• 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:
How about someone from this forum PROOV that the NIST strcuture actually existed by finding some pieces of it as it is falling in the demolition photos.
Click to expand...

A rather more difficult question:

From whom would you accept this evidence?
 
Trifikas said:
Okay, Just to see if I have this clear.

The problem is that the picture here:

http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif

From his site, Of fema's version of the core of the WTC (simplified)
was changed from this picture:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/15400...://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif

(again, his site).



And the problem is that the Live pics that were shown, show his pictures design, and not fema's? Is that what this is all about?

Trifikas.
Click to expand...

Wow,
You got it figured out, the core issue. Right on! Reminds me of one of my favorite thread titles "Why is it so important there is NOT a concrete core".

If you take the "q" in the tag out upon quoting, the image will post.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
Okay, I'm making it up that you can see through 3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers.
Click to expand...
You're making it up that there's such a thing as 3" rebar. There's not. You're making it up that that is the interior of the building -- it is the exterior. You're making it up that there was a concrete core. There was not. Tens of thousands of people came down the stairways that very day and not a single one of them saw a concrete core. If there were a concrete core, more people would have survived, as the stairways would not have become impassible at the areas where the airplanes (remember them?) struck.

And of course you're making it up that thousands of ironworkers handled rebar somehow coated with C-4 and every single one of them confused it with, I guess, waterproof epoxy and that none of them experienced the ill skin effects of casual handling of the explosive.
 
I'm failing to understand how the planes figure into this conspiracy theory. If you've set up explosives in the WTC, why hit it with planes right before you detonate them? Why wouldn't you just detonate the bombs and blame their presence on terrorists?
 
ExitDose said:
I'm failing to understand how the planes figure into this conspiracy theory. If you've set up explosives in the WTC, why hit it with planes right before you detonate them? Why wouldn't you just detonate the bombs and blame their presence on terrorists?
Click to expand...

This is not a failure, it's a sharp mind using logic. Good point.
 
Lamuella said:
As I said before: that's a building behind the Tower. I even linked you to a photo where you could see this for yourself.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are wrong. Here is the same core lower, nothing behind.

southcore2stands.gif
 
nothing behind... except for a building whose spire is visible in the second photo?
 
Christophera said:
If you would read, you would learn that in the manufacturers package the shelf life is 10 years.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1154643

The manufacturere doesn't say how long it will last encapsulated in a couple of feet of concrete.
Click to expand...

Oh, please...please argue some more with Huntsman about explosives.

Also, please answer my question about your statement that no one has posted a picture showing the steel columns, when Chipmunk Stew did just that in post 233.
 
Ever Consider The Planes Are A Ruse?

ExitDose said:
I'm failing to understand how the planes figure into this conspiracy theory. If you've set up explosives in the WTC, why hit it with planes right before you detonate them? Why wouldn't you just detonate the bombs and blame their presence on terrorists?
Click to expand...

Really, you can consider that secret elements of government are going to chance that their construction project is to blame rather than some other likely perpetrator? Because ONLY optimaly placed and distributed explosives can do what happened. Consider the release of toxins. And the considerations for all that oil being available under the watchful eyes of only your military as we rush to get the villans, can you ignore that too?

We have been decieved for many, many decades. Some want to be decieved and can ignore our murdered brothers and sisters easily.
 
but if they're blaming this on Osama Bin Laden anyway, why not just say he bombed the towers a second time? Why go to the trouble of hiring people to hijack a bunch of planes?
 
juryjone said:
Oh, please...please argue some more with Huntsman about explosives.

Also, please answer my question about your statement that no one has posted a picture showing the steel columns, when Chipmunk Stew did just that in post 233.
Click to expand...

What, this one?

57214477798b9aac6.jpeg
 
Tricky said:
That is the radio tower from WTC1.
[qimg]http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc-bldg7.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Yes that is the antenna from WTC 1, but it has nothing to do with WTC 2's core here,

southcore2stands.gif


Which is slightly lower than the same core here in the shot just prior.

southcorestands.gif


proving that we are looking at the WTC 2 core and not a building behind it.
 
Katachresis said:
What, this one?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/57214477798b9aac6.jpeg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The interior box columns,

interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg


encircled the core up to 7 floors over the top of the concrete core. Meaning the concrete was almost never visible by helicopter. Even the documentary noted a couple of times that the core was hard to find good pictures of.

Inside the core area are elevator guide rail support structures. One of the reasons the elevators in the WTC were so fast is that the concrete core provided constant rigid alignment.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom