Creative Speculation

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)

64. Riddle me this, billman...

Sat Mar 24, 2012, 11:32 PM

Mar 2012

The little jet of smoke discussed at 0:48 and beyond is moving at exactly the same speed as the smoke/debris surrounding it.

If this jet of smoke were the result of some kind of explosion, wouldn't, SHOULDN'T it be moving at oh, 1800 m/s to 8000 m/s, which is the rate of expansion of most commercial explosives?

Don't you find that a little strange that the jet of smoke caused by an explosion moves only as fast as that of the smoke/debris we KNOW is forced out of the building by the bellows effect of pancaking floors?

I do, don't you?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Cutter Charges in the North Tower... [View all] wildbilln864 Dec 2011 OP

and a kick! nt wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #1

FDNY firefighters... wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #2

NIST explains them as pressurized puffs of air gyroscope Jan 2012 #3

so you can tell from that picture that the puff is "exiting out of a single window"? zappaman Jan 2012 #4

Since they are actually explosives gyroscope Jan 2012 #5

how and when exactly sabbat hunter Mar 2012 #60

"they would be blowing out of ALL the windows of the floor" - No. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #6

So this 'jetting material' just happens to resemble gyroscope Jan 2012 #7

As I explained, they do NOT resemble precisely timed explosions Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #8

Do you require glasses? gyroscope Jan 2012 #11

Please stop the sarcasm. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #12

Why would they need to cut the outer walls? hack89 Jan 2012 #17

there were in fact a lot of renovations going on in the towers NoMoreWarNow Apr 2012 #68

Feel free to back this up with some evidence. nt hack89 Apr 2012 #69

are you saying there weren't a lot of renovations going on? NoMoreWarNow Apr 2012 #70

But you haven't found it yet: keep looking. That link proves NOTHING. n/t. apocalypsehow Jun 2012 #71

LOL! Politicalboi Mar 2012 #65

"But of course I'm the nut." zappaman Mar 2012 #66

Post removed Post removed Jun 2012 #72

thanks for posting this! nt wildbilln864 Jul 2012 #73

. jesters Jan 2012 #9

There are reports of the air blowing down much further than that during the collapse. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #10

Something else they can't to explain gyroscope Jan 2012 #14

See my post #15 nt hack89 Jan 2012 #16

When the volume of a single floor went from 400K cubic feet to zero in fractions of seconds hack89 Jan 2012 #15

So these 'puffs of air' as you call them gyroscope Jan 2012 #18

Do you understand compression? hack89 Jan 2012 #19

Compression requires an airtight seal. gyroscope Jan 2012 #20

No, it doesn't. AZCat Jan 2012 #21

"the installation of the charges took place at night and/or on the weekends when people weren't work zappaman Jan 2012 #22

There was video Politicalboi Mar 2012 #51

"There was video" zappaman Mar 2012 #53

The WTC was a sealed building - all the windows were closed hack89 Jan 2012 #23

No. jesters Jan 2012 #24

Because of where the elevator and HVAC shafts terminated? hack89 Jan 2012 #28

maybe you and gyroscope can settle this and then get back to the rest of us OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #29

the 'puffs' come out of the windows in regular demolitions - see Rosa Luxemburg Mar 2012 #56

But the venting in the WTC buildings don't "puff," they jet Bolo Boffin Mar 2012 #62

Why weren't the plotters smart enough to put the cutter chargers hack89 Jan 2012 #13

There would have been some destructive devices along the core. Obviously. jesters Jan 2012 #25

more importantly zappaman Jan 2012 #26

Why would they need them on the exterior walls? hack89 Jan 2012 #27

Simple. gyroscope Jan 2012 #30

So a table can stand with only two legs on one side? hack89 Jan 2012 #31

Don't you forget what you said gyroscope Jan 2012 #32

So if you "need all four 'legs' to hold the table up" hack89 Jan 2012 #33

But it wont come straight down gyroscope Jan 2012 #34

If the core of the tower collapses straight down while the perimeter remains stationary hack89 Jan 2012 #35

So you agree that the core sank first. jesters Jan 2012 #36

Too many damaged columns further weakened by fire hack89 Jan 2012 #37

Lol. jesters Jan 2012 #38

The professional building community has been discussing these issues for some time. AZCat Jan 2012 #39

You do understand why highrises have fireproofing and sprinkler systems? hack89 Jan 2012 #40

Lol. jesters Jan 2012 #41

Only one needed to sag. hack89 Jan 2012 #42

Hack says that "Buildings are not designed with vertical static loads in mind." jesters Jan 2012 #43

Levitation? gyroscope Jan 2012 #46

Sorry - meant vertical dynamic loads. Now answer my question. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #49

The fires weren't massive Politicalboi Mar 2012 #52

He was right at the edge of fire and below the impact floor hack89 Mar 2012 #57

The inner core isn't going to give very easily if at all gyroscope Jan 2012 #44

"it doesn't work without removing the resistance. " jesters Jan 2012 #45

Maybe I'll start my own CD company gyroscope Jan 2012 #47

You cut out a big chunk of the core hack89 Jan 2012 #48

I seem to recall... ryan_cats Mar 2012 #58

LOL! Politicalboi Mar 2012 #50

It's a trip back in the time machine LARED Mar 2012 #54

Amazing, right? zappaman Mar 2012 #55

Do we now have a magic smoke theory? ryan_cats Mar 2012 #63

Good one, Bill jberryhill Mar 2012 #59

I'm glad you're proud! wildbilln864 Mar 2012 #61

Riddle me this, billman... cherokeeprogressive Mar 2012 #64

kick! nt wildbilln864 Apr 2012 #67

a blast from the past! n/t wildbilln864 Sep 2016 #74