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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Chris has left that site, since his credibility is destroyed there, and will pop-up on another. He probably won't mention other sites he was on (since that worked out so well last time) and will most likely not use the same name again.
 
CptColumbo said:
I think Chris has left that site, since his credibility is destroyed there, and will pop-up on another. He probably won't mention other sites he was on (since that worked out so well last time) and will most likely not use the same name again.
Click to expand...
Like he'll be hard to spot... 3" rebar on 4' centers! And then the same pics over and over... :boggled:
 
CptColumbo said:
I think Chris has left that site, since his credibility is destroyed there, and will pop-up on another. He probably won't mention other sites he was on (since that worked out so well last time) and will most likely not use the same name again.
Click to expand...

Except he always registers as christophera. Google christophera and concrete.
 
Browsing around, thanks to Google, I came across this site (see post #72), dated February 13, 2005:

christophera @ The 9/11 Omission Hearings said:
I consider the SAND & GRAVEL to be knowledge directly available and it raises two very big questions.

1. Where did the double volume come from? In construction/demo terms this is a huge mystery if the building was constructed as the OFFICIAL TOWER STRUCTURE shows. However, if it were constructed with a concrete core as I know it was from watching a documentary made from 16mm film shot by the architects and contractors of the towers, the volume is explained. Also the towers official design shows that the only concrete above the foundation was lightweight concrete, unless the SECOND OFFICIAL TOWER STRUCTURE ???????? is correct then an unknown type of concrete was present. Now this is a mystery. Why 2 cores? Somebody can't get their story straight? Can we notice?

What is present matches exactly what I would expect as I know the towers had concrete cores.

Then photos of remnants of the towers are not mysterious. In them are seen obvious structural elements, massive in size and strength. The character and nature of those is obvious to people having experience with the materials and techniques of construction used with them.

The OFFICIAL TOWER STRUCTURE WILL leave massive vertical columns protruding upward. The absence of those in this photo of the WTC 2 CORE after the steel has fallen away from the concrete inner tube, proves the concrete core, it shows it. It establishes quite strongly on its own that the official structure is a lie contrived to explain what was a demolition as a collapse because there are no heavy steel vertical elements pointing upwardly.

Here is a picture of the INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS which establishes what was the inner framework of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" design. The WTC 2 CORE FALLING shows the exterior framework of the outer tube. The perimeter steel is seen as the tower top falls. The brown grey roof of the concrete core is seen inside the upside down element before falling on WTC 3.

Having accounted for all of the elements that I have so far described, there is one more structural element that is shown that the OFFICIAL TOWER STRUCTURE will not explain. The official structure has only very heavy vertical steel elements whereas the core I saw being built in the video documentary was steel reinforced cast concrete with 3" high tensile steel reinforcing bar, butt welded by specification in a series AT A SLOPING ANGLE reversing on opposite sides to create the strongest possible concrete tube.

I have just proven FEMA intentionally fabricated a deception upon the public wherin 2,800 lost their lives.

That lie shows that the SAND & GRAVEL filling the basement came from a massive concrete tower in a tower.

It is impossible to reduce that concrete to anything but big chunks by the use of high explosives UNLESS the explosive is perfectly placed and distributed. Meaning either as a sheet or a grid which is place in the center of the casting.

Where is steel reinforcing bar located in cast concrete and how is reinforcing bar distributed in concrete, what configuration is it installed with?

I've proven my point with raw evidence and no one has ever come up with a shred of the ame type evidence to contradict this scenario.

I've done the same with mind control but people are generally less informed on that subject which has a social taboo to begin with. Those most spooked by it are generally those influenced by it, they know. Even if that knowing is unconscious, they know.

Curously the knowledge of these dark areas of the past exist in our common racial histories and in the written history to a degree, meaning that the mind control via unconscious hypnosis, somnambulism, aspect is more easily accepted than the C4 coated rebar scenario creating the sand and gravel.

Most reasonable people accept quite easily that we do not know everything about the mind.

I don't talk about "why 9-11" because I know why and it is more fantastic than C4 coated rebar and has exactly the same problems with peoples ability to use existing information in simple inference with uniformity proportional to need.

The demolition is certain, by what the images show, the scenario I've defined is the only possible explanation.

Now ................. here's a mystery for you Jon.

"Why won't anyone at Let's Roll support a contest for the best over all explanation for some comprehensive scenario of 9-11?"


Planes, I generally don't talk about planes, here is why. boeing 757's and '67's are hydraulic over hydraulic controls and the pilot has a complete override. Retro fitting to remote is not at all simple or easy. Remote flights into towers mean bumble plane activity to swap out the commercial airliners. Much more chance of something going wrong. I do believe that 77 was bumbled out and a supersonic cruise missile was tested on the pentagon which is how the passengers of 77 are still alive.

Pilots do report that in simulators they could not complete the last turn of flight 175. My appraisal is that empty jetliner flights by powerful governments supporting terrorism can be used to train people to do things with airliners US pilots do not ever do.

Planes are red herrings, we don't know a lot about the flights, we can't find out about them. We depend on official accountability for everything.

With the towers, it is different.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine.

Aside from the same ol'-same ol', I rather enjoyed the extra element of woo.
 
I am sure this is off present topic, but it relates to the title of the thread.

Any of you count how long it took the towers to fall on 9/11 revisited. I am sure when I did the count for one of them, it was like 34 seconds. The reason, is that from the other angles the smoke cloud covers everything, but from his angle from the pier, you can see that parts of the tower are still falling way after 10 seconds, or am i misreading it...anyone care to take a look and give me an opinion?
 
T.A.M. said:
I am sure this is off present topic, but it relates to the title of the thread.

Any of you count how long it took the towers to fall on 9/11 revisited. I am sure when I did the count for one of them, it was like 34 seconds. The reason, is that from the other angles the smoke cloud covers everything, but from his angle from the pier, you can see that parts of the tower are still falling way after 10 seconds, or am i misreading it...anyone care to take a look and give me an opinion?
Click to expand...

gotta link to a particular video?
 
T.A.M. said:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q=9/11+eyewitness

sorry i misquoted the name, it is 9/11 witness.

Video 2 of 3... from around th 6:30 to 7:30 mark
Click to expand...


Excellent discovery. You're absolutely right. I got close to 30 seconds, and I started my count a little late. The North Tower, at least, didn't fall even remotely close to "free-fall".

Another thing I really find staggering from this footage... the volume of smoke coming out of the North Tower, and the extent of "blackened" floors.

One thing I discovered was a FDNY report of a collapse on a floor in the 60's a while before total collapse occured. This was way below impact, and always was interesting to me - how did floors so far away collapse like that?

From this footage, you can see an enormous section of the building is engulfed in flames. Yet fires don't usually spread down. Are we talking about partial internal collapses before total collapse? That would certainly spread the fire through floors beneath the impact point.

It's clear from this footage, to me, that the north tower was doomed. The volume of smoke coming out of that building was just incredible.

Thanks for the great find.

-Andrew
 
np.

I have no doubt that a large portion of the building went down quickly, but you can clearly see form it, that the top part of the building came down atop the rest as it colapsed, and then it colapsed, after the fact, a time much longer than 10 seconds.

Any you are right. From this angle the amount of fire, smoke, clearly points to much greater fire damage then any of the CT sites or references would have you believe.
 
fall starts at 6:53. A big chunk of the interior columns falls out of the plume at 7:13. So at least 20 seconds for the bottom of that interior section to hit bottom. Looks like there is still debris falling after that, you get what appears to be a hole in the plume with blue sky behind it about 7:22. So 20 seconds would be shortest guess, 30 seconds would be longest. Both significantly longer than a "free fall".
 
Absolutely. I mean I think we'd have to get someone with more expertese to verfiy, and I am not calling it smoking gun, but it is probably the best footage yet to dispute the claim.
 
Yup... after timing it with my trusty stop watch I got similar numbers:

00:18:55 for main building collapse
00:33:74 for last visible collapse of exterior wall section

10 seconds flat...uh huh... But we all know the buildings should have taken 7 minutes to collapse... slow motion multi-angle style. Think about it. Nothing happens that fast. It takes a few seconds to properly cover a single fatal gunshot wound in the movies...

-Andrew
 
The only possible explanation is that George Bush snuck into the towers the night before and hacksawed through most of the main support girders, and placed remote control transmitters in the towers to guide the planes into them.

I mean, come on people, it's SO OBVIOUS!!!1!1!!!
 
gumboot said:
Yup... after timing it with my trusty stop watch I got similar numbers:

00:18:55 for main building collapse
00:33:74 for last visible collapse of exterior wall section

10 seconds flat...uh huh... But we all know the buildings should have taken 7 minutes to collapse... slow motion multi-angle style. Think about it. Nothing happens that fast. It takes a few seconds to properly cover a single fatal gunshot wound in the movies...

-Andrew
Click to expand...

The huge section of structure that remains after the collapse is most likely a piece of the core, rather than exterior columns:
1-064.jpg
1-528.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom