Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[WildCat]

You are guessing while not providing links to the sites or images of the basic tower structures that NIST says stood.

I keep asking you what NIST publication you are referring to, and a page number would be nice also. Can you do that?

Nor has a feasible explanation of free fall been linked to or offered.

None will be offered, as WTC 1, 2, and 7 did not fall at free-fall.

 

[Christophera]

I've linkedthe site that has all of the NIST publications to date. Those publications contain numerous detailed analysis by qualified structural engineers - experts in high-rise building construction. Lots of analysis of pictures taken from the moment the planes struck to the moment of collapse.

You seem uninterested in perusing that enormous wealth of data.

Therefore, my confusion is genuine.

I am sorry. I'm very experienced in this subject and have had very zealous suportters utterly fail to produce any raw evidence whatsoever supporting the structure they say stood from their sources in the NIST report. It is subterfuge.

 

[WildCat]

Which "skeptics" specifically? Provide citations. Failing that, retract your accusation immediately or learn to distinguish between skeptics and Holocaust deniers. There's a world of difference that you seem not to recognize.

I think he's just pulling the chain of our new CT'er friend.

 

[tkingdoll]

Well, considering the "qualified analysts" have failed to explain the exceedingly fast fall rates, the credibility of what our society refers to as "qualified" is VERY much in question.

I've enjoyed providing you with a common sense analysis of what "qualifications" have become.

So you are saying you have a better understanding of structural engineering than people who spend years studying and taking exams and working at the job?

Fascinating. Your ego must have really hurt your mother on the way out.

What is really interesting is that there are plenty of highly-qualified people who have provided perfectly rational explanations and demonstrated quite clearly that the buildings did not 'fast fall', but you don't want to believe them because it's not anywhere near as glamorous or exciting as a massive conspiracy theory.

You didn't answer my question: are you saying that you haven't seen the Loose Change DVD? You insinuated that you have come to your conclusions entirely independently - I would like you to confirm that you have not in fact seen the DVD as you claimed.

 

[Christophera]

I keep asking you what NIST publication you are referring to, and a page number would be nice also. Can you do that?


None will be offered, as WTC 1, 2, and 7 did not fall at free-fall.

I am not reffering to any NIST material, you are. If it is raw images i consider it raw evidence. Post the link.

 

[Christophera]

So you are saying you have a better understanding of structural engineering than people who spend years studying and taking exams and working at the job?

What is really interesting is that there are plenty of highly-qualified people who have provided perfectly rational explanations and demonstrated quite clearly that the buildings did not 'fast fall', but you don't want to believe them because it's not anywhere near as glamorous or exciting as a massive conspiracy theory.

No, I haven't seen that video. I subscribe to no ones theories.

 

[WildCat]

I am sorry. I'm very experienced in this subject and have had very zealous suportters utterly fail to produce any raw evidence whatsoever supporting the structure they say stood from their sources in the NIST report. It is subterfuge.

Well then could you just tell us the NIST publication and page number of "the structure that NIST says stood". Then we'll have a better understanding of what you're talking about.

Thanks.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The WTC towers would've fell sideways if it was the result of a plane crash, therefore extra-terrestials must've done it.

 

[Christophera]

Well then could you just tell us the NIST publication and page number of "the structure that NIST says stood". Then we'll have a better understanding of what you're talking about.

Thanks.

You shall have to find relevant information in that fallacious document. I know better. I've seen raw data showing exactly what kind of structure stood and NIST doesn't use it.

No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

 

[Meffy]

I think he's just pulling the chain of our new CT'er friend.

Yes, you're right and I've deleted the post.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

So, what are your structural engineering credentials?

 

[Christophera]

So, what are your structural engineering credentials?

We do not need credentials to identify structural elements in a falling building. Do you have any links that show the structure that NIST says stood using raw images?

 

[tkingdoll]

No, I haven't seen that video. I subscribe to no ones theories.

Gosh. So you literally start from scratch and discover everything yourself? What do you do when you're ill then? It took ages to discover germs and antibiotics and x-rays and stuff - you must have a pretty short life expectancy if you need to re-discover all theories from the beginning.

So, as you are asserting that you came across this free-fall theory completely independently, would you please tell us the story of how that happened? I would love to know. What was it? One day you were studying some photos of the towers for no reason, and you suddenly decided that something wasn't quite right, so you went and thought about it really hard and came up with the free-fall theory all by yourself? You subscribe to no-one's theories, right? So that must be how it happened. You must be one smart guy, to have figured out that free-fall thing all by yourself.

In which case, don't you think it's a pretty amazing coincidence that that's the exact same theory the Loose Change people also came up with at the same time? Maybe you have some sort of telepathic ability? You might consider applying for the million-dollar challenge.

 

[Christophera]

Yes, you're right and I've deleted the post.

Why did you do that? Did it not have the qualities you desired when you posted it?

 

[thaiboxerken]

We do not need credentials to identify structural elements in a falling building.

But it does help your case when you claim to know how those structural elements would behave in an accident. Say, did you have any scientific evidence to support your conspiracy theory? Are you going to publish your data in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

 

[WildCat]

I am not reffering to any NIST material, you are. If it is raw images i consider it raw evidence. Post the link.

The NIST reports contains many photographs of independent photographers who were at the scene on 9/11. And detailed expert analysis of those photos you can compare to your own scholarly work.

 

[Gravy]

Just one more shot at your free follies. I'm sure you can seek out the raw versions of these from the photographers or news sources, it they're available.

Yes or no: is debris in these photos falling faster than the bulk of the building?

If you say no, would video convince you?

 

[Christophera]

You subscribe to no-one's theories, right? So that must be how it happened. You must be one smart guy, to have figured out that free-fall thing all by yourself.

In which case, don't you think it's a pretty amazing coincidence that that's the exact same theory the Loose Change people also came up with at the same time?

What theory do the loose changers have for fre fall?

 

[Metullus]

No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time.

What sources? The NIST materials describe construction that is entirely consistant with what I have always understood to be the desighn of the buildings. What do you understand the design to be?

They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure.

Do you know what free fall means? What does this have to do with 9/11?

They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

What do you mean by "the wrong tower fell first"?

They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.

What makes you think that this happened?

You make a lot of assertions, but provide no evidence to support them. Neither do you make any attempt to describe your version of events. I doubt you have any understanding of even the basics of construction, building design, or building demolition.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes or no: is debris in these photos falling faster than the bulk of the building?

Now you're just being bad. We all know that the gravitational acceleration constant for debris is different than for buildings.