WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

page: 26
104
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Here you go slugger
www.youtube.com...




posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


But that "squib" is acting nothing like any explosive I've ever seen exploding. For one thing, since when do explosives accelerate after detonation? Its like the velocity is increasing, but that is not how an explosive works. The initial detonation has very high velocities, that immediately slow down exponentially. They do not explode, and then have the blast wave accelerate as time increases. Certainly not two, three seconds after detonation. This is more akin to a jet of air that is being forced down and out from the collapse.

Remember, all that air in the building has to go somewhere. Have you ever stood in a subway tunnel? Ever notice how there is a rush of air as the train is approaching, sometimes as much as 30-40 seconds away from leaving the tunnel? All that air is being pushed out ahead of the train. Now its obvious that there is plenty of room around the train itself in the tunnel, but what if that train filled the entire tunnel space? All that air in front of the train does not disappear. Its like a syringe. Same effect at the WTC during the collapses. All that air on each floor had to go somewhere. Some went through the elevator shafts, some through the stairwells, others through windows, and some straight up. That is what you are seeing with that mis-ID'ed "squib". Its not a squib. Its just a jet air that is accelerating as the collapse is approaching that floor.

Remember, explosions do not explode and keep blowing out a jet of air over time. It is a quick blast of air, and the blast wave slows down immedately after detonation. It does not speed up after detonation and keeps accelerating over time after detonation.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 



so the air pressure blew the up to fifty ton pieces of steel 600 feet?
the length of two football fields, RIGHT?

the parabolic ejection of steel is noe the result of air pressure.
I hopw you do not also believe that the hot steel from the fire caused by the kerosene kept the debris pile hot for months do you?


Incorrect.

Did you forget how tall the WTC Towers were? Are you aware of the design of the WTC's exterior columns? When the floors collapsed internally, they severed the connection between the floor trusses and the exterior. When the connections were lost, the exterior was no longer being held in place. It then basically behaved like a tall tree that started to fall over. The exterior columns toppled over and fell, some falling over up to 600ft away. In order for explosives to do something like that (note that each column tree weighed quite a few tons) that would require tons and tons of high power explosives packed around each and every column and floor to be able to physcially eject the steel like that. However, the collapse itself and gravity was all it needed to do the same, and the column tree toppled over like a tree. Thats all it was.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


what is the brisance of different explosives that you have used.
from the smallest to the biggest?

pancake collapse does not sufice to explain why the core columns are not still there.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Ok, first off, for any explosive to be able to loft anything weighing a few tons without tearing it up in the blast, it would require to be placed far apart from the blast, but close enough to "throw" the steel column trees in the distances observed. But, you go back to the fact that in order to toss the steel column tree, you would need quite a bit of high power explosives to do the job. That also means, that the explosives upon detonations, would have caused a blast wave that would have shattered windows all over lower Manhattan.

No I do not work with explosives, but I do enough about them to know and understand what they can and cannot do. The blast needs to create such a powerful wave of pressure to be able to lift and toss the exterior column trees, that at the same time, would have shattered all windows and deafened the people below and around the WTC. And no, it wouldnt be covered up by the sound of collapse.

You are aware of how explosives work? In demolition, the explosives are used to cut the steel and shatter the concrete pillars and walls. Last time I checked, I have yet to see them use explosives to push over a wall, or launch steel beams.

Pancake collapse, was incorrectly atributed as the initiator of collapse. However, once the collapse started, the floors pancaked on top of each other as they collapsed down. Where else is the floor going to go? Up? Sideways? No, the floors pancaked down as the towers collapsed, which stripped off the connections between the exterior and interior columns, making both short-lived freestanding structures. The exterior columns were then pushed over as the rest of the collapse wave above reached it, and then toppled over and down. The core was mostly destroyed, save for the Spire that remained in both Towers after initial collapse. They lasted for about 10-15 seconds AFTER the initial collapse. Where were the core columns? On the ground, when the core collapsed. Where else would it go? Detroit? They recovered the core columns, which also showed sheering forces which caused the connections and bolts to snap and fail.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


what is the brisance of different explosives that you have seen used, experienced/ been around as it was used.
from the smallest to the biggest?

air is the poorest coupler known on earth to propel an object General.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


It doesnt matter if it was TNT or Octanitrocubane, explosives are meant to explode, and in demolitions, to cut steel and blast apart concrete pillars. Not shove over walls or launch 30x60ft sections of steel. Also, I did not say it was air did I? I said the force of the collapsing debris and the fact that the exterior columns ended up being freestanding, causing them to topple over in long sections. They went over like a tree or telephone pole. That is why they traveled so far.



air is the poorest coupler known on earth to propel an object General.





Are you serious? Air is the poorest coupler on earth to propel an object? Seriously, are you from the planet Earth? Well, you know, lets get straighten this out right now:

Air, wind, air pressure is very powerful. Ever seen a tornado? That right there should dispell your incorrect observations. Air moving at 250mph can lift frieght trains off the rails, throw cars and trucks hundreds of feet, lift steel beams weighing hundreds of pounds and even tens of tons, and toss them like matchsticks. What do you think happens when an explosive goes off? What do you think the shockwave consists of? Let us sit back and let that seep in a few minutes. Do you wish to retract or elaborate on why you said such an ignorant thing? Air is very powerful especially when in motion.



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 



whatreallyhappened.com...
by Benton K. Partin
Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.)
8908 Captains Row, Alexandria, Virginia 22308
703-780-7652
On April 19, 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma was bombed, causing extensive damage to the structure, the loss of 168 innocent lives, the victimization of the families of those who lost loved ones, hundreds of non-fatal injuries, and substantial property damage in the vicinity.

The media and the Executive branch reported that the sole source of the devastation was a single truck bomb consisting of 4,800 pounds of ammonium nitrate, transported to the location in a Ryder Truck and parked in front of the building. It is impossible that the destruction to the building could have resulted from such a bomb alone.

To cause the damage pattern that occurred to the Murrah building, there would have to have been demolition charges at several supporting column bases, at locations not accessible from the street, to supplement the truck bomb damage. Indeed, a careful examination of photographs showing the collapsed column bases reveals a failure mode produced by demolition charges and not by a blast from the truck bomb.

First, blast through air is a very inefficient energy coupling mechanism against heavily reinforced concrete beams and columns.

Second, blast damage potential initially falls off more rapidly than an inverse function of the distance cubed. That is why in conventional weapons development, one seeks accuracy over yield for hard targets. That is also why in the World Trade Center bombing (where the only source of blast damage was a truck bomb) the column in the middle of the bombed-out cavity was relatively untouched, although reinforced concrete floors were completely stripped away for several floors above and below the point of the bomb's

www.abovetopsecret.com...


BENTON R. PARTIN
8908 Captains Row
Alexandria, Virginia 22308
(703) 780-7652
Biographical Notes

Thirty one years active duty in the Air Force. Progressively responsible executive, scientific and technical assignments directing organizations engaged in research, development, testing, analysis, requirements generation and acquisition management of weapons systems. Assignments from laboratory to the Office of the Secretary of Defense...

whatreallyhappened.com...




edit on Tue Sep 28 2010 by Jbird because: Quoting External Sources - Please Review This Link



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


First you try to make a case that explosives must have ejected the columns away, then you show that this blast wave would have to be immense as explosions are inefficient to move objects.

So you basically disproof your own premises. It can't have been explosions that propelled the columns as the blasts would have to be so powerful we would have easily observed them. So it must have been columns tippling over and being ejected by bending steel.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


what ever you interpert as truth to you PLB, then let it be so.
I am not going to dissuade you or change your mind.

the exact information that is and was available to me,
which allowed me to reach my implausible
conclusions, is available for you and to you as well.

you look and call it an apple
i look and call it an orange.

Iposted the information so general radek can observe
that air is the poorest coupler there is for low velocity
and medium velocity and high velocity explosive occurrences


Thank you for your fedback. Please feel free to offer it at anytime. .
It helps me condition my mind.


I just read some of your posts.
not interested in attempting to explain further to
someone who follows the same logic as bill
clinton in his famous testimony about the word is.

edit on 28-9-2010 by slugger9787 because: It helps me condition my mind



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


Instead of just saying my logic is flawed, why don't you point out where it fails? This is not the first time in this thread that someone comes with this kind of reply when questions go more in depth and are harder to answer. You just can't have both that explosions caused the columns to be ejected and that air pressure is the poorest coupler to propel an object. The second point is a direct argument against the first.

edit on 28-9-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by remymartin
 


But that "squib" is acting nothing like any explosive I've ever seen exploding. For one thing, since when do explosives accelerate after detonation? Its like the velocity is increasing, but that is not how an explosive works. The initial detonation has very high velocities, that immediately slow down exponentially. They do not explode, and then have the blast wave accelerate as time increases. Certainly not two, three seconds after detonation. This is more akin to a jet of air that is being forced down and out from the collapse.

Remember, all that air in the building has to go somewhere. Have you ever stood in a subway tunnel? Ever notice how there is a rush of air as the train is approaching, sometimes as much as 30-40 seconds away from leaving the tunnel? All that air is being pushed out ahead of the train. Now its obvious that there is plenty of room around the train itself in the tunnel, but what if that train filled the entire tunnel space? All that air in front of the train does not disappear. Its like a syringe. Same effect at the WTC during the collapses. All that air on each floor had to go somewhere. Some went through the elevator shafts, some through the stairwells, others through windows, and some straight up. That is what you are seeing with that mis-ID'ed "squib". Its not a squib. Its just a jet air that is accelerating as the collapse is approaching that floor.

Remember, explosions do not explode and keep blowing out a jet of air over time. It is a quick blast of air, and the blast wave slows down immedately after detonation. It does not speed up after detonation and keeps accelerating over time after detonation.


But the floor where the lower squib comes out is not compromised, its at least 10 floors below point of collapse.
There is not any fire on that floor or the one above so no falling floor there to cause a sudden change in air pressure



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


Actually, there is a great deal of inner collapse right at the beginning of the failure that would logically cause the lower floors to exhibit problems before the outer load bearing structure. Like I said before, the towers are not a solid unit of floors and walls.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by remymartin
 


Actually, there is a great deal of inner collapse right at the beginning of the failure that would logically cause the lower floors to exhibit problems before the outer load bearing structure. Like I said before, the towers are not a solid unit of floors and walls.


When you say problems. what sort of problem do you mean, a lower floor
collapse without the one above hitting it?



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


Maybe you failed to notice, but the floors are not big blocks that just fall in order. Sections collapse, and then it globally collapses. At a point a few seconds after collapse initiated, the floors were pancaking because they didn't have much elsewhere to go. Still, it wasn't a neat collapse. That's why you only saw "squibs" on one side of the building or so.

By problems I was meaning collapses on the inside.

edit on 28-9-2010 by Varemia because: clarification



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by remymartin
 


Maybe you failed to notice, but the floors are not big blocks that just fall in order. Sections collapse, and then it globally collapses. At a point a few seconds after collapse initiated, the floors were pancaking because they didn't have much elsewhere to go. Still, it wasn't a neat collapse. That's why you only saw "squibs" on one side of the building.


Maybe NIST failed to notice that too then.



As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


Maybe you failed to notice that NIST did not produce a "this is how it is, now believe it" report. It included possibilities and their ideas on the most likely scenario that took place. If you read it, you'll find it doesn't actually say the floors fell perfectly onto each other at the beginning of the collapse. That would be impossible with the range of damage.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 


Most plausible explanation seems to me that air was compressed into the lift shafts and staircases. When compared to demolition videos, the plumes don't really look alike. And as pointed out, the plumes are accelerating. This is only possible when pressure keeps building up for some time.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by remymartin
 


Maybe you failed to notice that NIST did not produce a "this is how it is, now believe it" report. It included possibilities and their ideas on the most likely scenario that took place. If you read it, you'll find it doesn't actually say the floors fell perfectly onto each other at the beginning of the collapse. That would be impossible with the range of damage.


Exactly the NIST report is only there best guess at wthat happened that day, if it were a school report it would have a "Must try harder" at the bottom.

I never said they did fall perfectly onto each other.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by remymartin
 


Most plausible explanation seems to me that air was compressed into the lift shafts and staircases. When compared to demolition videos, the plumes don't really look alike. And as pointed out, the plumes are accelerating. This is only possible when pressure keeps building up for some time.


Yes plb thats your most plausible.
Mine is just a bit different, makes a good discussion.

Lets all hope oneday we will learn more about that terrible day.





new topics
top topics
 
104
<< 23  24  25    27  28 >>

log in

join