It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Evidence Of Explosives Hurling 4ton Wall Sections on Winter Gardens Roof

page: 9
18
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
5- or maybe blast effects can be attributed to the air being pushed out of the building. Remember that? You called that investigation to be "futile". Well lucky enough for you, Bazant already has:

In spite of these uncertainties, it is clear that the exit air speed is of the order of 500 mph and
that its fluctuations must reach the speed of sound. This must, of course, create sonic booms,
which are easily mistaken for explosions

The motion of the air is not horizontal in the collapse. The air would be moving with the collapse.

Also, you have yet to prove that these air speeds have enough force to hurl the wall sections 500+ feet. Especially since you are calculating the air speed escaping the windows and not the pressure of said air hitting these wall sections.

Hence why what you are attempting to illustrate is futile because the two do not directly correlate.

Why are you guys calculating that ALL the air was condensed into the spot right beside the core to get a speed of 500 mph rushing out the windows?

The air that is 2 feet from the windows would have a different speed as the air close to the core.

Air 2 feet away = 2/.02 = 100 feet/sec = 68 mph

Air 30 feet from windows = 30/.02 = 1,022 mph

Also, you guys are calculating that the building was hermetically sealed and no air could escape the top and through the bottom.

I'm done with you Seymour as I have extended my hand to you plenty of times only to have it bit.

BTW, nice job at botching that quote.

The air ejected from the
building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 mph
(or 223 m/s, or 803 km/h) on the average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound.
This explains the loud booms

Also, "must have" doesn't sound too convincing. If they are so confident in their analysis, why the non-descript verbiage?

[edit on 12/20/2008 by Griff]

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Griff

1-Also, you have yet to prove that these air speeds have enough force to hurl the wall sections 500+ feet.

2-Also, you guys are calculating that the building was hermetically sealed and no air could escape the top and through the bottom.

1- he makes no claims of the air blowing the columns 500'. He does it to explain the way concrete debris, dust, etc can be blown out like was observed.

2- no, he doesn't. He addresses this in his paper and takes it into account. At any rate, it proves that your assertion that these are "futile" to be false.

And what are you talking about - extending yor hand? i've done the same, and you have dug in your heels regarding doing any real research and/or analysis. I have no clue WHY you do this.

And there's still no calcs about how much explosive would be needed to blow an ext column, even using TNT. I've done them. The results might surprise you if you did.

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Griff

One of my other working theories is that the jet fuel created a natural FAE much like a thermobaric. If it splashed down to the sub-basements and then the fumes slowly made their way to the impact fires.

No hand extending?

Here, I'll help you out here, to steer you on the correct path.

Diesel and kerosene fumes don't explode. Gasoline fumes can however.

You can put out a match in a cup of diesel or kerosene, because the fumes can't ignite. Not so with gas.

Mythbusters did a bit on this, to counter the nonsense like what is found in the Die Hard film at the end when Willis throws a flare on the jet fuel trail and the plane explodes. Can't happen in real life. They could barely even get the jet fuel and diesel to burn, much less zoom along the trail left by a remote controlled car. The gas trail worked, however.

So you can throw this working theory out, IMHO.

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And there's still no calcs about how much explosive would be needed to blow an ext column, even using TNT. I've done them. The results might surprise you if you did.

Did you take into account that you believe ZERO was used to achieve this result?

Therefore, wouldn't ANY additional amount of TNT just going to make it happen easier?

Why calculate a column that is at rest and not going through deformations and forces from above? Just so it makes the calculations appear to be valid?

Bottom line is that you believe ZERO lbs. of TNT can achieve it. So ANY additional amount will work in your case. Period. I can't understand why you continue to deny this.

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
No hand extending?

Here, I'll help you out here, to steer you on the correct path.

Diesel and kerosene fumes don't explode. Gasoline fumes can however.

You can put out a match in a cup of diesel or kerosene, because the fumes can't ignite. Not so with gas.

Mythbusters did a bit on this, to counter the nonsense like what is found in the Die Hard film at the end when Willis throws a flare on the jet fuel trail and the plane explodes. Can't happen in real life. They could barely even get the jet fuel and diesel to burn, much less zoom along the trail left by a remote controlled car. The gas trail worked, however.

So you can throw this working theory out, IMHO.

You might want to tell that to the NTSB then.

It was August 22, 2000 when the NTSB released their official 'probable cause' of the crash of TWA Flight 800, which occurred more than four years earlier.

The cause of the 1996 crash, the NTSB concluded, was an explosion in the aged aircraft's center fuel tank.

"The bottom line is that our investigation confirmed that the fuel-air vapor in the center wing tank was flammable at the time of the accident, and that a fuel-air explosion with Jet A fuel was more than capable of generating the pressure needed to break apart the center wing tank and destroy the airplane," Bernard Loeb, then Director of Aviation Safety at the NTSB, said at the hearing.

www.iasa.com.au...

[edit on 12/20/2008 by Griff]

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 03:09 PM
It appears that I am not the only one who has been thinking along these lines also.

The following is an essay on the possible causes of the World Trade Center collapse and possible means to prevent similar occurrences. The essay is based on my experience and knowledge gained in the NYC Fire Dept as I rose through the ranks to Battalion Chief and the Nassau County Fire Departments, to Deputy Chief Instructor, Nassau County Fire Training Academy, and my work as a building Safety Director in numerous high-rise buildings in NYC. It is written for builders, architects, and civil engineers and attempts to give some perspective on fire dynamics relating to building construction. The details are my opinions and are written to stimulate debate and improve the Fire and Building codes and their enforcement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidently the crashing plane parts or the fuel air explosion destroyed some of the wall enclosures of the stairways and elevator shafts and cut off escape from above by filling the stairways with debris and heated toxic smoke. The elevators were also disabled due to shaft destruction and flaming jet fuel, pouring down the shafts. Tests should be developed to determine whether the impact load of a fuel vapor air explosion alone or of a hose stream could affect the integrity of the �shaftwall� gypsum board, enclosing the stairways and elevator shafts. If an ordinary natural gas or smoke explosion, or the impact of an interior or exterior hose stream could affect the integrity of stairways or elevator shafts than then this type of �shaftwall�gypsum board construction should not be allowed for such use

in any public building. As building heights increase more effective protection for exit way enclosures such as reinforced masonry or concrete should be required throughout.

www.icivilengineer.com...

NIST also states that firefighters witnessed pools of jet fuel in the elevator shafts. Thanks Cameron.

Why is it not possible to have a fuel air explosion? Maybe the vapors didn't get up far enough until the tower started to collapse and then once the fires reached the vapor it started a chain reaction of FAE down the interior core? Aiding in the global collapse?

[edit on 12/20/2008 by Griff]

posted on Dec, 20 2008 @ 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Diesel and kerosene fumes don't explode.

I'm glad you realise this.

So what was it again that ran down elevator shafts and 'exploded' in the WTC lobby?

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 08:47 AM

Originally posted by ANOK

I'm glad you realise this.

So what was it again that ran down elevator shafts and 'exploded' in the WTC lobby?

I glad you also realize that jet fuel fumes don't explode. Griff seems to think that fumes=vapor.

Liquid fuel and/or droplets DEFLAGRATED in the lobby. Not fumes.

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Griff

Did you take into account that you believe ZERO was used to achieve this result?

Did you take into account that the OP is evidence of explosives......

If you want to propose that 1 lb of explosives flung the ext columns, then go ahead in another thread.

I'm sure your bretheren would love to see their beliefs that only explosives could that being debunked.

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Griff

You might want to tell that to the NTSB then.

Oh dear....

You seem to think that vapor = fumes.

I'm so sorry for you that you believe this is true....

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Griff

Why is it not possible to have a fuel air explosion? Maybe the vapors didn't get up far enough until the tower started to collapse and then once the fires reached the vapor it started a chain reaction of FAE down the interior core? Aiding in the global collapse?

You seem to take the firefighters imprecise characterization of the effects as being "explosions" to be true. They're not, and you know it, so cut it out.

Now, instead of it being "fumes" it has morphed into "vapors"? It must be nice to be a truther, all one needs to do is change your words from post to post, based on a gross misunderstanding of those technical terms and what you've found in your investigoogling, and then think that you've proved your point.

So what's the problem here? ANOK and I both agree that fumes can't explode. Vapor is a different animal.

Why are you so desperate to avoid admitting you're wrong about this that you've now resorted to cherry picking and distortion of terms?

It can't happen. As a "debunker", what reason would I have to deny its feasibility? It would help defuse the insanity that the columns were "blown" by explosives if I could make a case that agrees with you. I cannot.

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I glad you also realize that jet fuel fumes don't explode. Griff seems to think that fumes=vapor.

So does Dictionary.com

fume   /fyum/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fyoom] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, fumed, fum⋅ing.
–noun 1. Often, fumes. any smokelike or vaporous exhalation from matter or substances, esp. of an odorous or harmful nature: tobacco fumes; noxious fumes of carbon monoxide.
2. an irritable or angry mood: He has been in a fume ever since the contract fell through.
–verb (used with object) 3. to emit or exhale, as fumes or vapor: giant stacks fuming their sooty smoke.

dictionary.reference.com...

Main Entry: vapor
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: fumes, mist
Synonyms: breath, condensation, dampness, dew, effluvium, exhalation, fog, gas, haze, miasma, moisture, reek, smog, smoke, steam

thesaurus.reference.com...

Again, anything to argue eh Seymour?

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Oh dear....

You seem to think that vapor = fumes.

I'm so sorry for you that you believe this is true....

Oh dear, you seem to not know the English language or it's definitions.

fume (fym)
n.
1. Vapor, gas, or smoke, especially if irritating, harmful, or strong.
2. A strong or acrid odor.
3. A state of resentment or vexation.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Now, instead of it being "fumes" it has morphed into "vapors"?

I'm very interested in your definition of fume and vapor Seymour. Because i believe YOU are the one who is mistaken.

The two are interchangeable. Jeesh.

[edit on 12/22/2008 by Griff]

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 02:03 PM
Here's more:

Vapor

2. Physics. a gas at a temperature below its critical temperature.

dictionary.reference.com...

Fume

1. To smoke; to throw off fumes, as in combustion or chemical action; to rise up, as vapor.

dictionary.reference.com...

Anything to argue with me Seymour.

Now, I'm really about done with you.

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 02:09 PM

va·por (vpr)
n.
1. Barely visible or cloudy diffused matter, such as mist, fumes, or smoke, suspended in the air.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Shall i continue Seymour?

Edit: I apologize, Seymour, for getting heated.

[edit on 12/22/2008 by Griff]

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 02:35 PM
Wow,

Looks like I'm not the only one who feels fumes and vapor can be interchanged:

A specialist on aviation fuel volatility who asked not to be identified said that jet fuel fumes can even undergo spontaneous ignition under certain conditions. ``If there is a very large volume, the reaction could proceed at a certain rate in the vapor and air,'' he said. ``It may not even need a spark to ignite.''

www.newsday.com...

No cause was determined in the Madrid crash, but officials believe that either an unusual blast of wind tore the left wing off or a stray electrical spark from a fuel-system pump, perhaps triggered by lightning, ignited jet fuel fumes inside the left wing.

www.pulitzer.org...

Sensor Electronics has designed the Electronic Nose detector that monitors fuel fumes, then warns when concentrations reach explosive levels. The detector can sense a wide range of fuels including diesel, aviation gas, jet fuel, paint and lacquer thinners, butane, propane, methane and other hydrocarbons. If fuel fume concentrations reach a potential explosion limit, the detector can automatically turn on exhaust fans, then flood the area with outside air. The detector can trigger alarm lights and horns to evacuate workers in the danger area. Alarms can also be relayed to a remote security office and fire station if desired, the company said.

findarticles.com...

So, jet fuel fumes don't ignite and/or explode eh?

The Allied Pilots Association (APA) union pointed out, however, that these wiring bundles were located near the fuel tanks. A shorted wire could cause an electrical arc, which could ignite jet fuel fumes, potentially creating an explosion in the fuel tanks. It was for this reason, the APA said, that the FAA issued the airworthiness directive [source: Los Angeles Times].

science.howstuffworks.com...

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 02:43 PM

posted by Griff

va·por (vpr)
n.
1. Barely visible or cloudy diffused matter, such as mist, fumes, or smoke, suspended in the air.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Shall i continue Seymour? Or have you been handed your ass enough?

Soon you will be wrong.

Seymour is on hiatus preparing a new dictionary of correct definitions for 9-11 related 21st century words.

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 03:20 PM
And in your industry, beam has a specific meaning. But in common usage, it can have many meanings.

dictionary.reference.com...

1. any of various relatively long pieces of metal, wood, stone, etc., manufactured or shaped esp. for use as rigid members or parts of structures or machines.
2. Building Trades. a horizontal bearing member, as a joist or lintel.
3. Engineering. a rigid member or structure supported at each end, subject to bending stresses from a direction perpendicular to its length.

Now find some info on vapor pressure, and % saturation that it must have to ignite - easy to achieve in a sealed fuel tank - and then explain how it got to that % in a vented situation.

Again, if I thought this had ANY legs to it, I'd be right there with you Griff. It ain't about picking on you or trying to prove you wrong, no matter what I need to say. You already know my thoughts on the 9/11 CR Report, Christ, you even gave me a star for my post.... so you know that I'm NOT shy about going against any "official story".

If I thought NIST should have considered this, I'd say it. But it's a preposterous theory, sorry.

And AGAIN..... you're still ignoring the explosive effects - 150dB
=/- blasts that couldn't be covered up, no matter what you think about how loud the collapse was.

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I glad you also realize that jet fuel fumes don't explode. Griff seems to think that fumes=vapor.
Liquid fuel and/or droplets DEFLAGRATED in the lobby. Not fumes.

'Liquid fuel'? Droplets? DEFLAGRATED?

Do you think by using big words it makes you look like you know what you're talking about lol?

Deflagration is simply a sudden and violent burn, it doesn't explain how it happened. How did that fuel suddenly burn, and how does a deflagration cause explosive damage?

IF burning fuel managed to make its way down sealed elevator shafts, how would it re-ignite and cause an 'explosion'? Which it obviously did, because there was damage that was not consistent with a simple deflagration.

As for 'liquid fuel', and 'droplets' I'm not really sure what your point is? You seem to throw words out there with no explanation as to your point. That seems to me you don't understand what you are trying to say.

Also why don't you explain the difference between fumes and vapor? Oh wait you can't, cause there is none. Fumes are vapor, go back to school genious

Either way mate the fuel down the elevator shafts is unsubstantiated BUNK! You cling onto it because you have nothing else.

[edit on 12/22/2008 by ANOK]

new topics

top topics

18