What caused the squibs in Twin towers as they collapsed?

Question

Some were 20+ floors below the collapse point witch was falling at free fall speed.
If you disagree with the speed than lets just assume it was slightly less than free fall speed. Either way there was little or no resistance.
So what caused the squibs?

Here is what I am talking about
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html

Answer 1

DEBUNK THIS IF YOU WILL. There were also 48 12" beams in the center of the building 48 beams do not fall upon themselves unless cut or demolition charged. The weight of the plane couldn't have caused that building to fall. The heat from the fire (1200 F.) is only hot enough to weaken steel not melt it entirely. The theory of the floors collapsing onto each other is probable but the melting metal is not and if you watch the videos close there is molted metal. Now, no uncontrolled fire could have caused the meltdown of ANY of the beams. Don't even try to argue this fact with me I'm a welder I know what it takes to melt metal. If the plane would have caused those buildings to fall they would have fallen to the side of where the collision took place. If the collision would have caused the buildings to fall it would have fallen away from the collision and would have fallen right after impact.For buildings to collapse on themselves you have to take out the center supports. The floors could have fallen on top of each other but, why weren't the center beams still standing?Those buildings were built to take a hit from a 706 I believe.

Answer 2

While no one may know, at this current point in time, there is evidence that the lower floors were in fact blown out by explosives. There is also evidence that a nearby building was purposely destroyed. There is also evidence that clearly indicates that the aircraft that flew into the towers were military aircraft. This is provided by cameras that recorded the impacts from 4 different views, and the statements of eye witnesses to the aircraft impacts. No rumor mill here, nor urban legend, those crashes were NOT done by civilian aircraft. Just as the Pentagon was not struck by a civilian aircraft. "Bunk" some might say, where in the pictures are the 7 foot diameter engines from the aircraft if it is true that the Pentagon was hit by a civilian aircraft. How could a civilian aircraft survive the penetration of 3 levels of the building when each level had a 3 foot thick outward facing wall of steel reinforced concrete, and the steel girders that were in the path of this aircraft as well. The first wall would have stopped a civilian airliner cold. Also, no tail, or wings were seen in the pictures, and the amount of fuel that would have been present, was not present, much less the fire damage that would result. "Wag the Dog", perhaps?

Answer 3

This story, much like the towers themselves, collapses under its own weight.
It appears to be simply an effort to add validity to the countless conspiracy theories presently making the rounds. Let's see if we can't debunk this one along with the countless others that have been proved incorrect.
"Squib" is simply the detonation explosion which precedes the main charge - which occurs almost immediately. Some of the alleged"squibs", as you noted, are seen in the photos as many as 20 floors below the actual collapsing floors - yet these floors did NOT collapse until contacted by the pancaking floors from above. This is clearly the case as seen in numerous videos and photographs. This directly contradicts the conclusion that these were actual detonations unrelated to the collapsing weight of the floors above them.
Also, not mentioned in this article, is the fact that the fuel did not burn off entirely in the impacted area but rather ran down staircases, through damaged floors, elevator shafts and so forth - and ignited on the lower floors which greatly expanded the air and debris below the actual impacted areas adding to the "piston effect" described in the article - blowing out windows and giving rise to the "squid" theory.
That's pretty much it in a nut shell.

Answer 4

Squibs??? Explain.

OK, I have seen the footage of the "squibs" and I think the explanation is pressure funneling through shafts running vertically through the buildings. The contention that non civilian aircraft crashed into the towers is ridiculous, they are clearly shown in dozens of films and photos.
The steel doesn't have to actually melt, it just has to be weakened to the point that it can no longer support the weight that it is carrying, burning jet fuel can do this easily once the insulation is dislodged.
I am not a structural engineer, but I was watching when the second jet hit the tower and I remarked that both towers would come down within the hour.you cannot put a fire like that out soon enough to save the building, and once the "pancake" starts, nothing will stop it..

The mystery to me is that I saw an expert on terrorism several years before Sep 11 outlining our vulnerability, and one scenario he mentioned was flying commercial airliners into high rise buildings, essentially using them as cruise missiles.

Answer 5

think of the WTc as a big syringe, the floors collapsing act like the plunger, this pushes a lot of air down, and if it can find a way out (maybe a window was already open, or the force was enough to break the window) it goes out. simple as that

Answer 6

Bush had bombs planted in the building ha ha probably true