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

[Gravy]

I guess you have no idea of how much garbage you forks create here.

The concrete is the dust. The rebar would be behind the rectangles formed by the interior box colums and the floor beams.

The shear wall is what is behind the interior box columns and floor beams in this alternate view of the spire. The rebar is in the center of the concrete.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2942&stc=1&d=1157324574

Okay, just to be sure we're on the same page here, you agree that no 3" rebar on 4' centers is actually visible in this photo, correct?

 

[Z]

I've seen hours of Steven E. Jones (I don't know what his reputation is but he is no crackpot or something like that and a respected scientist as fas as I know)

No, Steven E. Jones is a Brigham Young 'scientist' who claims to have evidence that Christ visited America and thinks cold fusion is easier than it actually is. He is the classic crackpot, regarding conspiracy theories and archaeometry, and 'respected' is not a term usually applied to him.

and he calculated about 4000kg that should be placed, 10 strong people can do that in 10 times.

Aside from Jones' credibility being in question, strength has nothing to do with how rapidly charges can be placed; and what does 'ten times' refer to? Minutes? Days?

Ten men could plant 4000kg, but not in any reasonable amount of time, at the necessary points to bring down the WTC.

I cannot post URLs but there was a power-down also once,

An alleged power-down, mentioned by a single person, unverified, and only in one tower; further, for an insufficient amount of time to plant 4000 kg of cutter charges on steel beams behind insulation, drywall, etc. After all, you also have to take into consideration that they would have had to cover up the evidence of their being there - which means replastering and repainting. Maybe even more work.

It's not like there were access panels that directly reached the steel beams, after all.

and what about damned wtc7 that is admitted to be a CD (this starts at the bottom of course)

Huh? I can't parse this one.

 

[Christophera]

An alleged power-down, mentioned by a single person, unverified, and only in one tower; further, for an insufficient amount of time to plant 4000 kg of cutter charges on steel beams behind insulation, drywall, etc. After all, you also have to take into consideration that they would have had to cover up the evidence of their being there - which means replastering and repainting. Maybe even more work.

It's not like there were access panels that directly reached the steel beams, after all.

But enough time to set half the detonators. the fist half was set after the lease was taken out. it is all detailed here.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

 

[Christophera]

Okay, just to be sure we're on the same page here, you agree that no 3" rebar on 4' centers is actually visible in this photo, correct?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg[/qimg]​

Correct no rebar shown there. But here there is rebar.

 

[einsteen]

I mean that building (wtc7) couldn't be saved because of damage and fire and they decided to bring it down, how did they place those bombs after the 911 events, that was quick!

The latest thing I've heard a from a guy who worked there was that the twin towers already build-in bombs in case it should be brought down in cases of emergency. He rejects any alternative theory but is sure they were there already.

@Pardalis. If you take those strange plooms into acount (what are they) you get a kind of faster than free-fall correlation.

There are much more strange things, too much, but now bed

 

[Christophera]

Not wanting to respond to this, Chris?

Architect, if you're that sure it's a core comprised of multiple steel core columns then you'll have no problem providing evidence rather than ambiguous (I'm being kind) photographs and the odd dubious text on this forum. Go and find images from the demolition that show the supposed 47, 1300 foot columns. Check the use net comments. Look at the links I've posted to web sites that that talk about the concrete core. Sure you will find inconsistencies but they are not so many nor as varied as those pages that try to describe the multiple steel core columns. And, the concrete core is supported by images of the demolition, steel core columns are not. Look at the scan of the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992.

 

[R.Mackey]

Clarifying NIST's "no pancaking" remark

Those "explosions" were simply compressed air escaping as the floors collapsed.

But isn't that the classical pancaking that NIST also rejects now ?

Hi einsteen, welcome to the forum.

I just wanted to clarify the NIST's position on "pancaking," since I've already seen this misinterpreted in four different places.

When the NIST uses the term "pancaking," you have to understand that the word has a very precise meaning for them, a meaning different than the general public understands. NIST concludes that WTC 1 and 2 did not experience "pancake collapse," but did experience "progressive collapse."

What is the difference? To NIST, "pancake collapse" means that the weight of one or more floors came loose, landed on a lower floor, the combined stress tore that floor loose, it fell on the floor below, etc. This is NOT what WTC 1 and 2 experienced.

Instead, what NIST is claiming is that, instead of each floor tearing loose, it sagged, pulling inward on the outer columns until they were twisted to the point of failure. The weight then fell on a lower floor, causing it to sag, buckling the outer columns, etc. This is their "progressive collapse."

To any but a structural engineer, the difference is subtle.

The next time you see anyone baldly claim "NIST admits no pancake collapse!!" without attempting to understand what they actually say, you may immediately sense their true agenda. This claim is being used out of context, as well as out of ignorance.

- By the assumption of a domino-effect collapse there can be no transfer of information faster than free-fall.
This is by definition impossible.
How so?

With this I mean a domino-effect transfers it's energy with a limited speed, it can not be faster than a free-fall speed, to be more mathematical the group speed of the effect vg cannot be larger than a point mass you drop, i.e. vg(t) <= v_free(t). If the ploom is part of the effect this is violated. If you have a set of vertical domino stones each stone (or group of stones) that hits the next one will be delayed a little bit, even if there is no structural resistance it will be delayed because of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy. If no explosives cause the ploom what then is the reason ? It's definitely no air, because it's gray *****. Therefore the effect is in fact faster than free fall.

The bursting lower windows and assorted debris travel either (a) with the compression wave in the air contained in the tower, or (b) through the structure as vibrations conducted by steel girders. Both travel at the sound speed in their respective media, e.g. roughly 340 m/s in air and 5100 m/s in steel. Both are considerably faster than the speed of a free-falling object. Your premise is incorrect.

Likewise, there is no evidence of explosions, no recordings thereof, no admission of demolition in WTC 7. If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, you are welcome to present it. You will be the first to do so.

 

[T.A.M.]

I mean that building (wtc7) couldn't be saved because of damage and fire and they decided to bring it down, how did they place those bombs after the 911 events, that was quick!

The latest thing I've heard a from a guy who worked there was that the twin towers already build-in bombs in case it should be brought down in cases of emergency. He rejects any alternative theory but is sure they were there already.

@Pardalis. If you take those strange plooms into acount (what are they) you get a kind of faster than free-fall correlation.

There are much more strange things, too much, but now bed

Einsteen. Like I told you in the welcome post...without solid evidence, your comments will carry little weight. If you have someone who worked in the tower who says that the building was pre-rigged with explosives, in case of emergencies, than please tell us who he is...otherwise it is EXTREMELY weak evidence.

Beyond that, who would have permanent explosives planted in the building in case of an "emergency", and more importantly, what emergency would warrant having explosives preplanted in a building to bring it down. Who ever told you this is a liar. (and I dont say that very often).

TAM

 

[einsteen]

On what other evidence could they evaluate the time of the collapse? (as if it had any importance in their analysis of the structural failure)

Ok last post, I mean the following, they estimated that time and made their theory, in their case

A => B (A => C can also be true...)


but it should be A <=> B

Can they proof the 9 and 11 seconds as a B implies A, i.e. B => A

 

[Christophera]

I mean that building (wtc7) couldn't be saved because of damage and fire and they decided to bring it down, how did they place those bombs after the 911 events, that was quick!

The latest thing I've heard a from a guy who worked there was that the twin towers already build-in bombs in case it should be brought down in cases of emergency. He rejects any alternative theory but is sure they were there already.

@Pardalis. If you take those strange plooms into acount (what are they) you get a kind of faster than free-fall correlation.

There are much more strange things, too much, but now bed

There are a few accounts that mention built in explosives, or imply them. Try this article.

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

From Robert L. Parish Sr..

 

[einsteen]

Beyond that, who would have permanent explosives planted in the building in case of an "emergency", and more importantly, what emergency would warrant having explosives preplanted in a building to bring it down. Who ever told you this is a liar. (and I dont say that very often).

Agreed
I certainly don't believe it, I will ask him if he can proof it (he can't of course) he is a politician and businessman as far as I know

 

[Pardalis]

Ok last post, I mean the following, they estimated that time and made their theory, in their case

A => B (A => C can also be true...)

but it should be A <=> B

Can they proof the 9 and 11 seconds as a B implies A, i.e. B => A

Why would the timing of the collapse matter to the NIST?

It matters to CTists, of course...

You got it backwards my friend.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

On what other evidence could they evaluate the time of the collapse? (as if it had any importance in their analysis of the structural failure)

Ok last post, I mean the following, they estimated that time and made their theory, in their case

A => B (A => C can also be true...)

but it should be A <=> B

Can they proof the 9 and 11 seconds as a B implies A, i.e. B => A

Please define A, B, and C to help me understand this post.

Also:

but it should be A <=> B

means what, exactly? A is less than or equal to greater than (or equal to) B???

Makes no sense.

 

[Z]

Built-in explosives would not have lasted this long. Check the shelf-life of C-4, for example... or any other plastic explosive, for that matter.

The explosives would have to have been added in decades after the building were constructed, to work on 9-11. And none have been added, ever.

Definitely, there wasn't enough time in the single tower power-down to add explosives to both buildings.

In short, there were no explosives used in the towers in 9-11.
The only other possibility was if explosives were aboard the aircraft - again, no evidence of that. Further, the fireballs witnessed were entirely consistant with the fuel loads described on the aircraft.

 

[Woody-]

Christophera, any chance of us getting a floor plan from you yet. One that shows the concrete core, the stairways, the elevators, and the hallways.

And while you at it why dont you find us some CLEAR pictures of that concrete core.

 

[Christophera]

Christophera, any chance of us getting a floor plan from you yet. One that shows the concrete core, the stairways, the elevators, and the hallways.

And while you at it why dont you find us some CLEAR pictures of that concrete core.

Woody, any chance of us getting an image from the demo of even some of those 1300 foot supposed steel core columns? One that shows the columns at some elevation over the ground.

And while your at it why dont you find us the plans for the steel core columns so the confusion in all those sites supporting the steel core columns is cleared up.

All I can find is pictures of what must be concrete shear wall.

 

[Christophera]

Built-in explosives would not have lasted this long. Check the shelf-life of C-4, for example... or any other plastic explosive, for that matter.

C4 shelf life of 10 years from an explosives manufacturer

http://www.ribbands.co.uk/prdpages/C4.htm

MilSpec: MIL-C-45010A
UK HSE Serial number: 32-A-68450
RDX content: 91 ± 1%
Polyisobutylene plasticiser: 9 ± 1%
Moisture: 0.1% max
Velocity of Detonation: 8092 ± 26 m/s
Density: 1.63 g/cm3
Colour: Nominally white
TNT equivalence: 118%
Chemical marking for detection: Marked
Shelf life: At least 10 years under good conditions

Clearly, RDX encapsulated ni a foot of concrete would have a MUCH longer viable life than the manuafactures cellophane package would provide.

The explosives would have to have been added in decades after the building were constructed, to work on 9-11. And none have been added, ever.

Definitely, there wasn't enough time in the single tower power-down to add explosives to both buildings.

In short, there were no explosives used in the towers in 9-11.
The only other possibility was if explosives were aboard the aircraft - again, no evidence of that. Further, the fireballs witnessed were entirely consistant with the fuel loads described on the aircraft.

This is entierly consistent with a high speed series of detonations of high explosives that are optimally contained and distributed in concrete.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2944&stc=1&d=1157343754

And I've feasibly explained how it was acomplished.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

 

[CptColumbo]

And I've feasibly explained how it was acomplished.

No, you've explained how you think it might have happened. With your little knowledge of explosives, demolitions, architecture, metalurgy, and structural engineering, plus your tendency to lie, ignore evidence contrary to your theory, and exagerate. I'm afraid I have to go with the people with credibility, education in the above areas, experience in the given fields, and evidence on their side.

 

[Woody-]

Woody, any chance of us getting an image from the demo of even some of those 1300 foot supposed steel core columns? One that shows the columns at some elevation over the ground.

I already posted some pics that showed the columns during the collapse back when I was asking you about the rebarb, here is one of them is again.

I know your going to call them "interior box columns" but whatever you call them they are part of the core.

And while your at it why dont you find us the plans for the steel core columns so the confusion in all those sites supporting the steel core columns is cleared up.

Ok thats easy.

Page 57 and 59 of the NIST report

Figure 1-3 and figure 1-5

All I can find is pictures of what must be concrete shear wall.

That is odd, that is just the same "object", only at a higher res and a different angle, that you keep calling 3 inch rebarb in one of your other pics. So is it a shear wall or rebarb now?


Ok I came through, now how about your floor plan and CLEAR pic of that concrete core.

 

[Christophera]

I already posted some pics that showed the columns during the collapse back when I was asking you about the rebarb, here is one of them is again.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/996744f636c74d8b9.jpg[/qimg]

I know your going to call them "interior box columns" but whatever you call them they are part of the core.

Correct, they are interior box columns. You might try to term them as "inside the core" but the projection downwards at the angle they are at is going to put them as a part of the interior wall of the outer tube of the "tube in a tube" construction and falling inwards to the core area.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2945&stc=1&d=1157348186

Ok I came through, now how about your floor plan and CLEAR pic of that concrete core.

What you call plans I call diagrams and they are a part of the subterfuge or deception. Only construction plans will suffice here.

Well you've already seen the picture of the core I have so we are at an impasse on that issue.

To term the interior box columns above the same as the fine elements seen below is strictly an error. Meaning that the images support the concrete core and not the steel core columns. Consider the Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation that was published in 1992 which has been scanned and available for inspection. It is pretty clear in what it says.

That is odd, that is just the same "object", only at a higher res and a different angle, that you keep calling 3 inch rebarb in one of your other pics. So is it a shear wall or rebarb now?