It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Originally posted by bsbray11
Not just dust being pushed out of the buildings, but concrete dust being somehow created and then blown out of the buildings well before the collapses reached those floors.
Curious, how do you know for a fact that it is concrete dust, did you sample it ?
Also have you read the account of those 16 survivors in stairwell B of the North Tower ?
Originally posted by Jedi_Master
I guess you missed the question below the last quote...
which was...
If there was enough force in the wind to knock these people off their feet, why couldn't that same amount of force knock out the windows as well ?
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.
The concrete dust is probably coming from the upper floors mixed with the wind coming down from the pancaking floors, not from some so called "squib"...
Because the collapse had not reached these areas yet, and there is no reason why there should've been any concrete dust there in the first place. But yet it was blown out in multiple instances from explosions coming from the facades of the buildings. And it was blown out laterally for scores of feet.
There were tons of concrete dust that poured out of those buildings and all over NYC that day, and that stuff is of the exact same consistency
Your own pictures show dust and smoke following the collapse down ( which would indeed be mixed with the air )...
So why couldn't this dust and smoke blow out from the windows from the force of the wind that was experienced from Mr Komorowski ???
Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Yep what I figured from you...
Not a coherent reply, *sigh* your post is all over the place, and not addressing the point of...
If there was enough force to the wind that Mr Komorowski experienced why couldn't it have also knocked out the windows...
It seems that is a common tactic with you type of people, you know confuse, aviod the point, ect...
The concrete dust is probably coming from the upper floors mixed with the wind coming down from the pancaking floors, not from some so called "squib"...
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
A. Not enough matter creating a downward force inside the buildings, i.e. the caps disintegrated, no plunger to the syringe.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
WCIP, just because you post your opinion multiple times doesn't make it fact. You back up nothing in those talking points other than your view point.
However, I don't know for sure that the jets of air were caused by air pressure. That being said, if they were not caused by air pressure why is it automatically caused by demolition charges?
Seeing as how most of the squibs pointed out in loose change, were in fact the kind that WICP described in the syringe theory, how can we account for the few that show up much farther down the building.
I could say that it was an elavator hitting the bottom of a shaft, a gas main or transformer exploding, or some unknown thing that wasnt a demo charge. The seismic record shows that the collapse was on the scale of a small earthquake, so why wouldn't things explode and fly out windows? Why wouldn't a main transformer burst as the building collapsed?
IMHO, it seems more likely that the squibs are easily explainable by means not requiring a cast of hundreds if not thousands.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
The only issue with the demolition theory is that detonators aren't the most stable thing.
Originally posted by LeftBehind
I'm sorry that you feel so insulted by my questions,
The reason why I don't buy the evidence shown for demolition is that I don't see how it was logistically possible. So to me it would take ridiculous amounts of people to pull it off. To you, this doesn't seem to be an issue.
I was hoping to further the discussion, not just hear ad hominen attacks.
I guess that not knowing everything that has ever been posted on 9-11 here is offensive to you.
However if the controlled demolition "facts" are so conclusive, then you should be able to prove it beyond speculation in a few paragraphs, without requiring that some one reads every post on it.