Looks like dust flying out to me. I don't think pancaking is the official story anyways.

Originally posted by ccaihc
I don't think pancaking is the official story anyways.

So everything's alright then, right?

Do you even know what the "official story" is, or do you just assume it's right just because it's on your side of the fence, and belongs to you good guys?

I believe it's totally feasible that in a fully airconditoned building of that size with no openable windows the pressurisation of the collapse at the top would be conducted down the elevator shafts and find its way out at the weakest points by blowing out windows.

Wasn't the elevator arrangement in the towers staggered? I suggest those floors exhibiting blowouts are the bottom end of shafts directly connected to the falling section in the pic.

Just my theory

I just question who's really benefitting from all the theories surrounding this tragic event IE what is it really deflecting attention away from?

High level incompetency perhaps?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I believe it's totally feasible that in a fully airconditoned building of that size with no openable windows the pressurisation of the collapse at the top would be conducted down the elevator shafts and find its way out at the weakest points by blowing out windows.

1) The buildings weren't airtight as their columns were being flung through the air floor-by-floor.

2) If what you're saying is true then windows would be blowing out much higher up much sooner than they would be blowing out 50+ floors below the collapse wave.

Wasn't the elevator arrangement in the towers staggered?

The local elevator groups all terminated on the same floor, and there were only two of these floors above the lobby in each building.

Human waste and water. Do the math 1 PSI per 27.7 inches of height then all hell brakes loose on the safeties and holding tanks. thousands of gallons of human waste.


mikell

Then there may be other randomising factors at work like elevators locked in their shafts by the safety brakes which would cause the obstructions which would divert the air to a weaker point such as a window on otherwise intact levels at that stage of the collapse.

Nothing of this scale ever happened before so I tend to expect the unexpected outcomes to be evident in abundance (as they were)

I've heard the comment many times before that the ejection of material (commonly referred to as "squibs" by the "hang 'em high community") is caused by the air pressure created by the collapsing floors above.

Personally I think that air pressure built up by the impending collapse of a floor would be instantly released at the moment of collapse and would travel upward around the pieces of the collapsing floor.

The notion that the collapsing floor would act piston-like to force a large volume of air downward as it collapsed is something that belongs in a cartoon animation studio, not in the analysis of a real building collapse.

take a ballon....put it against the ground...and press on it...what shape does the balloon take...and what direction does the shape mostly go?

or press against anything....the object will bulge away from the pressure...

[edit on 6-8-2007 by wenfieldsecret]

I see what you are saying and it is plausible.

If there were no detonation sequence characteristic of a controlled demolition and if there were no other signs of a controlled demolition, if the collapse had only progressed through, say fifty or so floors, as with the collapse in Madrid, and if the wreckage were not trailing copious amounts of smoke as it fell, I could really see your position. If all the concrete and contents of the building had not been pulverized it would make perfect sense that a few windows on lower floors might pop from pressure in a climate controlled building.

The problem is that preponderance of the evidence points to those puffs being the sign of demolition squibs.

[edit on 8-8-2007 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Nothing of this scale ever happened before so I tend to expect the unexpected outcomes to be evident in abundance (as they were)

Not to pick on you but I hear this alot. They thrive because of thinking like this. Physics is physics.

The notion that the collapsing floor would act piston-like to force a large volume of air downward as it collapsed is something that belongs in a cartoon animation studio, not in the analysis of a real building collapse.

You really need to go back to school. Hopefully you are still a student and the quote above can be attributed to that.

If not......this is a perfect example of the US's failing school system.

Please elaborate. Don't deprive us of your wisdom scholarly one. I'm long out of school but willing to learn.

[edit on 8-8-2007 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ferretman2
You really need to go back to school. Hopefully you are still a student and the quote above can be attributed to that.

If not......this is a perfect example of the US's failing school system.

Really? Let's look at what you guys are saying.

OK. Take an airtight container (preferably square). Cut out a hole near the base and cover the hole with aluminum foil (or anything that is weaker than the container). Now, take a sheet of plywood and cut it with a gap at the ends (simulating the non airtight wall connections at the perimeter) and also a hole in the middle (simulating the non-airtight connections at the core and the core itself). Now place a screen on the plywood and try to compress the air in the container enough to fail the "window". Can it be done? Or would the air go through the least resistance of the open parts of the top? Seriously think about this folks.