Can you explain the short, bright flashes going off, and the explosive squibs shooting out of the Twin Towers?

Question

Please, WATCH this video first before you comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY

Then to learn about what REALLY happened to the Twin
Towers and Building 7, watch "9/11 Mysteries" & "Loose
Change"... don't listen to opinions... see the actual material
evidence for yourself and make your own judgements...

Where did all the bright flashes of light come from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY

The 9/11 Mysteries and Loose Change
movies can be streamed/ downloaded from:

http://www.truth911.net

Spread the word around! It is very likely
that another fake "false flag" terra attack
will be orchestrated again in the next 90
days, according to Fox News, just to
scare more dumb Bush lovers into going
to die in pointless wars for profit,
disguised as humanitarian "freedom
spreading" wars intended to bring
peace and security to the middle-east...
(which it has failed to do over the past,
errr.... 5 years... duh! ) Are Americans
SO DUMB, they can't see a modern-day
Hitler and Nazi-like behaviour on TV???

DUH!

Explain all the multiple short, bright
flashes of light, and all the horizontal
high speed ejections and explosions
shooting out of the Twin Towers, and
how an air fire (which typically burns at
temperatures below 250 C) can happen
to create molten steel (at about 1532 C)
seen pouring out the South Tower, just
moments before it collapsed...

Answer 1

iT's a cOnsPiRacY, mAn.

Answer 2

Wow, your nuts! First of all Bush will be gone in a short while, so theres little to worry about in the long run.
About the steel "melting". Anyone who knows anything about material science will tell you that you dont need to melt steel to weaken it. Ever heard of a process called blacksmithing? Its been used for about 1000 years to work steel. The basic principle is this, you heat the steel until it glows (about 800-1000C) or about the same temperature as the core of a paper (weak cold fire). At that temperature the steel becomes soft and more easily worked or bent into the desired shape.
Given that knowledge, say perhaps a load of jet fuel which burns in the vicinity of 1200C heated some large steel supports which were supporting uncounted tons of concrete. You make the call, could the weight maybe cause a sagging of the already softened steel? Then if the sagging produced steel supports which were then not rigidly verticle, would the sagging and deformation not begin to accelerate exponentially? Yeah thats what I thought.
How about YOU try to keep an open mind and use what is known about science and engineering, then you would also understand what happened. Instead of taking the word of some pissed off punk who cant get his facts straight. I hope this was enlightening.

Answer 3

The idea that the WTC was brought down by a planned demolition is brought to you by the same people who say NASA never landed on the moon (despite all sorts of proof) and that airplane contrails are really mind control chemicals being dispersed in the atmosphere.

Building 7 was not brought down by charges - it caught fire. You know, flaming jet fuel? Does that ring a bell?

And yes, I *can* explain those little pops of light:
Electrical sparks. I don't know if you know this, but lights, like, say, overhead fluorescents, require electricity, and spark when they're powered up and then break.

Answer 4

don't know . cant explain no mess % no sign of crashed plane @the other site the same day. Bush took off in a plane with 2 fighter plans only one either side of him he was well in the air before this happend so was is it cia or fbi we will never know .yes & bush left the family @ home something smells
the gt mystery were was the mess @ the othe crash site. that same time .the temperture was 6000deg @ the bottom of the towers neuc xplosion one would say think the other crash was @ the pentergon just no mess when the photografers arrived. The ailens are here the plane that hit the building had missile carrier underneith

Answer 5

These issues have been properly considered, and the theory you propose is conspiracy and far-fetched. Sometimes, fringe theories have some truth to them but you've got to look for the data and act carefully before jumping on board.

The data does NOT support your conclusion, and the circumstances make it awfully, awfully unlikely. Occam's Razor man.

Answer 6

These, and other 9-11 conspiracy myths have been debunked and explained already (see article at the link below).

If you refuse to listen to the opinions of experts and professionals as to what really happened on 9-11, then we refuse to listen to a bunch of amateurs and wantabe scientists at "Lose Change".

======edit====

Some examples:

--------------------
"Melted Steel"

CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

"Puffs Of Dust"

CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."