Somone debunk or explain this please.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   
When the building collaspe on each other of course the air goes up, but it also has to go down. That's why the windows blew up. Imagine the game janga, if u threw a ball through a really tall one it would collaspe, just like the twin towers. Also, the bottom floors have to support more weight, so it's possible for it to go before the others.




posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
If your saying that it was a bomb, then what was the use for the plane. The goverment could just bomb the damn building and blame it on terrorist. Save the hassle.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by tayzer
When the building collaspe on each other of course the air goes up, but it also has to go down.


Until enough pressure builds up to allow the air back upwards and out. This would occur well before the air would start pulverizing concrete into dust and exploding it out of the side of a building with enough force to blow solid debris about a hundred feet out into the air.

You're failing to address these problems as well:


  • The buildings were not air tight as they collapsed. Obviously, there was even much solid matter from within the buildings being ejected. No reason for the air to not have likewise escaped. The floors were being opened up to the atmosphere one by one.
  • There were expulsions coming from floors which did not have HVAC terminals (from floors that weren't mech floors).
  • There were expulsions very early in the collapses, so we are apparently to believe that the pancaking of a few floors would cause violent explosions of solid debris.
  • The fact that there is solid debris being blasted out of the buildings, well ahead of the collapse wave.
  • The expulsions contain dust particles of the same consistency of the concrete dust and etc. that "snowed" down over Manhattan and coated the streets. This couldn't have travelled down the building ahead of collapse like that, and came out of a non-mech floor.
  • All other air shafts were in the core, necessitating air fly across the floors in a jet without decompressing, before blowing solid debris forcefully off of the sides of the buildings.



Originally posted by tayzer
If your saying that it was a bomb, then what was the use for the plane. The goverment could just bomb the damn building and blame it on terrorist. Save the hassle.


The buildings being demolished provided the psychological shock to bring it all home, and yet the planes and fires alone could not have done it, and explaining how al Qaeda would have rigged the buildings under Marvin Bush's old security team would just raise more questions than provide answers for the public.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
The building isn't one solid mass of concrete there are risers which are hallow in between floors and walls to allow for cabling, ventilation and additional structural requirements. When the plane hit and the explosion occured the rush of air generated through the force of the explosion spanned several levels in all directions including downward. When the air pressure met with a weak spot it blew out.

It is also possible that some small debris hit one of the panes of glass and caused a large enough fracture to weaken it enough that the glass blew outward and sucked smoke from the above blast down through the risers in the building.

It's not a mystery.

At least not that bit of it (refering tot he small plumes of smoke from blown out windows in the picture you posted)



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Personally I think the buildings were collapsed as part of the pay-off to Larry Silverstein, to allow his buildings to be used in the attack.

Apparently Silverstein was about to be stuck with a huge bill to clear the buildings of asbestos. Think about it. He has a history of buying old buildings and demolitioning them.
He saved a bundle in renovation and he made a bundle from the insurance.
Remember with ppl like silverstein it's all about the money.


[Btw, as the German Manager Magazine revealed in 2001, Larry Silverstein had made a fortune in his early career with the demolition of old sky-scrapers after leasing them. Silverstein leased the WTC a few weeks before 9/11. The whole WTC complex was due to be renovated thoroughly for asbestos anyway. But that would have been way too expensive. --CR]


melbourne.indymedia.org...

[edit on 18/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by justgeneric
It's not a mystery.


No it isn't, they were explosive squibs.

What you're saying is not possible unless the air in the building is under pressure.
It wasn't. The air pressure in the building was the same as outside the building.
There are so many places the air would have gone, it could not have built up enough to squeeze out one or two small spots.

And how do you explain the squibs before the colapse? As in this pic of building 7...



Those were not caused by air pressure...

[edit on 18/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   
In a highrise building air pressure is not always equivalent to the outside pressure.

Air pressure internally is a matter of factors: such as temperature - inside temp vs outside temp. Ventialtion methods and rates of force to control air conditioning/heating.

Humidity also plays a factor.

It is also a matter of air flow, number of people and their movements throughout the building, machinery functioning and altering the temperature or the flow of air.

External wind and fluctuations in atmospheric pressure due to weather systems.

EDITED to add: also vapor pressure, condensation and hidden cindensation as well as vapor flow...there are a tone of factors all working together to TRY to keep the air pressure comfortable - key word comfortable...

On the net there are many sites that offer pictoral step by steps of demolitions in highrise buildings of all kinds. It is very common to see these little explosions above the actual detonation.

Air pressure...vacuum effects and temperature/humidity...

Send the pic to a Demo company and they will tell you the same thing. Air pressure is not a given constant to any particular degree internally or externally.

When you ride an elevator up to a top floor in a highrise your ears pop - because of the difference in air pressure bbetween the lower floors and the higher floors.

[edit on 5/18/2006 by justgeneric]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   
True, the pressures inside may not be exactly the same as outside but it's still not under pressure. No building, unless specificaly designed, is air tight.
Especialy when the building is being opened up to the outside due to it's collapse.

Air takes the path of least resistance.

Also how do you explain the dust (concrete?) expeld by the 'squibs'? Was the WTC that dirty inside? They're to far down the building to be from the collapse above??

Anyway you are ignoring the pic of WTC 7, how do you explain those squibs?


Originally posted by justgeneric
When you ride an elevator up to a top floor in a highrise your ears pop - because of the difference in air pressure bbetween the lower floors and the higher floors.


Yes but the air pressure outside is also higher...
A building that is not air tight will equalise with the outside air, that's pretty common sense I thought. It's like a tire with a hole in it, you can't keep the inside under pressure because it wants to equalise with the outside pressure.

[edit on 18/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
This vid I find interesting...Note the squibs all along the two visible sides of the building, just before the damaged top floors start to topple and the lower undamaged floors begin to collapse under it at the same speed as the top is toppling.
How does the weight of the top floors have anything to do with the lower floors collapsing in this situation. Without explosives the top would have continues its topple inertia and ended up all over lower Manhattan leaving the lower floors still standing. This to me just can't be refuted. Physics is the smoking gun imo...even without squibs.

Watch the vid...

www.plaguepuppy.net...=Close-up%20of%20south%20tower%20collapse.mpg

Hmmmm....

[edit on 18/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   
I agree! Physics is the smoking gun. The building would not have collapsed in that manner after being struck by the aircraft.

While we are talking about physics, remember gravity? The building fell in free fall and did not meet enough resistance as it collapsed to slow it's descent from gravitational acceleration.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 05:48 AM
link   
There are a few issues here that keep us from being empirically grounded.

The most minor of these is the attitude and tone of the people who post. Please don't take this as an ad hominem attack, but it makes the average processual thinker shy away. When you say "look at these squibs" and show a picture of the World Trade Center, it shows that you have already biased yourself and therefore lack an objective view point. A bias is not a bad thing, after all it is your point of view. But if the object is elucidation of the facts, perhaps rhetorical devices as such should be avoided. The use of that makes me personally feel that you are trying to sway people to your argument, and not to present an objective case for our evaluation.

Also someone said their father was a physicist, this might be a non related off the cuff comment, but put into this context where physicist could enlighten the reader on more facts about the WTC attacks it could be construed an appeal to authority fallacy. In the same way that I could say "my mother is a psychologist" on a board dealing with depression. While I might know more about the field than the average person it's not my personal field of study and therefore my opinions might or might not be more valid than anyone else’s and should be taken as such. Even if my attempt was to make conjecture appear as valid fact (again I am NOT saying that was your intent, but only to be cautious).

The second flaw is testing, we have no way to test how massive skyscrapers fall under different circumstances (e.g. what a natural collapse looks like versus what happens when a steel loses strength in a hot fire and cannot support the weight above it). I'm not purposing that the knowledge is unobtainable, but I am suggesting that analogy from accidental fires feeding on normal fuels leading to smaller structure collapse is NOT comparable to fuel laden aircraft being flow at high speeds into skyscrapers.

One last thing, regarding the topic: have you ever seen the discovery channel show about the building demolition company? They spend weeks prepping a building, and the ones on that show are significantly smaller in scale. They don't just throw some explosives into the building set them off and hope for the best. They cut support beams throughout the building. I'm telling you this because to me it seem likely that someone working in the World Trade Center would have noticed and reported these beams being cut and massive amounts of explosives being installed throughout the buildings. So my proposal is this: find out the numbers of the floors on which these "blasts" occur, and then see what offices were on these floors. If in most cases those floors didn't contain offices or contained significantly less offices than surrounding floor, then based on fact your argument could gain some validity.

My personal opinion (bias) is that terrorists flew these planes into the WTC, which in turn caused the buildings to collapse. Just so you know where I stand.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by jmanunc
Whats so hard to believe about thousands of pounds of weight suddenly falling on top of a building and completely shattering its foundation causing it collapse on top of its self?


The weight of the top causing the collapse is illogical and impossible. Can you even explain how you come up with this theory, or are you just parroting what some web site has told you? Don't they teach basic physics in school anymore?
15 floors, no matter what they weigh, is not going to crush 95 floors that are undamaged and stronger than the upper floors. Impossible!!
Also all that weight you talk about is being destroyed as the building collapses.
Nothing is stopping the debris from falling off the side, so why would it take the path of most resistance?
Gravity causes objects to take the path of least resistance, not crush through objects bellow them.

If the floors falling on top of each other caused the collapse, what bought the central core down? If the floors were still attached to the central core then the floors would not have fell. If the floors became detached then the central core would have stayed standing. The theory just doesn't work.

Look at building 2, it started to do what you would normally expect, the top portion started to topple over, then suddenly the building underneath it gave way.
The building underneath the toppling top portion was undamaged. How do you explain that? What reversed the normal physical reaction here?

But all that is irelevant when the architect of the building designed it to take multiple 707 hits. A 707 is heavier then a 757. I won't post the info cause I have posted it before and it got ignored, I wonder why?
Look it up yourself. The buildings outer core was designed like a netting so it could move in the wind in any direction and still stand. Imagine pushing a pencil through a screen door, does the whole door collapse?

[edit on 18/5/2006 by ANOK]
Lucky for me they do, and I made an A in Mechanical Physics, and i feel that i know wtf i'm talkinga bout and find the logic and simplicity that how they building collapsed is entirly possible, and not impossible like so refuse to believe othewise.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by justgeneric
It's not a mystery.


No it isn't, they were explosive squibs.

What you're saying is not possible unless the air in the building is under pressure.
It wasn't. The air pressure in the building was the same as outside the building.
There are so many places the air would have gone, it could not have built up enough to squeeze out one or two small spots.

And how do you explain the squibs before the colapse? As in this pic of building 7...



Those were not caused by air pressure...

[edit on 18/5/2006 by ANOK]
to me that picture doesnt even look like one of the twin towers, and if does i dont have a clue of where it happened on the building and at what time it happened.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Percival... demoltion companies use commercial explosives to demo buildings and because they have to keep the explosive perimeter to a minimum (to avoid damage to surrounding structures) they need to use the minimum possible explosive --- thus requiring that they pre-cut some structural members. They have no need to be clandestine so they have as much time as they need to set-up and to do whatever they need to do in order to assure that the structure falls in the smallest possible footprint.

Considering for a moment the 'conspiracy scenario', the people doing the demolition have to set-up clandestinely in an occupied building (so no pre-cutting). They do, however, have access to demolition technologies (like thermate) that commercial demo companies do not. Technologies explicitly designed to demolish very large structures quickly with the shortest possible set-up time. They also are not as concerned with the explosive perimeter

As for the 'mass falling in a hollow tube' argument. First, anyone has to admit that the squibs are amazingly similar to those seen in intentional demolitions. But lets consider the 'hollow tube' concept. We have a mass falling down into a hollow tube which compresses a huge volume of air. That compressed air reaches a pressure that exceeds the strength of the perimeter (presumably windows) and they blow out to relieve the pressure. Given that the falling mass that is causing the compression is falling at a very fast rate (near free-fall), that the freefalling mass would raise the compression pressure very quickly and that the volume of air being compressed is massive, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that there would be a large number of blow-outs to relieve this pressure? Given the speed at which the air is being compressed wouldn't it be reasonable to expect alot more blow-outs would occure to relieve this pressure?

Also, the falling mass is disassociated material. Clearly if we dropped a high-mass, solid ball into a hollow tube of approximately the same diameter it would compress the air until the pressure exceeded the mass of the ball at which point the ball would stop falling. Or unless the side of the tube blew out. But what would happen if we dropped a large mass of gravel into the tube? It would compress the air in the tube but the pressure would be relieved by blowing past the falling gravel. The latter is a closer analogy to the falling debris in the WTC towers.

Finally, supporters of the 'Arabs-Boxcutters-Airliners-Jet Fuel-Done It' theory maintain that the massive lobby damage as well as the firey sub-basement explosions were actually caused by the jet-fuel fireball travelling at high speed down the elevator shafts and stairwells after the jets impacted the towers and dumped their fuel. The argument has been made that the elevator shafts were hermetically sealed. However, the ABAJFDI camp counters that the elevators/stairwells were breached by the jet impacts. If the jet fuel fireball blew-out the elevators and stairwells wouldn't that same path provide an outlet for the 'falling debris' compression? Clearly, the pressurization caused by expansion of the jet fuel explosion would occur at a much faster rate than the falling debris.

So, in my lay opinion, there are some problems with the hollow tube theory. They are:

1. The pressure relief afforded up through the disassociated falling mass would be far greater than that offered by a few isolated blown-out windows (think of a pinhole vs. a large hole in a car tire)

2. If the fireball explosion could exit through the basement and lobby why not the compression pressure?

3. Given the huge volume of the air allegedly being compressed wouldn't we expect a far greater degree of perimiter failures?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Physics really is the smoking gun isn't it. While I can barely compute simple numbers I do know that there are elements that all add to these "squibs" being a force of air and nothing more.

Plane crashes - jet fuel ignites - fire SUCKS IN huge, absolutely huge amounts of air (this is a proven fact folks) so you HAVE a building under sufficient negative pressure to then expell all of the super heated air outward. As I said...the walls risers are hollow and the air will blow out at any point where there is a weakness in the structure...a 7o7 hitting the building is more than enough of a force to weaken the structure and there is no set rule as to how that structure will actually weaken and at what points. There was also an extremely valid point made about upper floor (above the squibs) collapsing immediately after the blast. I doubt that "entire" floors caved but I have no doubt that a significant explosion such as this would cause parts of the flooring to fall below...also providing additional weakness for escaping super heated air. So while you feel that the squibs should have appeared closer to the blast, that is a flawed expectation. That is the nature of it.

The building 7 picture is so fuzzy...to me it looks as though the windows simply blew out due to the force of the blast/collapse - there's no time frame provided for that picture either...was it pre-collapse or post collapse...

As for the squibs as you call them - phenomina explained by physics.

The real question I have about the whole collapse is the "drop" of the buildings during the collapse. It reaked of controlled demolition.

Also - numerous buildings in and around the towers also had their windows blown out and debris was sucked/forced out of those offices as well.

Really no mystery to that. The mystery is in how a building designed with accidental aircraft collision in mind - tested through models/simulations and yep - you guessed it - good old physics...could simply pancake to the ground. The engineers are totally baffled and rightly so.

The squibs - expected occurance in a blast such as this.
The collapses? Very unexpected and very suspicious.



[edit on 5/18/2006 by justgeneric]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Sadly...people convince themselves of something so much that they eventually start to see only what they want to see, i find this to be the case with many of you. Think logically...for the entire building to collapse on its self wouldnt the entire foundation of the building have to buckle and give way at once? The explosions you see blowing the windows out is the result of the entire foundatation of hundreds of thousands of pounds of weight suddenly loosing its primary foundation and support. The world trade center insident was a disaster. In a disastorous situation upredictable things happen leaving you to wonder, how did this ever happen? Sometimes things happen that shouldnt happen or that is believe to not be possible to have ever happened but they do, you accept it and move on. What happened is by no means IMPOSSIBLE. About 10 years ago my mom was getting out of her car when she got home from the grocery store and when her foot hit the ground it crushed her entire ankle and had to be put in a brace for over half a year and have surgery multipul times on it to repair it. Sound impossible, yeah actually it does, but in a freak situation it happened because the conditions at the time were right for it to happen. Could the doctors explain how it happened? no, it just did. Anyways...my point is, sometimes things happened that can't be explained that go against the odds. When you look into sometime to deep, trying to explain the unexplainable, you start seeing things that dont actually exist. Agree or disagree, thats the truth.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by justgeneric
he mystery is in how a building designed with accidental aircraft collision in mind - tested through models/simulations and yep - you guessed it - good old physics...could simply pancake to the ground. The engineers are totally baffled and rightly so.

The squibs - expected occurance in a blast such as this.
The collapses? Very unexpected and very suspicious.



Hence the cover-up ..... someone made either a serious design error. Or maybe they cut corners during the construction? Shoddy materials perhaps? Who knows. But something which somebody doesn't want us to find out. Imagine the compensation case if someone other than the terrorists were responsible for the collapses?

But conveniently everyone is too busy looking for bigger conspiracies to notice .....



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Something else to keep in mind as far as the "building was designed for the impact of an airplane", When the buildings were designed and built their were no airplanes the size of what the towers. I personally dont think that means a whole lot, but just something to keep in mind



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Super heated air? Highly unlikely (although I understand the point you are trying to make). Keep in mind, there were lots of people in the general vicinity of the jet impact area. Had the air actually become super-heated (whatever that actually means) they all would have been incinerated or at least suffocated by the immediate depletion of oxygen.

But there are more important problems with the 'air-rushes-in' theory. When the fireball occurred, it would actually expand forcing air out of the building (assuming the fireball occurred within the building and not outside). Air would then rush back in in order to reestablish equilibrium with the ambient pressure when the fireball subsided. Still, none of this would have any impact whatsoever on a collapse that happened 40+min later. The in-rushing air would only replace the air that was forced out. there would be no residual pressure.

Also, using the 'rare-weird-unexplainable-things-sometimes-happen' argument as a defense of the official story is about as weak an argument as can be imagined.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Actually the plane they specifically had in mind was a boeing 707 which is just a fraction smaller then the planes that hit.

Let's get to the physics part of this okay those buildings collapse at freefall speed or close enough to it anyway to make people question. Think of the little balls on the strings when one hits it stops and the other on the end continues. This is called transfer of energy. I won't go into the math here but basically one floor falls and hits another. The floor falling would slam the floor below and that floor would slam the floor below it with the top floor not reachin the second floor as it after it hits floor 3. Also you have to take into account they freefall at the speed it would take in a vacuum so you would have to take the atmosphere into account adding more resistance and friction thus more time to fall taking a longer time period to fall.

As for quibs being the cause of those blow outs it is impossible because the air would have already been escaping out of the shattered windows and other opening not to mention i had seen video and photo of these things start before the collapse. People also say well it happens in demolition all the time and they do but they aren't caused by the buildings own air pressure. They are cause from the explosive force of what ever they are using and with a blast travelling at 3000+ft per second you can bet it will generate air. Unfortunatly the biggest problem with this and 9/11 is that these air ducts,shafts,windows are so abundant and in some cases so large that air pressure could not have built up enough inside. It is an impossibility that these blow outs through metal and concrete were cause by air pressure due to collapsing floors.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join