Split Thread henryco's new paper

[Alferd_Packer]

Than you!
Do you know where could i find the locations of the intake and exhaust openings on the towers ?

the dark bands are the locations of the mechanical floors and the sky lobies.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

there wopuld have been fire dampers at the junction of the floor ducts with the core shafts. Fire dampers are basicly steel shuuters held open by a "fusable link.' i.e. a piece of metal with a low melting point, like a sprinkler head valve.

The diagrams aren't that detailed but I was aware that large structures, especially tall ones, have dampers to block off affected areas both automatic and manual. It's more like a floor plan than a schematic. I was mentioning them more to indicate how many plenums there were and where they terminated at.

 

[TruthersLie]

Henri.

I think you are making one massive and large error in judgement.

Each tower was had the area of an ACRE. Now add in each floor was about 10 feet tall (just for easy math).

so we have a volume that is an ACRE by 10 feet, and that volume of air is being pushed out in a fraction of a second. Then you go to the next floor down.

are you really trying to say that you can evacuate the air in an acre (the size of each floor) in fraction of a second without that air being pushed someplace else?

That air has to go SOMEPLACE. Not all of it would go through the breaking windows on each floor, very little would be able to go up through the rubble and debris.

Where would it go? Down elevator shafts, and through the air shafts in the building. It would then enter a confined space and finally find a spot to break out of.

The best example I could give you is a bicycle pump. put some holes in it at the top, and then pump up a small balloon. The balloon would still pop because the pressure is too great.

 

[leftysergeant]

Bear in mind that most fire dampers are designed to prevent upward flow of hot gases, rather than to block downward air movement.

 

[TruthersLie]

Of course all of this is moot because it misses the obvious.
1. Any explosives large enough to throw any debris would be clearly audible up to a mile away.
2. Any explosive large enough to cut the columns, would throw shrapnel and create massive damage to anything nearby. Look up OKC bombing and compare. There are NO windows in any of the buildings nearby the Murrah building. But there are over half of the windows RIGHT next to GZ are intact.
3. No barotrauma from these explosives
4. The "squibs" (really? we are back here? Oy vey) INCREASE in power and eject as the collapse progresses. That really is the kicker. They don't just happen and then stop (which is what CD charges, and real squibs do). No. They start at a low velocity, and increase in velocity and ejecta over time.

What type of CD charges do that? All I can think of are Rocket Motors. And when I last checked they didn't use those for CD. RYAN MACKEY, do you have something to tell us? ISS over new york... rocket thrusters as squibs.... hmmmm.....???

Of course there is just as much proof in this paper by HCF as there is that MOTHRA did it.

 

[240-185]

BTW, "rapidly" is an evil word. "fast" is a better one.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

The diagrams aren't that detailed but I was aware that large structures, especially tall ones, have dampers to block off affected areas both automatic and manual. It's more like a floor plan than a schematic. I was mentioning them more to indicate how many plenums there were and where they terminated at.

Sorry, I meant that post more for Henry's benifit.

 

[leftysergeant]

Of course all of this is moot because it misses the obvious.
1. Any explosives large enough to throw any debris would be clearly audible up to a mile away.
2. Any explosive large enough to cut the columns, would throw shrapnel and create massive damage to anything nearby. Look up OKC bombing and compare. There are NO windows in any of the buildings nearby the Murrah building. But there are over half of the windows RIGHT next to GZ are intact.
3. No barotrauma from these explosives

And yet idiot boy MacQueen calls it proof of bombs that people were blown back up stairwells by what some of them described as a "wind" and could still hear. TOTALLY not HE detonations.

 

[tsig]

I do agree, i 'm just arguing that if overpressure was responsible for the localized ejections we see (i'm just trying to follow this absurd scenario some other people seem to believe in) then it would do exactly the same several meters away because overpressure would be the same there: pressure equalizes when entering a closed area.

Take an ordinary kitchen knife and drop it on the ground. Does it stay in the same place it lands?

 

[Furcifer]

At any given time the collapse front is destroying a floor, thus all windows at this floor. so why the air should travel downward it it can escape throuh all these destroyed windows?

It is more than likely the floors were pancaking ahead to the collapse front. This would have produced significant overpressure without damaging the windows and acting very much like a piston.

I see you totally ignored the fact that the velocity due to explosives would have been much higher than the 160 Km/h you calculated.

L'explosion était beaucoup plus rapide que vous avez measuré. Comprendre?

 

[R.Mackey]

This thread really hurts because Dr. Henry-Couannier is a physicist by trade, and he has done some interesting work in theorietical physics. But by the comments he's made here, he knows jack all about fluid mechanics.

The position isn't new, either -- it's indistinguishable from Jim Hoffman's griping about the "Squibs" from several years ago. The mistakes are the same, just like they're reading off the same script.

Anyone wants to know about the fluid mechanics, give me a holler, otherwise I'm leaving this turkey of a thread.

 

[Justin39640]

This thread really hurts because Dr. Henry-Couannier is a physicist by trade, and he has done some interesting work in theorietical physics. But by the comments he's made here, he knows jack all about fluid mechanics.

The position isn't new, either -- it's indistinguishable from Jim Hoffman's griping about the "Squibs" from several years ago. The mistakes are the same, just like they're reading off the same script.

Anyone wants to know about the fluid mechanics, give me a holler, otherwise I'm leaving this turkey of a thread.

Not only that but it seems that he has done zero research into the building's design to figure out possible explanations for his observations. Even more troubling is that THIS is the evidence that his paper is based on. I mean c'mon Hendree ("Funny how? Like a clown?")

 

[Sam.I.Am]

This thread really hurts because Dr. Henry-Couannier is a physicist by trade, and he has done some interesting work in theorietical physics. But by the comments he's made here, he knows jack all about fluid mechanics.

The position isn't new, either -- it's indistinguishable from Jim Hoffman's griping about the "Squibs" from several years ago. The mistakes are the same, just like they're reading off the same script.

Anyone wants to know about the fluid mechanics, give me a holler, otherwise I'm leaving this turkey of a thread.

[truther]

Fluids? I thought we were talking about air?

[/truther]

 

[Furcifer]

This thread really hurts because Dr. Henry-Couannier is a physicist by trade, and he has done some interesting work in theorietical physics. But by the comments he's made here, he knows jack all about fluid mechanics.

By trade so is Homer Simpson. Kinda.

Is this the same physicist? He's either very bad a fluid dynamics or his complete thoughts aren't being translated properly. The idea that the air would escape from the windows before compression is very short sighted. As are numerous other assumptions he seems to make.

Concrete pulverization is such red herring. There's no way to distinguish what was concrete, what was gypsum and what the average particulate size was.

 

[beachnut]

No problem since
1) its also a typical velocity for squibs in controlled demolition...
remember that any jet is decelerated thery fast in the air and here might be up to 20 meters away from its source.

2) I see no other really convincing explanation for such speeds here

F H-C

The squibs? You failed. The squibs are air from the collapse. Your paper fails right here on this single failed point. 8 years of failure and you are still pushing lies based on pure paranoid delusions.

Thanks to the Internet you will not be alone with these crazy claims. Good luck

 

[henryco]

It is more than likely the floors were pancaking ahead to the collapse front. This would have produced significant overpressure without damaging the windows and acting very much like a piston.

I see you totally ignored the fact that the velocity due to explosives would have been much higher than the 160 Km/h you calculated.

L'explosion était beaucoup plus rapide que vous avez measuré. Comprendre?

So you are pulverizing concrete and buckling columns but all the windows stay intact! This is completely nonsense ! whereever there is Pancaking there is of course destruction of all the windows. Thus there is no piston!

For the 160km/h just do the exercice with a controlled demolition video: many on the market... you will find such speeds (just because a jet of pulverized debris slows down and comes to rest very fast in the air)

Is it an hallucination or am i hearing explosions here?

http://video.aol.fr/video-detail/bruits-dexplosion-dans-la-tour-sud/170768066

Let me add that if you had really been searching for witnesses of huge explosions at the WTC you should have found many (hundreds)!

I can see on your photo that there are very few mechanical floors, while the Squibs appear on many floors and not just at these particular floors.

I had readen that there was miraculate survivors quite a long time ago, but later, i dont know why, i got convinced that it was Rodriguez. My mistake.
The story of these survivors is incredible and is much easier to make sense of it in a destruction by explosive than in a Pancake. In the latter , you have to answer the question : where were the 100 floors that should have been upon them after collapse. In the explosive scenario you just have to assume that for some unknown reason the explosive did not fire on several floors and in the area of stairwell B. But they exploded upstairs and downstairs dispersing in fine dust and steel pieces the hundred of floors that should have crushed them!

Fred

 

[moorea34]

Is it an hallucination or am i hearing explosions here?

http://video.aol.fr/video-detail/bruits-dexplosion-dans-la-tour-sud/170768066

Another LIE !!!!

http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_south_below.mpg

And again, and again, again....

 

[Dave Rogers]

Remember that this is exactly the scenario my article was excluding: a succession of collisions between falling pieces because it could not reach the level of the ejections intime!
Remember that YOU argued that a mechanical constraint could propagate instead. So i was just noticing that this is a collisionless scenario : all parts are already in contact from the begining in this case.

It simply takes another failure lower down the structure, and the parts are no longer in contact, giving the possibility of a further collision at a point lower down the structure than is possible from a gravitational acceleration profile.

I'm not saying that such a thing actually happened; I'm just trying to point out that you're failing to consider a wide range of possibilities, then assuming that those possibilities don't exist. It's what's known as a failure of imagination, and it's the basis of why the argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

The problem is that obviously such kind of constraints would not produce the kind of destruction we see ahead of the genuine collapse front!

We see puffs of dust and smoke from a building that's been on fire for an hour. Other than a broken window, there's not much destruction needed for that.

Dave

 

[Furcifer]

So you are pulverizing concrete and buckling columns but all the windows stay intact! This is completely nonsense ! whereever there is Pancaking there is of course destruction of all the windows. Thus there is no piston!

L'étage a été tondu de l'extérieur. Il n'y avait aucune déformation à l'extérieur. Les fenêtres ne se sont pas cassées. The exterior did not pancake, the windows were set in the exterior. (My french is not that good, but you don't appear to understand my English very well)

For the 160km/h just do the exercice with a controlled demolition video: many on the market... you will find such speeds (just because a jet of pulverized debris slows down and comes to rest very fast in the air)

And what if I do? What if I use a video of the Verinage and it's around 160 km/h? Will you then admit this is a useless pursuit?

Is it an hallucination or am i hearing explosions here?

8 years later listening to video and you do, but an entire city on that day didn't? Please. This is foolish. There is no debate, the sound of explosives was not heard by anyone on that day.

Let me add that if you had really been searching for witnesses of huge explosions at the WTC you should have found many (hundreds)!

If I were really trying I could find that many witnesses that saw aliens. You can always find people to agree with you in this world, no matter how insane your question.

The story of these survivors is incredible and is much easier to make sense of it in a destruction by explosive than in a Pancake. In the latter , you have to answer the question : where were the 100 floors that should have been upon them after collapse. In the explosive scenario you just have to assume that for some unknown reason the explosive did not fire on several floors and in the area of stairwell B. But they exploded upstairs and downstairs dispersing in fine dust and steel pieces the hundred of floors that should have crushed them!

Les survivants n'ont pas entendu d'explosions. Il n'y avait aucun explosif. C'est un fait.

Why do you ignore the fact that no one heard explosions consistent with high explosives. Minor explosions only. That's all.

 

[Furcifer]

There is a difference between explosions and explosives (explosifs). Les avions ont explosé, il n'y avait aucun expolsives. Comprendre? Je peux dire ma soude faite exploser. Cela ne signifie pas d'explosifs.

Cela doit poursuivre une oie.