• 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.
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.
The thing about fire...it is oxidation. It leaves evidence. If you have the amount of thermite needed to do what you are saying here, it will be evident to any investigator...let alone a herd of investigators.

Once again, I am getting the distinct feeling that someone is having fun, and does not believe a word of what he himself is posting. Actually, I rather hope this is the case, having read some posts suggesting a more....pathological... explanation.
 
You apparently know nothing about the scientific study of sensation and perception.


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

These are trained professionals with experience. I know a high speed series of detonations when I see them.

.site1106.jpg
 
The thing about fire...it is oxidation. It leaves evidence. If you have the amount of thermite needed to do what you are saying here, it will be evident to any investigator...let alone a herd of investigators.

The herd invstigators was kept away from the gate. A few photograpers got images of molten steel in the basement. Others had cameras taken from that at ground zero.

Not one person has come up with a credible explnation for WHY the supposed steel core columns of the WTC report are not seen in this image and others.

Here is rebar. No core columns tho.

spire_dust-3.jpg
 
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.
Wait, I thought the explosive was around the rebar in the concrete core. Now you're saying that there was explosive-wrapped rebar in the (non-concrete) floors too?
 
Top Of WTC 2 Concrete Core Into WTC 3

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

What can I say Bob? Oh, ....... I already said it. Sure am glad you've recognized it tho.

I could say this is the top of WTC 2 getting ready to slam WTC 3 and you can see the brown/gray concrete core inside.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif

Christophera--as per Rule 4 of the membership agreement, do not "hotlink" images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I took the original FEMA drawing and added the core and hallways. WTC 1 only.

[qimg]http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corehallsdoors.gif[/qimg]



Isn't that more points in favor of the FEMA drawing? Sure, they simplified it since all they wanted to show was the colums, and as I said they showed in the floor plan that the Hallway was there. but the Hallways don't have to break up the Colums - It appears they'd have no problem going between them. Most of the schematics I've seen show that they are not evenly spaced, Either.

That being the case, the "Live" pictures, agree with your picture, wich agrees with FEMA's picture.
 
Christophera's Four Glaring Inconsistencies

From this web page.

1) The rate equaling that of free fall, inconsistent sequence, direction.
2) Total pulverization of everything but heavier steel
3) The molten steel seen in the basement 2 weeks after 9-11
4) The character and quantity of concrete particulate in the dust.


1) has been thoroughtly debunked. It can't be said to "equal free fall" if there is no good measurement of the exact time it took, and it has been shown that large differences in velocity will result in only small differences intotal time anyway.


2) isn't backed up by any evidence I saw presented on that page. It is not enough to show that C4 reduces things to rubble that way; that is our old friend the Confirming the Precedent fallacy. It needs to be shown that falling down due to an airplane strike could not possibly have reduced everything to rubble that way. If that evidence is on that page, I didn't see it.


3) has been debunked so many times over in the Loose Change thread that I have lost count. First off, there is no evidence that it was molten steel. It was far more likely to be molten aluminum, which has a far lower melting point. Second, there is no evidence that the fires which would have resulted from burning jet fuel and burning offices supplies couldn't melt aluminum. In fact, it's extremely likely that they did.


4) has the same refutation as 2) did.



Now is the point where Christophera takes these criticisms and makes changes to his hypothesis that are even more outlandish than the ones he has already. Or did that happen on page 8?
 
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.

Down, Huntsman, down!
 
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg

These are trained professionals with experience. I know a high speed series of detonations when I see them.

[qimg]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/.site1106.jpg[/qimg]
When have you seen them? Please, I am very serious. You are, once again, comparing a claim of something seen to an assumption of something seen.

Trained professionals with experience may or may not be able to distinguish controlled demolitions from other explosions. That is precisely my question, and precisely the thing you are trying to gloss over. The evidence is not on your side on this question, but it does remain an empirical question. Can you cite even one source in which these trained professionals have been tested on this question? (I did a thorough EBSCOHOST search and did not find one, but you may have other sources.)

Your photo is, of course, utterly irrelevant to this question.

Once again, your actions are completely consistent with changing the subject when someone asks you a question you cannot answer.
 
I've come to two conclusions after reading through this thread.

One, christophera has much better eyesight than me.
Two, christophera is not from this planet.

Christophera, you do realize that your theory is just as plausible as saying this:

It was actually aliens that downed the Towers with some type frequency modulation device. The device is so precise it will calculate the exact resonance frequency of a large structure in a matter of seconds, then send out pulses that subsequently destroy it. It is also able to be so precisely controlled that the aliens were able to make it look like the building fell at free fall speeds simply by using the gravity-multiplier ray option from the Intergalactic Arms Association. They knew the near free-fall speed would catch the eyes of a select group of individuals who would go on to make money writing books about it pinning the crime on the US government.

The aliens command of mind control was used over 30 years ago when they implanted the design for the towers in a few individuals heads, knowing that about 30 years after construction they would revisit earth and force unwilling Muslims to highjack planes and fly them into the buildings, which would become an oh-too-convenient alibi for the aliens. (Notice how no one except me has figured out that aliens were behind the entire thing!)

A certain race of aliens ( I will not go into discussion about that here) have been avid baseball fans for decades. When the Dodgers beat the Yankees 4-0 in 1963, the aliens knew something was up. Their investigation ultimately led to the discovery that the game was fixed, and a few 'elite' people were behind it. These same people were involved in land development deals around Manhattan, and guess what project they were about to start work on????

Yup! The WTC's.

That pretty much sums it up. The aliens were pissed at a few individuals, and decided to take revenge. But wait, it gets a little creepier.

Why 30 years later? I'm glad you asked. This same race of aliens is know for it's ability to see into the future, but not more than 35 to 40 years, which turned out to be plenty of time. The aliens saw that a parcicular decendent, whom I will not name here, of one of those 'elite' idividuals would discover an actual starship in a cloud by viewing it from a telescope from the 84th floor of WTC1, ON SEPT 12TH, 2001. Not only would this individual make the discovery, but the individuals involved in the fixed game would be in the towers on the very same day.

This individual who would have discovered the ship on Sept 12th 2001 had an injury which prevented the aliens from using their mind control abilities. The metal plate in his head simply didn't allow it to work.

So what better way to take revenge on those responsible for the fixed game in 1963, and prevent the discovery of one of their numerous starships, than to destroy WTC1 with the discoverer inside? Problem is a clerical error caused them to take down the wrong building first, hence the delay before actually taking down the correct building. I don't have to tell you that during that delay plenty of aliens lost their jobs on that one!

I couldn't tell you what happened to WTC7, it's just too strange an event.
 
What can I say Bob? Oh, ....... I already said it. Sure am glad you've recognized it tho.

I could say this is the top of WTC 2 getting ready to slam WTC 3 and you can see the brown/gray concrete core inside.

Do you have any evidence that the towers free fell?
 
Second, there is no evidence that the fires which would have resulted from burning jet fuel and burning offices supplies couldn't melt aluminum. In fact, it's extremely likely that they did.
Definitely. A tenant on my family's land burned down the house he'd been staying in rent-free for months -- a dinky building built mostly of non-combustible cinder block. Not exactly a huge inferno. In the rubble I found lumps of aluminum molten to little puddles by the fire's heat. Window frames. (Some were just partly melted.)
 
Still No Evidence In Your Debunking

From this web page.

1) The rate equaling that of free fall, inconsistent sequence, direction.
2) Total pulverization of everything but heavier steel
3) The molten steel seen in the basement 2 weeks after 9-11
4) The character and quantity of concrete particulate in the dust.


1) has been thoroughtly debunked. While ignoring exactly how the towers were designed. 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, Why the wrong tower fell first if it was a collapse. They don't explain why the tops of the towers fell the wrong directions according top the sides damaged.



2) isn't backed up by any evidence I saw presented on that page unless high explosives centralized and distributed throughout cast concrete core would cause all that SAND & GRAVEL. Without identifying the correct design of the tower, the issue of pulverization cannot be analyzed.


3) has been debunked so many times over in the Loose Change thread that I have lost count. To the misfits trying to debunk, it is suffcient to simply announce it as "debunked" with no proof whatsoever. Of course they still can't show that the tower NIST analyzed was the actual structure that stood but I will confirm that they have pronounced a great deal that 9-11 theories have been "debunked" popular Mechanics" even did it. Notice, they didn't even mention the concrete core


4) has the same requirement that you selectively view the universe to avoid feeling like you know what is going on in it.refutation as 2) did.

I will note that popular mechanics did well on the pod, the hologram, remotes, the nuke etc, of course they were supposed to because the same people that invented those theories are the ones behind PM.

Still, ................ no raw images of the strcutural elements that NIST/FEMA say existed for the cores of the towers. Meaning that the only images of the towers core show concrete or air.

Are you guys trying to say there was no core. Are you supporting the "AIR CORE".
 
I've come to two conclusions after reading through this thread.
|
|
Wow - big BLAH
|
|
I couldn't tell you what happened to WTC7, it's just too strange an event.

I'm still waiting for someone to post a raw image of the steel core columns that FEMA says existed.

Got Core?

southcorestands.gif


Only concrete here.
 
I'm still waiting for someone to post a raw image of the steel core columns that FEMA says existed.

Got Core?

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

Only concrete here.

Christophera,
Please email me at itmatters@mail.com with the RAW image file of the above photo. Thanks.

Also, you've been asked not to hotlink images. Use the VB Image Host feature in the menu at the top of this page.
 
Last edited:
I don't have the recipe, but I just had the most delicious strawberry rhubarb tart I've ever tasted for dessert tonight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom