Somone debunk or explain this please.

Well...

What about the eye witiness accounts? I dont see how anyone can get around that.

We have pictures of what seem to be explosions and first eye witiness accounts of secondary explosions, caught on video. Even if the picture is from airpressure, how does anyone explain the accounts caught on tape?

[edit on 18-5-2006 by Tasketo]

Vor, that still makes absolutely no sense.

If you want to say it's vibrating steel that's causing those expulsions, then you're going to have to post evidence that vibrating steel can DO that to begin with, "that" being pulverizing solid materials and etc.,; you get the idea.

If you're going to claim it was compressed air, you have to address the problems I've been posting.


For example, how many floors had fallen in that pic? The building had just started to collapse, so let's be generous and say 5 floors had been destroyed by this point, and out of those 5 floors, let's be very generous and say ALL of their air went straight down onto the remaining floors.

I see about 5 floors between the collapse wave and where that squib is coming out. So a generous 5 floors worth of air, spread down 5 floors. Ok? That means each floor had twice the air pressure they normally would have, absolute max.

How does increasing the air pressure on a floor by 2x cause a massive explosion like that? You can experience more pressure than that swimming in a pool!

That's short of proposing equally ridiculous claims that the compressed air shot across floors of uncompressed air from the core structure, and didn't equalize with the surrounding air (somehow) to burst through the perimeter columns, shooting out solid debris, after traveling through offices and who-knows-what within the building.

Anything else you can throw on to try to keep a hold on those straws?

This will be my last time posting. It has become very clear to me that people who believe that it was the government behind all of this will never change their minds no matter what evidence and facts are put in front of them. You will some way, somehow, try and make it invalid or irrelevant to them situation at hand. I personally was skeptical about things to begin with, but the more ive learned about the layout of the building, how it was designed and structural facts, the more i understand why the buildings collapsed the way they did. Anyone who believes the government is behind it all just needs to move to a different country, i know i would. Peace out and goodluck to the rest of you who try and convience this group of close minded minorities of something, that in their minds, is impossible to have happened.

I didn't suggest vibrating steel would pulverize anything -

For the third time I have suggested that vibrating steel may have caused windows to shatter and, more importantly, allows parts of floors to collapse lower down - thereby compressing air and blowing out windows.

Odd failures here and there - up and down the building.

Here that compressed air might go backward toward the core, there, an office door might slam shut and the air shoot out a window instead.

And again this is in reference to the original picutre of "squibs" well downward of the collapse. Not your new picture.

And in reference to your new picture: in order for your simple mathematics to work, you are going to have to provide proof that the floors were collapsing perfectly symetrically, and that floors were not collapsing within the intact frame slightly (perhaps 5 floors or so) ahead of the cloud. After all, the outer shell is the strongest part of the tower and perhaps would last a few moments longer ... it certainly does so in the last part of one of the collapses.

Originally posted by zerotime

Originally posted by commonsense4u
The Titanic comparison is very ridiculous. The people that made the claim that the Titanic was unsinkable were most likely rich and extremely arrogant men that believed they could conquer GOD. The claim that a ship can be unsinkable is just as silly to say that a plane is uncrashable. There would be no conspiracies back then because most level headed people know that ships aren't and never can be unsinkable. At the most, it would confirm people's beliefs before this "unsinkable" claim was made.

The people who said the Titanic was unsinkable where the engineers who built it. The people who said the World Trade Center was built to withstand a planecrash were the engineers who built it.

There were and still are Titanic conspiracies. Pull up Google and search titanic conspiracies - there are hundreds.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by commonsense4u
I don't think anyone here believes that the towers were undestructable. There is just WWWAAAYYYY to many inconsistencies, to many coincidenses, to many eyewitness accounts, to many improbable things going on that day to blindly believe the official story. Why do you refuse to understand that????

Of course people believe the towers were indestructable - that why they need the squib theory. Read the post directly above your own. The guy says there is no way that a huge skyscrapper was taken down by an airplane. Really? what science did he use to come to that conclusion? I can tell you right now it goes something like this: building is big. Plane is small. Plane can't hurt building.

What inconsistencies? What coincidenses?
Witnesses saw government agents placing bombs in the buildings?

I read that witnesses heard what they said were explosions as the buildings where collapsing. These were 500,000 ton buildings falling down violently from around 1800 feet in the sky. How are they suppose to sound? Like feathers drifting down in the breeze? Millions of pounds of concrete is falling with walls breaking and floors smashing together, steel twisting together. It was violent and it was noisy.


[edit on 18-5-2006 by zerotime]

Look, I don't have enough time in the to make a list and links of everything at the moment. I'll have to do it some other time. I'm sure someone else has a full and detailed list of the goings on prior and during 911.


1. Certain public officials told not to fly on commercial airlanes that day(ie. SF. Mayor Willie Brown)
2. United and American Airlines short stock buys activity in the days leading up to 911.
3. Silverstein purchase of the buildings less than two months before the attacks and purchase of insurance policy against terror attacks.
4. Where was NORAD?????
5. Bush continues to read to kids after he's told "American is under attack".
6. The arrest the the "dancing Israelis
7. The 4 flights were under occupied.
8. WTC 7 mysteriously collapses in on its own footprint by small fires and minimal damage.
9. Numerous eyewitness accounts of bombs going off before any building collapsed.
10. The reluctance to show a plane hitting pentagon.
ETc, etc...

I'll just start with these I guess.

Originally posted by vor75
For the third time I have suggested that vibrating steel may have caused windows to shatter and, more importantly, allows parts of floors to collapse lower down - thereby compressing air and blowing out windows.

So then vibrating steel only causes windows to shatter, and then of course the floor systems to utterly fail and shoot narrow streams of concrete dust out over a hundred feet into the sky? Despite the fact that the trusses are made to offer lateral support against hurricane-strength winds, and give the perimeter columns most of their lateral stability?

So then what pulverized the concrete into such a fine powder down there? Sure some concrete falling 12.5 feet wouldn't be busted up that good.

Here that compressed air might go backward toward the core, there, an office door might slam shut and the air shoot out a window instead.

Wtf? Like a pinball? Air doesn't behave like that dude. It equalizes; more compressed air thins out into less compressed air. It doesn't fly around in a little stream, without decompressing, heading towards the core and then turning around because of a mere OFFICE DOOR to blow solid debris out of the face of a building! It equalizes with surrounding air.

And in reference to your new picture: in order for your simple mathematics to work, you are going to have to provide proof that the floors were collapsing perfectly symetrically, and that floors were not collapsing within the intact frame slightly (perhaps 5 floors or so) ahead of the cloud.

Why do I have to prove a negative? If you want to suggest something, then you prove it; don't ask me to prove it couldn't have happened just so you can justify making a baseless assumption.

If the floor systems on the inside were falling ahead of the perimeter destruction wave, you'd be able to see it. You wouldn't see expulsions coming out from 5 or 10 or 50 floors down here and there. You would see consistent debris coming out, and it wouldn't be ahead of freaking free-falling material. That's literally impossible, and ridiculous to assume steel and concrete provide less resistance than air.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by bsbray11]

Wtf? Like a pinball? Air doesn't behave like that dude. It equalizes; more compressed air thins out into less compressed air. It doesn't fly around in a little stream, without decompressing, heading towards the core and then turning around because of a mere OFFICE DOOR to blow solid debris out of the face of a building! It equalizes with surrounding air.

No, no: "here" as in one case, and "there" as in another case ... "here versus there" ... as in two separate examples:

Here that compressed air might go backward toward the core, there, an office door might slam shut and the air shoot out a window instead."

Understand?

I think you are intentionally misconstruing all my points, or you are just unable to grasp them. Either way ...

Originally posted by vor75
I think you are intentionally misconstruing all my points, or you are just unable to grasp them. Either way ...

What confused me was your use of the word "instead" while describing two separate events. I took them as one because of that, but regardless, you're not answering crap, man. I think you are intentionally ignoring every question you aren't answering, and I notice that this particular misinterpretation on my part was the only thing you even responded to anyway!

Here that compressed air might go backward toward the core, there, an office door might slam shut and the air shoot out a window instead."

If it was merely windows being shot out, you wouldn't see pulverized material and other solid debris (besides glass). And also, if slamming a door could burst a window in those buildings, we would've heard about it pre-9/11, unless you're still asserting that air was somehow being pushed down those structures despite their set up and the way they were being destroyed.


Let's focus on just the compressed air for right now, because I could ask for evidence of your vibrating steel theory all day and get jack squat anyway:

• 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.
  

Again, this is just regarding how you think the compressed air would have worked. Address all of those issues in one post just for clarity.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by bsbray11]

While air pressure seems extremely likely, plausible and a perfectly good explanation - I figured I'd do a bit more digging.

I watched the Loose Change video

I'm much less confident in my original insistance that it was air pressure that caused the squibs yiu mentioned.

I think I may have jumped the gun and opted for the easiest to believe scenario as opposed to an alternative explanation - that fits equally as well but is extremely disturbing to think about.

I'm retracting my original "air pressure" theory. I'm going to search around a bit, and chew on some info for a while.

If anyone is interested in viewing the Loose Change video it's on Youtube dot com.

LooseChangePart 1

LooseChange Part2

Dylan Avery Interview

Again, I much rather wish to believe that the Loose Change Documentary is a far fetched conspiracy theory...it is shockingly hard to dismiss many of the images, questions etc.

Good, glad someone brought up the Loose Change videos. Here is a compresive guide to how false those videos are. Of course the information in this link will not matter to most here because these people refuse to believe science or facts and continue to ignore the mountains of clear evidence and rational thinking when it does not support their conspiracy theories.

www.ccdominoes.com...

Can't simple physics explain whether this was an accelarated free fall or not?

d=rt

Distance = Height of building

Rate = Acceleration (due to gravity)

Time = Duh...


If this was a controlled demolition the rate should be faster than the rate that gravity would bring down the building... I guess all we need to know is the mass of each building to calculate acceleration...



[edit on 19-5-2006 by tacitblue]

Still people ignore eye witiness accounts and certan people wont address it as if these people dont exist.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Tasketo]

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Tasketo]

Again you are misconstruing my points and taking them out of context – the only way you’ve countered them.

I didn’t say a slamming door would cause windows to blow out; I didn’t say vibrating steel would pulverize concrete; I also didn’t say anything about air moving dozens of floors down the structure from the main collapse (in reference to the 1st picture in this thread) to cause those "squibs" ... although that is another possibility.

In a nutshell, I’ve suggested that lower parts of the tower were being affected by tremendous vibrations from the upper part of the skyscraper pounding down on itself. The "squib" clouds fit quite well as possible precursory effects.

You are trying to make a case there would be no precursory effects in the lower part of the tower – very unreasonable. You are trying to explain away the possibility of tremendous vibrations causing damage at random, local points here and there.

Also, your evidence that the "squib" clouds contain pulverized concrete and steel is simply your interpretation of the image. Another interpretation is the little clouds consist of broken glass, paper, and pieces of drywall.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by vor75]

Originally posted by jmanunc
This will be my last time posting. It has become very clear to me that people who believe that it was the government behind all of this will never change their minds no matter what evidence and facts are put in front of them.

lol, I hope you're not just now finding that out. Part of the reason why my post count is going to start dropping significantly here - just no point. I remember when the motto of this site was to Deny Ignorance. Last I checked "deny" did NOT mean to "embrace."
This thread is hilarious. 7 (or is it up to 8?) pages arguing over air and dust
Shows how much people WANT the government to be behind 9/11. I fear what they will do to themselves once they find out terrorists exist and the government isn't responsible for every bad thing that happens.


Back on topic -
If anyone thinks what we're seeing on the outside is the same as what's going on inside then...well....we're back to that 'embracing' over 'denying'

In all fairness, neither side can point at the other and say "they will never change their minds no matter what". People on BOTH sides are guilty of it as evidenced by the finger pointing here. There are valid questions no matter which side you're on and if you just write them off YOU are guilty of the finger pointing.

Let's forgt the physics for the moment, the 'eye witnesses', the whole argument. Let's try a different angle:

Let's assume, just for the moment, that the official story is entirely correct. The buildings were hit with a plane --- except WTC 7 --- but all three fell from some combination of fire and impact damage. This would be HUGE. This would call into question all of the fire safety engineering, structural engineering, building code and architectural standards for large commercial buildings. It would be IMPERITIVE and a public safety REQUIREMENT that the actual cause of the failures be identified quantitatively so that the aforementioned standards could be appropriately revised post haste. Insurers alone would require it. The government (most notably the City of New York and the State of New York) would insist on it. Does anyone disagree with this position?

The official findings are ensconced in the 9/11 Commission Report. FEMA and the 9/11 Commission can offer no definitive reason for the collapse and their determination is, self-admittedly, reasonable conjecture. There were never any actual tests done to verify what caused the collapse. Just 'expert opinion' based upon what they saw. Why no exhaustive lab tests? Wouldn't that be prudent, reasonable and best-practices in a case like this? Wuldn't everyone involved in construction safety insist on these tests?

So why no exhaustive testing? Why no iron-clad definitive explanation? Because all the 'evidence' was whisked out of the country in a blink. Why? Is that action remotely reasonable? Is there any explanation that makes sense why officials entrusted with public safety would purposely dispose of the only evidence that could yield a cause thereby preventing similar collapses in the future? Keep in mind, these three collapses were the only ones like it in history. Ever. And they all occurred on the same day in the same location. Clearly something HUGE happened here. The insurers paid out $3.55B for the collapses. Wouldn't they want to know why in order to avoid having to write any future checks?

Seriously. Think about this. Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation for Gulliani's actions getting rid of all the evidence? And at record speed to boot?

Originally posted by jtma508
Let's assume, just for the moment, that the official story is entirely correct. The buildings were hit with a plane --- except WTC 7 --- but all three fell from some combination of fire and impact damage. This would be HUGE. This would call into question all of the fire safety engineering, structural engineering, building code and architectural standards for large commercial buildings.

No it wouldn't. How often does something like 9/11 happen? What are the chances of something like that happening again? I'm sure they'll build stronger skyscrapers because of what happened (as they should), but there wasn't really too much structurally wrong with the towers (especially considering when they were built).

There were never any actual tests done to verify what caused the collapse.

Not enough spare 100+ story skyscrapers and large passenger jets lying around.

Seriously. Think about this. Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation for Gulliani's actions getting rid of all the evidence? And at record speed to boot?

I'm curious, what exactly was the previous record for removing the debris of the Twin Towers?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I'm curious, what exactly was the previous record for removing the debris of the Twin Towers?

How about at least long enough for the fire inspectors take a look at it?

Long enough so Fire Engineering magizine doesnt ask the mayer to "stop destroying the evidence?

First time a steel and concrete building fell by fire and three fell that day, we needed at least a year to look at all the evidence.

Someone burns you house down, you want everything just trucked off to the city dump? Or do you want to catch the arson that burned it down?

Edit to add: Someone mentioned earlier that if I believed our Gov. was behind 9/11, that I move. This is MY country and I AM a TRUE BLUE AMERICAN, I put MY life on the line for other AMERICANS not so some corrupt government officials can get fat.

THIS I WILL DEFEND WITH MY LIFE! For I am an AMERICAN, and not some corporate facsist!

[edit on 19-5-2006 by LoneGunMan]

ThatsJustWeird... come off it dude. I'm sure even you understand the points that I was making but rather than deal with them head-on you attempt to laugh them off.

This wasn't about reenacting crashing a plane into a tower. It was about physical analysis of the structure to determine exactly HOW it failed. You're daft if you think that isn't important. Build stronger skyscrapers? How? They thought WTC was strong but have no information to determine how TO make them stronger.

And what was the previous record of removing debris. I don't believe there is one. As a matter of fact I'm not sure there is another example of removing crime scene debris before the investigation... ever.



[edit on 19-5-2006 by jtma508]

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
How about at least long enough for the fire inspectors take a look at it?

Long enough so Fire Engineering magizine doesnt ask the mayer to "stop destroying the evidence?

First time a steel and concrete building fell by fire and three fell that day, we needed at least a year to look at all the evidence.

lol
1. You're not being realistic. NYC is one of the busiest cities on earth, you don't just leave thousands (over a million actually) of tons of debris just lying in the streets. You take it some place then sort it out. They do this with plane crashes and other huge accidents like that.

2. The DID take just about a year to sift through the rubble and investigate.
english.people.com.cn...
www.taylor-recycling.com...
www.firehouse.com...
www.nd.edu...

3. Where did you get that they just got rid of the rubble and debris? Who says it's not (for the most part - I know they recycled some) still there?

Yes, they DID take a year sifting through the debris. For what? They were looking for body parts and other perosnal items left behind. This had nothing to do with structural analysis.

Sift

Do I think they should have left it lying in the streets? Come on. It could have been shipped most anywhere until an investigation could be completed or in the very least until independent engineers could extract the pertinent components for further analysis. But once it left for Shanghai that was that.

Bloomberg said, "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do," said Bloomberg, a former engineering major. "Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."

Unfortunately, if Bloomberg was right there would be a single consensus in the engineering community and the 9/11 Commission wouldn't be shrugging its shoulders when asked about WTC 7.