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: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Yeah but at that type of air pressure in the building Howard, if it was enough to knock that guy off his feet, wouldn't it cause substantial damage to the windows and cause a lot of blow outs on a global scale rather than just a few isolated incidents on the lower floors?




posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The building was 95% air. That air had to go somewhere.


The building was composed of 95% air?

Source, please?

I think you need to learn the difference between mass and area. Not that either figure is even relevant here in the first place.

Saying all the air in the building had to go somewhere is hardly any excuse for the physical problems of what you're suggesting. They've been posted. You just don't address them. Doesn't mean they've gone away, Howie. Just shows how selective you are in your two-line posts.


Have you ever seen demolition charges go off? They don't form long lasting jets of dust.


Oh I beg to differ.



1) That is a demolition.
2) There are streams of dust coming out of the side.

How long those last in the air is more dependent upon how much dust, etc. there is than anything else.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   
The squibs still don't get explained away as just released air pressure, still have an explanation?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The building was 95% air. That air had to go somewhere.


The building was composed of 95% air?

Source, please?


4 inch slabs plus another couple of inches for ducts, ceiling tiles, etc. hell I'll give you a foot.

12 feet span floor to floor, 1/12=.08 bulk and .92 air.

OK, 92% air.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
The squibs still don't get explained away as just released air pressure,


Why not? It's a perfectly logical explanation.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Yeah but at that type of air pressure in the building Howard, if it was enough to knock that guy off his feet, wouldn't it cause substantial damage to the windows and cause a lot of blow outs on a global scale rather than just a few isolated incidents on the lower floors?


You have proof that it didn't?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Have you ever seen demolition charges go off? They don't form long lasting jets of dust.


Oh I beg to differ.



1) That is a demolition.
2) There are streams of dust coming out of the side.

How long those last in the air is more dependent upon how much dust, etc. there is than anything else.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by bsbray11]


The building is already falling in that picture. The demo charges have gone off well before that. Those are streams of dust from the collapsing floors.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Why just one or two windows in each area? If there was that much pressure being thrown down through the buildings, and the "squib" was from air pressure, wouldn't such a force be enough to knock out a bunch of windows around the area being compressed?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Were some of those from the air intakes on mechanical floors?

On other floors, there were probably windows that were weaker than the others. Those windows were built to withstand hurcaine force winds, but some of them would have weakened over time. It happens all the time.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The building was 95% air. That air had to go somewhere.


The building was composed of 95% air?


It is a distortion implying that the structure was made from air when it simply contained air.

The core walls exploding many floors up would cause a large draft in the stairwell below.

Another distortion.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Those windows were built to withstand hurcaine force winds, but some of them would have weakened over time. It happens all the time.


"all or nothing thinking". "overgeneralization" "minimizing".

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Christophera]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christophera

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The building was 95% air. That air had to go somewhere.


The building was composed of 95% air?


It is a distortion implying that the structure was made from air when it simply contained air.



Where did I state that the building was made of air?

Your mind is totally warped.




Originally posted by HowardRoark
Those windows were built to withstand hurcaine force winds, but some of them would have weakened over time. It happens all the time.


"all or nothing thinking". "overgeneralization" "minimizing".

[edit on 27-6-2006 by Christophera]

Look who's calling the kettle black!



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Were some of those from the air intakes on mechanical floors?

On other floors, there were probably windows that were weaker than the others. Those windows were built to withstand hurcaine force winds, but some of them would have weakened over time. It happens all the time.



So as the building was pancaking down, the basement/lobby area was being flooded with a huge air draft that was being used as sort of a relief for the air pressure. I don't understand how the pressure could still be enough through out the whole building to cause huge jets of air being shot out of those areas.

It just doesn't seem to make sense. Howard clarify more on how you believe this could be possible.

That the lobby area suffering from a huge draft of air, with the air pressure being released there and still yet have various windows "weakened" in the WTC to allow huge spouts of what doesn't even look like air to be vented into the atmosphere.

If the pressure was that strong coming down through the building, and some of that was being "relieved" through the accused squibs, then why weren't there more blow outs. That's a lot of air pressure to knock someone off their feet that far. And each floor is pretty contained of air.

Clarify.. by all means.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
4 inch slabs plus another couple of inches for ducts, ceiling tiles, etc. hell I'll give you a foot.

12 feet span floor to floor, 1/12=.08 bulk and .92 air.

OK, 92% air.


Howard. That's not mass. That's area.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
The building is already falling in that picture. The demo charges have gone off well before that. Those are streams of dust from the collapsing floors.


Oh, ok. So high explosive detonations don't cause those puffs then?



Either way, unless you are arguing that C4 detonations alone don't cause dust streams, which is an insanely trivial and asinine argument to begin with, you're wrong. It's not a complicated issue.


On other floors, there were probably windows that were weaker than the others. Those windows were built to withstand hurcaine force winds, but some of them would have weakened over time. It happens all the time.


The squibs were far from limited to mech floors.

I could post some images to prove this for you if you'd like, but I know you've seen them before and just ignore them, so I figure why bother anymore.


Where did I state that the building was made of air?


When you said the building was 95% air.

Technically, you are implying 95% of the mass was air. Hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete made up 5% of the buildings? Hardly.

That's why I keep saying you should learn the difference between mass and area. Or even one better -- realize that this has no bearing on any of the arguments at hand.

[edit on 27-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowardRoark
4 inch slabs plus another couple of inches for ducts, ceiling tiles, etc. hell I'll give you a foot.

12 feet span floor to floor, 1/12=.08 bulk and .92 air.

OK, 92% air.


Howard. That's not mass. That's area.


No, I never said it was mass. And it's not area, It's volume.

The building was 90% or so air by volume. There, you happy?


[edit on 27-6-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No, I never said it was mass. And it's not area, It's volume.


Ah I was thinking 2D. My bad.


The building was 90% or so air by volume. There, you happy?


Sure. Now entertain us with how that proves that we're seeing violent bursts of pulverized material coming out of windows 50 stories below the collapse waves.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I still have a big issue with the idea that it was some form of demolition planned well in advance.

I have witnessed first hand a 34 story hotel being demo'd and I actually talked to one of the demolition engineers about it (I had an interest in civil engineering back in high school ... I loved seeing things built and torn down
). I had been able to go around the building the day before, but not inside the fenced-off areas that held the highest probabilities for debris fall out (no matter what ANYONE says, demolition engineering is NOT an exact science). From my vantage point I could see alot of missing windows, spray painted numbers/lines everywhere, and some beams and brick missing. I asked the engineer about it and he said the only way a building of that magnitude would fall would be with pre-calculated cuts in beams and supports and even detonating small charges weeks ahead of the demo. He explained to me that the reason I couldn't go any closer (hehe I was 17 and anxious to get up and close) was that the structure had weakened so much from all the pre-demo work that any part of it could really fail at any time. He said the actual "demo" was nothing more than clean up to chop the building into small enough pieces to remove economically.

Granted, this is only my personal experience and really doesn't directly refute the planned demo conspiracy presented here. It is just my belief that a building of 113? floors would have taken so much time/work/visability to PROPERLY DEMO TO THE POINT OF PERFECT DOWNWARD COLLAPSE that it isn't a possible explanation for the towers' falls.

And one last thing ... I don't see how the squib issue could be convincing evidence one way or another in this debate. Building collapses (whether demo'd or natural) have so many variables that it's near impossible to know what is caused by the charges and what is caused by the collapse itself.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Even though it's a bit off subject and belongs in demo threads, the construction of the WTC, as Howard has pointed out sometimes is unique. I even firmly believe you wouldn't need too much demo work on a building that size to bring it down, just have to cause a great enough force from above to take down the rest of the building below.

Just remember the WTC 1 and 2 were tubular. Who knows about the process though of how the building was rigged over what time span, as most of the files pertaining to anything like such were in the WTCs and thus being.. lost.

But let's jump back to the squib subject here, it's indeed interesting.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Why just one or two windows in each area? If there was that much pressure being thrown down through the buildings, and the "squib" was from air pressure, wouldn't such a force be enough to knock out a bunch of windows around the area being compressed?


Howard.

Masisoar has asked a very simple question that should be answered, but you haven't.


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Were some of those from the air intakes on mechanical floors?

On other floors, there were probably windows that were weaker than the others. Those windows were built to withstand hurcaine force winds, but some of them would have weakened over time. It happens all the time.


Try and do that.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz
It is just my belief that a building of 113? floors would have taken so much time/work/visability to PROPERLY DEMO TO THE POINT OF PERFECT DOWNWARD COLLAPSE that it isn't a possible explanation for the towers' falls.


You are absolutely correct, which is why the building was built to demolish.

algoxy.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
the squibs are unexplainable, except for by explosives. anything else is just pretending.

there was no 'syringe' that can localise air pressure across a 35 or 60 foot air space, and still knock out a window.

incidentally, and aside...

i was recently reminded of a BIZARRE death in toronto( a few years back). a lawyer would constantly 'brag' about how strong the windows were at the toronto dominion bank tower. he would have guests in his office, and he would throw himself full force into the window.

one day, it wasn't so strong, and he plunged several storeys to his death. he apparently would pummel the window ALL THE TIME, and it was only after repeated abuse like this that the window gave out.

there is some GREAT demo info on this thread. cheers to those providing it. i especially found it fascinating that demo crews continuously weaken a structure before they 'pull it'.

what do you think, howard? do you think EXPLOSIVES could cause SQUIBS? or no?

hee hee!




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join