You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What really happened ....11 september
- Thread starter NickBarings
- Start date
Quote from Turok:
Anyway, when you continue to scream "free fall" when every picture out there shows you're out to lunch, expect it to be called like it is. Why do you continue to avoid me on that issue?
tell me how long wtc7 took to fall. and btw your out to lunch comment is antagonistic.
Quote from Turok:
(and while we're on the avoidance subject... you're silence on the wtc7 "pull" issue is deafening. Here's my reasonable request from more than a year ago... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=915171&highlight=rat#post915171)
this clip is all over the place... are you serious that you still have not seen it? debunkers argue that he meant pull the firemen... only problem with that is they "pulled" the firemen at 11 am that morning... 6 hours before they pulled the bldg.
i can back this. on the debunk sites it's stated no firemen were in the building [wtc7]. someone is lying here.
Quote from ratboy88:
this clip is all over the place... are you serious that you still have not seen it? debunkers argue that he meant pull the firemen... only problem with that is they "pulled" the firemen at 11 am that morning... 6 hours before they pulled the bldg.
Quote from Turok:
A: You're the one calling it a squib which shows nothing but presumption on your part. The glass is blowing out, that's a fact -- the question is why.
B: Did I ever even mention "pancaking"? The building is collapsing -- that also is a fact. Pancake or no pancake, the building is pressurized due to the collapse -- that also is a fact of physics.
you cant have it both ways... either it is pancaking and causing this pressure or explosions are reducing all the matter to dust which would not force a concentrated pressurization down a shaft out a window in an exactly horizontal fashion. you are going to have to choose.. to pancake or not to pancake.
Quote from Turok:
If you were to brush up on your physics studies... you would find that pressure can "travel far" (to use your term) and when backed up by a motivating force can indeed be quite concentrated. But--- while we're on the subject..
In the scenario I described, it's not any particular "concentration" of pressure (floor wise) that would blow out the window -- the entire floor (or floors) *could* be at a nearly even pressure relative to each other and yet only one window blow (the weakest link, so to speak).
JB
ok.. see now we are back to the elevator shafts that were not continuous and would need the pressure from the pancaking.
i am well aware that pressure can travel far... but it needs some type of containment otherwise it would diffuse before it reached the 40 floors and then decides to exit... i believe the probability that this pressure could bypass 40 floors and then exit is fictional.
Mav:
>What are the odds that air pressure would only
>affect a few select lower floors while bypassing
>every one of the 20 or so floors in between
The odds are high when considering the following:
A: Perhaps the air pressure "bypassed" certain floor due to doors/vents/penetrations being closed/restricted/unevenly sized(probability high in my given scenario).
B: Perhaps all doors were open and all floors pressurized evenly (probability low in my given scenario) and YET, there were a small percentage of the windows that were overtempered/installed improperly/previously damaged. (probability high). Once again, the glass would only blow where it exceeds the manufactured limits or damaged glass limits.
>given (a) the countless descriptions of explosions
>from people both inside and outside the building
A: Just because it sounds like an explosion doesn't mean it is. There were lots of things going inside as those towers burned that could have made very loud noises and shook things up.
B: Just because there is an actual explosion doesn't mean it's planted explosives. For example, debris falling through atrium glass can sound and fell like an explosion.
>and (b) the projectiles uncanny resemblance to squibs
>in a typical demolition
A: Do you know what tempered glass exploding due to overcoming pressure looks like? perhaps those projections bear an uncanny resemblance to that as well?
As a note and question back to you Mav...
(Background: While not an expert, I have just one bit of experience in the "building implosion" business. While working for the engineering firm CH2M Hill , I was project manager(1996) of a new facility in Idaho where we had to remove a large industrial plant structure (375ft) to make way for the new one. Due to the proximity to other buildings (the usual reason), we chose implosion as the method and the Loizeaux family as the contractor. It was fun to watch the process from close up is all I can say)
Every video I've seen of a explosively demoed building shows squibs going off in a very regular and organized fashion. It would certainly make sense with the massive structure of the WTC towers that these squibs would need to be regularly placed around the outside columns at regular intervals. All the video that you guys tout show an incredibly RANDOM and infrequent pattern to the event. To me, I say it doesn't look ANYTHING like building demolition by explosive just for this one reason.
Comments?
JB
>What are the odds that air pressure would only
>affect a few select lower floors while bypassing
>every one of the 20 or so floors in between
The odds are high when considering the following:
A: Perhaps the air pressure "bypassed" certain floor due to doors/vents/penetrations being closed/restricted/unevenly sized(probability high in my given scenario).
B: Perhaps all doors were open and all floors pressurized evenly (probability low in my given scenario) and YET, there were a small percentage of the windows that were overtempered/installed improperly/previously damaged. (probability high). Once again, the glass would only blow where it exceeds the manufactured limits or damaged glass limits.
>given (a) the countless descriptions of explosions
>from people both inside and outside the building
A: Just because it sounds like an explosion doesn't mean it is. There were lots of things going inside as those towers burned that could have made very loud noises and shook things up.
B: Just because there is an actual explosion doesn't mean it's planted explosives. For example, debris falling through atrium glass can sound and fell like an explosion.
>and (b) the projectiles uncanny resemblance to squibs
>in a typical demolition
A: Do you know what tempered glass exploding due to overcoming pressure looks like? perhaps those projections bear an uncanny resemblance to that as well?
As a note and question back to you Mav...
(Background: While not an expert, I have just one bit of experience in the "building implosion" business. While working for the engineering firm CH2M Hill , I was project manager(1996) of a new facility in Idaho where we had to remove a large industrial plant structure (375ft) to make way for the new one. Due to the proximity to other buildings (the usual reason), we chose implosion as the method and the Loizeaux family as the contractor. It was fun to watch the process from close up is all I can say)
Every video I've seen of a explosively demoed building shows squibs going off in a very regular and organized fashion. It would certainly make sense with the massive structure of the WTC towers that these squibs would need to be regularly placed around the outside columns at regular intervals. All the video that you guys tout show an incredibly RANDOM and infrequent pattern to the event. To me, I say it doesn't look ANYTHING like building demolition by explosive just for this one reason.
Comments?
JB
if this video has not been altered.. then i dont see how anyone can deny the existence of explosions. i am open to debate on authenticity.
<embed style="width:450px; height:367px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5860825099435530591&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>
<embed style="width:450px; height:367px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5860825099435530591&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>
Rat:
>tell me how long wtc7 took to fall.
How about you address the towers first since I've been raising that question for a year and a half (and you reference their "free fall) as recently as the 14th of this month.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1304669#post1304669
We'll get to WTC7 after the twins, how 'bout it?
>and btw your out to lunch comment is antagonistic.
And you would definitely know antagonistic.
JB
>tell me how long wtc7 took to fall.
How about you address the towers first since I've been raising that question for a year and a half (and you reference their "free fall) as recently as the 14th of this month.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1304669#post1304669
We'll get to WTC7 after the twins, how 'bout it?
>and btw your out to lunch comment is antagonistic.
And you would definitely know antagonistic.
JB