Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Now bsbray...I didn't say the air pulverized the concrete now did I ? I said that what was circled was air excaping from the collapsing floors, didn't I...

What pulverized the concrete was the weight of the upper floors above the impact zone when it collapsed, not so called "squibs"...

Oh, ok, the bit where you think the dust-filled air travelled down the collapsing buildings 2 or 3 times faster than the actual collapse speeds of the building again. I may add that that "theory" makes no sense.

So let me change my question:

Where are you figures that compressed air travelled down the buildings 2 to 3 times faster than the actual collapses to reach the appropriate regions to emerge from squibs? Last I heard that's sort of impossible.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
WTF are you talking about?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The tower is actually tilting away from the viewer.

I originally missed the second quote above in your post, and misunderstood your post as saying that there was no tilt when I read the statement, "One of the problems is also that the top of the tower moved in 3 dimensions, while the video is only 2D. This has caused some misinterpretations based on the apparent motion of the top as viewed from certain angles," because we all know that those towers were tilting.

I fail to see though how the point contributes anything at all to the problem of the momentum disappearing.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
bsbray, the WTC dust consisted mostly of gypsum (from drywall) then you had your concrete particles, cellulose fibers, fiberglass, and other miscellaneous materials.

Here I will refer to something I said in my last post rather than paraphrase myself.

For the dust to have been crushed drywall makes absolutely no more sense than if it were concrete. The collapses had not yet reached the areas where the squibs occurred. Not even close in one case, where a squib was some 50 floors off.

And it was indeed dust coming from the squibs.

Where are you figures that compressed air travelled down the buildings 2 to 3 times faster than the actual collapses to reach the appropriate regions to emerge from squibs? Last I heard that's sort of impossible.

Well...if I get your meaning...

I guess you don't see it...

Imagine if you will 110 syringes connected in such a way that when the above syringe is depressed it empties its contents into the lower syringe ( get what I'm saying here ?), then when the upper syringe reaches it's end of travel, the lower syringe starts it's travel, and on, and on, untill it reaches the bottom syringe...

Now depress them in a matter of seconds, and you will get the pressure that blew out the windows, and knocked those firemen off their feet that were trapped in the stairwell...







[edit on 3-11-2005 by Jedi_Master]

Imagine if you will 110 syringes connected in such a way that when the above syringe is depressed it empties its contents into the lower syringe ( get what I'm saying here ?), then when the upper syringe reaches it's end of travel, the lower syringe starts it's travel, and on, and on, untill it reaches the bottom syringe...

Now depress them in a matter of seconds, and you will get the pressure that blew out the windows, and knocked those firemen off their feet that were trapped in the stairwell...

Maybe you don't get what I'm saying: there is no way the air could have been sent down the buildings faster than the actual rate of collapse.

If you think it can, please provide some info has to how, short of attaching jet engines or something to the top floors to blow the air down with that much extra force. And maybe you can explain how the draft experienced by the firefighters necessarily correlates to your flawed explanation, because if anything I would think that testimony in favor of demolition, just as many firefighters and policemen that were there on that day and knew those buildings personally have come to realize anyway.

Let me point out the obvious: the squibs ocurred before the collapse had reached the floors the squibs ocurred on! The floors pushing into each other were as much as 50 floors up in at least one case. Does that not trigger something in your head that maybe your idea is a bit off? 50 floors between the collapsing floors that you blame for the squibs, and an actual squib.

They were very distinct jets of something

Which part of the building was blowing out there. Is it not more likely to have been the windows that blew out. Also why is all this supposed compressed air in such a small jet.

Why would the air go so far down the tower before jeting out, why not where it was actualy being crushed or on the floor beneath.

To me it really does not seem likely to be compressed air from the collapse.

Maybe you don't get what I'm saying: there is no way the air could have been sent down the buildings faster than the actual rate of collapse.

Tell ya what...

Get a syringe, depress the plunger, isn't the air excaping out of the syringe before the plunger reaches the end of travel ?

Also I want to ask a question...

Why collapse the buildings in such a way that were bound to have questions asked (like being asked here) ?

Why not bring them down in a manner such as to have no questions asked (like topple them over) ?

To me if I were going to do such a deed I would do it in a manner as to have no questions asked...

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Get a syringe, depress the plunger, isn't the air excaping out of the syringe before the plunger reaches the end of travel ?

But it's not going to come out at 10 or 15 miles per hour when you're only pressing down on the syringe at 5 mph.

That's the assumption you're faultily making about the theoretical "compressed air" in the WTC towers.

Also I want to ask a question...

Why collapse the buildings in such a way that were bound to have questions asked (like being asked here) ?

Because there are plenty of people such as yourself that will never need to ask these sorts of questions. That's the truth of it; that's how conspiracies always work.

Why not bring them down in a manner such as to have no questions asked (like topple them over) ?

They had someone else's interests in mind when they prevented the damage from spreading to other buildings by taking out the angular momentum. But I'm sure they tried their best, otherwise, to make them look as realistic and thereby convincing as possible.

But it's not going to come out at 10 or 15 miles per hour when you're only pressing down on the syringe at 5 mph.

It doesn't need too, all you need is a conduit ( such as the stairwell, or ventalation system ) to bring the air further away from the plunger...

Because there are plenty of people such as yourself that will never need to ask these sorts of questions. That's the truth of it; that's how conspiracies always work.

Cute insult there...fact is you don't know me, and yet you make an assumption that I never need to ask questions, like I said before I always like a good conspiracy...but it has to be beliveable ...

They had someone else's interests in mind when they prevented the damage from spreading to other buildings by taking out the angular momentum. But I'm sure they tried their best, otherwise, to make them look as realistic and thereby convincing as possible.

This has to be an assumption, unless you were a fly on the wall when they (whoever they are ) were making their plans...

Or do you have solid proof of this ???

Originally posted by Jedi_Master

But it's not going to come out at 10 or 15 miles per hour when you're only pressing down on the syringe at 5 mph.

It doesn't need too, all you need is a conduit ( such as the stairwell, or ventalation system ) to bring the air further away from the plunger...

Yes it does need to, in your theory, because you've stated that you think that the dust coming out of those blasts came from the collapse region. That means that the air was carrying that dust from that region much faster than the actual collapse, ie 2 to 3 times the speed of it. Can you not remember your own personal theory, which, I might add, hardly anyone else endorses for obvious reasons that you seem to fail grasping?

Cute insult there...fact is you don't know me, and yet you make an assumption that I never need to ask questions, like I said before I always like a good conspiracy...but it has to be beliveable

...

Not an insult, really. It's how conspiracies are pulled off. People don't ask questions, or aren't willing to entertain the possibility.

This has to be an assumption, unless you were a fly on the wall when they (whoever they are ) were making their plans...

Or do you have solid proof of this ???

Funny you ask me for proof of why they didn't let the buildings fall on the surrounding bank buildings, but you offer absolutely none for a pseudo-scientific explanation of the squibs.

I don't have any "solid proof" of why they stopped the angular momentum of the buildings, but I have solid proof that it did in fact stop: watch any video of the South Tower collapse, for example. Or I can post more pics for you if you'd like. But the fact is, the buildings started falling onto neighboring buildings but stopped, as if the damage was being controlled, and if you were to look up what buildings were saved, well, it might not mean much to you, but it wouldn't at all surprise me if there was in fact a reason for them to go out of their way to control that damage.


Now, for the sake of saving time, I'm going to make one more post in regards to your theory of compressed air:

You claim that the squibs, which consisted of air being rapidly ejected from seemingly random portions of the building often well-below the collapse, and exhibiting pulverized materials, were caused by air being pushed down ahead of the collapse. You claim the dust is from the collapsing region.

A) How did the air manage to carry the dust down the buildings between 2 and 3 times the speed of the actual collapse? The shape of the building was consistent all the way up and down; there was no reason that air coming down (assuming in the first place that the buildings were air-tight tubes, which they were most definitely not) should be any faster at all that the collapse itself. That would require additional sources of energy. So again, how did the air manage to carry the dust down the buildings so fast and so far ahead of the actual collapse?

Btw, I'm not fooling with you anymore if you don't at least try to offer scientific and objective answers to these questions.

B) How would the WTC towers act as syringes at all when they are not airtight? Not only have they had jets rammed into them, and have missing windows, but as they collapse, massive openings are created in the buildings. For a syringe to work it has to be airtight. Your call.

C) Why did the air exit where it did? You've said before that it would just "come out where it would" or something to that nature, which is frankly quite ignorant when you look at charts of how the floors were set up and then compare those to where the squibs came from, as air would have to travel in a magical jet and not decompress as it floated through about half of an entire floor. Also, the air had to travel down floors via small shafts. The elevator doors were shut, and the physical floors were preventing air from just magically floating from floor to floor. Impossible, but I'll ask again for the hell of it, why did the air exit where it did?

D) Similar in nature to the last question, but more specific, how does compressed air travel across half a WTC floor to exit at any given point at all without first decompressing and losing any magical projectile-like quality that it supposedly once had?

E) Observe the following pic:



Please explain to me how only a few floors' worth of air was so compressed and so guided, like some kind of magic missile of air, that it pulverized (since carrying dust ahead of the collapse is impossible) and ejected solid materials so far out into the open air? Also please explain to me why this pressure would not be alleviated by the massive holes that were created in the floors above when the collapse initiated. Maybe there wasn't any built-up pressure after all? No, of course not, because that goes against your already-stated theory. And remember that this was very early in the collapse of this building, and only a few floors below the collapse initiation, so it's not like much pressure could possible accumulate anyway, except for *hypothetically* only 5 or so times the buildings usual pressure, which would have to then be sent down small shafts, and, needless to say, would not explode windows, especially when there's a big gaping hole just above for the air to easily escape through.

Since I know you won't respond to this with anything really conclusive or objective (I must be psychic or something, just look below!), I'll just spell out the problems with your theory, really simply, and leave you with them to ponder, or ignore conveniently, or to even come up pseudo-scientific solutions to, or to which provide mocking responses while leaving unanswered.

Problems with the theory that air carried down dust from the collapse region and pushed it out windows, etc."

• The WTC buildings were far from airtight upon collapse. They would not act as syringes.
  
• The air carrying the dust would have to travel down the buildings between 2 and 3 times the speed of collapse, which is impossible without energy in addition to gravity-driven collapse.
  
• It would have been impossible for the air to exit the buildings so violently, because the air would have to travel across open space in which it would decompress and spread out (the air could have only travelled down floors by small shafts). Compressed air does not travel through less dense air without expanding, and especially so for such large distances; this is physically impossible.

Those being the most obvious problems to myself, though I'm sure there are more. So there you go; I'm done for now.

Yes it does need to, in your theory, because you've stated that you think that the dust coming out of those blasts came from the collapse region. That means that the air was carrying that dust from that region much faster than the actual collapse, ie 2 to 3 times the speed of it. Can you not remember your own personal theory, which, I might add, hardly anyone else endorses for obvious reasons that you seem to fail grasping?

No...it doesn't..besides it's not only dust but smoke and dust as well, and it's not "my own personal theory" others have stated as much ( although not on this board )...

Not an insult, really. It's how conspiracies are pulled off. People don't ask questions, or aren't willing to entertain the possibility.

I'm always willing to entertain the possibality of a conspiracy...but it HAS to be beliveable...

Funny you ask me for proof of why they didn't let the buildings fall on the surrounding bank buildings, but you offer absolutely none for a pseudo-scientific explanation of the squibs.

I don't need too, you're the one making the claims, so what have you got to show me ?

I don't have any "solid proof"

that's what I thought, you don't have nor does anyone else ( myself included )...

Please explain to me how only a few floors' worth of air was so compressed and so guided, like some kind of magic missile of air, that it pulverized (since carrying dust ahead of the collapse is impossible) and ejected solid materials so far out into the open air?

Why can't you get this through your head...the air didn't pulverize anything, it was the weight of the above floors crashing down that created the dust, and where is your proof o fthe solid materials being ejected ? truth is you don't have any proof of anything...

Btw, I'm not fooling with you anymore if you don't at least try to offer scientific and objective answers to these questions.

Good...maybe you will stop spreading dis-info as well...

Originally posted by bsbray11

• The WTC buildings were far from airtight upon collapse. They would not act as syringes.
  
• The air carrying the dust would have to travel down the buildings between 2 and 3 times the speed of collapse, which is impossible without energy in addition to gravity-driven collapse.
  
• It would have been impossible for the air to exit the buildings so violently, because the air would have to travel across open space in which it would decompress and spread out (the air could have only travelled down floors by small shafts). Compressed air does not travel through less dense air without expanding, and especially so for such large distances; this is physically impossible.

This has been explained a number of times on this board.

You keep saying that it would impossible for air to do these things.

Yet the story of firefighters on the 4th floor plainly shows that such gusts of air were not only possible, but that they existed in the building.

www.acfd.com...

Stone Phillips: “And when you say, that’s when everything hit. What happened?”
Richie Picciotto: “The noise started again.”
Mike Meldrum: “You heard the rumble. You could feel the rumble.”
Their tower was now disintegrating. Hundreds of thousands of tons of cement, steel, and glass began to melt away. And Ladder 6 was still in the stairwell.
Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it before everybody else, because I was the last guy.”
Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”
Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”
Stone Phillips: “A rumbling sound, this gust of wind? And then what happened?”
Sal D’Agostino: “When I hit the fourth floor landing, I remember the plaque on the door. And that’s when the building started shaking. And you heard the rumble. And I said, ‘Oh, here we go. This is it for me.’”
Sal D’Agostino lurched toward a doorway, thinking its metal frame might protect him from what was to come.
Sal D’Agostino: “I didn’t even make it to the doorknob. The door got blown open at me. Just missed my face. Hits my shoulder. And that’s when the gust of wind blew me backwards. I got on my side and I crawled to the doorway, and then I just laid there. And waiting for it to come. This is it. This is horrible, and this is it. And I said a prayer.”

As you can see the wind hit them just seconds after they heard the building start to collapse. It was powerful enough to blow open stairwell doors and knock an entire team of firefighters to the ground.

So what you call impossible actually happened, showing that your problems with the theory are abritary and have nothing to do with the properties of air compression in large structures.

If the wind was that powerful at the fourth floor, it was very likely strong enough to blow dust and smoke out windows much closer to the collapse.

LeftBehind,

The firefighter's report of gusts of air within the stairwells does not explain away any of the problems I posted, which are, in fact, scientific in nature, while the source of the air mentioned in the report is anything but (ie, there is no suggestion in the report of where the air come from, nor any evidence as to where it would have come from; the problems I have stated are still problems nonetheless, and a report claiming there a gust in a stairwell is certainly no scientific remedy for the number of scientific flaws in the syringe theory).

Thanks.




Btw, as an afterthought, I see you have also misunderstood my statements regarding compressed air expanding when mixing with less dense air. I'm just glad for your sake that we have no experts on the dynamics of fluids here, for you to so boldly suggest that compressed air travels in magical jets that do not disperse.



This is a typical layout for a WTC floor (thanks to WCIP for the pic, just ignore the flashing "Elevators"; they were closed that day anyway). The only air shafts are along the middle of the floor, and if any compressed air travelled down these shafts, you can imagine what sort of insane route would have to follow for the air to burst out of a window without decompressing. Air does not behave like guided missiles.

[edit on 6-11-2005 by bsbray11]

[edit on 6-11-2005 by bsbray11]

[edit on 6-11-2005 by bsbray11]

Why does the possibility of explosives not sit well at all with people? I mean, it was the anchors, firefighters, and a lot of other people live on air on 9/11 telling us secondary explosions were going off and explosives were planted within.
Is it completely implausable that say a van once again also had explosives?
I understand some folks vehement opposition to any 9/11 conspiracy theory, but proof of explosives to me does not equate governmental inside job. It could mean the terrorists were to stop at nothing...either way, neocons, al qaeda...those towers had to fall by any means neccesary, and I believe it is severely doubtful that 3 tall structures perfectly fell that day from fire.

Originally posted by 8bitagent
Why does the possibility of explosives not sit well at all with people? I mean, it was the anchors, firefighters, and a lot of other people live on air on 9/11 telling us secondary explosions were going off and explosives were planted within.

Why do some people have to keep insisting that explosives were used when there is no credible evidence to support this?

Is it completely implausable that say a van once again also had explosives?

In the absence of any evidence to support this theory, yes, it is implausible.

I believe it is severely doubtful that 3 tall structures perfectly fell that day from fire.

That is true. They did not fall just from fire. They fell from a combination of structural damage and fire.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Why do some people have to keep insisting that explosives were used when there is no credible evidence to support this?

because there is evidence. you choose to ignore it as "absurd" or whatever.

however, howard. it's YOUR lucky day! you can EASILY go collect this million dollars....'prove it' contest.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Is it completely implausable that say a van once again also had explosives?

In the absence of any evidence to support this theory, yes, it is implausible.

If an absence of direct evidence makes something implausible, then why believe the official story?

I believe it is severely doubtful that 3 tall structures perfectly fell that day from fire.

That is true. They did not fall just from fire. They fell from a combination of structural damage and fire.

Oh, snap!

Yeah, it's really doubtful that 3 skyscrapers would fall perfectly symmetrically from a fire. But add minor structural damage to those fires, along the lines of less than 15% of perimeter columns in a given area and a most probable minority of core columns, and BAM! Perfect symmetry is inevitable!

Originally posted by HowardRoark
That is true. They did not fall just from fire. They fell from a combination of structural damage and fire.

And what of WTC7? The damage that WTC7 received from falling debris was to the facade, not to any supporting columns nor any trusses - not exactly what you'd call "structural damage". NIST's bogus load-redistribution explanation for the collapses of the towers fails entirely when you come to WTC7, Howard. So I guess you'll have to wait for NIST to come up with some new hypothesis to tell you how WTC7 collapsed, and then you can cheer up and have at it defending the lie again. In the meantime I think NIST have a fan club which you can subscribe to, coz lately without their guidance you've seemed a bit like a ship without a rudder.

Don't worry, we're here for you buddy, and we'll be waiting once NIST comes out with their WTC7 report.

Originally posted by Valhall
The following analysis has been made as conservative as possible for the sake of minimizing the thermal effects of jet fuel burning on one floor of the WTC towers.

We'll see.

This analysis was based on the following:

Constraints and Assumptions:

1. Though some experts(news-service.stanford.edu..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">1) have estimated that 2/3's of the supports were "shattered and fractured" on the main impact floors of each of the towers, I have opted to perform the following calculations with all external and internal columns intact. This significantly increases the mass of steel that must be heated and therefore significantly caps the maximum temperature the steel can be brought to.

Why does this "significantly increase the mass of steel that must be heated"? No matter how much steel was off duty structurally, none of it simply vanished, therefore all of it shared exposure to the fires, all of it was being accumulating heat from nearby flames.

2. I have restricted the volume of burning jet fuel contained on the floor analyzed to just 1000 gal which constitutes less than 1/2 inch of fluid on one floor.

Fair enough, we've probably seen a good portion of the 10.000 gallons being consumed in the initial fireball.

3. Though the dimensions and spacing of the external supports are known, the wall thickness of these square tubes are not known. So it has been assumed to be 1/2".

Later changed to 1/4", which might make 1/2" appear more conservative, as more volume was being subjected to air cooling.

4. The shape and dimensions of the internal (core column) supports are not known so it is assumed that the same tubular construction was used with the same dimensions and wall thickness.

Now this baffles me. Sure, the blueprints are unavailable (weird enough, no?), but it's plain to see from pictures taken during the construction that the inner columns are nowhere near the small dimensions of the perimeter. Also, how does it appear plausible that within the core, no air absorbed heat and no convection of heated air occured?

5. In determining the mass of steel on one floor that must be heated, the entire volume of the external tubes were used - even the outside surface. In addition, the cooling effect of the air on the outside of the building was applied to 1/2 of the volume of steel of each column thereby increasing the BTU requirement to heat the total volume of steel.

Ok, you might say that's very conservative, but 1/2" and moreso 1/4" of steel, even though it's heat conductivity has been said by some to be "lousy", would heat up relatively uniformly, in effect this assumption seems realistic, not overly conservative.

6. The floor and ceiling support structure were not taken into account since the support beams would have to be insufficient support before the entire floor could fail. Therefore, the analysis on the degradation of the support beams and not the floor trusses. The floor trusses would have begun to fail (in shear and bending) far before the support columns.

So let me get this straight: You say that only after widespread failure of support columns a floor could fail in its entirety, and I agree. However, you also say that the floors would have begun failing much earlier and non uniformly (inferrance from first argument), and I agree (just look at the pictures of the floor NIST baked). But then I'll have to ask: How could the pancaking occur if it required entire floors to fail in an instant which, even according to yourself, would have been preceded by the floors disintegrating non uniformly?

7. No added heating effects due to consumables within the building were taken into account. Only the heat of combustion of the jet fuel.

Neither were heat conveyed out of the building by clouds of thick black smoke raising upwards, soot not having the worst of thermal capacities. Neither was any other form of heat transport away from hotspots, e.g. your one "simulated" floor.

8. The calculations were made on the following logic. The total BTUs available from the 1000 gallons of jet fuel were calculated. The BTUs required to heat the volume of air contained within the floor was then subtracted from this total. The BTUs required to heat the steel to a given temperature was then calculated and subtracted from the remainder. The BTUs lost due to cooling effects from external air were then calculated and substracted from the remainder. The process was reiterated until the available BTU's from the jet fuel could not raise the temperature of the air and steel by an appreciable amount.

Here it is again: Heating the air within the floor and be done with it - there was a hole with clouds of grey and later black smoke constantly flowing out, unless you want to account for that, or at least quantify it somehow, your mathematical analysis is worth no more than qualitative arguments.

Calculations

1. Total pounds of air to heat on one floor was calculated at 42,139 lb.

2. Total pounds of steel to heat on one floor was calculated at 675,159 lb.

How does that fit the picture? 184.000 metric tons of steel for both towers = 92.000 for one = 836t * 110 stories on average. Yes, buildings are bottom heavy, but I think we can agree that the floors were not the lion's share of steel/story, leaving column structures - so the discrepancy between 836t and 306t seems a bit much. Unless you can somehow verify your numbers, of course.

3. Total pounds of steel subjected to cooling effect of external air was calculated at 153,703 lb.

Total heat of combustion of 1000 gallons of fuel was calculated to be 127,732,220 BTU.

Calculations showed that air and steel could be raised to 1250 F (900K or 627 C) and still have over 2,700,000 BTUs left from burning fuel.

Or, in other words, 2.1% energy remaining...

As can be seen in the following strength degradation chart for ASTM-A36

A36 (which starts at an original yield strength of approximately 36,000 psi) degrades to 35% of its original strength at 625 C. This means the yield strength has dropped to under 13,000 psi. In addition, the shear, which can be represented as .577*Yield Strength will have dropped from its original value of about 21,000 psi to about 7300 psi.

ASTM A36? Where did that come from?

NOTE: I would like to perfect this analysis. So if any readers get actual wall thickness dimensions on the external supports, or any more detailed information on the supports structure of the core column, I would greatly appreciate having those numbers so that I can refine this.

Way to go. To perfect this analysis, I would suggest evaluating the difference between a heat source in a closed space (say, your oven) as opposed to an open space (maybe open your oven but keep it heating). Calculate how much energy was approximately being taken out of your equation by thick clouds of smoke defying gravity. Try to implement something at least remotely resembling the actual structure, which was unlike one closed oven / story. Calculate the effects of heat conduction beyond an isolated story. Refine the parameters (falsely?) assumed as given, like the amount of steel/floor. Come up with a theory explaining how total progressive collapse, which called for instant simultaneous column failure, could happen when the floors themselves could not have remained in one piece up to this point.

I think this is not very convincing, but it does look really scientific on first sight. Anyhow, I think unless there is a way to explain the explosive features witnessed right at the start of each of the towers' collapses by the gravity-driven theory, there's a reason entirely sufficient to scrap the whole story. What's the overpressure needed to shatter the perimeter panels of steel and drive their remains significantly laterally? Maybe analyse this...

Lumos, since that was your first post, how about shedding some light on yourself?

Anyway, A few incidental issues:

1) On the impact floors, the core columns were not the massive box columns the were present on the lower floors. They were standard sized I beams.

2) The heat output of the building contents, cubicles, paper, etc. was tremendous.
www.boston.com...

cms.firehouse.com...

3) You have to consider the heat flow due to the chimney effect from the breached shafts and stairwells in the core area.

cms.firehouse.com: "Investigators discovered that while the jet fuel and the plane's contents burned up in a matter of minutes, the contents of the buildings, including the many office cubicles on the upper floors, continued burning until the structures collapsed."

So we're back to the "office fire causes complete structural collapse" theory? And that coming from NIST? Poor guys, I wouldn't wanna be in their shoes.

But let's not digress. Why don't we focus on resolving the crucial points, such as:

How can pancaking, which calls for uniform instant collapse of one floor, occur when the floors themselves would have given in to the fires earlier and almost certainly non-uniformly?

How can the explosive nature of the collapse, visible right from the very beginning, be explained by forces of gravity?

If we have thorougly adressed these questions, I'll be more than willing to debate the details. Let's just not lose sight of the real glaring inconsistencies of the theory we were presented with by arguing over insubstantiable quantifications of certain specific parameters. You know, the tree and the forest...

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Lumos, since that was your first post, how about shedding some light on yourself?

why, howard? what's the difference, 'who' lumos be?

why don't you focus on the arguments, and forget about how 'qualified' people are.

one whole floors worth of columns do not instantly give out. once again, it is not the POSSIBILITY of collapse, but the RATE of collapse.

the official story has one floors worth of freefall to 'intiate' the collapse.

i've seen stuff break. in fact, i've was on more than one old style demolition(you know, with a wrecking ball?)

it's surprisingly hard to get things to cascade. (strength in strucuters is a RATIO, and no amount of wieght will change the ratio. the more weight, the more strength designed in.)
now, when the thing be wrecked is described as a 'millipede'(the floors) by the architect, the building's geometry internally is like a wire mesh. stressed out floor joist joints will give, no doubt. they will, in fact, be the first things to give out, no doubt.
the idea that they give out simultaneously all the way around the building is ludicrous. the idea that the weakest link is responsible for SHATTERING the strongest link, is also ludicrous.
the weight of one FLOOR dropping the height of one floor is the correct event described by the words 'local collapse'. not the entire weight of the upper portions.
the idea that all the floor joists, all the perimeter columns, and all the core columns just DISAPPEARED from one floor at the same time is tragically laughable.