WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[skyeagle409]

Which Blanchard or Protec do not have.

On the contrary, it takes hands-on experience to become a demolition expert, and remember, Brent Blanchard is one of the world's top demolition experts.

BECOMING A BLASTER

Brent Blanchard, an implosion expert with Protec Documentation Services, says that countless implosion enthusiasts ask him the very same question: "How can I become a blaster or demolition expert?" There is no "blaster school" or organized demolition instruction program in the world, Blanchard says, so the only way to become a demolition expert is learn on the job.

Prospective blasters will work at an established blasting company until they know the field inside and out. Then, they can either stay on with their boss or venture out on their own and compete with the blasters who trained them.

http://science.howst...-implosion1.htm

Edited April 9, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

He has no hands on experience, that is why you can't point to a single example out of the thousands.

Lying about it just highlights your foolishness and the lengths of stupidity you will goto to keep up the charade...lol

And that is why it is not documented on his website.

Lying about it just highlights your foolishness and the lengths of stupidity you will goto to keep up the charade...lol

Let's take another look because the following requires the expertise of a demolition expert.

Industry History

The following is a transcript of implosionworld.com's

"A History of Structural Demolition in America", which was presented at the 28th Annual International Society of Explosives Engineers Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada on February 11th, 2002:

"Good Morning, my name is Brent Blanchard, and I serve as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services in Rancocas Woods, New Jersey.

The name of this paper is A HISTORY OF EXPLOSIVE DEMOLITION IN AMERICA

http://www.implosion...stryhistory.htm

Edited April 9, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Which Blanchard or Protec do not have.

Read on:

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

http://www.historyco...ent_blanchard_1

Edited April 9, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

On the contrary, it takes hands-on experience to become a demolition expert, and remember, Brent Blanchard is one of the world's top demolition experts.

But how can he be one of the words top demolition experts when he or his company have demolished a building...hahahahahahahaha!!!

You said you have phoned them, then you should be able to cite a single building he has demolished, yet you can't provide one and neither can his website because they are a documentation service, not a demolition company. lol

http://www.protecservices.com/CompanyProfile.php

Protec Documentation Services is recognized as an international leader in the field of vibration studies, field monitoring and structure inspection services. Our exceptional reputation has earned us the responsibility of overseeing many of the most challenging high-profile construction, demolition and blasting projects ever undertaken, and we look forward to putting that experience to work for you.

An international leader in the field of vibration studies, field monitoring and structure inspection services.... of overseeing many of the most challenging high-profile construction, demolition and blasting projects ever undertaken.

Over seeing and documenting but nothing about demolishing buildings...lol

Read on:

Sorry but it doesn't state that Blanchard or Protec demolish buildings...lol

[skyeagle409]

But how can he be one of the words top demolition experts when he or his company have demolished a building...

Facts, all facts.

You said you have phoned them, then you should be able to cite a single building he has demolished,...

Considering that since 1985, Brent Blanchard has demolished more than 1000 buildings, as per phone call conversation, and email, what more is there to say? That explains why Brent Blanchard is one of the world's top authority on demolition implosions and look what you posted.

Brent Blanchard: World Authority on Demolition Implosions

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries. Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears. The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words:

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

http://www.jnani.org...911/king911.htm

Spoken like the true leader that Brent Blanchard is, in the world-wide demolition industry.

Edited April 10, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Sorry but it doesn't state that Blanchard or Protec demolish buildings...lol

It seems that you failed to get confirmation from his company, which makes it all simple: you are not in the habit of doing homework properly.

In addition:

Brent Blanchard

There is also a crucial paper by Brent Blanchard on the Implosion World website at: http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf.

This paper alone should end any credulity towards the demolition theory, though its points need more elaboration for a non-technical audience. The reason that I highlight this paper is because it is the only one to date written by an authority on controlled demolition, based on access to data not available to either the official account or the counter-orthodoxy.

I consider this paper so important that I would recommend reading it before the rest of this text, or in parallel, as I shall make numerous references to it. In case the link to the Implosion World site should change or be down, I have made the paper available from my site here: Implosion World Paper.

BTW, how much experience does it take to push a simple demolition button?

Edited April 10, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Why are you pair so wrapped up with Brent Blanchard?

It is self-apparent from the paper skyeagle linked above that Blanchard is ignorant of demolition methods (both established and potential), selective in interpretation including unfounded conclusions and apparently lacks understanding of the full WTC demolition theory and evidence. I won't waste my time picking his paper apart point by point. It is only necessary to look at his Assertion #1 to see an example of the type of ignorance that is apparent throughout. To quote Blanchard: -

Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, “to get the structure moving.”

So it appears this alleged 'expert' has never witnessed the Verinage method of demolition, that's just to begin with. This is a method where structures are demolished from a mid-point rather than the bottom floors, showing Blanchard's knowledge lacking and completely disproving his claim above. And the WTC demolition initiations were no different to the Verinage method, requiring only further charges to progress the collapse to completion.

The official story is very welcome to label Blanchard an 'expert' and promote his poor arguments so far as I'm concerned.

[skyeagle409]

Why are you pair so wrapped up with Brent Blanchard?

He seems to think that in order to be a demolition expert, you have to flip a switch or push a button that begins the demolition process, but it doesn't take a college degree to flip a switch or push a button.

It is self-apparent from the paper skyeagle linked above that Blanchard is ignorant of demolition methods (both established and potential), selective in interpretation including unfounded conclusions and apparently lacks understanding of the full WTC demolition theory and evidence. I won't waste my time picking his paper apart point by point. It is only necessary to look at his Assertion #1 to see an example of the type of ignorance that is apparent throughout. To quote Blanchard: -

Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, “to get the structure moving.”

Note that it says, the lower level. There were no bomb explosions at the lower levels of the WTC buildings and no bomb craters either, unlike the 1993 bombing of WTC1..

So it appears this alleged 'expert' has never witnessed the Verinage method of demolition, that's just to begin with. This is a method where structures are demolished from a mid-point rather than the bottom floors, showing Blanchard's knowledge lacking and completely disproving his claim above. And the WTC demolition initiations were no different to the Verinage method, requiring only further charges to progress the collapse to completion.

Brent Blanchard is speaking of demolition implosions, not the Verinage method...BIG difference!! I might add that the French Verinage method does not use explosives as in the case of typical demolition implosions and I might further add that the French Verinage method also produces squibs. Remember, 911 conspiracist have claimed that squibs were evidence of explosives, but the Verinage method has proved them wrong because the squibs were produced by compressed air, as was the case when the WTC buildings collapsed.

The official story is very welcome to label Blanchard an 'expert' and promote his poor arguments so far as I'm concerned.

Actually, Brent Blanchard is right on the mark and the French Verinage method has refuted 911 conspiracist claims that explosives were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Check it out.

Verinage Demolition Method

WTC Building Collapse

Edited April 11, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Brent Blanchard is speaking of demolition implosions, not the Verinage method...BIG difference!!

So comes the day in their confuddlement that official conspiracy theorists begin to quibble over the terms “implosion” and “demolition”. The point is Brent Blanchard attempts to discredit the WTC demolitions on basis that the collapse initiation points do not occur on the lower floors, which, given common sense and the demonstrated Verinage method of demolition, is a hopeless and failed argument, clear to anyone. Demolitions can be initiated at lowermost floors, intermediate floors or even uppermost floors if so desired. Heck, demolitions can be initiated at the general location of airliner impacts, provided a thoughtful setup; pre-planned for such an event.

Again, the official story is welcome to all of the hopeless ‘experts’ (and supporters, skyeagle) that can be mustered.

Here is a real expert, John Skilling, the WTC chief structural engineer, talking the day after the ’93 WTC attack: “I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”

And finally, well done on depicting the similarity between a man-made demolition event and the WTC collapses in your previous post.

[skyeagle409]

So comes the day in their confuddlement that official conspiracy theorists begin to quibble over the terms “implosion” and “demolition”. The point is Brent Blanchard attempts to discredit the WTC demolitions on basis that the collapse initiation points do not occur on the lower floors, which, given common sense and the demonstrated Verinage method of demolition, is a hopeless and failed argument, clear to anyone. Demolitions can be initiated at lowermost floors, intermediate floors or even uppermost floors if so desired. Heck, demolitions can be initiated at the general location of airliner impacts, provided a thoughtful setup; pre-planned for such an event.

The Verinage method actual debunked the squib claims of 911 conspiracist so let's examine the picture in this light. 911 Truthers have said the squibs seen during the collapse of the WTC buildings was evidence that explosives were used, but the Verinage method has shown that such squibs will be produced without explosives. In other words, squibs are not evidence of explosives at all. When you add to the fact that during the collapse of the WTC builidings, there are no plumes from explosions nor sounds of explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, so let's take a review of what we do know.

1. Squibs are not evidence of explosives

2. No sound heard during the collapse of the WTC buildings

3. No plumes from explosions are seen as the WTC buildings collapsed

4. No detonation cords nor blaster caps found within the rubble of the WTC buildings

Those facts above leave us with the following question:

Why are 911 Truthers claiming that explosives were used when there is not a shred of evidence to support their claiim?

http://www.youtube.c...&v=A7-He9IfXes#!

And, it has been shown why squibs, which are seen emanating from the WTC buildings, is not evidence of explosives.

Again, the official story is welcome to all of the hopeless ‘experts’ (and supporters, skyeagle) that can be mustered.

It has been more than 11 years since the 911 attacks and after all of these years, not one shred of evidence has surfaced that refutes the official story. Instead, 911 Truthers have fabricated false evidence which have since been debunked with facts and real evidence. In other cases, they have actually posted disinformation, misinformation and known hoaxes, which have since been revealed as such.

It just goes to show why no one can take a 911 Truther nor 911 Truther websites as credible references.

Here is a real expert, John Skilling, the WTC chief structural engineer, talking the day after the ’93 WTC attack: “I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage. I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.”

Question is: How are you going to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition implosions and not attract a lot of attention? Do you know what is involved in preparing a building even before the first charges are placed?

And finally, well done on depicting the similarity between a man-made demolition event and the WTC collapses in your previous post.

Thanks! I just wanted to show that squibs are not evidence of explosives.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed

A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

After the 767 jet liner crashed into the world trade center building creating the worst terror attack in history, a fire burned for 56 minutes inside the World Trade Center building number two. The top 20 floors of the building collapsed on the 90 floors below. The entire one hundred and ten-story building collapsed in8 seconds... After a fire burned inside WTC tower number one for 102 minutes, the top 30 floors collapsed on the lower 80 floors. And the entire one hundred and ten stories of this building collapsed in 10 seconds. You can say the reason they collapsed was they were struck with a 185 ton jet airliner and the 24,000 gallons of jet fuel caused a fire of 1500 to 2000 degrees F which weakened the steel and cause the collapse. Or you can take a closer look at the buildings construction of the WTC buildings. And ask yourself why did these structures collapse so fast and so completely. The answer can be found by examining high-rise construction in New York City over the past 50 years.

The performance building code

How did lightweight high-rise construction evolve since WWII? It evolved with the help of the so-called performance code. After WWII the builders complained about building codes. They said they were too restrictive and specified every detail of construction. They called the old building codes “specification codes”. They complained the codes specified the size and type and some times even the make of a product used in construction. They decried the specification code as old fashion.

They wanted the building codes changed to what they called “performance codes.” They wanted the building codes to specify the performance requirements only; and, not specify the size and type of building material to use. For example, with fire resistive requirements they wanted the code to state just the hours of fire resistance (one, two, three or four hours) required by law; and not to state the specific type and material used to protect structural steel and enclosures for stairways and elevators shafts. For example, a performance building code states: the steel has to be protected against heat of flames for one, two, three or four hours during a fire. It does not state what to use as a fire resisting material. This performance code signaled the end to concrete encasement fire protection and allowed a spray on fire protection for steel and plasterboard enclosed stairs and elevator shafts.

Builders hailed the New York City building code of 1968 as a good performance code. However, some fire chiefs decried it as a law that substituted frills for real construction safety. The asbestos spray on coating of steel trusses used in the WTC towers was considered by Chief of the New York City Fire Department, at the time, John T. O’ Hagan to be inferior to concrete encasement of steel. Writing in his book, High Rise Fire and Life Safety. l976, he listed the following problems of spray-on fire protection of steel:

1. Failure to prepare the steel for spray-on coating adhesion. Rust and dirt allowed spray-on fire retarding coating to scale and fall away from steel during construction
   
2. Poor or uneven application of the spray-on fire retarding was discovered during post fire investigations
   
3. Variation of spray-on material during manufacture makes it ineffective
   
4. Lack of thoroughness in covering the steel during application is a problem
   
5. Failure to replace spray-on material dislodged by other trades people performing work around the steel during the construction of the building.
   

The WTC started construction in the 1970s. And the WTC towers built by the Port Authority of New York did not have to comply with the minimum requirements of the new1968 performance building code.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

I have also posted photos of the structure of one of the WTC buildings where fire protection was unsatisfactory, which left the steel columns exposed and unprotected against fire.

FIREPROOFING" AT THE WTC TOWERS

APPLICATION DEFICIENCIES

Fireproofing was applied directly to the long joists that supported each of the floors. Inspections of the floors with asbestos-containing fireproofing (up to the 38th floor in the North Tower) found that there were numerous areas where the fireproofing had never been applied. Top and bottom chords and truss web members were exposed, and the red lead on the trusses was clearly visible in many locations. Photo 1 shows a truss with fireproofing missing from its end where it meets the outside wall. Also, the fireproofing was frequently thinner than the 3/4 inch described in the Federal Emergency Management Agency-funded ASCE BPAT report on the collapse of the towers. Many of the problems observed were clearly the result of poor workmanship.

However, the nature of the structures that were fireproofed and application methods used could also contribute to the problem. Applying fireproofing to a long-span or any type of joist construction is difficult. The round rods and small angles making up a truss are difficult targets for the installer. Spray fireproofing materials are typically applied from the floor with an extended spray nozzle. The installer may be unable to reach or see certain areas of the trusses that must be covered. This frequently results in thin or absent fireproofing on surfaces hidden from the floor by the bottom of steel members (photo 2). In the WTC, this resulted in sections of the top surface of the bottom chord of the trusses receiving an inadequate coat of fireproofing. These are deficiencies that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM field quality assurance tests for adhesion, cohesion, thickness, and density had these test methods existed at the time of construction.

LACK OF QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING

The WTC was built before there were accepted standards for determining if the fireproofing as applied in the field would perform properly. Would the material remain on the steel (adhesion), resist physical damage (cohesion), insulate properly (thickness and density), and behave as a fire retardant? Architects relied on the "testing" undertaken by Underwriters Laboratories. However, without field quality assurance tests, there was no way of knowing if the properties of the applied fireproofing matched those of the material subjected to the UL test. The previously discussed tests would not become available until years after the completion of the WTC. For example, the ASTM test for adhesion would have detected the bonding defects of the fireproofing on core columns. This test and the ASTM test for thickness and density would have determined the adequacy of the spray fireproofing on the floor joists.

The WTC should not be considered unique in this regard. The fireproofing in any building constructed before the ASTM standards became available in 1977 should be considered suspect.

ACCUMULATED DAMAGE TO FIREPROOFING

There is another important aspect to this issue. There is no existing requirement in any building or occupancy code to inspect the fireproofing in a building periodically to determine if it has degraded through gradual physical damage. This is even true for new construction where the fireproofing is installed and tested early in the construction process. Successive work by many trades often damages and removes whole sections of fireproofing. In the WTC, the fireproofing coatings had been damaged by later construction and renovation in many locations.

LESSONS LEARNED

In considering the possible causes of the collapse of the WTC towers, the possibility that the initial application of fire-resistive coatings was deficient must be considered. The implications of this are far ranging. The fire safety of buildings depends on the fire-resistance ratings' successfully resulting in buildings that stay standing despite fire damage. Prior to the collapse of the WTC towers, it was thought that adherence to the fire-resistance ratings in the building codes would result in buildings that were safe for occupants and for those who fight fires. However, the entire scheme currently used to make these determinations must be called into question. If the WTC towers were properly protected but fell anyway, then this would indicate that the fire-resistance ratings and structural reliability of buildings as they are now built are insufficiently protective. However, if the buildings failed because the fireproofing was improperly applied, then the standards for fireproofing application and maintenance need to be strengthened. Peoples' lives depend on properly analyzing these issues and then taking appropriate corrective action.

Deficient firestopping

Deficient firestopping provides an avenue for fire spread. Columns, girders and beams are commonly protected with spray asbestos insulation or a composition material. Spray insulation has been tested to offer four-hour test ratings on columns, three hours on beams and girders.

Test conditions, however, do not match actual conditions in the field. Insulation adhesion may be ineffective because of rust. Frequently, insulation is applied to rusted metal that has not been properly treated before application; the insulation's consistency may vary; its application may be inconsistent; or it may be dislodged during original and new construction and maintenance.

http://www.fireengin...wtc-towers.html

Edited April 11, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Typical skyeagle. A complete diversion from any attempt to defend the initial point - Brent Blanchard’s poor argument (I’ll consider that point unopposed, obvious as it is anyhow) – and a confuddled tangent concerning ‘squibs’. He doesn’t even know what is referred to when ‘squibs’ are mentioned in regard to the WTC.

Skyeagle, the picture which you posted is not a ‘squib’: -

It is the focused ejections below the collapse front that are ‘squibs’: -

Whilst the official story claims these are pressurized air ejections from the collapsing tower, the isolated, highly focused and generally centre facing location (aligning with large box columns of the tower core structure) suggest they are actually progressive demolition charges designed to carry the collapse to completion.

[skyeagle409]

Typical skyeagle. A complete diversion from any attempt to defend the initial point - Brent Blanchard’s poor argument (I’ll consider that point unopposed, obvious as it is anyhow) – and a confuddled tangent concerning ‘squibs’. He doesn’t even know what is referred to when ‘squibs’ are mentioned in regard to the WTC.

Skyeagle, the picture which you posted is not a ‘squib’: -

That is not the result of explosives. 911 Truthers have claimed the squibs were the result of explosives, but as you can see, the photos refute their claim. Stop the following video at time line 0:06. What do you see as WTC2 collapse? And, what you don't hear as WTC2 collapses is the sound of bomb explosions.

[media=]

[/media]

It is the focused ejections below the collapse front that are ‘squibs’: -

That has nothing to do with explosives. That is compressed air and nothing to do with bombs. Take a syringe and plug the hole. Next, drill a tiny hole on the side, and push the plunger. What happens afterward? You can also drill a small hole on the sidewall of your automobile tire and get the same effect.

Edited April 12, 2013 by skyeagle409

[coolguy]

The towers where built to with stand plane crashes and not fall.

Somebody was hideing something.

Workers found the black boxs and the government said they where destoryed

Which is bull because the black boxs cant be destoryed

Edited April 13, 2013 by coolguy

[skyeagle409]

The towers where built to with stand plane crashes and not fall.

Somebody was hideing something.

Workers found the black boxs and the government said they where destoryed

Which is bull because the black boxs cant be destoryed

The WTC buildings were built to withstand the strike of an airliner, which they did. However, much of the structural loads were redistributed to other columns which lost their fire protection when the aircraft slammed into the buildings and that exposed the steel structures to temperatures high enough to weaken steel. The temperatures within the buildings did not need to be high enough to melt steel, but just enough to weaken the remaining structures that were now supporting the redistributed structural loads.

To further add, inspections of the structures within the WTC buildings prior to the 911 attacks had found that much of the fire protection was poorly applied, which left much of the steel structures unprotected from fire. The bulges were evidence that fire had weakened the structures and prior to the collapse of WTC7, examinations of its structure had determined that WTC7 was going to collapse as well, and a huge bulge was noticed on WTC7 as well.

[frenat]

Which is bull because the black boxs cant be destoryed

Really? Can't be destroyed? You think they're made out of unobtainium? Funniest thing I've read this week. Thanks for the humor.

[skyeagle409]

Really? Can't be destroyed? You think they're made out of unobtainium? Funniest thing I've read this week. Thanks for the humor.

Simply amazing!!!

[DONTEATUS]

Indeed the commits from the C.T`s in here never cease to amaze ! Did they not See the Two Air Liners hit the buildings?

[Babe Ruth]

What if the planes that hit the towers were not equipped with FDR?

[skyeagle409]

What if the planes that hit the towers were not equipped with FDR?

There would have been other means to determine what happened. For an example, you have ATC data and even the electronic engine control units can be used to provide useful information.

[Babe Ruth]

What if the ATC data were spoofed and inaccurate and thus invalid?

Clearly there is no engine data, because nobody has provided an engine to examine. Whatever data it MIGHT provide would be trivial. The absence of engines provides far more evidence, OF A COVERUP.

[skyeagle409]

What if the ATC data were spoofed and inaccurate and thus invalid?

Apparently, radar data, FDR data, communication tapes and position reports, eyewitnesses accounts placing the aircraft at specific areas are not evidence of spoofing. Remember, even though the transponder was tampered with on American 77, it was still creating radar returns to the point that ATC requested a C-130 to identify the aircraft, which they later confirmed had crashed into the Pentagon.

Clearly there is no engine data, because nobody has provided an engine to examine.

Let's take another look.

Edited April 15, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

That has nothing to do with explosives. That is compressed air and nothing to do with bombs. Take a syringe and plug the hole. Next, drill a tiny hole on the side, and push the plunger. What happens afterward? You can also drill a small hole on the sidewall of your automobile tire and get the same effect.

Did someone drill a hole on the sidewall of the WTC tower? Unlike your example, the facade of the WTC towers consisted of many windows/openings across every level. The result of pressurized air from the collapse would therefore be numerous ejections across/around each level. The isolated/focussed ejection actually witnessed indicates a focussed/isolated source of air pressure. A demolition charge fits the bill. Indeed, you will not find the WTC squib effect in any example of a natural collapse but frequently in that of demolition: -

[skyeagle409]

Did someone drill a hole on the sidewall of the WTC tower? Unlike your example, the facade of the WTC towers consisted of many windows/openings across every level. The result of pressurized air from the collapse would therefore be numerous ejections across/around each level. The isolated/focussed ejection actually witnessed indicates a focussed/isolated source of air pressure. A demolition charge fits the bill. Indeed, you will not find the WTC squib effect in any example of a natural collapse but frequently in that of demolition: -

That area you looped was nothing more than JET of debris which was ejected by compressed air and nothing to do with explosives and you will also notice that as the building collapsed it is forcing compressed air ahead of the collapse. Nothing in that lower photo that even remotely suggest the use of explosives.

It is really simple to understand.

Non-explosive Verinage method

You might want to review this video.

Add to the fact that no evidence of explosives was found at ground zero nor seen or heard on video and that simply underlines the fact that no explosives of any kind were used. In other words, if you can't provide explosive evidence, you have no case.

Edited April 17, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

skyeagle...

This is not a squib: -

This is not a squib: -

The images in my previous post(s) are squibs.

At least understand the feature that is discussed.

It's like if I said, "The grass is green", and you said, “No, it is not”: -

See, it doesn't make any sense.

Edit: and now you have changed the pictures in your post, which still do not show the squibs discussed.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Q24

[skyeagle409]

skyeagle...

This is not a squib: -

This is not a squib: -

The images in my previous post(s) are squibs.

At least understand the feature that is discussed.

It is all very simple; You have yet to provide a shred of evidence that explosives were used at ground zero. You might want to review this link.

Squibs

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

Edited April 17, 2013 by skyeagle409