• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christophera said:
A building not hit by a jet falls at free fall. WTC 7

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y248/koshira/wtc-7-small.gif[/qimg]

Here is the page that has links to engineers web sites that describe the concrete core.

http://concretecore.741.com/
Click to expand...

BINGO!!!

We have officially reached the point where the tin-foiler retreats to WTC7.

Can we have an offical policy where all 9-11 threads are locked as soon as WTC7 is mentioned?
 
OK, so where did they hide all the detcord, caps, and other materials required for explosives?

This is a person with only Hollywood understanding of explosives..and Hollywood would tell him to stuff it for such idiotic nonsense.
 
=@.@= Heavens above and below. I'm having one of those "don't know whether to laugh or cry, but whichever it is it'll be nigh unto uncontrollable" moments.
 
Christophera said:
I cannot cite that but I have shown what they think they witnessed, a controlled demolition.

http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

Please show where another steel building has collapsed.

Please show that the structure NIST depicts is correct by using raw images of the towers during the fall. I show that the NIST structure never appears.

[qimg]http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

wouldn't a much more likely explanation for that shape in the background be that there's another building there?

Take a look at this picture, from a very slightly different angle from yours:

http://www.ridgewoodcameraclub.org/Photo Gallery/Twin-Towers-2.jpg

See the building behind the right-hand tower? That's what is causing the shadow in your picture.
 
Just to point this out for those who might still be waiting at the depot instead of riding the straight-jacket express....


C-4 does have a shelf life. It doesn't stay good forever. After several decades of being encased in concrete (and without an obvious detonation method..unless you claim radio, but let's not go there) I doubt even half would still go off.
 
Uh, yes...

Pardalis said:
Man, you are INSANE.

Are you saying the 9/11 events were 30 YEARS IN THE MAKING???????????????
Click to expand...


...that is what he said. :boggled:

Which does not explain how the 1993 bombing fits in to this scenario. And that was extremely real and not planned by any conspiracy. It killed six people, including a woman who was seven months pregnant.

If my pal Mike Sheridan, who was the operations manager of the World Trade Center, was alive -- he died of cancer earlier this year -- he'd laugh. Then he'd cry. Then he'd punch you in the nose.

The World Trade Center was not a controlled demolition.

But it's a good story.
 
Katachresis said:
Are you saying that the WTC's were not constucted the way it is reported in the NIST report?

Are you saying that hijacked passenger planes were not the direct cause of the towers' collapse?

Do you plan on staying on this thread long enough to maybe convince someone that your theories are valid?
Click to expand...

Christophera said:
Absolutely. And all posting here have failed to support the FEMA structure that NIST uses.

Absolutely, the planes were a cover for the fact that the building were built to be demolished and scheduled for 9-11.

I've already shown that the official theory (lie) is invalid. The structure that NIST says was there cannot be supported by raw images.

It should be simple to support the towers that NIST states existed, but no one has provided one single image showing the steel core columns in the center of the core.
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering my questions, except the last one, for which I no longer need an answer.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
Here is the page that has links to engineers web sites that describe the concrete core.

http://concretecore.741.com/
Click to expand...

When I clicked on that link I saw, briefly, before the window trying to scare me about a virus a drawing of a concrete COLUMN with steel reinforcing in it. The reinforcing was labelled steel BEAMS. If they can't get something as simple as that right I'm not going to bother to read the rest.

Dave
 
Dave_46 said:
When I clicked on that link I saw, briefly, before the window trying to scare me about a virus a drawing of a concrete COLUMN with steel reinforcing in it. The reinforcing was labelled steel BEAMS. If they can't get something as simple as that right I'm not going to bother to read the rest.
Click to expand...
Pardon a dumb Q from a non-structural engineer, but: columns are vertical, beams are horizontals whose ends rest atop columns, right?
 
Huntsman said:
Just to point this out for those who might still be waiting at the depot instead of riding the straight-jacket express....


C-4 does have a shelf life. It doesn't stay good forever. After several decades of being encased in concrete (and without an obvious detonation method..unless you claim radio, but let's not go there) I doubt even half would still go off.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Its not just C4. I recall that one of the major unadvertised shortcomings of the former Soviet Cold War Army is that they tended to stockpile shells & ammo and rarely use them since they couldn't depend on their suppliers to gear up to resupply in time.

By contrast, NATO armies shot the stuff and replaced it. The result being that the soldiers could train with the live stuff, and fresh ammo was kept in supply.

Some commented that a lot of artillery and tank ammo on the Soviet side would be a bit failure-prone had a shooting war broken out.
 
Meffy

The image I saw (briefly) was a drawing of a column only, showing reinforcing. I saw no indication of a beam being attached. So, to see vertical reinforcing members called beams made me decide it wasn't worth trying to clear the spam and view the site.

I am not a structural engineer, but I do sometimes work with them. I am a technician involved in fire testing, and sometimes the tests are on buildings (which can be steel or concrete).

Dave
 
Christophera said:
...Absolutely, the planes were a cover for the fact that the building were built to be demolished and scheduled for 9-11...
Click to expand...

I'll say this as delicately as I can, with all the tact and diplomacy your comment merits.

You are nuts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom