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
during the collapses, from
the collapses, as if all the steel and dust clouds flying outwardly weren't food enough
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.