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

[jj]

Anyone got a good recipe for shepherds pie?

I was thinking of making that tomorrow, and my usual recipe is so plain.

50% ground lamb, 50% ground beef. Equal quantity of chopped onions. Fry it all up. Turn meat into bowl. Deglaze pan with a pint of guinness, reduce it until you have a nice gravy. Usually have to add a touch of roux to it. Season gravy a bit strongly with salt and pepper, remembring you didn't do that to the meat.

Put meat in casserole. Add some chopped carrots. Pour gravy over just to cover meat. Cover with mashed potatos.

Bake until done.

Eat.

 

[Christophera]

....because, if that's the case, the Fema image and yours are NOT incompatable. they're both simplified in different ways, but they both show the hallway through the core. Look at the Layer labled "Floor Plan" on the Fema Shot. The corridor is there, through the Colums, the yellow path in the middle of them. You even have the same number of Colums along the edges of the core in both pictures, you just elected not to show the ones in the middle.

Someone with a better skill at image software can draw the lines to match up the colums in both pictures, but images are both showing the same thing...

Trifikas

ETA: I just realized I shouldn't say they're "Your" pictures, I don't know if you drew them or if they're from others. it's somewhat moot since they're still the pictures you're advancing as part of your argument.

I took the original FEMA drawing and added the core and hallways. WTC 1 only.

 

[Christophera]

I mean, how many people knew beforehand that it was going to happen? We need to trace the evidence back to these criminals.

There are bigger problems that have to dealt with first. We are afraid of our unconscious existence. They operate there.

 

[Shrinker]

It was only 3 days before 9-11 that WTC 2 was powered down on the upper 48 floors for 38 hours for a cable upgrade.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1212053

The building wasn't made of C4. The steel rebar inside the concrete was coated with a small, engineered amount of C4. Parafin plugs were cast on the inside of the core to fill inspection ports on the rebar. the presence of the ports were in the documentary I saw in 1990.

Recall that after the lease of the WTC there were major complaints from people trying to get to lower floors because they had to go up, change elevators and come down to get around the elevator work. The core was very thick at the base and getting detonators to the rebar would be a big job, but the holes made to get to the bar could be refilled with parafin.

Agh, I've stepping in something really unpleasant here haven't I? Could you explain why only one tower needed to be powered down? After skimming your website I've no doubt at all that you'll have an interesting story. Not that I'll believe it, but I figure the more time you spend typing, the less hands you'll have available for self harm.

 

[Tricky]

There are bigger problems that have to dealt with first. We are afraid of our unconscious existence. They operate there.

What? You aren't interested in finding and punishing these people? You want to leave them free to do it again? That is of primary importance.

So again I ask, how many (roughly) knew about this beforehand? Who (in general) were they? Politicians? Engineers? Airline executives? Media outlets?

 

[Stellafane]

Anyone got a good recipe for shepherds pie?

I was thinking of making that tomorrow, and my usual recipe is so plain.

A little paprika sprinkled on the top does it for me. You'd be surprised how much that gussies up an otherwise bland shepard's pie (and the red is a nice touch).

And for God's sake, don't make it too watery -- I hate that.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

 

[ExitDose]

What? You aren't interested in finding and punishing these people? You want to leave them free to do it again? That is of primary importance.

So again I ask, how many (roughly) knew about this beforehand? Who (in general) were they? Politicians? Engineers? Airline executives? Media outlets?

You're OBVIOUSLY too afraid of your unconscious existence to understand. It's the magic Stalin atoms, man, follow the money.

 

[Beleth]

ONLY optimaly placed and distributed explosives can do what happened.

But as I showed in reply 302, even that doesn't explain the visual evidence. If explosives in the core were required to knock down the building, then the core would not have been left standing after the rest of the building collapsed. Yet a standing core surrounded by the collapsed rest of the tower is exactly what is in the photo you like to refer to so much.

We have been decieved for many, many decades. Some want to be decieved and can ignore our murdered brothers and sisters easily.

About as easily as you are ignoring my simple debunking of your entire thesis, eh?

 

[Christophera]

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.

This is the steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core. No steel core columns are seen ever in pictures of the towers falling.

Here is its rebar. If it is not rebar, we all know it is not a perimeter column box column,

I'm not making up the images, I understand them. I'm using my understanding of them to assemble a scenario, a picture of what really happened, and it works. It can be disturbing for people. There are some profound things that happened and they need explaining.

Remember, just because an infiltration into a government has occured, and those infiltrating have dark purposes, the inherent goodness of our Constitution and its amendments, justice serving a principle of life, our governmetn still has many, many good people in it.

We have all been lulled by media, academia, corporate power and taught fears that keep us from cooperating.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

 

[Mercutio]

I wanted to respond to this at the time, but we had a power outage. Your response, though, speaks volumes.

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

Apparently the candid veracity of this discussion escapes you while you attempt unrelated comparisons.

You apparently know nothing about the scientific study of sensation and perception. That's okay; most people don't. But most people aren't trying to accuse folks of murder based on their misunderstanding of it.

It is very easy to demonstrate that the sincerity with which someone believes their eyewitness account is independent of its veracity. You are overly impressed by testimony which simply cannot be taken at face value. As I said before (which you ignored, because it did not fit your preconceived notions), the accuracy of their eyewitness accounts could easily be tested. You could show me that your witnesses are as credible as you think they are. But you have no interest in doing so, because you do not believe your story either.

The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower strcutures that NIST says existed. Seems no one can, nor can they understand that is what I'm trying to do.

This had nothing to do with my post. Do you typically change the subject when someone asks you a question you cannot answer?

They seem fixated on determinig the impossible, like the exact fall time. What they totally fail to see is that quite a bit of material went UP before it went down, so even if we could determine the grounding time exactly, the inacuracies caused by high explosives blowing materials up would render the seach for exact times a joke.

And you seem fixated on ignoring relevant questions. Your pretense of searching for evidence is more promise than reality; if you really want evidence, you must critically examine it as it comes in. If you treat the rest of your evidence as you treat the reports of explosions, your search for evidence is doomed from the start.

Why do you not wish to empirically validate the statements you rely on from the firefighters? Why do you allow such a crucial part of your "evidence" to remain so easily cast in doubt?

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

(For the OP - Has anyone seen a realistic explanation for free fall of the towers?)

Uhh gravity? (http://www.physics.org/Results/displaysite.asp?id=5496)


(For everyone else)
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=cute+kitten

LLH

 

[bob_kark]

Hmmm... I finally get to the end of the thread and there's nothing else to say. How disappointing.

 

[Mercutio]

Anyone got a good recipe for shepherds pie?

I was thinking of making that tomorrow, and my usual recipe is so plain.

I have two excellent recipes, but both are in Greek, so they may make too much more sense than the rest of this thread. PM me if you want them.

 

[Christophera]

Do you typically change the subject when someone asks you a question you cannot answer?

The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower structures that NIST says existed.

 

[Meffy]

I think that's a "yes," Mercutio.

 

[Christophera]

But as I showed in reply 302, even that doesn't explain the visual evidence. If explosives in the core were required to knock down the building, then the core would not have been left standing after the rest of the building collapsed. Yet a standing core surrounded by the collapsed rest of the tower is exactly what is in the photo you like to refer to so much.

About as easily as you are ignoring my simple debunking of your entire thesis, eh?

This should cover the answer.http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

The floors were set to go off about 40 feet ahead of the core. Somewhere around 40 floors, the core stopped momentarily and the thermite in the basement went off, severing the bases of many columns. The floors continued down, this took the steel to the ground, then the core went off in 40 foot sections every 300 milliseconds.

 

[Mercutio]

The real idea here is to see if anyone can support the tower structures that NIST says existed.

I thought you said you did not read the NIST report. In post 17 of this thread you are specifically asked if you have read it, and in post 22 you reply in the negative.

Please provide a citation. If you say NIST says the tower structure existed, surely they must have written it somewhere. If you did not read the NIST report, as you say, then it must be somewhere else. Please enlighten us. Perhaps you are in possession of evidence no one else here has seen.

Again, my post asked you specifics about a claim you made about an eyewitness report. Specifically, I do not think the report can stand scrutiny, because you do not demonstrate that the firefighters (even if I give you "they can recognise explosive detonations") can discriminate, in chaotic conditions, between explosive detonations and other incidental explosions. Should I take this post as a "yes, I do typically change the subject when asked a question I cannot answer"? Because you are doing it again...


edited for superfluous "d"

 

[Mercutio]

I think that's a "yes," Mercutio.

I thought so; thanks for the confirmation.