Somone debunk or explain this please.

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
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]
At least someone on these boards is able to make reasonable sence of things.




posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
jmanunc....

Maybe you should look at some buildings that collapsed without explosives and then tell me it looks the same as the WTC


No two CD's are the same, especialy when you are working an under-cover-black-ops designed to fool the public...

Pls show me something that looks like the WTC collapses that wasn't done with planted explosives...I'll be waiting, and waiting, and waiting...

[edit on 18/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:16 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.
And i did just find a video that i'm pretty sure shows the same thing that you picture is taking from..... Watch the video.... www.911research.com... You can see clear as day when you control the speed of the video yourself that the building start co collpase well before any of the windows explode outward and its nothing more than a result of the force and pressure being creaded on the outside walls of the building from it collapsing in on its self.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Yeah, that's teh funny thing. Due to most buildings collapsing being caught on camera planned, the majority of them are filmed. Funnily enough the ones that collapse due to freak events arn't planned and hence not caught on film.
The WTC was one of the freak situations where something occurs which means cameras happen to be trained on the building at the time of collapse.
Not only that, they were the only buildings of their kind in the world, so there is nothing to compare against, the one with the slightest similarity was the Madrid tower (which was still different) and the steel sections of it's structure did collapse.
The argument that there are no videos of similar collapses hence is pretty much void.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Funnily enough the ones that collapse due to freak events arn't planned and hence not caught on film.


This is true. And understatement, actually. No such freak has resulted in skyscraper collapses caught on tape, because there have been none. Earthquakes aside of course, because they have never resulted in "progressive collapses," despite having actually caused skyscrapers to collapse. This is something fire has never done, though skyscraper fires as often videotaped, and you can find many images of the more famous ones online.

If you can find some examples of "freak events" causing skyscrapers to collapse, though, I'd be interested. Particularly if they caused them to fall straight down. I'm pretty sure WTC1, 2, and 7 are the only buildings ever alleged to have globally collapsed by "progressive collapse" (ie, a demolition that's lied about). You won't find any others anyway.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
The book theory doesn't work either.

The floors of the buildings were being turned into dust as they collapsed, did you notice all that concrete dust that caused that big pyroclastic cloud?

The book falling on paper doesn't cause jets of air to be expeled along with concrete dust and particles.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmanunc
And i did just find a video that i'm pretty sure shows the same thing that you picture is taking from..... Watch the video....


No they don't watch it again yourself...The squibs are visible right before the collapse sequence starts, miliseconds granted. Just like a controoled demo would.

But not enough time for air pressure to build up...

Again show me a building doing that from a natural collapse and I'll shut up...



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   
What about the bombing and fire of 1993?

The fires were much larger than on 9-11 and the building remained standing...


The bombing of the WTC was an event of immense proportions, the
largest incident ever handled in the City of New York Fire Department’s
128-year history also complex that it was effectively several major
multiple-alarm fires combined into one. In terms of the number of fire
department units that responded, it was the equivalent of a 16-alarm fire.


The World Trade Center Bombing:
Report and Analysis
Provided by Fire Engineering
www.firetactics.com...='wtc%20fire%201993'

[edit on 18/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
The fire discussions are off topic. The OP wanted to know what was causing the anomalies circled in the picture.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by commonsense4u

Originally posted by spacedoubt
A large rockslide there, will blow trees over that are hundreds of feet away..
The air, even though it's somewhat elastic, is displaced and still has to go somewhere..



[edit on 17-5-2006 by spacedoubt]



Que? Are you serious?


Totally serious. It depends on the size of the slide, and the size of the individual Rocks.
You can simulate it by laying a piece of paper on a desk..Then a few feet away, stand a book on it's edge..and tip it over..the paper will blow off the desk..
There is a story of a fairly recent landslide in Yosemite where this happened. I saw it in Documentary form...But I am sure the story is somewhere on the web as well, I'll try and locate it for you..



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 05:58 PM
link   
OK


Lets think about this for a minute.


Heat caused the structure to weaken and thats why the first floors fell and that forced air downward and also the pancake began to stack.

In order for the whole building to fall down in about 10 seconds, the vertical and horizantal columns would need to already be weakened, only the area that was hit on impact by the plane and the area of fire were signficantly weakened. Why did the rest of the building collapse? But the more imporant question is why did it collapse upon it's self? That would have been the hardest way for it to fall because that way puts up the most resistance.If you push open a door, the door is also "pushing" back at you with the same force.

Keep in mind that we are talking about a light weight building, and that we are talking about steel.

bbc nes image.


Think logic. The building was light weight. If you were to cut off the damaged area, raise it 500 feet and drop it perfectaly on the building, would the building completely collapse straight down? No. a few floors would but then it would support its self.

But if the building were "cut" in the right places, such as on the vertical and horizantal columns, it would collapse completely.

The impact from the fires and the plane could not have weakened the building to that point. What we see in the pictures I posted are explosions that were used to weaken the building so the pancake could keep falling.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime

The fire discussions are off topic. The OP wanted to know what was causing the anomalies circled in the picture.


Whatever
It's all related and you can't take pieces out without putting them into context with the rest of the conspiricy...



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Probably old ground but I'm new so please indulge me.

The weakest part of the structure of the building would be the point of impact.

All the structural elements at the point of impact would have failed almost instantly, because they took the full force of the blow.

This would have caused an imbalance on the supporting structure, leading to shearing forces in the beams on the other side.

Why then, didn't the upper floors fall at an angle? - one side of the building was weaker than the other.

Also - the plans for the WTC construction are available. Why has no one built a scale model and fired something into it at scale speed to replicate events and see what would happen?

Like I say, apologies if its old ground, its just struck me as odd for a long time



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   
This is an excellent example of the science behind the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.

www.tms.org...

The truth is that no one here wants the science or the facts. The OP posted this thread but lets be honest, he doesn't want to hear that there are rational reasons behind the collapse. He, as well as most of the posters in this thread, want to hear one and only one explanation - THE GOVERNMENT CAUSED IT. That is the only answer that will suffice because these posters minds are made up based on political biases and personal views of the world.

Of course the building built in the 1960’s was impossible to bring down with an airplane or by a fire, and the Titanic was an unsinkable ship until it hit an iceberg and busted out a line of rivets. If the Titanic tragedy happened today instead of 1912 this forum would be flooded with the same type of posters talking about how the government caused it and then covered it up.

My point is that we can build anything and call it impervious to disasters, but the reality is that no plan can incorporate all of the unforeseen variables that will lead to that plans ultimate failure.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime

The OP posted this thread but lets be honest, he doesn't want to hear that there are rational reasons behind the collapse.


LoL

Other than the compresed air theroy witch I doubt for reasons already stated, what could be the answer? Dont try and put words in my mouth you have no idea what the hell I am thinking. Dont be mad because everyone dosent see it your way. There are a million and one ways anyone could view this event. My question has yet to be answered to my satisfaction and I have stated my point of view.

You are the one my friend who needws to keep an open mind


[edit on 18-5-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
It's not a conspiracy......... of course the building wasn't air tight didn't have to be. Only so much air could escape horizontally the rest rushed down any possible escape routes and blew out windows several floors down, or even up....

Actually this reminds me of years ago in college when my 2 roommates and I would go to Hardee's and eat. We were all powerlifters and would order at least 2 sandwiches usually 3 and sometimes 4 each.... so we had alot of sandwich containers sitting around. Those were the days of styrofoam containers and we would stack them up 7 to 8 high and attempt to break only the bottom or any other individual container and leave the others intact. One of my friends was incredible in that you could pick any container and he could strike it just so as to break only that container..... the top container was never broken (that was the only rule to the game) and usually never even crumbled!! So in relationship to this I see nothing startling at all in this photo......... actually it seems very logical to me!!!!



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tasketo

Originally posted by zerotime

The OP posted this thread but lets be honest, he doesn't want to hear that there are rational reasons behind the collapse.


LoL

Other than the compresed air theroy witch I doubt for reasons already stated, what could be the answer? Dont try and put words in my mouth you have no idea what the hell I am thinking. Dont be mad because everyone dosent see it your way. There are a million and one ways anyone could view this event. My question has yet to be answered to my satisfaction and I have stated my point of view.

You are the one my friend who needws to keep an open mind


[edit on 18-5-2006 by Tasketo]



Can you please show everyone what science you are using to come up with the theory that it is impossible for air to become compressed in a falling building?

I will post again, what I have already posted...

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.

Another simple experiment would be blowing air into a balloon. When you blow air into a balloon the pressure in the balloon continues to increase. At some point, something has to give, and since the air cannot force its way against your breath the balloon breaks. The air in the building would be the same. The debris is falling forcing air into places inside the building where it has no escape – or at least not escape at the degree to which it is coming in meaning that a massive amount of air is being pushed into a single location at a rate much more quickly than it can escape. The debris continues to fall and the pressure builds up exponentially until something gives – a window gives out and pop the air violently escapes blowing out dust and debris with it.

So, basically, you are disagreeing with this assumption that in no circumstance air can become trapped in a collapsing building? yes?


[edit on 18-5-2006 by zerotime]



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
And Zerotime, I would love for you to address what I posted. Or anyone really. I know that pressurized air can release force, but you aren't looking at the things that prove that this could not have happened at the WTC in a manner that would explain the squibs.

You're basically taking the problem way out of context to try to solve it. I'm trying to show you: keep it in context of the buildings and what you're saying makes absolutely no sense.



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Well I hate going in a circle but.

what somone else said.


  • 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 elevator shafts, stairs and not to mention the walls that were falling apart that would have released air.

    Also, why were there only a couple of windows blown out if there was so much pressure?

    People have already said this. Why do you want me to repeat?



  • posted on May, 18 2006 @ 06:53 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by zerotime
    This is an excellent example of the science behind the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.

    www.tms.org...

    The truth is that no one here wants the science or the facts. The OP posted this thread but lets be honest, he doesn't want to hear that there are rational reasons behind the collapse. He, as well as most of the posters in this thread, want to hear one and only one explanation - THE GOVERNMENT CAUSED IT. That is the only answer that will suffice because these posters minds are made up based on political biases and personal views of the world.

    Of course the building built in the 1960’s was impossible to bring down with an airplane or by a fire, and the Titanic was an unsinkable ship until it hit an iceberg and busted out a line of rivets. If the Titanic tragedy happened today instead of 1912 this forum would be flooded with the same type of posters talking about how the government caused it and then covered it up.

    My point is that we can build anything and call it impervious to disasters, but the reality is that no plan can incorporate all of the unforeseen variables that will lead to that plans ultimate failure.



    Very Good!!





    new topics
    top topics
     
    0
    << 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

    log in

    join