It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC Visual Explosives ('Squibs')

page: 13
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I have a question about the air pressure theory that a few people are clinging to. If the air pressure was capable of being pushed down to the lower floors, logically this means it was also capable of being pushed upward to the above floors.

So are we to believe that collapsing building debris, a chaotic mess of stone, steal, and other miscelanious objects, somehow fell in a way that was completely airtight, thus forcing the air into the lower floors, rather than evacuating the air through the giant hole in the top of the building produced by the collapse? You must be joking. That's physically impossible.

Talk about illogical conclusions and grasping at straws.





posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Domacles, just stop.

There's no way the building could of been successfully airtight, air rushed both out the basement and out of the top of the building as it was collapsing, that's air pressure for you. Air just didn't get sandwiched in the floors between, get super pressurized but only managed to create a few high length "air jets" out of the sides of the building as it was collapsing through a few windows.

No.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

crazy isnt it? lol almost as crazy as remote controlled airplanes that were flown by a secret shadow govt operating off a publicly available plan drafted 40 years ago into buildings that were consequently rigged with explosives that made so little noise as to be drowned out by the collapse of the building and rigged with such precision that each charge was detonated JUST before the debris would have landed on that floor thereby facilitating a "near free fall" collapse.

yeah, those of us that dont think it was the govt sure are grasping at straws here...


I'm glad that instead of addressing my point, you went on to simply put words in my mouth, and of course, try to change to subject.

It really gives credability to your arguements.



[edit on 12-7-2006 by Athenion]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by Athenion
I have a question about the air pressure theory that a few people are clinging to. If the air pressure was capable of being pushed down to the lower floors, logically this means it was also capable of being pushed upward to the above floors.


yes, it would have also exerted a counter resistance



So are we to believe that collapsing building debris, a chaotic mess of stone, steal, and other miscelanious objects, somehow fell in a way that was completely airtight, thus forcing the air into the lower floors, rather than evacuating the air through the giant hole in the top of the building produced by the collapse? You must be joking. That's physically impossible.


no, it wouldnt be 100% airtight, but the "air leaks" wouldnt be sufficient for the air in the undamaged part of the building to escape at a rate that wouldnt build up pressure.



Talk about illogical conclusions and grasping at straws.



crazy isnt it? lol almost as crazy as remote controlled airplanes that were flown by a secret shadow govt operating off a publicly available plan drafted 40 years ago into buildings that were consequently rigged with explosives that made so little noise as to be drowned out by the collapse of the building and rigged with such precision that each charge was detonated JUST before the debris would have landed on that floor thereby facilitating a "near free fall" collapse.

yeah, those of us that dont think it was the govt sure are grasping at straws here...

id like to meet the demo guys that rigged the building, they are gods. as good as i was after doing heavy demo and eod for the army for 12 years, i couldnt have done it by any stretch of the imagination. and based on my experience, i dont think its possible. but i think ive made that point many times so ill spare ya'll this time


Haha, well said.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion
So are we to believe that collapsing building debris, a chaotic mess of stone, steal, and other miscelanious objects, somehow fell in a way that was completely airtight, thus forcing the air into the lower floors, rather than evacuating the air through the giant hole in the top of the building produced by the collapse? You must be joking. That's physically impossible.


What giant hole? The one plugged up with the chaotic mess of stone, steal, and other miscellaneous objects?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What giant hole? The one plugged up with the chaotic mess of stone, steal, and other miscellaneous objects?


So you're saying that the chaotic mess of stone, steal, and other miscellaneous objects was airtight? Yea, that's physically possible.




posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What giant hole? The one plugged up with the chaotic mess of stone, steal, and other miscellaneous objects?


So you're saying that the chaotic mess of stone, steal, and other miscellaneous objects was airtight? Yea, that's physically possible.



No, It wasn't totally "air tight" but there clearly wasn't a "giant hole" either.



That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.



The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.


source



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
the 'squibs' to ME anyway look a lot more like airjets than explosions (an explosion is omni-directional, the 'squibs' are a very thin linear stream with out a wide angle of expansion close to the building)




More air jets?

Those are thin linear streams, as opposed to omni-directional explosions. But they actually ARE explosive charges, being used in a controlled demolition.



You can find more here: www.implosionworld.com...

[edit on 13-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Athenion

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What giant hole? The one plugged up with the chaotic mess of stone, steal, and other miscellaneous objects?


So you're saying that the chaotic mess of stone, steal, and other miscellaneous objects was airtight? Yea, that's physically possible.



No, It wasn't totally "air tight" but there clearly wasn't a "giant hole" either.



It was an open floor(s) with a failry dense particle system around it. It would have benn a lot closer to the "open hole" end of the spectrum than the "air tight" spectrum. Much like electricity... Air pressure takes the path of least resistance.

[edit on 13-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Damocles
the 'squibs' to ME anyway look a lot more like airjets than explosions (an explosion is omni-directional, the 'squibs' are a very thin linear stream with out a wide angle of expansion close to the building)




More air jets?

Those are thin linear streams, as opposed to omni-directional explosions. But they actually ARE explosive charges, being used in a controlled demolition.



You can find more here: www.implosionworld.com...

[edit on 13-7-2006 by bsbray11]


As pointed out numerous time before...the 'squibs' in that vid start BEFORE any sign of collapse.

Can you provide a clip of the toweres showing 'squibs' before any sign of collapse? If you can, please link to them..if not, the comparision is bogus.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
As pointed out numerous time before...the 'squibs' in that vid start BEFORE any sign of collapse.


The WTC's squibs also emerge before the sections they come from collapse. So how does your argument negate anything?




Originally posted by Damocles
bsb, what i mean is, look at the animation u posted, notice how they puff out and then expand rapidly into almost a ball?


First I thought you said that explosives don't cause thin streams of ejections,


an explosion is omni-directional, the 'squibs' are a very thin linear stream


but now I guess that we've observed the opposite from a known demolition, we've moved on from that to focus on later expansion of these streams.



As you can see there, there obviously was expansion, just as in the controlled demolition I'm comparing these to.

So what difference are we retreating to next? At least try to keep the next ones relevant. :-/

[edit on 13-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

No, It wasn't totally "air tight" but there clearly wasn't a "giant hole" either.



That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.



The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.


source


Um....not to keep pointing out the obvious, but if pressure was building and then exploding, their wouldn't be a blast of air down the stairwells. This indicates that the air in the building was find ways to be vented out.

Once again, I'd just like to make sure that we all understand your claim. Your claim is that a chaotic mess of falling debris (concrete, steel, what have you), fell in such a manner that it couldn't vent enough air, so one window, let's say eight square feet to be exact, had to blow out in order to equalize the pressure.

You're saying that there is no way there was a combined eight square feet of opening in the entire collapse area. Eight square feet.

Man, I wonder if anyone here could calculate the probability of that occuring.

I hope you realize how rediculous you sound.

And so long as we're using quotes from eye witnesses, I suppose you're just going to ignore this one, since it's inconvenient for your arguement.

Video



[edit on 13-7-2006 by Athenion]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
uhhh did u read anything above where u quoted me? secondly i WAS addressing your post, the grasping at straws comment. you stand there and say those of us that dont buy into the CD theory are 'grasping at straws'. ok, based on my own real world experience i feel the cd theory is just a little silly. admittedly, it was very anomolous and ill never say that there wasnt anything shady going on, and SOME of you on the CD side of the fence have raised some VERY excellent points and done some outstanding research (bsb, props to you man) BUT none of it is strong enough to change my view.

where exactly did i put words in your mouth?


Let's see, you put words in my mouthright about here:


Originally posted by Damocles
crazy isnt it? lol almost as crazy as remote controlled airplanes that were flown by a secret shadow govt operating off a publicly available plan drafted 40 years ago into buildings that were consequently rigged with explosives that made so little noise as to be drowned out by the collapse of the building and rigged with such precision that each charge was detonated JUST before the debris would have landed on that floor thereby facilitating a "near free fall" collapse.


I'd like to see where in this discussion we were talking about a shadow government, or a plan drafted 40 years ago.

So instead of arguing the facts, or even arguing about the topic, you use the asanine and all too common tactic of deflect by pointing out ideas that some concpiracy believers espouse, but not all, and certainly not me.

That's like saying "How rediculous to question the obvious flaws in the official story. That's just as outragious as claiming a missle hit the pentagon!" In that case, we agree. i think both theories are similarly outragious and likely incorrect.

So maybe you should try sticking to the topic at hand. That is if you have anything pertinent to say at all.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   


1. Firemen reported (you do believe testimony from firemen don't you?) the whole corner scooped out and raging fires for 20 stories.


The building itself was 47 stories so your saying nearly half the building had raging fires.
I don't see a 20 story fire. (Just Google for a pic of WTC 7 on fire.)



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Sorry, Damocles. I guess I just get in moods from some of the other posters. :-/ No hard feelings? lol


Even with the viciousness taken out of the picture, though, I don't see the differences as being big enough to begin splitting hairs. I don't know what kind of explosives were used and I'm not going to assume anything just for the sake of being able to name something off, but I don't think the explosives were totally conventional. Thermite, for example, isn't something you would typically use in a demo, but that would've only been for the initiations. This is why I don't think the differences (more like difference singular, in how they continue to stream) are, again, worth splitting hairs over. If it walks and talks like a duck... considering all the variations between species of ducks.


And in regards to the duck thing, how many other phenomena can we point to as examples of what the air crowd are suggesting? Is there any precedent for that? Precedent tends to be pretty important with science, especially when the nature of the subject matter prevents much direct experimentation.


Originally posted by Damocles
oh and for those that think "its totally impossible for a pile of debris to be airtight"...tell that to a miner trapped on the wrong side of a cave in


I can see how that would trap air, if materials were piled up blocking the only path for air to travel through.


But there are solid pieces of debris and concrete dust being ejected from the towers as they fall. Why would it be so hard for air to escape the same way, from the same places all those chunks of steel and etc. are coming from?

[edit on 14-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   


The WTC's squibs also emerge before the sections they come from collapse. So how does your argument negate anything?


I'm not argueing anything I'm just pointing out that in the real world of any controlled demo the building being imploded will remain intact until the charges are set off.

This is why I asked for any links to a pic or vid that shows the tower ejecting any 'squibs' prior to any visual evidence of collapse.---there are none.

I think you're trying to create a similarity that doesn't exist.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
Athenion, stop quoting me out of context to try to make me look like a fool.

it demeans you and just annoys me.

oh and for those that think "its totally impossible for a pile of debris to be airtight"...tell that to a miner trapped on the wrong side of a cave in


I'm not trying to make you look like a fool. I'm trying to stop you from changing the subject by pointing out outragious claims that some people make. It doesnm't contribute to the conversation at all.

Funny that you're annoyed after saying something about thick skin...


And I don't think you can compare a mine collapse to the collapse of the twin towers. I guess maybe we should clarify the statement.

It's impossible for falling debris to be airtight.

Air pressure will put torque on objects as they falling, causing them to twist and turn in directions that allow the air to flow through. For example, take a glass, fill it with sand and rocks, and then tape another glass to that one creating an airtight tube. Now flip the glass over. All of the garbage will fall to the bottom of the glass with little to no air resistance.Sure, it's a crude comparison, and I realize the actual occurance was much more complex that this, but it demonstrates the point I'm trying to get across.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Airtight? Whats that have to do with anything? Don't understand the point.



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Airtight? Whats that have to do with anything? Don't understand the point.


The point is that for air pressure to have built up enough to blow out the windows, causing the explosions of dust that we can see at fairly regular intervals, the top of the building where the collapse was occuring would have to have been airtight, preventing the air from being vented up and out the collapse area, necesitating the explosion of the windows.

If the collapse debris was not airtight, there would have been no airpressure buildup, therefore the explosions must have been squibs.

Unless someone would like to present a third explanation for these explosions.

Editted for spelling.

[edit on 14-7-2006 by Athenion]



posted on Jul, 14 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Why doesn't anybody ever mention WATER!! Lots of water and lots more pressure than air. 1 psi per 27.7" of water so figure the pressures and volumes out.

mikell

Explaniation #3

[edit on 14-7-2006 by mikellmikell]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join