Just how convoluted can you get?

Maybe I have missed it, but does anyone have any reports of other steel frame buildings besides the WTC that collapsed due to fire? Also, does anyone know what happened to the black boxes on the planes?

Originally posted by CindyfromFlorida
Maybe I have missed it, but does anyone have any reports of other steel frame buildings besides the WTC that collapsed due to fire? Also, does anyone know what happened to the black boxes on the planes?

The 3 WTC towers were the first in history to collapse due to a fire.

7 out of 8 blackboxes were destroyed according to the official story.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by Shroomery]

Well to be fair one of the greek recorders was destroyed apparantly. It would be interesting to see how many recorded cases there are of data recorders being destroyed in crashes, in less sinister circumstances particularly.

And in reference to the collapse, this was a particularly unique case in the circumstances. The WTC was pretty unique in it's size and construction and the incident that felled them was also unique. It is unfair to try and compare anything else against them so broadly.

NORAD leading up to and the day of 9/11 was running covert drills
simulating the WTC and pentagon attacks. They had done this many times up to 9/11, and had 5 different drills that day. It confused many air traffic and other NORAD commanders. "Is this a drill?" they all said on those recordings.

Great point 8bit, I had read and heard this before as well and was going to post it but couldn't find a reference. Got a link to the above?

agent smith, And in reference to the collapse, this was a particularly unique case in the circumstances. The WTC was pretty unique in it's size and construction and the incident that felled them was also unique. It is unfair to try and compare anything else against them so broadly.

this argument holds with towers 1 and 2 but that still leaves tower 7 as the first/only steel based skyscraper in history to collapse from "fire" alone.

[edit on 13/9/05 by redmage]

[edit on 13/9/05 by redmage]

Hey Howard,

When you can prove that compressed air can travel down shafts and across half a WTC floor, through offices and all, and still have enough force to cause an explosion that sends debris out over 100 feet, maybe I'll give your thought some consideration.

Nor does he, or anyone else, for that matter, explain how, with this so-called demolition that supposedly required thousands of charges, you only see one so-called charge going off.

And wtf are you talking about here?

Here are three explosions in one pic, of one tower at one moment:



And a video of that.

Back to our old tricks, eh Howie?

My god, man, you don’t even understand what you just posted, did you? You ask how the air pressure could have built up on the floors until it found the release point of an open window and you quote an article that explains it, yet you still persist in your arguments?

You just answered your own question!

Actually, that link I posted says..

...unconstrained gases do not occupy a fixed volume, but instead expand to fill whatever space they occupy.

Ie, compressed gas won't fly across half a floor that's full of non-compressed gas, in a magical jet or some kind that you have absolutely no proof of being phsyically possible, and not mix and etc.

You're saying, that in a huge level full of air (a WTC floor), more dense air can emerge from some shaft and barrel across the floor, through offices and all, like some kind of projectile, and magically does not equalize in the process. You suggest that, instead, it continues with some unbelievable amount of force and causes a massive explosion to emanate from the facade of the building. This is your theory, Howie. Nothing could be further from science; I'm not surprised you offer no explanation or evidence of how this would work.

Again, I offer you to prove that compressed air could have possibly travelled down those shafts and across half a WTC floor like a jet and not equalize.

Jake the Dog Man
I feel that 800 was shot down by terrorists, but that will also never be admitted...these cases have more proof then any "squib" theory

Flight 93... "shot down by terrorists"... and you claim there is evidence? Let alone that there is no evidence of squibs, but that there is evidence for this claim? What exactly do you think 'evidence' is??

But, oh yeah, I can see how the government would never want you to know that Flight 93 was shot down by terrorists.

And if you don't like me associating you with a troll (I think I may have told you that you were acting like a troll like one or two times?), you might want to consider posting some kind of argument yourself, instead of constantly claiming that you want 'proof' and have seen no 'proof', etc., etc., and adding nothing objective to the subject.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by bsbray11]

quote: Jake the Dog Man
I feel that 800 was shot down by terrorists, but that will also never be admitted...these cases have more proof then any "squib" theory

Flight 93... "shot down by terrorists"... and you claim there is evidence? Let alone that there is no evidence of squibs, but that there is evidence for this claim? What exactly do you think 'evidence' is??

What is your problem? Do you even read your own posts? YOU even quoted me as saying what I really said & still got it wrong... resulting in your normal tangent.

PLEASE at least READ the quotes you post, BEFORE you start the harassment. You might have many of the members & mods around here fooled, but am just not impressed.

Originally posted by CindyfromFlorida
Maybe I have missed it, but does anyone have any reports of other steel frame buildings besides the WTC that collapsed due to fire?

how many buildings have had fully fueled jet planes slam into them at 400 mph?

The collapse of the two towers was due to a combination of factors wich included the damage done to the building by the force of the impact.

In addition, you can not compare the fires in these buildings to any other buildings, because of their unique structural characteristics.

For instance, both the Windsor Tower in Madrid and the Parque tower in Caracas were definitely not all steel buildings, Both of these structures relied on reinforced concrete a a major component of their structural systems.

You have to appreciate that these are major differences that make it impossible to compare the performance of these different buildings in fires.

Also, does anyone know what happened to the black boxes on the planes?

Not much survived the collapse of the WTC towers. The "black boxes" would have had to survive the initial impact, the subsequent fires and the collapse. It is not all that surprising that they were not found.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You're saying, that in a huge level full of air (a WTC floor), more dense air can emerge from some shaft and barrel across the floor, through offices and all, like some kind of projectile, and magically does not equalize in the process. You suggest that, instead, it continues with some unbelievable amount of force and causes a massive explosion to emanate from the facade of the building. This is your theory, Howie. Nothing could be further from science; I'm not surprised you offer no explanation or evidence of how this would work.

Again, I offer you to prove that compressed air could have possibly travelled down those shafts and across half a WTC floor like a jet and not equalize.

Sigh, You really have some strange ideas.

OK, lets start from the top, shall we?

• The building was 97 % (or so) air. When the building collapsed that air had to go somewhere.
  
  
• The building was essentially a huge hollow tube. When the building collapsed the bulk of the mass and floors fell downward, much of it falling inside the outer shell.
  
  
• This falling mass pushed the air in front of it like a piston moving in a cylinder.
  
  
• Thus the entire floor was pressurized until the air found a release point and escaped out the side of the building, especially as the failing floors squeezed the air out.
  
  

How hard is that to understand?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

• The building was 97 % (or so) air. When the building collapsed that air had to go somewhere.
  
  
• The building was essentially a huge hollow tube. When the building collapsed the bulk of the mass and floors fell downward, much of it falling inside the outer shell.

Are you suggesting that the air could not escape and had to blow its way out?

Remember that there were large holes from jet impacts in both tower, and multitudes of missing windows from failure of the aluminum panels to hold the glass, etc. in place. After collapse initiated, much more open areas were created when the floors began blowing out, as there were no longer any functioning roofs or anything at all to keep the air containing within the building. So there were plenty of places for the air to escape without having to be compressed to such explosive densities both before and after the collapse began.

This falling mass pushed the air in front of it like a piston moving in a cylinder.

Thus the entire floor was pressurized until the air found a release point and escaped out the side of the building, especially as the failing floors squeezed the air out.

This would require there be no place for the air pressure to release itself. Yet there were no longer any roofs of sorts on either building when they collapsed, leaving a pretty big area for any compressed air to go. Just masses of debris that were far from solidly-knit and air-tight.

How hard is that to understand?

It's not. It's just not sound logic.

If the WTC's were tubes, the air wouldn't be forced down them as if they were air-tight and sealed; the air would be released as the tube proceeded to explode into dust down its length.

[edit on 13-9-2005 by bsbray11]

Bsbray you really don't understand the forces at work here.

You seem to think that the huge cloud of debris racing through the street is air currents?

Do you have anything to back that up?

According to you the pressure would equalize and then there wouldn't be an enormous debris cloud going down the street at high speeds.

If all air magically equalizes no matter what, then how exactly do nail guns work?

Wouldn't the pressure automatically equalize, making nail guns "magic"?

BTW, do you have any response to the NIST report, other than "it's not true"?

Almost 300 pages of information, open to be disputed scientifically, and I have yet to hear any rebuttal to the facts presented.

The report doesn't mention the "squibs" because it is a non-issue made up by people who don't understand the enormous forces involved,

So please I'd like to see one fact the NIST report got wrong.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

The report doesn't mention the "squibs" because it is a non-issue made up by people who don't understand the enormous forces involved,

So please I'd like to see one fact the NIST report got wrong.

Ahaha, that's a good one. A non-issue. I bet WTC7 was a non-issue too.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
how many buildings have had fully fueled jet planes slam into them at 400 mph?

The collapse of the two towers was due to a combination of factors wich included the damage done to the building by the force of the impact.

In addition, you can not compare the fires in these buildings to any other buildings, because of their unique structural characteristics.

Well, the force of the impact caused the towers to sway, but not more then the average gust of wind in NY. And the penetrating force of the plane only caused a very low number of columns to break.
So fire had to play a huge role in the collapse, a role it never played.

Btw about those squibs... hasn't anyone noticed that the speed at wich they are moving outwards is far too rapid to be caused by collapsing floors?
You can actually see at wich speed the tower collapses, you can see smoke escaping from the opening (because of the collapsing floors) but you can also see the squibs on this footage.

italy.indymedia.org...

Notice how it takes a couple of seconds for the cloud of dust to buildup outwards, but then a cloud of dust shoots out and is immediately as big as the cloud of dust that escaped earlier.

A couple floors later this happens again, followed by another squib immediately below it. This is totally inconsistent with the collapsing floors.

Then if you keep looking closely.. you can see a WHOLE bunch of these, neatly tucked away behind the bigger cloud of dust, think of the "boom boom boom explanation when you look at it", it's exactly what is happening.

Originally posted by redmage

NORAD leading up to and the day of 9/11 was running covert drills
simulating the WTC and pentagon attacks. They had done this many times up to 9/11, and had 5 different drills that day. It confused many air traffic and other NORAD commanders. "Is this a drill?" they all said on those recordings.

en.wikipedia.org...
inn.globalfreepress.com...
www.infowars.com...


[edit on 14-9-2005 by 8bitagent]

The inference that the explosion squibs observed tens of floors below the collapse level are the result of static pressure differential is even more ridiculous than Howard's streams of compressed air. As I've said before, if the WTC towers were giant steam pipes or syringes that had suddenly sprung a leak or ten, then this theory might make sense.

But since the compressed air champion has changed his tune from streams of compressed air to static pressure, let's expand upon it some more. "Static pressure", in simple terms, relates to the difference between the (in this case) air pressure inside an area/object and the ambient air pressure outside. In the system of the WTC towers, this refers to the pressure difference between the inside of each tower and the air outside. So what he is claiming is that the destruction of the upper levels is causing air to be compressed down the elevator and air shafts, thereby causing a massive increase in the overall pressure on lower levels, and hence creating enough overpressure to cause localized, explosive expulsion of air, concrete dust, glass and debris as the pressure in the system attempts to reach an equilibrium. In simple terms, kind of like slowly crushing a full can of beer until it splits and sprays beer out the side. Well, the WTC towers were not beer cans.



The expected increase in the static pressure differential at any particular floor is insufficient to create the effects observed regardless, but particularly so in light of these factors:

1. The concrete exploded upwards and outwards, hence little or no matter was available to push down and produce the "syringe effect".

Here's a typical floor plan of the WTC:



As you can see, the only thing that is available to create the "plunger" to Howard's "syringe" is the concrete slab floor. Steel beams, photocopiers and paper will not create a solid, air-tight object to push any air down. But the concrete slabs (and indeed the steel beams) were exploded all over Manhattan, somehow blasted into less than 10 micron-sized dust particles. The concrete slabs were not acting as solid objects, nor even debris chunks to push air down HVAC shafts.

Considering that the squibs appeared to be mainly concrete dust, this would further imply that in order for the Syringe Theory to be valid, each floor would have to be filled to the absolute brim with concrete dust. Since the floors are interconnected by the HVAC system, this therefore implies that all the floors above it are also filled to the brim with concrete dust. One squib was observed 45 - 50 floors below the collapse level. Combine this with all those gargantuan clouds of concrete dust seen exploding out everywhere, and there is simply not enough concrete, nor air, in this building to create such an effect over all these floors.

Does this look plausible to you?



2.The caps disintegrated, thus the air in the system escaped up and out.

By not far down the collapse, the caps (i.e. the "pistons" in Howard's syringes) had mostly disintegrated, in fact 80% of the debris landed outside the building footprints. This is why the angular momentum of the caps disappeared, and is also the main reason why the "Pancake Theory" is bogus.



In the above picture, you can see that fine concrete dust and debris is being exploded up, out, and away from the lower section, rather than being pushed down into it. This shows a) that the caps were indeed disintegrated, as a solid "plunger" would obstruct and make impossible the upward expulsion of concrete dust and debris we see here, and b) the amount of unpulverized concrete pushing down on the lower section is clearly insufficient to create the massive overpressure tens of floors below this level which is implied by the Syringe Theory.


3.The crushed levels had their sides blown out, so very little air was being forced down shafts.

Howard's explanation for the high-energy ejection and snapping of the steel beams, and also for the "magic runaway global collapse" we hear so much of yet never see reproduced anywhere, is that the perimeter columns of the towers were crushed and pushed outwards by the falling debris from above, kind of like the skin peeling off a banana. If this is indeed the case, then with the steel and glass and aluminum that made up the outer walls of the towers shredded, following the path of least resistance this is where any compressed air will escape from, thus lessening by an order of magnitude the volume and pressure of air being "pushed down the air vents and elevator shafts". What we have here is a case of Howard wanting to have his cake and eat it too. His "Banana Peel" theory and "Syringe Theory" are both mutually exclusive of each other.




4. Most, if not all, of the floors were interconnected by air vents, thus any air being compressed down the shafts was being dispersed among ALL of the floors in the system, thereby dividing the already minimal pressure increase amongst the volume of tens of floors and millions of cubic feet of space.


5. The cross-section area of the shafts is relatively tiny.

Look again at the floorplan:



Altogether, the HVAC and elevator shafts comprise less than 1/16th, or 6%, of the total surface area of one floor. That means that ignoring all of the video evidence and assuming that there was enough concrete (and whatever other "stuff" we'd like to imagine) to push air down every one of these shafts in a totally air-tight "syringe-like" manner, only 6% of the floor area is made up of holes that the air can force itself down instead of escaping up and outwards as we saw it do. Suddenly Howard's syringe, and therefore his Syringe Theory, is developing a lot of big, nasty holes.

Considering the above factors, any overpressure experienced in a single floor would be minimal at best.

But just for a laff and imagining for a moment that gargantuan overpressure inside the building was responsible for the squibs, then we would expect to have observed many, many more of them; perhaps with entire floors blasting out concrete dust and air like a steam pipe riddled with holes. When you let off a bomb inside a building, the overpressure doesn't simply shatter one single window and release all of its pressure through that one opening, it blows out most if not all of the windows since they are all of the same strength. Even if we consider that one window or a few windows in the same section on a level may have been shattered, with the kind of overpressure Howard is claiming here, these windows would not be sufficient to facilitate the pressure equalization that such a huge force would "demand", and therefore many more windows would have been observed exploding outwards and releasing all that air and concrete dust into the Manhattan sky.

Furthermore, we need to take into account that some of the squibs were observed tens of floors below the destruction level. Every meter of shafts and every twist, turn, split and obstruction in the pipes reduces the efficiency of the transferral of pressure to the lower levels. The resultant pressure increase in those lower areas would be much less, so if we observe one squib tens of floors below the destruction level, we should have observed an increase in the number and volume of squibs the closer up to the destruction we looked, maybe with whole floors blowing out further up. We did not.

