Somone debunk or explain this please.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Doctor, you made me realize another problem with the 'compressed air' theory. Those who argue against exposives being used make two core arguments.

1. The upper floors pancaked on the lower floors causing the collapse

2. During the collapse air was compressed causing the 'squibs'

We KNOW that the towers fell at near free-fall. No argument there. That being the case, the 'pancakers' have a serious problem that falls under the 'you-can't-have-it-both-ways' heading.

If the falling upper floors were compressing the air mass under it that would consume a significant amount of energy thereby slowing the fall (conservation of energy). There would be a deceleration of the fall as the compression occurred. Once the pressure was released the fall would again begin to accelerate from the velocity then in place. In any case, the energy used to compress the air would HAVE to slow the fall. This didn't happen as we can clearly see. Add the energy consumed in compression to the energy used to pulverize the concrete and then add-in the enregy required to break the lower floors and we end up with a serious conservation of energy problem. The towers simply couldn't have falln at near freefall if this happened.




posted on May, 18 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
someone wondered in my analogy what made the cuts in the coke bottle - I suggested that pressure woul seek weak points - ehm we do all recall an aircraft hitting the structure prior to the collapse? I would think that that mass should have had at least some effect on the integrity of the structure - in fact creating numerous stress points. Aircraft / drone / missile whatever all of these would weaken the structure IMHO to a point that collapse would cause outgassing of materials and debris through those weakened points.

Im not looking for acceptance or agreement - this is a theory that might explain what you are seeing.

Respectfully

Silk



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
due the the metal support beams being damaged, pressure and weight were put on points that werent meant to support the weight, thus causing them to explode outward when they no logger can hold the pressure they werent ment to hold. Why don't can't people comprehend that?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silk
Ok im no engineer or builder BUT consider the following

take a PET bottle - coke, pepsi the choice of a generation- fill with water - make small slices in the bottle down its length horizontaly - be careful not to cut just weaken the plastic then apply force from above - stamping works. Structural integrity will give in some places and not in others - the result - water pours from fractures well below the impact of downward force. Downward pressure - ipso sum ergo propter hoc - Newton noticed it - gravivity causes a pressure build up looking for the path of least resistance.


The pressure of the top collapsing and the debris falling down (an elevator shaft/stairwell/air duct/hole) pushes the air which follows path of least resistance. The windows will be the weakest, but why right in the centre and why symetrically?

Good find.

Apuredelite



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I disagree. The path of least resistance would NOT be out the windows. It would be up through the disassociated flling debris. It wasn't a solid mass.

And again, their could not have been any significant compression anyways because it would violate the law of conservation of energy.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   
If I wasnt so lazy I would post some pages from my firefighting text books.

It is so simple, heat rises and creates thermal layers of different degrees. This is why we can go inside a burning building and attack the fire at its source, because the heat layer we can crawl underneath it and not get burned. The first thing we do in a structure fire is cutting a 4x4 foot hole above the fire for the superheated air to release. If the roof has been weekened we do it from the sides. The heat that escapes along with the smoke and we use the water on the fire as a giant heat sink.

This is NOT how a high rise fire is attacked. A high rise has stairwells and elevator shafts that remove the heat from the area, we then go to the floor below the fire, hook up to the buildings stand pipe, take th charged hoseline on floor above the fire-floor- make a loop and come back to the floor and attack the fire.

The combination of the heat going out the side windows, up the elevator and stairwell shafts, and the shear size of the structures steel supports coupled to the rest of the building GUARNTEES we will NOT have a global collapse. Wont happen on that type of buildiing. The rest of the building works as a heat-sink, and will not let it heat just one area to the point of failure.

There is not enough fuel to make that much heat for this to happen if you pumped it in for hours. Let alone under one hour. This is not some design flaw, its the way things work, that building absorbs and spreads the heat and it will never fail from heat.

NEVER.

That is why the Madrid fire made the building look like a torch and burned for 24 hours without collapse.

A brave and strong firefighter made it to the fire-floor and calmly stated. " We have to isolated fires and can knock them down with two hoselines" He did NOT say we need 2 and 1/2 inch line, he did not state we need a master stream. He said 2 hoselines, that means two 1 and 1/2 inch hoselines, about what we would use on a house fire.

Yes we do get excited and lose our cool if the fire is big enough to create huge amounts of heat, that is why we have officers who are not net to the inferno, that keep their cool and tell us what to do. That man was calm.

I dont care what some of these air people say. I am a seasoned firefighter, and EVERYONE in my battallion cannot figure out what happened to make those buildings fail. I go inside houses while they are on fire and put them out. I know what it takes for a type of structure to collapse. 9/11. Something was way wrong that day that killed 343 brothers, you gonna tell me 343 seasoned FDNY didnt know it was about to collapse!?!

You tell that to their families damnit!




[edit on 18-5-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
no disrespect, but that firefighter was below the base of the fire-affect area, at the 78th floor.
911myths.com...
9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

www.thememoryhole.org...

brave man nonetheless.




and the madrid building did experience collapse.

particularly at the steel parts.

"Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed."

www.concretefireforum.org.uk...

and again, no disrespect meant by that

[edit on 18-5-2006 by blatantblue]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmanunc

Originally posted by commonsense4u

Originally posted by jmanunc
So if a 1k Ibs weight falls and hits you in the head, its impossible that your legs might possibly break along with skull and neck? Or does every bone above your legs have to break first?



Who knows, I guess it would depend on how my legs were positioned. I would image that my head would be the first concern then my vertebrate. 1k is a heck of a lot of weight. But if you want to create analogies, I have on for you.

If you free dropped a 15 pound bowling bowl on your head from, let's say, 6 inches above your head, will all the bones in your body break? WTC 1 free fall started with the top 13 floors(about the lenght of your head). It fell straight down(it didn't start falling from, say, 100 foot above). THe top 13 floors started tilting almost immediately(placing less resistance on most, if not all of the building), but yet, the whole building somehow collapsed on it self? Where the towers that fragile?????? A 15 pound bowling ball is pretty heavy, it probably weighs more than you head. Would a 15 pound bowling ball released even 10 inches above your head crush you with no resistance into dust?!!! Or you think your head will absorb the shock(probably with a leg wobble) and then roll off your head and on to the floor???

Which is more logical??????










How many building do you know of that have a support system like human body has?


You are the one that stated the human body analogy, I was just trying to make a more logical argument.



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?


Because no steel structure has ever done this before or since other than CD. If you do anything, watch wtc 1 collapse over and over again and tell me that's logical for that to happen.



If you wanna believe that the planes didnt cause the building to collapse, thats fine, but to me, as far as asking whose those are in the pictures you first listed, its nothing more than the result of thousands of pounds buckling on top of each other and the force causing either glass or cement (whatever it is) to shoot out from the building.


Let me ask you something, if every floor is being pulverized by the "thousands of pounds buckling on top of each other" blowing debris outwards, where is the weight if every floor is demolished by said weight? Especially in wtc 1 where the top floors started to tip over which would dramatically decrease this weight you speak of? What is the driving force behind this weight that is "pancaking" the entire building? And if a building like this can "pancake", how can it do so at free fall speed? There would have to be at least some resistance right?


Just some things to ponder.






[edit on 18-5-2006 by commonsense4u]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
no disrespect, but that firefighter was below the base of the fire-affect area, at the 78th floor.


We always stage below the firefloor. He MADE it to the firefloor and went to the staging area. Unless you know what tactic we use I would suggest you wait until you can make an intelligent comment.

We always go to the firefloor on scene-size up, then stage in an area that is safe. We then go back to the firefloor and attack the fire.


Edit to add: I just read your Madrid comment. Do people not think before they post? WE were talking about a global collapse. Not partial collapse, there are certain potions of high-rise constructin that do not require heavy steel beams. They will use in those areas light steel struss construction that can collapse. The whole building doesnt collapse though.



[edit on 18-5-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508We KNOW that the towers fell at near free-fall. No argument there.


Actually the estimates range between 10-15 seconds. "Free-fall in a vacuum" is 9.2 seconds from the top of WTC.


If the falling upper floors were compressing the air mass under it that would consume a significant amount of energy thereby slowing the fall (conservation of energy). There would be a deceleration of the fall as the compression occurred. Once the pressure was released the fall would again begin to accelerate from the velocity then in place. In any case, the energy used to compress the air would HAVE to slow the fall. This didn't happen as we can clearly see. Add the energy consumed in compression to the energy used to pulverize the concrete and then add-in the enregy required to break the lower floors and we end up with a serious conservation of energy problem. The towers simply couldn't have falln at near freefall if this happened.


Your argument is completely backward:
• we know the towers collapsed from the top down (as they’re among the most documented events in recorded history and all), and
• we know the towers probably had air inside them just before the collapse.
Ergo, demolition or not:
• the air was there and offered whatever resistance it could to the collapse, and
• it would have had go somewhere

Somehow I think upward – through the "demolition wave" is not the path of least resistance. That cloud is at a very minimum 30 times more dense than air.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75
Somehow I think upward – through the "demolition wave" is not the path of least resistance. That cloud is at a very minimum 30 times more dense than air.


How many times is that cloud less dense than the windows that are made to withstand hurricane force winds?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
ok. so we've established im not intelligent, LoneGunMan, i thank you for your graceful comment.

anyway, lets discuss this tactic I know nothing about.

You said,
"We always stage below the firefloor. He MADE it to the firefloor and went to the staging area. Unless you know what tactic we use I would suggest you wait until you can make an intelligent comment.

We always go to the firefloor on scene-size up, then stage in an area that is safe. We then go back to the firefloor and attack the fire."

so based on that, I can assume you mean he got up into the 80th+ floors, and assessed the damage, and got himself through the damaged floors to be able to assess them.

simple enough, and totally fair. lets continue.

i linked you to a site with the transcripts of the tape.

www.thememoryhole.org...

and i posted the quote i took from it, where he states hes on the 78th floor. BELOW THE IMPACT ZONE. ok thats established.

you are asserting he ascended into the fire zone and came down, stating there was not much to be concerned with in terms of fire. so we can assume by 952 he had climed up into the fire zone of the 79, 80, 81 floors, to check it all out. according to you, correct me if im wrong, he went up and came BACK to the staging area.

i want you to look at the transcripts.
9:48 a.m.

Ladder 15: "Battalion Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven: "Go Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "What do you got up there, Chief?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm still in boy stair 74th floor. No smoke or fire problems, walls are breached, so be careful."

Ladder 15: "Yeah Ten-Four, I saw that on 68. Alright, we're on 71 we're coming up behind you."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four. Six more to go."

Ladder 15: "Let me know when you see more fire."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I found a marshall on 75."


952 am
9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."



four minutes prior he was in the 74 floor, or 75th. so, we can therefore deduct he ascended from the 74th-75th floor into the 79th-80th, etc, got through all the damage, assessed all that area, and came back down to the 78th floor in four minutes?

i am not insulting the mans bravery or anything. he gave more than i ever could




[edit on 18-5-2006 by blatantblue]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
i hope you can clarify anything, if it needs clarification

[edit on 18-5-2006 by blatantblue]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   
A building does not need to be airtight for a falling object to produce airflow PSI (Pounds per Square Inch).

Simple experiments can show this fact. Scatter a bunch of pieces of paper on the floor. Then take the biggest book you can find in your house and drop it onto the floor - SMACK - when the book hits the floor the papers will be forced from their spots on the floor. Why is that happening? My house is not airtight? Well, it is because the object (book) is falling at a rate which forces the air flow downward at a speed fast enough to disturb the objects below. Both, the size of the object and the distance the object falls will affect the airflow rate. Bigger object or a higher distance will create higher airflow PSI. Now, lets say you do the same experiment but you drop the book directly overtop of a heating vent. The papers on the ground will still be blown and this time if you listen closely and have some dust or debris in your heating vent you will hear that debris being blown down the shaft of your heating vent. I would predict that this would be similar to a building collapsing. The floors of a building are not airtight. They are connected with stairways, elevator shafts, heating vents, etc. As the building falls the airflow will travel in any direction downward where it can freely pass. I did a quick test with a large piece of shipping Styrofoam (2feet X 2feet) I have here in my warehouse. I brought it into the office area and lifted it over my head. Then I forced it to the ground as fast as I could and the air force it produced was incredible. Loose papers went airborne, pens flew and a lamp almost slide off a desk and that is just a small piece of debris falling at a couple seconds per foot.

What is great about a falling building is that we can actually witness the power of the airflow PSI the fall itself creates. That mushroom cloud of dust is not magic dust flying through the air by itself. The dust and debris that we saw acting like a monstrous dust cloud consuming everything after the buildings collapsed, the dust and debris which traveled for miles in every direction and hundreds of feet above the ground, was caused by a tremendous amount of air being pushed downward. It is a simple cause-and-effect principle. The building falls and the air inside and around that building gets powerfully thrust in directions according to the direction, rate and mass of the collapse.

Compressed air in a falling building would happen when the collapsing material has forced the air down a path to which it ultimately has no other escape. In that situation the pressure would increase exponentially as the debris continued to fall and impact the airflow. At some point something would have to give.


[edit on 18-5-2006 by zerotime]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75

Originally posted by jtma508We KNOW that the towers fell at near free-fall. No argument there.


Actually the estimates range between 10-15 seconds. "Free-fall in a vacuum" is 9.2 seconds from the top of WTC.



The thing about the fee fall and the not free fall is that you compare the wrong things.
From all what I saw on the videos the Towers did simple not fall in one simple way down from top to bottom but there was a staged behaviour. For example in the south tower a big time the top of the tower desintegrated before the fix part started to go down too. (which byway is a very odd behaviour and I still am not able to find any good possible explanating completly different to the north tower that after an initial blow showed physical behaviour first for a short time) and that was the moment when the top stopped from falling over. If chained charges where going of then it was from then on. Single initial charged would go off before. You have to think about how you demolish such a tower the way that it is not just that obvious that it was demolished. And they for sure did this thoughts. So to asume it was demolished from top to bottom all in a smoothly chained down freefall reactinon is a wrong one. But this you had with WTC7 and this was a nice freefall demolishion.
The free fall/charges blow analysis of the 2 tower can not be done the simple way.
Much more you have to analyse the falling on several different points of the tower at different stages in time. And you have to handle the two tower collaps different. They went down different!!

I really need to do the video analysis I original planed to do because it would tell a lot of the dynamics of the collaps and with this of what was really going on that you simple miss when you watch the collaps just with your eyes. So if you have a good close up video..let me know.
I honestly also dont know what the result will be an di fit definitve would anser the demolished question or not but I am sure it will be very interessting and it is still a very importand missing peace.

And this firefighter here I thanks. Finnaly a firefighter that speaks from his learnt knowledege that has strong and serious roots in basic physik principle! .

Glad to see that their knowledge base is solid and no wonder when you consider that life depends on this.

edit: fixed the quote tags


[edit on 18-5-2006 by g210]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I wonder how many times I'll have to post this before you guys READ it and THINK!

  • 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.
Buildings not air tight -- BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
  • There were expulsions coming from floors which did not have HVAC terminals (from floors that weren't mech floors).
The system the slightly more educated of you blame could NOT have been responsible for most of the explosions.
  • 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. This could only increase the air pressure on a floor by about 33% or so at most -- HOW DOES THIS RESULT IN AN EXPLOSION?
Early in the collapse means NOT ENOUGH PRESSURE could have accumulated to cause such violent blasts.
  • The fact that there is solid debris being blasted out of the buildings, well ahead of the collapse wave.
How would the dust have gotten there before the rest of the collapse?
  • 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.
Where did the solid debris come from? HOW DID THE CONCRETE DUST GET THERE?
  • 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.
Compressed air from the cores could NOT have caused explosions through the PERIMETER columns.At least read this, and think about it! Air causing this is impossible in these circumstances. Who are you trying to fool? Yourselves?

[edit on 18-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
When you watch the video they arn't sudden blasts though like you get with explosives, they are consistant with the collapse occuring at the time. If it was a sudden jet of debris, then it may seem odd - but the ones I saw in video are just consistant expulsions of air that start slow with the collapse. It just isn't the same (in video) as seeing explosives go off.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor75

Originally posted by jtma508We KNOW that the towers fell at near free-fall. No argument there.


Actually the estimates range between 10-15 seconds. "Free-fall in a vacuum" is 9.2 seconds from the top of WTC.


Thus "near free-fall."

9.2 seconds is an object falling through air, unresisted by anything but air.

10-15 seconds is apparently 13 floors falling through 97 heavier floors, all steel and concrete. Doesn't seem right to me, especially when the collapse rate didn't slow, the whole way down. And this is all as most of the mass is falling over the sides and the columns are getting thicker in the lower floors.


Somehow I think upward – through the "demolition wave" is not the path of least resistance. That cloud is at a very minimum 30 times more dense than air.


And how dense are you? Sorry man, but the alternative there is steel and concrete, and pulverized, concrete dust was ejected from those things. How do you explain that?

Also realize that solid debris is being ejected from the buildings as they fall. Most of it, actually. Most of the solid debris landed outside of the footprints because it fell off the sides during the collapses. So what was holding all of the air in?

Believe me dude, or just use your freaking head. Air is going to go upwards and out through smoke into the open atmosphere before it's going to blast out of the perimeter columns of a building, sending shards of metal and all, like a freaking high explosives detonation.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

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

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.


I guess you need to re-read my post then huh?

If you have done ANY research into this you would have seen that pic numorous times before, and all the others that are in that series of pics. Some are less blurry than others, but of course you would know that right? If not then I suggest you do some more research yourself before making your mind up.

That pic is just before the building starts its collapse, not air being ejected because the collapse hasn't started yet as you can see in the pic.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

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

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.


I guess you need to re-read my post then huh?

If you have done ANY research into this you would have seen that pic numorous times before, and all the others that are in that series of pics. Some are less blurry than others, but of course you would know that right? If not then I suggest you do some more research yourself before making your mind up.

That pic is just before the building starts its collapse, not air being ejected because the collapse hasn't started yet as you can see in the pic.
I think you need to do yourself a favor and watch a video of building purposly being demolished and brought to the ground by professional demolitions (sp?). Then watch a video of the WTC collapsing. Im sure you'll see the SIGNIFICANT difference in the two. But even though i know you will see the difference in the two, you'll still claim its the same thing. And that its IMPOSSIBLE for any other explination to be so.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join