• 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.
This looks like a fun thread!

I don't see anything 'wrong' with the collapse videos. In fact, I don't see any substantial difference in the way those two towers came down compared to videos I've seen of planned/designed building demolitions (and I've seen a few). Pancaking and the 'vertical accordion momentum effect' (I just made that up) explain everything to my satisfaction.

Almost 4 weeks ago, I went to Manhattan for the first time, as a tourist. We went to the WTC site, and it's a gigantic hole in the ground. (And Manhattaners ABHOR a hole....the thinking is: 'Fill It Up Again', with something or other, to make the hole 'disappear'.)

Anyway, the bus tour guide pointed out to us that the Deutsch Bank Tower, which is directly adjacent to 'Ground Zero', is being dismantled from the inside out, as it is structurally crippled and at risk of coming down of it's own accord (but in an 'uncontrolled fashion'), because of the events of 5 years ago. It can't be fixed, ever, and if left to itself, you would see a repeat of those two tower coming down very soon. They can't take it down with a controlled detonation, however, as the 'ripple effect' would transfer to yet more towers.

Manhattan is nothing but a sea of concrete. But it wasn't explained why just the Deutsch Bank tower was affected in this way, and not a whole bunch of other towers as well.
 
Welcome Jabra, to the JREF Skeptics Forum on Conspiracy Theories. Your views and opinions will be allowed, if not accepted, regardless of what they are.

As for your comment that the videos look like controlled demolitions, I would make the following points.

1. In the videos of the WTC 1&2 Collapses, the buildings start to collapse from the top down, where as in Controlled Demolitions, the buildings begin their collapses from the bottom (go take another look at some REAL Controlled Demolitions).

2. Real Controlled Demolitions have a series of explosives go off in almost every level, with accompanying Explosions, in a "rat a tat tat" sequence, not in a random, occasional way. The WTC Collapses had no such sounds, with the exception of sporatic occasional "Explosions" being heard by witnesses.

Anyone else care to mention anything.
 
Hi Jabra

Jabra said:
In fact, I don't see any substantial difference in the way those two towers came down compared to videos I've seen of planned/designed building demolitions (and I've seen a few).
Click to expand...

Well basically, for laymen such as we are, a building falling down looks like a building falling down. :D

Anyway, the bus tour guide pointed out to us that the Deutsch Bank Tower, which is directly adjacent to 'Ground Zero', is being dismantled from the inside out, as it is structurally crippled and at risk of coming down of it's own accord (but in an 'uncontrolled fashion'), because of the events of 5 years ago. It can't be fixed, ever, and if left to itself, you would see a repeat of those two tower coming down very soon. They can't take it down with a controlled detonation, however, as the 'ripple effect' would transfer to yet more towers.
Click to expand...

I read something about that here.
 
Thank you for the welcome, T.A.M. I think I'm going to like it here, and look forward to getting to know all you 'regs'! I hope to get organized and put up my own moniker soon.

It seems to me that the WTC towers collapsed 'from the top down' (the perception of 'movement' as seen from the ground, so to speak) as they 'crumpled' at their weakest base point of damage (which was 'way up there').

A controlled demolition seeks to have the building 'collapse in on itself', towards the center, so as to minimize 'leaning effects' and therefore potential collateral damage to other structures adjacent to the demolition area. In such cases, trying to 'kick out the bottom or foundation' from under the building is not a good idea, as this can initiate a leaning curve up above due to uneven weight distribution. I believe the sequence of internal charges are set so as to 'radiate outwards' from the center, and they begin at the higher levels first. This way, gravity is allowed the best chance of guiding the 'straight down' result.

However, I'm not a demolitions expert, just a fan of such shows on Discovery Channel! lol But I'd love to hear from an expert on this!
 
I am not an expert at all. I just know that when I have looked at classical Demolition (I think Gravy or Brainster or someone posted one here or on their sites) it the floors near the bottom appear to collapse, allowing the building to come down. I'll see if I can fidn a link...

TAM
 
Hi Pardalis

Thanks for that link. That's better than what the tour guide had to offer! 'Deconstruction' is an interesting word...and it was mentioned about the human remains that turned up there. It was a truly gruesome story.
 
T.A.M.

Just like that, eh?! Thanks! That first video seems to show some 'internal' flashes going up the center before the big detonation at the bottom. You can't see that in the second video. That's pretty scary though...looks like there was a pretty good 'lean' starting to happen there by the end of it, but they had sufficient room. I think there's only about 4 feet of room between buildings in Manhattan! lol
 
Thanks, also, bob kark.

But for some reason that link isn't sitting well with my browser, won't come up, I'll have to try it later.
 
879044f9a5254a103.jpg

Explain what else it can be besides 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. It is most definitely not heavy steel columns.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1711160&postcount=653


Then there is the core wall at base and the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, but never any steel core columns.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1710972&postcount=635


Here is rebar. No core columns tho.
spire_dust-3.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1665333&postcount=383


Here is its rebar. If it is not rebar, we all know it is not a perimeter column box column,
spire_dust-3.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1665203&postcount=370


The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, used on my site, is not on my server. many are not on my server.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1713233&postcount=885


Belz: "Oh, and the "rebar" portion of the real core? Your theory makes no sense. 3" rebar on 4' centers makes zero sense"

Christophera: "Does not consitutute "addressing" an image which has an absolutely distinct quality in the realm of construction."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1713144&postcount=862


There is reason for the supposed steel core columns in this image of the concrete core. Also in this image showing 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS the supposed steel core columns do not show.

WHY? Because they did not exist.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1712910&postcount=825


Gravy has not addressed the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS nor has it produced an image of the steel core columns from demo photos of steel columns. NOTE: the above image link should show some of the supposed 47, steel core columns IF they existed, which they didn't.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1712722&postcount=782


Those are interior box columns and images of them above ground are what you need to show. Something similar to what I show of the concrete core at 400 feet off the ground. Similar to this image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS which also happens to fully show the core area and ther are not steel columns.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1712695&postcount=767


I didn't see spacings for 3 inch on that site. Very big and it was high tensile steel, very custom concrete. If it is not (note curvature of ALL the pieces) 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS what is it?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1711697&postcount=680


If it is not 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, what do you think it is?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1711688&postcount=678


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.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1714896&postcount=1050


They are different images. This of the INTERIOR BOX COLUMNS or spire and this, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS which is rebar.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1714878&postcount=1045


That image can only be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS because this image of the SPIRE taken a second before from the same camera shows 14 inch thick interior box columns providing scale. NOTE: The slight curve to the fine vertical elements. There is actually nothing else it can be except rebar.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1714202&postcount=1006


To continue to MISREPRESENT evidence shows intellectual dishonesty. Let me assist with an image that SHOULD have the core columns, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1714168&postcount=1002


You know your stuff with fabrication and steel. See any steel columns here? Or here here?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1713881&postcount=950


If there were steel core columns we would seem them here, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS and we do not, because they did not exist. Let us check the "intentionally dishonesty" meter.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1713534&postcount=935

Just One Rebar Would Not Show
But we have eighty maybe, and/or we view nearly along a line of them
Some of the rebar does pixelate showing that it is indeed small diameter and not any column.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1713353&postcount=919


Dave_46: "You have posted this image, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS "

Christophera: "Do not forget that none have produced an alternative explanation for what it is other than rebar."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1717688&postcount=1257


The photo is taken at 7500 feet and a single 3 inch silhouette will not be seen, totally, but 80 or so, looking down a line of them some what, yes easily visible, and that is exactly what this picture shows, 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1716719&postcount=1233


3 inch rebar on 4 foot centers (48 inch).
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1715540&postcount=1176


Hold up. LARGE error.
3" rebar at 4 FEET centers. Are you feigning confusion? We have obviously conflicting statements here?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1715490&postcount=1170

Apollyon: "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."

Christophera: "Consider that the WTC was very custom and the government can order any bar it wants."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1715148&postcount=1115


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.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1715086&postcount=1099


Apollyon: "Says the guy who speaks of "high tensile rebar."

Christophera: "All pipe will collapse and fold easily when bent past 90 degrees unless very special measures are taken.
NOTICE:
The first, yes, ............. the very first time I've ever used a :rolleyes: "
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1718984&postcount=1357


Apollyon: Provide proof that "3'' high tensile" rebar was used."

Christophera: "Actually I've answered all these questions. You just don't like the answers."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1720204&postcount=1485


Huntsman: "17 feet of concrete? No, not going to do it with a sheet. It takes a 1/2" sheet large enough to wrap completely around an I-beam (following the contours of the beam) to cut it. 4 lbs. of C-4 are needed to breach a reinforced concrete wall enough to make a man-sized hole. I'll double-check my figures (I keep forgetting to dig out my old engineer books at home) tonight, but no, it would take a lot more than a thin-coating on rebar every 4 feet."

Christophera: "Recalculate using engineering methods and you'll find that a much smaller amount will totally fracture the concrete wall if the explosive is centralized in the wall."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1720041&postcount=1430


The C4 was solvented and the bar was dipped leaving a light coating. The documentary actually mentioned the thickness issue (of the special "anti vibration/corrosion" coating) and that engineers had no problem with it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1720030&postcount=1427


You need evidence of the steel core columns you support, from demo images at elevation, to make it stick. Notice no one has explained what these fine, lightly curving, vertical elements are if they are not 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1719028&postcount=1366


You are forgetting the algebraic assimilation of the evidence that occurs before the math.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1721665&postcount=1718


You cannot be serious. You with no evidence acuse me with 2 web sites having a great deal of evidence of having no evidence. And you are the same poeter who cannot come up with an alternative explanation for what must obviously be 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. Exactly what i would expect, but not what you need to assert steel core columns because none are shown where you say they should be.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1721579&postcount=1702


It's rectangular tube shape with high strength concrete and high tensile rebar was very good torsion resistence, actually one of the real threats to serious deformation and failure.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1721457&postcount=1688


Apollyon: "Provide proof that "3'' high tensile" rebar was used."

Christophera: "Do you really think that the 1,300 foot tall concrete tube had no foundation? And if you cannot explain what those fine vertical elements are where 47, 1,300 foot columns should be seen then the steel columns did not exist because other images where they should show also do not reveal them"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1720309&postcount=1506


Woody–: "Using 3 World Financial Center for scale the spire that is visible above the dust cloud is aprox 16 stories tall, ie 160 ft. In the pic you keep using there the spire visible above the dust is also about 50 pixels high. That means each pixel is aprox 3 feet. Please explain how you can "see" 3" rebar on 4' centers when each pixel covers 3 feet."

Christophera: "Some pixels get it, some don't. Isn't that what we see,

and

They line they are of is seen looking somewhat down it, still, to the right we see them and they share a slight curve with a tapering shape.

I know why that taper is there. The documentary stated/showed that the cores rebar was welded on a slope and concrete poured at steeper inclines inside the forms. This was ordered by the engineers to eliminate the potential fracture line of opposing horizontal joints. the slopes made opposing sloped joints, better for torsion loads."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1723995&postcount=1964


Then the tightly coiled elements that protrude from near the center, what can they be but rebar 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. The documentary was very intimate with compiled details of the towers construction.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1723951&postcount=1944


The fact that I have an explanation for near free fall and pulverization nullifies the official lie. That explanation relies on available, raw information that any eperienced in material recognition in construction can readily identify. 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1723942&postcount=1942


Sad that you don't have any real evidence.
Here is an image showing what can only be the 3" HIGH TENSILE STEEL REBAR ON 4' CENTERS from the 1990 documentary called "Construction of the Twin Towers."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1835073&postcount=2297


Notice there are no heavy columns inside the core area in this image of the 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS. This is an absolutely verfiable image in that it has no core columns. Anyone with experience in heavy steel and concrete can confirm that this shows what can only be rebar.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1874130&postcount=2547


Notice that what I have is many times more than what you have.
3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1858251&postcount=2476


Proof is so much better than theory.
3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1888901&postcount=2745


You've seen plenty of evidence to know that there was rebar, but have produced none from the raw images of the demolition to support the steel core columns.

At least poor Gravy is trying. He probably had to search a thousand photos to find one he might misinterpret successfully
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1883929&postcount=2684


This image evidences what can only be rebar, and it should show the supposed steel core columns but does not.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.p...d=115687329 1
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1883267&postcount=2679


KingMerv00: "Maybe I missed out on this part of the conversation...why is 3" rebar important? I'm not reading through 67 pages of posts."

Christophera: "The big slowdown in the constructon documented by the video was the concrete core. Specifically the butt weld occuring every 40 feet in the special high tensile steel rebar used in the cast concrete core. Only welders with a security clearance were allowed to make the weld."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1881697&postcount=2654


Congratulations,

You have found the only piece of evidence that MIGHT be misinterpreted to support that the WTC towers had steel core columns.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1892470&postcount=2855
Click to expand...

879044f9a5254a103.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jabra said:
Thanks, also, bob kark.

But for some reason that link isn't sitting well with my browser, won't come up, I'll have to try it later.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I had a problem with it too. Certainly worth a read later.
 
Christophera said:
It is convienent to say that WTC 2 was damaged more but it is well known that the right engine went entirely through the building and most of the fuel did too. If the damage was worse then it would be because the core corner was taken out which would mean that the tower would fall to the south east, or more south as the perimeter wall was damaged on the south side.

Your argument is self defeatng.
Click to expand...

You are 100% wrong.

The east wall of WTC2 had the most intense fire in that building, and the columns on that side bowed inward until they failed and initiated the collapse, that is why the building leant primarily to the east.

Christophera said:
Yea, tell me about it. We need an explanation of why the top of WTC 1 fell south when it was hit on the north side. the school kids will lose all confidence in science if you try to explain with your logic.
Click to expand...

You are 100% wrong.

The south wall of WTC1 had the most intense fire in that building, and the columns on that side bowed inward until they failed and initiated the collapse, that is why the building leant to the south.
 
Well, after three weeks of careful searching, the closest to the aforementioned documentary I could find was 1983's "Building the World Trade Center"

Unfortunately for Chris, it clearly shows that concrete columns were not used, but steel was.

ETA: In fact, the only mention of such documentary - including looking carefully at what aired in the time frame he mentioned on PBS - are in posts by Christophera.

In other words - someone is very confused.
 
Last edited:
ETA: In fact, the only mention of such documentary - including looking carefully at what aired in the time frame he mentioned on PBS - are in posts by Christophera.

In other words - someone is very confused.
Click to expand...

In other words - someone is lying. Christophera is willingly fabricating documentaries in order to shore up his creative (false) theories. 3,000 dead and he can't be bothered to refrain from lying. :(
 
zaayrdragon said:
Well, after three weeks of careful searching, the closest to the aforementioned documentary I could find was 1983's "Building the World Trade Center"
Click to expand...

That film was included on the PBS website about why the towers fell. Not sure if they have it online anymore (they've updated the site for a new documentary coming out). I believe it was originally shown in the WTC visitor center.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom