Horizontal Ejections and Squibs

My calculation is 100% scientifically sound. Ask any engineering expert.
Why? Wrong hight was used.
I guess it is safe to assume you haven't even taken or understood physics 101?;)
Since there has been a mod warning in this thread. This stupidity will be reported. As you already know, ignoring a mod warning isn't a good idea.
So if we assume
Again with the assumptions...freefall from the roof of a 1368 foot tower is 9.22 seconds neglecting air resistance. The WTC was 417 meters NOT 526 meters as you think. Didn't they teach you in class that garbage in equals garbage out?
 
You think that steel beams were ejected out of the towers by explosives?!? What kind of explosives would do that? How would it work? Do you have any other demolition examples which show steel beams being flung out?

That's just crazy talk.

What i am about to type is pure speculation. It is just an idea. I don't really presume to know what exactly happened. I am just "unconvinced" that gravity alone carried out this collapse. I am entitled to express my opinion. So here it goes...

This is not a typical demolition. Rather than precisely controlled placement of small explosives on every collumn, they relied on larger explosives on a few collumns that would have needed enough energy to cause collateral damage to the surrounding beams. This is why material is thrown outward from the building. These could be military grade, more expensive and higher quality explosives that could have a higher energy per mass than typical demolition explosives. I also believe it is possible that thermate could have been used in key locations to severely weaken/melt the beams as to ensure that the explosions in the core crippled every critical collumn. You can think of these core explosions as "bombs" rather than typical demoltions.

Why do you think gravity is capable of flinging the beams horizontally at such a high velocity? I think you need to pay more attention to the videos and see how ridiculous the outward explosions are. This progressive collapse does not explain why so much of the gravitational energy was directed into flinging steel beams away from the structure.

And, No, they would not have interfered with the elevators. I never said they were in the elevators shafts, i just said they had access to areas in the core FROM the elevator shafts. Remember that elevator work was being conducted shortly before 9/11...
 
They expand out and disipate, that sounds about right... I don't know what you mean by contiuous stream. I see a short jet of debris shoot out at high velocity, on par with explosive velocity.

No, at explosive velocities the 'squib' would move hundreds of feet in less than the duration of 1 frame of video. It would appear instantly and stop, it wouldn't blow continuously for several seconds at velocities easily caught on video.
 
What i am about to type is pure speculation. It is just an idea. I don't really presume to know what exactly happened. I am just "unconvinced" that gravity alone carried out this collapse. I am entitled to express my opinion. So here it goes...
Before you go any further, how do you attempt to justify thinking the WTC was 526 meters? Do you understand that is 1725 feet or so...what building were you thinking about?
 
They expand out and disipate, that sounds about right... I don't know what you mean by contiuous stream. I see a short jet of debris shoot out at high velocity, on par with explosive velocity.

Alot of the videos show this in slow motion, so as to make it look like its it ejecting gradually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o4cGW7KqSw

It is not hard to see that these explosions can be from explosives.

You can see bright flashes too... which is odd. I know you all have an explanation for this too, but i hope you know that those flashes are seen in CD's.

The plumes or jets you see are perfectly consistent with pneumatic effects from the upper section falling. You don't need explosives to explain those.

The "bright flashes" not only appear randomly in the dust cloud, but also appear away from the building. If those are flashes associated with explosives, why is the dust cloud not reacting to those supposed explosions? There's no distortion of the cloud around them, no distortion of air or smoke indicating any pressure front from an explosion. To me, those "flashes" are reflective pieces of debris catching the sunlight, possibly glass or parts of the aluminum facade. Either way, those flashes are not consistent with explosives. For examples of flashes that are, watch the demolitions of various Las Vegas hotels and casinos:
https://www.vegas.com/lounge/implosions.html

That video shows no signs of explosives use.
 
Before you go any further, how do you attempt to justify thinking the WTC was 526 meters? Do you understand that is 1725 feet or so...what building were you thinking about?

Hi Enigma,

Today we are going to have a lesson in dimensional analysis!

1725 feet * 12 inches/1foot * 2.54 cm/1inch * 1 m/100 cm = 526 m !!!!!

Wow, that was fun!
 
Hi Enigma,

Today we are going to have a lesson in dimensional analysis!

1725 feet * 12 inches/1foot * 2.54 cm/1inch * 1 m/100 cm = 526 m !!!!!

Wow, that was fun!
Which is exactly what I said but how do you justify using 526 meters as the height of the WTC which is a well known value of 1368 feet? As I said, the failures of grammar schools is astounding.
 
smurf.jpg
 
I got my data from wikipedia... i think it is the height to the antenna... so i guess the roof could be lower.

I misunderstood your sentence to mean that you thought the building is 1725 feet... So i apologize. If you use the height of the building to be 417 m then the time would be 9.2 seconds.

So what does NIST mean by the first exterior panel? do they mean the first piece of debris, or the top section of the building? Does anyone know what they mean by this?
 
Last edited:
I got my data from wikipedia... i think it is the height to the antenna... so i guess the roof could be lower.
You are confusing the WTC with the sears tower. Look again...

WTC antenna brought it to 1727 feet.
 
Last edited:
I got my data from wikipedia... i think it is the height to the antenna... so i guess the roof could be lower.

I misunderstood your sentence to mean that you thought the building is 1725 feet... So i apologize. If you use the height of the building to be 417 m then the time would be 9.2 seconds.

So what does NIST mean by the first exterior panel? do they mean the first piece of debris, or the top section of the building? Does anyone know what they mean by this?


ummmmm....don't they teach you in school that Wikipedia is not a reliable source?
 
Papa, you still haven't answered the question. Why is the volume and speed of the "squibs" increasing as the collapse approaches that floor?
 
So what does NIST mean by the first exterior panel? do they mean the first piece of debris, or the top section of the building? Does anyone know what they mean by this?
Seems pretty clear to me. They said the first exterior panels to hit the ground.
 
Sorry Grizzly Bear, i didn't mean to ignore this, it was an accident. I'll try to answer your questions.
Then I apologize for calling you out on it... I usually keep such circumstances in mind due to the flood of replies people who argue in favor of the CD theory get.

A. I believe the demolition used was precisely timed to be just ahead of the collapse front. If you watch the collapse wave, you can see material and beams being flung out right ahead of the collapse wave, before the top section was even able to exert its full pressure on it. This utilizes the highest technology available for wireless and computer sequenced demolitions.
................... Nothing personal intended but this is very speculative. What is the highest available technology available? Do other controlled demolitions utilize this high technology? This is a very vague statement which has a rather easy alternative example, although you have rejected it thus far.

B. Where do you see the core still standing? Can you please show me some proof that the core remains standing for a short time. I have seen a video where you can see the outer facade of the building stand for a couple of seconds after teh collapse, after which it crumbled to the ground. Is this what you are referring to?
The video you saw was of the core structure. I can most easily prove this to you by showing you the picture of the south tower core standing briefly.


South tower core

The north tower core structure is more discernible in pictures:

North tower core


It would make sense that the outer facade would stand towards the end of the collapse, because i believe most of the explosives were placed in the core where there was access from the elevator shafts.

What you saw was the remnants of the core structure, which would support pancake collapse progression, signifying that the floors were sheared from their connections. One of the images is posted on 911 research, a pro conspiracy website, and they do not appear to object to the fact that the cores were still standing at least briefly for the north tower
 
Last edited:
This is not a typical demolition. Rather than precisely controlled placement of small explosives on every collumn, they relied on larger explosives on a few collumns that would have needed enough energy to cause collateral damage to the surrounding beams. This is why material is thrown outward from the building. These could be military grade, more expensive and higher quality explosives that could have a higher energy per mass than typical demolition explosives. I also believe it is possible that thermate could have been used in key locations to severely weaken/melt the beams as to ensure that the explosions in the core crippled every critical collumn. You can think of these core explosions as "bombs" rather than typical demoltions.

billiejeanlive7uv.gif


This is all very nice and well but now can you stop dancing around and show some evidence for this?
 
Last edited:
I did do my homework and look at the ventilation diagrams in the NIST report.

If you look at them. They have these green markings across entire levels showing where vents are located.

This has me to believe at this point that events are small and spread out, rather than just large vents at the midpoint of the building.


I need a reason to believe that the vents could have been large enough to launch the amount of debris we see out of them. I need a reason to believe the events exit the building perfectly horizontal. And i need a reason to believe that they should exit the buildings at the midpoints.

If you are confident in this theory, develop it and write a paper on it. Submit it to NIST.

Until then, those squib-like explosions are still suspect to being demolitions.

you are the voice of maturity in an ocean of melting emotionality.
 
Last edited:
Well, I can't be accused of failing to try. Since papasmurf does not seem interested in a reasonable discussion on this, I am done here.

Well you should CARE. Beachnut.

You have kids?

You don't care about the true nature of the world they are entering?


Did you even watch the videos?

No, you didn't.

It's called denial.

How do you expect for people to ever take your word for it if you haven't even seen their side of the story?

How would you feel if i showed your kids these videos, and they changed their minds?

What if they asked you about the videos, what you thought...

And you would get all angry and such and yell like an ignorant old man...

THEY'RE JUNK I TELL YOU. JUNK... .RUBBISH...

How do you think they would react? Unless your kids are BRAINWASHED, they wouldn't TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

Watch the videos and tell me WHY they are junk.

You have to start THINKING FOR YOURSELF.

All PEOPLE here WAKE UP.

Get out of the MOB MENTALITY.

Make up your OWN MIND.


Now let me explain something to you beachnut. You say you don't care, and that your kids will prevail in the marketplace. This is just false. I assure you this "marketplace" will be heavily affected by what is soon to come. I will be ready to play the game and stay alive. I will do fine in the system no matter what i believe it's true nature to be. Will you or your kids be ready mentally if the world changes as we know it, and no one can no longer deny that evil forces are at work?

I see it much clearer now. You people are afraid.

Afraid of the truth. You won't admit this, but deep down you know it is fear that is holding you back.

It's understandable. If indeed Alex Jones and millions of others are mostly correct, we are headed towards Nazi Germany.

The world will change for the worse soon. Bad things will happen to the economy and other sectors, and no one is going to be able to blame it on the truth movement.


Inside voice, please.

You're welcome. And thank you for the reference to the louvers. I didn't know that was there. I really, really need to do a cover-to-cover reading of the whole report, including supplements, instead of just reading sections pertinent to whatever it is I'm studying at the moment.


It took me about 6 weeks of off-and-on reading, and there are many details I don't remember, but it gave me a very good overview of what was examined and a good idea of what search terms to use when trying to locate the details. I have never needed this for anything other than this sub-forum, but since I do work with people in the construction industry (mostly pushing piles of dirt around), it gave me a few insights into building design and construction I wasn't previously aware of, so overall it was worth it.

I may have to look for a cool Hokulele quote to use in my sig as tribute. :D


Cool as in intelligent, or cool as in WTF is she on about now? ;)


ETA: Whoops, didn't see the Mod box on the next page. My apologies.
 
Last edited:
Why do you think gravity is capable of flinging the beams horizontally at such a high velocity? I think you need to pay more attention to the videos and see how ridiculous the outward explosions are. This progressive collapse does not explain why so much of the gravitational energy was directed into flinging steel beams away from the structure.

The perimeter walls simply leant outward when they lost lateral bracing.

If a piece of wall, say 500ft high leans outward and falls, some of it will land at least that distance away.

You can see an example here. The east wall of WTC2 is laid out across the remains of WTC4, in a straight line from the footprint of the tower:
wtc_East_Hell.jpg



Explosives are simply out of the question. From Pg97 of R.Mackey's whitepaper:

Regarding Dr. Griffin’s preferred theory, it should be pointed out that explosives rarely impart much momentum to solid objects, unless the explosive is actually contained – material making up a solid casing will be fragmented and sent at high velocity (i.e. shell fragments), but nearby solid objects will hardly move at all. This is because explosives create a pressure shock that moves at supersonic speeds. The explosive may exert a high pressure on nearby objects, but the pressure rapidly “washes over” those objects and thus does not have time to impart a large impulse.

Unless the pressure wave is somehow contained, the wave will rapidly move beyond nearby objects, at which time they are no longer accelerated. This effect is reminiscent of big-wave surfing – a truly large wave moves too fast for a surfer to gain much of a push from it and it will simply pass him by, unless he has either a longer, faster board or is towed into the wave by a jet ski.

For a worked example, Rememnikov [151] presents a typical charge of 100 kg TNT exploding at a distance of 15 meters. A series of objects placed at this distance would experience 272 kPa or just under 40 PSI, but would only experience the overpressure for 17.2 milliseconds, including the reflection of the blast, after which the pressure wave has passed the objects. Let’s assume we’re discussing a section of unattached, hollow square steel column 3 m high by 20 cm wide, with walls 4 cm thick. This object presents a maximum of 0.6 m2 to the blast front, so it experiences a maximum force of 272 kPa x 0.6 m2 = 163,200 N for 17.2 milliseconds, for a total impulse of 2807 Newton seconds.

It should be noted that the simplified calculation above grossly overestimates the total impulse, because we have assumed the peak pressure is sustained for the entire duration, when in reality a lower average value is expected. The actual expected impulse per facing area, seen in Table 1 of Rememnikov’s paper, is a mere 955 kPa-msec, or only 573 Newton seconds imparted to our column as above. We therefore are using a very generous estimate, almost five times higher than we actually expect. We will use our simplified estimate rather than the lower, more accurate number to silence any doubts that we have potentially underestimated the maximum imparted velocity.

The total impulse is equal to the mass of the object times the change in velocity. In this case, our column contains 256 cm2 x 3 m of steel or 76,800 cm3 of steel, for a mass of approximately 600 kg. The column would, therefore, be accelerated by 2807 N s / 600kg = 4.7 meters per second, or about 10 miles per hour – hardly a remarkable value compared to the ricochet scenario described above. In order to propel this column at the speed required, say 30 meters per second, we would need charges of at least 700 kg TNT equivalent – very large and clearly audible explosives indeed, even accepting our generous assumptions above.

.....700kg of TNT for a single column.
 

Back
Top Bottom