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

[Christophera]

Why weren't X-rays possible in position? I ask because I have done on-site radiography. In my experience welders are never counted on to do it right.

1968 technology was not up to it. Had to get to both sides, tube too wide.

 

[Christophera]

No, it is not conclusive. Stating that it is such does not make it so. You are simply engaging in rhetoric, demanding that people accept what you say the photos represent. When I ask you for explanations you ignore me. Please respond with more than rhetoric?

You have presented no evidenced alternatives, by default I am correct until evidenced options are presented.

 

[Christophera]

We claim that photo depicts the core columns - which according to your graphics are in exactly the same location as your "interior box columns".

-Andrew

What photo? Gain competence.

 

[Christophera]

What does "some elevation over ground" mean, exactly? I've seen several photos of these core columns that reach at least 3 storeys abov

-Andrew

You have not posted them so you cannot MISREPRESENT them yet.

 

[Christophera]

Um... in spite of what you might claim...

Your own photo is simply a cropped segment of the other photo. A child could see this. You claim it is a second before? Um...no, it's not. It's really just...not.

-Andrew

They are different images. This of the INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS or spire and this, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS which is rebar.

By default I am correct. You have no reasonable alternative.

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

 

[CptColumbo]

You have presented no evidenced alternatives, by default I am correct until evidenced options are presented.

By default?

Because in your mind, and apparently your mind alone, there is no evidence to support any alternate theories doesn't make it so.

What exactly is your criteria for evidence?

Go to the library and read a book on the WTC from the 70's. Stop depending on the Internet for all your information. It's like depending on "The Daily Show" for all your news.

 

[Christophera]

You're just making things up here. Do you have any EVIDENCE for that ??

There is no alternative, This is a High speed series of very well contained and distributed high explosives..

 

[Christophera]

As has been, many times. The photo depicts the building after collapse. We maintain the core columns collapsed with the rest of the building. Ergo, in a photo where the building is collapsed, there will be no core columns.

To continue to MISREPRESENT evidence shows intellectual dishonesty.

Indeed it does.

-Andrew

Your word game is intellectually dishonest. Our republic is at stake and you play word games. Sick.

 

[Belz...]

The effect seen here cannot be created any other way.

Are you telling me that a block of 25 floors falling on the rest of the building can't expell debris outwards ??

 

[Christophera]

Uhmm, Christophera...Rebar is meant to work in tension, as concrete only excells in compression. That's the whole point of using rebar in the first place. The "spire" in your picture is a section of corner outer steel column, which will support its own weight in compression up to acertain height, the more remaining lateral support, the higher. The corner is the most stable section of the outer steel columns - floors would esily have sheared off from the mass pancaking upon them, leaving a portion of the corner less disturbed for a while. We can also see almost intact sections of outer columns near the base of the building in other post-collapse pictures. Rebar weave to that height with the concrete matrix removed would collapse under its own weight - except it would have been crumpled by the shattered concrete matrix collapse. This is all assuming that the pictures are genuine, of course.

IOW your theory is wrong in all respects.

IAW I'm a structural engineer - admittedly not in buildings but in aircraft. Rebar reinforced concrete is in principle similar to fiber reinforced composites - the rebar being the fiber.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with high tensile steel and it properties. There is no alternative to this being 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS as this image taken a second earlier provides scale.
INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS

 

[Apollyon]

You have presented no evidenced alternatives, by default I am correct until evidenced options are presented.

If that's what you believe then you are, by default, delusional.

YOU are the one making a claim that's contrary to commonly stated and accepted design of the WTC. Therefore the onus is on you to provide undeniable evidence of your claim. You have utterly failed to do so.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You have presented no evidenced alternatives, by default I am correct until evidenced options are presented.

Hrm, someone remind me, is that argumentum ad ignorantiam or false dilemma? Either way IT'S WRONG. The only way you can claim to be correct by default is
a) In a formal debate, where you are defending the status quo or
b) In science, when you are defending the current paradigm that has provisional agreement from the majority of the scientific body.

