• 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.
Not mass murderers.


SUPPORTING THE LIE THAT MURDERERS HIDE BEHIND.
So you're not accusing people of mass murder? You are accusing people of "supporting a lie that murderers hide behind?" How are you doing one and not the other? I'm suspecting that you are not even reading your own posts. You present no evidence to the contrary, so I win by default.
 
Your word game is intellectually dishonest. Our republic is at stake and you play word games. Sick.


Word game? I was merely agreeing with you. How is that a word game?

FYI... *your* Republic might be at stake, but my Constitutional Monarchy isn't.

-Andrew
 
Christophera said:
Read the eyewitness reports if you are interested in the truth. If high explosives were going off uncontained eyewitnesses will report "sharp bangs, or cracks".

They'll also hear that if a 110-storey building is collapsing. Trust me.

Christophera said:
Encapsulation in concrete of fresh material assures LONGER than the manufacturers shelf life.

Not according to Huntsman, it won't. And I'll trust him over you any day, even if it's a debate over the recipe for omlets.

And since you can't dance limbo under a 2' high bar, I win by default.
 
Cristophera said:
Concentrate the high pressure cutting plane of gasses and the ragged edge disapears, that's what an LSC does.

Yes, but it doesn't make a perfectly smooth, level cut. See my example above.

You did not quote a critical factor. The smoothness of the edge is dependant on the tolerance of the surface forming the high pressure gas plane doing the cutting. With tight tolerences the diagram provided will create a smooter cut than any commercial LSC.

Cristophera said:
No false photos. We have near free fall speeds to explain, and it has not been. My site explains near free fall and pulverization better than anything you've produced.

Yes, false photos. At the least, misleading photos. And here's a question you still have avoided since the beginning of the thread:

WHAT NEAR FREEFALL SPEEDS?

You have no evidence of this, primarily because it did not fall at near freefall.

The fall rate is well documented as being close to free fall. The exact rate is not an issue. The towers fell too fast for any collapse, as if a collapse could occure identically from 2 different impacts all the way to the ground

You have not provided an explanation at all for the factors of the above paragraph.
 
Last edited:
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

Not evidence of columns be cut in the clean up?

Hmm, then what of this: http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/articles/wtc/1year/aftershocks/15.htm
Caption from the image " The Final Beam The Ground Zero clean-up effort came to a close in a May 28, 2002 ceremony. Here the last of the Twin Towers' steel girders is being cut down by an ironworker."

Here's some more steel being cut through: http://www.usatoday.com/news/gallery/terr1016/contenttemplate13.htm

Iron workers from Local 40 cutting through yet more steel
http://www.911da.org/images/details/2260


But hey, just go on and deny the true evidence in front of you Christophera. I really hope that Renolds Wrap is make a ton of cash off the amount of tinfoil you keep buying.
 
Yes, there are square cut column, becuase the picture you posted was of dayas and weeks after the attack, when those columns had been cut, with torches, during the clean-up operation.

You shall have to prove that. I've used a torch under most conditions and the possibility of making cuts that smooth, in steel that thick, under those conditions consistenly is non existent.
 
You did not quote a critical factor. The smoothness of the edge is dependant on the tolerance of the surface forming the high pressure gas plane doing the cutting. With tight tolerences the diagram provided will create a smooter cut than any commercial LSC.

I assume you actually KNOW what you're talking about. Let's ask the resident expert.

Huntsman ?

The fall rate is well documented as being close to free fall.

Well I guess that proves it. It's WELL DOCUMENTED !!!

The exact rate is not an issue. The towers fell too fast for any collapse,

In your expert opinion ?

as if a collapse could occure identically from 2 different impacts all the way to the ground

Well... the two towers WERE nearly identical. The damage WAS similar, and yet both towers fell differently...
 
No, that is not how this works. It's your job to prove your claim. I'm not an expert in any area that would give me a basis for making forming a conclusion. I have no idea what that is. I would simply be speculating as I suspect that is what you are doing. However I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You will have to provide evidence though.


My claim explains near free fall and total pulverization. Official theories do not.

It is now your job to determine which claim is valid or you lose your democracy, your rights, and your freedoms.
 
I found this 18-minute documentary on building the WTC, I believe it used to be shown at the WTC visitor center. It's at a PBS site. I haven't watched the whole thing, but did watch the beginning and searched through the transcript.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

My favorite bit:


Searching the transcript for concrete all I can find is mentions when they were building the column footings and the walls used to hold the water back (which were yard thick concrete) while excavating.

the NYC mayor took the plans for the WTC and the courts will not make hime return them.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

One more violation of law following the failure to provide a due process investigation in 3,000 capitol crimes.

You are okay with that huh?
 
It is now your job to determine which claim is valid or you lose your democracy, your rights, and your freedoms.
And it's your turn to demonstrate how a supposedly-wrong choice will lead to the loss of those three things. Either substantiate or retract that statement, because as it stands, it's ridiculous.
 
Anyone trying to help poor Christophera (the name alone reminds me of geggy and his "the power of christ compels you"..ya know..the fear 'o christ and all) has astounding levels of patience! Just reading this thread makes me want to scream in a Munch type of way; I flew through Gravy's recent offering of Dylan and crew's ramblings, comparatively. This guy is playing a semantics game in the extreme as well as nauseatingly taking ad nauseum to new heights. Maybe if he says the same things he's already said again, posts a few links to his wacky website(every post), and tells you how he is right and everyone else is wrong (so there!) we will all finally be impressed. I am certain it has been said before, but it could actually use repeating: isn't the definition of insanity repeating the same behavior and expecting different results? Wouldn't his 'psycho therapist' wife tip him to this flaw?
 
Heh.

To be fair, you can use parrafin to make some compunds that might be able to act as detonators, but it's iffy. It's advocated as an improvised measure, but less reliable than actual detonators using primary explosives.

Of course, drilling all those holes would have been rather obvious. Becuase if, especially as Christophera has claimed, the explosion was distributed, you'd have to drill a lot of holes. If you have C-4 in a solid column ground to top, and you only put a detonator in the bottom, it isn't all going to go off at once and I'd suspect much of it wouldn't detonate at all. You'd have to place detonators at various points all along the length, at least one per floor, for that single c4 column.

Not to mention the difficulty in knowing where to drill, as well as making sure you don't drill into your explosive. C4 is pretty stable, but becomes less so as it ages, and while unlikely, you can't discount the probability fo accidentally setting it off from a hot drill bit or (if you accidentally drilled into the rebar or the steel column) sparks (combined with the pressure produced by the drilling).

Good information, correct.

Much of the process I went through when I remembered the documentary fully enough to figure out what happened.

Hypothetically I pretended I was offered an unlimited budget to DEMO a tower identical to the WTC towers. I thne imagined using a dual rotor Sikorsky to get my track drill onto the roof, with a crane to get it onto each lower floor so I could cross drill the shear wall. Drilling 1300 feet and holding the horizontal position of the bottom of the hole is basically impossible, but that was not the point.

After I had the entire shear wall drilled I started to think about how the holes would be loaded and primed, delayed.


Oops

I forgot one real important thing. THE REBAR. You can't drill through rebar with carbide inserts.

Once I remembered the rebar I remembered the documentary talking about the butt weld connecting the 3 inch high tensile steel rebar together and WHY only weldrs with a security clearance could be used. The special plastic coating on the rebar.
 
I think the problem we are having here is that Christophera is using one wrong theory to prove another wrong theory (concrete and "near free-fall"), and his inability to acknowledge that both are wrong. I suggest you start again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom