Squibs +flashes

[GodisEnergy]

Cannot yet post URL .
So the Squibs were caused by pankaking air due to the collapsing building,right?

youtube.com/watch?v=IX9gdRST6zM&feature=related

uhh so it travels upwards?


youtube.com/watch?v=qJsq_mu9sus

youtube.com/watch?v=xtpWu-XZ7kM

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

And these must be glass reflecting sunlight right..yea thats why only some glass panels scintillate and not all.

[Brainache]

You should be able to post URLs. Your post count is over 15.

What do you think the videos show?

[Architect]

GodisEnergy

Use the search function. This has all been dealt with countless times on this forum.

[GodisEnergy]

just type www. in front of sorry

[Brainache]

www.sorry ?

[GodisEnergy]

lol no

[GodisEnergy]

are you debunking my english lol

[Sporanox]

www.sorry ?

Lol...good one.

And yeah, GiE, use search please...

[Brainache]

are you debunking my english lol

Nah. Just 'avin' a laff, as they say in the classics.

[GodisEnergy]

ok so yall checked out these videos, i dont know what else you guys need a signed confession?

[Brainache]

GodisEnergy

Use the search function. This has all been dealt with countless times on this forum.

what he said.

[GodisEnergy]

yea i did type squib in search this is what came up.

[Dave Rogers]

ok so yall checked out these videos, i dont know what else you guys need a signed confession?

I'll tell you what. If you can get the head of your conspiracy to go on television, and of his own free will admit to the fact that he planned the attacks, then we'll believe you. Of course, you have to agree to the same thing in reverse.

Dave

[GodisEnergy]

ok lets talk about squibs.
I dont beleive its the pressure of the collapsing building forcing outwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGTUl0Ev-zU

[Brainache]

ok lets talk about squibs.
I dont beleive its the pressure of the collapsing building forcing outwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGTUl0Ev-zU

If you look closely you can see that the dust blowing out of the windows starts slow and speeds up as the falling building causes the air pressure to increase. If it was an explosive causing these "squibs" the effect would be very different. There would also be more noise.

[Architect]

ok lets talk about squibs.
I dont beleive its the pressure of the collapsing building forcing outwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGTUl0Ev-zU

I'm not interested in your beliefs, I'm interested in sound evidence-based technical analysis. If you're looking for beliefs, I suggest that you try the religion section.

Turning to the video you cite, before we look at this we'll need you to properly go through the various threads here that have already done this one to death and then tell us which specific technical aspects you're concerned about.

If you're a typical member of the Truth Movement, you'll not do so. But I live in hope.

[GodisEnergy]

Its not really a beleif when im combating your beleifs too.

This may explain squibs underneath the floors collapsing(or ones timed to coincide with collapse but not the ones 30 stories below.

[PhantomWolf]

wow I feel like it's so 2003 all over again. Is Planet X turning up next month?

[CptColumbo]

GodisEnergy,

You are already making the assumption that the puffs of smoke are "squibs." Do you have evidence that they are "squibs?" Do you know what "squibs" are used for in demolition? Do you know what they look like when they are detonating? What makes you certain that what you are seeing are "squibs" and not something else?

[DC]

I'll tell you what. If you can get the head of your conspiracy to go on television, and of his own free will admit to the fact that he planned the attacks, then we'll believe you. Of course, you have to agree to the same thing in reverse.

Dave

free will?
waterboarding is allowed.

[Brainache]

free will?
waterboarding is allowed.

Al Jazeera used water boarding on KSM when he told them how he planned the attack?

Or did Bin Laden waterboard himself before he made all those tapes claiming responsibility?

[MRC_Hans]

ok lets talk about squibs.
I dont beleive its the pressure of the collapsing building forcing outwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGTUl0Ev-zU


Fallacy: Argument by incredulty. What you believe is irrelevant.

To hold your argument, you must describe:

1: How a pressure-induced blow-out should look instead.
2: How the observed burst is compatible with a HE blast.

Hans

[ElMondoHummus]

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

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html

[Dave Rogers]

free will?
waterboarding is allowed.

Wrong, you fail. Inconveniently for conspiracy theorists, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described how he planned the attacks in an interview on Al-Jazeera TV about six months before he was captured by US forces. Therefore, there is a clear confession given without the possibility of coercion, from someone who has not attempted to withdraw it even now when maintaining it is likely to result in his execution.

In the light of which, what has the truth movement got left?

Dave

[twinstead]

Hey. Doesn't Al-Jazeera waterboard ALL its interviewees?

[Evilgiraffe]

Of course he confessed.... Al Qaeda are CIA puppets !!!1!!eleventy!

[/troofer]

[ElMondoHummus]

Hey, fellas, gentle nudge: We're allowing ourselves to get off topic here.

Rerailing: Here are the results of a keyword search in this forum for "squibs". The criteria are to search all posts 6 months old or older. So everyone can see that this is hardly a new topic.

And I want to repeat my external links from earlier:

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

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html)


In summary: Ignoring the age of it, the argument in favor of squibs is weak. It's mostly based on mere visual observation, ignores much more obvious causes for the phenomena, and is contradicted in many different ways, not the least of which is the lack of opportunity to emplant explosives.

[Evilgiraffe]

Yeah.... um sorry EMH :blush:

It's a little difficult not to get distracted when the opposition argument consists solely of :

1) But the YooToob vid looks just like a controlled demolition.
2) I don't have the imagination/training/will* to consider the accepted version and decide whether I think it's plausible.

*delete as applicable

[gumboot]

wow I feel like it's so 2003 all over again. Is Planet X turning up next month?

I was going to comment on the same thing.

Based on GodisEnergy's posts so far, I am willing to believe they have just woken from a five year coma.

[CHF]

Squibs....been a while since I saw that stupid claim.

What's your next thread gonna be about GodisEnergy? "Are the hijackers still alive?"

[Anti-sophist]

I dont beleive its the pressure of the collapsing building forcing outwards.
Care to provide a compelling reason this belief of yours is true? Math and physics will be required.

[ElMondoHummus]

Yeah.... um sorry EMH :blush:

It's a little difficult not to get distracted when the opposition argument consists solely of :

1) But the YooToob vid looks just like a controlled demolition.
2) I don't have the imagination/training/will* to consider the accepted version and decide whether I think it's plausible.

*delete as applicable

Yeah, I know. Hey, I'm not a mod, nor am I trying to speak from some position of superiority (any jokes about this will result in assasination, carried out by stealthy ninjas in the night! :eek:). Rather, I've allowed myself to merrily hop on the derail train before (and undoubtedly will again :( ), so the one time I'm finding the "strength" not to go there, I'm donating it in support of others who're P.O.'ed enough at Yet-Another-Unsupported-Rehash postings to want to comment.

So in other words, I'm sorta like the other guy in the AA group: Recovering alcoholic, trying to lend a hand. And hoping that someone'll do the same when I go off half cocked to till at a windmill. :) So, no need to apologize; I'm just trying to be a good forum community member.:halo:

[Drudgewire]

Squibs? Pancaking?

Man, I sure hope Million Dollar Baby doesn't beat Ray for the Oscar. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/sweatdrop.gif

[Dave Rogers]

What's your next thread gonna be about GodisEnergy? "Are the hijackers still alive?"

I'm calling pods.

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

Squibs....been a while since I saw that stupid claim.

What's your next thread gonna be about GodisEnergy? "Are the hijackers still alive?"

Your just dying to get into that conversation, aren't you? ;)

[nicepants]

ok lets talk about squibs.

Please post your definition of the word "Squib".

You keep on using that word....
I do not think it means what you think it means

[Swing Dangler]

The squibs are pockets of "smart" air. These pockets of air travel where they want to when they want to. Some 30 floors of so below the collapse wave by passing absolutely every route and opportunity to exit the building in between each floor to eject in one particular spot. Some happen to chose to exit a few floors below the collapse wave as well. Some decide to eject themselves on multiple sides of the building as well in a somewhat symmetrical manner.
They are tricky pockets of air to figure out. But good news....

The military as part of a secret project is examining the idea of "smart" air as blast weapon. If they can begin to control the decision making process of smart air, the military feels that it can wield this weapon in the war against some terrorists. So that when a terrorists is blown away, they are literally not figuretely blown way..by smart air.

The squibs can't be from pancaking floors because NIST rejected the pancake model of collapse completely destroying Sunder excuse saying they were from pancaking floors, then the OE (official excuse) turned into the "piston theory" of air. According to an in-depth analysis of the squibs, "...the piston analogy might have made some minimal sense for the discarded pancake theory, it does not work at all for NIST’s current pile-driver theory. A piston is a sliding shaft that fits within an enclosed cylinder, whose action within the cylinder causes the volume and pressure to change. But the WTC buildings did not have sections acting like pistons at any time before or during their disintegration. Without pancaking floors, there is no internal shaft to slide down within the “enclosed cylinder” of these tall buildings.From videos and photographs we can see that the bursts of debris ejected from the higher
floors seem to be very similar in size, shape and velocity to those ejected lower in the building, and the frequency of bursts does not increase. If these bursts were the result of the pressurization of the lower section, how did the pressure remain so constant as the buildings fell? The pressure should have been much smaller at the top, creating a smaller force for ejection of debris than was seen near the end of the fall, and therefore smaller bursts near the top. But, if anything, the opposite is evident in the photographic evidence of those bursts emanating from the WTC towers – those ejecting at lower levels were smaller, or at best the same size.
In summary, it is clear that the high velocity bursts of debris known to exist during the
disintegration of the WTC towers cannot be explained by NIST’s latest “compressed air”
explanation for the following reasons.
• There was no piston mechanism possible in the falling towers because there was
no internal shaft and the upper section was disintegrating as it fell.
• The disintegration front was characterized by the explosive ejection of material
outward, and the resulting cloud-like debris could not have formed a continuous
surface to apply pressure to the air below.
Any pressure created would not be contained within a single floor, but would
have been distributed over many floors in the lower section and probably would
have vented into the external atmosphere as well.
• The high speed bursts seen early in the “collapse” could not have been produced
by air pressure alone as the pressure could not have risen substantially at the time
when they occurred.
• The similar size, shape and velocity of the bursts is not consistent with the fact
that any pressure created would have been rising as the debris fell.
• The point-like sources of these bursts cannot be explained.
• The debris that was ejected at the lower levels could not have been created as a result of the air pressure alone, and could also not have been created by the falling mass above, which would have required more time to arrive and was already traveling at nearly free-fall speed.
source: (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Ryan_HVBD.pdf) "


A controlled demolition hypothesis best fits the above characteristics but that will not be considered so therefore I suggest the quite feasible theory of smart air. An undiscovered IQ amount associated with air that was unveiled to the public on 9/11.

[chillzero]

I thought NIST only rejected pancaking as the initiation process? I thought that after the collapse started that it was generally accepted floors fell onto one another on the way down.

[CHF]

Swing,

why do the squibs intensify as the collapse progresses?

What kind of bombs do that?

The squibs can't be from pancaking floors because NIST rejected the pancake model of collapse completely destroying Sunder excuse saying they were from pancaking floors...

For the 60,000th time, NIST rejected the notion that pancaking started the collapse.

[funk de fino]

Another fresh air shot from Mr Reading Comprehension

Too funny

[Dave Rogers]

I thought NIST only rejected pancaking as the initiation process? I thought that after the collapse started that it was generally accepted floors fell onto one another on the way down.

That's right, although it's a subtlety that the truthers in general are wilfully unable to comprehend. Swing Dangler, for one, has certainly been here long enough to see it explained several times already.

Dave

[CHF]

Swing,

is there any TM talking point that you don't buy in to?

In the past few days we've seen you support McPadden, the seimograph nonsense and now the squibs.

Tell me...do you think the hijackers still alive?

[Swing Dangler]

Swing,

why do the squibs intensify as the collapse progresses?

What kind of bombs do that?


They appear to be about the same intensity and volume. Bombs didn't do that. Smart air did that. Didn't you read my post?

[maccy]

I'll believe that the "squibs" are somehow significant when a scientist publishes a paper in a journal, anywhere in the world, and doesn't get shot down by his or her peers.

That's the way the assessment of expert opinion tends to work.

As an alternative, I'll accept the truth movement taking their evidence to any prosecuting authority (including Interpol). Hell, I'd even be impressed if any media outlet, anywhere in the world, picked up any of the many contradictory "truth movement" stories.

If you can't see how your arguments have been rebutted time and again, maybe your inability to do any of the above might give you a clue.

Alternatively, you could ask yourself why you don't want to take the time to read these pages and methodically address the points they raise:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard
http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html

or, indeed, every link on this site:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

Or maybe you should ask yourself why you focus on tiny details that you find odd and extrapolate them into a vague and unlikely conspiracy which you cannot coherently describe in the whole, or even get to fit your many disparate odd details. Or maybe ask yourself why you can't accept that there are more likely explanations than yours for these oddities. Or, indeed, why you can't seem to see that for every small detail you think is suspicious there many other details that tell you it can't be.

Or maybe in five, ten or fifteen years time, when nothing has changed, you might decide to start learning about how the world actually works.

[CHF]

They appear to be about the same intensity and volume. Bombs didn't do that. Smart air did that. Didn't you read my post?

Yeah, but you were being a smart-ass.

So what kind of bombs increase in intensity as the collapse progresses?

[Swing Dangler]

Swing,

is there any TM talking point that you don't buy in to?

In the past few days we've seen you support McPadden, the seimograph nonsense and now the squibs.

Tell me...do you think the hijackers still alive?
CHF, the report I was discussing did not have a seismograph in it. It had a table as presented by LEDO. You of course would have known this had you read it. In the McPadden issue I do support his statements when combined with others, however, I do agree with the majority of you about the questionable countdown. But please do not try to derail the thread. What you could do is at least try to explain how the official excuse might answer the bulleted points in my comment listed below.


Dave Rogers
Originally Posted by chillzero View Post
I thought NIST only rejected pancaking as the initiation process? I thought that after the collapse started that it was generally accepted floors fell onto one another on the way down.
That's right, although it's a subtlety that the truthers in general are wilfully unable to comprehend. Swing Dangler, for one, has certainly been here long enough to see it explained several times already.

Dave
Dave, please link to where NIST provided a full explanation of the global collapse and not just initiation?
The last time I checked: NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below).From NIST's FAQ.
And if I'm not mistaken, NIST, couldn't explain the global collapse because of chaos and computer models. So Dave, I do comprehend quite well, thank you.
But please do let us know when NIST fully explains the global collapse. That might be important for the future of high rise building construction along with the multi-million dollar advice of better fireproofing.

[Swing Dangler]

I'll believe that the "squibs" are somehow significant when a scientist publishes a paper in a journal, anywhere in the world, and doesn't get shot down by his or her peers.

That's the way the assessment of expert opinion tends to work.

As an alternative, I'll accept the truth movement taking their evidence to any prosecuting authority (including Interpol). Hell, I'd even be impressed if any media outlet, anywhere in the world, picked up any of the many contradictory "truth movement" stories.

If you can't see how your arguments have been rebutted time and again, maybe your inability to do any of the above might give you a clue.

Alternatively, you could ask yourself why you don't want to take the time to read these pages and methodically address the points they raise:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard
http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html

or, indeed, every link on this site:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

Or maybe you should ask yourself why you focus on tiny details that you find odd and extrapolate them into a vague and unlikely conspiracy which you cannot coherently describe in the whole, or even get to fit your many disparate odd details. Or maybe ask yourself why you can't accept that there are more likely explanations than yours for these oddities. Or, indeed, why you can't seem to see that for every small detail you think is suspicious there many other details that tell you it can't be.

Or maybe in five, ten or fifteen years time, when nothing has changed, you might decide to start learning about how the world actually works.

Been there and done that. Can you provide a resource from the Government instead of anonymous webpages and tour guide ramblings, one of which I pointed out numerous errors in already in a past thread.

Instead of attacking my character, you could address the bulleted pointed in the comment below. Please do not attempt to derail the thread further.

[Swing Dangler]

Yeah, but you were being a smart-ass.

So what kind of bombs increase in intensity as the collapse progresses?

Please source the increase in intensity of the squibs? It appears in videos that they are similar. They would look more intense of course the closer they got to the ground. Is that what you are referring to?

[beachnut]

Its not really a beleif when im combating your beleifs too.

This may explain squibs underneath the floors collapsing(or ones timed to coincide with collapse but not the ones 30 stories below.
Sorry, this was debunked last year, the year before and so on. You are 6 years too late to do anything now because your ideas are false. Not new, look it up.

[Dave Rogers]

In the McPadden issue I do support his statements when combined with others, however, I do agree with the majority of you about the questionable countdown.

Have you made any attempt to contact Kevin McPadden to inform him that you feel that aspects of his testimony are questionable, as you have repeatedly criticised other members of this forum for not doing? Or don't your own rules apply to you?

Dave, please link to where NIST provided a full explanation of the global collapse and not just initiation?
The last time I checked: NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below).From NIST's FAQ.
And if I'm not mistaken, NIST, couldn't explain the global collapse because of chaos and computer models. So Dave, I do comprehend quite well, thank you.

However, from your comprehension you seem to have extracted the belief that NIST didn't and couldn't explain global collapse, but made a verifiable claim that no pancaking occurred in the global collapse. There's a bit of a contradiction there.

But since at the moment there's no new investigation planned, it's burden of proof time. Truthers claim that the ejecta are evidence of explosives because they cannot be explained by any expected features of a collapse due to gravity and fire/impact damage. Debunkers claim in response that the ejecta are caused by pressurisation of the building by the falling of the upper block, which is not necessarily the same thing as pancake collapse. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstrate that this pressurisation could not have occurred. Quoting the NIST report out of context won't cut it. Got anything that will?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Can you provide a resource from the Government instead of anonymous webpages and tour guide ramblings, one of which I pointed out numerous errors in already in a past thread.

But aren't Government sources necessarily untrustworthy because the Government is under suspicion? And if both Government and non-Government debunker sources are ruled out, what does that leave except truther sites?

Dave

[CHF]

What you could do is at least try to explain how the official excuse might answer the bulleted points in my comment listed below.

Ah yes, the indepth analysis offered by that fraud known as Kevin Ryan.

"There was no piston mechanism possible in the falling towers because there was no internal shaft and the upper section was disintegrating as it fell."

The disintegration front was characterized by the explosive ejection of material outward, and the resulting cloud-like debris could not have formed a continuous surface to apply pressure to the air below.

So because the top portion of the WTC "disintegrated" there was no weight bearing down on the floors below the collapse zone and thus no force to push the air. Brilliant!

The last time I checked: NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers

For 60,001st time: NIST ruled out pancaking as being what started the collapse. They do not say that the collapse didn't see each floor fail under the crushing force of the weight above it.

They did not model the collapse itself for the same reason why aircrash investigators don't model what happens to a plane when it slams into the ground. It doesn't mean they have no clue how the collapse progressed once it started.

Perhaps they assumed that it was obvious how a 40,000 and 120,000 ton dynamic load would smash its way through a building.

They apparently didn't take into account the stupidity of the TM.

[funk de fino]

Been there and done that. Can you provide a resource from the Government instead of anonymous webpages and tour guide ramblings, one of which I pointed out numerous errors in already in a past thread.

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.


Instead of attacking my character, you could address the bulleted pointed in the comment below. Please do not attempt to derail the thread further.

If the floor did not pancake after collapse initiation, then what happened to them? Did they just dissappear? Did they slip past each other or just turn into fairy dust? Ever hit a sponge and cream cake very hard on top. Why does the cream fly out the sides? It is not a piston either is it?

[CHF]

Please source the increase in intensity of the squibs? It appears in videos that they are similar. They would look more intense of course the closer they got to the ground. Is that what you are referring to?

The "squibs" intensify in strength as the collapse progresses, no matter what height they occur at.

I really can't believe you haven't seen this.

[Dave Rogers]

If the floor did not pancake after collapse initiation, then what happened to them? Did they just dissappear? Did they slip past each other or just turn into fairy dust?

You've been talking to Heiwa too much.

Dave

[beachnut]

CHF, the report I was discussing did not have a seismograph in it. It had a table as presented by LEDO. You of course would have known this had you read it. In the McPadden issue I do support his statements when combined with others, however, I do agree with the majority of you about the questionable countdown. But please do not try to derail the thread. What you could do is at least try to explain how the official excuse might answer the bulleted points in my comment listed below.


Dave, please link to where NIST provided a full explanation of the global collapse and not just initiation?
The last time I checked: NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below).From NIST's FAQ.
And if I'm not mistaken, NIST, couldn't explain the global collapse because of chaos and computer models. So Dave, I do comprehend quite well, thank you.
But please do let us know when NIST fully explains the global collapse. That might be important for the future of high rise building construction along with the multi-million dollar advice of better fireproofing.
You failed to read NIST. Why are you unable to answer your own dumb, what you think is a trick question. By asking the trick question, you prove you have no understanding of the WTC collapse. Good job exposing your lack of knowledge, it was not a secret. If you can just answer your own question, you could save time and not look so fact less.
Below I give you a simple explanation sponsored by 9/11 truth cult guys, who debunk themselves with their own papers and presentations. If you have knowledge.

Full explanation from me; when the top collapsed as explained by NIST, the building could not hold the damaged floors that fell on the undamaged section below; as stated by the chief structural engineer who built the towers, there is not way to stop global collapse.

Feel free to ask any structural engineer and you will get 99.99 percent confirmation from a large enough pool of engineers who agree.

Why do you enjoy being on the loosing team of made up stories on9/11?

For more on this, and how a paranoid Jones fails while talking to Robertson the chief structural engineer of the WTC towers. Tried to ambush a real expert, Jones promotes his foolish bs to the world as shameless sham.

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3

NIST was not studying the fall after initial collapse, there is no point, the building falls after the weight above is more than the structure below can handle. The fact is a floor can only handle 25,000,000 pounds on it. You can figure this out yourself if you had some skills at math. Do you have some skills in math, or just posting false information and not reading NIST to already know this stuff?

Listen to the mp3, Robertson is the expert who you need to beat with your parade of charlatans experts in 9/11 truth. If you 9/11 truth had some experts they could calculate this stuff and stop being fools. Can 9/11 truth do anything besides publish false information?

[chillzero]

The "squibs" intensify in strength as the collapse progresses, no matter what height they occur at.

I really can't believe you haven't seen this.

Would that be because there is more dust and debris to be blown out ... making the puffs of air more visible? Or is there a scientific reason for an actual increase in the air/force of the air being pushed out?

[Jonnyclueless]

I am just in awe that there is actually a discussion over this. Do people actually think this is something anyone will take seriously? And wasn't it supposed to be Thermite that was used so there wouldn't be any explosions? You know the explosions that are claimed to have been heard and seen, yet dismissed as thermite once pointed out the impossibility of planting those explosives?

[Myriad]

GIE, I think you're onto something here.

Flashes of light are energy.

The "squibs" you've observed are made of dust and air possessing kinetic energy.

Steel melts when its temperature increases due to heat energy.

God is energy.

So, God did it. We even have motive: we know from Genesis 11:1-7 that God dislikes tall towers.

However, there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. What authorities can you report God to? The Dalai Lama, perhaps?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Disbelief]

However, there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. What authorities can you report God to?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Mrs. God?

@Chill - The air would escape whenever the pressure associated with it was greater than what it was pressing against or when there was an escape route large enough to evacuate large quantities of air. It stands to reason, but I will state that this is speculation, that closer to the impact zone there would be a better chance of damage to the facade where the air would be able to break through easier. As the other air was forced down, and there was no easy place to vent, the pressure would be greater and the discharge would also be greater the further the air was from the impact.

[chillzero]

ok, thx :)

[Jonnyclueless]

I'd just like to know why if they used thermite to create the melted steel in the basement why would they use traditional explosives that supposedly created these squibs? Any takers?

[CHF]

And wasn't it supposed to be Thermite that was used so there wouldn't be any explosions? You know the explosions that are claimed to have been heard and seen, yet dismissed as thermite once pointed out the impossibility of planting those explosives?

It all depends on which piece of "evidence" is being dicussed.

If the topic is "molten steel" or the lack of CD charges going off, then the weapon of choice is THERMITE.

BUT....if the topic is "squibs," "pulverization," "freefall speed" or "118 FDNY heard explosions" then all of a sudden it switches to BOMBS.

Amazingly, this switch between thermite and bombs can even occur in mid-sentence as it did when I asked Richard Gage why there were no clearly audible explosions as the WTC towers came down.

His response was basically: "Well that's why they used thermite in order to eliminate the sound of the bombs....but 118 FDNY did hear explosions."

[Cobalt]

I'd just like to know why if they used thermite to create the melted steel in the basement why would they use traditional explosives that supposedly created these squibs? Any takers?

To trick people. Of course.

[Anti-sophist]

I thought NIST only rejected pancaking as the initiation process?

This is true. Just another conspiracy theorist arguing with a theory he plainly doesn't understand.

[Swing Dangler]

Have you made any attempt to contact Kevin McPadden to inform him that you feel that aspects of his testimony are questionable, as you have repeatedly criticised other members of this forum for not doing? Or don't your own rules apply to you?
Nope. I'm not calling him a liar.


However, from your comprehension you seem to have extracted the belief that NIST didn't and couldn't explain global collapse, but made a verifiable claim that no pancaking occurred in the global collapse. There's a bit of a contradiction there.
I would suggest taking the contradiction up with NIST. They said it.

But since at the moment there's no new investigation planned, it's burden of proof time. Truthers claim that the ejecta are evidence of explosives because they cannot be explained by any expected features of a collapse due to gravity and fire/impact damage.
Explosives are a hypothesis for the ejecta of course not evidence. The only way to prove explosives as you well know is to chemically test for such explosives. And that ain't happenin'!

Debunkers claim in response that the ejecta are caused by pressurisation of the building by the falling of the upper block, which is not necessarily the same thing as pancake collapse.


Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to demonstrate that this pressurisation could not have occurred. Quoting the NIST report out of context won't cut it. Got anything that will?

Dave
The quote was not out of context from the report, it was from the FAQ. The other was from a response from NIST to Jone's and company. Neither were taken out of context.

So your rules are I can't use in context comments from NIST? :newlol
I can see why considering they contradict themselves.

What you need to do is to support Sunder's claim for the squibs by addressing each of the bullet points in my below.

falling of the upper block, which is not necessarily the same thing as pancake collapse.
Could you explain the difference please?

CHF-For 60,001st time: NIST ruled out pancaking as being what started the collapse. They do not say that the collapse didn't see each floor fail under the crushing force of the weight above it.
You know very well they didn't explain the global collapse because of "the magnitude of deflections and the number of failures occurring the computer models are not able to converge on a solution." And because of that, NIST was "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
Initiation isn't the point. The OP is about squibs after collapse started not before the collapse.

They did not model the collapse itself for the same reason why aircrash investigators don't model what happens to a plane when it slams into the ground. It doesn't mean they have no clue how the collapse progressed once it started.
Really? I would request that you read: Reconstructing Columbia: How Computer Modeling Can Help Crash Investigators as presented by Space.com (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/computer_modeling_030226.html)
before standing by that comment.
"The modeling tool is widely used by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate aircraft accidents and could be applied to the shuttle crash by Columbia investigators."
Now, CHF, tell me again how "aircrash" investigators don't model crashes? :busted

[Disbelief]

Really? I would request that you read: Reconstructing Columbia: How Computer Modeling Can Help Crash Investigators as presented by Space.com (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/computer_modeling_030226.html)
before standing by that comment.
"The modeling tool is widely used by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate aircraft accidents and could be applied to the shuttle crash by Columbia investigators."
Now, CHF, tell me again how "aircrash" investigators don't model crashes? :busted

Once again, maybe you should read your own link. Where does it state modeling a plane that slams into the ground? It talks about using it to model what caused the break up in the air. Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

Swing and a miss - again.

[Jonnyclueless]

The planes on 9/11 broke up in the air. They just had a little help from the buildings.

[beachnut]

Swing, you need to get an handle on this. Your post is not showing any signs of knowledge about anything, just spam. Your lack of knowledge across a broad spectrum of subjects is not helping you figure out 9/11 as you mess up reconstruction of aircraft that failed due to unknown reasons, with acts of terror which we know what caused them. Your lack of logic is enormous. Mixing up reasons for why things are done is funny. Plus you missed the fact they did collect evidence to figure out 9/11. You are looking kind of truthy on 9/11.

In a thread about squibs, which never were, you choose to spam with your standard junk; as I read it, you show no ability to apply the knowledge you think you have.

What does this have to do with squibs? Squibs that never exited.

[pomeroo]

The squibs are pockets of "smart" air. These pockets of air travel where they want to when they want to. Some 30 floors of so below the collapse wave by passing absolutely every route and opportunity to exit the building in between each floor to eject in one particular spot. Some happen to chose to exit a few floors below the collapse wave as well. Some decide to eject themselves on multiple sides of the building as well in a somewhat symmetrical manner.
They are tricky pockets of air to figure out. But good news....

The military as part of a secret project is examining the idea of "smart" air as blast weapon. If they can begin to control the decision making process of smart air, the military feels that it can wield this weapon in the war against some terrorists. So that when a terrorists is blown away, they are literally not figuretely blown way..by smart air.

The squibs can't be from pancaking floors because NIST rejected the pancake model of collapse completely destroying Sunder excuse saying they were from pancaking floors, then the OE (official excuse) turned into the "piston theory" of air. According to an in-depth analysis of the squibs,

A controlled demolition hypothesis best fits the above characteristics but that will not be considered so therefore I suggest the quite feasible theory of smart air. An undiscovered IQ amount associated with air that was unveiled to the public on 9/11.



What a silly liar you are! Yeah, NIST said that the floors didn't pancake, although they obviously did. How many pages should we set aside to explain, for the thousandth time, that NIST rejected the notion that pancaking CAUSED the global collapse?

For some reason, you regard further self-humiliations as preferable to throwing in the towel. Your evil movement is stone-cold dead.

[pomeroo]

Please source the increase in intensity of the squibs? It appears in videos that they are similar. They would look more intense of course the closer they got to the ground. Is that what you are referring to?


Seriously, did you ever dream that you would be reduced to babbling about "squibs" in 2008?!?

Your defeat in the last "pull it" thread was overwhelming. Just when it seems that you can't possibly be more thoroughly discredited, you find a way to accomplish the impossible.

[CHF]

You know very well they didn't explain the global collapse because of "the magnitude of deflections and the number of failures occurring the computer models are not able to converge on a solution." And because of that, NIST was "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.

Exactly. The collapse itself was infinately more complicated than any model can successfully chart. No where does NIST say "once collapse started we have absolutrely no clue what happened."

What happened is obvious: the top section of the building smashed its way through the building floor-by-floor.

If you want something more in-depth I suppose you could start with the work of Frank Greening (he's a critic of NIST so you can trust him).

Really? I would request that you read: Reconstructing Columbia: How Computer Modeling Can Help Crash Investigators as presented by Space.com (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/computer_modeling_030226.html)
before standing by that comment.
"The modeling tool is widely used by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate aircraft accidents and could be applied to the shuttle crash by Columbia investigators."
Now, CHF, tell me again how "aircrash" investigators don't model crashes? :busted

Thanks Swing, I just read it. Did you???

If so, please direct me to the part where it says something about modeling what happens to an aircraft when it hits the ground (note: this is not the same as a mid-air break up).

What makes these performances of yours even more pathetic, Swing, is the fact that you insist on posting stupid little pics of laughing smiley faces and "Busted!!!" signs everytime you think you've pwned someone when in fact you've just made an ass of yourself - again.

[SDC]

I think Swing D. just reads the headline, perhaps the first line or two, and thereby misses the points of these articles he drags in which are, to say the least, unhelpful to his cause. Speaking as a librarian... this is a familiar phenomenon. Common, and irritating. I suppose teachers are familiar with it, too.

Oh yeah? Can you prove that you're a librarian?

[Alferd_Packer]

What does Richard Gage say about squibs?

[johnny karate]

ok so yall checked out these videos, i dont know what else you guys need a signed confession?

Apparently every MSM outlet, investigative body, and law enforcement agency on the planet does, because none of them believe these nonsensical claims either.

[Alferd_Packer]

The squibs are pockets of "smart" air. These pockets of air travel where they want to when they want to. Some 30 floors of so below the collapse wave by passing absolutely every route and opportunity to exit the building in between each floor to eject in one particular spot.

Hmmm, what is 30 floors or so below the collapse front at that point?

Let’s see. On 42 and 41 were the mechanical floors. Nothing on those floors but a bunch of fan units and elevator rooms.


Some happen to chose to exit a few floors below the collapse wave as well.

Do you mean on the 75th and 76th floor? More fan units and elevator rooms.

I can’t think of any reason how a bunch of fan units could possibly duct air and dust from the collapse front out the building, can you? ;)

[johnny karate]

A controlled demolition hypothesis best fits the above characteristics but that will not be considered so therefore I suggest the quite feasible theory of smart air. An undiscovered IQ amount associated with air that was unveiled to the public on 9/11.

Now all you have to do is account for the complete lack of the many, many loud and distinctive charge detonations that accompany all controlled demolitions and you might have something. Until then you're just spouting a bunch of "smart air".

[realitybites]

I'd just like to know why if they used thermite to create the melted steel in the basement why would they use traditional explosives that supposedly created these squibs? Any takers?

I'll see that question and raise you the "Who exactly are THEY?"

One of the reasons this theory has fallen by the wayside over the years is because, assuming the squibs are truly demolition charges, one must then attempt to discover who put them there and how.

This is a huge brick wall for the truth movement because uncovering the truth (for them anyway) has little to do with actually finding anything out, and more about making fun, little accusatory statements packaged in fun, little accusatory videos (with a few bucks on the side).

[Sporanox]

Lol...well, after taking stock of this thread, I have constructed a NEW AND IMPROVED alternative to the official story of 9/11.

See, these, uh, "they," who are evil people not so named except for the government, decided to have explosives planted in the WTCs even though they apparently knew the planes were going to hit the buildings anyway and Americans would still be galvanized to action.

But enough of that. The meat of the plan consisted of using hundreds, if not thousands, of silent thermite bombs that would sever the columns, causing the skyscrapers to fall. But that's not all. For no apparent reason, the conspirators also planted a small number of conventional explosives set to go off at random times, accomplishing virtually nothing except making people suspect the TRUTH. Then, as the towers were already collapsing, they topped it all off with pointlessly blowing out windows with pressurized air "smart bombs" for no reason other than to make MORE sheeple suspicious of the 'official story,' and in the final coup de grace, silently blew up another skyscraper so more people would be outraged even though nobody knew about WTC7 until truthers started blowing their horns.

Oh yeah, and a few years later as the truthers - ahem, excuse me, the non-sheeple - were on to the story, they RELEASE EVIDENCE OF SMART AIR BOMBS to, apparently, bait them some more.

Quite obviously the people who planned these attacks were a billion times dumber than any "goat herding cave dweller" that truthers usually lampoon as moronic.

[lapman]

They appear to be about the same intensity and volume. Bombs didn't do that. Smart air did that. Didn't you read my post?
SD, is air infinitely compressible?

If Yes, provide proof

If No, what happens when 480,000 cubic feet of air is suddenly compressed?

[dudalb]

You woud think that a guy who has Guy Fawkes as a Icon would know something about explosives.

[T.A.M.]

The worst part about this, is the arguments are being made with a poster (Swing) who the debates have already taken place with. Since YOU KNOW you are not going to convince him, I would simply start posting links to the threads here at JREF where, at length, the topics have been covered.

This will also help godisenergy do some reading before asking the same tired old truther canards.

TAM:)

[Arus808]

3 pages, and God's questions was answered on the first.

Please guys, we've been through this. Why make another thread go for more pages, when its been answered already?


God, again, READ what the various reports. Come back when you have a SPECIFIC question that hasn't been asked and dealt with before. USE the forum search function.

[Jonnyclueless]

What does Richard Gage say about squibs?

Richard Gage thinks they are mistimed charges. But of course when presented with the amount of explosives needed he switches to thermite. He was forced into agreeing with Robertson that the building would have come own regardless of demolitions. Which of course would defeat the purpose of explosives. Gages claims of proof were that the speed of the collapse proves explosives, yet that thermite was used so they wouldn't need as much. To which Robertson pointed out that the whole claim is based on the speed which means they WOULD need a lot of explosives since the purpose is to get the mass out of the way and make it fall faster.

[CHF]

The worst part about this, is the arguments are being made with a poster (Swing) who the debates have already taken place with. Since YOU KNOW you are not going to convince him, I would simply start posting links to the threads here at JREF where, at length, the topics have been covered.

I don't think anyone debates Swing for the purpose of convincing him or anyone else who belongs to the twoofer cult.

Personally, I debate him for the sake of comedy.

I mean who else would link to an article that doesn't support a given claim and then arrogantly shout "busted!" as if he's pwned everyone with his non-evidence?

[Almo]

GiE has this habit of starting these threads then leaving.

:tr:

[stateofgrace]

Lol...well, after taking stock of this thread, I have constructed a NEW AND IMPROVED alternative to the official story of 9/11.

See, these, uh, "they," who are evil people not so named except for the government, decided to have explosives planted in the WTCs even though they apparently knew the planes were going to hit the buildings anyway and Americans would still be galvanized to action.

But enough of that. The meat of the plan consisted of using hundreds, if not thousands, of silent thermite bombs that would sever the columns, causing the skyscrapers to fall. But that's not all. For no apparent reason, the conspirators also planted a small number of conventional explosives set to go off at random times, accomplishing virtually nothing except making people suspect the TRUTH. Then, as the towers were already collapsing, they topped it all off with pointlessly blowing out windows with pressurized air "smart bombs" for no reason other than to make MORE sheeple suspicious of the 'official story,' and in the final coup de grace, silently blew up another skyscraper so more people would be outraged even though nobody knew about WTC7 until truthers started blowing their horns.

Oh yeah, and a few years later as the truthers - ahem, excuse me, the non-sheeple - were on to the story, they RELEASE EVIDENCE OF SMART AIR BOMBS to, apparently, bait them some more.

Quite obviously the people who planned these attacks were a billion times dumber than any "goat herding cave dweller" that truthers usually lampoon as moronic.

Correct.

And your problem with this is ........?


;)

[beachnut]

You woud think that a guy who has Guy Fawkes as a Icon would know something about explosives.
when he post, the irony of that, is thick as his posts ...

[PhantomWolf]

People who think there was no overpressure of air rushing down the inside of the building as it collapsed would have to call Captain Jay Jonas and his men, like Billy Butler and Matty Komorowski lairs. I'd love to see a truther walk up to these guys and tell tham that they are lying about the wind that rushed down the stairwells and blew them off their feet down the stairs, it'd be funny watching the survivors of the collapse pummel them into the sidewalk.

[alexg]

Not sure is an explanation was offered for the flashes of light but if these are the same flashes we discussed a year or so ago then there is a very obvious explanation easily confirmed by watching the high rez video of "what we saw" by Bob and Bri. As the glass blows out of the windows it floats down the side of the building tumbling and wafting in the air and glinting only when it the angle is correct. You can actually see this clearly in the high rez. Some if the glass actually drifts over past the edge of the building. The youtube version is no good for seeing these flashes with any accuracy. The rest of the glass does not glint in the sun because of the angle, it is only when it tumbles just so that a flash is created. This is simple. This is why when sun signaling with a glass it has to be aimed exactly at the receiver and why your watch face makes a shine on a very small and narrow spot depending on how you tilt it.

Pancaking or not pancaking what do you call a massive amount of stuff crushing through a building in a progessive collapse? This argument is just silly. Of course massive pressure is created, call it panacking or whatever.
Obviously NIST corrected the original theory that the floors let go of the exterior walls in favor of the theory that the sagging floors broke the exterior walls but in both cases OBVIOUSLY the floors fall down!! Swing you just look silly on this one.

[GodisEnergy]

How many bombs were neeeded ? This argument i find abit moronic.. After all the skeptics say you need this many bombs but then debunk themselves because their theory requires no bombs whatsoever!

[WildCat]

http://home.mindspring.com/~chitaper/gorilla_nose_pick.gif

[stateofgrace]

How many bombs were neeeded ? This argument i find abit moronic.. After all the skeptics say you need this many bombs but then debunk themselves because their theory requires no bombs whatsoever!

Could you translate that into understandable English?

Ta.

[gumboot]

The worst part about this, is the arguments are being made with a poster (Swing) who the debates have already taken place with. Since YOU KNOW you are not going to convince him, I would simply start posting links to the threads here at JREF where, at length, the topics have been covered.


This is precisely why I will no longer discuss NORAD topics with A-train or Swing Dangler. Both have had their errors and ignorances corrected endless times. They are not misguided or mistaken or ignorant.

[realitybites]

How many bombs were neeeded ? This argument i find abit moronic.. After all the skeptics say you need this many bombs but then debunk themselves because their theory requires no bombs whatsoever!

You are correct sir!

A couple of passenger airliners travelling at 500+mph slamming into each tower mixed with the ensuing blaze does the same job.

Truthers do not believe this is possible and that bombs would be needed. So please, enlighten us.

How many bombs would do the trick?

Remember to show your work.

[GodisEnergy]

ok ill start with this site 911debunking.com .Reading their speculative theories vs one of the world best scientists(proffesor grabbe) is ludicrous .

"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..."

Proffesor grabbe could explain this better than me,but i want to share some question as to why the path of least resistance would not be the windows the floor above ,as you can see in videos squibs 30 stories below in not all windows just some occur.So why not the 29th floor ,why not the 2nd floor with all windows.Instead the syringe affect pushes air Downwards not Outwards.If such pressure could force material outward at that speed SURELY IT WOULD BREAK THE OTHER WINDOWS ON THAT FLOOR.


"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..."

Again speculative.The force of one of these objects would push material downward not in such a linear fashion

''This is the kind of thing the "scholars" want us to pay millions more investigating. Personally, I could think of a few other pressing issues to spend millions on. Like research into the collapse of critical thinking skills in American and UK universities''
Ah yes considering the ammount spent on investigating monica lewinsky compared to 911

[Alferd_Packer]

Proffesor grabbe could explain this better than me,but i want to share some question as to why the path of least resistance would not be the windows the floor above ,as you can see in videos squibs 30 stories below in not all windows just some occur.So why not the 29th floor ,why not the 2nd floor with all windows.Instead the syringe affect pushes air Downwards not Outwards.If such pressure could force material outward at that speed SURELY IT WOULD BREAK THE OTHER WINDOWS ON THAT FLOOR.


How do you know that the air is being pushed out a window?

Do you understand how HVAC systems work in high rise buildings?

[stateofgrace]

ok ill start with this site 911debunking.com .Reading their speculative theories vs one of the world best scientists(proffesor grabbe) is ludicrous .

"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..."

Proffesor grabbe could explain this better than me,but i want to share some question as to why the path of least resistance would not be the windows the floor above ,as you can see in videos squibs 30 stories below in not all windows just some occur.So why not the 29th floor ,why not the 2nd floor with all windows.Instead the syringe affect pushes air Downwards not Outwards.If such pressure could force material outward at that speed SURELY IT WOULD BREAK THE OTHER WINDOWS ON THAT FLOOR.


"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..."

Again speculative.The force of one of these objects would push material downward not in such a linear fashion

''This is the kind of thing the "scholars" want us to pay millions more investigating. Personally, I could think of a few other pressing issues to spend millions on. Like research into the collapse of critical thinking skills in American and UK universities''
Ah yes considering the ammount spent on investigating monica lewinsky compared to 911

Indeed.

It is all good and well copying and pasting from conspiracy websites but it simply does not wash on this forum. I would like to give you a word of advice, whether you take this advice is entirely up to yourself.

It is clear you have been seduced by the appeal of the conspiracies surrounding 911; you have bought into them all. This is entirely up to yourself, you can copy and paste no end of stuff from conspiracy web sites and continue to congratulate yourself on your ability to do so.

Or you can, as I earnestly suggest you do, look beyond your own dislike of the USG and allow the many learned members here try to explain to you why what you have bought into what is completely without foundation. To do this requires you to actually enter into genuine debate and real exchange of ideas and to try to understand the real facts and physics behind what is being discussed. What is required here is not that you simply copy and paste conspiracy site words but you actually put it all into your own words, your own thoughts, you own understanding and more importantly that you genuinely try to understand what other members are taking the time to try and say to you.

This is your call, simply keep buying into the theories that the TM are selling you or genuinely take the time to apply some level of critical thinking to what they are selling you. You may actually find, if you do so that there are many reasons to condemn the USG, but bombs in the towers, faked plane crashed, stand downs, fake videos, inside jobs, etc, etc are not them.

Of course you can completly ignore my advice, continue doing what you are doing and pretend you are posting something here that nobody as ever seen before, your call.

[PhantomWolf]

GiE are you saying that there was not a lot of air being pushed along down inside the buildings? If so, are you saying that Captain Jay Jonas and his men, like Billy Butler and Matty Komorowski were lying when they talked about the huge wind that blew down the stairs and picked them up off their feet throwing them down the stairwell before the collapse reached them?

[Blender Head]

Swing Dangler is the new Stundie.

[ElMondoHummus]

Crockett Grabbe? The same person who postulated "squibs" powerful enough to shoot material out a quarter of a mile, yet never explained how they never showed up in the seismic data, nor were heard by any witnesses? How are his speculations more sensible than pneumatic pressure destroying windows? The local differentials in pressure resulting in some windows not breaking can be explained by completely mundane factors, from internal structure redirecting pressure to some windows not being as equally well anchored as others. You don't have to speculate unsupported, unlikely scenarios to account for some windows not breaking out, like you do for squibs.

The fact of the matter is, the hypothesis of explosives demolitions use in the WTC collapse is contradicted by a multitude of factors, events, and observations. It is a disproven myth.

[PhantomWolf]

Not to mention that once one window breaks the pressure is released and so goes off the others.

[gumboot]

I wonder if Conspiracy Theorists realise that a squib is a small package of gunpowder used in the film industry to simulate bullet hits?

You know those little things you load into cap guns? They're squibs.

[ElMondoHummus]

I wonder if Conspiracy Theorists realise that a squib is a small package of gunpowder used in the film industry to simulate bullet hits?

You know those little things you load into cap guns? They're squibs.

Heh... how many times has that been brought up? [/rhetorical question]

[GodisEnergy]

Crockett Grabbe? The same person who postulated "squibs" powerful enough to shoot material out a quarter of a mile, yet never explained how they never showed up in the seismic data, nor were heard by any witnesses? How are his speculations more sensible than pneumatic pressure destroying windows? The local differentials in pressure resulting in some windows not breaking can be explained by completely mundane factors, from internal structure redirecting pressure to some windows not being as equally well anchored as others. You don't have to speculate unsupported, unlikely scenarios to account for some windows not breaking out, like you do for squibs.

The fact of the matter is, the hypothesis of explosives demolitions use in the WTC collapse is contradicted by a multitude of factors, events, and observations. It is a disproven myth.

Never showed up on the seismic data because it was drowned out by umm a building collapsing.
Yeas they were heard remember 180 witness of explosions ,crackling and popping sounds,like ricies.
I fail to see how the pressure on a window the floor below would allow it to be broken just because it isnt anchored as well ,after all its the same glass if you punch glass it doesnt matter if its anchored well .
Thirdly the if the pressure is realeased out of one window wouldnt you expect the discharged volume to be the same as the volume of compressed floors.

[gumboot]

Never showed up on the seismic data because it was drowned out by umm a building collapsing.
Yeas they were heard remember 180 witness of explosions ,crackling and popping sounds,like ricies.
I fail to see how the pressure on a window the floor below would allow it to be broken just because it isnt anchored as well ,after all its the same glass if you punch glass it doesnt matter if its anchored well .
Thirdly the if the pressure is realeased out of one window wouldnt you expect the discharged volume to be the same as the volume of compressed floors.

No

[PhantomWolf]

GiE, I'm still waiting for an answer on this. Are you saying that there was not a lot of air being pushed along down inside the buildings causing the pressure to increase? If so, are you saying that Captain Jay Jonas and his men, like Billy Butler and Matty Komorowski were lying when they talked about the huge wind that blew down the stairs and picked them up off their feet throwing them down the stairwell before the collapse reached them? These mnen were inside the towers when they collapsed, they were among the 16 who survived inside the collaspe. They describe what was going on inside the tower. Are you saying that they were lying when they describe this wind rushing down the stairs?

[ElMondoHummus]

Never showed up on the seismic data because it was drowned out by umm a building collapsing.

You can't be serious. If explosives were used, they would have initiated the collapse. They would have shown up on the plots first.

Or, if you insist that the pneumatic window blowout phenomena fantasists try to describe as "squibs" indeed occurred during the collapse, then you admit they could not have initiated it. Where does that leave the idea of explosives demolitions then?

This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said "the hypothesis of explosives demolitions use in the WTC collapse is contradicted by a multitude of factors, events, and observations".

[ElMondoHummus]

Yeas they were heard remember 180 witness of explosions ,crackling and popping sounds,like ricies.


What they heard were not explosives being detonated. Read the following:
http://911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard

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


I fail to see how the pressure on a window the floor below would allow it to be broken just because it isnt anchored as well ,after all its the same glass if you punch glass it doesnt matter if its anchored well .
Thirdly the if the pressure is realeased out of one window wouldnt you expect the discharged volume to be the same as the volume of compressed floors.

If the glass is not anchored as well as it's neighboring panes, then it would take less pressure to cause it to fail.

And the volume of air released would depend on interior structure. The floors were subdivided into offices and other rooms; you can only postulate that the entire volume of a floor would escape if you assume there's no interior structure to influence the forced flow of air. There were other places for the air to go; the elevator shafts would be one of several examples.

[GodisEnergy]

Yea wind rushing down the tower not outwards.
Oh thats all sepeculation that they heard was bodies droping engines droping through elevtor shafts etc etc. Explosions were heard ! Its not conclusive proof but IF there were controlled demolotions then without the sound of explosions it would be debunked not if there were.

[uk_dave]

There was no 'controlled demolition' because there was no need for it. Structural damage plus fire did the job perfectly well.

All but a tiny minority of construction professionals accept that the wtc towers failed for the reasons described by NIST. Don't believe me? Well that's tough. You have to decide whether you want to retain your faith in the ct fantasy based on such flimsy evidence or consider the alternatives presented by NIST and others.

I'm not really sure what (apart from trolling for kicks) your purpose is in visiting this site. Are you attempting to convince people here, despite the fact that your beliefs have been discussed on other threads over and over again and still you 'truthers' have failed to change reality. Do you have anything new to bring to the table?

Or are you wanting to be convinced that the CT is fantasy? Are you prepared for that?

Is the truth important enough for you to actually put yourself out and talk to people, face to face, such as a firm of structural engineers located in your region? Would you be prepared to pay them some money for a one or two hour consultation regarding the performance of steel framed multistorey structures in fire and the collapse of the wtc towers?

[PhantomWolf]

Yea wind rushing down the tower not outwards.

So you're now saying that the pressure wave could go down the stirs and lift shafts but not through the corridor and rooms of the tower? What is it that would have stopped the air from going sideways?

[Jonnyclueless]

Yea wind rushing down the tower not outwards.
Oh thats all sepeculation that they heard was bodies droping engines droping through elevtor shafts etc etc. Explosions were heard ! Its not conclusive proof but IF there were controlled demolotions then without the sound of explosions it would be debunked not if there were.

So then thermite wasn't used?

[Disbelief]

Yea wind rushing down the tower not outwards.
Oh thats all sepeculation that they heard was bodies droping engines droping through elevtor shafts etc etc. Explosions were heard ! Its not conclusive proof but IF there were controlled demolotions then without the sound of explosions it would be debunked not if there were.

So, air only would go down and not sideways? You understand we are talking about a volume of air, so of course there would be pressure going outwards.

As for the explosions, one thing that would explode would be the transformers, and we do know their locations.

[T.A.M.]

Yea wind rushing down the tower not outwards.
Oh thats all sepeculation that they heard was bodies droping engines droping through elevtor shafts etc etc. Explosions were heard ! Its not conclusive proof but IF there were controlled demolotions then without the sound of explosions it would be debunked not if there were.

Are you playing dumb, or really are you trying to imply that the word "explosion" refers only to the use of explosives?

You really have not read any of the literature people have pointed you to, have you? Typical denialism and ignorance...those two qualities of trutherism you at least have.

The caliber of truther really has declined.

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

ok ill start with this site 911debunking.com .Reading their speculative theories vs one of the world best scientists(proffesor grabbe) is ludicrous .

Isn't it interesting the way that any scientist that nobody's ever heard of suddenly becomes "one of the world best scientists" as soon as he writes some pseudoscientific junk about 9-11? Confirmation bias anyone?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

How many bombs were neeeded ? This argument i find abit moronic.. After all the skeptics say you need this many bombs but then debunk themselves because their theory requires no bombs whatsoever!

Actually, it's the conspiracy theorists who work out how many bombs were required, and come up with silly numbers. That's because the conspiracy theorists seem to claim that (a) the fire and impact damage and the thermal distortions of the structure had no effect and (b) the buildings couldn't have fallen as fast as they did, so they need to come up with ridiculous amounts of explosives to destroy the entire structure. It's a bit like the thermite argument I posted yesterday: what is the minimum amount of explosive needed for the towers to collapse as they did? We can be certain that at least that minimum amount was present. However, that minimum amount is zero, so there's no evidence for explosives. If you pretended there was no fire, as many conspiracists do, then there would be a requirement for unfeasibly large amounts of explosives; however, in real life there was a fire.

All you're really doing here is blaming debunkers for the fact that conspiracy theorists contradict themselves.

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

I don't think anyone debates Swing for the purpose of convincing him or anyone else who belongs to the twoofer cult.
Personally, I debate him for the sake of comedy.
I mean who else would link to an article that doesn't support a given claim and then arrogantly shout "busted!" as if he's pwned everyone with his non-evidence?

The article I linked to was to debunk your claim. Great reading comprehension though!
Disbelief-Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Really? I would request that you read: Reconstructing Columbia: How Computer Modeling Can Help Crash Investigators as presented by Space.com
before standing by that comment.
"The modeling tool is widely used by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate aircraft accidents and could be applied to the shuttle crash by Columbia investigators."
Now, CHF, tell me again how "aircrash" investigators don't model crashes?
Once again, maybe you should read your own link. Where does it state modeling a plane that slams into the ground? It talks about using it to model what caused the break up in the air. Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

Swing and a miss - again.

You have got to be kidding me. So in your world an airplane crash is not an airplane accident? If you can't reason this out why do you bother posting on my comments when nonsense like this spews forth?

Further trashing CHF's assessment of the NTSB's use of computer models comes from
here. (http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR92-03.pdf)
Or if you haven't decided I'm right and you and CHF are wrong you can read this: Challenging the Computer Simulation of the 1991 Crash of United Flight 585

"The NTSB reported that new computer simulation technologies developed for the USAir investigation may provide further insight into our 1991 crash. It was our opinion that the computer simulation study was an effort by the NTSB to prove their theory that a rudder reversal was the cause of the USAir and United accidents, and an Eastwind Airlines recovered upset...Source: Carrier Acts to Assure Its Pilots the 737 is Safe - Government Activity" (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_/ai_54428994)
Again like before CHF, you are :busted

johnny karate
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
A controlled demolition hypothesis best fits the above characteristics but that will not be considered so therefore I suggest the quite feasible theory of smart air. An undiscovered IQ amount associated with air that was unveiled to the public on 9/11.
Now all you have to do is account for the complete lack of the many, many loud and distinctive charge detonations that accompany all controlled demolitions and you might have something. Until then you're just spouting a bunch of "smart air".

Actually, there were loud detonations ie. explosions that were heard: Let the people who were there tell you about them: See Oral Histories. (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html)The only way to disprove the use of explosives of course are to test for said explosives with the results showing a negative result. And we all know that isn't going to happen.

Pomeroo-What a silly liar you are! Yeah, NIST said that the floors didn't pancake, although they obviously did.
Please link to where NIST said the floors pancaked to support your nonsense. Thanks!
Also, you have been reported for calling me a liar yet again. Now if you can link to where NIST explains the global collapse, I would be more than happy to retract my statement.

CHF-
What happened is obvious: the top section of the building smashed its way through the building floor-by-floor.

Can you source this obvious analysis from NIST please? To the best of my knowledge, NIST did not explain the global collapse because they couldn't model it, at least that is what they have stated. I do not accept you, POM, or Greening as an official representative of NIST.

[CHF]

I repeat: where does that article say anything about modeling a plane hitting the ground?

This is not the same as a mid-air breakup, Swing.

Can you source this obvious analysis from NIST please?

They state their position in the FAQ section, for starters.

Again, if you want a more indepth analysis of the collapse itself you can start with Frank Greening's work which corroborates NIST's position.

[Swing Dangler]

I repeat: where does that article say anything about modeling a plane hitting the ground?
This is not the same as a mid-air breakup, Swing.
They state their position in the FAQ section, for starters.
Again, if you want a more indepth analysis of the collapse itself you can start with Frank Greening's work which corroborates NIST's position.

Come on CHF, do I have to walk you through it? Or are you just pulling me along here?

Here is the relevant quote: "The modeling tool is widely used by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate aircraft accidents and could be applied to the shuttle crash by Columbia investigators."

Now are you saying that aircraft accidents are not crashes?

Or you could refer to: "The NTSB reported that new computer simulation technologies developed for the USAir investigation may provide further insight into our 1991 crash. It was our opinion that the computer simulation study was an effort by the NTSB to prove their theory that a rudder reversal was the cause of the USAir and United accidents, and an Eastwind Airlines recovered upset...Source: Carrier Acts to Assure Its Pilots the 737 is Safe - Government Activity"


Finally, does Greening a representative of NIST? Yes or no? If so that give me all the reason in the world to examine his work. If not, then the point is useless. I've repeatedly called for you guys to link to where NIST gave a full explanation for the global collapse. You have provided me with statements like "its obvious" and a reference to Frank Greening but nothing from NIST.
You have failed me, the truth movement, and debunkers everywhere. :mgbanghead

[CHF]

Come on CHF, do I have to walk you through it? Or are you just pulling me along here?

Here is the relevant quote: "The modeling tool is widely used by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate aircraft accidents and could be applied to the shuttle crash by Columbia investigators."

Now are you saying that aircraft accidents are not crashes?

Or you could refer to: "The NTSB reported that new computer simulation technologies developed for the USAir investigation may provide further insight into our 1991 crash. It was our opinion that the computer simulation study was an effort by the NTSB to prove their theory that a rudder reversal was the cause of the USAir and United accidents, and an Eastwind Airlines recovered upset...Source: Carrier Acts to Assure Its Pilots the 737 is Safe - Government Activity"

In other words, you have no quotes regarding the modeling being used to to determine what happens when a plane slams into the ground.

Modeling a mid-air break up or a "rudder reversal" is not the same as a plane slamming into the ground, Swing.

You seem to be confused between investigators modeling WHY a plane crashed and modeling what happened when it hit the ground.

You keep refering to examples of the FORMER when I'm asking for examples of the LATTER.

Finally, does Greening a representative of NIST? Yes or no?

No he is not and I never claimed he was.

NIST stated how they think the collapse happened - that the top mass contained enough force to smash its way through the building as was observed - but they did not model the collapse itself because a) it wasn't their mandate (they wanted to know WHY it collapsed, not HOW), and b) it's impossible to accurately model something so complex.

Some people, such as yourtself, were not satisfied with this and demanded to know more.

Thankfully, Swing, your prayers were answered by folks like Greening and Steffen who crunched the numbers and found that, lo and behold, NIST was right.

Suck it up.

[Sporanox]

Yes, I think math is the key here...would you then be disputing Greening's math, Swing? Or do you simply demand a computer model to believe ANY event?

[DavidJames]

Yes, I think math is the key here...would you then be disputing Greening's math, Swing? Or do you simply demand a computer model to believe ANY event?
Generally speaking, CTists demand whatever doesn't exist.

[lapman]

SD, Please explain why the NTSB would spend the money and time to model a crash when they already know the reason why it crashed?

[twinstead]

That reminds me. I've decided that either my wife provides me a computer model of my daughter's birth or I'm going to assume she got that baby from somewhere else.

[Sporanox]

Generally speaking, CTists demand whatever doesn't exist.

A good proverb. Speaking of which, in forty years they'll be demanding a holographic projection of the collapse. If any of them still insist in believing the CT.

That reminds me. I've decided that either my wife provides me a computer model of my daughter's birth or I'm going to assume she got that baby from somewhere else.

LOL...

[ElMondoHummus]

That reminds me. I've decided that either my wife provides me a computer model of my daughter's birth or I'm going to assume she got that baby from somewhere else.

And what if she turns around and demands a computer model of your daughter's conception? :eek:

OOOOOOOH! HE WENT THERE!!!! :jaw-dropp

[CHF]

SD, Please explain why the NTSB would spend the money and time to model a crash when they already know the reason why it crashed?

Because otherwise hordes of single white males living in their mom's basement will assume the crash was an inside job?

[Swing Dangler]

Yes, I think math is the key here...would you then be disputing Greening's math, Swing? Or do you simply demand a computer model to believe ANY event?
Nope. I've never seen his math. I'm waiting for NIST's math. Besides if Greening can do it, why hasn't he been subcontracted by NIST to provide the math behind the official explanation? Or better yet, if it can be done on paper, then why not a computer?

Again, I'm waiting for NIST's, i.e. the Federal Agencies explanation for the global collapse.

CHF-In other words, you have no quotes regarding the modeling being used to to determine what happens when a plane slams into the ground.
Modeling a mid-air break up or a "rudder reversal" is not the same as a plane slamming into the ground, Swing.
You seem to be confused between investigators modeling WHY a plane crashed and modeling what happened when it hit the ground.
You keep refering to examples of the FORMER when I'm asking for examples of the LATTER.

Lets go back to your original statement:
They did not model the collapse itself for the same reason why aircrash investigators don't model what happens to a plane when it slams into the ground. It doesn't mean they have no clue how the collapse progressed once it started.
The quote I posted was not in reference to the shuttle break up, it was to show that NTSB does model aircraft accidents i"The modeling tool is widely used by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to investigate aircraft accidents and could be applied to the shuttle crash by Columbia investigators."
They modeled the crash to prove a particular theory, the rudder failure. Now you might have a point if you can show that they did not continue the crash model all the way through to the impact into the ground. But until then the point remains.

Better yet, lets end this silly line of discussion. Can you support your statement that NTSB or aircrash investigators don't model airplane crashes?
I await your source.

[CHF]

Nope. I've never seen his math. I'm waiting for NIST's math.

It's already been explained to you that NIST did not model the collapse itself.

However, Greening's math corroborates NIST's basic conclusions as to what happened once collapse began. So if you think NIST's conclusions about the collapse are so horribly wrong then you should have no problem spotting some glaring errors in the work of others who have produced work that corroborates NIST. So get to it! :D

Besides if Greening can do it, why hasn't he been subcontracted by NIST to provide the math behind the official explanation? Or better yet, if it can be done on paper, then why not a computer?

Because the NIST team wasn't tasked with answering YOUR questions, Swing. They were tasked with determining WHY the collapses happened, which is exactly what they did.

If you want to have a debate as to what happened during the collapse itself then by all means feel free to pick apart the math of those who have looked into it.

Lets go back to your original statement:

Yeah, let's.

They did not model the collapse itself for the same reason why aircrash investigators don't model what happens to a plane when it slams into the ground. It doesn't mean they have no clue how the collapse progressed once it started.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the NTSB looks into what happens to planes when they slam into the ground.

Instead, you seem to think that "investigate aircraft accidents" somehow includes an investigation into this aspect of aviation disasters - which is something you have so far not been able to back up.

Can you support your statement that NTSB or aircrash investigators don't model airplane crashes?

So not only is your reading comprehention complete crap but you also don't understand the whole concept of BURDEN OF PROOF.

Instead of asking me to prove a negative, how about you prove that investigators DO model what happens to planes when they slam into the ground?

All you have to do is look up some NTSB crash reports and you'll surely find a few that examine the whole issue.

Good luck!

[lapman]

Instead of asking me to prove a negative, how about you prove that investigators DO model what happens to planes when they slam into the ground?
Better yet, prove that the NTSB models crashes when the cause of the crash is known.

[Disbelief]

You have got to be kidding me. So in your world an airplane crash is not an airplane accident? If you can't reason this out why do you bother posting on my comments when nonsense like this spews forth?



I post on your comments, because you have proven once again that you lack reading comprehension skills. While CHF has pointed it out repeatedly, you still fail to see the difference between a plane slamming into the ground and one breaking up in mid air. Can you point out in any of the articles where they say they model what happens to a plane after impact?

Here's something from your own link (bolding mine):

Three-dimensional models include a graphical display that translates the numbers into an animation of the vehicle under scrutiny, a useful tool for investigators hoping to see how a plane - or shuttle - was flying before it crashed.


Do you understand why this info would be more important than what happened after the plane actually hit the ground?

"A computer model is not going to tell you why the shuttle disintegrated," he said. "It can tell you how the ship behaved though, which still useful in determining the cause of a [break-up].

How does this help when discussing a crash into the ground?

[funk de fino]

Again, I'm waiting for NIST's, i.e. the Federal Agencies explanation for the global collapse.


I suggest you read the complete NIST report

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”


to further clarify this

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.



Any problems with these explanations SD?

[Dave Rogers]

Nope. I've never seen his math. I'm waiting for NIST's math.

I'd like to cite this as a textbook example of "bunking off", as discussed in another thread. Swing is rejecting an explanation of the collapse because it doesn't come from an official source. Of course, NIST is a government funded body, therefore its report can also be dismissed as biased. So Swing doesn't need to look at any evidence at all, which is very convenient for him.

Dave

[lapman]

Again, I'm waiting for NIST's, i.e. the Federal Agencies explanation for the global collapse.They must do this because?

[Sporanox]

Nope. I've never seen his math. I'm waiting for NIST's math. Besides if Greening can do it, why hasn't he been subcontracted by NIST to provide the math behind the official explanation? Or better yet, if it can be done on paper, then why not a computer?

Again, I'm waiting for NIST's, i.e. the Federal Agencies explanation for the global collapse.

Yes, the math will become more valid when it is merely regurgitated from a government agency...wait, what??

The issue is whether the math is incorrect. Not who did the math. Look at the math, Swing. Math is a universal language. Besides, the government isn't going to try to model what happened in the collapse because it's kind of GLARINGLY OBVIOUS. As Greening's math shows. Please look at it and tell us what you think.


I'd like to cite this as a textbook example of "bunking off", as discussed in another thread. Swing is rejecting an explanation of the collapse because it doesn't come from an official source. Of course, NIST is a government funded body, therefore its report can also be dismissed as biased. So Swing doesn't need to look at any evidence at all, which is very convenient for him.

Yes, this is exactly what will happen if NIST ever decides it needs to satiate the ramblings of Avery and Jones...lol

[CHF]

I'd like to cite this as a textbook example of "bunking off", as discussed in another thread. Swing is rejecting an explanation of the collapse because it doesn't come from an official source. Of course, NIST is a government funded body, therefore its report can also be dismissed as biased. So Swing doesn't need to look at any evidence at all, which is very convenient for him.

Bunking off....I like that term :D

Show a twoofer a government report and he demands one that is independent.

Show him an independent report and he demands something from the government.

Staling tactics don't get any more obvious than that.

[pomeroo]

ok ill start with this site 911debunking.com .Reading their speculative theories vs one of the world best scientists(proffesor grabbe) is ludicrous .

"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..."

Proffesor grabbe could explain this better than me,but i want to share some question as to why the path of least resistance would not be the windows the floor above ,as you can see in videos squibs 30 stories below in not all windows just some occur.So why not the 29th floor ,why not the 2nd floor with all windows.Instead the syringe affect pushes air Downwards not Outwards.If such pressure could force material outward at that speed SURELY IT WOULD BREAK THE OTHER WINDOWS ON THAT FLOOR.


"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..."

Again speculative.The force of one of these objects would push material downward not in such a linear fashion

''This is the kind of thing the "scholars" want us to pay millions more investigating. Personally, I could think of a few other pressing issues to spend millions on. Like research into the collapse of critical thinking skills in American and UK universities''
Ah yes considering the ammount spent on investigating monica lewinsky compared to 911



Professor Grabbe is yet another fraud who refuses to debate rationalists.

[T.A.M.]

Asking Crocket Grabbe for his "expert" opinion on building collapse is like asking the Dental Assistant for diagnosing the skin lesion on your back.

He is an ASTRONOMY FOCUSED PHYSICIST who's interest is in PLASMA.

http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe/

Good luck with that.

TAM:)

[Swing Dangler]

I suggest you read the complete NIST report
to further clarify this
Any problems with these explanations SD?
As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
Has NIST modeled this explanation or used mathematics to support their word?
Perhaps to show a fatal flaw in the method of construction or support current and future building practices?

Here is the thing, repeatedly not only in this discussion, both sides of the debate are tasked with offering evidence to support their views. Sure some evidence is better than others, etc.
Now when that same standard is applied to NIST's collapse explanation the evidence is not provided, ie. the mathematics and physics or computer models to support their conclusion?
And since they didn't provide it, the world can't test it. And if you can't test it, replicate it, or falsify it, then I think we would all agree it isn't science.

So....lets...

1. Make observations.-I think we can all agree NIST did this.

2. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.-Did NIST do this with the global collapse? NO! 3 and 4 are irrelevant. Why? To complex for computers apparently. Which leads us to the conclusion: why did it suffer global collapse, "Because we said so!" :newlol

3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
4. Search for confirmations of the predictions;
if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).

Now to get back to the OP: are there other global collapses
of buildings that show puffs or squibs ejecting from various points far below the buildings collapse zone?

The good debunker might respond like this, "Swing, please examine these pictures, videos, documentaries, written testimonies, oral reports, etc. of a building suffering a global collapse from gravity that shows squibs or ejecta taking place 30+ plus floors below the collapse zone."

Or better yet please show how the official untestable explanation can explain:

• There was no piston mechanism possible in the falling towers because there was no internal shaft and the upper section was disintegrating as it fell.

• The disintegration front was characterized by the explosive ejection of material outward, and the resulting cloud-like debris could not have formed a continuous surface to apply pressure to the air below.
Any pressure created would not be contained within a single floor, but would
have been distributed over many floors in the lower section and probably would have vented into the external atmosphere as well.

• The high speed bursts seen early in the “collapse” could not have been produced by air pressure alone as the pressure could not have risen substantially at the time when they occurred.

• The similar size, shape and velocity of the bursts is not consistent with the fact that any pressure created would have been rising as the debris fell.

• The point-like sources of these bursts cannot be explained.

• The debris that was ejected at the lower levels could not have been created as a result of the air pressure alone, and could also not have been created by the falling mass above, which would have required more time to arrive and was already traveling at nearly free-fall speed.


Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions — the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
There is one other theory that fits the untestable NIST prediction that actually could be tested and proven with empirical evidence that does offer an explanation for all of the above considerations. This of course was not done or needed by NIST because number 2 was not done.


Can you support your statement that NTSB or aircrash investigators don't model airplane crashes? So not only is your reading comprehention complete crap but you also don't understand the whole concept of BURDEN OF PROOF.
Instead of asking me to prove a negative, how about you prove that investigators DO model what happens to planes when they slam into the ground?
All you have to do is look up some NTSB crash reports and you'll surely find a few that examine the whole issue.
Good luck!
I'm not asking you to prove a negative, I'm asking you to support your statement. You made the statement, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
:big: The burden of proof is on you to produce anything from the NTSB stating they don't use computers to model plane crashes. You said they didn't use computers to model crashes. Now back it up!

I've provided several examples of the NTSB using computers to model a crash/accident for various reasons, one model could be used to recreate the shuttle disaster.

I'm sure you have something, anything to support your statement or you wouldn't have made it, right?

Or should I welcome you to the team and have a great weekend!

[SDC]

Would it be wrong of me to say that Swing D. has outdone himself in useless posts? His messages have become more and more like a dreamer trapped in an endless series of reflecting and distorting mirrors: nothing is right, and nothing is accurate, but somehow, in this case, he churns on, and feels that he is getting somewhere.

Look, the guy wants that Lifetime Stundie Achievement award and isn't going to stop till he gets it.

Please, assuage his fevered desires.

[CHF]

The burden of proof is on you to produce anything from the NTSB stating they don't use computers to model plane crashes. You said they didn't use computers to model crashes.

Good lord, you're a shameless liar.

I said investigators don't model what happens when a plane hits the ground.

I'm still waiting for you prove that they do, so feel free to post some NTSB links to crash reports where they do model such an event.

Show me where they model the crash itself. Not what caused the crash, not a mid-air break up, not a technical failure - THE CRASH ITSELF (that's the part where the plane strikes the ground).

If you can't do it just say so and admit you were talking crap. It's OK...it's not like anyone here hasn't seen you do this before.

Seriously man, you're making this way harder for yourself than it needs to be.

[Sporanox]

nothing is right, and nothing is accurate, but somehow, in this case, he churns on, and feels that he is getting somewhere.

He does have that tone, if nothing else...

Has NIST modeled this explanation or used mathematics to support their word?

No, they figured it was kind of obvious. But Greening has used mathematics to support their word. You should check them out, and also remember this - who does the mathematics is still irrelevant. They destroy your position.

Perhaps to show a fatal flaw in the method of construction or support current and future building practices?

Yes, this would be the flaw - when a giant upper block of a building has dropped onto the rest of it due to massive fire and impact damage, the rest of the building breaks and will not stop breaking.

Do you honestly think that any building design would consider that scenario? Let's be honest - once the collapse starts happening and a massive percentage of the total mass is falling down due to gravity, you've already lost what's left of your building.

Here is the thing, repeatedly not only in this discussion, both sides of the debate are tasked with offering evidence to support their views. Sure some evidence is better than others, etc.
Now when that same standard is applied to NIST's collapse explanation the evidence is not provided, ie. the mathematics and physics or computer models to support their conclusion?

Greening provides potential energy calculations. You're a truth-seeker, right? Then why don't you find out the truth? Since when did you set such high standards for sources, anyway, what with theologians and water testers serving as some of the high priests of your movement?

Better, yet, Swing, since you seem to be in the habit of crowing for NIST to provide the mathematics that you think will disprove their theory of global collapse, why don't YOU do the math yourself?

The burden of proof is on you to produce anything from the NTSB stating they don't use computers to model plane crashes. You said they didn't use computers to model crashes. Now back it up!

In response:

Three-dimensional models include a graphical display that translates the numbers into an animation of the vehicle under scrutiny, a useful tool for investigators hoping to see how a plane - or shuttle - was flying before it crashed.

"A computer model is not going to tell you why the shuttle disintegrated," he said. "It can tell you how the ship behaved though, which still useful in determining the cause of a [break-up].

Thanks to Disbelief for looking up the quotes for me.

So then, computer models simulate stuff flying, not stuff plowing into the ground, which makes sense. They're about aerodynamics.

You know what doesn't make sense? Needing to model HOW a plane crashed into the ground. When the ground hits it, the plane is dead.

[funk de fino]

Has NIST modeled this explanation or used mathematics to support their word?
Perhaps to show a fatal flaw in the method of construction or support current and future building practices?


They used the design capacity weight of the floors and explained that the weight that dropped from above exceeded this design capacity weight.

I notice you very dishonestly missed this part of the quote out. Your a fraud, you asked for an explantion from NIST. I gave you one. You moved the goalposts and ignored something you then proceeded to ask for in this post again.

Just for you again

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.


It does not matter who does the math, the outcome is the same. Are you disputing the explanation above? Do you have math to say it would not happen as NIST say? Or the others who have published their papers on the subject?

You are worst type of liar here, becuase you are well aware of your lies, having been here for months unlike the rest of the trutherbot trolls who come and go with the same old claptrap.