• 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.
realitybites said:
Yes, yes.... Collapsing from the top is MUCH safer. Especially for the evil, maniacal gubmint hell-bent on killing its own citizens, but compassionate enough to not kill TOO many of its own citizens. Yes....
Click to expand...

ah, but see toppling might result in the north tower falling on WTC7, which would spoil their plans to CD it later that day...:)

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
in Einsteen's defence, I don't think English is his first language, and there may be some "generic" words such as thing, thrown in for speed, rather than ignorance.

TAM
Click to expand...

If you're right I apologize to Einsteen, but English isn't my first language either, but I try to choose my words before I post them, especially when it has to do with the murder of 3 000 people.
 
From my limited encounters with him, he seems genuine, if not misguided, but I doubt he meant disrepsect. That being said, a reminder to take more time in word selection seems appropriate, perhaps to him...and many of us...

:)
TAM
 
Until he can show proof that concrete stops oxidation... which it doesn't... I have to consider him a liar and a fool.

And his anecdotal (and probably falsified) tale of busting out unrusted rebar from concrete doesn't jibe with reality. Much like the falsified letters he posts, etc.

Chris is a liar.
 
Until he can show proof that concrete stops oxidation... which it doesn't... I have to consider him a liar and a fool.

And his anecdotal (and probably falsified) tale of busting out unrusted rebar from concrete doesn't jibe with reality. Much like the falsified letters he posts, etc.

Chris is a liar.
Click to expand...

The voice of reason. He is beyond learning. Mack has got sainthood from him and KT, and I am not even kinda in that way!Religion that is. Teaching might really be wasted on them. Hate to even have to have thunk the thought!
 
R.Mackey said:
Another file in "precious, precious irony" folder...

Wrong again. You underestimate the energy needed to add any significant angular momentum to the structure -- which is vast. It isn't going to topple sideways by accident. Hence why when they actually fell, the tops did cant a few degrees, but did not topple the entire structure sideways. It's simply not going to happen.

OMG indeed.
Click to expand...

With a building of those proportions and steel perimeters, all it takes is a few pieces of steel on one side down low not going away properly, and it's toppling. With a steel perimeter, cutting charges all the way around are mandatory to keep it going down straight, and they better all detonate. Another reason the collapse notion is OUT TO LUNCH because that would never happen to the ground. The top would fall towards the impact damage and that would be ALL that happens.

Yea, OMG. Get real.
 
Christophera said:
With a building of those proportions and steel perimeters, all it takes is a few pieces of steel on one side down low not going away properly, and it's toppling. With a steel perimeter, cutting charges all the way around are mandatory to keep it going down straight, and they better all detonate.
Click to expand...

Do you realise how crazy you sound?

Another reason the collapse notion is OUT TO LUNCH
Click to expand...

Out to lunch???????????????????????????

because that would never happen to the ground. The top would fall towards the impact damage and that would be ALL that happens.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right, the structure could support the immense mass and velocity of the falling top section... :rolleyes:
 
zaayrdragon said:
Until he can show proof that concrete stops oxidation... which it doesn't... I have to consider him a liar and a fool.

And his anecdotal (and probably falsified) tale of busting out unrusted rebar from concrete doesn't jibe with reality. Much like the falsified letters he posts, etc.

Chris is a liar.
Click to expand...

You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense.

Not one of my solid inquiries has been answered.

Peabody never explained what was wrong with the wrong tower fell first statement. Somebody tried and failed to respond adequately to my rebuttals.

The fake architect can't even understand common sense questions.

No one has even tried to make a common sense account of what the core of WTC 2 is if it's not concrete.

Let alone coming up with a competent explanation for the mushrooming tower photo.

One hundred 3 inch bars in a line, waving around, caught in a pixelated photo proving their small size is completely misrepresented by a bogus analysis.

What is true is you folks are a bunch of lying, manipulating clowns.

Got any good recipes?
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
R.Mackey said:
Another file in "precious, precious irony" folder...

Wrong again. You underestimate the energy needed to add any significant angular momentum to the structure -- which is vast. It isn't going to topple sideways by accident. Hence why when they actually fell, the tops did cant a few degrees, but did not topple the entire structure sideways. It's simply not going to happen.

OMG indeed.
Click to expand...

With a building of those proportions and steel perimeters, all it takes is a few pieces of steel on one side down low not going away properly, and it's toppling. With a steel perimeter, cutting charges all the way around are mandatory to keep it going down straight, and they better all detonate. Another reason the collapse notion is OUT TO LUNCH because that would never happen to the ground. The top would fall towards the impact damage and that would be ALL that happens.

Yea, OMG. Get real.
Click to expand...

I'm no engineer, but Christ , what are you missing here lad? The path of least resist, was down with that amount of mass! And a tube construct. What is your true expectation of this day? You think it should have fallen over? Your own double speak is about how it should have handled two 707's!
 
Christophera said:
You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense.

Not one of my solid inquiries has been answered.

Peabody never explained what was wrong with the wrong tower fell first statement. Somebody tried and failed to respond adequately to my rebuttals.

The fake architect can't even understand common sense questions.

No one has even tried to make a common sense account of what the core of WTC 2 is if it's not concrete.

Let alone coming up with a competent explanation for the mushrooming tower photo.

One hundred 3 inch bars in a line, waving around, caught in a pixelated photo proving their small size is completely misrepresented by a bogus analysis.

What is true is you folks are a bunch of lying, manipulating clowns.

Got any good recipes?
Click to expand...

Chris I hope you are aware that to see the answers you seek all that is required of you is to actually read the responses from other people.
Maybe not mine so much coz I'm basically just a smartarse, but people like Gravy and RMackey and Gumboot and Architect etc.
The only lying and manipulation I've seen on this thread has come from you.
Some of the folks here are quite talented clowns thank you very much. I think clowns are very important in these troubled times.(as are good recipes).
 
Christophera said:
With a building of those proportions and steel perimeters, all it takes is a few pieces of steel on one side down low not going away properly, and it's toppling. With a steel perimeter, cutting charges all the way around are mandatory to keep it going down straight, and they better all detonate. Another reason the collapse notion is OUT TO LUNCH because that would never happen to the ground. The top would fall towards the impact damage and that would be ALL that happens.

Yea, OMG. Get real.
Click to expand...
Is that a fact.

How about you compute for me just how much angular momentum would be added to a WTC tower if you suddenly took away half the supports at the bottom, before the remaining columns were stressed to failure. Give it a try.

I'll bet you have no idea how to even set up the problem.

If it was a demolition, sure you would cut all the columns to make it fall symmetrically. But there is absolutely no way you're going to get that tower to actually fall over, not by cutting ANY combination of supports.

By the way, fix your ugly avatar already.
 
Christophera said:
...Peabody never explained what was wrong with the wrong tower fell first statement.
Click to expand...
Though I had bid you adieu with my last post, I'll address your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order inaccuracy. I suspect it'll be for naught, but what the hey.

First, I was attempting to walk you through the simple deductive process when I initially engaged you on the matter. But your general unresponsiveness proved continually taxing. Then, when you returned after your suspension (not "ban," as you lied on the physorg forum), you continued your difficult manner.

But let's get to it.

The 110-story WTC 1 was struck first by a Boeing 767 at approx. 490 mph. The floors damaged were between 93 and 99. This left 11 undamaged stories above. The tower fell 102 minutes after impact.

The 110-story WTC 2 was subsequently struck by a Boeing 767 at approx. 590 mph. The floors damaged were between 77 and 85. This left 25 undamaged stories above. The tower fell 56 minutes after impact.

Please don't tell me I have to explain this any further.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense.
Click to expand...
The only one here possibly aiding and abetting murderers is YOU, Christophera. You continually distract from the fact that the towers were attacked and destroyed by a group of terrorists.

YOU keep trying to blame someone else for the attacks, providing cover and lessening the pressure to try and stop future attacks.
 
einsteen said:
Ok, I refer to some stuff I found recently, for example questions 1,3,6,12,14 from
http--911research.wtc7.net-reviews-nist-WTC_FAQ_reply.html
And then there are all those other things (too many) like the 5 frames of the thing that hits the pentagon near the ground. Show the vaporized plane or whatever it was and the CT'ers have no ground. What's so secret about it, we are allowed to see pictures from inside why not a video of da plane, da plane. I'm sure there must be more video evidence of what happened, i guess if I walk there with a toothpick they notice me.
Click to expand...
einsteen,

A large airliner once crashed two blocks from my home. There are no photos or videos of the plane crashing.

How do we know it crashed?

Please think about that and apply your answer to the crash of flight 77.
 
Christophera said:
You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense.

(snip)

What is true is you folks are a bunch of lying, manipulating clowns.

Got any good recipes?
Click to expand...

Chris.

I take exception to these remarks and find them highly offensive. You do not know me or anybody else here. Many people here have gone to a great deal of time to explain to you in detail what happened on that dreadful day.

Many have also spent a great deal of time looking at and researching these conspiracy theories. They do this on your behave, to try and reason with you and introduce some form of rationality into your line of thinking.

This has clearly failed and your suborn refusal to accept or even consider what people say to you warrants my pity.
Pity by virtue of the fact you will not see or never accept there are perfectly reasonable and far more plausible explanations to the small anomalies you feel are so important.

The very least you could do is say "Gee, I’m sorry I guess I got it wrong”. After all you are the one that is defending the perpetrators of this dreadful act and you are the one that is wrongly accusing perfectly innocent people of being involved in mass murder.

You are equally accusing perfectly normal, sane people of defending mass murderers.

You have my pity.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
With a building of those proportions and steel perimeters, all it takes is a few pieces of steel on one side down low not going away properly, and it's toppling. With a steel perimeter, cutting charges all the way around are mandatory to keep it going down straight, and they better all detonate. Another reason the collapse notion is OUT TO LUNCH because that would never happen to the ground. The top would fall towards the impact damage and that would be ALL that happens.

Yea, OMG. Get real.
Click to expand...
Common sense wins out over expertise yet again!
Nice one, Chris! Way to stick up for the layman!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom