• 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.
NobbyNobbs said:
Great article.

Now please explain what on earth ultrasonic vocalizations have to do with thermite?
Click to expand...

Out of defference to CC and Dr. Eager I won't say much (I've come to understand the direction they are looking) beyond saying that waves of any type (light, microwave, etc) will impart quanta of energy to the material with which they interact and (stable) incendiary devices require an ignition source (blasting caps for TNT, a magnesium fuse for thermite grenades, etc).
 
Christophera said:
What is astounding is that this is the only core that can be evidenced and it can be fractured to fall at high rates of speed because it is concrete.
Click to expand...
Even if we presume that the current administration, or the Mossad, or MI 5, or the Chinese Communists, or Fidel Castro, or someone was behind the plot to ram aircraft into the twin towers . . .

rocks and metal fall under the influence of gravity at the same velocity, under the same acceleration.

How is it that you assert that a fracture will impart added velocity to a macro structure. What agent will first sheer a material at its base & connecting point, and then instantaneously accelerates it to greater than the acceleration of gravity (a booster pack as it were.) I am curious.

Do you have a schematic for such a demolition tool?

DR
 
Christophera said:
Look, I forgave you.

Airplanes had nothing to do with 2, 1300 foot towers falling to the ground
Click to expand...

Nothing ? Are you saying no planes hit the towers now ?

at near free fall rates
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you think this means.

identically
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. South tower tilted while the north one fell pretty much straight down; both weren't hit at the same floor, also, so they are in no way identical.

in the wrong order if planes had anything to do with it, which they didn't.
Click to expand...

If they didn't, then why do you bother mentioning it ? Also, you seem to have forgotten an oft-repeated fact about the south tower beign hit much LOWER than the north one.

What is astounding is that this is the only core that can be evidenced and it can be fractured to fall at high rates of speed because it is concrete,
Click to expand...

I guess you're so deluded that you can't see anything else in that picture. You must see that one in your sleep.

but that doesn't mean anything to folks who are supporting the lie that murderers hide behind.
Click to expand...

Circular, circular, circular.

So forgive me for trying to convince you when I well know, you do not want the truth.
Click to expand...

You're not trying to convince us. You're just claiming something.
 
Rhetorical Ignorance

Belz... said:
Nothing ? Are you saying no planes hit the towers now ?
Click to expand...

Pretending you do not understand will not obscure your retorical ignorance. The concrete core would have survived that and the fires. No toppling would have even occured. If anything severe would have happened, that would have been it.

Identical means in this case the fact that the towers went to the ground. Unheard of in collapse.
 
Christophera said:
The only facts in existence support the truth of the concrete core. Ignoring them will not make them go away.
Click to expand...
Ignoring the first 2364 posts in this thread won't make your "facts" any more factual, your core any more concrete, your invisicretetm any more substantal, your C4 any more real, or your 3" resteel on 4' centers any less ridiculous.

Nope. It won't.
 
Christophera said:
Look, I forgave you.
Click to expand...
Whatever makes you feel good.

Airplanes had nothing to do with 2, 1300 foot towers falling to the ground at near free fall rates, identically, in the wrong order if planes had anything to do with it, which they didn't.
Click to expand...
Yes, the "wrong order," which we were previously discussing before you were suspended (not banned). Shall we pick up where we left off?

And incidentally, though it seems apparent you will not ever concede a point or admit an error, the "near free fall rates" suggestion has been debunked time after time.

So forgive me for trying to convince you when I well know, you do not want the truth.
Click to expand...
Do you "know" this? Really? Your mind-reading skills are on a par with the analytical abilities you've demonstrated: poor.
Anyway, fine, forget me then, since I'm a lost cause. Why not take all of your evidence, such as it is, to several structural engineers? Be certain to include the part about how explosives were planted in the towers while they were being constructed. And please report back afterwards what their response was.
 
Christophera said:
Pretending you do not understand will not obscure your retorical ignorance. The concrete core would have survived that and the fires.
Click to expand...

Except you claim it was desintegrated FIRST using explosives...

Identical means in this case the fact that the towers went to the ground.
Click to expand...

That's an oversimplification if I ever heard one.

Unheard of in collapse.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Why not take all of your evidence, such as it is, to several structural engineers? Be certain to include the part about how explosives were planted in the towers while they were being constructed. And please report back afterwards what their response was.
Click to expand...

Good suggestion. Engineers work hard. I'm sure there are some who seriously need a giggle.
 
I don't know what the ignition, continued, temps of PC equipment would be, but monitors, cases, motherboards are all flammable.
 
There is no "temperature at which things burn". There is an ignition temperature, but once something is lit the final temperature only depends on how much energy is given out and how easy it is for the energy to escape. It doesn't really matter what was burning, as long as there was enough of it and the heat could not escape as fast as it was produced.

Wood used to be used to forge iron and steel. Clearly jet fuel burns better than this.
 
Cuddles said:
There is no "temperature at which things burn". There is an ignition temperature, but once something is lit the final temperature only depends on how much energy is given out and how easy it is for the energy to escape. It doesn't really matter what was burning, as long as there was enough of it and the heat could not escape as fast as it was produced.

Wood used to be used to forge iron and steel. Clearly jet fuel burns better than this.
Click to expand...
No jet fuel does not burn better than wood, wood is a more concentrated source of carbon than jet fuel. Jet fuel burns quicker but wood also forms charcoal as it burns pure carbon burning in air so it produces a higher energy coefficient than petroleum sources.
 
rwguinn said:
??????????
:jaw-dropp
sigh...
Click to expand...

Simple jet fuel being liquid is easier to ignite, but wood being able to from solid carbon black has a higher heat potential.
Graphite another form of carbon is used as a shield on Oxygen lances to remove the slag, on deep cuts in iron and concrete.
IT burns slowly at 6000 degrees.
Diamonds well how well do they burn? and they do burn into carbon dioxide.
The temperature at which carbon burns depends directly on the strength of the chemical bond, and the energy it takes to break it.
That is why life can theoretically be only carbon or silicon based both the elements have similar features.
 
so burning wood can weaken or even melt steel, good to know

point to ponder: what is office furniture made out of?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom