Building demolished from the top down.

[Java Man]

A multi-ton hat truss collapsing most certainly is going to displace alot of air.

Above the zone where it is collapsing?? Now I'm

The smoke isn't pulled out venturi style it is actually being ejected as if something is collapsing inside ten stories up (2/3 to the top from floor 93).

So, you say there are TWO squibs? Where? I seem to have missed it.

I marked them with arrows. One is in the impact level and the other is 10 stories up.

 

[Java Man]

Actually, it is clear that something is moving OUTSIDE.

The roof of the tower has clearly started to come down when the so-called "squibs" appear. In fact, that is evident in the side-by-side pictures you showed here...the roofline is lower in the second one, as the puffs of smoke appear.

Exactly as mentioned previously by one of your fellow friends here "half a second". Which is about the time it takes for a floor panel to drop one level from a stand still position.

So here's my take. Some floors are released. Remember it is only one or two that are needed after that collapse can continue on its own. You've been very generous in proving that.

The floor impacts down and breaks the next floor and so on. Initiating the collapse. That is why we see the squib high up and also near the fire. The same phenomenon is being initiated at different levels to trigger the collapse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

And you're trying to counter what with that? My statement still stands. Let me clarify that C4 burning is toxic. So it is best kept from heat and fire for toxicity reasons not because it will explode.

Java Man, I realise it's obvious to the rest of us, but after your more bizarre views of how insurance works I'm beginning to realise it may not be quite so obvious to you: do you realise that, if a C4 charge catches fire and then burns, it can't actually explode any more?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Above the zone where it is collapsing?? Now I'm

The collapse pressurises the whole building, above and below the collapse zone.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

The collapse pressurises the whole building, above and below the collapse zone.

Dave

Hard to believe unless there are no floors left standing in between. Remember the air pump doesn't pressurize your tires instantly even when the air reservoir has plenty of compressed air in it, it is still limited by the air flow through the hose and valve.

Then there is the issue of no squibs appearing under the impact zone if as you claim it pressurizes above and "below".

 

[Java Man]

Java Man, I realise it's obvious to the rest of us, but after your more bizarre views of how insurance works I'm beginning to realise it may not be quite so obvious to you: do you realise that, if a C4 charge catches fire and then burns, it can't actually explode any more?

Dave

For discussion's sake let's assume it burns completely and is totally neutralized and thus the floor affected is not releasable. Still there are backup floors to initiate the collapse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

For discussion's sake let's assume it burns completely and is totally neutralized and thus the floor affected is not releasable. Still there are backup floors to initiate the collapse.

But the collapse was observed to initiate in the floors affected by the fires, where the charges would have been neutralised.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

But the collapse was observed to initiate in the floors affected by the fires, where the charges would have been neutralised.

Dave

A chain breaks at its weakest link. Sure we see the collapse in the fire affected area, but it could very well be triggered from above. The dynamic load of the floors falling unobserved (except for the squibs) inside the tower then "snaps" the fire affected floors.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hard to believe unless there are no floors left standing in between. Remember the air pump doesn't pressurize your tires instantly even when the air reservoir has plenty of compressed air in it, it is still limited by the air flow through the hose and valve.

Agreed that the pressurisation is not instantaneous. So: (a) how fast do you think it is, and (b) how long after collapse initiation do your "squibs" appear? Unless you have numbers for both these, you're just saying it doesn't look right to you. Hydrodynamics isn't all that intuitive, so what looks right isn't particularly helpful.

Then there is the issue of no squibs appearing under the impact zone if as you claim it pressurizes above and "below".

"Squibs" (I insist on the inverted commas, as they bear no relation to any normal usage of the word) below the impact zone have been commented on ever since the early days of the truth movement, feature quite strongly in all versions of Loose Change, and are easily identified (mainly from the time dependence of the outflow) as results of steady rather than instantaneous overpressure. There is therefore no such issue.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

A chain breaks at its weakest link.

Not if the explosives are placed on the strongest link.

Dave

 

[aggle-rithm]

Exactly as mentioned previously by one of your fellow friends here "half a second". Which is about the time it takes for a floor panel to drop one level from a stand still position.

So here's my take. Some floors are released.

Evidence, please.

The roof clearly is moving downward, compressing the internal volume of the building. Why are floor panels necessary to explain the high pressure?

 

[aggle-rithm]

A chain breaks at its weakest link. Sure we see the collapse in the fire affected area, but it could very well be triggered from above. The dynamic load of the floors falling unobserved (except for the squibs) inside the tower then "snaps" the fire affected floors.

Prove it. Show your work.

 

[Java Man]

Agreed that the pressurisation is not instantaneous. So: (a) how fast do you think it is, and (b) how long after collapse initiation do your "squibs" appear? Unless you have numbers for both these, you're just saying it doesn't look right to you. Hydrodynamics isn't all that intuitive, so what looks right isn't particularly helpful.

Numbers have nothing to do with it. Lack of numbers has always been fine with you and your team of debunkers. You've never had an issue about not bringing numbers yourself, so why complain about others?

But anyway, the squibs should appear shortly after the floors are released. The half second delay mentioned coincides with a drop time for one floor to the next. It also solves the pressurization problem as no pressurization is needed. They are local events creating their own pressure wave and pushing smoke out as squibs. With its own floor dropping from above it is easy to see how you achieve the same level of pressurization ten stories up as you see in the fire afflicted area.

 

[Java Man]

Evidence, please.

The roof clearly is moving downward, compressing the internal volume of the building. Why are floor panels necessary to explain the high pressure?

Because the collapse according to you the debunkers is happening at the fire afflicted area. Sure the roof is moving downward, but it is doing so as a whole with the outer perimeter. They move down as one. The roof isn't moving down on its own.

That is why I selected that video. See the foot note "A rebuttal to Anders Bjorkman's (AKA Heiwa)claim that the roof of the north tower began falling before the area at the impact zone. See this JREF forum post:" It is proof used by debunkers here against truthers. Now you can't come around and claim otherwise that the roof is somehow moving independently.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Because the collapse according to you the debunkers is happening at the fire afflicted area. Sure the roof is moving downward, but it is doing so as a whole with the outer perimeter. They move down as one. The roof isn't moving down on its own.

That is why I selected that video. See the foot note "A rebuttal to Anders Bjorkman's (AKA Heiwa)claim that the roof of the north tower began falling before the area at the impact zone. See this JREF forum post:" It is proof used by debunkers here against truthers. Now you can't come around and claim otherwise that the roof is somehow moving independently.

Show your evidence that explosives were responsible for what we observe here.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Numbers have nothing to do with it.

Wrong. We know that all the inside spaces are connected, so any part of the interior will pressurise at some rate due to the collapse. Therefore, at some definite time after collapse initiates, ejecta are trivially explained. If you have neither numbers for the time delay expected nor for the time delay observed, then you have no argument that is not refuted by the trivial explanation of pressurisation,

Lack of numbers has always been fine with you and your team of debunkers. You've never had an issue about not bringing numbers yourself, so why complain about others?

Apart from the fact that that's simply not true, there is the little matter that, as things stand, it will be accepted by all official sources for the indefinite future that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by al-Qaeda. If you have any ambition of changing that status quo, you will need to provide compelling evidence. Therefore, whichever way you may choose to argue that the burden of proof should lie, in practice it can only lie with you. So, unless you present properly substantiated claims - which means quantified, which means numbers - then you lose by forfeit.

Dave

 

[aggle-rithm]

That is why I selected that video. See the foot note "A rebuttal to Anders Bjorkman's (AKA Heiwa)claim that the roof of the north tower began falling before the area at the impact zone. See this JREF forum post:" It is proof used by debunkers here against truthers. Now you can't come around and claim otherwise that the roof is somehow moving independently.

The north tower didn't collapse in a symmetrical fashion. I suspect what we are looking at here is the "hinge" of the rotation as the top of the tower falls away from the camera.

I could do a little more verification, but since the burden of proof is not on me, why bother?.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Excuse me. Are you going to reply to the content of my posts or totally disregard said content and play your standard debunker response based on your idea of what I'm trying to say instead of what I'm actually saying?

Because the collapse according to you the debunkers is happening at the fire afflicted area. Sure the roof is moving downward, but it is doing so as a whole with the outer perimeter. They move down as one. The roof isn't moving down on its own.

That is why I selected that video. See the foot note "A rebuttal to Anders Bjorkman's (AKA Heiwa)claim that the roof of the north tower began falling before the area at the impact zone. See this JREF forum post:" It is proof used by debunkers here against truthers. Now you can't come around and claim otherwise that the roof is somehow moving independently.

I know Java Man will choose not to appreciate the irony of this juxtaposition, but is any further comment needed for anyone else?

Dave

 

[Java Man]

Wrong. We know that all the inside spaces are connected, so any part of the interior will pressurise at some rate due to the collapse. Therefore, at some definite time after collapse initiates, ejecta are trivially explained. If you have neither numbers for the time delay expected nor for the time delay observed, then you have no argument that is not refuted by the trivial explanation of pressurisation,

Well there are issues to overcome. One is that the ejecta appear concurrently ten floors up, thus giving no time for pressurization to propagate. Secondly there is the issue of pressure loss. You can't pressurize infinitely because you have a huge hole made by the aircraft through which pressure escapes outward. Said hole is bigger than the "interconnections" you mention.

So it is hard for you to prove that the ejecta ten stories up is due to pressurization from down below (impact zone) when the event occurs concurrently with the one at the impact zone and there is a huge hole through which pressure can escape rather than build upwards. Fortunately for you the burden of proof isn't on you, but don't for a second believe it makes your nonsense position any more sensible. It just takes the burden of you having to make any sense out of your arguments.

 

[Java Man]

I could do a little more verification, but since the burden of proof is not on me, why bother?.

See my previous response to Dave. That you don't need to prove you're right doesn't make you position a correct one.