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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christophera said:
i don't talk about the melting temperature on my site and the terms "column" and "beam" are always used properly by yours truly. Check your reading of my site, slow down some. My text presents a scan which is hosted on the bbc site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

and THEIR information is in error, not mine. I point at their errors, not the ones you do however. A much bigger one. I point at the fact the core they show has no place for elevators and stairs inside it.
Click to expand...

If "THEIR information is in error" then why use their graphic?

Did you clear the copyright?

Dave
 
Christophera said:
You will find that I have all the evidence, no matter where we go. Because you have no evidence you have resorted to attacking the messenger.
Click to expand...

No, I've moved on to attacking you, because you are not here for debate or discussion, you ignore evidence, and your continue to spout the same nonsense over and over ad nauseum. Go seek professional help.


ETA: You're a troll, a thread gull, you bring nothing of value. You make geggy look like Steven Jones, still wrong, but at least intelligent. I've witnessed Youth Earth Creationists that could carry on better debate than you do.
 
Christophera said:
is why I use the BBC core.



If I was making money on it I would have to now wouldn't I. I ain't.
Click to expand...

You don't know anything about copyright law either I see:
What constitutes copyright infringement?

Subject to certain defenses, it is copyright infringement for someone other than the author to do the following without the author's permission:
1. copy or reproduce the work
2. create a new work derived from the original work (for example, by translating the work into a new language, by copying and distorting the image, or by transferring the work into a new medium of expression)
3. sell or give away the work, or a copy of the work, for the first time (but once the author has done so, the right to sell or give away the item is transferred to the new owner. This is known as the "first sale" doctrine: once a copyright owner has sold or given away the work or a copy of it, the recipient or purchaser may do as she pleases with what she posesses.) 17 U.S.C. §109(a).
4. perform or display the work in public (this right does not apply to visual art) without permission from the copyright owner. 17 U.S.C. §106. It is also copyright infringement to violate the "moral rights" of an author as defined by 17 U.S.C. 106A. Moral rights are discussed at this location.
Click to expand...
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/copyprimer.html

You don't have to profit to be infringing.
 
What You Call Evidence Doesn't Qualify

we need raw images of the demolition, side by side, in order to show exactly what the structure was.

I have built an entire web site using such images,

http://concretecore.741.com

I know exactly what your evidence consists of and that it is misrepresented which that is why I insist on you producing equal type evidence from the demolition to SHOW the steel core columns you and FEMA assert stood. I know it is a lie, period.

Arkan_Wolfshade said:
No, I've moved on to attacking you, because you are not here for debate or discussion, you ignore evidence, and your continue to spout the same nonsense over and over ad nauseum. Go seek professional help.
Click to expand...
 
Christophera said:
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.
Click to expand...

It also means that I highly doubt you have much experience with explosives, beyond maybe seeing a few.

What you're discussing sound smore like the difference between cutting and cratering charges. Low-speed explosives are used to move objects, things like AN-AL, and the classic diesel fuel/fertilizer mix. Higher speed explosives (like the C-4 you mention) are cutting charges, with high explansion rates. The dispersion needed to have anything similar to a cratering effect with C-4 would be ridiculous. Of course, the same goes for cratering charges, but they aren't that much more plausible.

Also, your consistent display of ignorance regarding the capabilities and action of thermite shows your lack of knowledge in the area, as well.

Thermite does not "burn at a speed equal to many explosives". If it did, it would be an explosive. But it isn't. It's an incendiary. It'll melt through an engine block, sure, but it takes a while (15 to 30 seconds). And it burns down, so it is highly difficult to use it for cutting vertical columns. Not to mention it produces enormous amounts of iron and aluminum oxide slag, as well as residue of the ignition mixture used (of which no evidence was found). For that matter, no traces of explosive compunds or blast patterns was found, either.

By the way, your picture of "a steel cloumn cut by shear forces" is a complete fabrication. I'm calling you out as a liar. That was a column industrially cut, not a cut from blast. Again, this points out to me that you don't have much experience with explosives, except perhaps seeing a few go off from a far distance away.

I, on the other hand, am a combat engineer in the military, with several years of experience in demolitions, cratering/clearing, and EOD, including both electric and nonelectric detonations systems (mostly MDI), as well as improvised explosives and incendiaries. You, Christophera*, are a liar.

*-Is it just me, or does this sound like the name of a venereal disease?
 
Christophera said:
we need raw images of the demolition, side by side, in order to show exactly what the structure was.

I have built an entire web site using such images,

http://concretecore.741.com

I know exactly what your evidence consists of and that it is misrepresented which that is why I insist on you producing equal type evidence from the demolition to SHOW the steel core columns you and FEMA assert stood. I know it is a lie, period.
Click to expand...

Images, in and of themselves, are not evidence. Say it with me.

Images.
In.
And.
Of.
Themselves.
Are.
Not.
Evidence.

What have we presented that has been a misrepresentation? Provide evidence, not opinion.
 
Christophera said:
I think we have your priorities defined adequately. I'm so glad you are protecting the rights of the BBC. Admirable, really. Maybe you'll be Knighted.
Click to expand...

We certainly understand yours, "Do whatever is necessary to feed your delusions of grandeur and paranoia."

Maybe you should actually listen to what is being said (typed) and consider the fact that you need psychiatric help.
 
Christophera said:
I think we have your priorities defined adequately. I'm so glad you are protecting the rights of the BBC. Admirable, really. Maybe you'll be Knighted.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I thought you were all about protecting the rights granted by the Consititution (such as property rights)?

I guess that's only when it's convenient for you, eh?

You know, while I'm on the subject, just what have you done to protect our rights? Post on internet forums? I hope it makes you feel better, because it does absolutely nothing to protect anything (especially since you seem incapable of understanding a logical argument).

I, on the other hand, have spent years working to protect our rights, not to mention human rights in general. I've put my ***** in the line of fire, and saved lives (both American and Iraqi) while you've sat in front of a keyboard. I've seen, up close and personal, the attitudes and mindsets of those we're currently fighting. Even if Bush and co. had wanted to pull off something like 9/11, the terrorists would have refused just based on the fact that Bush wanted it. But that's neither here nor there.

I sincerely hope you are able to continue posting on internet forums for many years to come, because freedom of speech is something I pay more than lip service to. However, don't expect to be able to make the claim that you're fighting for our rights when you've put nothing at risk but free time, when others have bled and died for it. You don't know what it means to fight for rights.
 
Recall 1st Floor Of towers Was Remodeled Also-Maybe 15 Feet Vertical Of Thermite.

on the columns faces. Recall how long the spire stood before falling.

Huntsman said:
It also means that I highly doubt you have much experience with explosives, beyond maybe seeing a few.

What you're discussing sound smore like the difference between cutting and cratering charges. Low-speed explosives are used to move objects, things like AN-AL, and the classic diesel fuel/fertilizer mix. Higher speed explosives (like the C-4 you mention) are cutting charges, with high explansion rates. The dispersion needed to have anything similar to a cratering effect with C-4 would be ridiculous. Of course, the same goes for cratering charges, but they aren't that much more plausible.

Also, your consistent display of ignorance regarding the capabilities and action of thermite shows your lack of knowledge in the area, as well.

Thermite does not "burn at a speed equal to many explosives". If it did, it would be an explosive. But it isn't. It's an incendiary. It'll melt through an engine block, sure, but it takes a while (15 to 30 seconds). And it burns down, so it is highly difficult to use it for cutting vertical columns. Not to mention it produces enormous amounts of iron and aluminum oxide slag, as well as residue of the ignition mixture used (of which no evidence was found). For that matter, no traces of explosive compunds or blast patterns was found, either.

By the way, your picture of "a steel cloumn cut by shear forces" is a complete fabrication. I'm calling you out as a liar. That was a column industrially cut, not a cut from blast. Again, this points out to me that you don't have much experience with explosives, except perhaps seeing a few go off from a far distance away.

I, on the other hand, am a combat engineer in the military, with several years of experience in demolitions, cratering/clearing, and EOD, including both electric and nonelectric detonations systems (mostly MDI), as well as improvised explosives and incendiaries. You, Christophera*, are a liar.

*-Is it just me, or does this sound like the name of a venereal disease?
Click to expand...

Call all you want, the explosively sheared columns match very closely the results of a lininear shaped charge and we have many, many columns sheared like that all over ground zero in locations not possible to get a shear to, and the interior box columns were 100% butt welded.

I can tell you know explosive well, but as I said, engineered uses of high density explosives when maximum containment is achieved will sound like ANFLO cushion blasting, but are not. It is the uniformity of the concrete that makes it work.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
Call all you want, the explosively sheared columns match very closely the results of a lininear shaped charge and we havemany, many columns sheared like that all over ground zero in locations not possible to get a shear to, and the interior box columns were 100% butt welded.

I can tell you know explosive well, but as I said, engineered uses of high density explosives when maximum containment is achieved will sound like ANFLO cushion blasting, but are not. It is the uniformity of the concrete that makes it work.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you've yet to post a pick of explosively sheared columns.

You've posted picks of cut columns.

Your ground zero pick was after the overhanging pieces had been cut off (nice pick of some of the core columns, by the way). You can tell because the huge mound of rubble has been cleared away from the lower parts of the columns.

Again, you are either ignorant or intentionally dishonest.
 
Where's the friggin' concrete, Christophera??

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

You do understand how concrete is poured, don't you? Forms are pretty important. See any forms in the above photo? Was the photo doctored by the government?


No concrete here either:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11 Picture5.jpg

None here:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...er+construct&start=20&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=N

No concrete core, only steel here:

http://www.photonewyork.com/prod_images_large/2507241gyi.jpg

No concrete core rising from the center in this photo:

http://www.souptree.net/blog/images/wtc_underconstruction.jpg

This one's a classic. Maybe a tiny concrete core off center?

http://www.lera.com/pimg/wtc/7571897_small.jpg

No concrete, and clearly a steel core:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11 Picture6.jpg

SHOW ME SOME FORMS, DAMN IT!

Here's an excellent core image. Any concrete here? Nope!
http://homepage.mac.com/dansound/.Public/Pix/SteelOnFire/WTC_Core_03s.jpg

Lots o' steel. Not so lots a' concrete.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-b...enter_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.1.gbi

Oh. Oh. Here's some concrete:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-b...enter_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.4.gbi
On the ground!

Are those forms what are used to pour concrete? NOPE.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-b...enter_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.3.gbi

Again I ask you to show me ANY construction photograph depicting a concrete core. Go to your local library, get an old book on the WTC's construction and look there too. Oh, I forgot. The government swapped out all those books years before the planned demolition. :rolleyes:

I need a drink!
 
Huntsman said:
Sorry, but you've yet to post a pick of explosively sheared columns.

You've posted picks of cut columns.

Your ground zero pick was after the overhanging pieces had been cut off (nice pick of some of the core columns, by the way). You can tell because the huge mound of rubble has been cleared away from the lower parts of the columns.

Again, you are either ignorant or intentionally dishonest.
Click to expand...

We've got a explosively sheared columns on the left and a torch cut on the right. Here is a series of columns sheared level the green arrows are interior box columns and the yellow are elevator landing supports or guide rail supports.

If there were steel core columns we would seem them here, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS and we do not, because they did not exist.

Intellectual dishonesty would reside where there is no reasoning for not accepting evidence that is obvious. The images of construction posted in attempts to show "core columns" have been disqualified because my knowledge of the actual construction.

Conversly I have many pictures where the supposed steel core columns should be seen and are not. There is no reason for these images to be disqualified for use in this way but you are trying to without a reason.

Let us check the "intentionally dishonesty" meter.
 
Sorry, Constrcution Images Disqualified

Your images will not show concrete because the concrete was inside the steel framework. So the farmes were also. I'e said this many times but there are many that chose to ignore this fact.

Only images of the towers demise are permitted as evidence for steel core columns.

Why? The construction photos can be misreprsented and the DEMO photos cannot.

Actually the sunrise photo does show the silhouette of concrete and light reflects off the inside concrete walls from the smooth steel forms.


cloudshipsrule said:
Where's the friggin' concrete, Christophera??

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg

You do understand how concrete is poured, don't you? Forms are pretty important. See any forms in the above photo? Was the photo doctored by the government?


No concrete here either:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11 Picture5.jpg

None here:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...er+construct&start=20&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=N

No concrete core, only steel here:

http://www.photonewyork.com/prod_images_large/2507241gyi.jpg

No concrete core rising from the center in this photo:

http://www.souptree.net/blog/images/wtc_underconstruction.jpg

This one's a classic. Maybe a tiny concrete core off center?

http://www.lera.com/pimg/wtc/7571897_small.jpg

No concrete, and clearly a steel core:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11 Picture6.jpg

SHOW ME SOME FORMS, DAMN IT!

Here's an excellent core image. Any concrete here? Nope!
http://homepage.mac.com/dansound/.Public/Pix/SteelOnFire/WTC_Core_03s.jpg

Lots o' steel. Not so lots a' concrete.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-b...enter_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.1.gbi

Oh. Oh. Here's some concrete:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-b...enter_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.4.gbi
On the ground!

Are those forms what are used to pour concrete? NOPE.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-b...enter_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.3.gbi

Again I ask you to show me ANY construction photograph depicting a concrete core. Go to your local library, get an old book on the WTC's construction and look there too. Oh, I forgot. The government swapped out all those books years before the planned demolition. :rolleyes:

I need a drink!
Click to expand...
 
Christophera said:
We've got a explosively sheared columns on the left and a torch cut on the right. Here is a series of columns sheared level the green arrows are interior box columns and the yellow are elevator landing supports or guide rail supports.

If there were steel core columns we would seem them here, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS and we do not, because they did not exist.

Intellectual dishonesty would reside where there is no reasoning for not accepting evidence that is obvious. The images of construction posted in attempts to show "core columns" have been disqualified because my knowledge of the actual construction.

Conversly I have many pictures where the supposed steel core columns should be seen and are not. There is no reason for these images to be disqualified for use in this way but you are trying to without a reason.

Let us check the "intentionally dishonesty" meter.
Click to expand...

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php
 
Huntsman said:
Interesting, I thought you were all about protecting the rights granted by the Consititution (such as property rights)?

I guess that's only when it's convenient for you, eh?

You know, while I'm on the subject, just what have you done to protect our rights? Post on internet forums? I hope it makes you feel better, because it does absolutely nothing to protect anything (especially since you seem incapable of understanding a logical argument).

I, on the other hand, have spent years working to protect our rights, not to mention human rights in general. I've put my ***** in the line of fire, and saved lives (both American and Iraqi) while you've sat in front of a keyboard. I've seen, up close and personal, the attitudes and mindsets of those we're currently fighting. Even if Bush and co. had wanted to pull off something like 9/11, the terrorists would have refused just based on the fact that Bush wanted it. But that's neither here nor there.

I sincerely hope you are able to continue posting on internet forums for many years to come, because freedom of speech is something I pay more than lip service to. However, don't expect to be able to make the claim that you're fighting for our rights when you've put nothing at risk but free time, when others have bled and died for it. You don't know what it means to fight for rights.
Click to expand...

There are better battles than wars for rights. Battles to defeat deceptions that warmongers create and perpetuate qualify.
 
Christophera said:
Your images will not show concrete because the concrete was inside the steel framework. So the farmes were also. I'e said this many times but there are many that chose to ignore this fact.

Only images of the towers demise are permitted as evidence for steel core columns.
Click to expand...
You can't explain why your beloved concrete core is not visible in all the pictures shown so now you try to make the rules of evidence conform to your own delusion.

What a lame joke you are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom