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

Status
Not open for further replies.
SO perhaps a better term, one we should introduce to them, would be:

Free Fall Time

or

Time of Free Fall

TAM
 
Mancman said:
It's a bundle of core columns. The same section that christophera continually mislabels are 'interior box columns'.
Click to expand...

Mancman I think you've actually found the only image that might be legitimately labeled core columns, ... but they are not.

The first one that topples out has floor beams connecting 2 interior box columns. The few that stand momentarily cannot be seen clear enough to see the floor beams connecting them and might qualify, but because the stills which are clearer do not show columns in the core at many other phases, we can safely stay with the fact that no steel core columns are visible and the concrete core is.

Congratulations! Seriously, you have some real integrity when it comes to digging up evidence. Good try.
 
I dont know what Christophera is smoking or is on, but several documentaries, including several that aired on A&E and Discovery, have all shown blueprints and mockups of the two Towers. And those documentaries, have stressed repeatedly that there were no concrete cores, because for a buildings of their sizes, the load weight, strain and stress would be too great for a them to do so. They went as so far to explain why and showed how the buildings collapse. Inside the Twin Towers was one such show.
 
Christophera said:
...Congratulations! Seriously, you have some real integrity when it comes to digging up evidence. Good try.
Click to expand...

Chris, you actually sit there -- a proven liar -- and question someone else's integrity? Sorry, liars such as yourself simply don't possess the moral authority.

Since you are a documented liar -- proven so by your own words -- nothing you say means anything to anyone.
 
So I am confused now. Kent1 video shows collapse of the North Tower, but the last pciture Christophera just posted showing his "concrete" core is from the South Tower.

though from the 2nd video I can dfinitely conclude that there is no evidence of a "concrete" core in the North Tower.

TAM
 
Christophera said:
The first one that topples out has floor beams connecting 2 interior box columns. The few that stand momentarily cannot be seen clear enough to see the floor beams connecting them and might qualify, but because the stills which are clearer do not show columns in the core at many other phases, we can safely stay with the fact that no steel core columns are visible and the concrete

.
Click to expand...

I promised myself not to do this, but Chris are you saying that steel core collumns shouldn't have floor beams connected to them?

I'm no structural engineer, but isn't that what a steel core does? Isn't it supposed to support all the floors?
Or is it a single 1300 ft piece of steel that only supports the roof?
 
GlennB said:
I don't have the science to state categorically that a steel girder wouldn't reach terninal velocity during a 400m fall. I'd seriously doubt it though, as people skydiving take a much greater fall than that to reach termnal velocity, and steel girders are much bigger and denser than people.
Click to expand...

Actually, they do.

Check this website that gives some info on terminal velocities of skydivers. Most estimates about 53-56 m/s. At acceleration of gravity (9.8m/s2) they'll hit this speed in 5.4 to 5.7 seconds, and fall a total of 140m to 156m (d=v0t+1/2at2).

Without the science, you might as well be making stuff up. Well, actually, you are. "I don't think" is not scientific evidence, and is not admissible in a court of law, and frankly is not even enough to get a warrant to start an investigation. It's just the ramblings of one malcontent...without merit or meaning.

If you were actually interested in truth, you'd have taken the time to get the first-page results from two quick google searches on "human terminal velocity" and "acceleration equations"...but I suppose 5 minutes and a bit of multiplication is more than truth is worth?

Just for the sake of completeness, a steel girder would take 9.03 seconds to fall 400m, reaching a top speed of 88.5m/s (about 198 mph).
 
Last edited:
Chris, there is no doubt in the latest videos that these are steel core columns. Much better evidence than your smoke cloud. Sorry, game over. There is NO evidence of a concrete core in this last video. NONE.
 
If you consider the south tower (the one without antenna) then a block that turns a little bit and triggers a kind of process is quite interesting. The block will follow a simple parabolic track. It is of course in high contrast with "the merging of floors continuing their downward path"

The block itself also collapsed, because otherwise it should stay intact until it reaches the ground somewhere. It is impossible to collapse in the air because there is no initial 'helping hand' to let that block (that follows its own "free fall" part in the air) collapse, because it's assumed that the whole magical collapse process starts if the block collapses on the floor below. Why would the block also atomize into dust ? the magical process is a progressive collapse from top to down, under the damaged zone. Does the magical process flow back into the falling block ? That must be a smart process. The same argument for the other building.
 
Last edited:
The block itself also collapsed, because otherwise it should stay intact until it reaches the ground somewhere. It is impossible to collapse in the air because there is no initial 'helping hand' to let that block (that follows its own "free fall" part in the air) collapse, because it's assumed that the whole magical collapse process starts if the block collapses on the floor below. Why would the block also atomize into dust ? the magical process is a progressive collapse from top to down, under the damaged zone. Does the magical process flow back into the falling block ? That must be a smart process. The same argument for the other building.
Click to expand...



I'm sure you will get a more thorough debunking of this statement below, but I would point out to you that "the block at the top" is not a solid chunk like a piece of wood. It is some ten or twenty stories of a building designed to have vertical support.
I see it tipping slightly to one side and the downward pull of gravity(for lack of better words) acting on the structural members in a way that they weren't designed to withstand.

Do you seriously expect to see it tip to the side and drop to the ground like the top of a pole in a wood-chopping contest?
 
Brainache said:
Do you seriously expect to see it tip to the side and drop to the ground like the top of a pole in a wood-chopping contest?
Click to expand...

The block is assumed to be heavy enough to break the damaged zone and start the initial process. I've seen photos of buildings that just came down untouched because of earthquickes etc but it's 5am now for me, time for bed.
 
einsteen said:
If you consider the south tower (the one without antenna) then a block that turns a little bit and triggers a kind of process is quite interesting. The block will follow a simple parabolic track. It is of course in high contrast with "the merging of floors continuing their downward path"

The block itself also collapsed, because otherwise it should stay intact until it reaches the ground somewhere. It is impossible to collapse in the air because there is no initial 'helping hand' to let that block (that follows its own "free fall" part in the air) collapse, because it's assumed that the whole magical collapse process starts if the block collapses on the floor below. Why would the block also atomize into dust ? the magical process is a progressive collapse from top to down, under the damaged zone. Does the magical process flow back into the falling block ? That must be a smart process. The same argument for the other building.
Click to expand...
No neeed to get all anthropomorphic about it. Watch a close-up video of either collapse. The instant the tops start to tilt, they are also falling straight down through the structure below. The strong outer walls of the lower section no doubt helped keep things quite vertical. As Brainache points out, these are not solid structures pivoting on a steady fulcrum. They are disintegrating, crushing masses that gravity is trying to pull into the earth's core. As for the concrete buildings you've seen toppled by earthquakes, I suggest you take into account the differences in building construction, and the very different forces involved in the collapses.
 
(With reference to the declaration of Harold L Hill, Civil Engineer)

StoneWT said:
Gawd, Christophera has now been driven to create fake notes from engineers to support his fake documentary.

Why are you driven to lie about a tragedy in which 3,000 people died? Christophera, have you no shame? You shouldn't be abusing the memory of the dead in order to give meaning to your life. Please stop dishonoring the dead.
Click to expand...

While I don't like defending Christophera, the basis of this board is not to draw conclustions until we have evidence. So, StoneWT, do you have any evidence Christopera faked this note?

I'll admit it's suspicious, but quite frankly it's also quite innocuous. He merely states he saw a documentary.
 
While I don't like defending Christophera, the basis of this board is not to draw conclustions until we have evidence. So, StoneWT, do you have any evidence Christopera faked this note?
Click to expand...

I can't - and do not purport to - speak for StoneWT and I'm sure he or she is capable of speaking for himself/herself, but in the interim:

The note that Christophera provided, even if genuinely reproduced, is "fake" in the sense that Christophera purported that it was evidence of a(n) (structural? - not reading back through 3300 posts to find the exact words) engineer swearing that he, too, had seen the video that Christophera says he's seen which "proves" that the WTC towers had concrete cores rather than steel cores.

The note does not support Christophera's contentions at all, does not say that the signator saw the video that Christophera insists exists, does not even mention the concrete core that Christophera says existed, does not corroborate a single thing that Christophera purported that the note would corroborate.

That said, I wouldn't say that Christophera "faked the note" if that means manufactured it out of wholecloth, without further evidence to support that assertion, but I will certainly say that he has absolutely faked the relevance and content of it by virtue of his numerous misleading posts about it.

For the record, I also question the providence of the note, which is up to Christophera to prove. If it was legitimate, surely he would have been able to substantiate it. He has not done so.
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
If you consider the south tower (the one without antenna) then a block that turns a little bit and triggers a kind of process is quite interesting. The block will follow a simple parabolic track. It is of course in high contrast with "the merging of floors continuing their downward path"

The block itself also collapsed, because otherwise it should stay intact until it reaches the ground somewhere. It is impossible to collapse in the air because there is no initial 'helping hand' to let that block (that follows its own "free fall" part in the air) collapse, because it's assumed that the whole magical collapse process starts if the block collapses on the floor below. Why would the block also atomize into dust ? the magical process is a progressive collapse from top to down, under the damaged zone. Does the magical process flow back into the falling block ? That must be a smart process. The same argument for the other building.
Click to expand...

Whoa! :eye-poppi

So what are you saying, the building didn't fall according to your understanding of how buildings fall?

Too bad

(see the first quote in my sig)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom