WTC 7 (Building 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.

SR1419

Senior Member.
you could also hear explosives going off (from what I've researched these buildings didn't have gas lines). The guy filming even mentions explosions. I have a good idea of what happened that day.

So, whats your point?

You hear loud bangs- several minutes after the building fell- is the only explanation that they were "explosives"?

if they are explosives are you insinuating that they are bombs?

Are bombs they only possible explanation for loud bangs during a catastrophic collapse of a building?
 

LogicAndSanity

New Member
So, whats your point?

You hear loud bangs- several minutes after the building fell- is the only explanation that they were "explosives"?

if they are explosives are you insinuating that they are bombs?

Are bombs they only possible explanation for loud bangs during a catastrophic collapse of a building?

How did this guy know the buildings fell from office fires so soon? and why was he using terms like "ground zero." The Pentagon was under attack too remember?

What were all those explosions? Those buildings didn't even have gas lines correct?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
What were all those explosions? Those buildings didn't even have gas lines correct?

Do you think there is any combustible material in a modern day office building?

Can you honestly say the only possible reason for the loud noises are bombs?

"logic" remember?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
And round and round it goes....

Another thread full of rabid denialism and non-sensical appeals to 'logic', when logic is so clearly lacking in the ra-ra defence of so many aspects of the official conspiracy theory. Possibly the worst on offer being the reliance on Nist's incomplete account of what happened to building 7, and indeed what happened to the towers. Denialists, or 'Faithers' are not going to change their minds - their minds are made up - they have an advocate position, much like a lawyer; they are so deeply sunk in the effluent of the official narratives, and have invested so much energy in defending them, they're not going to change their minds now. Whatever the reason for the entrenchment and unwillingness to discuss honestly what is so apparent, it's still a wonder they can do it with a straight face. Undoubtedly some are paid to keep trotting out the official line (King Canute comes to mind; and the tide is rising inexorably on your false memes), others may simply not understand the mechanics, but by far the largest group are those unable to come to terms with what it means to their 'world view'. To accept that Daddy (the State, or elements thereof) is a liar and a murderer isn't that easy for most people, especially reasonably well off, 'educated' middle class people who have a vested (and deep psychological) interest in the status quo being left unmolested. Despite the fact that there are many examples of the State being very much a liar and a murderer, people who do not wish to see do not see. They become angry, defensive, insulting....their world view is being attacked and they're going to defend it by turning to places of poor information and dishonesty that support their view and bolster it, it's how propaganda works, what it relies on - and after one hundred years of study of human psychology, it's a quite formidable hurdle to overcome. But it's not impossible, not at all.

All official 'investigations' into the three collapses ceased their inquiry at the moment of collapse initiation - that is, they didn't even to attempt to explain the actual collapses or the mechanisms therein, they simply ignored them with the trite statement that once collapse had been initiated, 'progressive collapse' was 'inevitable'. Which is a dereliction of duty and a falsehood (and leads to the repetition of the incorrect 'once one floor fails, progressive collapse is inevitable' false meme). I expect the reality of that (non) decision was that it was recognized that there was no way they could follow the buildings down to the ground and come up with a viable explanation for why there was virtually nothing left of the concrete, wallboard, furniture, office and plant equipment etc in the towers' diminutive (comparatively) rubble pile. Never mind trying to explain the pulverization of all that concrete, not just once but twice, and the projectile nature of large quantities of steel, not once but twice - despite unique and assymetric damage in each individual tower. And then ofcourse there's the classic demolition of wtc7 - a completely different animal to the collapses of the towers which were torn asunder before they had a chance to reach the ground; erupted in almost complete dissociation of the components of the buildings and their contents. One only needs to watch the videos with an honest open mind and it's very obvious that is the case. I can't say I know what caused that, but I know what it wasn't - it wasn't just a 'gravity' collapse. That's evident, no need for circular arguments or large cut and pastes with erroneous words attached.

Describing the collapse of 7 in the terms that the entire inside structure of the building fell first and then the 'skin' came down after, just tells you how little the people who cite this know about how buildings work. Buildings do not have skin, for starters. And the whole building collapsed as a result of one steel member being subject to thermal expansion so that it was displaced from its seat. I can tell you one thing - they don't build them like that any more - and they never did. This is the result of Nist's guessing, looking at pictures and listening to witnesses (but only if they agree with the os) and then coming up with a flashy cartoon without any figures to back it up in order to present some explanation which relates to what happened - science done back to front is bad science - in fact, it's not science at all to start with a conclusion and work your way back over it to come to the desired (and preconceived) aim and method. Never mind taking over seven years to come up with nothing of any value to the truth of it, the value is in the deception.

I said recently in another thread that every child, before their first (and every subsequent) maths exam, knows they must show their calculations or the result will be an F. There is no exception to this rule. You can write down all the answers, every one of them correct, 100%, but if you don't show how you arrived at the answer it's an F. There's a good reason for this and it's this: good science relies upon those performing it to share their workings, so everyone can see how answers were reached; knowing without showing doesn't advance things - so kids learn this from the start with the rule that you must show how you arrived at the answer so it can be seen you've done things correctly. Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Darwin - none of them hid their calculations, they shared them with their peers so collective progress could be achieved. Mick, you're constantly referring to 'checking the maths', but with the Nist report on 7 you can't 'check the maths' because Nist say it 'might jeopardize public safey' and won't show it to you (I wonder what you'd say if some party on the other side of this argument said they had the answer - but wouldn't share their calculations to show how they arrived at their conclusion?). I don't understand how you then hold up Nist's conclusion (that normal offices fires caused 7 to collapse like it did) as a viable answer for any of it, when it so obviously denies the very basic scientific requirement of showing their calculations - the calculations that lead to their 'answer'. That's an F. The 'public safety' argument is risible. It's a necessary lie to hide the calculations which one must conclude are of dubious accuracy and likely incorrect. Public safety was seriously compromised on that day - the release of data on the performance of commonly used building materials can not be a risk to public safety, conversely the withholding of that data could well lead to public safety issues, obviously. Like so many other things round here, Nist has it completely back to front. Using Nist as your crutch seriously demeans your position.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Here's the collapse with the damage corner. You can see the damage on the lower right here, and you can see how it causes the final collapse of the skin to be be more symmetrical.


And here it is with NO damage. You can see the building skin sags in on itself, because the right side holds up a lot longer.

LOL... Is that a Pixar production or Disney

Or is it the old 'Ill cover it with a curtain so you can't see what's going on' trick?

Honestly, it happened just like that but you couldn't see it until the skin fell!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why don't you show me your calculations then?

NIST provides an explanation. I'm not just relying on their word that it is correct. I'm relying on the fact that 99.99% of the world community of structural engineers seems to think it's a perfectly plausible and likely explanation.

Unless you can actually show why it's NOT plausible, then I've no reason to believe you over NIST and the 99.99%.
 

LogicAndSanity

New Member
99.99% of engineers agree? and their data for the model isn't even public. LOL.

This was aired on cable television in NY a couple years ago. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
And round and round it goes....

Another thread full of rabid denialism and non-sensical appeals to 'logic',

But that is what it's all about Lee... The deniers will go on and on and on remorselessly trotting out the same old bunk with their shields firmly locked together like a Roman Legion in the hopes that we get fed up listening to it and then they can settle down to trotting out 'how silly these conspiracy theorists are' so that anyone coming on the site who is not too clued up will say 'mmmm that sounds reasonable... all these nice debunkers have all the answers... they must be right'.

Only problem is... it is very entertaining so I'm happy to keep going lol... unless I get banned which to be fair doesn't seem likely.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
See the AE991 folk are just a tiny tiny fraction of the worlds Architects and engineers. They are are (to be very generous) the 0.01%.

These architects and engineers are just the ones who are actively campaigning for a proper investigation. You cannot simply infer that all the rest "agree with NIST".

You stated it was a 'fact' that 99.9% agree with the NIST explanation. That is patently false.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
And round and round it goes....

Another thread full of rabid denialism and non-sensical appeals to 'logic', when logic is so clearly lacking in the ra-ra defence of so many aspects of the official conspiracy theory. Possibly the worst on offer being the reliance on Nist's incomplete account of what happened to building 7, and indeed what happened to the towers. Denialists, or 'Faithers' are not going to change their minds - their minds are made up

Vast generalizations borne of spite are almost assuredly a fail.

Do not take it personally that they have a different opinion than you and nothing you have uttered has caused them to change their mind..
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
These architects and engineers are just the ones who are actively campaigning for a proper investigation. You cannot simply infer that all the rest "agree with NIST". You stated it was a 'fact' that 99.9% agree with the NIST explanation. That is patently false.
http://www.numberof.net/number-of-architects-in-the-us/ says 233,000 http://www.numberof.net/number-of-engineers-in-the-usa/ says 2,495,000 https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth states that more than 1700 demand an investigation. add it up and you get %0.062.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
http://www.numberof.net/number-of-architects-in-the-us/ says 233,000 http://www.numberof.net/number-of-engineers-in-the-usa/ says 2,495,000 https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth states that more than 1700 demand an investigation. add it up and you get %0.062.

I think you have just done the same as Mick, deducted the number of architects and engineers who are actively campaigning for an independent inquiry into 9/11 from the total number of available architects and engineers and inferred the remainder agree with NIST and then stated it as a fact that they do agree.

Unless they actually state they agree, it would be totally disingenuous/fraudulent to state they agree 'on their behalf'

We had this earlier when I failed to respond quick enough to a point and someone inferred that as my 'Tacit Agreement'... it wasn't.

This seems to be a well used ploy... it is fraudulent.

If you see 1000 people demonstrating against something, you cannot infer the rest of the population agree with the opposing view.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I think you have just done the same as Mick, deducted the number of architects and engineers who are actively campaigning for an independent inquiry into 9/11 from the total number of available architects and engineers and inferred the remainder agree with NIST and then stated it as a fact that they do agree.

Unless they actually state they agree, it would be totally disingenuous/fraudulent to state they agree 'on their behalf'

We had this earlier when I failed to respond quick enough to a point and someone inferred that as my 'Tacit Agreement'... it wasn't.

This seems to be a well used ploy... it is fraudulent.

If you see 1000 people demonstrating against something, you cannot infer the rest of the population agree with the opposing view.

Founded in 2006 and all they can get is 1700 signatures. Yeah I think we can draw some conclusions.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
These architects and engineers are just the ones who are actively campaigning for a proper investigation. You cannot simply infer that all the rest "agree with NIST".

You stated it was a 'fact' that 99.9% agree with the NIST explanation. That is patently false.

No. I said the seem to agree.

I said that because I know engineers, and if they saw something wrong, they would point it out.

Oxy, perhaps you'd like to get into some figures, if lee is not willing? Can you state a problem with what happened that involves numbers?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Founded in 2006 and all they can get is 1700 signatures. Yeah I think we can draw some conclusions.

LOL... You should apply to work for NIST

That's why I say... is it a good idea to keep silent?

So when you see 1000 people demonstrating against something, your brain says... "Uh...everyone else must disagree with them or they would all be demonstrating, no problem here."

Did it not cross your mind that many are frightened to support something like that in case they can't get new contracts or something?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
LOL... You should apply to work for NIST

That's why I say... is it a good idea to keep silent?

So when you see 1000 people demonstrating against something, your brain says... "Uh...everyone else must disagree with them or they would all be demonstrating, no problem here."

Did it not cross your mind that many are frightened to support something like that in case they can't get new contracts or something?

Demonstrating requires making signs, getting in a car, parking, etc. Signing a petition is, well signing a petition. The petition calls for an independent investigation into 9/11. This petition and the organization have been used as evidence that even architects and engineers don't agree with the official account. After almost 7 years in existence all they have is 0.062%.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No. I said the seem to agree.

I said that because I know engineers, and if they saw something wrong, they would point it out.

Oxy, perhaps you'd like to get into some figures, if lee is not willing? Can you state a problem with what happened that involves numbers?

Mick, I don't understand why you would go in and edit it, you stated it was 'fact' that 99.9% agree with the NIST '. I was only playing and teasing about your bad choice of words. All you had to do was clarify and retract that, the same as Lee had the good grace to admit he made an error with his waterproof concrete.

What figures are you talking about. NIST refuse to give data?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Demonstrating requires making signs, getting in a car, parking, etc. Signing a petition is, well signing a petition. The petition calls for an independent investigation into 9/11. This petition and the organization have been used as evidence that even architects and engineers don't agree with the official account. After almost 7 years in existence all they have is 0.062%.

Yes and signing a petition requires going on the record with your name and other details which may involve repercussions
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I went to AE911s site, and this was what I saw:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Here's his profile:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=990704

It lists Smolens as a structural engineer. But then elsewhere we have:

http://www.lopezsmolensengineers.com/jonathan
This is typical of the type of people AE911 has. General contractors, builders. People with no experience of tall buildings. Mostly working on one or two story residential projects. Sticking someone up at the top of the page as a structural engineer gives a false sense of authority.

It's actually quite interesting looking at the fill list of quotes in the rotation there. They are seem generally to be just the normal talking points that have been debunked, and some personal incredulity - nothing really technical. This is the best that AE911 has to offer with respect to sound bites.

It would be an interesting exercise to contact all these headliners, and see if they still stand behind those statements, and if they can expand upon them.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick, I don't understand why you would go in and edit it, you stated it was 'fact' that 99.9% agree with the NIST '. I was only playing and teasing about your bad choice of words. All you had to do was clarify and retract that, the same as Lee had the good grace to admit he made an error with his waterproof concrete.

What figures are you talking about. NIST refuse to give data?

I didn't edit anything. I said:

NIST provides an explanation. I'm not just relying on their word that it is correct. I'm relying on the fact that 99.99% of the world community of structural engineers seems to think it's a perfectly plausible and likely explanation.

Unless you can actually show why it's NOT plausible, then I've no reason to believe you over NIST and the 99.99%.

See the word "seems" in there?

The figures I'm taking about are any figures that you think are evidence of controlled demolition. For example, lee thinks that some steel beams were moving too fast. So the figures there would be the speed of the steel beams. We can work that out from video. We can do math to see what explanations fit the observed reality. We could see how much explosive it would take to throw a steel bam through the air. We can see if a steel beam falling in a progressive collapse situation would reach those speeds.

Or, we could do some calculations of varying levels of detail as to how much dynamic load the floors could sustain, and what would happen if one floor collapsed. Those kind of figures.

Do you have any?
 

Clock

Senior Member.
But that is what it's all about Lee... The deniers will go on and on and on remorselessly trotting out the same old bunk with their shields firmly locked together like a Roman Legion in the hopes that we get fed up listening to it and then they can settle down to trotting out 'how silly these conspiracy theorists are' so that anyone coming on the site who is not too clued up will say 'mmmm that sounds reasonable... all these nice debunkers have all the answers... they must be right'.

Only problem is... it is very entertaining so I'm happy to keep going lol... unless I get banned which to be fair doesn't seem likely.

Hahahaha! Same could be said about conspiracy theorists!

Last time I checked, We don't make fun of you for your beliefs, but we easily could.

By this point, if we have given you all of the explanations that we can possible give you, and begin insulting us, this means that there is nothing left to argue, and in return, makes you fall on deaf ears (in denial) 'because it's fun'.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
http://www.nilim.go.jp/lab/hdg/report/windsor1.pdf a hundred-and-fifty page summation of an investigation into the cause, spread, and effect of the Windsor fire, composed and finished the year-of, by the Japanese National Institute of Land and Infrastructure management. Alas its in Japanese, but it seems quite thorough, and English summations of their findings can be dug up I'm sure.

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/I-35W-webPage/Index-35W-Astaneh.html a page from our old friend Astaneh-Asl, who was a member of the team investigating the Oakland overpass collapse. Here is his report on the event, 10 pages long. http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh...Paper-Steel_Bridges_June-2008-color-Final.pdf
Now take a look again at the NIST report. http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf It certainly seems a little longer on first glance, but if you actually read through them both side-by-side it becomes obvious how much more specific and detailed the investigation of the bridge-collapse was. This was the very same bridge collapse after which he made his comment about molten steel at the WTC, I believe.
Here's another link to another scientist's examination of the bridge collapse
http://www.imechanica.org/files/ballarini and okazaki the city the river the bridge essay.pdf
and another one
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...gFKFLngGZnmhtSv8LPrkOTA&bvm=bv.41248874,d.aWM
and the final, 178 page report as composed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/i35wbridge/ntsb/finalreport.pdf

Seems both events have been investigated forensically to a rather thorough extent, and the information on those forensic investigations seems to be readily available to the public. Of these three incidents, WTC 7 seems to be the subject of the least thorough investigation, albeit the computer-model from NIST is unique amongst them. Perhaps if the data on that simulation weren't confidential, it would shed a bit more light on the investigative process surrounding building 7, and reveal it to not be as comparatively inadequate as it seems. Unfortunately it is.

Grieves, Just wanted to revisit this point - where you say that somehow the report is inadequate. I was just reading NCSTAR 1-9, and was struck by just how rigorous it seems to be. It's 731 page, and packs with all kinds of technical analysis. I wonder if this in any way answers your criticism above?

Link is to an unlocked version you can cut-and-paste from.
https://www.metabunk.org/files/NCSTAR_1-9_WTC7_unlocked.pdf
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I went to AE911s site, and this was what I saw:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

It would be an interesting exercise to contact all these headliners, and see if they still stand behind those statements, and if they can expand upon them.

Below is the official NIST 'fact sheet'. I find the vast majority of these statements as highly contentious and fallacious but I highlight a few. I have extracted some recommendations.

I am unable to find even one instance where a high rise building has been retrofitted according to those recommendations. I would find this very telling even if I could find only a dozen or so but not to be able to find one... well!

Considering the high number of high rise buildings in use; can you show instances where this retrofitting has taken place?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
This is particularly spurious given that they refused to test for explosives and destroyed evidence as quickly as possible.


If thermite had been used and found, (which some say it has been), any evidential residue could, and has, easily been dismissed with the following statement and also provides, apparently' justification for not testing for thermite residue presence.

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
As to explosions... there were plenty of people who witnessed them... as can be heard on this video.

The characterization of 'dust puffs' are merely a term that has been utilised to cover up what may otherwise more usually be described as evidence of explosions... which look identical?

According to this video, there are over ten thousand Architects and Engineers who have registered concerns as to the NIST findings which is far more than some on this site would have us believe.

Building 7 exhibits no similarity to verinage as it appears to fall, in the main, from the bottom. Very conveniently... like a magic trick... the explanation is given that it had 'already collapsed internally' and what we saw was merely 'the skin falling'.

Firemen give evidence of rivers of molten steel but these testimonies are ignored and denied.

[video]http://911speakout.org/[/video]
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
As to explosions... there were plenty of people who witnessed them... as can be heard on this video.

The characterization of 'dust puffs' are merely a term that has been utilised to cover up what may otherwise more usually be described as evidence of explosions... which look identical?

Not at all- the expulsion of "dust" from an explosion is indicated by the initial burst containing the most amount of energy. A dust puff from the compression of air actually gets stronger over time as the air is compressed and pushed out. This can be seen on videos of "dust puffs"



Building 7...appears to fall, in the main, from the bottom. Very conveniently... like a magic trick... the explanation is given that it had 'already collapsed internally' and what we saw was merely 'the skin falling'.

How can you say that when very clearly the penthouse- on top- collapses several seconds prior to the rest of the building...it clearly falls into the rest of the building- indicating an internal collapse?
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
As to explosions... there were plenty of people who witnessed them... as can be heard on this video.

The characterization of 'dust puffs' are merely a term that has been utilised to cover up what may otherwise more usually be described as evidence of explosions... which look identical?

According to this video, there are over ten thousand Architects and Engineers who have registered concerns as to the NIST findings which is far more than some on this site would have us believe.

Building 7 exhibits no similarity to verinage as it appears to fall, in the main, from the bottom. Very conveniently... like a magic trick... the explanation is given that it had 'already collapsed internally' and what we saw was merely 'the skin falling'.

Firemen give evidence of rivers of molten steel but these testimonies are ignored and denied.

[video]http://911speakout.org/[/video]

I don't think it is necessarily useful to discuss how many experts support what. For example, ideas like Ancient Aliens have amusement parks and large support bases of experts and other citizens but so much of what it claims is so factually inaccurate or blatantly untrue that you wonder what the experts who support it have studied all their life. What matters is the evidence. If the evidence checks out then the number of supporters does not matter. Fact check, fact check, fact check. Just something to consider in future discussions.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Not at all- the expulsion of "dust" from an explosion is indicated by the initial burst containing the most amount of energy. A dust puff from the compression of air actually gets stronger over time as the air is compressed and pushed out. This can be seen on videos of "dust puffs"

I cannot identify that phenomena in the 9/11 collapses

How can you say that when very clearly the penthouse- on top- collapses several seconds prior to the rest of the building...it clearly falls into the rest of the building- indicating an internal collapse?
Ah... that's why I said, 'in the main'. The fact that the penthouse collapsed a second or two before the main collapse could be attributed... if one wished... to a number of different reasons, one of which could be inferior structural integrity due to it's position.

Here is the video link as the previous link only takes to website.

 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I cannot identify that phenomena in the 9/11 collapses

Its hard to see when looking straight a squib/puff- you really need a side on view to see it.

This video has one isolated nicely.

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

there are several in this video- in particular at approx the 1:15 point- don't let your emotions be swayed by the ominous chanting choir :)






Ah... that's why I said, 'in the main'. The fact that the penthouse collapsed a second or two before the main collapse could be attributed... if one wished... to a number of different reasons, one of which could be inferior structural integrity due to it's position.

Actually, to be honest, I think it is more like 4 or 5 seconds.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Its hard to see when looking straight a squib/puff- you really need a side on view to see it.

The fact is, they could be squibs or they could be compression puffs but there is no visual evidence to say the latter exist but there is plenty of evidence where such puffs are unambiguously attributed to squibs.

Can you source any, (other than 9/11 :)), attributed to compression?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
The fact is, they could be squibs or they could be compression puffs but there is no visual evidence to say the latter exist but there is plenty of evidence where such puffs are unambiguously attributed to squibs.


sorry- I completely disagree with you.

Think about the behavior of a puff of smoke from an explosion- initial burst of energy which quickly dissipates.

Now think the air being released from a hole in a bike tire being squeezed by hand. (or maybe water from a squirt gun?)

You can CLEARLY see material being ejected and the energy increasing and/or continuing after the initial burst.

Entirely inconsistent with a squib.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
sorry- I completely disagree with you.

Think about the behavior of a puff of smoke from an explosion- initial burst of energy which quickly dissipates.

Now think the air being released from a hole in a bike tire being squeezed by hand. (or maybe water from a squirt gun?)

You can CLEARLY see material being ejected and the energy increasing and/or continuing after the initial burst.

Entirely inconsistent with a squib.

I am not being deliberately obtuse, merely acknowledging that I personally cannot differentiate between the two. As I said, if I google compression puffs, I can find nothing visually which can be compared to squibs going off.

Any CIA monitors out there, perhaps the CIA could put up some you tube video showing compression puffs for comparison purposes to convince the skeptics :)
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Is the only possible way for you to understand is by watching a youtube video?

Or can you think abut the dynamics involved of compressed air and its potential behavior...and infer a difference.


If you must- this is as close as I could get- but I only looked for 30 seconds :)

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Is the only possible way for you to understand is by watching a youtube video?

Or can you think abut the dynamics involved of compressed air and its potential behavior...and infer a difference.

I can assimilate the theory and I agree it sounds reasonable but I cannot visually differentiate between the two. Non technically, I would imagine a squib to be more localised than a 'compression puff'... i.e. a compression puff taking out a whole window or series of windows or other weak points.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The fact is, they could be squibs or they could be compression puffs but there is no visual evidence to say the latter exist but there is plenty of evidence where such puffs are unambiguously attributed to squibs

Can you source any, (other than 9/11 :)), attributed to compression?

you mean apart from a bunch of verinage videos you have already been shown but have apparently forgotten?

A couple of reminders:



 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
you mean apart from a bunch of verinage videos you have already been shown but have apparently forgotten?

A couple of reminders:




How could I possibly forget the perennial verinage technique:)

As I said... "Non technically, I would imagine a squib to be more localised than a 'compression puff'... i.e. a compression puff taking out a whole window or series of windows or other weak points."

These videos endorse what I say. The 'puffs' on 9/11 were much much more local... more like squibs going off, agreed?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
No - not that I recall.

Given that the WTC walls were not actually knocked down by verinage (which demolishes a whole floor worth of walls at once) the compressed air inside the tower is going to exit the weakest point first - not everywhere all at once.

And IMO the localised puffs that do appear in various videos look exactly like that happening - they are a relatively long-lasting "jet", whereas demolition "squib" puffs are "explosive" - they happen all at once.

Further, squibs are SMALL explosives - they could not do much more than break a window in a large building, and cerainly not cut significant structural steel.

For moer in depth analysis of this damp squib nonsense see here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
Mick West Collapse of 12 Story Building in Miami Beach Current Events 3
Miss VocalCord São Paulo High Rise Fire and Collapse - Wilton Paes de Almeida Building Current Events 87
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Leifer Bent Steel In Building Fires Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
Mick West Explained: Two Suns at Sunset - Harrow, UK [Reflection Off Building] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
NoParty Claim: Indigogo campaign to recreate 9/11 Plane Crash into Building 9/11 38
James Adams Rectangular building type objects on the surface of the moon [Like the Triangle] General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
jomper WTC 7 (Building 7) General Discussion 0
lee h oswald 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
Grieves BBC's Jane Standley Premature reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 (Building 7) 9/11 13
Fred259 WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building? 9/11 58
Mick West Building 7 Explained by Edward Current 9/11 2

Related Articles

Top