switch your brain on. Is that going to happen any time this year?

Whether it decelerates in air depends on what the material is, smoke or dust decelerates. How do you know how things would look otherwise, we are speaking about non-reproducable one off events. I don't think that the observed behaviour proves that charges are impossible, for a pure gravity driven collapse I would expect a different behaviour

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Whether it decelerates in air depends on what the material is, smoke or dust decelerates. How do you know how things would look otherwise, we are speaking about non-reproducable one off events.


You really think this effect can't be reproduced? That's amazing. I'm completely baffled by that statement of yours.


I don't think that the observed behaviour proves that charges are impossible, for a pure gravity driven collapse I would expect a different behaviour


And what would that behavior be?

[A W Smith]

What a real demolition sounds and looks like

6633218138868662267

[Tippit]

9-11 Deniers love to talk about the magical "squibs" as proof of a controlled demolition. There were supposedly 5 or 6 squibs...per tower.

Are they trying to tell us that a 110 story building, that had charges set on almost every floor, only had squibs on 6 floors? Does that make ANY sense?

If charges were used to take out the HUGE core beams, the force from such an explosions would not have exploded out one window..it would have taken out the whole side of the building.

Instead, what do we see? Air being pushed out the path of least resistance. Probably the one window that wasn't fastened as right as the others.

6 Squibs....evidence of CD?...Give me a break.

The squibs look suspicious to me. The explosions were forceful and directed, there was a lot of particulate being ejected in what were narrow streams, and they all seemed to be centrally localized.

According to cross-sectional diagrams of the floors, the facades of the buildings were 208 feet wide. Am I supposed to believe the path of least resistance for the air contained between each floor wasn't out the sides of the building at the collapse wave itself? The explosions can be seen several floors below the collapse wave. I would think the next-to-least path of resistance would be the elevator shafts. Lets assume it was air that caused the explosions. Regardless of how it flowed downwards we have to believe that the windows near the corners of the building were strong enough to contain this mass of rushing air that may have traveled more than half the length of the facade in order to be narrowly ejected through the apparently much weaker windows in the center. Or, the air pressure was that much greater at those points for some reason.

I find it hard to believe that the strength of the windows could vary this much or that the weak windows would coincidentally be at the center of the facade. On the other hand, what if it did indeed go through the elevator shafts? If the elevator shafts were truncated at various sections of the building, then it might be expected that once the air hit the bottom of the shaft it would shoot out the side in a very forceful and directed manner, producing the explosions that we saw. If the elevator shafts traversed the entire length of the building, then the air pressure explanation doesn't seem feasible to me.

Has anyone analyzed the relative locations of the squibs with the layout of the elevator shafts to see if they correspond to where the shafts are truncated, if at all?

[Redtail]

The squibs look suspicious to me. The explosions were forceful and directed, there was a lot of particulate being ejected in what were narrow streams, and they all seemed to be centrally localized.

According to cross-sectional diagrams of the floors, the facades of the buildings were 208 feet wide. Am I supposed to believe the path of least resistance for the air contained between each floor wasn't out the sides of the building at the collapse wave itself? The explosions can be seen several floors below the collapse wave. I would think the next-to-least path of resistance would be the elevator shafts. Lets assume it was air that caused the explosions. Regardless of how it flowed downwards we have to believe that the windows near the corners of the building were strong enough to contain this mass of rushing air that may have traveled more than half the length of the facade in order to be narrowly ejected through the apparently much weaker windows in the center. Or, the air pressure was that much greater at those points for some reason.

I find it hard to believe that the strength of the windows could vary this much or that the weak windows would coincidentally be at the center of the facade. On the other hand, what if it did indeed go through the elevator shafts? If the elevator shafts were truncated at various sections of the building, then it might be expected that once the air hit the bottom of the shaft it would shoot out the side in a very forceful and directed manner, producing the explosions that we saw. If the elevator shafts traversed the entire length of the building, then the air pressure explanation doesn't seem feasible to me.

Has anyone analyzed the relative locations of the squibs with the layout of the elevator shafts to see if they correspond to where the shafts are truncated, if at all?

(Ignoring the lack of audio that indicates CD charges...)Hmmmm. What could block elevator shafts and cause air to shoot out at different levels of a very tall building?

[Tippit]

(Ignoring the lack of audio that indicates CD charges...)Hmmmm. What could block elevator shafts and cause air to shoot out at different levels of a very tall building?

Why, elevators of course!

[Redtail]

Why, elevators of course!

Cookie for you! Now then, the squibs are odd because...?

[ref]

How could you possibly mistime a wired explosion? How would it not have any effect on the remaining explosives and wiring? Ae911truth care to explain?

[Tippit]

Cookie for you! Now then, the squibs are odd because...?

... they still look suspicious to me, I still have no way of knowing exactly what happened, and I haven't seen any convincing explanations for them. If there is a study that attempts to prove it was the elevators, I'd love to read it.

[A W Smith]

Also might account for where the HVAC air handlers were. Also partition layout. Don't forget the windows impacted by debris movement inside the building will break first. Adjacent windows not impacted by blown furniture or debris will in all likelihood remain in place. If a window in a pressurized plane shatters objects are drawn through that window. not the adjacent ones. In a demolition explosion in a fully intact building with complete glazing I would expect all windows in the immediate area to shatter and a huge debris cloud to result.

[albie]

The higher up "squib" is surely dust and loose rubble being ejected.

The lower "squibs" are smoke. There were fires on many floors due to some of the airplane fuel falling down the elevator shafts. Machinery from the elevators crashed down to the lobby and flames burnt a lot of people. It's reasonablew to assume there were small fires everywhere.

The "squibs" at the top of building seven are clearly windows popping as the building tips over.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Didn't some truthers say that the squibs were mini-nukes at one time too?

[albie]

They'd say anything to make the world look more interesting.

I debate a lot with them on THEIR forums. It's often ten against one. illusionsforum.com is good though because you can call them names and the mods don't care.

And they wonder why I bother to go there.

[Norseman]

Some quick calculations.

The volume of air contained within one floor of a WTC tower is roughly
(63m x 63m x 3,8 m) 15 000 cubic meters or 49 000 cubic feet.

Falling debris with a speed of 8 m/s would collapse a floor in less than 1/2 a second. When the speed has increased to 16 m/s the floor would be collapsed in less than 1/4 of a second.

Conclusion, a tremendous amount of air that needs to escape in a fraction of a second carrying dust, smoke and ash. That would be quiet an "explosive" event.

[nicepants]

"A squib is a small explosive device used in a wide range of industries,"

A puff or flash is a puff or flash. A Squib is a DEVICE. So anytime someone says "look at the squibs", they're deliberately using the incorrect word to imply something that's not proven to be there.

Just my $0.02

[Belz...]

The squibs look suspicious to me. The explosions were forceful and directed

They aren't explosions.

... they still look suspicious to me, I still have no way of knowing exactly what happened, and I haven't seen any convincing explanations for them. If there is a study that attempts to prove it was the elevators, I'd love to read it.

Fat argument from incredulity.

[scissorhands]

Someone has popped up at LCF with a relatively well thought out (for them) explanation of the appearance of "squibs" on the wtcs and their positioning in regards to the air venting systems.
Granted, he cant seem to keep on a rational train of thought all the way through his article but it is an interesting read.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14028

[Civilized Worm]

I find it hard to believe that the strength of the windows could vary this much or that the weak windows would coincidentally be at the center of the facade.


Argument from personal incredulity, that's what it always comes down to with twoofers.