• 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:
Wow, you are a talented distorter. You could mate with wolfie and the result would scorch satans ass, be sure!



yea' we gottum' rights, we use 'em. We know what for too. How about you?
Click to expand...

Sure, I know how to use them. Primarily, to make sure your kind of infantile, delusional thinking never succeeds in affecting my life in any way -- outside an Internet forum, of course.
 
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/60/67143.htm
Delusions: Delusions are strange beliefs that are not based in reality and that the person refuses to give up, even when presented with factual information. For example, the person suffering from delusions may believe that people can hear his or her thoughts, that he or she is God or the devil, or that people are putting thoughts into his or her head.
Click to expand...
 
Christophera said:
Firstly, I know the core was concrete.
Click to expand...
There are people who "know" the Earth is flat too. I don't believe them either.

Second, the images of the demolition support that there was no steel core columns.
Click to expand...
I already linked you to an image that clearly showed the core columns. Your refusal to acknowledge that image does not change the fact that they are there.

The WTC 2 core shows what must be concrete. The concrete shear wall is visible while NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS are.
Click to expand...
It's not a "concrete shear wall." I've already addressed that as well. You ignored it.

And please stop linking the same damn links over and over. I already saw them the first hundred times you linked them. I'm pretty sure everyone else has as well.

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, used on my site, is not on my server. many are not on my server.
Click to expand...
You claim to be working for a civil engineer, and you make a statement about 3" rebar on 4' centers?

Look, although I'm a lowly technical writer, I write technical documentation for engineers. That includes mechanical, electrical, systems and controls, A/V, and structural/architectural engineers. I've been doing it for 18 years. I see foundations being poured and shear walls being constructed on a regular basis. Nobody does 3" rebar on 4' centers. Nobody. If you had any real experience in building design/construction you'd know that already and you wouldn't come within 50 miles of that ridiculous claim. The fact that you're regurgitating it makes me believe you are completely full of rule8 and yet another anonymous internet poser trying to pretend they are smart and in possession of special knowledge. You guys always give yourself away though.
 
Understanding Supersedes Beliefs

Gravy said:
Every one of those points has been explained to you. Many of the explanations have been illustrated with photos that prove you wrong. You continue to say we have not provided evidence, when we have, EVERY TIME.
Click to expand...

You don't explAin my own points to me, you counter them with evidence SUPPORTING YOUR POINT that you qualify by some means. You have not provided an image of any steel core columns from the demolition images which is above ground. You cannot because the demo exposes the entire structure, particuarly the concrete (SAND & GRAVEL) and steel core columns are never seen.

Gravy said:
Christophera, it's important to understand that beliefs often do not correspond to reality. You haven't shown a single way in which your belief corresponds to reality.
Click to expand...

I've shown it a multitude of ways and they are totally comprehensive to the reality of 2 towers falling at rates comparable to free fall and pulverization.

Gravy said:
Instead, you hammer away with the same nonsensical, discredited claims, while ignoring all of the evidence that's placed before you, evidence that you could easily have found yourself if you had bothered looking.

Christophera, that's how children behave, not men. Please get help.
Click to expand...

How could a perfectly feasible, realistice explnation for free fall and pulverization matching the accounts of firefighters be "nonsensical". Perhaps you are using a "Cognitive Distortion" by labeling.

Knowing the core was concrete, why would I go look for bogus evidence to misinterpret to say the opposite of what I need to say.(just a sample of the kind of unreasoning you conduct, reflected back to you)

Read my web page carefully,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
 
Christophera said:
Wow, you are a talented distorter. You could mate with wolfie and the result would scorch satans ass, be sure!



yea' we gottum' rights, we use 'em. We know what for too. How about you?
Click to expand...

And you have the use of those rights.
However, based on your statement of what you do for a living (Work for surveying/civil engineer firm), I have the need to know what project you are working on, so I can warn my family and friends to stay the heck away from those projects since anyone with so little knowledge and such a huge mouth can and will endanger people at some time.
 
Diaper Call

Apollyon said:
I already linked you to an image that clearly showed the core columns. Your refusal to acknowledge that image does not change the fact that they are there.
Click to expand...


