Horizontal Ejections and Squibs

[ElMondoHummus]

I would say that in one of the videos, squibs can be seen at about 4 different floor levels until collapse. Granted you would see more in a normal demolition, but they would want to disguise this one as much as possible, for obvious reasons. There a number of explanations that can account for this. I'll pull a few out of my ass right now.

What if they had most of the explosions occurring in the core of the building, out of sight and earshot, but needed explosives further from the core only every 30 floors or so to do some kind of effect to the perimeter and outer core collumns to make it fall a certain way.

I admittedly am not an explosives expert and sure as hell did not help them plan this demolition job, so i don't really know.

Anyways, please stop answering my questions with questions.

I would like to know what you think those "squibs" are. We can't deny that they exist any more. Someone needs to come up with a reason for their occurence.

Also, why do you keep assaulting me with how much energy would require for these to occur with explosives? You are trying to argue that no explosives were needed, yet if explosives were needed, you claim you would need a ridiculous amount (i presume). So how can you say that gravitational energy alone has more energy than explosive and gravitational energy?

Say "I" if you see how inconsistent and contradictory these views are.

I do not deny that gravitational energy was present in the collapse. I am arguing that explosives were needed for the collapse to progress in the way it did.

There was enough potential energy available in the towers to account for the collapse without explosives being used. The start of that argument is available in a paper submitted to the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, and it's addendum. Further arguments about this are available from others, such as Dr. Frank Greening (here and here. And just as a point of interest, he's written a work on the question of "pulverization" here). Explosives are not needed to explain the collapse at all.

 

[stateofgrace]

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.

Same post

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?

YOU said .

It is not just air, it is pulverized concrete.

So again, explain,fully why you concluded this.

 

[WildCat]

papasmurf, I'm beginning to suspect you won't actually be demonstrating any physics in this thread. It's turned into another Fyziks 101 thread...

 

[beachnut]

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.

You have mistaken what I said, reread all my posts, please understand you have failed, to understand I was talking about the puffs at the collapse zone, and then I see you are hung up solely on squibs. Squibs b air, u fail. Go back and read, you are not understanding some of this.

Before you say I was saying NIST was off, or wrong, ask me! Stop making up lies

The floors/main building took about 12.08 seconds to collapse, some debris beats this as they fall outside the building. The cores collapse take 20 to 30 seconds. So? Air is being ejected well below the collapsing floor, you have that correct, but no explosives; you have that wrong.

Your explosive and thermite are a fantasy, it is my fault I am posting quickly as you offer no substance. Too fast for you too read and not seeing you agree the floors are collapsing as I said, but I never said the floor are beating the falling debris. I was ignoring the falling debris, the floors are more interesting.

Good luck, but explosives is old junk. I never said anything about NIST being right or wrong. You did, by not reading enough. Thanks you very much.

 

[T.A.M.]

Guys have you really given this new truther 3 pages? For the love of god, he is so clearly trolling, baiting, and bringing nothing new.

What happened to our discussion about just providing him links and leaving it at that?

Anyway, It took only reading the first post, and the history that preceded his return, for me to place this one on ignore...

goodbye blueboy. Welcome to ignore.

TAM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

I don't believe much of the material was carried a whole 20 floors either, but I also don't rule out some of it being carried that far. Plus, Occams Razor alone explains why the presumption of drywall and office material is a far more likely explanation than concrete. Singling out drywall: There is much of it in the path of the travelling air mass, along with any debris flowing with it (remnants of floor and wall structures, furniture, etc.), but it can't resist the impact of such debris without breaking up.

Understand, too, that I'm giving examples. There are many other things that could have contributed to that dust cloud; insulation, for example. Dust built up in air shafts. Etc. The point is that singling out concrete is a faulty assumption given 1. The amount of other material present that would be moved by a moving air mass, and 2. The strength of concrete. Compared to concrete, it's easy to render a drywall section of wall to dust, and doesn't require explosives.

On top of that, if you do presume concrete was part of the dust cloud - and I'm not ruling it out as a contributing component - then you have to understand that there is enough energy available in the collapse alone, sans explosives, to account for this. As noted in a previous post, refer to Dr. Frank Greening's work here:
http://911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

Bottom line is that it's true that both are presumptions, but office contents including drywall are a more likely source, considering the amount and properties relative to concrete of those contents.

 

[Hokulele]

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.

Have you ever worked on an HVAC system in a 30 year old building? I am pretty sure that in addition to any smoke that might have been in the area (or moved with the air down the shafts from the giant fires), there was plenty of dust and crud just in the shafts themselves to make any air movement clearly visible.

As a question, how are you so sure that the colors in the video ("grey hue") are accurate?

 

[papasmurf]

Okay, well if there are truly air vents that exit out of the building in those locations, that would change a lot. Does anyone have any information showing this to be true?

I could believe that those were HVAC system vents, but i would need to see that there are vents on the side of the building in those locations.

I would appreciate anyone's help in finding this information.

 

[pomeroo]

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.

We all agree that Larry Silverstein is Jewish. What else have you got?

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.

The debris--CLEARLY--falls faster than the building. You are clueless.

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.

You don't have "theories." You spout uninformed nonsense. The observed phenomena can be explained using real science. You, for painfully obvious reasons, are incapable of understanding what happened.

 

[papasmurf]

Also, if this air duct or whatever and no window theory is true, why would NIST not have used it.

It would make MUCH more sense than the pancake theory.

That is what is giving me doubts.

You people have a lot of theories that differ from NIST.

We have the truther theories, NIST, and JREF !

Who will prevail?

Stay tuned....

 

[papasmurf]

We all agree that Larry Silverstein is Jewish. What else have you got?







The debris--CLEARLY--falls faster than the building. You are clueless.





You don't have "theories." You spout uninformed nonsense. The observed phenomena can be explained using real science. You, for painfully obvious reasons, are incapable of understanding what happened.

Pomeroo,
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[HyJinX]

Also, if this air duct or whatever and no window theory is true, why would NIST not have used it.

It would make MUCH more sense than the pancake theory.

That is what is giving me doubts.

You people have a lot of theories that differ from NIST.

We have the truther theories, NIST, and JREF !

Who will prevail?

Stay tuned....

I'll tell you who won't prevail...the morons (...and I think we all know who that would be).

 

[papasmurf]

I'll tell you who won't prevail...the morons (...and I think we all know who that would be).

What's your education?

I assure you i'm the farthest thing from the moron. You can tell yourself that richard gage and I are morons all day, but we all know you can't sincerely believe that.

Btw, don't you get banned for calling people morons here?

I got banned for using the words circle and jerk consecutively...

 

[beachnut]

Also, if this air duct or whatever and no window theory is true, why would NIST not have used it.

It would make MUCH more sense than the pancake theory.

That is what is giving me doubts.

You people have a lot of theories that differ from NIST.

We have the truther theories, NIST, and JREF !

Who will prevail?

Stay tuned....

9/11 truth ideas of squibs, thermite, explosives are false. Blaming Silverstein is real stupid ideas and without evidence is pathetic. All 9/11 truth implied conclusions of bombs et al are not backed in fact or evidence. Regurgitated junk comes back often.

Squibs are pure nonsense, just air. After all the building is 95 percent air.

9/11 truth has no evidence to support their conclusions. Their conclusion are false.

Prevail, 9/11 truth ideas, pure fantasy.

What is it? Why? Why do followers of 9/11 only lack knowledge on 9/11 issues, or physics, or logical thinking, or research, or rational thought, or sound judgment, or math, or reading comprehension, or a combination of those and other problems keeping them from forming conclusions based on facts and knowledge?

Like squibs? Who makes up these lies?
It is pathetic when people like Gage propagate the lies of 9/11 truth without doing research, just regurgitating the standard 9/11 truth party line.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Also, if this air duct or whatever and no window theory is true, why would NIST not have used it.

It would make MUCH more sense than the pancake theory.

That is what is giving me doubts.

You people have a lot of theories that differ from NIST.

We have the truther theories, NIST, and JREF !

Who will prevail?

Stay tuned....

You're setting up a false dilemna. Any theory involving floors "pancaking", whether during collapse initiation (a hypothesis already rejected by NIST) or after that does not include or exclude the notion of dynamic pneumatic pressure being responsible for the phenomena conspiracy peddlers mischaracterize as "squibs".

This is what NIST said on the topic:

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?
No. 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.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.

The point is that pancaking isn't necessary as an explanation for the squibs. While it's a useful model to describe the failure progression, it may be a bit oversimplified to account for every collision that occurred post collapse initiation. Regardless, the only thing necessary to drive such dynamic pressure is the collapse of the upper section forcing air down through the structure. That's it. Setting up "pancaking" as being in opposition to the notion of dynamic pressure blowing out windows is a mischaracterization of both arguments.

 

[pomeroo]

Also, if this air duct or whatever and no window theory is true, why would NIST not have used it.

It would make MUCH more sense than the pancake theory.

That is what is giving me doubts.

You people have a lot of theories that differ from NIST.

We have the truther theories, NIST, and JREF !

Who will prevail?

Stay tuned....

There is no such animal as the "pancake" theory.

The good guys have already prevailed. Your evil, mindless movement is dead.

 

[Hokulele]

Okay, well if there are truly air vents that exit out of the building in those locations, that would change a lot. Does anyone have any information showing this to be true?

I could believe that those were HVAC system vents, but i would need to see that there are vents on the side of the building in those locations.

I would appreciate anyone's help in finding this information.

Read NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. The plans showing the exhaust louvers are in Appendix A of that volume.

Also, if this air duct or whatever and no window theory is true, why would NIST not have used it.

Because they only studied the collapse initiation.

ETA: I see NIST did address that in their most recent FAQ. Thanks EMH.

 

[papasmurf]

You're setting up a false dilemna. Any theory involving floors "pancaking", whether during collapse initiation (a hypothesis already rejected by NIST) or after that does not include or exclude the notion of dynamic pneumatic pressure being responsible for the phenomena conspiracy peddlers mischaracterize as "squibs".

This is what NIST said on the topic:


The point is that pancaking isn't necessary as an explanation for the squibs. While it's a useful model to describe the failure progression, it may be a bit oversimplified to account for every collision that occurred post collapse initiation. Regardless, the only thing necessary to drive such dynamic pressure is the collapse of the upper section forcing air down through the structure. That's it. Setting up "pancaking" as being in opposition to the notion of dynamic pressure blowing out windows is a mischaracterization of both arguments.

You are getting mixed up. You're theory doesn't go against the NIST theory possibly, but the theory that there were air vents and not windows that the air escaped from is clearly a point that would have been addressed by NIST.
This is what you quoted me on, and this is what i was discussing.

NIST explanation that you posted is absolutely horrible. As is Beachnut's. How can one possibly believe that the ejected material is only air. It is clearly a huge mass of dust and pulverized material. I don't get it.

 

[papasmurf]

There is no such animal as the "pancake" theory.

The good guys have already prevailed. Your evil, mindless movement is dead.

We're evil?

Keep telling yourself that Pomeroo, whatever gets you to sleep at night.

As for the pancake theory that doesn't exist... why are you telling me?

Tell that to all your other goofy debunkers who still try to pull popular mechanics out of their back pockets.

 

[papasmurf]

Has anyone here seen 9/11 Press for Truth?

Surely someone here has to believe they're covering something up...