Somebody called me a "Truther" for the first time.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by jthomas

 

If you read your own post you say this in regard to those calculations:

So, when the towers collapsed where did all this air go and how?

What's confusing about that? The collapses started at the impact points with the fires still above that point. I am specifically talking about the air in the towers below that point. When the collapses started that air was not in contact with the fires and had just around 14 seconds to be evacuated out of the towers as the collapse fronts progressed down the towers.

Where did that air go?

I read just fine.

Obviously, you have not got it right yet after two tries. Try reading more carefully the third time. Tell us where the air in the towers below the collapse front went. Or tell me why you are still confused about it.

reply to post by jthomas


I'll quote you again, just so we can list what isn't right!

Looking at tables for the weight of air at various temperatures, www.engineeringtoolbox.com... ,

we find that air at 70 degrees F. weighs 7.492 x 10-2 (.07492) lbs per cubic foot.

So, with this data we calculate that each floor had .07492 x 388,320 = 29,093 lbs per air per floor.

Using the number of undamaged floors below the impact points of each tower (the points at which the collapses began), we have approximately 79 floors for WTC 2 and 92 for WTC 1. This gives us the total weight of the air in the undamaged portions of each tower:

x 79 floors = 2,298,342 lbs of air in WTC 2
x 92 floors = 2,676,556 lbs of air in WTC 1

= 1,149 tons of air in WTC 2.
= 1,338 tons of air in WTC 1.

Each of the towers were enclosed rectangular tubes with sealed windows and controlled environments. The air pressure on the outside of the towers was the same as on the inside of the towers otherwise doors would be pushed out or in if there were more than minimal pressure differentials between the outside and inside. So, when the towers collapsed where did all this air go and how?

The figures you have supplied are WITHOUT FIRES!!

A Temperature of 70F.

It was not a sunny day inside the WTC towers anywhere on that day.

The information you use, has nothing to do with 911.

It has to do with IDEAL CONDITIONS.

The obvious existed no ideal condition on 911, or the towers would still be standing.

Everyone seems to agree with that, now except you.

Now use data that is includes the fires or otherwise your using the wrong data.

And as I stated in numeroius threads, that is the issue I have with 911, misleading, or forgotten, or downright denying the FACTS.

We know the was fires, But you stand by using documentation that the buildings across 100 floors the temp was 70 wonderful on the beach degrees.

Now who is reaching?

Your kidding me right?

There has been an omission of the most spoken part of the OS "facts"

FIRES!

Sorry this omission stuff has got to go!

Originally posted by theability
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread564909

The figures you have supplied are WITHOUT FIRES!!

Of course. Do you really want us to believe the entire structures of WTC 1 and 2 were on fire below the impact points?? Show us:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/11354a198140.jpg[/atsimg]

Does anyone here see fires anywhere in the intact structure below the impact points? Raise your hands and be counted.

A Temperature of 70F.

An ambient temperature of 70 degrees is reasonable for a September day. You're welcome to give us the exact temperatures for September 11.

It was not a sunny day inside the WTC towers anywhere on that day.

The sun shines outside, not inside. But if you want to claim that the temperatures inside the intact portions of each towers were not survivable because they were burning and there was no air, then please contact the NYFD and all the survivors who made it out of the towers after the impacts and ask them how they survived.

Report back with your findings.

The information you use, has nothing to do with 911. It has to do with IDEAL CONDITIONS.

It has to do with reality, my friend. There were no fires below the impact zone as you claim. People survived and BREATHED and escaped from the intact portions below the fires. Firemen went UP into the towers to rescue people and try to reach the people. Each tower collapsed with air in the intact portions of over 1,000 tons in each tower and had to go somewhere when the towers collapsed.

And here you are claiming that the whole structures were on fire and there was no air.



[edit on 9-5-2010 by jthomas]

reply to post by theability


You're right, jthomas hasn't given figures for either a building that's on fire or one that's collapsing either.

Neither has he offered any explanation as to how the air should have escaped the building. The immediate and most obvious answer would be, through the biggest gaping holes in the structure, the path of least resistance. Which in the case of a building being crushed floor-by-floor from the top down, with solid debris also flying out in all directions, is going to be the "collapse wave" area. The air has nothing to act as a piston and compress it, unless your idea of a piston has more holes than Swiss cheese.


You'll find though that instead of offering any kind of correction, jthomas will continue to post manipulative information and will avoid or dismiss out-of-hand anything I've just posted. He doesn't post honestly and I have complained to the moderators about this numerous times, to no avail.

reply to post by jthomas

When you actually address the omission issue I really don't have much else to say.

