Building demolished from the top down.

[triforcharity]

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).

Yeah, the ******* hat truss at the top of the building. Do you see how the antenna is collapsing?

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

Yes, I understand that. Do you not understand that the tower is COLLAPSING?

 

[triforcharity]

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".

There is. On the mechanical floors where the HVAC equipment is housed. Did you not watch Loose Change?

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Then the collapse would have started ABOVE the impact zone.

What part of this do you not understand?

 

[Java Man]

Then the collapse would have started ABOVE the impact zone.

What part of this do you not understand?

It's quite clear that you don't understand that that is exactly my point. According to my theory is that it did start ABOVE the impact zone.

What part of my position do you not understand?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well there are issues to overcome. One is that the ejecta appear concurrently ten floors up, thus giving no time for pressurization to propagate.

"Concurrently" is a quantitative claim. Let's see the data to back it up.

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.

Firstly, there's no need to pressurise infinitely. Secondly, any initial degree of crush-up will pressurise the upper part of the structure, and will be above the big hole you mentioned. So, again, you're hinting at a quantitative claim: that the upper structure won't pressurise enough to produce the ejecta you see. Again, present data to back up this claim.

Dave

 

[Java Man]

"Concurrently" is a quantitative claim. Let's see the data to back it up.

It's in the pictures I indicate them with arrows and you can see them in the video too.

Firstly, there's no need to pressurise infinitely. Secondly, any initial degree of crush-up will pressurise the upper part of the structure, and will be above the big hole you mentioned. So, again, you're hinting at a quantitative claim: that the upper structure won't pressurise enough to produce the ejecta you see. Again, present data to back up this claim.

Dave

"Crush-up" you've got to be kidding me. There's barely enough time for it to fall one floor down and you're already talking about crush ups? Give me a break. The hole created by the impact covered five stories and the squibs appear way before five stories could have been fallen and crush-up of non impacted floors could have begun.

 

[Dave Rogers]

"Crush-up" you've got to be kidding me. There's barely enough time for it to fall one floor down and you're already talking about crush ups? Give me a break.

Clearly you haven't understood Bazant's models, which suggest that crush-up is only seen in the earliest stages of collapse. I see no reason why crush-up in the first second of collapse couldn't pressurise the upper block.

Incidentally, are you trying to suggest that "concurrently" is somehow compatible with "barely enough time for it to fall one floor down"? There seems to me to be rather an obvious contradiction there.

Dave

 

[aggle-rithm]

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

You think it's incorrect? Prove it.

Mine is the default position. The one that makes sense. The one that is part of a coherent narrative of what happened on 9/11.

You don't have any of that, so you have lots of work to do before you can convince anyone.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Allow me to put this in as simple terms as possible:

As of January 2010 the Medical Examiner's office

1626 Ground Zero victims, or 59 percent of a reported 2,752 total identified

As of that date: 21,744 remains had been recovered and 12,768, or 59 percent, had been identified.

Explosive residue/explosive remains/thermite exclusive components/ to date: zero

Again, speculation is endless, the evidence is conclusive and inflexible. No amount of harping on squibs, or anything else can reconsile with the fact that there is absolutely no hard evidence that explosives or incendiaries were ever present inside the towers before or after they fell

 

[aggle-rithm]

It's quite clear that you don't understand that that is exactly my point. According to my theory is that it did start ABOVE the impact zone.

Please stop saying you have a theory. You don't have one. You don't even have a hypothesis.

You disagree? Prove me wrong. Present your theory.

What part of my position do you not understand?

IMO, the reason people are having trouble understanding you is that you are deliberately obfuscating your position.

I don't blame you. Clarity is the truther's worst enemy.

 

[Java Man]

Clearly you haven't understood Bazant's models, which suggest that crush-up is only seen in the earliest stages of collapse. I see no reason why crush-up in the first second of collapse couldn't pressurise the upper block.

Dave

Because one second is not enough to crush 5 floors and thus seal up the whole to achieve any hopes of pressurizing the upper block. Unless of course the building is falling at faster than free fall. Which even you without your burden of proof would dare claim.

 

[triforcharity]

It's quite clear that you don't understand that that is exactly my point. According to my theory is that it did start ABOVE the impact zone.

What part of my position do you not understand?

The part that doesn't match REALITY?!?!?!?!

 

[Java Man]

IMO, the reason people are having trouble understanding you is that you are deliberately obfuscating your position.

Nope, actually its because they are running classic anti truther models and posting without thinking about my posts. You've fallen into such a habit that you just play your knee jerk responses.

 

[tsig]

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.

How can these bring down the towers?

A squib is a miniature explosive device used in a wide range of industries, from special effects to military applications. They resemble tiny sticks of dynamite, both in appearance and construction, although with considerably less explosive power. Squibs can be used for generating mechanical force, or to provide pyrotechnic effects for both film and live theatrics. Squibs can be used for shattering or propelling a variety of materials.[1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)

 

[aggle-rithm]

Nope, actually its because they are running classic anti truther models and posting without thinking about my posts. You've fallen into such a habit that you just play your knee jerk responses.

I disagree. Look at some of the posts you have made:

Not really, because it fails to explain certain events. Like the squibs I've discussed previously.

Let me be clear one does not exclude the other. The NIST model is fine, but it doesn't exclude controlled demolition because if fails to explain those events which are rising questions. You can have all the bowing you mention occurring and still bring it down in a controlled manner so as not to leave things to nature.

I'll blame it on NIST for not taking the necessary amount of samples to cover their backs on issues like this one.

Is it relevant? It's not going to fill in the gaps. Maybe NIST couldn't, maybe they didn't. But regardless of the reason the lack of samples exists and that's what is important to remember.

No. It was just a clarifying note I added. Like I said this does not exclude controlled demolition. Both scenarios can be concurrent.




Maybe because it was calibrated with the collected samples. Imagine if it didn't even correlate that!!!

Nevertheless it would have been a better model if there had been more samples.

Don't confuse bowing with sagging. I'm aware that the bowing was observed from the outside. I never said I knew all along that sagging was observed.

Unfortunately I do. The unfortunate people who were trapped in the levels above the impact points.

Remember that the floors above the impact zone retained their fireproofing and that explosives don't need to breath so smoke doesn't trouble them. Thread carefully with this counter argument you're trying to push forward.

No

You're free to assume as you see fit. I've laid things out and readers can make their own decisions.

Uh nope. They detonate on the floors they were set in. Thus releasing those floors from above the impact zone. It could be possible to release them below too, thus initiating pancake collapses bellow the impact zone.

Was it not observed or not looked for? What if the floors collapsing inside the tower, but higher up from the crash zone couldn't be observed. Would that make it a non event as you claim or just an unobservable event?

See now you're over engineering the solution. KISS

Do you see the problem? None of these are complete thoughts. We are supposed to do detective work and glean your actual position from a combination of posts that may or may not be relevant.

In my opinion, you are doing this on purpose to stifle debate on 9/11.

Who is paying you to do this?

 

[Java Man]

How can these bring down the towers?

A squib is a miniature explosive device used in a wide range of industries, from special effects to military applications. They resemble tiny sticks of dynamite, both in appearance and construction, although with considerably less explosive power. Squibs can be used for generating mechanical force, or to provide pyrotechnic effects for both film and live theatrics. Squibs can be used for shattering or propelling a variety of materials.[1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)

I've used squibs to refer to the projections seen coming out of the perimeter.

 

[Java Man]

Who is paying you to do this?

Probably the same folks paying you to counter post my posts?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Probably the same folks paying you to counter post my posts?

That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

I am the one who is trying to keep the discussion on track. I am the one who keeps reminding you that you need evidence to make the claims you're making. I have offered you several chances to produce this evidence, and well as a couple of chances to explain the theory that you claim to have. You have ignored these opportunities.

Clearly, by all truther logic, some shadowy cabal is paying you.

 

[Java Man]

That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

I am the one who is trying to keep the discussion on track. I am the one who keeps reminding you that you need evidence to make the claims you're making. I have offered you several chances to produce this evidence, and well as a couple of chances to explain the theory that you claim to have. You have ignored these opportunities.

Clearly, by all truther logic, some shadowy cabal is paying you.

I've clearly brought forth the image of the squib protruding many stories up and no "pressurization theory" brought forth by your team can account for that.

So something outside the generally understood theory is going on.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I've clearly brought forth the image of the squib protruding many stories up and no "pressurization theory" brought forth by your team can account for that.

The fact that you can't understand the dynamics of pressurization is proof of nothing. But let's assume that the following is true:

So something outside the generally understood theory is going on.

Why MUST it be explosives?

In fact, why MUST it be the result of any deliberate act?

I don't really expect you to answer, because you simply lack the expertise to make a judgement like this. You are just believing what you dearly wish to be true.