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

[Christophera]

No, you've explained how you think it might have happened.

No evidence as ususal.

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

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown, have you no shame?

 

[CptColumbo]

No evidence as ususal.

Quite right, you've produced no credible evidence.

 

[Woody-]

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.

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

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

Nice try at a hand wave, but the columns I was talking about aren't those angled things in the back, I was referring to the two straight up and down columns that still have the floor beams connected. That series of squares stacked on top of each other, you know the same squares that magically turn into 3 inch rebarb when you post a low res pic of the same thing. And since your 3 inch rebarb is in the core then those columns must also be in the core.

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

Ok, whatever you call them. I still want to see a diagram of your concrete core that shows stairs and elevators and etc. Heck, I wont even demand "construction plans", I just want to see how you can fit all the stuff known to be in the core in there along with your 17 foot thick concrete walls.

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

I guess you dont understand what CLEAR means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=clear

easily seen; sharply defined: a clear outline.
easily understood; without ambiguity:

Calling it an impasse is just admitting you dont have any CLEAR pics of your concrete core.

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.

I guess you forgot from way back in this post somewhere, I proved that each pixel in that picture was equal to three feet. Now its perfectly reasonable that massive core columns could show up on that scale but its ludicrous to contend that 3 inch rebarb would be visible at that scale.

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

Considering that you have no proof of where that came from I dont think I will give it any credibility. Just saying it came from the "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation" doesnt quite cut it.

BTW I cant determine if there is even such a thing as the "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation". the only google results on that phrase point right back to this post.

BTWII you ignored another one of my questions, you even quoted it for some strange reason but didnt respond.

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?

 

[Christophera]

Thsi Board Software SUX, Images Can Only Go At Bottom

So I have to rearrange the whole message for it to make sense. I just might ban this board!

Nice try at a hand wave, but the columns I was talking about aren't those angled things in the back, I was referring to the two straight up and down columns that still have the floor beams connected.

The supposed Core columns do not have floor beams connected. They are interior box columns if they do.

Ok, whatever you call them. I still want to see a diagram of your concrete core that shows stairs and elevators and etc. Heck, I wont even demand "construction plans", I just want to see how you can fit all the stuff known to be in the core in there along with your 17 foot thick concrete walls.

Take this of the core wall at its baseimage and compare it to your floor diagram and you'll see that there should be one ow more of the supposed "core columns penetrating it.

I guess you dont understand what CLEAR means.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=clear

Calling it an impasse is just admitting you dont have any CLEAR pics of your concrete core.

I at least have an image of the concrete core. You do not of the supposed steel core columns nor have you offered an explanation for what is shown in the image of the WTC 2 core

Considering that you have no proof of where that came from I dont think I will give it any credibility. Just saying it came from the "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation" doesn't quite cut it.

BTW I cant determine if there is even such a thing as the "Oxford encyclopedia of Technology and Inovation". the only google results on that phrase point right back to this post.

Talk to seatnineb at the democratic underground. He found it in a British Library and scanned it.

BTWII you ignored another one of my questions, you even quoted it for some strange reason but didnt respond.

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?

What has happened is that you have gotten the images confused. Here is the concrete shear wall and no rebar is visible in that image.

I guess you forgot from way back in this post somewhere, I proved that each pixel in that picture was equal to three feet. Now its perfectly reasonable that massive core columns could show up on that scale but its ludicrous to contend that 3 inch rebarb would be visible at that scale.

No I didn't forget. You forgot my explanation. Or, dissociateed it. There are a hundred of so 3 inch objects somewhat in a line of the left side and so it is dark with them. The very pixelization of the image on the right bespeaks to the tiny size
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2946&stc=1&d=1157353029

 

[qarnos]

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

What is your basis for making this claim? You have repeated it several times now but provide no form of evidence to back it up and absolutely nothing you have said leads me to believe you are an authority on the matter.

From this can I conclude that Plutonium-238 emedded in concrete will have a longer half-life than Plutonium-238 wrapped in cellophane?

You need to stop making assumptions about things which you clearly know nothing about and start providing evidence.

 

[Gravy]

Okay, Chris. Here's the photo that Woody and I have used:

And here's the enlargement:

Here's your photo, which was taken about 1 second later, and which you have claimed in over 30 posts shows "3" rebar on 4' centers."

And here's the enlargement:

Here's another shot from the same park as yours that shows more detail:

Now, Chris, please tell us how you can tell that the photo I've used does not show rebar, but the photo you repeatedly use does show rebar. I'm sure we're all eager to hear how you obtained such skills of discernment.

Or, you can finally be a man and admit that you're wrong.

 

[StoneWT]

Christophera believes that acting in a stupid manner somehow mocks the skeptics on this board. However, it merely shows him to be a buffoon. His behavior is another example of CTs lying for the 'truth'.

If a pixel covers 3 feet and an object is 3 inches (12-to-1), the object isn't going to show up. Christophera, I'm shocked that you don't understand this basic rule that even a middle school student would be familiar with. Is your life so meaningless that you are driven to create fake letters, documentaries, and dictionary passages? Place the 3,000 victims ahead of your desire for self-esteem.

 

[Z]

Explosives sealed in concrete would have a shorter shelf life than explosives sealed in the original wrapper. Why? Because the very process of opening the wrapper to transfer it would expose the explosive to oxidation, which would immediately shorten its total usable lifespan. Further, concrete - despite your apparent ignorance on the matter - is actually fairly porous. Not enough so to allow a human trapped in concrete to breathe, but enough to allow extensive oxidation to occur, thereby further shortening viable usage life of the explosives.

Christophera, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The usable lifespan of explosives cannot be extended beyond the shelf life of its original packaging without creating a perfect vacuum, and removing the explosive from that packaging within the vacuum. Any other method shortens, not extends, the shelf-life of the product.

We won't even get into the heat that would have existed in an enclosed space of this nature - heat which would only serve to quicken the break-down of the explosives.

One other minor point - there was no concrete to enclose the explosives in at those uppermost levels... or are you claiming it was build into the floors?


----

So far, here's the deal: Chris claims a concrete core - which does not appear on ANY floorplan or architectual layout. Further, images both of construction and of demolition clearly show the steel frame, but absolutely no concrete in the core. Yet he continues to insist the opposite is true. Further, he claims explosives sealed in concrete would outlive explosives sealed in cellophane packaging - clearly untrue. Additionally, he claims that 3" rebar exists - again, untrue.

Christophera is a childish liar, a sociopath, and, in general, a total moron. His theories are unworthy of notice, and his debate style vastly uninteresting.
Gentle Reader, consider for yourself: does a lie told repititiously become truth? Does this child - a child who has now demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge in every subject he has discussed - even stand a chance of knowing the truth?

Any further replies to this child's rants will be solely for the benefit of you, the Gentle Reader. The willfully ignorant cannot benefit from truth, but you may.

 

[Mancman]

@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

I assume you are reffering to the same plume seen in this video you have hosted on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVUMi_08CII

If so, the answer is simple. The narrator is wrong, that plume of smoke was a direct result of the south tower collapse, and did not precede it. It had nothing to do with WTC7. 911 review debunks this: http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/b6_explosion.html

Also on youtube you have a video in which it is claimed the WTC collapsed in 8.4 seconds. You do realise that the collapses took much longer than this, approx 15-18 seconds? Have a look here: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1exp5.html
The middle photo was taken 8 seconds into the collapse, and the building is still approx 300m high.

 

[Woody-]

Now, Chris, please tell us how you can tell that the photo I've used does not show rebar, but the photo you repeatedly use does show rebar. I'm sure we're all eager to hear how you obtained such skills of discernment.

More of that magic pixy dust that Chris has, by changing resolutions he can change "interior core" columns to rebar and then by changing the angle he can change them both to a "concrete shear wall"

To sum up Chris's twisting in the wind on this one. He claims this pic is " 3" rebarb on 4 foot centers" and that the rebarb is part of the core.

Then according to Chris this pic shows us a "a 20 inch box column" and it is part of the core.

[



Then Chris claims this pic shows a "concrete shear wall" and it is part of the core.

But them somehow the pic that I found and Gravy made a close up of are "interior core columns" and not part of the core.

Its amazing that photos taken seconds apart can be so many different things simply by changing the resolution and/or the angle they were taken at.

 

[kevin]

To sum up Chris's twisting in the wind on this one. He claims this pic is " 3" rebarb on 4 foot centers" and that the rebarb is part of the core.

I'm just amazed that you can post pictures in the middle of your messages. I mean christophera said that the stupid forum software required all images to go at the bottom. If he's wrong about that, how can I believe his photo interpretations?

 

[einsteen]

I assume you are reffering to the same plume seen in this video you have hosted on youtube:


If so, the answer is simple. The narrator is wrong, that plume of smoke was a direct result of the south tower collapse, and did not precede it. It had nothing to do with WTC7. 911 review debunks this:
Also on youtube you have a video in which it is claimed the WTC collapsed in 8.4 seconds. You do realise that the collapses took much longer than this, approx 15-18 seconds? Have a look here:
The middle photo was taken 8 seconds into the collapse, and the building is still approx 300m high.

No I mean those strange plooms that you see a few stories behind the demolition wave, but I agree that a progressive collapse is able to take that into accont, it's a minor thing which I ignore from now on (although the evil can be in the details), alright then, probably a wave in some core element, whatever.

That ploom, that movie. Are you serious ? Is this the scientific way of debunking ? What an insult to the people who noticed this, the brave Americans noticing in which way their country is under attack. A CNN frame. The south tower just collapsed ? What the ... There is a whole damned movie and both twin towers are standing ? 99.999999999% chance they are standing at that moment. And I didn't mention wtc7 in relation with this. wtc7 is a different story though possiby another 'smoking gun'

The 8.4 video is a little bit a kind of joke I made, NIST estimated resp 9 and 11 seconds, I will go into details later, found some serious stuff concerning this, also from the debunkers point of view.

 

[T.A.M.]

Probably the closest anyone can get to the oriiginal floor plans...but not much to go on...

Master Plans from 1963 of WTC

TAM

 

[Gravy]

No I mean those strange plooms that you see a few stories behind the demolition wave, but I agree that a progressive collapse is able to take that into accont, it's a minor thing which I ignore from now on (although the evil can be in the details), alright then, probably a wave in some core element, whatever.

It's "plume," and the phrase is "the devil is in the details," meaning that plans or explanations that seem simple when considered in a general sense can be quite tricky when looked at carefully. I do think "The evil is in the details" is a good description of 9/11 CTs, though. I get emails almost every day from people who believed the "inside job" theory in a general sense, but who now see that when the facts are examined, that theory makes no sense. Many of the 9/11 CTs seem plausible in theory. None are in fact.

That ploom, that movie. Are you serious ? Is this the scientific way of debunking ? What an insult to the people who noticed this, the brave Americans noticing in which way their country is under attack. A CNN frame. The south tower just collapsed ? What the ... There is a whole damned movie and both twin towers are standing ? 99.999999999% chance they are standing at that moment.

Argument from incredulity. You are wrong. Please do your homework.

And are you suggesting that the Americans who post here aren't brave, and that we didn't notice the way we were under attack?

 

[Gravy]

Probably the closest anyone can get to the oriiginal floor plans...but not much to go on...

Master Plans from 1963 of WTC

TAM

Hey, man, I thought Dylan Avery purchased copies of the blueprints? Well, not all the blueprints (they'd weigh 650 lbs), but, like, some of them? We'll see.

 

[Christophera]

What is your basis for making this claim?

Common sense.

 

[Christophera]

Okay, Chris. Here's the photo that Woody and I have used:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044fbefcf381d3.jpg[/qimg]​

And here's the enlargement:

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

Here's your photo, which was taken about 1 second later, and which you have claimed in over 30 posts shows "3" rebar on 4' centers."

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044fbefcf6600e.jpg[/qimg]​

And here's the enlargement:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044fbefcf85bc4.jpg[/qimg]​

Here's another shot from the same park as yours that shows more detail:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044fbf032378be.jpg[/qimg]​

Now, Chris, please tell us how you can tell that the photo I've used does not show rebar, but the photo you repeatedly use does show rebar. I'm sure we're all eager to hear how you obtained such skills of discernment.

Or, you can finally be a man and admit that you're wrong.

The rebar is lower and is obviously comprised of many fine elements compared to the heavy structural steel.

 

[delphi_ote]

Common sense.

You haven't demonstrated sufficient mastery of this concept to be using it to draw conclusions.

 

[Christophera]

Explosives sealed in concrete would have a shorter shelf life than explosives sealed in the original wrapper. Why? Because the very process of opening the wrapper to transfer it would expose the explosive to oxidation, which would immediately shorten its total usable lifespan. Further, concrete - despite your apparent ignorance on the matter - is actually fairly porous.

Not porous enough to allowed continued oxidation. It is a far better seal over long periods of time than cellophane.

And, collapse will not explain the uniformity of this, ever, you can't rationally do it without describing optimally placed and distributed high explosives

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2950&stc=1&d=1157386054