I can sit here an point out to you what isn't right about your argument but I shouldn't have to.

Yet here I go, this is really simple to figure.

The function before 911 of the wtc was normal with the except of

• The 1970's fires
  
• The 1993 bombing
  

To base the assumption that ideal conditions exist in the WTC after the impact of a jet in false for the following reasons:
a.) One must assume building performace during normal enviormnent be maximum 100%
b.)Taking into account of 100% any issue with the structure, IE planes crashing into them and the subsequent fires resulting deduduct from that 100% performance level directly.
c.)After looking at the whole piece beiong 100% the entire structure of one tower once compomised by a plane impact, no longer is able to have anywhere "ideal Conditions existing!" Like if you have a fire on a ship, its a huge deal!

Sorry but for you to suggest the possibility that the entire structure didn't feel the brunt of this day, then

WHY DID IT COLLAPSE THEN?

Entire towers busted into a million pieces we can see that on video!

Now you say there was sunshie and great, ideal conditions inside???

My god, seriously, the debates these days...

So back to your 70F data and the sunshine equations about a perfect day inside the towers.

Seriously...is not a viable assumption. Sorry I disagree!

[edit on 9-5-2010 by theability]

Well, we have one admission that there was air in the building that had to escape. And that it had to escape wherever it could. Being forced out, in other words.

And we know the collapse front, full of debris, moved fast and furious, leaving many exterior walls to collapse after the collapse front had passed, with air and dust rushing in from above the collapse front to fill the vacuum left from all that displacement of the air inside the towers (88% of the volume of each tower) and the structure itself.

That was a hell of lot of air to force out in around just 14 seconds, wasn't it?

The fairy tale I am suppose to believe now....


On 911 The WTC towers were on fire hot enough to melt steel and collapse the building.

But there was great conditions inside and it was 70F throughout most of the towers, despite the metal failing throught the 70F areas, where no steel was heated by fires?

OHH my god let me


This such crud. seriously.

Originally posted by theability

To base the assumption that ideal conditions exist in the WTC after the impact of a jet in false for the following reasons:...

Sorry, there were no ideal conditions; there was only the condition of reality, two towers with a massive amount of air in the intact structures that had to be forced out of the towers when each tower collapsed. My calculations are perfectly reasonable for the conditions in the undamaged areas of the towers. That you cannot refute them or demonstrate otherwise should tell you something.

You can evade that reality all you want but there were survivable temperatures and air in those whole parts of undamaged towers. People were there. People survived.

The point is clear: that massive amount of air had to go somewhere fast when the towers collapsed, and it was forced out wherever it could. This is why those few "expulsions" claimed by you guys as squibs do not have the characteristics of "explosive squibs" but are consistent with that of air being rapidly forced out.

reply to post by jthomas


I am sorry but I have nothing left to say over the matter, I don't agree with you and your facts at all.

Your not being truthful and I see that.

Whatever you want to believe is fine, but don't throw bogus data at me and expect me to be digesting it without finding that out.

Its ignorant that you sit here and insult people with misleading data.

Its wrong.

I don't agree with you and your IDEAL CONDITION argument.

Because its false!

More nails in the OS....have a good day.







[edit on 9-5-2010 by theability]

reply to post by jthomas


Nothing has to be "forced" out when the building is being ripped apart into the open atmosphere.

If large solid debris as well as fine dust had no trouble escaping, it is borderline mental to think air was not simultaneously gushing out. This was the path of least resistance and there was nothing air-tight to compress air into the lower half of the building.

It's interesting that one poster trying to argue against air being forced out is actually arguing that air is being forced out as the videos show clearly from what he claims happened.

It's just another illustration how 9/11 Truthers tangle themselves up in their own contradictions.

And we see clearly in the videos that there were no "explosive squibs."

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Anyone is welcome to refute me with evidence. What is observed is consistent with air being forced out of broken windows below the collapse front.

It is not consistent with "demolition squibs."

- There are only a few randomly placed "ejections".
- The appearance, increase in flow, and long duration are completely the opposite of "explosive squibs."

Again, anyone can demonstrate otherwise.

reply to post by jthomas



- The ejections from the towers are not just air but dust and small debris, which is what makes them appear visible and white or light brown in photos and video.

- There is nothing airtight to compress the air into a pressure front in the first place. The falling debris was as air-tight as swiss cheese, and even solid debris was flying out by the tons. So you can imagine how easily air was flowing through the same space, decompressing the building and causing an upwards "sucking" pressure front that survivors have even testified to.

- Even if there was an airtight front pushing air like a piston and forming a pressure front, which as I've said is impossible and so your whole explanation is impossible, but even if this was possible, the compressed air would have to get from the vertical shafts inside the core structure and make a 90 degree angle turn to blow through intact office space, still carrying all the dust and debris with them so far ahead of the rest of the collapse, and then still manage to blow out windows, taking the dust and debris and all. Why does the pressure front exit the shafts on these particular floors in the first place, and not others? How does the dust and debris manage to stay with it? How does the pressure front then move through intact office space to get to the windows, and why one particular direction and not a thermodynamic decompression in all directions like a sphere instead? All these questions regarding the physics that your theory cannot answer.


Considering these and the fact that the theory has no supporting evidence to begin with, only conjectures and more baseless theories to prop it, a more reasonable man than yourself could easily come to the conclusion that your explanation has been sufficiently refuted.

***Please copy this post, because it will be immediately deleted!

Has anybody else ended up banned or harassed by ATS staff/mods, after simply disagreeing with a mod, or disagreeing with one of their friends?

Have you ever found yourself banned, or your posts deleted, simply because you may have questioned the decision of a moderator, or perhaps you posted a problem on the complaints and suggestions board.

Have you ever been totally berate and insulted by a member in a thread, and when you reply in kind, you find yourself rebuked, reprimanded or banned?

There is a sweeping problem on this website, where the site owners have handed over the moderation of it, to people who seem to be taking out their high school angst out upon ATS members, with the full backing of the site owners.

Many of us have been with this site since it's inception, yet have experienced severe disrespect from these "children" and malcontents with no avenue for complaints.

The Complaints and Suggestions board never seems to amount to anything, except placing yourselves directly in the cross hairs of site moderators once again.

If you have been a part of this site, enjoyed it, CONTRIBUTED to it, and then received negative treatment and an absolute lack of customer service, YOU ARE NOT ALONE!

And, remember, we ARE customers.

Speak up. Speak out against the lack of professionalism that exists among the moderators. This post will disappear immediately, which is also a very bad sign for a site that prides itself on "Denying Ignorance", and tries to present itself as an open and honest board.

A couple tips:

1. Just for the heck of it, next time you have a problem with a member, and then find yourself reprimanded by a moderator, look up the moderators "Friends" list, and see if the original person you argued with is on it.

Chances are, they will be.

2. Next time a moderator reprimands you, deletes one of your posts, or bans you, run a few searches using the moderators name, and the type of topic you just had the problem with.
There is a good chance that you will find the moderator has posted on that topic, but their position was against yours. So, look into them.

Remember this post. And know that you are not alone. And, we all deserve respect and answers.

Remember the Banned!!!

Of course it's air with dust and debris, exactly what the videos show. That's just one reason why they are not explosive squibs.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by jthomas

 

WHY DID IT COLLAPSE THEN?
[edit on 9-5-2010 by theability]

One of 4 things.

option 1.

The twin towers were hit with a 500 mile per hour 110-150 ton airplane which stripped away fire insulation from load bearing steel support beams and damaged the building and then set the building on fire. The fire heat the steel support beams (since the fire insulation was stripped away from a plane crash) to fire temperatures which didn't melt the beams but made them hot enough to weaken them to the point where they were unable to support the tons of materials above them.


option 2.

A demo team pulled off the largest demolition project in the entire world using crews of hundreds of people over months and months and months and months without anyone knowing and without anyone able to even begin to explain how it (it meaning the worlds largest demolition project which was completed without anyone knowing) was done.

option 3.

There were no twin towers. The eye witnesses were paid actors and the footage was all fake.

option 4.

Space aliens.

Originally posted by jthomas
Of course it's air with dust and debris, exactly what the videos show. That's just one reason why they are not explosive squibs.

Oh, of course, of course, because explosive "squibs" wouldn't have dust or debris with them, or do any structural damage either, of course.


Nice "rebuttal" to my post there jthomas.

So we know that there were no "explosive squibs" coming out of any of the towers. No one has been able to demonstrate the existence of explosives anyway; no evidence for explosives exists.

The problem with which the 9/11 Truth Movement has failed to deal is how the massive amount of air within the undamaged parts of the towers escaped in the 14 or so seconds of the towers' collapses. I demonstrated how much air was within those undamaged portions of the towers.

The few expulsions of air, dust, and debris are consistent with the overpressure experienced within the towers as the debris front progressed down the towers. The lack of any pattern of these expulsions, the lack of any damage done by them as intended in explosive demolitions, the locations below the collapse fronts, their velocity and duration, the lack of any signatures of explosives use, and the fundamental lack of need for explosives once the collapse has started clearly argues against "explosive squibs."