Horizontal Ejections and Squibs

[papasmurf]

Hey I'm back everyone. Miss me? I got suspended for using indecent expressions. Shame on me! Anyways, let's try to get a respectable conversation going minus the insults from both sides.

Today we are going to talk about the focused explosions of pulverized building material/concrete that shoots out of the building 20-30 floors ahead of the collapse front. We have all seen these. In one clip, we can see two of these blasts coming out from the midpoints of building, on different sides of the building at the same level.

I would like to know why it is more believable that these explosive, focused blasts of pulverized material coming out at the mid-points of the building are more easily explained by these two quite ridiculous explanations, which i will argue against in advance, than the squib theory, which they perfectly resemble.

1. The first is given by popular mechanics:

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

Alright pancake people... We are talking about 20 to 30 floors below the collapse front. These floors are completely intact, so there is no reason why the crushing floors 200 feet above should exert a pressure that great on the floors that far below. No reason. I think we can all agree that this argument is a big load of crap.


2. The progressive collapse pressure wave theory.

Some people have professed that a pressure wave travelled down the tower, somehow ahead of the collapse front, that blew out air from windows 30 floors below.

There are so many holes in this theory, and i will address a few:

A. How does this pressure wave travel through the building in such a way that is powerful enough to blast out windows?

B. This theory has not been scientifically proven. There is no evidence that this wave can even occur given the structure of the building and the behavior of the collapse. I find it very difficult to believe that this piledriving action of the top section was able to increase the air pressure in one floor 20-30 floors to the point of blowing out windows on multiple sides of the building when there are numerous shafts and resevoirs for this air pressure to be contained.

C. Even if there was enough pressure from this wave to travel through the elevator shafts and out the windows of the building, it doesn't explain the pulverized building material. How was concrete able to be pulverized. You can see the enormous amount of dust and debris that gets blown out of the window along with the window itself.

So there you go. I'm looking for some reasons and explanations for what you believe to be true. Please spare me the personal attacks and insults. If you don't understand physics, please just wait for someone else to respond who does.

[WildCat]

If you don't understand physics, please just wait for someone else to respond who does.
Oh, so you'll be offering up some math in this thread papasmurf?

Please calculate how much explosives would be necessary for the horizontal ejections.

Thanks in advance!

[Par]

I’m unsure as to whether I wish to engage in conversation with someone named after a blue glans.

[Mince]

You did not see what was happening inside the building (did you?...I don't know, maybe you did). You saw how the outside of the building acted. How can you speak with any authority on what happened to the floors inside by watching a You-Tube video? What is your expertise anyway? Can you adequately (and by that I mean in an empirical, scientific way) counter the explanations given?

[Quad4_72]

Oh, so you'll be offering up some math in this thread papasmurf?

Please calculate how much explosives would be necessary for the horizontal ejections.

Thanks in advance!

This is the key question smurf. Once you have those calculations, also ask yourself what kind of noise would these explosives produce?

[Mince]

If you don't understand physics...


Hmmmm. Interesting sentiment here.

[DGM]

Why didn't your explosives blow out all the windows (and spray glass) in the surrounding buildings? They should have if they were what you think they are. (Do research and learn about blast waves and the speed they travel)

Another quick question. Why do your "squibs" expand so slowly? Are you suggesting some strange low velocity high velocity (mind blowing isn't it) explosive?

[papasmurf]

How much explosives? You see them on specific levels every 30 floors or so. They could be explosives in the core of the building being blown out. I don't know the weight because i don't even know the type that was used.

This is not a key question. A key question is what are they? If they are not explosions, what are they? Please stop using diversion tactics, they do not work on me.

Any ideas? Thanks in advance...

[beachnut]

There were no blasts. Only gravity collapse, you need to do better and read more reports before trying to mischaracterize the WTC falling.

But nice try to back in thermite or explosives, they have been debunked, the truth movement died when the passengers on Flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes! Setting a standard 9/11 truth failed to meet in 6 years! Sad, dead movement the day of the event, proven dead by the event, and not one shred of evidence in the whole set of truth groups. Just false information, lies, and flawed conclusions.

Failed when you mentioned blasts. Based on physics and engineering, as learned while earning my engineering degree and masters in engineering. Kind of protects me from lies about 9/11. What is, or in your background that makes you predisposed to the ideas of the truth movement?

No explosives, you should have taken physics.

[Pardalis]

There are so many holes in this theory, and i will address a few:

A. How does this pressure wave travel through the building in such a way that is powerful enough to blast out windows?

B. This theory has not been scientifically proven. There is no evidence that this wave can even occur given the structure of the building and the behavior of the collapse. I find it very difficult to believe that this piledriving action of the top section was able to increase the air pressure in one floor 20-30 floors to the point of blowing out windows on multiple sides of the building when there are numerous shafts and resevoirs for this air pressure to be contained.

C. Even if there was enough pressure from this wave to travel through the elevator shafts and out the windows of the building, it doesn't explain the pulverized building material. How was concrete able to be pulverized. You can see the enormous amount of dust and debris that gets blown out of the window along with the window itself.

So there you go.

These are no "holes", these are just questions of yours.

[Par]

Incidentally, Papasmurf, what do you mean when you use the word “squib”?

[Mince]

How much explosives? You see them on specific levels every 30 floors or so.


Do you believe the (relative) small amount of (according to most truthers) squibs we see in all the videos is indicative of explosions designed to collapse the towers? Do you believe that (relative) small amount of explosives was sufficient to collapse a 110-story office building? Even in significantly smaller demolitions, a much greater amount of explosive flashes can be seen and a tremendous amount of "squibbing" can be seen as a result. Where were the flashes (at all) and significant squibbing in any of the buildings that day?

[WildCat]

How much explosives? You see them on specific levels every 30 floors or so. They could be explosives in the core of the building being blown out.
Of course, the cores were still standing after the collapse for a few seconds, but I digress...

I don't know the weight because I don't even know the type that was used.
Just use TNT equivalent. A physics guru such as yourself will have no trouble, for example, calculating how much it would take to not only cut a 20,000 lb section of columns, but to also send it flying 200 feet horizontally.

Get to work tiger!

[papasmurf]

There were no blasts. Only gravity collapse, you need to do better and read more reports before trying to mischaracterize the WTC falling.

But nice try to back in thermite or explosives, they have been debunked, the truth movement died when the passengers on Flight 93 figured out 9/11 in minutes! Setting a standard 9/11 truth failed to meet in 6 years! Sad, dead movement the day of the event, proven dead by the event, and not one shred of evidence in the whole set of truth groups. Just false information, lies, and flawed conclusions.

Failed when you mentioned blasts. Based on physics and engineering, as learned while earning my engineering degree and masters in engineering. Kind of protects me from lies about 9/11. What is, or in your background that makes you predisposed to the ideas of the truth movement?

Just to make sure we're on the same page here...

You with your masters in engineering thinks it's better to call the focused horizontal ejections of building material 30 floors below the collapse front "gravitational collapses"....

Okey dokey...

[DGM]

Any ideas? Thanks in advance...

Air!!!!!! The building was full of it (thankfully for all the people that worked there).


Any explosive charge would move the air in thousands of feet per second not less than a hundred. You can't deny this no matter how much the "truth" movement tells you to. (please think for yourself)

[Quad4_72]

How much explosives? You see them on specific levels every 30 floors or so. They could be explosives in the core of the building being blown out. I don't know the weight because i don't even know the type that was used.

This is not a key question. A key question is what are they? If they are not explosions, what are they? Please stop using diversion tactics, they do not work on me.

Any ideas? Thanks in advance...

Yes, it is indeed a key question. Once you do the calculations as to how much explosives it would require to eject the debris, then maybe you will realize the ridiculousness of your claims.

[Mince]

Please stop using diversion tactics, they do not work on me.


Ah, it sounds like somebody was smart and went out and purchased one of these:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11712488f9efe1e214.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13234)

[DGM]

I'd love to see a "truther" show me a video of a high velocity (1000+ FPS) ejection from the towers. Good luck none exist (another nail in the "truther" coffin).

[beachnut]

Just to make sure we're on the same page here...

You with your masters in engineering thinks it's better to call the focused horizontal ejections of building material 30 floors below the collapse front "gravitational collapses"....

Okey dokey...
The WTC was a gravity collapse after impacts and fire destroyed the strength of steel. Engineering and experience show me you have no expertise in physics, engineering or real knowledge on a broad range of topics needed to make sound judgments and form logical conclusions on 9/11. This is just from your mangling the questions and acting so knowledgeable on 9/11.

I assume you have read NIST, and several other reports on the fall of the WTC, and understand the chief structural engineer agrees with impact, fire and collapse as the mechanism that destroyed his structure. If you lack knowledge on these areas alone, you are lost and will not even get started on a discuss let alone your veiled attempt to blame others for the act of 19 terrorist who were responsively for the impacts at 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy, 7 to 11 times greater than the design aircraft impact studied by Robertson, the chief engineer on the WTC.

Veiled in question form, an attempt to prove explosives, debunked on 9/11 and ever since with facts and evidence. Your lack of evidence is going to pour out in each post. Like this one.

Without a background you bring pure false information to form bad questions.

So with a masters, I can see your OP is indicative of your failure to understand 9/11. That is my plight, but other rational people only need a grade school education to do the same.

[Hokulele]

The "squibs" are solved in this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2857347#post2857347

There is a bunch of joking, but the calculations and explanations are in there.

[papasmurf]

Do you believe the (relative) small amount of (according to most truthers) squibs we see in all the videos is indicative of explosions designed to collapse the towers? Do you believe that (relative) small amount of explosives was sufficient to collapse a 110-story office building? Even in significantly smaller demolitions, a much greater amount of explosive flashes can be seen and a tremendous amount of "squibbing" can be seen as a result. Where were the flashes (at all) and significant squibbing in any of the buildings that day?


I would say that in one of the videos, squibs can be seen at about 4 different floor levels until collapse. Granted you would see more in a normal demolition, but they would want to disguise this one as much as possible, for obvious reasons. There a number of explanations that can account for this. I'll pull a few out of my ass right now.

What if they had most of the explosions occurring in the core of the building, out of sight and earshot, but needed explosives further from the core only every 30 floors or so to do some kind of effect to the perimeter and outer core collumns to make it fall a certain way.

I admittedly am not an explosives expert and sure as hell did not help them plan this demolition job, so i don't really know.

Anyways, please stop answering my questions with questions.

I would like to know what you think those "squibs" are. We can't deny that they exist any more. Someone needs to come up with a reason for their occurence.

Also, why do you keep assaulting me with how much energy would require for these to occur with explosives? You are trying to argue that no explosives were needed, yet if explosives were needed, you claim you would need a ridiculous amount (i presume). So how can you say that gravitational energy alone has more energy than explosive and gravitational energy?

Say "I" if you see how inconsistent and contradictory these views are.

I do not deny that gravitational energy was present in the collapse. I am arguing that explosives were needed for the collapse to progress in the way it did.

[papasmurf]

The WTC was a gravity collapse after impacts and fire destroyed the strength of steel. Engineering and experience show me you have no expertise in physics, engineering or real knowledge on a broad range of topics needed to make sound judgments and form logical conclusions on 9/11. This is just from your mangling the questions and acting so knowledgeable on 9/11.

I assume you have read NIST, and several other reports on the fall of the WTC, and understand the chief structural engineer agrees with impact, fire and collapse as the mechanism that destroyed his structure. If you lack knowledge on these areas alone, you are lost and will not even get started on a discuss let alone your veiled attempt to blame others for the act of 19 terrorist who were responsively for the impacts at 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic energy, 7 to 11 times greater than the design aircraft impact studied by Robertson, the chief engineer on the WTC.

You veiled explosives attempt is weak.

Without a background you bring pure false information to form bad questions.

So with a masters, you can see your OP shows your failure.

Do you realize that you are the only one here who entirely misses the point of this thread?

We are talking about a specific characteristic of the collapse, and you're over here talking to yourself about how awesome gravitational collapse is.

No one cares if you don't think explosives were used. I want to know what the squibs are that we see during the collapse.

[Par]

I want to know what the squibs are that we see during the collapse.


What do you mean when you use the word “squib”?

[papasmurf]

Air!!!!!! The building was full of it (thankfully for all the people that worked there).


Any explosive charge would move the air in thousands of feet per second not less than a hundred. You can't deny this no matter how much the "truth" movement tells you to. (please think for yourself)

Just hold it right there Mr!

How did that air escape the building through midpoint windows 30 levels below the collapse front.

From what i witnessed, if the horizontal ejections (the ones AT the collapse front) were provided by the gravitational energy of the falling top section, there is no real reason for that pressure to be exerted 30 floors below this point, is there?

We can see most of the pressure is flinging steel beams and dust horizontally at the collapse front, now where is the energy of this explosive pressure wave coming from?

[WildCat]

What if they had most of the explosions occurring in the core of the building, out of sight and earshot,
There is no way in hell you could have such powerful explosions out of earshot in the towers. And remember, the cores were standing after the initial collapse!

I admittedly am not an explosives expert and sure as hell did not help them plan this demolition job, so i don't really know.
I thought you understood the physics? You rejected the air being pushed out because of compression, surely you must have at leat a back of the envelope calculation on the explosives you propose?

Anyways, please stop answering my questions with questions.
Sorry Sparky, you proposed explosives. Calculate how much was necessary.

I would like to know what you think those "squibs" are. We can't deny that they exist any more. Someone needs to come up with a reason for their occurence.
Air compression inside the towers due to the top of the building falling. And it has been explained to you aver and over again.

Also, why do you keep assaulting me with how much energy would require for these to occur with explosives?
Because it's your theory Sparky.

You are trying to argue that no explosives were needed, yet if explosives were needed, you claim you would need a ridiculous amount (i presume).
That's right.

So how can you say that gravitational energy alone has more energy than explosive and gravitational energy?
Do you even know how much potential energy was stored in the towers due to gravity? This should be right up the alley of a physics guru such as yourself! Get cracking!

Say "I" if you see how inconsistent and contradictory these views are.
You haven't produced a shred of math to even show they're contradictory. Got that calculation for potential energy done yet?

I do not deny that gravitational energy was present in the collapse. I am arguing that explosives were needed for the collapse to progress in the way it did.
Where's the math? We were promised world-class physics in this thread. So far all we have is Turbofan-style fyziks 101.

[DGM]

Just hold it right there Mr!

How did that air escape the building through midpoint windows 30 levels below the collapse front.

From what i witnessed, if the horizontal ejections (the ones AT the collapse front) were provided by the gravitational energy of the falling top section, there is no real reason for that pressure to be exerted 30 floors below this point, is there?

We can see most of the pressure is flinging steel beams and dust horizontally at the collapse front, now where is the energy of this explosive pressure wave coming from?
They're way to slow!!!! If a column is "thrown" by an explosive, the blast wave will pass the column on it's sides (the same force that would move the column) and a visible (high velocity) wave would be obvious.


Your trying to argue a point (explosives) that there is no visual evidence (although "truthers" tell you there is). Think very high speed crap moving through the air.

[beachnut]

where is the energy of this explosive pressure wave coming from?
Gravity. Grade school.

[papasmurf]

A squib is a demolition device. In controlled demolitions, their use looks exactly like the focused horizontal ejections seen during the collapse of the world trace center.

[beachnut]

. I want to know what the squibs are that we see during the collapse.

Air due to the building being 95 percent air, air was forced out like in any collapse. A piece of plywood falling down sends air flying, parts of the WTC were like a piston too.
Grade school again

[DGM]

A squib is a demolition device. In controlled demolitions, their use looks exactly like the focused horizontal ejections seen during the collapse of the world trace center.
NO! A "squib" is a movie special effect.

[stateofgrace]

Papasmurf,

I would like to get to know your theory better. From what you have written are you saying that nothing was happening inside the buildings below the "collapse point" you see on the videos that show the external columns peeling away?

Are you suggesting that the floor trusses inside the buildings were intact until your "collapse point" reached them?

That, nothing was falling inside the buildings?

[Par]

What do you mean when you use the word “squib”?A squib is a demolition device...


Whether or not there were “demolitions devices” in the buildings is a crux point at issue. We do not accept that there were. Thus, when you ask us what the “squibs” – i.e. “demolitions devices” – were, you are presupposing the existence of demolition devices. This is an example of the petitio principii fallacy. Do you see?

[WildCat]

How are those calculations coming papasmurf? The potential energy of the WTC should be easy for you to calculate, in fact it's been done before here. I'd tell you where, but a physics genius such as yourself doesn't need my help.

[Arus808]

a squib is a hollywood SFX device to simulate small explosions (ie BULLET shots into a building or a person). Anyone who continues to misuse this term is willfully ignorant.

[papasmurf]

I already addressed that point. Is that all you can do is repeat popular mechanics?

It is not just air, it is pulverized concrete.

This piston that you speak of. I doubt it's even there. Most of the matter you talk about is ejected horizontally at the collapse front, there is no solid body to act like a piston.

Think about what you are looking at. You are looking at a focalized point of emmission. Breaking though a window and shooting out jets debris. How great would this pressure need to be to cause the windows to break on multiple sides of teh buildings at teh same time like that?

Let's outline the math.

We can calculate the yield strenght of the windows using some data. If we have the size of the window and the type of glass, we can calculate the amount of force needed to shatter that window.

From there we use the area of the window to calculate the pressure.

Now, if we model the building as a perfectly sealed piston (which it isn't) and that no pressure can be exerted upward or horizontally at the collapse front (which it did), then we should be able to calculate the amount of air pressure exerted by the speed and mass of the falling top section which acts as the piston head.

Maybe i'll do this at some point. Then considering that there are elevator shafts and stairwells through out the building, we would need to determine if the air pressure can be distributed through out the entire building, or if there is enough resistance to airflow that the pressure would be forced to increase greatly on the observed floors for some particular reason, and blast out the windows.

[Mince]

Also, why do you keep assaulting me with how much energy would require for these to occur with explosives? You are trying to argue that no explosives were needed, yet if explosives were needed, you claim you would need a ridiculous amount (i presume). So how can you say that gravitational energy alone has more energy than explosive and gravitational energy?

Say "I" if you see how inconsistent and contradictory these views are.


A very large amount of explosives would have to be used to collapse the building. This is indisputable among the sane and the intelligent species. The reason I dismiss a small amount of explosives to initiate collapse of an already compromised structure integrity is that because the collapse initiated at the very point of aircraft impact. How did these explosives survive aircraft impact, explosion, subsequent fires and displacement?

[papasmurf]

This is some good footage. Please watch and try to explain what you see with the pressure wave theory. It is difficult for me. Maybe if i reallllllllly use my imagination...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ct9Gu_kW5s

[WildCat]

I already addressed that point. Is that all you can do is repeat popular mechanics?
No you didn't, we were promised physics. Got any?

It is not just air, it is pulverized concrete.
Then be certain to include in your calculations of the amount of explosives needed not just the amount needed to cut and eject the steel, but to pulverize the concrete as well.

This piston that you speak of. I doubt it's even there. Most of the matter you talk about is ejected horizontally at the collapse front, there is no solid body to act like a piston.
Excellent, this will simplify your calculations.

[WildCat]

If you don't understand physics, please just wait for someone else to respond who does.
Go ahead papasmurf, the floor is yours to present your physics now.

[16.5]

Squibs, jeepers.

So anyway, PapaSmurf, just what makes you think that there were windows there anyway?

[papasmurf]

A very large amount of explosives would have to be used to collapse the building. This is indisputable among the sane and the intelligent species. The reason I dismiss a small amount of explosives to initiate collapse of an already compromised structure integrity is that because the collapse initiated at the very point of aircraft impact. How did these explosives survive aircraft impact, explosion, subsequent fires and displacement?

Mince, you keep saying that. I understand you doubt the plausibility of explosives being used. I did too for a very long time. However, i am asking for you to give an explanation for what you did see. My explanation is explosives. What is your explanation?

As soon as you realize that there is no good explanation, the easier it is to rationalize the use of explosives.


As to how they withstood fire? They didn't. There were no fires below the fires! They could have the technology to precisely control the altitude of the plane with remote control technology. It could have been sent to hit directly above where the demolitions were planted, or to be safe, maybe they did have explosions directly where the plane hit, and those DID exploded during the plane collision.

(as for the molten steel or iron dripping from the towers, of which thermate is suspect, it takes extreme temperatures to ignite thermate that are not even close to being reached by the fire that was burning, a special igniter is needed to create these temperatures to initiate the thermate reaction) But let's not discuss thermate here, we'll save that for another day.

[Hokulele]

Since my previous post was apparently invisible, let's try again with quotes this time.

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

There were no explosives or "squibs" observed on 9/11. The acceleration profiles are wrong for explosives, right for broken windows moving in a pixel stream of video, and air being compressed and escaping as it increases in speed during building collapse. The squib become a red flag, a way to spot people too challenged to think for themselves and figure out 9/11. 9/11 truth members are exposed to be fact less with the simple squib statement, or the "pull it" statement. Squibs, make it so easy to spot someone who has no clue on 9/11.

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

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

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

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

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

Some quick calculations.

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

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

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

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

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

[Alferd_Packer]

How did that air escape the building through midpoint windows 30 levels below the collapse front.

have you heard about the stairwell B survivors?

That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.

The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.

Not only was the air being pushed down the stairs, but it was also going down the elevator shafts and the HVAC shafts as well.

Oh, and BTW, note the fact that the felt the wind before they heard the collapse. When did the explosives go off?

[njslim]

The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.


The air blast was able to lift a 250lb fireman, loaded down with nearly 100lbs gear, off
his feet and fling him down several flights of stairs.

Yet none of these people were injured - something that would have happened if
explosives were used.

[stateofgrace]

I already addressed that point. Is that all you can do is repeat popular mechanics?

It is not just air, it is pulverized concrete.



Please explain FULLY how you came to this conclusion?

PS


Papasmurf,

I would like to get to know your theory better. From what you have written are you saying that nothing was happening inside the buildings below the "collapse point" you see on the videos that show the external columns peeling away?

Are you suggesting that the floor trusses inside the buildings were intact until your "collapse point" reached them?

That, nothing was falling inside the buildings?

[phunk]

I already addressed that point. Is that all you can do is repeat popular mechanics?

It is not just air, it is pulverized concrete.
Actually it's more crushed gypsum drywall, ceiling tiles, fireproofing, smoke, etc.

This piston that you speak of. I doubt it's even there. Most of the matter you talk about is ejected horizontally at the collapse front, there is no solid body to act like a piston.


The tallest parts of the rubble piles, by far, were the footprints of the two buildings. They did not eject most of the mass outward.


Think about what you are looking at. You are looking at a focalized point of emmission. Breaking though a window and shooting out jets debris. How great would this pressure need to be to cause the windows to break on multiple sides of teh buildings at teh same time like that?

Explosions in the core could not be 'focalized' on a single window. The logical explanation is that the pressure increased until the weakest window popped out, and then dropped and no more broke in that area. It's also possible that the pressure didn't break the window at all, and it was broken by a column shifting, or vibration from the collapse, or something else entirely. The focalized ejection is a sign of a slow pressure increase, not an explosion. Especially considering the fact that the ejections were blowing for several seconds, not a burst like an explosion, and the velocities seen were 2 orders of magnitude too slow to be explosive.

[Mince]

They could have the technology to precisely control the altitude of the plane with remote control technology. It could have been sent to hit directly above where the demolitions were planted, or to be safe, maybe they did have explosions directly where the plane hit, and those DID exploded during the plane collision.


And it could be that 9/11 never happened and the buildings are still there.

When you have empirical evidence (empirical, mind you) of explosives (not just "this makes no sense to me so it must have been explosives" evidence), then start a thread a make a point. Two theories seem implausible to you (though you can't even articulate why) so you come to a nefarious "explosives" conclusion?

Makes no sense dude.

[phunk]

This is some good footage. Please watch and try to explain what you see with the pressure wave theory. It is difficult for me. Maybe if i reallllllllly use my imagination...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ct9Gu_kW5s

You're right that is good footage. It shows some pretty convincing evidence of pancaking.

[Alferd_Packer]

It is not just air, it is pulverized concrete.



What had more volume per floor? the concrete slab, or the friable building materials ( i.e. ceiling tiles, drywall, fiberglass soundproofing, fireproofing, etc)

[Drudgewire]

NO! A "squib" is a movie special effect.


They're a special kind of explosive charge that nobody knows about except twoofers. See, they're an explosive... but they are used to set off explosives... because it adds an extra step to the process and that makes a lot more sense than using the same charge to just detonate the explosive that you use to detonate the squib first instead. By setting off the explosive with another explosive, it signals the special fairies hired by BushCo. to turn to the bombs to thermite.

Interesting fact, the command for blowing up a squib to blow up an explosive device is "pull it." This comes from the ancient Chinese tradition of setting off fireworks by loading them into giant slingshots, releasing them, and then doing the same thing to a second rag wrapped in oil and set ablaze. Sure, it would be easier to just set the rag on fire and light the fireworks with it first, but again... extra, pointless steps are the key to maximizing an explosives' power.

Man, applecorped was right. This is so much more fun when you don't have to rely on pesky facts or evidence and just talk directly out of your rump. :D

[beachnut]

This is some good footage. Please watch and try to explain what you see with the pressure wave theory. It is difficult for me. Maybe if i reallllllllly use my imagination...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ct9Gu_kW5s
That WTC video, floor hitting the floor below and the air is leaving like this building ejecting air as it falls, but in the WTC each floor is an acre, and it has lots of air as the floor fails and falls to the next in .8 to .07 seconds based on the fires collapse at .8, the last floor at 07 second. FAST. Math, physics, thing you promised but failed to do! Preparation.

4wfpRO9bTfo
This building is small and the air comes out.

The WTC fell and the energy released was over 100 TONS of TNT, due to gravity. Tell me falling building can't move air quick? (physics, E=mgh)

The WTC was moving lots of air out in under .1 second by the 52nd floor, more math. (with 9/8 m/s/s and such)


The dust is mostly insulation from the floors, ceiling tiles and tons of dry wall used for wall, used in 3 inch thick double dry wall fire proofing on core, used on the shell interior too, and pure dust. Your cement explosive theory is pure fantasy! Nice try, but the easy friable floor insulation goes first, ceiling tiles make dust easy, the drywall does a good job, but only some cement that is smashed makes dust. Go do it, find friable fireproofing insulation, ceiling tiles, wall board and concrete (light weight concrete 4 inch floors) and try to make dust! Who wins with the least force. But remember, there is 100 TONS of TNT energy due to mgh. Physics!…

[papasmurf]

Thousands of pounds of explosives. Tons of them were needed. I know.

Does anyone have proof that those focalized points of air are increasing in velocity and/or are too slow to be explosives? That is pretty important.

As for the floors falling inside of the building, it is a ridiculous notion. The buildings are falling at near free fall speed, it is impossible that one floor could fall that much faster than the rest of the building, and dislocate 20 other floors, and keep falling at that speed, and then all of a sudden eject a fissure of debris out the midpoint of the building.

You want me to believe that floors between the collapse front and the squibs to have fallen much faster than free fall allows, and defying conservation of momentum, and then for some reason after all those floors fell, they decided to break perfectly centered windows after 20 floors or so?

Please think before posting hypotheses.

[Drudgewire]

Thousands of pounds of explosives. Tons of them were needed. I know.

Does anyone have proof that those focalized points of air are increasing in velocity and/or are too slow to be explosives? That is pretty important.

As for the floors falling inside of the building, it is a ridiculous notion. The buildings are falling at near free fall speed, it is impossible that one floor could fall that much faster than the rest of the building, and dislocate 20 other floors, and keep falling at that speed, and then all of a sudden eject a fissure of debris out the midpoint of the building.

You want me to believe that floors between the collapse front and the squibs to have fallen much faster than free fall allows, and defying conservation of momentum, and then for some reason after all those floors fell, they decided to break perfectly centered windows after 20 floors or so?

Please think before posting hypotheses.


"Pancaking," "squibs," and "faster than free fall." You've hit the twoofer tribeca in under three pages. If it was still 2006, you might not have just made my ignore list.

[16.5]

Since my previous post was apparently invisible, let's try again with quotes this time.

Yup, that last post was what I thinking about. The squibs are associated with the Mechanical floors, which have vents, and that was why I asked Papa Smurf if he was sure there were "windows there."

It went right over his little blue head.

[papasmurf]

That WTC video, floor hitting the floor below and the air is leaving like this building ejecting air as it falls, but in the WTC each floor is an acre, and it has lots of air as the floor fails and falls to the next in .8 to .07 seconds based on the fires collapse at .8, the last floor at 07 second. FAST. Math, physics, thing you promised but failed to do! Preparation.

4wfpRO9bTfo
This building is small and the air comes out.

The WTC fell and the energy released was over 100 TONS of TNT, due to gravity. Tell me falling building can't move air quick? (physics, E=mgh)

The WTC was moving lots of air out in under .1 second by the 52nd floor, more math. (with 9/8 m/s/s and such)

No beachnut, no. Those floors are still there, hence they have not yet pancaked to provide the pressure necessary to blast out the window. Floors pancaking above should not exert pressure on the floors below. If anything, the pancaking floor should blast the air out of the window in the pancaking region, or possibly directly below it.

[papasmurf]

That is a good point.. I think the point that they were on the mechanical floors strengthens my argument. The covert maintenance workers probably had easy access to the maintence floors to plant squibs on the outer columns.

If it was indeed an air vent, it still doesn't explain the pulverized material that came out with it. Look at the material being exerted. It's pulverized to dust, but the building has not been destroyed at that point yet.

[pomeroo]

How much explosives? You see them on specific levels every 30 floors or so. They could be explosives in the core of the building being blown out. I don't know the weight because i don't even know the type that was used.

This is not a key question. A key question is what are they? If they are not explosions, what are they? Please stop using diversion tactics, they do not work on me.

Any ideas? Thanks in advance...


Yes, of course appeals to scientific principles and real evidence don't work on you: you are a conspiracy liar.

Why do those silly demolition experts keep trying to explain to you ineducable dunces that the phenomenon we observe, a plume of air that gradually expands, is exactly the opposite of what we could expect to see in an explosion, a burst that quickly dissipates?

What do you ignorant liars know that the experts don't?

[stateofgrace]

Thousands of pounds of explosives. Tons of them were needed. I know.

Does anyone have proof that those focalized points of air are increasing in velocity and/or are too slow to be explosives? That is pretty important.

As for the floors falling inside of the building, it is a ridiculous notion. The buildings are falling at near free fall speed, it is impossible that one floor could fall that much faster than the rest of the building, and dislocate 20 other floors, and keep falling at that speed, and then all of a sudden eject a fissure of debris out the midpoint of the building.

You want me to believe that floors between the collapse front and the squibs to have fallen much faster than free fall allows, and defying conservation of momentum, and then for some reason after all those floors fell, they decided to break perfectly centered windows after 20 floors or so?

Please think before posting hypotheses.

:dl:

[Hokulele]

If it was indeed an air vent, it still doesn't explain the pulverized material that came out with it. Look at the material being exerted. It's pulverized to dust, but the building has not been destroyed at that point yet.


Strike three.

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

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

[WildCat]

Thousands of pounds of explosives. Tons of them were needed. I know.
How many tons? According to you, there needs to be enough explosives in the exact center of each floor to blast "most" of the mass of each floor outside the building footprint. Calculation please!

As for the floors falling inside of the building, it is a ridiculous notion.
Was the fireman lying?

it is impossible that one floor could fall that much faster than the rest of the building,
Has it ever occurreed to you that the floors didn't fall faster, they fell first?

and dislocate 20 other floors,
Who has ever claimed that happened? Or are you just lying making stuff up?

they decided to break perfectly centered windows after 20 floors or so?
Good point! Glad you finally noticed. Know what those floors were? What those "windows" were? I do, how come a serious 9/11 researcher such as yourself doesn't know?

Please think before posting hypotheses.
:id:

[pomeroo]

A squib is a demolition device. In controlled demolitions, their use looks exactly like the focused horizontal ejections seen during the collapse of the world trace center.


But, I remind you again, those pesky demiolition experts insist that you are completely wrong. The bursts of compressed air we see in the collapse videos do NOT resemble explosions. Many of your fellow liars have been forced to give up on the "squibs." You are near the bottom of a very "special" class.

[16.5]

That is a good point.. I think the point that they were on the mechanical floors strengthens my argument. The covert maintenance workers probably had easy access to the maintence floors to plant squibs on the outer columns.

If it was indeed an air vent, it still doesn't explain the pulverized material that came out with it. Look at the material being exerted. It's pulverized to dust, but the building has not been destroyed at that point yet.

I'll ignore the first part and point out that you appear to be unfamiliar with HVAC systems, vents and exhausts. By the way, when air is forced through an HVAC system, it carries along with it anything that is suspended in the air as well, like dust, smoke, etc.

Anyhow, hook a high pressure air hose to your vents tonight. Trust me on this, what comes out of the vents will be clean as the driven snow. Don't bother covering up your white furniture

Hell, I'll help you do it.

[pomeroo]

Mince, you keep saying that. I understand you doubt the plausibility of explosives being used. I did too for a very long time. However, i am asking for you to give an explanation for what you did see. My explanation is explosives. What is your explanation?

As soon as you realize that there is no good explanation, the easier it is to rationalize the use of explosives.


As to how they withstood fire? They didn't. There were no fires below the fires! They could have the technology to precisely control the altitude of the plane with remote control technology. It could have been sent to hit directly above where the demolitions were planted, or to be safe, maybe they did have explosions directly where the plane hit, and those DID exploded during the plane collision.




Uh, there have been a few threads demonstrating the near-impossibility of flying Boeing airliners by remote control. I won't bother to link to Apathoid's paper. You are not remotely capable of reading it.




(as for the molten steel or iron dripping from the towers, of which thermate is suspect, it takes extreme temperatures to ignite thermate that are not even close to being reached by the fire that was burning, a special igniter is needed to create these temperatures to initiate the thermate reaction) But let's not discuss thermate here, we'll save that for another day.


Oh, boy! Another total ignoramus is promising to recycle uninformed nonsense about thermite. We can't wait!

[Drudgewire]

You are near the bottom of a very "special" class.


Please take a seat in the very back of the:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1957488e802b52176.jpg

[papasmurf]

WildCat, floors were being crushed, but not 20 to 30 floors ahead of the collapse front. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.

Why do you people insist on anything that defies the truth movement, no matter how many laws of physics it defies?

[stateofgrace]

WildCat, floors were being crushed, but not 20 to 30 floors ahead of the collapse front. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.

Why do you people insist on anything that defies the truth movement, no matter how many laws of physics it defies?

Now we are talking.

Which laws , exactly ?

[Hokulele]

Please take a seat in the very back of the:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1957488e802b52176.jpg


I knew someone would have to use that sooner or later. :D

[beachnut]

No beachnut, no. Those floors are still there, hence they have not yet pancaked to provide the pressure necessary to blast out the window. Floors pancaking above should not exert pressure on the floors below. If anything, the pancaking floor should blast the air out of the window in the pancaking region, or possibly directly below it.
No, the floors are failing and falling due to weight and the impact of the building coming down. It is bad, just the weight of 11 floors makes a WTC floor fail, yet we have whole top falling, floors and core and some exterior panels. The floor fail and just move the next floor as the shell is shearing away and the core is damaged and failing! Sorry, the core, 60 stories is standing after the floor are long gone. You can model this with simple math and physics if you wish, it will prove your great implications of physics thread failed to materialize from you but freely flows from other posters.

Your ideas are flawed, they are not even correctable; debunked and show wrong, now what?

You can see the 52nd floor at 7.81 seconds into the collapse being hit by the debris and floor from above, is physics great! Math is cool too; got numbers? You promised physics and brought woo.


Ejection of air below the failing floors, air being force out of he building, remember those pesky elevator shafts and 3 stairwells? A place for air to go in advance of the collapsing floor and structure. The massive amount of debris, collapsing down the core elevator shafts and stairwells, like a piston making air rush all over the WTC! This takes a fireman and moves him 4 floors. Air!

[Drudgewire]

I knew someone would have to use that sooner or later. :D


I got it from a nicepants post, so unless I hear otherwise he gets credit for it.

[Alferd_Packer]

Thousands of pounds of explosives. Tons of them were needed. I know.

Have you any idea how much noise a ton of explosives makes?

[WildCat]

WildCat, floors were being crushed, but not 20 to 30 floors ahead of the collapse front. I don't know what is so hard to understand about this.
Oh, now I see what you mean! It's the air pressure. Are you like Turbofan and think that the velocity of the air is limited by acceleration due to gravity? :boggled:

Why do you people insist on anything that defies the truth movement, no matter how many laws of physics it defies?
Yeah, physics! Got any? Where's your math that shows which laws of physics were broken? Have you figured out the potential energy of the towers yet? Have you figured out how many pounds/kilograms of explosive (use TNT equivalent) in the exact center of the floor would be required to pulverise 35,000 square feet of concrete, cut the columns, and send "most" of it outside the building footprint?

When will we be seeing the physics papasmurf?

[Par]

I think the point that they were on the mechanical floors strengthens my argument. The covert maintenance workers probably had easy access to the maintence floors to plant squibs on the outer columns.


Whether or not there were any “covert maintenance workers” is a crux point at issue. We do not accept that there were. Thus, when you presuppose their existence, you are committing the petitio principii fallacy. Do you see? Please address this point.

[WildCat]

as for the molten steel or iron dripping from the towers, of which thermate is suspect, it takes extreme temperatures to ignite thermate that are not even close to being reached by the fire that was burning, a special igniter is needed to create these temperatures to initiate the thermate reaction) But let's not discuss thermate here, we'll save that for another day.
Holy crap! In addition to enough explosives in the center of each floor to pulverize all the concrete, cut the columns, and send "most" of the mass outside the building footprint you want to use thermite also?!

What on earth would the thermite be needed for? :boggled:

[nicepants]

A squib is a demolition device. In controlled demolitions, their use looks exactly like the focused horizontal ejections seen during the collapse of the world trace center.

Source, please.

[bje]

I would say that in one of the videos, squibs can be seen at about 4 different floor levels until collapse. Granted you would see more in a normal demolition, but they would want to disguise this one as much as possible, for obvious reasons.

If "they" could disguise any, "they" could disguise them all, correct? And crack Truthers spotted those obvious "squibs" immediately.

So, in TrutherThink™, it stands to reason that "they" would have "let a few good squibs" get through so Truthers could catch them in the act of demolishing the towers, being that Truthers aren't too smart, and "they" are just so damn competent, right, papasmurf?

[kookbreaker]

So its all one big argument from incredulity then, is it?

[WildCat]

So its all one big argument from incredulity then, is it?
No, no, no... papasmurf is going to post some real serious physics here any minute now!

[Alferd_Packer]

The covert maintenance workers probably had easy access to the maintence floors to plant squibs on the outer columns.



You have no idea how things work in the real world, do you?

Do you honestly think that someone could just dress up in a pair of coveralls and waltz around the mechanical rooms without notice?

[Alferd_Packer]

If it was indeed an air vent, it still doesn't explain the pulverized material that came out with it. Look at the material being exerted. It's pulverized to dust, but the building has not been destroyed at that point yet.

You apparently do not understand how HVAC supply and return systems work, do you?

[papasmurf]

You have no idea how things work in the real world, do you?

Do you honestly think that someone could just dress up in a pair of coveralls and waltz around the mechanical rooms without notice?

No. I believe Larry Silverstein was in on it. I believe the security at the building was compromised. I refuse to believe scientific conspiracies over government conspiracies.


You have beachnut, a guy who claims to have a masters degree in engineering, defy what even NIST has put out, by claiming that the floors sheared from the core and outer perimeter of the building and collapsed WITHIN THE BUILDING faster than the collapse front, which already fell at near free fall speed. If you watch the video of the collapse and try to imagine floors falling within the building faster than the building is already collapsing, you will see how ridiculous this notion is.

You can mock my theories all you want, but the fact of the matter still stands. You have NOTHING that explains the observed phenomena. You talk about pressurized air and pancaking floors and all this other cool stuff, but none of you can provide a logical mechanism for how this occurred.

[Alferd_Packer]

No. I believe Larry Silverstein was in on it. I believe the security at the building was compromised.

More proof that you have no idea how things work in the real world.

What does security have to do with building maintenance?

[WildCat]

I refuse to believe scientific conspiracies over government conspiracies.
What the hell does that mean?

You can mock my theories all you want, but the fact of the matter still stands. You have NOTHING that explains the observed phenomena. You talk about pressurized air and pancaking floors and all this other cool stuff, but none of you can provide a logical mechanism for how this occurred.
We DO have an explanation, one supported by the evidence, including the testimony of people who survived in the stairwell.

You, on the other hand, have zero evidence, and not even a working theory.

How are those calculations coming Mr. Physics Expert?

[A W Smith]

are you suggesting demolition charges sixty feet from the perimeter windows suffciant to cut core columns but only ejected debris through one window out of 256 on a given floor?

[papasmurf]

No, I believe the observed squibs were mainly on the maintenance floors and were in addition to the explosions in the core, which were not observed from the outside. I've already stated that these were supplemental explosions and not the ones observed in the core. Pay attention.

[stateofgrace]

No. I believe Larry Silverstein was in on it. I believe the security at the building was compromised. I refuse to believe scientific conspiracies over government conspiracies.


You have beachnut, a guy who claims to have a masters degree in engineering, defy what even NIST has put out, by claiming that the floors sheared from the core and outer perimeter of the building and collapsed WITHIN THE BUILDING faster than the collapse front, which already fell at near free fall speed. If you watch the video of the collapse and try to imagine floors falling within the building faster than the building is already collapsing, you will see how ridiculous this notion is.

You can mock my theories all you want, but the fact of the matter still stands. You have NOTHING that explains the observed phenomena. You talk about pressurized air and pancaking floors and all this other cool stuff, but none of you can provide a logical mechanism for how this occurred.

Most people can, that being,large commercial planes that were hijacked, were flown at high speed into the side of landmark buildings. They burnt and later fell down.

If you ,somehow disbelieve this,then feel free to offer up what you believe happened.

[HyJinX]

I REALLY wish we could still post cat pictures.

[ElMondoHummus]

I would like to know why it is more believable that these explosive, focused blasts of pulverized material coming out at the mid-points of the building are more easily explained by these two quite ridiculous explanations, which i will argue against in advance, than the squib theory, which they perfectly resemble.

1. The first is given by popular mechanics:

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

Alright pancake people... We are talking about 20 to 30 floors below the collapse front. These floors are completely intact, so there is no reason why the crushing floors 200 feet above should exert a pressure that great on the floors that far below. No reason. I think we can all agree that this argument is a big load of crap.


No. The argument is not "a big load of crap". That argument is one from incredulity. Dynamic pressure travelling down various HVAC and other sorts of mechanical shafts, stairwells, and other cavities within the building perfectly well explain this observation. No explosives necessary.


2. The progressive collapse pressure wave theory.

Some people have professed that a pressure wave travelled down the tower, somehow ahead of the collapse front, that blew out air from windows 30 floors below.


Again, dynamic pressure. Why wouldn't it travel that far?


There are so many holes in this theory, and i will address a few:

A. How does this pressure wave travel through the building in such a way that is powerful enough to blast out windows?


R.Mackey gave some important information to understand before you get the answer to that question:


Windows require approximately 1 PSI of pressure to break. This can be either static or dynamic pressure. For dynamic pressure, this equates to a fluid velocity of about 100 meters per second...


You understand that when a moving volume of a fluid, whether a liquid like water or a gas like air, gets forced into a smaller volume, either the pressure will increase, or the mass will move faster. This is the principle behind what happens when you put a finger or thumb over the end of a garden hose: The water moves faster. Now, imagine the air contained on one of the floors of the Twin Towers being moved by the mass of all the floors above it. Some of it will shoot up through whatever gaps exist in the rubble, some of it will shoot out, and some of it will shoot down through whatever shafts/gaps/opening are available, whether they're elevator or HVAC shafts, stairwells, gaps between walls opening up to gaps in the floor structures... whatever. The point is that the air gets moving into those small spaces.

Since there's only a limited number of areas these places can open up into, once air moves through multiple shafts/gaps/openings onto another floor - whether the floor immediately below where it started, or many floors below - it follows whatever path it can as the mass above continues to fall. It's being "pushed" out and around. At some point, some of the air is not only going to be moving quite fast, but it's going to hit a window. If the mass is moving fast enough, then it will blow out the window. If it's not, it won't. The fact that window blowouts are not consistently seen on each floor in predictable spots actually argues against the notion of explosives being used - they'd be distributed a lot more evenly and would not be creating such a random blowout effect, whereas the complex and chaotic flow of air around the various paths naturally lead to some windows experiencing enough dynamic pressure to blow out, and others not.

At any rate, this would not only be why it travelled so far down - the path travelled would depend on the open spaces available to it - but why there were not consistent blowouts in a predictable pattern.


B. This theory has not been scientifically proven. There is no evidence that this wave can even occur given the structure of the building and the behavior of the collapse. I find it very difficult to believe that this piledriving action of the top section was able to increase the air pressure in one floor 20-30 floors to the point of blowing out windows on multiple sides of the building when there are numerous shafts and resevoirs for this air pressure to be contained.


And those "shafts and reservoirs" would have to open up somewhere. If you're talking about HVAC system ducts and shafts, there would be multiple openings per room, let alone per floor.

Instead of arguing from incredulity, consider the fact that you're talking about acre-wide floors and tons of debris falling that used to be the upper 10- or 20-some floors, depending on which tower. It's hard to see how there wasn't a large amount of air moving wherever it could. And keep in mind that each floor was not hermetically sealed. "Numerous shafts and reservoirs" is almost the right way to think about things, but not if you propose that the air will flow into those areas and not flow out; again, very few of these "shafts and reservoirs" would be hermetically sealed on the end the pressure is moving towards. It wouldn't be like a syringe plunger pushing against a perfectly sealed tube at all, it would be pushing against spaces that had multiple openings. When a moving air mass reaches a given floor, the air has to go somewhere. Some of it escapes out the side, some of it continues to travel down through whatever path it can find. The fact that some of it doesn't find an escape until many floors below the collapse front is simply not unexpected. Ultimately, we're talking about a large volume of air being pushed by a huge mass. There's nothing unusual or counterintuitive about any of the noted effects.


C. Even if there was enough pressure from this wave to travel through the elevator shafts and out the windows of the building, it doesn't explain the pulverized building material. How was concrete able to be pulverized. You can see the enormous amount of dust and debris that gets blown out of the window along with the window itself.


Much of the "pulverized" building material was fairly lightweight stuff, like ceiling tiles, cubicle dividers, drywall etc. My goodness... how much drywall alone is there in any given office? I don't know what the exact amounts are, but I don't see how a lot of the dust cloud was concrete to begin with, given the sheer amount of all that other material. To claim that the dynamic pressure couldn't have pulverized the concrete, you must first demonstrate that a significant amount of the dust was concrete to begin with, then you must demonstrate why pneumatic effects were responsible, instead of other effects, such as the sheer amount of energy involved in all that weight separating from its supports and falling.

You are merely presuming that the dust cloud is concrete. If you're going to presume anything, then it's far more reasonable and logical to presume the interior office contents were the major components, since by your own description, you're talking about stuff blowing "... out of the window...". That would be drywall, ceiling tiles, office materials like paper, particleboard from furniture, etc.

[Alferd_Packer]

If it was indeed an air vent, it still doesn't explain the pulverized material that came out with it.

I'll ask you again if you understand how HVAC systems work in high rise buildings. Well, do you?

[beachnut]

squibs? just air

What is next, nukes, beam weapons, a new idea, a transporter, beam me up Scotty?

Why is thermite is the dumbest of all ideas! Or in close contest for the title.

10. It leaves a lot of iron piles welded to other things and leaves EVIDENCE.
9. It is hard to light
8. It would be seen, being planted by nosey independent security guys who would beat the living daylight out of the idiots planting it.
7. It pure stupid made up by Jones.
6. Making it up gets you fired, or forced to retire.
5. Thermite is easy to find evidence of using it.
4. The stuff flowing out of the building has many other sources.
3. No truther has done a good job quantifying the amounts, except a guy using massive amounts of meth.
2. No one found any!
1. It was made up by Jones, he just waved his hands, dropped a cinderblock and declared the laws of physics broken, and said it was thermite. Without evidence he flounders from smoking gun to smoking gun!

Thermite, just using it is proof oyu have no idea Jones made it up in a letter 4 years after 9/11. He has not told anyone why is making up a lie and truther love to suck up his ideas and regurgitate them, like Pavlov's Dog as soon as they get to JREF.

How does thermite eject stuff? Where is the physics?

Why not ask me, instead of failing to read more, or check. I thought you were talking about the floor shearing inside the WTC ejecting junk as the floor hit each other, you meant the air rushing out floors below, air was rushing out all over the building; you don't and it is neat others only need a grade school education to see you are wrong and missed my air/your squib junk ideas.

You posted this after I talked about your lower failed idea of squibs.
You have beachnut, a guy who claims to have a masters degree in engineering, defy what even NIST ....
Posted before your posted, your post... Why post your failed ideas?
...
Ejection of air below the failing floors, air being force out of he building, remember those pesky elevator shafts and 3 stairwells? A place for air to go in advance of the collapsing floor and structure. The massive amount of debris, collapsing down the core elevator shafts and stairwells, like a piston making air rush all over the WTC! This takes a fireman and moves him 4 floors. Air! See, your failed "squibs", they are air.

[A W Smith]

Not only do you have HVAC shafts but you have elevator shafts which coincidentally terminate on the mechanical floors where the supposed squibs are. These shaftways are open to the rooms housing the hoist machinery.

[papasmurf]

What the hell does that mean?


We DO have an explanation, one supported by the evidence, including the testimony of people who survived in the stairwell.

You, on the other hand, have zero evidence, and not even a working theory.

How are those calculations coming Mr. Physics Expert?

You should send your explanation into NIST and see what they say. The dislocating floors that attack well over free fall speed. Wow that really is something. I hope they attach those floors better next time!

Can you please clarify this explanation for me. You are saying that the floors pancaked at a faster rate than the rest of the building, which is why we see the ejections well ahead of the collapse front... am i correct?

Thanks in advance.

[Alferd_Packer]

I'm still waiting for an answer.

I believe the security at the building was compromised.

More proof that you have no idea how things work in the real world.

What does security have to do with building maintenance?

[stateofgrace]

You should send your explanation into NIST and see what they say. The dislocating floors that attack well over free fall speed. Wow that really is something. I hope they attach those floors better next time!

Can you please clarify this explanation for me. You are saying that the floors pancaked at a faster rate than the rest of the building, which is why we see the ejections well ahead of the collapse front... am i correct?

Thanks in advance.

No, you are not correct.

[WildCat]

You should send your explanation into NIST and see what they say. The dislocating floors that attack well over free fall speed.
When the hell did I or anyone else ever claim that? Are you claiming that? How would the NWO make a floor fall faster than free-fall speed? Attach rockets to them?

Wow that really is something. I hope they attach those floors better next time!
Explain how a floor could fall faster than free-fall Mr. Physicist.

Can you please clarify this explanation for me. You are saying that the floors pancaked at a faster rate than the rest of the building, which is why we see the ejections well ahead of the collapse front... am i correct?
No, like just about everything you've posted, you are not correct.

Thanks in advance.
You're welcome. How are those calculations coming? When are you going to post the physics you were worried we wouldn't understand?

[GeeMack]

Do you realize that you are the only one here who entirely misses the point of this thread?

We are talking about a specific characteristic of the collapse, and you're over here talking to yourself about how awesome gravitational collapse is.

No one cares if you don't think explosives were used. I want to know what the squibs are that we see during the collapse.


We don't see squibs during the collapse. This has been explained several times. Your question, as worded, is nonsensical.

Let's outline the math.


Let's.

We can calculate the yield strenght of the windows using some data. If we have the size of the window and the type of glass, we can calculate the amount of force needed to shatter that window.

From there we use the area of the window to calculate the pressure.


Were there windows at the locations of those events you continue to mistakenly describe as squibs? And if you can't answer that, just assume there were and proceed... How about you start with a simple calculation showing what sort of pressure would be required to shatter one window like those in the WTC towers. Or use data for just any windows that might commonly be used in constructing high rise buildings. You know, create a hypothetical to demonstrate the plausibility of your conjecture. Then calculate the amounts and possible placements of a few common explosives that would be required to produce that kind of pressure. You know, start small, back of a napkin sorts of calculations, high school physics stuff.

Now, if we model the building as a perfectly sealed piston (which it isn't) and that no pressure can be exerted upward or horizontally at the collapse front (which it did), then we should be able to calculate the amount of air pressure exerted by the speed and mass of the falling top section which acts as the piston head.

Maybe i'll do this at some point.


Nobody has yet, so you'd be the first. Show everyone that you're the smartest Truther ever. Do a little math. Show that you understand the physics necessary to support your notion.

[ElMondoHummus]

How much explosives? You see them on specific levels every 30 floors or so. They could be explosives in the core of the building being blown out. I don't know the weight because i don't even know the type that was used.

This is not a key question. A key question is what are they? If they are not explosions, what are they? Please stop using diversion tactics, they do not work on me.

Any ideas? Thanks in advance...

Explosives are ruled out. There were no characteristic effects, such as explosive noises consistent with charges being used. And no, those reports bandied around by many conspiracy fantasists don't cut it; forum poster Gravy dealt with those supposed reports here (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard).

Also, explosive effects on steel were not noted by investigators. Recall that the NYPD, FDNY, and FBI were responsible at both Ground Zero and the dump sites at Fort Hamilton and Fresh Kills for surveying the debris for evidence. This was noted on another of Gravy's pages (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera), with many links to the original info. At any rate, none of the 55 FBI evidence response agents, 600 NYPD Crime Scene Unit investigators, or unknown (to me) number of FDNY personnel responsible for surveying the debris made any report of any steel showing signs of explosives.

On top of all of that, both towers collapses started in the impact zones. To argue explosives use, you either have to explain how the explosives survived the fires, or if you believe there were none in the fire zones and the top of the building would fall anyway, why explosives were needed once that upper mass impacted the lower part of the building. Either way, explosives do not explain what was observed that day.

Note that I haven't gotten into any of the other remaining falsifications of this hypothesis, not the least of which is opportunity for installation, as well as lack of observation of such. The explosives proposal fails in many ways.

[papasmurf]

I like ElMondoHummus's explanation, this is a person i can debate with.

I like your explanation, but you still are weak on accounting for the pulverized building material. This is PULVERIZED material. Pure DUST. Why is the building matter in this state as the air exits the building. This is 20- 30 floors below the collapse front. I refuse to believe it is material from the floors 20 floors above, as it is impossible that this dust could be carried with this pressure wave that you talk about, it is simply too heavy and does not have the fluid properties to travel through spaces like that.

So we must conclude that the material being ejected is local to where the ejection occurs. You accuse me of presuming it is concrete, while you presume it is drywall and office material.

Call it what you want. If you observe the grey hue to the dust, it is safe to assume that some concrete is in the mix. What aspect of the air moving was capable of pulverizing desks and drywall?

Your explanation is pretty decent up until this point.
Thanks in advance.

[Alferd_Packer]

How much debris and material from the airplane impacts wound up in the HVAC shafts?

A sudden surge of air down that shaft would have blown that material right out through the vents.

What does building security have to do with building maintenance?

[WildCat]

I like your explanation, but you still are weak on accounting for the pulverized building material. This is PULVERIZED material. Pure DUST.
And if you bothered to calculate how much explosive would be necessary to do what you describe you'd have heard it going off 50 miles away. And you're claiming this amount of explosives was placed on every single floor!

Along with "squibs" and thermite, whatever the hell that was supposed to do when there were enough explosives to blast the towers to smithereens.

Explosives as an explanation for what was seen that day is just ridiculous.

[Grizzly Bear]

How much explosives? You see them on specific levels every 30 floors or so. They could be explosives in the core of the building being blown out. I don't know the weight because i don't even know the type that was used.

Several problems with your speculation.

-- Large sections of the core structure were still standing for 15+ seconds following the main collapse. How do you as an engineer explain this? If the core in these regions well below the impact zones (where the collapse initiated) were being 'blown out', then why did the collapse
A) not initiate in these regions until the collapse wave arrived, and
B) Leave the core briefly standing in some of the same regions?

-- Where are the explosions that are signature trademarks of controlled demolition during the collapse?

99Z6qoP-elw
Please feel free to point out in this video where they are being heard during the south tower collapse.


You have beachnut, a guy who claims to have a masters degree in engineering
Just as you claim you are an engineer, I could blab all I want about being a 20 year old architecture student. Beachnut may well have the qualifications of being an engineer, however, just as my experience in architecture is only a label, so is yours and beachnut's. The authoritative element of a job title is demonstrated, not flagged about...

As far as I am concerned, job labels are rather meaningless until demonstrated. You have not demonstrated your theories thus far from what I have seen...

defy what even NIST has put out, by claiming that the floors sheared from the core and outer perimeter of the building
How does this defy NIST's explanation of the collapse. The pancake effect in the collapse happens after collapse initiation. Are you able to provide engineering data that should demonstrate to us otherwise?
That would in effect demonstrate to us in simple terms how you believe the collapse should have ensued if you were assume for once that explosives were never used?

and collapsed WITHIN THE BUILDING faster than the collapse front,
This appears to be a strawman claim. Where does Beachnut argue this?


which already fell at near free fall speed.
Free fall is defined as a variable of acceleration, at sea level earth's gravitational accelleration is 9.8 m/s^2. What threshold are you basing your free fall speed claim on? Do the 15+ second collapse times of both towers match to the figure you have?



You have NOTHING that explains the observed phenomena. You talk about pressurized air and pancaking floors and all this other cool stuff, but none of you can provide a logical mechanism for how this occurred.
We already have, you have brought little more than speculation of explosives being used on the core structure at points where the collapse never initiated until the collapse front reached them, and even then parts of the core (40 stories of the south tower core, and 60 or the north tower) stood following the collapse. So far none of your theories explain those contradictions to your theory away

[ElMondoHummus]

I would say that in one of the videos, squibs can be seen at about 4 different floor levels until collapse. Granted you would see more in a normal demolition, but they would want to disguise this one as much as possible, for obvious reasons. There a number of explanations that can account for this. I'll pull a few out of my ass right now.

What if they had most of the explosions occurring in the core of the building, out of sight and earshot, but needed explosives further from the core only every 30 floors or so to do some kind of effect to the perimeter and outer core collumns to make it fall a certain way.

I admittedly am not an explosives expert and sure as hell did not help them plan this demolition job, so i don't really know.

Anyways, please stop answering my questions with questions.

I would like to know what you think those "squibs" are. We can't deny that they exist any more. Someone needs to come up with a reason for their occurence.

Also, why do you keep assaulting me with how much energy would require for these to occur with explosives? You are trying to argue that no explosives were needed, yet if explosives were needed, you claim you would need a ridiculous amount (i presume). So how can you say that gravitational energy alone has more energy than explosive and gravitational energy?

Say "I" if you see how inconsistent and contradictory these views are.

I do not deny that gravitational energy was present in the collapse. I am arguing that explosives were needed for the collapse to progress in the way it did.

There was enough potential energy available in the towers to account for the collapse without explosives being used. The start of that argument is available in a paper submitted to the (http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf)Journal of Engineering Mechanics (http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf), and it's addendum (http://ojps.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=JENMDT000128000003000369000001&idtype=cvips). Further arguments about this are available from others, such as Dr. Frank Greening (here (http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) and here (http://911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf). And just as a point of interest, he's written a work on the question of "pulverization" here (http://911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf)). Explosives are not needed to explain the collapse at all.

[stateofgrace]

I like your explanation, but you still are weak on accounting for the pulverized building material. This is PULVERIZED material. Pure DUST. Why is the building matter in this state as the air exits the building. This is 20- 30 floors below the collapse front. I refuse to believe it is material from the floors 20 floors above, as it is impossible that this dust could be carried with this pressure wave that you talk about, it is simply too heavy and does not have the fluid properties to travel through spaces like that.

So we must conclude that the material being ejected is local to where the ejection occurs. You accuse me of presuming it is concrete, while you presume it is drywall and office material.

Same post


Call it what you want. If you observe the grey hue to the dust, it is safe to assume that some concrete is in the mix. What aspect of the air moving was capable of pulverizing desks and drywall?



YOU said .

It is not just air, it is pulverized concrete.



So again, explain,fully why you concluded this.

[WildCat]

papasmurf, I'm beginning to suspect you won't actually be demonstrating any physics in this thread. It's turned into another Fyziks 101 thread...

[beachnut]

You should send your explanation into NIST and see what they say. The dislocating floors that attack well over free fall speed. Wow that really is something. I hope they attach those floors better next time!

Can you please clarify this explanation for me. You are saying that the floors pancaked at a faster rate than the rest of the building, which is why we see the ejections well ahead of the collapse front... am i correct?

Thanks in advance.
You have mistaken what I said, reread all my posts, please understand you have failed, to understand I was talking about the puffs at the collapse zone, and then I see you are hung up solely on squibs. Squibs b air, u fail. Go back and read, you are not understanding some of this.

Before you say I was saying NIST was off, or wrong, ask me! Stop making up lies

The floors/main building took about 12.08 seconds to collapse, some debris beats this as they fall outside the building. The cores collapse take 20 to 30 seconds. So? Air is being ejected well below the collapsing floor, you have that correct, but no explosives; you have that wrong.

Your explosive and thermite are a fantasy, it is my fault I am posting quickly as you offer no substance. Too fast for you too read and not seeing you agree the floors are collapsing as I said, but I never said the floor are beating the falling debris. I was ignoring the falling debris, the floors are more interesting.

Good luck, but explosives is old junk. I never said anything about NIST being right or wrong. You did, by not reading enough. Thanks you very much.

[T.A.M.]

Guys have you really given this new truther 3 pages? For the love of god, he is so clearly trolling, baiting, and bringing nothing new.

What happened to our discussion about just providing him links and leaving it at that?

Anyway, It took only reading the first post, and the history that preceded his return, for me to place this one on ignore...

goodbye blueboy. Welcome to ignore.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

I like ElMondoHummus's explanation, this is a person i can debate with.

I like your explanation, but you still are weak on accounting for the pulverized building material. This is PULVERIZED material. Pure DUST. Why is the building matter in this state as the air exits the building. This is 20- 30 floors below the collapse front. I refuse to believe it is material from the floors 20 floors above, as it is impossible that this dust could be carried with this pressure wave that you talk about, it is simply too heavy and does not have the fluid properties to travel through spaces like that.

So we must conclude that the material being ejected is local to where the ejection occurs. You accuse me of presuming it is concrete, while you presume it is drywall and office material.

Call it what you want. If you observe the grey hue to the dust, it is safe to assume that some concrete is in the mix. What aspect of the air moving was capable of pulverizing desks and drywall?

Your explanation is pretty decent up until this point.
Thanks in advance.

I don't believe much of the material was carried a whole 20 floors either, but I also don't rule out some of it being carried that far. Plus, Occams Razor alone explains why the presumption of drywall and office material is a far more likely explanation than concrete. Singling out drywall: There is much of it in the path of the travelling air mass, along with any debris flowing with it (remnants of floor and wall structures, furniture, etc.), but it can't resist the impact of such debris without breaking up.

Understand, too, that I'm giving examples. There are many other things that could have contributed to that dust cloud; insulation, for example. Dust built up in air shafts. Etc. The point is that singling out concrete is a faulty assumption given 1. The amount of other material present that would be moved by a moving air mass, and 2. The strength of concrete. Compared to concrete, it's easy to render a drywall section of wall to dust, and doesn't require explosives.

On top of that, if you do presume concrete was part of the dust cloud - and I'm not ruling it out as a contributing component - then you have to understand that there is enough energy available in the collapse alone, sans explosives, to account for this. As noted in a previous post, refer to Dr. Frank Greening's work here:
http://911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

Bottom line is that it's true that both are presumptions, but office contents including drywall are a more likely source, considering the amount and properties relative to concrete of those contents.

[Hokulele]

I like ElMondoHummus's explanation, this is a person i can debate with.

I like your explanation, but you still are weak on accounting for the pulverized building material. This is PULVERIZED material. Pure DUST. Why is the building matter in this state as the air exits the building. This is 20- 30 floors below the collapse front. I refuse to believe it is material from the floors 20 floors above, as it is impossible that this dust could be carried with this pressure wave that you talk about, it is simply too heavy and does not have the fluid properties to travel through spaces like that.

So we must conclude that the material being ejected is local to where the ejection occurs. You accuse me of presuming it is concrete, while you presume it is drywall and office material.

Call it what you want. If you observe the grey hue to the dust, it is safe to assume that some concrete is in the mix. What aspect of the air moving was capable of pulverizing desks and drywall?

Your explanation is pretty decent up until this point.
Thanks in advance.


Have you ever worked on an HVAC system in a 30 year old building? I am pretty sure that in addition to any smoke that might have been in the area (or moved with the air down the shafts from the giant fires), there was plenty of dust and crud just in the shafts themselves to make any air movement clearly visible.

As a question, how are you so sure that the colors in the video ("grey hue") are accurate?

[papasmurf]

Okay, well if there are truly air vents that exit out of the building in those locations, that would change a lot. Does anyone have any information showing this to be true?

I could believe that those were HVAC system vents, but i would need to see that there are vents on the side of the building in those locations.

I would appreciate anyone's help in finding this information.

[pomeroo]

No. I believe Larry Silverstein was in on it. I believe the security at the building was compromised. I refuse to believe scientific conspiracies over government conspiracies.


We all agree that Larry Silverstein is Jewish. What else have you got?





You have beachnut, a guy who claims to have a masters degree in engineering, defy what even NIST has put out, by claiming that the floors sheared from the core and outer perimeter of the building and collapsed WITHIN THE BUILDING faster than the collapse front, which already fell at near free fall speed. If you watch the video of the collapse and try to imagine floors falling within the building faster than the building is already collapsing, you will see how ridiculous this notion is.


The debris--CLEARLY--falls faster than the building. You are clueless.



You can mock my theories all you want, but the fact of the matter still stands. You have NOTHING that explains the observed phenomena. You talk about pressurized air and pancaking floors and all this other cool stuff, but none of you can provide a logical mechanism for how this occurred.


You don't have "theories." You spout uninformed nonsense. The observed phenomena can be explained using real science. You, for painfully obvious reasons, are incapable of understanding what happened.

[papasmurf]

Also, if this air duct or whatever and no window theory is true, why would NIST not have used it.

It would make MUCH more sense than the pancake theory.

That is what is giving me doubts.

You people have a lot of theories that differ from NIST.

We have the truther theories, NIST, and JREF !

Who will prevail?

Stay tuned....

[papasmurf]

We all agree that Larry Silverstein is Jewish. What else have you got?







The debris--CLEARLY--falls faster than the building. You are clueless.





You don't have "theories." You spout uninformed nonsense. The observed phenomena can be explained using real science. You, for painfully obvious reasons, are incapable of understanding what happened.



Pomeroo,
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[HyJinX]

Also, if this air duct or whatever and no window theory is true, why would NIST not have used it.

It would make MUCH more sense than the pancake theory.

That is what is giving me doubts.

You people have a lot of theories that differ from NIST.

We have the truther theories, NIST, and JREF !

Who will prevail?

Stay tuned....

I'll tell you who won't prevail...the morons (...and I think we all know who that would be).

[papasmurf]

I'll tell you who won't prevail...the morons (...and I think we all know who that would be).

What's your education?

I assure you i'm the farthest thing from the moron. You can tell yourself that richard gage and I are morons all day, but we all know you can't sincerely believe that.

Btw, don't you get banned for calling people morons here?

I got banned for using the words circle and jerk consecutively...

[beachnut]

Also, if this air duct or whatever and no window theory is true, why would NIST not have used it.

It would make MUCH more sense than the pancake theory.

That is what is giving me doubts.

You people have a lot of theories that differ from NIST.

We have the truther theories, NIST, and JREF !

Who will prevail?

Stay tuned....

9/11 truth ideas of squibs, thermite, explosives are false. Blaming Silverstein is real stupid ideas and without evidence is pathetic. All 9/11 truth implied conclusions of bombs et al are not backed in fact or evidence. Regurgitated junk comes back often.

Squibs are pure nonsense, just air. After all the building is 95 percent air.

9/11 truth has no evidence to support their conclusions. Their conclusion are false.

Prevail, 9/11 truth ideas, pure fantasy.

What is it? Why? Why do followers of 9/11 only lack knowledge on 9/11 issues, or physics, or logical thinking, or research, or rational thought, or sound judgment, or math, or reading comprehension, or a combination of those and other problems keeping them from forming conclusions based on facts and knowledge?

Like squibs? Who makes up these lies?
It is pathetic when people like Gage propagate the lies of 9/11 truth without doing research, just regurgitating the standard 9/11 truth party line.

[ElMondoHummus]

Also, if this air duct or whatever and no window theory is true, why would NIST not have used it.

It would make MUCH more sense than the pancake theory.

That is what is giving me doubts.

You people have a lot of theories that differ from NIST.

We have the truther theories, NIST, and JREF !

Who will prevail?

Stay tuned....

You're setting up a false dilemna. Any theory involving floors "pancaking", whether during collapse initiation (a hypothesis already rejected by NIST) or after that does not include or exclude the notion of dynamic pneumatic pressure being responsible for the phenomena conspiracy peddlers mischaracterize as "squibs".

This is what NIST said on the topic:

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.


The point is that pancaking isn't necessary as an explanation for the squibs. While it's a useful model to describe the failure progression, it may be a bit oversimplified to account for every collision that occurred post collapse initiation. Regardless, the only thing necessary to drive such dynamic pressure is the collapse of the upper section forcing air down through the structure. That's it. Setting up "pancaking" as being in opposition to the notion of dynamic pressure blowing out windows is a mischaracterization of both arguments.

[pomeroo]

Also, if this air duct or whatever and no window theory is true, why would NIST not have used it.

It would make MUCH more sense than the pancake theory.

That is what is giving me doubts.

You people have a lot of theories that differ from NIST.

We have the truther theories, NIST, and JREF !

Who will prevail?

Stay tuned....


There is no such animal as the "pancake" theory.

The good guys have already prevailed. Your evil, mindless movement is dead.

[Hokulele]

Okay, well if there are truly air vents that exit out of the building in those locations, that would change a lot. Does anyone have any information showing this to be true?

I could believe that those were HVAC system vents, but i would need to see that there are vents on the side of the building in those locations.

I would appreciate anyone's help in finding this information.


Read NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. The plans showing the exhaust louvers are in Appendix A of that volume.

Also, if this air duct or whatever and no window theory is true, why would NIST not have used it.


Because they only studied the collapse initiation.

ETA: I see NIST did address that in their most recent FAQ. Thanks EMH.

[papasmurf]

You're setting up a false dilemna. Any theory involving floors "pancaking", whether during collapse initiation (a hypothesis already rejected by NIST) or after that does not include or exclude the notion of dynamic pneumatic pressure being responsible for the phenomena conspiracy peddlers mischaracterize as "squibs".

This is what NIST said on the topic:


The point is that pancaking isn't necessary as an explanation for the squibs. While it's a useful model to describe the failure progression, it may be a bit oversimplified to account for every collision that occurred post collapse initiation. Regardless, the only thing necessary to drive such dynamic pressure is the collapse of the upper section forcing air down through the structure. That's it. Setting up "pancaking" as being in opposition to the notion of dynamic pressure blowing out windows is a mischaracterization of both arguments.


You are getting mixed up. You're theory doesn't go against the NIST theory possibly, but the theory that there were air vents and not windows that the air escaped from is clearly a point that would have been addressed by NIST.
This is what you quoted me on, and this is what i was discussing.

NIST explanation that you posted is absolutely horrible. As is Beachnut's. How can one possibly believe that the ejected material is only air. It is clearly a huge mass of dust and pulverized material. I don't get it.

[papasmurf]

There is no such animal as the "pancake" theory.

The good guys have already prevailed. Your evil, mindless movement is dead.

We're evil?

Keep telling yourself that Pomeroo, whatever gets you to sleep at night.

As for the pancake theory that doesn't exist... why are you telling me?

Tell that to all your other goofy debunkers who still try to pull popular mechanics out of their back pockets.

[papasmurf]

Has anyone here seen 9/11 Press for Truth?

Surely someone here has to believe they're covering something up...

[nicepants]

Bump for papasmurf:

Please source the claim below:

A squib is a demolition device.

[beachnut]

You are getting mixed up. You're theory doesn't go against the NIST theory possibly, but the theory that there were air vents and not windows that the air escaped from is clearly a point that would have been addressed by NIST.
This is what you quoted me on, and this is what i was discussing.

NIST explanation that you posted is absolutely horrible. As is Beachnut's. How can one possibly believe that the ejected material is only air. It is clearly a huge mass of dust and pulverized material. I don't get it.
Are you just a troll?, you be leaving out the dust. Good for you, move the goal post.

AIR is the cause of what you call "squibs". If you want to leave out the dust then fine, I can see the dust in the air, and you call it "squibs" out of ignorance.

Air causes your fantasy of explosives! Failure to make a point, but, if you used had physics skill as good as your baiting skills you would not be a truther who lack massive amount of evidence. Zero evidence.

You want to pedal explosive, you have no evidence. Perfection for 9/11 truth.

There is a dust study you missed. Why can't you bring facts to the table?


I understand 9/11 truth lacks the ability to grasp this, you clearly were boasting about your physics skill implying others need come prepared, so you must not be like 9/11 truth, whose only goal backfires as they expose their ignorance on 9/11 issues.

A grade school education is all that is needed to combat 9/11 truth tactics and do better than I. 9/11 truth ignores facts and manufactures lies. You would think if 9/11 truth had skills in math, physics and engineering as good as they are at ignoring evidence, 9/11 truth would not be spewing lack of understand on squibs. I am learning much from you.

You make a point, if someone leaves out "dust" in the air of the "squibs", 9/11 truth calls it a smoking gun, but only for exposing pure ignorance. Good job keeping people on target with your literal corrections, and inability to understand things, so you can keep your woo movement going. Good job.

[~enigma~]

As soon as you realize that there is no good explanation, the easier it is to rationalize the use of explosives.
So that's what they teach you in engineering school...if you can't explain something, use explosives. Choo-Choo Charlie was an engineer...

[~enigma~]

The covert maintenance workers probably had easy access to the maintence floors to plant squibs on the outer columns.
Why would they plant movie special effects in the WTC...and you expect any thinking person to believe your an engineering student!!!!!!


BTW, maintence is spelled maintenance.

[papasmurf]

Why would they plant movie special effects in the WTC...and you expect any thinking person to believe your an engineering student!!!!!!


BTW, maintence is spelled maintenance.

Typing fatigue probably. Btw, when you resort to pointing out typos, that is a sure sign of nitpicking and failing to contribute to the conversation due to lack of knowledge or intelligence.

I view the squibs as evidence of explosives. As for the poster who wants a source for my claim that squibs are demolition devices, i would like to direct him to wikipedia for a start.


Beachnut, you said the squibs are AIR.

AIR you say. AIR.

You keep saying AIR.
AIR AIR AIR.

guess what, i don't see AIR. i see pulverized material, most likely much of which is concrete.. If you think this is insignificant then you are in denial.

Here is a good video, maybe some of you have seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wpPb3dWARk

THIS is what i want explained.

It has a nice truther background track to make it all the more dramatic too. A nice rendition of "imagine" by A Perfect Circle.

[~enigma~]

Typing fatigue probably. Btw, when you resort to pointing out typos, that is a sure sign of nitpicking and failing to contribute to the conversation due to lack of knowledge or intelligence.Nah...it has something to do with the fact that I think you lied about being an engineering student.
I view the squibs as evidence of explosives.Exhibit 1 that you are not an engineering student. As for the poster who wants a source for my claim that squibs are demolition devices, i would like to direct him to wikipedia for a start.Exhibit 2 that you are not an engineering student.guess what, i don't see AIR. i see pulverized material, most likely much of which is concrete..Exhibit 3 that you are not an engineering student.

[beachnut]

. Btw, when you resort to pointing out typos, that is a sure sign of nitpicking and failing to contribute to the conversation due to lack of knowledge or intelligence.


Btw, when you resort to pointing out semantics, that is a sure sign of nitpicking and failing to contribute to the conversation due to lack of knowledge or intelligence and pure bs woo of 9/11 truth! Good job... pot

not of engineering r u, or u would know...

Fantasy squibs, caused by AIR, not proof of explosives.

...
Here is a good video, maybe some of you have seen it. ...
What a pathetic video, and to a John Lennon song. What an insult. Take a murdered NYC resident and use his song as back ground for making up pure lies concerning other murdered NYC residents. Good job, sick post of the day. Pure stupidity. Who lacks so much knowledge to make such crap?

Pathetic video. But great post..

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by papasmurf
A squib is a demolition device.



No a squib is that waxy glob on the end of a cotton swab or "q tip" a truther pulls out of his ear that prevents them from listening.


Makes about as much sense

[WildCat]

I view the squibs as evidence of explosives.
Why? What do the "squibs" do when you're also proposing an enormous amount of explosives in the center of each floor, which for some reason don't make any noise when they go off. This is stupid beyond comprehension.

As for the poster who wants a source for my claim that squibs are demolition devices, i would like to direct him to wikipedia for a start.
:dl:


How are those calculations coming young engineering student? When is the physics going to be introduced as you promised?

[papasmurf]

You call it semantics, i call it you spewing misinformation.

What is your point by saying it's only air? Quit being a cry baby and tell me why it's unimportant that matter was ejected from the building other than air?

You guys can accuse me of lying about being an engineering student, like its unheard of for someone to question the official story and be an engineer...

I am studying biomedical and computer engineering.

AHAH! you will say. I know nothing about structural engineering or any of that stuff!

Well, actually my first two years here are engineering core, common to all engineers, so i have taken statics, physics, and materials, and design. The other guy from Stevens here can affirm that.

Do you want me to post my transcript or something... i'd really rather not because you would then attack me for bragging or something like that.

So are we going to stop accusing me of lying about my education?

[papasmurf]

I never promised, quite distorting reality as usual. I said i might decide to try some calculations.

Unfortunately, i am taking summer classes because i am double majoring, you see. So i really don't have time at the moment, but maybe i will get around to it. I do believe there are articles that reject your notion of these ejections by the piledriver-piston theory.

For the 3490328947 time, these squibs do not occur on every floor, they occur mainly at the reinforced maintenance floors, i believe there were additional explosions in the core of the building, and that the squibs were planted further from the core.

[beachnut]

You call it semantics, i call it you spewing misinformation.
...

Yes, that is what you so, when you say your fantasy squibs are proof of explosives. Failed ideas and pure misinformation, picked up from 9/11 truth and repeated without evidence.

You are so right again.


Maybe you are a student, good for u...

but you are right, the truth movement has 0.00087 of all the world engineers working and taking action to ....

What was it... Oh noes, I forgot...

Now let me see…
The p4t have no theories, the engineers for the movement sign a petition saying the have "ample evidence" for something, but like your fantasy squib explosive faulty idea, they have zero evidence except in their minds.

Sally forth, do good making up false ideas!

[papasmurf]

Yes, that is what you so, when you say your fantasy squibs are proof of explosives. Failed ideas and pure misinformation, picked up from 9/11 truth and repeated without evidence.

You are so right again.


Maybe you are a student, good for u...


Did you watch the video? I assure you they are not fantasy. And to settle the semantics and for ease of argument, let's just call those ejections "squibs" from now on, even if you think they aren't actually squibs, okay?

[~enigma~]

So are we going to stop accusing me of lying about my education?
If you ever post something worthy of an engineering student...until then why should we believe you? Have you earned anybodies trust here?

[~enigma~]

For the 3490328947 time, these squibs do not occur on every floor, they occur mainly at the reinforced maintenance floors, i believe there were additional explosions in the core of the building, and that the squibs were planted further from the core.
Exhibit 4 that you are not an engineering student.

[~enigma~]

let's just call those ejections "squibs" from now on, even if you think they aren't actually squibs, okay?
Exhibit 5 that you are not an engineering student. now why should we stop saying you are not an engineering student? Then again, there is always a possibility that you flunked out of Stevens...

[papasmurf]

What is your education, enigma?

Please, i would like to know.

[nicepants]

I view the squibs as evidence of explosives.

There you go again, using words you don't understand.

A squib is a device (about the size of a firecracker)....is that what you "viewed"?

[beachnut]

Did you watch the video? I assure you they are not fantasy. And to settle the semantics and for ease of argument, let's just call those ejections "squibs" from now on, even if you think they aren't actually squibs, okay?
The movie sucks. Air, you failed to gain knowledge.

...
so i have taken statics, physics, and materials, and design. ...


The truth?, http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/cellphone.jpg papasmurf, here is a prepaid cell phone. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming an engineer.

[~enigma~]

What is your education, enigma?

Please, i would like to know.
Why? I didn't flunk out of engineering school but when my education is necessary for the topic then I will mention my education. In the meantime, I suggest you stick to the toic and stop derailing your thread.

[papasmurf]

Sorry, i am going to call the squib explosion a squib, just to make things easier. Can you handle that mr. dictionary?

[~enigma~]

Sorry, i am going to call the squib explosion a squib, just to make thing easier. Can you handle that mr. dictionary?
Exhibit 6 that you are not an engineering student.

[A W Smith]

papasmurf; [dieter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Snl89187.jpg)] your squibs (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=squibs&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=forums.randi.org&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off) have becomee boring and tiresome.[/diete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Snl89187.jpg)r] Think of another hyperbole to use for the air ejections.

[HyJinX]

What is your education, enigma?

Please, i would like to know.

You're a troll...no doubt about it. You're here for nothing more than getting attention. You're a sad little person who feels the need to attract attention on this, and possibly other forums. You bring nothing to the table of coherent discussion and you simply ingnore the wealth of information presented to you. I hope all of the critical thinkers here stop wasting time on this fraud and cease giving attention to him/her. This is a ridiculous and insignificant poster not willing to actually contribute to positive discussion.

Goodbye smurf...you were annoying, but worthless.

[WildCat]

I never promised, quite distorting reality as usual. I said i might decide to try some calculations.
Sure you did, you said:
If you don't understand physics, please just wait for someone else to respond who does.
So when do we get to the physics you were so worried we couldn't understand?

So i really don't have time at the moment,
Your post count says otherwise.

but maybe i will get around to it. I do believe there are articles that reject your notion of these ejections by the piledriver-piston theory.
Are any written by someone other than proven liar David Ray Griffin? And in a real journal?

For the 3490328947 time, these squibs do not occur on every floor, they occur mainly at the reinforced maintenance floors,
Great! What were these "squibs" doing?

i believe there were additional explosions in the core of the building, and that the squibs were planted further from the core.
No, you claimed that there was such an enormous amount of explosives that "most" of the mass of each floor was sent flying outside the building footprint, remember? That's a huge amount of explosives, and you need them on every single floor to do the work you claim they did.

You'll also need to time them so they're delayed, otherwise material wouldn't get blown only sideways and down, but upward. And we certainly don't see any sign of material going upwards, do we?

And they have to be silent, as there is certainly no audio recordings of such massive amounts and numbers of explosives going off.

So tell me young engineering student, what kind of explosives don't make any noise?

Are you beginning to see how absolutely ridiculous your hypothesis is? Have you run it by the instructors in your engineering department? Are they stupid, or are they also in on it?

How's that math coming?

[papasmurf]

Why? I didn't flunk out of engineering school but when my education is necessary for the topic then I will mention my education. In the meantime, I suggest you stick to the toic and stop derailing your thread.

OOOOOhhhhhhhh...

Right after you just tried to smear me with crap about me not being an actual engineering student (exhibit 1 - 5), you come out and accuse me of derailing the thread...

Can someone please defend me here. This isn't fair. I think i am going to go cry now. Are you saying my education is relevant and yours is not? I bet your a communications major or something, but i doubt you are even that or you wouldn't have just made that incredible communications blunder.

Maybe you don't have a college education. Whatever, it's unimportant. As is mine, right?

[HyJinX]

Seriously, stop the madness.

This has become a joke on the serious JREF posters here.

[papasmurf]

You're a troll...no doubt about it. You're here for nothing more than getting attention. You're a sad little person who feels the need to attract attention on this, and possibly other forums. You bring nothing to the table of coherent discussion and you simply ingnore the wealth of information presented to you. I hope all of the critical thinkers here stop wasting time on this fraud and cease giving attention to him/her. This is a ridiculous and insignificant poster not willing to actually contribute to positive discussion.

Goodbye smurf...you were annoying, but worthless.

Bye now! Way to go out with an ad hominem attack that contributes nill to anything!

Annoying, but worthless eh? OKAY!

[WildCat]

What is your education, enigma?
Aside from your initial username showing a .edu email addy, nothing you have posted shows you have any higher education whatsoever.

[HyJinX]

WildCat...Stop.

Everyone stop.

You're above this poser.

[WildCat]

Seriously, stop the madness.

This has become a joke on the serious JREF posters here.
I think you're right. No one could possibly be as stupid as papasmurf pretends to be.

We already have a pdoh.

[HyJinX]

I think you're right. No one could possibly be as stupid as papasmurf pretends to be.

We already have a pdoh.

Right?

This is a lesson in futility. Trying to outstupid pdoh is a worthless endevour. Let this one go.

[~enigma~]

Are you saying my education is relevant and yours is not? Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. I didn't come here and claim I was getting a double degree in engineering but you did.
Maybe you don't have a college education. Whatever, it's unimportant. As is mine, right?
Your half right. Mine is unimportant since I made no claim with it. You, on the other hand, came here like a whirlwind claiming that you are a double engineering student that thinks squibs are explosives...

[~enigma~]

Bye now! Way to go out with an ad hominem attack that contributes nill to anything!

Annoying, but worthless eh? OKAY!
What was his ad hom? Do you even know what an ad hom is?

[papasmurf]

Sure you did, you said:

So when do we get to the physics you were so worried we couldn't understand?


Your post count says otherwise.


Are any written by someone other than proven liar David Ray Griffin? And in a real journal?


Great! What were these "squibs" doing?


No, you claimed that there was such an enormous amount of explosives that "most" of the mass of each floor was sent flying outside the building footprint, remember? That's a huge amount of explosives, and you need them on every single floor to do the work you claim they did.

You'll also need to time them so they're delayed, otherwise material wouldn't get blown only sideways and down, but upward. And we certainly don't see any sign of material going upwards, do we?

And they have to be silent, as there is certainly no audio recordings of such massive amounts and numbers of explosives going off.

So tell me young engineering student, what kind of explosives don't make any noise?

Are you beginning to see how absolutely ridiculous your hypothesis is? Have you run it by the instructors in your engineering department? Are they stupid, or are they also in on it?

How's that math coming?


Can you please tell me where i said explosives needed to drive the most of teh mass outward? The day you have to put words in my mouth is the day you lose the argument. This thread is specifically about the focused horizontal ejections that occur multiple times below the collapse front. I don't know what your point is here.

You see, i have a working hypothesis, but you don't. Can you prove that explosions were not used, other than saying it requires too much secrecy? That would be a useful contribution to the debate.

I presented a hypothesis, while also trying to get you to support your theory. What have you contributed to the debate?

[HyJinX]

Yes that is exactly what I'm saying. I didn't come here and claim I was getting a double degree in engineering but you did.
Your half right. Mine is unimportant since I made no claim with it. You, on the other hand, came here like a whirlwind claiming that you are a double engineering student that thinks squibs are explosives...


Let it die, friend. It's truly not worth your time.

It doesn't matter. This sham of a poster isn't worth my time, your time, our time or his/her time. Sometimes we need to just stop or we end up with a 10,000+ Chistophera thread. We've learned from the frauds...and it isn't worth the time. They go away once we completely ignore the absurdities. I'm just sayin...

[papasmurf]

I can't believe i'm posting this. This is private information...

AP ECONOMICS - MACRO
AP ECONOMICS - MICRO
AP ENGLISH LIT/COMP
AP EUROPEAN HISTORY
AP US HISTORY
AP COMPUTER SCIENCE A
AP CALCULUS AB

------------------2006 Summer Session 2--------------------

Admitted Program:
Engineering
Bachelor of Engineering
Major: Engineering Undecided

-----------------------------------------------------------
MA -115-WS Calculus I A 3.00 12.00
-----------------------------------------------------------

AHRS EHRS QHRS QPTS GPA
Current 3.00 3.00 3.00 12.00 4.000
Cumulative 3.00 3.00 3.00 12.00 4.000

------------------------2006 Fall--------------------------
CH -115-RN General Chemistry I A 3.00 12.00
CH -117-B General Chemistry Lab I A 1.00 4.00
CS -181-A Intro Comp Sci-Honors I A 4.00 16.00
E -101-A Engineering Experience 1 IP 0.00
E -120-A Engineering Graphics A 1.00 4.00
E -121-F Engineering Design I B+ 2.00 6.66
H -183-B Research Seminar I P 1.00
HLI -117-B Colonial/Romantic American Lit
B+ 3.00 9.99
HUM -100-A Engl Competency Exam NG 0.00
MA -116-A Calculus II A 3.00 12.00
PE -200-V1 Varsity Athletes P 1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------

AHRS EHRS QHRS QPTS GPA
Current 19.00 19.00 17.00 64.65 3.803
Cumulative 22.00 22.00 20.00 76.65 3.833

-----------------------2007 Spring-------------------------

Program Changed To:
Major: Biomedical Engineering

-----------------------------------------------------------
CH -116-RE General Chemistry II B+ 3.00 9.99
CH -118-A General Chemistry Lab II A 1.00 4.00
CS -182-A Intr Comp Sci-Honors II A- 4.00 14.68
E -102-I Engineering Experience II P 1.00
E -122-M Engineering Design II A 2.00 8.00
H -184-B Research Seminar II A 1.00 4.00
HMU -404-A Techno Music Composition A- 3.00 11.01
HMU -491-EV Music Perf: Jazz Ensemble A 0.50 2.00
MA -221-B Differential Equations A- 4.00 14.68
PEP -111-RK Mechanics A 3.00 12.00
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dean's List

AHRS EHRS QHRS QPTS GPA
Current 22.50 22.50 21.50 80.36 3.738
Cumulative 44.50 44.50 41.50 157.01 3.783

------------------2007 Summer Session 2--------------------
CH -281-A Biology and Biotechnology A 3.00 12.00
MA -227-A Multivariate Calculus A 3.00 12.00
PEP -112-A Electricity & Magnetism A 3.00 12.00
-----------------------------------------------------------

AHRS EHRS QHRS QPTS GPA
Current 9.00 9.00 9.00 36.00 4.000
Cumulative 53.50 53.50 50.50 193.01 3.822

------------------------2007 Fall--------------------------
CH -241-A Organic Chemistry I B 4.00 12.00
CPE -490-A Information Sys. Engineering I
A 3.00 12.00
E -126-H Mechanics of Solids A 4.00 16.00
E -231-D Engineering Design III A 2.00 8.00
E -245-B Circuits and Systems A- 3.00 11.01
E -344-A Materials Processing A 3.00 12.00
HMU -491-EV Music Perf: Jazz Ensemble A 0.50 2.00
MA -134-A Discrete Mathematics B 3.00 9.00
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dean's List

AHRS EHRS QHRS QPTS GPA
Current 22.50 22.50 22.50 82.01 3.645
Cumulative 76.00 76.00 73.00 275.02 3.767

-----------------------2008 Spring-------------------------

Program Changed To:
Engineering
Bachelor of Engineering
Major: Biomedical Engineering
Engineering
Bachelor of Engineering
Major: Computer Engineering

-----------------------------------------------------------
BME -306-A Intro to Biomedical Engineering
A 3.00 12.00
CH -242-A Organic Chemistry II B+ 4.00 13.32
CH -282-A Introductory Biology Laboratory
A 1.00 4.00
CPE -390-A Microprocessor Systems A- 4.00 14.68
CPE -462-EV Intro to Image. Proc. & Coding
A 3.00 12.00
E -232-A Engineering Design IV A/ A 3.00 12.00
H -186-A Research Seminar IV P 1.00
PE -200-B6 Bowling P 1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dean's List

AHRS EHRS QHRS QPTS GPA
Current 20.00 20.00 18.00 68.00 3.778
Cumulative 96.00 96.00 91.00 343.02 3.769

------------------2008 Summer Session 1--------------------
E -234-A Thermodynamics A 3.00 12.00
E -321-E Engineering Design V A 2.00 8.00
-----------------------------------------------------------

AHRS EHRS QHRS QPTS GPA
Current 5.00 5.00 5.00 20.00 4.000
Cumulative 101.00 101.00 96.00 363.02 3.781

[Corsair 115]

I can't believe i'm posting this. This is private information...So whose information is it?

[papasmurf]

How am i a fraud? I just want to know the truth.

I am not a troll nor a fraud. I am trying to understand both sides of the story. I was directed here by one of your members, he is probably reading this thread right now. It is amusing to him. I know there were lies on 9/11. I know there was a cover up. Any intelligent educated person knows this.

I am trying to determine the degree of cover-up. Did they have prior knowledge and allow the attacks to occur as they state, or did they actually bring the buildings down themselves? Those are the only two possibilities at this point.

I want to know. The obvious lies and deceit surrounding the whole thing. the direction we have moved in as a nation, have made this all so much more plausible.

Have you read operation northwoods?

I know you hate Alex Jones, but please watch Terror-storm. It turned my whole world upside down. Here is a link.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183&q=terror+storm&ei=zvqPSMnYEYamrwKM6ZH1CQ&hl=en

Watch 9/11 Press for truth to see the cover up and lies. it WILL make you angry.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=press+for+truth&ei=ufuPSIjCJoSSrgK30c2aBA&hl=en


Please just watch it with an open mind and try to refute the claims.

I promise that only a few months ago i was just like you all. Supporting the war on terror, the US imperialism. Granted i stopped supporting the iraq war years ago, but i believe i am closer to the truth than ever before.

If you think i do this for fun or because i need it to make me feel "special" you are totally wrong. This has distracted me from my studies, made me depressed, and changed everything i believed to be true.

[papasmurf]

It's my transcript. I said i would post it if people didn't stop calling me a fraud and not a real engineering student.

[Pardalis]

The thing is, nobody cares.

[beachnut]

It's my transcript. I said i would post it if people didn't stop calling me a fraud and not a real engineering student.

From your record, grades are not an indicator of logical thought and the ability to use judgment to over come what you GOT?

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein
You may not be a fraud, but you are spewing fraudulent ideas not backed up by the very classes you have taken. Your grades are waste if you lack the judgment to use your knowledge. And spewing fantasy squibs are proof of explosives, when the plume of ejected dust is due to air, is not indicative of an engineering student who should be using evidence instead of false information from liars; 9/11 truth and YOUTUBE junk! How anti-intellectual.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein

Either your grades are about to take a turn, you have taken drugs, or you have an influence to make you gullible! You trust the idiot ideas of 9/11 truth, with a giant engineering core of less than .001 percent of all engineers. Do you have problem making sound decision using judgment based on verified knowledge?


papasmurf, http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/cellphone.jpg here is a prepaid cell phone. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming an engineer. (paper chase, 1973)

Alex Jones is pure ignorance, if you find him informative, you are more likely to become the next Tim McVeigh, not an engineer.
When you get banned, after this practical joke. Good job faking the truther junk, but you are getting too good at it, or you are just another truther soon to melt down, or finally live up to your goal of being an engineer and not in the truth movement.

Your videos posted are all junk. If this is not a practical joke, then you have problems. Wait, you have problems either way.

NSA… 53997234531222234333344234245596065758353978440590 935032 terrorstorm, only idiots believe that junk, I call practical joke... ban the fake truther, joke, just joking, whose grades did you doctor?

[papasmurf]

I'm tired of this. I'm going to bed.

Let me know when you've watched any of those videos i posted, and tell me where the lies are. You seem pretty convinced that the truth movement is all lies, so after you watch those vidoes, tell me where the lies are. Thanks.

Good night.

[beachnut]

I'm tired of this. I'm going to bed.

Let me know when you've watched any of those videos i posted, and tell me where the lies are. You seem pretty convinced that the truth movement is all lies, so after you watch those vidoes, tell me where the lies are. Thanks.

Good night.
They are pure junk. If you like nut case ideas on stuff, your video selections are the source. ...

Alex Jones, if not the personification of stupid, he should be. I guess you are in the 0.00087 group of all engineer who support the lies, false information and failed ideas of 9/11 truth.
You share a major trait with those engineers, you have zero evidence.

[papasmurf]

How is calling them junk going to change my mind? Why do you even waste your time making idiotic comments?

I watched them and found them to be not junk.

I specifically asked for specific lies that would give you the right to call this junk.

FAIL.

Good night for real this time.

[Tbone]

How is calling them junk going to change my mind?

No one here cares if you change your mind. You, on the other hand, need to change the minds of the people here. Otherwise, why come here?

[Reality Believer]

The thing is, nobody cares.
That pretty much sums it up.

Truthers, actors, singers, talk show hosts, deluded professors, pilots architects, engineers and all their minions have tried for 7 years to convince somebody of something. So far, nadda.

The intellectual backbone of the US has spoken. NIST and 9/11 Commission. This is not argument from authority, but argument from evidence and analysis.

Refute the results of these bodies of work, page by page if you can.

[Sparky]

How am i a fraud? I just want to know the truth.
Liar! You only want your version of the truth.

I am not a troll nor a fraud. I am trying to understand both sides of the story. I was directed here by one of your members, he is probably reading this thread right now. It is amusing to him. I know there were lies on 9/11. I know there was a cover up. Any intelligent educated person knows this.

I am trying to determine the degree of cover-up. Did they have prior knowledge and allow the attacks to occur as they state, or did they actually bring the buildings down themselves? Those are the only two possibilities at this point.

I think you're a paranoid who thinks this nation is being run by a giant group of evil men and women and their evil bogeymen henchpersons who lurk in dark alleys whose sole purpose is to destroy you. The only possibilities that exist to you are the ones that you can blame on these evil bad men. You probably see imaginary enemies wherever you go. I would feel sorry for you if I wasn't so disgusted by your closed mind and blind faith in other paranoids.

I promise that only a few months ago i was just like you all. Supporting the war on terror, the US imperialism. Granted i stopped supporting the iraq war years ago, but i believe i am closer to the truth than ever before.

I know this is going to disappoint you, but there are no "hidden truths" to be found out there. 99.9% of the people you'll see and interact with don't want to hurt or enslave you or take away your life and liberty.

The other .1%, if it ever existed, would never have been stupid enough to try to pull off a conspiracy on grand scale like this.

So chill. Shut off your computer for a week and go out and meet some normal people and talk about normal things. Life is still good.

[Hokulele]

OK, call me a masochist, but I am going to give this one more try.

Papasmurf, it sounds like you accept that the ejections are taking place at the mechanical floors, and may very well be tied to the HVAC system. Correct? If so, let's take the rest of this a little more slowly. I need to make sure we are talking about the same thing, so I have a few questions.

1) Do you think the ejections start before or after the collapse starts?

2) Is there anything other than the color of the dust plumes that you use as evidence for what material is in these plumes?

I will start with just these two for now. Your answers will determine where things go from here. Please do not get sidetracked by other issues such as explosives just yet.

[beachnut]

How is calling them junk going to change my mind? Why do you even waste your time making idiotic comments?

I watched them and found them to be not junk.

I specifically asked for specific lies that would give you the right to call this junk.

FAIL.

Good night for real this time.
But I don't care! My kids are competing against you, my kids have had science and they understand at a grade school level your ideas are false. You are in engineering school watching stupid videos of junk ideas and you believe false information and lies without even checking it out; you have lost the edge, or never had it. I don’t care, my biological kids are competing for jobs, you lost! The people I have unstructured are competing with you, you will lose. You seem to be the only one who care if you are in the truth movement; I want you in the truth movement, your lack of evidence is appalling and make your superior grades crap. Yep, I lack your skill at writing, but my students, my kids, don't. My kids will take your job! Judgment, based on knowledge beats high honors!

I have been naïve, I have been screw by my peers later in life, now I want you to remain with the stupid ideas! You make it easier for people I teach and raise to beat you where it counts, in the market place. Go ahead stay pure and believe the lies, false information, and other crap. You are smart, no doubt, gee, you got me how many time on semantics.
So you stay in the woo world, I will be thankful, there is one more 3.8 to 4.0 super student who ideas are pure failure, and ideas border on the mentality expected of neoNAZIs. Good luck, do you need to borrow my phone to call mom?

Your videos are all stupid junk. Figure it out before you are lost in the pit of ignorance called 9/11 truth; sad for highest honors, like you say you have. As it goes, one awe crap (your ignorance on 9/11), wipes out all the great grades you have.

This is how it works, you videos are pure junk, you need to study and research them like you do to make good grades. If you are smart, you can figure it out. Otherwise you will just call me crap and move on, being a believe of idiots ideas on 9/11. Go for it, be all you can be!


Time will tell if you join the 0.00087 percent closed mind engineers who are so biased their knowledge, their training is void on 9/11 topics; or you will join rational people who are not biased; using facts and evidence to make conclusion, not hearsay and false information. Your fantasy squibs are pure ignorance; you mistake air for bombs. Not good…

Good luck, on finding the lies, you are smarter than I am. You showed me your grades, too bad you can't prove you are smarter on 9/11. Sad, and the videos, if you can't see the lies, then your grades have been dumbed down! Panic!

No, you show the lies, your grades beat me! Big time. What, not smart? Your grades prove me wrong! Your ideas prove you wrong.

[bio]

papasmurf, post 108:
Okay, well if there are truly air vents that exit out of the building in those locations, that would change a lot. Does anyone have any information showing this to be true?

I could believe that those were HVAC system vents, but i would need to see that there are vents on the side of the building in those locations.

I would appreciate anyone's help in finding this information.

Read NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. The plans showing the exhaust louvers are in Appendix A of that volume.



perhabs i missed it, due to all these irrational posts here.

...but I would appreciate it, if Hokulele read his source by himself, and proves:
The air vents were on exactly those locations, where we are seeing the squibs in the videos.
thank you.

[Hokulele]

...but I would appreciate it, if Hokulele read his source by himself, and proves:
The air vents were on exactly those locations, where we are seeing the squibs in the videos.
thank you.


Her. Herself.

How exactly would I go about doing this? You have not been exactly welcoming of other hard evidence, so I don't see the point of doing something any self-proclaimed researcher should be eager to perform on their own to settle a point. I have already provided all of the sources you would need.

If I seem a bit harsh, you can blame jammonius for being a pill the last time I bothered to correlate data.

If papasmurf is interested in a discussion, I am happy to oblige. Demands, not so much.

[Mince]

Please think before posting hypotheses.


Ha! You've stabbed yourself with your own dagger.

[papasmurf]

But I don't care! My kids are competing against you, my kids have had science and they understand at a grade school level your ideas are false. You are in engineering school watching stupid videos of junk ideas and you believe false information and lies without even checking it out; you have lost the edge, or never had it. I don’t care, my biological kids are competing for jobs, you lost! The people I have unstructured are competing with you, you will lose. You seem to be the only one who care if you are in the truth movement; I want you in the truth movement, your lack of evidence is appalling and make your superior grades crap. Yep, I lack your skill at writing, but my students, my kids, don't. My kids will take your job! Judgment, based on knowledge beats high honors!

I have been naïve, I have been screw by my peers later in life, now I want you to remain with the stupid ideas! You make it easier for people I teach and raise to beat you where it counts, in the market place. Go ahead stay pure and believe the lies, false information, and other crap. You are smart, no doubt, gee, you got me how many time on semantics.
So you stay in the woo world, I will be thankful, there is one more 3.8 to 4.0 super student who ideas are pure failure, and ideas border on the mentality expected of neoNAZIs. Good luck, do you need to borrow my phone to call mom?

Your videos are all stupid junk. Figure it out before you are lost in the pit of ignorance called 9/11 truth; sad for highest honors, like you say you have. As it goes, one awe crap (your ignorance on 9/11), wipes out all the great grades you have.

This is how it works, you videos are pure junk, you need to study and research them like you do to make good grades. If you are smart, you can figure it out. Otherwise you will just call me crap and move on, being a believe of idiots ideas on 9/11. Go for it, be all you can be!


Time will tell if you join the 0.00087 percent closed mind engineers who are so biased their knowledge, their training is void on 9/11 topics; or you will join rational people who are not biased; using facts and evidence to make conclusion, not hearsay and false information. Your fantasy squibs are pure ignorance; you mistake air for bombs. Not good…

Good luck, on finding the lies, you are smarter than I am. You showed me your grades, too bad you can't prove you are smarter on 9/11. Sad, and the videos, if you can't see the lies, then your grades have been dumbed down! Panic!

No, you show the lies, your grades beat me! Big time. What, not smart? Your grades prove me wrong! Your ideas prove you wrong.

Well you should CARE. Beachnut.

You have kids?

You don't care about the true nature of the world they are entering?


Did you even watch the videos?

No, you didn't.

It's called denial.

How do you expect for people to ever take your word for it if you haven't even seen their side of the story?

How would you feel if i showed your kids these videos, and they changed their minds?

What if they asked you about the videos, what you thought...

And you would get all angry and such and yell like an ignorant old man...

THEY'RE JUNK I TELL YOU. JUNK... .RUBBISH...

How do you think they would react? Unless your kids are BRAINWASHED, they wouldn't TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

Watch the videos and tell me WHY they are junk.

You have to start THINKING FOR YOURSELF.

All PEOPLE here WAKE UP.

Get out of the MOB MENTALITY.

Make up your OWN MIND.


Now let me explain something to you beachnut. You say you don't care, and that your kids will prevail in the marketplace. This is just false. I assure you this "marketplace" will be heavily affected by what is soon to come. I will be ready to play the game and stay alive. I will do fine in the system no matter what i believe it's true nature to be. Will you or your kids be ready mentally if the world changes as we know it, and no one can no longer deny that evil forces are at work?

I see it much clearer now. You people are afraid.

Afraid of the truth. You won't admit this, but deep down you know it is fear that is holding you back.

It's understandable. If indeed Alex Jones and millions of others are mostly correct, we are headed towards Nazi Germany.

The world will change for the worse soon. Bad things will happen to the economy and other sectors, and no one is going to be able to blame it on the truth movement.

[bje]

The world will change for the worse soon. Bad things will happen to the economy and other sectors, and no one is going to be able to blame it on the truth movement.



Uh huh.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1593948904d535fe19.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13239)

I'm not sure if this is for Best Documentary or Best Comedy.

[Disbelief]

Smurf, go out and buy an air cylinder. Press on the rod while plugging/restricting the different ports. Learn how they work, and this will help you understand your mysterious "squibs."

ETA: Check my post count! Coincidence? I don't think so!

[funk de fino]

Well you should CARE. Beachnut.

You have kids?

You don't care about the true nature of the world they are entering?


Did you even watch the videos?

No, you didn't.

It's called denial.

How do you expect for people to ever take your word for it if you haven't even seen their side of the story?

How would you feel if i showed your kids these videos, and they changed their minds?

What if they asked you about the videos, what you thought...

And you would get all angry and such and yell like an ignorant old man...

THEY'RE JUNK I TELL YOU. JUNK... .RUBBISH...

How do you think they would react? Unless your kids are BRAINWASHED, they wouldn't TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

Watch the videos and tell me WHY they are junk.

You have to start THINKING FOR YOURSELF.

All PEOPLE here WAKE UP.

Get out of the MOB MENTALITY.

Make up your OWN MIND.


Now let me explain something to you beachnut. You say you don't care, and that your kids will prevail in the marketplace. This is just false. I assure you this "marketplace" will be heavily affected by what is soon to come. I will be ready to play the game and stay alive. I will do fine in the system no matter what i believe it's true nature to be. Will you or your kids be ready mentally if the world changes as we know it, and no one can no longer deny that evil forces are at work?

I see it much clearer now. You people are afraid.

Afraid of the truth. You won't admit this, but deep down you know it is fear that is holding you back.

It's understandable. If indeed Alex Jones and millions of others are mostly correct, we are headed towards Nazi Germany.

The world will change for the worse soon. Bad things will happen to the economy and other sectors, and no one is going to be able to blame it on the truth movement.


Wow, just wow

Do you maybe think that if you think it is everyone else who is sleeping that it may actually be you?

Squibs do not demolish buildings, the only people who say they do are members of your silly little movement. Think for yourself and find out what squibs actually are. Not just listen to what the lying morons who head up your movement tell you.

Truthers make me afraid because I cannot believe there are people in this world who cannot see through the fat fraud Alex Jones. We think for ourselves, we are not the ones who are part of a movement.

[Drudgewire]

The world will change for the worse soon. Bad things will happen to the economy and other sectors, and no one is going to be able to blame it on the truth movement.


Well duh. You have to be relevant to affect anything. It would be like blaming the economy on mayflies.

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo,
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Gee, I'm always impressed when ineducable, agenda-driven dunces call me names. Now, let's take your points one-by-one:

You have accused Larry Silverstein of being complicit in a heinous crime. Your charge is baseless nonsense. You have not a shred of evidence to support it, and absolutely nothing suggests that it might be true. Many members of your evil, brain-dead movement are Jew-haters. They have demonized the owner of a building that was destroyed by falling debris and the resultant fires simply because he is a Jew. Therefore, I ask again: WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU GOT?

All the videos show debris falling faster than the building. That statement is incontrovertibly true. What precisely are you objecting to? Oh, wait--the observation is inconvenient to your fantasy. Now we understand.

To repeat: you have no "theories." You spout ancient, discredited rubbish. You have read nothing, learned nothing, and you presume to waste our time recommending the deranged ravings of the embarrassing fraud Alex Jones.

Show us where I'm being "irrational" in exposing your pretensions.

[pomeroo]

Sorry, i am going to call the squib explosion a squib, just to make things easier. Can you handle that mr. dictionary?


How do you handle those pesky demolition experts who insist that the bursts of compressed air don't resemble explosions? Remember?--the gradually expanding plume is NOT characteristic of an explosion.

[Grizzly Bear]

BUMP for papasmurf on post #100 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3902331&postcount=100)

and..

It's called denial.

How do you expect for people to ever take your word for it if you haven't even seen their side of the story?

You have to start THINKING FOR YOURSELF.

All PEOPLE here WAKE UP.

Get out of the MOB MENTALITY.

Make up your OWN MIND.

Afraid of the truth. You won't admit this, but deep down you know it is fear that is holding you back.

It's understandable. If indeed Alex Jones and millions of others are mostly correct, we are headed towards Nazi Germany.

The world will change for the worse soon. Bad things will happen to the economy and other sectors, and no one is going to be able to blame it on the truth movement.
Wow... IRONY at it's finest...

I've viewed that side of the story, If you want to place blame on anyone for leading me to not believe the truth movement you can blame your fellow truth movement friends for twisting the words of witnesses and establishing numerous strawman arguments. Sorry, the truth movement swayed me, but it clearly didn't have the intended effect.

I get called a government shill, and a loyalist just for correcting the idiotic physics other people peddle around... I am told I should be hanged for treason by other 'truth' movement members.

[papasmurf]

Its not a gradually expanding plume, it's a high velocity, focused ejection.

Yes i've already said some debris hits the ground first before the rest of the building. This is not inconvenient. It is only within a second of the rest of teh building. Hence why the debris fell at free fall, and the building at near free fall.

Pomeroo, No one calls what we are observing a gradually expanding plume. Are you sure your talking about the same thing as the rest of us. You have watched the videos i posted, right?

[Slayhamlet]

Gee, I'm always impressed when ineducable, agenda-driven dunces call me names. Now, let's take your points one-by-one:

You have accused Larry Silverstein of being complicit in a heinous crime. Your charge is baseless nonsense. You have not a shred of evidence to support it, and absolutely nothing suggests that it might be true. Many members of your evil, brain-dead movement are Jew-haters. They have demonized the owner of a building that was destroyed by falling debris and the resultant fires simply because he is a Jew. Therefore, I ask again: WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU GOT?

All the videos show debris falling faster than the building. That statement is incontrovertibly true. What precisely are you objecting to? Oh, wait--the observation is inconvenient to your fantasy. Now we understand.

To repeat: you have no "theories." You spout ancient, discredited rubbish. You have read nothing, learned nothing, and you presume to waste our time recommending the deranged ravings of the embarrassing fraud Alex Jones.

Show us where I'm being "irrational" in exposing your pretensions.

What else has he got? Probably a few more overused quotations from bad 90's Adam Sandler movies

[Grizzly Bear]

Its not a gradually expanding plume, it's a high velocity, focused ejection.
And squibs caused by explosives do not 'squirt' out in a continuous stream, they expand out and dissipate.


Yes i've already said some debris hits the ground first before the rest of the building. This is not inconvenient. It is only within a second of the rest of teh building. Hence why the debris fell at free fall, and the building at near free fall.
The first debris struck the ground withing about 10 seconds for both towers, however the collapses took several seconds longer to complete. 15+ for both towers. Why are you distorting those figures?

Pomeroo, No one calls what we are observing a gradually expanding plume.
It certainly is not dissipating as would be characteristic of a sudden high velocity dispersion of energy, and dissipation. The force driving your so called squibs is constant. THis actually contradicts your theory, in addition to the fact that the cores in some of the same regions did not collapse for an additional 15 or more seconds AFTER the main collapse

[pomeroo]

Its not a gradually expanding plume, it's a high velocity, focused ejection.


You haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. The plume most certainly does expand. And, yes, the compression of air does eject a lot of dust.



Yes i've already said some debris hits the ground first before the rest of the building. This is not inconvenient. It is only within a second of the rest of teh building. Hence why the debris fell at free fall, and the building at near free fall.


The fact that the debris falls faster than the rest of the building is highly inconvenient to the mythmakers who substitute explosives for the plane impacts and resultant fires that occurred in the real world.



Pomeroo, No one calls what we are observing a gradually expanding plume. Are you sure your talking about the same thing as the rest of us. You have watched the videos i posted, right?


Conspiracy liars have been pretending for years that the bursts of compressed air are explosions. The claim doesn't improve with age.
Hint: random explosions are not characteristic of controlled demolitions.

[papasmurf]

I did do my homework and look at the ventilation diagrams in the NIST report.

If you look at them. They have these green markings across entire levels showing where vents are located.

This has me to believe at this point that events are small and spread out, rather than just large vents at the midpoint of the building.

I need a reason to believe that the vents could have been large enough to launch the amount of debris we see out of them. I need a reason to believe the events exit the building perfectly horizontal. And i need a reason to believe that they should exit the buildings at the midpoints.

If you are confident in this theory, develop it and write a paper on it. Submit it to NIST.

Until then, those squib-like explosions are still suspect to being demolitions.

[pomeroo]

I did do my homework and look at the ventilation diagrams in the NIST report.

If you look at them. They have these green markings across entire levels showing where vents are located.

This has me to believe at this point that events are small and spread out, rather than just large vents at the midpoint of the building.

I need a reason to believe that the vents could have been large enough to launch the amount of debris we see out of them. I need a reason to believe the events exit the building perfectly horizontal. And i need a reason to believe that they should exit the buildings at the midpoints.

If you are confident in this theory, develop it and write a paper on it. Submit it to NIST.

Until then, those squib-like explosions are still suspect to being demolitions.


No, those bursts of compressed air are not suspected of being explosions by anyone who isn't flogging a deranged and thoroughly discredited agenda. You still think you can con us into believing that random blasts suggest controlled demoliton. They don't, and you can't.

[papasmurf]

Pomeroo, your critical thinking skills are abysmal. You think the plumes, as you like to call them are random???

They occur at the midpoint of the building, on all sides of the building, at the same level, at the same time. This is hardly random.

Why is it convenient that some debris hit the ground before the rest of the building collapsed? I am arguing that the debris should have hit the ground much sooner than the rest of the building if this was indeed a progressive, domino-effect collapse, but it doesn't. It's only a second sooner.

[ElMondoHummus]

You are getting mixed up. You're theory doesn't go against the NIST theory possibly, but the theory that there were air vents and not windows that the air escaped from is clearly a point that would have been addressed by NIST.
This is what you quoted me on, and this is what i was discussing.

NIST explanation that you posted is absolutely horrible. As is Beachnut's. How can one possibly believe that the ejected material is only air. It is clearly a huge mass of dust and pulverized material. I don't get it.

That's a silly objection. Nothing in NIST's explanation exclues the possibility of dust and pulverized material being in the air. In fact, the use of the term "puffs of smoke" clearly demonstrates that they're not talking about uncontaminated air at all. That rebuttal is terrible and does nothing to refute the explanation.

Furthermore, in your first paragraph, you're missing my point. Regardless of whether the ejections mischaracterized as "squibs" were from windows or HVAC vents, or other sorts of openings, they were driven by the falling mass of the upper section. Not squibs. It doesn't matter if those "puffs" of dust/smoke/whatever were coming out of a vent or some other sort of opening. The point is what was causing the dynamic pressure. It's not squibs. As I pointed out countless times in countless other threads, the notion of squibs/explosive charges has been refuted time and time again.

Start here:
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
... then here:
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html#Squibs%20debunked
... then read through the 911 Myths works on the topic:
http://www.google.com/search?q=squib+site:911myths.com&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:*&filter=0
... and then should you want to peruse them, here's a Google search of posts and threads where squibs were discussed:
Google search of JREF forum for "squibs" (http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BL%3Ahttp%3 A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlo go.gif%3BLH%3A75%3BLW%3A849%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&q=squibs&sitesearch=forums.randi.org)

The conclusion here is twofold:

The dynamic pressure is caused by the upper section falling. That's tons and tons of material, after all.
Squibs as an explanation for those jets/puffs/ejections of air and dust/smoke/debris/whatever fails on many levels.

[papasmurf]

http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/squibs.jpg

This is what i am referring to by the way. This occurs a number of times during the collapse sequence.

[Grizzly Bear]

http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/squibs.jpg

This is what i am referring to by the way. This occurs a number of times during the collapse sequence.

Do you have an answer to my questions posed in post #100 or will you continue to evade them?

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo, your critical thinking skills are abysmal.



And when you consider that my critical thinking skills are superior to yours by several orders of magnitude, that should suggest the dimensions of your problem.



You think the plumes, as you like to call them are random???


I "like" to call the plumes "plumes" for exactly the same reason that I "like" to call elephants "elephants." They are, of course, random in that there is no simultaneous series of explosions immediately followed by the collapse of the building.



They occur at the midpoint of the building, on all sides of the building, at the same level, at the same time. This is hardly random.


Gee, that's amazing. It's almost as though air was being forced out of the building.



Why is it convenient that some debris hit the ground before the rest of the building collapsed? I am arguing that the debris should have hit the ground much sooner than the rest of the building if this was indeed a progressive, domino-effect collapse, but it doesn't. It's only a second sooner.


You have been proved wrong.

[ElMondoHummus]

Read NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. The plans showing the exhaust louvers are in Appendix A of that volume.




Because they only studied the collapse initiation.

ETA: I see NIST did address that in their most recent FAQ. Thanks EMH.

You're welcome. And thank you for the reference to the louvers. I didn't know that was there. I really, really need to do a cover-to-cover reading of the whole report, including supplements, instead of just reading sections pertinent to whatever it is I'm studying at the moment.

I may have to look for a cool Hokulele quote to use in my sig as tribute. :D

[Disbelief]

I did do my homework and look at the ventilation diagrams in the NIST report.

If you look at them. They have these green markings across entire levels showing where vents are located.

This has me to believe at this point that events are small and spread out, rather than just large vents at the midpoint of the building.

I need a reason to believe that the vents could have been large enough to launch the amount of debris we see out of them. I need a reason to believe the events exit the building perfectly horizontal. And i need a reason to believe that they should exit the buildings at the midpoints.

If you are confident in this theory, develop it and write a paper on it. Submit it to NIST.

Until then, those squib-like explosions are still suspect to being demolitions.

Buy that air cylinder yet? Put some oil in it (dirt would damage it) and see how it gets expressed with open/restricted ports.

Also, why would anyone write a paper for NIST? If you think these "squibs" demonstrate explosives, you should be the one writing the technical paper and submitting it.

[Slayhamlet]

It certainly is not dissipating as would be characteristic of a sudden high velocity dispersion of energy, and dissipation. The force driving your so called squibs is constant. THis actually contradicts your theory, in addition to the fact that the cores in some of the same regions did not collapse for an additional 15 or more seconds AFTER the main collapse

Actually, the force isn't constant: the jet of debris and air actually accelerates shortly after it appears. This behavior is not at all consistent with explosives, to say the least.

[pomeroo]

http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/squibs.jpg

This is what i am referring to by the way. This occurs a number of times during the collapse sequence.


I love the way you show a gradually expanding plume to demonstrate that there were no gradually expanding plumes.

Please explain why your "explosion" appears below the collapsing portion of the building.

[Grizzly Bear]

Actually, the force isn't constant: the jet of debris and air actually accelerates shortly after it appears. This behavior is not at all consistent with explosives, to say the least.

Whoops blonde moment :D
Point made though with your clarification...

[Slayhamlet]

http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/squibs.jpg

This is what i am referring to by the way. This occurs a number of times during the collapse sequence.

Yes, we know what the hell it is that 9/11 crackpots call "squibs", we've only been dealing with this same recycled nonsense since 2005. Have you ever watched any videos of the collapse with decent enough resolution to observe the behavior of these "squibs" in detail? They are not consistent with explosives. Not to mention none of these "squibs" appear until well into the collapse.

[~enigma~]

So whose information is it?
Probably copied from the internet somewhere because it does not belong to the poster here. But then again, I am sure he can claim his brother was posting as him since his password was password.

[~enigma~]

How am i a fraud? I give you exhibits 7-14. I just want to know the truth.

I am not a troll nor a fraud.

I am trying to understand both sides of the story.

I am trying to determine the degree of cover-up.

Those are the only two possibilities at this point.

Have you read operation northwoods?

Alex Jones

9/11 Press for truth

US imperialism

[ElMondoHummus]

Has anyone here seen 9/11 Press for Truth?

Surely someone here has to believe they're covering something up...

Yes, some forum posters did, back in 2006. Here's the thread where it was discussed:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63545

Shifting through the rancor between CLE and others he (yes, Childlike Empress is a "he") was antagonizing, the substance of the rebuttals were in the following posts:


I'm ten minutes into the film. So far I've heard the same boring and fact-less "NORAD Stand Down" argument I have heard repeatedly from CTers.

It's very simple CLE. Please pay attention.

...reading?

...

The moment the 19 hijackers were on board the aircraft the nearly 3000 victims' fates were sealed. There was nothing anyone could do to prevent 9/11 happening at that point.

The mighty USA is NOT invincible, anymore than Battleship Row was. The US got beaten by people who were cleverer and more dedicated. Simple as that.

-Andrew

... and
The first 10 minutes of the film primarily deals with a claim of a NORAD stand down - they point out that NORAD were first informed at 0838, and the last aircraft crashed at 1003. One of the women claims that means "nearly 2 hours in which jets were flying around the US and the military did nothing"

Aside from the fact that 0838 to 1003 is 1 hr 25 mins (quite substantially less than 2 hours), their statements are chocka full of falsehoods and deceptive dishonest comments.

It does not bode well for the rest of the documentary. Any documentary on a sensitive topic, that so grossly distorts the truth and makes outright lies is, in my opinion, pure propaganda.

-Andrew

The NORAD stand down has been discussed many times here and in other forums and has been shown to be false. Refer to the following:
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1845150&postcount=1
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300

By the way, up to 20 minutes, we're now into the "no investigation of 9/11" and "investigation into President's blowjob cost more than investigation into 3000 murders" BS. *yawn*


"No investigation of 9/11" is just plain out incorrect. The PENTTBOM investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM) (another link here (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm)) involved over half of the FBI's total special agent manpower and is simply their biggest investigation ever. Add that to the 9/11 Commision inquiry, the initial FEMA and definitive NIST work, and just from the government's end alone you have multiple, large investigations into the event. Add to that all the legitimate research on the engineering aspects that were published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Fire Engineering, Civil Engineering, the Engineering News Record, etc., and you simply have the complete opposite of "no investigatoin of 9/11".

As far as the charge about the various 9/11 investigations (or even any one of them) costing less than the one on President Clinton: I don't have that figure, but from manpower allocated alone, I find that hard to believe.

Okay,

30 minutes in and we're now on to the Complete 9/11 Timeline. A useful research tool, but it does have some major issues - for example an enormous chunk of it is pure speculation. There's also no follow-up - it will cite a news article that indicates something out of place, yet that will be a news article that turned out to be a false alarm - like the "hijackers still alive" thing.

A big part of the timeline is "warnings". Most of these have little or no significance whatsoever (the sort of thing that only has significance from the predisposed position of "inside job"). A lot of people critical of the government for ignoring the warnings dump blame on Bush, despite the fact that the vast majority of these links and so-called warnings occured during Clinton's administration. These same people show a severe lack of understanding of what constitutes "actionable intelligence". The same people would froth rabid at the mouth if a cop pulled over someone in the vicinity of a bank robbery because they were black.

-Andrew

One of the rebuttals to the "Hijackers still alive" myth:
http://911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
... and on that page, links to the BBC and other sources stories on this topic.

"Warnings" and foreknowledge:
http://911myths.com/html/foreknowledge.html

And of course, these topics have their own threads in this forum.

40 Minutes in and we're still on warnings. I'm going to simply respond with this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1909400&postcount=30) excellent post by David Wong:


Quote:
It's impossible to stop every conceivable method of attack. And it's awfully easy to come back after the fact and say, "WHY DIDN'T WE SEE THAT COMING?!?!?"

We didn't, because those memos warning that Osama might try to hijack planes were buried under other memos warning of cyber terrorism, or poisoning water supplies, or sneaking a nuke on board cargo boxes, or growing biological agents in a lab, or sneaking a shoulder-fired missile to a hill outside an airport, or suicide bombing a shopping mall, or filling a truck full of bombs and running it into a hotel, or...

You get the idea.


50 minutes in and we get the same "no one reacted" BS. "No fighters responded" etc.

This stuff gets tired fast.

-Andrew

Self explanatory.

And finally, Pardalis chimes in:
OK, finished it.

After the first ten minutes where it seemed to raise questions about the collapse, I started to wonder if it would fall into the CT crap about controlled demolitions. Thankfully, it did not. But that leaves me doubtful as to why they left that in, since they don't pursue the idea. Maybe it was to get our attention... :rolleyes:

All the way through, as Gumboot said about David Wong's quote, it seemed to make the logical fallacy of hindsight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias)


But even with that in mind, I acknowledge the film raises interesting questions. By the end of it, it was clear that it was pushing for the LIHOP theory, which is to me, believable but still pending proof. Did the US cover up ties between Al Qaeda and Pakistan? I simply don't know.

Maybe there should be an "international" investigation. Why not?

So OK, go ahead and make this new investigation, what are you waiting for? Why are you asking the Bush administration?

Why are you accusing the Bush administration of not doing an "international" investigation about itself????

And shouldn't you accuse them AFTER the investigation, when (and if) the investigation shows conclusive proof that the US had foreknowledge of the specific attack and covered things up?

I'm not so sure I believe LIHOP explanations, and I don't think I'd be so casual in agreeing that some sort of "new investigation" is needed. Look up LIHOP in these threads for those arguments. Still, though, if a film is pushing LIHOP, then MIHOP explanations are by necessity excluded. I don't think this video is a good thing to push in conjunction with talk about squibs, which is very strictly a MIHOP hypothesis, and contradicted by LIHOP.

Gumboot makes a post I'm not positive I agree in full with. For example, many of the Special Forces troops were in fact veterans of previous conflicts, like Somalia and, or at least well experienced in other areas of operation (unfortunately in too many cases, not the correct areas; I distinctly remember a story about some SF operators complaining that they were sent over as language specialists and were less than useless. They were indeed specialists... for Latin America. Not all that happened there was smooth by any stretch). But his post contains compelling information nonetheless, and most of it I do well agree with.

Okay, 50 minutes in now...

We get the whole "we didn't catch anyone in Afghanistan" thing. I'm not sure when the doco was made, because at present Al Qaeda's command structure has been decimated.

I'm starting to see American arrogance in the doco now, which isn't surprising. People are arguing there's no way these Al Qaeda fighters could escape from the US. Well... nonsense. Come on people. Do some military history research.

Most of the American troops in Afghanistan had no previous combat experience. Even fewer had any decent experience in the sort of warfare or climate that they had to face (hence why NZSAS ended up playing such a disproportiantly significant role).

In contrast, the Al Qaeda fighters have been fighting around the world, basically constantly, for THREE DECADES. They defeated the Soviet Army in Afghanistan and know the terrain backwards. They have high level friends in Pakistan - the neighbour that the US was relying on for support.

It's is quite plain and simple. Al Qaeda were BETTER than the US Military. It might be a hard pill for arrogant Americans to swallow, but it's true. Al Qaeda and other militant Islamic groups were running circles around the US intelligence community for a decade leading up to 9/11, and in Afghanistan, for the first year or so, Al Qaeda ran circles around the US Military.

I simply don't understand this incredulous "US is invincible" stance that is so often espoused by those claiming inside involvement. Would anyone we so utterly disbelieving if Soviet cold-war intelligence out-foxed US or British intelligence? Of course not. Yet Al Qaeda beat BOTH the Soviets AND the West. We grossly underestimated them. And by fixing blame on "incompetent US officials" we are CONTINUING to underestimate them. They are a REAL threat. They are not a bunch of towel-heads hiding in a cave. They are highly trained, incredibly experienced, thorough, patient, smart, and dedicated.

Want to know what Al Qaeda looks for in its members? This, according to the Al Qaeda training manual (Second Lesson):



Now. Does that sound like a rag-tag bunch of cave-dwellers? Or a sophisticated unified organisation?

-Andrew

Okay, this post is long enough. You get the point. Yes, Press for Truth was indeed viewed by some here. It failed to sway people (well, CLE, but that poster is rather accomodating of Anti-US government CTs). As said before, the biggest concession was to LIHOP, and even then Pardalis said "... which is to me, believable but still pending proof". Or in other words, show me how it's true. I don't read that as his being convinced at all, only being fair and conceding there were LIHOP questions that sounded reasonable.

And Gumboot's summary (I won't quote it; just read it here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1909928#post1909928)) pretty much describes what the flaws in the video were. At any rate, yes, that vid was discussed here, back in '06. And we're still skeptical about any conspiracy hypotheses that people present. In that aspect, the film fails to convince.

[~enigma~]

I see it much clearer now. You people are afraid.

Afraid of the truth. You won't admit this, but deep down you know it is fear that is holding you back.
No Neo...it is the Matrix that holds us back...

[ElMondoHummus]

Have you read operation northwoods?

I know you hate Alex Jones, but please watch Terror-storm. It turned my whole world upside down. Here is a link.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183&q=terror+storm&ei=zvqPSMnYEYamrwKM6ZH1CQ&hl=en


Whoa. Northwoods?? TerrorStorm? Stop right there! Go here:

Operation Northwoods:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66214
Google search on JREF forum for "Northwoods" (http://www.google.com/custom?q=northwoods&cof=S%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%3BAH%3Acente r%3BLH%3A75%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fforums.randi.org%2F images%2Fmisc%2Fsearchlogo.gif%3BLW%3A849%3BAWFID% 3A31746880203d5407%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&sitesearch=forums.randi.org)

Terrorstorm:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61178
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62649

And once you're done with those specific points, you need - NEED - to start reviewing critical thinking skills. I'm sorry, but you are lacking them. Your choice of recommendations to us demonstrates that; yes, posters here have seen and reviewed those videos. They do not convince. We don't dislike Alex Jones because of any personal reasons, we dislike him because he's a charlatan and a fraud. You are falling for a con-man. You need to develop skills to avoid such hucksterism in the future. I strongly recommend you start with Gravy's page on "The Basics: Critical Thinking, Informal Logic, The Scientific Method (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/thebasic%3Acriticalthinking%2Clogic%2Cscientif)", then move on to the link to Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html)". After that, it is imperative that you arm yourself with works like Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345409469/o/qid=990766841/sr=2-1/107-1344437-9248514)".

To succeed in the scientific curriculum you listed previously, you must develop better critical thinking skills. I'm sorry if this comes off as condescending to you, but I honestly pledge that it's not my intent to insult or condescend. I see a very distinct lack in the ability to discern truth from mistruths. Before you go on with presenting what you believe is proof of a government conspiracy, I urge you to not only search for previous threads on those topics in this forum, but to read the works I link above.

Seriously. You're not discriminating between useful and useless information well enough. Please read those works.

[applecorped]

They're a special kind of explosive charge that nobody knows about except twoofers. See, they're an explosive... but they are used to set off explosives... because it adds an extra step to the process and that makes a lot more sense than using the same charge to just detonate the explosive that you use to detonate the squib first instead. By setting off the explosive with another explosive, it signals the special fairies hired by BushCo. to turn to the bombs to thermite.

Interesting fact, the command for blowing up a squib to blow up an explosive device is "pull it." This comes from the ancient Chinese tradition of setting off fireworks by loading them into giant slingshots, releasing them, and then doing the same thing to a second rag wrapped in oil and set ablaze. Sure, it would be easier to just set the rag on fire and light the fireworks with it first, but again... extra, pointless steps are the key to maximizing an explosives' power.

Man, applecorped was right. This is so much more fun when you don't have to rely on pesky facts or evidence and just talk directly out of your rump. :D

It almost makes you think that this forum should be renamed "9/11 Conspiracy Humor".

[lapman]

I can't believe i'm posting this. This is private information...So, we've established that you are an electrical engineering student with nothing that would give you anything close to "expertise" in anything pertaining to 9/11. No structural engineering, physics, explosives, aeronautical, etc. training or education that would give your opinions any credibility.

So, Mr. Electrical Engineering Student, can you explain why the "squibs" increase in volume and speed as the collapse gets closer to them?

[tsig]

Sorry, i am going to call the squib explosion a squib, just to make things easier. Can you handle that mr. dictionary?

So when you use a word it means just what you want it to mean no more and no less?

OooKaay.

[nicepants]

Sorry, i am going to call the squib explosion a squib, just to make things easier. Can you handle that mr. dictionary?

How is making up your own definition for a word going to "make things easier"? Why would you want to use a word that has nothing to do with the subject at hand?

Earlier you said "a squib is a demolition device" (wrong), and now you're saying that a squib is " an explosion" caused by what you believe to be a squib (also wrong).

Calling a turd gold doesn't make it gold, it just makes you look stupid.

A squib is a small explosive about the size of a firecracker and is used for special effects in movies. (Sometimes they are attached to people) I hope you realize how ridiculous it sounds for you to claim that "squibs"/firecrackers played a part in the WTC collapses.

[tsig]

Well you should CARE. Beachnut.

You have kids?

You don't care about the true nature of the world they are entering?


Did you even watch the videos?

No, you didn't.

It's called denial.

How do you expect for people to ever take your word for it if you haven't even seen their side of the story?

How would you feel if i showed your kids these videos, and they changed their minds?

What if they asked you about the videos, what you thought...

And you would get all angry and such and yell like an ignorant old man...

THEY'RE JUNK I TELL YOU. JUNK... .RUBBISH...

How do you think they would react? Unless your kids are BRAINWASHED, they wouldn't TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

Watch the videos and tell me WHY they are junk.

You have to start THINKING FOR YOURSELF.

All PEOPLE here WAKE UP.

Get out of the MOB MENTALITY.

Make up your OWN MIND.


Now let me explain something to you beachnut. You say you don't care, and that your kids will prevail in the marketplace. This is just false. I assure you this "marketplace" will be heavily affected by what is soon to come. I will be ready to play the game and stay alive. I will do fine in the system no matter what i believe it's true nature to be. Will you or your kids be ready mentally if the world changes as we know it, and no one can no longer deny that evil forces are at work?

I see it much clearer now. You people are afraid.

Afraid of the truth. You won't admit this, but deep down you know it is fear that is holding you back.

It's understandable. If indeed Alex Jones and millions of others are mostly correct, we are headed towards Nazi Germany.

The world will change for the worse soon. Bad things will happen to the economy and other sectors, and no one is going to be able to blame it on the truth movement.

Preach it brother!!

Can I get an amen on that!!

Oh! lead us please to the light for we are fearful in the dark.

[papasmurf]

And squibs caused by explosives do not 'squirt' out in a continuous stream, they expand out and dissipate.



The first debris struck the ground withing about 10 seconds for both towers, however the collapses took several seconds longer to complete. 15+ for both towers. Why are you distorting those figures?


It certainly is not dissipating as would be characteristic of a sudden high velocity dispersion of energy, and dissipation. The force driving your so called squibs is constant. THis actually contradicts your theory, in addition to the fact that the cores in some of the same regions did not collapse for an additional 15 or more seconds AFTER the main collapse

They expand out and disipate, that sounds about right... I don't know what you mean by contiuous stream. I see a short jet of debris shoot out at high velocity, on par with explosive velocity.

Alot of the videos show this in slow motion, so as to make it look like its it ejecting gradually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o4cGW7KqSw

It is not hard to see that these explosions can be from explosives.

You can see bright flashes too... which is odd. I know you all have an explanation for this too, but i hope you know that those flashes are seen in CD's.

[~enigma~]

You can see bright flashes too... which is odd. I know you all have an explanation for this too, but i hope you know that those flashes are seen in CD's.
Exhibit 15. The engineering student does not know that glass shards reflect sunlight...guess he was absent the day they taught that.

[papasmurf]

So, we've established that you are an electrical engineering student with nothing that would give you anything close to "expertise" in anything pertaining to 9/11. No structural engineering, physics, explosives, aeronautical, etc. training or education that would give your opinions any credibility.

So, Mr. Electrical Engineering Student, can you explain why the "squibs" increase in volume and speed as the collapse gets closer to them?


Actually i have taken Physics, calculus, thermodynamics, STATICS (Mechanics of solids), Design (I have designed a truss), Materials (i have studied strengths of materials).

How about you, what gives your opinions any credibility?

I haven't even said my background gives me the right to assert my opinions, i believe my claims should be evaluated solely on their content.


You have people here saying that they have proven me wrong, with nothing but their own assertions. I don't know about you, but i'm not taking anyone's assertions, even if they are experts, which i doubt the people here are (aka pomeroo).

[chillzero]

Everybody stop. Do not personalise this thread any further. Any posts not addressing the topic from this point on will be removed, and the posters may face action for ignoring this warning.

Get the thread on topic, and discuss the argument without attacking the arguer. If you can prove the argument wrong without getting personal about your opposition, it's a better tactic to take.

Edit to add:
Several posts removed. The topic is not Northwoods, nor is it papasmurf.

[Drudgewire]

[mod=chillzero]Everybody stop. Do not personalise this thread any further. Any posts not addressing the topic from this point on will be removed, and the posters may face action for ignoring this warning.


:scarper:

[~enigma~]

You are the one making the claim that the "squibs" are caused by the explosives with Hush-A-BoomTM. The onus is on you to provide actual proof. I noticed that you avoided my question.
Before that doesn't he have to provide overwhelming proof that squibs are explosive charges, at least more than the ones used to create some hollywood SFX? The failures of the educational system are truly astounding.

[papasmurf]

Several problems with your speculation.

-- Large sections of the core structure were still standing for 15+ seconds following the main collapse. How do you as an engineer explain this? If the core in these regions well below the impact zones (where the collapse initiated) were being 'blown out', then why did the collapse
A) not initiate in these regions until the collapse wave arrived, and
B) Leave the core briefly standing in some of the same regions?

-- Where are the explosions that are signature trademarks of controlled demolition during the collapse?

99Z6qoP-elw
Please feel free to point out in this video where they are being heard during the south tower collapse.


Just as you claim you are an engineer, I could blab all I want about being a 20 year old architecture student. Beachnut may well have the qualifications of being an engineer, however, just as my experience in architecture is only a label, so is yours and beachnut's. The authoritative element of a job title is demonstrated, not flagged about...

As far as I am concerned, job labels are rather meaningless until demonstrated. You have not demonstrated your theories thus far from what I have seen...


How does this defy NIST's explanation of the collapse. The pancake effect in the collapse happens after collapse initiation. Are you able to provide engineering data that should demonstrate to us otherwise?
That would in effect demonstrate to us in simple terms how you believe the collapse should have ensued if you were assume for once that explosives were never used?


This appears to be a strawman claim. Where does Beachnut argue this?



Free fall is defined as a variable of acceleration, at sea level earth's gravitational accelleration is 9.8 m/s^2. What threshold are you basing your free fall speed claim on? Do the 15+ second collapse times of both towers match to the figure you have?



We already have, you have brought little more than speculation of explosives being used on the core structure at points where the collapse never initiated until the collapse front reached them, and even then parts of the core (40 stories of the south tower core, and 60 or the north tower) stood following the collapse. So far none of your theories explain those contradictions to your theory away


Sorry Grizzly Bear, i didn't mean to ignore this, it was an accident. I'll try to answer your questions.

A. I believe the demolition used was precisely timed to be just ahead of the collapse front. If you watch the collapse wave, you can see material and beams being flung out right ahead of the collapse wave, before the top section was even able to exert its full pressure on it. This utilizes the highest technology available for wireless and computer sequenced demolitions.

B. Where do you see the core still standing? Can you please show me some proof that the core remains standing for a short time. I have seen a video where you can see the outer facade of the building stand for a couple of seconds after teh collapse, after which it crumbled to the ground. Is this what you are referring to?

It would make sense that the outer facade would stand towards the end of the collapse, because i believe most of the explosives were placed in the core where there was access from the elevator shafts.


Your other comments are silly and not even worth discussing. You post acceleration due to gravity 9.8 m/s2. Yes that's great stuff you got there.... what's your point?

If you do the calculation for the time of the 526 m high building to reach the ground at free fall in a vacuum, the time is like 10.4 seconds or so i believe...

dx = 1/2at^2 so 526 = .5(9.8) t^2 solve for t is 10.4 seconds.

The collapse took between 11-13 seconds. This is near free fall considering that this is very high resistance. Very high resistance. Yet it is only a couple seconds longer than if there was ZERO resistance.

What goes through your mind that allows you to think that the entire intact structure below the collapse region was able to be destroyed by gravity alone in this time frame?

Everyone else in the world who actually thinks about it has questions, yet JREF doesn't.

NIST doesn't address this because they can't. They explain initiation, but they wouldn't even dare try to make something up for how the entire building provided only small resistance to the collapse...

[~enigma~]

dx = 1/2at^2 so 526 = .5(9.8) t^2 solve for t is 10.4 seconds.
So when NIST said the first exterior panels to strike the ground were in 9 seconds, they were actually saying that the debris had rocket engines attached to it? And you can't understand why nobody believes your an engineering student??

[funk de fino]

NIST doesn't address this because they can't. They explain initiation, but they wouldn't even dare try to make something up for how the entire building provided only small resistance to the collapse...

Twice in the space of an hour a truther has made an incorrect claim about this.

NIST explain the collapse progression post initiation and give calculations for this. Please try to research better as it will stop you making false claims like this again. Heres a clue - December FAQ's

Once you have read them you should admit your mistake.

[WildCat]

Just to recap papasmurf's claims:

- massive amounts of explosives were placed in the exact center of the floors, and the purpose of these explosives was to cut the columns, pulverize the concrete, and send "most" of the mass out beyond the building footprint.

- "squibs", powerful enough to send material flying through the window vents on the mechanical floors, but not powerful enough to break any windows, were placed in the mechanical floors. The purpose of these "squibs" is unknown, particularly in light of the thousdands of pounds of explosives placed on every floor. papasmurf won't explain their purpose.

- thermite was also used, why it was needed when the said thousands of pounds of explosives was on every floor I have no idea, and papasmurf isn't telling.

- somehow, these massive bombs placed in the center of every floor were perfectly timed and sequenced and placed so that not only did they send "most" of the mass of each floor outside the building footprint, not a single shred of material was sent flying upwards.

- these massive bombs located in the center of each floor made no audible sounds as they exploded, witnessed by the lack of explosive sounds in every single video of the event. But powerful enough to send "most" of the mass of each floor outside the footprint of the building.

- the massive bombs placed in (this is his latest claim) the elevator shafts didn't affect elevator service in any way. I guess elevator shafts are just designed with all kinds of extra space in case one wishes to place bombs there in the future.

-papasmurf is worried that we won't understand the physics involved, and claims to be an engineering student, but has presented no physics or math in this thread.

Feel free to correct any errors papasmurf, but I can back up every one of these statements with what you have said in this thread alone.

[papasmurf]

So when NIST said the first exterior panels to strike the ground were in 9 seconds, they were actually saying that the debris had rocket engines attached to it? And you can't understand why nobody believes your an engineering student??

My calculation is 100% scientifically sound. Ask any engineering expert.

I guess it is safe to assume you haven't even taken or understood physics 101?;)

The first exterior panels were probably from the collapse initiation region which we will estimate to be the 80th floor out of 110...

80/110 * 526 = 382 m solving for t again with this distance, we get about 8.8 seconds for free fall.

So if we assume that NIST is talking about the panels from the collapse region, then a little over 9 seconds is a reasonable.

My calculation is obviously for the demise of the entire structure as i clearly gave the height of the building for the calculation, which goes to the roof.

[CurtC]

A. I believe the demolition used was precisely timed to be just ahead of the collapse front. If you watch the collapse wave, you can see material and beams being flung out right ahead of the collapse wave, before the top section was even able to exert its full pressure on it.

You think that steel beams were ejected out of the towers by explosives?!? What kind of explosives would do that? How would it work? Do you have any other demolition examples which show steel beams being flung out?

That's just crazy talk.

[~enigma~]

My calculation is 100% scientifically sound. Ask any engineering expert.Why? Wrong hight was used.
I guess it is safe to assume you haven't even taken or understood physics 101?;)Since there has been a mod warning in this thread. This stupidity will be reported. As you already know, ignoring a mod warning isn't a good idea.So if we assumeAgain with the assumptions...freefall from the roof of a 1368 foot tower is 9.22 seconds neglecting air resistance. The WTC was 417 meters NOT 526 meters as you think. Didn't they teach you in class that garbage in equals garbage out?

[Pardalis]

Peyo is spinning in his grave.

[papasmurf]

You think that steel beams were ejected out of the towers by explosives?!? What kind of explosives would do that? How would it work? Do you have any other demolition examples which show steel beams being flung out?

That's just crazy talk.

What i am about to type is pure speculation. It is just an idea. I don't really presume to know what exactly happened. I am just "unconvinced" that gravity alone carried out this collapse. I am entitled to express my opinion. So here it goes...

This is not a typical demolition. Rather than precisely controlled placement of small explosives on every collumn, they relied on larger explosives on a few collumns that would have needed enough energy to cause collateral damage to the surrounding beams. This is why material is thrown outward from the building. These could be military grade, more expensive and higher quality explosives that could have a higher energy per mass than typical demolition explosives. I also believe it is possible that thermate could have been used in key locations to severely weaken/melt the beams as to ensure that the explosions in the core crippled every critical collumn. You can think of these core explosions as "bombs" rather than typical demoltions.

Why do you think gravity is capable of flinging the beams horizontally at such a high velocity? I think you need to pay more attention to the videos and see how ridiculous the outward explosions are. This progressive collapse does not explain why so much of the gravitational energy was directed into flinging steel beams away from the structure.

And, No, they would not have interfered with the elevators. I never said they were in the elevators shafts, i just said they had access to areas in the core FROM the elevator shafts. Remember that elevator work was being conducted shortly before 9/11...

[phunk]

They expand out and disipate, that sounds about right... I don't know what you mean by contiuous stream. I see a short jet of debris shoot out at high velocity, on par with explosive velocity.


No, at explosive velocities the 'squib' would move hundreds of feet in less than the duration of 1 frame of video. It would appear instantly and stop, it wouldn't blow continuously for several seconds at velocities easily caught on video.

[~enigma~]

What i am about to type is pure speculation. It is just an idea. I don't really presume to know what exactly happened. I am just "unconvinced" that gravity alone carried out this collapse. I am entitled to express my opinion. So here it goes...Before you go any further, how do you attempt to justify thinking the WTC was 526 meters? Do you understand that is 1725 feet or so...what building were you thinking about?

[ElMondoHummus]

They expand out and disipate, that sounds about right... I don't know what you mean by contiuous stream. I see a short jet of debris shoot out at high velocity, on par with explosive velocity.

Alot of the videos show this in slow motion, so as to make it look like its it ejecting gradually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o4cGW7KqSw

It is not hard to see that these explosions can be from explosives.

You can see bright flashes too... which is odd. I know you all have an explanation for this too, but i hope you know that those flashes are seen in CD's.

The plumes or jets you see are perfectly consistent with pneumatic effects from the upper section falling. You don't need explosives to explain those.

The "bright flashes" not only appear randomly in the dust cloud, but also appear away from the building. If those are flashes associated with explosives, why is the dust cloud not reacting to those supposed explosions? There's no distortion of the cloud around them, no distortion of air or smoke indicating any pressure front from an explosion. To me, those "flashes" are reflective pieces of debris catching the sunlight, possibly glass or parts of the aluminum facade. Either way, those flashes are not consistent with explosives. For examples of flashes that are, watch the demolitions of various Las Vegas hotels and casinos:
https://www.vegas.com/lounge/implosions.html

That video shows no signs of explosives use.

[papasmurf]

Before you go any further, how do you attempt to justify thinking the WTC was 526 meters? Do you understand that is 1725 feet or so...what building were you thinking about?

Hi Enigma,

Today we are going to have a lesson in dimensional analysis!

1725 feet * 12 inches/1foot * 2.54 cm/1inch * 1 m/100 cm = 526 m !!!!!

Wow, that was fun!

[~enigma~]

Hi Enigma,

Today we are going to have a lesson in dimensional analysis!

1725 feet * 12 inches/1foot * 2.54 cm/1inch * 1 m/100 cm = 526 m !!!!!

Wow, that was fun!
Which is exactly what I said but how do you justify using 526 meters as the height of the WTC which is a well known value of 1368 feet? As I said, the failures of grammar schools is astounding.

[Pardalis]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/smurf.jpg

[papasmurf]

I got my data from wikipedia... i think it is the height to the antenna... so i guess the roof could be lower.

I misunderstood your sentence to mean that you thought the building is 1725 feet... So i apologize. If you use the height of the building to be 417 m then the time would be 9.2 seconds.

So what does NIST mean by the first exterior panel? do they mean the first piece of debris, or the top section of the building? Does anyone know what they mean by this?

[~enigma~]

I got my data from wikipedia... i think it is the height to the antenna... so i guess the roof could be lower.
You are confusing the WTC with the sears tower. Look again...

WTC antenna brought it to 1727 feet.

[applecorped]

I got my data from wikipedia... i think it is the height to the antenna... so i guess the roof could be lower.

I misunderstood your sentence to mean that you thought the building is 1725 feet... So i apologize. If you use the height of the building to be 417 m then the time would be 9.2 seconds.

So what does NIST mean by the first exterior panel? do they mean the first piece of debris, or the top section of the building? Does anyone know what they mean by this?


ummmmm....don't they teach you in school that Wikipedia is not a reliable source?

[lapman]

Papa, you still haven't answered the question. Why is the volume and speed of the "squibs" increasing as the collapse approaches that floor?

[~enigma~]

So what does NIST mean by the first exterior panel? do they mean the first piece of debris, or the top section of the building? Does anyone know what they mean by this?
Seems pretty clear to me. They said the first exterior panels to hit the ground.

[Grizzly Bear]

Sorry Grizzly Bear, i didn't mean to ignore this, it was an accident. I'll try to answer your questions.
Then I apologize for calling you out on it... I usually keep such circumstances in mind due to the flood of replies people who argue in favor of the CD theory get.

A. I believe the demolition used was precisely timed to be just ahead of the collapse front. If you watch the collapse wave, you can see material and beams being flung out right ahead of the collapse wave, before the top section was even able to exert its full pressure on it. This utilizes the highest technology available for wireless and computer sequenced demolitions.
................... Nothing personal intended but this is very speculative. What is the highest available technology available? Do other controlled demolitions utilize this high technology? This is a very vague statement which has a rather easy alternative example, although you have rejected it thus far.

B. Where do you see the core still standing? Can you please show me some proof that the core remains standing for a short time. I have seen a video where you can see the outer facade of the building stand for a couple of seconds after teh collapse, after which it crumbled to the ground. Is this what you are referring to?
The video you saw was of the core structure. I can most easily prove this to you by showing you the picture of the south tower core standing briefly.

yXcISJq7N48
South tower core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif)

The north tower core structure is more discernible in pictures:
-dWBBEtA5bI
North tower core (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/hudson_clouds.jpg)


It would make sense that the outer facade would stand towards the end of the collapse, because i believe most of the explosives were placed in the core where there was access from the elevator shafts.

What you saw was the remnants of the core structure, which would support pancake collapse progression, signifying that the floors were sheared from their connections. One of the images is posted on 911 research, a pro conspiracy website, and they do not appear to object to the fact that the cores were still standing at least briefly for the north tower

[Pardalis]

This is not a typical demolition. Rather than precisely controlled placement of small explosives on every collumn, they relied on larger explosives on a few collumns that would have needed enough energy to cause collateral damage to the surrounding beams. This is why material is thrown outward from the building. These could be military grade, more expensive and higher quality explosives that could have a higher energy per mass than typical demolition explosives. I also believe it is possible that thermate could have been used in key locations to severely weaken/melt the beams as to ensure that the explosions in the core crippled every critical collumn. You can think of these core explosions as "bombs" rather than typical demoltions.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/billiejeanlive7uv.gif

This is all very nice and well but now can you stop dancing around and show some evidence for this?

[bio]

I did do my homework and look at the ventilation diagrams in the NIST report.

If you look at them. They have these green markings across entire levels showing where vents are located.

This has me to believe at this point that events are small and spread out, rather than just large vents at the midpoint of the building.

I need a reason to believe that the vents could have been large enough to launch the amount of debris we see out of them. I need a reason to believe the events exit the building perfectly horizontal. And i need a reason to believe that they should exit the buildings at the midpoints.

If you are confident in this theory, develop it and write a paper on it. Submit it to NIST.

Until then, those squib-like explosions are still suspect to being demolitions.

you are the voice of maturity in an ocean of melting emotionality.

[johnny karate]

you are the voice of mature

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3922/nu096ni0.jpg?

[Hokulele]

Well, I can't be accused of failing to try. Since papasmurf does not seem interested in a reasonable discussion on this, I am done here.

Well you should CARE. Beachnut.

You have kids?

You don't care about the true nature of the world they are entering?


Did you even watch the videos?

No, you didn't.

It's called denial.

How do you expect for people to ever take your word for it if you haven't even seen their side of the story?

How would you feel if i showed your kids these videos, and they changed their minds?

What if they asked you about the videos, what you thought...

And you would get all angry and such and yell like an ignorant old man...

THEY'RE JUNK I TELL YOU. JUNK... .RUBBISH...

How do you think they would react? Unless your kids are BRAINWASHED, they wouldn't TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

Watch the videos and tell me WHY they are junk.

You have to start THINKING FOR YOURSELF.

All PEOPLE here WAKE UP.

Get out of the MOB MENTALITY.

Make up your OWN MIND.


Now let me explain something to you beachnut. You say you don't care, and that your kids will prevail in the marketplace. This is just false. I assure you this "marketplace" will be heavily affected by what is soon to come. I will be ready to play the game and stay alive. I will do fine in the system no matter what i believe it's true nature to be. Will you or your kids be ready mentally if the world changes as we know it, and no one can no longer deny that evil forces are at work?

I see it much clearer now. You people are afraid.

Afraid of the truth. You won't admit this, but deep down you know it is fear that is holding you back.

It's understandable. If indeed Alex Jones and millions of others are mostly correct, we are headed towards Nazi Germany.

The world will change for the worse soon. Bad things will happen to the economy and other sectors, and no one is going to be able to blame it on the truth movement.


Inside voice, please.

You're welcome. And thank you for the reference to the louvers. I didn't know that was there. I really, really need to do a cover-to-cover reading of the whole report, including supplements, instead of just reading sections pertinent to whatever it is I'm studying at the moment.


It took me about 6 weeks of off-and-on reading, and there are many details I don't remember, but it gave me a very good overview of what was examined and a good idea of what search terms to use when trying to locate the details. I have never needed this for anything other than this sub-forum, but since I do work with people in the construction industry (mostly pushing piles of dirt around), it gave me a few insights into building design and construction I wasn't previously aware of, so overall it was worth it.

I may have to look for a cool Hokulele quote to use in my sig as tribute. :D


Cool as in intelligent, or cool as in WTF is she on about now? ;)


ETA: Whoops, didn't see the Mod box on the next page. My apologies.

[Mancman]

Why do you think gravity is capable of flinging the beams horizontally at such a high velocity? I think you need to pay more attention to the videos and see how ridiculous the outward explosions are. This progressive collapse does not explain why so much of the gravitational energy was directed into flinging steel beams away from the structure.



The perimeter walls simply leant outward when they lost lateral bracing.

If a piece of wall, say 500ft high leans outward and falls, some of it will land at least that distance away.

You can see an example here. The east wall of WTC2 is laid out across the remains of WTC4, in a straight line from the footprint of the tower:
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_East_Hell.jpg


Explosives are simply out of the question. From Pg97 of R.Mackey's whitepaper:

Regarding Dr. Griffin’s preferred theory, it should be pointed out that explosives rarely impart much momentum to solid objects, unless the explosive is actually contained – material making up a solid casing will be fragmented and sent at high velocity (i.e. shell fragments), but nearby solid objects will hardly move at all. This is because explosives create a pressure shock that moves at supersonic speeds. The explosive may exert a high pressure on nearby objects, but the pressure rapidly “washes over” those objects and thus does not have time to impart a large impulse.

Unless the pressure wave is somehow contained, the wave will rapidly move beyond nearby objects, at which time they are no longer accelerated. This effect is reminiscent of big-wave surfing – a truly large wave moves too fast for a surfer to gain much of a push from it and it will simply pass him by, unless he has either a longer, faster board or is towed into the wave by a jet ski.

For a worked example, Rememnikov [151] presents a typical charge of 100 kg TNT exploding at a distance of 15 meters. A series of objects placed at this distance would experience 272 kPa or just under 40 PSI, but would only experience the overpressure for 17.2 milliseconds, including the reflection of the blast, after which the pressure wave has passed the objects. Let’s assume we’re discussing a section of unattached, hollow square steel column 3 m high by 20 cm wide, with walls 4 cm thick. This object presents a maximum of 0.6 m2 to the blast front, so it experiences a maximum force of 272 kPa x 0.6 m2 = 163,200 N for 17.2 milliseconds, for a total impulse of 2807 Newton seconds.

It should be noted that the simplified calculation above grossly overestimates the total impulse, because we have assumed the peak pressure is sustained for the entire duration, when in reality a lower average value is expected. The actual expected impulse per facing area, seen in Table 1 of Rememnikov’s paper, is a mere 955 kPa-msec, or only 573 Newton seconds imparted to our column as above. We therefore are using a very generous estimate, almost five times higher than we actually expect. We will use our simplified estimate rather than the lower, more accurate number to silence any doubts that we have potentially underestimated the maximum imparted velocity.

The total impulse is equal to the mass of the object times the change in velocity. In this case, our column contains 256 cm2 x 3 m of steel or 76,800 cm3 of steel, for a mass of approximately 600 kg. The column would, therefore, be accelerated by 2807 N s / 600kg = 4.7 meters per second, or about 10 miles per hour – hardly a remarkable value compared to the ricochet scenario described above. In order to propel this column at the speed required, say 30 meters per second, we would need charges of at least 700 kg TNT equivalent – very large and clearly audible explosives indeed, even accepting our generous assumptions above.

.....700kg of TNT for a single column.

[WildCat]

.....700kg of TNT for a single column.
This is why I kept asking papasmurf for the calculations, but he apparently felt he didn't need them because he's got common sense and intuition.

And remember, papasmurf's bombs aren't even contacting the columns - they're located in the center of each floor up to >100 feet away from the perimeter columns. Because of this, he would need an order of magnitude greater amount of explosive.

The idea is absolutely ridiculous.

[bio]

The perimeter walls simply leant outward when they lost lateral bracing.

If a piece of wall, say 500ft high leans outward and falls, some of it will land at least that distance away.

You can see an example here. The east wall of WTC2 is laid out across the remains of WTC4, in a straight line from the footprint of the tower:
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_East_Hell.jpg


Explosives are simply out of the question. From Pg97 of R.Mackey's whitepaper:



.....700kg of TNT for a single column.

fire + gravitational force was able to do the work of "700 kg of TNT for a single column"?:eek:

[Drudgewire]

fire + gravitational force was able to do the work of "700 kg of TNT for a single column"?:eek:

Yes, the towers caught on fire and gravity took over. NOTHING ELSE happened to them that day which could possibly have weakened the structure. :rolleyes:

[WildCat]

fire + gravitational force was able to do the work of "700 kg of TNT for a single column"?:eek:
Yes, and that brings up another point!

I have asked papasmurf to calculate the energy stored in the towers due to gravity, and he has so far refused and in a very anti-engineering fashion instead decided to rely on his common sense and intuition. We see how far that was off as far as explosives necessary, could it be his common sense and intuition have failed him once more?

Maybe you could calculate the potential energy of the towers bio? :rolleyes:

[Mancman]

fire + gravitational force was able to do the work of "700 kg of TNT for a single column"?:eek:

How predictable of you.

papasmurf's implied explanation, one of explosives sending steel flying hundreds of feet, requires such an incredible amount of explosives that even entertaining the idea is ludicrous.

When you look at the actual mechanism of how the steel was delivered to these distances, very little energy is required. In fact, take away the floors, and no additional energy is required from the collapsing portion, the walls will simply fall away of their own accord.

The distinction lies in the mechanism. It isn't hard to understand this.

[HyJinX]

I don't know if anybody has visited this website before, but I thought it might interesting given the topic

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

Here's an excerpt from the article that made me think it may be appropriate. I'm not a science guy...so I apologize if this means nothing.

Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.

[beachnut]

fire + gravitational force was able to do the work of "700 kg of TNT for a single column"?:eek:
Fire just from the jet fuel, NOT counting the large office fires, was the heat energy of 315 TONS of TNT. That is 630,000 pounds of TNT in the form of heat energy! Darn, beats 700 kg of TNT.

Now gravity! Towers fell and just the energy due to gravity was OVER 100 TONS of TNT.

100 TONS of TNT is greater than 700 kg of TNT.

Next time try some phsics, or math, or something more than hearsay and false ideas.

[papasmurf]

The perimeter walls simply leant outward when they lost lateral bracing.

If a piece of wall, say 500ft high leans outward and falls, some of it will land at least that distance away.

You can see an example here. The east wall of WTC2 is laid out across the remains of WTC4, in a straight line from the footprint of the tower:
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_East_Hell.jpg


Explosives are simply out of the question. From Pg97 of R.Mackey's whitepaper:



.....700kg of TNT for a single column.


More like the floors were blown off their connections. Look at how what you call the core just crumbles to the ground. You can see them topple over because they were cut from underneath, as we can see in pictures of the aftermath.

If they weren't crushed in the collapse wave, there should have been a sizeable chunk of the core left intact. Instead we have a few pieces of the core that topple over after the collapse of the rest of the structure. This does nothing to discredit the demolition theory. Like i said, it would have been unlikely that they placed explosives onevery collumn, they put the explosives on major columns and made the explosions large enough to damage other collumns.

Your argument that it would take 700 kg of tnt to launch a projectile horizontally...

How does this support your argument and not mine? ...

You admit that it happened, and say nothing caused it.... Geeze well if it takes that much energy to throw the beam then how the hell did the beam get thrown????????????????????????????????????????

LAME.

[WildCat]

:words:
How about addressing the amount of explosives needed papasmurf? The math has already been done for you.

[papasmurf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gud2ay4I9Mw

This is not a video of a "progressive collapse".

This is a building getting blown to bits. Trust your eyes people. Not lame explanations from experts that you don't even understand. They just "sound" good to you.

Ask your self whaet caused all those steel collumns to just disappear so quickly. Watch and keep watching. Look at the dust cloud and teh debris getting shot outward. Watch as the piledriving force gets obliterated, yt the building still continues to progressively collapse at lightning speed. As you watch the floors of the building get turned to dust and blasted outward, ask yourself what is driving the force of the collapse. As mass from the top section is lost, you would expect the collapse to slow down. There is no reason for the collapse to progress to completion.

I would love you to show me a progressive collapse even remotely close to this. Remotely. It never happens.

The building that could take multiple 707 impacts turns to dust, yet we are supposed to believe this is completely understandable.

What is wrong with you people?