Building demolished from the top down.

[Java Man]

that anything that actually happened on 9/11 and is not "generally believed" to have happened MUST be the result of a deliberate act. ... Java Man is saying that anything that is unknown or misunderstood about any aspect of the events of 9/11 is positive proof of an inside job. ... then this is proof of wrongdoing by the US Government.

Dave

Uh no. I think that there is a subset of events that happened that don't quite fit the official story. Some are better explained as deliberate acts than random events. That the government doesn't want to follow up is wrongdoing through negligence not only in terms of possible additional terrorist acts, but for the benefit of further constructions.

But you and your team prefer to sit back from the comfort of the lack of burden of proof and throw ever more complex arguments against simple discrepancies highlighted in the event. Basically you're enjoying a free ride of boosting your ego at the expense of a tragedy.

Now if you actually had it to go find some proof and support for your wild claims, even when the burden of proof isn't on you, well then you'd have some merit.

 

[Java Man]

No
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6875928&postcount=528

And no
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6878153&postcount=553

Can you please explain to us how the pressure would be instantaneously equal through the tower as it increases due to compression? Have you ever filled a tire? Even when the air tank has many times over the required air to fill the tire the tire does not fill instantaneously. The only way for it to equalize so fast across various stories is for there to be no floors at all. Thus supporting my theory rather than yours.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now if you actually had it to go find some proof and support for your wild claims, even when the burden of proof isn't on you, well then you'd have some merit.

Says the man who is convinced he has uncovered evidence in publicly available sources of billions of dollars of insurance fraud, yet lacks the conviction to make the slightest effort to report that fraud.

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

Uh no. I think that there is a subset of events that happened that don't quite fit the official story.

Asa there will be in any highly chaotic situation such as the collapse of a 110 storey structure.

Some are better explained as deliberate acts than random events

.
No! There may be a senario involving a deliberate act that might explain such details but that is not equivalent to a 'better' explanation. In the case of the so called squibs we have provided several simple explanations which you reject in favour of a more complex one involving the planting of devices to fail floors.

That the government doesn't want to follow up is wrongdoing through negligence not only in terms of possible additional terrorist acts, but for the benefit of further constructions

.

Really?? How so? You feel it should be required that every single detail of the collapse of a 110 storey structure, which has been hit by a large fast airliner and thus suffering the effects of an immediate multifloor office fire on top of the impact damage, be explained in great detail?
We come back to the analogy of a murder in which a guy lies dead on the sidewalk with another man standing nearby with a smoking gun and with many witnesses saying that they saw the one shoot the other,,,,, and you would have the way the dead guy's shirt came untucked investigated and explained.

But you and your team prefer to sit back from the comfort of the lack of burden of proof and throw ever more complex arguments against simple discrepancies highlighted in the event. Basically you're enjoying a free ride of boosting your ego at the expense of a tragedy

.

,,, and this does not apply to you? You seem to feel no burden of proof for any senario you put forth to the point of having said that you do not do so in order that we keep the conversation moving and not bog down as we dispute any 'proofs' you might care to bring up.

Now if you actually had it to go find some proof and support for your wild claims, even when the burden of proof isn't on you, well then you'd have some merit.

This is odd coming from you as I have a couple of times caught on that you have not bothered to read NISTNCSTAR1-6 at all, a docuement that I have referred to many times and suggested that you look over.

You thus do not know how the NIST collapse sequence was arrived at and yet claim no proof has been put forth. I again apologize for not posting the entire NIST report in this forum's pages. Then again they are not hard to find.

 

[Java Man]

In the case of the so called squibs we have provided several simple explanations which you reject in favour of a more complex one involving the planting of devices to fail floors.
.

Simple explanations? Like the upward pressurization that totally disregards the huge hole on the side of the building? What are you an no planer? You must be beyond that, no planer no crash type truther? Are you going to claim the holes in the building were CGIed and thus pressure could have built upwards 10 stories in less than half a second? Give me a break.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Simple explanations? Like the upward pressurization that totally disregards the huge hole on the side of the building? What are you an no planer? You must be beyond that, no planer no crash type truther? Are you going to claim the holes in the building were CGIed and thus pressure could have built upwards 10 stories in less than half a second? Give me a break.

I think this reinforces my conclusion that Java Man is actively trying not to understand any replies, so that he can maintain his level of ignorance. So far, his strategy seems to be highly successful in achieving that aim.

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

Can you please explain to us how the pressure would be instantaneously equal through the tower as it increases due to compression? Have you ever filled a tire? Even when the air tank has many times over the required air to fill the tire the tire does not fill instantaneously. The only way for it to equalize so fast across various stories is for there to be no floors at all. Thus supporting my theory rather than yours.

no, the reason a tire doesn't fill instantaneously is because the air must pass through a 1/8 inch orifice. During the design phase of the space station. They had to introduce an air lock between the Russian and US capsules because the Russians used normal atmospheric pressure in a norm atmosphere . The U S capsule used pure oxygen with a low atmospheric pressure (at that time) if they were to open a man sized capsule door between them the Cosmonauts would have been killed due to dissolved nitrogen boiling in their blood. It'd the same problem deep sea divers and sand hogs in cassions must deal with. The dangers of sudden pressure equalization.

And you never considered my fire flash over scenario.

 

[Java Man]

no, the reason a tire doesn't fill instantaneously is because the air must pass through a 1/8 inch orifice.

Exactly my point and the upper floors can not pressurize instantaneously because the air has to pass through whatever shafts interconnects them. Since we not only see the squibs happen at the same time, but also with the same intensity there must be similar pressures in effect. To this we must add the whole on the perimeter. Which is quite an issue.

 

[Java Man]

I think this reinforces my conclusion that Java Man is actively trying not to understand any replies, so that he can maintain his level of ignorance. So far, his strategy seems to be highly successful in achieving that aim.

Dave

Oh I'm understanding them all right. But they're a bunch of bogus opinions meant to confuse and in no way sustainable. Only the lack of burden on your part allows you to make such statements and get away with it.

 

[A W Smith]

Exactly my point and the upper floors can not pressurize instantaneously because the air has to pass through whatever shafts interconnects them. Since we not only see the squibs happen at the same time, but also with the same intensity there must be similar pressures in effect. To this we must add the whole on the perimeter. Which is quite an issue.

The shafts are not a narrow orifice. The surviving firemen in a north tower stairwell describe a huge wind at their backs despite an essentially open collapse front.

 

[twinstead]

Oh I'm understanding them all right. But they're a bunch of bogus opinions meant to confuse and in no way sustainable. Only the lack of burden on your part allows you to make such statements and get away with it.

There's a reason for the "lack of burden"; all you have to do is support your claim. Your inability to do so does not constitute an attempt to "confuse" on our part.

 

[Java Man]

The shafts are not a narrow orifice. .

They are compared to the size of the floor itself and not to mention the huge hole in the wall.

 

[jaydeehess]

Simple explanations? Like the upward pressurization that totally disregards the huge hole on the side of the building? What are you an no planer? You must be beyond that, no planer no crash type truther? Are you going to claim the holes in the building were CGIed and thus pressure could have built upwards 10 stories in less than half a second? Give me a break.

Wow, sure, I'm a no-planer, C.Ranke and J.Wood are my idols.

Pressurization would depend on the details of how the floors came together. A quick look shows that the upper block was tilted towards those big holes caused by the aircraft. how do you think that might affect how the air between those floors is pushed as the floors come together?

Simple explanation? Yes, simple in that it simply requires the items and mechanisms we know were in place. we know that there were floors and we know that they came together as the collapse progressed and we know tha the air between them had to go somewhere.

We do not know, nor is there any reason to believe, that there were any other devices installed, be they explosive, incindiary, or mechanical in nature. Any contention that they were in place neccessarily involves the complexities of surrepticious installations and remote contro/timing of such devices.

 

[jaydeehess]

The shafts are not a narrow orifice. The surviving firemen in a north tower stairwell describe a huge wind at their backs despite an essentially open collapse front.

They are compared to the size of the floor itself and not to mention the huge hole in the wall.

It is quite noticable the way you address some points and ignore others to the point of taking them out of context.
Is that on purpose?

 

[tj15]

Sorry about my lack of architectural knowledge (my questions may sound pathetic)... How much steel is there, if any, in the building in the first post of this thread? What would be the differences between a concrete top-down collapse and a steel top-down collapse? Didn't the WTC have steel and concrete (concrete in the floors)?

 

[jaydeehess]

Sorry about my lack of architectural knowledge (my questions may sound pathetic)... How much steel is there, if any, in the building in the first post of this thread? What would be the differences between a concrete top-down collapse and a steel top-down collapse? Didn't the WTC have steel and concrete (concrete in the floors)?

It looks to be a substantially masonry structure and yes, that would affect the way it collapses.
Point here is that no explosives were required, the initial collapse was asymettric but resulted in a symmetric collapse, and that collapse was global below the area of initial collapse.

9/11 conspiracy believers often say that the asymettry should have had the top section fall away from the structure and that only explosives can cause a global collapse.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Simple explanations? Like the upward pressurization that totally disregards the huge hole on the side of the building? What are you an no planer? You must be beyond that, no planer no crash type truther? Are you going to claim the holes in the building were CGIed and thus pressure could have built upwards 10 stories in less than half a second? Give me a break.

The building wasn't hollow.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Only the lack of burden on your part allows you to make such statements and get away with it.

The burden of proof doesn't give you special privileges. It gives you special responsibilities.

 

[LightningTeg]

I just don't see how it's not a plausible idea that as a 110 story building comes down air between the floors can be pressurized and shoot out at random places.

We also don't know if a floor above the crash may have failed before collapse initiation and caused the initial "squib". I will say again what I said that squibs = explosives = noise = evidence for which there is none. Zero. Nada

 

[A W Smith]

They are compared to the size of the floor itself and not to mention the huge hole in the wall.

The size of what floor? The outside clear span? Or the core area? Who says an entire acre of floor area needs to be pressurized for your "squibs" to appear? Do you have the floor plans in hand for the specific floors where your "squibs" appeared showing partitions? So far all you have is incredulity once again.

The huge hole? Did it destroy the entire core including every single mechanical and elevator shaftway? You better take a look at a typical core floor plan. Because every single "x" denotes a shaftway.

And still you haven't even attempted to address the possibility of a flashover.