Building demolished from the top down.

[Java Man]

Why MUST it be explosives?

This is the part in which you are jumping to conclusions. We are only in the deliberate act part. We'll need to get to this later.

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

Because it would be in the generally believed theory otherwise.

 

[Java Man]

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.

I see what you're getting at, but I don't see the problem. This mechanism disarms the classic tactic of bogging down a position with infinite bogus counter arguments which, having no need on your part to support, can come forth like running water. By going bit by bit I can can control this and keep the conversation on track. Then by assembling it later it becomes coherent, but harder for you to suffocate under senseless rambling. You become in away committed.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Only so much time during lunch today so I have not read all that has transpired here since I logged off last.

However, if these so called squibs occur AFTER collapse initiation and above the fire zone that too is consistent with the NIST model of collapse (that fire floors collapsed due to those fires).

A fire floor collapses and this is the final blow to the ability of that region to support the upper structure. The upper mass comes down upon lower floors ripping them off their truss seats and presurizing the air below.

So ask yourself what is happening to the lowest of the upper section's floors? They are being pushed up off their truss seats towards their ceiling again pressurizing the air.

Thus there is a mechanism by which these ejections can occur and still we require no 'extra' help in collapsing any floor.

 

[jaydeehess]

I see what you're getting at, but I don't see the problem. This mechanism disarms the classic tactic of bogging down a position with infinite bogus counter arguments which, having no need on your part to support, can come forth like running water. By going bit by bit I can can control this and keep the conversation on track. Then by assembling it later it becomes coherent, but harder for you to suffocate under senseless rambling. You become in away committed.

As has been pointed out to you time and again, the vast preponderance of evidence shows that the towers collapsed solely due to the effects of aircraft impacts and subsequent fires and there is little or no evidence to the contrary and thus contrary theories are just open speculation, works of fiction, the product of inventive minds, nothing more.

Your whole arguement boils down to a false equivocation in which you are giving equal validity to theories with and without any evidence to support them and simply claiming "well, coulda happened that way".

 

[jaydeehess]

I thought Telltale Tom was serious....hehe.

Though I had my doubts I was treating him as serious as well.

 

[Java Man]

Only so much time during lunch today so I have not read all that has transpired here since I logged off last.

However, if these so called squibs occur AFTER collapse initiation and above the fire zone that too is consistent with the NIST model of collapse (that fire floors collapsed due to those fires).

A fire floor collapses and this is the final blow to the ability of that region to support the upper structure. The upper mass comes down upon lower floors ripping them off their truss seats and presurizing the air below.

So ask yourself what is happening to the lowest of the upper section's floors? They are being pushed up off their truss seats towards their ceiling again pressurizing the air.

Thus there is a mechanism by which these ejections can occur and still we require no 'extra' help in collapsing any floor.

Can you develop that theory a little more. Exactly what part is pushing the floors up? Is it the core? Which? What?

 

[Java Man]

As has been pointed out to you time and again, the vast preponderance of evidence shows that the towers collapsed solely due to the effects of aircraft impacts and subsequent fires and there is little or no evidence to the contrary and thus contrary theories are just open speculation, works of fiction, the product of inventive minds, nothing more.

There is nothing more inventive than some of the arguments by debunkers here, who unburdened by the need to actually defend their claims can say just about anything and get away with it.

The preponderance of evidence does not explain the squibs I have pointed out.

 

[A W Smith]

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.

A squeezebox bellows with a hole/void in the center can still pressurize both ends of the bellows somewhat, Are you saying the pressure would be unequal? That defies basic pneumatics. Add to that the void was around the perimeter of the core not the entire core itself. Some mechanical and elevator shafts remained intact. Thus both upper and lower portions of the tower could easily become pressurized.

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.

No need to seal up the whole. As long as you have somewhat intact shafts, You have a compressible column of air.
Your (cough) "squibs" as you twoofers call them.
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition
@14:37

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm not sure how many windows are out, but no more than one is needed to clearly see the phenomenon. In other words one spot is good enough.

Well since the puffs occur in the same place that smoke was emanating from in the first place its a good bet that the window was already out in that spot.

Yes, it wouldn't be too helpful for my case if it happened before right? The squib occurring at the visible collapse zone is also happening many stories up. That's the whole point. The push out you see shortly after the collapse starts (as you say half a second) is also being seen many stories up. Same thing happening many stories up.

Actually it does your case no good at all that it occurs after the roof line has already begun its down ward movement.
A collapsed floor 10 storeys above perimeter collapse zone would have to eject material out of windows on the next floor below before causing a collapse ten storeys further down.

 

[tsig]

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

Then why not use the word projections? Calling them squibs smacks of obfuscation and is misleading.

 

[LightningTeg]

There is nothing more inventive than some of the arguments by debunkers here, who unburdened by the need to actually defend their claims can say just about anything and get away with it.

The preponderance of evidence does not explain the squibs I have pointed out.

You are failing to see the whole picture here.

If there were squibs, there were explosives.

If there were explosives, there would be noise

There was no noise characteristic of explosives And this has been confirmed from audio analysis using the hundreds of video cameras pointed at the towers before their collapse. This is stated the NIST report.

 

[tsig]

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.

If by 'shadowy cabal' you mean his mother and by 'paying' you mean providing food then I think you're correct.

It's fun to use words without regard for their meaning.

 

[tsig]

I see what you're getting at, but I don't see the problem. This mechanism disarms the classic tactic of bogging down a position with infinite bogus counter arguments which, having no need on your part to support, can come forth like running water. By going bit by bit I can can control this and keep the conversation on track. Then by assembling it later it becomes coherent, but harder for you to suffocate under senseless rambling. You become in away committed.

I see words but no meaning. Perhaps you're using words in an unconventional way again?

We know that squibs = 'puffs of smoke' so maybe you could enlighten us as to some more of your unique vocabulary.

 

[jaydeehess]

Can you develop that theory a little more. Exactly what part is pushing the floors up? Is it the core? Which? What?

In a simplified model the upper section low floor and the lower section upper floor are coming into contact.
Core has failed at the fire levels and those columns are not lined up any longer and thus no longer in play(upper section core columns are passing beside lower section core columns)

Lower section upper floor is subject to massive overloading and truss seats are bent downward and fail.

Upper section lower floor experiences the same force but in the opposite direction. The truss seats were never designed to take a load from below the floor in the first place and only need snap, or tear out, two 5/8" bolts (IIRC) and the floor is free to move. This would take even less energy from the system than the failure of the lower section's floor truss seats. Indeed, such a collapse might, in theory, pressurize the air between the floors enough to lift the upper floor off its seats. In practise no so much as there is no way to maintain that pressurization since the windows are going to snap first and in this case many were already gone.

 

[Java Man]

Actually it does your case no good at all that it occurs after the roof line has already begun its down ward movement.
A collapsed floor 10 storeys above perimeter collapse zone would have to eject material out of windows on the next floor below before causing a collapse ten storeys further down.

Well that is if there are blown out windows in said floor. If there isn't then no projections would be ejected.

Nevertheless the cause of the projections as a crush up pressure buildup is just ludicrous and far fetched and can only be stated by your team because they lack the burden of proof. Had they actually have to sustain their claim they'd have no case at all.

 

[Java Man]

In a simplified model the upper section low floor and the lower section upper floor are coming into contact.
Core has failed at the fire levels and those columns are not lined up any longer and thus no longer in play(upper section core columns are passing beside lower section core columns)

But I'm in the understanding that the generally believed theory has collapse initiating in the perimeter columns as they bow inwards. Are you now claiming that collapse started at the core?

 

[Java Man]

We know that squibs = 'puffs of smoke' so maybe you could enlighten us as to some more of your unique vocabulary.

Everyone here (debunkers) is calling them squibs so I called them squibs. If they imply explosives why are debunkers who are convinced that no explosives were used actually using that term? Who's confusing who?

 

[jaydeehess]

I see words but no meaning. Perhaps you're using words in an unconventional way again?

We know that squibs = 'puffs of smoke' so maybe you could enlighten us as to some more of your unique vocabulary.

Not likely. He never did explain the difference between bowing and sagging.

 

[jaydeehess]

But I'm in the understanding that the generally believed theory has collapse initiating in the perimeter columns as they bow inwards. Are you now claiming that collapse started at the core?

No, it did begin at the perimeter. Please read NCSTAR1-6. The collapse sequence is related there.

Short story, (again,,, read the damned report instead of only reading the FAQ);
Perimeter failure unloaded the perimeter subsystem thus meaning that all that load was now on the already weakened core and the core then fails very quickly and the upper section as a whole begins its descent.

 

[jaydeehess]

Nevertheless the cause of the projections as a crush up pressure buildup is just ludicrous and far fetched and can only be stated by your team because they lack the burden of proof. Had they actually have to sustain their claim they'd have no case at all.

Really?

So you assume that the upper block floors remained intact for how long?

You assume that it is more difficult to raise a floor pan off its truss seat than to fail the seat downwards?

The pressure build up as a result of crush up is at least as valid as a pressure build up in the crush down. You dispute that to the same degree?