• 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.
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.
Why should he have to prove it? You make a claim, wave your hands furiously claiming it to be gospel, link a photo that shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, and then proclaim yourself to be correct. Why can't everyone else use that same practice?

Besides, an answer has already been provided as to what those smooth edges are. You ignored it. Maybe your memory needs to be refreshed?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1714131&postcount=998
 
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?
Christophera has the obsessiveness, the pseudo-rationality, the stubbornness, and the bizarre creativity of an autist.
 
...so that the people who are anti-government will point out the problems, and can be identified. Then, the government will mark them for visits by MiBs, and "find" the hidden WMDs.

It all makes sense now!

I'm not anti government.

I'm against secrecy in government that allows infiltrations by un American elements.

We have a duty to protect our Constitution (check the soldiers oath) and laws made under it, our laws have been violated. I chose to defend the letter of the law and assist the good Americans that are caught within an infiltrated, corrupted government.

Not being a soldier, I choose to defend the Constitution by exposing the infiltrations or damage done by them, to protect my childrens futures.
 
I'm not anti government.

I'm against secrecy in government that allows infiltrations by un American elements.

We have a duty to protect our Constitution (check the soldiers oath) and laws made under it, our laws have been violated. I chose to defend the letter of the law and assist the good Americans that are caught within an infiltrated, corrupted government.

Not being a soldier, I choose to defend the Constitution by exposing the infiltrations or damage done by them, to protect my childrens futures.
OMIGOD!
You have children?
 
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.

Produce the alternate theoris that explain near free fall and pulverization. the librarys have been sifted of books onthe subject.
 
Why should he have to prove it? You make a claim, wave your hands furiously claiming it to be gospel, link a photo that shows nothing conclusive whatsoever, and then proclaim yourself to be correct. Why can't everyone else use that same practice?

Besides, an answer has already been provided as to what those smooth edges are. You ignored it. Maybe your memory needs to be refreshed?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1714131&postcount=998

You have to prove it because my explanation is feasible and fits into the events too well. What is your alternative?

These things can only happen in a limited set of circumstances.
 
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.

You have no evidence of alternatives for the concrete or rates of fall near free fall. If I am wrong, produce the evidence but be sure is qualified.

You will only fail to to do that if you support the infiltration of the US government and the usurpation of our Constitution.
 
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.

Are you saying that corrupted governments have not created "commonly stated and accepted" which is false?

Are you saying we should ignore the major inconsistencies of the official story while WE KNOW laws were violated?
 
You have to prove it because my explanation is feasible and fits into the events too well. What is your alternative?

These things can only happen in a limited set of circumstances.
The explanation is provided right there in the link to The Feds' post. The post also directly conflicts your claim that the columns were "butt-welded."
 
Belz:

You can make relatively smooth cuts with LSCs (see the second picture I linked), but they are NOT going to be smooth, right-angle cuts, perfectly straight, with no blast marks.

All it would really take is a picture of an explosive-cut steel beam, that can be verified as such. But Christophera can't provide that, because he's lying.

Just as he's lying when he claims that freefall and near freefall are identical (the actual difference was 20% to 30%, more than enough to account for all factors).

Just like he's lying when he says there is no other explanation fo rthe collapse (20 stories falling on the lower 80 stories of a building will collapse it, pretty much straight down and with little slowing).

Just like he's lying when he repeatedly claims that a spire and part of the external wall are photos of 3" rebar oin 4' centers (which doesn't even exist in any other known application).

Just like he's lying when he claims that concrete encasement (an alkaline, porous, water-permiable barrier) will extend shelf life (ever seem human remains recovered from concrete? It doesn't preserve very well at all. Shows how much good common sense is, eh?).

Just like he's lying when he calims a smoke colum is part of the core (there should be pictures from many other angles and other cameras showing this, why are you relying on two from a great distance?).

Just like he's lying when he claims to have explained all this on his site and demands we read it (all we want are the original sources, not your baseless allegations).

Just like he's lying when he claims to not be accusing anyone of mass murder (you are accusing the U.S. government, or at least large parts of it, of being complicit in this).

Just like there's very little he's been truthful about.

And Christophera, if you can provide actual evidence to support your assertions (you are correct that they aren't theories, but they aren't even hypothesis, they're pure speculation based on nothing), if you can provide original sources to verify your information (not just things you explain away, but actual, positive evidecne), then I will be the first to apologize to you, take back everything I've stated, admit I was wrong, and do my best to get your story out there.

But, unlike you, I refuse to accuse the innocent of murder without sufficient evidence. Because, unlike you, I actually support all the rights granted by our Constitution, such as the right to fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, and free speech.

Show us the evidence. Show us the math that explains why the towers fell too fast. Show us the records of huge amounts of concrete being ordered and delivered to the WTC towers for the core. SHow us the evidence of rebar (not the external cladding and wall). SHow us a clear, verifiable photo of this concrete core existing at any stage of the WTC construction or demolition.

So far, you simply conducted in enormous amounts of post hoc rationalization to explain wjhy your theory is still correct when we've presented contrary evidence. You've grapsed at every straw to keep your theory from being wrong. You engaged in logical fallacy after logical fallacy. You refuse to provide any sources except your own website, which I wouldn't believe if it stated the sky was blue (I'd look out a window to check it first).

All we want is verifiable, reliable evidence, not speculation and a couple of poor-quality photos...not obvious misrepresentation (rebar...right), not outlandish, impossible theories (rebar coated in C-4..you must realize that this would remove any structural support the rebar provided, and weaken the concrete structure as well, right?).

Evidence. Facts. Numbers to show it couldn't be any other way.

Oh, and Belz:

Bachelor's Omelette:

5 medium eggs
Cooking oil
Milk
Salt and Pepper
About 1 egg's worth (by volume) Meat (anything in the fridge, leftover ham, lunch meat, bacon, sausage, etc)
About 1 egg's worth (by volume) cheese (anything that happens to be left, american, swiss, cheddar, etc...but for Ed's sake avoid Velveeta)
Onions, mushrooms, tomatoes, other assorted vegetables to taste (1 to two eggs worth by volume).

Beat eggs until smooth and yellow. Add in a dab of milk (to help them smooth out).

Chop other ingredients into small pieces, combine in single bowl/cup/paper towel.

Coat the frying pan in cooking oil (a thing layer is plenty). Heat at low-medium heat for a few minutes. Pour in your egg mixture. Once the egg will remain in one piece, add in the other ingredients. If needed, use the spatula to spread then around/mix them up. Fold the egg over the ingredients. Flip the omeletee. Takes only a few minutes to finish cooking after the ingredients are added.

Serve with toast, milk, juice, leftover beer, warm soda, or whatever else is available.

Serves one male Bachelor (or three new girlfriends).

:D
 
Are you saying that corrupted governments have not created "commonly stated and accepted" which is false?

Are you saying we should ignore the major inconsistencies of the official story while WE KNOW laws were violated?
No. I'm saying that hundreds of experts in the field have independently come to the same conclusion as to the cause of the collapse. You, however, with no real expertise other than working for a civil engineer and appointing yourself as the final word, are presenting an alternate theory. Therefore it is your responsibility to provide extraordinary, undeniable evidence that proves everyone else to be wrong and you to be right. You have utterly and miserably failed to do anything of the sort.

All the rest of your huffing and puffing about laws and the constitution have no relevance to that basic point.
 
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?


The interior box columns, I think, were 24 inches thick at lower levels and 14 inches up higher. The perimeter box columns were 14 inches for sure. The spacing was 20 feet between them and they were up to 5 inches thick at the bottom.

Gamma radiography was not around in 1968.
 
Also, you been told that there is no such thing as 3" rebar on 4' centers. First of all, rebar is denoted by imperial bar size, not inches and rebar is not even available in a 3" size as a standard. Rebar is also typically a mild steel, not a high tensile steel. And last and certainly not least, in regards to shear walls, UBC and IBC designates for a MAXIMUM spacing for rebar of 30". For areas in which winds speeds can exceed 70 mph (of which NYC is such a place) UBC and IBC designates that rebar be used on 15" centers. NOBODY uses rebar on 48" centers. So stop making crap up please.

Consider that the WTC was very custom and the government can order any bar it wants.
 
Did you also "imagine" Sikorsky building a dual rotor helicopter? Because they don't at the moment, and they never have.

-Andrew

Wow. that is a relevant correction. I hope the children that lost their parents in the towers appreciate your work.
 
You, however, with no real expertise other than working for a civil engineer and appointing yourself as the final word, are presenting an alternate theory. Therefore it is your responsibility to provide extraordinary, undeniable evidence that proves everyone else to be wrong and you to be right. You have utterly and miserably failed to do anything of the sort.

All the rest of your huffing and puffing about laws and the constitution have no relevance to that basic point.

Wrong. I know how the WTC was constructed and very few of the engineers do. Their theories do not explain the rates of fall nor do they explain total pulverization.

Since they do not, and I do, and you do not like my scenario you must come up with an alternative IF you think our Constitution is worth preserving.
 
Wow. that is a relevant correction. I hope the children that lost their parents in the towers appreciate your work.

I'm also sure they "appreciate" your work...

"If I had an unlimited budget, and could ignore the fact that everything I'm doing is completely unprecedented, and ignore the fact that construction workers talk, and ignore the fact that the structure I'm imaginign wouldn't hold it's own weight, much less a building, and ignore the fact that I have no positive evidence at all, how would I rig the towers for demolition?"
 
Wrong. I know how the WTC was constructed and very few of the engineers do. Their theories do not explain the rates of fall nor do they explain total pulverization.

Easily disproven by your continual mistake of asserting that a corner spire and part of the external walls are actuall a part of the "interior box columns".

Since they do not, and I do, and you do not like my scenario you must come up with an alternative IF you think our Constitution is worth preserving.

There already is an alternative that explains the data. You've yet to show anything that disproves the offical reports from NIST and the commission.

Except your morbid "How would I commit mass murder" fantasies.
 
Consider that the WTC was very custom and the government can order any bar it wants.
Consider that your claim is no proof whatsoever of it actually happening. Please provide actual, verifiable proof that what you claim is true. Please don't link that stupid picture for the unpteenth time either because that is not proof of any sort but merely laughable conjecture on your part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom