Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If the towers were demoed, how the explosives were set up?

page: 16
0
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Good post Phoenix, You explained it far better than I have.

I have never found the jets of air strange or unexplainable. What amazes me is why people think it's impossible considering the forces involved.

It is interesting to see a strawman argument in action though. When someone says that the "squibs" pulverized steel and concrete before jetting out the window, of course it sounds impossible. Such is the nature of a strawman argument.

However when put into proper context there is nothing illogical about air causing the observed phenomenon. The jet looks like smoke and powdered material, like drywall. While it still took extreme force to form the jet, there was plenty of energy available from the collapse to push smoke and dust out a window, or even break out a window and accomplish the same feat.



Edit: The "wtc 7 squibs" are a product of pro-demo sites compressing and resizing images. When you look at the source photos, there are no squibs. Reminds of the "spire thermite" images. You can see anything in a photo if compressed and resized enough. Or turn up the contrast for "clarity"




[edit on 15-2-2006 by LeftBehind]




posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
It is very possible that a shock wave of air developed ahead of collapsing floors (yes even faster than the collapse) exiting at the weakest window attachments first and no the air would not go out the top - that is illogical considering that the debris from collapse above had enough density to be just about considered a solid object - unless of course the ONLY thing one wants to believe and is extremely invested in is that the collapse was brought about by planted explosive charges.

And in what circumstance would the resistance of the windows be
less than the resistance of the air going down the "breached"
core. Also, in what circumstance would the resistance of the glass
itself be less than the reisitance of the seals around the windows.
Just an un-educated wondering.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Edit: The "wtc 7 squibs" are a product of pro-demo sites compressing and resizing images. When you look at the source photos, there are no squibs. Reminds of the "spire thermite" images. You can see anything in a photo if compressed and resized enough. Or turn up the contrast for "clarity"




[edit on 15-2-2006 by LeftBehind]

Wrong, I have been using Photoshop for over ten years. I know when
a photo has been manipulated, I am an expert at doing so. Photos
that would have been edited around 9/11 are far more easily detected.
These photos are not manipulated.
As for the "squibs" themselves, they are visable in video as well as
photographic evidence. Watch for yourselves. Also look for the
flashes I have presented in stills in other threads.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Who can prove that the so called smoke consisted of concrete anyway? it was more likely sheetrock dust from blown out partitions along with such things as the accumulated dust on ceiling tile and quite possibly some of the fireproofing material.


Whatever you want to call it, the same problems apply. You can't chalk the mass of that up to loosened fireproofing, so something must have been mashed up real good down there for no apparent reason.


It is very possible that a shock wave of air developed ahead of collapsing floors (yes even faster than the collapse)


Then please explain how exactly this would be possible.

Keep in mind that the air shafts didn't narrow as they went down. That's really the only way the air could have been pumped down faster than the collapse, should there have been any pressure to begin with.


exiting at the weakest window attachments first


How about starting with the ones that no longer existed?


and no the air would not go out the top - that is illogical considering that the debris from collapse above had enough density to be just about considered a solid object - unless of course the ONLY thing one wants to believe and is extremely invested in is that the collapse was brought about by planted explosive charges.


Dude, even if the collapse fell from natural causes, there is absolutely no way you can convince me that that falling mass was airtight. Smoke was traveling upwards during the collapses, from the collapses, as if all the steel and dust clouds flying outwardly weren't food enough for thought.

Right from the start there would be no seal. Any pressure built-up would exit there before accumulating below, unless you want to argue that the building did not actually fall apart but instead crushed itself like an aluminum can under force.


I really urks me when NON-OPERATORS with no experience at all try to guess how and under what mechanism air moves with-in a building.


What am I supposed to do about this? Take your word for it? I still think what you're saying is total b.s.


Go get a mechanical engineers degree and I might entertain your ideas - short of that its just B.S. guessing that shows an utter lack of understanding.


No one is forcing you to respond to me, are they? Because I don't think you would be otherwise obligated to argue with my backwards, uneducated ass.

I know -- what am I thinking? Saying that there would have to be an airtight container for air pressure to accumulate from a decrease in a container's size! What a stupid thing for me to suggest! There can be holes all up and down a container, and massive air pressure will accumulate just the same.
What an ignorant ass I am!

But I still don't get how you think much air pressure at all could be accumulated under those conditions man. Really, and no offense, but I think you're just trying to use whatever experience you have to justify what you already believe, because what you're saying is making no sense for the WTC collapse situation.

Weren't you the dude that was just suggesting that the WTC collapsed from lateral forces from deflected beams on each floor? I mean I appreciate the creativity and all, but what investigator or organization has ever offered up anything like that? Despite all of your college-educated colleagues? Something off there? It took imagination, but I'm apparently among the everybody-else that fails to see from where the solid logic for such thinking comes. You know what I mean? Well... at least I've always felt that they need to focus more on using the imagination in colleges. Maybe there's just been some progress there, and I should welcome the change?

If you've ever seen explosions like the ones seen ripping out of the WTC building wherever you work or have studied or etc., then it would've been from explosives. I seriously doubt you would ever see anything even close otherwise, whether you think the pressure was there in the WTC or not.


If you take the square footage of a wtc floor and cube it you will realize just how much AIR was displaced in such a short time - not all of it went out the sides because there was not time, rather it compressed, you can figure the available openings as the area of windows and the area of shaftways which are substantially smaller than the floorplate. The collapsing floor plates acted as a piston in a cylinder I can assure that almost none went UP.


Ok, but did you see what happened to the trusses? Or the concrete slabs?

Yeah, they sort of didn't exist anymore after the collapse, and I'm kind of led to believe by the amount of ejected debris, that there wasn't a whole lot of time between "impact," and a floor being utterly destroyed. That makes sense, right? Or should I get a degree for that one too? And you'll notice that the concrete was flying around in the area and raining down on NYC in the form of dust, and the trusses were not even remotely airtight to begin with, so. Not much to resist the air in those regards, eh? Unless I need a degree to use my eyeballs, and look at photos.

Air was being displaced floor by floor right? It would not make sense for air 50 floors down to be displaced by a crushing action taking place 50 floors up unless the air on the top floor was displaced first, right? As the collapses took place, the impacted floors were being instantly destroyed. Look at the collapse times just from the visible portions of the building and you'll get something like 0.12 seconds per floor or some unbelievable number like that. That's how long it took to utterly destroy a floor. About 80% mass being ejected to the sides from this system as this is occurring so rapidly. You can look at Ground Zero and get a sense of the amount of debris ejected way out and away from the footprints during collapse.

Keeping all that in mind, can you convince me that the WTCs could hold in the amount of air required to build up enough force to cause even a single squib? Let alone the number of them seen. And are you still maintaining that the floors remained intact after the alleged impacts? Like, so intact that they held in air to a degree to cause such massive pressure build up? Basically, just the concrete slabs, you're suggesting, stayed really intact after being nailed by the material from above that allegedly drove the whole collapse. Because that seems pretty unlikely; just watching any video of either collapse. The floors sort of looked like they were getting all kinds of f'ed up, floor by floor, one at a time, allowing plenty of opportunity for air to escape in some place other than down a thin little shaft, where it will most likely be released as soon as the next floor is crushed.


Simple garage test; take two pieces of 2'X2' plywood with 15% sized hole in center and whack them together very hard and fast - tell me what happens?


Do multiple puffs of material blast out of the sides of the plywood in close sequence?

Unless the plywood shatters instantly upon impact with the other piece, and continues to shatter until you stop applying force, then that isn't an accurate model in the least. Folding up like a pop can, or anything similar, isn't an accurate representation. And I have a feeling that the density of air would also be unproportional in that model, in such a container.


my my did some of the air pass through the center at pressure? while the rest went sideways.


Sounds like you're imagining the WTC as big aluminum soda cans to me.

Btw, have you seen a floorchart of a typical WTC floor? Take a look at one of those, too. The space between the core structure and perimeter columns is a pretty big one, and there are no vents directing the air right up to those outer columns. This wouldn't be a problem, of course, if you're suggesting that each floor was that pressurized across the whole of the floor, but if you're going to argue that then I just give up from not knowing how to handle such illogical thinking. But I don't think you've really put much critical thought into how exactly the air escaped from the core structure to explode out the side yet. It usually isn't something that's considered with the squibs anymore.

Another thing to consider is exactly how much air, at the very most, could have been compressed onto any given floor. You're looking at maybe 1.25 or 1.33 times the normal air pressure on any given floor with some of those 50-floor-down squibs, man (feel free to try for the actual figures yourself). I don't understand how that kind of pressure results in those blasts, either. Even taking all of the air on all of the floors that are by this time destroyed, and cramming it all down into the lower floors, or just 50 floors down as in the case of the lowest squib, and you're still not looking at very much pressure. And it would all have to reach those floors by those thin air shafts. I'm assuming that those would have to be utterly destroyed as well, as the air passed down the floors, in your theory. That would just serve to further diminish the pressure built up for the lower floors.

I can see how you can think of certain properties of air, like opening a door in a small hall and the opposite door closing, you know. But when it comes to stuff like this, there's really no comparison to that kind of crap. Nor were the WTC Towers big aluminum cans.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by count zero
Wrong, I have been using Photoshop for over ten years. I know when
a photo has been manipulated, I am an expert at doing so. Photos
that would have been edited around 9/11 are far more easily detected.
These photos are not manipulated.
As for the "squibs" themselves, they are visable in video as well as
photographic evidence. Watch for yourselves. Also look for the
flashes I have presented in stills in other threads.


I didn't mean that they were manipulated with photoshop. I meant that the close up gives the misleading impression that there are squibs.

Here are the "squib" photos.



Now here are some of the originals, without the extreme close up.





In the two originals you can clearly see windows breaking as the fall progresses. The squibs appear to be the same thing. They only look like smoke in the extreme close up.




The flashes have been discussed here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


To me they appear to be bits of debris flashing in the sun, but there are a couple pages with varying opinions strarting on the page linked above.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
In those two larger pictures, you can also see that the right penthouse has started to drop into the building between the two frames, indicating that the strucutral failure has already begun. Thus these so-called squibs appear after the building starts to collapse, not before.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I found this to be interesting.

911research.wtc7.net...


what we observe is an explosion of dust at floor 79, no new clouds of dust for a few floors, then another explosion of dust at floor 75. It is worth noting that the second line of (much larger) explosions occur at the center of a section of mechanical floors (the three mechanical floors appear as a slightly darker gray band across the building and are important for the strength they impart to the building). It is possible that the mechanical floors 76 and 75 (and also 74) have no windows, but of course, if this is so, it raises many more questions than it answers. In particular, if the mechanical floors have no windows, then the explosions of dust from floor 75 cannot be caused by air being forced from them as the floors above collapsed.


Apparently the author of that bit doesn’t really understand what is meant by the term “mechanical floor.”

He (or she) has probably no idea what the following terms and acronyms mean:

FAI, Plenum, AHU, reheat coil, VAV, Mixing Box, etc.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join