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.

 

Just how convoluted can you get?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

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 ?


What else would it be? 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 if you watch videos of the collapse. Same color, too. At any rate, as far as I know, no one kept masses of gray dust next to the windows on so many floors, so something was absolutely pulverized (I wonder why?
), and it has no trouble fitting in with the rest of the concrete dust we saw that day.


Also have you read the account of those 16 survivors in stairwell B of the North Tower ?


What of them? Did they cause those explosions on higher floors somehow? They were only on the 22nd floor, and that they weren't blown to bits isn't surprising. I doubt explosives went all the way down the buildings, but from video of some pretty low squibs, the squibs apparently did go down to as far as the 33rd or 34th floor or so in at least one building.

WCIP points out this squib in WTC2..



I'm not aware of any evidence of them going down as far as, say, the 22nd or 23rd floor. If the bottoms of the buildings had been bombed, which employees of the WTC have attested to, I don't think the squibs would need to go down that far anyway to bring the buildings down in their entirety.




posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   


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 ?



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   

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 ?


Ah, yeah, I did miss that, sorry.

Probably because the same force that knocked people off of their feet was not the same force that pulverized material into a fine dust and ejected it over 100 feet out into the air.


Or else those people obviously would not have been around to talk about their experiences.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Well...

If you missed the question perhaps you missed the quote too, I'll quote it again...


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.


This same force of wind could've easily blown out the windows dust and smoke...

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"...



[edit on 17-9-2005 by Jedi_Master]



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   

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"...


This is impossible. And I'll tell you why.

Firstly, let's understand that particles of dust are greatly affected by air resistance because of their lack of mass, and these dust particles were no different than any other dust. For example, if you drop dust from a height of some feet, it will of course fall much more slowly than, say, a rock. This same property can be seen in the video clips of the squibs from the WTC in that the material ejected from the explosions lingers in the air in the same way a fine dust would (and did after the collapses), such as all the dust that would later be found all over the area. Air resistance would still be a major factor if dust was blown into the air or was being similarly directed by a current, or wind, or what have you.

Yet for your theory to be correct, the air would have to be directed down the buildings faster than the buildings were actually being compressed.

Let's look at how fast the buildings were falling in the first place..

The 9/11 Research Site outlines a way of determining such information on this page. This NBC video footage of the collapse of the South Tower is referenced, in which it can be determined that the time it took for the highest point of the roof of the building to reach where the 78th floor's skylobby once stood was approximately 5 seconds. The distance from the 78th floor to the roof was about 384 feet (12 feet per floor, and 32 floors).

So in about 5 seconds, as shown in the NBC footage above, the South Tower collapse covers 384 feet.

384 ft. per 5 seconds is 76.8 ft. per 1 second. This is the South Tower, but both buildings fell at about the same speeds.



Here you have a squib on around the 33rd floor or so before the collapse itself has reached the 44th floor's skylobby. The collapse itself looks to be much higher, like, say, about 25 floors higher, approximately (the debris and quality of the pic obscures too much for an exact number), or around the 69th floor, approximately.

Assuming that that dust was being blown down from the impacted region of the building (in which case it should've exited one of the earlier squibs if your idea was to hold water, and there should have been no dust below either the impact regions of the collapsing region), the dust would've travelled from the 92nd floor to about the 33rd floor faster than the collapse itself could, at around some 78 feet per second.

Assuming that the speed of collapse was constant from its initiation to its end (which it wasn't while in its earliest stages, for maybe 2 or 3 seconds, but it should make no difference in terms of proportion to the speed in which the dust must've travelled) the collapse's spanning of the 92nd floor to about the 69th floor (23 floors), compared to the dust's alleged travel of the 92nd floor (or less) to around the 33rd (59 floors), the dust would've had to have been travelling at least twice as fast as the collapse itself. This would mean the dust would've been travelling at least somewhere around 153.6 feet per second.

This is being liberal with your idea, because if you were to suggest the dust coming from any lower than the 92nd floor, it would have to travel even faster to get that far ahead of the collapse itself within the a given amount of time. It's also being liberal in that 23 floors compared to 59 is more like 3x faster than only 2x faster.

But nonetheless, you should get my point. Unless you can prove that the air was somehow made to carry the dust at at the very least, twice the velocity of the actual collapse, when in reality the dust should've been travelling more slowly down the buildings because of the lack of mass and ease of affection from air resistance, your idea doesn't hold any water. It's impossible.

And what's sad is that this is one of the better alternate ideas put forward. The easy winner is still explosives.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Dude you are talking out of your A$$...

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 ???

I mean at one point you said this...


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.


Then you said this...


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


So which is it ?

Dude you are talking yourself into a corner, and please no more pictures I've seen them all, no need to hog the bandwidth of the ATS server...



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Your own pictures show dust and smoke following the collapse down ( which would indeed be mixed with the air )...


Seriously - can't even differentiate the squibs from the other sources of dust now?


"Following" is right, lol, but you just suggested that the concrete dust was being blown out of the building from the collapsing region, before the collapse got there, and that this caused the squibs. Now you can't tell the difference?


Squibs: dust blown into the air before the collapse even gets there, such as the above pics.

Other dust: blown into the air by the collapsing region, ie:



Any idea what that white stuff is? Somebody that worked at the WTC have a serious dandruff problem? No, but either way, it's behind the collapse (except for the materials ejected laterally and the free-falling material beside the building, such as large pieces of solid debris). Not before it. Your explanation of the squibs is still ridiculous.

....



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 ???



Hmm.. maybe you should read my last post?

Why don't you go ahead and try to prove that the dust was somehow travelling between 2 and 3 times the velocity of the collapse itself, too, while you're at it. It's basically what you're arguing.

Collapse = 78.6 feet per second.
Your alleged travelling dust = necessarily between 2 and 3 times that speed at least.

Yet the dust was moved through the building by the air being compressed by the collapse... hmm..... Now how did the collapse manage to move the dust so much faster than it was moving itself again?


One of us is talking out of our butts, I'll give you that; but it isn't me.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   
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...



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Yeah, unlike your soundproof statement "but he got knocked off his feet so it couldn't have been bombs".



Maybe you should look at the video of the actual squibs again, if that force is pushing someone down a stair it's not gonna leave anyone to tell the story.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
You know, one of the first things we were taught when I was working airport security was that if you thought you had an explosive device in the machine NEVER EVER USE A RADIO OR CELL PHONE. Period. For ANY reason. If it was an actual explosive device the signal from the radio/cell phone could be enough to set it off. Now if there really were explosives in the WTC from the start, or even added in the weeks before 9/11 they were taking quite the risk of a cell or radio accidentally setting them off. You would HAVE to have the detonator in place in the explosive, and no matter HOW stable the explosive itself is, the DETONATOR is VERY unstable. You could smack a detonator against a table, and not very hard at that, and have it go off. If you put it in the explosive wrong, it's gonna go off. They're just NOT that stable, to sit for long periods of time. That's why when they wire a building for demolition, the LAST thing they do is go through the building, and set the detonators, usually the same day, or at MOST the night before the detonation.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
If compressed air from the collapse caused the windows to blow out it wouldn't have to travel faster than the collapse.

The entire building was filled with air, so it would be able to push out further down than the collapse.


Think of it like a section of pipe with a hole in it. As water flowed through it you would have water draining out the hole before the last of the water passed by it. The water coming out the hole was traveling at the same rate as the rest of the water, it just got to the hole first.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   

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...


Let me break it down, then:


  • You were replying to the squibs.
  • You asked why the same gusts could not have ejected concrete dust out so many feet into the air.
  • I respond, because the concrete dust would have to be blown down the buildings much faster than the collapses could have caused them to.
  • You continue asking why the gusts of air could not have caused the squibs.

What exactly have I missed? Can you just not accept that you have put forth a faulty idea? What you suggested is impossible. There weren't hordes of concrete dust sitting around the buildings waiting to be blown around by wind.


Are you suggesting only the dust came down the stairs, and that the air gusts were already there and simply blew them outside?

Then how did the dust get down there so fast?


Are you suggesting the gusts in the stairs actually pulverized the concrete into dust before shooting it out hundreds of feet?; that these were the same two forces at work?

Then whence came such vast energy? It's one matter for a gust to knock someone down a stairwell, and quite another to pulverize concrete into a fine powder and eject it from a very specific part of the building to over a hundred feet into the air.


So which is it? Or none of the above? I know you suggested the concrete was somehow blown down the building before the rest of the collapse:


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"...


Maybe we can change positions here, and instead of me trying to prove a lot of negatives, why don't you prove that this was the case, since apparently my responses don't sit right with you?



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Some folks obviously don't like to read the whole thread, or they don't like to read posts over 50 words.

The WTC Syringe Theory Fallacies (low-fat, high-fiber version for easier digestion)

A. Not enough matter creating a downward force inside the buildings, i.e. the caps disintegrated, no plunger to the syringe.

B. The sides of the syringe (walls of the building at the collapse point) were blown out - air and dust escapes out the sides, pressure is gone.

C. Not enough concrete dust available [1] - The concrete was being exploded all over Manhattan. [2] - Floors connected by HVAC and elevator shafts, millions of cubic feet of space in the buildings, upper floors would fill before lower floors, not enough concrete to complete this task and create squibs that far down.

D. Many more squibs would have been observed the further up the building you looked - single floors would have had 50 or more squibs each, or entire floors of windows would simply have blown out. (ref. overpressure, static pressure).

E. Cross-section of the shafts was relatively small - not enough room for such a gargantuan volume of concrete to be pushed down (see C.[2]).

F. Not enough time for such a huge volume of concrete dust to travel down that many floors (ref. bsbray11).


By contrast, explaining the squibs with localized explosions does not have to overcome all of those pesky little hurdles called The Laws of Physics.

HowardRoark is always taunting us and challenging us to submit our comments to NIST. Then why doesn't he submit his all new syringe theory to them? I wonder what they'd say...


How many more "syringe theorists" are going to come out of the woodwork? I think I'm going to start coining some new phrases based on the insults that those of us who fight against the lie receive all the time, like, "You syringe theorists are all the same, you can't accept reality." and "You're just another syringe theorist crackpot." Or maybe, "syringe kooks".

Yeah, I like that one..."syringe kooks".



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

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.


I just wanted to add here that neither was there any retardation in the speed of the collapse, and the columns are stronger nearer the base.

So not only did the collapse continue as its driving force dismembered, but it continued at the same speed, even while ramming into stronger columns.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   
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.

I do agree that the squibs look out of place, but how many here are experts in what can cause an explosion in a high rise building? Why is it that a few strange clouds of smoke, puffing out of a collapsing building, lend weight to the demo charge conclusion?





[edit on 18-9-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   

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.

I understand that, and the same could be said of your similarly repetitive posts. But when people jump into the thread and keep asking the same questions, ignoring the responses to those questions already made by several posters instead of responding to and debating those answers themselves, then one can only assume that they missed or failed to understand the responses and so repeat them in simpler form. As for backing my points up, I use basic physics and simple observation of available data to do so, and am assuming that the reader understands the simple concepts therein. E.g. there are millions of cubic feet of space in the building above some of the the observed squibs. This is a fact. Do I need to do the volume calculations for you or can we take that as assumed knowledge based on cursory observation? The floors are interconnected by the HVAC system. This is a fact. The concrete dust was being exploded upwards and outwards from the collapse point showing the caps were disintegrated. I used images of the collapse to display this. This is a FACT.

If people want to challenge my assertions and observations, then great, that's why I'm here, but when people just keep repeating the same questions over and over again without responding to the answers, it gets to be ridiculous. You have the gall to say that I only raise talking points, while you come across as just a talking head who can only repeat the same mantra over and over without challenging anything or using any data to back up your repetitive claims. You lot keep screaming for answers, but you won't respond to the answers that we provide beyond simply repeating the question again a page later. Honestly, combine this with the constant insults and you come across as mere trolls, and the only reason I'm still here is because there's a lack of entertaining threads elsewhere. I'm seriously starting to miss HowardRoark, because he at least debated using science, facts, figures, data, and observations from images and building design diagrams. Come back, Howie, WE MISS YOU!


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?

Okay, so now you're starting to realize that the Syringe Theory is bogus. Regarding the demolition theory, who has said "automatically". I've been here debunking the Syringe Theory stating my opinion of why THAT THEORY is bogus. If it IS bogus, then we need to come up with another explanation. The demolition theory carries the mantle by default because it is the only explanation that doesn't defy the laws of physics. If you have another explanation for the squibs, then lets hear it and examine it.


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.

Damn good question. I'm all ears.


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?

Okay, good, you've completely moved on from the Syringe Theory. So my question is, if your explanation of the explosions is correct, where did the concrete dust that was in those squibs come from? Do you think transformers exploding or falling elevators would be powerful enough and coupled with the concrete of the slabs enough to pulverize it into nano-dust and eject it 100 feet out into the sky? Were there transformers sitting near the windows in the offices on those specific levels, or only in the mechanical levels? Are the elevators close enough to the exterior of the buildings to cause such an effect, or are they in the middle of the floor nestled in elevator banks? Would a gas main exploding cause such a directed jet of concrete dust to spray out into the sky, or would it simply cause windows to shatter? Would it result in a fireball of burning gas?

Now that I've asked these questions of your theories, since you complain about me requesting people acknowledge the responses to their questions, I'm sure you'll afford me the liberty of ignoring YOUR answers and repeating the SAME questions over and over again on the next page of this thread. Cheers. Oh, and if you direct me to where you have answered such questions before, I will follow your example and cry that you have "insulted me".


IMHO, it seems more likely that the squibs are easily explainable by means not requiring a cast of hundreds if not thousands.

Now you're jumping on to the "Demand Complete Solutions" tactic. First try to explain the observed phenomena using any theory other than explosives. If the buildings were demolished, how they did it is another question, and has been examined in-depth in another thread. But oh, I can't link you to that thread because that would be insulting you, no? But I know even if I did, you woudn't check such a link anyway because you and a few others are not here to research, you are simply here for the excitement of posting and reading the replies to your posts. That's fine and good for you, but don't expect others to be entertained by it.

[edit on 2005-9-19 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   
The only issue with the demolition theory is that detonators aren't the most stable thing. They're very susceptible to stray emissions from radios and telephones among other things. That's why when they are imploding a building, they don't hook up the detonators until the last minute and when the building is completely cleared of everyone but the guys hooking up the detonators. You can't set off an explosive without a detonator inserted into it in some way, and having one hooked up for an extended period of time is almost begging for one to go off way early, which would definately be noticed.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I was just trying to move on past the syringe theory WCIP.

I'm sorry that you feel so insulted by my questions, but my opinions are just as valid as yours.

The questions you bring up about the transformer and gas mains are good questions. I honestly don't have the answers. I am tired of everyone on both sides pretending that they do, so I hoped to reach some common ground. None of us know 100% whether or not it was demolition or not, all we can do is draw conclusoins from the evidence.

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 have seen the reports saying that parts of the buildings, and maybe even most of the top floors could have been accesed. That to me does not suggest that they were lining the building with explosives. The scope of such an operation would require that the entire buildings would be closed for weeks beforehand.

So yes I do look for realistic explanations regarding the squibs. 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. (I'm trying but I do have to work,
I'm close to 3/4 of the way through the WTC challenge thread, and I haven't seen any of the NIST facts disputed)



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The only issue with the demolition theory is that detonators aren't the most stable thing.


That's still a much-needed improvement over a theory that can't explain the squibs, disappearance of angular momentum, or the fact that the buildings did not retard in their collapses as the top portions disintegrated.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I'm sorry that you feel so insulted by my questions,

Now this is turning into a "he said, she said" conversation. I don't feel insulted by your questions at all. You stated in just the last page that you were insulted by me for referring you to another thread. The insults I was referring to are those directed toward we "screaming lunatic", "delusional" "conspiracy crackpots" that a few recent troll arrivals have started coming out with, only to be welcomed and applauded by YOU.


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.

Of course it's an issue. Can I possibly refer you to a thread where this issue has been examined in great depth? Don't worry, there's plenty of defenders of the official story to even out the balance. Here you go:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh, but wait, I see you were posting in that thread. And you brought up some valid points. So why are we repeating it all over again here when you've already explained your take on the matter in-depth and you know ours? I see...you are just enjoying the back-and-forth. I guess I don't enjoy the repetition as much as you.


I was hoping to further the discussion, not just hear ad hominen attacks.

Pot. Kettle. Pick a color.


I guess that not knowing everything that has ever been posted on 9-11 here is offensive to you.

And I guess referring people to other threads where the answers to their questions are 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.

... Ahhh, I've had an epiphany. This explains your entire approach to this issue, why you refuse to read other threads, other material, or even posts a couple of pages back, why you make broad sweeping statements without any data to back them up, and why I'm feeling so frustrated discussing it with you. Newsflash: The collapses and the anomalies surrounding them are far, FAR too complex to be examined and explained in "a few paragraphs". Why do you think the NIST report is 3000+ pages long with teams of scientists involved in putting it together? Why do you think there are tens of threads on ATS about it? You eat an elephant one bite at a time. If you are expecting the collapses to be explained thus, then you are simply going to keep going around in circles repeating the same questions over and over as you have been doing. If you can't remember what's been discussed before and collate it all in your head, then there's no hope for you to ever grasp this entire, complex issue.


*sigh* I think I need a break... BTS, here I come!!

[edit on 2005-9-19 by wecomeinpeace]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join