Therefore, it is impossible for the squibs to be compressed air exploding out of isolated elevator or air shafts, and it is impossible for the squibs to be the result of a huge static pressure differential. Once again, the compressed air theory just doesn't stand up to logic.

If a change in static pressure is to be used to explain away the explosion squibs, then why did NIST and FEMA, who went over every inch of the data, physical and photographic evidence of the towers and the collapses, fail to address this very damning phenomena and explain it? They didn't, for the simple reason that they can't. Only the die-hard defenders of The Lie have even made any attempt to explain, or even admitted that the squibs exist.

I am constantly amazed at the new theories that defenders of The Lie constantly come up with in order to justify their belief of it, and to rationalize the phenomena that completely conflict and debunk the official story. First we had the "Pancake theory", then when that was shown to be full of holes we got the "Truss-seat Zipper Theory", and now Howard has come up with his very own, all-new and all-contradictory "Banana Peel Theory" and "Syringe Theory". I think my "Beer Can" theory actually holds more water (or beer) than any of these, and I hereby offer it free of copyright to any debunkers who care to take it.

[edit on 2005-9-14 by wecomeinpeace]

a simple experiument , for those who still believe the squib / explosion nonsense

open every door in your home , at about a 45 degree angle , including front and back - then open an upstairs window

does " magic " shut one of the doors ??

as for the explosives to dust ?????????? WTF

unless every peice of concrete in the building is sandwidched betwteen sheets of explosive material , you are going to get large chunks

the SIMPLE mechanical stress of the fall is what disintgrates concrete

Awesome rebuttal. You floored me.

Who knows, maybe your irrefutable "as for the explosives to dust ?????????? WTF" argument can win you a million bucks.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
But just for a laff and imagining for a moment that gargantuan overpressure inside the building was responsible for the squibs, then we would expect to have observed many, many more of them; perhaps with entire floors
blasting out concrete dust and air like a steam pipe riddled with holes.


The resultant pressure increase in those lower areas would be much less, so if we observe one squib tens of floors below the destruction level, we should have observed an increase in the number and volume of squibs the closer up to the destruction we looked, maybe with whole floors blowing out further up. We did not.

Actually now you are discarding evidence from the loose change documentary.

They spent about ten minutes with the collapse at slow motion, showing "squibs" shooting air out exactly as you describe in the above quotes as impossible.

They sometimes showed three or four just a few floors down from the collapse. Not so impossible is it.


Why exactly is the pancake theory not viable? Did I miss that one?

Which facts did they get wrong in the NIST report? Did they get any facts wrong in the NIST report? If so, which ones?

Why can't anyone understand that we have no data for large commercial airliners crashing into buildings. I keep hearing that "no other building ever collapsed like this" and yet no other buildings were hit by commercial airliners filled with fuel.

To those that contend that fire could not have caused the collapse, you are right.

A commercial airliner crashing into the building, followed by a fire, caused the collapse.

QUOTE :" Who knows, maybe your irrefutable "as for the explosives to dust ?????????? WTF" argument can win you a million bucks.
"

as i have said - i am happy with the naturalistic explaination of the collapse

the " million dollar challenge " is pathetic grandstanding - an unwinable " challenge " where the fox is in charge of the hen house

sorry dr dino pioneered this sort of crap - it wasnt valid then either

so i will ask again - why should we believe that explosives were resonsible , given that mechanical disintigration of the concrete would occur anyway

QUOTE : "Very few who question the official story of 9-11 give credence to the "cargo plane" theory or the "missile pod" theory,"

so you accept that the reporter who made the " no windows " statement was mistaken , he was one of your " witnesses " and he could not make the distinction from his vantage point ?



QUOTE :" despite your valiant yet futile attempts to lump every single one of these people into one conspiracists[sic] basket. "

more conspiracists seem to subscribe to the missile / cargo plane idea than reject it , based on my own troll of google hits [ i used the loose change vid as my bench mark ]

i accet that you do not subscribe to that notion - and will not ` lump ` you with those who do again