You are doing neither.

 

[Christophera]

No, no and no. You said that the core was detonated. How did the rest of the tower fall if the core wasn't yet detonated ?

Your comments show you are intentionally confusing the issue. You must READ.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1232703

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with high tensile steel and it properties. There is no alternative to this being 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS as this image taken a second earlier provides scale.
INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS

Ad nauseam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Argumentum ad nauseum)
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up ad nauseam in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe something that has been continuing "to the point of nausea." For example "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam": it has been discussed extensively and everyone has tired of it. It is a form of proof by assertion.

Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or Argumentum ad infinitum is the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition, possibly by different people. This logical fallacy is commonly used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, and it is one of the mechanisms of reinforcing urban legends. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. In common usage the statement "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" is often used to allude to the same concept, which self referentially has been attributed diversely to Lenin, Goebbels, Hitler and Stalin among others, when little evidence can be found to support most of these historical figures having said this.

Modern politics is fraught with examples of argumentum ad nauseam, and wide acceptance of many policies and perspectives is driven in part by the endless repetition of slogans. The exercise of argumentum ad nauseam can be widely observed in the distribution of "talking points," which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition.

This phrase is often misspelled "ad nauseum".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseum

 

[Johnny Pixels]

1968 technology was not up to it. Had to get to both sides, tube too wide.

So what was the space that the tube had to fit into? What was the spacing between the columns? The tubes I used were not exactly brand new, and they weren't any more than 10 inches across.

If not x-ray, why not gamma radiography? That can fit into any confined space?

 

[CptColumbo]

Here's one:
Going it alone / by George Willig and Drew Bergman.
Published Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday, 1979.
921 W6726

If you live in NY, you probably have access to far more books than at my library.

 

[Christophera]

You haven't answered my point about those large pieces of concrete on that very picture.

One does not answer "points". Ask a queston.

No, that's not what SPEECH is about.

Correct, it is it's greater meaning.

Too busy ? You're constantly posting here. Surely you have some time to verify your assertions and stop sounding like a fool ?

I cannot verify what I draw so why should I try. I've provided a core hallway layout fro WTC 1 which I know and at the site,

http://concretecore.741.com

Is proof. You'll have to read tho, and we cannot be sure that you can do that at all, or at least competently.

 

[Belz...]

The concrete core of WTC 2 does this well, as long as one is willing to use logic.

That's not a core. That's a smoke plume. Are you listening ?

Exactly, that is why I use reason with images to make them evidence. Try it sometime.

No, you don't.

Not a theory. A fact. Explosives must be optimally positioned (centralized) and well distributed in a uniform medium to get equilibrium from an explosion and superfine breakage.

Ask Huntsman.

You mean, the same guy who's been systematically debunking you ?

Has been turned into
SAND & GRAVEL except for one piece

Check the first picture again. You can see larger pieces. Damn, you're not even reading this, are you ?

C4's life is 10 years in the manufacturers wrapping. Encapsulation in concrete is much better protection from evaporation and oxidization.

Encapsulation ? You DO know that concrete is POURED, right ?

No false photos. We have near free fall speeds to explain, and it has not been.

Well, aside from your ridiculous contention that the debris was falling FASTER than the tower because the tower hadn't yet started to collapse, which is patently false, and obvious to anyone who's ever seen WTC2 collapse, you don't have a case.

My site explains near free fall and pulverization better than anything you've produced.

How can you explain something that doesn't exist ?

There have been numerous images of many square cut columns posted by myself and others. If you are not interested and do not notice them, I'm not surprised.

He DID notice, you buffoon. He also EXPLAINED it.

 

[Christophera]

It was shown to you that the columns had been cut by people FOLLOWING the collapse. Why are you beign dishonest ?

This has not been shown. Ask yourself. Here is the answer.


You have no evidence or argument

 

[azazal]

Arkan_Wolfshade, here are some more links for debate/logic flaws:

http://www.sfdebris.com/logic.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html