Originally posted by rush969
1.- All things, when falling down, go in the direction of the center of the Earth. And this is caused by gravity. If the falling object or mass, hits something on the way down, it´s direction will be affected, but it will have the tendency to continue going down. The tilting of part of the building is caused in part because there´s NO DEMOLITION happening. The building starts failing in a way that would be undesirable in a demolition, but then gravity takes over and forces that mass to go towards the center of the Earth, instead of continuing to incline itself. This simply being IMPOSIBLE.

So basically you're saying that the tilting (which I agree was an undesired effect) could not possibly have continued (no reason why), so therefore the whole building below must be destroyed? Not following the reasoning, sorry.

Speaking in a technical sense, why exactly can the building not continue to tilt? What's the safety net that you think is going to stop it, once it's already tilted outwards 15 degrees and developed every bit of angular momentum expected from that? Nothing has stopped it so far, so what stops it now? Do you think it's going to somehow maintain it's rigid shape and not fold onto itself and start falling over the side? It already had become essentially a trapezoid the instant it started tilting. This angular momentum was caused by gravity because the electromagnetic forces in the bonds holding the building together below still required a greater magnitude of energy to move through, and it wouldn't budge. Common sense stuff. Then why did the building below suddenly give way symmetrically, and on all four faces at once, and not suggestive of being the result of leaning onto one side of the structure? I could go on and on with things that have not been addressed and do not make sense with or are not explained by NIST's model, etc.

2.- This is just confusing the progressive collapse, with a demolition.
That progressive collapse produces the extraordinary forces that you see in the video expelling, or throwing out some of the structure elements, and lots of debris.

You say this like it's an established fact, when nothing like that had ever happened before 9/11.

The information from the reports you are basing that statement on, is what we are arguing about. And you still haven't provided any evidence of it. Not even NIST analyzed the global collapses, ie 99% of them.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
excluding the some freight elevators, most elevators and all stairs only sent about 25-30 stories at a time, considering this when compressing the air, it would have traveled down these stories when reaching the end of the stairs per say it would have nowhere to go fast, at this point bursting out at the weakest point being a window

Those shafts were all inside of the core. Do you know how far anything would have to travel to get to the core to the perimeter? And you realize air will begin to decompress immediately as soon as it reaches any less dense air, which is in 360 degrees in 3 dimensions once it reaches open floor.

Originally posted by Razimus
It could just as easily be windows exploding and shooting debree due to the fire itself, and if it wasn't that, it could've been people inside those offices purposely who purposely broke the window so they could breathe, the smoke coming out simply being the smoke from inside getting out

You haven't really looked at these things, have you?




I think the buildings were something like 208 feet wide. That stuff (including large pieces of solid debris) is being blown out at least 50 feet laterally.

Originally posted by Razimus
But how do you know those are the result of a bomb or dynamite?

Had you done any research into the controlled demolition industry, or just simply sat all day and watched controlled demoltion videos to see what they look like and how they work, you would know that you only find squibs in controlled demolition.

The squibs are a direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated.

You can sit there and make every excuse in the book to explain the squibs away and make yourself sleep better at night, but you will never find those squibs anywhere else but controlled demolitions.

And you, or any other debunker, will never believe it unless you can come to terms with knowing that certain sections of our government (military industrial complex) planned and carried out 9/11.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

posted by bsbray11
So, do you want to talk about NIST's work then? That's what it sounds like to me.

How much do you know about it? Can you explain what their hypothesis was for a collapse initiation, and then show me how they proved it? Because I know it isn't in those reports, because they never tested their final hypothesis. And also they didn't analyze the vast majority of the "collapses," ie everything that came after the "initiations." Do you think it makes any difference that they didn't validate their hypothesis, or can you show where they did validate it?

posted by rush969

The references that I provide are quite complete with the answers that you seek.
In the web site of NIST you can find lots more info. On the same subjects.
You can find it just going to those sites. And there are lots more.

Top-Down Demolition and Squibs



No you cannot. Your pretending that NIST went beyond the collapse iniation does not make it so. The government loyalists do not care if NIST did not bother to validate their hypothesis. They desperately need to defend the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY no matter the NIST lies and stupid errors they have been exposed and trapped in.

Top-Down Demolition and Squibs North Tower



YOUR 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is dead and top-down explosive demolition of the WTC Towers is the most likely mechanism. The hundreds of early TV newscasts which were shown once and then immediately and permanently censored from the American public were filled with statements of explosions at the lower levels and observed demolition.

Top-Down Demolition and Squibs South Tower



The beginning of the top-down demolition of the South Tower is at the base of the 30 story toppling block and 7-10 stories above these squibs we can see here blasting out of the building in parallel alignment.

The big problems with the "squibs" idea are these:

1) They are too haphazardly scattered around the building. The whole purpose of squibs is to evenly destroy the supports and columns to allow for more control. You do not at random times and in random places set off explosives
2) They appear in only one or two windows, and if anyone has a clue about how each floor was designed, it doesn't follow physics at all and explosives can't pick one window to "explode" out of, considering the floor space size and location of windows.
3) These so-called "squibs" don't behave like explosives at all. Once again, some people tend to forget how explosives behave. Explosives explode, and when they do, the blast wave initially starts at a high velocity and immediately slows down after it has reached a certain distance away from the initial detonation. It starts fast and slows down exponentially. These "squibs" show a more gentle "squirt" of air and debris and actually gain speed before getting buried by the collapse. Explosive waves do not speed up. Squib explosions do not pick up speed after detonation. They explode with a certain velocity and immediately begin to slow down.

Originally posted by rush969
PERFECTLY AND CLEARLY EXPLAINED!!!

Yeah, not even close.

Originally posted by GenRadek
The whole purpose of squibs is to evenly destroy the supports and columns to allow for more control. You do not at random times and in random places set off explosives

Squibs are high-powered explosives used to take out the core of a building, or it's main supports. Then smaller explosives are used for the rest of the job, but this will vary as no two demolitions are the same.

No where in either WTC tower were squibs detonated at random times or in random places. Whatever initiated the collapse of both towers, squibs are seen just after collapse initiation near the initiation area, then follow down the building as the building is collapsing. You will also notice that the squibs are coming from the center of the towers as that's where the core is, and the core absolutely had to be taken out or the buildings would not have collapsed.



You'll notice in my collage that the squibs are, in fact, coming from the center of the WTC towers. If you take a look at the implosionworld.com image in the collage, you'll notice those squibs are also detonated from top to bottom, and they are not evenly spaced, but they're close to even. Squibs are placed in strategic locations and do not necessarily have to be evenly spaced.

Originally posted by GenRadek
if anyone has a clue about how each floor was designed, it doesn't follow physics at all and explosives can't pick one window to "explode" out of, considering the floor space size and location of windows

As I said above, the squibs are high-powered explosives designed to take out the strongest supports of a building and in the WTC, it would be the core. Smaller and different types of explosives would have dealt with the floors.

Originally posted by GenRadek
It starts fast and slows down exponentially. These "squibs" show a more gentle "squirt" of air and debris and actually gain speed before getting buried by the collapse

Every type of demo is different. There are also many different types of explosives that can be used in demo.

The way an explosive acts is proportionate to it's size, type, and material it has to travel through. Do you honestly think that if 9/11 was an inside job like the evidence suggests, that they would use conventional explosives or make it that much more obvious?

Just because the squibs don't behave like you think they should behave, doesn't mean they're still not there. You will never find those squibs anywhere outside of a controlled demolition and I challenge anyone to prove that wrong.

You can do absolutely anything you want to any building with the right type of explosives. The WTC was not a "controlled" demolition, but it was a type of demolition that used explosives to bring the buildings down. Here's another picture showing similiarities to the WTC demo that shows you can do anything to a building with the right explosives placed in the right locations and detonated at the right times:




[edit on 24-1-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by GenRadek
They are too haphazardly scattered around the building. The whole purpose of squibs is to evenly destroy the supports and columns to allow for more control. You do not at random times and in random places set off explosives

Can you prove they are coming out in random places?

Or, will you just tell me my question is somehow wrong and repeat yourself?

They appear in only one or two windows, and if anyone has a clue about how each floor was designed, it doesn't follow physics at all and explosives can't pick one window to "explode" out of, considering the floor space size and location of windows.

You have a point but at the same time you debunk any replacement theory that I can think of. Any kind of fluid that is traveling under compression would behave the same way. Explosives would actually be MORE directed and MORE powerful than compressed air (an explosion IS compressed air, just very extremely so), which doesn't travel in any particular direction but simply decompresses into wherever the air is less dense. So, you're saying compressed air came out of a shaft in the core and traveled all the way across the office floors to blow out 1 or 2 windows? Same problem as you have with these being explosives, except even worse now. You probably don't understand this.

These so-called "squibs" don't behave like explosives at all.

Not high explosives, like TNT or C4, you are correct.

Still no one has explained what they are.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by GenRadek
First off, from your one picture, we see only two jets of debris coming out.

Whatever image you're talking about may show two of them, but for the record many more unique events were captured on photos and in video. Just saying.

The core is inside the tower. Any explosives on the core would have been evenly ejected out every window at that location.

Oh man, this is a laugh. Can I see how you figured this out?



"The core" consists of 47 different columns. For all we know, each column could have had its own device specifically for destroying it. Say the ones along the outer perimeter happened to have charges (or whatever type of device) directed towards the perimeter of the building. That's only one example of a countless number of scenarios I could think of demonstrating how your assumption would be wrong. In fact, it would have to be one tremendous bomb explosion to come out all windows from within the core at once. That's about the only way what your saying would happen. And that would be pretty damned obvious to anyone watching, wouldn't you think?

It will not, I repeat, it will NOT squirt out in a single jet considering the fact that the floor is wide and open.

This is why compressed air coming down shafts in the core would not blow out of the perimeter like that. Explosives have much more velocity and force to them. They would be responsible for this sooner than air compressed by falling debris, ie not compressed at all.

Again, since when do explosives create a jet of air that INCREASES in velocity after detonation?

Not all explosive devices have the same detonation velocities and shock wave envelopes. C4 detonates quick and makes a sharp "crack," while thermobarics can go off in stages and make low booms. Think in terms of physics, not the different kinds of explosives you know of, which is certainly going to be much more limited than a military experts, for example.

But if they are fom inside at the core,

Who said they were coming from inside the core? How could you tell? Maybe they're coming from the outermost columns of the core towards the perimeter. And how do you even know these devices wouldn't be powerful enough to cause these even then, since we still have no idea what they are?

Also notice the core is just 4 walls when viewed from outside, basically. Four walls with openings for the hallways that snake between the elevator shafts, bathrooms, offices, etc. If explosions were rocking the core, another possibility is that they would only be able to "vent" towards the perimeter through those hallway openings. They would still have to be very fast and have a lot of force to travel all the way to the windows, though.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by rush969
When all the arguments are gone they will come out with ANYTHING that will explain what they want.

There are no arguments to be "gone" with. Debunkers are the only one's arguing and trying to make up anything they can to explain what happened so they can sleep at night, all while denying all available evidence.

Originally posted by rush969
New, secret, unknown technology explosives.

Do you honestly think you know everything our military has? You don't know the half of it.

Originally posted by rush969
Mini-nukes, energy beams, etc.

The professional research organizations of the 9/11 truth movement do not support these claims and should not be stereotypical of the whole truth movement.

Originally posted by rush969
the inner core was still standing after a good part of the collapse had gone through.

If you were well versed in the real evidence, you would know that only a fraction of the width and height of the cores were standing after collapse. But what happened after both collapses were done? The cores fell straight down, not falling over to either side.

So, you can spin the truth and make things up to help you sleep better at night, but evidence is evidence and it can't be denied.