Horizontal Ejections and Squibs

[Alferd_Packer]

No. I believe Larry Silverstein was in on it. I believe the security at the building was compromised.

More proof that you have no idea how things work in the real world.

What does security have to do with building maintenance?

 

[WildCat]

I refuse to believe scientific conspiracies over government conspiracies.

What the hell does that mean?

You can mock my theories all you want, but the fact of the matter still stands. You have NOTHING that explains the observed phenomena. You talk about pressurized air and pancaking floors and all this other cool stuff, but none of you can provide a logical mechanism for how this occurred.

We DO have an explanation, one supported by the evidence, including the testimony of people who survived in the stairwell.

You, on the other hand, have zero evidence, and not even a working theory.

How are those calculations coming Mr. Physics Expert?

 

[A W Smith]

are you suggesting demolition charges sixty feet from the perimeter windows suffciant to cut core columns but only ejected debris through one window out of 256 on a given floor?

 

[papasmurf]

No, I believe the observed squibs were mainly on the maintenance floors and were in addition to the explosions in the core, which were not observed from the outside. I've already stated that these were supplemental explosions and not the ones observed in the core. Pay attention.

 

[stateofgrace]

No. I believe Larry Silverstein was in on it. I believe the security at the building was compromised. I refuse to believe scientific conspiracies over government conspiracies.


You have beachnut, a guy who claims to have a masters degree in engineering, defy what even NIST has put out, by claiming that the floors sheared from the core and outer perimeter of the building and collapsed WITHIN THE BUILDING faster than the collapse front, which already fell at near free fall speed. If you watch the video of the collapse and try to imagine floors falling within the building faster than the building is already collapsing, you will see how ridiculous this notion is.

You can mock my theories all you want, but the fact of the matter still stands. You have NOTHING that explains the observed phenomena. You talk about pressurized air and pancaking floors and all this other cool stuff, but none of you can provide a logical mechanism for how this occurred.

Most people can, that being,large commercial planes that were hijacked, were flown at high speed into the side of landmark buildings. They burnt and later fell down.

If you ,somehow disbelieve this,then feel free to offer up what you believe happened.

 

[HyJinX]

I REALLY wish we could still post cat pictures.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I would like to know why it is more believable that these explosive, focused blasts of pulverized material coming out at the mid-points of the building are more easily explained by these two quite ridiculous explanations, which i will argue against in advance, than the squib theory, which they perfectly resemble.

1. The first is given by popular mechanics:

"Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." "

Alright pancake people... We are talking about 20 to 30 floors below the collapse front. These floors are completely intact, so there is no reason why the crushing floors 200 feet above should exert a pressure that great on the floors that far below. No reason. I think we can all agree that this argument is a big load of crap.

No. The argument is not "a big load of crap". That argument is one from incredulity. Dynamic pressure travelling down various HVAC and other sorts of mechanical shafts, stairwells, and other cavities within the building perfectly well explain this observation. No explosives necessary.

2. The progressive collapse pressure wave theory.

Some people have professed that a pressure wave travelled down the tower, somehow ahead of the collapse front, that blew out air from windows 30 floors below.

Again, dynamic pressure. Why wouldn't it travel that far?

There are so many holes in this theory, and i will address a few:

A. How does this pressure wave travel through the building in such a way that is powerful enough to blast out windows?

R.Mackey gave some important information to understand before you get the answer to that question:

Windows require approximately 1 PSI of pressure to break. This can be either static or dynamic pressure. For dynamic pressure, this equates to a fluid velocity of about 100 meters per second...

You understand that when a moving volume of a fluid, whether a liquid like water or a gas like air, gets forced into a smaller volume, either the pressure will increase, or the mass will move faster. This is the principle behind what happens when you put a finger or thumb over the end of a garden hose: The water moves faster. Now, imagine the air contained on one of the floors of the Twin Towers being moved by the mass of all the floors above it. Some of it will shoot up through whatever gaps exist in the rubble, some of it will shoot out, and some of it will shoot down through whatever shafts/gaps/opening are available, whether they're elevator or HVAC shafts, stairwells, gaps between walls opening up to gaps in the floor structures... whatever. The point is that the air gets moving into those small spaces.

Since there's only a limited number of areas these places can open up into, once air moves through multiple shafts/gaps/openings onto another floor - whether the floor immediately below where it started, or many floors below - it follows whatever path it can as the mass above continues to fall. It's being "pushed" out and around. At some point, some of the air is not only going to be moving quite fast, but it's going to hit a window. If the mass is moving fast enough, then it will blow out the window. If it's not, it won't. The fact that window blowouts are not consistently seen on each floor in predictable spots actually argues against the notion of explosives being used - they'd be distributed a lot more evenly and would not be creating such a random blowout effect, whereas the complex and chaotic flow of air around the various paths naturally lead to some windows experiencing enough dynamic pressure to blow out, and others not.

At any rate, this would not only be why it travelled so far down - the path travelled would depend on the open spaces available to it - but why there were not consistent blowouts in a predictable pattern.

B. This theory has not been scientifically proven. There is no evidence that this wave can even occur given the structure of the building and the behavior of the collapse. I find it very difficult to believe that this piledriving action of the top section was able to increase the air pressure in one floor 20-30 floors to the point of blowing out windows on multiple sides of the building when there are numerous shafts and resevoirs for this air pressure to be contained.

And those "shafts and reservoirs" would have to open up somewhere. If you're talking about HVAC system ducts and shafts, there would be multiple openings per room, let alone per floor.

Instead of arguing from incredulity, consider the fact that you're talking about acre-wide floors and tons of debris falling that used to be the upper 10- or 20-some floors, depending on which tower. It's hard to see how there wasn't a large amount of air moving wherever it could. And keep in mind that each floor was not hermetically sealed. "Numerous shafts and reservoirs" is almost the right way to think about things, but not if you propose that the air will flow into those areas and not flow out; again, very few of these "shafts and reservoirs" would be hermetically sealed on the end the pressure is moving towards. It wouldn't be like a syringe plunger pushing against a perfectly sealed tube at all, it would be pushing against spaces that had multiple openings. When a moving air mass reaches a given floor, the air has to go somewhere. Some of it escapes out the side, some of it continues to travel down through whatever path it can find. The fact that some of it doesn't find an escape until many floors below the collapse front is simply not unexpected. Ultimately, we're talking about a large volume of air being pushed by a huge mass. There's nothing unusual or counterintuitive about any of the noted effects.

C. Even if there was enough pressure from this wave to travel through the elevator shafts and out the windows of the building, it doesn't explain the pulverized building material. How was concrete able to be pulverized. You can see the enormous amount of dust and debris that gets blown out of the window along with the window itself.

Much of the "pulverized" building material was fairly lightweight stuff, like ceiling tiles, cubicle dividers, drywall etc. My goodness... how much drywall alone is there in any given office? I don't know what the exact amounts are, but I don't see how a lot of the dust cloud was concrete to begin with, given the sheer amount of all that other material. To claim that the dynamic pressure couldn't have pulverized the concrete, you must first demonstrate that a significant amount of the dust was concrete to begin with, then you must demonstrate why pneumatic effects were responsible, instead of other effects, such as the sheer amount of energy involved in all that weight separating from its supports and falling.

You are merely presuming that the dust cloud is concrete. If you're going to presume anything, then it's far more reasonable and logical to presume the interior office contents were the major components, since by your own description, you're talking about stuff blowing "... out of the window...". That would be drywall, ceiling tiles, office materials like paper, particleboard from furniture, etc.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

If it was indeed an air vent, it still doesn't explain the pulverized material that came out with it.

I'll ask you again if you understand how HVAC systems work in high rise buildings. Well, do you?

 

[beachnut]

squibs? just air

What is next, nukes, beam weapons, a new idea, a transporter, beam me up Scotty?

Why is thermite is the dumbest of all ideas! Or in close contest for the title.

10. It leaves a lot of iron piles welded to other things and leaves EVIDENCE.
9. It is hard to light
8. It would be seen, being planted by nosey independent security guys who would beat the living daylight out of the idiots planting it.
7. It pure stupid made up by Jones.
6. Making it up gets you fired, or forced to retire.
5. Thermite is easy to find evidence of using it.
4. The stuff flowing out of the building has many other sources.
3. No truther has done a good job quantifying the amounts, except a guy using massive amounts of meth.
2. No one found any!
1. It was made up by Jones, he just waved his hands, dropped a cinderblock and declared the laws of physics broken, and said it was thermite. Without evidence he flounders from smoking gun to smoking gun!

Thermite, just using it is proof oyu have no idea Jones made it up in a letter 4 years after 9/11. He has not told anyone why is making up a lie and truther love to suck up his ideas and regurgitate them, like Pavlov's Dog as soon as they get to JREF.

How does thermite eject stuff? Where is the physics?

Why not ask me, instead of failing to read more, or check. I thought you were talking about the floor shearing inside the WTC ejecting junk as the floor hit each other, you meant the air rushing out floors below, air was rushing out all over the building; you don't and it is neat others only need a grade school education to see you are wrong and missed my air/your squib junk ideas.

You posted this after I talked about your lower failed idea of squibs.

You have beachnut, a guy who claims to have a masters degree in engineering, defy what even NIST ....

Posted before your posted, your post... Why post your failed ideas?

...
Ejection of air below the failing floors, air being force out of he building, remember those pesky elevator shafts and 3 stairwells? A place for air to go in advance of the collapsing floor and structure. The massive amount of debris, collapsing down the core elevator shafts and stairwells, like a piston making air rush all over the WTC! This takes a fireman and moves him 4 floors. Air!

See, your failed "squibs", they are air.

 

[A W Smith]

Not only do you have HVAC shafts but you have elevator shafts which coincidentally terminate on the mechanical floors where the supposed squibs are. These shaftways are open to the rooms housing the hoist machinery.

 

[papasmurf]

What the hell does that mean?


We DO have an explanation, one supported by the evidence, including the testimony of people who survived in the stairwell.

You, on the other hand, have zero evidence, and not even a working theory.

How are those calculations coming Mr. Physics Expert?

You should send your explanation into NIST and see what they say. The dislocating floors that attack well over free fall speed. Wow that really is something. I hope they attach those floors better next time!

Can you please clarify this explanation for me. You are saying that the floors pancaked at a faster rate than the rest of the building, which is why we see the ejections well ahead of the collapse front... am i correct?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I'm still waiting for an answer.

I believe the security at the building was compromised.

More proof that you have no idea how things work in the real world.

What does security have to do with building maintenance?

 

[stateofgrace]

You should send your explanation into NIST and see what they say. The dislocating floors that attack well over free fall speed. Wow that really is something. I hope they attach those floors better next time!

Can you please clarify this explanation for me. You are saying that the floors pancaked at a faster rate than the rest of the building, which is why we see the ejections well ahead of the collapse front... am i correct?

Thanks in advance.

No, you are not correct.

 

[WildCat]

You should send your explanation into NIST and see what they say. The dislocating floors that attack well over free fall speed.

When the hell did I or anyone else ever claim that? Are you claiming that? How would the NWO make a floor fall faster than free-fall speed? Attach rockets to them?

Wow that really is something. I hope they attach those floors better next time!

Explain how a floor could fall faster than free-fall Mr. Physicist.

Can you please clarify this explanation for me. You are saying that the floors pancaked at a faster rate than the rest of the building, which is why we see the ejections well ahead of the collapse front... am i correct?

No, like just about everything you've posted, you are not correct.

Thanks in advance.

You're welcome. How are those calculations coming? When are you going to post the physics you were worried we wouldn't understand?

 

[GeeMack]

Do you realize that you are the only one here who entirely misses the point of this thread?

We are talking about a specific characteristic of the collapse, and you're over here talking to yourself about how awesome gravitational collapse is.

No one cares if you don't think explosives were used. I want to know what the squibs are that we see during the collapse.

We don't see squibs during the collapse. This has been explained several times. Your question, as worded, is nonsensical.

Let's outline the math.

Let's.

We can calculate the yield strenght of the windows using some data. If we have the size of the window and the type of glass, we can calculate the amount of force needed to shatter that window.

From there we use the area of the window to calculate the pressure.

Were there windows at the locations of those events you continue to mistakenly describe as squibs? And if you can't answer that, just assume there were and proceed... How about you start with a simple calculation showing what sort of pressure would be required to shatter one window like those in the WTC towers. Or use data for just any windows that might commonly be used in constructing high rise buildings. You know, create a hypothetical to demonstrate the plausibility of your conjecture. Then calculate the amounts and possible placements of a few common explosives that would be required to produce that kind of pressure. You know, start small, back of a napkin sorts of calculations, high school physics stuff.

Now, if we model the building as a perfectly sealed piston (which it isn't) and that no pressure can be exerted upward or horizontally at the collapse front (which it did), then we should be able to calculate the amount of air pressure exerted by the speed and mass of the falling top section which acts as the piston head.

Maybe i'll do this at some point.

Nobody has yet, so you'd be the first. Show everyone that you're the smartest Truther ever. Do a little math. Show that you understand the physics necessary to support your notion.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

How much explosives? You see them on specific levels every 30 floors or so. They could be explosives in the core of the building being blown out. I don't know the weight because i don't even know the type that was used.

This is not a key question. A key question is what are they? If they are not explosions, what are they? Please stop using diversion tactics, they do not work on me.

Any ideas? Thanks in advance...

Explosives are ruled out. There were no characteristic effects, such as explosive noises consistent with charges being used. And no, those reports bandied around by many conspiracy fantasists don't cut it; forum poster Gravy dealt with those supposed reports here.

Also, explosive effects on steel were not noted by investigators. Recall that the NYPD, FDNY, and FBI were responsible at both Ground Zero and the dump sites at Fort Hamilton and Fresh Kills for surveying the debris for evidence. This was noted on another of Gravy's pages, with many links to the original info. At any rate, none of the 55 FBI evidence response agents, 600 NYPD Crime Scene Unit investigators, or unknown (to me) number of FDNY personnel responsible for surveying the debris made any report of any steel showing signs of explosives.

On top of all of that, both towers collapses started in the impact zones. To argue explosives use, you either have to explain how the explosives survived the fires, or if you believe there were none in the fire zones and the top of the building would fall anyway, why explosives were needed once that upper mass impacted the lower part of the building. Either way, explosives do not explain what was observed that day.

Note that I haven't gotten into any of the other remaining falsifications of this hypothesis, not the least of which is opportunity for installation, as well as lack of observation of such. The explosives proposal fails in many ways.

 

[papasmurf]

I like ElMondoHummus's explanation, this is a person i can debate with.

I like your explanation, but you still are weak on accounting for the pulverized building material. This is PULVERIZED material. Pure DUST. Why is the building matter in this state as the air exits the building. This is 20- 30 floors below the collapse front. I refuse to believe it is material from the floors 20 floors above, as it is impossible that this dust could be carried with this pressure wave that you talk about, it is simply too heavy and does not have the fluid properties to travel through spaces like that.

So we must conclude that the material being ejected is local to where the ejection occurs. You accuse me of presuming it is concrete, while you presume it is drywall and office material.

Call it what you want. If you observe the grey hue to the dust, it is safe to assume that some concrete is in the mix. What aspect of the air moving was capable of pulverizing desks and drywall?

Your explanation is pretty decent up until this point.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

How much debris and material from the airplane impacts wound up in the HVAC shafts?

A sudden surge of air down that shaft would have blown that material right out through the vents.

What does building security have to do with building maintenance?

 

[WildCat]

I like your explanation, but you still are weak on accounting for the pulverized building material. This is PULVERIZED material. Pure DUST.

And if you bothered to calculate how much explosive would be necessary to do what you describe you'd have heard it going off 50 miles away. And you're claiming this amount of explosives was placed on every single floor!

Along with "squibs" and thermite, whatever the hell that was supposed to do when there were enough explosives to blast the towers to smithereens.

Explosives as an explanation for what was seen that day is just ridiculous.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

How much explosives? You see them on specific levels every 30 floors or so. They could be explosives [color]in the core of the building[/color] being blown out. I don't know the weight because i don't even know the type that was used.

Several problems with your speculation.

-- Large sections of the core structure were still standing for 15+ seconds following the main collapse. How do you as an engineer explain this? If the core in these regions well below the impact zones (where the collapse initiated) were being 'blown out', then why did the collapse
A) not initiate in these regions until the collapse wave arrived, and
B) Leave the core briefly standing in some of the same regions?

-- Where are the explosions that are signature trademarks of controlled demolition during the collapse?


Please feel free to point out in this video where they are being heard during the south tower collapse.

You have beachnut, a guy who claims to have a masters degree in engineering

Just as you claim you are an engineer, I could blab all I want about being a 20 year old architecture student. Beachnut may well have the qualifications of being an engineer, however, just as my experience in architecture is only a label, so is yours and beachnut's. The authoritative element of a job title is demonstrated, not flagged about...

As far as I am concerned, job labels are rather meaningless until demonstrated. You have not demonstrated your theories thus far from what I have seen...

defy what even NIST has put out, by claiming that the floors sheared from the core and outer perimeter of the building

How does this defy NIST's explanation of the collapse. The pancake effect in the collapse happens after collapse initiation. Are you able to provide engineering data that should demonstrate to us otherwise?
That would in effect demonstrate to us in simple terms how you believe the collapse should have ensued if you were assume for once that explosives were never used?

and collapsed WITHIN THE BUILDING faster than the collapse front,

This appears to be a strawman claim. Where does Beachnut argue this?

which already fell at near free fall speed.

Free fall is defined as a variable of acceleration, at sea level earth's gravitational accelleration is 9.8 m/s^2. What threshold are you basing your free fall speed claim on? Do the 15+ second collapse times of both towers match to the figure you have?

You have NOTHING that explains the observed phenomena. You talk about pressurized air and pancaking floors and all this other cool stuff, but none of you can provide a logical mechanism for how this occurred.

We already have, you have brought little more than speculation of explosives being used on the core structure at points where the collapse never initiated until the collapse front reached them, and even then parts of the core (40 stories of the south tower core, and 60 or the north tower) stood following the collapse. So far none of your theories explain those contradictions to your theory away