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

[tkingdoll]

What theory do the loose changers have for fre fall?

They say that the buildings came down at "nearly free fall speed".

Answer my other questions please, otherwise you look evasive and intellectually dishonest. I'm sure you don't want to do appear that way.

 

[Christophera]

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?

Since the "qualified' analysts have failed to explain the exceeding high fall rates and extreme uniformity of what is termed "collapse", peer review has really lost it's meaning.

The important thing is an actual explanation for the event. Have you seen one?

 

[Christophera]

They say that the buildings came down at "nearly free fall speed".

Answer my other questions please, otherwise you look evasive and intellectually dishonest. I'm sure you don't want to do appear that way.

Well the loosies are right on that.

I was really hoping that you might be able to support the basic NIST structural design with raw images of the towers falling because FEMA lied.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Since the "qualified' analysts have failed to explin the exceeding high fall rates and extrem uniformity of what is termed "collapse", peer review has really lost it's meaning.

There are well-accepted explanations and there is no conspiracy. The tower did not free fall, the fact that the debris from higher elevations get to the ground faster is proof of this. The analysts have explained and documented and evidenced the case. You are just some idiotic internet punk that thinks he knows something that the rest of the world doesn't. Stop breathing as you aren't worthy of breath.

 

[tkingdoll]

Answer my other questions please, otherwise you look evasive and intellectually dishonest. I'm sure you don't want to do appear that way.

 

[WildCat]

Since the "qualified' analysts have failed to explain the exceeding high fall rates and extreme uniformity of what is termed "collapse", peer review has really lost it's meaning.

The important thing is an actual explanation for the event. Have you seen one?

Yes, in the NIST reports.

How do you know they're wrong if you haven't read them? Are you psychic too?

 

[Christophera]

They say that the buildings came down at "nearly free fall speed".

Answer my other questions please, otherwise you look evasive and intellectually dishonest. I'm sure you don't want to do appear that way.

Okay, I found them so I can answer them.

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?

I work as a surveyor and draftsman for a civil engineer. While I've done this for 20 years I've also done drilling and blasting and studied for a blaster license. I've been welding for 33 years. I do layout for steel and concrete structures frequently and also work with material testing laboratories on a regular basis.

In 1990 i saw a documentary called "Construction Of The Twin Towers". It was 2 hours in length and very intimate with the design, materials and sequnce of WTC 1. It took about a year after 9-11 to remember enough to realize what has been done to create the event.

 

[Gravy]

Please go to this site, download this very common video, which you must have seen many times if you've been doing this for a while.

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108995

If you still cling to your "free fall" nonsense after seeing this, please stop trolling and seek professional help.

 

[Christophera]

Yes, in the NIST reports.

How do you know they're wrong if you haven't read them? Are you psychic too?

The truth will explain free fall. None espousing NIST data as explnatory have ever produced anything that relates to the high rates of fall or raw images of the towers falling that depicted the structural design that actually stood.

 

[Christophera]

Please go to this site, download this very common video, which you must have seen many times if you've been doing this for a while.

http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108995

If you still cling to your "free fall" nonsense after seeing this, please stop trolling and seek professional help.

Sorry, no time for another video of the towers. I'm fully satisfied as the visibility is not good enough to apply an accurate time. The fall was way too fast and it went to far down to be a collapse under any definition.

 

[pgwenthold]

Well, considering the "qualified analysts" have failed to explain the exceedingly fast fall rates,

Perhaps you can help me out.

Exactly how fast SHOULD the buildings have fallen, assuming they were only under the force of gravity.

You are implying here that they fell too fast, but that suggests that you know how fast they should have fallen.

So how fast should they have fallen, and how did you determine it?

 

[Christophera]

total pulverization?

SAND & GRAVEL

 

[Christophera]

Perhaps you can help me out.

Exactly how fast SHOULD the buildings have fallen, assuming they were only under the force of gravity.

You are implying here that they fell too fast, but that suggests that you know how fast they should have fallen.

So how fast should they have fallen, and how did you determine it?

First absolute. Towers built like those towers do not fall all the way to the ground. Maybe, under much more damage than 1 plane the top would fall off. Two towers doing it as they did identically FORGET IT. Never.

 

[WildCat]

I was really hoping that you might be able to support the basic NIST structural design with raw images of the towers falling because FEMA lied.

Try this pdf of a NIST publication. Lots of photos taken by independent photographers and TV news crews, and the NIST analysis of them. But you can ignore the NIST analysis if you like, I eagerly await your expert analysis of these photos and video stills...

 

[Christophera]

Yes, in the NIST reports.

How do you know they're wrong if you haven't read them? Are you psychic too?

NIST uses the wrong basic structure and no raw images of the collapse to support the structure they describe.

Here is a page that uses only raw images and links to engineering sites to show the towers as they really stood.

http://concretecore.741.com/

 

[WildCat]

First absolute. Towers built like those towers do not fall all the way to the ground.

Please show your math, I am eager to see the construction techniques that can absorb the kinetic energy of the collapse of even the top 20 floors of the WTC...

 

[Roboramma]

First absolute. Towers built like those towers do not fall all the way to the ground. Maybe, under much more damage than 1 plane the top would fall off. Two towers doing it as they did identically FORGET IT. Never.

You didn't answer any of his questions...

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Maxim:
If a suppossed explantion does not explain the event, it is not the truth. No explanation that does not explain the event can be the truth.

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?

The towers collapsed at a rate substantially slower than free fall.

Ergo, your statement is automatically invalid.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please provide scientific, third-party verifiable, evidence of what the buildings' rate of collapse was, how this compares to freefall, and why the buildings' rate of collapse is suspicious; or shut up.

 

[Christophera]

The engineers believe FEMAs description of the structure and I know it was different so what the engineers have defined is in error[./QUOTE]

How do you know it was different?

I saw a documentary 2 hours in length and found that all the images of the towers coming down support what I remember fully.

Here is the core to WTC 2 halfway to the ground. What is wrong with this picture?