Better link again 'cause this forum needs diapers. I always try to repost images that demonstrate tangibly the presence of that heavy concrete core.

Who 'gotta link to the top of the WTC 3 after that chunk of the core punched all the way to the ground floor?
 
Thanks!

rwguinn said:
And you have the use of those rights.
However, based on your statement of what you do for a living (Work for surveying/civil engineer firm), I have the need to know what project you are working on, so I can warn my family and friends to stay the heck away from those projects since anyone with so little knowledge and such a huge mouth can and will endanger people at some time.
Click to expand...

Very good, I'll prepare the demolition seminar for them.
 
Christophera said:
Better link again 'cause this forum needs diapers.
Click to expand...
No kidding, you've been crapping all over this thread.

I always try to repost images that demonstrate tangibly the presence of that heavy concrete core.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine. You try, but all you end up doing is posting the same pictures over and over and they don't show a damn thing you're claiming.

Who 'gotta link to the top of the WTC 3 after that chunk of the core punched all the way to the ground floor?
Click to expand...
wtf?
 
Christophera said:
You don't explAin my own points to me, you counter them with evidence SUPPORTING YOUR POINT that you qualify by some means. You have not provided an image of any steel core columns from the demolition images which is above ground. You cannot because the demo exposes the entire structure, particuarly the concrete (SAND & GRAVEL) and steel core columns are never seen.
Click to expand...
:dl: 'nuff said? ETA-bolding mine!

Why do you keepcountering arguments with evidence, Gravy! Shame, shame!

:hit:
 
I have a few more questions for you. Sorry, I'm just so inquisitive. Anyway, how thick are the concrete walls of the core you claim existed? I would assume they would need to be very thick to support the weight of the structure. Therefore, I would assume there would have been quite a large amount of C4 used to not only demo them, but to turn them into "sand and gravel." How can you account for the fact that when the tower fell, we didn't see a massive explosion on the floor where the collapse began? Sure, the fire kicked up a bit, but no massive explosion.
 
Christophera said:
If it is not 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, what do you think it is?
Click to expand...

That image shows a wide view, and I have tried to make an estimate of the width of the view at the distance of the collapse. My estimate is that it is at least 600 ft. Assuming this, and noting that the image is 400 pixels wide, I make that 1.5 ft per pixel. How can we see 3" reinforcing bar, it will only be 1/6 of a pixel wide. Your 4' centres would be what? 2.5 pixels. The resolution is not good enough to show that detail.

Dave
 
Just One Rebar Would Not Show

But we have eighty maybe, and/or we view nearly along a line of them

Dave_46 said:
That image shows a wide view, and I have tried to make an estimate of the width of the view at the distance of the collapse. My estimate is that it is at least 600 ft. Assuming this, and noting that the image is 400 pixels wide, I make that 1.5 ft per pixel. How can we see 3" reinforcing bar, it will only be 1/6 of a pixel wide. Your 4' centres would be what? 2.5 pixels. The resolution is not good enough to show that detail.

Dave
Click to expand...

Some of the rebar does pixelate showing that it is indeed small diameter and not any column.
 
bob_kark said:
I have a few more questions for you. Sorry, I'm just so inquisitive. Anyway, how thick are the concrete walls of the core you claim existed? I would assume they would need to be very thick to support the weight of the structure. Therefore, I would assume there would have been quite a large amount of C4 used to not only demo them, but to turn them into "sand and gravel." How can you account for the fact that when the tower fell, we didn't see a massive explosion on the floor where the collapse began? Sure, the fire kicked up a bit, but no massive explosion.
Click to expand...

The technolgy of engineered explosive charges has an interesting exercise with getting the right amount of high density explosive distributed well enough to attain, "maximum containment" with a vessal that can fracture such as concrete. You would have to see above ground blasting in highly stratified terrain and compare blast that were centered in hard formations as to blasts not centered and closer to softer adjacent rock to know what well contained really means.

To the observer it means quieter, or muffled, it means really fine breakage, it means you see a relatively gentle heaving of materials rather than a blast of a gas jet leaking out. The delay systems took care of the rest and had a minimal amount of explosives detonating at any time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom